U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs


Bureau of Justice Statistics


Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information:
A Comprehensive Report, 2001 Update


Laws and policies
The evolution of information technology
Interstate Identification Index
Federal initiatives and legislation


Criminal Justice Information Policy

--------------------------------------------------------
This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be
available.  To view a list of all in the series go to the
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#umchri

This file is text only without graphics and many of the 
tables.  A Zip archive of the tables in this report in
spreadsheet format (.wk1) and the full report including
tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/umchri01.htm
--------------------------------------------------------

December 2001, NCJ 187670


U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lawrence A. Greenfeld
Acting Director

Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National
Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Kenneth E. Bischoff,
Chair, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project director was
Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Executive Director. The report was written by
Robert R. Belair, SEARCH General Counsel; Paul L. Woodard, Senior
Counsel; and Eric C. Johnson, Policy Research Analyst. Twyla R.
Cunningham, Manager, Corporate Communications, edited this report, and
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 Cooperative Agreement number
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, 2001

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



Foreword

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is pleased to publish Use and Management
of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report, 2001
Update. The report is an update of a report first published in 1993 that was
the first descriptive review of the Nation's criminal history information
systems. The report discusses in nontechnical terms the complex,
interrelated network of local, State, and Federal information systems that
provide criminal history records to both criminal justice and noncriminal
justice users. The 2001 update reflects changes in the handling of criminal
history records that occurred in the 1990s following policy developments,
societal changes, technological advances, and other factors.


The report is the latest in BJS's efforts to assist States in improving the
quality of criminal history record information and to ensure that accurate
data are readily available for operational and research purposes. We hope
that the report will be of value to policymakers and practitioners who are
addressing the critical issues relating to criminal history record
information that will accompany expanded development of systems for the
interstate exchange of this information.

Lawrence A. Greenfeld
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics



Glossary



Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS): An automated
system for storing, searching, and transmitting digitized fingerprint
images. (See pages 32, 48-49, and 61-63.)

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act): The Brady Act
amended the 1968 Gun Control Act to mandate background checks for
potential gun buyers before a firearm purchase can be completed. (See
pages 54, and 93-94.)

Criminal History Record Improvement (CHRI) Program: Administered by
the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, this was the
first grant program in a long-term and multifaceted effort by the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) to help States improve the quality of their
criminal history records. (See pages 94-97.)

Central Repository: The database, or agency housing the database, that
maintains criminal history records on all State offenders. Records include
fingerprint files and files containing identification segments, arrest
notations, and dispositions. (See pages 2, and 23-24.)


Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) or Criminal History Record
Information System: A record, or system for maintaining records, that
includes individual identifiers and that describes an individual's arrests and
subsequent dispositions. (See chapter II.)

Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board
(APB): Successor to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) APB,
the CJIS APB is comprised of 30 criminal justice officials who provide
policy input to guide the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the
administration of its CJIS Division. The CJIS Division administers the
NCIC, the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, the Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), and other
information system programs determined by the FBI director to have some
relationship with these programs. (See page 27.)

Data Quality: The extent to which criminal history records are complete,
accurate, and timely. (See pages 3, 37-39, 47-50, and 88.)

Data Warehousing: A term used to describe a data management process
that permits the collection of data from different and often-disparate
electronic sources in a single database for use in queries, detailed analysis,
and report preparation. (See pages 5, and 67-68.)

Felony or Serious Misdemeanor: The offense categories for which
fingerprints and criminal history information are accepted by the FBI and
entered in the Bureau's files, including the III. "Serious misdemeanor" is
defined to exclude certain minor offenses, such as drunkenness or minor
traffic offenses. (See pages 12, 27, 31, and 74.)

Integration: A process by which a computerized information system
maintained by one entity is programmed to electronically interact and
share data with a computerized information system maintained by another
entity. (See pages 63-67.)

Interstate Identification Index (III): An "index-pointer" system maintained
by the FBI for the interstate exchange of criminal history records. (For
complete information, see chapter V.)

Juvenile Justice Records: Official records of juvenile justice adjudications.
(See pages 27-29.)

Livescan and Cardscan: Automated devices for generating and
transmitting digitized fingerprint images. Livescan devices capture
fingerprint images directly from subjects' fingers, which are rolled onto
glass scanning plates. Cardscan devices scan and digitize standard inked
fingerprint cards and can transmit electronic images with related textual
data to remote sites for printout or direct use. (See page 62.)

Master Name Index (MNI): A subject identification index maintained by
criminal record repositories that includes names and other identifiers for
all persons about whom records are held. (See pages 29-30.)


National Child Protection Act of 1993: A Federal law whose provisions
include the establishment of a national criminal background check system
to which a designated criminal justice agency in each State must report or
index child abuse crime information for child-care provider background
checks. (See page 54.)

National Crime Information Center (NCIC): An automated, nationally
accessible database of criminal justice and justice-related records
maintained by the FBI that includes "hot files" of wanted and missing
persons, stolen vehicles, and identifiable stolen property, including
firearms. (See pages 26-27 and chapter V.)

National Crime Information Center 2000: The new generation of the
automated NCIC system. NCIC 2000, which electronically compiles,
disseminates, and exchanges timely criminal justice information; pertinent
graphic images, including mug shots, tattoos, and signatures; and records
of wanted and missing persons and of identifiable stolen property, became
operational on July 11, 1999. (See page 92.)


National Crime Information Center Advisory Policy Board (APB): An
advisory committee comprised of criminal justice officials, representatives
of criminal justice associations, and user representatives that provided
policy input to guide the FBI in the administration of the NCIC system.
The NCIC APB was reorganized as the Criminal Justice Information
Services (CJIS) APB in 1994. (See page 27.)

National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact: An interstate and
Federal/State compact designed to facilitate use of the III to exchange
criminal history data among States and the Federal government for
noncriminal justice purposes. (See pages 89-90.)

National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP): An umbrella
funding program administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
DOJ, designed to assist States in meeting evolving Federal and State
requirements concerning criminal history and related records, such as
protective orders and sexual offender registry records. (See pages 43,
94-97.)

National Fingerprint File (NFF): A database of fingerprints, or other
uniquely personal identifying information, relating to an arrested or
charged individual maintained by the FBI to provide positive identification
of record subjects indexed in the III System. (See pages 24, 77, 84-89.)

National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS): An
automated system established in accordance with the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act to check the eligibility of prospective gun
purchasers. (See pages 93-94.)

National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS): A
computerized, high-speed message-switching system maintained by the
States that provides for the interstate exchange of criminal justice-related
information among local, State, and Federal criminal justice agencies.
(Referenced throughout report.)


National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program (NSOR-AP):
Instituted in FY 1998 to help States respond to Federal mandates to
establish sex offender registries and to contribute data to a national sex
offender registry. Funded under the National Criminal History
Improvement Program (NCHIP) beginning in FY 1999. (See page 99.)

Positive Identification: Identification of an individual using unique
biometric characteristics not subject to alteration. Positive identification is
distinguished from identification using name, sex, birth date, and other
nonbiometric identifiers typically displayed on documents subject to
alteration or counterfeit, such as birth certificates, Social Security cards, or
drivers' licenses. ( See pages 12 and 25.)

Security Clearance Information Act (SCIA): Federal legislation requiring
States to make criminal history records available to certain Federal
agencies in connection with screening for security clearances. (See page
51.)


Sex Offender Registry: A registry established to help law enforcement
agencies keep track of convicted sex offenders released into the
community. (See page 99.)

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems: A comprehensive
survey of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, funded by BJS, U.S. DOJ, that
describes the status of their criminal history record systems. SEARCH,
The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, has
conducted this biennial survey six times since 1989, most recently in 1999.
(See pages 30-36.)



Introduction

Purpose of this report

In 1993, SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice,
produced the first comprehensive examination of the Nation's criminal
history record systems and the major issues and developments that affected
them.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information -1 [Robert
R. Belair and Paul L. Woodard, Use and Management of Criminal History
Record Information: A Comprehensive Report, Criminal Justice
Information Policy series, NCJ 143501 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 1993).]
described in nontechnical terms the complex and interrelated network of
Federal, State, -2 [As used in this publication, the term "State" refers to all
50 U.S. States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana
Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.] and local information
systems that provided criminal history records to criminal justice
personnel and to authorized noncriminal justice users.

It also assessed the roles these systems played in the effective functioning
of the criminal justice system, and reviewed the impact that new
technologies and strategies had on the completeness, accuracy, and
availability of criminal history records.

The report served as a valuable reference tool through the mid- and
late-1990s. Now, as the 21st century dawns, Use and Management of
Criminal History Record Information has been revised to reflect changes
in the handling of criminal history records that occurred in the 1990s
following policy developments, societal changes, technological advances,
and other factors.

This revised report includes:

* An overview of how typical State criminal justice systems are structured,
how the criminal justice process works, and how criminal history records
are used in the justice system.

* An overview of existing State and Federal criminal history record
systems and of the product they provide - the criminal history record.

* An overview of laws regulating criminal history record systems, and a
look at two key issues affecting the systems - data quality and
dissemination.

* An examination of the evolution of information technology and
information system capabilities that affect criminal history record systems.

* A description of the Interstate Identification Index (III) system and the
role it plays in the decentralization of the Nation's criminal history record
information system.

* An overview of Federal initiatives and activities that affect criminal
history record systems.

It is hoped that readers will derive a general understanding of how
criminal history record systems work, the types of information they
maintain, who reports the information to these systems and by what
means, how accurate and complete the information is, and who obtains the
information and for what purposes.

This report should also help readers understand the changing relationship
among local, State, and Federal systems, and how presently available and
emerging technology is affecting the efficiency of the systems and the
quality of the information they maintain and disseminate.

With this background, State and Federal legislators and other
policymakers, as well as the general public, should better understand the
critical importance of criminal record repositories, and also how data
quality problems and other difficulties - and the new strategies and
technologies being used to solve them - affect the usefulness of the
systems, and ultimately the efficiency of criminal case processing and the
effectiveness of crime control strategies.


Background

Repositories of criminal history record information

This report discusses in detail the operations of State and national criminal
history record repositories that provide information about individuals' past
criminal involvement to criminal justice practitioners and to noncriminal
justice agencies and organizations that need such information to carry out
their duties and functions.

- State systems

Each State operates a central criminal history record repository that
receives case processing information contributed by law enforcement
agencies, prosecutors, courts, and corrections agencies throughout the
State. These repositories compile this information into comprehensive
criminal history records or "rap sheets," as they are often called. Rap
sheets are made available to criminal justice personnel, for authorized
purposes, by means of statewide telecommunications systems.

Maintenance of such central repositories relieves local and State criminal
justice agencies from maintaining expensive and duplicative information
systems that attempt to compile comprehensive offender records. They
need only maintain systems that support their own case processing needs,
and can rely upon State central repositories for information about case
processing in other agencies.

State repositories also make criminal history records available to some
noncriminal justice agencies, such as State agencies authorized by law to
obtain the records for such purposes as employment screening and
occupational licensing. Increasingly, local law enforcement agencies are
being required by State and Federal law to conduct criminal history
background checks on individuals pursuing employment in sensitive
positions in child and elder care and security, and for certain license
authorizations. State criminal history repository databases are among those
searched during such background checks.

- Federal systems

At the Federal level, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) maintains
criminal history record files on Federal offenders, as well as files on State
offenders, to the extent that States voluntarily submit such information.
The FBI has accepted and recorded State offender information for more
than three-quarters of a century and has compiled a criminal history
database that, to a great extent, duplicates the files of the State
repositories.

The FBI also maintains a nationwide telecommunications system that
enables Federal, State, and local criminal justice agencies to conduct
national record searches and to obtain information about individuals who
are arrested and prosecuted in other States.

In addition, the FBI provides criminal record services to noncriminal
justice agencies authorized by Federal law to obtain such records.

Timely criminal history record information issues

This report, which describes State and Federal criminal history record
repositories and the problems, issues, and developments that affect them,
should be timely for a number of reasons.

- Data quality

First, when Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information
was published in 1993, records maintained by State and Federal
repositories were not always accurate and up-to-date, primarily due to the
failure of criminal justice agencies to report information accurately,
completely, and regularly, but also in some cases due to a lack of adequate
equipment and procedures at the repositories. While data quality has
improved since then, in part because of the growing recognition of the
value of accurate and up-to-date criminal history records and the increased
Federal and State funding that resulted from this recognition, there is still
room for improvement. Local justice agencies, for example, are providing
State repositories with more final court dispositions for recent arrests than
in the past, but not for older arrests previously reported to the repositories.

Recent surveys and audits have also shown the following:

* There is a wide disparity among the States in the time it takes final court
dispositions to reach State repositories, and in the time it takes for the
repositories to enter disposition data into their databases.

* More than half of the State criminal history repositories developed
backlogs in entering arrest and disposition data into their databases.

* Most State criminal history repositories receive some final court
dispositions that they are unable to link to arrest records. 

As noted previously, a number of initiatives have been implemented to
improve criminal history record data quality nationwide, including Federal
grant assistance to the States and the promulgation of voluntary data
quality standards. States may be required, in some instances, to provide
matching funds or to institute appropriate information-reporting
procedures before they are deemed eligible for some Federal grant
programs. This may require legislative activity for funding to support
technology purchases and increased staffing, or to institute or amend
existing laws and regulations to facilitate broader information exchange.

Given the complexity of these recent developments, it is hoped that this
report will guide and assist legislators and other policymakers in
understanding these developments and the important role the repositories
play in national initiatives to improve data quality.

- Decentralized recordkeeping

Second, State repositories and the FBI are engaged in a cooperative
program to eliminate the maintenance of duplicative State offender records
at both the State and Federal levels.

The current practice of maintaining centralized State offender files at the
FBI is being replaced by the III, which will make the State repositories
primarily responsible for providing State criminal history records for
interstate and Federal-State purposes. Full participation in this program
will require many States to modify record dissemination laws and policies,
and to upgrade their repositories' technical capabilities to realize the
long-term cost savings and potential for improved performance available
through III participation.

- New technologies

Third, new technologies continue to emerge that offer great potential for
significantly increasing the efficiency of the criminal history record
repositories and the quality of the information they collect, maintain, and
disseminate. The declining cost and impressive capabilities of
state-of-the-art information technology are motivating many States to
automate their information systems and to integrate them with justice
agencies in their States, in other States, and at the Federal level. However,
these automation efforts raise new questions that must be addressed
concerning privacy, confidentiality, data ownership, funding
responsibilities, long-term maintenance, and other issues.

Content of this report

This report contains six major chapters that provide a comprehensive,
nontechnical review of criminal history record information systems
nationwide, and how the records contained in those systems are used and
managed. Supporting tables and information are presented in 21
appendixes. To find specific topics or areas of interest, readers are
encouraged to refer to the detailed table of contents. Readers are also
encouraged to refer to a glossary of terms used in this report, located
following the table of contents.

Because the scope of this report is broad, readers may wish to refer to the
other compendia, reports, or documents - cited throughout this report in
footnotes - for more specific or timely data. In addition, readers may find a
certain amount of duplication between chapters; this is because each
chapter is designed to stand alone as a reference document.

The chapters and the topics they cover are as follows:

Chapter I provides a brief overview of how typical State criminal justice
systems are structured, how the criminal justice process works, and how
criminal justice practitioners use criminal history records. It describes the
main case processing steps in a typical State's criminal justice system and
identifies the decision points in these processes that require reliance on
criminal history records, with a brief explanation of the types of
information needed and the time frames within which it is needed. The
chapter also identifies the decisions and actions that occur in the course of
criminal case processing that are reflected, or that should be reflected, in
criminal history records.

Chapter II provides an overview of existing criminal history record
systems, with emphasis on the State central repositories and the FBI's
criminal history record systems. The chapter includes a summary of the
historical evolution of the State repositories and the FBI's record systems.
It then describes the types and numbers of records maintained by the
repositories and the FBI, the extent of present and planned automation, the
number of inquiries handled, and major criminal justice and noncriminal
justice users. The chapter also describes how information is reported to the
repositories and the FBI and how users have access to the information.
Finally, the chapter describes the quality of the information maintained by
the repositories, the format and content of the criminal history records they
disseminate, and the principal systematic and procedural strategies utilized
to ensure data quality and system integrity.

Chapter III analyzes the legal standards applicable to the criminal history
record repositories, including constitutional and common law doctrines, as
well as statutory and regulatory requirements. This chapter also analyzes in
some detail the laws, regulations, and policies relevant to two major issues
concerning criminal justice information management - data quality and
dissemination.

Chapter IV describes some of the technological innovations and
information management strategies now in use or available to criminal
record repositories to improve record quality and the ability to exchange
information. Technologies, innovations, and strategies described include:

* Automated reporting of criminal history information to the repositories
by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, and corrections
agencies.

* Automated fingerprint identification technology, its impact on the
accuracy of the identification function, and the efficiency of inquiry and
response procedures.

* Livescan fingerprint technology and its impact on the efficiency and
accuracy of arrest subject processing, inquiry processing, and the
transmission of fingerprint images to the repositories.

* Justice system integration that provides higher quality criminal history
records by reducing redundant data entry, and that facilitates the transfer of
information to agencies participating in the criminal justice process and,
ultimately, to the criminal history repository. 

* Data warehousing tools that program incoming data and transform
existing data so the data can be used in detailed research, analysis, and
planning.

* Data exchange standards that allow information sharing among justice
agencies using equipment manufactured by different vendors.

* Internet security strategies that may allow the wide-scale transfer of
criminal history information on the Internet, and which may ultimately
reduce dependence on costly dedicated networks and improve data quality
at the repository level by providing cost-effective on-line access to smaller
justice agencies.

* Policy innovations that allow justice entities to maximize the capabilities
of emerging information technologies and systems and that increase trust
in the systems by developing recognized policies and requirements for
system operation, which attract more justice participants.

Chapter V describes the III, including an overview of the system's
structure and the history of phased testing and implementation up to the
present. The chapter describes how the processing of criminal justice and
noncriminal justice inquiries presently works using FBI files, the National
Fingerprint File, the Master Name Index, and other information sources.
The chapter also describes the principal burdens and benefits that
participation in the system will entail for the State repositories and the
FBI. Finally, the chapter summarizes the provisions of the National Crime
Prevention and Privacy Compact, which formalizes III participation by the
FBI and the State repositories for noncriminal justice purposes.

Chapter VI provides a brief overview of current Federal initiatives and
activities that affect or are related to criminal history record systems,
including:

* The FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System.

* The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, mandated by
the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

* Federal grant programs to improve data quality.

* The National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program.

* The Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998.

* The National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact.



Chapter I: How the criminal justice system works and how it uses criminal
history records

This chapter provides an overview of how the criminal justice system
works and how criminal justice personnel utilize criminal history records.

Section 1: Typical State criminal justice system structure, describes a
typical State criminal justice system structure, and includes a discussion of
criminal codes and procedures, police agencies, local detention facilities,
prosecution agencies, courts, and corrections agencies.

Section 2: Typical State criminal justice process, describes how criminal
cases are processed in a typical State criminal justice system - from
investigation through arrest, prosecution, adjudication, and correctional
supervision.

Section 3: How criminal justice practitioners use criminal history records,
identifies the actions and decisions in the criminal justice process that
require a reliance on criminal history record information, and explains the
types of information needed and the time frames within which it is needed.


Background

This discussion is intended for those readers who may not be familiar with
the structure of the criminal justice system and how persons accused of
criminal offenses are processed through the system. This should enable
these readers to understand why criminal history record systems are
necessary, and how the efficiency of these systems and the quality of the
information they provide can significantly impact the effectiveness of
criminal case processing and the success of crime control strategies.

Section 1: Typical State criminal justice system structure

Although there are local, State, and Federal criminal justice systems, the
vast majority of crimes are prosecuted under State law. For this reason,
this discussion will focus primarily on State-level systems, and will
describe a more-or-less typical State criminal justice structure. It should be
stressed, however, that the local, State, and Federal systems are
significantly interrelated and depend upon a high level of cooperation
among officials at all three levels.

This section discusses these components of a State criminal justice system:
* criminal codes and procedures
* police agencies
* local detention facilities
* prosecution agencies
* courts
* corrections agencies.

Criminal codes and procedures

Some crimes are Federal by nature, such as attempts to assassinate the
president, certain antitrust violations, and some criminal conspiracies or
enterprises that utilize the mails or other instruments of interstate
commerce. These crimes are prosecuted in Federal courts and convicted
offenders are usually, but not always, incarcerated in Federal correctional
facilities.

Other crimes or violations are local in nature, such as loitering or public
drunkenness. These less serious offenses are processed through local
systems at the city, township, or county level.

Most crimes, however, are State crimes, including murder, robbery,
burglary, rape, and other dangerous crimes that constitute the core of the 

Nation's serious crime problem. Each of these governmental levels - local,
State, and Federal - defines its own criminal laws and criminal procedures.
At the Federal level, the Congress -3 [In this report, "the Congress" refers
to the United States Congress.] has enacted a Federal criminal code
defining Federal crimes and a code of Federal criminal procedure setting
out applicable rules for processing criminal cases through the Federal
courts. State legislatures enact criminal statutes and procedural codes at
the State level. City councils or similar governing bodies act at the local
level.

Each of these levels depends upon a high degree of cooperation with
criminal justice officials at other governmental levels. This interrelation
and cooperation is especially important between local and State
governments and exists at every phase of the criminal justice process, from
investigation through correctional treatment. These roles are sometimes
defined by law, sometimes by formal agreements, and sometimes by
informal practice.

Police agencies

Police protection is primarily local in nature - a function of cities,
municipalities, or counties. Most State law violations are investigated by
local police, and crime suspects are arrested and charged at the local level.
In addition, other police units - such as State troopers, Federal Drug
Enforcement Administration officers, or Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) agents - may be involved with local police in the investigation,
arrest, and prosecution of certain cases.

Local detention facilities

Jails, which are also primarily local in nature, detain not only persons
arrested for local offenses, but also virtually all persons charged and
awaiting trial under State law. Local jails may also house Federal detainees
and State "prison-ready" inmates - convicted and sentenced persons whose
transfer to State prison is delayed by overcrowding or other reasons. In
most such cases, State or Federal governments pay fees to the local
communities that house these prisoners.

Prosecution agencies

Prosecution is another essentially local function that plays a vital role in
the enforcement of State criminal laws. Most prosecutors are elected at the
city, county, or district level. They may be called District Attorneys, as
they are in California and Wyoming, or State's Attorneys, as they are in
Illinois and South Dakota. They also may be called Prosecuting Attorneys,
Commonwealth's Attorneys, County Attorneys, or City Attorneys.
These locally elected and locally accountable officials are responsible for
prosecuting local offenses, and also virtually all offenses defined under
State law. For many of them, prosecuting State crimes is their primary, and
often their exclusive, function.

Courts

Courts exist at the local, State, and Federal levels. Most States have
"integrated" court systems that, as a result of reform and modernization,
have a more or less uniform statewide structure that combines local and
State courts into essentially one system. Some States, such as Alaska and
Maryland, have what are known as "unified" court systems. In such
systems, all courts are directly administered by the State, usually through a
State-level court administration office.

There are magistrates' courts, lower-level trial courts, felony trial courts,
and intermediate and final appellate courts in a typical State judicial
system. Magistrates, or Commissioners in some States, conduct initial
appearances in criminal cases. They may set bail, but usually have no trial
jurisdiction. Lower-level trial courts, often called Municipal Courts,
County Courts, or District Courts, are usually limited to trying
misdemeanor cases and conducting probable cause hearings in felony
cases.

The next tier is the felony trial court, commonly called the Circuit Court or
Superior Court. In New York, this court is called the Supreme Court.
These are the basic State trial courts with jurisdiction over felony offenses
and often over misdemeanor cases appealed from the lower trial courts.
About one-half of the States have intermediate appellate courts, usually
called the Court of Appeals. The State Supreme Court tops the structure as
the highest State appellate court. In New York, this court is called the
Court of Appeals.

Generally, there is a right of appeal to the State Supreme Court from the
intermediate appellate court, or directly from the trial courts if no
intermediate appellate court exists. Under some circumstances, such as
alleged denials of constitutional rights, Federal courts can review State
court decisions.

Corrections agencies

"Corrections" is an umbrella term for probation agencies, State prisons,
and parole agencies. Correctional supervision is primarily a State function,
although, again, cooperation among governmental entities is common. It
has already been noted that local jails may hold State prisoners.

In addition, State prisons may hold Federal prisoners, such as those who
are in special protection programs, while Federal prisons may hold State
prisoners who are at particular risk in the State systems. A prisoner may
sometimes serve concurrent State and Federal or State and local sentences.

Section 2: Typical State criminal justice process

Although there may be unique aspects of every State's criminal justice
system, the essential steps or functions of practically each State's system
are similar. The following discussion describes how these essential steps
function in a typical State system, and points out some shortcomings in the
process that may detract from the creation of adequate criminal case
records. 

The steps or functions discussed in this section are:
* investigation
* arrest
* booking
* initial court appearance
* preliminary hearing
* pretrial release decision
* prosecutor review
* grand jury indictment
* arraignment
* trial court action
* appeal
* sentencing
* correctional supervision.

(See figure 1, which illustrates the sequence of events in the criminal
justice system.) -4 [The flowchart in figure 1, which illustrates the
sequence of events in the criminal justice system, updates the original
chart prepared by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice in 1967, and which appeared in the
Commission's report, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. The chart
summarizes the most common events in the criminal and juvenile justice
systems, including entry into the criminal justice system, prosecution and
pretrial services, adjudication, sentence and sanctions, and corrections.
Downloadable electronic files of both full-color and black-and-white
versions of the chart, as well as instructions for ordering full-color posters
of the chart, appear on the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/flowchart.htm.]

Investigation

Police conduct most criminal investigations, but grand juries or other
special bodies, such as crime commissions or legislative committees, may
also undertake investigations. Most information utilized by criminal
investigators is commonly referred to as "intelligence" information
(compiled in an effort to anticipate, prevent, or monitor possible criminal
activity) or "investigative" information (obtained in the course of an
investigation into specific alleged criminal acts).

Many State laws make a sharp distinction between this type of information
and criminal history record information. Intelligence and investigative
information is regarded as more sensitive and potentially more harmful to
privacy and confidentiality interests. Consequently, it is more strictly
regulated in many States. Investigators do use criminal history record
information, however, as shown in section 3 of this chapter.

Arrest

The next stage in the process, in most cases, is the arrest. An arrest may
occur pursuant to an arrest warrant, although an arrest warrant is not
generally needed except for a misdemeanor offense committed outside of
the arresting officer's presence or when the officer must enter the subject's
premises to make the arrest. The more typical arrest is sometimes referred
to as an "on view" arrest. This occurs when the officer personally
witnesses the crime, or has sufficient information from a reliable source to
establish probable cause that a crime occurred and that the arrest subject
was involved.
     
In most instances, the arrest is the event that triggers the creation of a
criminal history record for a particular case. Virtually all States have laws
or regulations requiring arresting agencies to report certain arrests to the
central repository. -5 [Robert R. Belair and Paul L. Woodard, Data Quality
of Criminal History Records, Criminal Justice Information Policy series,
NCJ 98079 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, October 1985). Hereafter, Data Quality Report.] (State
central criminal history record repositories are described in chapter II.)
These laws usually apply to all arrests for offenses classified as felonies or
serious misdemeanors.

In addition to reporting information about the arrest, the arrest subject and
arrest charges, arresting agencies are also required to obtain and submit the
arrest subject's fingerprints. These fingerprints provide so-called "positive
identification" of the record subject and are crucial for these reasons:

* Searching criminal history record systems.
* Linking prior arrest and conviction records to persons who subsequently
use false names.
* Ensuring the admissibility of criminal records in subsequent proceedings
for such purposes as sentencing.

For these reasons, it is vitally important that fingerprints be obtained and
submitted to the repository for all cases that are required by law to be
included in the repository's database.

In cases that begin with arrest, most arresting agencies have booking
procedures designed to ensure that fingerprints are obtained and submitted
as required. Not all cases begin with arrest, however. Citations, used in the
past primarily for minor offenses, are being used more often in many
States for serious misdemeanors and even for some felonies.

Citations are paper forms given to the subject in lieu of arrest and booking,
and which contain a legally enforceable order to appear in court on a
specified date or as ordered. Since the subject is not detained and booked,
fingerprints are not obtained and submitted to the repository in the usual
way.

If there are no procedures in place to ensure that fingerprints are obtained
at the time of the subject's court appearance, or at some other point in the
proceedings, the case history may lack a basis for positive identification.
Any resulting conviction may not be legally admissible in subsequent
proceedings. Moreover, without positive identification, case information
cannot reliably be associated with information about prior and subsequent
offenses committed by the record subject, which is needed to form a
comprehensive criminal history.

A similar problem is presented by cases in which additional charges are
filed against persons already charged in other cases. For example, a person
who is arrested, charged, and fingerprinted in connection with an alleged
burglary may, through subsequent investigation, be linked to additional
burglaries, which may be charged as separate cases. New fingerprints are
often overlooked for these new cases, even though the subject may still be
in custody, and appropriate steps may not be taken to establish a link
between the new cases and the earlier fingerprints.

Where an arrest does occur, the detained person may later be released
without being booked and charged. In such cases, no report to the
repository is required and none should be made. (This assumes that no
report on the arrest, that is, a fingerprint card, has already been submitted
to the repository.)

Booking

The booking process is a critical stage in a criminal case's information
flow. Booking typically involves an entry into a chronological arrest log or
arrest register, the filing of an arrest report by an arresting officer, and the
preparation of a statement of charges as the arresting officer sees them.

Personal information about an arrestee, such as name, address, date of
birth, sex, race, eye and hair color, weight, and any scars, marks, or tattoos
that may be useful in identifying the person, is obtained and recorded
during the booking process. 

As noted previously, the subject is fingerprinted if the arrest is for a felony
or a serious misdemeanor. Typically, three sets of fingerprints are obtained
- one for the arresting agency's files and two to be sent to the State
repository (one for the repository's use and one to be forwarded to the FBI
in appropriate cases).

At some point in the booking process, the agency queries available
criminal history record systems to determine whether the subject has a
record of prior or pending cases that may affect how he or she is
processed. These record systems include the agency's own files, files
maintained by the criminal history record repository in the State where the
agency is located, and files included in the Interstate Identification Index
(III), if positive identification is not established during the local and State
inquiries. (III is a national system that can determine whether the subject
has a Federal record or a record in another State. This national-level
system, often referred to as "Triple I," is discussed in detail in chapter V.)

The booking stage is another point at which an arrestee may be released
without prosecution - an event that could cause problems for criminal
history record reporting purposes if the subject was fingerprinted before
release and the fingerprints were already sent to the repository. A notice of
the release must also be sent to avoid the creation of an open-arrest record
without a notation that the case was officially terminated. A recent survey
of State repositories revealed that around 60% of the States have laws or
regulations that require law enforcement agencies to send such notices to
the repository, -6 [Sheila J. Barton, Survey of State Criminal History
Information Systems, 1999, Criminal Justice Information Policy series,
NCJ 184793 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, October 2000) p. 4 and table 7. Hereafter, 1999 Survey.
Selected tables from the 1999 Survey are set out in this report as
appendixes 9-18.] and audits have shown that failure to send such notices,
even where required by law, is a pervasive problem.

Not all arresting agencies have booking facilities. In such cases, the
arrestee is usually turned over to another agency for processing. This is
commonly noted on the subject's record as "TOT," followed by the name
of the receiving agency.

Initial court appearance

The defendant's initial appearance before a court or magistrate is the next
step. This must occur "without unnecessary delay," which in some States
means within 24 hours.

A number of things can happen at the initial appearance:
* The judge or magistrate may make a probable cause finding. In felony
cases, however, this is usually delayed until the next step in the process,
the preliminary hearing, unless the two stages are combined, as they are in
some jurisdictions.
* Charges against the defendant may be dismissed.
* Legal counsel may be assigned if the defendant is indigent.
* A pretrial release decision may be made.
* In nonserious cases, the entire case may be completed and a disposition
may be entered.

All this information, with the exception of the handling of the nonserious
case, is typically reportable to the State repository and has consequences
for the completeness and accuracy of the criminal history record.

Preliminary hearing

The next step is the preliminary hearing, which may not be required in all
jurisdictions, particularly in cases in which a grand jury must issue an
indictment. Simply put, the preliminary hearing determines whether there
is enough evidence to hold ("bind over") the defendant for trial. To make
this determination, the judge or magistrate must be satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt that a crime was committed, and must find probable
cause that the defendant committed the crime.

The court may take other actions at this time as well. For example, if the
prosecutor cannot present enough evidence to meet the required findings,
the judge will dismiss some or all of the charges. The judge also may make
or change a pretrial release decision, such as an increase or decrease in
bail.

Pretrial release decision

As noted, the pretrial release decision may occur as early as the initial
appearance. It may be reviewed and changed, possibly several times, at
later stages of the case proceedings.

Courts have a number of pretrial release choices based upon available
information about the crime with which the defendant is charged, the
defendant's prior criminal record, and the likelihood that the defendant will
appear or fail to appear for trial:
* The defendant may be jailed without bail if the defendant is charged with
a capital offense, or if the court finds that the defendant may not appear for
trial or may pose an undue risk to the community if released.
* The defendant may be jailed in default of bond, if bail is set and the
defendant is unable to post bond.
* The defendant may be released on cash bond or without bond (released
on his or her own recognizance or "ROR").
* The defendant may be released on specific conditions or restrictions
designed to keep the defendant out of trouble and to reduce the likelihood
of flight.

If the defendant is released and fails to appear for arraignment or trial, an
arrest warrant may be issued, and bond may be revoked or changed.

Prosecutor review

Although the point at which the prosecutor first becomes involved in the
process varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, this involvement typically
begins soon after arrest. After reviewing the offense circumstances, the
arrestee's prior record, if any, and any other available information, the
prosecutor may decide to file all of the charges indicated by the arresting
officer in the statement of charges, or the prosecutor may decline to
prosecute some or all of the charges. The prosecutor may also add or
modify charges.

If the prosecutor decides to go ahead with the proceedings, the prosecutor
may initiate prosecution in some cases by filing an "information" with the
appropriate court. -7 [An "information" is a formal accusation against a
person for the commission of a crime. It differs from an indictment in that
an information is presented by a public officer, usually the prosecutor,
upon his oath, rather than by the grand jury.] The prosecutor may also
present the charges to a grand jury and seek an "indictment." Grand jury
indictment is commonly required in felony cases unless waived by the
defendant. Once a case is filed, it takes a court order based upon good
cause shown to drop any of the charges.

Grand jury indictment

A grand jury is "grand" because it is typically larger than a regular trial
jury, which usually consists of 12 persons. Grand juries frequently consist
of 23 jurors, although State laws may set other sizes. Grand juries receive
complaints and accusations in criminal cases, hear evidence presented by
the prosecutor, and decide whether there should be a trial. If a grand jury
finds that there is sufficient credible evidence to sustain the charges
presented by the prosecutor, it issues a "true bill of indictment."

It is also possible in some cases for the grand jury to conduct
investigations and initiate criminal proceedings on its own. It then issues
what is commonly called a "grand jury original" indictment. If the subject
of the indictment is not already in custody, the appropriate court may issue
an arrest warrant. The court may also issue a "summons" directing the
person to appear in court on a specified date. In such cases, care must be
taken to ensure that the person's fingerprints are obtained at the court
appearance or the case record may lack positive identification.

Arraignment

After charges are formally filed by indictment or information, the accused
person is scheduled for arraignment before a court. At this appearance, the
accused is advised of the charges filed and of his or her rights under the
law. For example, if the accused person does not already have legal
counsel, he or she is advised of right to counsel, including the right to
court-appointed counsel if the accused is indigent. If the accused person
has counsel or waives legal representation, he or she is asked to enter a
plea.

Plea options include guilty or not guilty to some or all of the charges, or
nolo contendere (no contest) to some or all of the charges. The accused
may also plead not guilty by reason of insanity or diminished capacity, or
guilty but insane. In this regard, before the trial can continue, the judge
must determine whether the accused is competent to understand the
proceedings and to assist counsel in his or her defense.

The defendant may enter a plea as a result of charge or sentence
negotiations with the prosecutor. The judge may reject a guilty plea if the
judge finds that the defendant was coerced or does not understand the
charges or the consequences of his or her plea. If the judge accepts a guilty
or a no-contest plea, the judge normally enters a judgment of conviction on
the record. The judge may also impose sentence if the charges are not
serious. Sentencing is usually set for a later date in cases involving
felonies or serious misdemeanors, and the judge may order a presentence
report to guide the sentencing decision.

If the defendant pleads not guilty to some or all of the charges or if a guilty
plea is rejected, the case is scheduled for trial on the remaining charges.

Trial court action

Trial usually results in an acquittal or conviction on some or all of the
charges. Other common trial court judgments can include, as to some or all
of the charges: dismissal, nolle prosequi (no further prosecution), not
guilty by reason of insanity, and guilty but insane.

There are other trial outcomes that can result in confusing criminal history
records, such as "probation without verdict." This usually results from plea
negotiations, and can occur before a plea is entered or after the entry of a
guilty plea but before the entry of a judgment of conviction. In such cases,
the defendant is placed on probation with specified restrictions or
conditions for a designated period. At the end of that time, the charges are
dismissed if the defendant has complied with the conditions. If the
defendant has not complied, trial may resume or the court may enter a
judgment of conviction on the guilty plea and proceed to sentencing.

Another such outcome is indefinite postponement. This is usually ordered
pursuant to a plea negotiation and is undertaken to determine whether the
defendant can refrain from law enforcement contact for a specified period.
If so, the case is dismissed. If not, trial is resumed.

Deferred judgments of this kind present recordkeeping problems because,
oftentimes, no notice is sent to the State repository at the end of the
probationary period indicating whether the charges were dismissed or
reinstated. As a result, the criminal history record maintained by the
repository may be ambiguous as to whether the case has been concluded
and what the final outcome was.

The conclusion of trial proceedings is another point at which bail may be
reviewed and changed. After conviction, the risk of flight may be thought
to have increased and a higher bail may be justified. Bail may also be
denied pending sentencing or appeal.

Appeal

An appeal may follow sentencing or may be instituted before sentence is
imposed. Some appeals may be automatic, as in death penalty cases; in
other cases, the convicted person may have a right to appeal if he or she
chooses. In certain cases, however, appeal may be at the discretion of the
appellate court.

There are also so-called "post-conviction actions" that can result in
appellate review of some aspects of criminal cases. The most common is
the writ of habeas corpus, the function of which is to obtain release from
unlawful imprisonment. This and other post-conviction actions can be
based on claims of inadequate legal representation or denial of certain
constitutional rights, among other grounds, and can result in review by
State and Federal appellate courts.

Sentencing

A sentence may be decided or recommended by the jury, as in capital
cases, or imposed by the judge. Typically, a sentencing hearing is held for
felony cases. In all States, the sentencing judge has the discretion, by
express statutory authority or by virtue of inherent judicial powers, to
order the preparation of a presentence report to guide the sentencing
decision. -8 [Paul L. Woodard, Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal
History Record Information, Criminal Justice Information Policy series,
NCJ 129896 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, June 1991) p. 15. Hereafter, Statutes Report. Selected
tables from the Statutes Report are set out in this report as appendixes
1-7.] The presentence report almost always includes information about the
defendant's past criminal activity.

Sentencing options may include (separately or in combination):
* the death penalty
* incarceration in a prison, jail, or other facility
* probation
* a suspended sentence, in whole or in part
* a fine
* restitution
* forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime
* confinement in a mental health facility
* community service.

The judge may have discretion as to sentence choices and sentence length,
but State law may provide for mandatory, determinate, or enhanced
sentencing in some cases, and may limit or deny probation eligibility.
Sentencing approaches are discussed in section 3 of this chapter.

Correctional supervision

The final step in the criminal justice process is correctional supervision.
Basically, this step includes the so-called "three Ps": probation, prison, and
parole.

Incarceration in a State prison is usually for persons who are convicted of
felonies and receive sentences of 1 year or more. Sentences of less than a
year are usually served in local jails or other local facilities. A person may
receive a "split sentence"; that is, the person may serve some time but also
receive a period of probation. If a person is placed on probation in lieu of
incarceration and fails to comply with the terms of probation - including
making monetary restitution, if so ordered - probation may be revoked and
the person may be sent to jail or prison. The same applies to a person who
is paroled after serving part of a term of incarceration and fails to comply
with the conditions of parole.

Section 3: How criminal justice practitioners use criminal history records

This chapter has previously mentioned some of the uses that criminal
justice practitioners make of criminal history records. This section reviews
in more detail the uses, both mandatory and discretionary, that such
practitioners make of criminal history records as they perform their duties
in processing offenders through the criminal justice system. These uses
include:
* police uses
* pretrial release uses
* prosecutor uses
* court uses
* corrections uses.

This section discusses the types of criminal history record information
needed to guide criminal justice decisionmaking, and also discusses the
time frames within which the information is needed.

Background

The importance of the criminal history record to the effective functioning
of the criminal justice system can hardly be overstated. Research has
shown that as many as two-thirds of all persons arrested for criminal
offenses have prior criminal records, often including offenses in multiple
jurisdictions or States. -9 [Ibid., p. 1.] Many arrestees, if identified as prior
offenders, would be treated differently than first offenders. For example:

* Prior offenders might not be released on bail or on their own
recognizance.

* Prior offenders might not be able to legally purchase firearms, which
would enable them to commit more crimes.

* In many cases, prior offenders would not be eligible for probation or
other lenient treatment.

* In some cases, prior offenders would be subject to upgraded or enhanced
charging and sentencing and would receive longer prison terms.

* In some cases, prior offenders might be subject to sentencing as career or
habitual offenders to long prison terms without parole.

Thus, simply put, the availability or nonavailability of complete, accurate,
and timely criminal history records can have a direct impact on the
functioning of the criminal justice system.

Police uses

Police agencies use criminal history records in numerous ways, including
as an investigative tool. Criminal records can aid them in compiling
suspect lists, based upon prior criminal patterns, or in eliminating suspects
who can be determined to have been incarcerated at the time of the crime.
Information about a suspect's prior record can also be helpful in obtaining
a search warrant or establishing criminal knowledge or motive.

The record can be extremely useful to the police officer in the field. When
an officer makes a stop, information about the stopped person's
dangerousness or past violent activity can save the officer's life. In
addition, information about a suspect's criminal record may be necessary
to determine whether a crime has occurred, such as possession of a firearm
or other dangerous weapon by a felon. There are provisions in the penal
codes of the Federal Government, 49 States, the District of Columbia, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands making it a criminal offense, usually a felony, for a
person previously convicted of a felony to own, possess, or carry a firearm
or, in some States, certain other dangerous weapons. -10 [Ibid. at table 10
lists the 43 States that had implemented such laws when the Statutes
Report was issued in 1991. Six States - Georgia, Idaho, Indiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan, and South Dakota - have since banned those
convicted of or charged with, but not yet tried for, felonies from
possessing firearms. Vermont was the only State in mid-2001 not to have
such laws. Table 10 is included in this report as appendix 1.]

A suspect's status as an escapee or failure to comply with the conditions of
his or her current status as a probationer, parolee, or bailee can also be
determined from the suspect's criminal record, if it is complete and
current.

Pretrial release uses

The presence or absence of a prior criminal record is arguably the most
relevant information to a judge or magistrate deciding whether and under
what conditions to release a person on bail pending trial. Indeed, all 50
States, the Federal Government, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and Puerto Rico have statutory or constitutional provisions or
court rules that explicitly require or permit the consideration of an arrested
person's prior criminal record in making pretrial and post-trial release
decisions. -11 [Ibid. at table 2 lists the 47 States that had implemented
such laws when the Statutes Report was issued in 1991. Idaho, New
Hampshire, and Oklahoma have since implemented similar laws. An
excerpt from table 2 is included in this report as appendix 2.]

In some cases, pretrial release is prohibited by law if persons charged with
designated offenses were already on bail when arrested, or if they have
previous convictions for designated offenses. In addition, laws in many
States permit courts to order "preventive detention" of persons with prior
records that indicate that they would be dangerous or might commit further
crimes if released.

Information that an arrested person has previously failed to appear as
ordered (usually noted on criminal history records as "FTA") is also
important at the bail-setting stage. Virtually all States permit such
information to influence pretrial release decisions, including the denial of
bail if the subject is deemed likely to flee based on prior FTAs and the
seriousness of the current crime.

Prosecutor uses

Prosecutors are among the heaviest users of criminal history records. They
use such records from the moment they become involved in criminal cases
until the cases are terminated at the defendants' parole hearings or earlier.
Complete and accurate criminal history record information is needed by
prosecutors to provide input and make decisions regarding:
* bail
* enhanced charging
* plea bargaining
* presentations to grand juries
* habitual or career criminal prosecutions
* impeachment of witnesses
* sentence recommendations
* parole board hearings.

All States have statutory provisions that authorize or require arrested
persons with designated prior convictions to be charged as repeat
offenders, habitual offenders, or career offenders, and, if convicted, to be
sentenced to enhanced prison terms. -12 [Ibid., pp. 13-14 and table 5. An
excerpt from table 5 is included in this report as appendix 3.] Under some
of these laws, the prosecutor must allege habitual or repeat offender status
in the charging document, or give early notice of his intent to seek an
enhanced sentence.

In addition, almost all of the States have provisions applicable to certain
crimes that upgrade second and subsequent offenses, of the same or
similar type, to higher classes of crimes than first offenses - from a
misdemeanor to a felony, for example, or to a more serious class of felony
or misdemeanor. -13 [Ibid., p. 11 and table 3. An excerpt from table 3 is
included in this report as appendix 4.] In some of these cases, the upgraded
offense must be specified in the charging document. This means that the
prosecutor must have complete information about a defendant's prior
record at the time the case is filed in court, because the class of offense
charged can affect the type of charging document that must be used or the
court in which the case must be filed.

Court uses

Courts are also heavy users of criminal history record information,
although judges may not be aware in some cases that the information
before them comes primarily from repository-supplied criminal history
records. They customarily receive the information in modified form - in
bail reports prepared by bail agencies or other agencies, in presentence
reports prepared by probation departments, or in presentations by the
prosecutor.

- For bail, pretrial, and trial decisions

As noted previously, courts need criminal history record information for
bail and pretrial release decisions at an early stage in criminal proceedings,
many times within 24 hours of the defendant's arrest. They also use
criminal history record information in making probable cause
determinations, issuing arrest warrants, and accepting or rejecting pleas.

In some instances, courts are authorized to consider evidence of prior
crimes by a defendant during the trial itself. Such evidence may be
admissible, for example, to show motive, intent, criminal knowledge,
common plan or scheme, or method of operation (modus operandi or
"M.O."). Certain prior convictions may also be admissible to attack the
credibility of the defendant, if the defendant testifies, or of other witnesses.

- For sentencing decisions

The most frequent use of criminal history records by courts, however, is in
connection with sentencing. As mentioned, many State laws permit or
require courts to upgrade charges or impose enhanced sentences for
persons with prior conviction records, including life sentences without
parole for certain habitual offenders in some cases.

Some of these enhancement laws take into consideration not only past
convictions, but also the number and duration of prison terms previously
served and the length of time between release and renewed criminal
involvement. -14 [Ibid., p. 14 and table 4. An excerpt from table 4 is
included in this report as appendix 5.] In addition, virtually all of these
laws take into account convictions in any State or Federal court and, in
some cases, in territorial or foreign courts as well. -15 [Ibid., p. 14.]

In lieu of, or in addition to, specific upgrade or enhancement laws, some
jurisdictions have established sentencing guidelines or presumptive or
determinate sentencing structures based in part on prior convictions as
aggravating factors, or on sentence computation formulas that include
prior convictions as factors in the computation. -16 [Ibid., p. 13.]


- For probation and parole decisions

Courts also take criminal history record information into account when
deciding whether to place offenders on probation or to impose limits on
parole eligibility for incarcerated offenders. In some jurisdictions, these
decisions are left to the discretion of the courts. In other instances, the
limitations are mandatory. For example, many repeat offender, habitual
offender, and sentence enhancement laws noted previously provide for
mandatory prison terms, foreclosing probation as a possible sentence.
Many of them also deny or limit parole eligibility. Probation may also be
prohibited by law for certain convicted persons who have previously been
convicted of certain serious offenses, such as murder or other offenses
involving violence. -17 [Ibid., p. 14.]

Corrections uses

The most frequent use of criminal history record information by
correctional agencies is in the preparation of presentence reports, which
commonly are prepared by parole or probation agencies. Correctional
officials also use such information for classification purposes, -18 [Ibid., p.
51 and table 8. Table 8 is included in this report as appendix 6.] and in
making decisions about eligibility for good time credits, early release,
work furlough, or release on parole. -19 [Ibid., pp. 55-56 and table 9. An
excerpt from table 9 is included in this report as appendix 7.]

As noted earlier, numerous States have reformed their sentencing
structures in recent years to provide for determinate sentencing pursuant to
sentencing guidelines or mandatory sentencing structures. Under some of
these laws, offenders are required to serve the sentences imposed, less
good time credits only, with release on parole prior to sentence expiration
no longer permitted.

Other State laws deny or limit parole eligibility for certain offenders based
on the number and seriousness of prior convictions. Even where parole
eligibility is not specifically constrained by statute, parole decisions
commonly are based in large part upon the seriousness of the offender's
present offense and his past criminal record.

Types of information needed

It should be obvious that criminal justice practitioners use criminal history
records to guide decisionmaking at every stage of the criminal justice
process. It should also be obvious that the information they need for these
purposes includes more than just a list of arrest charges and court
dispositions. Proper enforcement of the laws and effective implementation
of crime control strategies may require them to know not only the number,
nature, and dates of prior convictions, but also:
* Whether an offender was on bail or some other form of supervision at
the time of arrest.
* Whether an offender has a history of violation of release conditions or
failure to appear as ordered.
* Whether other cases are pending against the offender and the status of
such cases.
* Whether particular past crimes involved the use of dangerous weapons
or actual or threatened violence.
* Whether prior convictions were for felonies or misdemeanors.
* Whether an offender has served previous terms of imprisonment.
* Whether new and prior incidents of criminal involvement were separated
by specified periods during which the individual was free of criminal
involvement. In addition, court officials often express a need for
information about previous failures to pay fines or restitution and
information about less serious offenses that, in many States, are not
required to be reported to the repository, usually because there is no legal
requirement to obtain fingerprints in such cases. -20 [SEARCH Group,
Inc., Report of the National Task Force on Criminal History Record
Disposition Reporting, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ
135836 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, June 1992) p. 3. Hereafter, National Task Force Report.]

Finally, it should be re-emphasized that virtually all laws that require or
permit criminal justice decisions based upon past criminal involvement
take into account prior convictions in any State or Federal court, and
sometimes in territorial or foreign courts as well.

Time frames within which information is needed

The time frame within which criminal history record information is needed
by criminal justice practitioners varies considerably. As noted previously,
information for bail-setting purposes may be needed within 24 hours of
arrest. Some of the investigative needs of law enforcement officers may
also necessitate short response times. Prosecutors need criminal history
record information at an early stage of criminal proceedings for charging
purposes and for making bail recommendations.

A growing number of States have procedures, facilities, and automated
information systems for making fingerprint-verified criminal history
record responses available within such short time frames. Some
jurisdictions have bail agencies or other agencies charged with the
responsibility of obtaining and providing information for use in bail
determinations. In some cases, these agencies may have the staff and
facilities for making inquiries to obtain complete and accurate information
concerning prior criminal records. In many cases, however, the only
information available in time for initial bail determinations is a criminal
history record transcript received in response to a name search of the
State's criminal history system and whatever information is provided by
the police or is known to the prosecutor or the court.

Because name searches are not fully reliable and existing criminal record
files may be inaccurate and incomplete, particularly with respect to case
disposition information, some short-term needs of criminal justice officials
are not currently being met. In some jurisdictions, however, new
technology is solving some of these problems. (This is discussed in
chapter IV.)

Other needs are not as time-critical. For example, agencies ordered to
prepare presentence reports generally have time to investigate and compile
needed information. There is often time to obtain a fingerprint-based
search of the State's criminal record system, thus avoiding the risk of
missing previous record information if the subject gave a fictitious name
when arrested. There may also be sufficient time to receive a response
from the III system indicating whether the subject has a record in another
jurisdiction. Finally, there may be sufficient time to contact courts and
correctional agencies, if necessary, to obtain missing disposition
information or to verify the accuracy of recorded arrest and disposition
information.


Chapter II: Overview of existing criminal history record systems

This chapter describes the Nation's existing criminal history record
systems at the State and Federal levels.

Section 1: Evolution of criminal history record systems, provides a brief
historical review of the evolution of criminal history record systems at the
State and Federal levels.

Section 2: Information maintained in the Nation's criminal history record
systems, summarizes the types of information maintained by State and
Federal criminal history record repositories, including identification,
criminal history, and juvenile information.

Section 3: The current status of the Nation's criminal history record
systems, summarizes a recent Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of State
criminal history record systems and describes:
* The number of criminal history records maintained by State and Federal
repositories.
* The extent of repository automation.
* The reporting and access procedures utilized by the repositories.

Section 4: The product of the repositories - the criminal history record,
discusses the quality of information maintained by the repositories, and the
adequacy of the content and format of the criminal history records they
produce. 

Background

State-level systems

State-level criminal history records are collected, maintained, and
disseminated by "State central repositories," which are agencies or bureaus
within State governments. These repositories are often housed within the
State police or a cabinet-level agency with public safety and criminal
justice responsibilities, such as the Department of Law Enforcement or the
Department of Public Safety.

Customarily, the repositories are charged under State law with the
following:
* Establishing comprehensive criminal history records.
* Establishing an efficient and timely record retrieval system.
* Ensuring accurate and up-to-date records.
* Establishing rules and regulations governing the dissemination of
criminal history records to criminal justice and noncriminal justice users.
Today, all 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia have
established central repositories for criminal history records. -21 [Paul L.
Woodard and Eric C. Johnson, Compendium of State Privacy and Security
Legislation: 1999 Overview, NCJ 182294 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2000) p. 5.
Hereafter, 1999 Compendium.]

Federal-level systems

At the Federal level, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) functions as
a criminal history information repository for both Federal offender
information and for records of arrests and dispositions under State law. As
discussed in this chapter, the FBI's criminal history record information role
is changing at the beginning of the 21st century.

In the past, the FBI operated as a centralized criminal history file that
served as the primary source for national record searches and interstate
record exchanges. Actions are under way that will transform the Bureau's
role to that of a "51st State repository" that will maintain and make
available information on Federal offenders primarily. States will send only
first-arrest information to the FBI, which will use the data to keep current
the Interstate Identification Index (III), a listing of offenders and the States
that maintain their criminal history records. States will collect any
subsequent criminal history information that accrues on the offenders, and
will make offenders' entire criminal histories and related information
available for queries from other States or from authorized Federal entities.
This process will spare State repositories and the FBI from maintaining
costly duplicate records, and will provide greater access to State-level
criminal history information, which is generally more accurate than that
maintained at the Federal level. 

Under this process, the FBI will maintain these systems:
* The III, which will permit authorized requestors to determine whether
any State or Federal repository maintains a criminal history record about a
particular subject.
* The National Fingerprint File, which will provide positive identification
of all offenders indexed in the national system. (These national systems
are discussed in detail in chapter V.)

Section 1: Evolution of criminal history record systems

Although the Nation's criminal history record system is far from complete,
vast strides have been made, both in terms of the extent to which the
system is organized in an effective and coordinated manner, and in terms
of the quality of the system's product. It was not always so. 

This section reviews the historical evolution of criminal history record
systems, and includes discussions of the following:
* Establishment of early police departments.
* Early identification and recordkeeping systems.
* Efforts to establish State and Federal criminal history record systems.

Establishment of early police departments

At the beginning of the 20th century, there was hardly such a thing as a
criminal history record, much less a criminal history record system.
Indeed, prior to 1835, not a single American city enjoyed even an
organized police force, much less an organized police record system. In
1835, Boston became the first city to establish a full-time police force.
New York followed suit in 1844.

State governments took on the role of establishing organized police forces
in less populated areas of the country. Texas, for instance, established the
Texas Rangers in 1853. Shortly thereafter, Arizona established its own
State police force. By the end of the 19th century, every major urban area
and all regional and State areas had established law enforcement agencies.
-22 [Robert R. Belair, Intelligence and Investigative Records, Criminal
Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 95787 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 1985) p. 14.
Hereafter, Intelligence and Investigative Records. See also, James N.
Gilbert, Criminal Investigation (Columbus, Oh.: Charles Merrill and
Company, 1980) chapter 3. Hereafter, Gilbert.]

Early identification and recordkeeping systems

This is not to say, however, that 19th century police forces were keeping
criminal history record information. Rather, throughout the 19th century,
most urban American police departments, if they kept records at all, kept
what can be called the precursor of the criminal history record - the
so-called "police blotter." The blotter was, and is, a purely chronological
listing of events occurring each day in a particular police department or,
more often, in a particular precinct or subdivision of a police department.
Customarily, the blotter contains the name, age, sex, and race of persons
arrested, along with citations to alleged offenses. -23 [Robert R. Belair,
Original Records of Entry, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ
125626 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, November 1990) pp. 6-7. See also, Michael J. Petrick, "The
Press, the Police Blotter and Public Policy," 46 Journalism Quarterly 475
(Autumn 1969) n.1.]

It was not until the emergence of a reliable system for identifying
individuals, and thus "positively" linking records to individuals, that law
enforcement agencies began to keep records that were "about individuals,"
as opposed to being "about events." As early as the post-Civil War period,
famed detective Allan Pinkerton launched his own crude criminal history
record system with respect to persistent criminals. Pinkerton called for the
establishment of a national system to collect and maintain records,
including photographs, of active criminals. -24 [Intelligence and
Investigative Records, p. 18. See also, Gilbert, p. 17.]

The first systematic attempts to develop criminal identification systems
included name-based registers of habitual criminals combined with
photographs, and an anthropometric system for taking exact measurements
of physical features which was developed in the mid-19th century by
Alfonse Bertillon of France. In 1896, the International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP) established the first "national" criminal
identification system in Chicago. -25 [Gilbert, p. 17.]

At about the same time, the "Henry Classification System" emerged as the
first effective method for the use of fingerprints to positively identify
previous offenders and to search identification files. -26 [Clarence G.
Collins, Fingerprint Science: How to Roll, Classify, File and Use
Fingerprints (Placerville, Ca.: Copperhouse (formerly Custom) Publishing
Company, 1985) p. 1. Hereafter, Collins.] In 1908, the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) formed the Identification Bureau (the forerunner of the FBI),
whose responsibilities included the establishment of a fingerprint-based
criminal history record information system. -27 [Ibid.] By 1911,
fingerprinting was a commonplace and important part of the American
criminal justice system. Fingerprints were being used by the police, in the
courts, by corrections agencies, and for many other justice and government
purposes. -28 [F.A. Reed, "The Finger Mark, the Prime Piece of Scientific
Evidence," Journal of Forensic Sciences (January 1981) p. 9.]

Efforts to establish criminal history record systems

Fingerprinting and related recordkeeping received an important impetus in
1924 when the U.S. Congress directed the FBI to create an "Identification
Division" to acquire, maintain, and use fingerprint information for
criminal identification and for certain other purposes. -29 [Collins, p. 2.]
The Identification Division started with slightly more than 800,000
fingerprints, which represented contributions from the files of the IACP;
the Federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas; and the DOJ's own
Identification Bureau records. -30 [Ibid.]

Notwithstanding this significant progress, the Wickersham Report - the
product of a congressionally chartered comprehensive examination of the
criminal justice system undertaken in the 1930s - concluded that vast
improvements were needed in the Nation's criminal justice record system.
Serious work on those improvements, however, had to wait almost 40
years.

In 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice published a comprehensive critique of the
criminal justice system. It concluded that crime in the United States was a
massive problem and that the Nation's criminal justice system was too
antiquated to mount an effective response. -31 [President's Commission on
Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime
in a Free Society (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
February 1967).] The report called for, among other things, a significant
Federal effort to establish and automate a national criminal history record
system. 

- Law Enforcement Assistance Administration efforts to establish State
systems

In 1969, the U.S. DOJ's Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
(LEAA), established in response to the Commission's recommendations,
initiated Project SEARCH, a consortium of the States charged with
developing and demonstrating a computerized system for the interstate
exchange of criminal history record information. At about the same time,
the U.S. Attorney General authorized the FBI to manage the interstate
exchange aspects of any operational system resulting from this successful
demonstration. -32 [CCH Project Committee, Technical Report No. 14:
The American Criminal History Record: Present Status and Future
Requirements (Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc., September 1976) p. 6.]
In 1972, LEAA launched a Comprehensive Data Systems program (CDS)
designed to encourage each State to develop a criminal justice information
system to meet its own needs. By 1976, 26 States were participating in the
Computerized Criminal History (CCH) component of the CDS program.
These States and others had established central State repositories charged
with maintaining statewide criminal history record systems. -33 [Ibid.]

- Federal Bureau of Investigation efforts to establish Federal systems

As noted earlier, the FBI has collected and maintained criminal history
records since the early part of the 20th century. From its inception in the
mid-1920s through the mid-1960s, the FBI's criminal history
recordkeeping operation, centered in the Identification Division,
maintained manual criminal history records. The records could be
retrieved by name and other biographic identifiers, as well as by an FBI
number. In addition, the records were "fingerprint-supported," which
meant that a fingerprint card was maintained as a part of each criminal
history record to provide positive identification of the offender. 

In 1967, the FBI established the National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) to provide a nationwide, user-oriented computer response for
criminal justice records. NCIC maintains so-called "hot files" containing
information about wanted and missing persons, stolen vehicles, license
plates, guns, boats, securities, and articles of personal property, and certain
other types of files. -34 [Paul L. Woodard and Robert R. Belair, Criminal
Justice "Hot" Files, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ
101850 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, November 1986) pp. 11-14. Information on the NCIC "hot files"
was obtained from the NCIC Operating Manual and other documents
published by the FBI, and from NCIC officials and staff.] NCIC maintains
its own nationwide telecommunications system and operates as a
cooperative Federal-State venture. Policy input is provided through the
FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board (CJIS
APB), which also reviews and makes recommendations on the Uniform
Crime Reporting Program (UCR), the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS), and other information systems determined
to have some relationship with these programs. 

In 1971, NCIC implemented an interstate computerized criminal history
record system - the CCH System - containing records of individuals
arrested for both Federal and State felonies and serious misdemeanors. By
the mid-1970s, NCIC/CCH held several million automated criminal
history records. However, concerns about the practicality, cost, and
wisdom of establishing a national centralized criminal history record
system led the FBI to phase out the CCH program in the early 1980s in
favor of the decentralized III national criminal history record system. (See
chapter V.) 

Section 2: Information maintained in the Nation's criminal history record
systems

This section details the types of information maintained in State and
Federal criminal history record systems, including:
* subject identification
* criminal histories
* juvenile records
* other information (such as pretrial release information and felony
conviction flags)
* master name indexes.

Background

The heart of the mission of the State and Federal repositories is to
maintain comprehensive criminal history records or "rap sheets." Criminal
history records maintained by the State and FBI repositories contain:
* Information identifying the subject of the record.
* Information about the record subject's current and past involvement with
the criminal justice system (including arrests or other formal criminal
charges, and any dispositions resulting from these arrests or formal
charges). -35 [The term "criminal history record information" is defined by
Federal regulations to mean "information collected by criminal justice
agencies on individuals consisting of identifiable descriptions and
notations of arrests, detentions, indictments, information, or other formal
criminal charges, and any disposition arising therefrom, sentencing,
correctional supervision, and release." 28 C.F.R.  20.] The repositories
often limit their collection of criminal history information to felonies or
serious misdemeanors.

Other types of criminal justice information are not included in criminal
history files. For example, "investigative information," "intelligence
information," and records relating to traffic offenses and certain other petty
offenses are specifically exempted from the definition of "criminal history
records" in Federal regulations governing Federally funded record systems
and are seldom maintained in State repositories. -36 [1999 Compendium,
supra note 21, p. 4.]

Generally, State criminal history record repositories did not accept or
maintain records of juvenile offenses, except for cases in which juveniles
were tried as adults. However, a dramatic increase in the juvenile crime
rate in the early 1990s, combined with a series of highly publicized crimes
committed by juvenile offenders, some with extensive criminal histories,
prompted Congress and many State legislatures to consider changing this
practice as the 1990s came to a close. Among the changes being
considered were maintaining 

State repository files for juveniles whose crimes would be considered
felonies if committed by adults; supporting juvenile files with identifiers
such as photographs and fingerprints; and merging an individual's juvenile
and adult criminal records. (Both houses of Congress, in fact, considered
significant changes in 2000 to the methods used to maintain and
disseminate juvenile criminal history records, although no new Federal
laws had been enacted in this area as of mid-2001.)

Identification information

An individual's criminal history record typically includes the following
identification information:

- Personal description

Identification information usually includes the subject's name, address,
date of birth, Social Security number, sex, race, and physical
characteristics such as hair and eye color, height, weight, and any
distinguishing scars, marks, or tattoos. Identification information may also
include the subject's place of employment, automobile registration, and
other pertinent information.

- Fingerprints

Most importantly, personal information also includes a biometric identifier
- fingerprint information. The number of States reporting 100% fingerprint
support for their criminal history files has fluctuated since SEARCH
conducted its first survey of criminal history information systems in 1989.
Thirty-eight States responding to that survey, which covered the status of
the States' criminal history repositories through year-end 1989, reported
that 100% of their criminal history files were fingerprint-supported. -
37[Sheila J. Barton, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems,
Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 125620 (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March
1991) table 6. Hereafter, Survey Report.] By 1992, that number had grown
to 41 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. -38
[Sheila J. Barton, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992,
Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 143500 (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November
1993) table 6. Hereafter, 1992 Survey. Table 6 is included in this report as
appendix 8.] The most recent figures, which cover the repositories' status
through year-end 1999, show that 37 States reported 100% fingerprint
support for their criminal history files. More than 8.8 million fingerprint
cards or electronic substitutes were submitted to State criminal history
repositories in 1999. -39 [1999 Survey, supra note 6, p. 3.]

Criminal history information

Criminal history information includes information about any arrests, along
with available disposition data. Disposition data most commonly include
information about "final" dispositions - decisions or actions that terminate
cases, including police decisions to drop all charges, prosecutor decisions
to not prosecute the cases, and trial court dispositions. Where court action
results in a conviction, the criminal history record should show the
sentence imposed and information about correctional reception and
release.

Juvenile record information

As noted previously, the FBI, like most State repositories, did not maintain
juvenile record information, except with respect to juveniles tried as
adults. -40 [Testimony of Lawrence K. York, Assistant Director,
Identification Division, FBI, before the Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of
Representatives, March 20, 1992.] However, dramatic increases in
juvenile crime that occurred in the early 1990s, when juveniles were
involved in 14% of arrests for violent crime (compared to around 10% of
such arrests in the early- to mid-1980s), prompted a re-evaluation of the
nearly century-long practice of adjudicating juvenile offenders differently
than adult offenders. -41 [See, "The juvenile share of the crime problem
decreased in 1997," Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, available at
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjbulletin/9812_2/crime.html.] On July 15,
1992, the Attorney General adopted a rule authorizing the FBI to accept
State-reported records of serious offenses by juveniles. -42 [U.S.
Department of Justice, "Juvenile Records," 56 Federal Register 25642
(June 5, 1991).] In December 1992, the FBI announced that juvenile
record information received pursuant to the new rule would be
disseminated under the same standards that apply to the dissemination of
adult criminal history records. -43 [Amending 28 C.F.R.  20.32(a)(b).]

While juvenile crime began to decline following its statistical peak in
1994, public interest in more punitive treatment of juvenile offenders
continued, motivated in large part by a series of highly publicized and
emotionally wrenching school shootings by students that occurred in the
latter half of the 1990s. Both houses of Congress passed legislation in
2000 that weakened or eliminated many of the previous protections
provided to juvenile offenders. Included in both bills were provisions that
would change the way juvenile criminal history records were
disseminated; that would allow the fingerprinting of juvenile offenders
who committed crimes that would be considered felonies if committed by
adults; that would create grant programs for States interested in improving
the accuracy and accessibility of their juvenile criminal history records;
and other provisions related to these records. Neither bill was enacted,
however, and a House and Senate conference formed to iron out
differences between the two bills had not reached a consensus as of
mid-2001. 

Other information

Practices vary as to additional information that may be contained in a
criminal history record.

- Interim dispositions

Some repositories include information about pretrial release or
confinement and "nonfinal" or "interim" dispositions, such as prosecutor
decisions to file, modify, or drop charges referred by the police.

- Felony flags

Forty-two States currently "flag" some or all felony convictions in their
criminal history databases, and an additional 20 States collect sufficient
data to flag at least some felonies. -44 [1999 Survey, supra note 6, table 1.
Table 1 is included in this report as appendix 9.] Such information can be
essential for users of criminal history records. For example, because the
Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the purchase or possession of firearms
by persons convicted of felonies or domestic violence misdemeanors,
systems that flag these types of convictions can help to quickly identify
individuals who are barred from buying or carrying firearms. 

- Misdemeanor data

While some State repositories collect comprehensive arrest and disposition
information about misdemeanor offenses, most repositories collect
information only about the most serious classes of misdemeanor offenses.
-45 [National Task Force Report, supra note 20, page 3.] This lack of
comprehensive misdemeanor arrest and disposition data has been
identified as one of the major deficiencies in State criminal history record
systems from the viewpoint of judicial users. -46 [For example, complete
misdemeanor information sometimes is helpful in assisting courts in
distinguishing chronic offenders from first or infrequent offenders. See,
ibid.]

Master name indexes

In addition to criminal history record files, State central repositories and
the FBI also maintain "master name indexes." The master name index
(MNI) is a key element of the criminal history system of the National
Instant 

Criminal Background Check System (known as "NICS") used for
point-of-sale background checks of potential gun purchasers because it
permits the user to identify a felony flag on a record of a named offender.

- Contents, usage

The MNI is simply an index of names and identifiers for every offender for
which the repository has a partial or complete criminal history file. The
MNI may be made up of the identification segments of the criminal history
file, or it may be a separate file.

In either case, if a criminal justice agency queries a repository's MNI and a
"hit" is made, the inquiring agency usually must then re-query the
repository for the complete criminal history record file. That query may be
serviced instantaneously if both the MNI and criminal history record file
are automated. If the repository maintains only a hard copy of the desired
file, the query is processed manually.

- Number of records indexed

The FBI maintains an automated MNI with about 38.5 million entries, to
which it adds more than 149,000 new entries per month. -47 [FBI CJIS
Division memorandum, August 20, 1999, citing Identification Automated
Services Volume Statistics Report.] All States and the District of
Columbia have automated some or all of their master name indexes. All
but six States have 100% of their records in an automated MNI. -48 [1999
Survey, supra note 6, table 4. Table 4 is included in this report as appendix
10.]

Section 3: The current status of the Nation's criminal history record
systems

Background

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S. DOJ, has completed its latest
survey in a series that assesses the quality of the criminal history record
information maintained by State repositories, as well as the policies of the
States in such areas as criminal history file automation, felony flagging
procedures, and data quality audit activity. The survey covered the status
of all State record systems through 1999. -49 [See, 1999 Survey, supra
note 6. The survey was the sixth such survey SEARCH has prepared for
BJS. Previous surveys in the series covered 1989, 1992, 1993, 1995, and
1997.] Information in this section that describes the status of State
criminal history record systems is drawn from this 1999 survey. 

Data on Federal record systems is drawn from other sources.

This section looks at the following:
* The number of records in State and Federal criminal history record
systems.
* The extent of automation in State criminal history files, State criminal
fingerprint files, and Federal files.
* Reporting of information to the repositories, including the type of
information reported, reporting requirements, and the time frame for
reporting.
* Access methods for authorized requestors.
* Response times.

Number of records

The number of criminal history records maintained by the State central
repositories and the FBI is enormous - and continues to grow.

- State records

According to the 1999 survey, which SEARCH conducted for BJS, more
than 59 million individual offenders were in the criminal history files of
the State central repositories as of December 31, 1999. -50 [Ibid., table 2.
Table 2 is included in this report as appendix 11.] In comparison, the
repositories held only 30.3 million subjects in their criminal history files in
1984, and 42.4 million in 1989. -51 [1992 Survey, supra note 38, table 2.]
Thus, the number of criminal history files maintained by State repositories
has almost doubled from 1984 to 1999. More than 7.6 million dispositions
were reported to 48 State repositories in 1999. -52 [1999 Survey, p. 2 and
table 3. Table 3 is included in this report as appendix 12.] In comparison,
4.7 million dispositions were reported in 1992 to 33 State repositories that
provided disposition data for the 1992 survey, and 3.5 million dispositions
were reported by the 34 States that provided data to a similar survey in
1989.

- Federal records

At the Federal level, the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS) Division maintains automated, fingerprint-based criminal history
record information with respect to more than 43 million individuals in III.
-53 [Source: Mr. Robert Mudd, Management Analyst, CJIS Division,
FBI.] The records represent all people with an FBI record who were born
in 1956 or later; all persons born prior to 1956 whose first arrest
fingerprint card was submitted to the FBI on July 1, 1974, or later; and
numerous older records converted to the automated system in the CJIS
Division's Manual Conversion Project, as well as certain fugitives and
repeat offenders. They include records relating to Federal offenders, as
well as records of State offenders voluntarily reported to the FBI by State
agencies. Not included are some 5 million older records that the FBI will
keep in manual format. The CJIS Division's criminal history record system
includes information about arrests for felonies and "serious or significant"
misdemeanors. Records are not maintained with respect to arrests for
drunken driving, vagrancy, disturbing the peace, and most types of traffic
offenses.

Extent of automation

There is enormous variation in the extent to which State central
repositories have automated their criminal history records. Automation is
universally considered to be a critical component of a successful criminal
history record system. Automation:
* Reduces the cost of maintaining a criminal record system.
* Improves the system's ability to record dispositions and otherwise amend
and update files.
* Speeds retrieval times.
* Vastly improves a system's ability to be audited.
* Improves security by making it more difficult for information to be
improperly accessed or modified.
* Improves a system's ability to monitor problems by facilitating the use of
delinquent disposition monitoring systems and other types of reporting and
audit protocols.

Simply stated, automation makes recordkeeping easier, less expensive,
more reliable, and far more effective overall. And, of course, automation
makes it possible for a system to interface with the national criminal
history record system.

- State criminal history files

State repositories have been making rapid progress in the last decade in
automating their criminal history files. Eighteen respondents to SEARCH's
survey assessing the state of State criminal history repositories in 1995
reported that 100% of their criminal history records were automated. -54
[1999 Survey, supra note 6, table 2. See, appendix 11.] That figure had
grown to 20 States when SEARCH conducted its survey two years later.
-55 [Ibid.] By 1999, 40 States reported that more than 75% of their
criminal history records were automated, -56 [Ibid.] compared to 26 States
in 1992. -57 [1992 Survey, supra note 38, table 2.]

By 1999, only 5 jurisdictions had automated less than 50% of their files
(compared to 13 in 1992), and only 2 States lacked any automated criminal
history records (as opposed to entries in the MNI). -58 [1999 Survey, supra
note 6, table 2. See, appendix 11.]

Twenty-two States indicated that they were steadily automating their
manual criminal history records each time an offender with a prior manual
record was arrested. -59 [Ibid, table 4. See, appendix 10.] Overall, about
52.8 million of the estimated 59 million criminal history records
maintained by the State repositories nationwide were automated as of
year-end 1999. -60 [Ibid., table 2. See appendix 11.]

- State criminal fingerprint files

In addition, the States have made an enormous investment in and
commitment to the automation of criminal fingerprint files. As of 1990,
for example, more than one-half of the States were operating statewide
criminal justice automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS). -61
[Robert R. Belair and Robert L. Marx, Legal and Policy Issues Relating to
Biometric Identification Technologies (Sacramento: SEARCH Group,
Inc., April 1990) appendix I.] At the beginning of the 21st century, every
State operates or has access to automated fingerprint technology. -62
[Source: Mr. Thomas J. Roberts, Assistant Program Manager, IAFIS,
FBI.]

As described in more detail in chapter IV, an AFIS is a computer-based
identification system that matches the fingerprints of search subjects with
fingerprints held in an automated database. Fingerprint impressions are
scanned into the computer system and converted to a digital format that
can be matched against digital codes assigned to other fingerprints that
have been similarly scanned. The States are also actively implementing
livescan and cardscan fingerprinting and other "paperless" technologies,
which also are described in more detail in chapter IV.

- Federal files

At the Federal level, more than 43 million files maintained by the FBI in
the III are fully automated, including numerous older records converted to
the automated system during the CJIS Division's Manual Conversion
Project. -63 [Source: Mr. Robert Mudd, Management Analyst, CJIS
Division, FBI.] Approximately 5 million older records are maintained in
manual form and there are no plans to automate them. -64 [Interstate
Identification Index (III) National Fingerprint File (NFF) Program: A
Summary, CJIS Division, FBI, revised December 1999.]

Reporting of information to the repositories

Criminal history record information is reported to the State repositories
and to the FBI by criminal justice agencies at every level of government -
Federal, State, and local - and at each stage of the criminal justice system -
by police departments, prosecutors, courts, and corrections agencies.

For example, when a local police agency in California arrests an
individual, the agency transmits fingerprints and information about the
arrestee to the State central repository operated by the California
Department of Justice. As the individual proceeds through the criminal
justice process, the prosecutor's office, courts, and corrections agencies
provide disposition data about the individual to the repository.

In a growing number of cases, the reporting agency transmits the arrest or
disposition information via electronic mail (email) through a State's
dedicated law enforcement telecommunications network that links justice
agencies throughout the State to a central criminal history repository. All
States have been linked to the FBI CJIS Wide-Area Network (WAN),
allowing them to electronically transmit criminal history information and
accompanying graphic data such as fingerprint images to the CJIS
Division's headquarters in Clarksburg, West Virginia. -65 [The CJIS WAN
was installed to facilitate information transfers for the FBI's IAFIS, which
began operations in July 1999. Ten States were technically capable of
IAFIS participation when it went on-line: California, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin. Twenty-two States were transmitting fingerprint
images to IAFIS as of February 2000, although only a handful was sending
significant numbers.] Some justice agencies may still use the mail to
transmit criminal history information and fingerprint images to their
State's repository, which may also mail the information to the FBI.
However, justice officials at both the State and Federal levels are working
toward the eventual completion of a nationwide telecommunications
system that will permit the electronic exchange of criminal history
information and related graphics throughout the country in a paper-free,
"lights-out" environment. 

(See figure 2, which shows the flow of information to State central
criminal record repositories.)

- Types of information reported

The types of criminal history information reported to the repositories vary
according to: (1) what type of agency is sending the information (that is,
police department, district attorney, corrections agency); and (2) State or
Federal statutes, regulations, and policies imposing reporting
requirements.

Customarily, the first agency to make an entry about an individual is a
police department or other law enforcement agency that arrests the
individual. The arresting agency usually provides the following
information to the State central repository:
* Name (and any known aliases).
* Sex, race, birth date, and Social Security number.
* Address (both home and business).
* Auto registration or driver's license information.
* Any pertinent physical characteristics (weight, height, eye and hair color,
and tattoos or other distinctive physical characteristics).

The agency also reports the charges for which the individual was arrested.
In most cases, the arresting agency must also submit a full set of
fingerprints to the State central repository for all felony arrests. Most
States also require that fingerprints be forwarded for at least some
misdemeanor arrests. -66 [1999 Survey, supra note 6, table 6, included in
this report as appendix 13. Only three jurisdictions - Delaware, the District
of Columbia, and New Hampshire - do not require arresting agencies to
submit fingerprints to the State central repository for felony arrests.]

Other agencies provide disposition data as the arrested individual proceeds
to subsequent phases of the criminal justice process. For example, the
prosecutor's office should notify the repository if initial charges are
dropped or modified or if new charges are added. Courts should notify the
repository of any final dispositions, such as if the individual is acquitted or
convicted. If the individual is sentenced to correctional supervision,
correctional facilities should report receipt and release information to the
repository.

- Reporting requirements

State and Federal statutes and regulations impose criminal history
reporting requirements on criminal justice agencies. Most of these
reporting requirements are aimed at ensuring that "down stream" criminal
justice agencies - prosecutors, courts, probation/parole offices, and
corrections agencies - provide accurate and prompt disposition data to the
State central repository.
For example, 35 States have statutes or regulations requiring prosecutors
to report decisions to decline prosecution in criminal cases to the State
repository, -67 [Ibid., table 5, p. 23.] while 47 States, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands have laws or regulations requiring courts to report
dispositions in felony cases. -68 [Ibid.]

However, there is still substantial variation among disposition reporting
requirements. Thirty-two States require law enforcement agencies to notify
the State central repository when an arrested person is released without
formal charging after fingerprints have been sent to the repository, while
19 jurisdictions have no such requirement. In this regard, only North
Carolina requires police departments to charge or release a suspect prior to
sending fingerprints to the State repository. -69 [Ibid., table 7, included in
this report as appendix 14.]

- Time frame within which reporting takes place 

How quickly criminal history record information is reported to the State
central repository varies greatly depending upon the type of agency doing
the reporting and other factors.

According to SEARCH's 1999 survey of State central repositories, the
average number of days between arrest and receipt of arrest data and
fingerprints by the State repository is 13, ranging from less than 1 day in
California (for information submitted electronically) and in the District of
Columbia (where the Metropolitan Police Department is both the reporting
agency and the State repository) to up to 93 days in the State of
Mississippi. -70 [Ibid., p. 5 and table 12. Table 12 is included in this report
as appendix 15.] The average time between receipt of fingerprints by the
State repository and entry of names and identifying data into the master
name index is 21 days, ranging from zero days in Delaware to up to 150
days in Texas. -71 [Ibid., p. 6 and table 12.]

The reporting time frames are often longer for "down stream" criminal
justice agencies. The average number of days between final trial court
dispositions and receipt of information by the State repository is 30 days,
ranging from less than 1 day in Colorado, Delaware, the District of
Columbia, and New Jersey to 110 days in Wisconsin. -72 [Ibid., p. 6 and
table 13. Table 13 is included in this report as appendix 16.] The average
time between receipt of final trial court dispositions by the State
repositories and entry of the dispositions into criminal history databases is
39 days or less. -73 [Ibid., p. 6.]

Access methods for authorized requestors

- Criminal justice inquiries

The majority of criminal justice inquiries to State repositories for criminal
history record information are received on-line from remote computer
terminals. On-line remote terminals provide direct access to the
repository's MNI for the purpose of performing searches and to the
criminal history files for the purpose of obtaining records. -74
["Characteristics and Operational Capabilities of State Criminal History
Repositories to Supply Prompt and Accurate Criminal History
Information," an unpublished report provided to BJS, April 25, 1989, by
Fisher-Orsagh Associates, Inc., p. 2. (This involved a survey and analysis
of 20 State central repositories conducted in 1988-1989.)]

The remote terminal may be physically located in a police department,
courthouse, corrections facility, or other criminal justice facility. In a
growing number of jurisdictions, remote terminals have been installed in
individual police cars, giving police officers access to criminal history
records in the field. Other criminal justice inquiries to the repositories
come via the telephone, walk-in, teletype, or mail.

- Noncriminal justice inquiries

While most noncriminal justice inquiries are mailed to State repositories, a
growing number are electronically transmitted because of the need for a
quick response so an important position can be filled. In California, for
example, background checks for school district employees must be
completed before positions can be filled. The requirement was instituted
following the 1997 on-campus murder of a high school student by a
substitute janitor and ex-felon whose background check was not
completed even though he had already been on the job for 10 days.
California installed livescan automated fingerprint systems in law
enforcement agencies throughout the State, in part to assist in mandated
pre-employment background checks, whose results are returned in 72
hours or less.

- Computer searches

Computer searches for criminal history records are usually made using the
subject's name, date of birth, sex and race. In certain cases, a search can be
conducted using only a name and birth date. These so-called "name
searches" can provide one of three results:
1. If there is an exact match or "hit," the criminal history file is provided to
the individual conducting the search. (If there is no exact hit, systems in
some States search for alternative spellings of the subject's name in a
process known as "fuzzing." In addition, some systems "fuzz" the subject's
date of birth by using the given date of birth plus or minus 1, 2, or more
years.)
2. If there are multiple "hits" due to similarities in names and birth dates,
the full identification segments of the candidate records can be retrieved
and reviewed to determine whether there is an identification. In addition,
some systems prompt the searcher to provide additional information to
narrow the search and increase the probability of a hit.
3. If no match is made, the inquirer is given a "no record" response, often
worded to indicate that no record could be found using the information
provided. 

If fingerprints are submitted with search requests, they may be used to
verify the results of name searches. If name searches fail to identify
matching records, fingerprints can be utilized to perform "technical"
searches of fingerprint files to determine whether the search subjects have
records under different names. Many States require that the subject's
fingerprints be submitted with all noncriminal justice access requests and
permit the release of records only when a fingerprint comparison
positively verifies that the record relates to the subject of the request. -75
[1999 Compendium, supra note 21, p. 10.]

Response times

Response times vary according to the purpose of the request and the
communication mode used to conduct the search. Customarily, queries for
criminal justice purposes receive a higher priority than noncriminal justice
searches and thus enjoy a significantly shorter response time.

As would be expected, on-line searches via remote terminals are the
fastest. The goal of the FBI's IAFIS, for example, is to respond to
identification verification requests within 2 hours when the requests
originate from an AFIS. (AFIS and other justice technology innovations
are discussed in detail in chapter IV.) The FBI seeks to respond to
name-only III searches in under a minute.

Similarly, statewide automated fingerprint systems can usually respond to
electronically transmitted requests in a matter of hours or less. Requests
also have been submitted by using facsimile (fax) machines or the
telephone (for name-only searches). Information verification requests
submitted by mail require the longest response time. However, fingerprint
images mailed on 10-print cards can now be digitized at the repositories by
card scanners, which significantly reduces the amount of time necessary to
classify the prints and to search for matches. Even mailed requests can be
returned in a week or so using this process. Identification verification
requests mailed to the FBI before automation required 2 months or longer
for a response. 

Section 4: The product of the repositories - the criminal history record

This section looks at the repository's product - the criminal history record -
and includes a discussion of:
* The accuracy and completeness (data quality) of criminal history
records.
* Proper linking of arrest and disposition data on records, which is one of
the most difficult data quality problems faced by repositories.
* The content and format of criminal history records, including differences
in content, format, and terminology.

Accuracy and completeness

The issue of the accuracy and completeness of criminal history records
was identified as an important concern during the earliest stages of the
development of a national criminal history record program. -76 [Project
SEARCH, Technical Report No. 2: Security and Privacy Considerations in
Criminal History Information Systems (Sacramento: California Crime
Technological Research Foundation, July 1970).] More recently, the data
quality issue has emerged as one of the most important and timely issues
confronting the criminal justice community.

As noted earlier, criminal history record information plays an essential role
at virtually every stage of the criminal justice process. For example:
* The ability of a police officer to obtain an arrest or search warrant may
turn on the subject's criminal history record.
* A prosecutor may or may not decide to formally charge an individual
based upon a past record.
* In many States, judges are required to consider a subject's criminal
history record in determining whether to grant or deny bail and in
sentencing a convicted offender.

If criminal history records are not accurate or if the record lacks a
disposition, the record cannot be used at all. If it is used, there is a
substantial risk that the user will make an incorrect or misguided decision.
In this regard, former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh once
posited that there is a "straight-line relationship" between high-quality
criminal history record information and the effectiveness of the Nation's
criminal justice system. -77 ["Keynote Address" in SEARCH Group, Inc.,
National Conference on Improving the Quality of Criminal History
Records: Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH Conference, NCJ 133532
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, January 1992) p. 6. Hereafter, Data Quality Conference.]

Accurate and complete criminal history information also protects the
privacy interests of individuals, ensuring that innocent people are not
mistakenly arrested and that inaccurate information is purged from an
individual's criminal history record. Finally, accurate criminal history
record information affects more than just the criminal justice community.
Increasingly, criminal history records are being used for a variety of
noncriminal justice purposes, including the screening of individuals prior
to public or private employment in sensitive positions and the screening of
persons seeking to purchase firearms.

In the view of most experts, inadequacies in the accuracy and
completeness of criminal history records is the single most serious
deficiency affecting the Nation's criminal history record information
systems.

Although SEARCH's 1999 survey found that in 32 States and the District
of Columbia, representing 64% of the Nation's population and 66% of its
criminal history records, 60% or more of arrests within the past 5 years
had final dispositions recorded, there is still widespread variation among
the States in the extent to which they maintain complete disposition data.
-78 [1999 Survey, supra note 6, p. 2 and table 1. See, appendix 9.] In the
survey, 10 State repositories reported that for arrests logged within the past
5 years, 90% or more have final dispositions recorded, while in another 10
States, final dispositions are available for 50% or less of the arrests logged
within the past 5 years. When all arrests in State criminal history files are
taken into account, the number of State central repositories with final
dispositions of 50% or less increases to 14. -79 [Ibid., table 1.]

For its part, about one-half of the State-reported criminal history records
maintained by the FBI's CJIS Division do not have dispositions.

While criminal justice officials generally agree that unreported arrests and
missing or incomplete disposition data constitute the principal data quality
problem afflicting criminal history record systems, the inaccuracy of arrest
and disposition data also is a problem.

Although there have been relatively few in-depth audits or reviews of the
accuracy of the information maintained by State and Federal criminal
history record repositories, most of those that have been conducted have
found unacceptable levels of inaccuracies. These audits have also shown,
however, that automating reporting processes and using automated edit
and review processes at the repositories to monitor data entry and to
prevent the entry of incomplete or questionable data have had a significant
favorable impact on the quality of the data entered into the repositories'
databases. Efforts to redesign data collection forms and to simplify and
standardize reporting forms, reporting procedures, and reporting
terminology have also been proven to have a favorable impact on data
accuracy. -80 [Data Quality Report, supra note 5, pp. 61-62.]

Linking of arrest and disposition data

Aside from the failure of criminal justice agencies to report complete and
accurate arrest and disposition data to the repositories, perhaps the most
difficult data quality problem faced by the repositories is the proper
linking of reported data to the appropriate individual and case, so that
arrest, prosecutor, court, and correctional data are linked to the appropriate
offender record and the appropriate case event on that record.

- Current practice

All of the States and the FBI assign unique numbers to identify individual
criminal offenders. These numbers - FBI numbers and State identification
(SID) numbers - are assigned upon an individual's first arrest -81 [The
State bureau of identification will assign a new SID number to a first
offender and, if the arrest is reported to the FBI, an FBI number will be
assigned and transmitted back to the State bureau so that the two numbers
can be associated on the offender's record at both the State and Federal
levels.] and are associated with the fingerprints taken in connection with
that arrest. The numbers are used thereafter to identify the individual
throughout his or her criminal career and to ensure that all criminal cases
in which he or she is involved are included on a single comprehensive
criminal history record.

Although this system works well, duplicate records for the same individual
sometimes are created because of the use of false names and identifiers by
arrested persons or because of clerical errors. These duplicate records are
usually detected, however, when the fingerprints for the newer cases are
processed, and the records are then consolidated.

A more difficult problem is encountered when the repositories try to match
reported prosecutor, court, and correctional dispositions with underlying
arrest and charging information for a particular case. Although it may be
relatively easy to identify the appropriate offender record, it may be
difficult to identify the appropriate case on that record to which the
reported disposition data should be matched. This is particularly
problematic when the individual has more than one active case or when
the reported disposition data for a particular case do not appear to match
the recorded charge data due to such factors as charge modifications by the
prosecutor or the acceptance of pleas to lesser charges. Failure to properly
link reported information can result in unrecorded dispositions or, less
commonly, the association of disposition data with the wrong case.

- Case-tracking systems

Some repositories apparently have successfully implemented data-linking
systems that use the subject's name in combination with the various case
identification numbers assigned by criminal justice agencies. However, the
few extensive repository audits that have been undertaken have shown that
accurate linking of data is best facilitated by systems that utilize unique
case-tracking numbers. -82 [For example, SEARCH Group, Inc., "Audit of
the Completeness and Accuracy of Criminal History Record Information
Maintained by the Maryland Criminal Justice Information System, Final
Report: Audit Results for Baltimore County and Baltimore City"
(unpublished, August 11, 1988).]

These case-tracking numbers are assigned at the arrest stage (or at the case
initiation stage, if the case is not originated by an arrest) and are included
with all reported data associated with that case as it is processed through
the criminal justice system.

The unique tracking numbers may be pre-printed on fingerprint cards and
disposition reporting forms or may be assigned by arresting agencies and
passed along with case papers. Whatever the approach used, it is important
that the unique tracking number be assigned at the time of arrest and that it
be attached to or recorded on the arrest fingerprint card forwarded to the
central repository. In this way, the tracking number can be tied to positive
identification of the arrested individual (and his FBI/SID number) and to
the charges stemming from the arrest.

In cases that begin by citation or summons (without arrest), the tracking
number may be assigned at the individual's first court appearance and the
individual's fingerprints may be taken at that time and submitted, with the
tracking number, to the repository.

These unique-number case-tracking systems have been shown to virtually
eliminate data linking problems. -83 [Ibid.] In automated systems,
particularly if reporting to the repository is automated, procedures can be
implemented to ensure that tracking numbers are accurately entered with
all reported disposition data. Data entry screens can include the tracking
number as a required data field and system edit procedures can reject
disposition data entries that do not include the number. An additional
safeguard is to include a check digit in the tracking number and to institute
system edit procedures to monitor accurate keying of the number.
Aside from facilitating data linking, unique tracking numbers also increase
the effectiveness of error notification procedures and can greatly facilitate
data quality auditing if the numbers are included on all source documents.

- Charge-tracking systems

Although unique-number case-tracking systems can virtually ensure that
disposition information is associated with the right case cycle, they do not
necessarily provide the basis for reliably associating particular dispositions
with particular charges and counts within a particular case.

Because many arrests result in multiple police charges, and because initial
police charges may be modified or augmented at later stages of the case
(for example, after prosecutor screening, grand jury action, or plea
bargaining), it is common for repositories to receive court dispositions that
do not match the charges initially reported by the police. Even though
these disposition data may be associated with the proper case, the criminal
history record may appear ambiguous as to whether the disposition data
are complete and accurate.

This problem has been successfully addressed in some States -84 [Illinois
is an example.] by implementing a refinement of the unique-number
tracking system, usually referred to as "charge-tracking."

Under this approach, each charge reported to the repository in a particular
case is assigned a number (01, 02, 03, for example), and these numbers, in
combination with the tracking number for the case, are used in subsequent
processing of the case for reporting disposition data to the repository. If,
for example, a charge is dropped or modified by the prosecutor, the action
is reported to the repository by charge number and shown on the criminal
history record. If the prosecutor or a grand jury adds new charges, the
charges are assigned new numbers and the information is reported to the
repository. Court disposition information is then reported by tracking
number and charge number, and a disposition is reported and recorded for
each charge. This enables the repository to account for each charge shown
on the criminal history record, thus eliminating a primary source of
ambiguity. 

Content and format

Although the FBI and SEARCH, among others, have proposed model
criminal history record formats over the years, adoption of a uniform
criminal history record format has never been made mandatory. Likewise,
no mandatory guidelines regarding the content of criminal history records
have ever been promulgated.

State and Federal repositories have been left to adopt their own record
formats and approaches concerning the types of offenses that should be
included on criminal history records and the types of information about
these offenses that should be included. Not surprisingly, this has resulted
in considerable diversity in the formats of the criminal history records
presently generated by the State repositories, as well as in the content of
these records.

- Differences in content

For example, while virtually all repositories attempt to obtain and record
information about all felony offenses, there is diversity concerning the
types of misdemeanor offenses, if any, included on criminal history
records. Moreover, there are considerable differences in the way State
penal codes designate particular offenses as felonies or misdemeanors.
Indeed, a few State codes do not even utilize these terms.

As pointed out in section 2 of this chapter, there is also diversity
concerning the types of case processing information obtained and recorded
by the repositories. While some repositories attempt to obtain little more
than arrest charges and final dispositions, other repositories obtain and
record other information, including bail and pretrial release data, pretrial
detention data, prosecutor charge modifications, and correctional
admission and release data.

- Differences in format and terminology

The formats in use vary so greatly that it is probably true that no two State
criminal history record formats are identical and many of them are not
even similar.

The formats vary from columnar designs with titles over values to various
forms of linear designs utilizing indentations or upper- and lower-case
type to distinguish titles from values. Some of the records may leave some
data fields blank while others display "unknown" in all spaces where
information is not provided.

While most of the formats utilize both literal descriptions, as well as State
penal code citations, to display arrest charges and disposition charges, the
terminology in use differs considerably from State to State. In some
formats, disposition charges may not match arrest charges in cases where
charges were modified or augmented after the police reported the initial
charges. And some formats show dispositions for all charges, while others
may 
show only one disposition even if there are multiple charges.

- Problems in deciphering records

As a result of these differences and deficiencies in format, content, and
terminology, many of the criminal history records currently circulated by
the repositories are difficult to decipher, particularly by noncriminal justice
users and out-of-State users.

While criminal justice personnel within a particular State usually become
familiar enough with the State repository's criminal history record format
to be able to interpret the records they receive, noncriminal justice users
often lack a sufficient familiarity with criminal justice case processing and
criminal justice terminology to be able to easily interpret and understand
the records made available to them. Indeed, criminal justice personnel
often have difficulty interpreting out-of-State records because of
differences in format and terminology.

The problem of the difficulty of deciphering out-of-State records has
become more serious in recent years with the advent of the III, a
national-level criminal history record system for servicing interstate and
Federal-State record searches and record exchanges. (The III system is
addressed in chapter V.)
In the past, the FBI, utilizing its files of Federal and State offenders, has
serviced most national searches. In servicing these requests, the FBI
incorporates the State offender information in its files into a standard
format, the FBI rap sheet, with which most criminal justice personnel in
the country have become familiar.

The new system, on the other hand, utilizes an "index-pointer" approach to
enable criminal justice personnel to obtain criminal history records directly
from State repositories in other States. As a result, criminal justice
personnel who have in the past received out-of-State offender information
in a single familiar format are now receiving such information in
numerous and diverse formats. Available evidence suggests that they are
finding these records difficult to interpret. At a 1992 national conference
on data quality issues, -85 [Data Quality Conference, supra note 77.]
officials from three States acknowledged during question-and-answer
periods that interpretation of out-of-State records has presented a problem
in the implementation of point-of-sale criminal record checks on gun
purchasers.

- Calls for reform

Not surprisingly, the problems outlined above have led to calls for reforms
in the content and format of criminal history records.

* The National Task Force on Increasing the Utility of the Criminal
History Record published its report in December 1995 following a series
of meetings during which it developed recommendations on improving the
content of criminal history records that were exchanged among the States.
-86 [SEARCH Group, Inc., Increasing the Utility of the Criminal History
Record: Report of the National Task Force, NCJ 156922 (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, December
1995). Hereafter, Rap Sheet Task Force Report.] The task force also
developed an easy-to-read, non-columnar model "rap sheet" format to
facilitate the exchange of criminal history information. -87 [Ibid., p. 23.
The Task Force's recommended model rap sheet is included as appendix
19.] During its deliberations, the task force determined that reforms were
needed to respond to the variety of formats, content, and terminology that
made it difficult for out-of-State users, and particularly noncriminal justice
users, to decipher the criminal history records they receive100 
Recognizing the need for improving the value of criminal history records,
the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, initiated the
National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) in 1995 to
improve the quality, timeliness, and immediate accessibility of criminal
histories and related records. Every State had received an award under this
program by the end of Fiscal Year 1998. The program disbursed more than
$314 million in direct grants to States during Fiscal Years 1995 through
2000. The NCHIP appropriation for Fiscal Year 2000 was $45 million.

* The Compendium of State Privacy and Security Legislation: 1999
Overview, prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics, and published by BJS in July 2000, reported
continuing problems with data accuracy and completeness despite
regulations in many States spelling out procedures for maintaining data
quality. -88 [1999 Compendium, supra note 21.] The Compendium also
found that III implementation was being hampered by the wide degree of
formats used by States to record criminal history information that other
States and noncriminal justice users found difficult to decipher. The
Compendium suggested that implementation of the National Crime
Prevention and Privacy Compact, which incorporates a dissemination
standard identical to the Federal standard applicable to the FBI's
Identification Division, could lead to increased standardization of criminal
history formats among the States.

* In 1999, then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno indicated that
incomplete criminal history records at the State level, particularly the
absence of dispositions, were responsible for the sale of firearms to
approximately 1,700 individuals who were barred from owning or
possessing weapons by the Brady Act. -89 [Craig Whitlock, "Delays in
FBI Checks Put 1,700 Guns in the Wrong Hands; System Failed to Detect
Banned Buyers Within Time Limit" Washington Post (June 25, 1999) p.
A01.] Attorney General Reno said the lack of dispositions forced the FBI
to contact State criminal history repositories to determine how a criminal
charge listed on an individual's rap sheet was disposed. The sales occurred
between November 1998, when the NICS went on-line, and mid-June
1999.* 

* Finally, the FBI and BJS have issued voluntary reporting standards that
include recommended minimum data elements for arrest and disposition
information reported to the State repositories and to the FBI. The standards
are discussed in more detail in chapter VI and the full text is set out as
appendix 20.

- Transmission specifications

Efforts have been under way since 1995 to develop a more readable and
uniform rap sheet along with specifications to permit the rap sheet's
electronic interstate transmission. Initially, the National Task Force of
Increasing the Utility of the Criminal History Record, comprised of
Federal, State, and local justice officials and related interest groups,
drafted a sample transmission format and an interim rap sheet presentation
format to facilitate this goal. -90 [Rap Sheet Task Force Report, supra note
86.]

The Joint Task Force on Rap Sheet Standardization began in 1996 to
transform the proposed formats into operational processes through which
the interstate electronic transfer of a uniform rap sheet could be
accomplished. The Joint Task Force has released several rap sheet
transmission specifications for testing, the most recent of which - 2.01,
based on eXtensible Markup Language (XML) - was in draft form in
mid-2001. -91 [The Joint Task Force's "Interstate Criminal History
Transmission Specification" is available at http://www.search.org.] The
Joint Task Force membership includes representative from the FBI; the
FBI's CJIS APB; the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications
System; SEARCH, The National Consortium of Justice Information and
Statistics; and state and local law enforcement agencies.



Chapter III: Overview of laws regulating criminal history record systems

This chapter summarizes relevant law applicable to criminal history
records, and focuses on two dominant criminal history record information
issues.

Section 1: Constitutional and common law doctrines, discusses the impact
of these doctrines on the collection, maintenance, or dissemination of
criminal history record information.

Section 2: Statutory and regulatory requirements, reviews the various
Federal and State statutes and regulations that govern the collection,
maintenance, and dissemination of criminal history record information.

Section 3: Two key issues - data quality and dissemination, discusses in
detail these dominant criminal history record issues. As for data quality,
how accurate and complete should criminal history record information be,
and how can legal directives and other strategies help improve data
quality? As for dissemination, how confidential should criminal history
record information be and, to the extent that the records are not
confidential, who should be permitted to see them and for what purposes?

Section 1: Constitutional and common law doctrines

Constitutional doctrines

The courts have ruled that constitutional privacy principles have little
impact on the collection, maintenance, or dissemination of criminal history
record information by criminal justice agencies. It is no exaggeration to
say that the U.S. Constitution is largely neutral with respect to the
dissemination of criminal history record information.

The Constitution does recognize a legitimate privacy interest in sensitive
personal information. -92 [Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977).] In 1976,
however, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Paul v. Davis, that
constitutional privacy principles do not limit dissemination by criminal
justice agencies of information about official acts, such as an arrest. -93
[424 U.S. 693, 713 (1976).]

In a statutory context, the Court has recognized a privacy interest in an
automated comprehensive criminal history record. -94 [Department of
Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749
(1989).] Most experts, however, think it is unlikely that this principle will
be applied in such a way as to permit the Constitution to pre-empt State
statutes that make criminal history record information available to the
public or to specified public users.

In a 1995 ruling with privacy implications, the Court rejected a violation
of privacy rights claim based on a marijuana-possession arrest that was
initiated when a Phoenix, Arizona, police officer accessed inaccurate
criminal history information through the laptop computer in his patrol car.
-95 [Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995), 115 S.Ct. 1185.] The Court
ruled 7-2 that the arresting officer acted in good faith, and that the
defendant's constitutional right to fourth amendment "exclusionary rule"
protection did not apply because the court employee responsible for the
misinformation's presence had no stake in the criminal proceedings that
followed.

Common law doctrines

Common law privacy doctrines have also proven to be largely irrelevant to
the handling of criminal history record information. Sovereign immunity,
civil and official immunity, and the need to show tangible harm arising
from the alleged misuse of the criminal history records pose
insurmountable obstacles to most common law actions by record subjects.
-96 [Intergovernmental Relations Standing Committee, Technical
Memorandum No. 12: Criminal Justice Information: Perspectives on
Liability (Sacramento: SEARCH Group Inc., August 1977) pp. 5-20.
Robert R. Belair and Paul L. Woodard, Case Law Digest: Court Decisions
on the Handling of Criminal History Records - Summaries and Analysis
(Sacramento: SEARCH Group Inc., July 1981).]

Section 2: Statutory and regulatory requirements

The collection, maintenance, and dissemination of criminal history record
information are governed by a mosaic of Federal and State statutes and
regulations.

Federal statutes and regulations

At the Federal level, the Congress by law and the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) by regulation have established minimum requirements for
the management of criminal history record systems, leaving it to the States
to develop more specific laws and policies to attempt to ensure that State
criminal history records are complete, accurate, easily accessible to lawful
users, and held in confidence with respect to the public and other
authorized users.

- Statutes

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) basic statutory authority to
maintain criminal history records is found in Section 534 of Title 28 of the
United States Code. Specifically, subsections (a)(1) and (a)(4) authorize
the Attorney General to "acquire, collect, classify and preserve
identification, criminal identification, crime and other records" and to
"exchange such records and information with, and for the official use of,
authorized officials of the Federal Government, the States, cities and penal
and other institutions." -97 [Other Federal laws and regulations
authorizing the Attorney General to disseminate criminal history records
are set out in chapter V, footnote 181.]

During the early 1970s, at a time when public concern about privacy,
automation, and governmental and private information systems was
running high, the Congress considered several legislative proposals that
would have imposed a uniform national information management scheme
for State and local handling of criminal history record information.

Although the Congress never enacted comprehensive legislation, it did
enact a 1973 amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968, the so-called Kennedy Amendment, -98 [Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.  3789g(b), as amended
by  524(b) of the Crime Control Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-83, 87 Stat.
197 (1973).] providing that all criminal history record information
collected, maintained, or disseminated by State and local criminal justice
agencies with financial support made available under the Act must be
complete and secure, must be made available for review and challenge by
record subjects, and must be used only for law enforcement and other
lawful purposes.

- Regulations

In 1976, the U.S. DOJ's Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
(LEAA) issued comprehensive regulations to implement the amendment.
Although the regulations did not expressly require the States to establish
central criminal history record repositories, the commentary published
with the regulations noted that the accuracy and completeness standards
were written with State central repositories in mind. Indeed, provisions
dealing with completeness state that complete records "should" be
maintained in State central repositories. -99 [28 C.F.R.  20.21(a)(1).]

State statutes and regulations

As intended, the LEAA regulations proved instrumental in stimulating the
States to enact their own statutes dealing with criminal history records,
including the establishment of State central repositories.

Approximately one-half of the States have enacted comprehensive
criminal history record statutes and all of the other States have enacted
laws dealing with at least some aspects of criminal history records. Many
of these laws impose requirements that are stricter than the requirements in
the LEAA regulations. -100 [1999 Compendium, supra note 21, p. 4.]

Virtually all States have enacted legislation governing at least the
dissemination of criminal history records. The overwhelming majority of
State laws follow the scheme of the Federal LEAA regulations, which
distinguish between information referring to convictions and current
arrests on the one hand, and nonconviction data on the other.
Nonconviction information refers to arrests that are more than 1 year old
and are without recorded dispositions or that have dispositions favorable
to the accused, such as when the police or prosecutor drop the charges or
when the accused is acquitted at trial. 
A majority of States now permit access to some criminal history records
by at least some types of noncriminal justice agencies and private entities
to screen applicants for security clearances, licensing, and for suitability
for sensitive positions in security and child and elder care.

Each State permits subjects to review their records and to institute
procedures to correct errors. Virtually all States require the fingerprinting
of persons arrested for serious offenses and the submission of such
fingerprints to the State repository and, in addition, most of the States have
statutory or regulatory provisions requiring criminal justice agencies to
report disposition information to the repository.

Section 3: Two key issues - data quality and dissemination

In the years since the issuance of the LEAA regulations, State legislative
activity, as well as media and public policy debate, have focused on two
key issues with respect to criminal history record information: data quality
and dissemination.

This section discusses these two issues in more detail, including a look at:
* Federal data quality regulations.
* State laws and strategies designed to improve data quality, such as
mandatory reporting requirements, transaction log requirements, and other
data quality safeguards.
* Dissemination of criminal history records for criminal justice and
noncriminal justice purposes; dissemination trends; and statutory
dissemination policies at the beginning of the 21st century.

Federal data quality regulations

As noted previously, data quality was one of the primary concerns
motivating passage of the Kennedy Amendment in 1973 and the
subsequent adoption of the LEAA regulations. Reflecting sensitivity to the
wide disparity in the quality of records in State criminal history record
systems, the Kennedy Amendment provides that State criminal history
records must be complete and accurate, but does not set specific data
quality standards. The LEAA regulations provide somewhat more specific
guidance to the States, although the regulations still leave the States wide
discretion to set their own standards by State legislation and regulations.

Specifically, the Federal regulations require all covered criminal justice
agencies to implement operational procedures designed to ensure that
criminal history record information is complete and accurate. -101 [28
C.F.R.  20.21(a).]

- Completeness provisions

To be complete, the regulations state that a record of an arrest must
contain information concerning any disposition occurring within the State
within 90 days after the disposition has occurred. In an effort to promote
the dissemination of complete and up-to-date criminal history records, the
regulations also require that State and local agencies must query the State
central repository prior to disseminating any criminal history information
to ensure that the agency has the most recent disposition data available.
-102 [28 C.F.R.  20.21(a)(1). The regulations provide two exceptions
where prior contact with the State central repository is not necessary: (1)
when the agency is sure that the criminal history information is the most
recent available; or (2) when time is of the essence and the repository is
incapable of responding within the necessary time period.]

- Accuracy provisions

The regulations address accuracy by defining the term literally to mean,
"no record containing criminal history information shall contain erroneous
information." -103 [28 C.F.R.  20.21(a)(2).] To promote accuracy, two
types of operational procedures are required:
* A process of data collection, entry, storage, and systematic audit that will
minimize the possibility of recording or storing inaccurate information.
* Procedures for sending notices of corrections to all criminal justice
agencies known to have received inaccurate information of a material
nature.

As a practical matter, this provision requires agencies to maintain
dissemination logbooks so that corrections can be sent to individuals who
have received incorrect information. -104 [28 C.F.R.  20.] Finally, the
regulations require agencies to give subjects an opportunity to review their
criminal history records and to establish procedures for correcting
erroneous information. -105 [28 C.F.R.  20.21(g).]

State data quality laws and strategies

The Federal LEAA regulations had the intended effect of prompting the
States to adopt laws to ensure the accuracy and completeness of criminal
history records. Prior to adoption of the regulations in 1974, only 14 States
had enacted any type of statutory data quality safeguards. Fifty-two States
have now adopted laws that deal with some aspect of data quality. -106
[The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. Every State except the Virgin Islands has enacted a
data quality statute.] These laws and implementing regulations are
discussed in the following sections.

- Mandatory reporting requirements

An important element of virtually all State data quality laws is mandatory
arrest and disposition reporting. In all, 52 jurisdictions, as a matter of
statute, regulation, or established practice, require State and local agencies
to report arrest and disposition data to the State central repository for all
serious offenses (usually felonies and specified serious misdemeanors).
Required information generally includes an arrest subject's name and
identification information; arrest event information (for example, date,
place of arrest); arrest charges; and inked fingerprint impressions.
Fingerprint cards with space for the required textual information were
once the most common method for transmitting this information to State
criminal history repositories, but a growing number of justice agencies are
now utilizing automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS) to
supply State repositories with the required data. All 50 U.S. States had
access to AFIS technology at the end of the 1990s. Some States relied
almost exclusively on electronically transmitted data, while others
installed automated systems in metropolitan areas while continuing to use
fingerprint cards that were mailed by rural jurisdictions to State
repositories.

- Transaction log requirements

The second most common form of statutory data quality safeguard, after
mandatory arrest and disposition reporting requirements, is transaction log
requirements. Thirty-five States have enacted statutes requiring criminal
justice agencies to maintain logs identifying recipients of criminal history
record information and the dates of the disseminations. -107 [1999
Compendium, p. 43. These 35 States are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and
Wyoming.] Twenty-three of the 35 States include detailed and specific
transaction log requirements. -108 [Ibid, p. 7.]

- Other requirements

Many States have also adopted a variety of other statutory safeguards:

* 35 States require the State central repository to conduct some type of
data quality audits. -109 [Ibid. These 35 States are: Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.]

* 28 States require the repositories to audit State and local criminal justice
agencies that submit records to the repository. -110 [Ibid. These 28 States
are: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.]

* 17 States require the repository to conduct an annual in-house audit.
-111 [Ibid. These 17 States are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. (Alaska requires in-house audits every 2
years. Arizona's law requires periodic in-house audits.)]

* 15 States require both an in-house repository audit and audits of
contributing agencies. -112 [Ibid. These 15 States are: Alaska, Arizona,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.]

Statutes in 13 States require the repository to implement a delinquent
disposition monitoring system (for example, a system designed to
periodically identify arrest entries for which dispositions are probably
available but not reported). -113 [Ibid. These 13 States are: Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Washington.] Six States impose
training requirements on personnel involved in entering data into criminal
history record systems. -114 [Ibid. These 6 States are: Alabama, Alaska,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Wyoming.] Seven States have adopted
statutory provisions that address the use of automated programs to provide
systematic editing procedures for the purpose of detecting missing or
nonconforming data. -115 [Ibid, pp. 7-8. These 7 States are: Alaska,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Virginia.]

- Data quality strategies

In addition to statutory requirements, State central repositories report that
they have voluntarily employed a number of data quality improvement
strategies, even though those strategies are not mandated by statute. For
example, 26 State repositories and the District of Columbia report that
they are currently using a delinquent disposition monitoring system that
generates a list of arrests with no dispositions. Repositories in 31 States
and the District of Columbia make field visits to contributing agencies.
Twenty-nine State repositories send form letters indicating data quality
problems, and repositories in 38 States, the District of Columbia, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands telephone contributing agencies to discuss problems.
-116 [1999 Survey, supra note 6, pp. 7-8, and table 15.] Further,
repositories in 38 jurisdictions are using some type of tracking number
system to link disposition and charge information. -117 [Ibid., p. 7 and
table 16. Table 16 is included in this report as appendix 17.] In addition,
23 jurisdictions have undergone data quality audits in the past 5 years,
-118 [Ibid., p. 8 and table 20. Table 20 is included in this report as
appendix 18.] and 32 States and the District of Columbia have conducted
audits of agencies that contribute criminal history information to the
repository or obtain information from the repository. -119 [Ibid., p. 8 and
table 19.]

Dissemination of criminal history record information

There is wide agreement, as a policy matter, about the importance and the
need for the highest possible quality of criminal history record
information. There is far less agreement as a policy matter with respect to
the other issue that has dominated criminal history record information
policy - the purposes for which criminal history record information should
be disseminated.

- Dissemination for criminal justice purposes

From the outset, it has been recognized that criminal history record
information should be available for virtually all purposes related to law
enforcement and the administration of criminal justice. Indeed, the
criminal history record owes its creation to the recognition that such a
record would be of critical importance for criminal justice decisionmaking.

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the availability and
use of criminal history record information within the criminal justice
community for a wide variety of criminal justice purposes. These purposes
include using criminal history record information for:
* Bail and other pretrial determinations.
* Prosecution, including decisions about upgrading charges.
* The enhancement of sentences, including, in particular, enhancement
with respect to chronic offenders.
* Preparing pre-sentence reports and making probation eligibility
decisions.
* Correctional classification purposes.
* Parole eligibility determinations.

As noted in chapter I, numerous State statutes have been adopted in recent
years that not only reflect these trends but, in fact, require criminal justice
decisionmakers to take criminal history record information into account.
-120 [Statutes Report, supra note 8, tables 1-10. Selected tables from the
Statutes Report are set out in this report as appendixes 1-7.]

- Dissemination for noncriminal justice purposes

Use of criminal history record information for noncriminal justice
purposes, however, has been a much more problematic matter. In recent
years, many public and private noncriminal justice agencies have made
persuasive arguments for access to these records. Governmental agencies
and, in particular, national security agencies and the military services have
argued that it is essential that they be able to obtain criminal history
information for use in making decisions about eligibility for military
service, for security clearances, and for access to sensitive facilities.

Responding to these needs, the Congress in 1985 enacted the Security
Clearance Information Act (SCIA), which requires State and local criminal
justice agencies to release criminal history record information to certain
Federal agencies for national security background checks. -121 [Pub. L.
No. 99-169, codified in part at 5 U.S.C.  9101.]

Private employers have also argued persuasively that they should be
entitled to obtain criminal history record information for background
checks on prospective employees who will be placed in sensitive positions
handling substantial amounts of money or other valuable assets or, even
more importantly, caring for vulnerable populations, such as children or
elderly persons. In this connection, the Congress passed legislation in the
1980s permitting Federally held criminal history record information to be
released for employment background checks for positions at certain kinds
of banking institutions and securities organizations. -122 [15 U.S.C. 
78q(f)(2). Today, numerous States permit or require the release of criminal
history information for background checks for individuals who work with
children. See, Robert R. Belair, Public Access to Criminal History Record
Information, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 111458
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, November 1988) p. 29. See also, Pub. L. 92-544, 86 Stat. 1109,
which authorizes the FBI to disseminate criminal history records to State
and local governments for employment and licensing purposes when
authorized by a State statute and approved by the U.S. Attorney General
(October 25, 1972).]

Landlords have also argued for access to criminal history record
information for background checks of employees. Indeed, both employers
and landlords have been found liable under the negligent hiring doctrine
for failing to check available criminal history data in cases where the
putative subjects of those checks subsequently engaged in destructive and
unlawful behavior that might have been predicted and avoided had a
background check been completed. -123 [Robert R. Belair and Gary R.
Cooper, Privacy and the Private Employer, Criminal Justice Information
Policy series (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, December 1981) pp. 47-52.] Along these lines, the
Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 provided Public
Housing Authorities with access to National Crime Information Center
records to conduct criminal history background checks on applicants for
public housing. -124 [Pub. L. No. 104-120.]

An important step to providing better quality criminal history records for
noncriminal justice purposes was achieved in 1998 when Congress passed
the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 (CITA) in which was
embodied the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact. -125 [42
U.S.C.  14601. The Compact text and a section-by-section analysis is
included as appendix 21.] The compact established for the first time a
series of procedures and requirements for States to follow when accessing
the criminal history records of other States for noncriminal justice checks.
It eliminated the need to maintain duplicate criminal history records at the
State and Federal levels. More importantly, it facilitated access to
State-level criminal history records, which are typically more current, and
therefore more accurate, than those maintained at the Federal level.

The compact may also help standardize the variety of formats States use to
report criminal history information to one another. Previously, justice
officials in one State found it difficult to decipher the presentation of
codes and other information on another State's rap sheet. This difficulty
was even more pronounced for noncriminal justice agencies and
organizations that obtained criminal history information to conduct
background checks and to determine employment suitability. 

Another tool to help improve the comprehension of criminal history
records is the "Interstate Criminal History Transmission Specification,"
developed by a task force of Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agency representatives and related interest groups. The transmission
specification is designed to merge separate segments of a multi-State rap
sheet into a single rap sheet in time sequence and absent redundant data.
Several versions of the specification have been released for testing. The
most recent version, numbered 2.01 and based on eXtensible Markup
Language (XML), was still in draft form in mid-2001. -126 [The draft
transmission specification is available at http://www.search.org.]

Also embodied in CITA was the Volunteers for Children Act, which
amended the National Child Protection Act of 1993 -127 [42 U.S.C.
5119a.] to authorize organizations that deal with children, the elderly, and
the disabled to request authorized State agencies to conduct national
fingerprint-based checks of volunteers or employees even if the State had
not implemented procedures to conduct such searches.

Some proponents of more open access to criminal history records have
argued that inasmuch as an arrest and any subsequent adjudication are
public events, the records of those events, particularly when maintained by
governmental agencies at public expense, should be available to the public
without regard to the requestor's identity or need for the record. Indeed, at
least a few States, including Florida, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin,
have adopted policies under which the public can obtain virtually all
criminal history record information for almost any purpose. Initial studies
indicate that these "open record" policies have not resulted in significant
privacy violations or other concerns. -128 [Paul L. Woodard, A Florida
Case Study - Availability of Criminal History Records: The Effect of an
Open Records Policy (Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc., March 1990).]

On the other hand, advocates of stricter dissemination limits argue that
criminal history record information can be and is used to stigmatize and
harm offenders who are trying to rehabilitate themselves and re-enter
society. These advocates also argue that release of this kind of information
has a disproportionately adverse impact on minorities and the young.
Furthermore, advocates point to the fact that many criminal history records
are inaccurate or incomplete or no longer timely and, for all of these
reasons, fail to present an accurate and representative image of the record
subject. Advocates argue that, at a minimum, only conviction record
information should be made available for noncriminal justice purposes and
that arrest information without a recorded disposition should be withheld
in deference to the presumption of innocence. -129 [Technical Report No.
13: Standards for Security and Privacy of Criminal History Record
Information, third edition (Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc., July 1988)
pp. 2-5.]

- Dissemination trends

In the decade from the mid-1960s through the mid-1970s, most experts felt
that dissemination trends had moved in the direction of increased
confidentiality and the imposition of restrictions upon the release of
criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes. However, as
mentioned earlier, congressional efforts in the early 1970s to set
nationwide standards for the dissemination of criminal history records for
noncriminal justice purposes failed.

Similarly, the LEAA regulations refrained from attempting to establish a
uniform national standard for noncriminal justice access. Rather, the
regulations gave State legislatures and State executive agencies broad
authority to set their own standards governing the dissemination of
criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes. Specifically, the
regulations authorized noncriminal justice access if "authorized by statute,
ordinance, executive order, or court rule, decision or order as construed by
appropriate State or local officials or agencies." -130 [28 C.F.R. 
20.21(b)(2).] The States initially used this flexibility to enact legislation
that, for the most part, restricted private-sector access to criminal history
records and particularly to nonconviction records. -131 [1999
Compendium, supra note 21, p. 4.]

This trend reversed in the mid-1970s. Most observers cite the U.S.
Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Paul v. Davis -132 [424 U.S. 693
(1976).] as providing impetus for judicial and, in particular, statutory
efforts to loosen restrictions on access to criminal history records. In that
case, the Court rejected a record subject's claim that a law enforcement
agency's public dissemination of a flyer that included his name and
photograph and identified him as an active shoplifter violated his
constitutional right of privacy. The Court dismissed the notion that an
arrest record is private information:

"[Davis] claims constitutional protection against the disclosure of the fact
of his arrest on a shoplifting charge. His claim is based not upon any
challenge to the State's ability to restrict his freedom of action in a sphere
contended to be private, but instead on a claim that the State may not
publicize a record of an official act such as an arrest. None of our
substantive privacy decisions hold this or anything like this, and we
decline to enlarge them in this manner." -133 [Ibid., at 713.]

For the 15 years following this decision, the trend in both judicial
decisions and statutory enactments was decidedly in the direction of
making criminal history record information more available to the private
sector and even to the public. 

As the 1990s started, there were signs that the pendulum was swinging
again in the direction of privacy. Once again the bellwether was a U.S.
Supreme Court decision. In 1989, in Department of Justice v. Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press, -134 [489 U.S. 749 (1989).] the
Court held that an individual has a cognizable privacy interest in his
criminal history record information, even though all of the constituent
parts of the record may be public information. The Court reasoned that the
compilation of an entire history of an individual's criminal activity, and, in
particular, its automation in a format that makes the record easily
retrievable, vastly increases the privacy risk to the record subject and made
it appropriate to extend privacy protections to the record.

At the start of the 1990s, polling data also indicated that privacy concerns
were at historically high levels. -135 [Louis Harris & Associates, Inc., and
Alan F. Westin, The Equifax Report on Consumers in the Information Age
(Atlanta, Ga.: Louis Harris & Associates, 1990) p. 5.] In addition, in the
early 1990s, serious congressional consideration was given to several
pieces of Federal legislation that restricted access to previously public
record information, such as motor vehicle records held by State
departments of motor vehicles and change-of-address information
maintained by the U.S. Postal Service.

This trend toward privacy began to reverse course in the mid-1990s as
greater access to criminal history records was provided at both the State
and Federal levels. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, -136
[Pub. L. No. 103-159.] approved by Congress in November 1993,
facilitated national criminal history checks to determine whether a
potential gun purchaser's criminal background prohibited the purchaser
from owning or possessing a firearm. Also in 1993, Congress approved the
National Child Protection Act, -137 [42 U.S.C. 5119a.] which permits
noncriminal organizations that serve children, the elderly, and the disabled
to request State agencies to conduct national criminal history background
checks of potential employees or volunteers.

As noted earlier, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1995 allowed the use of
evidence in a drug prosecution, even though the evidence was obtained
through the use of inaccurate computerized criminal history information.
-138 [Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995).] The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, based in Cincinnati, Ohio, ruled in 1996 in favor of
broader dissemination of criminal history information in a privacy case
involving the mug shots of eight individuals under indictment and
awaiting trial on Federal charges. -139 [73 F. 3d 93 (6th Cir.).] In that
case, a request by the Detroit Free Press to obtain the mug shots was
denied by the U.S. DOJ's Marshals Service on the grounds that release of
the photographs would violate the personal privacy interests of the
criminal defendants. The Free Press successfully sued the DOJ under the
Freedom of Information Act.

The Topeka Capital-Journal newspaper reported in 1998 that Kansas had
implemented 25 new statutory provisions in the past decade requiring or
allowing criminal history background checks for certain individuals. -140
[Roger Myers, "Background inquiries by the State increasing," Topeka
Capital-Journal, Copyright 1998. Available at
http://www.cjon-line.com/stories /042398/cyb_background.shtml.]
According to the Capital-Journal, the number of criminal history
background checks conducted in Kansas rose slightly from 496,669 in
1992 to 503,960 in 1997. -141 [Ibid.] Also noted previously, Congress
approved the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, embodied
in the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998, -142 [42 U.S.C. 
14601.] which provided a series of procedures and requirements to access
State-level criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes.

Still, the always-volatile nature of privacy expectations and the potential
for another trend shift was demonstrated in March 1999 when the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled against the
Times-Picayune Publishing Corporation, publisher of the New Orleans
Times-Picayune newspaper, which sought the mug shot of a prominent
businessman who had pleaded guilty to charges filed in connection with a
highly publicized corruption scandal involving prominent individuals in
Louisiana. -143 [37 F. Supp. 2d 472.] The Court ruled in favor of the U.S.
Marshals Service, which cited a Freedom of Information Act exemption
clause -144 [5 U.S.C.  552(b)(7)(C).] in its refusal to provide the mug
shot. 

To further demonstrate the dichotomy in U.S. privacy expectations at the
beginning of the 21st century, the U.S. Marshals Service provides mug
shots in response to media requests only in the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, home of the Detroit Free Press
ruling, which reviews appeals from Federal district courts in Kentucky,
Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. -145 [Source: Mr. Bill Dempsey, Staff
Public Information Officer, U.S. Marshals Service.] The Marshals Service
routinely denies mug shot requests made by media organizations in all
other circuit court jurisdictions in the United States.

In another decision with constitutional overtones, the U.S. Supreme Court
on December 7, 1999, ruled 7-2 in favor of a California law that prohibited
the dissemination of police record information solely for commercial
purposes, reversing two lower court rulings that found the law invalid
under the first amendment.

In Los Angeles Police Dept. v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., -146
[120 S.Ct. 483; 145 L. Ed. 2d 451; 28 Media L.Rep. 1041.] the Court
considered the validity of California Government Code  6254, which was
amended effective July 1, 1996, to limit public access to the addresses of
individuals arrested for crimes and of crime victims.

While the amended law permitted dissemination of the addresses to those
who declared, under penalty of perjury, that the information would be used
for scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purposes, or by
licensed private investigators, it could not be used directly or indirectly to
sell a product or service.

United Reporting Service, a company that provided the names of recently
arrested individuals to attorneys, insurance companies, drug and alcohol
counselors, driving schools, and others for mass business solicitation
mailings, challenged the constitutionality of the law prior to its effective
date.

Both a Federal district court and a Federal appeals court agreed that the
law violated United Reporting's commercial free speech rights. The
Supreme Court heard arguments in October 1999. 

The petitioner claimed that the lower courts applied the wrong analysis
when examining the law under the Supreme Court's commercial speech
doctrine, arguing that the statute was no more than an access restriction
that did not restrict speech. The respondent countered that the law was
designed to prohibit what the State considered unsavory solicitation.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had earlier agreed with
the United Reporting Publishing Corp., ruling that the section of the
California Government Code in question was, indeed, unconstitutional.
-147 [146 F. 3d 1133.] In doing so, the court concurred with Fifth and
Eleventh circuit appeals courts, which struck down similar statutes in
Texas and Georgia, and diverged from the supreme courts of Louisiana
and South Carolina, which upheld similar statutes in those States.

- Statutory dissemination policies in the 21st century

Despite a fair amount of variance, most State statutory dissemination
schemes now share at least two common elements:

1. A majority of States now permit access to criminal history records for
some compelling noncriminal justice purposes, including, for instance,
background screening by licensing boards and private employers of
applicants for sensitive positions, such as those involving child care,
public safety, supervision of property, or fiduciary responsibilities. -148
[1999 Compendium, supra note 21, p. 8.]

2. Most States continue to treat conviction records differently from
nonconviction records.

Customarily, States place few or no restrictions on the dissemination of
conviction records, and a number of States also do not restrict the
dissemination of open arrest records less than 1 year old. Nonconviction
records, however, including records of cases with no disposition recorded
after the passage of a year or longer, are restricted in most States and in
some States may not be disseminated at all for noncriminal justice
purposes or may be disseminated only for limited and specifically defined
purposes. -149 [Ibid., p. 9.] However, as noted previously, there are signs
that this practice is also beginning to change.



Chapter IV: The evolution of information technology

The evolution of information technology, the creation of key electronic
information exchange standards, the development of security strategies
that allow the Internet transfer of criminal history records, and policy
innovations are among the factors that are significantly transforming the
Nation's criminal history environment as the 21st century dawns.

This chapter briefly describes some of the technological innovations and
information management strategies now in use or available to criminal
history repositories to improve record quality and the ability to exchange
information. They include:

Section 1: Automated reporting to the repositories, which speeds the
processing of arrest and disposition information and its reporting to the
criminal history repository. 

Section 2: Advances in fingerprint technology, which allow criminal
history repositories to obtain higher quality fingerprints and to respond to
identification verification requests in a matter of hours while fulfilling
responsibilities to share information with other justice entities.

Section 3: Justice system integration, which provides higher quality
criminal history records by reducing redundant data entry. Integration
facilitates the transfer of information to agencies participating in the
criminal justice process and, ultimately, to the criminal history repository.
It also allows information sharing with appropriate noncriminal justice
entities such as social service agencies.

Section 4: Data warehousing tools, which program incoming data and
transform existing data so they can be used in detailed research, analysis,
and planning.

Section 5: Data exchange standards, which allow information sharing
among justice agencies using equipment manufactured by different
vendors.

Section 6: Internet security strategies, which may ultimately allow the
wide-scale transfer of criminal history information on the Internet,
reducing dependence on costly dedicated networks and improving data
quality at the repository level by providing cost-effective on-line access to
smaller justice agencies.

Section 7: Policy innovations, which allow justice entities to maximize the
capabilities of emerging information technologies and systems by
developing recognized policies and requirements for system operation.
Policy compliance increases trust in a system, which attracts more justice
participants.

Background

An observation on the evolution of computer memory chips first made by
Intel Corporation founder Gordon Moore in 1965 has remained
remarkably consistent. Moore noted that each new generation of chip or
microprocessor that appeared on the market was released 18 to 24 months
after its predecessor and contained twice as much memory. This
observation has come to be known as Moore's Law.

The world's first commercial microprocessor - Intel's 4004, released in
November 1971 - contained 2,300 transistors and could perform about
60,000 calculations per second. -150 [Source:
http://www.intel.com/education /teachtech/learning/mpuworks
/index.htm.] Intel's Pentium II Processor, released in 1997, contained 7.5
million transistors and could perform hundreds of millions of calculations
per second. -151 [Source: http://developer.intel.com/design
/PentiumII/prodbref/.] Intel's 9.5 million-transistor Pentium III Processor,
released in May 1999, was 53% to 108% faster than its predecessor,
depending on the specifications used to test its performance. -152 [Source:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/dp051799.htm.] Intel's
Pentium 4 Processor, introduced in November 2000 and capable of
performing up to a billion and a half calculations per second, delivered
new levels of performance in processing audio, video, and graphics
applications, and in utilizing Internet technologies. -153 [Source:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/dp112000.htm.]

These dramatic advances in computing power made possible not only the
swift exchange of information, but also the use and transfer of multimedia
applications such as sounds and intricate graphics. New technological
capabilities, combined with declining computer prices prompted in part by
competition among chip manufacturers and other factors, sparked
tremendous interest in information technology throughout the United
States in the 1990s. 

A U.S. Commerce Department report found that, as of August 2000, more
than 41% of all American homes were connected to the Internet, and more
than one-half of all American homes contained a computer. -154 [Falling
Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Commerce, October 2000). Available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/.] The report also found
that there were 116.5 million Americans on-line in some location in
August 2000, 31.9 million more than there were just 20 months earlier.
-155 [Ibid.] An earlier Commerce Department report found that the
Internet passed the 50-million-user mark just 4 years after its introduction.
Television was available for 13 years and radio for 38 years before they
attracted that many users. -156 [Emerging Digital Economy (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1998). available at
http://www.ecommerce.gov/viewhtml.htm.]

The U.S. business community rushed to incorporate new information
technologies to provide on-line access to a variety of goods, such as books,
software, compact disks, and airline tickets, and services, such as banking
and bill paying. U.S. justice agencies were equally eager to join the
information revolution to take advantage of the administrative benefits and
opportunities for improved performance made possible by emerging
technologies.

Many agencies automated information processing and services, and a
growing number began efforts to integrate their information systems with
those of other justice entities. Efforts also took place to define acceptable
standards to break down the walls that prevented information exchanges
among different vendors' systems, and to establish policies to govern the
electronic transfer of criminal history data. 

While information technology grew increasingly sophisticated, a series of
high-profile sex offenses stoked public interest in programs to monitor
convicted sex offenders released into the community and to check the
backgrounds of individuals who were hired to work in sensitive positions,
including security, and child and elder care. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) reported that more than one-half of the 12,826,933
10-print fingerprint cards submitted to the Bureau in 1997 were for
noncriminal justice background checks. -157 [Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) Program Overview, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, March 24, 1998.]

The increased background-check duties strained the capacity of many
repositories to meet their responsibilities. Agencies mailing fingerprint
cards to the FBI in March 1998, for example, waited an average of 72 days
for a response. Organizations submitting prints for background checks
waited an average of 24 days for a response. Meanwhile, a growing
backlog of unprocessed prints surpassed 750,000. -158 [Ibid.]

Increasingly, criminal history repositories looked to technology to meet the
growing demand for their services. Ten States reported fully automated
criminal history record files and master name indexes in 1989, and 47
States and the District of Columbia had automated some records in either
the criminal history record file or master name index. -159 [Survey Report,
supra note 37, p. 1.] By 1999, 21 States had fully automated files and
indexes, and all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had
automated at least some records in their criminal history record files. -160
[1999 Survey, supra note 6, tables 1 and 2. Tables 1 and 2 are included in
this report as appendixes 9 and 11, respectively.]

Meanwhile, growing public concerns over safety prompted the Federal
government to fund a variety of programs to help justice agencies fight
crime. Criminal history repositories benefited from programs such as the
National Criminal History Improvement Program and the Crime
Identification Technology Act of 1998, which were designed to increase
the utility and accessibility of criminal history records.

The confluence of improved information technology, Federal funding, and
the desire to meet increased expectations for public safety are combining
to significantly change the criminal history environment as the 21st
century begins. This chapter examines some of the technologies,
standards, and policies that have been implemented in recent years to
facilitate the accumulation and exchange of criminal history information.

Section 1: Automated reporting to the repositories

Although most criminal justice agencies have terminal access to their State
repositories and to FBI files to conduct name searches and to obtain
automated records, many agencies still use paper documents such as
fingerprint cards and disposition forms to report case processing
information to the repositories and to the FBI. Increasingly, however,
computer technology is being used to speed the reporting process and save
resources.

This section discusses methods for:
* Automated arrest reporting.
* Automated disposition reporting.

Automated arrest reporting

- Problems with manual reporting

Historically, arrest information -161 [This includes subject identification
information, as well as information specific to the arrest event and the
arrest charges.] has been reported to State repositories and to the FBI on
fingerprint cards. In addition to spaces for inked fingerprint impressions,
these cards contain spaces for typing or writing in textual information.
Many State laws require fingerprint cards for reportable offenses to be
submitted to the repositories within 24 to 48 hours after arrests, while
most other States require submission "promptly" or "without undue delay."

Even where these laws are complied with, however, mailing time and
normal processing time at the repository may mean that arrest information
is not entered into the repository's database until a week or more after the
arrests. In addition to the delay, the manual processing of fingerprint cards
and the entry of arrest information by repository personnel is a significant
drain on repository resources.

- Automation aids in arrest reporting

Many high-volume law enforcement agencies throughout the country have
implemented automated information management systems, including
automated booking components. Because information entered into these
systems for local agency use typically includes all arrest information
required by the State repository for its criminal history database, these
systems are often utilized as the basis for automated arrest reporting by
computer tape or by direct computer-to-computer transmission to the
repositories.

- Benefits

Direct computer linkage can provide for real-time transmission, which
means that the information can be entered into the repository database as
the arrested person is booked at the local agency immediately following
the arrest.

These automated booking systems can incorporate the same kinds of edit
and verification programs used by the repository to guard against the entry
of inaccurate information and ensure the entry of all required information.
Redundant typing of arrest information by arresting agency personnel is
eliminated, as is the necessity for data entry at the repository.

Fingerprint cards may sometimes still be mailed to the repository for
identification, but, as explained in section 2 of this chapter, a growing
number of automated fingerprint identification systems are being installed
in municipal, county-level, and regional law enforcement agencies in most
States.

Automated disposition reporting

The mailing of paper disposition forms to repositories by prosecutors,
courts, and correctional agencies is also being replaced in many
jurisdictions by automated reporting. Many agencies have installed
automated case management systems, which can generate case disposition
information required by repositories. These data can be generated in
magnetic tape form or directly entered into a repository database through
an information system that is integrated with a State's local justice
agencies.

- Reporting by local prosecutors, courts

Moderately priced or public domain software has been available for some
years to support prosecutor information management systems. As a result,
many high-volume prosecutors' offices and some smaller offices have
installed automated case management systems. Similarly, courts in some
high-volume jurisdictions have also installed automated case management
systems. A growing number of State repositories are implementing links
with local prosecutor and court systems to obtain disposition information
in automated form.

- Reporting by State courts systems

Some States with unified court systems have implemented automated
information management systems at the State level. In some of these
States, local courts report case disposition information to the State system
by using paper forms or computer tape, and the State system then edits and
combines this information and reports to the State criminal history
repository by direct electronic link or computer tape.

- Reporting by State corrections

Finally, some States have implemented State-level automated correctional
information systems or have installed automated information systems in
some State correctional facilities. These systems can typically generate the
correctional disposition information needed by the criminal history record
repositories and are being used in some States to report the information in
automated form.

- Benefits

Automated reporting techniques make disposition reporting more accurate,
because duplicate data entry processes are eliminated, and also result in
faster, easier, and more economical reporting.

In some cases, careful planning and cooperation among local and State
agencies has resulted in the implementation of automated systems in those
agencies that:
* Have saved time and money for the agencies in performing their own
recordkeeping functions.
* Have made reporting to the State repository a by-product of these
functions. This occurs when agencies cooperate in adopting procedures,
which allow the linkage of arrests and/or charges to dispositions.

Section 2: Advances in fingerprint technology

American justice agencies first explored the potential of digitized
fingerprint images in the mid-1960s, and the first automated fingerprint
reading machines based on digitized images began to appear in the early
1970s. Subsequent advances and refinements improved fingerprint
technology to such a degree that many State-level criminal history
repositories and some justice agencies in larger metropolitan areas began
to implement automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS) in the
mid- and late-1980s. Thirty-nine States utilized or were planning to
procure automated fingerprint systems in 1993. As of 1999, virtually all
States had access to AFIS technology. -162 [Six States belonging to the
Western Identification Network (WIN), a not-for-profit corporation
formed in 1989 to facilitate the development of a multi-State AFIS
network, share access to an AFIS, which is located in Sacramento,
California. The states are Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and
Wyoming. Other WIN members are Alaska, California, and Washington.
(Source: Mr. Thomas J. Roberts, Assistant Program Manager, Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System, FBI).]

This section discusses:
* The production and transmission of digitized fingerprint images.
* The benefits of automated fingerprint systems for criminal history
repositories.
* The scope of AFIS implementation.

Automated fingerprint processing

Prior to the invention of AFIS and for a period of time following its
implementation, 10-print fingerprint cards were the primary vehicles for
collecting and transmitting fingerprint images. A law enforcement officer
would generally collect three sets of prints - one for the law enforcement
agency's records, one for the State criminal history repository, and one for
the FBI. The process was time-consuming and often resulted in
poor-quality prints. The FBI rejected 2% of the criminal cards and 10% of
the civil cards it received by mail because of smudging, smearing, and
under- or over-inking. -163 [Peter T. Higgins, "Standards for the
Electronic Submission of Fingerprint Cards to the FBI," Journal of
Forensic Identification, Vol. 45, No. 4 (July/August 1995) pp. 409-418.]

The process was also time-consuming in that the captured fingerprints and
accompanying personal and criminal history information were mailed to
the State repository, which mailed the information to the FBI. The
Bureau's response would be mailed to the State criminal history repository,
which would then mail the information to the local law enforcement
agency. Weeks passed before the law enforcement agency learned the true
identity and warrant status of the subject individual. AFIS development
reduced this time significantly.

- Livescan

AFIS has the capacity to use an optical scanner, or a "livescan" as they are
called in the criminal justice community. The subject individual's fingers
are placed one at a time on a glass plate and scanned. The device
transforms the fingerprint images into unique bit maps consisting of rows
and columns of dots, each with stored bits of data. The digitized images
can then be attached to an email for electronic transmission through a
network to a criminal history repository. 

The repository's AFIS quickly searches its stored digitized images for a
match. Responses can be returned on-line in a matter of hours or less.
AFIS eliminates the need to take multiple sets of prints, as the images can
be easily copied. Technicians can also determine fingerprint quality on site
and retake inferior quality prints before sending them to the repository.

The benefits of automated fingerprint systems for criminal history
repositories

Automated fingerprint systems provide the following benefits for criminal
history repositories:

1. Faster searches: Searching card-based fingerprint files for a match to a
submitted print is a time-consuming task. The files are broken down into
categories based on the Henry Fingerprint Classification System, which
classifies fingerprints based on ridge formations and other unique patterns,
termed "minutia." -164 [Sir Edward Henry, Assistant Commissioner of the
Criminal Investigation Department at Scotland Yard, devised the Henry
Fingerprint Classification System at the end of the 19th century.] Despite
this breakdown, each classification category still contains thousands of
cards in most State criminal history repositories. A technician searching
for a match to a submitted fingerprint must retrieve a card from a file and
then examine its image through a magnifying glass. Automated fingerprint
systems can search through thousands of digitized print images in seconds.
The FBI's powerful Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
System (IAFIS) can examine 3 million fingerprints per second. -165 [Eric
C. Johnson, "From the Inkpad to the Mousepad: IAFIS and Fingerprint
Technology at the Dawn of the 21st Century," Technical Bulletin series
(Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc., December 1998). Published with
funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of
Justice. Hereafter, IAFIS Technical Bulletin.]

2. Less storage space: Digitized fingerprint images require far less space
for storage than do fingerprint cards. Whereas California's database of
more than 9 million fingerprints would fill a warehouse full of print cards,
the same sized database would fill an average room if digitized.

3. Higher quality fingerprints: The use of livescan devices to capture
fingerprints during booking ensures that higher quality prints will
ultimately be transmitted to the criminal history repository. Livescan
technology allows a booking officer or technician to review prints as they
are taken to ensure quality. Poor quality prints can be retaken immediately.
Original prints can be copied, eliminating the potential for mistakes that
may occur when multiple sets of prints are obtained. AFIS technology
permits the replacement of one fingerprint image or an entire set of
digitized prints stored in a repository if more recently submitted
fingerprints are of higher quality. 

4. Faster filing: While approximately two-thirds of all arrest subjects have
been arrested previously, one-third have not, and therefore do not have
arrest records on file at the repository. When their fingerprints are
submitted to a repository and a match is not found, the prints must be
classified before storage - another time-consuming process during which a
technician with a magnifying glass pores over the images to categorize
them. AFIS can accomplish this task in a small fraction of the time.

5. Cost efficiencies: While a State may spend several million dollars
purchasing an AFIS when hardware, software, and training costs are taken
into account, the financial savings eventually realized make the purchase
worthwhile. Storage costs are substantially lower for digitized fingerprint
images. The more efficient processing, retrieval, and examination of
fingerprints free personnel for more productive tasks and could ultimately
lead to staff reductions. Less reliance on the mail to exchange fingerprint
cards means less postal charges and more savings.

The scope of automated fingerprint identification system implementation

While virtually all State criminal history repositories have implemented
automated fingerprint systems, there are significant variations as to how
they use the technology. Some States have been electronically transmitting
fingerprint images and accompanying personal and criminal history data to
the FBI for several years, and 10 States were able to electronically transmit
fingerprint and criminal history data to the FBI when the Bureau's IAFIS
started service in July 1999. -166 [The States were California, Florida,
Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. (Source: Mr. Thomas J. Roberts,
Assistant Program Manager, IAFIS, FBI.)] Twenty-two States were
transmitting electronic fingerprint data to the FBI by February 2000,
although only a handful was sending transmissions in any significant
numbers. -167 [FBI State EFCON Submission Totals, 2-1-2000 to
2-29-2000.]

Most State repositories are not yet capable of electronically transmitting
data to the FBI, even though they have implemented AFIS internally.
Some States are installing livescan devices in every county for transmitting
data to the State criminal history repository. Others plan to install livescan
devices in larger metropolitan areas, but law enforcement agencies in rural
areas will continue to mail fingerprint cards to State repositories.

Section 3: Justice system integration

Integration occurs when a computerized information system maintained by
one entity is programmed to electronically interact and share data with a
computerized information system maintained by another entity. The
potential benefits of integrated or interlinked information systems that
would permit the unfettered electronic exchange of information between
justice agencies attracted great interest in the late 1990s. However, many
of the agencies that attempted integration projects found the planning,
design, and implementation process to be more than they bargained for. 

Funding for projects that extended beyond bureaucratic boundaries and
long-established budgeting practices was a problem. Turf battles were
common, as individual agencies fought to maintain what they perceived as
"control" over the data they had collected. Technological innovations were
necessary to connect legacy information systems manufactured by
different vendors that shared no existing interfaces.

Still, many of the agencies whose persistence resulted in some form of
information system integration achieved results that demonstrated the
value of their efforts, and that have encouraged other justice agencies to
follow suit. This section examines:
* The technology of integration.
* The benefits of integration for criminal history repositories.
* Criminal history repositories that have implemented some form of
information system integration and the benefits they have achieved.
* Integration's future and its potential impact on criminal history
repositories.

The technology of integration

Information system integration is not a radical concept. However, justice
agencies that established integrated networks in the past - the Western
Identification Network is a good example - most often utilized equipment
manufactured by the same vendor. One barrier to expanded integration
was the inability of information systems manufactured by different
vendors to share information electronically. This problem was addressed
in the 1990s by the development of programming, termed "middleware,"
that allowed two separate and already existing programs to work together.
Middleware allowed the intermingling of data in separate systems
maintained by different justice agencies on different hardware and
software platforms.

Another development that contributed to increased integration efforts by
justice agencies in the 1990s was the creation of commonly accepted
standards that governed the composition of data transmitted between
agencies. For example, standards governing the size, resolution,
compression, and other components of fingerprint images allowed justice
agencies to transmit data to the FBI's IAFIS no matter what vendor's
equipment was used to capture the images. Standards will be discussed in
more detail in section 5.

The benefits of integration for criminal history repositories

While integration benefits all justice agencies participating in an integrated
information system, criminal history repositories may be the prime
beneficiaries. Criminal history records are accumulations of information
submitted from a variety of sources during the criminal justice processing
of the individuals who are the subjects of the records. In a truly integrated
system, this information is of higher quality than that gathered by
traditional means, in part because an integrated information system
reduces the need for redundant data entry. 

For example, an individual's vital statistics entered into a police
department's computer system during booking can be automatically
transmitted from agency to agency as an individual is processed through
the criminal justice system. The potential for mistakes such as the
transposition of numbers in an individual's birth date or the misspelling of
his or her name - incidents that, piece by piece, begin to erode the veracity
of data - can be eliminated.

Integrated systems also allow the quick transfer of information, so records
on file at a repository are more current when they are accessed by agencies
seeking to verify an individual's identity or criminal history background.
They permit local and regional court systems to easily transfer disposition
data to the State repository following a trial's completion, again improving
the quality of a State's criminal history records.

Further, repositories can respond more quickly to requests for service
when they are transmitting data to requesting agencies through integrated
systems. Such systems also allow simultaneous access to the same record
from multiple locations around the clock. 

The integration of criminal justice information and benefits achieved

While the benefits of information system integration are well known, there
are significant challenges that must be met before integration can occur.
Issues that arise when planning, funding, implementing, and maintaining
an integrated system require innovative procurement procedures that
generally transcend established practices. As of mid-2001, no State had
implemented a truly integrated system that allowed the collection and
transfer of data from the patrol car to the State criminal history repository
and to all points in between. However, the criminal justice community's
interest in information system integration was increasing throughout the
country, and a growing number of justice agencies were already beginning
to enjoy its benefits. A few are identified here:

* Colorado Crime Information Center: The center, Colorado's criminal
records repository, is directed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation,
which is one of five member agencies of the Colorado Integrated Criminal
Justice Information System (CICJIS). CICJIS creates a single, virtual
criminal justice information system by utilizing middleware tools to
connect the five participating agencies' databases to a central machine that
can be accessed by any of the five legacy systems' front-ends. The system
has improved public safety by making higher quality information available
to criminal justice agencies and to individual decisionmakers. It also aids
decisionmaking by increasing the availability of statistical measures for
evaluating public policy; makes workers more productive by reducing
redundant data collection and input efforts; and provides access to more
timely, accurate, and complete information for both criminal justice
agencies and the public. -168 [Source:
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir_/cicjis/index.html.]

* Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC): Georgia's criminal records
repository has benefited from the State's Criminal Justice Records
Improvement Plan, which focuses on increased automation and integration
between local and State justice agencies. Since the plan was approved in
1996, the number of counties submitting automated court dispositions to
Georgia's criminal history repository has grown from four to 30. The
number of felony arrests for which final dispositions are recorded grew
from 60% in 1994 to 82% in 1999. -169 [Source:
http://www.search.org/integration/state_profile.asp?KeyID=35.]

* Los Angeles County Consolidated Criminal History Reporting System
(CCHRS): Before CCHRS implementation, judges, law enforcement
officers, and prosecutors had to check eight disparate and incompatible
legacy -170 [Legacy systems are mainframe or microcomputers in which
companies or organizations have invested considerable time and money.]
databases -171 [CCHRS combined information from systems maintained
by Los Angeles County's jails, prosecutors, courts, the sheriff's, probation
and juvenile departments, a countywide warrant system, and the State.] in
order to piece together a subject's most up-to-date criminal history; this
process could take 45 to 90 minutes. CCHRS (nicknamed Cheers) presents
an individual's criminal history record through a single query in less than
2.5 seconds. CCHRS 100-gigabyte, single-source data warehousing system
contains criminal history information on more than 8 million subjects. It
can alert judges to a defendant's special circumstances, such as risk of
suicide or drug history, and can provide a list of potential suspects based
only on incomplete information such as an individual's unique tattoo,
nickname, or physical characteristics. -172 [Source:
http://www.search.org/integration/local_profile.asp?KeyID=48.]

* The Florida Integrated Criminal History Network: The network uses
state-of-the-art livescan fingerprint technology to capture, transmit, and
share electronic fingerprint and arrest data. The network's AFIS
component contains more than 1.8 million criminal offender fingerprints.
Its computerized criminal history component includes identification,
arrest, disposition, and custody segments. 

* Delaware Criminal Justice Information System: The system instantly
retrieves from a single-source, accurate, comprehensive, and
understandable criminal history data on all individuals passing through the
criminal justice system. The system has provided tremendous time and
cost savings in obtaining information, has reduced staff workload, has
provided faster policy analysis and more accurate identification, and has
produced more effective sentencing and incarceration of criminals. 

* The Pennsylvania Justice Network (JNET): Brings together 13 State
public safety agencies in a common network to make criminal history files
widely available to State and local police, as well as to prison and
probation officials. JNET utilizes an Internet-browser-based system
running on a State-operated intranet and a middleware solution to integrate
disparate agency systems throughout the State in a modular fashion.

Integration's future and its potential impact on criminal history repositories

A number of factors will most likely fuel the increased pace of integration
and increase its impact in the coming years on justice agencies and
criminal history repositories. Innovations in information technology will
provide new and desirable capabilities. Pressures for the use of criminal
history records for noncriminal justice background checks and other
purposes are likely to grow, prompting repositories to explore
technological methods to respond to increased public expectations. The
successful implementation of integrated systems by justice agencies will
provide useful best practices, standards, and other information that will
spare other interested agencies from "reinventing the wheel" when they
consider integration.

In addition to those mentioned above, a number of other justice agency
integration projects with positive ramifications for collecting, updating,
and disseminating criminal history records are already well into the
planning, testing, or early implementation stage throughout the country,
including projects in Oregon, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas,
Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Previous integration successes
have demonstrated the benefits these projects can achieve if properly
pursued. Faster data collection, higher data quality, and the ability to
electronically interact with other justice agencies are just a few.

Section 4: Data warehousing tools

The term "data warehousing" describes a process that allows data from
different and often disparate electronic sources to be collected in a single
database for use in queries, detailed analysis, and report preparation. The
process builds a database of analytic data that is encoded upon collection
to interact with similar data elements in a database. Traditional or
transactional databases generally collect only raw data that are not easy to
query or analyze. Commercial entities utilize data warehousing techniques
to target segments of society for promotional campaigns. Justice agencies
use data warehousing techniques to analyze crime statistics and related
information to uncover activity patterns, to predict events, and to allocate
resources. This section examines:
* The data warehousing process.
* The benefits of data warehousing.
* The scope of data warehousing in justice agencies.

The data warehousing process

A data warehouse is a managed database in which the data are
subject-oriented, integrated, time-variant (so they do not solely reflect the
point of time in which they were collected), and nonvolatile (in that the
existing data are appended rather than replaced by new data). -173 [Toru
Sakaguchi and Mark N. Frolick, "A Review of the Data Warehousing
Literature," Journal of Data Warehousing, 2(1), 1997, pp. 34-54. Available
at http://www.nku.edu/~sakaguch/dw-web.htm.] A data warehouse
separates a system's analytical data from its operational data so it can be
analyzed more quickly without slowing the performance of the operational
system. 

Data can be integrated from multiple sources, allowing users to
cross-reference data from these applications. Time is the primary filter for
data warehouse activity. An analyst may query a database seeking the
number of times a certain activity occurred during a specific week, month
or year, or the analyst may conduct a year-to-year comparison of the
activity. 

Data warehouses are expensive and challenging to establish, but
decreasing hardware prices, increased computing power, and the
development of powerful server operating systems and related programs
have allowed a greater number of organizations to implement them. 

The benefits of data warehousing

Data warehouses provide users with a number of benefits, including:

* Analytic capabilities that far exceed those of traditional transactional
databases. Data are stored in relational tables so they can be examined in
many different ways without prior knowledge of what similarities may
exist between data elements. The process allows for more in-depth data
analysis to extract buried or previously unknown pieces of information or
patterns from large databases. (Transactional databases store information
based on each transaction and do not easily provide for the comparison of
data stored during one transaction with data stored during other
transactions.) 

* Greater storage capacity, which allows the maintenance of a larger
number of older records, thus permitting more detailed and precise
analysis.

* Integration opportunities made possible by the availability of an effective
platform for combining multiple-source applications.

* Easier access to data. Users can conduct queries on their own without
having to seek help from information specialists.

* Larger databases, because data warehouses can pull information together
from multiple sources.

* The ability to handle more users, transactions, queries, and messages
than transactional systems without overtaxing the data warehouse.

* The ability to make well-informed decisions based on quantitative
factors derived from historical data.

The scope of data warehousing in justice agencies

A growing number of justice agencies have incorporated data warehousing
capabilities into their information management strategies, and others are
planning and designing systems with such capabilities. They include:

* The Los Angeles County Consolidated Criminal History Reporting
System, which collects data from eight incompatible legacy systems to
respond to identification queries in less than 2.5 seconds.

* The Nebraska Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS). The CJIS
data warehouse being assembled in mid-2001 will house information from
the Nebraska State Patrol's criminal history system, probation, corrections,
the sex offender registration system, and new detainee file. 

* Coplink Concept Space. Developed by the University of Arizona's
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in association with the Tucson, Arizona,
Police Department, Coplink allows investigators to access information and
to research connections between six different types of data: people,
locations, organizations, vehicles, crime types, and weapons.

* Iowa Criminal Justice Information System. Data warehousing solutions
help the State project indigent defense needs and predict additional prison
needs following the implementation of tougher criminal and
truth-in-sentencing laws.

Section 5: Data exchange standards

Data exchange standards can be described as a "language" created by
different participants in a system who wish to understand each other. They
usually include agreed-upon definitions of terms and an understanding of
how these terms will be used in a system. -174 [Center for Technology in
Government, Tying a Sensible Knot: A Practical Guide to State-Local
Information Systems (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York, June
1997). Available at
http://www.ctg.albany.edu/resources/pdfrpwp/iis1.pdf.] Standards can also
include an agreement on a format governing the size, resolution,
compression, and other elements of a graphic image, or on the types of
hardware and software that a system will employ.

The importance of standards was demonstrated during the creation of the
FBI's IAFIS, when the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
published the Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint Information
in November 1993. -175 [ANSI/NIST-CSL 1-1993.] The standard was
developed during a series of workshops held by the FBI and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and attended by
representatives from Federal, State, and local criminal justice agencies. It
dictated the content, format, and measurements necessary for exchanging
fingerprint data with the Bureau. For the first time, automated fingerprint
systems manufactured by different vendors could exchange information
electronically, paving the way for a national fingerprint network.

Standards are also important when States are interested in electronically
exchanging information within their own borders, and are often among the
first components developed when an integrated information system is
designed. Agencies considering participation in an integrated system may
have years of data stored on legacy systems and, therefore, may be
reluctant to migrate to new and unfamiliar technology in order to integrate
with other agencies. 

Standards can facilitate the exchange of information between legacy
systems manufactured by different vendors so each agency can participate
in an integrated system while continuing to use the system with which it is
most comfortable. Standards may also define the types of information that
will be exchanged between agencies, as well as the format by which it will
be exchanged, the resolution and compression of exchanged images, and
even the levels of security that will be applied to information exchanges.
This section will examine:
* How standards are developed.
* What standards govern.

How standards are developed

The creation of standards is a time-consuming but necessary process in the
development of an information system. Generally, standards are decided
upon when the operational users of a planned system are brought together
to discuss their needs and the types of information they will need to
exchange. For example, the Criminal Justice Data Element Dictionary was
created for Florida's Offender-Based Transaction System with the
assistance of hundreds of members from the State's criminal justice
community who submitted both oral and written comments. In Michigan,
the Court Data Standards Task Force, comprised of judges, clerks, and
court administrators from different types of courts throughout the State,
held three meetings in 1997, during which time it developed standards to
integrate the operations of 39 independent computer systems that
previously served the State's courts.

What standards govern

Standards govern every conceivable aspect of electronic information
exchange between justice agencies. They may dictate the way a justice
agency enters a license plate number, date of birth, a suspect's descriptive
data, or the address of a crime into an information system. Standards may
define the format of a transmitted mug shot or fingerprint image, including
the image's size, resolution, grayscale, compression, and other factors.
They may dictate what types of information are required when a file is
created, and the levels of security that must be supplied to various types of
information.

An ongoing national effort began in the mid-1990s to devise a set of
standards to enable the automated transmission of a model criminal history
record or "rap sheet." The first "Interstate Criminal History Transmission
Specification" was released for testing in 1998. The most recent version of
the transmission specification, numbered 2.01 and based on eXtensible
Markup Language (XML), was still in draft form in mid-2001. -176 [The
draft specification is available at http://www.search.org.]

In Florida, standards are being developed for the Criminal and Juvenile
Justice Information System to govern telecommunications and networking,
data elements, image transmission, and hardware and software
compatibility. In Kansas, standards have been created to govern
applications, data, imaging, networks, messaging, and hardware for the
State's Criminal Justice Information System. In North Carolina, the
Criminal Justice Information Network Data Sharing Standard
Development Project began in 1998 to document common data
definitions; standardize common offense code identifiers; and create
standards for programming interfaces and common database views.

Section 6: Internet security strategies

Hundreds of justice agencies throughout the country use the Internet to
inform the public about pertinent issues by establishing World Wide Web
sites, but only one State is using the Internet as its primary network for
exchanging criminal history information and transmitting it to the State
repository: Kansas. 

Kansas' groundbreaking use of the Internet in this fashion may
dramatically increase the number of justice agencies that are able to
integrate their information services. Prior to Kansas' breakthrough, the
prevailing school of thought taught that costly dedicated networks with
limited access were the only electronic transmission methods safe enough
to protect the privacy and confidentiality rights of those whose criminal
histories were exchanged. Moving to the Internet meant making the
information accessible to hackers and others who were not authorized to
view it.

However, recent dramatic developments in security and encryption
methods have prompted justice agencies to view the Internet transmission
of criminal history records in a new light. Use of existing information
exchange networks may spare smaller justice agencies from having to fund
the creation of their own networks. This section examines:
* The "Kansas model" for use of the Internet to exchange criminal history
records.
* The Internet's potential for smaller justice agencies, and how increased
access will benefit criminal history repositories.

Kansas' use of the Internet to exchange criminal history records

Kansas justice officials faced a dilemma when work began on the State's
Criminal Justice Information System in 1996. The State could install a
dedicated high-speed network for information and graphics exchanges, or
it could provide the services by piggybacking on the existing Kansas
Wide-Area Information Network (KANWIN) for a cost savings of $2.5
million. To use KANWIN, Kansas officials would have to create a security
strategy to protect the highly sensitive criminal history information they
would be transmitting that would also meet the exacting standards
required for participation in the National Crime Information Center and
the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System.

Kansas officials decided to use KANWIN by creating a virtual private
network (VPN), which allows one information system to interact with
another information system over the Internet using security features
previously available only to private networks. This is accomplished
through security tools such as firewalls, encryption, authentication, and
other resources.

The Kansas Criminal Justice Information System (KCJIS) uses the
following security components:

* Firewalls, which are systems designed to prevent unauthorized access to
or from a private network by examining messages passing through the
firewall and blocking those that do not meet specified criteria.

* Secure identification tokens to identify specific users. Tokens contain
code numbers that change on a regular basis. A system user will enter his
or her password plus the number displayed on the token to gain access to
the system. Each password/number combination is used only once.

* Certificates, to identify specific devices used to transmit data. A
certificate authority issues a "public key" to a system user, who uses the
key for identification when encrypting a message. The individual who
receives the message must use the public key plus his or her own private
key to decrypt the message. The KCJIS became its own certificate
authority to facilitate the system's implementation.

* Encryption, to protect unauthorized access to information transmitted
over KANWIN.

* Intrusion detection, which monitors information packets moving through
the network to identify patterns that indicate hostile activity or misuse.

* Internet scanner, to continuously monitor the system to identify
vulnerabilities.

The FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board
approved Kansas' security strategy in December 1998.

The Internet's potential for smaller justice agencies, and how increased
access will benefit criminal history repositories

Kansas' successful implementation of a VPN to permit Internet use for the
transfer of criminal history records is a significant development for smaller
justice agencies. These agencies may now be incorporated into integrated
justice networks that were previously too costly to join because of the
necessity for private, dedicated networks. 

Naturally, the participation of a greater number of agencies will increase
data quality at the State criminal history repository, and will benefit
agencies from throughout the country that may access the data.

Section 7: Policy innovations

Dramatic increases in the use of state-of-the-art communication
technologies by justice agencies have necessitated the formulation of new
policies to govern the exchange of criminal history information in the
electronic realm. Issues such as privacy, confidentiality, accessibility, and
accountability must be addressed on the national, State, and local levels to
ensure that individual rights and long-recognized protections are not
casualties of the rush by justice agencies to automate and integrate
information systems. 

Policies are also necessary to govern the responsible use of shared criminal
history information so justice agencies are confident that records they
contribute to integrated systems will not be misused. The creation and
implementation of effective policies will improve the quality of available
criminal history information by encouraging a greater number of justice
agencies to participate in and contribute to integrated information systems. 

This section will examine:
* How policies are formulated.
* Policies governing integrated justice information systems.

How policies are formulated

Ideally, policies governing the electronic exchange and use of criminal
history records are formulated when the system is being designed,
although they may also be developed and instituted when the need for such
policies becomes apparent. Policies may also come about as the result of
legislative activity. Justice-related organizations may examine issues of
concern and propose model policies that can be tailored and instituted by
interested governmental entities.

In Ohio, for example, the Criminal Justice Information Services Policy
Board meets regularly to address such topics as improving criminal justice
data quality, monitoring system development, determining State and local
training needs, and developing policies and procedures regarding the
accessibility to and interfacing among local, State, and national criminal
justice information systems. The board is comprised of representatives
from the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association, the State Bureau of Criminal
Identification and Investigation, the State Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the
Clerks of Court Association, the County Commissioners Association, the
departments of Administrative Services, Rehabilitation and Correction,
and Youth Services, the Judicial Conference, the offices of Criminal
Justice Services and the Governor, the Ohio Association of Chiefs of
Police, the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys' Association, the Ohio State
Highway Patrol, the Supreme Court of Ohio, and regional crime
information centers.

In Florida, The Policies and Standards Work Group of the Criminal and
Juvenile Justice Information System developed a set of guiding principles
for the efficient and effective sharing of criminal and juvenile justice
information among users and providers throughout the State. The Florida
Legislature codified the guiding principles into law in 1996.

Policies governing integrated justice information systems

The most comprehensive and far-reaching policy governing the electronic
exchange of criminal history records is the National Crime Prevention and
Privacy Compact, which was embodied in the Crime Identification
Technology Act of 1998 approved by the U.S. Congress. -177 [42 U.S.C.
 14601. See, appendix 21.] The compact provides a formal legal basis for
justice agencies to follow when referencing the Interstate Identification
Index (III) for authorized noncriminal justice purposes, such as for
background checks conducted for security clearances, licenses, and
applicants for employment in sensitive occupations such as child and
senior care.

It established a council of State and Federal officials to formulate policies
governing noncriminal use of State criminal history records. The compact
created a true national partnership between Federal and State
representatives to oversee the use of III information for noncriminal
purposes. Approval by two State legislatures was required for the
compact's provisions to become effective. Georgia became the second
State to ratify the compact on April 28, 1999. Montana was the first State
to ratify the compact (April 8, 1999). Other States that have ratified the
Compact are: Nevada (May 14, 1999), Florida (June 8, 1999), Colorado
(March 10, 2000), Iowa (April 7, 2000), Connecticut (June 1, 2000), South
Carolina (June 22, 2000), Arkansas (February 21, 2001), Kansas (April 10,
2001), Alaska (May 7, 2001), Oklahoma (May 17, 2001), and Maine (June
8, 2001). (See chapter 5, section 4.)



Chapter V: National criminal history record checks and the Interstate
Identification Index

This chapter describes procedures for conducting national criminal record
checks for criminal and noncriminal justice purposes and provides an
in-depth look at the Interstate Identification Index (III) system and the
National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact.

Section 1: Maintenance and use of current Federal Bureau of Investigation
files, addresses the use of Bureau files to conduct national criminal history
checks, including current file maintenance and use practices; authorized
categories of file users; and file access for criminal justice and noncriminal
justice inquiries.

Section 2: The Interstate Identification Index system, describes the III
concept and explains how the III processes search inquiries and record
responses.

Section 3: Interstate Identification Index system impact, identifies the
principal benefits and impacts of the III system for the States and the
Federal government.

Section 4: The National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, explains
the major provisions of the Compact and how it relates to the fully
implemented III system.

Background

Most persons arrested for criminal offenses have prior arrest records, and
many have arrest records in more than one State. Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) officials estimate that of all Federal and State arrest
fingerprint cards processed by the Bureau, which includes submissions for
most of the country's serious-offense arrests, two-thirds of the arrest
subjects have prior arrests. Further, of the criminal subjects in the FBI's
automated files of State and Federal offenders, an estimated 25 to 30% are
"multi-State" offenders; that is, they have both Federal and State records or
arrests in more than one State. -178 [Statutes Report, supra note 8, p. 1.]

Obviously, then, there is a need for an efficient means of performing a
national criminal record search, other than the impractical approach of
making separate queries to all States and jurisdictions that operate central
criminal history record repositories.

Prior to 1971, the means of obtaining access to a national search was by
application to the FBI, which, under congressional authorization dating
back to 1924, maintained criminal record files containing fingerprints and
arrest and disposition information pertaining to Federal and State
offenders. Most search applications were handled by mail and required
manual processing by FBI personnel.

In 1971, the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
implemented an on-line interstate computerized system called the
Computerized Criminal History (CCH) Program. Like the FBI manual
system, CCH was a "national repository" system; that is, full criminal
history records for Federal and State offenders from participating States
were maintained in the FBI's centralized database. The system was used
for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes. Access for
criminal justice purposes was by name search or by Federal or State
offender identification numbers submitted through terminals connected to
the nationwide NCIC network. Applications for searches for authorized
noncriminal justice purposes required either a State or Federal offender
identification number for an on-line record or the submission of fingerprint
cards by mail to the FBI.

The CCH system continued to operate throughout the 1970s even though
State participation was poor, due primarily to objections to the cost and
difficulty of maintaining duplicate files on State offenders at both the State
and Federal levels. The FBI's centralized files were continued during this
period, and the Bureau began automating them in 1974.

Most State officials preferred the development of a "decentralized"
national criminal history record system; that is, a system that would not
entail the continuance of a duplicative national repository of State offender
records, but that instead would undertake to strengthen the State
repositories and provide the means of tying them together into a viable
interstate system relying on State-maintained records.

Prior to the 1970s, it was generally conceded that most of the existing
State repositories lacked the technology and the policy and organizational
structure necessary to effectively participate in such a program. By the end
of that decade, however, substantial progress had been made in improving
existing State repositories, establishing repositories in States that lacked
them, and providing these agencies with the technology, organizational
capability, and policy structures necessary to create a decentralized
national criminal history program based on shared responsibilities and
mutual commitments.

Recognizing this progress, the U.S. Department of Justice and State
officials approved the Interstate Identification Index (III) concept in 1978.
The FBI and selected States began phased testing and implementation of
the concept in 1980. At present, 43 State repositories are participating as
record providers for criminal justice purposes (see section 2 of this
chapter). Only four of those States are also providing records for
noncriminal justice purposes, but the approval of the National Crime
Prevention and Privacy Compact in October 1998 is making it easier for
additional States to participate in this way (see section 4 of this chapter).

Section 1: Maintenance and use of current Federal Bureau of Investigation
files

This section discusses how the FBI maintains fingerprints and criminal
history records, and how these files are used. This discussion includes:

* Practices for submitting and storing fingerprint and criminal history data.

* Authorized users of FBI files for criminal justice or noncriminal justice
purposes, and the data they are entitled to receive.

Current record maintenance practices

Under the authority of Title 28, Section 534 of the United States Code, the
FBI currently maintains fingerprints and criminal history records for
persons arrested for Federal offenses. The FBI also maintains State
offender records that, to a great extent, duplicate the records contained in
State repositories.

For their mutual benefit, State and local arresting agencies throughout the
country are encouraged to submit arrest information to the FBI for all
arrests for "criterion offenses," defined as all felonies and all
misdemeanors except designated nonserious ones. Arrest information
submitted to the FBI by those agencies includes fingerprints, subject
identification information, and charge information.

For many years, this information was submitted to the FBI on standard
10-print cards that provided space for fingerprint images and textual
information, such as the arrest subject's name, vital statistics, arrest
offense, and other information. As described in chapter IV, the evolution
of automated fingerprint technology began to bring about a change in this
process in the mid-1980s, when the FBI and a growing number of States
started to implement automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS). 

In all except a few States, fingerprints and related arrest information are
submitted to the FBI through the State criminal history record repository
pursuant to the "single-source submission" program, under which the FBI
does not accept fingerprint submissions directly from arresting agencies.
This approach ensures that the State repositories are not bypassed at the
critical arrest fingerprint reporting stage.

In the few States that have not implemented single-source submission,
fingerprints and arrest information may be submitted directly to the FBI by
State and local law enforcement agencies. The FBI thus has records of
some State offenses that were not reported to the State repositories,
primarily records established before single-source fingerprint reporting
was implemented or before the State repositories began automating
records in the past quarter-century.

The FBI accepts and records final disposition and correctional information
for these State arrests. Both arrest and disposition reporting to the FBI are
voluntary, however, and the incidence and quality of reporting varies from
State to State. Arrest reporting to the FBI is thought to be good in most
States, but is known to be poor in a few States. Disposition reporting to the
FBI from most States is incomplete, perhaps averaging about 50%.-179
[Source: Mr. Robert Mudd, Management Analyst, Criminal Justice
Information Services Division, FBI.] By comparison, felony trial court
disposition reporting to the State repositories is estimated to be
significantly higher, with reporting in 14 States at 95% or higher. -180
[1999 Survey, supra note 6, table 8.]

As of mid-2001, the FBI was obtaining disposition information from 19
State repositories by machine-readable data computer tape, which results
in more complete and timely reporting. 

The FBI maintains more than 43 million automated criminal history
records of Federal, State, and foreign subjects, including numerous older
records converted to automated format during the Manual Conversion
Project conducted by the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS) Division. The FBI will maintain approximately 5 million older
records in manual format.

Authorized users of data

Criminal history records maintained by the FBI are available for criminal
justice and noncriminal justice purposes. The FBI is authorized by law
-181 [28 U.S.C.  534; PL 99-169, as amended by PL 99-569 and PL
101-246, 5 U.S.C.  9101; Exec. Orders 10450 and 12968; PL 91-452; PL
101-647; PL 92-544, 86 Stat. 1115; PL 100-413, 102 Stat. 1101; PL 94-29,
as amended by PL 100-181, 15 U.S.C.  78q(f)(2); PL 97-444, 7 U.S.C. 
12a, 21(b)(4)(e); PL 99-399, 42 U.S.C.  2169; PL 101-604, 49 U.S.C.
44936; 28 CFR 0.85(b); U.S. Dept. of Justice Order 556-73, 28 CFR
16.30-16.34; 5 CFR 732 & 736; PL 103-159; PL 103-209; PL 103-322.] to
provide criminal record services to the following major categories of
users:

* Federal and State criminal justice agencies for criminal justice purposes,
including the screening of applicants for criminal justice employment.

* Federal noncriminal justice agencies for official purposes authorized by
Federal statute or executive order, such as national security purposes and
background screening of Federal employees.

* The Federal Aviation Administration for conducting criminal history
background checks on individuals applying for positions that provide
unescorted access to aircraft or to secured areas of an airport.

* Federally chartered or insured banks and authorized segments of the
securities and commodities industries, for employment screening.

* State and local governmental agencies for licensing and employment
purposes, if authorized by a State statute approved by the U.S. Attorney
General.

* States with appropriate statutes to access and review State and Federal
criminal history records through the national criminal history background
check system to determine whether care providers for the elderly, disabled,
and children have criminal histories that impact their fitness to assume
such responsibilities.

* Licensed firearms dealers to determine the eligibility of potential gun
purchasers.

Authorized government agencies receive the FBI's complete criminal
history on offenders with all reported arrests regardless of whether there is
a disposition for each arrest notation and regardless of the nature of
recorded dispositions. It should be noted that information about State
offenses submitted to the FBI and incorporated into the FBI's files has
been interpreted to be Federal information subject to the Federal Privacy
Act and other Federal standards that provide for the disseminations
outlined above. -182 [When a Federal agency receives "records" from a
State agency, these records become Federal records for purposes of
Federal law. Records Disposal Act, 44 U.S.C.  3301; Forsham v. Harris,
445 U.S. 169, 185 (1980); Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom
of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 151-52 (1980).]

Pursuant to these standards, noncriminal justice agencies in some States
are able to receive State offender information from FBI files that they
could not obtain directly from repositories in States that have laws
regulating noncriminal justice use which are more restrictive than the
Federal standard. Conversely, in States with more open laws, some
noncriminal justice agencies can obtain State records but are denied access
to FBI data.

Section 2: The Interstate Identification Index system

This section provides a detailed look at the III system and its use in
conducting national criminal record searches for criminal justice and
noncriminal justice purposes. It also explains how the III system differs
from the national search system used prior to 1980, and how
implementation of the system permits the FBI to discontinue maintaining
records of State offenders.
Interstate Identification Index system approach

The III system is an interstate/Federal-State computer network that
currently provides the means of conducting national criminal history
record searches to determine whether a person has a record anywhere in
the country. It has replaced the centralized-database system described in
section 1 of this chapter, which utilized a database of Federal and State
offenders -183 ["State offenders" are persons arrested and prosecuted
under State law.] maintained by the FBI for conducting national searches.
In contrast, the III system is designed to tie the automated criminal history
record databases of State central repositories and the FBI together into a
national system by means of an "index-pointer" approach. 

Under this approach, the FBI maintains an automated master name index,
referred to as the National Identification Index (NII), which includes
names and identifying data concerning all persons whose automated
criminal history records are available by means of the III system. -184
[Both the FBI and the State repositories have some records of older
offenders that have not been automated because the persons have been
criminally inactive. These manual records are not available via the III
system.] If a search of this index indicates that the search subject has a
III-indexed record, the index will "point" the inquiring agency to the FBI
and/or to one or more of the State repositories from which the record or
records may be obtained. The inquiring agency may then obtain the
records directly from the indicated sources by means of the NCIC and the
National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS). The
FBI also maintains the National Fingerprint File (NFF), a database of
fingerprints, or other uniquely personal identifying information, relating to
an arrested or charged individual maintained by the FBI to provide
positive identification of record subjects indexed in the III System. 

The major advantages of the III approach, when fully implemented, stem
from its decentralization component; that is, the shift from reliance on
FBI-maintained State offender records for national search purposes to
reliance on State-maintained records for such purposes. The two main
advantages are: (1) criminal history records maintained by the State
repositories are more accurate and complete than State offender records
maintained by the FBI by such agencies is voluntary. ] and (2) if State
repositories provide record responses for national search purposes, the FBI
can discontinue the maintenance of its files of State offender records. 

Interstate Identification Index system implementation status

- System availability status

From an availability standpoint, the III system is fully operational
nationwide. The NCIC system and interfaced State telecommunication
systems, together with the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS) and interfaced State AFIS systems, provide
III system access to Federal, State, and local criminal justice agencies
throughout the country. The system is used to conduct national searches,
both name- and fingerprint-based, and to provide record responses from
FBI and State repository sources for both criminal justice and noncriminal
justice purposes. Procedures for conducting searches for criminal justice
purposes differ from those for conducting searches for noncriminal justice
purposes.

- Criminal justice searches

III searches for criminal justice purposes, such as for purposes related to
criminal investigations and prosecutions, are conducted pursuant to
Federal regulations. -186 [28 CFR Part 20, Subpart C.] For these purposes,
criminal justice agencies may conduct name searches and
offender-identification-number searches of the NII. If there is a hit, they
may obtain the out-of-State record segments on-line via NLETS or NCIC.

Criminal justice agencies may also obtain national fingerprint-based
searches for criminal justice purposes by transmitting search subjects'
fingerprints to the FBI by mail or by electronic means. This is often done
to ensure that arrested persons do not prevent discovery of their prior
records by using aliases.

III records provided by the FBI and the State repositories for criminal
justice purposes include all criminal history record information relating to
the record subjects, including favorable and unfavorable dispositions, as
well as arrests without recorded dispositions regardless of how old the
arrests are. Figure 3 shows how III record requests and record responses
are routed for criminal justice purposes.

- Noncriminal justice searches

III searches for noncriminal justice purposes, such as for military
recruiting, national security activities, State or Federal governmental
employment, or occupational licensing or suitability, are conducted
pursuant to the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact (see
section 4). The compact permits such searches for any purpose specified in
a Federal statute or executive order, or in a State statute approved by the
U. S. Attorney General as authorizing III searches. Such searches must be
fingerprint-based, and record requests must be based upon positive
identification of record subjects by fingerprint comparison. -187 [There
are some limited circumstances, based on Federal law, under which the III
system may be used for conducting name searches for noncriminal justice
purposes. An example is the United States Housing Act, pursuant to which
the Attorney General has permitted III name searches for background
screening of public housing tenants and applicants.]

To obtain a national criminal history search under the compact provisions,
a noncriminal justice agency authorized under State law is required to
submit the search subject's fingerprints to the State repository in the State
where the agency is located. The repository is required to first conduct a
search of its State-level criminal history files. If this search results in a
fingerprint-verified determination that the individual has a criminal history
record in that State, the repository may access the NII to determine
whether the individual has an out-of-State record and, if so, to be pointed
to the FBI or to the State repository from which the records may be
obtained.

If the State-level search is negative, the repository transmits the
fingerprints to the FBI (in card or electronic form) for a search of its
fingerprint files. If this search results in positive identification of the
subject, the FBI will notify the State repository and the repository may use
the NII to obtain the out-of-State record or records. 

Federal noncriminal justice agencies and other organizations authorized to
obtain national criminal record searches under Federal law submit search
subjects' fingerprints directly to the FBI. If the FBI positively identifies a
subject, it may use the NII to obtain any record segments available from
State repositories.

Records exchanged by the FBI and the State repositories for noncriminal
justice purposes under the compact must include all criminal history
record information concerning record subjects, with the exception of
information that has been sealed. -188 [The Compact sets out a narrow
definition of "sealed information." Compact, Art. I, Sec. 21.] Before
responding to noncriminal justice agencies that have submitted III search
requests, the State repositories screen records received from out of State, if
necessary, and delete any information that cannot be released to particular
agencies under their State dissemination laws. As explained in chapter III,
criminal history record dissemination laws differ greatly from State to
State concerning the types of noncriminal justice agencies that may obtain
criminal history record information, the purposes for which such
information may be used, and the types of information that may be
released to particular agencies. Figure 4 shows how III record requests and
record responses are routed for noncriminal justice purposes.

A State noncriminal justice agency authorized by law to obtain a III record
search must submit the search subject's fingerprints to its State repository.
If the repository positively identifies the subject as having an in-State
criminal record ("Ident."), its files will contain an FBI number for the
subject that can be used to access III to determine whether the subject also
has a Federal record or a record in another State. If the repository is a III
participant, its files will contain "flags" indicating whether the subject has
a record in another State (or a Federal record), making III inquiries
unnecessary if the subject is not a "multi-State" offender. If the subject
does have an out-of-State record, the III computer automatically transmits
record request notifications to any NFF State repository maintaining a
record on the subject and/or to the FBI if the subject has a Federal record
or a State offender record for which the FBI has III responsibility. The
NFF returns full-record responses to the originating State repository,
which screens the records and forwards to the requesting noncriminal
justice agency all information that can be released under State law.

If the State repository cannot identify the subject in its files ("Non-ident."),
it forwards the fingerprint card - or, in increasing numbers, the digitized
fingerprint images - to the FBI for processing. If the FBI positively
identifies the subject as having a Federal record or a record in a non-NFF
State, it provides these records from its automated files. If the subject has a
record in one or more NFF States, those repositories are automatically
notified to provide the records directly to the originating State repository.

If the subject cannot be identified at the State or Federal level, an
appropriate "no-record" response is returned to the requesting agency.

Federal noncriminal justice agencies submit fingerprints directly to the
FBI, which processes the requests essentially as described above,
assembles record components, as necessary, including obtaining records
from NFF States, as appropriate, and provides an appropriate record
response to the requesting Federal agency.

- Decentralization implementation status

Although the III system is fully operational nationwide and is being used
to conduct national searches and exchange records for both criminal
justice and noncriminal justice purposes, the decentralization aspect of the
system concept has not yet been fully implemented. This aspect of the
system - the shift from reliance on FBI-maintained records of persons
arrested and prosecuted under State law to a reliance on State-maintained
records of State offenders - is being implemented on a State-by-State
basis. Under this implementation approach, State repositories that are
participating as record providers for III national search purposes have
undertaken these responsibilities in two stages: first, they have assumed
responsibility for providing records for criminal justice purposes only, and,
at some later point, they have assumed responsibility for providing records
for noncriminal justice purposes as well.

- Interstate Identification Index record responses for criminal justice
purposes 

In the first stage of III participation, a State repository assumes the
responsibility of providing designated criminal history records on-line in
response to III record requests for criminal justice purposes only. Because
all of the States' criminal record laws authorize interstate and Federal-State
record exchanges for criminal justice purposes, there has been no legal
impediment in any State to III participation at this level. However,
participating State repositories need efficient automated criminal history
record systems capable of interfacing with the III system and meeting
system support requirements, such as response time standards.

As of mid-2001, repositories in 43 States were participating in the III
system as record providers for criminal justice purposes. -189 [The States
are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.] These States are
usually referred to as "III States" or "III participants." All of the other State
repositories are in the process of upgrading their systems to enable III
system participation in the near future. In the meantime, the FBI is
providing III record responses for State offenders of States whose
repositories are not III participants. 

The FBI also continues to provide records of some State offenders in III
States. Some III States have agreed to be responsible for providing only
records of persons arrested and/or charged as first-time offenders in the
State after the date when III participation began. Other repositories
assumed responsibility for new first-time arrestee records as well as for
some pre-existing records of in-State offenders if their automated State
files contained at least as much information about those record subjects as
the FBI's files contained. -190 [The FBI's files contain records of some
arrests for State offenses that were not reported to the State repositories.
This occurred primarily before the FBI instituted its "single-source
submission" policy, discussed earlier. For the same reasons, the files of the
State repositories include some arrests that were not reported to the FBI.]
The FBI continues to provide all State offender records for which III State
repositories have not assumed responsibility. -191 [The FBI also continues
to provide some records of persons in III States whose records have not
been automated at the State level (primarily older persons who have not
recently been criminally active).]

Table 1 shows totals and State-by-State breakdowns of the records indexed
in the III system as of August 2, 2001, the latest available figures. At that
time, the system provided access to 43,533,575 automated criminal history
records. Of these, 25,614,711 records were available for criminal justice
purposes from the 43 III State repositories and 17,918,864 records were
available for such purposes from the FBI. Column 1 of the table
("State-supported Records") shows the numbers of records for which the
repositories in III States have assumed responsibility for criminal justice
response purposes. Column 2 ("FBI-supported Records") shows the
numbers of records of State offenders of III States for which the FBI
continues to be responsible. Column 3 ("Others") shows the number of
III-indexed records of persons arrested and prosecuted in States (and
territories) whose repositories are not participating in the III system, as
well as the number of Federal offender records and foreign offender
records indexed in the system. The FBI provides the records listed in
Columns 2 and 3 in response to III record requests for criminal justice
purposes.

Interstate Identification Index (III)
Total Subjects
August 3, 2001

State-supported Records

(III Participants)

STATE     RECORDS
Alabama   114,832
Alaska    56,939
Arizona   201,911
Arkansas  179,442
California     4,800,352
Colorado  585,002
Connecticut    188,754
Delaware  109,778
Florida   2,767,855
Georgia   1,829,046
Idaho     136,070
Illinois  437,605
Indiana   129,666
Iowa      92,362
Maryland  103,844
Massachusetts  551
Michigan  875,040
Minnesota      311,157
Mississippi    24,954
Missouri  450,454
Montana   76,789
Nevada    180,430
Nebraska  26,039
New Hampshire  11,118
New Jersey     1,194,524
New Mexico     51,581
New York  2,450,366
North Carolina      768,725
North Dakota   21,379
Ohio      833,638
Oklahoma  166,466
Oregon     496,732
Pennsylvania   914,602
Rhode Island   459
South Carolina      845,188
South Dakota   61,559
Texas     2,719,436
Utah      235,721
Virginia  736,974
Washington     289,211
West Virginia  17,829
Wisconsin 52,999
Wyoming   67,332
TOTAL     25,614,711

FBI-supported Records (III Participants)

STATE     RECORDS 
Alabama   428,405
Alaska    73,555
Arizona   664,223
Arkansas  155,163
California     792,048
Colorado  182,438
Connecticut    149,509
Delaware  70,491
Florida   582,314
Georgia   188,657
Idaho     37,627
Illinois  1,484,134
Indiana   394,237
Iowa      271,357
Maryland  739,943
Massachusetts  298,054
Michigan  151,122
Minnesota      48,205
Mississippi    185,076
Missouri  236,473
Montana   53,697
Nevada    217,765
Nebraska  144,769
New Hampshire  104,490
New Jersey     80,038
New Mexico     251,959
New York  292,011
North Carolina      68,573
North Dakota   33,240
Ohio      242,795
Oklahoma  257,774
Oregon     90,517
Pennsylvania   403,103
Rhode Island   109,062
South Carolina      56,406
South Dakota   87,528
Texas     245,957
Utah      53,541
Virginia  281,455
Washington     462,461
West Virginia  130,657
Wisconsin 460,140
Wyoming   20,795
TOTAL     11,281,764


FBI-supported Records (Others)
NON-III STATE  RECORDS

District of Columbia     168,017
Hawaii    147,961
Kansas    401,414
Kentucky  367,574
Louisiana      707,064
Maine     70,541
Tennessee      729,688
Vermont   47,833

SUBTOTAL  2,640,092

U.S. TERRITORY RECORDS

American Samoa      618
Guam      16,879
Northern Mariana    4,594
Puerto Rico    95,903
Virgin Islands      11,983

SUBTOTAL  129,977

Federal   3,795,491
Foreign   71,540

TOTAL     6,637,100

Total Records  43,533,575*
*The number of total records exceeds total subjects due to multi-State
offenders



- Interstate Identification Index record responses for noncriminal justice
purposes

Four of the 43 III States (Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, and
Oregon) have assumed responsibility for providing their III-indexed
criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes as well as for
criminal justice purposes. These States are usually referred to as "NFF
States" because they submit offender fingerprints and charge/disposition
information to the FBI pursuant to the National Fingerprint File concept
(discussed below). NFF States must have legal authority to provide full
criminal history records to the FBI and to other State repositories for any
noncriminal justice purpose authorized by Federal law or by any other
State's law. As noted earlier, in responding to III record requests, they are
required to provide all unsealed information relating to record subjects.
The information is screened and edited, if necessary, under the laws of the
receiving State repositories before it is made available to noncriminal
justice agencies.

States in which the repositories lack the record dissemination authority to
participate in the NFF may provide such authority by amending their
criminal history record laws. 

They may also do so by ratifying the National Crime Prevention and
Privacy Compact. Among other things, the compact authorizes party State
repositories to make records available to the FBI for Federally authorized
noncriminal justice purposes, and to any State repository for any
noncriminal justice purpose that is authorized by law in that State. Because
a compact supersedes conflicting provisions of State law, the act of
ratifying the compact has the effect of amending a State's record
dissemination law. Ratification of the compact also binds party State
repositories to their roles in processing national searches for noncriminal
justice purposes. 

- Discontinuance of Federal Bureau of Investigation records of State
offenders 

Because NFF State repositories are obligated to provide their III-indexed
State offender records (those for which they have assumed III
responsibility) for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes,
the FBI no longer needs to maintain duplicates of these records for
national search purposes. Hence, after a State begins NFF participation,
the State repository and criminal justice agencies in the State no longer
follow the practice of forwarding fingerprints 
and charge/disposition information to the FBI for all persons arrested for
or charged with criterion offenses in the State (as described in section 1 of
this chapter). Instead, they forward criminal history record information to
the FBI as follows:

1. Upon the arrest -192 [This includes persons who are charged with
criminal offenses by summons or citation without being arrested.] of a
person who has never before been arrested in the State, the repository
forwards to the FBI only the person's fingerprints together with textual
subject identification information. -193 [Standard fingerprint cards, which
usually are forwarded by mail, contain spaces for both fingerprint images
and textual subject identification information. Increasingly, both types of
information are transmitted to the FBI by electronic means.] The
identification information is used to add the person to the NII, or to update
the index, if necessary, if the person is already in the index, and to set a
pointer indicating that the repository maintains a criminal history record
concerning the individual that is available for authorized III purposes. The
individual's fingerprints are added to the NFF (see figure 5).

2. Upon the arrest of a person who has been arrested previously in the
State and whose State offender record is the responsibility of the State
repository for III purposes, no fingerprints or charge/disposition data are
forwarded to the FBI. -194 [NFF repositories do send electronic notices of
such arrests to the FBI, which enables the FBI to provide notices to law
enforcement agencies that have entered active "wanted person" notices
concerning the arrested persons. The repositories also submit revised
subject identification information, as necessary, to keep the NII updated
and they may send better-quality fingerprints for the NFF if previously
submitted fingerprints were of poor quality.]

3.   Upon the arrest of a person who has been arrested previously in the
State but whose State offender record remains the responsibility of the FBI
for III purposes, the State repository forwards fingerprints and charge/
disposition information as per pre-NFF practices so that the FBI can keep
the record current.

Thus, an NFF State repository is relieved of the burden of submitting
charge/ disposition data to the FBI for first-time in-State offenders and of
submitting fingerprints or charge/ disposition data upon the arrest of
persons whose prior in-State records are the repository's responsibility for
III purposes. The FBI is relieved of the burden of processing these
submissions and maintaining duplicate records of these persons. Full
criminal history records of these persons are maintained only at the State
repository level. 

At present, about 59% of the State offender records available by means of
the III system for criminal justice purposes are the responsibility of the 43
III State repositories, and the other approximately 41% are the
responsibility of the FBI. However, the FBI is responsible for
approximately 86% of the State offender records provided by the system
for noncriminal justice purposes, with the other 14% being the
responsibility of the four NFF State repositories. In time, when all of the
State repositories are participating in the III system and are NFF
participants as well, and when the records of State offenders for which the
FBI retains III system responsibility have been purged from the system
because of the old age or death of the subjects, the FBI will maintain and
provide no records of State offenders. It will maintain only Federal
offender records and the records of a few foreign offenders. At that time,
the decentralization component of the III system will have been fully
implemented.

Figure 5a shows procedures for the reporting of arrest and custodial
fingerprints and case disposition data to the FBI by State repositories that
are not participating in the decentralization phase of the III system
(referred to as non-NFF repositories). This includes repositories that are
not participating at all in III, as well as repositories that are participating in
III as record providers for criminal justice purposes only. Since these
repositories are not providing records from their files to all Federal and
out-of-State noncriminal justice agencies authorized to obtain national
record searches, criminal justice agencies in these States continue to
submit fingerprints and charge/disposition information to the FBI for all
arrests for criterion offenses. This is done in order that the FBI may
provide record services (Federal offender and State offender records) to
authorized noncriminal justice users.

Figure 5b shows how reporting and record maintenance works for State
repositories that participate in the decentralization phase of III
implementation (often referred to as implementation of the NFF). These
repositories (referred to as NFF repositories) assume an obligation to
provide interstate record services to all authorized III users for both
criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes. Thus, there is no need
for these States to continue submitting fingerprints and criminal history
data to the FBI for arrests of persons whose records are the States'
responsibility for III purposes. They submit fingerprint and offender
identification information only for the first arrest of an individual for a
criterion offense within each State. This enables the FBI to include the
record subject in the III index (and set a "pointer" to the submitting State),
and to include the subject's fingerprints in the NFF.

Section 3: Interstate Identification Index system impact

This section, in addressing the impact of the III system, describes the
following:
* Benefits of III participation.
* Benefits of NFF participation.
* Burdens of III participation.

Benefits of Interstate Identification Index participation

- Improved record quality

Full III implementation will offer significant benefits to criminal justice
practitioners and to noncriminal justice agencies that obtain records
through the system. Since studies and audits have indicated that records
maintained at the State level are sometimes more complete and timely than
comparable State offender records maintained by the FBI, the ability to
obtain records directly from State repositories is expected to result in an
improvement in the quality of available information. Further data quality
improvements will result from computer matching of State and Federal
records and the resolution of identified discrepancies.

- Cost savings

III participation affords cost-saving benefits whether a State repository
participates fully or only as a record provider for criminal justice purposes.
The III computer interface automatically updates State files to add newly
assigned FBI numbers, eliminating the mailing of forms and the manual
matching and data entry previously performed by State personnel. The
repositories are also able to set single-State/multi-State flags in their files
indicating whether their records on particular offenders are complete or
whether there are additional data available from other States or the FBI.

- Increased system security

In addition, an increase in system security results from III requirements for
written agreements with all user agencies concerning security measures
designed to prevent unauthorized access to or use of system data. These
measures include:
* Physical and system security.
* Transaction logging.
* Organizational/ administrative requirements.
* Sanctions for noncompliance.

Benefits of National Fingerprint File participation

There will be additional benefits for repositories that participate in NFF
(providing records in response to III requests for both criminal justice and
noncriminal justice purposes) and for the FBI.

- Duplicate files eliminated

Maintenance of duplicate State and Federal files for offenders from these
States will be discontinued. State repositories will be relieved of the
burden of submitting second and subsequent arrest fingerprints and charge/
disposition information to the FBI for offenders whose in-State records are
the States' responsibility for III purposes. The FBI will be relieved of the
burden of maintaining these State offender records. This will free
personnel and resources that can be applied to other programs to further
improve Federal and State criminal record files. 

- Uniform dissemination standard

Full III implementation will establish a single uniform standard governing
the interstate exchange of criminal history record information for purposes
of noncriminal justice dissemination. This standard will replace the varied
and sometimes conflicting standards set out in current Federal and State
laws, which have severely restricted interstate dissemination of State
repository records for noncriminal justice purposes. At the same time,
however, State repositories receiving full criminal history records from
other State repositories or the FBI will be able to screen these records and
delete any information that cannot be released for intrastate purposes
under their own dissemination laws.

- Faster response times

Some noncriminal justice users will enjoy faster response times because
the repositories in their States will receive automated record responses
from the FBI rather than the mailed responses that are now provided.

Burdens of Interstate Identification Index participation

There are some new burdens to the States associated with III participation.
Most of the States that are not now participating will need to upgrade the
technical capability of their repositories in order to interface with III and
achieve required system support levels. This work is in progress in most of
these States. In addition, there are some modest start-up costs for system
software and other changes necessary for the basic III interface.

Once full participation begins, the repositories assume increased
responsibilities for providing records in response to out-of-State inquiries
that are now serviced by the FBI - both criminal justice and noncriminal
justice inquiries. However, because many criminal justice responses are
already handled electronically, and because the volume of noncriminal
justice record responses is low, -195 [Analysis has shown that the "hit
rate" for noncriminal justice searches is 7-8% for all categories of
subjects.] these new burdens should not be significant in States that have
efficient systems.

Section 4: The National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact

This section discusses the National Crime Prevention and Privacy
Compact, which governs the use of the III system for noncriminal justice
purposes. -196 [The compact text, and section-by-section analysis, is
included as appendix 21.]

Background

It was apparent to the State and Federal officials who developed the III
concept that full participation in the index-pointer system would
eventually require most States to modify their existing laws and policies
governing the availability of criminal history records for noncriminal
justice purposes in order to meet the proposed interstate standard on record
availability. In addition, Federal and State officials recognized a need to
formally commit the FBI and participating State repositories to long-term
participation in a decentralized system.

These goals could possibly have been realized through the enactment of
Federal legislation in combination with uniform State laws or independent
State legislative action. However, there was a strong consensus from the
emergence of the III concept that favored the use of an
interstate/Federal-State compact to implement the system for the following
reasons: 

* A compact must be ratified in identical form by all parties and, after
ratification, no party can unilaterally amend it.

* Ratifying parties can withdraw from the compact only through the same
formal action used for ratification, a feature that provides some assurance
of long-term participation by ratifying parties.

* Because compacts take precedence over conflicting State laws, and
because the compact authorizes the State repositories to provide record
responses for all authorized III purposes, ratification of the compact would
have the effect of providing the repositories with needed interstate record
dissemination authority in those cases in which such authority is now
lacking under State law. 

The compact was approved by the Congress on October 8, 1998, and
signed by the President on October 9, 1998. -197 [Public Law 105-251;
112 Statutes at Large 1870. Codified at 42 USCA  14611 et seq.] It
became effective, by its terms, on April 28, 1999, when ratified by the
second State. As of mid-2001, 13 States - Connecticut, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, Arkansas,
Alaska, Oklahoma, and Maine - have ratified the compact. Based on
representations of State officials, it appears likely that numerous other
States will ratify the compact in the not-too-distant future.

Compact provisions

Major provisions of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact
are: -198 [Paul L. Woodard, National Crime Prevention and Privacy
Compact: Resource Materials, NCJ 171671 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1999).]

* The compact binds the FBI and ratifying States to participate in the
noncriminal justice access program of III in accordance with the compact
and established system policies.

* Authorized users are the same as those currently authorized to obtain
records from the FBI's files.

* Participating State repositories are authorized and required to make all
unsealed criminal history records available in response to authorized
noncriminal justice requests.

* All noncriminal justice access to the system is through the FBI and the
State repositories and is based upon fingerprint identification of record
subjects to ensure positive identification.

* Release and use of information obtained through the system for
noncriminal justice purposes is governed by the laws of the receiving
States, and the receiving repositories are required to screen record
responses and delete any information that cannot legally be released within
the State.

* The compact establishes a compact council, comprised of Federal and
State officials and other members representing user interests, to establish
operating policies for noncriminal justice uses of the III system.
* 



Chapter VI: Federal initiatives and criminal history records

This chapter looks at major national initiatives that affect how criminal
history records are maintained and used. 

Section 1: Federal Bureau of Investigation system upgrades, discusses the
Bureau's comprehensive program to upgrade its identification and
information services.

Section 2: The Brady Act and its impact, discusses the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act and its impact on State and Federal criminal
history record maintenance and improvement.

Section 3: Federal grant programs and related initiatives, identifies
criminal history record grant programs administered by the U.S.
Department of Justice, as well as national initiatives that involve criminal
history records.

Background

The Federal government plays a principal role in criminal history record
information policies and practices. As described in chapter V, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) fingerprint files and criminal history
records are and will continue to be a critical part of the Nation's criminal
history record system. In addition, Federal noncriminal justice agencies,
including the military services and Federal intelligence agencies, are
among the largest consumers of criminal history record information.

Federal justice assistance grant programs also contribute to the Federal
government's central role in the Nation's criminal history record system.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), through the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS), the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and other Office
of Justice Programs (OJP) agencies, annually provides millions of dollars
in grants to State and local agencies to support and enhance criminal
history record systems, and to improve criminal history record data
quality.

In addition, Congress has enacted broad statutory requirements relating to
criminal history records and data quality applicable to State and local
agencies receiving Federal grants; and the U.S. DOJ, originally through its
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and, after its demise in 1979,
through BJS and BJA, has issued regulations governing the collection,
storage, and dissemination of criminal history record information by State
and local agencies.

In the past few years, the Federal government has launched several
initiatives that also have a material effect on how criminal history records
are maintained and used at the local, State, and Federal levels. This
chapter looks at the most important of these initiatives. 

Section 1: Federal Bureau of Investigation system upgrades

The FBI has made significant progress in a comprehensive program to
upgrade and revitalize its identification and information services
capabilities.

This section looks at these FBI initiatives:
* The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS).
* Relocation of the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division.
* National Crime Information Center (NCIC) 2000. 

Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System

The completed IAFIS became operational on July 28, 1999. IAFIS
includes FBI facilities for automated storage and search of arrest
fingerprints, as well as telecommunication facilities for the exchange of
fingerprint images and related data with State identification bureaus.
IAFIS can respond to identification requests submitted for criminal justice
purposes within 2 hours for end-to-end electronic transmissions, and
within 24 hours for noncriminal justice end-to-end electronic
transmissions. The FBI estimates that the quick turn-around will prevent
the release of an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 fugitives freed each year
because of delays in establishing their true identities and warrant status.
-199 [IAFIS Technical Bulletin, supra note 165.] All communication of
fingerprint image data will be conducted using a national standard format,
which can also be adopted by States to link State identification bureaus
with local arrest booking agencies. At $640 million, IAFIS was the U.S.
DOJ's largest financial undertaking ever. In March 2001, of the nearly
45,000 fingerprints received by the FBI each day, close to 60% of civil
prints and just over 50% of the criminal fingerprints were submitted
electronically. -200 [Figures compiled by the FBI's CJIS Division.]
Sixty-three percent of the criminal prints and 10% of the civil prints
submitted were matched with prints on file. -201 [Presentation by Mr.
David R. Loesch, Assistant Director in Charge, CJIS Division, FBI, to the
SEARCH Membership Group, July 28, 2000, Honolulu, Hawaii.]

Criminal Justice Information Services Division relocation

Another key part of the FBI's modernization program was the relocation of
its CJIS Division from FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., to expanded
and improved facilities in Clarksburg, West Virginia, the largest relocation
in the Bureau's history. The Clarksburg facility features approximately
500,000 square feet of workspace with room for 2,500 employees at the
986-acre site. FBI personnel began to move to the new CJIS facility in
1995. -202 [Source: Federation of American Scientists' Intelligence
Resource Program, available at
http://www.fas.org/irp/facility/fbi_clarksburg.htm.]

National Crime Information Center 2000

Another FBI initiative called NCIC 2000 upgraded NCIC's legacy
telecommunications system and hardware to permit the paperless
exchange of information. In addition, NCIC can now handle graphic
information, including mugshots, tattoos, and signatures, in an electronic
imaging format. NCIC 2000 enhancements include near-hit capabilities for
birth date inquiries, and formulas for conducting sound-alike name
searches, such as for Knowles and Nowles, and for name variations such
as James, Jim, and Jimmy. -203 [Federal Bureau of Investigation, NCIC
2000: Improving Law Enforcement Nationwide, revised April 1999.] The
upgraded system provides investigators with access to 17 databases,
including information on deported felons, missing persons, and stolen
guns and vehicles, and can identify relationships between information in
the databases, such as between a stolen car and a stolen gun. -204 [L. Scott
Tillett, "FBI turns on new crime-fighting system," Federal Computer
Week, July 15, 1999.] NCIC 2000 went on-line on July 11, 1999. As of
May 1, 2000, NCIC averaged more than 2.3 million transactions per day.

Section 2: The Brady Act and its impact

Background

On November 30, 1993, President Clinton signed into law the Brady
Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159), which facilitates
background checks of firearm purchasers to identify persons who are
prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 from owning or possessing
firearms. -205 [18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.] The Brady Act's interim provisions
imposed a 5-day waiting period on handgun purchases, during which the
chief law enforcement officer of the handgun purchaser's place of
residence was required to make a reasonable effort to determine whether
the gun sale was in accordance with the law. -206 [The Brady Act
provision requiring local law enforcement officers to determine the
legality of gun sales was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court
on June 27, 1997, in Printz v. United States (521 U.S. 898). The ruling
resulted from lawsuits filed by two sheriffs (Jay Printz of Montana and
Richard Mack of Arizona) who argued that the background check
provision was unconstitutional based on 10th amendment protections
given to the States. (The 10th amendment states that constitutional powers
not given to the Federal government nor explicitly removed from the
States' domain are reserved for the States and the people.) District courts
hearing the cases ruled that the interim measures were unconstitutional but
severable from the rest of the Brady Act. The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled the interim measures were constitutional. The U.S. Supreme
Court reversed that ruling 5-4, stating that "Congress cannot compel that
States enact or enforce a Federal regulatory program."]

The Gun Control Act prohibits the purchase or possession of firearms by
individuals who are under indictment for or who have been convicted of
crimes punishable by prison terms exceeding 1 year; fugitives from justice;
unlawful users of certain controlled substances; persons adjudicated as
mental defectives; illegal or unlawful aliens; persons discharged
dishonorably from the armed forces; persons who have renounced their
United States citizenship; persons who have been convicted of
misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence; and certain persons who are
subject to outstanding court protection orders. -207 [Public Law 90-618.]

The Brady Act's permanent provisions required the Attorney General to
establish within 5 years of its enactment a National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS) to expedite determinations of the
suitability for ownership of all potential gun purchasers, at which time the
Act's interim provisions would expire. 

National Instant Criminal Background Check System

The NICS became operational on November 30, 1998. In most cases,
NICS can provide a suitability determination within 30 seconds for firearm
purchases, although the Brady Act provides for up to 3 days for a response.

States have the option of serving as Points of Contact (POC) to conduct
their own criminal history background checks, or they can hand the
responsibility for firearms checks over to the FBI. As of August 2001, 16
States served as POCs for all firearm-purchase background checks; 5
States that require individuals to obtain permits from criminal justice
officials before purchasing firearms conducted the background checks for
handgun permits, with the FBI handling long-gun-purchase background
checks; 5 States conducted background checks for handguns purchased
directly from dealers, with the FBI handling long-gun-purchase
background checks; and the FBI conducted all background checks for 29
States. -208 [Source: Ms. Lisa Vincent, Assistant Operations Manager,
NICS.] The 15 POC States represent some of the Nation's most populous,
including California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia, and these POC States conduct about one-half of all NICS
background checks. -209 [Gun Control: Options for Improving the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System, GAO/GGD-00-56
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, April 2000).]

The FBI maintains two call centers to respond to inquiries from Federal
Firearm Licensees (FFLs) in non-POC States seeking suitability
determinations for prospective firearm purchasers. Delayed responses to
such inquiries are forwarded to the FBI for further investigation. FFLs in
POC States conduct the suitability inquiries through a designated state
agency, which contacts the FBI for a search of III, NCIC and NICS.

The system's central database taps into Federal criminal history databases,
including NCIC and the Interstate Identification Index (III), and into
databases maintained by six other Federal agencies that provide
information on military and immigration and naturalization status. Once a
name is entered, the NICS check is made against III records (including
Federal computerized criminal history records), the NCIC database
(including wants and warrants), and the NICS database. Based on the
results of the check, the dealer is advised that the sale may proceed, is
denied or is delayed. Delayed sales are transferred to an FBI analysis
center for further investigation, and FBI personnel call the dealer with the
results of their investigation.

The FBI reported that, in the first 13 months of NICS operation,
approximately 72% of the background checks it conducted for States that
declined to serve as POCs resulted in immediate clearance to transfer a
weapon. -210 [National Instant Criminal Background Check System
Operations Report (November 30, 1998-December 31, 1999), CJIS
Division, FBI.] It is estimated that NICS conducts up to 30,000 Federally
mandated criminal history background checks on potential gun buyers
each day -211 [Science Applications International Corporation, 1999
Annual Report, p. 39.] for a community of approximately 60,000 Federally
licensed firearm dealers. -212 [Science Applications International
Corporation, "Criminal Justice Information Systems," available at
http://www.saic.com/justice /integrated.html.]

Other Brady Act provisions

The Brady Act also required the Attorney General to expedite the upgrade
and index of State criminal history records in the Federal criminal history
record system maintained by the FBI; the development of hardware and
software to link State criminal history check systems to NICS; and the
FBI's revitalization initiatives for technologically advanced fingerprint and
criminal records identification. The Act also established a grant program,
authorized at $200 million.

Section 3: Federal grant programs and related initiatives

This section looks at:

* The National Criminal History Improvement Program.

* The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Program 5% set-aside.

* A law requiring States to report alien convictions to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.

* The National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program.

* The National Technical Assistance and Evaluation Program.

* Voluntary reporting standards promulgated by the FBI and BJS.

The National Criminal History Improvement Program

- Background

The recognition of the role played by accurate and complete criminal
history in effective law enforcement that resulted in the creation of the
National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) was evident
when its predecessor program, the Criminal History Record Improvement
(CHRI) Program, was introduced in 1990.

At the time, a task force appointed by the Attorney General to identify
options for the establishment of a national felon identification system cited
the lack of complete and accurate criminal history records, at both the
State and Federal levels, as one of the most significant impediments to the
implementation of a point-of-sale system for the identification of felons
who attempted to purchase firearms.

The task force recognized, moreover, that incomplete and inaccurate
criminal history records frustrated not only attempts to identify felons, but
also the ability of judges to make informed bail and pretrial release
decisions, the ability of prosecutors to charge repeat offenders under tough
career criminal statutes, and the ability of judges and probation officers to
make intelligent sentencing and post-confinement supervision decisions
based on a defendant's criminal history record.

One of the major components of the Attorney General's efforts to develop
a nationwide system to identify felons who attempted to purchase firearms
was the announcement that discretionary grant funds authorized under the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 would be allocated beginning in Fiscal Year
1990 for grants to the States for the specific purpose of improving and
updating their criminal history record information systems. The CHRI
Program ultimately distributed more than $27 million to all 50 States to
enhance State criminal history records by improving quality and
timeliness, to assist States in meeting new standards for voluntary criminal
record information reporting to the FBI, and to overcome obstacles that
hampered the identification of felons who attempted to purchase firearms.
The CHRI Program was discontinued after Fiscal Year 1993. NCHIP, its
successor program, was instituted 2 years later.

- Creation of the program

The Brady Act authorized a grant program to be administered by BJS to
provide funds for all states to upgrade records and interface with the FBI.
As a result of the authorization in 1995, BJS created the National Criminal
History Improvement Program (NCHIP). NCHIP was designed to enhance
the quality, completeness, and accessibility of the Nation's criminal history
record system to facilitate the timely identification of individuals
prohibited by the Brady Act from owning or possessing firearms; to ensure
that individuals caring for children, elders, and the disabled did not have
disqualifying criminal histories, as mandated by the National Child
Protection Act of 1993; -213 [P.L. 103-209, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993).] and to
improve access to protection orders and records of individuals wanted for
stalking and domestic violence, as required by the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. -214 [P.L. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796
(1994).]

In 1998, NCHIP was extended to help States improve criminal history
record accuracy and dissemination capabilities in response to Federal
directives to develop or improve sex offender registries and to contribute
data to a national sex offender registry. -215 [The Jacob Wetterling Crimes
Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act,
included in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(42 U.S.C.  14071); the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and
Identification Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C.  14072); and the Federal version of
"Megan's Law," enacted in 1996 to amend the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 104-145, 100 Stat. 1345).]
Twenty-five million dollars were allocated for this purpose. States could
use the money to automate registries or to enhance automation, to improve
on-line access for law enforcement agencies throughout their States, to
purchase automated fingerprint systems, and for a host of other
improvements. 

NCHIP is closely coordinated with the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant
Program, a BJA program that requires that States must use at least 5% of
their awards for the improvement of criminal history records. At the end of
Fiscal Year 1998, every State had received an award from NCHIP, which
had disbursed more than $314 million in direct grants to the States during
Fiscal Years 1995 through 2001. NCHIP's appropriation for Fiscal Year
2000 was $45 million.

- Purposes for using grants

In its program announcement, BJS identified the following goals for which
Federal NCHIP grants to the States could be used:

* To establish programs and systems to facilitate full participation in the
NCIC's III.

* To implement systems to facilitate full participation in any compact
relating to NCIC's III.

* To develop systems to facilitate full NICS participation.

* To establish programs to support the availability of criminal record data
for authorized noncriminal justice purposes, including background checks
on persons with responsibility for children, the elderly, or the disabled.

* To ensure that noncriminal history record information systems relevant
to firearms eligibility determinations become available and accessible to
NICS.

* To improve the level of automation, accuracy, completeness, and
flagging of adult and juvenile records, including arrest and disposition
reporting.

* To implement and upgrade automated fingerprint identification systems
(AFIS) and to purchase supporting livescan equipment.

* To support the development of accurate and complete State sex offender
identification and registration systems that interface with the FBI's Sex
Offender Registry and meet applicable Federal and State requirements.

* To identify, classify, collect, and maintain records of protection orders,
warrants, arrests, and convictions of persons violating protection orders so
as to protect victims of stalking and domestic violence.

* To identify (through interface with the National Incident-Based
Reporting System (NIBRS) when necessary) records of crimes involving
use of a handgun and/or abuse of children, the elderly, or disabled persons.

* To participate in system integration plans that permit interface of
systems operated by different criminal justice components.

* To support court-based criminal justice information systems that
promote disposition reporting.

* To establish domestic violence offender identification and information
systems.

* To ensure that States develop the capability to monitor and assess State
progress in meeting legislative and programmatic goals.

* To ensure that criminal justice systems are designed, implemented, or
upgraded to be compatible, where applicable, with NIBRS, NCIC 2000,
NICS, IAFIS, and applicable statewide or regional criminal justice
information sharing standards and plans. -216 [National Criminal History
Improvement Program Fiscal Year 1999 Program Announcement, NCJ
175033 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, February 1999) pp. 3-4.]

- Data quality, system improvement strategies

BJS identified a number of proven data quality and system improvement
strategies and authorized States to use NCHIP grant funds to implement
these strategies. Specifically, the BJS guidelines authorized funds for the
following types of programs: -217 [Ibid.]

* III participation.
* Database enhancement.
* Record flagging.
* NICS participation.
* Firearm permits.
* National Sex Offender Registry participation.
* To improve on-line law enforcement access to sex offender registry data.
* Protection order file participation.
* Interface between criminal history records, sex offender registry, and
civil protection order files.
* Uniform rap sheet format.
* Year 2000 compliance.
* Record automation.
* AFIS/Livescan acquisition and upgrade.
* Establish mug shot identification capability.
* NIBRS interface.
* Research, evaluation, monitoring, and audits.
* Conversion of juvenile records to the adult system.
* Reduction of missing dispositions backlog.
* Equipment upgrades.
* Training and participation in seminars and meetings.
* Reducing cost of background checks.
* Coordinating activities under this program with the implementation of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service's new criminal records
reporting program.

- Status of the program

As noted previously, more than $314 million has been distributed in
connection with NCHIP since 1995. A total of $45 million was
appropriated under the Crime Identification Technology Act in Fiscal Year
2000 to cover NCHIP activities. States have used NCHIP grant funding to
institute a variety of projects and programs. Nineteen States, for example,
have used the funds to acquire or upgrade AFIS and supporting livescan
technology. Twelve States are using the funds to increase the number of
records with dispositions in their repositories, either through automation,
backlog reduction, or integration. Five States are using grant funds for
integration projects. Other projects being pursued by States to improve the
quality of their criminal history records include automation, technological
upgrades, flagging, Internet/intranet use, document imaging, case tracking,
business plan development, training, increase in support personnel, and
information auditing. -218 [Status information provided by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, available at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/nchip2.htm.]

Bureau of Justice Assistance block grant set-aside program

The Congress also recognized the importance of improving the quality and
completeness of State criminal history record systems by including a
provision in the Crime Control Act of 1990 that requires each State to set
aside at least 5% of its Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement block grant monies from BJA for the improvement of
criminal justice records. -219 [Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4850
(codified at 42 U.S.C.  3759(a)).] The improvements may include the
following:

* Completion of criminal histories to include final dispositions of all
felony arrests.

* Full automation of all criminal history and fingerprint records.

* Increasing the frequency and quality of criminal history records sent to
the FBI.

Section 106(a) of the Brady Act and Section 4(a) of the National Child
Protection Act amended Section 509 of the Crime Control Act of 1990 to
make system improvements that are in furtherance of the acts' goals
additional purposes of the criminal justice record improvement goals of
the set-aside program. 

- Fund guidelines

BJA, which administers the Byrne grant program, has issued guidelines for
the expenditure of the 5% set-aside funds. -220 [U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Byrne Formula Grant Program
Guidelines and Application Kit, available at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/html/bfguide.htm.] The guidelines require
every State to take the following actions before spending any of its
set-aside funds:

* Establish a criminal justice records improvement task force.

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

* Identify the reasons why criminal history records are incomplete or
inaccurate.

* Develop a records improvement plan, which must be approved by BJA.

The 5% minimum set-aside applied to funds appropriated beginning in
Fiscal Year 1992 and all subsequent yearly formula grants awarded under
the Byrne grant program. 

BJA's guidelines provide that set-aside funds may be used for other
innovative purposes, such as the development of law enforcement
incident-based reporting systems. The Director of BJA, at the request of a
State, may waive the 5% set-aside upon a finding, supported by an
independent audit, that the quality of the State's criminal history records
meets standards set out in the guidelines.

The National Technical Assistance and Evaluation Program

Under this NCHIP component, BJS has funded a grant to SEARCH, The
National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, to provide
onsite and telephone assistance to States that have received funds to assist
in upgrading record systems. Requests for such assistance must be
originated by the agency receiving BJS funding, although it may be
provided to an alternate agency designated by the grant recipient. NCHIP
technical assistance has aided States' efforts to participate in III, reviewed
and made recommendations on computerized criminal history systems,
and provided advice on information audits and automated fingerprint
system.

Reporting alien convictions to the Immigration and Naturalization Service

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 requires each State, as a
condition of receiving formula funds under the Edward Byrne block grant
program, to implement procedures to provide the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) with certified copies of criminal history
records of aliens convicted of violating the State's criminal laws. -221
[Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat.
4978 (November 29, 1990), which amended  503(a) of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (codified as 42 U.S.C. 
3753(a)(11)).] The records had to be provided to INS within 30 days of the
conviction date, and the State could not charge a fee for such records.

The reporting provision in the Immigration Act was designed to assist both
INS and State and local governments in dealing with criminal aliens. For
INS, the provision assists in the prompt identification of aliens who have
committed offenses for which they can be deported. INS estimates that
more than 10% of the inmates currently in State prisons are foreign-born.
Once released from prison, these offenders may be deported, thus reducing
the likelihood of recidivist behavior in this country. The States also save
court and correctional supervision costs as a result of the deportation of
alien offenders who are convicted but not yet sentenced.

In 1991, Congress further amended the Immigration Act to reduce the
reporting burden on State and local law enforcement agencies imposed by
the 1990 law. As amended, the law now permits the States to provide INS
initially with a notice of the conviction of a suspected alien and to provide
a certified copy of the conviction record later, if requested by INS. -222
[H.R. 3049 - The Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and
Naturalization Service Amendments Act of 1991, amending  503 (a)(11)
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as added by 
507 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 (December 18,
1991).] The amendment also permits States to provide copies of
conviction records in the most convenient format to the States, ranging
from paper records held by the courts to electronic documentation
maintained by the State central repositories.

Sex Offender Registry Assistance

A component of NCHIP, the National Sex Offender Registry Assistance
Program (NSOR-AP), established in FY 1998, was designed to support the
establishment and maintenance of an effective national sex offender
registry. Funding for sex offender registry assistance has been provided
under general NCHIP since FY 1999. Although all States have registries in
place, many cannot share accurate information efficiently. Therefore, sex
offender registry assistance was designed to help States ensure that:

* State sex offender registries identify, collect, and properly disseminate
relevant information that is consistent, accurate, complete, and up to date.

* States establish appropriate interfaces with the FBI's national system so
that State registry information on sex offenders can be obtained and
tracked from one jurisdiction to another.

Federal Bureau of Investigation/Bureau of Justice Statistics voluntary
reporting standards

The Attorney General's recommendations to the Congress regarding the
development of a system for the identification of felons who attempted to
purchase firearms included an announcement that the FBI, in conjunction
with BJS, would develop voluntary standards to encourage the States to
improve disposition reporting and otherwise improve their criminal history
records.

In making this announcement, the Attorney General noted that the current
state of criminal history records among the States was not sufficiently
advanced to facilitate the development of a national system for the
immediate and accurate identification of felons: No one list of felons
existed. In addition, many of the criminal history records maintained by
law enforcement were either out-of-date or incomplete, or both. Finally,
records often contained arrest information without notification of a final
disposition. -223 [Letter from Attorney General Richard Thornburgh to the
Honorable Thomas S. Foley, Speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives, November 20, 1989.]

After publication of a draft of the voluntary standards in March 1990, and
review by the FBI's Advisory Policy Board, SEARCH and other interested
organizations, the FBI and BJS published the final "Recommended
Voluntary Standards for Improving the Quality of Criminal Record
Information" on February 13, 1991. -224 [FBI and BJS, U.S. Department
of Justice, 56 Federal Register 5849 (February 13, 1991).] The complete
text of the standards is set out in appendix 20.

In brief, the standards:

* Set minimum requirements for the content of arrest and disposition
reports submitted to the repositories and to the FBI, and establish
minimum reporting time frames.

* Provide for the maintenance of fingerprints to support all criminal
history records maintained by the repositories and for the submission of
fingerprints to the FBI for inclusion in the national system.

* Provide for the flagging of felonies in criminal history databases and in
disposition reports submitted to the repositories and to the FBI.

* Provide for annual audits of criminal history record systems and for
security measures to protect criminal history record information from
unauthorized access, modification, or destruction.

The commentary accompanying the standards stated that the intent was to
emphasize enhanced recordkeeping for arrests and convictions occurring
within the 5-year period prior to publication of the standards and in the
future. The commentary noted that the standards were voluntary and that
adoption by criminal history record systems nationwide should be viewed
as a goal and not as a requirement. Nevertheless, the standards were
widely accepted as representing a consensus of informed thought on the
subject of record maintenance and data quality, and compliance with the
standards has been incorporated as a major goal of virtually all of the
States' criminal history record improvement plans.

*****Apendices*****

Appendices not presented here are tables and are available in spreadsheet format.
See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#umchri.

Appendix 20
Federal Bureau of Investigation/Bureau of Justice Statistics 
Recommended Voluntary Reporting Standards
for Improving the Quality of Criminal Record Information


The following 10 "Recommended Voluntary Standards for Improving the
Quality of Criminal History Record Information" were jointly developed
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
-1 [U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and
Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Recommended Voluntary Standards for
Improving the Quality of Criminal History Record Information," Federal
Register 56 (February 13, 1991) p. 5849.] After adoption of these
standards, the functions referred to as FBI Identification (FBI ID) in the
standards were taken over by the Criminal Justice Information Services
Division of FBI (FBI-CJIS).

1.  Every State shall maintain fingerprint impressions or copies thereof as
the basic source document for each arrest (including incidents based upon
a summons issued in lieu of an arrest warrant) recorded in the criminal
history record system.

2.  Arrest fingerprint impressions submitted to the State repository and the
FBI Identification Division (ID) should be complete, but shall at least
contain the following data elements: date of arrest, originating agency
identification number, arrest charges, a unique tracking number (if
available) and the subject's full name, date of birth, sex, race and social
security number (if available).

3.  Every State shall ensure that fingerprint impressions of persons arrested
for serious and/or significant offenses are included in the national criminal
history records system.

4.  All disposition reports submitted to the State repository and the FBI ID
shall contain the following:  FBI number (if available), name of subject,
date of birth, sex, state identifier number, social security number (if
available), date of arrest, tracking number (if available), arrest offense
literal, court offense literal, and agency identifier number of agency
reporting arrest.

5.  All final disposition reports submitted to the State repository and the
FBI ID that report a conviction for an offense classified as a felony (or
equivalent) within the State shall include a flag identifying the conviction
as a felony.

6.  States shall ensure to the maximum extent possible that arrest and/or
confinement fingerprints are submitted to the State repository and, when
appropriate, to the FBI ID within 24 hours; however, in the case of
single-source states, state repositories shall forward fingerprints, when
appropriate, to the FBI ID within two weeks of receipt.

7.  States shall ensure to the maximum extent possible that final
dispositions are reported to the State repository and, where appropriate, to
the FBI ID within a period not to exceed 90 days after the disposition is
known.

8.  Every State shall ensure that annual audits of a representative sample of
State and local criminal justice agencies shall be conducted by the State to
verify adherence to State and Federal standards and regulations.

9.  Wherever criminal history record information is collected, stored, or
disseminated, each State shall institute procedures to assure the physical
security of such information, to prevent unauthorized access, disclosure, or
dissemination, and to ensure that such information cannot improperly be
modified, destroyed, accessed, changed, purged, or overlaid.

10.  Every State shall accurately identify to the maximum extent feasible
all State criminal history records maintained or received in the future that
contain a conviction for an offense classified as a felony (or equivalent)
within the State.

Appendix 21
"National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact and Section-by-Section
Analysis"
From National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact: Resource
Materials
NCJ 171671, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1999


National Crime Prevention
and Privacy Compact and Section-by-Section Analysis

Senate Bill 2022, which includes the Compact, was passed by Congress
and signed into law by the president in October 1998. -1 [Title II of Pub.
L. 105-251.]. The section-by-section analysis of the Compact is a
statement of Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), which was read into the October
16, 1998, edition of the Congressional Record. - 2 [Cong. Rec.
S12671-S12673 (daily ed. October 16, 1998) (statement of Sen. DeWine).]


TITLE II-NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY ACCESS AND CHILD
PROTECTION ACT

Section 201. Short Title.

This title may be cited as the "National Criminal History Access and Child
Protection Act".

Subtitle A-Exchange of Criminal History Records for Noncriminal Justice
Purposes

Section 211. Short Title.
This subtitle may be cited as the "National Crime Prevention and Privacy
Compact Act of 1998".

Section 212. Findings.

Congress finds that-

(1) both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and State criminal history
record repositories maintain fingerprint-based criminal history records;

(2) these criminal history records are shared and exchanged for criminal
justice purposes through a Federal-State program known as the Interstate
Identification Index System;

(3) although these records are also exchanged for legally authorized,
noncriminal justice uses, such as governmental licensing and employment
background checks, the purposes for and procedures by which they are
exchanged vary widely from State to State;

(4) an interstate and Federal-State compact is necessary to facilitate
authorized interstate criminal history record exchanges for noncriminal
justice 

purposes on a uniform basis, while permitting each State to effectuate its
own dissemination policy within its own borders; and

(5) such a compact will allow Federal and State records to be provided
expeditiously to governmental and nongovernmental agencies that use
such records in accordance with pertinent Federal and State law, while
simultaneously enhancing the accuracy of the records and safeguarding the
information contained therein from unauthorized disclosure or use.

Section 213. Definitions.

In this subtitle:

(1) ATTORNEY GENERAL.-The term "Attorney General" means the
Attorney General of the United States.

(2) COMPACT.-The term "Compact" means the National Crime
Prevention and Privacy Compact set forth in section 217.

(3) COUNCIL.-The term "Council" means the Compact Council
established under Article VI of the Compact.

(4) FBI.-The term "FBI" means the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(5) PARTY STATE.-The term "Party State" means a State that has ratified
the Compact.

(6) STATE.-The term "State" means any State, territory, or possession of
the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.

Section 214. Enactment and Consent of the United States.

The National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, as set forth in
section 217, is enacted into law and entered into by the Federal
Government. The consent of Congress is given to States to enter into the
Compact.

Section 215. Effect on Other Laws.

(a) PRIVACY ACT OF 1974.-Nothing in the Compact shall affect the
obligations and responsibilities of the FBI under section 552a of title 

5, United States Code (commonly known as the "Privacy Act of 1974").

(b) ACCESS TO CERTAIN RECORDS NOT AFFECTED.-Nothing in
the Compact shall interfere in any manner with-

(1) access, direct or otherwise, to records pursuant to-

(A) section 9101 of title 5, United States Code;

(B) the National Child Protection Act;

(C) the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law l03-l59; 107
Stat. 1536);

(D) the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public
Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 2074) or any amendment made by that Act; 

(E) the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.); or

(F) the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.); or

(2) any direct access to Federal criminal history records authorized by law.

(c) AUTHORITY OF FBI UNDER DEPARTMENTS OF STATE,
JUSTICE, AND COMMERCE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1973.-Nothing in the Compact
shall be construed to affect the authority of the FBI under the Departments
of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriation Act, 1973 (Public Law 92-544 (86 Stat. 1115)).

(d) FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.-The Council shall not
be considered to be a Federal advisory committee for purposes of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

(e) MEMBERS OF COUNCIL NOT FEDERAL OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES.-Members of the Council (other than a member from the
FBI or any at-large member who may be a Federal official or employee)
shall not, by virtue of such membership, be deemed-


(1) to be, for any purpose other than to effect the Compact, officers or
employees of the United States (as defined in sections 2104 and 2105 of
title 5, United States Code); or

(2) to become entitled by reason of Council membership to any
compensation or benefit payable or made available by the Federal
Government to its officers or employees.

Section 216. Enforcement and Implementation.

All departments, agencies, officers, and employees of the United States
shall enforce the Compact and cooperate with one another and with all
Party States in enforcing the Compact and effectuating its purposes. For
the Federal Government, the Attorney General shall make such rules,
prescribe such instructions, and take such other actions as may be
necessary to carry out the Compact and this subtitle.

Section 217. National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact.

The Contracting Parties agree to the following:

OVERVIEW

(a) IN GENERAL.-This Compact organizes an electronic information
sharing system among the Federal Government and the States to exchange
criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes authorized by
Federal or State law, such as background checks for governmental
licensing and employment.

(b) OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES.-Under this Compact, the FBI and the
Party States agree to maintain detailed databases of their respective
criminal history records, including arrests and dispositions, and to make
them available to the Federal Government and to Party States for
authorized purposes. The FBI shall also manage the Federal data facilities
that provide a significant part of the infrastructure for the system.

ARTICLE I-DEFINITIONS

In this Compact:

(1) ATTORNEY GENERAL.-The term "Attorney General" means the
Attorney General of the United States.


(2) COMPACT OFFICER.-The term "Compact Officer" means-

(A) with respect to the Federal Government, an official so designated by
the Director of the FBI; and

(B) with respect to a Party State, the chief administrator of the State's
criminal history record repository or a designee of the chief administrator
who is a regular full-time employee of the repository.

(3) COUNCIL.-The term "Council" means the Compact Council
established under Article VI.

(4) CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS.-The term "criminal history
records"-

(A) means information collected by criminal justice agencies on
individuals consisting of identifiable descriptions and notations of arrests,
detentions, indictments, or other formal criminal charges, and any
disposition arising therefrom, including acquittal, sentencing, correctional
supervision, or release; and

(B) does not include identification information such as fingerprint records
if such information does not indicate involvement of the individual with
the criminal justice system.

(5) CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD REPOSITORY.-The term "criminal
history record repository" means the State agency designated by the
Governor or other appropriate executive official or the legislature of a
State to perform centralized recordkeeping functions for criminal history
records and services in the State.

(6) CRIMINAL JUSTICE.-The term "criminal justice" includes activities
relating to the detection, apprehension, detention, pretrial release, post-trial
release, prosecution, adjudication, correctional supervision, or
rehabilitation of accused persons or criminal offenders. The administration
of criminal justice includes criminal identification activities and the
collection, storage, and dissemination of criminal history records.

(7) CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY.-The term "criminal justice agency"-

(A) means-

(i) courts; and


(ii) a governmental agency or any subunit thereof that-

(I) performs the administration of criminal justice pursuant to a statute or
Executive order; and

(II) allocates a substantial part of its annual budget to the administration of
criminal justice; and

(B) includes Federal and State inspectors general offices.

(8) CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES.-The term "criminal justice
services" means services provided by the FBI to criminal justice agencies
in response to a request for information about a particular individual or as
an update to information previously provided for criminal justice purposes.

(9) CRITERION OFFENSE.-The term "criterion offense" means any
felony or misdemeanor offense not included on the list of nonserious
offenses published periodically by the FBI.

(10) DIRECT ACCESS.-The term "direct access" means access to the
National Identification Index by computer terminal or other automated
means not requiring the assistance of or intervention by any other party or
agency.

(11) EXECUTIVE ORDER.-The term "Executive order" means an order
of the President of the United States or the chief executive officer of a
State that has the force of law and that is promulgated in accordance with
applicable law.

(12) FBI.-The term "FBI" means the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
 
(13) INTERSTATE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM.-The term "Interstate
Identification Index System" or "III System"-

(A) means the cooperative Federal-State system for the exchange of
criminal history records; and

(B) includes the National Identification Index, the National Fingerprint
File and, to the extent of their participation in such system, the criminal
history record repositories of the States and the FBI.


(14) NATIONAL FINGERPRINT FILE.-The term "National Fingerprint
File" means a database of fingerprints, or other uniquely personal
identifying information, relating to an arrested or charged individual
maintained by the FBI to provide positive identification of record subjects
indexed in the III System.

(15) NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION INDEX.-The term "National
Identification Index" means an index maintained by the FBI consisting of
names, identifying numbers, and other descriptive information relating to
record subjects about whom there are criminal history records in the III
System.

(16) NATIONAL INDICES.-The term "National indices" means the
National Identification Index and the National Fingerprint File.

(17) NONPARTY STATE.-The term "Nonparty State" means a State that
has not ratified this Compact.

(18) NONCRIMINAL JUSTICE PURPOSES.-The term "noncriminal
justice purposes" means uses of criminal history records for purposes
authorized by Federal or State law other than purposes relating to criminal
justice activities, including employment suitability, licensing
determinations, immigration and naturalization matters, and national
security clearances.

(19) PARTY STATE.-The term "Party State" means a State that has
ratified this Compact.

(20) POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION.-The term "positive identification"
means a determination, based upon a comparison of fingerprints or other
equally reliable biometric identification techniques, that the subject of a
record search is the same person as the subject of a criminal history record
or records indexed in the III System. Identifications based solely upon a
comparison of subjects' names or other nonunique identification
characteristics or numbers, or combinations thereof, shall not constitute
positive identification.

(21) SEALED RECORD INFORMATION.-The term "sealed record
information" means-

(A) with respect to adults, that portion of a record that is-


(i) not available for criminal justice uses;

(ii) not supported by fingerprints or other accepted means of positive
identification; or

(iii) subject to restrictions on dissemination for noncriminal justice
purposes pursuant to a court order related to a particular subject or
pursuant to a Federal or State statute that requires action on a sealing
petition filed by a particular record subject; and

(B) with respect to juveniles, whatever each State determines is a sealed
record under its own law and procedure.

(22) STATE.-The term "State" means any State, territory, or possession of
the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.

ARTICLE II-PURPOSES

The purposes of this Compact are to-

(1) provide a legal framework for the establishment of a cooperative
Federal-State system for the interstate and Federal-State exchange of
criminal history records for noncriminal justice uses;

(2) require the FBI to permit use of the National Identification Index and
the National Fingerprint File by each Party State, and to provide, in a
timely fashion, Federal and State criminal history records to requesting
States, in accordance with the terms of this Compact and with rules,
procedures, and standards established by the Council under Article VI;

(3) require Party States to provide information and records for the National
Identification Index and the National Fingerprint File and to provide
criminal history records, in a timely fashion, to criminal history record
repositories of other States and the Federal Government for noncriminal
justice purposes, in accordance with the terms of this Compact and with
rules, procedures, and standards established by the Council under Article
VI;

(4) provide for the establishment of a Council to monitor III System
operations and to prescribe system rules and procedures for the effective
and proper operation of the III System for noncriminal justice purposes;
and


(5) require the FBI and each Party State to adhere to III System standards
concerning record dissemination and use, response times, system security,
data quality, and other duly established standards, including those that
enhance the accuracy and privacy of such records.

ARTICLE III-RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMPACT PARTIES

(a) FBI RESPONSIBILITIES.-The Director of the FBI shall-

(1) appoint an FBI Compact officer who shall-

(A) administer this Compact within the Department of Justice and among
Federal agencies and other agencies and organizations that submit search
requests to the FBI pursuant to Article V(c);

(B) ensure that Compact provisions and rules, procedures, and standards
prescribed by the Council under Article VI are complied with by the
Department of Justice and the Federal agencies and other agencies and
organizations referred to in Article III(1)(A); and

(C) regulate the use of records received by means of the III System from
Party States when such records are supplied by the FBI directly to other
Federal agencies;

(2) provide to Federal agencies and to State criminal history record
repositories, criminal history records maintained in its database for the
noncriminal justice purposes described in Article IV, including-

(A) information from Nonparty States; and

(B) information from Party States that is available from the FBI through
the III System, but is not available from the Party State through the III
System;

(3) provide a telecommunications network and maintain centralized
facilities for the exchange of criminal history records for both criminal
justice purposes and the noncriminal justice purposes described in Article
IV, and ensure that the exchange of such records for criminal justice
purposes has priority over exchange for noncriminal justice purposes; and


(4) modify or enter into user agreements with Nonparty State criminal
history record repositories to require them to establish record request
procedures conforming to those prescribed in Article V.

(b) STATE RESPONSIBILITIES.-Each Party State shall-

(1) appoint a Compact officer who shall-

(A) administer this Compact within that State;

(B) ensure that Compact provisions and rules, procedures, and standards
established by the Council under Article VI are complied with in the State;
and

(C) regulate the in-State use of records received by means of the III System
from the FBI or from other Party States;

(2) establish and maintain a criminal history record repository, which shall
provide-

(A) information and records for the National Identification Index and the
National Fingerprint  File; and

(B) the State's III System-indexed criminal history records for noncriminal
justice purposes described in Article IV;

(3) participate in the National Fingerprint File; and
 
(4) provide and maintain telecommunications links and related equipment
necessary to support the services set forth in this Compact.

(c) COMPLIANCE WITH III SYSTEM STANDARDS.-In carrying out
their responsibilities under this Compact, the FBI and each Party State
shall comply with III System rules, procedures, and standards duly
established by the Council concerning record dissemination and use,
response times, data quality, system security, accuracy, privacy protection,
and other aspects of III System operation.

(d) MAINTENANCE OF RECORD SERVICES.-

(1) Use of the III System for noncriminal justice purposes authorized in
this Compact shall be managed so as not to diminish the level of services
provided in support of criminal justice purposes.


(2) Administration of Compact provisions shall not reduce the level of
service available to authorized noncriminal justice users on the effective
date of this Compact.

ARTICLE IV-AUTHORIZED RECORD DISCLOSURES

(a) STATE CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD REPOSITORIES.-To the
extent authorized by section 552a of title 5, United States Code
(commonly known as the "Privacy Act of 1974"), the FBI shall provide on
request criminal history records (excluding sealed records) to State
criminal history record repositories for noncriminal justice purposes
allowed by Federal statute, Federal Executive order, or a State statute that
has been approved by the Attorney General and that authorizes national
indices checks.

(b) CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES AND OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL OR NONGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.-The FBI,
to the extent authorized by section 552a of title 5, United States Code
(commonly known as the "Privacy Act of 1974"), and State criminal
history record repositories shall provide criminal history records
(excluding sealed records) to criminal justice agencies and other
governmental or nongovernmental agencies for noncriminal justice
purposes allowed by Federal statute, Federal Executive order, or a State
statute that has been approved by the Attorney General, that authorizes
national indices checks.

(c) PROCEDURES.-Any record obtained under this Compact may be used
only for the official purposes for which the record was requested. Each
Compact officer shall establish procedures, consistent with this Compact,
and with rules, procedures, and standards established by the Council under
Article VI, which procedures shall protect the accuracy and privacy of the
records, and shall-

(1) ensure that records obtained under this Compact are used only by
authorized officials for authorized purposes;

(2) require that subsequent record checks are requested to obtain current
information whenever a new need arises; and


(3) ensure that record entries that may not legally be used for a particular
noncriminal justice purpose are deleted from the response and, if no
information authorized for release remains, an appropriate "no record"
response is communicated to the requesting official.

ARTICLE V-RECORD REQUEST PROCEDURES

(a) POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION.-Subject fingerprints or other approved
forms of positive identification shall be submitted with all requests for
criminal history record checks for noncriminal justice purposes.

(b) SUBMISSION OF STATE REQUESTS.-Each request for a criminal
history record check utilizing the national indices made under any
approved State statute shall be submitted through that State's criminal
history record repository. A State criminal history record repository shall
process an interstate request for noncriminal justice purposes through the
national indices only if such request is transmitted through another State
criminal history record repository or the FBI.

(c) SUBMISSION OF FEDERAL REQUESTS.- Each request for criminal
history record checks utilizing the national indices made under Federal
authority shall be submitted through the FBI or, if the State criminal
history record repository consents to process fingerprint submissions,
through the criminal history record repository in the State in which such
request originated. Direct access to the National Identification Index by
entities other than the FBI and State criminal history records repositories
shall not be permitted for noncriminal justice purposes.

(d) FEES.-A State criminal history record repository or the FBI-

(1) may charge a fee, in accordance with applicable law, for handling a
request involving fingerprint processing for noncriminal justice purposes;
and

(2) may not charge a fee for providing criminal history records in response
to an electronic request for a record that does not involve a request to
process fingerprints.


(e) ADDITIONAL SEARCH.-

(1) If a State criminal history record repository cannot positively identify
the subject of a record request made for noncriminal justice purposes, the
request, together with fingerprints or other approved identifying
information, shall be forwarded to the FBI for a search of the national
indices.

(2) If, with respect to a request forwarded by a State criminal history
record repository under paragraph (1), the FBI positively identifies the
subject as having a III System-indexed record or records-

(A) the FBI shall so advise the State criminal history record repository;
and

(B) the State criminal history record repository shall be entitled to obtain
the additional criminal history record information from the FBI or other
State criminal history record repositories.

ARTICLE VI-ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMPACT COUNCIL

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-There is established a council to be known as the
"Compact Council", which shall have the authority to promulgate rules
and procedures governing the use of the III System for noncriminal justice
purposes, not to conflict with FBI administration of the III System for
criminal justice purposes.

(2) ORGANIZATION.-The Council shall-

(A) continue in existence as long as this Compact remains in effect;

(B) be located, for administrative purposes, within the FBI; and

(C) be organized and hold its first meeting as soon as practicable after the
effective date of this Compact.

(b) MEMBERSHIP.-The Council shall be composed of 15 members, each
of whom shall be appointed by the Attorney General, as follows:

(l) Nine members, each of whom shall serve a 2-year term, who shall be
selected from among the Compact officers of Party States based on the
recommendation of the Compact officers of all Party States, except 
that, in the absence of the requisite number of Compact officers available
to serve, the chief administrators of the criminal history record repositories
of Nonparty States shall be eligible to serve on an interim basis.

(2) Two at-large members, nominated by the Director of the FBI, each of
whom shall serve a 3-year term, of whom-

(A) 1 shall be a representative of the criminal justice agencies of the
Federal Government and may not be an employee of the FBI; and

(B) 1 shall be a representative of the noncriminal justice agencies of the
Federal Government.

(3) Two at-large members, nominated by the Chairman of the Council,
once the Chairman is elected pursuant to Article VI(c), each of whom shall
serve a 3-year term, of whom-

(A) 1 shall be a representative of State or local criminal justice agencies;
and

(B) 1 shall be a representative of State or local noncriminal justice
agencies.

(4) One member, who shall serve a 3-year term, and who shall
simultaneously be a member of the FBI's advisory policy board on
criminal justice information services, nominated by the membership of
that policy board.

(5) One member, nominated by the Director of the FBI, who shall serve a
3-year term, and who shall be an employee of the FBI.

(c) CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-From its membership, the Council shall elect a
Chairman and a Vice Chairman of the Council, respectively. Both the
Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Council-

(A) shall be a Compact officer, unless there is no Compact officer on the
Council who is willing to serve, in which case the Chairman may be an
at-large member; and

(B) shall serve a 2-year term and may be reelected to only 1 additional
2-year term.


(2) DUTIES OF VICE CHAIRMAN.-The Vice Chairman of the Council
shall serve as the Chairman of the Council in the absence of the Chairman.

(d) MEETINGS.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-The Council shall meet at least once a year at the call
of the Chairman. Each meeting of the Council shall be open to the public.
The Council shall provide prior public notice in the Federal Register of
each meeting of the Council, including the matters to be addressed at such
meeting.

(2) QUORUM.-A majority of the Council or any committee of the Council
shall constitute a quorum of the Council or of such committee,
respectively, for the conduct of business. A lesser number may meet to
hold hearings, take testimony, or conduct any business not requiring a
vote.

(e) RULES, PROCEDURES, AND STANDARDS.-The Council shall
make available for public inspection and copying at the Council office
within the FBI, and shall publish in the Federal Register, any rules,
procedures, or standards established by the Council.

(f) ASSISTANCE FROM FBI.-The Council may request from the FBI
such reports, studies, statistics, or other information or materials as the
Council determines to be necessary to enable the Council to perform its
duties under this Compact. The FBI, to the extent authorized by law, may
provide such assistance or information upon such a request.

(g) COMMITTEES.-The Chairman may establish committees as necessary
to carry out this Compact and may prescribe their membership,
responsibilities, and duration.

ARTICLE VII-RATIFICATION OF COMPACT

This Compact shall take effect upon being entered into by 2 or more States
as between those States and the Federal Government. Upon subsequent
entering into this Compact by additional States, it shall become effective
among those States and the Federal Government and each Party State that
has previously ratified it. When ratified, this Compact shall have the full
force and effect of law within the ratifying jurisdictions. The form of
ratification shall be in accordance with the laws of the executing State.

ARTICLE VIII-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

(a) RELATION OF COMPACT TO CERTAIN FBI
ACTIVITIES.-Administration of this Compact shall not interfere with the
management and control of the Director of the FBI over the FBI's
collection and dissemination of criminal history records and the advisory
function of the FBI's advisory policy board chartered under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) for all purposes other than
noncriminal justice.

(b) NO AUTHORITY FOR NONAPPROPRIATED
EXPENDITURES.-Nothing in this Compact shall require the FBI to
obligate or expend funds beyond those appropriated to the FBI.

(c) RELATING TO PUBLIC LAW 92-544.- Nothing in this Compact
shall diminish or lessen the obligations, responsibilities, and authorities of
any State, whether a Party State or a Nonparty State, or of any criminal
history record repository or other subdivision or component thereof, under
the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1973 (Public Law 92-544) or
regulations and guidelines promulgated thereunder, including the rules and
procedures promulgated by the Council under Article VI(a), regarding the
use and dissemination of criminal history records and information.

ARTICLE IX-RENUNCIATION

(a) IN GENERAL.-This Compact shall bind each Party State until
renounced by the Party State.

(b) EFFECT.-Any renunciation of this Compact by a Party State shall-

(1) be effected in the same manner by which the Party State ratified this
Compact; and

(2) become effective 180 days after written notice of renunciation is
provided by the Party State to each other Party State and to the Federal
Government.

ARTICLE X-SEVERABILITY

The provisions of this Compact shall be severable, and if any phrase,
clause, sentence or provision of this Compact is declared to be contrary to
the 
constitution of any participating State, or to the Constitution of the United
States, or the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person, or
circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Compact
and the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person, or
circumstance shall not be affected thereby. If a portion of this Compact is
held contrary to the constitution of any Party State, all other portions of
this Compact shall remain in full force and effect as to the remaining Party
States and in full force and effect as to the Party State affected, as to all
other provisions.

ARTICLE XI-ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTES

(a) IN GENERAL.-The Council shall-

(1) have initial authority to make determinations with respect to any
dispute regarding-

(A) interpretation of this Compact;

(B) any rule or standard established by the Council pursuant to Article V;
and

(C) any dispute or controversy between any parties to this Compact; and

(2) hold a hearing concerning any dispute described in paragraph (1) at a
regularly scheduled meeting of the Council and only render a decision
based upon a majority vote of the members of the Council. Such decision
shall be published pursuant to the requirements of Article VI(e).

(b) DUTIES OF FBI.-The FBI shall exercise immediate and necessary
action to preserve the integrity of the III System, maintain system policy
and standards, protect the accuracy and privacy of records, and to prevent
abuses, until the Council holds a hearing on such matters.

(c) RIGHT OF APPEAL.-The FBI or a Party State may appeal any
decision of the Council to the Attorney General, and thereafter may file
suit in the appropriate district court of the United States, which shall have
original jurisdiction of all cases or controversies arising under this
Compact. Any suit arising under this Compact and initiated in a State
court shall be removed to the appropriate district court of the United States
in the manner provided by section 1446 of title 28, United States Code, or
other statutory authority.

NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION AND PRIVACY COMPACT OF
THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY ACCESS AND CHILD
PROTECTION ACT SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 211.-This section provides the short title of the Act.

Section 212.-This section sets forth the congressional findings upon which
the Act is predicated. The section reflects congressional determinations
that both the FBI and the states maintain fingerprint-based criminal history
records and exchange them for criminal justice purposes and also, to the
extent authorized by federal law and the laws of the various states, use the
information contained in these records for certain noncriminal justice
purposes. Although this system has operated for years on a reciprocal,
voluntary basis, the exchange of records for noncriminal justice purposes
has been hampered by the fact that the laws and policies of the states
governing the noncriminal justice use of criminal history records and the
procedures by which they are exchanged vary widely. A compact will
establish a uniform standard for the interstate and federal-state exchange
of criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes, while
permitting each state to continue to enforce its own record dissemination
laws within its own borders. A compact will also facilitate the interstate
and federal-state exchange of information by clarifying the obligations and
responsibilities of the respective parties, streamlining the processing of
background search applications and eliminating record maintenance
duplication at the federal and state levels. Finally, the compact will
provide a mechanism for establishing and enforcing uniform standards
governing record accuracy and protecting the confidentiality and privacy
interests of record subjects.

Section 213.-This section sets out definitions of key terms used in this
subtitle. Definitions of key terms used in the compact are set out in Article
I of the compact.

Section 214.-This section formally enacts the compact into federal law,
makes the United States a party, and consents to entry into the Compact by
the States.


Section 215.-This section outlines the effect of the Compact's enactment
on certain other laws. First, subsection (a) provides that the Compact is
deemed to have no effect on the FBI's obligations and responsibilities
under the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act became effective in 1975, and can
generally be characterized as a federal code of fair information practices
regarding individuals. The Privacy Act regulates the collection,
maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information by the federal
government. This Section makes clear that the Compact will neither
expand nor diminish the obligations imposed on the FBI by the Privacy
Act. All requirements relating to collection, disclosure and administrative
matters remain in effect, including standards relating to notice, accuracy
and security measures.

Second, enactment of the Compact will neither expand nor diminish the
responsibility of the FBI and the state criminal history record repositories
to permit access, direct or otherwise, to criminal history records under the
authority of certain other federal laws (enumerated in subsection (b)(1)).
These laws include the following:

The Security Clearance Information Act (Section 9101 of Title 5, United
States Code) requires state and local criminal justice agencies to release
criminal history record information to certain federal agencies for national
security background checks.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act prescribes a waiting period
before the purchase of a handgun may be consummated in order for a
criminal history records check on the purchaser to be completed, and also
establishes a national instant background check system to facilitate
criminal history checks of firearms purchasers. Under this system, licensed
firearms dealers are authorized access to the national instant background
check system for purposes of complying with the background check
requirement.

The National Child Protection Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.  5119a) authorizes
states with appropriate state statutes to access and review state and federal
criminal history records through the national criminal history background
check system for the purpose of determining whether care providers for
children, the elderly and the disabled have criminal histories bearing upon
their fitness to assume such responsibilities.


The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 authorizes
federal and state civil courts to have access to FBI databases containing
criminal history records, missing person records and court protection
orders for use in connection with stalking and domestic violence cases.

The United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended by the Housing
Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996, authorizes public housing
authorities to obtain federal and state criminal conviction records relating
to public housing applicants or tenants for purposes of applicant screening,
lease enforcement and eviction.

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
authorizes Indian tribes or tribally designated housing entities to obtain
federal and state conviction records relating to applicants for or tenants of
federally assisted housing for purposes of applicant screening, lease
enforcement and eviction. Nothing in the Compact would alter any rights
of access provided under these laws.

Subsection (b)(2) provides that the compact shall not affect any direct
access to federal criminal history records authorized by law. Under
existing legal authority, the FBI has provided direct terminal access to
certain federal agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget
and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to facilitate the
processing of large numbers of background search requests by these
agencies for such purposes as federal employment, immigration and
naturalization matters, and the issuance of security clearances. This access
will not be affected by the compact.
Subsection (c) provides that the Compact's enactment will not affect the
FBI's authority to use its criminal history records for noncriminal justice
purposes under Public Law 92-544-the State, Justice, Commerce
Appropriations Act of 1973. This law restored the Bureau's authority to
exchange its identification records with the states and certain other
organizations or entities, such as federally chartered or insured banking
institutions, for employment and licensing purposes, after a federal district
court had declared the FBI's practice of doing so to be without foundation.
(See Menard v. Mitchell, 328 F. Supp. 718 (D.D.C. 1971)).


Subsection (d) provides that the Council created by the Compact to
facilitate its administration is deemed not to be a federal advisory
committee as defined under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This
provision is necessary since nonfederal employees will sit on the Compact
Council together with federal personnel and the Council may from time to
time be called upon to provide the Director of the FBI or the Attorney
General with collective advice on the administration of the Compact.
Without this stipulation, such features might cause the Council to be
considered an advisory committee within the meaning of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. Even though the Council will not be considered
an advisory committee for purposes of the Act, it will hold public
meetings.

Similarly, to avoid any question on the subject, Subsection (e) provides
that members of the Compact Council will not be deemed to be federal
employees or officers by virtue of their Council membership for any
purpose other than to effect the Compact. Thus, state officials and other
nonfederal personnel who are appointed to the Council will be considered
federal officials only to the extent of their roles as Council members. They
will not be entitled to compensation or benefits accruing to federal
employees or officers, but they could receive reimbursement from federal
funds for travel and subsistence expenses incurred in attending council
meetings.

Section 216.-This Section admonishes all federal personnel to enforce the
Compact and to cooperate in its implementation. It also directs the U.S.
Attorney General to take such action as may be necessary to implement the
Compact within the federal government, including the promulgation of
regulations.

Section 217.-This is the core of the subtitle and sets forth the text of the
Compact:

Overview. This briefly describes what the Compact is and how it is meant
to work. Under the Compact, the FBI and the states agree to maintain their
respective databases of criminal history records and to make them
available to Compact parties for authorized purposes by means of an
electronic information sharing system established cooperatively by the
federal government and the states.


Article I-Definitions. This article sets out definitions for key terms used in
the Compact. Most of the definitions are substantially identical to
definitions commonly used in federal and state laws and regulations
relating to criminal history records and need no explanation. However, the
following definitions merit comment:

(20) Positive Identification. This term refers, in brief, to association of a
person with his or her criminal history record through a comparison of
fingerprints or other equally reliable biometric identification techniques.
Such techniques eliminate or substantially reduce the risks of associating a
person with someone else's record or failing to find a record of a person
who uses a false name. At present, the method of establishing positive
identification in use in criminal justice agencies throughout the United
States is based upon comparison of fingerprint patterns, which are
essentially unique and unchanging and thus provide a highly reliable basis
for identification. It is anticipated that this method of positive
identification will remain in use for many years to come, particularly since
federal and state agencies are investing substantial amounts of money to
acquire automated fingerprint identification equipment and related devices
which facilitate the capturing and transmission of fingerprint images and
provide searching and matching methods that are efficient and highly
accurate. However, there are other biometric identification techniques,
including retinal scanning, voice-print analysis and DNA typing, which
might be adapted for criminal record identification purposes. The wording
of the definition contemplates that at some future time the Compact
Council might authorize the use of one or more of these techniques for
establishing positive identification, if it determines that the reliability of
such technique(s) is at least equal to the reliability of fingerprint
comparison.

(21) Sealed Record Information. Article IV, paragraph (b), permits the FBI
and state criminal history record repositories to delete sealed record
information when responding to an interstate record request pursuant to
the Compact. Thus, the definition of "sealed" becomes important,
particularly since state sealing laws vary considerably, ranging from laws
that are quite restrictive in their application to others that are very broad.
The definition set out here is intended to be a narrow one in keeping with a
basic tenet of the Compact-that state repositories shall 

release as much information as possible for interstate exchange purposes,
with issues concerning the use of particular information for particular
purposes to be decided under the laws of the receiving states. Consistent
with the definition, an adult record, or a portion of it, may be considered
sealed only if its release for noncriminal justice purposes has been
prohibited by a court order or by action of a designated official or board,
such as a State Attorney General or a Criminal Record Privacy Board,
acting pursuant to a federal or state law. Further, to qualify under the
definition, a court order, whether issued in response to a petition or on the
court's own motion, must apply only to a particular record subject or
subjects referred to by name in the order. So-called "blanket" court orders
applicable to multiple unnamed record subjects who fall into particular
classifications or circumstances, such as first-time non-serious drug
offenders, do not fit the definition. Similarly, sealing orders issued by
designated officials or boards acting pursuant to statutory authority meet
the definition only if such orders are issued in response to petitions filed
by individual record subjects who are referred to by name in the orders.
So-called "automatic" sealing laws, which restrict the noncriminal justice
use of the records of certain defined classes of individuals, such as
first-time offenders who successfully complete probation terms, do not
satisfy the definition, because they do not require the filing of individual
petitions and the issuance of individualized sealing orders.

Concerning juvenile records, each state is free to adopt whatever definition
of sealing it prefers.

Article II-Purposes. Five purposes are listed: creation of a legal framework
for establishment of the Compact; delineation of the FBI's obligations
under the Compact; delineation of the obligations of party states; creation
of a Compact Council to monitor system operations and promulgate
necessary rules and procedures; and, establishment of an obligation by the
parties to adhere to the Compact and its related rules and standards.

Article III-Responsibilities of Compact Parties. This article details FBI and
state responsibilities under the Compact and provides for the appointment
of Compact Officers by the FBI and by party states. Compact officers shall
have primary responsibility for ensuring the proper administration of the
Compact within their jurisdictions.


The FBI is required to provide criminal history records maintained in its
automated database for noncriminal justice purposes described in Article
IV of the Compact. These responses will include federal criminal history
records and, to the extent that the FBI has such data in its files,
information from non-Compact States and information from Compact
States relating to records which such states cannot provide through the III
System. The FBI is also responsible for providing and maintaining the
centralized system and equipment necessary for the Compact's success and
ensuring that requests made for criminal justice purposes will have priority
over requests made for noncriminal justice purposes.

State responsibilities are similar. Each Party State must grant other states
access to its III system-indexed criminal history records for authorized
noncriminal justice purposes and must submit to the FBI fingerprint
records and subject identification information that are necessary to
maintain the national indices. Each state must comply with duly
established system rules, procedures, and standards. Finally, each state is
responsible for providing and maintaining the telecommunications links
and equipment necessary to support system operations within that state.

Administration of Compact provisions will not be permitted to reduce the
level of service available to authorized criminal justice and noncriminal
justice users on the effective date of the Compact.

Article IV-Authorized Record Disclosures. This article requires the FBI, to
the extent authorized by the Privacy Act, and the state criminal history
record repositories to provide criminal history records to one another for
use by governmental or nongovernmental agencies for noncriminal justice
purposes that are authorized by federal statute, by federal executive order,
or by a state statute that has been approved by the U.S. Attorney General.
Compact parties will be required to provide criminal history records to
other compact parties for noncriminal justice uses that are authorized by
law in the requesting jurisdiction even though the law of the responding
jurisdiction does not authorize such uses within its borders. Further, the
responding party must provide all of the criminal history record
information it holds on the individual who is the subject of the request
(deleting only sealed record information) and the law of the requesting
jurisdiction will determine how much of the 

information will actually be released to the noncriminal justice agency on
behalf of which the request was made. This approach provides a uniform
dissemination standard for interstate exchanges, while permitting each
compact party to enforce its own record dissemination laws within its
borders.

To provide uniformity of interpretation, state laws authorizing noncriminal
justice uses of criminal history records under this article must be reviewed
by the U.S. Attorney General to ensure that the laws explicitly authorize
searches of the national indices.

Records provided through the III System pursuant to the Compact may be
used only by authorized officials for authorized purposes. Compact
officers must establish procedures to ensure compliance with this
limitation as well as procedures to ensure that criminal history record
information provided for noncriminal justice purposes is current and
accurate and is protected from unauthorized release. Further, procedures
must be established to ensure that records received from other compact
parties are screened to ensure that only legally authorized information is
released. For example, if the law of the receiving jurisdiction provides that
only conviction records may be released for a particular noncriminal
justice purpose, all other entries, such as acquittal or dismissal notations or
arrest notations with no accompanying disposition notation, must be
deleted.

Article V-Record Request Procedures. This article provides that direct
access to the National Identification Index and the National Fingerprint
File for purposes of conducting criminal history record searches for
noncriminal justice purposes shall be limited to the FBI and the state
criminal history record repositories. A noncriminal justice agency
authorized to obtain national searches pursuant to an approved state statute
must submit the search application through the state repository in the state
in which the agency is located. A state repository receiving a search
application directly from a noncriminal justice agency in another state may
process the application through its own criminal history record system, if it
has legal authority to do so, but it may not conduct a search of the national
indices on behalf of such an out-of-state agency nor may it obtain
out-of-state or federal records for such an agency through the III System.


Noncriminal justice agencies authorized to obtain national record checks
under federal law or federal executive order, including federal agencies,
federally chartered or insured financial institutions and certain securities
and commodities establishments, must submit search applications through
the FBI or, if the repository consents to process the application, through
the state repository in the state in which the agency is located.

All noncriminal justice search applications submitted to the FBI or to the
state repositories must be accompanied by fingerprints or some other
approved form of positive identification. If a state repository positively
identifies the subject of such a search application as having a III
System-indexed record maintained by another state repository or the FBI,
the state repository shall be entitled to obtain such records from such other
state repositories or the FBI. If a state repository cannot positively identify
the subject of a noncriminal justice search application, the repository shall
forward the application, together with fingerprints or other approved
identifying information, to the FBI. If the FBI positively identifies the
search application subject as having a III System-indexed record or
records, it shall notify the state repository which submitted the application
and that repository shall be entitled to obtain any III System-indexed
record or records relating to the search subject maintained by any other
state repository or the FBI.

The FBI and state repositories may charge fees for processing noncriminal
justice search applications, but may not charge fees for providing criminal
history records by electronic means in response to authorized III System
record requests.

Article VI-Establishment of Compact Council. This article establishes a
Compact Council to promulgate rules and procedures governing the use of
the III System for noncriminal justice purposes. Such rules cannot conflict
with the FBI's administration of the III System for criminal justice
purposes. Issues concerning whether particular rules or procedures
promulgated by the Council conflict with FBI authority under this article
shall be adjudicated pursuant to Article XI.


The Council shall consist of 15 members from compact states and federal
and local criminal justice and noncriminal justice agencies. All members
shall be appointed by the U.S. Attorney General. Council members shall
elect a Council Chairman and Vice Chairman, both of whom shall be
compact officers unless there are no compact officers on the Council who
are willing to serve, in which case at-large members may be elected to
these offices.

The 15 Council members include nine members who must be state
compact officers or state repository administrators, four at-large members
representing federal, state and local criminal justice and noncriminal
justice interests, one member from the FBI's advisory policy board on
criminal justice information services and one member who is an FBI
employee. Although, as noted, all members will be appointed by the U.S.
Attorney General, they will be nominated by other persons, as specified in
the Compact. If the Attorney General declines to appoint any person so
nominated, the Attorney General shall request another nomination from
the person or persons who nominated the rejected person. Similarly, if a
Council membership vacancy occurs, for any reason, the Attorney General
shall request a replacement nomination from the person or persons who
made the original nomination.

Persons who are appointed to the Council who are not already federal
officials or employees shall, by virtue of their appointment by the Attorney
General, become federal officials to the extent of their duties and
responsibilities as Council members. They shall, therefore, have authority
to participate in the development and issuance of rules and procedures, and
to participate in other actions within the scope of their duties as Council
members, which may be binding upon federal officers and employees or
otherwise affect federal interests.

The Council shall be located for administrative purposes within the FBI
and shall have authority to request relevant assistance and information
from the FBI. Although the Council will not be considered a Federal
Advisory Committee (see Section 215(d)), it will hold public meetings and
will publish its rules and procedures in the Federal Register and make
them available for public inspection and copying at a Council office within
the FBI. 


Article VII-Ratification of Compact. This article states that the Compact
will become effective immediately upon its execution by two or more
states and the United States Government and will have the full force and
effect of law within the ratifying jurisdictions. Each state will follow its
own laws in effecting ratification.

Article VIII-Miscellaneous Provisions. This article makes clear that
administration of the Compact shall not interfere with the authority of the
FBI Director over the management and control of the FBI's collection and
dissemination of criminal history records for any purpose other than
noncriminal justice. Similarly, nothing in the Compact diminishes a state's
obligations and authority under Public Law 92-544 regarding the
dissemination or use of criminal history record information (see analysis
of Section 214, above). The Compact does not require the FBI to obligate
or expend funds beyond its appropriations.

Article IX-Renunciation. This article provides that a state wishing to end
its obligations by renouncing the Compact shall do so in the same manner
by which it ratified the Compact and shall provide six months' advance
notice to other compact parties.

Article X-Severability. This article provides that the remaining provisions
of the Compact shall not be affected if a particular provision is found to be
in violation of the Federal Constitution or the constitution of a party state.
Similarly, a finding in one state that a portion of the Compact is legally
objectionable will have no effect on the viability of the Compact in other
Party States.

Article XI-Adjudication of Disputes. This article vests initial authority in
the Compact Council to interpret its own rules and standards and to
resolve disputes among parties to the Compact. Decisions are to be
rendered upon majority vote of Council members after a hearing on the
issue. Any Compact party may appeal any such Council decision to the
U.S. Attorney General and thereafter may file suit in the appropriate
United States district court. Any suit concerning the compact filed in any
state court shall be removed to the appropriate federal district court.