Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A

Comprehensive Report

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

Comprehensive Report

(inside cover)
ii

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lawrence A. Greenfeld

Acting Director

Acknowledgements. This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for

Justice Information and Statistics, Dr. Francis J. Carney Jr., Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper,

Executive Director. The project director was Sheila J. Barton, Director, Law and Policy

Program. The report was written by Robert R. Belair, SEARCH General Counsel, and Paul L.

Woodard, SEARCH Senior Counsel. Assistance on some sections of the report was provided

by Virgil L. Young Jr., Section Chief, and Emmet A. Rathbun, Assistant Section Chief,

Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Support was

provided by Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Assistant; Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, Corporate

Communications; Robert L. Marx, Senior System Specialist; and Teresa E. Nyberg, Executive

Secretary. The project was conducted under the direction of Carol G. Kaplan, Assistant Deputy

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Report of work performed under BJS Grant No. 92-BJ-CX-K012, awarded to SEARCH

Group, Inc., 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of

this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics

or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright © SEARCH Group, Inc. 1993

The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate or

otherwise use all or any part of the copyrighted material in this publication with the exception

of those items indicating they are copyrighted or reprinted by any source other than SEARCH

Group, Inc.

 

The Assistant Attorney General is responsible for matters of administration and management

with respect to the OJP agencies: the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the

Office for Victims of Crime. The Assistant Attorney General further establishes policies and

priorities consistent with the statutory purposes of the OJP agencies and the priorities of the

Department of Justice.

 
iii

Foreword

The Bureau of Justice Statistics

is pleased to publish Use and

Management of Criminal

History Record Information: A

Comprehensive Report. The

report is the first descriptive

review of the Nation’s criminal

history information systems and

discusses in nontechnical terms

the complex, interrelated

network of local, State and

Federal information systems that

provide criminal history records

to both criminal justice and

noncriminal justice users.

The report is the latest in BJS’s

efforts to assist States in

improving the quality of

criminal history record

information and to ensure that

accurate data is readily available

for operational and research

purposes. We hope that the

report will be of value to

policymakers and practitioners

addressing the critical issues

relating to criminal history

record information which will

accompany expanded

development of systems for the

interstate exchange of this

information.

Lawrence A. Greenfeld

Acting Director

Bureau of Justice Statistics
v

Contents

Glossary G-1

Introduction 1 Purpose of this report

1 Background

1 Repositories of criminal

history record information

1 —State systems

2 —Federal systems

2 Timely criminal history

record information issues

2 —Data quality

2 —Decentralized recordkeeping

2 —New technologies

3 Content of this report

Chapter I 5 Background

How the

criminal justice

system works

and how it

uses criminal

history records

Section 1 5 Criminal codes and procedures

Typical State 6 Police agencies

criminal justice 6 Local detention facilities

system 6 Prosecution agencies

 structure 6 Courts

7 Corrections agencies

Section 2 7 Investigation

Typical State 7 Arrest

criminal justice 10 Booking

process 11 Initial court appearance

11 Preliminary hearing

11 Pretrial release decision

12 Prosecutor review

12 Grand jury indictment

12 Arraignment

12 Trial court action

13 Appeal

13 Sentencing

13 Correctional supervision

Section 3 14 Background

How 14 Police uses

criminal justice 14 Pretrial release uses

practitioners 15 Prosecutor uses

use criminal 15 Court uses

history records 15 —For bail, pretrial and trial decisions

15 —For sentencing decisions

16 —For probation and parole decisions

16 Corrections uses

16 Types of information needed

17 Time frames within which

information is needed

Chapter II 19 Background

Overview of 19 State-level systems

existing 20 Federal-level systems

criminal history

record systems

Section 1 20 Establishment of early

Evolution of police departments

criminal history 20 Early identification and

record systems recordkeeping systems

21 Efforts to establish criminal history

record systems

21 —LEAA efforts to

establish State systems

22 —FBI efforts to establish

Federal systems

Section 2 22 Background

Information 23 Identification information

maintained in 23 —Personal description

the Nation’s 23 —Fingerprints

criminal history 23 Criminal history information

record systems 23 Juvenile record information

23 Other information

23 —Interim dispositions

24 —Felony flags

24 —Misdemeanor data

24 Master name indexes

24 —Contents, usage

24 —Number of records indexed

Section 3 24 Background

The current 25 Number of records

status of the 25 —State records

Nation’s 25 —Federal records

criminal history 25 Extent of automation

record systems 25 —State criminal history files

25 —State criminal fingerprint files

26 —Federal files

26 Reporting of information

to the repositories

26 —Types of information reported

28 —Reporting requirements

28 —Time frame in which

reporting takes place

28 Access methods for

authorized requestors

28 —Criminal justice inquiries

29 —Noncriminal justice inquiries

29 —Computer searches

29 Response times
vi

Section 4 29 Accuracy and completeness

The product 31 Linking of arrest and disposition data

of the 31 —Current practice

repositories: 31 —Case-tracking systems

The criminal 32 —Charge-tracking systems

history record 32 Content and format

32 —Differences in content

33 —Differences in format and

terminology

33 —Problems in deciphering records

33 —Calls for reform

Chapter III 35

Overview of

laws regulating

criminal history

record systems

Section 1 35 Constitutional doctrines

Constitutional 35 Common law doctrines

and common

law doctrines

Section 2 36 Federal statutes and regulations

Statutory and 36 —Statutes

regulatory 36 —Regulations

requirements 36 State statutes and regulations

Section 3 37 Federal data quality regulations

Two key 37 —Completeness provisions

issues — data 37 —Accuracy provisions

quality and 38 State data quality laws and strategies

dissemination 38 —Mandatory reporting requirements

38 —Transaction log requirements

38 —Other requirements

39 —Data quality strategies

39 Dissemination of criminal

history record information

39 —Dissemination for

criminal justice purposes

39 —Dissemination for noncriminal

justice purposes

40 —Dissemination trends

41 —Statutory dissemination

policies in the early 1990s

Chapter IV 43 Background

The impact

of new

technologies

Section 1 44 Automated arrest reporting

Automated 44 —Problems with manual reporting

reporting to the 44 —Automation aids in arrest reporting

repositories 44 —Benefits

44 Automated disposition reporting

44 —Reporting by local prosecutors,

courts

44 —Reporting by State courts systems

44 —Reporting by State corrections

45 —Benefits

Section 2 45 Background

Automated 45 —Problems with manual

fingerprint fingerprint processing

processing 46 Fingerprint image production

and transmission

46 —Live-scan devices

46 —Card-scan devices

46 Use of automated fingerprint

identification systems to search files

46 —AFIS benefits

47 —State AFISs

47 —Federal AFIS

Chapter V 49 Background

National

criminal history

record checks

and the

Interstate

Identification

Index

Section 1 50 Current practice

Maintenance 50 —Fingerprint submissions

and use of 50 —Disposition submissions

current FBI 51 —Extent of automation

files 51 Authorized users of data

52 Terminal access to FBI files

52 —Criminal justice inquiries

52 —Noncriminal justice inquiries

Section 2 52 Background

The Interstate 53 Use of III for criminal justice purposes

Identification 57 Use of III for noncriminal

Index justice purposes

57 —Revision of State laws and

policies necessary

58 —Uniform dissemination

standard proposed

58 —Pilot test underway

Section 3 59 Benefits of III participation

III system 61 Benefits of NFF participation

impact 61 —Duplicate files eliminated

61 —Uniform dissemination standard

62 —Faster response times

62 Burdens of III participation

62 Expected overall impact

Section 4 62 Background

The proposed 62 Emergence of the III compact

III compact 63 —Compact advantages

63 —Compact development status

63 Compact provisions
vii

` Chapter VI 65 Background

Federal

initiatives

and criminal

history records

Section 1 65 IAFIS

FBI system 66 CJIS Division

upgrades 66 NCIC 2000

66 Short-term goals

Section 2 66 Background

Federal 67 Telephone checks

database for 67 Felon database

identifying 68 FBI record system enhancement

felons 68 Advances in biometric technology

Section 3 68 BJS criminal history record

Federal grant improvement program

programs and 69 —Purposes for using grants

related 69 —Data quality, system

initiatives improvement strategies

69 —Status of the program

70 BJA block grant set-aside program

70 —Fund guidelines

70 Reporting alien convictions to INS

71 FBI/BJS voluntary reporting

standards

Section 4 72

The Brady Bill

Appendix 1 73 Statutes making possession of

a firearm by a convicted

felon a criminal offense

Appendix 2 77 Statutes requiring or permitting

prior criminal records to be

considered in bail decisions

Appendix 3 80 Statutes authorizing sentencing

of persistent recidivists to

enhanced terms as career

criminals or habitual criminals

Appendix 4 83 Statutes providing for upgraded

charges for offenders with prior

convictions

Appendix 5 86 Statutes providing for enhanced

sentences for offenders with prior

convictions

Appendix 6 89 Statutes authorizing consideration of

criminal history in correctional

classification and supervision

Appendix 7 93 Statutes providing that parole

eligibility shall or may be affected by

prior convictions

Appendix 8 96 Sample criminal history record

formats: Florida, Hawaii, Utah,

Virginia

Appendix 9 110 Federal Bureau of Investigation/

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Recommended Voluntary Reporting

Standards for Improving the Quality

of Criminal History Record

Information

Appendix 10 112 Overview of State criminal

history record systems, 1992

Appendix 11 115 Number of subjects (individual

offenders) in State criminal history

file, 1984, 1989 and 1992

Appendix 12 118 Number of final dispositions reported

to State criminal history repository,

1983, 1989 and 1992

Appendix 13 120 Automation of master name index

and criminal history file, 1989 and

1992

Appendix 14 123 Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989

and 1992

Appendix 15 126 Notice to State criminal history

repository of release of arrested

persons without charging, 1989 and

1992

Appendix 16 128 Average number of days to process

arrest data submitted to State

criminal history repository, 1989 and

1992

Appendix 17 131 Average number of days to process

disposition data submitted to State

criminal history repository, 1989 and

1992

Appendix 18 134 Procedures employed by State

criminal history repository to

encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting, 1992

Appendix 19 137 Methods used to link disposition

information to arrest/charge

information on criminal history

record,

1992

Appendix 20 140 Data quality audits of State criminal

history repository, 1992

Appendix 21 143 Interstate and Federal-State

Compact on the Exchange of

Criminal History Records for

Noncriminal Justice Purposes
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Glossary 1

Glossary of Terms

Automated Fingerprint Identification System

(AFIS): An automated system for searching fingerprint

files and transmitting fingerprint images. AFIS

computer equipment can scan fingerprint impressions

(or utilize electronically transmitted fingerprint

images) and automatically extract and digitize ridge

details and other identifying characteristics in

sufficient detail to enable the computer’s searching

and matching components to distinguish a single

fingerprint from thousands or even millions of

fingerprints previously scanned and stored in digital

form in the computer’s memory. The process

eliminates the manual searching of fingerprint files

and increases the speed and accuracy of ten-print

processing (arrest fingerprint cards and noncriminal

justice applicant fingerprint cards). AFIS equipment

also can be used to identify individuals from “latent”

(crime scene) fingerprints, even fragmentary prints of

single fingers in some cases. Digital fingerprint images

generated by AFIS equipment can be transmitted

electronically to remote sites, eliminating the

necessity of mailing fingerprint cards and providing

remote access to AFIS fingerprint files. (See pages 25-

26 and 46-47.)

Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal History

Record Improvement (BJS CHRI) Program: The

$27 million grant program, administered by the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, under which awards were made to

all 50 States to improve the quality of criminal

records, flag felony records and increase participation

in the Interstate Identification Index (III). Awards were

made over a three-year period: fiscal years 1990, 1991

and 1992. (See pages 68-70.)

Central Repository: The database (or the agency

housing the database) which maintains criminal

history records on all State offenders. Records include

fingerprint files and files containing identification

segments and notations of arrests and dispositions. The

central repository is generally responsible for Statelevel identification of arrestees, and commonly serves

as the central control terminal for contact with FBI

record systems. Inquiries from local agencies for a

national record check (for criminal justice or firearm

check purposes) are routed to the FBI via the central

repository. Although usually housed in the Department

of Public Safety, the central repository may in some

States be maintained by the State Police or some

other State agency. (See page 19.)

Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) or

Criminal History Record Information System: A

record (or the system maintaining such records) which

includes individual identifiers and describes an

individual’s arrests and subsequent dispositions.

Criminal history records do not include intelligence or

investigative data or sociological data such as drug

use history. CHRI systems usually include information

on juveniles if they are tried as adults in criminal

courts, but in most cases do not include data

describing involvement of an individual in the juvenile

justice system. All data in CHRI systems are usually

backed by fingerprints of the record subjects to provide

positive identification. State legislation varies

concerning disclosure of criminal history records for

noncriminal justice purposes. (See Chapter II.)

Data Quality: The extent to which criminal history

records are complete, accurate and timely. The key

concern in data quality is the completeness of records

and the extent to which records include dispositions as

well as arrest and charge information. Other concerns

include the timeliness of data reporting to State and

Federal repositories, the timeliness of data entry by

the repositories and the readability of criminal history

records. (See pages 29-34, 37-39 and 59.)

Felon Identification for Firearms Sales (FIFS):

The system and procedures developed by the FBI and

State officials for the identification of felons who

attempt to purchase firearms. FIFS includes the

establishment of a felony flagging system in the III

system to identify offenders who have been charged

with or convicted of felonies. When implemented,

system users will use a special inquiry code and

responses will include a code indicating that the

individual has a felony conviction, has no felony

conviction or pending felony arrest, or has a record of

unknown nature and status. One State, Virginia, is

presently participating in a test to flag all records in

the FBI index. (See page 66).

Felony or Serious Misdemeanor: The category of

offenses for which fingerprints and criminal history

information are accepted by the FBI and entered in

the Bureau’s files, including the III system. Serious

misdemeanor is defined to exclude certain minor

offenses such as drunkenness or minor traffic offenses.

(See page 50.)
Glossary 2 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Interstate Identification Index (III): An “indexpointer” system for the interstate exchange of criminal

history records. Under III, the FBI maintains an

identification index to persons arrested for felonies or

serious misdemeanors under State or Federal law. The

index includes identification information (for example,

name, date of birth, race, sex, etc.), FBI Numbers and

State Identification Numbers (SIDs) from each State

holding information about an individual. Search

inquiries from criminal justice agencies nationwide

are transmitted automatically via State

telecommunications networks and the FBI’s National

Crime Information Center (NCIC) telecommunications

lines. Searches are made on the basis of name and

other identifiers. The process is entirely automated and

takes approximately five seconds to complete. If a hit

is made against the Index, record requests are made

using SIDs or FBI Numbers and data are automatically

retrieved from each repository holding records on the

individual and forwarded to the requesting agency. At

present, 25 States participate in III and the system

operates for criminal justice inquiries only. Responses

are provided from FBI files where the State originating

the record is not a participant in III. Participation

requires that the State maintain an automated criminal

history record system capable of interfacing with the

III system and capable of responding automatically to

all interstate and Federal/State record requests. If

extended to cover noncriminal justice inquiries, as

planned, the III system would eliminate the need for

duplicate recordkeeping at the Federal and State level

since it would no longer be necessary for the FBI to

maintain records on State offenders. At present, III

ensures higher quality criminal justice responses

because, in most cases, reply data are supplied

directly by the State from which the record originates.

(For complete information, see Chapter V.)

Interstate Identification Index (III) Compact: An

interstate and Federal/State compact designed to

facilitate the exchange of criminal history data among

States for noncriminal justice purposes and to

eliminate the need for the FBI to maintain duplicate

data about State offenders. Under the compact, the

operation of this system would be overseen by a

policymaking council comprised of representatives of

the Federal and State governments, as well as system

users. The key concept underlying the compact is

agreement among all States that all criminal history

information (except sealed records) will be provided

in response to noncriminal justice requests from

another State — regardless of whether the information

being requested would be permitted to be

disseminated for a similar noncriminal justice purpose

within the State

holding the data. (That is, the law of the State which

is inquiring about the data — rather than the law of

the State which originated the data — governs its

use.) In some cases, ratification of the compact will

have the effect of amending existing State legislation

governing interstate record dissemination, since most

States do not currently authorize dissemination to all

of the Federal agencies and out-of-state users

authorized under the compact. At present, noncriminal

justice inquiries are handled by the FBI from its files

of voluntarily contributed State arrest and disposition

records. This requires that the FBI maintain duplicates

of State records and generally results in less complete

records being provided, since FBI files of State

records are not always complete due to reporting

deficiencies. The FBI cannot abandon the duplicate

records without a formal compact, however, since

subsequent failure of a State to continue participation

after cessation of the FBI’s State offender files would

jeopardize future noncriminal justice services to the

Federal and State agencies that now rely on those

files. The compact has been approved by the U.S.

Attorney General and it is expected that it will be

considered by the U.S. Congress in 1993 or 1994. After

Congressional approval, the compact will be

submitted for ratification by State legislatures. (See

Chapter V.)

Juvenile Justice Records: Official records of

juvenile justice adjudications. Most adult criminal

history record systems do not accept such records,

which are frequently not supported by fingerprints and

which usually are confidential under State law.

Pursuant to an order dated July 15, 1992, the FBI now

accepts, and will disseminate, juvenile records on the

same basis as adult records. States are not required to

submit such records to the FBI, however. (See page

23.)

Live-scan and Card-scan: Automated devices for

generating and transmitting fingerprint images. Livescan devices capture fingerprint images directly from

subjects’ fingers, which are rolled onto scanning pads.

The devices can print out multiple fingerprint cards or

can transmit electronic fingerprint images to remote

sites for printout or direct use in automated fingerprint

identification computers. Card scanners scan standard

inked fingerprint cards and can transmit electronic

images, with related textual data, to remote sites for

printout or direct use. (See page 46.)
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Glossary 3

Master Name Index (MNI): A subject identification

index maintained by criminal record repositories that

includes names and other identifiers for all persons

about whom a record is held in the systems. As of

1992, almost all State MNIs were automated and

included almost 100 percent of record subjects in the

repositories. The automated name index is the key to

rapidly identifying persons who have criminal records

for such purposes as presale firearm checks, criminal

investigations or bailsetting. MNIs may include

“felony flags,” which indicate whether record subjects

have arrests or convictions for felony offenses. (See

pages 24 and 67.)

National Crime Information Center (NCIC): An

automated database of criminal justice and justicerelated records maintained by the FBI. The database

includes the “hot files” of wanted and missing

persons, stolen vehicles and identifiable stolen

property, including firearms. Access to NCIC files is

through central control terminal operators in each

State that are connected to NCIC via dedicated

telecommunications lines maintained by the FBI.

Local agencies and officers on the beat can access the

State control terminal via the State law enforcement

network. Inquiries are based on name and other

nonfingerprint identification. Most criminal history

inquiries of the III system are made via the NCIC

telecommunications system. NCIC data may be

provided only for criminal justice and other

specifically authorized purposes. For criminal history

searches, this includes criminal justice employment,

employment by Federally chartered or insured banking

institutions or securities firms, and use by State and

local governments for purposes of employment and

licensing pursuant to a State statute approved by the

U.S. Attorney General. Inquiries regarding presale

firearm checks are included as criminal justice uses.

(See page 22 and Chapter V.)

National Fingerprint File (NFF): A system and

procedures designed as a component of the III system,

which, when fully implemented, would establish a

totally decentralized system for the interstate

exchange of criminal history records. The NFF will

contain fingerprints of Federal offenders and a single

set of fingerprints on State offenders from each State

in which an offender has been arrested for a felony or

a serious misdemeanor. Under the NFF concept,

States will forward only the first-arrest fingerprints of

an individual to the FBI accompanied by other

identification data such as name, date of birth, etc.

Fingerprints for subsequent arrests would not be

forwarded. Disposition data on the individual would

also be retained at the State repository and would not

be forwarded to the FBI. Upon receipt of the first-arrest

fingerprint cards (or electronic images when new

technologies are implemented), the FBI will enter the

individual’s fingerprint impressions in the NFF
Glossary 4 • Draft Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

and will enter the person’s name and identifiers in the

III, together with an FBI Number and a State

Identification Number for each State maintaining a

record on the individual. Charge and disposition

information on State offenders will be maintained only

at the State level and State repositories will be

required to respond to all authorized record requests

concerning these individuals for both criminal justice

and noncriminal justice purposes. States would have to

release all data on record subjects for noncriminal

justice inquiries regardless of whether the data could

be released for similar purposes within the State. The

NFF concept is presently being tested in two States,

Florida and North Carolina. Both of these States are in

a position to conduct the test since they have

nonrestrictive laws governing release of data for

noncriminal justice purposes. (See Chapter V.)

National Law Enforcement

Telecommunications System (NLETS): A

computerized high-speed message switching system

maintained by the States which provides for the

interstate exchange of criminal justice-related

information between local, State and Federal criminal

justice agencies. NLETS supports inquiries into State

criminal history files, motor vehicle registration files,

drivers license files and other State databases. It also

interfaces with NCIC and other FBI files, the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police, the National Insurance

Theft Bureau, the National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children and other national-level files. State

agencies use NLETS for the interstate exchange of

criminal history records. More than 121,000 terminals

send and receive more than a quarter-billion messages

annually. NLETS is supported by fees paid by user

agencies and is set up as a not-for-profit corporation

headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. (Referenced

throughout the report.)

NCIC 2000: An initiative undertaken by the FBI to

design, develop and implement a new generation

automated NCIC system for the compilation,

dissemination and exchange of timely criminal justice

information, including criminal history records, records

of wanted and missing persons, and records of

identifiable stolen property. Among other

improvements, the new system will have upgraded

hardware and telecommunications capabilities to

support the paperless exchange of information,

including graphic information such as mug shots,

tattoos and signatures of offenders. NCIC 2000 is

scheduled to be fully implemented by the end of 1995.

(See page 66.)

NCIC Advisory Policy Board (APB): A 30-member

advisory committee, comprised of criminal justice

officials, representatives of criminal justice

associations and user representatives, that provides

policy input to guide the FBI in the administration of

the NCIC system. The APB meets at least twice a

year to consider issues originating from periodic

meetings of NCIC Control Terminal Officers in the

four NCIC Regions or from other sources, such as

NCIC participants meetings, technical meetings or

FBI/NCIC staff. At present, the FBI is reviewing the

roles of its advisory committees with a view to

restructuring them in accordance with ongoing

initiatives to upgrade and expand FBI information

systems. (See pages 22 and 34.)

Positive Identification: Identification of an

individual using biometric characteristics which are

unique and not subject to alteration. Basically, in

present usage, the term refers to identification by

fingerprints but it may also include identification by

retinal images, voiceprints or other techniques.

Positive identification is to be distinguished from

identification using name, sex, date of birth, etc., as

shown on a document subject to alteration or

counterfeit such as a birth certificate, social security

card or drivers license. Because individuals can have

identical or similar names, ages, etc., identifications

based on such characteristics are not reliable. (See

pages 20-21.)

Security Clearance Information Act (SCIA):

Federal legislation requiring that States make criminal

history records available to certain Federal agencies

in connection with screening for security clearances.

(See page 39.)

Survey of Criminal History Information

Systems (the “BJS Survey”): A comprehensive

50-State survey describing the status of State criminal

history record systems as of December 1992.

Information includes the number of records, level of

automation, record completeness, fingerprint

procedures, firearm checking procedures, and

participation in III. The survey updates an earlier

survey conducted in 1989. The survey was conducted

by SEARCH Group, Inc. under a grant from the Bureau

of Justice Statistics. (See pages 24-29.)
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 1

Introduction

Purpose of this report

This report is the first

comprehensive examination of the

Nation’s criminal history record

systems and the major issues and

developments that affect them.

It describes in nontechnical terms

the complex and interrelated

network of Federal, State and local

information systems that provide

criminal history records to criminal

justice personnel and to authorized

noncriminal justice users.

It also assesses the role these

systems play in the effective

functioning of the criminal justice

system, and reviews the impact that

new technologies and strategies are

having on the completeness,

accuracy and availability of

criminal history records.

This 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;

• A summary description of new

technologies that affect criminal

history record systems;

• A description of the Interstate

Identification Index system and

the role it plays in the

decentralization of the Nation’s

criminal history record

information system; and

• 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 them 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

to 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 role the criminal record

repositories play and also how data

quality problems and other

problems — 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 the State and national

repositories of criminal history

records 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 of the

need to maintain 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

the State central repositories for

information about the processing of

cases in other agencies.
Page 2 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

The State repositories also make

criminal history records available to

some noncriminal justice agencies,

such as State agencies that are

authorized by law to obtain the

records for such purposes as

employment screening and

occupational licensing.

—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 such information is

voluntarily submitted by States.

The FBI has accepted and recorded

State offender information for some

70 years 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 Federal

and nonfederal noncriminal justice

agencies that are authorized by

Federal law to obtain such records.

Timely criminal history record

information issues

This report, which describes the

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, recent developments have

highlighted this fact: The

information maintained by the State

and Federal repositories is not

always accurate and up-to-date, due

primarily to the failure of criminal

justice agencies to report

information accurately, completely

and regularly, but due also in some

cases to a lack of adequate

equipment and procedures at the

repositories. For example, the low

quality of the data stored in many

repositories has hampered ongoing

efforts to establish a national

database of persons who have prior

felony convictions and are therefore

prohibited by Federal law from

purchasing firearms.

Surveys and audits have shown the

following:

• That a high percentage of arrests

on file in many repositories lack

dispositions;

• That arrest and disposition

information may be inaccurate;

and

• That the content and format of

the records made available by

some of the repositories do not

meet the needs of some users.

These developments have led to a

number of initiatives to improve

criminal history record data quality

nationwide, including Federal grant

assistance to the States and the

promulgation of voluntary data

quality standards. Compliance with

these standards will require

officials in many States to seek

funds from their State legislatures

to provide additional equipment

and other resources to the

repositories and to the criminal

justice agencies that provide

information to the repositories.

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, the State repositories and

the FBI are engaged in a

cooperative program designed 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 will be replaced by a new

system, the Interstate Identification

Index, which will make the State

repositories primarily responsible

for providing State criminal history

records for interstate and FederalState purposes. Full participation in

this program will require most of

the States to modify their record

dissemination laws and policies and

to upgrade the technical capabilities

of their repositories in order to

realize the long-term cost savings

inherent in the new approach.

—New technologies

Third, new technologies are

emerging that offer great potential

for significantly increasing the

efficiency of the criminal history

record repositories and the quality

of the information they maintain

and disseminate. These

technologies are expensive,

however, and it is often difficult to

persuade legislators and other

policymakers that investment in

this new equipment makes sense in

times of tight State budgets.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 3

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

appendices. 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

which defines the terms used in this

report, and which is 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 a 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

should be reflected, on 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 provides a summary

description of new technologies and

new technology applications that

affect the efficiency, and therefore

the cost, of criminal history record

information systems and the quality

of the records they provide. New

technologies described include:

• Automated fingerprint

identification technology and its

impact on the accuracy of the

identification function and the

efficiency of inquiry and

response procedures;

• Live-scan and card-scan

fingerprint technology and the

impact it will have on the

efficiency and accuracy of arrest

subject processing, inquiry

processing and the transmission

of fingerprint images to the

repositories; and

• Automated reporting of criminal

history information to the

repositories by law enforcement

agencies, prosecutors, courts and

corrections agencies.

Chapter V describes the Interstate

Identification Index system,

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 and

how such processing will work

when the new system, including the

National Fingerprint File, is fully

implemented. 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 a proposed interstate

compact designed to implement the

system and formalize participation

by the FBI and the State

repositories.
Page 4 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Chapter VI provides a brief

overview of current Federal

initiatives and activities that affect

or are related to criminal history

record systems. These include the

following:

• The FBI’s program to upgrade

its technology and streamline its

procedures;

• The U.S. Attorney General’s

program to establish a database

of convicted felons to permit

point-of-sale record checks for

firearms sales;

• Federal grant programs to

improve data quality;

• The voluntary reporting and data

quality standards issued by the

U.S. Department of Justice; and

• The pending Brady Bill, which,

if passed, will provide additional

funding for criminal history

record data quality

improvement.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 5

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 history records are

utilized by criminal justice

personnel.

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. This

section also 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 criminal justice

systems at the local, State and

Federal levels, most crimes by far

are prosecuted under State law. For

this reason, this discussion will

focus primarily on the state-level

systems and will describe a more or

less typical State criminal justice

structure. It should be stressed,

however, that the systems at the

three levels are significantly

interrelated and depend upon a high

level of cooperation among local,

State and Federal officials.

This section discusses these

components of a State criminal

justice system:

• Criminal codes and procedures;

• Police agencies;

• Local detention facilities;

• Prosecution agencies;

• Courts; and

• 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 the crimes of

murder, robbery, burglary and rape,

and other dangerous crimes that

constitute the core of the Nation’s

serious crime problem.
Page 6 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Each of these governmental levels

— local, State and Federal —

defines its own criminal laws and

criminal procedures. At the Federal

level, the Congress1 has enacted a

Federal criminal code defining

Federal crimes and a code of

Federal criminal procedure setting

out rules applicable in 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. Sometimes

these roles are 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

violations of State law are

investigated by local police and

suspects in these crimes are

arrested and charged at the local

level. In addition, other police units

— such as State troopers, Federal

Drug Enforcement Administration

officers or FBI agents — may be

involved with local police in the

investigation, arrest and

prosecution of certain cases.

1In this report, “the Congress”

refers to the United States Congress.

Local detention facilities

Jails, which also are 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 often house State

“prison-ready” inmates — persons

who have been convicted and

sentenced and are ready to move

into a State prison but, because of

overcrowding or other reasons,

cannot be moved. In most such

cases, State or Federal governments

pay fees to the local communities

which 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

locally, 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 locallyaccountable officials are charged

with the responsibility of

prosecuting not only local offenses

but also virtually all offenses

defined under State law. For many

of them, prosecuting State crimes is

their primary function, sometimes

their exclusive function.

Courts

Courts exist at the local, State and

Federal levels. Most States have

“integrated” court systems, that is,

systems which as a result of reform

and modernization have a more or

less uniform statewide structure,

combining 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 Office of

Court Administration.

In the typical State judicial system,

there are magistrates’ courts, lowerlevel trial courts, felony trial courts,

and intermediate and final appellate

courts. Magistrates, or

Commissioners in some States,

conduct initial appearances in

criminal cases and may set bail, but

usually have no trial jurisdiction.

Lower-level trial courts, often

called Municipal Courts, County

Courts or District Courts, usually

are 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 that are

appealed from the lower trial

courts.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 7

About half of the States have

intermediate appellate courts,

usually called the Court of Appeals.

At the top of the structure, the State

Supreme Court is 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, State court decisions can be

reviewed by Federal courts.

Corrections agencies

“Corrections” is generally 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.

Sometimes a prisoner may serve

both State and Federal sentences or

State and local sentences

concurrently.

Section 2: Typical State

criminal justice process

Although there may be aspects of

every State’s criminal justice

system that are unique, the essential

steps or functions in the system are

similar in practically all States. The

following discussion describes the

functioning of these essential steps

in a typical State system and points

out some pitfalls in the process that

may detract from the creation of

adequate records of criminal cases.

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; and

• Correctional supervision.

(See Figure 1, which illustrates the

sequence of events in the criminal

justice system.)

Investigation

Most criminal investigations are

carried out by the police, but

investigations may be undertaken

by grand juries or other special

bodies such as crime commissions

or legislative committees. Most of

the information utilized by criminal

investigators is commonly referred

to as “intelligence” information

(information compiled in an effort

to anticipate, prevent or monitor

possible criminal activity) or

“investigative” information

(information obtained in the course

of the investigation of 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 and

consequently 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 generally an

arrest warrant is not 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 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 of the

States have laws or regulations

requiring arresting agencies to

report certain arrests to the central

repository.2 (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.

2U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Data Quality of Criminal

History Records, Criminal Justice

Information Policy series, by Robert R.

Belair, SEARCH Group, Inc.

(Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, October 1985) p. 36.

(Hereafter, Data Quality Report.)
Page 8 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Figure 1: Sequence of Events in the Criminal Justice System

(Figure not available in electronic format)
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 9

Figure 1: Sequence of Events in the Criminal Justice System

(Figure not available in electronic format)
Page 10 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

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, and

• 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 by arrest, most

arresting agencies have booking

procedures designed to ensure that

fingerprints are obtained and

submitted as required. Not all cases

begin by arrest, however. Citations,

used in the past mostly for minor

offenses, are being used more and

more in many States for serious

misdemeanors and even for some

felonies.

Citations are paper forms that are

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 and 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 the information flow in a

criminal case. Booking typically

involves an entry into a

chronological arrest log or arrest

register, the filing of an arrest

report by the arresting officer, and

the preparation of a statement of

charges as the arresting officer sees

them.

The booking process also includes

the taking and recording of

personal information about the

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.

As noted earlier, if the arrest is for

a felony or a serious misdemeanor,

the subject is fingerprinted.

Typically, three sets of fingerprints

are made — 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 makes inquiries

of available criminal history record

systems to determine whether the

subject has a record of prior or

pending cases that may affect how

he is processed. The agency checks

its own files and makes an inquiry

of the State system and possibly the

Interstate Identification Index, 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 “III” or “Triple I,” is

discussed in detail in Chapter V.)
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 11

The booking stage is another point

at which the arrestee may be

released without prosecution. If this

occurs, it may cause a problem for

criminal history record reporting

purposes. If the subject has been

fingerprinted before release and the

fingerprints have already been sent

to the repository, notice of the

release must also be sent to avoid

the creation of an open arrest record

without a notation that the case has

been officially terminated. A recent

survey of State repositories

revealed that slightly more than

half of the States have laws or

regulations that require law

enforcement agencies to send such

notices to the repository,3 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 next step is the defendant’s

initial appearance before a court or

magistrate. This must occur

“without unnecessary delay,” which

in some States means within 24

hours.

3U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems, 1992, Criminal

Justice Information Policy series, by

Sheila J. Barton, SEARCH Group, Inc.

(Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, forthcoming) Table 7.

(Hereafter, 1992 Survey.) Selected

tables from the 1992 Survey are set out

in this report as Appendices 10-20.

At the initial appearance, a number

of things can happen:

• 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 at this point.

• 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 of this information, with the

exception of the handling of the

nonserious case, typically is

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. Such a hearing may not be

required in all jurisdictions,

particularly in cases in which a

grand jury must issue an

indictment. Simply put, the purpose

of the preliminary hearing is to

determine 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 may also 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 and may be

reviewed and changed, possibly

several times, at later stages of the

proceedings in the case.

Courts have a number of pretrial

release choices, based upon

available information about the

crime with which the defendant is

charged, his prior criminal record,

and the likelihood that he will

appear or fail to appear for trial:

• The defendant may be jailed

without bail if he is charged with

a capital offense or if the court

finds that he may not appear for

trial or may pose an undue risk

to the community if released;

• He may be jailed in default of

bond, if bail is set and he is

unable to post bond;

• He may be released on cash

bond or without bond (released

on his own recognizance or

“ROR”); or

• He may be released on specific

conditions or restrictions

designed to keep him out of

trouble and 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.
Page 12 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

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

circumstances of the offense, 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 he may decline to

prosecute some or all of the

charges. He also may add or

modify charges.

If he decides to go ahead with the

proceedings, the prosecutor may

initiate prosecution in some cases

by the filing of an “information”

with the appropriate court.4 He also

may 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

typically is larger than the regular

trial jury, which usually includes 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

the evidence presented by the

prosecutor and decide whether

there should be a trial. If a grand

4An “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.

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, he is advised of the

charges against him and of his

rights under the law. For example,

if he does not already have legal

counsel, he is advised of his right to

counsel, including the right to

court-appointed counsel if he is

indigent. If he has counsel or

waives legal representation, he 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

that the accused is competent to

understand the proceedings and to

assist his counsel in his defense.

The defendant may enter a plea as a

result of charge negotiations or

sentence negotiations with the

prosecutor. The judge may reject a

guilty plea if he finds that the

defendant was coerced or does not

understand the charges or the

consequences of his plea. If the

judge accepts a guilty plea or a no

contest plea, he normally enters a

judgment of conviction on the

record and, if the charges are not

serious ones, he may also impose

sentence. In cases involving

felonies or serious misdemeanors,

sentencing is usually set for a later

date 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 still other trial outcome

possibilities, however, that can

result in confusing criminal history

records. One such possible outcome

is “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 specified 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
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 13

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 also 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

increased 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, and in other cases the

convicted person may have a right

to appeal if he chooses. In other

cases, however, appeal may be in

the discretion of the appellate court.

There are also so-called “postconviction 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 postconviction actions can be based on

claims of inadequate legal

representation or denial of certain

constitutional rights, among other

grounds, and can result in review in

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.5

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;

5U. S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Statutes Requiring the Use of

Criminal History Record Information,

Criminal Justice Information Policy

series, by Paul L. Woodard, SEARCH

Group, Inc. (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office, June

1991) Table 7 at pp. 47-50. (Hereafter,

Statutes Report.) Selected tables from

the Statutes Report are set out in this

report as Appendices 1-7.

• Confinement in a mental health

facility; or

• 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 socalled “three Ps”: probation, prison

and parole.

Incarceration in a State prison is

usually for persons who are

convicted of felonies and receive

sentences of one year or more.

Sentences of less than a year

usually are served in local jails or

other local facilities. A person may

receive a “split sentence”; that is,

he 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.
Page 14 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

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; and

• Corrections uses.

This section also 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.6 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;

6Ibid., p. 1.

• Prior offenders might not be able

to legally purchase firearms,

which then 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; and

• 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, 43 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.7

A suspect’s status as an escapee or

his failure to comply with

conditions of his current status as a

probationer, parolee or bailee can

also be determined from his

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, 47 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 posttrial release decisions.8

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

7Ibid., Table 10 at pp. 64-66, and p.

63. Table 10 is included in this report

as Appendix 1.

8Ibid., Table 2 at pp. 7-10, and pp.

5-6. An excerpt from Table 2 is

included in this report as Appendix 2.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 15

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; and

• Parole board hearings.

All of the States have statutory

provisions that authorize or require

arrested persons with designated

prior convictions to be charged as

repeat offenders, habitual offenders

or career offenders, and, if

convicted, to be sentenced to

enhanced prison terms.9 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.10

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 in some cases judges may

not be aware that the information

comes primarily from repositorysupplied criminal history records,

since 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.

9Ibid., Table 5 at pp. 36-41, and pp.

13-14. An excerpt from Table 5 is

included in this report as Appendix 3.

10Ibid., Table 3 at pp. 17-23, and p.

11. An excerpt from Table 3 is included

in this report as Appendix 4.

—For bail, pretrial and trial

decisions

As noted above, 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

also may be admissible to attack the

credibility of the defendant, if he

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, in

some cases, life sentences without

parole for certain habitual

offenders.
Page 16 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

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.11 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.12

In lieu of, or in addition to, specific

upgrade or enhancement laws,

some jurisdictions have established

sentencing guidelines or

presumptive or determinate

sentencing structures that are based

in part on prior convictions as

aggravating factors or on sentence

computation formulas that include

prior convictions as factors in the

computation.13

—For probation and parole

decisions

Courts also take criminal history

record information into account in

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 of

the repeat offender, habitual

offender and sentence enhancement

laws mentioned earlier provide for

mandatory prison terms,

foreclosing probation as a possible

sentence, and many of them deny

or limit parole eligibility. Probation

may also be prohibited by law for

certain convicted persons who have

11Ibid., Table 4 at pp. 24-35, and p.

14. An excerpt from Table 4 is included

in this report as Appendix 5.

12Ibid., p. 14.

13Ibid., pp. 12-13.

previously been convicted of

certain serious offenses, such as

murder or other offenses involving

violence.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,15 however, and in

making decisions about eligibility

for good time credits, early release,

work furlough or release on

parole.16

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.

14Ibid., p. 14.

15Ibid., Table 8 at pp. 52-54, and p.

51. Table 8 is included in this report as

Appendix 6.

16Ibid., Table 9 at pp. 57-61, and

pp. 55-56. An excerpt from Table 9 is

included in this report as Appendix 7.

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;

and

• Whether new and prior incidents

of criminal involvement were

separated by specified periods

during which the individual was

free of criminal involvement.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 17

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,17 usually

because there is no legal

requirement to obtain fingerprints

in such cases.

Finally, it should be re-emphasized

that virtually all of the laws that

require or permit criminal justice

decisions to be 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 mentioned earlier, 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 making bail

recommendations.

17U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Report of the National

Task Force on Criminal History Record

Disposition Reporting, Criminal Justice

Information Policy series, by SEARCH

Group, Inc. (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office, June

1992) p. 3. (Hereafter, National Task

Force Report.)

Few States presently have

procedures and facilities for making

fingerprint-verified criminal history

record responses available within

such short time frames. Some

jurisdictions have bail agencies or

other agencies that are 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 most 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.

Since 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 for

investigation and compilation of

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.
Page 18 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 19

Chapter II:

Overview of existing

criminal history record systems

This chapter describes the Nation’s existing criminal history record

systems at both 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 type of information maintained in

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; and

• 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

Criminal history records at the

State level are collected, maintained

and disseminated by “State central

repositories,” which are agencies or

bureaus within State governments,

often housed within the State police

or a cabinet-level agency with

public safety and criminal justice

responsibilities, 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 files

of criminal history records;

• Establishing an efficient and

timely system for retrieving the

records;

• Ensuring that the records are

accurate and up-to-date; and

• Establishing rules and regulations governing the dissemination of criminal 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.18

18U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Criminal History

Record Information: Compendium of

State Privacy and Security Legislation,

1992, by SEARCH Group, Inc.

(Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, July 1992) p. 5.

(Hereafter, 1992 Compendium.)
Page 20 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Federal-level systems

At the Federal level, the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

functions as a repository for

criminal history information,

holding both Federal offender

information and records of arrests

and dispositions under State law.

As discussed in this chapter, the

FBI’s criminal history record

information role is changing.

Currently, the FBI operates a

centralized criminal history file that

serves as the primary source for

national record searches and

interstate record exchanges. By the

end of this century, however, the

FBI will serve primarily as the

“51st State repository” with respect

to Federal offenders. The FBI will

also maintain these systems:

• The Interstate Identification

Index, which will permit

authorized requestors to

determine whether any State or

Federal repository maintains a

criminal history record about a

particular subject; and

• 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; and

• Efforts to establish State and

Federal criminal history record

systems.

Establishment of early

police departments

At the beginning of this 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. In 1844, New York followed

suit.

Meanwhile, in less populated areas

of the country, State governments

took on the role of establishing

organized police forces. 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.19

19U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Intelligence and

Investigative Records, Criminal Justice

Information Policy series, by Robert R.

Belair, SEARCH Group, Inc.

(Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, February 1985) p. 14.

(Hereafter, Intelligence and

Investigative Records.) See also, James

N. Gilbert, Criminal Investigation

(Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill and

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, 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.20

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, the famed

detective, Allan Pinkerton,

launched his own crude criminal

history record system with respect

Company, 1980) at Chapter 3.

(Hereafter, Gilbert.)

20U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Original Records of

Entry, Criminal Justice Information

Policy series, by Robert R. Belair,

SEARCH Group, Inc. (Washington,

D.C.: Government Printing Office,

November 1990) pp. 6-7. See also,

Michael J. Petrick, “The Press, the

Police Blotter and Public Policy,”

Journalism Quarterly 46 (Autumn

1969) p. 475, n.1.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 21

to persistent criminals. Pinkerton

called for the establishment of a

national system to collect and

maintain records, including

photographs, of active criminals.21

The first systematic attempts at

developing criminal identification

systems included name-based

registers of habitual criminals in

combination with photographs and

an anthropometric system for

taking exact measurements of

physical features, which was

developed in the mid-19th century

by a Frenchman, Alfonse Bertillon.

In 1896, the International

Association of Chiefs of Police

established the first “national”

criminal identification system in

Chicago.22

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.23 In

1908, the U.S. Department of

Justice formed the Identification

Bureau (the forerunner of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation),

with the mission, among others, of

establishing a fingerprint-based

criminal history record information

system.24 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

21Intelligence and Investigative

Records, p. 18. See also, Gilbert, p. 17.

22Gilbert, p. 17.

23Clarence G. Collins, Fingerprint

Science: How to Roll, Classify, File and

Use Fingerprints (Placerville,

California: Copperhouse (formerly

Custom) Publishing Company, 1985) p.

1. (Hereafter, Collins.)

24Ibid.

for many other justice and

government purposes.25

Efforts to establish criminal

history record systems

In 1924, fingerprinting and related

recordkeeping received an

important impetus when the U.S.

Congress directed the FBI to create

an “identification division” to

acquire, maintain and use

fingerprint information for criminal

identification and certain other

purposes.26 The Identification

Division started with just over

800,000 fingerprints, which

represented contributions from the

files of the International

Association of Chiefs of Police, the

Federal penitentiary at

Leavenworth, Kansas, and the

Justice Department’s own

Identification Bureau records.27

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.

25F.A. Reed, “The Finger Mark, the

Prime Piece of Scientific Evidence,”

Journal of Forensic Science (January

1981) p. 9.

26Collins, p. 2.

27Ibid.

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.28 The report

called for, among other things, a

significant Federal effort to

establish and automate a national

criminal history record system.

—LEAA efforts to establish

State systems

In 1969, the Law Enforcement

Assistance Administration (LEAA),

which was established in response

to the Commission’s

recommendations, initiated Project

SEARCH, a consortium of the

States to develop and demonstrate 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.29

28President’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).

29SEARCH Group, Inc., Technical

Report No. 14: The American Criminal

History Record: Present Status and

Future Requirements (Sacramento,

California: SEARCH Group, Inc.,

September 1976) p. 6.
Page 22 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

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 and these States and others

had established central State

repositories charged with

maintaining statewide criminal

history record systems.30

—FBI efforts to establish

Federal systems

As noted earlier, the FBI has

collected and maintained criminal

history records since the early part

of the century. From its inception in

the mid-1920s through the mid1960s, 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 “fingerprintsupported,” 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 the so-called “hot files”

containing information about

wanted and missing persons, stolen

30Ibid.

vehicles, stolen license plates,

stolen guns, stolen boats, stolen

securities, stolen articles of

personal property and certain other

types of files.31 NCIC maintains its

own nationwide

telecommunications system and

operates as a cooperative FederalState venture with policy input

provided through its state-based

Advisory Policy Board.

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 mid1970s, 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 a decentralized national criminal

history record system — the

Interstate Identification Index. (See

Chapter V.)

31U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice

“Hot” Files, Criminal Justice

Information Policy series, by Paul L.

Woodard, SEARCH Group, Inc.

(Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, 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.

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

information;

• Criminal history information;

• Juvenile record information;

• Other information (such as

pretrial release information and

felony conviction flags); and

• 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; and

• 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).32

32The 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.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 23

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.33 With few

exceptions, State criminal history

record repositories also do not

accept or maintain records of

juvenile offenses, except, of course,

in those cases where the juveniles

are tried as adults.

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

331992 Compendium, note 7 at p. 4.

information. As of 1989, 38 States

reported that 100 percent of their

criminal history files were

fingerprint-supported.34 By 1992,

that number had grown to 41

States, the District of Columbia and

the Virgin Islands. In 1992 alone,

over 6.2 million fingerprint cards

were submitted to the State central

repositories.35

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 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

Until recently, the FBI, like most of

the State repositories, did not

maintain juvenile record

information, except with respect to

juveniles tried as adults.36 On July

15, 1992, however, the Attorney

341992 Survey, Table 6. Table 6 is

included in this report as Appendix 14.

35Ibid.

36Testimony of Lawrence K. York,

Assistant Director, Identification

Division, Federal Bureau of

Investigation, before the Subcommittee

on Civil and Constitutional Rights,

Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.

House of Representatives, March 20,

1992. (Hereafter, York Testimony.)

General adopted a rule authorizing

the FBI to accept state-reported

records of serious offenses by

juveniles.37 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.38

The Justice Department has noted

that the juvenile record program is

necessary to respond to a marked

rise in juvenile crime. Crimes by

juveniles amount to between 10 and

40 percent of all serious crimes,

depending upon the category. The

Justice Department intends to use

the new juvenile justice reporting

standards to facilitate an early

identification of repeat and chronic

offenders.

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.

37U.S. Department of Justice,

“Juvenile Records,” Federal Register

56 (June 5, 1991) p. 25642.

38Amending 28 C.F.R. §

20.32(a)(b).
Page 24 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

—Felony flags

Thirty States, the District of

Columbia and Puerto Rico

currently “flag” some or all felony

convictions in their criminal history

databases, and an additional 14

States collect sufficient data to flag

at least some felonies.39 Such

information can be essential for

users of criminal history records.

For example, since the Federal

government and most State

governments prohibit the purchase

or possession of firearms by

convicted felons, systems that flag

felony 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.40 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.41

Master name indexes

In addition to criminal history

record files, State central

repositories and the FBI also

391992 Survey, Table 1. Table 1 is

included in this report as Appendix 10.

40National Task Force Report, p. 3.

41For example, complete

misdemeanor information sometimes is

helpful in assisting courts in

distinguishing chronic offenders from

first or infrequent offenders. See, Ibid.

maintain “master name indexes.”

The master name index is a key

element of the criminal history

system and, potentially, of a pointof-sale firearm check system, since

it permits the user to identify a

felony flag on a record of a named

offender.

—Contents, usage

The master name index is simply an

index of names and identifiers for

every offender for which the

repository has a partial or complete

criminal history file. The master

name index 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

master name index 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

master name index 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

master name index with about 12.5

million entries and each month it

adds over 70,000 new entries. All

except a few of the State

repositories have also automated

their master name indexes. All but

11 States have 100 percent of their

records in an automated master

name index.42

Section 3: The current

status of the Nation’s

421992 Survey, Table 1. See,

Appendix 10.

criminal history record

systems

Background

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has

just completed a survey 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.43 The survey covered the

status of all State record systems

through 1992. Information in this

section that describes the status of

State criminal history record

systems is drawn from this 1992

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; and

• Response times.

43See, 1992 Survey.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 25

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 1992 survey,

which was conducted by SEARCH

for the Bureau of Justice Statistics,

more than 47.3 million individual

offenders were in the criminal

history files of the State central

repositories as of December 31,

1992.44 In comparison, eight years

earlier, the repositories held only

30.3 million subjects in their

criminal history files, and three

years earlier in 1989, the number

was 42.4 million — an increase of

56 percent from 1984 to 1992.45

Similarly, more than 4.7 million

dispositions were reported in 1992

to 33 State repositories providing

disposition data for the 1992

survey, compared with 3.5 million

dispositions reported by the 34

States that provided data to a

similar survey in 1989.

—Federal records

At the Federal level, the FBI’s

Identification Division maintains

fingerprint-based criminal history

record information with respect to

about 25 million individuals.46

These files include records relating

441992 Survey, Table 2. Table 2 is

included in this report as Appendix 11.

45Ibid., Table 3. Table 3 is included

in this report as Appendix 12.

46U.S. Department of Justice, Task

Force on Felon Identification in

Firearm Sales, Report to the Attorney

General on Systems for Identifying

Felons Who Attempt to Purchase

Firearms (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office, October

1989) p. 90. (Hereafter, Firearms

Report.)

to Federal offenders, as well as

records of State offenders

voluntarily reported to the FBI by

State agencies. The Identification

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 drunk 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; and

• 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

overall far more effective. And, of

course, automation makes it

possible for a system to interface

with the national criminal history

record system.

—State criminal history files

The State repositories have been

making rapid progress in the last

decade in automating their criminal

history files. In the three-year

period 1989-1992, the percent of

State criminal history records that

are automated increased in some

States by as much as 700 percent

and in other States by well over 100

percent.47 By 1992, 25 States and

Puerto Rico reported that over 75

percent of their criminal history

records were automated.48

On the other hand, by 1992 there

were still 12 jurisdictions that had

automated less than 50 percent of

their files, five of which had no

automated criminal history records

(as opposed to entries in the master

name index).49

Twenty-nine States indicated that

they are steadily automating their

manual criminal history records

each time an offender with a prior

manual record is arrested.50

Overall, about 36.4 million of the

estimated 47.3 million criminal

history records maintained by the

State repositories nationwide are

automated.51

—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 half

of the States were operating

statewide criminal justice

automated fingerprint identification

systems (AFIS), and by the end of

471992 Survey, Table 2 . See,

Appendix 11.

48Ibid.

49Ibid.

50Ibid, Table 4. Table 4 is included

in this report as Appendix 13.

51Ibid., Table 3. See, Appendix 12.
Page 26 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

the century every State is expected

to operate or have access to such a

system.52

As described in more detail in

Chapter IV, an AFIS is a computerbased identification system which

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 which can be

matched against digital codes

assigned to other fingerprints that

have been similarly scanned. The

States are also actively

implementing live-scan and cardscan fingerprinting and other

“paperless” technologies, which

also are described in more detail in

Chapter IV.

—Federal files

At the Federal level, about half of

the 25 million criminal history

records maintained by the FBI are

fully automated and another 8.8

million records of individuals born

after 1929 and arrested prior to July

1, 1974, are in the process of being

automated. Approximately 3.6

million records of offenders born

before 1929 are maintained in

manual form and there are no plans

to automate them.53

52U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Legal and Policy

Issues Relating to Biometric

Identification Technologies, by Robert

R. Belair, SEARCH Group, Inc.

(Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, April 1990) Appendix I

at pp. 84-103.

53Firearms Report, p. 91.

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 some cases, the reporting agency

transmits the arrest or disposition

information via a computer

terminal that links the agency with

the State and FBI repositories or

provides the information on

computer-readable tape. In most

cases, however, the information is

mailed by the reporting agency to

the repository on forms provided by

the repository. (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, date of birth and

social security number;

• Address (both home and

business);

• Auto registration or driver’s

license information; and

• Any pertinent physical

characteristics (weight, height,

eye color, hair color, tattoos or

other distinctive physical

characteristics).

The agency also reports the charges

for which the individual was

arrested. In most cases, the

arresting agency also must submit a

full set of fingerprints to the State

central repository for all felony

arrests and most States also require

the forwarding of fingerprints for at

least some misdemeanor arrests.54

541992 Survey, Table 6. Only three

jurisdictions — Alaska, Vermont and

Puerto Rico — do not require arresting

agencies to submit fingerprints to the

State central repository for felony

arrests. See, Appendix 14.
User Criminal

Justice Agencies:

Full

Criminal

History

Records*

Figure 2: Flow of Information to State Central Criminal Record Repositories

Fingerprinting

Agencies:

Fingerprint

Cards

Noncriminal

Justice

Agency

Report Arrest

and Disposition

Information by

Terminal, Mail,

Delivery**

Police, Bail,

Prosecution, Courts,

Corrections,

Probation/Parole,

Others

Arresting Agencies

and Corrections

Name

Search of

Computerized

Criminal

History

Full or

Summary

Criminal

History

Data

AFIS

Automated

Name

Index

Automated

Criminal

History

Records

Automated

Fingerprint

Records

(AFIS)

Manual

Name

Index

Manual

Fingerprint

Records

Manual

Criminal

History

Records

Full or

Partial

Criminal

Records***

Fingerprint

Card

REPOSITORY

mail or

terminal

via mail, hand or

electronic

transmission

mail

mail

*Response time may be several days to several weeks.

**Reporting may be via an agency automated management information

system, such as a prosecutor case management system (e.g., D.A.’s

Assistant) or an Offender-Based State Corrections Information System

(OBSCIS), or via a parent agency, such as the office of state court

administrator.

***Response time may be several weeks to several months.
Page 28 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

As the arrested individual proceeds

to subsequent phases of the

criminal justice process, other

agencies provide disposition data.

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 and the

District of Columbia have statutes

or regulations requiring prosecutors

to report decisions to decline

prosecution in criminal cases to the

State repository,55 while 43 States,

the District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico and the Virgin Islands have

laws or regulations requiring courts

to report dispositions in felony

cases.56

However, there is still substantial

variation among disposition

reporting requirements. Twentynine States require law enforcement

agencies to notify the State central

55Ibid, Table 5.

56Ibid.

repository when an arrested person

is released without formal charging

after fingerprints have been sent to

the repository, while 21

jurisdictions have no such

requirement. In this regard, two

States, Michigan and North

Carolina, require police

departments to charge or release a

suspect prior to sending

fingerprints to the State

repository.57

—Time frame in 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 1992

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 one day in the District of

Columbia (where the Metropolitan

Police Department is both the

reporting agency and the State

repository) to 34 days in the State

of Missouri.58 The average time

between receipt of fingerprints by

the State repository and entry of

names and identifying data into the

master name index is 19 days,

ranging from less than one day in

North Dakota to 270 days in

Louisiana.59

57Ibid., Table 7. Table 7 is included

in this report as Appendix 15.

58Ibid., Table 12. Table 12 is

included in this report as Appendix 16.

59Ibid.

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 43 days, ranging from less than

one day in North Carolina to 180

days in Pennsylvania.60 The

average time between receipt of

final trial court dispositions by the

State repositories and entry of the

dispositions into criminal history

databases is 26 days.61

Access methods for

authorized requestors

—Criminal justice inquiries

The great majority of criminal

justice inquiries to State

repositories for criminal history

record information are received online from remote computer

terminals. On-line remote terminals

provide direct access to the

repository’s master name index for

the purpose of performing searches

and to the criminal history files for

the purpose of obtaining records.62

The remote terminal may be

physically located in a police

department, courthouse, corrections

facility or other criminal justice

facility. In a few jurisdictions,

remote terminals have been

installed in individual police cars,

giving police officers access to

60Ibid, Table 13. Table 13 is

included in this report as Appendix 17.

61Ibid.

62Fisher-Orsagh Associates, Inc.,

“Characteristics and Operational

Capabilities of State Criminal History

Repositories to Supply Prompt and

Accurate Criminal History

Information” (unpublished report

provided to the Bureau of Justice

Statistics, April 25, 1989) p. 2. (This

involved a survey and analysis of 20

State central repositories conducted in

1988-1989.)
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 29

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

Almost all noncriminal justice

inquiries come to the State

repositories via the mail. A 1989

study of 20 States found that none

of these States provides

noncriminal justice agencies with

direct, on-line access to the State

repository.63 Recently, however, a

few States have begun to

experiment with on-line access for

some noncriminal justice agencies.

—Computer searches

Computer searches for criminal

history records usually are made

using the subject’s name, date of

birth, sex and race, although in

certain cases, a search can be made

using only a name and date of birth.

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 one,

two or more years.)

63Ibid.

(2) If there are multiple “hits”

due to similarities in names

and dates of birth, 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.64

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.

641992 Compendium, p. 9.

As would be expected, on-line

searches via remote terminals are

the fastest, followed by telephone

inquiries, with mail searches being

the slowest. Fingerprint searches

take significantly longer than

searches based solely on name, date

of birth and other identifiers. For

this reason, many repositories

conduct manual fingerprint

searches only for criminal justice

purposes. As discussed in detail in

Chapter IV, however, automated

fingerprint identification systems

are significantly reducing response

times for fingerprint searches.

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; and

• 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
Page 30 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

earliest stages of the development

of a national criminal history record

program.65 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 or, 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 argued that there is a

“straight-line relationship” between

high quality criminal history record

information and the effectiveness of

the Nation’s criminal justice

system.66

65Project SEARCH, Technical

Report No. 2: Security and Privacy

Considerations in Criminal History

Information Systems (Sacramento,

California: California Crime

Technological Research Foundation,

July 1970).

66U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, National Conference

on Improving the Quality of Criminal

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 1992 survey

found that in 23 jurisdictions,

representing 51 percent of the

Nation’s population, 60 percent or

more of arrests within the past five

years had final dispositions

recorded, there is still widespread

variation among the States in the

extent to which they maintain

complete disposition data.67 Five

State repositories reported that for

arrests logged within the last five

years, 90 percent or more have final

dispositions recorded, while in 11

States, final dispositions are

available for 50 percent or less of

the arrests logged within the last

five years. When all arrests in State

History Records: Proceedings of a

BJS/SEARCH Conference, by

SEARCH Group, Inc. (Washington,

D.C.: Government Printing Office,

January 1992) p. 6. (Hereafter, Data

Quality Conference.)

671992 Survey, Table 1. See,

Appendix 10.

criminal history files are taken into

account, the number of State central

repositories with final dispositions

of 50 percent or less increases to

14.68

For its part, the FBI has well over 3

million criminal history records

awaiting final disposition and, by

most accounts, 50 percent or more

of the state-reported criminal

history records maintained by the

Identification 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 few

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.69 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 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

68Ibid.

69For example, SEARCH Group,

Inc., “Alaska Criminal History Record

Processing — Baseline Assessment”

(unpublished, March 31, 1993);

SEARCH Group, Inc., “Audit of the

Completeness and Accuracy of

Criminal History Record Information

Maintained by the Maryland Criminal

Justice Information System”

(unpublished, January 18, 1990).
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 31

redesign data collection forms and

to simplify and standardize

reporting forms, reporting

procedures and reporting

terminology also have been proven

to have a favorable impact on data

accuracy.70

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 arrest71 and are

associated with the fingerprints

taken in connection with that arrest.

The numbers are used thereafter to

identify the individual throughout

his criminal career and to ensure

that all criminal cases in which he

is involved are included on a single

70Data Quality Report, pp. 61-62.

71The 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.

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 due to 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.72

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.

72For 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).
Page 32 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

In cases which begin by citation or

summons (without arrest), the

tracking number is assigned at the

individual’s first court appearance

and the individual’s fingerprints are

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.73 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 casetracking 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.

73Ibid.

Since many arrests result in

multiple police charges, and since

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 States74 by

implementing a refinement of the

unique-number tracking system,

usually referred to as “chargetracking.”

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, this

action is reported to the repository

by charge number and shown on

the criminal history record. If new

charges are added by the prosecutor

or a grand jury, these charges are

assigned new numbers and the

information is reported to the

repository. Court disposition

information is then reported by

74Illinois is an example.

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.

The State and Federal repositories

have been left to adopt their own

record formats and their own

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 of

the 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.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 33

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.

Selected sample criminal history

records are set out in Appendix 8.

As a review of these samples will

show, 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 initial charges were reported by

the police. 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 outof-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

Interstate Identification Index (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, most national searches

have been serviced by the FBI,

utilizing its files of Federal and

State offenders. 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 outof-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,75 officials from three States

acknowledged during question-andanswer 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.

• A national task force convened

by the Bureau of Justice Statistics

in 1990 to review disposition

reporting problems and to make

recommendations to improve the

quality of criminal history records

also looked at the issue of record

format and content. In its 1992

report, the task force found that the

content and format of many of

today’s criminal history records do

not meet the needs of the courts and

other users, because, among other

problems, the information is not

presented in a legible format. The

75Data Quality Conference.
Page 34 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

task force recommended that each

State convene its own high-level

task force representing all

components of the criminal justice

system to look at data quality

problems, including “the readability

of criminal history records.”76

• The FBI’s National Crime

Information Center Advisory

Policy Board, in the course of its

evaluation of the first test of the

National Fingerprint File (see

Chapter V), found that the lack of

uniformity in record formats and

the difficulty of understanding

records with multistate segments

have had an adverse impact on the

utility of the records made available

through the Interstate Identification

Index system.77

• Finally, in its Agenda for

Improving Criminal Justice

Information Management, adopted

in July 1991, the Membership

Group of SEARCH, The National

Consortium for Justice Information

and Statistics, recommended that a

study be conducted to evaluate the

adequacy of the information

included on criminal history

records and that consideration be

given to adopting a common format

for rap sheets among the States.78

76National Task Force Report, p.

15.

77Federal Bureau of Investigation,

NCIC Advisory Policy Board, “Final

Report from the November 5-6, 1991,

Meeting of the National Fingerprint

File (NFF) Pilot Project Evaluation

Group” (unpublished, December 31,

1991) p. 3.

78SEARCH Group, Inc., “Agenda

for Improving Criminal Justice

Information Management”

(unpublished, July 19, 1991).

These calls have led to action. In

May 1992, the Identification

Services Subcommittee of the

FBI’s NCIC Advisory Policy Board

developed two improved criminal

history record formats, one

columnar and the other noncolumnar. These formats are to be

reviewed by the APB’s Regional

Working Groups during their

meetings in the fall of 1993.79

In addition, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics and SEARCH have

convened a National Task Force on

Increasing the Utility of the

Criminal History Record to

evaluate the content and format of

the criminal history records in use

today and to recommend one or

more standard formats for use by

the States. The Task Force, which

is comprised of representatives of

all components of the criminal

justice system, as well as

noncriminal justice users, held its

first meeting on May 27-28, 1993.

It is expected to meet twice more

before issuing a report.

Finally, the FBI and the Bureau of

Justice Statistics 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 9.

79Federal Bureau of Investigation,

NCIC Advisory Policy Board,

Identification Services Subcommittee,

“Chairman’s Report on Identification

Services Subcommittee” (unpublished,

May 1992) p. 4.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 35

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: data quality

and dissemination.

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 these

dominant criminal history

record issues in detail. As for

data quality, how accurate and

complete should criminal

history record information be

and how can legal directives

and other strategies help to

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

that there is a legitimate privacy

interest in sensitive personal

information.80 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.81

More recently, in a statutory

context, the Court has recognized

that there is a privacy interest in an

automated comprehensive criminal

history record.82 Most experts,

however, think it is unlikely that

this principle will be applied in

80Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589

(1977).

81424 U.S. 693, 713 (1976).

82Department of Justice v.

Reporters Committee for Freedom of

the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989).

such a way as to permit the

Constitution to preempt State

statutes that make criminal history

record information available to the

public or specified public users.

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.83

Section 2: Statutory and

regulatory requirements

The collection, maintenance and

dissemination of criminal history

record information is governed by a

mosaic of Federal and State statutes

and regulations.

83SEARCH Group, Inc., Technical

Memorandum No. 12: Criminal Justice

Information: Perspectives on Liability

(Sacramento, California: SEARCH

Group, Inc., August 1977) pp. 5-20.

See also, SEARCH Group, Inc., Case

Law Digest: Court Decisions on the

Handling of Criminal History Records

— Summaries and Analysis, by Robert

R. Belair and Paul L. Woodard (July

1981).
Page 36 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Federal statutes and

regulations

At the Federal level, the Congress

by law and the Department of

Justice 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 FBI’s 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.”84

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.

84Other Federal laws and

regulations authorizing the Attorney

General to disseminate criminal history

records are set out in Chapter V,

footnote 124.

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 socalled Kennedy Amendment,85

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 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.86

85Omnibus 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)

(sometimes referred to as the “Kennedy

Amendment”).

8628 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.87

Virtually all of the 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 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

one year old and are without

recorded dispositions or that have

dispositions favorable to the

accused, such as where the police

or prosecutor drop the charges or

where the accused is acquitted at

trial. Most States place strict limits

on the release of nonconviction

data for noncriminal justice

purposes, such as background

checks for employment and

licensing purposes.

871992 Compendium, p. 4.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 37

Every State permits subjects to

review their records and to institute

procedures to correct errors.

Virtually all of the 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 in the early 1990s.

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.88

—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

8828 C.F.R. § 20.21(a).

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.89

—Accuracy provisions

The regulations address accuracy

by defining the term literally to

mean that “no record containing

criminal history information shall

contain erroneous information.”90

To promote accuracy, two types of

operational procedures are

required:

(1) A process of data collection,

entry, storage and systematic

audit that will minimize the

possibility of recording or

storing inaccurate

information; and

(2) 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 log books so that

corrections can be sent to

individuals who have received

incorrect information. Finally, the

regulations require agencies to give

subjects an opportunity to review

their criminal history records and to

establish procedures for correcting

erroneous information.91

8928 C.F.R. § 20.21(a)(2). 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.

9028 C.F.R. § 20.21(a)(1).

9128 C.F.R. § 20.21(g).
Page 38 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

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. In 1974,

prior to adoption of the regulations,

only 14 States had enacted any type

of statutory data quality safeguards.

52 States92 have now adopted laws

that deal with some aspect of data

quality. These laws and

implementing regulations are

discussed in the following sections.

—Mandatory reporting

requirements

An important element of virtually

all of the 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). In

most States, arrest information is

reported on arrest fingerprint cards,

which include the subject’s name

and identification information,

arrest event information (for

example, date, place of arrest),

arrest charges and inked fingerprint

impressions.

92The 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.

—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-three States have enacted

statutes requiring criminal justice

agencies to maintain logs

identifying recipients of criminal

history record information and the

dates of the disseminations.93

Thirty-three States include detailed

and specific transaction log

requirements.94

—Other requirements

Many States have also adopted a

variety of other statutory

safeguards. Thirty States require

the State central repository to

conduct some type of data quality

931992 Compendium, p. 6. These

states are as follows: Alabama, Alaska,

Arkansas, California, Connecticut,

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Mississippi, Montana,

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,

North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont,

Virginia, Washington and Wyoming.

94Ibid., note 22 at p. 6. These states

are as follows: Alabama, Alaska,

California, Connecticut, Florida,

Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts,

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New

Hampshire, North Carolina,

Pennsylvania, South Carolina,

Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

audits;95 21 States require the

repositories to audit State and local

criminal justice agencies that

submit records to the repository;96

and 14 States require the repository

to conduct an annual in-house

audit.97

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).98 Four States impose

training requirements on personnel

involved in entering data into

criminal history record systems.99

Five States have adopted statutory

95Ibid., p. 6. These states are as

follows: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,

California, Connecticut, Delaware,

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri,

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New

Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,

Virginia, Washington and Wyoming.

96Ibid. These states are as follows:

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,

Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maryland, Missouri, Montana, New

Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,

Virginia, Washington and Wyoming.

97Ibid., pp. 6-7. These states are as

follows: California, Illinois, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New

Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South

Dakota, Texas and Wyoming.

98Ibid., p. 7. These states are as

follows: Connecticut, Delaware,

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,

Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, New Hampshire and

Washington.

99Ibid. These states are as follows:

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky and

Louisiana.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 39

provisions that require the use of a

“tracking number system” that uses

unique case cycle numbers to link

disposition information to charge

information.100

—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, 15 State

repositories and Puerto Rico report

that they are currently using a

delinquent disposition monitoring

system that generates a list of

arrests with no dispositions.

Repositories in 28 States make field

visits to contributing agencies.

Thirty-six State repositories send

form letters indicating data quality

problems, and repositories in 38

States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin

Islands telephone contributing

agencies to discuss problems.101

Further, repositories in 39

jurisdictions are using some type of

tracking number system to link

disposition and charge

information.102 In addition, 25

jurisdictions have undergone data

quality audits in the past five

years103 and 22 States and Puerto

Rico have conducted audits of

agencies that contribute criminal

history information to the

repository or obtain information

from the repository.104

100Ibid. These states are as follows:

Kentucky, Missouri, Pennsylvania,

Texas and Washington.

1011992 Survey, Table 15. Table

15 is included in this report as

Appendix 18.

102Ibid., Table 16. Table 16 is

included in this report as Appendix 19.

103Ibid., Table 20. Table 20 is

included in this report as Appendix 20.

104Ibid., 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 the upgrading of 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; and

• 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.105

—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.106

105Statutes Report, Tables 1-10.

Selected tables from the Statutes Report

are set out in this report as Appendices

1-7.

106Pub. L. No. 99-169, codified in

part at 5 U.S.C. § 9101.
Page 40 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

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.107

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

10715 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, U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Public Access to Criminal History

Record Information, Criminal Justice

Information Policy series, by Robert R.

Belair, SEARCH Group, Inc.

(Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, 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).

background check been

completed.108

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,

Oklahoma and Wisconsin, have

adopted policies under which the

public can obtain virtually all

criminal history record information

for virtually any purpose. Initial

studies indicate that these “open

record” policies have not resulted

in significant privacy problems or

other problems.109

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.

108U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Privacy and the

Private Employer, Criminal Justice

Information Policy series, by SEARCH

Group, Inc. (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office, December

1981) pp. 47-52.

109See SEARCH Group, Inc., A

Florida Case Study — Availability of

Criminal History Records: The Effect

of an Open Records Policy

(Sacramento, California: SEARCH

Group, Inc., March 1990).

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.110

—Dissemination trends

In the decade from the mid-1960s

through the mid-1970s, most

experts felt that dissemination

trends 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

110See SEARCH Group, Inc.,

Technical Report No. 13: Standards for

Security and Privacy of Criminal

History Record Information, third

edition (Sacramento, California:

SEARCH Group, Inc., July 1988) pp.

2-5.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 41

access if “authorized by statute,

ordinance, executive order, or court

rule, decision or order as construed

by appropriate State or local

officials or agencies.”111 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.112

In the mid-1970s, this trend

reversed. Most observers cite the

U.S. Supreme Court’s 1976

decision in Paul v. Davis113 as

providing impetus for judicial and,

in particular, statutory efforts to

loosen restrictions on access to

criminal history records. In that

case, the Supreme 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.114

11128 C.F.R. § 20.21(b)(2).

1121992 Compendium, p. 8.

113424 U.S. 693 (1976).

114Ibid., p. 713.

For the next 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 start, however, there

are signs that the pendulum may be

swinging again in the direction of

privacy. Once again the bellwether

is a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

In 1989, in Department of Justice v.

Reporters Committee for Freedom

of the Press,115 the Supreme 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 makes it

appropriate to extend privacy

protections to the record.

At the start of the 1990s, polling

data also indicate that privacy

concerns are at historic high

levels.116 In addition, in the early

1990s, serious congressional

consideration has been given to

several pieces of Federal legislation

that would restrict access to

previously public record

information, such as motor vehicle

records and change-of-address

information maintained by the U.S.

Postal Service.

115489 U.S. 749 (1989).

116Louis Harris & Associates, The

Equifax Report on Consumers in the

Information Age, prepared by Alan

Westin (Atlanta, Georgia: Louis Harris

& Associates, 1990) p. 5.

—Statutory dissemination

policies in the early 1990s

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.117

(2) Most States continue to treat

conviction records differently

from nonconviction records.

Customarily, the 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 one 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.118

1171992 Compendium, p. 9.

118Ibid.
Page 42 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 43

Chapter IV:

The impact of new technologies

Perhaps the most significant

factor in the successful

evolution of the Nation’s

criminal history record

repositories has been the

widespread application of

computer technology to

improve their efficiency and

increase the quality of the

information they maintain.

This chapter briefly describes

the utilization of new computer

technology in criminal justice

agencies.

Section 1: Automated

reporting to the repositories,

discusses how technology is

speeding up the process of

reporting arrest and disposition

data to the repositories.

Section 2: Automated

fingerprint processing,

discusses how technology is

speeding up the production,

transmission and processing of

fingerprints.

Background

At the beginning of the 1970s, only

a few of the State repositories were

substantially automated and

accessible to user agencies by

computer terminals. By the end of

that decade, thanks in large part to

financial and technical assistance

made available by the Law

Enforcement Assistance

Administration (LEAA), the

majority of the repositories were

utilizing automated data processing

equipment to maintain their

criminal history record databases.

In addition, almost all of them were

providing terminal access to user

agencies by means of a statewide

telecommunications system. Today,

all except seven of the repositories

maintain automated databases and

those seven States are in the

process of installing automated

systems. (See Chapter VI.)

Surveys show that State repository

officials overwhelmingly believe

that automation is the development

that has resulted in the greatest

improvement in information

management in their agencies, and

is the single most important tool for

achieving greater efficiency and

better data quality. Automated

systems make it more practical and

economical to implement many

data quality enhancement

strategies, such as improved data

entry and editing procedures, datalinking methods and systems for

monitoring the reporting of

information by criminal justice

agencies.

In addition to the automation of

criminal history record databases

and the provision of remote

terminal access to user agencies,

computer technology is being

applied in other ways to improve

the efficiency of the Nation’s

criminal history record repositories

and the quality of the information

they maintain.

Section 1: Automated

reporting to the

repositories

Although most criminal justice

agencies now have terminal access

to their State repositories and to the

FBI’s files for conducting name

searches and obtaining automated

records, the reporting of case

processing information to the

repositories and to the FBI is

accomplished predominantly

through mailed paper documents —

arrest fingerprint cards and

disposition forms. Increasingly,

however, computer technology is

being used to speed the reporting

process and save resources.

This section discusses methods for:

• Automated arrest reporting; and

• Automated disposition reporting.
Page 44 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Automated arrest reporting

—Problems with manual

reporting

Historically, arrest information119

has been reported to the 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 the arrests, while most

of the 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.

Since the information entered into

these systems for local agency use

typically includes all of the arrest

119This includes subject

identification information, as well as

information specific to the arrest event

and the arrest charges.

information required by the State

repository for its criminal history

database, these systems are being

utilized in some jurisdictions as the

basis for automated arrest reporting

to the repositories, by computer

tape or by direct computer-tocomputer transmission.

—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 to make sure that all required

information is entered. Redundant

typing of arrest information by

arresting agency personnel is

eliminated, as is the necessity for

data entry at the repository.

Fingerprint cards must still be

mailed to the repository for

identification, but, as explained in

Section 2 of this chapter, in some

cases fingerprint images can be

transmitted to the repository

electronically.

Automated disposition

reporting

The mailing of paper disposition

forms to the repositories by

prosecutors, courts and correctional

agencies also is being replaced in

some jurisdictions by automated

reporting. Many of these agencies

have installed automated case

management systems which can be

used to generate the case

disposition information required by

the repositories. This information

can be generated in magnetic tape

form or directly entered into the

repository database.

—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 also have

installed automated case

management systems. Some State

repositories are implementing links

with these local prosecutor and

court systems to obtain disposition

information in automated form.

—Reporting by State courts

systems

Some of the 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

paper forms or on computer tape,

and the State system then edits and

combines this information and

reports to the State criminal history

repository, by computer tape or by

direct electronic link.

—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 typically can generate the

correctional disposition information
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 45

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, since duplicate data entry

processes are eliminated, and also

result in faster, easier and more

economical reporting.

In some cases, careful planning and

cooperation between local and State

agencies has resulted in the

implementation of automated

systems in those agencies that:

(1) Have saved time and money

for the agencies in

performing their own

recordkeeping functions; and

(2) 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: Automated

fingerprint processing

During the last decade, automated

data processing technology has

helped to solve serious problems

created by the manual processing of

arrestee and applicant fingerprints.

This section discusses the problems

of manual fingerprint processing

and describes new technologies that

have focused on two aspects of

criminal justice fingerprint

processing:

• The production and transmission

of fingerprint images; and

• The use of automated fingerprint

identification systems to search

fingerprint files.

Background

Fingerprints are submitted to

identification bureaus — which are

usually part of or closely associated

with the criminal history record

repositories — primarily as a result

of an arrest or a criminal

investigation, or in connection with

employment or licensing

applications. Until recent years,

these arrest and applicant

fingerprints were submitted almost

exclusively in the form of inked

impressions rolled onto ten-print

cards transmitted by mail or

courier.

At the identification bureaus, if an

initial name search of the master

name index failed to discover a

previous record for the subject, the

fingerprints were manually

classified according to distinctive

ridge patterns and searched against

similarly classified criminal

fingerprint files to determine

whether the individual had a prior

criminal record under a different

name.

—Problems with manual

fingerprint processing

Although fingerprints are unique

and unchanging and provide a basis

for highly accurate and reliable

identification, the manual

procedures described above, which

are still in use in many States, have

several shortcomings, as outlined

below.

(1) The inked fingerprinting

process is very timeconsuming, especially since

multiple copies typically are

produced, and trained and

experienced personnel are

required in order to obtain

good quality prints on a

consistent basis. A substantial

number of fingerprint cards

are returned to local agencies

by the State identification

bureaus and the FBI as

unusable because of the poor

quality of the fingerprint

impressions.

(2) The preparation, mailing and

processing of fingerprint

cards can consume a

considerable amount of time,

resulting in a delay of a week

to several weeks between

booking and receipt of a

criminal history response

from the repository. This

means that arrested or

detained persons who use

fictitious names to avoid

association with their prior

criminal records may be

released without being

charged, released on bail,

improperly charged or even

improperly sentenced before

their true identities are

known. Similarly, unsuitable

persons may be employed in

sensitive positions before

their true identities and

criminal backgrounds are

discovered.

(3) The manual classification and

searching of fingerprints by

identification bureau

personnel is labor-intensive

and error-prone, especially if

technicians are not properly

trained and experienced. As a

result, missed or erroneous

identifications can occur and,

even though the classification

of incoming prints limits the

search to a part of the

existing criminal fingerprint

files, such files are so

massive in most States that

substantial manpower must

be devoted to manual

fingerprint processing.
Page 46 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Fingerprint image production

and transmission

Arrest fingerprints historically have

been produced as inked impressions

rolled onto cardstock, a process that

is time-consuming and results in

significant numbers of low quality

prints.

—Live-scan devices

In the past few years, a new

technology, called “live-scan”

fingerprinting, has proved to be a

viable method of producing higher

average quality fingerprint

impressions quickly and with

reduced labor costs.

The technology eliminates the

necessity of rolling the subject’s

fingers onto inked pads and then

onto multiple fingerprint cards.

Instead, the subject’s uninked

fingers are rolled onto a scanning

pad attached to the live-scan

device, which enables the device to

capture an image of the fingerprints

and then print out multiple

fingerprint cards as needed. The

machines enable the operator to

evaluate the quality of the

fingerprint impressions thus

produced and re-roll fingers if

necessary, resulting in a significant

improvement in the average quality

of the fingerprints.

Fingerprints produced by live-scan

devices can be printed out at the

local agencies where the machines

are located and copies mailed to the

State repository. Copies can also be

printed out on remote printers

located at the repository,

eliminating the necessity of

mailing. The devices also offer the

possibility of converting the

fingerprint images to electronic

images that are computer-readable

and can be transmitted to the

repositories and directly utilized by

automated fingerprint processing

devices, which are discussed below.

—Card-scan devices

Law enforcement agencies also

may use newly-developed “card

scanner” devices to eliminate the

necessity of mailing fingerprint

cards. These machines can scan

standard inked fingerprint cards and

can transmit electronic images of

the fingerprint images, together

with keyed textual data from the

fingerprint cards, to the State

identification bureau, the FBI or

other remote sites.

Live-scan and card-scan technology

is expensive, however, and

currently is in limited use,

principally in large volume law

enforcement agencies.

Use of automated fingerprint

identification systems to

search files

The technology that has had the

greatest impact on fingerprint

processing is Automated

Fingerprint Identification System

(AFIS) technology, which provides

improved methods of searching

fingerprint files and transmitting

fingerprint images.

—AFIS benefits

This newly developed computer

equipment can scan fingerprint

impressions and automatically

extract and digitize identifying

characteristics in sufficient detail to

enable the computer’s searching

and matching algorithms to

distinguish a single fingerprint from

thousands or even millions of file

prints that have been similarly

scanned and stored in digital form

in the computer’s memory. This

concept of computerized digital

image processing has eliminated

the necessity to manually search

fingerprints and has increased the

speed and accuracy of ten-print

processing.

Aside from automated scanning and

searching, the technology offers

other important advantages over

manual procedures. In manual

processing, if the name search

performed as the initial step in the

processing of an incoming

fingerprint card produces one or

more match candidates, the

technician must use the agency’s

hard copy fingerprint files to

retrieve the fingerprints associated

with the candidates. The technician

must then manually compare them

with the incoming prints to

determine whether there is a

verifiable match. If this process

does not result in a match, the

technician must manually classify

the incoming fingerprints and then

use the hard-copy files to retrieve

and compare stored fingerprints of

the same or similar classification in

an effort to find a match.

The AFIS technology not only

eliminates this type of searching, it

also provides the capability of

rapidly retrieving stored digital

information about probable

matching fingerprints and

displaying computer-generated

images of both the incoming search

print and the retrieved candidate

prints side-by-side on the operator’s

screen. This enables the operator to

visually verify the match without

leaving the terminal.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 47

—State AFISs

At present, 39 of the State

identification bureaus have AFIS

systems or are in the process of

procuring them, and most of the

other bureaus have plans to acquire

AFIS systems at some future time.

Many local law enforcement

agencies in larger cities also have

AFIS equipment and other cities

are expected to acquire them. The

digital image transmission

capability of the systems will

enable these agencies to have

remote access to their State

identification bureau’s AFIS

fingerprint files for purposes of

performing computerized

fingerprint searches and retrieving

fingerprint images for screen

display or hard-copy printout.

Communication from one vendor’s

AFIS to another vendor’s AFIS has

not yet been accomplished.

—Federal AFIS

At the national level, the FBI

currently is in the early stages of

implementing a new fingerprint

image-based identification system

which can meet projected increases

in FBI workloads. This new system

ultimately will offer the capability

of making it possible to eliminate

paper fingerprint cards at every step

of the identification process. This

national system is called IAFIS

(Integrated Automated Fingerprint

Identification System). A new

subsystem, the Identification

Tasking and Network (ITN)

subsystem, will provide the

workstations, workflow control,

telecommunications and fingerprint

image files to support paperless

processing.

Under IAFIS, fingerprint images

will be taken at local law

enforcement agencies by live-scan

or card-scan equipment, processed

at a local AFIS and then

electronically transmitted to and

processed by a State identification

bureau AFIS. If an identification is

not made at the local or State level,

the fingerprint data and related

textual data will be transmitted to

the FBI and processed by its AFIS

and a response returned

electronically to the local booking

station.

The entire process can consume

two hours or less. This will mean

that law enforcement agencies will

be able to identify previous

offenders and fugitives, even if they

use false identities, and obtain

criminal history record information

about them prior to their release

from the booking station or their

initial court appearance for bail

setting. (See Figure 3, which

illustrates the core IAFIS service.)

The Federal components of IAFIS

will be located at the FBI’s new

Criminal Justice Information

Services (CJIS) Division facility in

Clarksburg, West Virginia, and are

expected to be operational in 1996.

Although local and State

governments are not required to

alter their identification services so

as to adapt to the FBI changes,

States and localities which do adapt

will achieve improvements in the

quality and efficiency of the

identification services they provide.

These services support local

criminal justice agencies within the

States, and also governmental and

private employers who require

fingerprint-based criminal history

checks as part of the employment

or licensing process. The

improvements that can be expected

include increased identification

accuracy, reductions in response

times for urgent identification

requests, reduction in labor costs

associated with data entry and

filing, and increased file security

through the paperless file

concept.120

120See, Federal Bureau of

Information, National Crime

Information Center Advisory Policy

Board, Integrated Automated

Fingerprint Identification System

(IAFIS) Planning Guide (Washington,

D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation,

April 30, 1993).
Figure 3: IAFIS Service

Electronic Criminal Ten-Print Submission

Booking Station

(Live-scan and

Workstation)

Non-Ident.

Booking Data

Ident. Response

FBI CJIS DIVISION

Ident. Response

STATE AFIS

Computer Search

of the

FBI Name and Fingerprint

Features Databases

Fingerprint

Image Comparison

Booking Data

via State Law Enforcement Network

via State Law Enforcement Network

(ANSI Standard Format)

via NCIC

via NCIC

(ANSI Standard Format)
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 49

Chapter V:

National criminal history record checks

and the Interstate Identification Index

This chapter describes

procedures for conducting

national criminal record checks

for criminal justice and

noncriminal justice purposes,

and also provides an in-depth

look at the Interstate

Identification Index.

Section 1: Maintenance and

use of current FBI files,

addresses national criminal

history checks using FBI files.

The section covers the FBI’s

current practice, authorized

categories of users, and

terminal access to FBI files for

criminal justice and

noncriminal justice inquiries.

Section 2: The Interstate

Identification Index,

describes the III concept and

explains how the processing of

search inquiries and record

responses under that approach

works.

Section 3: III system impact, identifies the principal benefits

and impacts of the III system

for the States and the Federal

government.

Section 4: The proposed III

compact, explains the major

provisions of a proposed

interstate compact that would

support a fully implemented III

system.

Background

Most persons arrested for criminal

offenses have prior arrest records

and many of them have arrest

records in more than one State.

Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) officials have estimated that

of all Federal and State arrest

fingerprint cards processed by the

FBI, which includes submissions

for most of the arrests in the

country for serious offenses, twothirds 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

percent are “multistate” offenders;

that is, they have both Federal and

State records or arrests in more than

one State.121

Obviously, then, there is a need for

some efficient means of performing

a national criminal record search

other than the impractical approach

of making separate queries to all of

the other States and jurisdictions

that operate central criminal history

record repositories.

Prior to 1971, the only means of

obtaining such a national search

was by application to the FBI,

which, under congressional

authorization dating back to 1924,

maintains criminal record files

containing fingerprints and arrest

and disposition information

121Statutes Report, p. 1.

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 offenders 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 and State identification

numbers submitted by terminals on

the nationwide NCIC network.

Applications for searches for

authorized noncriminal justice

purposes required either a State or

Federal identification number for

an on-line record or the submission

of fingerprint cards to the FBI by

mail.

The CCH system continued

throughout the 1970s even though

participation by the States 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 automation

of them began in 1974.
Page 50 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

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

criminal records, but instead would

undertake to strengthen the State

repositories and provide the means

of tying them together into a viable

interstate system.

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

for effective participation 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 for the creation of a

decentralized national criminal

history program based on shared

responsibilities and mutual

commitments.

Recognizing this progress, in 1978

the U.S. Department of Justice and

State officials approved the concept

of the Interstate Identification Index

(III), and the FBI and selected

States began phased testing and

implementation of the concept in

1980.

Section 1: Maintenance

and use of current

FBI files

This section discusses how the FBI

maintains fingerprints and criminal

history records, and the uses that

are made of these files. This

discussion includes:

• Current practices for submission

and storage of fingerprint and

criminal history data;

• The authorized users of the FBI

files, whether criminal justice or

noncriminal justice, and the data

they are entitled to receive; and

• How terminal access to the FBI

files is provided to users.

Current practice

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 and also maintains

State offender records that, to a

great extent, duplicate the records

of the State repositories.

—Fingerprint submissions

For their mutual benefit, State and

local arresting agencies throughout

the country are encouraged to

submit arrest fingerprint cards to

the FBI for all “criterion offenses,”

that is, all felonies and all

misdemeanors except designated

nonserious ones.

In most States, two arrest

fingerprint cards are submitted to

the State repository; the repository

then sends one card to the FBI. In

States participating in this “singlesource submission” program, the

FBI will not accept fingerprint

submissions directly from arresting

agencies. This approach ensures

that the repositories will not be

bypassed at the critical arrest

fingerprint reporting stage.

In States that have not implemented

single-source submission,

fingerprint cards 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 20 years.

—Disposition submissions

The FBI accepts and records final

disposition and correctional

information for these arrests. Both

fingerprint card submission 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.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 51

Disposition reporting to the FBI

from most States is incomplete,

perhaps averaging about 50

percent.122 By comparison, felony

trial court disposition reporting to

the State repositories is estimated to

be somewhat higher, with reporting

in 10 States at 95 percent or

higher.123

As of April 1, 1993, the FBI was

obtaining disposition information

from 10 State repositories by

computer tape, which results in

more complete and timely

reporting. Seven additional States

are testing computer software to

produce automated disposition

reports.

—Extent of automation

Approximately 17.1 million of the

FBI’s criminal history records were

fully automated (identification and

charge/disposition information) at

the beginning of 1993 and the

Bureau maintains an automated

index to an additional 8.3 million

manual records. Also, there are

about 3 million manual records

with a manual index.

122Reported by officials of the

FBI’s Criminal Justice Information

Services Division as a result of analysis

of court disposition reporting as of

March 1993.

1231992 Survey, Table 8.

Authorized users of data

The criminal history records

maintained by the FBI are available

for criminal justice use and some

noncriminal justice purposes. The

FBI is authorized by law124 to

provide criminal record services to

the following major categories of

users:

(1) Federal and State criminal

justice agencies for criminal

justice purposes, including

the screening of applicants

for criminal justice

employment;

(2) 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;

(3) Federally chartered or insured

banks and authorized

segments of the securities and

commodities industries, for

employment screening; and

(4) State and local governmental

agencies for licensing and

employment purposes if

authorized by a State statute

approved by the U.S.

Attorney General.

12428 U.S.C. § 534; PL 99-169, as

amended by PL 99-569 and PL 101-

246, 5 U.S. C. § 9101; Exec. Order

10450; PL 91-452; PL 101-647; PL 92-

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. App. § 1357(g); 28 CFR

0.85(b); U.S. Dept. of Justice Order

556-73, 28CFR 16.30-16.34.

These 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, when 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.125

Pursuant to these standards, some

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.

125When 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).
Page 52 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Terminal access to FBI files

—Criminal justice inquiries

Terminal access for authorized

name searches of the FBI’s files,

and for obtaining automated

records, is provided for criminal

justice purposes to criminal justice

agencies nationwide by means of

the NCIC telecommunications

network.

Criminal justice agencies may also

obtain searches and record

responses by submitting arrest

fingerprints to the FBI. As pointed

out earlier, arresting agencies

typically send two sets of

fingerprints to their State

repository. The repository searches

its files and returns a response to

the agency. If the arrest is for a

criterion offense, the repository

sends the second set of fingerprints

to the FBI for a search of its

national files and subsequent

retention.

—Noncriminal justice

inquiries

Access to FBI files for noncriminal

justice purposes, such as State

agency licensing and employment

screening authorized by State law,

is not provided by means of

terminal name search. Such

applications require the submission

of the applicant subject’s

fingerprints. Access requests by

State agencies under approved State

statutes are submitted through the

State repositories and, upon

request, responses are returned to

the repositories, which screen the

responses, if necessary, pursuant to

State dissemination laws and

practices. Applications from

Federal agencies, banks, and

securities and commodities firms

are channeled directly to the FBI.

Section 2: The Interstate

Identification Index

This section provides a detailed

look at the Interstate Identification

Index, and the uses made of it for

criminal justice and noncriminal

justice purposes.

Background

The Interstate Identification Index

(III) system is a decentralized

“index-pointer” system that

ultimately will be used for all

interstate and Federal-State

purposes, replacing the existing

national repository system

described in Section 1 of this

chapter. Under the III concept,

when it is fully implemented, the

FBI will no longer maintain

duplicate criminal history files for

State offenders.126 Rather the FBI

will maintain:

• Federal offender records,

containing arrest and disposition

information pertaining to

persons arrested for Federal

offenses;

• The Interstate Identification

Index, containing names and

identifying information for all

State and Federal offenders in

the system; and

• The National Fingerprint File

(NFF), containing fingerprints of

Federal offenders and a single

set of fingerprints for each

indexed State offender from

each State in which the person

has been arrested.

126The FBI will continue to

maintain some older State offender

records that the States have not

automated.

The Interstate Identification Index

and the National Fingerprint File

provide the means of conducting

national criminal record searches

(both name searches and

fingerprint-based searches) and

“pointing” the inquiring agency to

the FBI and/or any participating

State repository that maintains a

criminal record on the subject.

Inquiring agencies are then able to

obtain the records directly from the

indicated State or Federal files by

means of the NCIC network or the

National Law Enforcement

Telecommunications System

(NLETS), a system maintained by

the States.

It is important to emphasize that the

III system, when fully

implemented, will be a

decentralized system that will

supplant the FBI’s recordkeeping

responsibility for State offenders by

making the State repositories

primarily responsible for record

maintenance and dissemination.

State agencies will no longer

submit fingerprint cards and

disposition information to the FBI

for all criterion arrests, as they now

do. Rather they will channel

fingerprints through their State

repositories and the repositories

will submit only “first-arrest”

fingerprint cards127 to the FBI, for

127The repositories will forward

fingerprints only for persons that they

cannot identify as having a prior arrest

record in the State.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 53

inclusion in the NFF and for

updating the III. State repositories

will not send “second and

subsequent” arrest fingerprints to

the FBI, nor will any charge or

disposition information for any

arrests be sent. Thus, the State

repositories will become the only

sources of State criminal history

records for these arrests — for both

criminal justice and noncriminal

justice purposes. (See Figure 4,

which illustrates the reporting and

maintenance of records in a

decentralized III system.)

Use of III for criminal justice

purposes

The III system has been partially

implemented through a series of

tests and operational phases that

began in 1980. Essentially, the

system is utilized for criminal

justice purposes only. (Ongoing

tests of noncriminal justice use of

the system are described later in

this section.) Access for name

searches and record requests for

criminal justice purposes is

provided to criminal justice

agencies nationwide by means of

the NCIC network. The NLETS

network is used by the States for

transmitting record responses.

(Figure 5 shows, in somewhat

simplified form, how III record

requests and record responses are

routed for criminal justice

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

All “reportable”arrests andcorrespondingdispositions

NON-NFF

STATE REPOSITORY

AutomatedFingerprintRecords

Ident. and

Charge Data

All “criterion”arrests andcorrespondingdispositions

FBI

Ident. Data

Charge Data

AutomatedCriminalHistoryRecords

CriminalFingerprintCards

FingerprintCards

III Index

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

Automated/Manual

CriminalFingerprintRecords

Criminal JusticeAgencies•Police•Prosecutors•Courts•Corrections•Others

CaseDispositionReports

Automated/Manual

CriminalHistoryRecords

Automated/Manual

DispositionReports

NON-NFF

* *

A

All “reportable”arrests andcorrespondingdispositions

NFF

STATE REPOSITORY

AutomatedNationalFingerprintFile

Ident. and

Charge Data

FBI

Ident. Data

AutomatedCriminalHistoryRecords

CriminalFingerprintCards

CriminalFingerprintCards

III Index

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

Automated/Manual

FingerprintRecords

Criminal JusticeAgencies•Police•Prosecutors•Courts•Corrections•Others

CaseDispositionReports

NFF

*

B

AutomatedCriminalHistoryRecords

FIRST ARRESTS

ONLY

for “criterion”

offenses *

Ident. Data

Updates

Arrestingand CustodialAgenciesArrestingand CustodialAgencies
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 55

Figure 4: Reporting and Maintenance of Records in a

Decentralized III System

Figure 4A shows present procedures for the reporting of arrest and custodial

fingerprints and case disposition data to the FBI by State repositories that

are not participating in the decentralization phase of the III system (referred

to as non-NFF repositories). This includes repositories that are not

participating at all in III, as well as repositories that are participating in III

as record providers for criminal justice purposes only. Since these

repositories are not providing records from their files to all Federal and outof-state noncriminal justice agencies authorized to obtain national record

searches, criminal justice agencies in these States continue to submit

fingerprints and charge/disposition information to the FBI for all arrests for

criterion offenses. This is done in order that the FBI may provide record

services (Federal offender and State offender records) to authorized

noncriminal justice users.

Figure 4B shows how reporting and record maintenance will work when

State repositories begin to participate in the decentralization phase of III

implementation (often referred to as implementation of the National

Fingerprint File). These repositories (referred to as NFF repositories) will

assume an obligation to provide interstate record services to all authorized

III users for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes. Thus,

there will be no need for these States to continue submitting fingerprints and

criminal history data to the FBI for all criterion arrests. They will submit

fingerprint cards only for the first arrest of an individual for a criterion

offense within each state. This will enable the FBI to include the record

subject in the III index (and set a “pointer” to the submitting State), and to

include the subject’s fingerprints in the NFF, so as to be able to direct

inquiring agencies to the full record(s) for the individual maintained only at

the State level. NFF repositories will submit revised subject identification

information, as necessary, to keep the III index up-to-date. Fingerprint

images and subject identification data may in some cases be transmitted to

the FBI by electronic means.
Criminal justice

agencies throughout the

country can obtain

criminal history records

through the III system.

Record request

messages are

transmitted to the State

repository by means of

the State

telecommunications

network. The

repository forwards the

message to the III

computer by means of

the NCIC network. The

III computer switches

the messages to State

repositories that

maintain records on the

inquiry subject and/or

to the FBI if the subject

has a Federal record or

a record in one or more

States not participating

in III.

Records supplied from

the FBI’s automated

files are returned to the

inquiring State

repository via the

NCIC network.

Participating State

repositories utilize the

NLETS network to

transmit record

responses. The

receiving State

repository assembles

multistate record

components, if

necessary, and

transmits a response to

the requesting agency.

The entire process

usually takes less than

a minute.

Figure 5: III Record Requests and Responses: Criminal Justice Purposes

III RECORD REQUEST ROUTE: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PURPOSE

Local Criminal

Justice Agency

State Repository

FBI III Computer

State A State B

III Participating State Repositories

FBI Automated

Records III RECORD RESPONSE ROUTE: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PURPOSE

Local Criminal

Justice Agency

State Repository

State A State B

III Participating State Repositories

FBI Automated

Records

via NCIC

via NLETS
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 57

As of August 8, 1993, 25 State

repositories128 had begun

participating in the III system as

direct record providers, which

means that they are responding to

criminal justice requests for their

III-indexed records from local,

State and Federal criminal justice

agencies nationwide. Numerous

other State repositories plan to

begin participating as record

providers within the next few years

and all of the other States currently

have plans for their repositories to

join III at some future time. In the

meantime, the FBI continues to

provide the records of

nonparticipating States, as

described earlier, and to provide

some older State records that

participating States have not

automated.

As of August 1, 1993, the III

system provided access to

21,182,040 automated records. Of

these, 11,801,279 records were

maintained by the participating

State repositories and 9,380,761

were maintained by the FBI. About

1,756,000 inquiry transactions are

processed each month. These

inquiries are for criminal justice

purposes, including criminal

investigations. On the average, a

positive response is provided for

one out of three inquiries. Inquiry

transactions are processed by the III

computer within five seconds.

More than 478,000 criminal

histories are provided monthly

through the III system.

Use of III for noncriminal

justice purposes

128The 25 States are Alaska,

California, Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,

Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota,

Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New

York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas,

Utah, Virginia, Washington and

Wyoming.

Because the III system is not being

used for handling interstate

noncriminal justice requests, except

on a limited test basis, such

requests continue to be handled by

the FBI. For this reason, the FBI’s

files of State offenders must

continue to be maintained and must

be kept up-to-date.

Criminal justice agencies in all of

the States, including those States

whose repositories are participating

in the III system as record providers

for criminal justice purposes only,

are continuing to submit arrest and

disposition information to the FBI

for all criterion arrests. Such

submissions must continue until, on

a state-by-State basis, the State

repositories are able to assume the

responsibility of providing record

responses for both criminal justice

and noncriminal justice purposes

and there are assurances of

continued service into the future.

Only then can decentralization of

the FBI’s files be fully

implemented.

—Revision of State laws

and policies necessary

In order to participate fully in the

III system, most of the States will

have to make changes in their laws

and policies governing the

dissemination of criminal history

records.

While all States permit virtually

unrestricted access to all types of

criminal history records for

criminal justice purposes, State

laws and policies governing access

and use for noncriminal justice

purposes are extremely diverse,

ranging from essentially “open

record” access in a few States to

very restrictive access rules in a

few States, especially concerning

records of arrests without recorded

dispositions or records of cases that

resulted in favorable outcomes for

the accused person. The other

States fall somewhere in between,

with sometimes complex statutory

and regulatory approaches that

differ greatly as to the types of

noncriminal justice agencies that

may have access to particular types

of records for particular

purposes.129

1291992 Compendium, pp. 7-11.
Page 58 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

This diversity and complexity of

State laws was viewed from the

beginning as a serious obstacle to

developing and implementing an

effective interstate system,

especially an “index pointer” type

of system. Design of a national

index that could take into account

the frequently amended

dissemination laws and policies of

the 50 States was seen as a difficult,

if not impossible, technical

problem. Even if technical

difficulties could be overcome, a

national system designed merely to

provide noncriminal justice

requestors with whatever limited

information the various States will

make available under current laws

and policies would not provide the

same overall level of service (for

example, the full record) that the

many Federal and State agencies

now obtain from the FBI under the

Federal access standards mentioned

previously.

—Uniform dissemination

standard proposed

For these reasons, the III system

concept proposes a uniform

standard for interstate noncriminal

justice access and dissemination

with which all participating State

repositories would comply.

Since a fundamental goal of the

system is to continue existing levels

of service to current FBI users, the

III system concept adopts the

access and dissemination rules

currently applicable to the FBI.

Under this approach, full

participation in the III system

would require State repositories to

provide full criminal history record

information130 in response to outof-state record requests for:

• Criminal justice purposes;

• Noncriminal justice purposes

authorized by Federal laws and

regulations — primarily Federal

agency employment, national

security purposes, military

recruiting, and employment in

the banking and securities/

commodities industries; and

• Noncriminal justice purposes

authorized by approved State

statutes — primarily State

governmental licensing and

employment.

States would continue to enforce

their own dissemination laws

governing the availability of

criminal history records to

nonfederal agencies located within

their State borders. However,

access requests by Federal agencies

and out-of-state agencies would be

governed by the uniform III access

rules outlined above. State

repositories that do not presently

have broad enough legal authority

under their State laws to comply

with that standard would need to

seek appropriate modifications by

statutory amendment, policy

changes or other actions, such as

ratification of the proposed

interstate/Federal-State compact

discussed in Section 4 of this

chapter.

130The State repositories may

withhold “sealed” information.

—Pilot test underway

A pilot project to test the use of the

III system for handling noncriminal

justice requests is currently being

undertaken by the FBI and the State

repositories in Florida and North

Carolina. Since the laws of these

States permit record service to all

current FBI users, their repositories

were able to undertake an

obligation to provide record

responses for all in-state and outof-state requests. On this basis,

these States and the FBI are testing

the decentralization component of

the III system. The States are

submitting only first-arrest

fingerprints to the FBI and are not

submitting any disposition

information. The test in Florida

began on April 21, 1991, and

evaluation of the progress of the

test has been favorable. The test in

North Carolina began on February

15, 1993, in order to more fully

assess III concept requirements.

Oregon is scheduled to begin

participating in the test in the near

future. (Figure 6 shows how

noncriminal justice record requests

and record responses will be

handled in a decentralized III

system.)
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 59

Section 3: III system

impact

Full implementation of the III

system 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 sometimes are more complete

and timely than comparable State

offender records maintained by the

FBI, the ability to obtain records

directly from the 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.

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; and

• Expected overall impact.

Benefits of III participation

Whether a State repository is a full

participant or participates only as a

record provider for criminal justice

purposes, participation in the III

system affords cost-saving benefits.

The computer interface with III

provides automatic updating of

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 also are able to set

single-state/multistate 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.

In addition, an increase in system

security will result 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; and

• Sanctions for noncompliance.
Fingerprint

Card

Authorized

State Agency

Record

Response

State

Repository

Non-ident.

Record

Response

Record

Response

Record

Response

Fingerprint

Card

Ident.

FBI automated

files of Federal

offenders and

State offenders

from non-NFF

States

III Index

FBI

Record Request

Notification

(via NCIC)

NFF State A

NFF State B

via NCIC

via NLETS

via NLETS

Mail

Mail

Mail

via NCIC

Figure 6: III Record Request and Response Processing

for Noncriminal Justice Purposes
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 61

Figure 6: III Record Request and Response Processing 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 which 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 “multistate” 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 record

in a State not participating in the NFF. These repositories return 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 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.

Benefits of NFF participation

For repositories that participate in

the National Fingerprint File

(providing records in response to

III requests for both criminal justice

and noncriminal justice purposes),

there will be additional benefits —

for these repositories and the FBI.

—Duplicate files eliminated

Maintenance of duplicate State and

Federal files for offenders from

these States will be discontinued.

The State repositories will be

relieved of the burden of submitting

second and subsequent arrest

fingerprints and charge/disposition

information to the FBI, and the FBI

will be relieved of the burden of

maintaining State offender files for

these States. This may free

personnel and resources that can be

applied to other programs to further

improve Federal and State criminal

record files. The FBI intends to

reinvest cost savings resulting from

III implementation in new

technology to improve the speed

and accuracy of fingerprint

processing and to reduce record

response times.

—Uniform dissemination

standard

Full implementation of the III

system will establish a single

uniform standard governing the

interstate exchange of criminal

history record information for

purposes of noncriminal justice

dissemination. This standard will

replace the varied and sometimes

conflicting standards set out in

current Federal and State laws. At

the same time, however, State

repositories receiving full criminal

history records from other State

repositories or the FBI will be able
Page 62 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

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, since

the repositories in their States will

receive automated record responses

from the FBI rather than the mailed

responses that are now provided.

Burdens of III participation

There are some new burdens to the

States associated with participation

in the III system. Most of the States

that are not now participating will

need to upgrade the technical

capability of their repositories in

order for them to be able 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, since many criminal

justice responses are already

handled electronically and since the

volume of noncriminal justice

record responses is low, these new

burdens should not be significant in

States that have efficient systems.

Expected overall impact

On balance, full implementation of

the III system, including

implementation of the NFF, is

expected to result in significant

improvements in the quality of the

information available through the

system, increased system security

and an overall long-term reduction

of costs for both the FBI and the

State repositories.

Section 4: The proposed

III compact

This section discusses a proposed

interstate and Federal-State

compact that would implement the

III system, including a look at:

• Why such a compact is

necessary;

• The emergence of the III

compact concept; and

• The major provisions of the

proposed III compact.

Background

Full participation in the III system

will require most of the States to

modify their existing laws and

policies governing the availability

of criminal history records for

noncriminal justice purposes, in

order to be able to meet the

proposed interstate standard on

record availability. In addition,

Federal and State officials

recognize a need for the FBI and

the participating State repositories

to be formally committed to longterm participation in a decentralized

system.

When decentralization is

accomplished131 and State criminal

justice agencies cease submitting

charge and disposition information

to the FBI, the FBI’s files of State

offenders, which now provide the

basis for national criminal record

searches, will be essentially

eliminated. The participating State

repositories will become the only

sources of complete and up-to-date

information on State offenders and

some way must be found to ensure

that they will continue to make

appropriate information available to

authorized noncriminal justice

users in other States and to

authorized Federal agencies. In

addition, there is a need for the

establishment of a policymaking

council to provide policy direction

for the use of the III system for

noncriminal justice purposes.

Emergence of the III compact

Although these goals could

possibly be realized through the

enactment of Federal legislation,

uniform State laws or independent

State legislative action, there has

been a strong consensus almost

since the emergence of the III

concept that favors the use of an

interstate/Federal-State compact to

implement the system.

131Operationally, decentralization

occurs for a State when it agrees to

abide by the rules of the National

Fingerprint File as set out in the III

compact.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 63

—Compact advantages

The primary advantages of a

compact are as follows:

• It 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.

• Since compacts take precedence

over conflicting State or Federal

laws and since 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 where such authority is

now lacking under State law.

—Compact development

status

Work on a compact to implement

the III system has been underway

for over five years, with input from

Federal and State officials and from

numerous organizations

representing State and Federal

interests. On June 4, 1992, the FBI

Director approved a draft compact

recommended by the NCIC

Advisory Policy Board and

endorsed by SEARCH, The

National Consortium for Justice

Information and Statistics. On

October 29, 1992, the Attorney

General approved this compact

proposal and recommended its use

as the base document for

ratification by the States and the

Federal government.132

Compact provisions

Major provisions of the proposed

“Interstate and Federal-State

Compact on the Exchange of

Criminal History Records for

Noncriminal Justice Purposes”133

include the following:

• The compact would bind 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 would be the

same as those currently

authorized to obtain records

from the FBI’s files;

• Participating State repositories

would be 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 would be through the

FBI and the State repositories

and would be based upon

fingerprint identification of

record subjects to ensure

positive identification;

132The proposed compact is

included in this document as Appendix

21.

133The proposed compact governs

only the use of the III system for

noncriminal justice purposes. Use of

the system for criminal justice

purposes, which has not been

controversial or problematic, is to be

governed by written agreements among

III parties.

• Release and use of information

obtained through the system for

noncriminal justice purposes

would be governed by the laws

of the receiving States and the

receiving repositories would be

required to screen record

responses and delete any

information that cannot legally

be released within the State; and

• The compact would establish 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.

The proposed compact is expected

to be the subject of congressional

hearings during late 1993 or early

1994.134 Ratification action in

some States may also begin during

1994. Ratification of the compact

has not yet been made a condition

of State participation in III, but it is

expected that all participating

States will ratify the compact,

since, in most States, it will provide

record dissemination authority now

lacking under State laws.

134The Congress must ratify the

compact to authorize Federal

participation, that is, participation by

the FBI. In addition, under Article I of

the Constitution, the Congress must

formally consent to entry into the

compact by the States, since the

compact deals with subjects of Federal

interest.
Page 64 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 65

Chapter VI:

Federal initiatives and criminal history records

This chapter looks at major

national initiatives that will

affect how criminal history

records are maintained and

used.

Section 1: FBI system

upgrades, discusses the FBI’s

comprehensive program to

upgrade its identification and

information services.

Section 2: Federal database

for identifying felons,

describes efforts to develop a

national database that would

identify felons who attempt to

purchase firearms.

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.

Section 4: The Brady Bill, reviews the status and

provisions of the Brady

Handgun Violence Protection

Act of 1993, which would

impose a waiting period for all

handgun purchases.

Background

The Federal government plays a

principal role in criminal history

record information policies and

practices. As described in Chapter

V, the FBI’s files of fingerprints

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,

principally the military services and

Federal intelligence agencies, are

the largest consumers of criminal

history record information.

The 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, through the

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS),

the Bureau of Justice Assistance

(BJA) and other agencies of the

Office of Justice Programs (OJP),

annually provides millions of

dollars in grants to State and local

agencies for support and

enhancement of criminal history

record systems and for

improvement of criminal history

record data quality.

In addition, the 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. Department of Justice,

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

new initiatives that are also having

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: FBI system

upgrades

The FBI currently is well along in a

comprehensive program to upgrade

and revitalize its identification and

information services capabilities.

This section looks at these FBI

initiatives:

• IAFIS;

• The new CJIS Division;

• NCIC 2000; and

• Additional short-term goals.

IAFIS

A key part of this program, the

Integrated Automated Fingerprint

Identification System (IAFIS), was

briefly described in Chapter IV.

IAFIS will include 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. It will

include a capability for State

identification bureaus to submit

electronic arrest fingerprints,

receiving in return an FBI

determination of identification or
Page 66 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

nonidentification, and also a

capability for State identification

bureaus to search the FBI files,

receiving in return fingerprint

images of likely identification

candidates for a State determination

of identification or

nonidentification. All

communication of fingerprint

image data will be conducted using

a new national standard format,

which can also be adopted by the

States to link State identification

bureaus with local arrest booking

agencies.

CJIS Division

Another key part of the FBI’s

modernization program is the

relocation of its new Criminal

Justice Information Services (CJIS)

Division from FBI headquarters in

Washington, D.C., to expanded and

improved facilities in Clarksburg,

West Virginia. The move, which is

expected to begin in 1995, is the

most costly item on the Nation’s

criminal record improvement

agenda — estimated at about $600

million in capital investment over

the next four years, including $200

million for the new building in

West Virginia and $400 million for

its automated equipment and

systems.135

NCIC 2000

Another FBI initiative, called

“NCIC 2000,” will upgrade the

National Crime Information

Center’s telecommunications

system and its hardware to permit

the paperless exchange of

information. In addition, NCIC will

135U.S. Congress, Office of

Technology Assessment, The FBI

Fingerprint Identification Automation

Program: Issues and Options,

Background Paper, OTA-BP-TCT-84

(Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, November 1991) p. 9.

be able to handle graphic

information in a paperless imaging

format. This graphic information

will include mug shots, tattoos and

signatures of offenders.136

Short-term goals

In connection with these upgrade

initiatives, the FBI has announced

the following short-term goals that

are relevant to its criminal history

record improvement program:

• To revitalize the identification

process;

• To develop/deploy NCIC 2000;

• To develop a user participation

plan;

• To develop data quality auditing

standards and policies;

• To create a public awareness

program; and

• To develop and implement a

strategy for assisting States and

other users in creating linkages

to the FBI’s automated

systems.137

Section 2: Federal

database for identifying

felons

Background

Federal law prohibits persons

convicted of felony offenses and

individuals who fall into certain

other categories from purchasing

136Jennifer Jones, “FBI’s

Christensen Merges Criminal ID

Systems” Federal Computer Week

(Feb. 1, 1993) p. 29.

137William S. Sessions, “Criminal

Justice Information Services: Gearing

Up For the Future,” FBI Law Enforce

ment Bulletin (February 1993) p. 3.

firearms.138 Recognizing that the

Federal government lacked any

effective program for checking the

eligibility of a firearms purchaser,

the Congress, in the Anti-Drug

Abuse Act of 1988, directed the

Attorney General to “develop a

system for the immediate and

accurate identification of felons

who attempt to purchase

firearms.”139 The statute further

directed that the Attorney General:

(1) “shall report to the Congress

a description of the system

and a plan (including cost

analysis of the proposed

system) for implementation

of the system . . . ”; and

(2) “shall begin implementation

of the system 30 days after

the report to the Congress.”

In response to this directive, the

Attorney General appointed a Task

Force on Felon Identification in

Firearms Sales to identify options

for the development of a felon

identification system. The task

force’s final report, issued in

October 1989, identified several

options for systems to identify

felons who attempt to purchase

firearms, but made no specific

recommendations.140

13818 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and

§6213(c).

139Section 6213 of the Anti-Drug

Abuse Act of 1988, P.L. 100-690, 102

Stat. 4181 (1988).

140Firearms Report.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 67

The Attorney General forwarded

his report to the Congress on

November 20, 1989.141 The report

transmitted the Task Force’s final

report and recommended a fourpart program to enhance efforts to

stop firearms sales to felons.

This section looks at this four-part

system, including:

• Telephone checks;

• Felon database;

• Enhancement of the FBI’s

record system; and

• Monitoring advances in

biometric technology.

Telephone checks

The Attorney General’s first

recommendation, and the

underpinning for the plan for a

national program to identify felons

who attempt to purchase firearms,

is establishment of a system for

point-of-sale approval of firearms

purchasers through telephone

checks.142

This program is envisioned as a

cooperative, Federal/State system

that requires gun dealers to obtain

telephone clearance from

designated law enforcement

agencies at the time of firearm

sales.

141Letter from Attorney General

Richard Thornburgh to the Honorable

Thomas S. Foley, Speaker of the U.S.

House of Representatives. See also,

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Attorney General’s Program

for Improving the Nation’s Criminal

History Records and Identifying Felons

Who Attempt to Purchase Firearms:

Overview (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office, March,

1991). (Hereafter, Attorney General’s

Program.)

142Attorney General’s Program, pp.

1-3.

The specific elements of the system

would include an immediate

telephone check of automated

criminal history records by gun

dealers through a designated law

enforcement agency and a

secondary fingerprint-based

verification procedure for all

individuals who are rejected after

the initial telephone check.143

The gun dealer would require the

prospective purchaser to show two

pieces of identification, at least one

of which would be required to have

a current photograph. The gun

dealer would telephone the

designated State law enforcement

agency using an identification code

to verify his identity. The State law

enforcement agency would use

existing telecommunications

systems to check the master name

index of the State repository and, if

necessary, the Interstate

Identification Index, both of which

presumably would be flagged to

indicate individuals who have

felony conviction records

maintained at the State or Federal

level. The law enforcement agency

would also access State and Federal

wanted persons files.

The Attorney General’s program

recognizes that, at least initially,

some individuals who are qualified

to purchase firearms may be

designated by the system as

unqualified because the databases

that will be accessed are not

accurate and complete and do not

utilize effective systems for

flagging felony convictions. In all

cases where the sale is denied,

however, the applicant would have

an opportunity to be fingerprinted

and to request a complete national

background check.144

143Firearms Report, p. 26.

144Ibid.

The report presenting the Attorney

General’s program notes that, “It is

anticipated that as technological

advances are made and as technical

and policy issues are resolved,

alternative methods for identifying

gun purchasers, for transmitting the

data, and for protecting record

system integrity will be

considered.”145

Felon database

The second part of the Attorney

General’s program directs the FBI

to establish a complete and

automated database of felons who

are prohibited from purchasing

firearms.

As a part of this initiative, the

Attorney General directed the FBI,

in concert with BJS, to issue

voluntary standards for State and

local criminal justice agencies with

respect to improvements in their

criminal history record systems.

The Attorney General also directed

that BJA, through BJS, provide $9

million in grant funds in each of the

three fiscal years 1990 through

1992, to be made available to the

States to improve criminal history

record information, to identify

convicted felons, and to comply

with the FBI/BJS voluntary

reporting standards.146 That grant

program and the voluntary

reporting standards are discussed in

Section 3 of this chapter.

145Attorney General’s Program, p.

3.

146Ibid., p. 2.
Page 68 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

FBI record system

enhancement

The Attorney General directed the

FBI to enhance its own criminal

history record systems in two ways:

(1) The Bureau was directed to

eliminate a backlog of

fingerprint cards and

dispositions submitted by

State agencies that have not

yet been processed and

entered into the FBI system.

(2) The Bureau was directed to

automate approximately 8.8

million manual criminal

history records relating to

individuals born after 1929,

but arrested for the first time

prior to July 1, 1974. In fiscal

year 1992, the FBI received

an additional appropriation of

$12.5 million and 487

additional positions,

dedicated, at least in part, to

these two initiatives.147

Advances in biometric

technology

The Attorney General also directed

the FBI to monitor advances in the

use of biometric technology,148

particularly the live-scanning of

fingerprints.

The Attorney General’s program

recognizes that in order to establish

an effective point-of-sale system

for screening firearms purchasers,

147York Testimony.

148Biometric identification

technologies measure a unique and

unchanging physiological or behavioral

characteristic for purposes of personal

identification. Examples include

fingerprinting, DNA tissue typing,

retinal scanning and signature

dynamics.

the State repositories will have to

be able to provide accurate,

complete and timely criminal

history record information. As

discussed in more detail in Chapter

II, many States are not yet able to

do this. The Attorney General’s

program recognizes this

shortcoming.149

Section 3: Federal grant

programs and related

initiatives

This section looks at:

• The BJS Criminal History

Record Improvement (CHRI)

Program;

• The BJA block grant set-aside

program;

• A law requiring States to report

alien convictions to the

Immigration and Naturalization

Service; and

• Voluntary reporting standards

promulgated by the FBI and

BJS.

BJS criminal history record

improvement program

The 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 attempt

to purchase firearms.

149Attorney General’s Program, p.

4.

The task force recognized,

moreover, that incomplete and

inaccurate criminal history records

frustrate not only attempts to

identify felons, but also the ability

of judges to make informed bail

and pre-trial 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.

As noted, one of the major

components of the Attorney

General’s plan to develop a

nationwide system to identify

felons who attempt to purchase

firearms was the announcement that

$9 million in discretionary grant

funds authorized under the AntiDrug Abuse Act of 1988 would be

allocated in each of the fiscal years

1990, 1991 and 1992 for grants to

the States for the specific purpose

of improving and updating their

criminal history record information

systems. The Attorney General

directed the Bureau of Justice

Statistics to administer this $27

million Criminal History Record

Improvement (CHRI) Program.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 69

—Purposes for using grants

In its program announcement, BJS

identified five purposes for which

Federal grants to the States could

be used:

(1) Identifying individuals in

State criminal history record

systems who have been

convicted of felony offenses;

(2) Improving the reporting of

disposition data to State

repositories;

(3) Increasing the automation of

State criminal history record

systems;

(4) Meeting the voluntary

FBI/BJS reporting standards

(discussed later in this

section); and

(5) Making felony conviction

information readily accessible

to appropriate Federal and

State agencies.150

—Data quality, system

improvement strategies

BJS identified a number of proven

data quality and system improvement strategies and authorized

States to use CHRI grant funds to

implement these strategies.

150U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Assistance and

Bureau of Justice Statistics,

“Improvement of Criminal History

Record Information and Identification

of Convicted Felons: Notice of

Program Announcement,” Federal

Register 55 (May 23, 1990) pp. 21350-

51.

Specifically, the BJS guidelines

authorized funds for the following

types of programs:151

• Developing systems to identify

convicted felons through an

examination of the subject’s

automated or manual criminal

history record and to include a

felony “flag” in such records;

• Developing programs and

procedures to meet the FBI/BJS

voluntary reporting standards for

identifying convicted felons;

• Designing systems to improve

reporting to the State central

repositories of all arrests,

dispositions and other related

criminal justice information;

• Ensuring a higher degree of

criminal history automation by

implementing State master name

indexes, including the placement

of felony conviction identifiers

in such indexes;

• Ensuring a higher degree of

criminal history automation by

establishing a computerized

criminal history (CCH) record

system, increasing the number of

individuals recorded in existing

systems, and improving the

quality and timeliness of

criminal history records;

• Developing procedures to

participate in the Interstate

Identification Index system;

• Conducting baseline audits of

criminal history record systems

to assess existing data quality

levels, identify problem areas,

151U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Attorney General’s

Program for Improving the Nation’s

Criminal History Records: Bureau of

Justice Statistics Implementation Status

Report (Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, February 1992) pp. 2-3.

and establish a basis for

evaluating the success of data

quality improvement programs;

• Upgrading existing data systems

to meet improved data quality

requirements by enhancing

hardware such as disks, printers

and communications lines; and

• Coordinating activities under

this program with the

implementation of the

Immigration and Naturalization

Service’s new criminal records

reporting program.

—Status of the program

All $27 million in funding has been

awarded under the BJS CHRI grant

program, with every State plus the

District of Columbia, American

Samoa and the Northern Mariana

Islands participating (all are

referred to as “States” in this

program review).152 Twenty-three

of the participating States have

used at least some of their CHRI

grant funds to establish a felony file

or flag. Thirty-one of the

participating States have used the

Federal funding to assist in

automating their criminal history

systems. Of these, seven States that

maintained essentially manual

systems prior to the grant program

are using grant funds to implement

automated criminal history record

systems.153 Four States have used

grant funds to implement live-scan

fingerprinting and four have used

the funds to install or upgrade AFIS

systems.

152Status information provided by

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.

Department of Justice.

153American Samoa, District of

Columbia, Maine, New Mexico,

Tennessee, Vermont and West Virginia.
Page 70 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Nine States have used grant funds

to upgrade their repositories in

order to be able to participate in the

Interstate Identification Index

system. Twenty-five States have

used grant funds to implement

electronic data sharing interfaces

between the repository and

reporting agencies or between

agencies. Thirty States have used

grant funds to reduce backlogs of

unprocessed disposition reports or

fingerprint cards, or to obtain

unreported arrests or dispositions.

Fourteen States have used the

Federal funding, in part at least, to

perform baseline audits or user

needs assessments. Nine States

have used grant funds to train

repository personnel or other

criminal justice personnel. Ten

States used grant funds to

standardize repository processing

procedures.

The BJS CHRI grant program is

currently being evaluated in depth,

but it is already clear that, by

almost any measure, the program

was an important success.

BJA 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 five

percent of its Edward Byrne

Memorial State and Local Law

Enforcement block grant monies

for the improvement of criminal

justice records.154 The

improvements may include the

following:

154Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub.

L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4850

(codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3759(a)).

• Completion of criminal histories

to include final dispositions of

all felony arrests;

• Full automation of all criminal

history and fingerprint records;

and

• Increasing the frequency and

quality of criminal history

records sent to the FBI.

—Fund guidelines

BJA, which administers the Byrne

grant program, has issued

guidelines for the expenditure of

the five-percent set-aside funds.155

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; and

• Develop a records improvement

plan, which must be approved

by BJA.

The five-percent minimum setaside applies to funds appropriated

in fiscal year 1992 and all

subsequent yearly formula grants

awarded under the Byrne grant

program. Given the fiscal year 1992

appropriation of approximately

$420 million for Byrne program

155U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Assistance, Guidance for the

Improvement of Criminal Justice

Records (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office, December

10, 1991) and Addendum to the

Guidance for the Improvement of

Criminal Justice Records (January 8,

1992).

formula grants, the States must

allocate collectively a minimum of

$21 million of their 1992 awards to

criminal history record

improvement efforts.

BJA’s guidelines provide that setaside 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 five

percent 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.

Reporting alien convictions

to INS

The Immigration Act of 1990

requires that each State, as a

condition of receiving formula

funds under the Edward Byrne

Memorial law enforcement grant

program, must implement

procedures to provide the

Immigration and Naturalization

Service (INS) with certified copies

of criminal history records of aliens

who have been convicted of

violating the criminal laws of the

State.156 The records must be

provided to INS within 30 days of

the date of conviction, and the State

may not charge a fee for such

records.

156Immigration 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)).
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 71

The reporting provision in the 1990

Immigration Act was designed to

assist both INS and State and local

governments in dealing with

criminal aliens. For INS, the

provision will assist in the prompt

identification of aliens who have

committed offenses for which they

can be deported. INS estimates that

more than 10 percent 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 will 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, the Congress further

amended the Immigration Act to

reduce the reporting burden on

State and local law enforcement

agencies imposed by the 1990 Act.

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.157 The amendment also

permits the 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.

157H.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).

In addition, BJA and INS have

agreed to a two-phase

implementation process. The first

phase targets serious offenders —

that is, those sentenced to jail or

prison — and must be implemented

immediately. The second phase

requires the reporting of conviction

records for all alien offenders. The

States are required to collect and

provide information about the

offender’s place of birth (and

citizenship, if available) to

determine alien status. The INS,

however, will retain responsibility

for investigating and verifying alien

status.

FBI/BJS voluntary reporting

standards

The Attorney General’s

recommendations to the Congress

regarding the development of a

system for the identification of

felons who attempt to purchase

firearms included an announcement

that the FBI, in conjunction with

the Bureau of Justice Statistics,

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 exists. In

addition, many of the criminal

history records maintained by

law enforcement are either out

of date or incomplete, or both.

Finally, current records often

contain arrest information

without notification of a final

disposition.158

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 History Record

Information” on February 13,

1991.159 The complete text of the

standards is set out in Appendix 9.

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;

158Letter from Attorney General

Richard Thornburgh to the Honorable

Thomas S. Foley, Speaker of the U.S.

House of Representatives, November

20, 1989.

159U.S. Department of Justice,

Federal Bureau of Investigation and

Bureau of Justice Statistics,

“Recommended Voluntary Standards

for Improving the Quality of Criminal

History Information,” Federal Register

56 (February 13, 1991) p. 5849.
Page 72 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

• Provide for the flagging of

felonies in criminal history

databases and in disposition

reports submitted to the

repositories and to the FBI; and

• 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 states that the intent is

to emphasize enhanced

recordkeeping for arrests and

convictions occurring within the

five-year period prior to publication

of the standards and in the future.

The Commentary notes that the

standards are voluntary and that

adoption by criminal history record

systems nationwide should be

viewed as a goal and not as a

requirement. Nevertheless, the

standards have been 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.

Section 4: The Brady Bill

As this report is published,

expectations are high that the 103rd

Congress will pass and the

President will sign the Brady

Handgun Violence Protection Act

of 1993. That act would impose a

seven-day waiting period for all

handgun purchases, during which a

criminal history record search could

be made to determine whether the

purchaser has a felony record. The

Act also would require the Attorney

General to establish a National

Instant Check System (NICS) to

facilitate criminal history record

checks of firearms purchasers.

Once the NICS is operational and

accessible within particular States,

gun dealers would use the system to

initiate point-of-sale checks and the

States could opt to dispense with

the waiting period requirement.

The NICS would have two key

components: (1) on-line

participation by the States and

(2) improvement in State criminal

history record systems to the point

where the States could meet an 80

percent disposition reporting rate

for arrests occurring within the

State within the prior five years. As

currently written, the system would

have to be in place within 30

months of the enactment of the

legislation and every State would

have to meet the two substantive

criteria set out above within five

years.

To help the States comply with

these requirements, the Brady Bill

would establish a Federal grant

program to be administered by BJS

to provide funding to the States for

the following:

(1) To create a computerized

criminal history record system

or improve an existing system;

(2) To improve accessibility to the

NICS; and

(3) Upon establishment of the

NICS, to assist the States in the

transmittal of criminal records

to the national system.

It is expected that the system for

the immediate and accurate

identification of felons who attempt

to purchase firearms recommended

by the Attorney General to the

Congress (discussed in Section 2 of

this chapter), including the use of

III and a point-of-sale telephone

check, would provide the basis for

any national system established

under the Brady legislation, if it

becomes law.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 1 • Page 73

Appendix 1

“Statutes making possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a criminal offense”

Table 10 from

Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information
Page 74 • Appendix 1 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Statutes making possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a criminal offense

State Citation Prohibited

weapons*

If previously

convicted of

Penalty

(or offense level)

United States 18-922(g), 924 Firearm or ammunition

shipped in interstate

commerce

Any felony** Up to 10 years or

$5,000 fine, or both

Alabama 13A-11-72, 84 Pistols Crime of violence or

attempt

Up to five years

Alaska 11.61.200 Concealable firearm Any felony within five

years***

Class C felony

Arizona 13-3101, 3102 Firearm or lethal

weapon

Violent felony or

possession of deadly

weapon

Class 6 felony

Arkansas 5-73-103 Firearm Any felony Class D felony

California P. C. § 12021 Firearm Any felony Felony

P. C. § 12560 Firearm Felony with firearm Up to $1,000 fine or

one year, or both

Colorado 18-12-108 Firearm or deadly

weapon

Burglary, arson or

felony involving

violence or deadly

weapon within 10 years

Class 5 felony; second

or subsequent offense is

class 4 felony

Connecticut 53a-217 Handgun or electric stun

gun

Capital felony or other

serious felony

Class D felony (must

serve two years)

Delaware 11-1448 Deadly weapon Felony, crime of

violence or certain drug

offenses.

Class E felony

District of Columbia 22-3203, 22-3215 Pistol Felony, pandering,

bawdy house or

vagrancy

Up to $1,000 fine or

one year, or both.

Florida 790.23 Firearm or electric stun

gun

Felony Second degree felony

Hawaii 134-7(b), (f) Firearm or ammunition Crime of violence or

drug trafficking

Class B felony

Illinois 38-24-1.1 Firearm, ammunition or

other dangerous weapon

Any felony Class 3 felony

Iowa 724.26 Firearm or offensive

weapon

Any felony Aggravated

misdemeanor

Kansas 21.4204 Firearm with barrel

under 12"

Any felony within five

years

Class D felony

Kentucky 527.040 Handgun Any felony Class D felony

Louisiana 14:95.1 Firearm Enumerated serious

felonies within 10 years

$3,000-5,000 fine and

three to 10 years

without probation or

parole

Maine 15-393 Firearm Felony or any offense

with dangerous weapon

or firearm

Class C crime

* The statutes uniformly criminalize owning or possessing specified, prohibited weapons. Some statutes also prohibit buying, concealing, transporting, carrying or using or

intending to use such weapons.

** The Federal law defines “felony” as a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.

*** The statutes that apply only to crimes committed within specified time periods prior to the new offense usually calculate the time from the date of the earlier crime or the

date of release from supervision resulting from any sentence imposed for the earlier crime, whichever is later.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 1 • Page 75

Statutes making possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a criminal offense

State Citation Prohibited

weapons*

If previously

convicted of

Penalty

(or offense level)

Maryland Art. 27 § 445(c) Handgun Crime of violence,

weapon violation or

drug violation

Misdemeanor. Up to

$5,000 fine or three

years, or both

Art. 27-374, 375 Machine gun Crime of violence Felony. Up to 10 years

Minnesota 624.713 Pistol Crime of violence

within 10 years or drug

offense

Felony

Mississippi 97-37-5 Deadly weapon Felony Felony. One to five

years

Missouri 571.070 Concealable firearm Dangerous felony

within five years

Class C felony

Montana 45-8-316 Deadly weapon Any felony $1,000 fine or up to

five years, or both

Nebraska 28-1206 Firearm with barrel

under 18" or brass

knuckles

Any felony Class IV felony

Nevada 202.360 Firearm Any felony $5,000 fine and one to

six years

202.380 Tear gas bomb or

weapon

Felony drug offense or

other enumerated

serious felonies

Felony

New Hampshire 159:3 Firearm or dangerous

weapon

Any felony Class B felony

New Jersey 2C:39-7 Firearm or other lethal

weapon

Enumerated serious

offenses or drug offense

Fourth degree crime

New Mexico 30-7-16 Firearm Any felony within 10

years

Misdemeanor

New York Pen. Law § 265.01 Rifle or shotgun Felony or serious

offense

Class A misdemeanor

Pen. Law § 265.02 Firearm Felony or class A

misdemeanor within

five years

Class D felony

North Carolina 14-415.1 Handgun or firearm with

barrel under 18" or

overall length under

26" or any weapon of

mass death and

destruction

Enumerated felonies and

serious offenses within

five years

Class 1 felony

North Dakota 62.1-02-01 Firearm Violent felony within

10 years or any other

felony or misdemeanor

involving violence or

use of firearm or

dangerous weapon

within five years

Class C felony

Ohio 2923.13 Firearm or dangerous

ordnance

Violent felony or drug

offense

Fourth degree felony

Oklahoma 21-1283, 84 Concealable firearm Any felony Felony
Page 76 • Appendix 1 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Statutes making possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a criminal offense

State Citation Prohibited

weapons*

If previously

convicted of

Penalty

(or offense level)

Oregon 166.270 Firearm or enumerated

dangerous weapons

Felony involving

firearm or switchblade

knife within 15 years

Class C felony

Pennsylvania 18-6105, 6119 Firearm Crime of violence First degree

misdemeanor

Rhode Island 11-47-5 Firearm Crime of violence Two to 10 years without

probation

South Carolina 16-23-30, 50 Pistol Crime of violence Felony

Tennessee 39-17-1307 Firearm, club, knife

with blade over 4"

Violent felony or

felony with deadly

weapon within five

years

Class E felony

Texas Pen. Code § 46.05 Firearm Violent felony Third degree felony

Utah 76-10-503 Firearm or dangerous

weapon

Crime of violence Felony (level depends

on circumstances)

Virgin Islands 14-2253(a) Firearm Felony Up to 15 years and

$12,000 fine depending

on type of weapon

Virginia 18.2-308.2 Firearm or enumerated

dangerous weapons

Felony Class 6 felony

Washington 9.41.040 Pistol or firearm with

barrel under 12"

Violent crime, felony

with firearm or felony

drug offense

Class C felony

West Virginia 61-7-7 Firearm or other deadly

weapon

Felony Misdemeanor. 90 days

to a year or fine or both

Wisconsin 941.29 Firearm Felony Class E felony

Wyoming 6-8-102 Firearm Violent felony or

attempt

Felony
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 2 • Page 77

Appendix 2

“Statutes requiring or permitting prior criminal records

to be considered in bail decisions”

Excerpt from Table 2, from

Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information
Page 78 • Appendix 2 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Statutes* requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions

(Note: States which do not have statutes requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision

(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

United States (Federal) 18 USC § 3142(e)(1); (f)1;

(g)(3)(A)

Bail considerations may include criminal history and record of

appearance; rebuttable presumption of denial of bail if previously

convicted of crime of violence or enumerated serious offenses or

combination of offenses.

Alabama Rules Judic. Admin., R. 2 Bail factors shall include evidence of prior convictions.

Rules Crim. Proc., R. 7.2 Courts may impose conditions of release to secure appearance or to

protect the public based upon, among other things, defendant’s prior

criminal record.

Alaska 12.30.020(c)(8) Factors affecting conditions of release shall include the person’s

record of convictions and record of appearance.

Arizona 13-3967(C) Factors affecting method of release or amount of bail shall include

person’s record of arrests and convictions and appearance at court

proceedings.

Const., art. II, § 22 Provides for denial of bail for felony offenses committed while on bail

for a prior felony offense.

Arkansas Rule Crim. Proc., R. 9.2 Factors affecting amount of bail shall include person’s prior criminal

record and history of response to legal process.

California Pen. Code § 1275 Bail factors shall include defendant’s previous criminal record.

Colorado 16-4-101 et seq. Factors affecting bail amount or denial of bail on grounds of public

danger shall include defendant’s prior criminal record and record of

appearance.

Const. art. 2, §§ 19, 20 Authorizes denial of bail on grounds of dangerousness for persons

charged with crimes of violence committed while on release, parole or

probation or who have specified prior felony convictions.

Connecticut 54-63b Release criteria shall include defendant’s prior criminal record and

record of appearance. Bail commissioner’s report shall include

defendant’s prior criminal record.

Delaware 11-2105(b) Bail factors shall include defendant’s prior criminal record and record

of appearance.

District of Columbia 23-1303 Bail agency report to judicial officer shall include defendant’s prior

criminal record.

23-1321(b) Judicial bail determinations regarding imposition of release

conditions shall be based upon, among other things, defendant’s

record of convictions and record of appearance.

23-1322 Authorizes pretrial detention to protect public based upon, among

other things, defendant’s prior criminal history.

Florida 903.046(2)(d) Bail factors shall include defendant’s record of convictions and record

of appearance. Prior record of failure to appear renders defendant

ineligible for some types of bond.

907.041 Authorizes pretrial detention to protect public, based upon, among

other factors, specified previous convictions, previous violations of

release, or commission of a dangerous crime while on probation,

parole or release.

Georgia 17-6-1 Prohibits bail, except upon order of Superior Court, of persons charged

with enumerated serious felonies who have previously been convicted

of such a felony or who committed the new offense while on probation,

parole or bail for such a felony.

*Including constitutional provisions or court rules.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 2 • Page 79

Statutes* requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions

(Note: States which do not have statutes requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision

(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Hawaii 804.3 Rebuttable presumption of danger to community (and denial of bail) if

defendant has been convicted of a crime of violence during previous 10

years, or if defendant was on bail, probation or parole for a violent

felony charge at time of arrest.

Illinois 38-110-5(a) Bail factors shall include defendant’s record of convictions and

delinquency adjudications, and whether defendant is already on bail or

under supervision.

Indiana 35-33-8-4 Factors relevant to release on bail (and bail amount) shall include

defendant’s criminal or juvenile record and record of non-appearance.

Iowa 811.2 Bail considerations shall include defendant’s record of convictions and

record of appearance or flight.

Kansas 22-2802(4) Pretrial bail considerations shall include defendant’s record of

convictions and appearance or non-appearance or flight, and whether

defendant is on parole.

Kentucky 431.525 Amount of bail shall be considerate of the past criminal acts of the

defendant.

Louisiana Code Crim. Proc., art. 317 Factors in determining amount of bail shall include the defendant’s

previous criminal record.

Art. 317.1 Magistrate setting bail may apply to juvenile court for defendant’s

juvenile abstract.

Maine 15-1026.4 Pretrial bailsetting official shall consider defendant’s criminal record

and record of appearance and whether defendant is on probation or

parole or other supervision.

15-1051.2 Same factors shall be considered in post-conviction bail

determinations.

Maryland Art. 27, § 616 1/2(c) Rebuttable presumption of bail denial for person charged with

enumerated serious offenses committed while on bail for prior

enumerated serious offenses.

Art. 27, § 616 1/2(d) No personal recognizance for person charged with enumerated serious

offenses if previously convicted of such an offense.

Massachusetts 276-58 Bail factors shall include defendant’s record of convictions and record

of failure to appear or flight, and whether defendant already is on bail,

parole, probation or other form of supervision.

Michigan Const., art. 1, § 15 Permits denial of bail for persons charged with violent felonies if

convicted of two or more violent felonies within previous 15 years,

and persons charged with violent felonies while on bail, probation or

parole for previous violent felony.

765.6 Amount of bail shall reflect the defendant’s previous criminal record.

Const., art. 1 § 15 Bail may be denied for person charged with a violent felony who has

been convicted of two violent felonies within previous 15 years or

who was already on bail, parole or probation in connection with a

violent felony charge or conviction.

Minnesota Rules Crim. Proc., R. 6.02(2) Release condition factors shall include defendant’s record of

convictions and record of appearance or flight.

Mississippi 99-3-18 Release factors concerning a person arrested for a misdemeanor shall

include prior arrest record.

*Including constitutional provisions or court rules.
Page 80 • Appendix 3 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Appendix 3

“Statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to enhanced

terms as career criminals or habitual criminals”

Excerpt from Table 5, from

Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 3 • Page 81

Statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to

enhanced terms as career criminals or habitual criminals

(Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to enhanced terms as career or habitual criminals are omitted from the

table.)

State Citation Statutory provision

(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

United States (Federal) 28 U.S.C. §§ 994(h) Provides that sentencing guidelines shall ensure substantial prison

terms for persons who commit crimes of violence and have two or

more previous felony convictions for crimes of violence or serious

drug offenses.

Sentencing Guidelines

§4B1.1

Provides for sentencing of career offenders (as defined above) at the

maximum criminal history category level, which substantially

increases the maximum and minimum sentences.

Alabama 13A-5-9 Provides for enhanced punishment for persons who commit felonies

after committing prior felonies, ranging from one grade level

enhancement for persons who have one prior felony conviction to life

imprisonment without parole for persons who have three prior

felonies and commit another class A felony.

13A-12-231 Provides for sentencing under the recidivist statute of persons who

commit serious drug offenses after one or more prior felony

convictions.

32-5A-191 Repeat DUI offenders. Provides for sentencing to increasingly

enhanced fines and jail terms based on number of prior DUI

convictions within specified time periods.

Alaska 12.55.155 Provides for sharply enhanced sentencing for aggravating factors,

including prior felony convictions or repeated offenses similar to the

instant offense.

Arizona 13-604 Dangerous and repetitive offenders. Provides for enhanced sentences

for repetitive offenders up to five times the normal sentence, with

limited parole eligibility, based upon the seriousness of the offense

charged and the number and seriousness of prior offenses.

13-604.01 Dangerous crimes against children. Provides for enhanced sentences,

up to life imprisonment without parole, for persons who commit

enumerated offenses against children and who have prior convictions

for such offenses.

Arkansas 5-4-501 Provides for sentencing of habitual offenders to enhanced terms, up to

life imprisonment for persons with four or more prior felonies,

depending on the seriousness of the present offense and the number of

prior felony convictions.

16-90-202 Provides that persons who commit murder, rape, carnal abuse or

kidnapping and who have two or more prior convictions for any such

offenses shall be deemed habitual criminals and sentenced to life

imprisonment, if the death penalty does not apply.

California Pen. Code 667.7 Provides for enhanced sentences as habitual offenders for persons who

commit violent felonies and who have served two or more previous

sentences for violent or serious offenses within the previous 10 years.

Colorado 16-13-101 Provides that persons convicted of felonies who have previously been

convicted of two felonies within the past 10 years or three felonies at

any time shall be adjudged to be habitual offenders and sentenced to

25-50 years (two previous felonies) or life imprisonment (three or

more previous felonies), if not sentenced to death.

Connecticut 53a-40 Provides for enhanced sentences for persistent dangerous felony

offenders, persistent serious felony offenders, persistent larceny

offenders and persistent felony offenders, depending on the offense

charged and the number and nature of prior convictions and sentences.
Page 82 • Appendix 3 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to

enhanced terms as career criminals or habitual criminals

(Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to enhanced terms as career or habitual criminals are omitted from the

table.)

State Citation Statutory provision

(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Delaware 11-4214 Provides for enhanced penalties for persons convicted for the third

time of enumerated serious felonies (mandatory life imprisonment if

death is not imposed) or for the fourth time of any felony offense (up

to life imprisonment).

District of Columbia 22-104a Provides for enhanced sentences up to life imprisonment for persons

convicted for the third time of felony offenses.

Florida 775.084 et seq. Provides for enhanced penalties (up to life without parole) for habitual

felony offenders (two or more previous felonies) and habitual violent

felony offenders (previous violent felony conviction). Requires law

enforcement agencies to employ enhanced law enforcement

management efforts and resources for investigation, apprehension and

prosecution of career criminals.

Georgia 17-10-7(b) Provides that persons convicted of fourth felony must be given

maximum term and cannot be paroled.

Hawaii 706-606.5 Provides for enhanced sentences (up to 30 years imprisonment) for

persons with prior felonies within specified periods, depending on the

seriousness of the charged offense and the number of prior felony

convictions.

706-661, 662 Provides for enhanced penalties (up to life) for persistent offenders

(two or more previous felonies) and professional criminals.

845-1 et seq. Establishes a career criminal prosecution program to provide

additional financial and technical resources for the prosecution of

persons with prior convictions of designated types within specified

periods.

Idaho 19-2514 Provides for mandatory prison terms of five years to life for persistent

violators - persons who have three or more felony convictions.

Illinois 38-33B-1 Provides for mandatory life terms, if death penalty is not imposed, for

persons who commit violent offenses and who have two or more prior

convictions for violent offenses within 20 years.

Indiana 35-50-2-7.1, -8 Provides for adding eight to 30 years to normal sentences for habitual

felony offenders who have two or more prior felony convictions,

depending on the crime charged, the nature of the previous offenses

and the time period during which they were committed.

35-50-2-10 Provides for enhanced terms of three to eight additional years for

habitual drug offenders - those with two or more drug offense

convictions within specified periods.

Iowa 902.8, 9 Provides for mandatory minimum prison terms for persons convicted

of designated felonies who have two or more felony convictions.

Kansas 21-4504 Provides for sentences of up to twice the prescribed minimum and

maximum sentences for persons convicted for the second time for a

felony offense and for up to three times the prescribed minimum and

maximum for persons convicted of three or more felonies.

Kentucky 532.080 Provides for enhanced prison terms for persistent felony offenders -

those who have one or more prior felony convictions within specified

periods. Sentences range from the next highest degree of offense to

life, depending on the seriousness of the present offense and the

number of prior felonies.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 4 • Page 83

Appendix 4

“Statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions”

Excerpt from Table 3, from

Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information
Page 84 • Appendix 4 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions

(Note: States which do not have statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision

(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Alabama 13A-12-213 Second offense of simple possession of marijuana is class C felony.

Alaska 11.46.130 Theft of property of value of $50 - $500 is class C felony if person has

been convicted and sentenced for theft or concealment offenses twice

within the previous five years.

11.46.140 Theft of property of value of less than $50 is a class A misdemeanor if

the person has been convicted and sentenced for theft or concealment

offenses twice within previous five years.

11.46.220 Concealment of stolen merchandise by a person who has been

convicted and sentenced for the same offense twice within the previous

five years is a class C felony if the value of the property is $50 to

$500, and is a class A misdemeanor if the property is a value under

$50.

11.46.484 Criminal mischief involving property valued at $50 - $500 is a class A

misdemeanor, but if the person has been convicted of criminal

mischief within the previous seven years, the offense is a class C

felony.

11.71.010 Drug misconduct is an unclassified felony if the criminal offense is a

felony and is part of a continuing series of at least five drug violations

undertaken with at least five other persons supervised by the offender.

Arizona 13-1406.01 First offense of sexual assault of a spouse is a class 6 felony;

subsequent offenses are class 2 felonies.

13-3410 Serious drug offenders (those who commit serious drug offenses as part

of a pattern of at least three related drug violations) shall be sentenced

to life imprisonment.

13-3415 Consideration of whether an object is prohibited drug paraphernalia

shall include, among other factors, any prior drug convictions of

person owning or controlling the object.

28-692.01.E Person convicted of a second driving under the influence of drugs or

alcohol (DUI) violation within 60 months is guilty of a class 1

misdemeanor. A third or subsequent violation is a class 5 felony.

California Pen. Code § 666 Person convicted of petty theft after previous conviction for theft,

robbery or burglary shall be sentenced to up to one year in county jail.

Pen. Code § 313.4 Person convicted of distribution or exhibition of harmful matter to

minor is punishable by up to $2,000 fine or up to one year in jail or

both. Subsequent offense is punishable as a felony by imprisonment

in state prison.

Pen. Code § 314 Indecent exposure is punishable by up to one year in jail. Subsequent

offense is punishable as a felony and imprisonment in state prison.

Colorado 12-22-127 First offense of violation of provisions relating to druggists and sale

of drugs is a class 2 misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense is a

class 6 felony.

18-12-108 First offense of possession of firearm by convicted felon is a class 5

felony. Second or subsequent offense is a class 4 felony.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 4 • Page 85

Statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions

(Note: States which do not have statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision

(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Connecticut 53a-40 Provides for sentencing of persons with designated prior convictions

as (1) a persistent dangerous felony offender (class A felony), (2) a

persistent serious felony offender (next most serious degree of felony),

(3) a persistent larceny offender (class D felony) or (4) a persistent

felony offender (next most serious degree of felony).

Delaware Senate Bill No. 58, July 1,

1989, Truth in Sentencing

Act

Classifies offenses for sentencing purposes, including some offenses

upgraded based on prior convictions.

Georgia 16-5-45 Interference with child custody. First offense is a misdemeanor;

second offense is upgraded misdemeanor; third offense is a felony.

16-8-14 Shoplifting. First offense is a misdemeanor; second offense is an

upgraded misdemeanor with mandatory fine; third offense is an

upgraded misdemeanor with mandatory jail term; fourth or subsequent

offense is a felony.

16-11-126 Carrying concealed weapon. First offense is a misdemeanor; second or

subsequent offense is a felony.

16-11-128 Carrying a firearm without a license. First offense is a misdemeanor;

second or subsequent offense is a felony.

Idaho 18-8005 DUI. First offense is a misdemeanor with possible fine and jail term;

second offense within five years is a misdemeanor with mandatory jail

term; third or subsequent offense within five years is a felony.

Illinois 23-2355 Child endangerment. First offense is a class A misdemeanor; second or

subsequent offense is a class 4 felony.

38-11-14 Prostitution. First and second offenses are misdemeanors; third and

subsequent offenses are felonies.

38-11-20 Obscenity is a class A misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense is a

class 4 felony.

38-12-15 Criminal sexual abuse is a class A misdemeanor; second or subsequent

offense is a class 2 felony.

38-16-1 Theft of property not exceeding $300 in value is a class A

misdemeanor, but if the offender has previously been convicted of

theft, robbery, burglary, possession of burglary tools or home

invasion, the offense is a class 4 felony.

38-24-1 Unlawful use of weapons. First offense for carrying or possessing an

unlawful weapon is a class A misdemeanor; a second or subsequent

violation is a class 4 felony.

38-28-3 Keeping a gambling place. First offense is a class C misdemeanor; a

second or subsequent offense is a class 4 felony.

38-33A-3 Commission of a felony with a category II weapon is a class 2 felony;

a second or subsequent violation is a class 1 felony.

38-37-1 Maintaining a public nuisance. First offense is a class A

misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense is a class 4 felony.

56 1/2-1406 Controlled substance offenses. First offenses are class A

misdemeanors; second and subsequent offenses are class 4 felonies.
Page 86 • Appendix 5 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Appendix 5

“Statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions”

Excerpt from Table 4, from

Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 5 • Page 87

Statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions

(Note: States which do not have statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision

(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

United States (Federal) 18-924(c) Firearms violations. Provides for enhanced sentences for second and

subsequent offenses involving crimes of violence or drug trafficking

committed with a firearm. First offender gets five years (30 if the

weapon is a machine gun or is equipped with a silencer); second and

subsequent offenders get 20 years (machine guns or silencer: life

without release).

18-841(h) Use of explosives to commit a felony. First offense - one to 10 years;

second or subsequent offenses - five to 25 years with no suspension or

probation.

28-991 et seq. Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Provides for sentence enhancements

for all except minor offenses based upon seriousness of the offense and

prior criminal record.

Alabama 15-18-9 Repeat felony offenders. Second or subsequent class B or C felony

offenses are increased by one level of degree; second or subsequent

class A felony offenses are punishable by 15 years to life.

13A-5-49 Capital offenses. Provides that aggravating circumstances supporting

death sentence shall include fact that offender has previously been

convicted of a capital felony or a violent felony.

13A-12-231 Drug trafficking. First offense - class A felony; second or subsequent

offense is punishable under the habitual felony offender law (13A-5-9).

20-2-71(a)(3) Drug offenses- failure to keep required records. First offense - class A

misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense - class B felony.

32-5A-191 DUI. Provides for enhanced penalties for second or subsequent

offenses, including a mandatory 60-day jail term for a third offense.

Alaska 12.55.125, .145 Repeat felony offenders. Sets out enhanced presumptive sentences for

second and third convictions of various classes, if prior offenses

occurred within 10 years.

12.55.175 Sentencing of felony offenders. Provides that the presumptive

sentences for felony offenders may be increased if the offenders have

three or more prior felony convictions.

Arizona 13-604 Sentencing of dangerous and repetitive offenders. Provides for

enhanced sentences (up to five times the normal sentence) for persons

charged with felonies who have prior convictions for felonies.

13-604.01 Dangerous crimes against children. Provides for enhanced

presumptive sentences for persons with prior offenses.

13-703 Capital offenses. Aggravating circumstances supporting death

sentence include prior convictions for capital offenses or violent

offenses.

13.604.02 Offenses committed while on release. Provides for enhanced sentences

(up to life without parole sooner than 25 years) for felony offenses

committed while on parole, probation or other release following a

prior felony conviction.

Arkansas 5-4-604 Capital offenses. Aggravating circumstances supporting death

sentence include prior convictions for violent felonies and

commission of offense while escaped after sentencing for felony

conviction.
Page 88 • Appendix 5 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions

(Note: States which do not have statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision

(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Arkansas (cont.) 16-90-201 Repeat felony offenders. Provides for enhanced sentences up to one

and one-half times the normal sentence, depending on the number of

prior convictions and the seriousness of the new offense.

20-64-304 Drug offenses. Provides for enhanced penalties for second offenses (up

to $2,000 fine and three to five years) and third offenses (up to $5,000

fine and five to 10 years).

California Pen. Code § 190.05 Murder. Provides that a person convicted of second degree murder who

has a prior conviction for first or second degree murder shall be

sentenced to life without parole or 15 years to life, depending on

aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Pen. Code § 190.2 First degree murder. Provides that aggravating circumstances

supporting death penalty shall include prior convictions for first or

second degree murder.

Pen. Code § 666.5 Felony vehicle theft. Second offense - three to five years.

Pen. Code § 666.7 Receiving stolen vehicles or parts. Provides for enhanced penalty (up

to $10,000 fine or four years, or both) for third or subsequent offense.

Pen. Code § 667.5 Violent offenses. Provides for sentence enhancements of three years

for every previous prison term served for a violent offense within 10

years.

Pen. Code § 667.51 Lewd acts with child. Provides for enhanced prison terms for previous

offenses.

Pen. Code § 667.6 Sex crimes. Provides for an enhancement of five years for each prior

conviction within 10 years and a 10 year enhancement for each prior

prison term served within 10 years.

Pen. Code § 667.7 Violent offenses. Two prior prison terms for such offenses within 10

years - life with no parole prior to 20 years. Three or more prior

prison terms within 10 years - life without parole.

Pen. Code § 667.75 Drug violations. Provides for enhanced term of life without parole

sooner than 17 years if offender has served two or more prison terms

for drug offenses within 10 years.

Pen Code § 667.9, .10 Violent offenses against aged, disabled or underage persons. Provides

for a two-year enhancement for each prior conviction for such

offenses.

Colorado 18-18-105 Drug trafficking. Provides for a mandatory 20 year prison term for

second offense of drug trafficking in or near a school.

Connecticut 53a-46a Capital offenses. Provides that aggravating factors supporting death

penalty shall include two or more prior felony convictions.

21a-277 Drug offenses. Provides for enhancements for second or subsequent

offenses up to 30 years and a $250,000 fine.

Delaware 11-4209. Capital offenses. Provides that aggravating factors supporting death

penalty shall include a prior conviction for murder, manslaughter or a

violent felony.

16-4763 Drug offenses. Provides for enhanced penalties for second or

subsequent offenses based upon the new offense committed.

16-4764 Drug offenses. Provides for conditional discharge for first offense of

possession.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 6 • Page 89

Appendix 6

“Statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in

correctional classification and supervision”

Table 8 from

Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information, pp. 52-54
Page 90 • Appendix 6 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in

correctional classification and supervision

(Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional classification and supervision are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision

(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Alabama 15-22-25 Requires that the board of pardons and paroles shall make a complete

investigation of each newly received prisoner and compile a report

that must include the prisoner’s criminal record.

Alaska 33.30.091 Requires commissioner of public safety to assign prisoners to

programs based upon, among other things, the prisoner’s record of

convictions, with particular emphasis on convictions for sex crimes.

Arizona 13-701 Provides that the presentence report, which includes the offender’s

criminal history, must be forwarded to the Department of Corrections.

Arkansas 12-27-113(e) Requires the director of the Department of Corrections to compile a

complete record on each inmate including trial, conviction and past

history.

12-29-101 Requires the director of the Department of Corrections to establish a

system for classifying prisoners according to deportment, taking into

consideration their records prior to commitment.

California Pen. Code § 5068 Requires the Director of Corrections to classify a prisoner for program

assignment based upon all pertinent circumstances including "the

antecedents of the violation of law because of which he or she has been

committed."

Florida 921.20 Requires the classification board to compile a classification summary

for each prisoner, including "criminal, personal, social and

environmental background."

944.17(5) Requires the sheriff or other officer delivering an offender to the

Department of Corrections to deliver any available presentence

reports.

944.1905 Requires the Department of Corrections to classify inmates pursuant to

an objective classification scheme that takes into consideration the

inmate’s verified history involving intentional violence.

Georgia 42-8-291 Requires that presentence reports (including State and FBI criminal

history sheets) shall be delivered with each offender to the Department

of Corrections and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Hawaii 353-7 Authorizes establishment of a high security correctional facility for

high risk inmates, including recidivists.

Idaho 20-224 Requires the Board of Corrections to establish a record on each inmate,

including the inmate’s previous criminal record.

Illinois 38-1003-8-1 Requires the sheriff delivering a prisoner to the Department of

Corrections to deliver the presentence report which must include the

inmate’s criminal history.

Indiana 35-38-3-5 Requires classification of new inmates as to degree of security and

candidacy for home detention based upon, among other things, prior

criminal record.

Iowa 901.4 Requires presentence reports, with criminal history records, to be

delivered to the Department of Corrections with inmates.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 6 • Page 91

Statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in

correctional classification and supervision

(Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional classification and supervision are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision

(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Louisiana Code Crim. Proc. art. 875,

876

Requires a presentence report (which includes offender’s previous

criminal record) to be sent to the division of probation and parole if

the offender is committed. If an offender is committed and no

presentence report has been compiled, the division must compile one

within 60 days.

Maryland 27-691 Requires the Division of Correction to compile a case record for each

inmate including previous criminal record and to classify inmates to

training, treatment or employment programs on the basis of such case

record.

Massachusetts 127-2 Requires the superintendents of correctional institutions to keep full

and accurate records on inmates and gives such superintendents access

to the State criminal record repository for such purposes.

127-27 Requires the prosecutor of committed offenders to forward their

criminal history records to the Department of Corrections.

Michigan 791.264 Requires the bureau of penal institutions to classify prisoners on the

basis of files established by classification committees and requires

clerks of court and probation officers to make criminal records

available to the classification committees.

Mississippi 47-5-103 Requires classification committee to consider an inmate’s criminal and

juvenile history in determining work duties, living quarters,

rehabilitation programs and privileges.

Missouri 217.305 Requires sheriff delivering a prisoner to the Department of Corrections

to deliver prisoner’s previous criminal record.

217.345 Requires the Department of Corrections to establish treatment

programs for first offenders.

Nebraska 83-178(1)(d), (2) Requires the chief executive officer of each correctional facility to

establish files for inmates to be used for classification, transfer, parole

and other purposes. Each such file must contain the inmate’s criminal

history record.

Nevada 209.351(2)(d) Requires the director of the Department of Corrections to establish a

system of classification, based upon, among other things, the

inmate’s record of convictions.

209.481 Makes eligibility for assignment to honor camp dependent upon,

among other things, past criminal history.

New Jersey 30:4-141 Requires the board of managers to obtain and record information about

each inmate’s "past life," among other things.

30:4-147 Authorizes inmates between the ages of 15 and 30 to be committed to

the youth correctional complex if they have not previously been

sentenced to prison.

New York Cr. Proc. Law § 390.60 Requires copies of presentence reports (which include criminal

histories) to be delivered with offenders committed to terms of

imprisonment.

Ohio 2929.221 Provides that a person convicted of a third or fourth degree felony may

serve the term of imprisonment in a county jail if offender has no prior

felony conviction.

Rhode Island 12-19-2 Provides that certain first offenders may be sentenced to work release

at a minimum security facility.
Page 92 • Appendix 6 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in

correctional classification and supervision

(Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional classification and supervision are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision

(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Rhode Island (cont.) 42-56-20.2 Prohibits eligibility for community confinement if convicted or

previously convicted of certain enumerated crimes.

South Carolina 24-13-710 Makes eligibility for supervised furlough dependent on, among other

things, previous criminal convictions and sentences.

Texas Govt. Code § 497.002 Requires the Department of Corrections to classify inmates on the

basis of, among other things, criminal histories.

Utah 76-3-404 Requires the Department of Corrections to conduct presentence

investigations and prepare reports that must include criminal

histories.

Washington 9.94A.110 Requires that presentence reports, which include criminal history

information, must accompany offenders committed to the Department

of Corrections.

West Virginia 62-12-7, 7a Requires that presentence reports, which include information on

offenders’ criminal histories, be delivered to the Department of

Corrections.

Wisconsin 972.15(5) Provides that the Department of Corrections may use presentence

reports, which include criminal history information, for correctional

classification and parole purposes.

Wyoming 7-13-104 Requires the State board of parole to keep complete records on all

prisoners and requires the State criminal record repository to make

records available for that purpose.

7-13-303 Requires the presentence report, which includes criminal history record

information, to be forwarded to the penal institution with committed

offenders.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 7 • Page 93

Appendix 7

“Statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be

affected by prior convictions”

Excerpt from Table 9, from

Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information
Page 94 • Appendix 7 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions

(Note: States which do not have statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision

(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Alabama 15-22-27.1 Person convicted of murder or a violent felony resulting in serious

injury who has a conviction for a violent felony within previous five

years is ineligible for parole.

15-22-27.2 Person given life sentence for second class A felony is ineligible for

parole.

Alaska 33.16.090, .100 Limits eligibility for discretionary parole for persons sentenced to

enhanced terms as repeat offenders.

33.16.110 Provides that the parole board shall consider the presentence report

compiled for the sentencing court, including the prisoner’s criminal

and juvenile history and his previous experience on parole or

probation.

Arizona 41-1604.07 Bases rates of earned release credits upon, among other things, prior

criminal record.

13-604 Limits parole eligibility [person must serve a designated number of

years before becoming eligible for parole consideration] for dangerous

and repetitive offenders, based upon the seriousness of the offense and

the number and seriousness of prior offenses.

13-604.01 Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted of dangerous crimes

against children who have prior convictions for such offenses.

13-604.02 Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted of felonies while on

parole, probations or any other form of release.

31-233.01 Provides that eligibility for release on work furlough shall depend on,

among other things, the prisoner’s prior criminal record.

31-233(I) Prohibits early release (because of overcrowding) of prisoners with

prior felony convictions.

13-1406.01 Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted for a second or

subsequent time of sexual assault of a spouse.

Arkansas 16-93-601 thru 610 Establishes parole eligibility depending on date of offense,

seriousness of offense and prior criminal record.

California Pen. Code § 667.7 Limits parole eligibility for habitual offenders based upon number of

prior prison terms served for enumerated serious offenses.

Pen. Code § 667.75 Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted of enumerated drug

offenses who have served prior prison terms for drug offenses.

Pen. Code § 190.05 Provides for life sentence without parole for a person convicted of

second degree murder who has served a prison term for murder.

Pen. Code § 190.2 Provides for life without parole for a person convicted of first degree

murder who has a prior conviction for murder.

Colorado 17-22.5-303.5 Establishes parole guidelines that set out aggravating circumstances

affecting the length and conditions of parole, including whether the

offender was on parole or probation when he comitted the crime for

which he was committed and the offender has numerous or

increasingly serious adult or juvenile convictions.

Florida 947.002, .165 Provides for establishment of objective parole criteria for persons

serving parole-eligible sentences based upon the offender’s present

criminal offense and his past criminal record.

Georgia 17-10-7 Prohibits parole for persons convicted of a felony for the fourth or

subsequent time.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 7 • Page 95

Statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions

(Note: States which do not have statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State Citation Statutory provision

(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Hawaii 706-669 Requires the state paroling authority to establish guidelines for

determining minimum terms of imprisonment, taking into account the

seriousness of the offense and the offender’s prior criminal history.

706-660.1 Provides for mandatory terms of imprisonment without parole for

persons convicted of second or subsequent firearm felony offenses.

Idaho 20-223(b) Provides that persons serving sentences for sex offenses who have a

history of previous sex offenses shall be ineligible for parole.

Illinois 38-1003-3-4 Provides that parole board shall make its determination based upon,

among other things, the presentence report (which contains

information about the offender’s criminal history).

38-1005-5-3 Provides for sentencing certain offenders to terms of imprisonment

without parole based upon prior criminal history.

Indiana 11-13-3-3 Provides that parole decisions shall be based in part upon inmates’

past criminal histories.

Iowa 902.8 Habitual offenders not eligible for parole until minimum sentence is

served.

902.11 Person convicted of a forcible felony with a prior violent felony

conviction or convicted of a nonforcible felony with a prior forcible

felony conviction within previous five years is ineligible for parole

until half of maximum sentence is served.

906.5 Parole board to consider previous criminal history.

Kansas 22-3717(f) Parole board to consider previous criminal history.

Kentucky 532.045 Prohibits parole for persons convicted of second or subsequent sex

offense against a minor.

439.340 Parole board required to obtain criminal history record of all paroleeligible offenders. Board shall consider previous criminal record in

parole decisions.

Louisiana 15:574.4 Portion of sentence that convicted felon must serve before parole

eligibility dependent upon numbers of previous felony convictions

and whether previous sentence has been served. Parole board shall

consider previous criminal record.

Code Crim. Proc. art. 875,

876

Requires presentence report (with criminal history) to be sent to

division of probation and parole with committed offender.

Maryland 27-286, -286D Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted of repeat drug

violations.

27-643B Provides for mandatory 25-year term with limited parole eligibility for

person convicted of third crime of violence who has served at least one

prior prison term for a crime of violence. Provides for life without

parole for fourth conviction for a crime of violence.

Massachusetts 127-133B Person convicted as habitual offender not eligible for parole until half

of maximum term is served.

94C-32H Person convicted of repeat drug offenses not eligible for parole until

mandatory minimum term is served.

Michigan 333.7413 Person convicted of drug trafficking for second or subsequent time

sentenced to life without parole.
Page 96 • Appendix 8 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Appendix 8

Sample Criminal History Record Formats

• Florida

• Hawaii

• Utah

• Virginia

Editor’s note: These criminal history records are actual sample test records

provided by these States, and each record appears in its original format.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Page 110 • Appendix 9 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Appendix 9

Federal Bureau of Investigation/Bureau of Justice Statistics

 Recommended Voluntary Reporting Standards for Improving the

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

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

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.

1U.S. Department of Justice, Federal

Bureau of Investigation and Bureau of

Justice Statistics, “Recommended

Voluntary Standards for Improving the

Quality of Criminal History Record

Information,” Federal Register 56

(February 13, 1991) p. 5849.

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

Appendix 10

“Overview of State criminal history record systems, 1992”

Table 1 from

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992
 Page 113 • Appendix 10 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

 

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

Percent of arrests System has

Percent of in database which have information

record Fully Number of subjects final dispositions recorded System flags to identify

subjects automated (individual offenders) in Arrests subjects with unflagged

in master master State criminal history file All within felony felony

State name index name index Total Automated arrests past 5 years convictions convictions

 

Total 47,307,900 36,404,800

Alabama 100% Yes 1,300,000 1,300,000 25% 40% All†

Alaska 100 Yes 180,500 130,500 84 86 All††

Arizona 100 Yes 631,000 342,600 . . . 5 7 All†

Arkansas 100 Noa 417,600 132,600 . . . . . . All††

California 100 Yes 4,675,400 3,675,400 . . . 7 0 Some†† All

Colorado 100% Yes 575,700 575,700 11% . . . Some** All

Connecticut 100 Yes 648,700 325,600 . . . 95%

Delaware 100b Yes 237,300 158,000 5 0 6 2 Some

District of Columbia 100 Noc 456,100 101,100 . . . . . . Some†† Some

Florida 100 Yes 2,671,700 2,671,700 52 32 Some** Some

Georgia 100% Yes 1,445,000 1,445,000 54% 45% All††

Hawaii 100 Yes 309,600 309,600 8 7 . . . All††

Idaho 100 Yes 132,300 76,200 . . . 4 5 All††

Illinois 88d Yes 2,493,200 2,193,200 5 2 . . . All††

Indiana 100 Noe 735,800 667,800 30 40-50

Iowa 100% Yes 377,000 226,200 90% 90% All

Kansas 100 Yes 599,600 137,800 . . . . . . Some†† Some

Kentucky 100f Nog 530,500 424,500 30 30 Some

Louisiana 100 Yes 1,591,500 579,400 . . . . . . All

Maine 6 8 Noh 300,000 0 90 97 Some

Maryland 100% Yes 1,050,900 563,200 70% 70% Somei All

Massachusetts . . .j Nok 2,500,000 2,500,000 9 5 98 Some

Michigan 100 Yes 939,900 939,900 71 74 Some

Minnesota 100 Yes 232,500 157,500 50 70 Somel All

Mississippi 100 No 350,000+ 26,000 20-30 50

Missouri 100% Yes 647,700 473,900 50% 65% All††

Montana 100 Yes 107,100 107,100 . . . . . . All†

Nebraska 100 Nom 124,000 117,000 75 55 Some††

Nevada 100 Yes 102,800 102,800 4 0 4 0 All

New Hampshire 100 Yes 253,900 173,900 50 50 All†

New Jersey 100% Yes 1,187,400 987,400 90% 85% All††

New Mexico 100 Yes 201,000 0 15 20 Some

New York 88n Yes 4,123,500o 3,575,600 63 74 All†

North Carolina 100 Yes 529,800 459,300 87 85 Some††p Some

North Dakota 100 Noq 212,900 54,200 60 90 Some†r Some

Ohio 100%s Not 2,444,400 820,000 . . . . . . Some†u Some

Oklahoma 100 Yes 600,000 360,000 50% 50% Some

Oregon 100 Yes 661,800 661,800 . . . . . . Some††

Pennsylvania 100 Yes 1,414,500 1,414,500 . . . 6 5 All†

Puerto Rico 100 Yes 64,100 64,100 71 71 All††

Rhode Island 100% Yes 186,700 186,700 . . . . . .

South Carolina 100 Yes 695,900 629,200 71% 80% Some†† All

South Dakota 100 Yes 125,000 70,500 6 0 6 0 All

Tennessee 100 Nov 590,000 165,000 . . . . . .

Texas 100 Yes 4,277,700 4,277,700 3 9 . . . Some

Utah 100% Yes 325,000 325,000 5 0 5 5 All††

Vermont 100 Yes 130,000 0 95 85 Somew

Virginia 100 Yes 874,500 615,900 8 2 . . . All**

Virgin Islands NAx NA* 11,300 0 . . . . . .

Washington 100 Yes 643,300 643,300 70 68 All††

West Virginia 100% No* 750,000 0 . . . 75%

Wisconsin 100 Yes 574,800 393,300 . . . . . . Some†† Somey

Wyoming 100 Yes 67,100 67,100 78% 83 Some

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

Explanatory Notes for Table 1

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

Note: Percentages and numbers reported are results of estimates. Numbers have

been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest

whole number. The figures contained in the column "Number of subjects

(individual offenders) in State criminal history file" apply only to the criminal

history file, including partially automated files, and do not include the master

name index. Final dispositions include release by police without charging,

declination to proceed by prosecutor, or final trial court disposition.

* State is fully manual.

. . . Not available.

NA Not applicable.

† Flag is set when arrest information iss entered.

†† Flag is set when conviction information

 is entered.

** Flag is set at both arrest and conviction.

aAll automated records and approximately 50% of the manual records are

contained in an automated master name index (MNI).

bResponse indicates an increase from 95% reported in 1990.

cTraffic and misdemeanor cases are not included in the automated MNI.

dResponse indicates an increase from 86% reported in 1990.

eMore arrest information is being placed in the MNI than in 1989 which has

resulted in a backlog which should be cleared in 12-18 months. New information

is current, but adding the additional information to prior MNI entries has not been

completed.

f

Response indicates an increase from 70% reported in 1990.

gThe manual file is not in the automated MNI.

hApproximately 20,000 names, name derivatives and aliases have been entered

into a temporary, abbreviated automated MNI; however, the MNI is not usable at

this time for a name search.

i

The flag is generated on demand when an inquiry is made against the file.

j

There are 2.5 million records in the criminal history file which is court-based;

these records are not on the MNI. There are 760,000 records that are

arrest/fingerprint-based; these records are on the MNI.

kThere are 760,000 records that are automated; a backlog consisting of 80,000

records are not yet on the MNI.

l

The data field has been created, but the flag is not currently being set.

mAdding all records onto the automated MNI is in process.

nManual records with no activity since 1971 are not on the MNI.

oThe figure represents the number of subjects in the criminal history file; however,

28% of the database consists of civil purpose files.

pMost of the current dispositions contain a felony or misdemeanor flag for each

offense; however, the programs to flag the identification segment for an inquiry

with purpose code “F” have not been developed.

qOnly those with a date of birth of 1940 and later are included in the automated

MNI.

r

Effective July 1, 1993, the flag is now set at conviction.

s

Response indicates an increase from 35% reported in 1990.

t

The automated MNI contains all arrest subjects since 1972.

uOnly recent additions to the file are flagged.

vRespondent is undertaking an on-going data entry program to fully automate

the MNI.

wChanges in court documents have resulted in not “all” cases having sufficient

information to flag felonies.

xThe Virgin Islands Record Bureau does not have a MNI; only a manual criminal

history file is maintained.

yCurrently some arrest transactions are flagged indicating felony convictions. A

felony flag that will appear in the identification segment of the record is currently

being developed.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 11 • Page 115

Appendix 11

“Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State

criminal history file, 1984, 1989 and 1992”

Table 2 from

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992
Page 116 • Appendix 11 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

 

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

Number of subjects in Number of subjects in manual and automated files, 1992 Percent of Percent change

manual and automated files Manual Automated automated files in total files 

State 1984 1989 Total file file 1989 1992 1984-89 1989-92

 

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

Alabama 900,000 1,000,000 1,300,000 0 1,300,000 50% 100% 11% 30%

Alaska 124,400 143,000 180,500 50,000 130,500 86 72 15 21

Arizona 500,400 742,100 631,000 288,400 342,600 39 54 48 -15c

Arkansas 550,100 480,000 417,600 285,000 132,600 0 32 -13 -15d

California 3,600,000 4,500,000 4,675,400 1,000,000e 3,675,400 67 79 25 4

Colorado 336,800 489,000 575,700 0 575,700 100% 100% 45% 18%

Connecticut 50,000 401,400 648,700 323,100 325,600 58 50 703 62

Delaware 206,000 600,000 237,300 79,300 158,000 8 3 6 7 191 -60f

District of Columbia . . . 427,000 456,100 355,000 101,100 0 2 2 . . . 7

Florida 1,651,700 2,427,900 2,671,700 0 2,671,700 95 100 47 10

Georgia 782,000 1,055,000 1,445,000 0 1,445,000 100% 100% 35% 37%

Hawaii 203,600 270,500 309,600 0 309,600 100 100 33 14

Idaho 137,100 105,000 132,300 56,100 76,200 100 57 -23 26

Illinois 1,900,000 2,152,300 2,493,200 300,000 2,193,200 86 88 13 16

Indiana 375,000 670,000 735,800 68,000 667,800 10 91 79 10

Iowa 275,000 300,000 377,000 150,800 226,200 43% 60% 9% 26%

Kansas 400,000 520,000 599,600 461,800 137,800 3 23 30 15

Kentucky 297,000 535,100 530,500 106,000 424,500 72 79 80 -1

Louisiana 261,400 1,449,000 1,591,500 1,012,100 579,400 33 36 454 10

Maine 285,000g 270,000 300,000 300,000 0 0 0 -5 11

Maryland 250,000 649,300 1,050,900 487,700 563,200 69% 54% 160% 62%

Massachusetts 1,740,000 2,260,000 2,500,000 0 2,500,000 21 100 30 11

Michigan 668,800 771,800 939,900 0 939,900 100 100 15 22

Minnesota 143,000 190,600 232,500 75,000 157,500 61 68 33 22

Mississippi . . . 350,000 350,000+ 324,000 26,000 0 7 . . . . . .

Missouri 503,000 593,000 647,700 173,800 473,900 81% 73% 91% -32%

Montana 70,700 86,000 107,100 0 107,100 100 100 22 25

Nebraska 180,000 300,000 124,000c 7,000 117,000 40 94 67 -59

Nevada no repository 31,300 102,800 0 102,800 100 100 228

New Hampshire 135,000 155,000 253,900 80,000 173,900 93 68 15 39

New Jersey 1,000,000 1,090,200 1,187,400 200,000 987,400 77% 83% 9% 9%

New Mexico . . . 207,000 201,000h 201,000 0 0 0 . . . -3

New Yorki 4,000,000 3,812,100 4,123,400 547,800 3,575,600 82 88 -5 8

North Carolina 307,800 432,800 529,800 70,500 459,300 83 87 41 22

North Dakota 179,500 202,000 212,900 158,700 54,200 21 25 13 5

Ohio 1,641,300 2,315,700 2,444,400 1,624,400 820,000 25% 34% 41% 6%

Oklahoma . . . 500,000 600,000 240,000 360,000 3 3 6 0 . . . 2 0

Oregon 337,600 548,500 661,800 0 661,800 100 100 63 21

Pennsylvania 1,053,300 1,265,800 1,414,500 0 1,414,500 39 100 20 12

Puerto Rico . . . 45,400 64,100 0 64,100 100 100 . . . 4 5

Rhode Island . . . 156,900 186,700 0 186,700 100% 100% . . . 19%

South Carolina 383,900 572,900 695,900 66,700 629,200 87 90 49% 21

South Dakota 150,000 144,000j 125,000 54,500 70,500 0 56 -6 -13

Tennessee . . . 500,000 590,000 425,000 165,000 0 2 8 . . . 1 8

Texas 3,001,000 3,789,500 4,277,700 0 4,277,700 99 100 26 13

Utah 226,300 430,200 325,000k 0 325,000 77% 100% 90% -25%l

Vermont 100,000 118,000 130,000 130,000 0 0 0 18 10

Virginia 570,000 744,000 874,500 258,600 615,900 56 70 31 18

Virgin Islands . . . . . . 11,300 11,300 0 . . . 0 . . . . . .

Washington 275,000 474,100 643,300 0 643,300 100 100 72 36

West Virginia 192,100 650,000 750,000 750,000 0 0% 0% 238% 15%

Wisconsin 371,600 491,000 574,800 181,500 393,300 55 68 32 17

Wyoming 52,100 62,000 67,100 0 67,100 84 100 19 8

 

Note: The numbers reported are results of estimates.

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole

number. Numbers reported in the “Total” and

“Automated file” columns include subjects whose

records are partially automated, but do not include

the master name index.

. . . Not available.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 11 • Page 117

Explanatory Notes for Table 2

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

aThis figure does not include the District of Columbia, Mississippi, New Mexico,

Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Tennessee and the Virgin Islands for

which 1984 data was not reported. It also does not include Nevada which did

not have a repository in 1984. Except for Massachusetts and Vermont for which

corrected data was submitted, the data in this column is taken from Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Technical Report: State Criminal Records Repositories

(October 1985), Table 1. The numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

bThis figure does not include the Virgin Islands for which 1989 data was not

reported. Except for Arkansas, Massachusetts, Missouri and Puerto Rico for

which corrected data was submitted, the data in this column is taken from Bureau

of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems (March 1991), Table 2.

cThe total number of criminal history files has decreased due to the elimination of

deceased records and purged records.

dThe total number of criminal history files has been decreasing due to purging of

old and duplicate records, as well as civil files that were erroneously given

criminal identification numbers.

eThe number of manual records has decreased from 1,500,000 in 1989 due to the

purging of older, inactive files.

f

Decrease in total files is the result of excluding traffic files which were assumed

included in the 1989 figure.

gRespondent indicated that this figure includes many records which have since

been purged because the records contained only non-serious offenses.

hResponse is based on more accurate information which is now available.

i

Variations in the figures for 1984, 1989 and 1992 are attributable to a five-year

purge project in which 700,000 records were removed.

j

The number of subjects reported for 1989 included outdated misdemeanor

records which were purged when automation of the arrest data began in 1990.

kThe lower number in 1992 is the result of purging inactive files.

l

Utah now uses only the automated criminal history file.
Page 118 • Appendix 12 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Appendix 12

“Number of final dispositions reported to State

criminal history repository, 1983, 1989 and 1992”

Table 3 from

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 12 • Page 119

 

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

 Number of dispositions reported Percent change 

State 1983 1989 1992 1983-89 1989-92

 

Alabama . . . 35,000 192,000 449%

Alaska 16,600 40,800 26,400 146 % -35

Arizona 59,900 112,500 112,200 8 8 -<1

Arkansas 4,000 7,000 18,000 75 157

California 590,000 850,000 1,011,300 44 19

Colorado 24,600a . . . . . .

Connecticut 110,300 142,900 139,800 30% -2%

Delaware 20,800 74,000 92,000 256 24

District of Columbia . . . . . . 13,600

Florida 171,300 110,000 173,400 -36 58

Georgia . . . 260,000 . . .

Hawaii 21,800 54,800 56,000 151% 2%

Idaho . . . . . . 20,000 11

Illinois . . . 135,000 149,400

Indiana 30,900 20,000 44,600 -35 123

Iowa . . . 23,000 . . .

Kansas 24,700 28,900 41,300 17% 43%

Kentucky 25,200 6,000 . . . -76

Louisiana 19,500 30,000 21,100 54 -30

Maine 15,000 30,000 27,800b 100 -7

Maryland . . . 436,600 500,100 14%

Massachusetts . . . . . . 270,000

Michigan 54,700 . . . 307,400c

Minnesota 24,000 45,000 103,000 88% 129

Mississippi . . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . 9,600 . . .

Nebraska 16,200 12,400 25,900 -24% 109%

Nevada . . . 20,000 29,700 48

New Hampshire 32,200 . . . . . .

New Jersey 95,600 200,000 250,000 109% 25%

New Mexico . . . 2,600 9,800 277

New York . . . 443,000 500,000 13

North Carolina 50,000 60,000 65,000 20 8

North Dakota 2,300 4,000 6,200 74 55

Ohio 40,400 65,000 . . . 61%

Oklahoma . . . . . . 15,000

Oregon 50,400 . . . . . .

Pennsylvania 56,600 74,200 219,000 31 195%

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . .

South Carolina 62,400a . . . . . .

South Dakota . . . . . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . . . .

Texas 113,100 . . . . . .

Utah 20,000 . . . . . .

Vermont . . . 18,700 . . .

Virginia 104,400 141,600 228,100 36% 61%

Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . .

Washington 41,800 . . . . . .

West Virginia 12,800 38,000 6,000 197% -84%d

Wisconsin 49,000 58,800 90,800 20 54

Wyoming 13,700 6,000 9,000 -56 50

 

Note: Final dispositions include release by the

police without charging, decline to proceed by

prosecutor, or final trial court disposition. Numbers

reported are the results of estimates. Numbers have

been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have

been rounded to the nearest whole number. Except

for Maine, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and

Virginia for which corrected data was submitted, the

data in the column for 1983 is taken from Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Technical Report: State Criminal

Records

Repositories (October 1985), Table 3. The data in

the column for 1989 is taken from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems

(March 1991), Table 3.

. . . Not available.

aThe figure represents the number of dispositions

during the fiscal year (July-June) rather than the

calendar year 1983.

bSince 1989, courts have noted a decrease in

caseload, although Uniform Crime Reports show an

increase in crime.

cThe number reported is atypical due to a records

improvement project which has resulted in a higher

number of dispositions during this period.

dThe number of reported dispositions has decreased

due to personnel shortages.
Page 120 • Appendix 13 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Appendix 13

“Automation of master name index

and criminal history file, 1989 and 1992”

Table 4 from

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 13 • Page 121

 

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

Prior manual record

Master name index Criminal history file is automated if offender

is automated is automated is re-arrested 

State 1989 1992 1989 1992 1989 1992

 

Alabama Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes

Alaska Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

Arizona Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

Arkansas Partial Partiala No Partial Yes

California Yes Yes Partial Partial No No

Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Connecticut Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

Delaware Partial Yes Partial Partial Nob Nob

District of Columbia Partial Partialc No Partial Nob 

Florida Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes

Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes

Hawaii Yes Yes Yes Yes Nob

Idaho Yes Yes Yes Partiald Yes

Illinois Partial Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

Indiana Yes Partiale Partial Partial Yes Yes

Iowa Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

Kansas Yes Yes Partial Partial No Yes

Kentucky Partial Partialf Partial Partial Yes Yes

Louisiana Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

Maine No Partialg No No No

Maryland Yes Yes Partial Partial . . . Nob

Massachusetts Yes Yesh Partial Yes Yes Yes

Michigan Yes Yes Yes Yes

Minnesota Yes Yes Partial Partial No Nob

Mississippi No Partial No Yes No

Missouri Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes

Nebraska Partial Partiali Partial Partial Yes Yes

Nevada Yes Yes Yes Yes

New Hampshire Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

New Jersey Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

New Mexico Yes Yes No No No No

New York Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

North Carolina Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

North Dakota Partial Partialj Partial Partial Yes Yes

Ohio Partial Partialk Partial Partial No No

Oklahoma Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes

Pennsylvania Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes

Puerto Rico Yes Yes Yesl Yesl . . .

Rhode Island Yes Yes Yes Yes

South Carolina Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

South Dakota Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

Tennessee Partial Partialm No Partial Yes

Texas Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes

Utah Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes

Vermont Yes Yes No No

Virginia Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

Virgin Islands NA NAn . . . No

Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes

West Virginia No No No No

Wisconsin Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

Wyoming Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes

 

Note: Except for Puerto Rico for which additional

information has been submitted, the data in the

columns for 1989 is taken from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems

(March 1991), Table 4.

. . . Not available.

NA Not applicable.
Page 122 • Appendix 13 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Explanatory Notes for Table 4

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

aAll automated records and approximately 50% of the manual records are

contained in an automated master name index (MNI).

bOnly the new arrest information is automated.

cTraffic and misdemeanor cases are not included in the automated MNI.

dA backlog of arrest cards for second/subsequent arrests is awaiting entry onto

the automated criminal history file.

eMore arrest information is being placed in the MNI than in 1989. New

information is current, but adding the additional information to the prior MNI

entries has not been completed.

f

The manual file is not in the automated MNI.

gApproximately 20,000 names, name derivatives and aliases have been entered

into a temporary, abbreviated automated MNI; however, the MNI is not usable at

this time for a name search.

hThere are 760,000 records that are automated; however, a backlog consisting of

80,000 records are not yet on the MNI.

i

Adding all records onto the automated MNI is in process.

j

Only those with a date of birth of 1940 and later are included in the automated

MNI.

kThe automated MNI contains all arrest subjects since 1972.

l

Automated file was initiated in 1987. It contains only felonies and related

misdemeanors.

mRespondent is undertaking an on-going data entry program to fully automate

the MNI.

nThe Virgin Islands Record Bureau does not have a MNI; only a manual criminal

history file is maintained.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 14 • Page 123

Appendix 14

“Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989 and 1992”

Table 6 from

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992
Page 124 • Appendix 14 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

 

Table 6. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989 and 1992

Number of arrest Quality of fingerprint submissions Percent of arrest

fingerprint cards Percent of arrest fingerprint Percent of returned events in criminal

submitted to cards returned by State fingerprints history files which

State criminal Percent criminal history resubmitted and are fingerprint

history repository change, repository as unacceptable accepted supported 

State 1989 1992 1989-92 1989 1992 1989 1992 1989 1992

 

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

Alabama 292,900 197,200 -33% 4% 3% 0% 0% 100% 99%a

Alaskab 15,900 12,000 -25 18-20 0c 0 0 75d 3 9

Arizona 101,900 110,000 8 4 3 1 . . . 100 100

Arkansas 23,000 32,400 41 3 2 1 10 100 100

California 1,000,000 1,100,000 10 0 0 100 100e

Colorado 137,000 130,700 -5%f 8-15% 3% 0% 0-1% 100% 100%

Connecticut 97,100 114,000 17 <1 1 0 0 75g 100

Delaware 40,000 50,000 25 <1 0 0 95h 90i

District of Columbiaj 10,000k 42,700 327 1 0 95l 100

Florida 585,400 507,000m -13 6 0-1 25 30-50 100 100

Georgia 330,000 346,500 5% 4% 1% 0% 0-5% 100% 100%

Hawaii 52,700 52,600 -<1 . . . 0 . . . 98n 100

Idaho 27,300 28,200 3 2 0 10 100 100

Illinois 200,300 404,800 102 0 0 100 100

Indiana 46,400 52,300 13 15 40 5 10 100 100

Iowa 30,000 47,300 58% 7% 2% <1% 0% 100% 100%

Kansas 46,800 62,100 3 3 0 0 . . . 70-75o 0-65

Kentucky 22,500 41,300 84 10-15 0p 90-95 98 100

Louisiana 179,000 . . . . . . 1 0 5q 90 3q 100 100

Maine 6,500 7,300 12 <1 0-1 50 50 30r 3 0

Maryland 103,000 105,300 -31% 0% 1-2% . . . 100% 100%

Massachusetts 50,000-55,000 60,000 9-20 5-10 5 . . .s 15% 0t 0

Michigan 116,800 124,100 6 0 0 100 100

Minnesota 26,500 35,600 34 3 2-3 <1% 50 100 100

Mississippi 9,000 8,400 -7 5 0 . . . 7 5 . . . 100 100

Missouri 92,000 91,900 -<1% 10% 0-1% 0% 0% 100% 100%

Montana 12,000 26,000 117 5 0u 1 100 100

Nebraska 13,700 18,500 35 25 10 1 0 100 100

Nevada 36,300 53,700 48 7 1 1 25 100 100

New Hampshire 9,300 . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . 25-35v 5 0

New Jersey 145,700 123,300 -15%w 8% 2% 4% 50% 100% 100%

New Mexico 26,200 33,600 28 1 6 5 1 98 100

New York 520,100 496,500x -5 <5 0-5 100 100 90 99

North Carolina 63,200 75,000 19 5 5 10 10 100 100

North Dakota 5,000 7,000 40 10 10 0 0 100 100

Ohio 114,500 140,900 23% 5% 5% 1% 100% 100%

Oklahoma 60,000 59,500 -<1 1 7 8 1 0 . . . 100 100

Oregon 92,100 106,000 1 5 <1 . . . <1 . . . 100 100

Pennsylvania 166,700 168,100 1 11 0 75 100 100

Puerto Ricob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

Rhode Island 30,000 . . . . . . 1% . . . . . . . . . 100% 100%

South Carolina 154,400 161,900 5% 5 1 2% 0% 100 100

South Dakota 17,600 20,000 14 5-7 0y <1 100 100

Tennessee 75,000 90,000 20 5 12 25 1-2 100 100

Texas 398,400 450,000 13 0 0 100 100

Utah 50,200 53,500 7% 0% 5% . . . 100% 100%

Vermontb 9,000 7,000 -22 35-45 3 0 20% 10 35-40z 20aa

Virginia 110,000 134,100 22 20 1 90 5 100 100

Virgin Islands . . . 300 . . . . . . 3 . . . 0 . . . 100

Washington 131,600 160,600 2 2 5 2 3 . . . 100 100

West Virginia 37,200 . . . . . . 5% . . . 1% . . . 100% 100%

Wisconsin 78,600 96,500 23% . . . 13% . . . . . . 100 100

Wyoming 11,100 10,100 -9 0 1 0% 100 100

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

Explanatory Notes for Table 6

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

Note: Percentages and numbers reported are results of estimates. Numbers have

been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest

whole number. The total arrest fingerprint cards submitted to State criminal

history repositories in 1989 and in 1992 was calculated using the mid-point of

the range where a range appears in the underlying data. Except as noted in the

explanatory notes, arrest information is reported to all State criminal history

repositories by fingerprint cards only.

Except for Maryland and Wisconsin for which corrected data was submitted, the

data in the columns for 1989 is taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal

Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems

(March 1991), Table 6.

. . . Not available.

a A change in procedure now allows the use of a court disposition as an arrest

document when no arrest fingerprint card is received.

bState does not have a legal requirement that fingerprints and arrest data for all

felony arrests must be submitted to the State criminal history repository.

cThe State repository retains all fingerprint cards. Approximately 20% of the

cards submitted are of such poor quality that they are not entered into the

automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS), but they are retained as manual

paper cards.

dArrest information is reported by fingerprint cards, terminal, and court

judgments.

eAll disseminated arrests are fingerprint-based, with the exception of in-house

bookings at the California Department of Corrections (CDC). Those bookings are

based on a hook-up to the original fingerprint submitted by CDC. Dummy arrests

are not disseminated and are considered statistical data only, not criminal history

data.

f

Due to resource constraints, submission of certain fingerprints have been

discouraged; these include subsequent traffic arrests from the same agency

(driving under the influence, hit and run, vehicular homicide excepted), and

failure to appear and/or contempt of court when fingerprints were submitted for the

original charges.

gArrest information is reported on fingerprint cards and on uniform arrest reports

which may not include fingerprints.

hArrest information is reported by fingerprint cards and criminal summonses.

i

In some cases of minor offenses, State law and/or policy does not require

information to be supported by fingerprints; information is entered from criminal

summonses that are not supported by fingerprints. The decrease in the percent of

arrest events in the criminal history file from 1989 is the result of more accurate

figures based on a recent data quality audit.

j

The Metropolitan Police Department also serves as the central repository for

criminal records for the District of Columbia; fingerprinting, therefore, is performed

by the Police Department/repository.

kFigure is for fiscal year 1989 rather than calendar year 1989.

l

Arrest information is reported by hard copies of the arrest report.

mRepository no longer receives fingerprint cards for non-serious charges.

nArrest information is reported by terminal.

oArrest information is reported by fingerprint cards, terminal, final dispositions,

FBI abstracts, and other documents.

pApproximately 50% of the fingerprints received are unacceptable; however, none

are returned. Approximately 40% do get re-submitted.

qThe practice of returning most unacceptable fingerprints has been discontinued

due to the low rate of resubmissions. This percentage is for agencies which have

persons in custody or under supervision, i.e., the Department of Corrections and

Probation and Parole.

r

Approximately 70% of all persons charged with a criminal offense are summoned

to appear in court. In 1987, the fingerprint law was changed to provide that

persons being summoned instead of arrested are to be fingerprinted. Prior to the

change, the law mandated that a person had to be "in custody charged with the

commission of a crime" to be fingerprinted. Training is on-going to bring the

submission rate into compliance.

s

Resubmissions are rare.

t

Although arrests are fingerprint-supported, the arrests are not linked to the case

cycle; therefore, the criminal history file is not fingerprint-supported.

uThe repository is no longer returning unacceptable fingerprints.

vArrest information is reported by fingerprint cards and court abstracts.

wThe decrease in fingerprint cards submitted was due to a decrease in criminal

arrests.

xThe 1992 figure reflects a decrease in arrests.

yApproximately 8% of the fingerprints submitted are unacceptable, but none are

returned; a jacket is created to store the fingerprint card.

zArrest information is reported on an arrest/custody form which need not be

accompanied by fingerprints.

aaResponse is based on the results of an audit.
Page 126 • Appendix 15 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Appendix 15

“Notice to State criminal history repository of release of

arrested persons without charging, 1989 and 1992”

Table 7 from

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 15 • Page 127

 

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

If an arrestee is not Percent of fingerprint

charged after submission of submissions for which

fingerprints, State law requires repository is notified that

notification of repository arrestee has not been charged 

State 1989 1992 1989 1992

 

Alabama Yes Yes <1% 1%

Alaska No No

Arizona No Yes . . .

Arkansas No No <1

California Yes Yes . . . . . .

Colorado Yes Yes 10% . . .

Connecticut No No

Delaware No No

District of Columbiaa

Florida No No . . .

Georgia Yes Yes 100% . . .

Hawaii Yes Yes 90+ 99%

Idaho Yes Yes . . . . . .

Illinois Yes Yes 0 . . .

Indiana Yes Yes 5 0 . . .

Iowa Yes Yes . . . 98%

Kansas Yes Yes . . . . . .

Kentucky No Yes . . .

Louisiana No No

Maine Yes Yes <1% 3

Maryland Yes Yes . . . . . .

Massachusetts No No

Michiganb Yes . . .

Minnesota Yes Yes 80% 80%

Mississippi No No 10

Missouri No No

Montana Yes Yes . . .

Nebraska Yes Yes 10% 40%

Nevada Yes Yes 9 0 8 0

New Hampshire No No

New Jersey No No

New Mexico No No

New York No Yes . . .

North Carolinab No No

North Dakota Yes Yes . . . . . .

Ohio No No

Oklahoma No No

Oregon No No

Pennsylvania Yes Yes . . .

Puerto Rico No No . . .

Rhode Island No No

South Carolina No No 75%

South Dakota Yes Yes 1

Tennessee No No . . .

Texas No Yes . . .

Utah No No

Vermont Yes Yesc 100%d

Virginia No No

Virgin Islands . . . No

Washington No Yes . . .

West Virginia Yes Yes 60% . . .

Wisconsin Yes Yes . . . . . .

Wyoming Yes Yes 6 0 80%

 

Note: Percentages reported are results of estimates. Percentages have been

rounded to the nearest whole number. Except for Florida and Puerto Rico for

which corrected data was received, the data in the columns for 1989 is taken from

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of

Criminal Information Systems (March 1991), Table 7.

. . . Not available.

aBoth the fingerprinting and the filing of charges are performed at the same unit.

bPolice must release or charge an individual before sending fingerprints to the

repository.

cAlthough the requirement exists, it is not enforced.

dThe repository receives arraignment reports on all arraignments from the courts.

If no arraignment is received within six months, the repository contacts the

arresting agency.
Page 128 • Appendix 16 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Appendix 16

“Average number of days to process arrest data submitted

to State criminal history repository, 1989 and 1992”

Table 12 from

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 16 • Page 129

 

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

Average number of days Average number of days between receipt 

between arrest and receipt of fingerprints and entry of data into: Backlog of entering data 

of arrest data and fingerprints Master name index Criminal history database into criminal history database

State 1989 1992 1989 1992 1989 1992 1989 1992

 

Alabama 7 1 0 3 5a 3 5a No No

Alaska 1 4 15b 7 15 7 15b No No

Arizona 1 7 14c 17 11d 17 11d No No

Arkansas 3 0 5 6 0 3 0 6 0 3 0 Yese Yesf

California 2 1 25-30g 15-20 60h 15-20 72h Noi Yesj

Colorado 7 1 0 2 1-2 2 . . .k No Yesj

Connecticut 7 10 7 60l 7 60l No Yesm

Delaware 2-3 5 2-3 2-3 . . . 0-1 No No

District of Columbia <1 < 1 <1 1 NAn 1 No Yeso

Florida 3-5 3-10 30 30 30 30 Yesp Yesq

Georgia 3-4 2 252 1 252 1 Yes No

Hawaii 7 7-30 7 1 7 1 No No

Idaho 6 30r 7 5 7 5 No Yess

Illinois 1-5 10t 1 . . . 1 . . . No Yesu

Indiana 7 7 6 0 30 7-21 30-60 Yesv Yesj

Iowa 7 7 7 7 7 90w No Yesx

Kansas 3-5 10y 1 . . . 1 . . . No Yesj

Kentucky 14 10 2 3 2 3 No No

Louisiana 7 5 365 270 365 630z Yesaa Yesbb

Maine 1 4 1 4 1 1 3 3 No No

Maryland 7 6-10 3 1 6 0 5 Yes No

Massachusetts 2 8 1 4 300 1 4 300 NAcc Yesdd Yesee

Michigan 7 . . . 5 10ff 5 10ff No No

Minnesota 14 28g g 14 1 14 1 No No

Mississippi 2 1 . . . 2 . . . 2 . . . No No

Missouri 30 34h h 3 2-3 3 2-3 No No

Montana . . . . . . 1-7 . . . 1 . . . No Yesii

Nebraska 3 0 7 1 3 1 3 No No

Nevada 1 0 1 0 6 0 2 6 0 2 Yesjj Yeskk

New Hampshire . . . 3 0 . . . 2 1-2 2 . . . No

New Jersey 7-14 14 1 1 1 1 No No

New Mexico 2 1 2 0 2 2 NA NA No No

New York 7 0-7 <1-14ll 0-7 <1-14ll 0-7 No Yesmm

North Carolina 7 5 15-20 1 2 15-20 1 2 No Yesj

North Dakota 7-10 7-10 <1 0-1 <1 0-1 No No

Ohio 14 25n n 14 10 14 35n n Nooo Yesj

Oklahoma 7-14 30 5 180p p 2 180p p No Yesj

Oregon 14 3-5 1-10 2 1-10 2 No No

Pennsylvania 5 7 7-112 14 7-112 14 Yesqq No

Puerto Rico . . . 1 . . . 5 . . . 5 . . . No

Rhode Island 3 0 . . . 3 . . . 3 . . . No Yesrr

South Carolina 5 10ss 10 10 10 10 No No

South Dakota 7-14 5-14 1 1 1 1 No No

Tennessee 7-14 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 No Yesj

Texas 1 4 1 4 2 2 1 4 6 No Yesrr

Utah 7-14 14 7 14tt 7 14tt No No

Vermont 7 14-21 7-10 1 0 7-10 . . . Yesuu Yesj

Virginia 3-5 3-5 5 2-4 5 5-7 No No

Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . No

Washington 5-42 14 5-10 7 5-10 7 No Yesvv

West Virginia 3-10 14 3-4 3 3-4 10ww No No

Wisconsin 2-3 2 9 1 4 . . . 1 4 . . . No Yes

Wyoming 7 10 7 5-7 7 5-7 No No

 

Note: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

The data in the columns for 1989 is taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information

Systems (March 1991), Table 12.

. . . Not available.

NA Not applicable.
Page 130 • Appendix 16 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Explanatory Notes for Table 12

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

aWorkload has increased and personnel has decreased resulting in longer amount

of time to enter data.

bThe repository is not the usual data entry point for arrest information into the

criminal history database. Arresting agencies enter the data directly; therefore,

arrest data is in the criminal history database prior to the receipt of the fingerprint

cards. Arrest data is entered in approximately two days but is not fingerprintsupported until approximately 15 days.

cData reported is for 1991. No data is available for 1992.

dMaster name index entries and criminal history file entries occur simultaneously.

Data reported is for 1991. No data is available for 1992.

eNormal processing time would be three to four days up to one week.

f

The backlog has consistently averaged about one month.

gIncrease in turnaround of arrest data and fingerprint submissions from the local

agency is due to lack of staff at the local agency. Both state and local agencies

have experienced economic reductions.

hIncrease in time is due to lack of staff and backlogs.

i

The current processing time of 15-20 days is slower than preferred, but with the

present staff and workload, this is not considered a backlog.

j

Backlog is primarily due to a personnel shortage.

kInformation is entered upon request only, unless the offense is a serious felony.

This procedure is being followed pending the elimination of an automated

fingerprint identification system (AFIS) backlog. When the backlog is eliminated,

posting should occur within 72 hours.

l

An increase in crime has resulted in greater workloads; at the same time, there is

also a lack of personnel.

mArrest data on repeat offenders is entered weekly. Due to a lack of personnel,

new arrest data is entered in about 60 days.

nFingerprinting is performed at the repository. It takes approximately two weeks

to microfiche the arrest data.

oCurrently there is a two-week backlog on repeat offender cases only.

pRespondent indicated that 30 days is the optimum processing time. Currently,

the repository has approximately 30,000 cards which have been name searched

and are ready for entry into the criminal history database, and approximately

15,000 cards which have not been either name searched or entered into the

database.

qThere are approximately 19,000 cards at various stages of entry.

r

Response is based on a recently completed data quality audit.

s

As of December 31, 1992, there was a backlog of 32,966 fingerprint arrest cards

for second and subsequent arrests.

t

As a result of conducting local agency audits since 1989, the average time

between arrest and receipt of fingerprint cards and arrest data at the repository has

been determined to be 10 days.

uRespondent anticipates that the sizeable backlog that currently exists will be

resolved in 1993.

vThe present backlog is due to implementation of an automated fingerprint

identification system (AFIS) and will be worked out within a few months.

wFigure is for first arrests. The increase since 1989 in the average days to enter

arrest data into the criminal history database is due to loss of personnel, especially

fingerprint technicians, and to an increase in the number of fingerprint cards

received.

xA change in the “unable to classify” fingerprint policy, the increased number of

fingerprints received and the lack of resources, specifically fingerprint technicians,

have caused the backlog.

yMore accurate information is now known.

zThe increase in time to enter arrest data into the database is due to the enormous

growth of the backlog.

aaNormal processing time would be one week.

bbThe backlog has been caused by an increased workload due to growth in the

statutorily required applicant background processing.

ccArrest data is not currently entered into the court-based criminal history file.

ddNormal processing time would be one week or less.

eeThere is a backlog; however, newly received cards are processed as a priority.

ffA more thorough analysis of the maximum processing time has been conducted

resulting in a more accurate estimate for 1992.

ggResponse is based on the result of a baseline audit.

hhFigure represents receipt time for 1991 arrests.

iiDue to the obtaining of an AFIS, no data entry was done from August 1 to

December 31, 1992. The backlog is being reduced rapidly and should be

completed by September 1993.

jjThe target processing time is three days.

kkArrest data received in the form of arrest fingerprint cards is entered into the

automated, temporary criminal history record file within two days of receipt. The

names and aliases are placed in the master name index at that time. The fingerprint

cards are then placed in a backlog for fingerprint search/identification processing.

As of December 31, 1992, approximately 35,000 fingerprint cards were awaiting

processing.

llArrest fingerprints for purposes of bail hearings are sent by facsimile and have

priority; they are entered within two hours.

mmThe repository supports a statewide facsimile network for the transmission of

arrest fingerprints for persons awaiting arraignment. The network handles about

half of the statewide arrest fingerprint volume and are typically processed and the

rap sheet updated or created within two hours. Priority work is handled within

seven days of receipt.

nnIncrease in time is due to heavy submissions and less personnel to accomplish

the task.

ooFirst offenders are current; processing time is two to three days. The processing

time for offenders with prior records takes about two weeks because there are more

repeat offenders and more coding is required.

ppIncrease in time is the result of a personnel shortage.

qqA backlog of 5,000-7,000 cards per month exists. Respondent anticipates that

the AFIS implementation will reduce processing time to three days.

rrA backlog of approximately one month currently exists.

ssIncrease is due to personnel cutbacks and added workload.

ttThe increased time is due to a backlog resulting from the increased submission

of applicant cards that the repository is now required to process.

uuNormal processing time would be one to two days.

vvA backlog of approximately 31,400 misdemeanor upgrade cards exists.

wwIncrease is due to an increase in submission of data.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 17 • Page 131

Appendix 17

“Average number of days to process disposition data submitted

to State criminal history repository, 1989 and 1992”

Table 13 from

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992
Page 132 • Appendix 17 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

 

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

Average number of days Average number of days between 

between final trial court receipt of final trial court disposition Backlog of entering data 

disposition and receipt of data and entry of data into database into criminal history database

State 1989 1992 1989 1992 1989 1992

 

Alabama 7 90a 3 5b No No

Alaska 1 4 35c 2 21c No Yesd

Arizona 5 7 2 4 4 5 2 4 Noe No

Arkansas 6 0 4 0 6 0 2 Yesf No 

California 3 0 0-120g 40 80h Noi Yesj

Colorado 4 2 . . .k 1 . . .k No Yesj

Connecticut 14-28 14-28 42-84 42-84 . . . Yesj

Delaware 1 4 1 4 NAl NAl Nom Yesn

District of Columbia NA . . . 2 1 5-7 . . . Yesj

Florida 180 4 5 180 . . .o Yesp Yeso

Georgia 3 0 1 0 952 1 Yes Yesq

Hawaii . . . 3 0 NA 1 0 No Yesj

Idaho 35 148r 730 . . . Yes Yess

Illinois . . . 40-45 1 . . . No Yest

Indiana 30 30-60u 42 60-90 Yesv Yesj

Iowa . . . 2 0 1 4 20w No Yesj

Kansas 7-14 90x 2 30y No Yesj

Kentucky 60-90 90 10-14 30z No Yes

Louisiana 3 0 . . . 365 . . . Yesaa Yes

Maine 1 4 1 0 1 1b b No No

Maryland 1 4 1 4 0cc 0cc No No

Massachusetts 2 2 7-10 0d d No No

Michigan 1-7 . . . 5 0-5 No No

Minnesota 28 31ee 56 365ff Yesj Yesj

Mississippigg 42-56 7-180 Yes

Missouri . . . 88h h 2-3 4-5 No No

Montana . . . . . . 2 . . . No Yesii

Nebraska 365 30-60 14 30jj No Yesj

Nevada 30 30 90 5 Yeskk No

New Hampshire 7 30ll 1 2 No No

New Jersey 7 7 60-90 5 Yesmm Yesnn

New Mexico 6 0 3 0 1 10o o No No

New York NA 0-180 0l 0-180pp No Yesqq

North Carolina 1 5 1 1 5 0 Noaa No

North Dakota 3 0 3 0 <1 0-1 No No

Ohio 21-60 . . . 0rr 3 No No

Oklahoma 1 4 30ss 14 30ss No No

Oregon . . . 7 30-90 0 Yestt Yesuu

Pennsylvania 180 180 2 0 No Yesvv

Puerto Rico . . . 4 . . . 6 . . . No

Rhode Island . . . . . . 2 . . . No Yesww

South Carolina 1 4 1 0 3 0 1 0 Yeskk No

South Dakota 30 30 2-3 14x x No No

Tennessee 28-42 . . . 2 . . . No Yesj

Texas 2 8 2 8 730 3 0 Yesyy Yeszz

Utah 180 30-60 14 7 No No

Vermont 1 0 1 0 3 5 Yesaaa No

Virginia 90-120 90-120 5 5 No No

Virgin Islands . . . 7-90 . . . 2 . . . No

Washington 6 0 6 0 2 8 3 0 No Yesj

West Virginia 20-30 30 10-15 42 Nobbb Yes

Wisconsin 14 56 60-90 . . . Yesccc Yesddd

Wyoming 7 20 3 7-10eee No Yesfff

 

Note: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

The data in the columns for 1989 is taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information

Systems (March 1991), Tables 12 and 13.

. . . Not available.

NA Not applicable.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 17 • Page 133

Explanatory Notes for Table 13

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

aIncreased time is the result of court backlogs.

bWorkload has increased and personnel has decreased resulting in a longer

period of time to enter data.

cThe 1992 estimate is based on more accurate information as a result of a baseline

data quality assessment.

dA backlog of one week exists for misdemeanor dispositions.

eDisposition information is held for 30 days to ensure that the arrest card is

received at the State criminal history repository (SCR).

f

Normal processing time would be two weeks; with the commencement of

automation in July 1990, the backlog will be eliminated.

gIncrease in time is due to lack of staff at the local agencies.

hIncrease in time is due to lack of staff.

i

The SCR operates under a court order to process dispositions within 90 days.

Respondent indicated that with the present and foreseeable staff levels and the

volume of documents the SCR handles, 40 days is normal processing time.

j

Backlog is due primarily to a personnel shortage at the repository and/or at

contributing agencies.

kFinal trial court dispositions are currently not received by the repository. This is

scheduled to occur electronically in 1993. Dispositions will be received weekly

and posted within 72 hours.

l

Dispositions are entered directly by the courts.

mDisposition data is current since 1988; there does exist a pre-1988 backlog.

nCourt does not enter all dispositions.

oRepository is in the process of developing software and automation upgrades

that will allow entry of historical and current dispositions. All available

dispositions will be entered at that time.

pRespondent indicated that a backlog of approximately 100,000 transactions

exists; in 1991, with the completion of automation of the courts in Florida,

processing time could be reduced to four to six weeks.

qCurrent dispositions are entered within 24 hours of receipt by the repository. A

backlog of 1986 dispositions is also being processed and will be eliminated by

June 30, 1993.

r

Figure is based on results of a data quality audit.

s

As of December 31, 1992, there was a backlog of approximately 43,300

dispositions.

t

Respondent anticipates that the sizeable backlog that currently exists will be

resolved in 1993.

uDue to changes in personnel, timeliness of court reporting has decreased. The

State repository is working on an educational approach to decrease the time for

receipt of court dispositions.

vThe backlog is due to AFIS implementation; the normal processing time is two

weeks.

wThe increase since 1989 in the average number of days between receipt of final

trial court dispositions and entry of data into the database is due to the loss of

personnel, the increase in the number of dispositions and the increase in the

number of dispositions which were returned due to insufficient information.

xMore accurate information is now known.

yThe increase in time is due to backlogs and lack of staff.

zIncrease in time is due to the reduction in data entry personnel.

aaTen days would be normal processing time.

bbInformation is maintained in a holding file; it is merged with the criminal record

when an inquiry is received.

ccDispositions are by tape entry upon receipt.

ddDisposition data is entered directly into the criminal history file from court

terminals.

eeResponse is based on the result of a baseline audit.

ffResponse is based on the result of a baseline audit. Increased workloads and

personnel decrease have resulted in the increase in time.

ggCourts rarely submit disposition data to the repository.

hhFigure is for 1991 dispositions.

iiDue to the obtaining of an automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS),

no data entry was done from August 1 to December 31, 1992. The backlog is

being reduced rapidly and should be completed by September 1993.

jjThe greater length of time is due to a backlog of court dispositions and an

overall increase in records.

kkNormal processing time would be one week.

llIncrease in time is due to the increased volume in the courts and the reduction in

their staff.

mmNormal processing time would be one to two weeks.

nnA current backlog of approximately 100,000 dispositions exists.

ooA sampling of dispositions showed the increase in time; priorities placed on

work received have also contributed to the increase.

ppThe State repository is updated daily by the State Office of Court

Administration for courts in large metropolitan areas; town and village courts

remain a paper-based process.

qqBacklog is due to manual records and processing of town and village court

dispositions which was taken over by the repository from the State Office of

Court Administration in 1992.

rrData is entered the same day it is received.

ssIncrease in time is due to a personnel shortage.

ttRespondent indicated that a backlog of about 35,000 dispositions currently

exists; normal processing time would be one to two days.

uuBacklog is due to manually submitted dispositions that require research and

verification.

vvBacklog is due to rejected data from the magnetic tape that must be manually

entered.

wwA one month backlog currently exists.

xxIncrease in time is due to a change in procedure for receiving disposition data

from the Unified Judicial System.

yyRespondent indicated that significant additional funding has been received to

eliminate the backlog within next year.

zzThis backlog has been significantly reduced over the past year.

aaaThere may be a backlog of 500-1,000 dispositions; normal processing time

would be the same day.

bbbDisposition reports are held for 10-12 days to ensure that the fingerprint cards

have been received and processed.

cccThere is a 20,000 document backlog; optimum processing time would be one

week.

dddFunds are currently being expended to decrease the backlog.

eeeReduction in personnel resulted in processing delays.

fffSome dispositions require clarification which creates a backlog.
Page 134 • Appendix 18 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Appendix 18

“Procedures employed by State criminal history repository

to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 1992”

Table 15 from

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 18 • Page 135

 

Table 15. Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 1992

Lists of arrests with 

no dispositions

generated to monitor Field Form Telephone

State disposition reporting visits letters calls

 

Alabama X X X X

Alaska X X X

Arizonaa XX 

Arkansas X X X X 

California X X 

Colorado X X X X 

Connecticut X X 

Delaware X X 

District of Columbiab

Floridac XXX

Georgiad 

Hawaii X 

Idaho X 

Illinois X X X X 

Indiana X 

Iowa X X 

Kansase XXX

Kentucky X X 

Louisiana X X 

Mainef XXX

Marylandg 

Massachusetts X

Michiganh X 

Minnesota X X X 

Mississippi 

Missouri X X 

Montanai X 

Nebraska X X X 

Nevadaj XXX 

New Hampshire X X 

New Jersey X X X 

New Mexico X X 

New York X X X X 

North Carolina X X X X 

North Dakotak X X X 

Ohiol XXX

Oklahomam XXX

Oregonn X X

Pennsylvaniao X XX 

Puerto Rico X X 

Rhode Island X X 

South Carolina X X X 

South Dakota X X 

Tennessee 

Texas X X X 

Utah X X X

Vermont p XX 

Virginiaq XX 

Virgin Islands X 

Washington X X X X 

West Virginiam XXX

Wisconsin X 

Wyoming X X X X 

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

Explanatory Notes for Table 15

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

aPreviously used field visits have been eliminated due to funding reductions.

bThe practice of using telephone calls has been changed; everything must now be

in written form.

cThe repository also uses microfilm and microfiche. Re-instituting a procedure of

generating lists of arrests for which final dispositions have not been received is

under consideration.

dThe repository also employs training, publishes operational bulletins, and

publishes requirements in the Georgia Crime Information Council Rules and

Superior Court Clerks’ Rules. Field visits, which were previously employed to

encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, have been discontinued due

to lack of funding.

eThe module to generate lists of arrests for which final dispositions have not been

recorded was activated July 1, 1993. The repository also uses audits and

communications requests to encourage complete reporting.

f

The repository also participates in the training of all new recruits at the Criminal

Justice Academy.

gThe repository also conducts work sessions with contributors and seeks their

cooperative efforts in establishing better reporting procedures.

hThe practice of field visits was in place from 1987 through the spring of 1992;

at that time personnel who were performing the task were no longer available, and

the field visits were stopped.

i

A new rule will be going into effect that will change the procedures employed.

j

The practice of generating lists of arrests with no dispositions was discontinued

because the procedure was taking too much computer time to generate the report,

and users experienced response time problems when the report was prepared from

the criminal history record database.

kPreviously used form letters have been replaced by personal contact.

l

The repository also conducts seminars with court officials and requests their

cooperation in submitting dispositions to the repository.

mThe repository also employs training.

nGenerating lists of arrests for which dispositions were not recorded and the use

of form letters were discontinued due to the backlog in entering disposition data

at the repository.

oThe repository will also be using audits that will include surveys and field visits

in the future.

pField visits have been discontinued due to lack of staff.

qThe repository is currently developing the capability to generate computer lists

of missing dispositions.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 19 • Page 137

Appendix 19

“Methods used to link disposition information to arrest/charge

information on criminal history record, 1992”

Table 16 from

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992
Page 138 • Appendix 19 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

 

Table 16. Methods used to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 1992

Unique tracking Name and

number for reporting

individual Unique arrest Unique charge Arrest Subject agency

State subject event identifier identifier date name case number Other

 

Alabama* X X XX X

Alaska X X X X Xa

Arizona* X X X X X X 

Arkansas* X X X X 

California X X X X X X 

Colorado* Xb Xa

Connecticut* X X X 

Delaware* X X X X X X Xc

District of Columbia* X X X X X Xd Xc

Florida* X X X X X X 

Georgia* X X 

Hawaii* X X X X X 

Idaho* X X X 

Illinois X Xa

Indiana* X X X X X X Xd

Iowae XX X 

Kansas* X X X X X 

Kentucky* X X X X X X 

Louisiana X X X 

Maine* X X X X X 

Maryland* X X Xf

Massachusetts*g

Michigan X 

Minnesota X X X 

Mississippi* X X X Xh

Missouri* X X X X X 

Montana* Xi XX X 

Nebraska* X X X X X X Xj

Nevada* X X 

New Hampshire* X X X 

New Jersey* X X X X X X 

New Mexico X X X X X 

New York* X X X X X X 

North Carolina X X X X 

North Dakota X X X X X 

Ohio* X X X X X X Xa

Oklahoma X 

Oregon*k X X X XX X 

Pennsylvania* X X X X 

Puerto Rico* X X X X X 

Rhode Island* X X 

South Carolina* X X X X X 

South Dakota X X Xl 

Tennessee X X X X 

Texas*m Xm Xm Xm XX 

Utah* X 

Vermont* X X X X X X 

Virginia* X X 

Virgin Islands* X Xn

Washington* X X X X X X 

West Virginia X X

Wisconsin* X X X X 

Wyoming* X X X X X X 

 

Note: Repositories were asked to list all methods which may be utilized to link

disposition information. Matching of several items of information may be used to

confirm that the appropriate link is being made. Also if information of one type is

missing, repositories may look to other types of information contained on the

disposition report.

*Method(s) utilized by the repository for linking disposition information and

arrest/charge information also permit the linking of dispositions to particular

charges and/or specific counts.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 19 • Page 139

Explanatory Notes for Table 16

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

aCourt case number.

bThe repository uses a number constructed of the unique arrest-event identifier,

the arrest date and the originating agency identifier (ORI). This replaced the

computer-assigned unique tracking number previously used.

cCriminal Justice Information System (CJIS) case number.

dFingerprint verification.

eThe former method used for linking disposition data was discontinued in 1992;

effective January 1, 1993, a new disposition tracking number was instituted.

f

Case numbers.

gPresent plans call for a unique tracking number.

hDate of birth and social security number.

i

Pending.

j

Agency ORI.

kThe method for linking dispositions to particular charges applies only when

there is a single count; it is not applicable for multiple counts.

l

The unified court system has allowed the repository’s process control number

that is unique to the arrest event to be placed on its automated system. In the

majority of cases, this tracking number works; the name serves as the backup to

query for state identification (SID) number, date of arrest and ORI to make the

link.

mPlanned system enhancement.

nDate of birth, place of birth and social security number pending.
Page 140 • Appendix 20 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Appendix 20

“Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 1992”

Table 20 from

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 20 • Page 141

 

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

State criminal

history repository

database audited Changes to Data quality Initiatives are

for accuracy and improve data quality audits are planned underway to

completeness within Agency which were made as a or scheduled for improve data

State last 5 years performed audit result of audit† next 3 years quality†

 

Alabama X X

Alaska X Other Agency 4, 6, 9, 10 X 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10

Arizona X Other Agency 1, 2, 11 X 1, 11

Arkansas X 1, 7, 11

California X 1, 2

Colorado X Repository X 5

Connecticut 2, 5

Delaware Xa Other Agency X 2, 5, 6

District of Columbia X Other Agency 2, 11 X 2, 5, 6, 10

Florida X 2, 11

Georgia X Other Agency X X X

Hawaii X Other Agency 1, 2 X 1, 12b

Idaho X Other Agency 8 8, 9

Illinois X Other Agency 1,3 X 1 1

Indiana X Other Agency

Iowa X Other Agency 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 X 3, 4, 5, 6, 10

Kansas X 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10

Kentucky X X

Louisiana X X

Mainec X 11

Maryland X Other Agency 8 X 8

Massachusetts 5d

Michigan X

Minnesota X Other Agency 2, 6, 9, 12e

Mississippi X 1, 2, 5

Missouri Xf 1

Montana X Other Agency 1 1 0

Nebraska X 2

Nevada X 1

New Hampshire X 1, 10

New Jersey X Other Agency 1, 2 X 1, 7, 11

New Mexico X 2

New York X Other Agency, Repository 2, 6 X 1, 9, 11

North Carolina X Repository

North Dakota X 2

Ohio

Oklahoma X 2

Oregong X 1

Pennsylvania X 1

Puerto Rico X Repository X X 1, 3, 8, 9

Rhode Island X Repository 2 X 2

South Carolina . . . 3

South Dakota 3, 10, 11

Tennessee X Other Agency, Repository X 3, 9

Texas X Other Agency 2, 7 X 1

Utah X Other Agency X X X

Vermont X Other Agency

Virginia X Other Agency 3, 11, 12h 3

Virgin Islands

Washington X Other Agency, Repository X X

West Virginia 2

Wisconsin X 1

Wyoming 2, 3

 

. . . Not available.

† 1 Audit/audit functions/procedures

2 Automation conversion/redesign/enhancements

3 Disposition/arrest reporting procedures/enhancements

4 Felony flagging

5 Fingerprint card/system conversion/enhancements

6 Inter-agency/local agency interface

7 Legislation

8 Plan/strategy development

9 Task force/advisory group establishment

1 0 Tracking number implementation/improvement

1 1 Training seminars/policy and procedures manuals

1 2 Other
Page 142 • Appendix 20 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Explanatory Notes for Table 20

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

aAudit has not been finalized.

bEstablishment of the Data Quality Unit.

cNo formal audit has been conducted; however, all information is reviewed by

specialists to ensure accuracy and completeness as part of a daily function.

dThe Massachusetts criminal record improvement plan calls for the development of

fingerprint-supported criminal records.

eUse of noncriminal justice record check fees to improve the criminal history

system.

f

A comprehensive outside audit of the central repository and its associated

reporting agencies is being planned for 1994. In-house auditing at the central

repository to improve data quality is being incorporated.

gRepository is currently in the process of selecting a vendor to conduct an audit

of the repository.

hHelpline implemented.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 21 • Page 143

Appendix 21

Interstate and Federal-State Compact

on the Exchange of

Criminal History Records for

Noncriminal Justice Purposes
Page 144 • Appendix 21 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Interstate and Federal-State Compact on the Exchange of

Criminal History Records for Noncriminal Justice Purposes

The contracting parties solemnly

agree:

ARTICLE I — FINDINGS

AND PURPOSES

(a) Findings. The parties find

that:

Both the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) and criminal

history record repositories in the

states maintain fingerprint-based

records of criminal offenders.

Through a Federal/state program

known as the Interstate Identification

Index (III), these criminal history

records are shared and exchanged for

criminal justice purposes.

This interstate and Federal-state

compact is necessary to facilitate

criminal history record exchanges for

noncriminal justice purposes

authorized by state and Federal laws.

It will allow state and Federal records

to be provided to Federal agencies

and other state agencies that will use

the records according to Federal and

the receiving states’ laws.

(b) Purposes. The purposes of

this compact are to:

(1) Insure that this compact shall

not, in any manner, interfere with

the management and control of the

Director of the FBI over the National

Crime Information Center (NCIC)

and the FBI’s collection and

dissemination of criminal history

records and the advisory function of

the NCIC Advisory Policy Board;

(2) Provide the legal frame work for

the establishment of a cooperative

Federal-state system for the interstate

and Federal-state exchange of

criminal history records for

noncriminal justice use;

(3) Bind the FBI to permit the use

of the National Identification Index

and the National Fingerprint File in

accordance with the terms of this

compact and with established system

rules and procedures and to provide,

in a timely fashion, Federal offender

records and records of state offenders

in states that are not participating as

record providers in the III System;

(4) Bind the party states to a

commitment 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 authorized requestors

from other states and the Federal

government for noncriminal justice

purposes;

(5) Provide for the establishment of

a Compact Council to monitor

system operations and to promulgate

system rules and procedures

necessary to ensure the effective

operation of the III System for

noncriminal justice purposes; and

(6) Bind the compact parties to

adhere to system standards

concerning record dissemination and

use, response times, system

security, data quality, and other duly

established standards.

ARTICLE II —

DEFINITIONS

As used in this compact:

(a) “Attorney General” means the

Attorney General of the United

States;

(b) “compact officer” means the

official designated by the Director of

the FBI and the official designated by

a party state to administer the

provisions of this compact;

(c) “criminal history records” means

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. The term does not

include identification information

such as fingerprint records to the

extent that such information does

not indicate involvement of the

individual in the criminal justice

system;

(d) “criminal history record

repository” means the executive

agency in a state designated by the

governor or other appropriate

executive official or the legislature

to perform the centralized recordkeeping functions for criminal

history records and services in the

state;

(e) “criminal justice” means

performance of any of the following

activities: 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

shall include criminal identification

activities and the collection, storage,

and dissemination of criminal

history records. State and Federal

Inspector General Offices are

included;

(f) “criminal justice agency” means

(1) courts; (2) state and Federal

Inspector General officers; and (3) a

government agency or any subunit

thereof which performs the

administration of criminal justice

pursuant to a statute or executive

order, and which allocates a

substantial part of its annual budget

to the administration of criminal

justice;
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 21 • Page 145

(g) “criminal justice services”

means services authorized by

executive order, Federal law, or the

Attorney General whereby an

authorized agency is notified when

there is either a request or

information received that corresponds

to a particular record;

(h) “criterion offense” means any

felony crime, or a misdemeanor

crime that is not included on the list

of nonserious offenses published

periodically by the FBI;

(i) “direct access” means access to

the National Identification Index by

computer terminal or other

automated means without the

assistance of or intervention by any

other party or agency;

(j) “executive order” means an order

of the President of the United States

or the chief executive official of a

state which has the force of law and

which is published in a manner

permitting regular public access

thereto;

(k) “FBI” means the Federal Bureau

of Investigation;

(l) “Federal offender file” means a

criminal history record file

maintained by the FBI relating to

persons arrested for or charged with

offenses under the laws of the United

States;

(m) “Interstate Identification Index

System” or “III System” means the

cooperative Federal-state system for

the exchange of criminal history

records including 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;

(n) “National Fingerprint File”

means a system of fingerprints or

other uniquely personal identifying

information furnished on adult

criminal offenders or juvenile

offenders maintained by the FBI to

provide positive identification of

record subjects indexed in the III

System;

(o) “National Identification Index”

means an index maintained by the

FBI consisting of names, identifying

numbers, and other descriptive

information relating to record

subjects whose criminal history

records are available for

dissemination by means of the III

system;

(p) “national indices” means the

National Identification Index and the

National Fingerprint File;

(q) “noncompact state” means a

state that is participating in the III

System as a record-providing state

but has not executed the compact;

(r) “noncriminal justice” means the

authorized use according to Federal

or state law of criminal history

records for other than criminal

justice purposes to include but not

be limited to employment suitability

or licensing determinations,

immigration and naturalization

matters, and national security

clearances;

(s) “party state” means a state that

has executed this compact;

(t) “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 prior

criminal history record or records

indexed in the III System;

(u) “sealed” record information

means that portion of a record which

by court order or by operation of a

Federal or state statute applicable to

particular offenders or classes of

offenders, may not be disseminated

for particular purposes except as

specified in a court order or by

statute; and

(v) “state” means the United States,

any state, territory or possession of

the United States, the District of

Columbia, and the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico.

ARTICLE III —

ADMINISTRATION OF

COMPACT PROVISIONS

(a) FBI Responsibilities

(1) In response to requests made for

authorized noncriminal justice

purposes, and subject to applicable

privileges, the FBI will provide

criminal history records of Federal

offenders maintained in the Federal

offender file and of state offenders in

states not participating as record

providers in the III System, to the

extent that such information is

maintained in FBI files and its

provision is otherwise in accordance

with law.

(2) The FBI NCIC

telecommunications network shall

provide the facilities for the

exchange of criminal history records

for both criminal justice purposes

and noncriminal justice purposes.

The FBI shall insure that the

exchange of these records for

criminal justice purposes has

priority over the exchange for

noncriminal justice purposes.

(3) Nothing in this compact shall

obligate the FBI to expend funds

beyond its congressional

appropriations.
Page 146 • Appendix 21 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

(b) State Responsibilities

(1) The criminal history record

repository in each party state

(referred to hereafter as the “state

repository” or “repository”) will

have the responsibility for

administering the provisions of this

compact within the state. The

repository will provide the state’s

III-indexed criminal history records

for interstate noncriminal justice

exchange purposes; will ensure that

compact provisions and duly

established system standards and

procedures are complied with in the

state; and will regulate the in-state

use of records received by means of

the III System from the FBI or from

other party states. The chief

administrator of the repository (or a

designee who is employed full-time

to act in this capacity) will be the

compact officer for the state.

(2) Each party state will participate

in the National Fingerprint File.

(3) Each party state will provide and

maintain the necessary

telecommunications links and related

equipment necessary to the services

set forth in this compact.

(c) Compliance with System

Standards

Party states and the FBI will comply

with duly established system

standards and procedures concerning

record dissemination and use,

response times, data quality, system

security, and other aspects of 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 criminal justice services or

services available for 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

USERS

(a) Criminal justice agencies and

other governmental or

nongovernmental agencies will be

provided criminal history records for

noncriminal justice purposes

authorized by Federal statute or

executive order, or by state statutes

authorizing national record checks

which have been approved by the

Attorney General. When such a

statute or executive order authorizes

an agency to have access to FBI

criminal history records, it shall be

construed by party states as

authorization to obtain state criminal

history records.

(b) In response to authorized

noncriminal justice requests, the FBI

and party states will provide all

unsealed criminal history record

information relating to criterion

offenses for record subjects indexed

in the III System.

(c) Records obtained under this

compact may be used only for the

purpose for which they were

requested and only by the requesting

agency or other authorized agency

that obtains the record(s) for an

official purpose. Compact officers

shall establish intrastate procedures

and measures consistent with

applicable system policies and

standards, to ensure that records are

used only by authorized officials for

authorized purposes and to require

that subsequent record requests are

made to obtain more current records

for subsequent purposes.

ARTICLE V — RECORD

REQUEST PROCEDURES

(a) Governmental or

nongovernmental agencies authorized

by approved state statutes to obtain

criminal history records for

noncriminal justice purposes shall

submit requests through the criminal

history record repository in the state

in which they are located. Federal

officials and other organizations or

officials authorized by Federal statute

or executive order to obtain records

for noncriminal justice purposes

shall submit requests through the

FBI or through the repository in the

state in which they are located, if the

repository consents to process

fingerprint submissions.

Noncriminal justice agencies shall

not be permitted to have direct access

to the National Identification Index

and shall not be entitled to obtain

criminal history records directly from

repositories in the other states.

(b) Nothing provided herein shall

interfere in any manner with access

to records by direct access when

permitted by the Security Clearance

Information Act.

(c) Applicant fingerprints or other

approved forms of positive

identification will be submitted with

all requests for criminal history

records for noncriminal justice

purposes.

(d) State repositories and the FBI

may charge fees for processing

applications and searching their files

for noncriminal justice purposes. If

such a file search positively

identifies the record subject,

additional III-indexed information

relating to the record subject may be

obtained at no cost from other

compact parties. The FBI and party

state repositories will honor positive

identifications made by other

compact parties.
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Appendix 21 • Page 147

(e) If a state 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

will be forwarded to the FBI for a

search of the national indices. The

FBI may charge a fee for such a file

search. If the FBI positively

identifies the subject as having a IIIindexed record or records, the FBI

will so advise the state repository

that submitted the request. The

repository will then be entitled to

obtain the additional criminal history

record information from the FBI or

other state repositories at no cost.

State repositories may collect and

account for FBI file-search fees,

pursuant to agreements consistent

with system standards and FBI

policies.

(f) Compact officers will establish

necessary procedures and measures to

ensure that out-of-state records

obtained for noncriminal justice

purposes are disseminated and used

only for purposes authorized by law

in the receiving state. These

procedures must ensure that record

entries that may not legally be used

for a particular noncriminal justice

purpose will be deleted and, if no

authorized information remains, an

appropriate “no record” response will

be communicated to the requesting

official. The FBI will establish

procedures requiring state criminal

history record repositories in

noncompact states to execute user

agreements requiring them to

establish procedures to comply with

the provisions of this subsection.

ARTICLE VI —

ESTABLISHMENT OF

COMPACT COUNCIL

(a) Nothing in this compact shall

obligate the FBI to expend funds

beyond its congressional

appropriations.

(b) There is established a Compact

Council which shall have the

authority to establish rules and

procedures governing the use of the

III System for noncriminal justice

purposes, not in conflict with FBI

administration of III for criminal

justice purposes. The Council shall

continue in existence so long as the

compact remains in effect. The

Council shall be located for

administrative, budgetary, and

staffing purposes within the FBI.

For purposes of annual budget

requests, the Council shall be

included within the budget of the

United States Department of Justice.

The Council shall be organized and

its first meeting shall be held as

soon as practicable after the effective

date of the compact.

(c) The Council shall consist of 15

members whose appointment by the

Attorney General shall be in

accordance with the below criteria:

(1) Nine members, each to serve for

two-year terms, selected from the

duly designated compact officers of

party states, based upon the

collective recommendation of the

compact officers of all party states.

In the absence of the requisite

number of compact officers available

to serve, the chief administrators of

the central criminal history

repositories of noncompact states

shall be eligible to serve on an

interim basis. Persons who are not

compact officers shall be appointed

to the Council only to the extent

that there are not sufficient compact

officers who are willing to serve;

(2) Two at-large members; one to

represent Federal criminal justice

agencies, and one to represent

Federal noncriminal justice agencies,

nominated by the Director of the

FBI;

(3) Two at-large members; one to

represent local criminal justice

agencies, and one to represent

local/state noncriminal justice

agencies, based on the

recommendation of the Compact

Council Chairman;

(4) One member who is a current

member of the Advisory Policy

Board of the National Crime

Information Center, based upon the

recommendation of the membership

of the Advisory Policy Board; and

(5) One member who is a current

employee of the FBI, nominated by

the Director of the FBI.

(d) The Chairman of the Council

shall be a member of and elected by

the members of the Council. The

Chairman 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. The Chairman

shall serve a term of two years and

may be re-elected to only one

additional consecutive two-year term.

(e) The Council shall meet at least

once each year. The meetings shall

be open to the public and appropriate

public notice shall be given to

ensure that all interested persons are

notified of such meetings prior

thereto. Staff support for Council

meetings and other support services

for the Council shall be provided by

the FBI.

(f) The Council shall have the

authority to request from staff

members assigned to the Council or

from other officials of the FBI any

reports, studies, statistics, or other

information or materials permitted

by law necessary to enable it to

perform its duties under this

compact, and such assistance or

information shall be provided within

a reasonable time.
Page 148 • Appendix 21 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

(g) The Chairman may establish

technical or other committees as

necessary and may prescribe the

membership, responsibilities and

duration of such committees.

(h) 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 to be, for any purpose

other than to effect this compact,

officers or employees of the United

States as defined at Title 5, United

States Code, Sections 2104-2105, or

to become entitled by reason of

Council membership to any

compensation or benefit payable or

made available by the United States

solely and directly to its officers or

employees.

ARTICLE VII —

EXECUTION OF COMPACT

This compact shall become effective

immediately upon its execution by

two or more states as between those

states. Upon the subsequent

execution of the compact by

additional states, it shall become

effective as between these states and

states that have previously executed

it. When executed, the compact

shall have the full force and effect of

law within the executing

jurisdictions. The form of execution

shall be in accordance with the laws

of the respective jurisdiction.

ARTICLE VIII —

RENUNCIATION

This compact shall continue in force

and remain binding upon each party

state until renounced by it.

Renunciation from this compact

shall be by the same authority which

executed the compact. Renunciation

by a party state is to become

effective six months after written

notice of renunciation from the

compact is communicated to all

other compact parties.

ARTICLE IX —

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 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 circumstances shall not be affected

thereby. If this compact shall be

held contrary to the constitution of

any state participating therein, the

compact shall remain in full force

and effect as to the remaining states

and in full force and effect as to the

state affected as to all severable

matters.

ARTICLE X —

ADJUDICATION OF

DISPUTES

The Council shall have original

jurisdiction concerning this compact

regarding interpretations of the

compact, system policy or standards,

and disputes or controversies

between party states. The Council

shall hold a hearing concerning the

above at any regularly scheduled

meeting and will only render a

decision based upon a majority vote

of its members. The FBI shall

exercise immediate and necessary

action to preserve the integrity of the

III System, maintain system policy

and standards, and to prevent abuses,

until the Council shall hold a

hearing on such matters. Party

states may appeal the decisions of

the Council to the Attorney General,

and finally to the appropriate United

States District Court, which shall

have original jurisdiction of all cases

or controversies arising under this

compact. Any appeal so arising

initiated in a state court shall be

removed to the appropriate United

States District Court in the manner

provided by Section 1446, Title 28

of the United States Code or other

statutory authority.