U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Survey of State Criminal 

History Information Systems, 

2008 

Criminal Justice Information Policy 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20531 

Eric Holder 

Attorney General 

_______

Office of Justice Programs 

Laurie Robinson 

Assistant Attorney General 

World Wide Web site: 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

_______

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Michael D. Sinclair, Ph.D. 

Acting Director 

World Wide Web site: 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs 

_______

For information, contact 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service 

1-800-851-3420 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Survey of State Criminal 

History Information 

Systems, 2008 

A Criminal Justice Information Policy Report 

October 2009 

Criminal Justice Information Policy 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 ii

U.S. Department of Justice 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Michael D. Sinclair, Ph.D. 

Acting Director 

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

Information and Statistics, Francis X. Aumand III, Chairman, and Ronald P. Hawley, Executive 

Director. The project director was Owen M. Greenspan, Director, Law and Policy. Mr. 

Greenspan and Dennis A. DeBacco, Justice Information Services Specialist, Law and Policy, 

authored the report. Mr. DeBacco conducted the survey and compiled the results. Support was 

provided by Eric C. Johnson, Justice Information Services Specialist, Law and Policy; Twyla R. 

Putt, Manager, Corporate Communications; and Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Specialist and 

Writer/Editor, Corporate Communications. This project was supported by Cooperative 

Agreement No. 2005-RU-BX-K014 and No. 2007-RU-BX-K011 awarded by the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice to SEARCH, The 

National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, 

Sacramento. California 95831. The Federal project monitors were Gerard Ramker, Ph.D., and 

Devon Adams. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 iii

Contents 

List of data tables iv 

Glossary of terms v 

Maps ix

 Compact States and Territories ix 

 Interstate Identification Index (III) – National Fingerprint File (NFF) x 

Survey revisions 1 

Introduction 2 

Major findings 2 

Criminal history files 2 

Level of disposition reporting 2 

Detailed findings 3 

Status of State criminal history files 3 

Biometric image data 4 

Protection order information 4 

Sex offender registry information 5 

Community notification services 5 

State criminal history repository practices 5 

Disposition data 6 

Timeliness of data in State criminal history repository 6 

Criminal and noncriminal justice background checks 8 

Fees for State criminal history repository services 10 

Data tables 12 

Survey instrument: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 73 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 iv

List of data tables 

Table 1. Overview of State criminal history 

record systems, December 31, 2008 

Table 1a. Overview of State criminal history 

record system functions, 2008 

Table 2. Number of subjects (individual 

offenders) in State criminal history file, 

2003, 2006, and 2008 

Table 3. Biometric and image data collection by 

State criminal history repository, 2008 

Table 4. Protection order information and 

records, 2008 

Table 5. State registry of sex offenders, 2008 

Table 5a. Community notification services and 

public access to records, 2008 

Table 6. Number of final dispositions reported 

to State criminal history repository, 

2001, 2003, 2006, and 2008 

Table 6a. Final disposition reporting, 2008 

Table 7. Automation of disposition reporting to 

State criminal history repository, 2008 

Table 8. Arrest records submitted electronically, 

2008 

Table 9. Criminal and noncriminal justice 

background checks submitted 

electronically, 2008 

Table 9a. Noncriminal justice applicant 

information, 2008 

Table 10. Certification and privatization of 

fingerprint capture services, 2008 

Table 11. Number of felony arrests and current 

status of backlog, 2008 

Table 12. Length of time to process disposition 

data submitted to State criminal history 

repository and current status of 

backlog, 2008 

Table 13. Length of time to process correctional 

admission data submitted to State 

criminal history repository and current 

status of backlog, 2008 

Table 14. Noncriminal justice name-based 

background checks, 2008 

Table 14a. Noncriminal justice name-based 

background check processing, 2008 

Table 14b. Noncriminal justice name-based 

background check results, 2008 

Table 14c. Noncriminal justice name-based 

background check authorizations/fees, 

2008 

Table 15. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based 

background checks, 2008 

Table 15a. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based 

background check requirements, 2008 

Table 15b. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

fee retention, 2008 

Table 16. Fingerprint record processing by State 

criminal history repository, 2008 

Table 17. State criminal history repository 

operating hours, 2008 

Table 18. Fees charged by State criminal history 

repository for noncriminal justice 

purposes, 2008 

Table 19. Fees charged for additional services by 

State criminal history repository, 2008 

Table 20. Fees charged for web-based services by 

State criminal history repository or 

other entity for noncriminal justice 

purposes, 2008 

Table 21. Criminal history records of Interstate 

Identification Index (III) participants 

maintained by the State criminal 

history repository and the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 

December 31, 2008 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Glossary v

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. 

Criminal history record information 

(CHRI) or criminal history record 

information system: A record (or the 

system maintaining such records) that 

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. 

Most, however, do not include data 

describing involvement of an individual in 

the juvenile justice system. Data in CHRI 

systems are usually backed by fingerprints 

of the record subjects to provide positive 

identification. State legislation and practices 

vary widely concerning disclosure of 

juvenile record information and access to 

criminal history records for noncriminal 

justice purposes. 

Data quality: The extent to which criminal 

history records are complete, accurate, and 

timely. In addition, accessibility sometimes 

is considered a data quality factor. 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, the readability of 

criminal history records, and the ability to 

have access to the records when necessary. 

Interstate Identification Index (III): An 

“index-pointer” system for the interstate 

exchange of criminal history records. Under 

III, the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) maintains an identification index to 

persons arrested for primarily felonies or 

serious misdemeanors under State or Federal 

law. The index includes identification 

information (such as name, date of birth, 

race, and sex), FBI Numbers, and State 

Identification Numbers (SID) 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 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Glossary vi

automated. If a hit is made against the Index, 

record requests are made using the SID or 

FBI Number, and data are automatically 

retrieved from each repository holding 

records on the individual and forwarded to 

the requesting agency. As of December 

2008, 50 States and the District of Columbia 

participated in III. Responses are provided 

from FBI files when a jurisdiction, such as a 

U.S. territory, is not a participant in III. The 

III system may also be employed when 

responding to fingerprint-based noncriminal 

justice purpose criminal record background 

checks. 

Participation requires that a State maintain 

an automated criminal history record system 

capable of interfacing with the III system 

and also capable of responding 

automatically to all interstate and 

Federal/State record requests. 

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. The FBI accepts and disseminates 

juvenile records. States, however, are not 

required to submit such records to the FBI 

and may be legislatively prohibited from 

doing so. 

“Lights-out” processing: “Lights-out” 

criminal record processing occurs when 

fingerprint data submitted to a criminal 

record repository by a local justice 

jurisdiction for the purpose of determining 

an individual’s identity, and frequently 

associated criminal history record 

information, is processed electronically and 

a response is returned electronically to the 

submitting jurisdiction, all without human 

intervention. 

“Livescan”: The term “livescan” refers to 

both the technique and technology used to 

electronically capture fingerprint and palm 

print images without the need for the more 

traditional ink-and-paper methods. Livescan 

devices also allow the electronic transfer of 

digitized images and accompanying textual 

information to a criminal history repository. 

National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC): A computerized information 

system available to law enforcement and 

criminal justice agencies maintained by the 

FBI. The system includes records for wanted 

persons, missing persons, other persons who 

pose a threat to officer and public safety, 

and various property files. The Interstate 

Identification Index (III) is accessible 

through the NCIC system. The NCIC 

operates under a shared-management 

concept between the FBI and local, State, 

tribal, and Federal criminal justice agencies. 

The FBI maintains the host computer and 

provides a telecommunications network to 

the Criminal Justice Information Services 

Systems Agency (CSA) in each of the 50 

States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and 

Canada as well as Federal criminal justice 

agencies. A CSA is a criminal justice agency 

that has overall responsibility for the 

administration and usage of NCIC within a 

district, State, territory, or Federal agency. 

NCIC data may be provided only for 

criminal justice and other specifically 

authorized purposes. 

National Crime Prevention and 

Privacy Compact: An interstate and 

Federal/State compact that establishes 

formal procedures and governance structures 

for the use of the Interstate Identification 

Index (III). It is 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 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Glossary vii

duplicate data about State offenders. Under 

the Compact, the operation of this system is 

overseen by a policymaking council 

comprised of State and Federal officials. 

The key concept underlying the Compact is 

agreement among all signatory 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 that is inquiring about the data—rather 

than the law of the State that 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. Noncriminal justice inquiries sent 

to the FBI are handled by a combination of 

information retrieval by the FBI from its 

files of voluntarily contributed State arrest 

and disposition records and by accessing 

State-held information. This requires that 

the FBI maintain duplicates of State records 

(see National Fingerprint File discussion for 

exception) and generally results in less 

complete records being provided, since FBI 

files of State records are not always as 

complete due to reporting deficiencies. 

The Compact was passed by Congress and 

signed into law by the President in October 

1998. The Compact became effective in 

April 1999, following ratification by two 

State legislatures, those being Montana on 

April 8, 1999, and Georgia on April 28, 

1999. As of December 31, 2008, 25 

additional States have entered into the 

Compact: Nevada (May 1999); Florida 

(June 1999); Colorado (March 2000); Iowa 

(April 2000); Connecticut (June 2000); 

South Carolina (June 2000); Arkansas 

(February 2001); Kansas (April 2001); 

Alaska (May 2001); Oklahoma (May 2001); 

Maine (June 2001); New Jersey (January 

2002); Minnesota (March 2002); Arizona 

(April 2002); Tennessee (May 2003); North 

Carolina (June 2003); New Hampshire (June 

2003); Missouri (July 2003); Ohio (January 

2004); Wyoming (February 2005); Idaho 

(March 2005); Maryland (May 2005); 

Oregon (July 2005); West Virginia (March 

2006); and Hawaii (May 2006). (Editor’s 

Note: In January 2009, Michigan entered 

into the Compact, bringing the total number 

of Compact States to 28.) Twelve States and 

territories have signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding indicating compliance with 

the Privacy Compact: American Samoa, 

Guam, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, 

Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Vermont, and 

Virginia. 

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 at least one set of fingerprints 

on State offenders from each State in which 

an offender has been arrested, primarily for 

a felony or a serious misdemeanor. Under 

the NFF concept, States are required to 

forward only the first-arrest fingerprints of 

an individual to the FBI accompanied by 

other identification data such as name and 

date of birth. 

Fingerprints for subsequent arrests are not 

required to be forwarded. Disposition data 

on the individual also is retained at the State 

repository and is not forwarded to the FBI. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Glossary viii

Upon receipt of the first-arrest fingerprint 

cards (or electronic images), the FBI enters 

the individual’s fingerprint information, 

name and identifiers in the III, together with 

an FBI Number and a State Identification 

(SID) Number for each State maintaining a 

record on the individual. Charge and 

disposition information on State offenders 

are maintained only at the State level, and 

State repositories are required to respond to 

all authorized record requests concerning 

these individuals for both criminal justice 

and noncriminal justice purposes. States are 

required to release all data on record 

subjects for noncriminal justice inquiries 

regardless of whether the data could legally 

be released for similar purposes within the 

State. The NFF has been implemented in 12 

States: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, 

Kansas, Montana, New Jersey, North 

Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, 

and Wyoming. 

Positive Identification: Identification of 

an individual using biometric characteristics 

that are unique and not subject to alteration. 

In present usage, the term refers to 

identification by fingerprints but may also 

include identification by iris images, 

voiceprints, or other techniques. Positive 

identification is distinguished from 

identification using name, sex, date of birth, 

or other personal identifiers as shown on a 

document subject to alteration or counterfeit 

such as a birth certificate, Social Security 

card, or driver’s license. Because individuals 

can have identical or similar names, ages, 

etc., identifications based on such 

characteristics are not reliable. 

Rap back: A “rap back” or “hit notice” 

program will inform an employer or other 

designated entity when an individual who 

has undergone a fingerprint-based 

background check, and whose fingerprints 

are retained by a criminal history repository 

after the check, is subsequently arrested. His 

or her fingerprints, obtained after the arrest, 

are matched against a database that contains 

the fingerprints that were initially submitted. 

Employers are then notified of the 

individual’s arrest. Employers pay a fee for 

the service in some States; other States 

provide the service for free. Some States 

also provide “rap back” services for 

notifications within the criminal justice 

system. For example, this might involve a 

notification to a parole or probation officer 

of the arrest of a person under supervision. 

State central repository: The database 

(or the agency housing the database) that 

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 State-level 

identification of arrestees. The repository 

agency often is the Criminal Justice 

Information Systems Agency for contact 

with FBI record systems. Non-fingerprintbased inquiries from local agencies for a 

national records check are routed to the FBI 

via the central repository. Although usually 

housed in the Department of Public Safety, 

the central repository is maintained in some 

States by the State Police, Attorney General, 

or other State agency. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Maps ix

Maps 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Maps x
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Introduction • 1

Note to readers 

This is the tenth survey of criminal history 

information systems conducted by SEARCH, 

The National Consortium for Justice 

Information and Statistics, since 1989. Some 

of the tables include data from previous 

surveys. Caution should be used in drawing 

comparisons between the results of earlier 

surveys and the data reported here. Over the 

course of the survey years, the U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS), has continued to administer 

assistance programs dedicated to improving 

criminal history records. As a result, some 

States focused new or additional resources on 

the condition of their records and, in many 

cases, know more about their records today 

than in the past. Similarly, expansion, 

advancement, and adoption of technology 

have also made a beneficial impact. Some 

State repositories, however, have suffered 

fiscal cutbacks and consequently have had to 

shift priorities away from certain criminal 

history information management tasks. For 

these and other reasons, trend comparisons 

may not as accurately reflect the status of the 

State’s criminal history records as the current 

data considered alone. 

Survey revisions 

Given the dramatic advances in information 

technology, legislative and social trends that 

increase demand for criminal history record 

access, and the need for criminal record 

managers to respond to these developments, 

BJS and SEARCH conducted an in-depth 

review of the existing survey questions for 

additions and changes and developed a newly 

revised survey instrument. 

New formats for easier response and 

collection of data were also considered and 

implemented. Many of these changes were 

suggested by users and respondents during the 

review process. Comments and suggestions 

collected focused on— 

• increasing data on disposition reporting 

• criminal versus noncriminal justice 

fingerprint processing 

• livescan usage and repository operations 

• sex offender registries 

• how information is disseminated and how 

it is used. 

SEARCH developed and tested an online 

database system to collect more complete and 

comprehensive data. New features included 

online, password-protected reporting forms 

allowing respondents to complete and submit 

individual sections of the survey, as well as to 

examine/update previously submitted portions. 

The Survey of State Criminal History 

Information Systems, 2008 consists of 30 data 

tables of information. To reflect the evolving 

criminal record management environment, 

some questions are new to this survey, and 

some questions asked during previous surveys 

have been removed. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Introduction • 2

Introduction

This report is based upon 

the results from a survey 

conducted of the 

administrators of the State 

criminal history record 

repositories in March–June 

2009. Fifty-six 

jurisdictions were 

surveyed, including the 50 

States, the District of 

Columbia, American 

Samoa, the Territory of 

Guam, the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, 

and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands.1 Responses were 

received from 53 

jurisdictions. It presents a 

snapshot as of December 

31, 2008. 

Throughout this report, the 

50 States will be referred 

to as “States”; the District 

of Columbia, American 

Samoa, Guam, Puerto 

Rico, the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and the 

Virgin Islands will be 

referred to as “territories,” 

consistent with prior 

surveys; “Nation” refers 

collectively to both States 

and territories.

In addition, the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) was the source for 

 1

 Hereafter, these territories will 

be referred to as American 

Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and 

the Virgin Islands.

some of the information 

relating to criminal history 

records, including State 

participation in the 

Interstate Identification 

Index (III) system (the 

national criminal records 

exchange system) and the 

number of III records 

maintained by the FBI on 

behalf of the States; the 

number of records in the 

protection order file; and 

the number of sex offender 

records in the FBI National 

Crime Information Center 

(NCIC) files.

Major findings

Criminal history files

Overview of State criminal 

history record systems, 

December 31, 2008 (table 1):

• Forty-eight States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Guam reported the 

total number of persons 

in their criminal history 

files as 92,329,600, of 

which 85,836,300 were 

automated. (An 

individual offender 

may have records in 

more than one State.)

• All jurisdictions that 

provided data on the 

number of subjects in 

their State criminal 

history files indicated 

that at least some of 

these records were 

automated. 

• Twenty-three States 

and Guam have fully 

automated criminal 

history files.

Level of disposition 

reporting

Overview of State criminal 

history record systems, 

December 31, 2008 (table 1):

• A total of 16 States, 

representing 25% of 

the individual 

offenders in the 

Nation’s criminal 

history records, 

reported that 80% or 

more arrests within the 

past 5 years in the 

criminal history 

database have final 

dispositions recorded.

• A total of 21 States, 

representing 37% of 

the individual 

offenders in the 

Nation’s criminal 

history records, 

reported that 70% or 

more arrests within the 

past 5 years in the 

criminal history 

database have final 

dispositions recorded.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Introduction • 3

• A total of 27 States, 

representing 54% of 

the individual 

offenders in the 

Nation’s criminal 

history records, 

reported that 60% or 

more arrests within the 

past 5 years in the 

criminal history 

database have final 

dispositions recorded.

• When arrests older 

than 5 years are 

considered:

— Seventeen States, 

representing 29% 

of the individual 

offenders in the 

Nation’s criminal 

history records, 

reported that 80% 

or more arrests in 

the entire criminal 

history database 

have final 

dispositions 

recorded.

— Twenty-three 

States, representing 

37% of the 

individual 

offenders in the 

Nation’s criminal 

history records, 

reported that 70% 

or more arrests in 

the entire criminal 

history database 

have final 

dispositions 

recorded.

— Thirty-three States, 

representing 64% 

of the individual 

offenders in the 

Nation’s criminal 

history records, 

reported that 60% 

or more arrests in 

the entire criminal 

history database 

have final 

dispositions

recorded.

• Thirteen States and 

Guam reported that 

90% or more felony

charges have a final 

disposition recorded in 

the criminal history 

database. Seventeen

States and Guam 

reported that 80% or 

more felony charges 

have a final disposition 

recorded in the 

criminal history 

database.

Overview of State criminal 

history record system 

functions, 2008 (table 1a):

• Thirteen States 

reported that 

fingerprint-based 

background checks for 

criminal justice 

purposes accounted for 

50% or less of the 

State’s total number of

fingerprint-based 

background checks. In 

31 States, background 

checks for criminal 

justice purposes 

accounted for 60% or 

less of the State’s total 

number of fingerprintbased background 

checks. The significant 

numbers of 

noncriminal justice 

purpose checks 

represent statutorily 

authorized screening 

for employment, 

licensing, and 

volunteers.

• Sixteen States do not 

retain any fingerprints 

processed as part of 

criminal history 

background checks for 

noncriminal justice 

purposes.

Detailed findings

Status of State criminal 

history files

Number of subjects 

(individual offenders) in 

State criminal history file, 

2003, 2006, and 2008 

(table 2):

• Over 92 million 

individual offenders 

were in the criminal 

history files of the 

State criminal history 

repositories on 

December 31, 2008. 

(An individual offender 

may have records in 

more than one State.) 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Introduction • 4

• Ninety-three percent of 

the approximately 92

million criminal history 

records maintained by 

the State criminal 

history repositories are 

automated. 

• Four States (Alaska,

Maryland, 

Massachusetts, and 

South Dakota) and 

Guam reported an 

overall decrease in the 

total number of 

subjects in manual and 

automated files 

between 2006 and 

2008.

• Five States reported an 

overall increase of at 

least 30% in the total 

number of subjects in 

manual and automated 

files.

• Forty-four States and 

the District of 

Columbia reported an 

overall increase in the 

total number of 

subjects in manual and 

automated files.

Criminal history records of 

Interstate Identification 

Index (III) participants 

maintained by the State 

criminal history repository 

and the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), 2008 

(table 21):

• Nationwide, over 65 

million criminal history 

records are accessible 

through the III. Sixtynine percent of all III 

records are supported 

by the States and 31% 

are supported by the 

FBI.

Biometric image data

Biometric and image data 

collection by State 

criminal history 

repository, 2008 (table 3):

• Forty-six States and 

Guam accept latent 

fingerprint images.

• Thirty-six States and 

Guam accept flat 

fingerprint images.

• Thirty-four States and 

Guam accept palm 

print images.

• Two States accept 

facial images or 

digitized mug shots. 

Three States reported 

accepting facial 

recognition data 

information.

• A total of 19 States 

accept scars, marks, 

and tattoos biometric 

information.

Protection order 

information

Protection order 

information and records, 

2008 (table 4):

• Twenty-five State 

repositories and Guam 

receive protection 

order information, with 

a reported total of over 

966,000 records.

• Thirteen States 

reported the ability to 

flag criminal history 

records for protection 

orders.

• Twenty-five States and 

Guam operate with 

felony flagging 

capability for all

criminal history record 

subjects.

• Thirteen States operate 

with felony flagging 

capability for some

criminal history record 

subjects.

• Nine States do not have 

felony flagging 

capability for criminal 

history record subjects.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Introduction • 5

Sex offender registry 

information 

State registry of sex 

offenders, 2008 (table 5): 

• Forty-eight States and 

Guam reported a total 

of 661,000 registered 

sex offenders. The 

record count reported 

by the FBI for the 

NCIC National Sex 

Offender Registry is 

561,706. 

• A reported total of 

472,000 registered sex 

offenders are listed on 

publicly available State 

registries. 

• Twenty-six States and 

Guam reported that 

information on at least 

80% of registered sex 

offenders is publicly 

available on State 

registries, 

corresponding to 

308,480 registered sex 

offenders (figures 

based on FBI NCIC 

data). 

• Twenty-four States and 

Guam reported that 

information on at least 

90% of registered sex 

offenders is publicly 

available on State 

registries, 

corresponding to 

240,881 registered sex 

offenders (figures 

based on FBI NCIC 

data). 

Community notification 

services 

Community notification 

services and public access 

to records, 2008 (table 

5a): 

• Seventeen States offer a 

community notification 

service for sex offender 

residency, employment, 

or school. 

• Seven States offer a 

community notification 

service for victims of 

crime. 

• Forty States and Guam 

offer access to a sex 

offender registry. 

• Twenty-six States and 

Guam offer access to 

orders of protection/ 

protection orders. 

• Twenty-six States and 

Guam offer access to 

wants and/or 

warrants/wanted 

persons. 

State criminal history 

repository practices 

Fingerprint record 

processing by State 

criminal history 

repository, 2008 (table 

16): 

• Thirty-two State 

repositories conduct 

“lights-out” processing 

of fingerprints (an 

identification decision 

is made without 

fingerprint technician 

intervention). 

• Fifteen State 

repositories conduct 

lights-out processing of 

80% or more of 

criminal and 

noncriminal 

fingerprints. 

• Eighteen State 

repositories conduct 

lights-out processing of 

70% or more of 

criminal and 

noncriminal 

fingerprints. 

• Twenty State 

repositories conduct 

lights-out processing of 

50% or more of 

criminal and 

noncriminal 

fingerprints. 

State criminal history 

repository operating 

hours, 2008 (table 17): 

• Twenty-one States 

operate their 

repositories 24 hours 

per day, 7 days a week. 

Of those, 16 States also 

operate with fingerprint 

technicians onsite 24 

hours per day, 7 days a 

week. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Introduction • 6

• Fifty States and Guam 

operate the repository 

at least 8 hours a day, 

Monday through 

Friday. Of those, 50 

States also operate with 

fingerprint technicians 

onsite at least 8 hours 

per day, Monday 

through Friday. 

Disposition data 

Number of final 

dispositions reported to 

State criminal history 

repository, 2001, 2003, 

2006, and 2008 (table 6): 

• Forty-nine States and 

Guam provided data on 

the number of final 

dispositions reported to 

their criminal history 

repositories, indicating 

that nearly 12.5 million 

were reported in 2008. 

Final disposition 

reporting, 2008 (table 6a): 

• A reported total of 

nearly 4.6 million final 

case dispositions were 

sent to the FBI from 26 

States and Guam. 

• Sixteen States send 

final case dispositions 

to the FBI with 90% or 

more by machine 

readable data (MRD). 

• Ten States and Guam 

send final case 

dispositions to the FBI 

with 80% or more via 

hard copy or paper. 

Automation of disposition 

reporting to State criminal 

history repository, 2008 

(table 7): 

• Thirty-eight States and 

Guam reported 

receiving court 

disposition data by 

automated means. 

• Nine States reported 

that 25% or more of all 

dispositions received 

could not be linked to 

the arrest/charge 

information in the 

criminal history 

database. 

• Thirty-two States 

reported that 30% or 

less of all dispositions 

received could not be 

linked to a specific 

arrest record. 

• Twenty-nine States 

reported that 20% or 

less of all dispositions 

received could not be 

linked to a specific 

arrest record. 

• Twenty-three States 

reported that 10% or 

less of all dispositions 

received could not be 

linked to a specific 

arrest record. 

Timeliness of data in 

State criminal history 

repository 

—Arrests 

Arrest records submitted 

electronically, 2008 (table 8): 

• Forty-two States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Guam reported a 

total of nearly 5,300 

livescan devices in use 

as of December 31, 

2008, for criminal 

justice purposes only. 

• Forty States and the 

District of Columbia 

reported a total of 

nearly 7,000 livescan 

devices in use for 

noncriminal justice 

purposes only. 

• Twenty-five States 

reported a total of over 

2,200 livescan devices 

in use for both criminal 

and noncriminal justice 

purposes.

Number of felony arrests 

and current status of 

backlog, 2008 (table 11): 

• Thirty-seven States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Guam reported a 

total of nearly 3.1 

million felony arrests 

in 2008. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Introduction • 7

• Some States and 

territories indicated 

that, at the time of the 

survey, they had 

backlogs in entering 

arrest data into their 

criminal history 

databases. A total of 

nearly 298,000 

unprocessed or 

partially processed 

fingerprint cards for 

automated fingerprint 

identification system 

(AFIS) databases were 

reported by 14 States. 

—Disposition data 

Length of time to process 

disposition data submitted 

to State criminal history 

repository and current 

status of backlog, 2008 

(table 12): 

• Twenty-three States, 

Guam, and the Virgin 

Islands reported a 

backlog of entering 

court disposition data 

into the criminal 

history database. 

• A total of more than 

1.6 million 

unprocessed or 

partially processed 

court disposition forms 

are reported by 20 

States, ranging from 52 

in Illinois to 724,541 in 

Utah. 

• Based on responses 

from 34 jurisdictions, 

the length of time 

between occurrence of 

the final felony court 

disposition and its 

receipt by the 

repository ranges from 

1 hour or less in New 

Jersey and New York 

to 510 days in Kansas. 

• Based on responses 

from 38 jurisdictions, 

the number of days 

between the receipt of 

a final felony court 

disposition and its 

entry into the criminal 

history database ranges 

from less than 1 day in 

Connecticut, Hawaii, 

Indiana, New Jersey, 

New York, and Utah to 

854 days in Kansas. 

• Four States (California, 

Indiana, Ohio, and 

Rhode Island) use 

livescan devices in the 

courtroom to link 

positive identification 

with dispositions. 

—Admission to 

correctional facilities 

Length of time to process 

correctional admission 

data submitted to State 

criminal history repository 

and current status of 

backlog, 2008 (table 13): 

• Based on responses 

from 41 jurisdictions, 

the length of time 

between the receipt of 

correctional 

information and its 

entry into the criminal 

history database ranges 

from 1 day or less in 24 

jurisdictions, to 180 

days in Alabama. 

• Twenty-seven 

jurisdictions reported 

that at least one 

correctional agency 

reports by automated 

means. 

• Twenty-five 

jurisdictions receive 

95% or more of 

admission/status 

change/release activity 

information via 

agencies using 

automated reporting 

means. 

• Eight jurisdictions 

indicate that they have 

or had backlogs in 

entering correctional 

information into their 

criminal history 

databases. A total of 

more than 1.5 million 

unprocessed or 

partially processed 

corrections reports are 

reported from five 

jurisdictions. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Introduction • 8

Criminal and 

noncriminal justice 

background checks 

Criminal and noncriminal 

justice background checks 

submitted electronically, 

2008 (table 9): 

• Forty-nine States and 

the District of 

Columbia reported a 

total of nearly 10.7 

million fingerprints 

submitted to the 

repository via livescan 

devices for criminal 

justice purposes. 

• Forty-five States and 

the District of 

Columbia reported a 

total of over 7.7 

million fingerprints 

submitted to the 

repository via livescan 

devices for noncriminal 

justice purposes. 

• Thirty-one States and 

the District of 

Columbia reported that 

80% or more of all 

criminal justice 

purpose fingerprints 

are submitted to the 

repository via livescan 

devices. 

• Eighteen States and the 

District of Columbia 

reported that 90% or 

more of all criminal 

justice purpose 

fingerprints are 

submitted via livescan 

devices. 

• Twelve States reported 

that 80% or more of all 

noncriminal justice 

purpose fingerprints 

are submitted to the 

repository via livescan 

devices. 

• Six States reported that 

90% or more of all 

noncriminal justice 

purpose fingerprints 

are submitted via 

livescan devices. 

• Twenty-nine States and 

Guam indicate that the 

fingerprint databases 

maintained by their 

State repositories 

contain some

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints. 

• Three States reported 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints represent 

50% or more of the 

criminal history 

fingerprint records. 

• Twelve States reported 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints represent 

30% or more of the 

criminal history 

fingerprint records. 

• Forty-seven States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Guam reported a 

combined total of 

nearly 5,700 agencies 

submitting fingerprints 

via livescan devices for 

criminal justice

purposes. 

• Forty-four States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Guam reported a 

combined total of more 

than 10,300 agencies 

submitting fingerprints 

via livescan devices for 

noncriminal justice

purposes. 

• Twenty-seven States 

and the District of 

Columbia reported a 

combined total of more 

than 6,500 agencies 

without livescan 

devices that receive 

livescan services from 

other agencies. 

Noncriminal justice 

applicant information, 

2008 (table 9a) 

• Seventeen States 

combine both criminal 

events and noncriminal 

justice applicant 

information in the same 

record. Of these, 12 

States reported that 

more than 1.9 million 

records contained both 

criminal events and 

noncriminal justice 

applicant information. 

And of these 12 States, 

nine reported that these 

records represent from 

3% to 21% of the total 

records in their 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Introduction • 9

database, for an average 

of 8.1%.

Certification and 

privatization of fingerprint 

capture services, 2008 

(table 10): 

• Eleven States have 

programs to certify 

persons authorized to 

take fingerprints. 

• Seventeen States have 

privatized the capture of 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints. 

Noncriminal justice namebased background checks, 

2008 (table 14): 

• Forty-three States and 

Guam reported 

receiving a total of 

over 42.3 million 

name-based 

noncriminal justice 

background check 

requests. Six States and 

Guam reported an 

identification rate of 

95% or more. 

• Twenty-four States 

received name-based 

noncriminal justice 

background checks via 

the Internet, with a 

reported total of over 

37.8 million submitted 

online. 

• Thirty-five States and 

Guam received namebased noncriminal 

justice background 

checks via the mail, 

with a reported total of 

over 2.2 million 

submitted that way. 

• Six States received 

name-based 

noncriminal justice 

background checks via 

telephone, modem, or 

public walk-in access, 

with a reported total of 

690,100 received by 

these various methods. 

Noncriminal justice namebased background check 

processing, 2008 (table 

14a): 

• Thirty-two States and 

Guam reported at least 

four identifiers are 

required for namebased criminal history 

record searches. In 

most cases, these 

identifiers include first 

and last name, and date 

and year of birth. Five 

States require seven or 

more identifiers for a 

name-based criminal 

history records search. 

• Twenty-five States and 

Guam reported at least 

four identifiers are 

required to “hit” before 

a name-based criminal 

history record search 

response is returned. In 

most cases, these 

identifiers include first 

and last name, and date 

and year of birth. Six 

States and Guam 

require six or more 

identifiers to “hit” on a 

name-based search 

before a response is 

returned. 

• Twenty States offer at 

least one search feature 

for name-based 

criminal history 

background checks. 

Noncriminal justice namebased background check 

results, 2008 (table 14b): 

• In 24 States and Guam, 

a name-based 

noncriminal justice 

background check 

returns the full criminal 

history record. 

• In 17 States, a namebased noncriminal 

justice background 

check returns 

convictions only. 

Noncriminal justice namebased background check 

authorizations/fees, 2008 

(table 14c): 

• Twenty States reported 

that written consent by 

the subject is required 

before a name-based 

search is conducted. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Introduction • 10

• Local agencies in 13 

States and Guam are 

authorized to conduct 

name-based checks of 

state records for 

noncriminal justice 

purposes. Of these, 

seven States and Guam 

reported local 

authorized agencies 

charge fees ranging 

from $1 to $29, for an 

average fee of $14.10. 

Noncriminal justice 

fingerprint-based 

background checks, 2008 

(table 15): 

• Thirty-eight States and 

Guam retain some 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints. 

• Twenty States offer 

some form of “rap 

back” notification. 

• In 31 States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Guam, the full 

record is provided in 

response to a 

fingerprint-based 

noncriminal justice 

background check. 

• In seven States, the 

results of a fingerprintbased noncriminal 

justice background 

check contain 

conviction information 

only. 

Noncriminal justice 

fingerprint-based 

background check 

requirements, 2008 (table 

15a): 

• Forty-nine States 

reported that criminal 

history background 

checks are legally 

required for the 

following: 

 nurses/elder 

caregivers (41 

jurisdictions) 

 daycare providers 

(46 jurisdictions) 

 individuals who 

live in the 

residences of 

home-based 

daycare providers 

(40 jurisdictions) 

 school teachers (47 

jurisdictions) 

 nonteaching school 

employees (38 

jurisdictions) 

 volunteers working 

with children (30 

jurisdictions) 

 prospective foster 

care parents (48 

jurisdictions) 

 prospective 

adoptive parents 

(47 jurisdictions) 

 relative caregivers 

(26 jurisdictions) 

 nonteaching school 

personnel (38 

jurisdictions) 

 hazardous materials 

licensees (29 

jurisdictions) 

Fees for State criminal 

history repository 

services 

FBI fee retention, 2008 

(table 15b) 

• Thirteen States and 

Guam, representing 

25% of the responding 

jurisdictions, retrieve 

the Interstate 

Identification Index 

(III) record through the 

FBI and forward it to 

the requestor when the 

State check reveals a 

III record rather than 

forwarding the 

fingerprints to the FBI.

• Nine of these States 

and Guam retain the 

FBI fee, while none 

reported that the FBI 

fee is returned to the 

requestor.

Fees charged by State 

criminal history repository 

for noncriminal justice 

purposes, 2008 (table 18): 

• Thirty-three States and 

Guam offer 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprint-supported

criminal history 

checks, at an average 

price of $27.10 with 

retention of 

fingerprints. Fees range 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Introduction • 11

from $10 in Idaho and 

New Mexico to $75 in 

New York. 

• Thirty-seven States 

offer noncriminal 

justice fingerprintsupported criminal 

history checks, at an 

average price of $19.69 

without retention of 

fingerprints. For those 

States that assess fees, 

the fees range between 

$2 in Pennsylvania to 

$75 in New York. 

• Twenty-two States 

offer noncriminal 

justice fingerprintsupported criminal 

history checks for 

volunteers at an 

average price of $21.71 

with retention of 

fingerprints. 

• Thirty-one States offer 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprint-supported

criminal history checks 

for volunteers at an 

average price of $16.23 

without retention of 

fingerprints. 

Fees charged for additional 

services by State criminal 

history repository, 2008 

(table 19): 

• Nineteen States and 

Guam allocate all fees 

collected for 

noncriminal justice 

background checks to 

their State repository 

operations or support 

agencies. 

• Thirteen States allocate 

all fees collected for 

such purposes to their 

States’ general funds. 

• Eight States allocate a 

percentage of collected 

fees to State repository 

operations. 

• One State (West 

Virginia) allocates 

collected fees to its 

State Police retirement 

fund. 

Fees charged for webbased services by State 

criminal history repository 

or other entity for 

noncriminal justice 

purposes, 2008 (table 20): 

• Twenty State 

repositories provide 

web-based noncriminal 

justice background 

checks. Of the 19 

repositories that charge 

a fee for this service, 

the average fee is 

$15.51 per search. 

• Sixteen State offices of 

court administration 

provide web-based 

noncriminal background 

checks with an average 

fee of $13.05 collected 

by the private agencymaintained website. Of 

these collected fees, an 

average of $8.55 is 

returned to the State 

repository. 

• Five States reported that 

repositories and offices 

of court administration 

both provide web-based 

noncriminal background 

checks. (Kansas, 

Oregon, Vermont, 

Washington, and 

Wisconsin.) 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 Data Tables • 12

Data Tables 
Table 1. Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 2008

Total Automated Manual All arrests

Arrests within 

past 5 years

Total 92,329,600 85,836,300 6,493,300

Alabama ... ... ... 10% 10% 10%

Alaska 235,900 225,500 10,400 83 87 ...

American Samoa ... ... ... ...... ...

Arizona 1,469,000 1,295,600 173,400 67 73 66

Arkansas 1,242,000 1,162,000 80,000 75 18 34

California 9,822,900 8,349,400 a 1,473,500 ...... ...

Colorado 1,417,100 1,380,000 37,100 67 na 39

Connecticut 1,199,100 1,039,600 159,500 95 95 95

Delaware 1,975,900 1,975,900 0 83 87 92

District of Columbia 1,054,800 693,800 361,000 ...... ...

Florida 5,533,800 5,533,800 0 60 48 69 b

Georgia 3,245,000 3,245,000 0 80 69 72

Guam 3,600 3,600 0 na na 100

Hawaii 495,300 495,300 0 94 83 96

Idaho 301,000 301,000 c 0 c 55 40 60

Illinois 5,542,400 5,328,800 213,600 68 68 83

Indiana 1,376,600 708,900 667,700 47 46 ...

Iowa 601,700 580,800 20,900 ... 100 ...

Kansas 1,226,100 760,900 465,200 56 47 58

Kentucky 1,120,800 1,120,800 0 31 13 ...

Louisiana 2,090,900 1,446,400 644,500 ...... ...

Maine 502,300 354,000 148,300 71 30 69

Maryland 2,490,500 2,490,500 0 78 80 na

Massachusetts 3,464,700 2,755,000 709,700 d ... ... ...

Michigan 3,284,600 3,284,600 0 87 82 95

Minnesota 760,900 760,900 0 64 54 62

Mississippi 446,100 446,100 0 14 ... ...

Missouri 1,403,400 1,248,700 154,700 81 80 86

Montana 194,300 194,300 0 42 63 37

Nebraska 338,500 338,500 0 62 71 69

Nevada 626,200 626,200 0 38 26 29

New Hampshire ... ... ... ...... ...

New Jersey 3,676,000 3,676,000 0 90 65 90

New Mexico 540,900 540,900 0 19 21 ...

New York 7,049,600 7,049,600 0 88 93 89

North Carolina 1,557,300 1,532,300 25,000 85 90 95

North Dakota 141,300 122,000 19,300 81 85 ...

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ... ...... ...

Ohio 1,939,100 1,939,100 0 46 47 ...

Oklahoma 790,000 720,200 69,800 37 35 33

Oregon 1,332,500 1,332,500 0 63 59 ...

Pennsylvania 2,320,100 1,993,000 327,100 72 62 90

Puerto Rico ... ... ... ...... ...

Rhode Island 955,800 955,600 200 90 90 90

South Carolina 1,450,600 1,401,500 49,100 67 ... 98

South Dakota 232,800 224,800 8,000 95 95 95

Tennessee 1,714,400 1,532,100 182,300 45 65 45

Texas 9,073,700 9,073,700 0 62 70 43

Utah 600,100 600,100 0 68 45 77

Vermont 215,300 170,500 44,800 94 88 96

Virgin Islands ... ... ... ...... ...

Virginia 1,840,800 1,674,000 166,800 85 82 87

Washington 1,459,700 1,459,700 0 94 90 94

West Virginia 588,300 306,900 281,400 74 55 ...

Wisconsin 1,228,900 1,228,900 0 72 74 78

Wyoming 157,000 157,000 0 80 78 100

State

Percent of arrests in database that 

have final dispositions recorded Percent of felony 

charges with final 

disposition

Number of subjects (individual offenders) in 

State criminal history file
 American Samoa, New Hampshire, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands, from which

 no data were submitted.

Data footnotes:

b Juvenile disposition data were not required to be submitted until July 2008, for day forward, not historic data. 

 If juveniles are not calculated into the totals, then the numbers would be: a) 51.1%; b) 62.1%; c) 71.8%.

c Total disposition numbers have fallen because of the acceptance of all arrests from the contributing agencies and 

 the lack of a strong program to get declined prosecutions from the prosecutors.

d Figures reflect arrest records maintained by the repository. Massachusetts has additional non-fingerprint 

▪ ... Not available.

 supported records maintained by a separate agency. 

▪ The total number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history files does not include Alabama,

▪ The "number of subjects (individual offenders)" in the State criminal history file for each year applies 

 only to the criminal history file, including partially automated files, and does not include release by police 

 without charging, declinations to proceed by prosecutor, or final trial court dispositions.

a The California total number of combined criminal and applicant records on file as of December 31, 2008, was

 20,295,178, of which 48.4% were criminal and 85% of the criminal records were automated.

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

Table 1 explanatory notes:
Table 1a. Overview of State criminal history record system functions, 2008

Number 

Percent of 

2008 volume Number 

Percent of 

2008 volume Number 

Percent of 

2008 volume

Total 22,173,170 12,106,400 3,366,600 6,700,200 10,066,800

Alabama 223,400 169,500 76% 0 0% 53,900 24% 53,900

Alaska 55,700 23,000 41 0 0 32,700 58 32,700

American Samoa ... ...... ... ... ... ... ...

Arizona 461,700 234,100 51 149,600 32 78,000 17 227,600

Arkansas 177,600 103,500 58 2,000 1 72,100 41 74,100

California 3,272,600 1,579,300 48 0 0 1,693,300 52 1,693,300

Colorado 349,500 249,400 71 0 0 100,100 29 100,100

Connecticut 229,600 166,000 72 4,600 2 59,000 26 63,600

Delaware 77,900 41,600 53 0 0 36,300 47 36,300

District of Columbia 70,100 49,600 71 20,500 29 0 0 20,500

Florida 2,238,100 1,060,900 47 813,100 36 364,100 16 1,177,200

Georgia 789,600 506,100 64 283,500 36 0 0 283,500

Guam 4,200 3,700 87 500 13 0 0 500

Hawaii 56,300 33,100 59 23,200 41 0 0 23,200

Idaho 152,600 82,800 54 66,800 44 3,000 2 69,800

Illinois 1,163,900 691,500 59 253,500 22 218,900 19 472,400

Indiana 348,200 201,100 58 70,900 20 76,200 22 147,100

Iowa 96,700 87,700 91 9,000 9 0 0 9,000

Kansas 185,100 148,400 80 0 0 36,700 20 36,700

Kentucky 251,000 213,600 85 37,400 15 0 0 37,400

Louisiana 420,200 336,900 80 0 0 83,300 20 83,300

Maine 40,300 25,400 63 2,500 6 12,400 31 14,900

Maryland 412,900 234,000 57 0 0 178,900 43 178,900

Massachusetts 218,700 169,200 77 49,500 23 0 0 49,500

Michigan 772,100 435,100 56 10,000 1 327,000 42 337,000

Minnesota 199,600 153,900 77 45,700 23 a 0 0 45,700

Mississippi 188,400 77,600 41 110,800 59 0 0 110,800

Missouri 381,000 225,900 59 0 0 155,100 41 155,100

Montana 43,800 20,700 47 23,100 53 0 0 23,100

Nebraska 65,800 47,800 73 0 0 18,000 73 18,000

Nevada 255,500 109,100 43 119,700 47 26,700 10 146,400

New Hampshire 48,900 29,500 60 6,500 13 12,900 26 19,400

New Jersey 602,000 234,000 39 47,400 8 320,600 53 368,000

New Mexico 178,500 88,000 49 0 0 90,500 51 90,500

New York 1,300,000 730,100 56 0 0 569,900 44 569,900

North Carolina 321,800 148,500 46 128,000 40 45,300 14 173,300

North Dakota 20,100 11,800 59 8,300 41 0 0 8,300

Northern Mariana Isl ... ...... ... ... ... ... ...

Ohio 1,354,100 308,200 23 0 0 1,045,900 77 1,045,900

Oklahoma 146,900 98,200 67 0 0 48,700 33 48,700

Oregon 207,400 122,800 59 59,200 29 25,400 12 84,600

Pennsylvania 568,870 283,200 50 258,900 46 26,800 5 285,700

Puerto Rico ... ...... ... ... ... ... ...

Rhode Island 52,900 39,400 74 13,500 26 0 0 13,500

South Carolina 308,300 275,700 89 23,900 8 8,700 3 32,600

South Dakota 49,500 27,100 55 21,800 44 600 1 22,400

Tennessee 585,300 393,100 67 0 0 192,200 33 192,200

Texas 1,683,600 914,200 54 129,700 8 639,700 38 769,400

Utah 171,500 106,900 62 63,600 37 1,000 1 64,600

Vermont 36,600 25,800 70 10,800 30 0 0 10,800

Virgin Islands ... ...... ... ... ... ... ...

Virginia 586,400 302,800 52 283,600 48 0 0 283,600

Washington 440,300 265,500 60 166,200 38 8,600 2 174,800

West Virginia 68,900 32,900 48 0 0 36,000 52 36,000

Wisconsin 201,300 172,500 86 28,800 14 0 0 28,800

Wyoming 37,900 15,700 41 20,500 54 1,700 4 22,200

State

Total number of 

fingerprint-based 

background checks

Background checks for 

noncriminal purposes 

(not retained)

Background checks for noncriminal 

purposes (retained) Background checks for 

noncriminal purposes 

(2008 total)

Background checks for criminal 

justice purposes
 the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands, from which no data were submitted.

Table 1a explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

a The number of noncriminal not-retained fingerprint searches includes 40,552 noncriminal justice checks that were not 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ The total number of fingerprint-based background checks in State criminal history files does not include American Samoa,

Data footnotes:

 checked against the Minnesota database, but which were sent to the FBI.

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 
Table 2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 2003, 2006, and 2008

2003 2006 2008 total Manual file Automated file 2003 2006 2008

2003-

2006

2006-

2008

Total 70,983,400 81,926,000 92,329,600 6,493,300 85,836,300 91 90 93 15 13

Alabama 1,150,000 ... ... ... ... 78% ...% ...% ...% ...%

Alaska 222,500 242,700 235,900 10,400 225,500 95 96 96 9 -3

American Samoa ... 300 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Arizona 1,689,800 1,334,700 1,469,000 173,400 1,295,600 61 87 88 -21 10

Arkansas 1,150,000 1,194,100 1,242,000 80,000 1,162,000 78 86 94 4 9

California 6,099,100 9,004,700 a 9,822,900 1,473,500 8,349,400 98 85 85 48 9

Colorado 1,136,600 1,254,000 1,417,100 37,100 1,380,000 100 77 97 10 13

Connecticut 1,427,700 1,108,800 1,199,100 159,500 1,039,600 85 82 87 -4 6

Delaware 488,600 580,000 1,975,900 0 1,975,900 90 100 100 11 241

District of Columbia 670,500 957,900 1,054,800 361,000 693,800 84 63 66 43 10

Florida 4,606,700 5,237,900 5,533,800 0 5,533,800 100 100 100 14 6

Georgia 2,542,700 2,866,700 3,245,000 0 3,245,000 100 100 100 13 13

Guam ... 31,800 3,600 0 3,600 ... 100 100 ... -89

Hawaii 444,500 472,200 495,300 0 495,300 100 100 100 6 5

Idaho 212,800 244,100 301,000 0 301,000 100 100 100 11 23

Illinois 4,162,000 4,899,100 5,542,400 213,600 5,328,800 86 89 96 18 13

Indiana 1,061,100 1,242,500 1,376,600 667,700 708,900 100 46 52 17 11

Iowa 536,600 507,400 601,700 20,900 580,800 99 100 97 -5 19

Kansas 882,400 1,134,900 1,226,100 465,200 760,900 56 59 62 29 8

Kentucky 865,700 1,032,000 1,120,800 0 1,120,800 100 91 100 19 9

Louisiana ... 1,993,000 2,090,900 644,500 1,446,400 ... 67 69 ... 5

Maine 313,900 400,400 502,300 148,300 354,000 100 100 70 28 25

Maryland 1,162,400 3,345,600 b 2,490,500 0 2,490,500 c 100 100 100 188 -26

Massachusetts 3,533,300 2,907,600 3,464,700 709,700 2,755,000 79 75 80 -18 19

Michigan 1,521,700 2,100,000 3,284,600 0 3,284,600 100 100 100 38 56

Minnesota 532,000 672,200 760,900 0 760,900 90 100 100 26 13

Mississippi 291,200 381,900 446,100 0 446,100 100 100 100 31 17

Missouri 1,328,300 1,283,100 1,403,400 154,700 1,248,700 88 88 89 -3 9

Montana 164,000 179,100 194,300 0 194,300 100 100 100 9 9

Nebraska 280,000 306,400 338,500 0 338,500 100 100 100 9 10

Nevada 448,500 521,700 626,200 0 626,200 100 100 100 16 20

New Hampshire 310,500 ... ... ... ... 90 ... ... ... ...

New Jersey 1,747,400 2,662,800 3,676,000 0 3,676,000 100 100 100 52 38

New Mexico 844,500 448,500 540,900 0 540,900 100 100 100 -47 21

New York 5,976,200 6,803,600 7,049,600 0 7,049,600 100 100 100 14 4

North Carolina 1,077,300 1,200,000 1,557,300 25,000 1,532,300 99 96 98 11 30

North Dakota 114,200 129,900 141,300 19,300 122,000 83 85 86 13 9

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ...

Ohio 1,468,600 1,771,700 1,939,100 0 1,939,100 97 100 100 21 10

Oklahoma 655,600 749,700 790,000 69,800 720,200 89 90 91 14 5

Oregon 1,112,100 1,238,000 1,332,500 0 1,332,500 100 100 100 11 8

Pennsylvania 1,869,900 2,094,000 2,320,100 327,100 1,993,000 100 100 86 25 11

Puerto Rico 209,200 261,500 ... ... ... 100 100 ... 53 ...

Rhode Island 229,000 350,000 955,800 200 955,600 100 100 100 53 173

South Carolina 1,192,400 1,371,700 1,450,600 49,100 1,401,500 96 96 97 15 6

South Dakota 192,600 255,000 232,800 8,000 224,800 90 92 97 32 -9

Tennessee 3,000,000 1,523,300 d 1,714,400 182,300 1,532,100 100 88 89 -49 13

Texas 7,184,500 7,986,300 9,073,700 0 9,073,700 100 100 100 11 14

Utah 487,500 545,000 600,100 0 600,100 100 100 100 12 10

Vermont 193,100 209,400 215,300 44,800 170,500 70 77 79 8 3

Virgin Islands ... 13,100 ... ... ... ... 31 ... ... ...

Virginia 1,487,600 1,704,600 1,840,800 166,800 1,674,000 89 90 91 15 8

Washington 1,049,500 1,346,000 1,459,700 0 1,459,700 100 100 100 28 8

West Virginia 530,600 543,000 588,300 281,400 306,900 40 46 52 2 8

Wisconsin 1,007,400 1,138,800 1,228,900 0 1,228,900 100 100 100 13 8

Wyoming 119,100 143,300 157,000 0 157,000 100 100 100 20 10

Percent change in 

total file

State

Number of subjects in manual and automated files, 2008 Percent of automated files

Number of subjects in manual 

and automated files
Table 2 explanatory notes:

 American Samoa, New Hampshire, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands, from which no 

 data was submitted.

a The California figures for 2006 and 2008 were updated subsequent to this report being published. The numbers in this table 

 represent the accurate numbers for the state. Note: the figures for 2006 have been changed in this table,

 but not in the corresponding table included in the Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 report.

▪ ... Not available.

 totals, not averages.

▪ The totals for the percent of automated files and the percent change in total files represent percentages of column 

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

b The total increased due to changes in processing operations.

c The 2008 numbers decreased due to consolidations and expungements.

▪ The total number of subjects in manual and automated State criminal history files for 2008 does not include Alabama, 

▪ The "number of subjects (individual offenders)" in the State criminal history file for each year applies only to the 

 criminal history file, including partially automated files, and does not include the master name index.

Data footnotes:

d The Tennessee figure represents the total number of criminal history files/fingerprint cards in the database, which 

 may include multiple files for an individual offender.
Table 3. Biometric and image data collection by State criminal history repository, 2008

State

 Latent prints Flat prints 2-finger prints for ID purposes 2-finger prints for  incarceration/release Palm prints Facial images/  mug shots Scars, marks, tattoos Facial recognition data 1- or 2-finger prints for dispositions

Other

Alabama XX X

Alaska XX X

American Samoa

Arizona XX X X X X

Arkansas X XX Rolled 10 prints

California XX X X X

Colorado X

Connecticut XX X X X 4-finger prints for ID

Delaware XX X X

District of Columbia

Florida XX X 10 print criminal, 10 print civil

Georgia X

Guam XX X

Hawaii XX X X

Idaho XX X

Illinois XX X a

Indiana X

Iowa XX X X

Kansas XX X X

Kentucky XX X

Louisiana XX X X X

Maine X

Maryland XX X X Rolled 10 prints

Massachusetts XX X Rolled 10 prints

Michigan XX X X

Minnesota XX X X X

Mississippi XX X

Missouri X XX

Montana Rolled 10 prints

Nebraska XX X X

Nevada X Rolled 10 prints includes flat

New Hampshire XX X X

New Jersey XX X X X

New Mexico XX X

New York XX X X

North Carolina XX X

North Dakota X X

Northern Mariana Islands

Ohio X X

Oklahoma X X XX

Oregon XX X

Pennsylvania XX X X X X

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island XX X X X

South Carolina X X Rolled 10 prints

South Dakota XX X

Tennessee X X Signatures

Texas XX X X

Utah X X

Vermont XX X X

Virgin Islands

Virginia XX X X

Washington

X X Dispositions with 4-finger slap 

print

West Virginia X X

Wisconsin X XX

Wyoming X X Rolled 10 print

Repository accepted biometric information
Table 3 explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

a Palm prints are retained in the archives and are not used for matching.
Table 4. Protection order information and records, 2008

State

Repository 

receives 

protection order 

information 

Number of repository

protection order 

records

Number of records 

also in FBI-NCIC 

Protective Order File

Repository able to 

flag criminal history 

records for 

protection orders

Felony flagging capability for 

criminal history record subjects

Total 966,027 784,131

Alabama No No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Alaska Yes 1,759 1,151 No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

American Samoa ... ... ...... ...

Arizona Yes 11,742 a 18,842 No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Arkansas Yes ... 5,552 Yes Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

California Yes 281,998 209,980 No No

Colorado No Yes Yes, some subjects with felony convictions

Connecticut No Yes Yes, some subjects with felony convictions

Delaware Yes 4,120 1,328 Yes Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

District of Columbia ... ... ... ... ...

Florida Yes 182,506 182,506 No Yes, some subjects with felony convictions

Georgia Yes 7,352 7,193 Yes Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Guam Yes 58 188 No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Hawaii Yes 28,895 b 0 Yes Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Idaho Yes 631 631 No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Illinois Yes 86,581 86,581 No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Indiana No No c No

Iowa No No Yes, some subjects with felony convictions

Kansas No No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Kentucky No No No

Louisiana No No Yes, some subjects with felony convictions

Maine No No No

Maryland No No Yes, some subjects with felony convictions

Massachusetts No Yes No

Michigan Yes d 19,437 18,222 No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Minnesota Yes 8,959 e 8,875 No Yes, some subjects with felony convictions

Mississippi No No No

Missouri Yes 13,084 13,084 No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Montana No No No

Nebraska No No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Nevada Yes 14,597 0 No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

New Hampshire No ... ...

New Jersey Yes 160,000 160,000 No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

New Mexico No Yes ...

New York No No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

North Carolina No No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

North Dakota Yes 950 No No

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ... ... ...

Ohio No No Yes, some subjects with felony convictions

Oklahoma No No Yes, some subjects with felony convictions

Oregon No No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Pennsylvania Yes 29,589 ... No No

Puerto Rico ... ... ... ... ...

Rhode Island Yes 4,941 ... Yes Yes, some subjects with felony convictions

South Carolina Yes ... ... No Yes, some subjects with felony convictions

South Dakota No No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Tennessee Yes ... 13,693 No Yes, some subjects with felony convictions

Texas Yes 14,435 13,714 No Yes, some subjects with felony convictions f

Utah Yes 48,804 3,378 No Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Vermont No Yes Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Virgin Islands ... ... ... ... ...

Virginia Yes 23,207 23,207 No ...

Washington No Yes Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

West Virginia No Yes Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Wisconsin Yes 15,864 15,413 Yes Yes, all subjects with felony convictions

Wyoming Yes 6,518 593 No g Yes, all subjects with felony convictions
Table 4 explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ ... Not available.

Data footnotes:

c Protection order information is maintained by the Indiana State Police Criminal Justice Data Division. 

d Protective orders are available through the State network but are not considered part of the criminal history 

 because they are not fingerprint-based.

e Figures are as of 4/7/09.

f All records after 1994 are flagged, not prior.

g Queries spawn a check of the State Protective Order database.

b This figure includes inactive orders that are still in the database.

 The repository queries the file daily with regard to firearm permit holders and new applications. 

a Figure refers to active orders as of 2/9/09.
Table 5. State registry of sex offenders, 2008

State

Total number of 

registered sex 

offenders 

Number of registered sex 

offenders on publicly 

available State registry

Actual total record 

count from FBI-NCIC 

(1/1/2009)

Percentage on 

publicly available 

State registry

Total 661,000 472,000 561,706

Alabama 10,900 7,400 6,173 68% a

Alaska 2,500 2,500 2,156 100

American Samoa ... ... ...

Arizona 14,600 3,500 b 12,587 24

Arkansas 8,900 5,500 6,866 62

California 115,900 65,800 62,352 57

Colorado 10,400 10,400 9,567 100

Connecticut 3,500 3,500 4,443 100

Delaware 3,600 2,400 3,548 67

District of Columbia ... ... 1,149 ...

Florida 50,700 50,700 50,505 100

Georgia 16,500 16,500 13,877 100

Guam 500 500 246 100

Hawaii 2,800 1,900 1,953 68

Idaho 3,200 3,200 3,101 100

Illinois 20,200 25,400 20,803 100

Indiana ... ... 10,627 ... c

Iowa 5,000 4,900 4,821 98

Kansas 6,800 4,700 3,645 69

Kentucky 7,300 5,700 5,708 78

Louisiana 9,800 9,800 7,423 100

Maine 3,300 3,300 3,188 100

Maryland 6,100 3,100 5,908 51

Massachusetts 10,600 1,700 13,326 16

Michigan 43,800 41,500 40,671 95

Minnesota 14,800 800 13,909 50

Mississippi 5,300 5,300 4,074 100

Missouri 7,300 7,200 6,896 99

Montana 1,800 1,800 1,826 100

Nebraska 2,900 1,300 2,896 45

Nevada 6,400 2,400 2,701 38

New Hampshire 4,100 1,600 2,252 39

New Jersey 12,400 2,800 12,288 23

New Mexico 2,500 2,400 2,699 96

New York 28,000 16,600 27,827 59

North Carolina 12,000 ... 11,358 ...

North Dakota 1,400 1,300 1,093 93

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ...

Ohio 19,700 18,700 13,773 95

Oklahoma ... ... 6,367 ...

Oregon 15,400 800 d 14,092 50 e

Pennsylvania 10,300 10200 8,234 99

Puerto Rico ... ... 237 ...

Rhode Island 1,300 ... 1365 ...

South Carolina 11,200 10,700 6,708 96

South Dakota 2,500 2,500 2,493 100

Tennessee 12,000 11,100 10,593 93

Texas 55,800 48,800 49,044 87

Utah 6,200 6,200 3,379 100

Vermont 2,400 400 2,079 17

Virgin Islands ... ... 39 ...

Virginia 18,500 18,500 15,694 100

Washington 20,200 1,000 20,820 50

West Virginia 3,500 3,400 2,618 97

Wisconsin 23,600 21,000 18,555 89

Wyoming 2,600 1,300 1,154 50
Table 5 explanatory notes:

 Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

 Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

 Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100, except for the FBI-NCIC record count. 

 ... Not available.

 The total number of State registered sex offenders does not include American

 Samoa, the District of Columbia, Indiana, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico,

 or the Virgin Islands, from which no data was submitted.

Data footnotes:

a Total figure in the database was 10,883 as of 3/25/2009.

b Only level 2 and 3 offenders are posted on the site. 

c The Indiana Sex Offender Registry is maintained by the Indiana Department of 

 Correction in partnership with the Indiana Sheriffs' Association.

d Does not include the number of persons incarcerated (1,480) awaiting release, 

 as Oregon law does not require them to register until they are released.

e Oregon registry is for high-risk offenders only.
Table 5a. Community notification services and public access to records, 2008

State Community notification services?

Sex 

offender 

registry

Orders of 

protection / 

Protection orders

Wants and 

warrants

Retained 

applicant 

prints

Rap back for 

criminal justice 

purposes

Wanted 

Persons

Firearm 

registration

Alabama X X

Alaska Sex offender residence, employment, or school X X XX a

American Samoa ...

Arizona XX X X

Arkansas Sex offender residence, employment, or school; victim

notification to crime victims XX X X

California X XX X X

Colorado Sex offender residence, employment, or school X X X X XX b

Connecticut X XX

Delaware Sex offender residence, employment, or school; victim

notification to crime victims X X XX X X c

District of Columbia ...

Florida Sex offender residence, employment, or school X X XX X X

Georgia X X d

Guam XX X X

Hawaii Sex offender residence, employment, or school X X e

Idaho XX X X

Illinois X X X X X XX

Indiana f

Iowa X

Kansas X XX

Kentucky X

Louisiana Sex offender residence, employment, or school X X X X XX

Maine X

Maryland Sex offender residence, employment, or school; victim

notification to crime victims X XX X

Massachusetts X X

Michigan Sex offender residence, employment, or school X X X X X XX

Minnesota XX X X

Mississippi Sex offender residence, employment, or school XX X

Missouri Victim notification to crime victims X

Montana X

Nebraska X XX X X g

Nevada Sex offender residence, employment, or school XX X X h

New Hampshire

New Jersey X X X X X XX

New Mexico X X

New York Sex offender residence, employment, or school; victim

notification to crime victims X X Xx X X

North Carolina Sex offender residency, employment, or school; victim 

notification to crime victims X XX

North Dakota No XX X

Northern Mariana Islands ... X X

Ohio X XX

Oklahoma

Oregon X i

Pennsylvania Sex offender residence, employment, or school X X XX X X

Puerto Rico ...

Rhode Island X X X X Xj

South Carolina X XX

South Dakota

Tennessee XX X

Texas

Utah X XX

Vermont Sex offender residence, employment, or school; victim

notification to crime victims X X XX X

Virgin Islands ...

Virginia Sex offender residency, employment, or school XX X

Washington No X

West Virginia No X k

Wisconsin No XX X X

Wyoming Sex offender residency, employment, or school X X X X XX

In addition to criminal history information, to what other records 

did your State provide access in 2008?
Table 5a explanatory notes:

b In addition to criminal history information, Colorado provides access to the Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) file.

i Some Department of Corrections.

j Permit to carry a firearm.

k Child abuse registry/concealed weapons permit.

f Firearm permits and rap-back for those permit holders to Indiana State Police firearms section.

▪ ... Not available.

c Public may sign up for email notification of Sexually Violent Predators (SVPs).

d Georgia contributes data to the NCIC wanted persons file, but does not maintain a local database.

e Orders of protection are not accessible by the public but can be accessed by statewide criminal justice users.

Data footnotes:

a Alaska also provides rap back for certain government agencies.

g Missing persons, concealed handgun permits.

h CCW, Parole and Probation, DMV vehicle and driver's license. CCW permit fingerprints are for rap back only.
Table 6. Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 2001, 2003, 2006, and 2008

State 2001 2003 2006 2008 2001-2003 2003-2006 2006-2008

Total 9,035,300 9,552,100 10,475,400 12,487,800

Alabama ... ... ... 65,500 ... ... ... 

Alaska 46,500 51,000 47,200 46,200 10% -7% -2%

American Samoa ... ... 300 ... ...... ...

Arizona 296,800 406,700 255,800 185,800 -37 -37 -27

Arkansas 127,400 96,500 114,000 185,800 -24 18 63

California 1,058,000 ... 1,500,000 1,784,100 ... ... 19

Colorado 29,900 46,900 36,000 22,800 57 -23 -37

Connecticut 108,100 68,900 ... 104,800 -36 ... ...

Delaware 104,900 105,900 154,200 127,000 1 46 -18

District of Columbia ... 21,000 28,500 ... ... 36 ...

Florida 843,900 a 644,700 1,036,600 b 1,316,800 c -24 61 27

Georgia 360,000 397,400 454,600 600,600 10 14 32

Guam ... ... 500 900 ... ... 74

Hawaii 99,000 68,800 75,100 51,200 -31 9 -32

Idaho 21,600 37,000 111,500 d 126,000 71 201 13

Illinois 400 ... 492,500 436,600 ... ... -11

Indiana 113,000 222,000 211,400 201,600 96 -5 -5

Iowa 67,400 121,900 141,500 253,400 81 16 79

Kansas 86,700 99,100 240,200 192,900 14 142 -20

Kentucky 31,900 20,000 101,600 e 291,300 -37 408 187

Louisiana 21,200 26,200 15,000 18,600 24 -43 24

Maine ... ... ... 10,200 ... ... ...

Maryland 190,800 190,800 58,500 335,900 0 -69 474

Massachusetts ... ... 424,700 423,200 f ... ... -1

Michigan 559,800 332,200 295,000 348,000 -41 -11 18

Minnesota 1,372,300 1,521,700 ... 230,100 g 11 38 -89

Mississippi 100 1,600 13,300 13,100 1500 731 -2

Missouri 1,013,700 1,328,300 158,200 188,500 31 -3 -85

Montana 15,000 16,900 h 17,800 h 21,400 13 5 20

Nebraska 38,900 55,000 51,100 47,900 41 -7 -6

Nevada 45,000 180,000 84,000 35,900 300 -53 -57

New Hampshire ... 45,100 ... ... ... ... ...

New Jersey 337,500 i 354,100 465,900 525,700 5 32 13

New Mexico ... ... 14,300 16,300 ... ... 14

New York 679,200 722,500 482,900 517,400 6 -33 7

North Carolina ... ... ... 312,500 ... ... ...

North Dakota 8,800 10,900 12,500 19,000 24 15 52

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Ohio 158,600 262,700 211,100 288,300 66 -20 37

Oklahoma 4,600 ... 56,400 68,800 ... ... 22

Oregon 176,200 ... 166,000 190,600 ... ... 15

Pennsylvania 102,600 195,900 331,400 157,300 91 69 ...

Puerto Rico 59,900 ... 53,500 ... ... ... ...

Rhode Island 72,000 ... ... 13,300 ... ... ...

South Carolina ... ... 199,600 204,500 ... ... 2

South Dakota ... ... 42,900 64,900 j ... ... 51

Tennessee ... 94,500 131,300 235,600 ... 39 79

Texas ... 744,500 1,015,300 986,200 ... 36 -3

Utah 61,400 26,600 158,200 k 180,600 -57 495 14

Vermont 28,700 36,400 29,100 28,500 27 -20 -2

Virgin Islands ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Virginia 335,900 353,900 315,700 433,600 5 -11 37

Washington 289,200 221,400 262,000 305,200 -23 18 16

West Virginia ... 111,600 43,000 46,000 ... -61 7

Wisconsin 63,200 301,700 354,700 211,000 377 18 -41

Wyoming 5,200 9,800 10,500 16,400 88 7 56

Number of final case dispositions Percent change
e CCH interface and Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to CCH database.

f The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a separate disposition database. Currently these dispositions 

 are not submitted to the repository. Ninety-nine percent of records in the Massachusetts database 

 have dispositions. 

Table 6 explanatory notes:

 or final trial court disposition. 

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ Final dispositions include release by police without charging, declination to proceed by prosecutor, 

▪ Except for Ohio, for which corrected data were submitted, the data in the columns for 2001 were taken 

 Information Systems, 2001 (September 2003), Table 3. 

 from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History 

h 2003 Nevada total included incomplete dispositions. 2006 total does not include incomplete dispositions.

Data footnotes:

 Information Systems, 2003 (February 2006), Table 3. 

▪ Except for Ohio, for which corrected data were submitted, the data for 2003 were taken from 

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

g Figure includes all transmissions (not unique court files), including juvenile dispositions

k Increase due to online connectivity of Utah courts and other system changes.

c Figure includes dispositions received where there is no associated fingerprint-based arrest in CCH.

d Increase due to Idaho beginning to receive all dispositions and discarding those not matching.

e Increase due to Kentucky beginning Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) to 

i The figure represents final New Jersey charge dispositions.

a Figure includes all Florida charge levels for calendar year 2001.

b 818,953 entered into the Florida computerized criminal history (CCH) file.

 from the count.

 (each time a clerk makes a change, information is received again). There is no way to separate those 

j Figure represents total dispositions received; however, several of those cases were reported multiple times
Table 6a. Final disposition reporting, 2008

State

Total 12,727,000 4,603,500

Alabama 65,500 ... ... ... ...

Alaska 46,200 32,400 100% 0% 0% a

American Samoa ...... ... ... ...

Arizona 425,000 425,000 99.9 0.01 99.9 b

Arkansas 185,800 185,800 69 31 0

California 1,784,100 784,100 100 0 0

Colorado 22,800 0 0 0 0

Connecticut 104,800 0 100 0

Delaware 127,000 0 0 0 0

District of Columbia ... ... ... ...

Florida 1,316,800 c 0 d 0 0 0

Georgia 600,600 600,600 100 0 0

Guam 900 200 ... 85 ...

Hawaii 51,200 47,200 100 0 0

Idaho 126,000 0 0 0 0 e

Illinois 436,600 0 0 0 0

Indiana 201,600 0 0 0 0 f

Iowa 253,400 0 0 0 0

Kansas 192,900 0 0 0 0

Kentucky 291,300 29,100 0 100 0

Louisiana 18,600 0 0 0 0

Maine 10,200 0 0 0 0

Maryland 335,900 0 0 0 0

Massachusetts 423,200 0 0 0 0

Michigan 348,000 30,000 0 100 0

Minnesota 230,100 0 0 0 0

Mississippi 13,100 0 0 0 0

Missouri 188,500 169,700 90 10 0

Montana 21,400 0 0 0 0

Nebraska 47,900 0 0 g 0 0

Nevada 35,900 9,200 0 100 0

New Hampshire ... ... 0 100 0

New Jersey 525,700 0 h 0 0 0

New Mexico 16,300 9,900 0 100 0

New York 517,400 ... i 90 10 0

North Carolina 312,500 0 0 0 0

North Dakota 19,000 19,000 100 0 0

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... .... .... ....

Ohio 288,300 288,300 100 0 0

Oklahoma 68,800 14,300 100 0 0

Oregon 190,600 0 0 0 0

Pennsylvania 157,300 145,400 100 0 0

Puerto Rico ... ... .... .... ....

Rhode Island 13,300 13,300 0 0 100

South Carolina 204,500 204,500 100 0 0

South Dakota 64,900 j ... 98 2

Tennessee 235,600 235,600 75 25 0

Texas 986,200 986,200 100 0 0

Utah 180,600 0 0 0 0

Vermont 28,500 15,400 0 100 0

Virgin Islands ... ... .... .... ....

Virginia 433,600 10,700 0 100 0

Washington 305,200 299,000 100 ... 0

West Virginia 46,000 29,000 ... 100 ...

Wisconsin 211,000 3,200 0 100 0

Wyoming 16,400 16,400 90 0 10

Percent of FBIforwarded 

dispositions sent by 

Interstate 

Identification Index 

(III) Message Key

Total final case 

dispositions 

received in 2008

How many sent 

to FBI?

Percent of FBIforwarded dispositions 

sent by machine 

readable data (MRD)

Percent of FBIforwarded 

dispositions sent via 

hard copy or paper
a Not all criminal history records maintained in Alaska's CCH are based on positive fingerprint 

 identification. Consequently, unable to send to FBI in these cases.

 working MRD. The Nebraska State Police has continuously worked with the FBI to ensure 

 MRD information is sent in a timely manner.

i One hundred percent of those convicted were sent to the FBI. 

j Figure represents total dispositions received; however, several were reported multiple times.

 There is no way to separate those from the count.

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ ... Not available.

d Florida is an NFF state and does not submit dispositions to the FBI.

h New Jersey is an NFF state and does not submit dispositions to the FBI. 

c 818,953 entered into the Florida CCH file.

b 99.9% MRD through May/June 2008; 99.99% through III beginning June 2008.

f Indiana is beginning to test sending dispositions via the III Message Key.

g Nebraska has migrated to a new criminal history system and has not been able to submit a 

Data footnotes:

Table 6a explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

e Idaho is an NFF state and does not submit dispositions to the FBI.
Table 7. Automation of disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 2008

State

Does your state have a 

statewide Administrative Office 

of the Courts (AOC)?

Total

Alabama 100% a No Yes Yes

Alaska 14 No Yes Yes

American Samoa ...... ... ...

Arizona 15 Yes Yes Yes

Arkansas 5 Yes Yes Yes

California 42 Yes Yes No

Colorado na Yes Yes Yes

Connecticut ... Yes Yes Yes

Delaware 0 Yes Yes Yes

District of Columbia ... ... ... ...

Florida 34 b Yes Yes No

Georgia ... c Yes Yes ...

Guam na Yes Yes ...

Hawaii 2 Yes Yes Yes

Idaho 40 Yes Yes Yes

Illinois 5 Yes Yes Yes

Indiana 29 No Yes d No

Iowa 0 Yes Yes Yes

Kansas 35 Yes Yes No

Kentucky 60 Yes Yes Yes

Louisiana ... Yes Yes No

Maine 0 Yes Yes Yes

Maryland 27 Yes Yes Yes

Massachusetts 0 No Yes No

Michigan 11 Yes Yes Yes

Minnesota 14 Yes Yes Yes

Mississippi 20 No Yes No

Missouri 6 Yes Yes Yes

Montana 13 Yes Yes No

Nebraska 0 Yes Yes Yes

Nevada 10 Yes Yes No

New Hampshire ... No Yes Yes

New Jersey ... Yes Yes Yes

New Mexico 10 No Yes No

New York 1 Yes Yes Yes

North Carolina 7 Yes Yes Yes

North Dakota ... No Yes No

Northern Mariana Islands ...... ... ...

Ohio 10 Yes Yes No

Oklahoma 0 No Yes No

Oregon ... Yes Yes Yes

Pennsylvania 22 Yes Yes Yes

Puerto Rico ...... ... ...

Rhode Island 4 Yes Yes Yes

South Carolina ... Yes Yes Yes

South Dakota ... Yes Yes Yes

Tennessee 10 Yes Yes Yes

Texas 0 Yes Yes No

Utah 57 Yes Yes Yes

Vermont 0 No Yes Yes

Virgin Islands ... No No ...

Virginia 9 Yes Yes Yes

Washington 2 Yes Yes Yes

West Virginia ... No Yes No

Wisconsin 7 Yes Yes Yes

Wyoming 1 No No No

Was any court disposition data 

reported directly to the repository 

by automated means?

Does the AOC provide disposition 

information to the state repository?

Percentage of all 

dispositions received that 

could not be linked to a 

specific arrest record
 The court Judicial Technology Advisory Committee (JTAC) is building a statewide automated court reporting system 

▪ na Not applicable.

▪ ... Not available.

Table 7 explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

 that will ultimately send dispositions electronically to the repository.

d Indiana's repository is currently receiving the bulk of dispositions from the Prosecuting Attorneys' system, PROSLINK. 

 to individual charges.

c In Georgia, it is unknown how many dispositions are submitted by law enforcement vs. courts, although the majority 

 would be from individual courts. With new computerized criminal history (CCH), the repository will be linking dispositions

Data footnotes:

 many juvenile dispositions reported relate to offenses for which the repository did not receive arrest fingerprints. 

 misdemeanor offenses. As of 7/1/08, clerks of court are required to submit all juvenile dispositions. For this reason,

b Florida State law requires that juvenile arrests be reported to the repository for felonies and only certain specified 

a In Alabama, the 2008 dispositions have not been entered due to a backlog.
Table 8. Arrest records submitted electronically, 2008 

State

Criminal justice 

purposes only

Noncriminal justice 

purposes only

Used for both criminal and 

noncriminal

Grand total number of 

devices

Total 5,271 6,953 2,245 14,021

Alabama 76 117 0 193

Alaska 10 1 0 11

American Samoa ...... ... ...

Arizona 116 0 0 116 a

Arkansas 27 0 0 27

California 524 1,875 279 2,678

Colorado 150 15 165 165

Connecticut 0 27 120 147

Delaware 68 6 0 74

District of Columbia 15 1 0 16

Florida 172 631 na 803

Georgia ... ... ... 407 b

Guam 10 0 1

Hawaii 19 31 0 50

Idaho 32 9 0 41

Illinois 489 219 ... 708

Indiana 64 58 0 122

Iowa 55 2 0 57

Kansas 88 3 88 91

Kentucky 104 31 12 147

Louisiana 179 30 179 209

Maine 4 0 8 12

Maryland 81 39 0 120

Massachusetts 175 2 0 177 c

Michigan 400 155 400 555

Minnesota 167 14 0 181

Mississippi 81 95 25 201

Missouri 228 29 0 257

Montana 0 3 25 28

Nebraska 0 0 24 24

Nevada 22 59 81 162 d

New Hampshire 28 2 28 58

New Jersey 394 30 0 424

New Mexico 34 29 0 63

New York ...... ...

North Carolina na na 189 189

North Dakota 0 0 10 10

Northern Mariana Islands ...... ... ...

Ohio 182 2,735 0 2,917

Oklahoma 6 4 41 51

Oregon 44 e 19 e 0 63 e

Pennsylvania 16 136 198 350

Puerto Rico ...... ... ...

Rhode Island 52 1 53 53

South Carolina 80 35 1 116

South Dakota 5 4 22 31

Tennessee 130 95 0 255

Texas 450 93 0 543

Utah 39 47 15 101

Vermont 22 0 19 41

Virgin Islands ...... ... ...

Virginia 285 123 140 548

Washington 26 99 77 202

West Virginia 0 10 0 10

Wisconsin 109 39 46 194

Wyoming 22 0 0 22

Number of livescan devices in use as of 12/31/2008
a Noncriminal prints are not sent electronically.

c All livescan devices are capable of submitting criminal and noncriminal fingerprints; however, 

 policy prohibits the submission of applicant prints.

Data footnotes:

b It is unknown how many livescan devices are used for only criminal justice purposes.

▪ na Not applicable.

▪ ... Not available.

Table 8 explanatory notes: 

 They may be used exclusively for criminal arrest processing or may provide local service for 

e Most livescan devices represented here are at county jails that book for all local law 

 employment/licensing applicants.

d Total figure refers to number known by Nevada Department of Public Safety only. 

 enforcement within the county (PD, SO, SP). Twenty-five of 36 total counties.
Table 9. Criminal and noncriminal justice background checks submitted electronically, 2008

State

Criminal justice 

purposes

Percentage 

of total

Noncriminal 

justice purposes 

Percentage 

of total

Criminal justice 

purposes

Noncriminal 

justice 

purposes 

Total 10,652,300 7,746,900 5,687 10,363 6,563

Alabama 132,100 78% 32,800 63% 30% 62 2 ...

Alaska 20,900 78 0 <1 35 10 1 ...

American Samoa ...... ... ... ... ... ...

Arizona 107,600 93 0 0 0 70 0 48

Arkansas 75,100 86 72,100 0 50 27 0 0

California 1,579,300 99 1,896,400 96 51 839 940 ...

Colorado 234,400 94 36,800 37 3 93 100 na

Connecticut 165,800 74 12,600 26 33 95 147 0

Delaware 30,400 48 32,500 52 30 68 1 0

District of Columbia 49,600 98 49,600 2 ... 20 2 146

Florida 983,900 93 930,600 81 26 81 5,503 1,292

Georgia 474,800 64 215,100 36 0 ... ... ...

Guam 0 1 0 1 8 1 1 0

Hawaii 33,100 90 23,200 68 0 5 7 1

Idaho 67,900 82 23,100 33 0 27 1 66

Illinois 623,000 65 225,900 24 6 379 113 ...

Indiana 180,400 90 40,300 57 7 61 4 600+

Iowa 87,700 80 900 na 0 49 50 na

Kansas 106,300 71 3,200 91 ... 88 3 ...

Kentucky 208,800 98 11,100 30 0 104 43 754

Louisiana 307,700 91 11,200 4 20 179 30 ...

Maine 11,600 46 0 2 33 12 12 114

Maryland 220,300 94 65,000 36 33 70 29 80 a

Massachusetts 135,300 80 300 1 ... 175 175 5

Michigan 426,400 95 313,900 98 24 260 33 300

Minnesota 152,300 99 b 251,200 55 b 0 126 2 966

Mississippi 69,800 90 50,300 45 0 64 62 ...

Missouri 206,200 84 115,500 85 28 183 6 538

Montana 18,100 87 22,000 95 0 25 28 27

Nebraska 34,800 73 8,100 50 0 20 24 6

Nevada 98,700 90 63,400 43 45 22 44 91 c

New Hampshire 23,500 ... 16,700 ... ... 30 30 ...

New Jersey 185,800 79 326,900 87 47 371 50 0

New Mexico 64,300 74 85,000 89 19 30 24 260+

New York 530,600 88 451,500 74 40 242 92 33

North Carolina 4,700 88 123,300 12 11 189 189 310

North Dakota 7,200 61 100 1 0 10 3 15

Northern Mariana Islands ...... ...... ... ... ... ...

Ohio 328,500 81 957,700 92 0 173 2,141 874

Oklahoma 72,800 55 6,500 13 26 47 1 240

Oregon 102,000 76 800 <1 6 40 19 5 d

Pennsylvania 281,200 55 251,100 45 5 409 7 217

Puerto Rico ...... ...... ... ... ... ...

Rhode Island 39,400 100 13,500 100 0 46 47 3

South Carolina 180,700 65 10,900 43 ... 43 3 na

South Dakota 23,200 85 0 0 ... 27 0 20 e

Tennessee 380,700 96 173,200 89 5 ... ... ...

Texas 798,900 87 530,900 68 17 330 92 ...

Utah 85,500 80 38,200 60 <1 36 42 ...

Vermont 4,400 17 9,000 84 <1 17 17 ...

Virgin Islands ...... ...... ... ... ... ...

Virginia 280,200 93 138,000 74 0 222 90 0

Washington 238,200 88 89,700 60 1 77 99 ...

West Virginia ... 0 4,700 8 50 ... 2 ...

Wisconsin 159,100 92 12,100 8 ... 115 52 370

Wyoming 19,100 100 0 0 ... 18 ... 42

Number of fingerprints submitted via livescan devices

Percentage of 

noncriminal 

justice 

fingerprints in 

State criminal 

history records

Total number of 

agencies without 

livescan that receive 

livescan services from 

other agencies

Total number of agencies 

submitting fingerprints via livescan 

devices
Data footnotes:

b These are the percentages of prints submitted via livescan to the repository. One hundred percent

c Total figure refers to number known by Nevada Department of Public Safety only. 

 county (PD, SO, SP). Twenty-five of 36 total counties. 

 mailed to the Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI), not submitted electronically via livescan.

a Figure represents number of locations, not machines.

 are submitted electronically to the FBI.

d Most livescan devices represented here are at county jails that book for all local law enforcement within the 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ ... Not available

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

e South Dakota does have agencies that use livescan devices to print applicants, but the cards are printed out and

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

Table 9 explanatory notes:
Table 9a. Noncriminal justice applicant information, 2008

State

Does your state combine both 

criminal events and noncriminal justice applicant 

information in the same 

record?

If so, how many records on 

your database contain both 

criminal events and noncriminal justice applicant 

information?

Of the total records in your 

database, what percentage 

represents records that contain both 

criminal events and noncriminal 

justice applicant information?

Alabama No

Alaska No

American Samoa ... ... ...

Arizona No

Arkansas No

California Yes ... ...

Colorado Yes 296,885 21%

Connecticut Yes ... ...

Delaware Yes 70,952 11

District of Columbia ... ... ...

Florida No

Georgia No

Guam No

Hawaii No

Idaho No

Illinois Yes 348,051 6

Indiana No

Iowa No

Kansas No

Kentucky No

Louisiana Yes 187,777 ...

Maine No

Maryland Yes

Massachusetts No

Michigan Yes 90,255 3

Minnesota No

Mississippi No

Missouri Yes 89,212 6

Montana No

Nebraska No

Nevada No

New Hampshire No

New Jersey Yes ... ...

New Mexico No

New York Yes 770,422 11

North Carolina No

North Dakota No

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ...

Ohio No

Oklahoma Yes 40,999 3

Oregon Yes 53,049 4

Pennsylvania Yes 42,984 8

Puerto Rico ... ... ...

Rhode Island Yes 3,193 ...

South Carolina No

South Dakota No

Tennessee No

Texas No

Utah No

Vermont No

Virgin Islands ... ... ...

Virginia No

Washington Yes 594 0

West Virginia Yes ... ...

Wisconsin No

Wyoming No
▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates.

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

Table 9a explanatory notes: 

▪ ... Not available.

Data footnotes:
Table 10. Certification and privatization of fingerprint capture services, 2008

State

Does your State 

have a certification 

program for persons 

taking fingerprints?

Established 

through 

legislation?

Has your State 

privatized the taking 

of noncriminal justice 

fingerprints?

Does the vendor 

assess a fee above 

what the State 

charges to perform the 

background check?

If so, what 

is the fee?

Does the vendor provide any additional 

services besides the fingerprint capture (e.g., 

evaluating responses for the requestor, sending 

responses back to the requestor)

Alabama Yes Yes No $

Alaska No No Yes Varies No

American Samoa ... ... ... ... ... ...

Arizona No No

Arkansas Yes No No

California Yes Yes Yes Yes Varies ...

Colorado No No Yes Varies

Connecticut No No

Delaware No No

District of Columbia ... ... ... ... ... ...

Florida No Yes Yes Varies No

Georgia No No Yes 12.9 Receive and route results to authorized 

entities.

Guam No No

Hawaii No No

Idaho No No a

Illinois No Yes Yes Varies b

Indiana Yes No Yes Yes 20 No c, d

Iowa No No

Kansas No No

Kentucky No No

Louisiana No No

Maine No No e

Maryland Yes Yes No Yes Varies No

Massachusetts No Yes Yes ... No, currently limited to Department of 

Children and Families.

Michigan No Yes Yes 13.25 No

Minnesota No No ... ... ...

Mississippi No Yes Yes Varies No

Missouri Yes No Yes Yes 12.95 No

Montana No No

Nebraska No Yes No

Nevada No Yes Yes Varies No

New Hampshire No No

New Jersey No Yes Yes 11.00 Archiving of image for subsequent 

resubmission.

New Mexico No No Yes Varies ...

New York No No f

North Carolina No No

North Dakota No No

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ... ... ...

Ohio No Yes Yes ... Some provide bookkeeping for agencies, not 

required.

Oklahoma Yes No No g

Oregon No No

Pennsylvania No Yes Yes 36.00 Individual State agencies contract with the 

vendor to provide additional services.

Puerto Rico ... ... ... ... ... ...

Rhode Island Yes Yes No

South Carolina Yes No Yes Yes 10.00 No

South Dakota No No

Tennessee No Yes Yes 9.10

Texas No Yes Yes 9.95 Specialized scheduling, website, and 800 

number scheduling service, billing, 

consolidation of State and FBI responses.

Utah No No

Vermont Yes No No

Virgin Islands ... ... ... ... ... ...

Virginia No No

Washington No No h

West Virginia Yes No No

Wisconsin No Yes Yes 18.00 No

Wyoming No No
c Used by Department of Child Services (DCS). They provided DCS with software to generate letters. Vendor

 has no access to CHRI.

f Executed a contract in February 2009 with L-1 Identity Solutions to take and launch civil fingerprint transactions 

 for an initial fee of $11.50 (amount will change based upon volume). Implementation has begun in Spring 2009. 

 OSBI. Additionally, OSBI offers ink fingerprint training to law enforcement. No training is offered to the private sector.

h Individuals may conduct searches on website by utilizing a credit card account or they may establish a billing account. 

 Nonprofit organizations may set up an account for no fee.

b Unable to answer; there are several vendors.

Table 10 explanatory notes: 

▪ ... Not available.

Data footnotes:

a In Idaho, some noncriminal justice agencies are exploring outsourcing these services.

g The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) trains all current Livescan operators per MOU between site and

d The State of Indiana just signed a contract April 3, 2009, with L-1 Identity Solutions to provide noncriminal justice 

 applicant/volunteer fingerprinting statewide. Their fee is $10.95 per transaction.

e Accepted fingerprints are from law enforcement agencies.
Table 11. Number of felony arrests and current status of backlog, 2008

Size of 

backlog is 

not available

Total 3,096,183 297,989

Alabama 20,282 Yes varies

Alaska 4,383 Yes na

American Samoa ... ... ...

Arizona 79,241 Yes 248

Arkansas 58,496 No

California 644,944 No

Colorado 50,377 No

Connecticut ... Yes 60,000

Delaware 44,244 No

District of Columbia 49,552 ... ...

Florida 383,123 No

Georgia ... No

Guam 1,477 Yes X

Hawaii 8,277 Yes 3,500

Idaho 22,241 No

Illinois 131,781 No

Indiana ... No

Iowa 18,199 No

Kansas 28,674 No

Kentucky ... No

Louisiana ... Yes 5,000

Maine 8,056 Yes 1,000

Maryland 42,361 No

Massachusetts ... Yes 200,000

Michigan 109,966 No

Minnesota 33,918 No

Mississippi 20,587 Yes 85

Missouri 87,402 No

Montana 5,880 No

Nebraska 12,687 Yes 600

Nevada 34,609 No

New Hampshire ... No

New Jersey ... Yes 12,000

New Mexico ... Yes 3,000

New York 169,823 No

North Carolina 160,263 No

North Dakota 4,000 No

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ...

Ohio 167,086 No

Oklahoma 49,757 No

Oregon ... No

Pennsylvania 47,201 Yes 1,000

Puerto Rico ... ... ...

Rhode Island ... No

South Carolina ...

South Dakota 4,741 No

Tennessee ... No

Texas 271,569 No

Utah 21,944 Yes 3,000

Vermont 4,076 Yes <5000 not fully processed to FBI

Virgin Islands

Virginia 165,751 No

Washington 51,168 No

West Virginia 33,303 Yes 1,500

Wisconsin 41,666 Yes 7,056

Wyoming 3,078 No

As of December 31, 2008, was there a 

backlog of arrest data to be entered 

State into AFIS database?

Number of 

reported felony 

arrests

Number of unprocessed or partially 

processed fingerprint cards 

for AFIS database
Data footnotes:

▪ ... Not available.

Table 11 explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.
Table 12. Length of time to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2008

State

Average number of days 

between occurrence of final 

felony court disposition and 

receipt of data

Average number of days between 

receipt of final felony court 

disposition and entry of data into 

criminal history database

Livescan devices in the 

courtroom to link positive 

identifications with 

dispositions

Backlog of entering 

court disposition data 

into criminal history 

database

Number of unprocessed or 

partially processed court 

disposition forms

Total 1,648,756

Alabama 35 730 No Yes varies

Alaska ... ... No Yes 12,300

American Samoa ... ... ... ... ...

Arizona 36 2.3 No No ...

Arkansas 30 20 No Yes 1,872

California 30 1 Yes No ...

Colorado na na No No ...

Connecticut 1-3 0 a No No ...

Delaware 1 1 No No ...

District of Columbia ... ... ... ... ...

Florida 30 1 No No ...

Georgia 30 42 No Yes 10,639

Guam ... ... No Yes ...

Hawaii 15 b 0 c No Yes 122,455 d

Idaho 1 1 No No ...

Illinois ... ... No Yes 52

Indiana ... <1 Yes No ...

Iowa 7 1 No No ...

Kansas 510 e 854 e No Yes 69,207

Kentucky ... 2-90 No Yes 27,200

Louisiana ... ... No Yes 18,608

Maine 14 14 No No ...

Maryland 1-7 1-7 No No ...

Massachusetts ... ... No No ...

Michigan 1 1 No No ...

Minnesota 2 1.5 No No ...

Mississippi ... 5 No No ...

Missouri 14 82 No Yes 274,163

Montana 36 30 No No ...

Nebraska 1 1 No No ...

Nevada ... ... No Yes 205,763

New Hampshire ... ... No Yes 200

New Jersey 0 f 0 f No Yes 40,000

New Mexico ... ... No Yes 8,000

New York real time real time No No ...

North Carolina 3 1 No No ...

North Dakota ... ... No No ...

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ... ... ...

Ohio ... ... Yes Yes g

Oklahoma 7 30 No No ...

Oregon 30 h 30 h No Yes 13,476

Pennsylvania ... 1 No No ...

Puerto Rico ... ... ... ... ...

Rhode Island ... ... Yes Yes ...

South Carolina 5 1 No No ...

South Dakota 15 1 No No ...

Tennessee ... ... No No ...

Texas 30 1 No No ...

Utah <1 <1 No Yes 724,541

Vermont 15 30 i No Yes 4,740 i

Virgin Islands ... ... No Yes ...

Virginia 45 30-60 No Yes 1,350

Washington 297 0-42 No No ...

West Virginia 180 180 No Yes 69,000

Wisconsin 29 1 No Yes 44,323

Wyoming 30-45 2 No Yes 867 j
Table 12 explanatory notes: 

h Thirty-day time lapse is a holding period that was established to ensure that the arrest is entered in CCH 

 before the disposition is transmitted electronically. 

 (monthly dump).

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

j Disposition backlog was for electronically submitted dispositions requiring human intervention to link to 

 identify through our ongoing delinquent monitoring programs because the repository does not receive court forms for the

c In Hawaii, court dispositions are sent electronically to the repository once a week and are posted directly into the 

b This figure represents a median, not an average.

a In Connecticut, final felony trial court dispositions link up with information immediately upon automated receipt.

 associated arrest event.

i This is due to the transition to a new criminal history system and delay in receiving electronic input from the courts

g Six-month backlog; unsure of number. 

 purpose of ongoing data entry. Court dispositions are posted primarily via electronic interfaces to the repository.

f Immediate.

e This figure is skewed due to entering old records from shelf because we request dispositions we never received.

 criminal history record database.

Data footnotes:

d The Hawaii court disposition backlog reflects the number of delinquent court charges and pending charges that we 
Table 13. Length of time to process correctional admission data submitted to State criminal history repository 

 and current status of backlog, 2008

State

Average number of days 

between receipt of 

corrections data and entry

into criminal history 

database

Number of 

corrections agencies 

currently reporting by

automated means

Percent of admission/status 

change/release activity occurring 

in State represented by agencies 

reporting by automated means

Backlog of entering 

corrections data 

into criminal history 

database

Number of unprocessed 

or partially processed 

corrections reports 

Alabama 180 ... ... Yes 1.5 million

Alaska 0 0 0% No ...

American Samoa ... ... ... ... ...

Arizona ... 0 0 na ...

Arkansas 120 0 0 Yes 37,295

California 1 17 95 No ...

Colorado 1 1 100 No ...

Connecticut na 0 0 No ...

Delaware 1 1 100 No ...

District of Columbia ... ... ... ... ...

Florida

Georgia ... 1 100 No ...

Guam 0 0 0 No

Hawaii 0 1 a 100 ... ...

Idaho 1 1 100 b No ...

Illinois ... 36 50 Yes 252

Indiana 0 1 c 100 No ...

Iowa

Kansas 1 1 100 d No ...

Kentucky 1 0 0 No ...

Louisiana 90 33 88 Yes ...

Maine 5 2 ... Yes ...

Maryland 0 2 75 No

Massachusetts 7 1 e 100 No

Michigan na f 0 0 No

Minnesota 3 19 ... No

Mississippi 1 1 100 No

Missouri 1 100 No

Montana 1 2 100 No

Nebraska 1 2 100 No

Nevada ... 0 0 No

New Hampshire ... ... ... ... ...

New Jersey 1 0 0 No

New Mexico 60 0 0 Yes 200

New York real time 25 19 No

North Carolina <21 1 100 No

North Dakota ... 7 ... No

Northern Mariana Island ...... ...... ...

Ohio 0-2 ... 95 No

Oklahoma 1 1 100 Yes g 500

Oregon 5 0 0 No

Pennsylvania 1 1 100 No ...

Puerto Rico ... ... ... ... ...

Rhode Island 1 0 0 No

South Carolina 1 2 100 No

South Dakota 2 0 0 No

Tennessee 0 ... 100 No

Texas 1 1 100 No

Utah <1 ... 100 No

Vermont 10 ... 100 No

Virgin Islands ... 2 100 Yes ...

Virginia 90-120 1 100 No ...

Washington 0-14 0 ... No ...

West Virginia 10 0 ... No ...

Wisconsin 7.5 2 100 No ...

Wyoming 2 0 ... No ...
b Only the admission status is reported automatically, via livescan on entry into the corrections system.

c The Indiana Department of Corrections is the only State correctional agency. It reports all information on 

e Corrections data are not submitted to the repository but they are available in a separate automated database. 

f The Michigan State Police CHR is linked to the Department of Corrections information.

 Correctional information is not actually submitted to the CHR.

g Currently receptions into the Oklahoma Department of Corrections are fingerprint-based and submitted 

 fingerprints, mug photos, palm prints, and arrest information. There is no backlog of these entries. 

 electronically to the Criminal History Database. These submissions include descriptor information, 

 offenders initially via livescan and subsequent movements are submitted on 8"x8" fingerprint cards. 

d Admission information only.

 Sentence information is submitted separately and must be manually entered. Custody changes (releases, 

 movement, etc.) are submitted manually. There is a current 2-week backlog of these manual submissions.

▪ na Not applicable.

Table 13 explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ ... Not available.

 of this information, etc., is not available.

Data footnotes:

 repository via an electronic file transfer/interface on a daily basis. Information as to the timeliness

a The Hawaii Department of Public Safety sends admissions, releases, and status changes to the 
Table 14. Noncriminal justice name-based background checks, 2008

State Total received Via Internet Via mail Via telephone

Total 42,301,100 37,875,300 2,207,800 690,100

Alabama 13,500 0 13,500 0 100%

Alaska 21,200 0 1,300 19,900 a 100

American Samoa ... ... ... ...

Arizona 10,800 0 10,800 0 ...

Arkansas 167,100 167,100 0 0 100

California 0 0 0 0 na

Colorado 344,300 339,700 4,600 0 100 b

Connecticut 71,700 0 71,700 0 ...

Delaware 2,500 0 2,500 0 ...

District of Columbia ... ... ... ...

Florida 1,096,200 624,100 49,500 422,600 ... c

Georgia 3,000 3,000 0 0 ...

Guam 100 0 100 0 100

Hawaii 555,100 552,000 3,100 0 d 10

Idaho 21,300 0 21,300 0 14

Illinois 605,300 558,500 46,800 0 e ...

Indiana 665,500 587,600 77,900 0 4

Iowa 268,700 180,000 88,700 0 20

Kansas 253,300 244,500 8,800 0 ...

Kentucky 64,700 0 64,700 0 5

Louisiana 37,800 27,100 10,700 0 0

Maine 228,800 219,600 9,200 0 21

Maryland 22,700 0 22,500 200 ...

Massachusetts 1,400,000 ... ... ...

Michigan 1,130,000 1,130,000 0 0 ...

Minnesota 81,600 f 0 81,600 0 ...

Mississippi 1,300 0 1,300 0 ...

Missouri 739,300 0 739,300 0 10

Montana 91,300 83,300 8,000 0 20

Nebraska 30,900 0 27,400 3,500 100

Nevada 126,200 45,400 0 80,800 ...

New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 ...

New Jersey 160,800 0 160,800 0 ...

New Mexico 109,000 0 109,000 0 14

New York ... ... ... ...

North Carolina 35,000 0 35,000 0 17

North Dakota 23,900 0 23,900 0 17

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ... ...

Ohio 5,500 0 5,500 0 ...

Oklahoma 293,700 ... ... ...

Oregon 203,600 18,800 21,700 163,100 12

Pennsylvania 1,161,900 962,900 199,000 0 11

Puerto Rico ... ...... ...

Rhode Island ... 175,000 0 0 0

South Carolina 440,800 395,300 45,500 0 ...

South Dakota na na na na g 95

Tennessee 73,700 73,700 0 0 ...

Texas 6,850,900 6,848,500 2,400 0 ...

Utah 9,200 ... ... ... 5

Vermont 86,100 500 85,600 0 h 9

Virgin Islands ... ... ... ... ...

Virginia 284,000 159,000 125,000 0 15

Washington 23,862,300 23,849,200 13,100 0 ...

West Virginia ... ... ... ... ...

Wisconsin 646,500 630,500 16,000 0 17

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 na

Number of name-based noncriminal justice background checks Identification rate for 

name-based 

background checks 

(%)
Table 14 explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

a Telephone figure actually refers to in-person checks.

b In Colorado, there is a 100% identification rate when the subject has a criminal record in

 this State.

c 422,635 received via modem, 0 by phone.

d Hawaii reported in 2006 only the number of Internet-based searches that were purchased.

 The 2008 number represents the total number of searches, regardless of whether or

 not the rap sheet was purchased.

e Illinois does not currently have an Internet-based name check service, but offers a

 means of electronic submission of name-based requests.

f This figure includes name/DOB checks run by the repository, and does not include 

 the 274,400 name-based checks run by the Minnesota Departments of Human Services

 and Education via interface. Nor does it include the name-based Minnesota noncriminal

 checks run by law enforcement agencies.

g All noncriminal background checks processed by the repository are fingerprint-based. 

 However, if prints are rejected, we provide a name-based check. 

h Additional 94,346 checks over NLETS to include firearms.

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.
Table 14a. Noncriminal justice name-based background check processing, 2008

State

First nameLast nameDOBYear of birthGenderSSNRaceAddressesHair colorEye colorFirst nameLast nameDOBYear of birthGenderSSNRaceAddressesHair colorEye color

Alabama XXXXXXXXXX XX X X

Alaska XXXXX X XXXXX X

American Samoa ...

Arizona X X X X X X X

Arkansas XXXXXXX XXXXX X

California na

Colorado XXXX XXXX

Connecticut X X X X X X

Delaware XXXXXXXX XXXX X

District of Columbia ...

Florida X X X X X a X

Georgia XXXXX X XXXXX X

Guam X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Hawaii X X b X X b X

Idaho XXXXX X XXXXX

Illinois X X X X X X X X

Indiana XXXXX X XXX

Iowa XXXXX XXXXX

Kansas XXXX XXXX

Kentucky XXXX X XXXX

Louisiana XXXXX X c

Maine X X X

Maryland XXXXXXXXXX XX X X X

Massachusetts X X X X X X X

Michigan X X X X X X X X X X

Minnesota X X X X X X X

Mississippi XXXX X XX X

Missouri X X X X X X X X d

Montana XXXX XXX X

Nebraska XXXX X XXXX X

Nevada X X X X X X

New Hampshire X X X X X X X

New Jersey X X X XXXXXX XXX X

New Mexico X X X X XXXX X X

New York na

North Carolina XXXXX X XXXXXX X

North Dakota XXXX X XXXX X X

Northern Mariana Islands ...

Ohio X X X X X X X

Oklahoma X X X X X X X

Oregon XXXX X XXXX

Pennsylvania X X X X X X X

Puerto Rico ...

Rhode Island XXXX XXXX X

South Carolina X X X X X X

South Dakota X X X X X X X X X X X

Tennessee XXXXX X XXX X

Texas X X X X X

Utah XXXXXX XXXXXX

Vermont X X X X X X X

Virgin Islands ...

Virginia XXXXX X XXXXX X

Washington X X X X X X

West Virginia na

Wisconsin X X X X X X X X X

Wyoming na

"Loose" spelling featuresInterchangeable first/last name

Other features

Identifiers required for name-based search

 Minimum identifiers to have "hit" 

before response is returned

Phonetic-assisted spelling features
Table 14a explanatory notes: 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

▪ Other features for name-based criminal background checks include one or more of the following: phonetic-assisted 

 spelling features; "loose" spelling features (first name abbreviations, jr/sr assistance); and interchangeable

 first/last name.

Data footnotes:

a In Florida, hits are determined by an automated algorithm and manual review.

b Date of birth, gender, and Social Security Number are optional criteria.

c Fingerprint submission is required.

d Two of the three are required to match (Name, DOB, SSN).
Table 14b. Noncriminal justice name-based background check results, 2008 

State Full record

Convictions 

only

Juvenile 

records

Arrests without dispositionover 1 year old

Alabama X

Alaska

American Samoa ... ...... ... ...

Arizona X

Arkansas X X

California

Colorado X

Connecticut ...

Delaware X

District of Columbia ... ... ... ... ...

Florida X X X

Georgia X a

Guam X

Hawaii X X

Idaho X

Illinois X

Indiana X Arrests <1 year old

Iowa X

Kansas X X

Kentucky X

Louisiana

Maine X

Maryland X X

Massachusetts Combination of these, no juveniles

Michigan X

Minnesota Other depends on purpose of request

Mississippi X

Missouri X

Montana Unspecified

Nebraska b

Nevada X X X Wants/Warrants, Parole and Probation, Carry 

Concealed Weapon Permits, Sex Offender 

Registry, Protection Orders

New Hampshire X

New Jersey Unspecified

New Mexico X

New York

North Carolina X

North Dakota X X

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ... ... ...

Ohio X

Oklahoma X

Oregon X

Pennsylvania X Arrests w/o dispositions < 3 years old

Puerto Rico ... ... ... ... ...

Rhode Island X

South Carolina X

South Dakota X

Tennessee X

Texas X

Utah X

Vermont X

Virgin Islands ... ... ... ... ...

Virginia X X

Washington X

West Virginia X

Wisconsin X Full adult record

Wyoming X No juvenile records

Information contained in the results for a name-based 

noncriminal justice background check

Other information contained in the results
Table 14b explanatory notes:

a In Georgia, sealed First Offender records are restricted to certain purpose codes.

b Nebraska statute 29-3523 went into law on 9/1/07 and requires that (1) not filed charges shall be removed from

 public view after 1 year from the arrest, (2) successful completion of diversion shall be removed from 

 public view 2 years after public view, and (3) dismissed by the court on motion of the prosecutor shall be

 removed from public view 3 years after arrest. Exceptions: (1) subject is currently being prosecuted or under

 correctional control for a separate arrest, (2) announced candidate for public office, or (3) has made a

 notarized request for the release of such record to a specific requester.

Data footnotes:
Table 14c. Noncriminal justice name-based background check authorizations/fees, 2008

State

Is written consent required by the 

subject before a name-based search is 

conducted?

Are local agencies authorized to conduct

name checks of State records for noncriminal justice purposes?

If so, what fee is the local 

agency authorized to 

charge?

Alabama Yes No

Alaska Yes Yes $20

American Samoa ... ... ...

Arizona No No

Arkansas Yes Yes ...

California

Colorado No Yes $6.85

Connecticut No No

Delaware Yes No

District of Columbia ... ... ...

Florida No No

Georgia No Yes Up to $20

Guam No Yes $7

Hawaii Yes Yes $20

Idaho No No

Illinois No No

Indiana No No

Iowa No No

Kansas No No

Kentucky No No

Louisiana Yes Yes ...

Maine No No

Maryland Yes a No

Massachusetts ... ...

Michigan No No

Minnesota Yes Yes ...

Mississippi Yes No

Missouri No Yes b $9

Montana No No

Nebraska No No

Nevada Yes No

New Hampshire Yes No

New Jersey Yes No

New Mexico Yes No

New York ... ... ...

North Carolina Yes No

North Dakota No No

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ...

Ohio Yes No

Oklahoma No No

Oregon No Yes ...

Pennsylvania No No

Puerto Rico ... ... ...

Rhode Island Yes Yes Varies

South Carolina No No

South Dakota Yes No

Tennessee No Yes $29

Texas No Yes $1

Utah Yes Yes Varies

Vermont No No

Virgin Islands ... ... ...

Virginia Yes No

Washington No No

West Virginia Yes No

Wisconsin No No

Wyoming ... No
Table 14c explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

a Yes, with the exception of criminal justice purposes.

b Only for municipal or county employment.

▪ ... Not available.
Table 15. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based background checks, 2008

State

Information contained in the results of 

fingerprint-based noncriminal 

background checks

State offers 

"rapback" service

Identification 

rate (%)

State retains 

noncriminal 

justice fingerprints

Matched 

against 

existing CH 

database

Matched 

against 

latent 

database

Flagged and 

matched against 

subsequent 

submissions

Alabama Full record (Youthful offender and 

protected charges are not given out)

Always 100 a X X X

Alaska 16 1, 2, 3, 4 X X

American Samoa ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Arizona Full record Arrest only 11 5 X X X

Arkansas Convictions, arrests without disposition 

over 1 year old

3 1, 3 X

California Convictions, depends on statutory 

requirements

Arrest only 65 1, 2, 3, 4 X

Colorado Full record Arrest only 100 b 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 X X X

Connecticut Convictions, arrests without disposition 

over 1 year old

Conviction only ... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 X X X

Delaware Full record, convictions, juvenile records No 45 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 X X X

District of Columbia Full record ... 20

Florida Full record, juvenile records, arrests 

without disposition over 1 year old

Arrest only 13 3, 4 c X

Georgia Full record No 15 None

Guam Full record No 100 3 X

Hawaii Full record, convictions No 28 None

Idaho Full record No 16.7 3 X X X

Illinois Convictions Conviction only ... 1, 3 X X X

Indiana Full record d 14 e

Iowa na None

Kansas Convictions f No ... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 X X X

Kentucky Convictions No 5 None

Louisiana Full record, convictions Arrest only 14 1, 2, 3, 4 X X X

Maine Convictions g 1 X X

Maryland Full record, convictions and arrest 

without disposition over 1 year old

Arrest only 17.35 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 X X X

Massachusetts Arrests without disposition over 1 year 

old, all fingerprint-supported arrests

No 7 h

Michigan Full record, other-does not include 

nonpublic records

Yes, always 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 X X X

i

Minnesota Other-depends on request purpose No 20 None

Mississippi Full record No 7.5 3 X X X

Missouri Full record, convictions No 10 1, 2, 3, 4 j X X

Montana Full record No 10 None

Nebraska k Arrest only 100 1, 3, 4 l X X X

Nevada Full record, convictions, arrests without 

dispositions over 1 year old

m 8 nX X

New Hampshire Convictions No ... None X X X

New Jersey Full record Arrest and/or 

conviction when 

requested by 

licensing entity

5-10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 X X X

New Mexico Full record No 21 1, 2, 3, 4 X X

New York Full record Arrests, certain 

filings for 

employment and 

licensing

45 1, 2, 3, 4 X X

North Carolina Full record No 8.7 o X X

North Dakota Depends if it is a PL 92-544 agency No .. X p X X X

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Ohio Full record, juvenile No 7.5 None X

Oklahoma Full record Arrest only 15 1, 3, 4 q X X X

Oregon Full record Arrest only ... 1, 2, 3, 4 X X

Pennsylvania Full record, pass through to FBI Expungements 0 3 X X X

Puerto Rico ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Rhode Island ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

South Carolina Arrest info excluding juvenile records Arrest only r ... 1, 3 X X X

South Dakota Full record ... 95 s X X X t

Tennessee Full record No ... 1, 2, 3, 4 X X

Ways noncriminal justice retained 

fingerprints are utilized
Table 15. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based background checks, 2008 (continued)

State

Information contained in the results of 

fingerprint-based noncriminal 

background checks

State offers 

"rapback" service

Identification 

rate (%)

State retains 

noncriminal 

justice fingerprints

Matched 

against 

existing CH 

database

Matched 

against 

latent 

database

Flagged and 

matched against 

subsequent 

submissions

Texas Full record Arrest only 33 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 X X X

Utah Full record, convictions Convictions only 15 u X X

Vermont Convictions No 7.85 v X X

Virgin Islands ... ... ... ... ...... ...

Virginia Convictions, arrests without disposition 

over 1 year old No 15 None ... ... ...

Washington Convictions only No ... 3 X

West Virginia

Full record Convictions only 20 1, 2, 3, 4 X X X

Wisconsin Full adult record ... 9.9 No

Wyoming Full record No ... 3

Table 15 explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

Data footnotes:

a Alabama retains noncriminal justice fingerprints for applicants.

b In Colorado, ID rate is 100% when subject has previously submitted prints or has criminal history.

c Florida retains noncriminal justice fingerprints for security of seaports.

d Only to Indiana State Police firearms section.

e Used only when name hits for firearm permits.

f In Kansas, some noncriminal justice State agencies have legislation that allows for nonconviction and juvenile information. 

g Other, if required for ongoing standards.

h Partially retained for firearm licenses.

i Also utilized for a rap back.

j Missouri retains all applicant fingerprints.

k Nebraska Statute 29-3523 went into law on 9/1/07 and requires that (1) not filed charges shall be removed from public 

 view after 1 year from the arrest, (2) successful completion of diversion shall be removed from public view 2 years

 after public view, and (3) dismissed by the court on motion of the prosecutor shall be removed from

 public view 3 years after arrest. Exception: (1) subject is currently being prosecuted or under correctional control 

 for a separate arrest, (2) announced candidate for public office, or (3) has made a notarized request for the release

 of such record to a specific requester.

l Nebraska retains all applicant fingerprints as electronic images.

m For the full record, the majority except for NRS 449.176 and NRS 179A.210. For the convictions, it's only NRS 179A.210.

n Carry Concealed Weapon Permits and schools. All others are archived for 3 years and then destroyed. 

o Concealed handgun permits.

p Concealed weapon permit holders.

q Public housing.

r Only for applicants stored in AFIS.

s Law enforcement officers.

t Retained to eliminate latents from crime scenes.

u Special services districts.

v Vermont Department of Public Safety applicants.

Legend: State retains noncriminal justice fingerprints 

1 Licensing.

2 Private sector employment.

3 Employment by justice agencies.

4 Employment by noncriminal government agencies.

5 Retention limited to private sector employment involving vulnerable populations,

 e.g., children, the elderly, and the disabled.

Ways noncriminal justice retained 

fingerprints are utilized
Table 15a. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based background check requirements, 2008

State

Legal requirements to perform 

background checks Other 

Alabama 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Alaska 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 School bus drivers, Alaska Bar Association, Alaska concealed handgun permit, commercial driver 

training schools, mortgage brokers, security guards, civilian process servers

American Samoa ...

Arizona 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10

Arkansas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11

California 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 State agencies' licensees

Colorado 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Connecticut 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Delaware 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

District of Columbia ...

Florida 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Georgia 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10

Guam Firearms permit

Hawaii 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 Employees at adult and youth correctional facilities, liquor license applicants

Idaho 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11

Illinois 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10

Indiana 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 Financial institutions, State employees or contractors

Iowa 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 Division of Banking, Real Estate Commission, domestic abuse centers

Kansas 1, 2, 3

Kentucky 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Louisiana 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Maine 4, 7, 8

Maryland 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Massachusetts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Firearms licensing

Michigan 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Concealed weapons carry, mortgage loan officers, healthcare license, retired law enforcement

Minnesota 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Apartment managers, firefighters, school bus drivers, security guards/protective agents

Mississippi 1, 4, 7, 11

Missouri 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Montana 2, 7, 8

Nebraska 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 Real estate license, horse racing license, gaming commission/State lottery, State-sponsored housing, 

Nebraska Bar Association, controlled substances, developmental services employment, carry concealed 

weapon applicants

Nevada 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 State, City, County licensing boards (professional), criminal justice employees, carry concealed weapons

permits

New Hampshire 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 Municipal employees/volunteers, physicians/surgeons, charitable game licensees, drug/alcohol 

counselors

New Jersey 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

New Mexico 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 Security guards/companies, attorneys, concealed carry licensees, State lottery vendors/employees,

horse racing licensees

New York 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Security guards, commercial check cashers, professional bondsmen, mortgage bankers, mortgage loan 

originators 

North Carolina 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10

North Dakota 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9

Northern Mariana Islands ...

Ohio 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Oklahoma 2, 3, 4, 7, 8

Oregon 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Pennsylvania 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Puerto Rico ...

Rhode Island Gun permits, security licenses, expungements, jury list, housing rentals/employment

South Carolina 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 Bar applicants, emergency medical technician certification

South Dakota 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 Division of Banking, chiropractors, attorneys, abstractors, mortgage licensees

Tennessee 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11

Texas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11

Utah 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Vermont 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Virgin Islands ...

Virginia 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 Mortgage brokers

Washington 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

West Virginia 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11

Wisconsin 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, Security guards, gaming and lottery, prescription drug distributors, private detectives

Wyoming 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 First responders, pharmacists, nurses, optometrists, Wyoming Military Department
Table 15a explanatory notes:

▪ ... Not available.

Data footnotes:

Legal requirements legend:

1 Nurses/elder caregivers.

3 Individuals living in residences of home-based day care providers.

4 School teachers.

5 Nonteaching school employees.

6 Volunteers working with children.

7 Prospective foster care parents.

8 Prospective adoptive parents.

9 Relative caregivers.

10 Nonteaching school personnel.

11 Hazardous materials licensees.

2 Daycare providers.
Table 15b. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) fee retention

State

Does the State process call for retrieving the 

Interstate Identification Index (III) record and 

forwarding it to the requestor when the State check 

reveals a III record rather than forwarding the 

fingerprints to the FBI?

If so, is the FBI fee retained by 

the State?

Is the FBI fee returned to the 

requestor?

Alabama Yes No No

Alaska No

American Samoa ... ... ...

Arizona No

Arkansas No

California No

Colorado No

Connecticut Yes Yes a No

Delaware No

District of Columbia ... ... ...

Florida Yes Yes No

Georgia Yes Yes No

Guam Yes Yes No

Hawaii Yes No No

Idaho Yes Yes No

Illinois No

Indiana No

Iowa No

Kansas No

Kentucky No

Louisiana No

Maine No

Maryland No No

Massachusetts No

Michigan No

Minnesota Yes Yes No

Mississippi No

Missouri Yes No No

Montana Yes Yes No

Nebraska No

Nevada No

New Hampshire No

New Jersey Yes Yes No

New Mexico No

New York No

North Carolina No

North Dakota No

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ...

Ohio No

Oklahoma Yes Yes No

Oregon Yes b No No

Pennsylvania No ... ...

Puerto Rico ... ... ...

Rhode Island No

South Carolina No

South Dakota No

Tennessee Yes Yes No

Texas No

Utah No

Vermont No

Virgin Islands ... ... ...

Virginia No

Washington No

West Virginia No

Wisconsin No

Wyoming No
Table 15b explanatory notes:

▪ ... Not available.

Data footnotes:

a Only $2 is retained by the State.

b Oregon does not charge for the FBI fee unless the request actually is sent to FBI.

 There is no charge for a III hit.
Table 16. Fingerprint record processing by State criminal history repository, 2008

Total Criminal Noncriminal Electronic Mail

Alabama ... ... ... ... 3-7 days 30 days No

Alaska ... ... ... ... 3 days 71 days <5 days

American Samoa ... ... ... ...... ... ...

Arizona na 9 days 9 days

Arkansas ...... ... ... 3 days 42 days 4 days

California X 70 77 66 3 days 11 days 3 days

Colorado ...... ... ... 2 days 2 days 1 day

Connecticut X 100 100 100 24 hours 14 days No

Delaware ...... ... ... 10 days 14 days No

District of Columbia ... ... ... ... 1 day 30-45 days 1 day

Florida ... ... ... ... 1 day 5 days 5 days

Georgia X 93 94 91 1 day 42 days 5 days

Guam ... ... ... ... 1 day ... No

Hawaii X 81 81 82 1 hour 60 days No

Idaho X ... ... 0 2 days 2 days 3 days

Illinois X 83 86 76 1.28 days 1.28 days No

Indiana X 75 85 50 1 day 4 days 4 days

Iowa ... ... ... ...

Kansas X 70 70 70 1 day 5 days 1 day

Kentucky X 50 ... ... 3.5 days 4.5 days 14 days

Louisiana X 37 0 37 3-5 days 14-21 days a <15 days

Maine ... ... ... ... ... ... No

Maryland X 26 b 8 8 1 day 3-5 days 3-5 days 

Massachusetts X 60 ... ... 24 hours 14 days 14 days

Michigan X 80 80 80 2 days 14 days No

Minnesota X 100 100 0 1 day 7 days No

Mississippi X 89 93 86 .17 hours 7 days No

Missouri X 87 87 87 7 days 21 days 1 day

Montana X ... ... ... 2 days 5 days 5 days

Nebraska X ... ... ... na 7 days 3 days

Nevada X 20 ... ... c 7 days 10 days 4 days

New Hampshire X 100 100 100 8.5 hours 30 days No

New Jersey ... ... ... ... 2 hours 5 days 10 days

New Mexico X 92 92 92 1 day 42 days No

New York X 44 54 31 d 12 hours 3 days, 1 hr 1 day

North Carolina X 85 85 82 3-4 days 3-4 days 3-4 days

North Dakota ... ... ... ... ... 3 days 3 days

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ... ...... ... ...

Ohio X ... 34 91 10 days 23 days <30 days

Oklahoma X 90 90 70 1 day 21 days No

Oregon ... ... ... ... 4 days 4 days 1 day

Pennsylvania ... ... ... ... 24 hours 21-25 days No

Puerto Rico ... ... ... ...... ... ...

Rhode Island X 80 70 10 ... 1 day ...

South Carolina X 90 90 90 2-6 hours 3 days No

South Dakota ... ... ... ... na 1-5 days No

Tennessee X 80 80 80 2 days 5 days 2/5 days

Texas ... ... ... ... 1 day 3 days 3 days

Utah X 30 30 0 5-10 days 28-42 days 5 days

Vermont X 30 30 30 1 day 15 days 15 days

Virgin Islands ... ... ... ...... ... ...

Virginia ... ... ... 2 days 17 days No

Washington X ... ... ... 1-2 days 14-28 days 5 days

West Virginia ... ... ... 3 days 14 days 10-15 days

Wisconsin X 12 0 80 1.8 days 3 days No

Wyoming ... ... ... 1 day 2 days 3 days

Goal established for 

maximum processing time

Percentage of fingerprints handled with "lights 

out" processing

State

Average processing time (days) 

from fingerprint receipt to response 

(days, hours) Repository conducts 

"lights out" 

processing
b Percentage figures are based on the number of new SIDs only.

c "Lights-out" processing for criminal, not civil. 

d The Division of Criminal Justice Services has a partial "lights out" processing on the back end for "sure

Table 16 explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ ... Not available.

 hits" but not for "no sure hits." Patterns may be entered manually on the front end.

a Figures represent work days.

▪ na Not applicable.

Data footnotes:
Table 17. State criminal history repository operating hours, 2008

State M - F Sat Sun M - F Sat Sun

Alabama 8 8

Alaska 8 8

American Samoa

Arizona 24 24 24 24 24 24

Arkansas 24 24 24 24 24 24

California 24 24 24 24 24 24

Colorado 24 24 24 24 24 24

Connecticut 14 14

Delaware 8 8

District of Columbia

Florida 24 24 24 24 24 24

Georgia 24 24 24 16 16 8

Guam 10

Hawaii 8 8 a

Idaho 8 10 10 10 d

Illinois 24 18 18 20 18 18

Indiana 8 8

Iowa 8 8

Kansas 16 8 8 16 8 8

Kentucky 8 16 8 8 d

Louisiana 8 8

Maine 8 12 d

Maryland 24 24 24 24 24 24

Massachusetts 24 24 24 24 24 24

Michigan 16 8 8 24 8 8 d

Minnesota 24 24 24 24 24 24 b

Mississippi 8 8

Missouri 24 24 24 24 24 24

Montana 8 8

Nebraska 10 10

Nevada 8 8

New Hampshire 8 14 8 8 d

New Jersey 10 24 24 24 d

New Mexico 16 8

New York 24 24 24 24 24 24

North Carolina 24 24 24 16 16 16

North Dakota 8 0 0 8 0 0

Northern Mariana Islands

Ohio 24 24 24 24 24 24

Oklahoma 24 24 24 10 10 10

Oregon 24 24 24 24 24 24

Pennsylvania 8 24 24 24 d

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 24 24 24 16 c

South Carolina 8 8

South Dakota 8 8

Tennessee 24 24 24 12

Texas 24 24 24 24 24 24

Utah 24 24 24 24

Vermont 8 10 d

Virgin Islands

Virginia 24 24 24 24 24 24

Washington 24 0 0 24 0 0

West Virginia 16 0 0 16 0 0

Wisconsin 10 0 0 10 0 0

Wyoming 24 24 24 8 0 0

State repository operating hours per day 

with onsite fingerprint technicians

State repository operating 

hours per day
a Criminal history record information system and State AFIS are available 24/7. 

d Fingerprint technicians are available after normal business hours for criminal justice processing.

b Only identification section operates 24/7. Criminal history unit operates 11 hours a day Monday-Friday.

c Fingerprint technicians on-call Saturdays and Sundays.

Data footnotes:

Table 17 explanatory notes:

 Should either system go down, technical assistance is available 24/7.
Table 18. Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes, 2008 Retained Nonretained Nonprofit Government Others Nonprofit

 Government Others Retained Nonretained Retained Nonretained Retained Nonretained

Alabama X 25 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Alaska X 35 na na na na 20 20 20 35 na na na - - 

American Samoa ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Arizona X 43 5 na na

Arkansas X 22 22 25 25 11 10 

California X 32 32 32 32 

Colorado X 17.50/39.5 na na 6.85 16.50 16.5/39.5 a na 32.50 38.5 na na 32.5 38.5 

Connecticut X 25 25 na na na 25 - 15.25 15.25 15.25 na na 15.25 15.25 

Delaware X 45 45

District of Columbia ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...............

Florida X 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 18 24 24 

Georgia X 15 15

Guam X 32 

Hawaii X 20 13 13 13 20 13 b

Idaho X 10 na na na na 10 10 10 10 na na na na 10 

Illinois X 15-39.25 15-20 10 10 16 16 15-39.25 15-20 10 16 

Indiana X na 10/15 0 0 16.32 7 7 7 na 10/15 16.32 16.32 7 7 

Iowa X na na 5-12 12 na 5-12 13 na na na na 5 na 5 

Kansas X 30 30 17.50 17.50 12.50 20 20 15 19.75 19.75 17.50 17.50 20 20 

Kentucky X 20 20 20 20 20 20 

Louisiana X 26 0 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 0 26 $0 26 0

Maine X 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 na 31 na 31 31 na

Maryland X 18 18 na na na na na na 18 18 na na na na

Massachusetts X 25 15 0 30 

Michigan X 30 30 0 0 10 na na na 30 30 0 0 na na

Minnesota X na na 0 0 0 8 15 15 na na na 0 na 15 

Mississippi X 15 13.25

Missouri X 20 9 9 9 20 9 9 

Montana X 10 11.5 11.5 11.5 10 10 10 10 11.5 10 

Nebraska X 38 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 32 0 0 0 15 0

Nevada X 21 21 20 21 21 

New Hampshire X na na 7.5 0 15 na 7.5 

New Jersey X 40 30 10 18 18 0 10 

New Mexico X 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

New York X 75** 75 na na na na* 75** na* na* na na na* na* c

North Carolina X 14 $ 14 na na na 10 na na na 14 na 10 

North Dakota X ... 15 ... ... ... 5 15 15 ... 15 ... ... ... 15 

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Ohio X 22 22 22 22 22 22 

Oklahoma X 19 15 15 15 15 15 

Oregon X 27 28/53/33 10/0 10 10/0 10/4 27 28 10 10 10 10 

Pennsylvania X 15 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 2 2 10 10 10 10 

Puerto Rico ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...............

Rhode Island X 35 5 

South Carolina X 25 25 8 25 8 25 15.25 18 

South Dakota X 20 0

Tennessee X 24 29 29 29 29 29 29 18 29 29 

Texas X 15 15 1 1 1 10 10 10 15 15 1 1 10 10 

Utah X 25 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 15 10 10 

Vermont X na 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 na 0 na 20 20 na

Virgin Islands ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...............

Virginia X ... 37 8 15 15 8 15 15 ... 26 ... 8 ... 8 

Washington X 30 30 0 10 1 0 35 35 na 30 ... 10 ... 0

West Virginia X 20 ... ... ... ... 20 20 ... ... ...............

Wisconsin X na 15 2 5 13 7 10 18 na 15 na na na na

Wyoming X ... 15 na na na na na na ... 10 na na na na

Amount of fee charged for volunteers

Name search via 

Internet

Fingerprintsupported searchFingerprintName search via mail supported searchName search via 

mail

State

Fee for 

conducting 

criminal 

history 

record 

search for 

noncriminal 

justice 

purposes

Name search via Internet

Amount of fee charged 
 6050.1) -$50 processing fee.

Colorado https://www.cbirecordscheck.com/CBI_New/CBI_newIndex.asp

Florida

Hawaii

Indiana

Kansas

Michigan

Montana

Oregon

Pennsylvania http://epatch.state.pa.us

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Vermont

http://www.michigan.gov/ichat

http://www2.fdle.state.fl.us/cchinet/

www.ecrim.ehawaii.gov

http://www.in.gov/ai/appfiles/isp-lch/

http://www.kansas.gov/kbi/criminalhistory

http://www.sled.sc.gov

http://www.tbibackgrounds.com

http://records.txdps.state.tx.us

http://www.vermont.gov

Websites for public criminal history information:

https://app.mt.gov/choprs

http://www.oregon.gov/osp/id

c *The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services maintains a personal record review program (9 NYCRR

Table 18 explanatory notes:

▪ ... Not available.

 **This is a base processing fee of $25 supplemented by two surcharges of $25 each as mandated by the Legislature.

Data footnotes:

▪ na Not applicable.

a In Colorado, no charge to law enforcement agencies only.

b There is no fee if the volunteer being checked is going to work for a nonprofit agency with direct contract with children,

 the elderly, or the disabled. No fee is assessed for government checks via the mail if for criminal justice purposes.
Table 19. Fees charged for additional services by State criminal history repository, 2008 

Mailed fingerprint 

cards/forms

"No resubmission of 

prints" Retained service "Rap back" service Fee allocation to repository operations

Alabama $0 $0 $0 $0 AFIS funds

Alaska 0 na 0 0 ~97% fees to repository

American Samoa ... ...... ... ...

Arizona

Arkansas 50% fees to repository

California na na na na All fees to general fund

Colorado na na na na All fees to repository

Connecticut 0 0 na 0 All fees to general fund

Delaware All funds to State Police general fund

District of Columbia ... ... ... ... ...

Florida 0 6 Fees go into a trust fund, which the Florida 

Legislature allocates for criminal justice 

information systems

Georgia All fees to general fund

Guam All fees to repository

Hawaii 20 All fees to repository

Idaho na na na na All fees to repository

Illinois 20-39.25 All fees to repository

Indiana 0 na na na All fees to general fund

Iowa na na na na

Kansas 0 0 0 0 All fees to repository

Kentucky 0 0 All fees to repository

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 All fees to repository

Maine 0 0 0 0 All fees to general fund

Maryland na na na na All fees to general fund

Massachusetts 0 0 0 0 All fees to general fund

Michigan na na 0 0 A percentage to repository

Minnesota na na na na All fees to repository

Mississippi All fees to the Department of Public Safety 

general fund

Missouri All fees to repository

Montana All fees to repository

Nebraska 0 0 0 0 All fees to repository

Nevada All fees to repository

New Hampshire

New Jersey 10 10 50 percent go to repository

New Mexico All fees to repository

New York na 75 na na Fees to State general fund, fingerprint ID 

revenue account, and integrated justice 

technology projects

North Carolina 0 0 na na All fees to general fund

North Dakota All fees to general fund

Northern Mariana Islands ... ... ... ... ...

Ohio 1/10 forms 8 0 51 percent goes to repository

Oklahoma All fees to repository

Oregon na na na na All fees to repository

Pennsylvania All fees to general fund

Puerto Rico ... ... ... ... ...

Rhode Island 35 All fees to general fund

South Carolina All fees to general fund

South Dakota All fees to repository

Tennessee All fees to repository

Texas 15 na 0 0 All fees to repository

Utah 0 0 5 0 All fees to repository

Vermont na na na na First $179,000 of revenue goes to 

repository operations 

Virgin Islands ... ... ... ... ... 

Virginia A percentage of fees goes to repository 

from sex offender registry

Washington 30-35 < 1% to general fund

West Virginia All fees to State Police retirement

Wisconsin 0 na na na 50% to repository

Wyoming na na na na All fees to general fund

State

Amount charged for additional service 
Table 19 explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.
Table 20. Fees charged for web-based services by State criminal history repository or other entity for noncriminal justice purposes, 2008

to repository

to office of court 

administration

Alabama No No

Alaska No No

American Samoa ... ...

Arizona No Yes

Arkansas Yes Registration info, 

credit card info

$22/transaction No

California No No

Colorado Yes Registration info, 

credit card info

$6.85/record No $6.85/record $5.25/record

Connecticut No No

Delaware No No

District of Columbia ... ...

Florida Yes Credit card info $24/record No

Georgia Yes Registration info, 

credit card info

$15/transaction No

Guam No No

Hawaii Yes Registration info, 

credit card info

$20/printout No $13.00/printout $10/printout

Idaho No Yes

Illinois No No

Indiana Yes Credit card info $16.32/search No $8.00/transaction

Iowa No Yes

Kansas Yes Registration info, 

credit card info

$17.50/name Yes $1/case number $1/case number

Kentucky No No

Louisiana No No

Maine Yes Credit card info $1.50/transaction No $31/request 0 0

Maryland No Yes

Massachusetts Yes Registration info, 

credit card info

$30/check No

Michigan Yes Registration info $10.00/search No

Minnesota Yes None No

Mississippi No No

Missouri No Yes

Montana Yes Credit card info $11.50/request No $11.50/request $10.00/request

Nebraska No Yes

Nevada No No

New Hampshire No No

New Jersey No No

New Mexico No Yes

New York No Yes

North Carolina No No

North Dakota No Yes

Northern Mariana Islands ... ...

Ohio No No

Oklahoma No Yes

Oregon Yes Registration info $10/request Yes

Pennsylvania Yes Registration info, 

credit card info

$10/request No

Puerto Rico ... ...

Rhode Island No Yes

South Carolina Yes Registration info, 

credit card info

$25/check 

($8/nonprofit)

No

South Dakota No No

Tennessee Yes Credit card info $29/check No

Texas Yes Registration info, 

credit card info

$3.15/search No

Utah No No

Vermont Yes Credit card info $20/check Yes $20/check $17.50/check

Virgin Islands ... ...

Virginia No ... ... No

Washington Yes Registration info, 

credit card info

$10/name/DOB 

search

Yes

West Virginia No ... ... No

Wisconsin Yes Registration info, 

credit card info

$13/name searched Yes

Wyoming No No

Requirements for 

public Internet access 

Repository provides 

web-based noncriminal 

State background checks

Amount returned by private agencymaintained website

Amount collected by 

private agencymaintained website

State office of court 

administration 

provides web-based 

noncriminal 

background checks

Fees for public 

Internet access
Colorado https://www.cbirecordscheck.com/CBI_new/CBI_newIndex.asp

Florida https://www2.fdle.state.fl.us/CCHinet/

Hawaii http://www.ecrim.ehawaii.gov

Iowa http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/

Idaho https://www.idcourts.us/repository/start.do

Indiana http://www.in.gov/ai/appfiles/isp-lch

Kansas http://www.kansas.gov/kbi/criminalhistory

 http://www.accesskansas.org/districtcourt

Maryland http://www.casesearch.court.state.md.us

Maine http://www/ten.informe.org/pcr

Michigan http://www.michigan.gov/ichat

Minnesota https://cch.state.mn.us

Missouri http://www.courts.co.gov/casenet/base/welcome.do

Montana https://app.mt.gov/choprs

Nebraska http://www.nebraska.gov/justice/ccname.cgi

New Mexico http://www.nmcourts.gov

New York http://www.courts.state.ny.us/apps/chrs/

Pennsylvania http://epatch.state.pa.us

Oklahoma http://'www.oscn.net

Oregon http://'www.oregon.gov/osp/id

Rhode Island http://www.courts.ri.gov

South Carolina http://www.sled.sc.gov

Tennessee http://www.tbibackgrounds.com

Texas

Vermont http://www.vermont.gov

https://secure.vermont.gov/vtcdas/user

Table 20 explanatory notes:

▪ ... Not available.

http://records.txdps.state.tx.us

Data footnotes:

State websites for public noncriminal background checks/court records check:

▪ na Not applicable.
Table 21. Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State 

 criminal history repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), December 31, 2008

 (The information in this table was provided by the Criminal Justice Information Services Division, FBI)

State Total III records

State-supported 

records FBI-supported records

Percent supported by 

State

Percent supported 

by FBI

Total 65,688,191 45,243,429 20,444,762 69% 31%

Alabama 845,433 400,812 444,621 47 53

Alaska † 183,091 109,639 73,452 60 40

American Samoa 697 697 0 100

Arizona † 1,348,125 672,963 675,162 50 50

Arkansas † 528,360 372,032 156,328 70 30

California 7,981,087 7,043,390 937,697 88 12

Colorado *† 1,143,316 946,178 197,138 83 17

Connecticut † 445,888 291,309 154,579 65 35

Dist of Columbia 233,655 6,979 226,676 3 97

Delaware 244,415 210,609 33,806 86 14

Florida *† 4,772,529 4,402,048 370,481 92 8

Georgia *† 2,800,469 2,588,827 211,642 92 8

Guam 25,819 25,819 0 100

Hawaii † 210,828 49,686 161,142 24 76

Idaho *† 289,398 248,737 40,661 86 14

Illinois 2,849,894 1,304,923 1,544,971 46 54

Indiana 1,009,743 586,981 422,762 58 42

Iowa † 544,723 272,390 272,333 50 50

Kansas *† 615,256 224,510 390,746 36 64

Kentucky 703,677 254,944 448,733 36 64

Louisiana 1,124,626 660,616 464,010 59 41

Maine † 128,197 4,217 123,980 3 97

Maryland † 1,103,798 750,051 353,747 68 32

Massachusetts 693,118 362,064 331,054 52 48

Michigan 1,692,609 1,518,009 174,600 90 10

Minnesota † 699,053 651,004 48,049 93 7

Mississippi 301,817 111,282 190,535 37 63

Missouri † 1,102,621 847,337 255,284 77 23

Montana *† 165,666 159,792 5,874 96 4

Nebraska 292,276 142,722 149,554 49 51

Nevada † 676,962 450,373 226,589 67 33

New Hampshire † 182,518 82,073 100,445 45 55

New Jersey *† 1,691,286 1,591,373 99,913 94 6

New Mexico 465,653 206,308 259,345 44 56

New York 3,333,080 3,139,660 193,420 94 6

North Carolina *† 1,231,618 1,143,552 88,066 93 7

North Dakota 91,155 59,864 31,291 66 34

N. Mariana Islands 4,561 4,561 0 100

Ohio † 1,598,738 1,330,731 268,007 83 17

Oklahoma *† 650,610 380,919 269,691 59 41

Oregon *† 842,127 747,009 95,118 89 11

Pennsylvania 1,847,197 1,404,680 442,517 76 24

Puerto Rico 151,794 151,794 0 100

Rhode Island 170,053 142,578 27,475 84 16

South Carolina † 1,268,177 1,214,254 53,923 96 4

South Dakota 212,121 127,159 84,962 60 40

Tennessee *† 1,289,125 473,353 815,772 37 63

Texas 4,952,938 4,556,994 395,944 92 8

Utah 451,343 392,592 58,751 87 13

Vermont 81,471 376 81,095 0 100

Virgin Islands 16,000 16,000 0 100

Virginia 1,554,683 1,254,957 299,726 81 19

Washington 1,188,026 721,932 466,094 61 39

West Virginia † 264,919 130,863 134,056 49 51

Wisconsin 848,889 368,403 480,486 43 57

Wyoming *† 147,277 129,375 17,902 88 12

Federal 6,288,322 ... 6,288,322 0 100

Foreign 107,364 ... 107,364 0 100
Table 21 explanatory notes:

 * State is a participant in the National Fingerprint File (NFF).

† State is a signatory of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact.
Survey Instrument: Survey of State 

Criminal History Information 

Systems, 2008
1

OMB No. 1121-0312: Approval Expires 05/31/2010 

Survey of State Criminal 

History Information 

Systems, 2008 

Since 1989, the Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems has been used to collect the nation’s most 

complete, comprehensive and relevant data on the number and status of state-maintained criminal history records 

and on the increasing number of operations and services provided by the state repositories. 

Respondents using the online survey tool, accessible at http://www.search.org/surveys/repository, to enter 2008 

data can view previously submitted 2006 data for comparison purposes. References to your state’s 2006 responses 

are displayed within each section of the online form. It is hoped that this information will assist respondents in 

completing the survey more accurately and efficiently. If you have any questions or comments, please contact 

SEARCH staff Dennis DeBacco at 916-392-2550 ext. 325, email dennis.debacco@search.org. 

If more convenient, the survey sections may also be printed, completed manually, and faxed to the attention of 

Ms. Cheryl Moore at SEARCH at 916-392-8440. Responses will also be accepted by mail, directed to Ms. Cheryl 

Moore, SEARCH, 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, CA 95831. 

Recognizing that some previously collected information changes infrequently, the 2008 survey contains about 

40% fewer questions than the 2006 version. The survey is divided into 7 sections, each of which may be 

submitted independently and not necessarily in the order presented. This was done so that different people on 

each repository’s staff may submit the data for which their section is responsible. Repository directors will still 

be responsible to see that the survey is submitted in its entirety. Please note the following: 

1. All reported data should be for calendar year 2008, or as of December 31, 2008. 

2. The term “felony” includes any crime classified as a felony under your state’s laws. These offenses are 

generally punishable by a term of incarceration in excess of one year. If your state’s laws do not use the 

term “felony,” please substitute functional equivalents, such as class 1, 2, 3 and 4 offenses in New Jersey 

and class A, B and C offenses in Maine. 

3. Questions which seek responses based on a “legal requirement,” refer only to a state statute or a state 

administrative regulation having the force of law. 

4. If additional space is needed, please use the “Additional Comments” area at the end of each section. 

5. Please use the “Additional Comments” area at the end of each section to identify questions for which “no 

data is available.” 

6. If a question is not applicable to your repository, please indicate “NA” in the “Additional Comments” 

area at the end of each section. 

Burden Statement 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. The survey will be sent to criminal history repositories in 56 jurisdictions, including the

50 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. The average time required for each agency to complete the survey is estimated at 3 hours. Send comments regarding 

this burden estimate or any aspect of this survey, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Director, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street, NW, Washington DC 20531. Do not send your completed form to this address. 
2

SECTION I: REPOSITORY

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________

Agency _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________

Date Completed ________________________

The following questions relate to descriptions of your criminal history record information and master 

name index databases: 

1. How many subjects (individual offenders) were in your criminal history file as of 

December 31, 2008? 

(a) Automated records ____(table 1)_____ (Include subjects whose records are 

 partially automated) 

(b) Manual records ____(table 1)_____ 

(c) Total records ____(table 1)_____ 

2. Fingerprints processed in 2008: 

 Purpose Number Percentage of Totals

 2008 volume

(a) Criminal __(table 1a)__ __(table 1a)__

(b) Non-criminal (not retained) __(table 1a)__ __(table 1a)__

(c) Non-criminal (retained) __(table 1a)__ __(table 1a)__ (b+c) _(table 1a)__

(d) What was the total number of fingerprint-based 

background checks conducted during 2008? (a+b+c) _(table 1a)_
3

3. (a) Does your state retain any non-criminal justice fingerprints? 

 Yes  No (table 15) 

(b) Non-criminal justice fingerprints represent __(table 9)__ percent of the 

total fingerprints maintained by the state criminal history repository. 

4. (a) Does your state combine both criminal events and 

non-criminal justice applicant information in the same record? 

 Yes  No (table 9a) 

(b) If so, how many records on your database contain both 

criminal events and non-criminal justice applicant information? __(table 9a)____

(c) Of the total records on your database __(table 9a)__ percent represent records that 

contain both criminal events and non-criminal justice applicant information. 

5. (a) Percentage of criminal prints submitted via livescan during 2008? ___(table 9)__ % 

(b) Percentage of non-criminal prints submitted via livescan during 2008? _(table 9)__ % 

6. Do you have felony conviction flagging capability, i.e., does your criminal history record 

database include a data field or flag enabling you to quickly determine whether a given record 

subject has a felony conviction? (table 4) 

 Yes, all subjects with felony convictions 

 Yes, some subjects with felony convictions 

 No 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 
4

SECTION II: ARREST/FINGERPRINT 

REPORTING AND ENTRY

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________

Agency _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________

Date Completed ________________________

1. How many felony arrests were reported during calendar year 2008? 

__(table 11)____ arrests 

2. How many fingerprints were submitted to the repository via livescan during 2008? 

(a) ___(table 9)__ criminal justice 

(b) ___(table 9)__ non-criminal justice 

3. (a) As of December 31, 2008, was there a backlog of arrest data to be entered into the AFIS 

database? 

 Yes  No (table 11) 

(b) If yes, how many unprocessed or partially processed fingerprint cards (work backlog) did you 

have at that time? 

___(table 11)____

(c)  Size of backlog as of December 31, 2008, is not available (table 11) 

4. What biometric information does your repository retain? Check all that apply: (table 3) 

 Latent fingerprints 

 Flat prints 

 2-Finger prints for identification purposes 
5

 2-Finger prints for updating incarceration or release identification 

 Palm prints 

 Facial images/mug shots 

 Scars, Marks, and Tattoo images 

 Facial Recognition Data 

 1- or 2-Finger prints for updating disposition information 

 Other: __________________________ 

5. Please indicate the number of livescan devices in use as of December 31, 2008: 

(a) Total number of livescan devices available for criminal 

justice purposes only: _(table 8)__

(b) Total number of livescan devices available for non-criminal 

justice purposes only: _(table 8)__

(c) Total number of livescan devices used for both criminal and 

non-criminal justice purposes: _(table 8)__

(d) Grand total of livescan devices in use: _(table 8)__

6. Please indicate: 

(a) Total number of agencies that submit criminal prints via livescan: __(table 9)___

(b) Total number of agencies that submit non-criminal prints via livescan: __(table 9)___

(c) Total number of agencies without livescan devices that receive 

livescan services from agencies that do have that equipment 

(e.g., a sheriff might submit arrest prints on behalf of 20 agencies): __(table 9)___

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 
6

SECTION III: DISPOSITIONS

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________

Agency _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________

Date Completed ________________________

The following questions seek to determine to what extent the records in your criminal history record 

database contain final disposition information. (“Final disposition” is defined as release by police after 

charging, decline to proceed by prosecutor, or final trial court disposition.) 

1. (a) How many final case dispositions were received by the repository during 2008? 

_(table 6, table 6a)__ dispositions 

(b) Of those, how many were sent to the FBI? 

__(table 6a)__ dispositions sent to the FBI 

(c) Of the dispositions forwarded to the FBI, what percent were 

sent by Machine Readable Data (MRD) such as tape/CD/DVD? __(table 6a)__ % 

(d) What percent were sent via hard copy/paper? __(table 6a)__ % 

(e) What percent were sent by Interstate Identification Index 

(III) message key? __(table 6a)__ % 

2. What percentage of all arrests in the criminal history database have had final dispositions 

recorded? 

(a) _(table 1)_% Arrests entered within past five years with final dispositions reported 

(b) _(table 1)_% Arrests in entire database with final dispositions reported 

(c) _(table 1)_% of felony charges with final dispositions 
7

3. Of the dispositions received at the repository during the year 2008, what percentage could not be 

linked to a specific arrest record? 

_(table 7)_ % 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 
8

SECTION IV: COURT REPORTING

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________

Agency _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________

Date Completed ________________________

1. As of December 31, 2008, was any court disposition data reported directly to the repository by 

automated means? (table 7) 

 Yes  No 

2. (a) Does your state have a statewide Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)? (table 7) 

 Yes  No 

(b) Does the AOC provide disposition information to the state repository? (table 7) 

 Yes  No 

3. In 2008, what was the average time elapsed between the occurrence of final felony trial court 

dispositions and receipt of information concerning such dispositions by the repository? 

__(table 12)_ days 

4. In 2008, what was the average time elapsed between receipt of final felony trial court disposition 

information by the repository and entry of that information into the criminal history record 

database? 

__(table 12)_ days 

5. As of December 31, 2008, was your state using livescan devices in the courtroom to link positive 

identifications with dispositions? (table 12) 

 Yes  No 
9

6. (a) As of December 31, 2008, was there a backlog of court disposition data to be entered into the 

criminal history database? (table 12) 

 Yes  No 

(b) If yes, how many unprocessed or partially processed court disposition forms (work backlog) 

did you have? 

__(table 12)_ forms 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 
10

SECTION V: CORRECTIONS REPORTING

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________

Agency _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________

Date Completed ________________________

1. In 2008, what was the average time elapsed between receipt of corrections data by the repository 

and entry of that information into the criminal history database? 

__(table 13)_ days 

2. (a) Do any corrections agencies currently report admission/release/status change information to 

the repository by automated means? (table 13) 

 Yes  No 

(b) If yes, how many corrections agencies currently report by automated means? 

__(table 13)_ agencies representing (table 13)_% of the admission/release/status change activity 

3. (a) As of December 31, 2008, was there a backlog of corrections data to be entered into the 

criminal history database? (table 13) 

 Yes  No 

 (b) If yes, how many unprocessed or partially processed corrections reports (work backlog) did 

you have? 

__(table 13)_ reports 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
11

SECTION VI: REPOSITORY ADMINISTRATION

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________

Agency _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________

Date Completed ________________________

1. (a) Does your state charge a fee for conducting a search of the criminal history record 

database for non-criminal justice purposes? (table 18) 

 Yes  No 

If yes, what fees are charged for the state record search as of December 31, 2008? (table 18) 

(b) Fingerprint-supported search: $_______ retained

 $_______ non-retained 

 $_______ volunteer (retained) 

 $_______ volunteer (not retained) 

(c) Name search: via Internet $_______ non-profit 

 $_______ government 

 $_______ volunteer (retained) 

 $_______ volunteer (not retained) 

 $_______ others 

URL for citizen access to purchase criminal history information, if available: 

______________________________________________________ 

 via Mail $_______ non-profit 

 $_______ government 

 $_______ volunteer (retained) 

 $_______ volunteer (not retained) 

 $_______ others 
12

(d) Additional service fees: $_______ mailed fingerprint cards/forms 

 (table 19) $_______ “no resubmission of prints” for repeat applicant 

 $_______ retained service 

 $_______ “rap back” service 

2. How are fees allocated? (table 19) 

 All fees go to the state general fund, with repository funded by general fund allotment 

 A percentage of fees goes to support repository operations: __________ % 

 All fees go to support repository operations 

 Other ________________________________________________________________ 

3. (a) As of December 31, 2008, does your repository conduct “lights out” processing of 

fingerprints (an identification decision is made without fingerprint technician intervention)? 

 Yes  No (table 16) 

 (b) If yes, what percentage of fingerprints were handled with 

“lights out” processing? _(table 16)_% 

 (c) If yes, what percentage of criminal fingerprints were handled 

with “lights out” processing? _(table 16)_% 

(d) If yes, what percentage of non-criminal applicant fingerprints 

were handled with “lights out” processing? _(table 16)_% 

4. (a) Does your repository receive protection order information? 

 Yes  No (table 4) 

(b) If yes, how many records are in the state protection order record database as of 

December 31, 2008? 

_(table 4)_ records 

(c) Of those in 4(b), how many are also in the FBI-NCIC Protective Order File? 

_(table 4)_ records 
13

5. (a) As of December 31, 2008, what were the operating hours at your state repository? (table 17) 

Operating hours per day

 Monday – Friday  8  10  12  14  16  24 

 Saturday  8  10  12  14  16  24 

 Sunday  8  10  12  14  16  24 

(b) Hours per day with fingerprint technicians on site?

 Monday – Friday  8  10  12  14  16  24 

 Saturday  8  10  12  14  16  24 

Sunday  8  10  12  14  16  24 

6. In addition to criminal history information, to what records does your state’s repository 

provide access? Check all that apply: (table 5a) 

 Sex offender registry 

 Orders of protection 

 Wants and warrants 

 Retained applicant prints 

 Rap back services for criminal justice purposes 

 Wanted persons 

 Firearm registration 

 Community notification (Check all that apply):  Sex offender residency, employment, 

 or school 

  Victim notification to crime victims 

 Other: ______________________________ 

7. As of December 31, 2008, what is the total number of registered sex 

offenders in your state? _(table 5)__

8. Total number of registered sex offenders on publicly available state registry? _(table 5)__

9. Percentage of registered sex offenders on publicly available state registry? _(table 5)__% 
14

10. Is there a flag on your state’s computerized criminal history for protective orders? (table 4) 

 Yes  No 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
15

SECTION VII: NON-CRIMINAL 

BACKGROUND CHECKS

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________

Agency _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________

Date Completed ________________________

BACKGROUND CHECKS:

1. Is there a state legal requirement to perform background checks for any of the following? 

Check all that apply: (table 15a) 

 Nurses /Elder caregivers 

 Daycare providers 

 Residents of home daycare providers’ homes 

 School teachers 

 Non-teaching school employees 

 Volunteers with children 

 Prospective foster care parents 

 Prospective adoptive parents 

 Relative caregivers 

 Non-teaching school personnel 

 Hazardous materials licensees 

 _______________________ 

 _______________________ 

 _______________________ 

 ________________________ 

 ________________________ 

2. Does your state offer a “rap back” service to provide automatic updates or notifications 

of results when changes to records occur? Check all that apply: (table 15) 

 Yes, always 

 Yes, but only for notification of subsequent arrest 

 Yes, but only for notification of subsequent conviction 

 Other: _____________________________________________ 
16

FINGERPRINT-BASED SEARCHES

3. (a) What is the average processing time from fingerprint receipt to response? (table 16) 

For electronic requests: ____________ days ____________ hours 

For mail requests: ____________ days ____________ hours 

(b) Has a goal been established for maximum processing time? (table 16) 

 Yes, ____________ days  No 

4. What information is contained in the results for fingerprint-based non-criminal 

justice background checks? (table 15) 

 Full record 

 Convictions only 

 Juvenile records 

 Arrests without disposition–over 1 year old 

 Other _____________________________________________________________________ 

5. What is the identification rate for fingerprint-based non-criminal 

background checks? _(table 15)__ % 

6. Does your state retain fingerprints submitted for any of the following non-criminal 

justice purposes? (table 15) 

 Licensing 

 Private sector employment 

 Employment by justice agencies 

 Employment by non-criminal justice government agencies 

 Retention limited to private sector employment involving vulnerable populations, 

e.g., children, the elderly and the disabled 

 Other: ________________________________________________________ 

 No. This state does not retain non-criminal justice fingerprints for any reason. 
17

7. If your state does retain non-criminal justice fingerprints for any purpose, 

how are the fingerprints utilized? Check all that apply: (table 15) 

 Matched against existing criminal history database 

 Matched against latent fingerprint database 

 Flagged and matched against subsequent criminal fingerprint submissions 

 Other _________________________________________________________ 

NAME-BASED SEARCHES

8. How many name-based non-criminal background checks were performed in 2008? (table 14) 

Received via Internet ____________ 

Received via mail ____________ 

Received via telephone ____________ 

Total received ____________ 

9. (a) What identifiers are required for a name-based search? Check all that apply: (table 14a) 

 First name 

 Last name 

 Date of birth 

 Year of birth 

 Gender 

 Social Security Number 

 Race 

 Addresses 

 Hair color 

 Eye color 

(b) What are the minimum identifiers that have to “hit” before a response is returned? 

Check all that apply: (table 14a) 

 First name 

 Last name 

 Date of birth 

 Year of birth 

 Gender 

 Social Security Number 

 Race 

 Addresses 

 Hair color 

 Eye color 

(c) Does your name-based background check offer any of the following? (table 14a)

 Phonetic-assisted spelling features 

 “Loose” spelling features (first name abbreviations, Jr./Sr. assistance, etc.) 

 Interchangeable first/last name 
18

10. What information is contained in the results for a name-based non-criminal background check? 

Check all that apply: (table 14b) 

 Full record 

 Convictions only 

 Juvenile records 

 Arrests without disposition–over 1 year old 

 Other _________________________________________________________________ 

11. What is the identification rate for name-based non-criminal 

background checks? __(table 14)___ % 

12. Is written consent required by the subject before a name-based search is conducted? (table 14c) 

 Yes  No 

13. (a) Are local agencies authorized to conduct name checks of state records for 

non-criminal justice purposes? (table 14c) 

 Yes  No 

 (b) If so, what fee is the local agency authorized to charge? _______(table 14c)_________

INTERNET ACCESS

14. (a) Does your repository provide web-based non-criminal background checks to the public? 

 Yes  No (table 20) 

(b) What is the website location (URL)? ___________________________________________ 

(c) If yes, what is required for Internet access for the general public? (table 20) 

 Registration/account information 

 Credit card payment information 

(d) Are fees involved for Internet access for the general public (not including any 

registration or account fees)? (table 20) 

 Yes, $____________ per ____________________ 

 No 
19

15. (a) Does the state office of court administration provide web-based non-criminal 

background checks to the public? (table 20) 

 Yes  No 

 (b) If yes, what is the website location (URL)? ______________________________________ 

16. (a) If a private agency maintains the website, how much does it collect per transaction? (table 20) 

$ ___________________ per ____________________ 

(b) Of that amount, how much is returned to the repository? 

$ ___________________ per ____________________ 

(c) How much is returned to the office of court administration? 

$ ___________________ per ____________________ 

FINGERPRINT CAPTURE CERTIFICATION AND PRIVATIZATION

17. (a) Does your state have a certification program for persons taking fingerprints? (table 10) 

 Yes  No 

(b) If yes, was this program established through legislation? (table 10) 

 Yes  No 

18. (a) Has your state privatized the taking of non-criminal justice purpose fingerprints? (table 10) 

 Yes  No 

(b) Does the vendor assess a fee above what the state charges to perform the background check? 

 Yes  No (table 10) 

(c) If so, what is the fee? __ (table 10)____

(d) Does the vendor provide any additional services besides the fingerprint capture (e.g. 

evaluating responses for the requestor, sending responses back to a requestor)? (table 10) 

_______________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 
20

FBI FEE RETENTION

19. (a) Does the state process call for retrieving the Interstate Identification Index (III) record and 

forwarding it to the requestor when the state check reveals a III record rather than forwarding the 

fingerprints to the FBI? (table 15b) 

 Yes  No 

(b) If so, is the FBI fee retained by the state? (table 15b) 

 Yes  No 

(c) Is the FBI fee returned to the requestor? (table 15b) 

 Yes  No 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: