This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State 

Courts using Federal funding provided by the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS).

Document Title: State Progress in Record Reporting for 

Firearm-Related Background Checks: 

Fugitives from Justice

Author(s): Dennis DeBacco; Richard Schauffler

Document Number: 250533 

Date Received: February 2017 

Award Number: 2009-NS-BX-K050

This resource is part of a series of BJS grant-funded reports on 

firearm-related background checks. This report highlights the 

significance of making warrant information available to databases 

searched during a National Instant Criminal Background Check System 

(NICS) check. It describes the Congressional requirements established 

under the Brady Act for entering warrants into databases used by 

NICS, the challenges of entering warrant records into state and 

national databases, and improvements states have made making 

warrant records more readily available to the NICS. 

Opinions and/or points of view expressed in this report are those of 

the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or 

policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. 
Fugitives from Justice 

State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks:

by Dennis DeBacco, SEARCH and Richard Schauffler, National Center for State Courts February, 2017
 

Introduction 

Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 

(Brady Act), being a fugitive from justice prohibits a person 

from possessing or purchasing firearms.1 The Code of 

Federal Regulations defines a “fugitive from justice” as any 

person who has fled from any state to avoid prosecution 

for a felony or a misdemeanor; or any person who 

leaves the state to avoid giving testimony in any criminal 

proceeding. The term also includes any person who knows 

that misdemeanor or felony charges are pending against 

such person and who leaves the state of prosecution.2 

Following passage of the Brady Act, the Department of 

Justice provided guidance for applying this prohibition.3 

Accordingly, individuals with qualifying or prohibiting 

outstanding warrants in any state or federal database 

searched as a part of a firearms background check are 

ineligible to receive firearms from Federal Firearms 

Licensees (FFLs). As noted in this guidance, the FBI’s 

Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division’s 

National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) 

Section is not an adjudicative agency. Rather, it is tasked 

with making immediate administrative determinations 

about proposed firearm transfers in circumstances that do 

not permit the in-depth research necessary to determine 

whether the proposed transferee has fled a state. In order 

to meaningfully implement the Congressional mandate, 

the NICS Section relies on valid criminal warrants found 

in its supporting databases as a prima facie basis to apply 

a fugitive from justice prohibitor. 

When a firearm transfer request is submitted to the NICS 

Section, NICS queries its supporting databases. If the 

transferee’s identification information matches a warrant 

record,4 the NICS Section does further research to confirm 

that the warrant is still active and that it is for either a 

criminal felony or non-traffic misdemeanor. If both these 

conditions are met, then NICS denies the transaction. 

Annual Federal Denials - Fugitive from Justice 

2008 10,778

2009 11,341

2010 13,862

2011 14,961

2012 16,562

2013 16,071

2014 17,400

2015 19,964

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics 

Given the definition of fugitive from justice—coupled with 

how the NICS Section and Point-of-Contact5 (POC) states 

apply the definition to determine a person’s eligibility to 

possess or purchase a firearm— the importance of making 

warrant information available to databases checked by 

NICS cannot be overemphasized. This bulletin describes 

the requirements for entering warrants into databases 

used by NICS and explains the challenges of entering 

warrant records into state and national databases. 

Finally, it describes recent progress made by states in making 

warrant records more readily available to the NICS. 

1 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fujitives from Justice 

1 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (2) 

2 Title 27, U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Subsection 478.11; see also 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (2)
	

3 Source: FBI Criminal justice Information Services Division, NICS Section (email communication, April 13, 2016).
	

4 These matches are also referred to as “hits.”
	

5 Point-of-Contact (POC) states, rather than the FBI, are responsible for conducting NICS background 

checks for FFLs and determining if a firearms transfer would violate state or federal law. 

See NICS Participation Map on Page 3 of this report.
	

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
2 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : F u j i t i v e s f r o m J u s t i c e 

 

 

Appealing a NICS Denial 

Individuals who believe they are wrongfully denied 

the transfer of a firearm can appeal the deny decision. 

The “denying agency” will be either the FBI or the state 

agency serving as a POC for the NICS. In the event the 

denying agency is a POC state agency, the appellant 

can elect to appeal to either the FBI or the POC state. 

The provisions for appeals are outlined in Title 28, 

Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 25.10, and 

Subsection 103(f) and (g) and Section 104 of Public 

Law 103-159, Sections 103 and 104. 

If a NICS denial is based on an active criminal warrant, 

but the individual is in fact not a fugitive from justice 

(as that term is defined in the statute), then that 

person can eliminate the prohibiting fact either by 

satisfying the warrant or by appealing the NICS denial. 

Background 

In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Act that, among 

other things, created the NICS. NICS is the national system 

that enables FFLs to initiate a background check through 

the FBI or a State POC. The FBI or POC will check all available 

records to identify persons who may be prohibited 

from possessing or purchasing a firearm from an FFL. 

The records may be included in the following databases. 

•		 National Crime Information Center (NCIC) – An electronic 

database consisting of 21 files, 10 of which are queried

for a NICS-related background check. These files help

criminal justice professionals apprehend fugitives from

justice, identify terrorists, and verify persons subject

to domestic violence protection orders.

•		 Interstate Identification Index (III) – Administered by

the FBI, and participated in by all states, the III is a

fingerprint-supported automated criminal records

exchange system that includes arrest and disposition

information for individuals charged with felonies 

or misdemeanors. Information that may be available 

via III includes persons who are fugitives from justice, 

persons found not guilty by reason of insanity or 

adjudicated to be incompetent to stand trial, persons 

found guilty of misdemeanor crimes of domestic 

violence, and persons under indictment. 

•		 NICS Index – A database, separate from NCIC and III,

created specifically for the purpose of conducting

a background check for a firearms-related purpose.

The NICS Index contains information contributed

by local, state, tribal, and federal agencies pertaining

to persons prohibited from possessing or purchasing

a firearm pursuant to state and/or federal law.

While any disqualifying record may be entered into

the NICS Index, it is not intended to duplicate

information entered in NCIC or III. Instead, the database 

was designed to house disqualifying information

not otherwise available at the national level.

•		 Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Immigration

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – Relevant databases

of the ICE are routinely queried by the FBI NICS Section,

and can be queried by POC states, for non-U.S. citizens

attempting to receive firearms in the United States.

States acting as a POC also search additional databases 

containing state and local court and law enforcement 

records. Such records may render prospective gun 

purchasers disqualified under federal and/or state laws. 

As a complement to this, on January 12, 2016, the 

International Justice and Public Safety Network (Nlets)6 

implemented Multi-State Query functionality to enable 

Nlets user agencies to conduct 50-state checks of state 

warrant databases. This functionality allows the query 

to be automatically sent to all states that participate in 

the message type and returns a single merged response.7 

As of July 11, 2016, 15 states (Alaska, Arizona, Florida, 

Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, 

Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and 

Wisconsin) are responding to multi-state warrant inquires. 

6		 Nlets is a private, nonprofit corporation owned by the states. It provides a secure international 

justice telecommunications capability and information services. www.nlets.org 

7	 http://wiki.nlets.org/index.php/Special:CaptchaCheck?URL=%2Findex.php%2FSection_37%3A_

State_Warrant_Transactions#Multi State_Query_Functionality 

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
3 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fujitives from Justice 

NICS Participation Map
	

Point of Contact (POC) 

American Samoa 

Guam 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Puerto Rico 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

Other U.S. Territories 

WA 

AZ 

TX 

KS 

UT 

NV 

CA 

ID 

MT ND 

NE 

IA 

AR 

MS AL 

LA 

GA 

MI

WY 

WV 

NC 

SC 

AK 

HI 

KY 

OR 

NM 

OK 

CO 

SD 

MN 

MO 

FL 

WI 

IL IN 

OH 

NJ 

NY 

CT RI 

MA 

NH 

ME 

PA 

VA 

DE 

DC 

MD 

VT 

TN 

26 

13 

4 

3 

36 

At Least One ATF-Qualified Alternate Permit — The permits are issued by local or state agencies. 

Full POC State — Contact state/territory for all firearm background checks including permits 

Partial POC — Contact state for handgun and FBI for long gun background checks 

Partial POC — Contact state for handgun permit and FBI for long gun background checks 

Non-POC — Contact FBI for all firearm background checks 

Please refer to the latest Permanent Brady Permit Chart for specific permit details at 

www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/permanent-brady-permit-chart 

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
4 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fujitives from Justice

Where are NICS Prohibiting Records Reported? 

The following lists the firearm purchase-prohibiting categories identified in the Brady Act and shows the federal database 

in which those records are appropriately stored. 

Prohibiting Record Type Federal Database(s) 

Felony/Serious Misdemeanor 

Convictions 

lll: Should most appropriately be placed 

here so they are available for other 

criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if not available in III. 

Fugitives from Justice NCIC: Should most appropriately be 

placed here so they are available for 

other criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if not available in NCIC. 

Unlawful Drug Use lll: Arrests and convictions for drug 

offenses should most appropriately be 

placed here so they are available for 

other criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Information such as 

admission of use and failed drug tests 

should be placed here. 

Mental Health III: Persons found not guilty by reason of 

insanity or adjudicated to be incompetent 

to stand trial should most appropriately 

be placed here so they are available for 

other criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Involuntary commitments 

to mental institutions for the purpose 

of treatment should be placed here as 

they would be otherwise unavailable for 

firearms background check searches. 

Persons found not guilty by reason of 

insanity or adjudicated to be mentally 

defective should most appropriately 

be placed here if they are otherwise 

unavailable through III. 

Subjects of Domestic Violence 

Protection Orders 

NCIC: Should most appropriately be 

placed here so they are available for 

other criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Should be placed here if 

not available in NCIC (as well as orders 

prohibited under state law). 

Misdemeanor Crimes of 

Domestic Violence Convictions 

lll: Should most appropriately be placed 

here so they are available for other 

criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Should be placed here if not 

available in III or, if conviction is available 

in III, should also be placed here if 

qualifying relationship and/or force 

element is not available in III. 

Indictments lll: Should most appropriately be placed 

here so they are available for other 

criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if not available in III. 

Dishonorable Discharges III: Should most appropriately be placed 

here so they are available for other 

criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if not available in III. 

Illegal or Unlawful Aliens NICS Index: Should be placed here as 

they would otherwise be unavailable 

for firearms background check searches. 

Renounced United States 

Citizenship 

NICS Index: Should be placed here as 

they would otherwise be unavailable 

for firearms background check searches. 

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
5 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fujitives from Justice 

Placing outstanding warrants in NCIC or the NICS Index 

Information identifying a person as a fugitive from justice is 

used for many law enforcement and criminal justice purposes 

as well as for making firearm suitability determinations through 

NICS checks on persons seeking to acquire a firearm from an 

FFL. The NCIC Wanted Person File, the NICS Index and III are 

the principle databases used to determine if active felony 

and misdemeanor warrants concerning an individual are 

on file. In POC states that maintain a state warrant system, 

decision makers may have the benefit of warrant information 

not available from the national databases. Agencies are 

encouraged to enter all warrants into the NCIC Wanted 

Person File where, in addition to making firearm suitability 

determinations, records are made readily available for 

inspection and processing for criminal justice purposes by law 

enforcement agencies nationwide. When circumstances prevent 

agencies from entering warrant information into NCIC, active 

felony and misdemeanor warrants can be entered into the 

NICS Index. Also, when positive identity is established through 

the matching of a wanted person’s fingerprints against an 

established criminal history record, a flag is set in III to note 

the existence of a Wanted Person File entry in NCIC. 

Most states and many local jurisdictions maintain automated 

warrant systems that enable entry, access, retrieval, updating, 

and cancellation of felony and misdemeanor warrants. 

Frequently, the state system serves as the conduit for 

entering information into the NCIC Wanted Person File, 

and agencies that make inquiries and/or contribute 

information to NCIC must adhere to well-established entry 

and file maintenance criteria for each record they enter. 

Created in 1967, the NCIC Wanted Person File contains 

records of individuals who have an outstanding warrant(s) 

for their arrest. Entry into this file is made immediately after: 

1) a court has issued an arrest warrant for an individual or 

has authorized that an arrest of an individual be made; and 

2) extradition and transportation decisions have been made. 

Wanted Person File entry criteria are as follows: 

•		 An individual (including a juvenile who will be tried as 

an adult) for whom a federal warrant is outstanding. 

•		 An individual (including a juvenile who will be tried 

as an adult) for whom a felony or misdemeanor 

warrant issued by a state court is outstanding. 

•		 Probation and parole violators convicted of felony 

or misdemeanor offenses. 

•		 A “temporary felony want record” may be entered 

to establish a “want” entry when a law enforcement 

agency needs to take prompt action to apprehend 

a person (including a juvenile) who has committed, 

or the officer has reasonable grounds to believe 

has committed, a felony and who may seek refuge 

by fleeing the jurisdiction and circumstances prevent 

the immediate acquisition of a warrant.8 

8 NCIC 2000 Operating Manual, Intro 1.1 Criteria for Entry, Wanted Person File 

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
6 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : F u j i t i v e s f r o m J u s t i c e 

Challenges and Solutions 

Despite the importance of making warrant records available 

through NCIC, it is widely understood and documented that 

state and local warrant systems have significantly more records 

than are reported to NCIC. At the end of 2014, there were 

7.8 million active warrant records in state warrant databases 

and 2.1 million wanted person records in NCIC.9 This means 

that over 70 percent of the records in the state databases 

are not available in NCIC. This comes about largely as a 

result of the following factors: 

Policies limiting which warrants are entered into NCIC 

due to the workload associated with NCIC record 

validation requirements. 

Originating agencies (those that enter records into NCIC) 

must both “pack” and validate records. Packing the record 

means that the person entering the record consults 

source documents to ensure that as much descriptive 

information as possible about the subject of the warrant 

is included in the entry. Validation requires the originating 

agency to confirm that the record is complete, accurate, 

and still outstanding or active. Validation is accomplished 

by periodically reviewing the entry and current supporting 

documents, and consulting with any appropriate 

complainant, victim, prosecutor, court, another agency, 

or other appropriate source or individual. In the event 

that the originating agency is unsuccessful in its attempts 

to contact the victim, complainant, etc., the entering 

authority must make a determination based on the best 

information and knowledge available whether or not to 

retain the entry in the file.10 This must be done within 

60-90 days from initial entry and yearly thereafter, as well 

as any time an entry is modified. Both of these activities 

are labor intensive and time consuming, causing some 

courts and law enforcement agencies to be selective in 

entering warrants into NCIC. Instead, they may opt to only 

enter them in local or state systems that frequently do not 

require packing and/or validation. 

Policy decisions that limit which warrants are entered 

into NCIC due to NCIC hit-confirmation requirements. 

Once a wanted person record is entered into NCIC, the 

originating agency is required to be available to provide 

“hit confirmations” 24 hours a day, seven days a week.11 

Any agency that receives a record in response to an NCIC 

wanted person inquiry must confirm the hit on any record 

that appears to have been entered for the subject of the 

inquiry prior to 1) arresting the wanted person, 2) denying 

the subject the purchase of a firearm, or 3) denying the 

subject access to explosives as regulated under the Safe 

Explosives Act. Confirming a wanted person hit requires 

contacting the agency that entered the record to: 

1. Ensure that the person is identical to the 

person identified in the record;
	

2. Ensure that the warrant is still outstanding; and, 

3. When applicable, obtain a decision regarding 

the extradition of a wanted person.12 

This requirement presents a problem if a court is the 

custodian of record for the warrant, as most courts are not 

staffed 24/7. Additionally, many courts do not have direct 

access to NCIC. To overcome this obstacle, most courts 

have developed formal agreements with local police and 

sheriff’s offices to enter warrant records on their behalf 

and provide hit confirmation services as is required by 

NCIC. Other state courts have partnered with their court 

of last resort,13 which may be staffed 24/7, and thus can 

support after-hours hit confirmations. However, there 

are many courts (for example, those in states where the 

court of last resort is not staffed 24/7) that are unable to 

enter into such agreements and, thus, are unable to enter 

warrant records into NCIC since they cannot meet the 

NCIC requirements for 24/7 hit confirmation capabilities. 

9 Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014, Table 5a, (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf)

10 NCIC 2000 Operating Manual, Intro 3.4, Validation 

11 https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ncic 

12 NCIC 2000 Operating Manual, Intro 3.5, Hit Confirmation Procedures 

13 The court of last resort is the highest court in the state, usually, but not always, named the Supreme Court. 

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
7 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : F u j i t i v e s f r o m J u s t i c e 

 

Wanted person records may not be entered because 

the warrant from the court does not contain all of the 

necessary information (data elements) to meet the 

requirements for inclusion in NCIC. 

In addition to administrative data about the originating 

agency, the following data elements are required for 

entering a wanted person record into NCIC: 

• Name 

• Sex 

• Race 

• Height 

• Hair color 

• Offense code 

• Date of warrant 

• Originating agency case number 

• Extradition limitation 

• Plus one additional numeric identifier 

(date of birth, social security number, 

FBI number, operator’s license number, 

passport number, miscellaneous number, etc.)14 

If any of the above data is missing from the warrant issued 

by the court, then the record cannot be entered into the 

NCIC Wanted Person File. However, in many instances, 

it can be entered into state and local warrant files. 

The cost and personnel resources required to 

extradite and transport wanted persons who have 

left or fled the jurisdiction. 

Before entering a record of a wanted person into NCIC, 

the entering agency must attempt to determine, to the 

maximum extent possible, if extradition will be authorized 

when the individual is located in another state. For NCIC 

purposes, extradition is the “surrender by one state 

to another of an individual charged with or convicted 

of an offense outside its own territory and within the 

territorial jurisdictionof the other. Agencies entering 

misdemeanor and felony warrants into NCIC must include 

an extradition code in each record entry.”15 Similarly, when 

wanted persons are apprehended intrastate, entering 

agencies must determine if the underlying offense that 

triggered the warrant entry is severe enough to incur the 

expense of transporting the individual back to the issuing 

jurisdiction. Once established, transportation limitations 

must also be specified in each record entry. When agencies 

decide not to enter warrants into NCIC because of 

extradition/transportation limitations, they frequently 

enter them into local or state administered warrant 

databases. As a result, law enforcement officials outside 

of those jurisdictions and the FBI NICS Section are not 

aware of many outstanding warrants that reside in local 

and state databases. 

14 NCIC 2000 Operating Manual, Intro 2.3, Mandatory Fields for Entry, Wanted Person File 

15 NCIC 2000 Operating Manual, 1.1.5 Criteria for Entry, Extradition 

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
8 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fujitives from Justice 

State and local warrant systems often allow multiple 

warrants from the same Originating Agency (ORI) on 

the same individual to be entered into their databases 

(as opposed to NCIC, which does not allow this practice). 

This last qualifier illustrates a fundamental misalignment 

between certain state “warrant” systems and the NCIC 

“wanted person” system. The original purpose of NCIC 

was to identify individuals with at least one outstanding 

warrant, while state and local warrant management 

systems focus on tracking and managing each individual 

warrant. Recognizing the limitation of the “wanted person” 

model, law enforcement and the FBI have worked to 

address the need for warrant management within the 

NCIC Wanted Persons File. 

Through the CJIS Advisory Policy Board (APB) and its 

NCIC Ad Hoc Subcommittee, NCIC is operated under a 

shared management concept between the FBI and federal, 

state, local, and tribal criminal justice record contributors 

and users of CJIS Division systems. The APB enables CJIS 

Division users to make recommendations to the FBI Director 

for policy and operational enhancements to the system. 

In October 2011 the APB approved an Additional Offense 

(ADO) Field, which is flagged with a Y (Yes) or N (No) indicator. 

This enhancement provided the first sanctioned means for 

agencies to affirmatively note in the NCIC record that a warrant 

issued for an individual contains multiple charges or that 

additional warrants are issued against the same individual 

by the same entering agency. When used, this effectively 

informs contacting agencies of all outstanding warrants 

regarding an individual by each entering agency. However, 

this enhancement does not directly address the difference 

between warrant counts in NCIC and state warrant files. 

16 http://www.wdmtoolkit.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/Warrants%20and%20

Dispositions/Warrants/Warrants%20vs%20Wanted%20Persons.ashx 

17 Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014, Table 5, 

(http://www.search.org/resources/surveys/) 

On December 5, 2011, with a desire to increase the 

utility of the Wanted Person File, the APB’s Warrant 

Task Force met and developed a recommendation to 

support the concept of allowing a single originating 

agency to enter multiple warrants for the same individual 

into NCIC. At its spring 2012 meeting the APB voted to 

approve this concept and requested the CJIS Division 

to develop an implementation plan for technical and 

policy requirements. This change will be made as part of 

the planned NCIC 3rd Generation (N3G). When N3G is 

introduced to the criminal justice community, agencies 

using the new Wanted Person File will be able to more 

readily enter multiple warrants for the same individual 

under a single originating agency identifier. Until N3G 

becomes operational, however, agencies can enter 

multiple warrants regarding the same individual by 

entering the appropriate Y/N flag in the ADO Field.16 

Availability of Warrant Records at the State and Local Level 

Most states have created warrant files to allow courts 

and the law enforcement community to enter warrants 

into a state-administered database. At year-end 2014, 

40 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto 

Rico reported having their own centralized warrant file.17 

Warrant and Wanted Person File Record Counts (in Millions) 

2012 

1,962,335 

8,160,267 

2014 

2,126,579 

7,823,581 

0 2 4 6 8 

Warrants in NCIC 

Warrants in State Repositories 

Source: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014, Table 5a 

http://www.search.org/resources/surveys/ 

10 

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
These files often contain warrant records that do not 

satisfy NCIC entry criteria, but are of interest locally 

and are actionable by local law enforcement agencies. 

Also, state warrant systems contain many warrants that 

are non-extraditable from jurisdictions outside of the 

issuing state. In states where a state or local agency 

conducts the NICS check, state warrant files can be 

queried before issuing a firearms permit or allowing 

a firearm transfer to proceed. 

Breakdown of Warrants in State Warrant Databases - 2014 

Source: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014, Table 5a 

http://www.search.org/resources/surveys/ 

Warrant Records in the NICS Index 

Warrant records that meet NICS denial criteria but are 

not entered into NCIC may be placed in the NICS Index. 

While placing warrants in the NICS Index does not 

make them available to law enforcement, it does make 

them available for firearms background checks. 

Importantly, the NICS Index is accessible for all firearms 

purchases and transfers throughout the country as 

opposed to those records that only exist within a state 

or local warrant system. 

Once again, the challenge for courts is that they may lack 

access to their state’s Criminal Justice Information Services 

Agency, which is the primary mechanism for placing records 

in the NICS Index. However, batch submissions may be 

submitted via the internet through the FBI’s Law Enforcement 

Enterprise Portal (LEEP).18 While this requires a court to 

create a LEEP account, there is no cost as long as there is 

an existing computer with internet access. Alternatively, 

courts may partner with a local law enforcement entity 

to enter warrant records into the NICS Index, requiring far 

less support in terms of maintaining the records on NCIC. 

Active Records in the NICS Index - Fugitives from Justice 

2009 364,550 

2008 349,029 

Misdemeanor 

Other 

Felony 

13% 16% 

71% 

2010 367,110 

2011 368,567 

2012 378,463 

2013 392,138 

2014 469,578 

2015 486,683 

June 30,

2016 503,454 

0 150,000 300,000 450,000 600,000 

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics 

9 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fujitives from Justice 

18 https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics-index-brochure.pdf/view 

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
1 0 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : F u j i t i v e s f r o m J u s t i c e 

NCIC Policy Provides Guidance for Electronic Records 

as the Source Documentation for NCIC Records.19 

As many states move toward automating data 

exchanges, modifications are also being made to 

NCIC submission requirements. Over a decade ago, 

the APB began updating outdated NCIC policies to 

more closely align with agencies using Electronic 

Records Management Systems (ERMS). The FBI 

approved the first ERMS submission policy in 2003. 

Subsequently, the FBI issued substantial updates 

to NCIC policies regarding information transmitted 

via ERMS in 2008, 2012, and 2013. The current 

guidance specifies that second party checks and 

validation can be performed either manually or 

by synchronization of databases, when using ERMS. 

For agencies using ERMS, hit confirmation requests 

may be confirmed using ERMS because it is considered 

to be the "source document." These changes were 

intended to accommodate the use of scanned 

documents and electronic databases (including court 

databases), encourage the reporting of information 

to NCIC, while preserving the quality and accuracy of 

NCIC records. Allowing for database synchronization and 

electronic documentation for hit confirmations is 

particularly helpful for submitting warrant records to 

NCIC, since these records are often difficult to manually 

track and validate given their dynamic nature. 

Recent Improvements in Entering of Warrant Records 

in NCIC and the NICS Index 

Being a fugitive from justice is the second most common 

reason for a federal firearm purchase denial20 and the third 

most common reason that firearm transfers and permit 

applications are denied by state POCs and local agencies.21 

The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 

has encouraged states to increase the number of records 

submitted to NCIC and the NICS Index by making grant funding 

available to states seeking to improve the quality of firearms 

background checks. Specifically, the National Criminal History 

Improvement Program (NCHIP)22 and the NICS Act Record 

Improvement Program (NARIP)23 provide funds to states to 

enhance the availability of disqualifying records through III, 

NCIC and the NICS Index. Since 1995, NCHIP has made over 

$666 million dollars available to states and territories to support 

criminal history record improvement. The NARIP program 

– which began in 2009 – has awarded over $110 million 

through 2016 to states for NICS related efforts. 

Similarly, in Fiscal Year 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) funded firearm related 

background check improvement projects and provided grant 

funding to participating states to receive Technical Assistance 

under its Improving the Completeness of Firearm Background 

Checks through Enhanced State Data Sharing program. 

Over $8.5 million was awarded to 12 states, several of which 

proposed improvements to making warrant records more 

readily available to the NICS.24 

19		 See: “CJIS Spring 2008 Assessment of NCIC Policies at Agencies Using Electronic Records 

Management Systems,” “CJIS Spring 2012 Proposal to Modify the NCIC Validation Policy 

and Second-Party Check Requirement,” and “CJIS Spring 2013 proposal to modify the NCIC 

Second-Party Check requirement for and Electronic Records Management System (ERMS).” 

20	 https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/federal_denials.pdf/view 

21		 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 

2013-14 Statistical Tables, Page 7, Table 5 

22	 http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=47 

23	 http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49 

24		 http://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov:85/selector/office?po=BJA&fiscalYear=2013&defaultYear=Y 

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
1 1 | S t a t e

State Success Stories 

The fluid nature of warrant records and the added 

requirements of NCIC together can make it challenging for 

states to make warrant records available at the national 

level. Several states have focused efforts on improving 

information exchange capabilities and record reporting 

overall. These efforts have greatly expanded the number 

of records that are available for a NICS background check. 

 P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : F u j i t i v e s f r o m J u s t i c e 

25 http://www.wdmtoolkit.org/State-Initiatives/Alabama.aspx 

Alabama Statewide eWarrant Service 

Prior to the implementation of a statewide e-Warrant 

service, Alabama's warrant management process was 

primarily paper-based. While there was a mainframe 

system, and most counties stored some warrant details 

and status information on the mainframe, the process was 

utilized inconsistently. This created problems including 

the inability to accurately track warrant status between 

jurisdictions (e.g., the clerk and sheriff), misplaced original 

warrants, and the inability to serve warrants due to lack of 

information identifying the subject of the warrant. 

To correct these problems, the Alabama 

Administrative Office of the Courts, in collaboration 

with the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center, 

developed electronic warrant services to track and manage 

statewide warrants. The electronic warrant system exchanges 

structured data and warrant images between circuit and 

district courts, law enforcement, and district attorneys. 

Accordingly, the electronic warrant system improves the 

accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of warrants, reducing 

the incidence of non-service and increasing overall efficiency.25 

Florida Department of Law Enforcement 

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), in 

conjunction with Florida’s law enforcement community, 

must ensure that the entry of warrants into the Florida Crime 

Information Center and NCIC are complete, current and accurate 

to guarantee both officer and public safety. This includes ensuring 

that individuals with active warrants are denied purchase of 

firearms. From NARIP funding obtained in 2010, 2011 and 2015, 

the FDLE is in the final testing phase of implementing an 

electronic warrant exchange to bridge gaps in reporting and 

exchanging warrant and wanted person information to state 

and national files. This project is designed to ensure that warrant 

information is exchanged and entered into state and national 

systems in a timely and complete manner. This will assist criminal 

justice agencies when making appropriate decisions in many 

different processes; including, the sale and transfer of firearms. 

FDLE, in conjunction with the National Center 

for State Courts, and Florida’s state warrants task 

force created a conceptual business process model, 

a National Information Exchange Model conformant 

Information Exchange Packet Documentation, and a full 

functioning eWarrants prototype website and database. 

Agencies can effectively interact via a web site with 

the centralized eWarrants tracking system, providing 

information and tracking the progress of a warrant 

as it moves through the approval process. 

FDLE is completing final acceptance testing with Florida’s 

19th Circuit and St Lucie County. Upon completion of final 

acceptance testing, FDLE has several additional circuits 

waiting to implement the eWarrants system. 

Federal grant funds through BJS, such as NARIP and NCHIP, 

as well as those awarded through the BJA have provided 

states with resources to develop strategies for overcoming 

the barriers to reporting accurate, timely, and complete 

information to state and national databases. Alabama, 

Florida and Kentucky provide examples of recent successful 

improvements to warrant processing and availability. 

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
1 2 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : F u j i t i v e s f r o m J u s t i c e 

Kentucky State Police 

In 2008, the Kentucky State Police (KSP) partnered with 

Kentucky’s Office of Homeland Security, the Administrative 

Office of the Courts and the Attorney General’s Office to 

implement a new electronic warrant system. The statewide 

eWarrants system has eliminated many inefficiencies of 

the previous paper based system. With one repository 

for all warrant and summons information, Kentucky law 

enforcement officers receive immediate outstanding 

warrant information. Warrants are being served within 

hours of issuance rather than days, and electronic warrant 

information is instantly available to the state’s law enforcement 

community, increasing the safety of Kentucky communities 

and law enforcement personnel. Prior to implementing 

the statewide eWarrants System, only 10-15% of warrants 

(and only 5% of criminal summonses) were being served. 

Following implementation, over 76% of Circuit bench warrants, 

warrants of arrest and warrants on indictment are being 

served. Additionally, over 78% of District bench warrants 

and criminal summonses are being served statewide. 

In 2014, KSP was awarded NCHIP funding to improve the 

NICS fugitive from justice warrant records. At that time, 

KSP entered less than 4% of active warrants into the FBI’s 

NCIC Wanted Persons File due to lack of information and/or 

validation requirements. Further, KSP did not submit active 

warrants to the NICS Index due to having limited staff and 

fewer resources than are needed to perform the manual 

entry, monitoring, and removal of each warrant. 

Kentucky’s eWarrant system houses approximately 

200,000 active warrants at any given time. A previous 

project utilized 2011 NCHIP funds to create functionality 

that would automatically add and remove individuals to and 

from the NICS Index. KSP leveraged both of these systems 

to identify persons prohibited from firearms purchases due 

to fugitive from justice status and to automatically transmit 

these relevant records directly to the NICS Index. When 

a warrant is issued, the eWarrant program transmits the 

required demographic information to an application that 

automatically submits the information to the NICS Index. 

If or when the warrant is served or recalled, eWarrants notifies 

the application resulting in removal from the NICS Index. 

This automated process is completed in real time, providing 

the most up to date and accurate records available. 

Conclusion 

The importance of making warrant information available or from purchasing or possessing a firearm from an FFL is 

to databases searched during a NICS check cannot be a critical component in making suitability determinations 

overemphasized. Warrant information used for determining under the Brady Act. 

if a person is prohibited from obtaining a firearms permit 

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics.