U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Survey of State Criminal 

History Information Systems, 

2006 

Criminal Justice Information Policy 
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20531

Michael B. Mukasey

Attorney General

_______

Office of Justice Programs

Jeffrey L. Sedgwick

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, 2006

A Criminal Justice Information Policy Report

October 2008

Criminal Justice Information Policy
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 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 Eric C. Johnson, Justice Information Services Specialist, Law and Policy,

authored the report. Kevin Romero, Research Analyst, Law and Policy, conducted the survey

and compiled the results. Support was provided by Twyla R. Putt, Manager, Corporate

Communications; and Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Specialist, Corporate Communications. The

Federal project monitor was Dr. Gerard F. Ramker, Chief, Criminal Statistics Improvement

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Report of work performed under BJS Cooperative

Agreements No. 2005-RU-BX-K014 and No. 2007-RU-BX-K011, awarded to SEARCH, The

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

Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the view or

policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 iii 

Contents 

List of data tables iv 

Glossary of terms v 

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 

Mental health-related information 5 

Protection order information 5 

Sex offender registry information 5 

Community notification services 6 

State criminal history repository practices 6 

Disposition data 8 

Procedures to improve data quality 9 

Linking of arrests and dispositions 10 

Missing dispositions 12 

Timeliness of data in State criminal history repository 12 

Criminal and noncriminal justice background checks 15 

Database systems and vendors 18 

Public and private availability of State criminal history records 19 

Fees for State criminal history repository services 19 

Other data quality procedures 20 

Audits 21 

Interstate Identification Index (III) 22 

Data tables 25 

Survey instrument: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 118 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 iv 

List of data tables 

Table 1. Overview of State criminal history record 

systems, December 31, 2006 

Table 1a. Overview of State criminal history record system 

functions, 2006 

Table 2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State 

criminal history file, 2001, 2003, and 2006 

Table 3. Biometric and image data collection by State 

criminal history repository, 2006 

Table 3a. Biometric and image data in State criminal history 

repository, 2006 

Table 4. Mental health information to facilitate firearm 

suitability determinations, 2006 

Table 5 Protection order information and records, 2006 

Table 6. State registry of sex offenders, 2006 

Table 6a. Community notification services and public 

access to records, 2006 

Table 7. Data required to be submitted to State criminal 

history repository, 2006 

Table 8. Number of final dispositions reported to State 

criminal history repository, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 

2006 

Table 8a. Final disposition reporting, 2006 

Table 9. Automation of disposition reporting to State 

criminal history repository, 2006 

Table 9a. Submission of disposition information to State 

criminal history repository, 2006 

Table 10. Procedures employed by State criminal history 

repository to encourage complete arrest and 

disposition reporting, 2006 

Table 11. Methods to link disposition information to 

arrest/charge information on criminal history 

record, 2006 

Table 12. Additional methods to link disposition 

information to arrest/charge information on 

criminal history record, 2006 

Table 13. Policies and practices of State criminal history 

repository regarding modification of felony 

convictions, 2006 

Table 14. Procedures followed when linkage cannot be 

made between court or correctional information in 

the criminal history database, 2006 

Table 15. Procedures followed to obtain missing 

dispositions, 2006 

Table 16. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1999, 2001, 

2003, and 2006 

Table 17. Arrest records submitted electronically, 2006 

Table 18. Criminal and noncriminal justice background 

checks submitted electronically, 2006 

Table 19. Certification and privatization of fingerprint 

capture services, 2006 

Table 20. Length of time to process arrest data submitted to 

State criminal history repository and current status 

of backlog, 2006 

Table 21. Length of time to process disposition data 

submitted to State criminal history repository and 

current status of backlog, 2006 

Table 22. Length of time to process correctional admission 

data submitted to State criminal history repository 

and current status of backlog, 2006 

Table 23. Noncriminal justice name-based background 

checks, 2006 

Table 23a. Noncriminal justice name-based background 

check processing, 2006 

Table 23b. Noncriminal justice name-based background 

check results, 2006 

Table 24. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based background 

checks, 2006 

Table 24a. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based background 

check requirements, 2006 

Table 25. State automated fingerprint identification system 

(AFIS) database and vendors, 2006 

Table 25a. State criminal history database system and 

vendors, 2006 

Table 26. Strategies employed by State criminal history 

repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal 

history database, 2006 

Table 27. Audit activities of State criminal history 

repository, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2006 

Table 28. Data quality audits of State criminal history 

repository, 2006 

Table 29. Fingerprint record processing by State criminal 

history repository, 2006 

Table 30. State criminal history repository recovery 

practices and operating hours, 2006 

Table 31. Court and State criminal history repository record 

availability to public and commercial entities, 

2006 

Table 32. Fees charged by State criminal history repository 

for noncriminal justice purposes, 2006 

Table 33. Fees charged for additional services by State 

criminal history repository, 2006 

Table 34. Fees charged for web-based services by State 

criminal history repository or other entity for 

noncriminal justice purposes, 2006 

Table 35. 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, 2006 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 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. Digital 

fingerprint images generated by AFIS 

equipment can be transmitted electronically 

to remote sites, eliminating the necessity of 

mailing fingerprint cards and providing 

remote access to AFIS fingerprint files. 

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 varies 

concerning disclosure of 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 FBI maintains an identification index 

to persons arrested for 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 automated 

and takes approximately 5 seconds to 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Glossary vi 

complete. 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 October 2008, 

50 States and the District of Columbia 

participate in III. Responses are provided 

from FBI files when the jurisdiction, such as 

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

Participation requires that the State maintain 

an automated criminal history record system 

capable of interfacing with the III system 

and capable of responding automatically to 

all interstate and Federal/State record 

requests. 

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 on the same basis as adult 

records. States, however, are not required to 

submit such records to the FBI 

National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC): An automated database of criminal 

justice and justice-related records 

maintained by the FBI. The database 

includes the “hot files” of wanted and 

missing persons, stolen vehicles, and 

identifiable stolen property, including 

firearms. Access to NCIC files is through 

central control terminal operators in each 

State that are connected to NCIC via 

dedicated telecommunications lines 

maintained by the FBI. Local agencies and 

officers on the beat can access the State 

control terminal via the State law 

enforcement network. Inquiries are based on 

name and other nonfingerprint 

identification. Most criminal history 

inquiries of the III system are made via the 

NCIC telecommunications system. NCIC 

data may be provided only for criminal 

justice and other specifically authorized 

purposes. For criminal history searches, this 

includes criminal justice employment, 

employment by Federally chartered or 

insured banking institutions or securities 

firms, and use by State and local 

governments for purposes of employment 

and licensing pursuant to a State statute 

approved by the U.S. Attorney General. 

Inquiries regarding presale firearm checks 

are included as criminal justice uses. 

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 

duplicate data about State offenders. Under 

the Compact, the operation of this system is 

overseen by a policymaking council 

comprised of Federal and State 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 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Glossary vii 

and out-of-State users authorized under the 

Compact. At present, noncriminal justice 

inquiries are handled by the FBI from its 

files of voluntarily contributed State arrest 

and disposition records. This requires that 

the FBI maintain duplicates of State records 

and generally results in less complete 

records being provided, since FBI files of 

State records are not always complete due to 

reporting deficiencies. The 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. Since that time, 

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). 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. (See the Compact 

map on page 23.) 

National Fingerprint File (NFF): A 

system and procedures designed as a 

component of the III system, which, when 

fully implemented, would establish a totally 

decentralized system for the interstate 

exchange of criminal history records. The 

NFF will contain fingerprints of Federal 

offenders and a single set of fingerprints on 

State offenders from each State in which an 

offender has been arrested for a felony or a 

serious misdemeanor. Under the NFF 

concept, States 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 

forwarded. Disposition data on the 

individual also is retained at the State 

repository and is not forwarded to the FBI. 

Upon receipt of the first-arrest fingerprint 

cards (or electronic images), the FBI enters 

the individual’s fingerprint impressions in 

the NFF and enters the person’s 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 have to 

release all data on record subjects for 

noncriminal justice inquiries regardless of 

whether the data could be released for 

similar purposes within the State. The NFF 

has been implemented in 12 States: 

Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, 

Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, and 

Wyoming. (See the NFF map on page 24.) 

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 retinal images, 

voiceprints, or other techniques. Positive 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Glossary viii 

identification is to be 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. 

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, and commonly 

serves as the central control terminal for 

contact with FBI record systems. Inquiries 

from local agencies for a national record 

check (for criminal justice or firearm check 

purposes) are routed to the FBI via the 

central repository. Although usually housed 

in the Department of Public Safety, the 

central repository is maintained in some 

States by the State Police or other State 

agency. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 1

Note to readers 

This is the ninth 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 

has 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 an 

initial draft of the survey. 

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 vs. 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, 2006 consists of 44 

data tables of information, up from 22 tables 

in previous years. New survey questions 

have been introduced and others removed. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 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 July–

December 2007. Fifty-five 

jurisdictions were 

surveyed, including the 50 

States, the District of 

Columbia, American 

Samoa, the Territory of 

Guam, the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands.1

Responses were received 

from all 55 jurisdictions. It 

presents a snapshot as of 

December 31, 2006. 

Throughout this report, the 

50 States will be referred 

to as “States”; the District 

of Columbia, American 

Samoa, Guam, Puerto 

Rico, 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 

information relating to 

criminal history records, 

including the States 

participating in the 

 

1

 Hereafter, these territories will 

be referred to as American 

Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and 

the Virgin Islands. 

Interstate Identification 

Index (III) system (the 

national criminal records 

exchange system) and the 

number of 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, 2006 (table 

1): 

• Forty-eight States, the 

District of Columbia, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

reported the total 

number of persons in 

their criminal history 

files as 80,665,300, of 

which 73,615,700 were 

automated. 

• All jurisdictions but 

one (American Samoa) 

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-five States, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

have fully automated 

criminal history files. 

Level of disposition 

reporting 

Overview of State criminal 

history record systems, 

December 31, 2006 (table 

1): 

• A total of 15 States, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico, 

representing 26% of 

the offenders in the 

Nation’s criminal 

history records, report 

that 80% or more 

arrests within the past 5 

years in the criminal 

history database have 

final dispositions 

recorded. 

• A total of 19 States, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico, 

representing 39% of 

the individual 

offenders in the 

Nation’s criminal 

history records, report 

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, 2006 Introduction • 3

• A total of 24 States, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico, 

representing 51% of 

the individual 

offenders in the 

Nation’s criminal 

history records, report 

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, 15 States, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico, 

representing 29% of 

the individual 

offenders in the 

Nation’s criminal 

history records, report 

that 80% or more 

arrests in the entire 

criminal history 

database have final 

dispositions recorded. 

Seventeen States, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico, 

representing 37% of 

the individual 

offenders in the 

Nation’s criminal 

history records, report 

that 70% or more 

arrests in the entire 

criminal history 

database have final 

dispositions recorded. 

Twenty-three States, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico, 

representing 40% of 

the individual 

offenders in the 

Nation’s criminal 

history records, report 

that 60% or more 

arrests in the entire 

criminal history 

database have final 

dispositions recorded. 

• Eight States, American 

Samoa, and Guam 

report that 90% or 

more felony charges 

have a final disposition 

recorded in the 

criminal history 

database. Fifteen 

States, American 

Samoa, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico report that 

80% or more felony 

charges have a final 

disposition recorded in 

the criminal history 

database. 

Overview of State criminal 

history record system 

functions, 2006 (table 1a): 

• Nine States and 

American Samoa 

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 

19 States and 

American Samoa, 

background checks for 

criminal justice 

purposes accounted for 

60% or less of the 

State’s total number of 

fingerprint-based 

background checks. 

The significant 

numbers of 

noncriminal justice 

purpose checks 

represent statutorily 

authorized screening 

for employment, 

licensing, and 

volunteers. 

• Thirteen States and 

Puerto Rico retain all 

fingerprints processed 

for criminal history 

background checks for 

noncriminal justice 

purposes. 

• Sixteen States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, and 

the Virgin Islands 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, 

2001, 2003, and 2006 

(table 2): 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 4

• Nearly 81 million 

individual offenders 

were in the criminal 

history files of the 

State criminal history 

repositories on 

December 31, 2006. 

(An individual offender 

may have records in 

more than one State.) 

• Ninety-one percent of 

the criminal history 

records maintained by 

the State criminal 

history repositories are 

automated. 

Approximately 7 

million (or 9%) are not 

automated. 

• Seven States (Arizona, 

Connecticut, Iowa, 

Massachusetts, 

Missouri, New Mexico, 

and Tennessee) 

reported an overall 

decrease in the total 

number of subjects in 

manual and automated 

files between 2003 and 

2006. 

• Seven States and the 

District of Columbia 

report an overall 

increase of at least 30% 

in the total number of 

subjects in manual and 

automated files. 

• Forty States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico report 

an overall increase in 

the total number of 

subjects in manual and 

automated files. 

Biometric image data 

Biometric and image data 

collection by State 

criminal history 

repository, 2006 (table 3): 

• Forty-eight States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands accept 

rolled ten-print 

biometric images. 

• Thirty-nine States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands accept 

latent fingerprint 

images. 

• Twenty-four States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico accept flat 

fingerprint images. 

• Twenty-three States, 

the District of 

Columbia, American 

Samoa, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

accept palm print 

images. 

• Twenty-seven States, 

the District of 

Columbia, and 

American Samoa 

accept facial images or 

mug shots. Six States, 

the District of 

Columbia, and 

American Samoa 

accept facial 

recognition data 

information. 

• A total of 18 States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico accept 

scars, marks, and 

tattoos biometric 

information. 

Biometric and image data 

in State criminal history 

repository, 2006 (table 

3a): 

• Nine States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, and 

the Virgin Islands 

report a total of more 

than 1 million palm 

print images in the 

repository databases. 

• Twenty-three States, 

the District of 

Columbia, American 

Samoa, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

report a total of more 

than 12 million facial 

images or booking 

photos in the repository 

databases. 

• Nine States and Puerto 

Rico report a total of 

more than 1.5 million 

images of scars, marks, 

and tattoos in the 

repository databases. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 5

Mental health-related 

information 

Mental health information 

to facilitate firearm 

suitability determinations, 

2006 (table 4): 

• Sixteen State 

repositories report 

receiving mental health 

information, with a 

reported total of more 

than 188,000 mental 

health records. 

• Thirteen States report 

that mental health 

information is provided 

by the courts or court 

administrative office. 

• Five States are 

provided with mental 

health information by 

the State Department 

of Mental Health or 

State Department of 

Human Services. 

• Five States are 

provided with mental 

health information by 

other public mental 

health providers. 

• Two States report that 

mental health 

information is provided 

by private mental 

health providers. 

Protection order 

information 

Protection order 

information and records, 

2006 (table 5): 

• Thirty-two State 

repositories, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Guam receive 

protection order 

information, with a 

reported total of nearly 

859,000 records. 

• Eleven States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Guam report the 

ability to flag criminal 

history records for 

protection orders. 

• Thirty-two States, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

operate with felony 

flagging capability for 

all criminal history 

record subjects. 

• Ten States and 

American Samoa 

operate with felony 

flagging capability for 

some criminal history 

record subjects. 

• Eight States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and the Virgin Islands 

do not have felony 

flagging capability for 

criminal history record 

subjects. 

Sex offender registry 

information 

State registry of sex 

offenders, 2006 (table 6): 

• Forty-one States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

report a total number of 

533,400 registered sex 

offenders. The actual 

record count total from 

FBI NCIC is 457,320 

registered sex 

offenders. 

• A reported total of 

330,100 registered sex 

offenders are on 

publicly available State 

registries. 

• Twenty-three States, 

the District of 

Columbia, American 

Samoa, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico report at 

least 70% of registered 

sex offenders are 

publicly available on 

State registries, 

corresponding to 

202,308 registered sex 

offenders (figures 

based on FBI NCIC 

data). 

• Twenty-two States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico report at 

least 80% of registered 

sex offenders are 

publicly available on 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 6

State registries, 

corresponding to 

167,651 registered sex 

offenders (figures 

based on FBI NCIC 

data). 

• Seventeen States, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico report at 

least 90% of registered 

sex offenders are 

publicly available on 

State registries, 

corresponding to 

144,353 registered sex 

offenders (figures 

based on FBI NCIC 

data). 

• Thirty-seven State 

repositories and Guam 

are able to flag (or 

create registration 

event entry for) 

criminal history 

records for sex 

offenders. 

Community notification 

services 

Community notification 

services and public access 

to records, 2006 (table 

6a): 

• Seventeen States, the 

District of Columbia, 

Guam, and the Virgin 

Islands offer a 

community notification 

service for sex offender 

residency, employment, 

or school. 

• Seven States and 

American Samoa offer 

a community 

notification service for 

victims of crime. 

• Thirty-four States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

offer access to a sex 

offender registry. 

• Twenty-one States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, and the Virgin 

Islands offer access to 

orders of protection/ 

protection orders. 

• Twenty-four States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, and 

the Virgin Islands offer 

access to wants and 

warrants/wanted 

persons. 

State criminal history 

repository practices 

Data required to be 

submitted to State criminal 

history repository, 2006 

(table 7): 

• Twenty-eight States 

and American Samoa 

require prosecutors to 

report to the State 

criminal history 

repository their 

decisions to decline 

prosecution in criminal 

cases. 

• Forty-three States, the 

District of Columbia, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

require felony trial 

courts to report the 

final dispositions of 

felony cases to the 

State criminal history 

repository. Of these, 

eight States and the 

Virgin Islands receive 

the information via the 

administrative offices 

of the court. 

• Correctional 

admissions must be 

reported to the State 

criminal history 

repository in 30 States, 

the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands. 

Correctional release 

information must be 

reported to the State 

criminal history 

repository in 22 States, 

the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands. 

• The reporting of 

probation information 

is mandated in 25 

States, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands. 

The same 25 States, the 

District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands require 

the reporting of parole 

information. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 7

Arrest records with 

fingerprints, 1999, 2001, 

2003, and 2006 (table 16): 

• During 2006, almost 

12.1 million fingerprint 

cards and livescan 

images were submitted 

to the State criminal 

history repositories. 

• Forty States, the 

District of Columbia, 

Guam, and the Virgin 

Islands have criminal 

history records that are 

99–100% fingerprintsupported. Forty-four 

States, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, and 

the Virgin Islands have 

records that are 80% or 

more fingerprintsupported. In three 

States and Puerto Rico, 

some of the arrests in 

the criminal history 

files, ranging from 5% 

to 75%, are fingerprintsupported. 

Fingerprint record 

processing by State 

criminal history 

repository, 2006 (table 

29): 

• Twenty-seven State 

repositories conduct 

“lights-out” processing 

of fingerprints (an 

identification decision 

is made without 

fingerprint technician 

intervention). 

• Seven State 

repositories conduct 

lights-out processing of 

80% or more of 

criminal and 

noncriminal 

fingerprints. 

• Eleven State 

repositories conduct 

lights-out processing of 

70% or more of 

criminal and 

noncriminal 

fingerprints. 

• Fourteen State 

repositories conduct 

lights-out processing of 

50% or more of 

criminal and 

noncriminal 

fingerprints. 

State criminal history 

repository recovery 

practices and operating 

hours, 2006 (table 30): 

• Thirty-eight States and 

Puerto Rico perform 

daily backup recovery 

of the computerized 

criminal history 

database. 

• Arkansas, the District 

of Columbia, American 

Samoa, and the Virgin 

Islands perform a 

weekly backup of the 

computerized criminal 

history database, with 

one State (California) 

performing backups 

every 3 days. 

• Six States, the District 

of Columbia, and 

Guam operate a 

mirroring system to 

backup the 

computerized criminal 

history database, with 

four States and the 

District of Columbia 

conducting both a 

mirroring system and 

routine backups. 

• Twenty States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico 

operate the repository 

24 hours per day, 7 

days a week. Of those, 

13 States and the 

District of Columbia 

also operate with 

fingerprint technicians 

onsite 24 hours per 

day, 7 days a week. 

• Twenty-six States, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, and the Virgin 

Islands operate the 

repository at least 8 

hours a day, Monday 

through Friday. Of 

those, 25 States, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, and the Virgin 

Islands also operate 

with fingerprint 

technicians onsite at 

least 8 hours per day, 

Monday through 

Friday. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 8

Disposition data 

Number of final 

dispositions reported to 

State criminal history 

repository, 1999, 2001, 

2003, and 2006 (table 8): 

• Forty-three States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

provided data on the 

number of final 

dispositions reported to 

their criminal history 

repositories, indicating 

that nearly 10.5 million 

were reported in 2006. 

Final disposition 

reporting, 2006 (table 8a): 

• A reported total of 

nearly 4.7 million final 

case dispositions were 

sent to the FBI from 25 

States, Guam, and the 

Virgin Islands. 

• Seventeen States send 

final case dispositions 

to the FBI, with 90% or 

more by machine 

readable data (MRD). 

• Seven States and the 

Virgin Islands send 

final case dispositions 

to the FBI, with 80% or 

more via hard copy or 

paper. 

• Fifteen States, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

report 80% or more of 

all arrests in the 

criminal history 

database have final 

dispositions recorded. 

Eight States, American 

Samoa, and Guam 

report 90% or more of 

all arrests in the 

criminal history 

database have final 

dispositions recorded. 

• Nine States, American 

Samoa, and Guam 

report 70% or more of 

domestic violence 

misdemeanor charges 

have final dispositions 

recorded. Six States, 

American Samoa, and 

Guam report 90% or 

more of domestic 

violence misdemeanor 

charges have final 

dispositions recorded. 

Automation of disposition 

reporting to State criminal 

history repository, 2006 

(table 9): 

• Thirty-six States and 

the District of 

Columbia report 

receiving court 

disposition data by 

automated means. 

• Twenty-eight States, 

the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico report receiving 

correctional admission/ 

release/status 

information by 

automated means. 

• Fourteen States and 

American Samoa 

reported the number of 

prosecutor declinations 

received. The total 

number of prosecutor 

declinations reported 

was 453,100. The 

number of declinations 

received ranged from 

300 in American 

Samoa to 208,000 in 

Florida. 

• A total of 422,015 

prosecutor dispositions 

were received by 12 

States that could not be 

linked to a specific 

arrest record. 

• Thirty-one States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands report 

that 30% or less of all 

dispositions received 

could not be linked to a 

specific arrest record. 

• Twenty-seven States, 

the District of 

Columbia, American 

Samoa, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

report that 20% or less 

of all dispositions 

received could not be 

linked to a specific 

arrest record. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 9

• Twenty States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands report 

that 10% or less of all 

dispositions received 

could not be linked to a 

specific arrest record. 

Submission of disposition 

information to State 

criminal history 

repository, 2006 (table 

9a): 

• Of all reported 

dispositions received 

by the State 

repositories in 2006, 

two States (Delaware, 

Kentucky) and 

American Samoa 

report 90% or more are 

submitted by law 

enforcement. Fourteen 

States, the District of 

Columbia, American 

Samoa, and Guam 

report 90% or more are 

submitted by local 

courts. Twelve States 

and Puerto Rico report 

that 90% or more are 

submitted by State 

court administrative 

offices or other State 

entity. 

• Of all reported 

dispositions submitted

electronically to the 

State repositories in 

2006, two States 

(Delaware, Wisconsin) 

report 90% or more are 

submitted by law 

enforcement. Eight 

States, the District of 

Columbia, and Guam 

report 90% or more are 

submitted by local 

courts. Fifteen States 

report that 90% or 

more are submitted by 

State court 

administrative offices 

or other State entity. 

Policies and practices of 

State criminal history 

repository regarding 

modification of felony 

convictions, 2006 (table 

13): 

• Expungements: 16 

States, the District of 

Columbia, and the 

Virgin Islands have 

statutes that provide for 

the expungement of 

felony convictions. 

Nevada does not 

expunge its criminal 

history records. In 

Arkansas, this does not 

mean the destruction of 

the record, but to seal, 

sequester, or set aside. 

In Ohio, expungement 

is limited to juveniles 

only. 

• Setting aside of 

convictions: 20 States, 

the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

have statutes that 

provide for setting 

aside felony 

convictions. 

• Pardons: 33 reporting 

jurisdictions, the 

District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands have 

statutes that provide for 

the granting of a 

pardon. Nevada 

pardons are granted by 

the governor. 

• Restoration of civil 

rights: 25 States and 

the Virgin Islands have 

legal provisions for the 

restoration of a 

convicted felon’s civil 

rights. In Nebraska, 

gun rights are restored 

only when specifically 

ordered in pardon. 

• Sealing of record: 15 

States, the District of 

Columbia, American 

Samoa, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

have statutes that 

provide for the sealing 

of a conviction record. 

Procedures to improve 

data quality 

Procedures employed by 

State criminal history 

repository to encourage 

complete arrest and 

disposition reporting, 2006 

(table 10): 

• The method most used 

to encourage complete 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 10

arrest and disposition 

reporting is telephone 

calls, conducted by 34 

States, the District of 

Columbia, American 

Samoa, and Puerto 

Rico. 

• Twenty-three States 

and Puerto Rico 

generate lists of arrests 

with missing 

dispositions as a means 

of monitoring 

disposition reporting. 

Additionally, 21 States, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands provide 

notice to criminal 

justice agencies in 

order to obtain the 

missing dispositions. 

• Twenty-six States and 

American Samoa 

generate form letters to 

encourage complete 

arrest and disposition 

reporting. 

• Of those States using 

field visits to 

encourage complete 

arrest and disposition 

reporting, 17 States, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands conduct 

field visits to courts. 

Nineteen States, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico conduct 

field visits to arresting 

agencies. Fourteen 

States, American 

Samoa, and Puerto 

Rico conduct field 

visits to prosecutors. 

• Twenty-five States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico report 

using conferences, 

workshops, meetings, 

and training sessions to 

encourage complete 

arrest and disposition 

reporting. 

• Eleven States, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico report 

using audits to 

encourage complete 

arrest and disposition 

reporting. 

Linking of arrests and 

dispositions 

Methods to link disposition 

information to 

arrest/charge information 

on criminal history record, 

2006 (table 11): 

• Thirty-two States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

utilize methods for 

linking disposition 

information and 

arrest/charge 

information, which 

also permits the linking 

of dispositions to 

particular charges 

and/or specific counts. 

• All responding 

jurisdictions report 

using at least one 

method for linking 

disposition information 

and arrest/charge 

information on 

criminal history 

records, and nearly 

every jurisdiction 

indicates multiple 

mechanisms to ensure 

linkage: 

 Thirty-five States, 

the District of 

Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

and the Virgin 

Islands employ a 

unique tracking 

number for the 

individual subject. 

Of these, 24 States 

and the District of 

Columbia use an 

automated system. 

 Thirty-seven States, 

the District of 

Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and 

the Virgin Islands 

use a unique arrest 

event identifier. Of 

these, 25 States and 

the District of 

Columbia use an 

automated system. 

 Twenty-five States, 

the District of 

Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 11

the Virgin Islands 

use a unique charge 

identifier. Of these, 

18 States and the 

District of 

Columbia use an 

automated system. 

 Thirty-six States, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and 

the Virgin Islands 

use the arrest date 

to link disposition 

data. Of these, 23 

States use an 

automated system. 

 Thirty-six States, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin 

Islands use the 

subject’s name as a 

method to link 

disposition 

information to 

arrest information. 

Of these, 24 States 

and Guam use an 

automated system. 

 Thirty-three States, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin 

Islands use the 

subject’s date of 

birth to link 

disposition 

information. Of 

these, 21 States and 

Guam use an 

automated system. 

Additional methods to link 

disposition information to 

arrest/charge information 

on criminal history record, 

2006 (table 12): 

• Twenty-seven States 

and Guam use the 

subject’s social 

security number as a 

method to link 

disposition information 

to arrest/charge 

information. Of these, 

13 States and Guam 

use an automated 

system. 

• Twenty-eight States, 

American Samoa, and 

the Virgin Islands use 

the reporting agency 

identifier (ORI) as a 

method to link 

disposition 

information. Of these, 

17 States and the 

Virgin Islands use an 

automated system. 

• Nineteen States, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands use the 

unique State case 

number. Of these, 14 

States use an 

automated system. 

• Thirteen States, 

American Samoa, and 

the Virgin Islands use 

the FBI number. Of 

these, 9 States and the 

Virgin Islands use an 

automated system. 

• Nineteen States, 

American Samoa, and 

the Virgin Islands use 

the subject’s name and 

reporting agency case 

number. Of these, 10 

States use an 

automated system. 

• Seven jurisdictions also 

report using other 

linking methods, such 

as using State ID 

number, offense 

charged, or specific 

charge codes. 

Procedures followed when 

linkage cannot be made 

between court or 

correctional information in 

the criminal history 

database, 2006 (table 14): 

• Twenty-nine 

jurisdictions report that 

they sometimes receive 

prosecutor dispositions 

that cannot be linked to 

arrest/charge 

information in the 

criminal history record 

database. 

• The jurisdictions vary 

in the number of 

prosecutor dispositions 

received that cannot be 

linked to arrest/charge 

information in the 

criminal database, from 

500 in Utah and 

Wyoming, to 164,000 

in Pennsylvania. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 12

• Nine States report that 

25% or more of final 

prosecutor dispositions 

received cannot be 

linked to the 

arrest/charge 

information in the 

criminal history 

database. 

• The jurisdictions use a 

variety of procedures 

when a linkage cannot 

be established. Three 

States (California, 

Maine, and Nebraska) 

create “dummy” arrest 

segments assumed 

from court disposition 

records. Seven States 

and the District of 

Columbia enter court 

information into the 

database without any 

linkage to a prior 

arrest, while no 

reporting States create 

“dummy” segments 

from correctional data. 

Nineteen States, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico do not 

enter the unlinked 

court information. 

Sixteen States, Puerto 

Rico, and the Virgin 

Islands return to 

arresting agencies to 

obtain the arrest 

fingerprint card or 

information. 

• Fifteen States utilize 

other procedures to 

link court dispositions 

and arrest information. 

Missing dispositions 

Procedures followed to 

obtain missing 

dispositions, 2006 (table 

15): 

• Three States 

(Delaware, Michigan, 

and Pennsylvania) 

report that they 

conduct an automated 

inquiry to the 

prosecutor upon a 

predetermined period 

of time. Four States 

(Michigan, Missouri, 

South Dakota, and 

Wyoming) report that 

they conduct an 

automated inquiry to a 

specific court or 

statewide court 

administrator upon a 

predetermined period 

of time. 

• New Jersey and 

Pennsylvania report 

that an automated 

inquiry to the 

prosecutor upon a 

criminal history query 

is conducted to obtain 

missing dispositions. 

Six States and the 

District of Columbia 

report that they 

conduct an automated 

inquiry to a specific 

court or statewide court 

administrator upon a 

criminal history query. 

• Twenty-four States, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

report that a manual 

inquiry to the 

prosecutor upon a 

criminal history query 

is conducted to obtain 

missing dispositions. 

Thirty-nine States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands report 

that a manual inquiry is 

done to a specific court 

or statewide court 

administrator upon a 

criminal history query. 

Timeliness of data in 

State criminal history 

repository 

—Arrests 

Arrest records submitted 

electronically, 2006 (table 

17): 

• Forty-one States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands report a 

total of nearly 5,000 

livescan devices in use 

as of December 31, 

2006, for criminal 

justice purposes only. 

• Thirty-nine States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico report 

a total of over 3,400 

livescan devices in use 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 13

for noncriminal justice 

purposes only. 

• Twenty-six States, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands report a 

total of over 2,400 

livescan devices in use 

for both criminal and 

noncriminal justice 

purposes.

• Thirty-three States, the 

District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands indicate 

that all of the four 

largest arresting 

agencies in the State 

report arrests via 

livescan. In Hawaii, 

Oklahoma, and South 

Carolina, three of the 

top four largest 

arresting agencies in 

the State report arrests 

via livescan. In 

American Samoa, New 

Mexico, and Vermont, 

fewer than three of the 

four largest arresting 

agencies in the State 

report arrests via 

livescan.

• The four largest 

arresting agencies in 

West Virginia and the 

Guam Police 

Department do not

report arrests via 

livescan.

Length of time to process 

arrest data submitted to 

State criminal history 

repository and current 

status of backlog, 2006 

(table 20): 

Felony arrest 

data/fingerprints:

• Based on the responses 

of 33 jurisdictions, the 

length of time between 

felony arrest and 

receipt of arrest data 

and fingerprints by the 

State criminal 

repositories ranges 

from 1 day or less in 19 

States, the District of 

Columbia, American 

Samoa, and Puerto 

Rico, to 62 days in 

Kansas. 

• Based on the responses 

of 34 jurisdictions, the 

length of time between 

receipt of felony arrest 

fingerprints by the 

State criminal history 

repository and entry 

into the master name 

index by the State 

criminal history 

repositories ranges 

from 1 day or less in 22 

States, the District of 

Columbia, American 

Samoa, and Puerto 

Rico, to 80 days in 

Oregon for manual 

processes. 

• Based on the responses 

of 38 jurisdictions, the 

length of time between 

receipt of felony arrest 

fingerprints by the 

State criminal history 

repository and entry 

into the criminal 

history database ranges 

from 1 day or less in 23 

States, the District of 

Columbia, and 

American Samoa, to 80 

days in Oregon for 

manual processes. 

• Thirty-four States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

report a total of over 

4.1 million felony 

arrests in 2006. 

• States and territories 

indicate that, at the 

time of the survey, they 

had backlogs in 

entering arrest data into 

the criminal history 

database. The total 

number of unprocessed 

or partially processed 

fingerprint cards for 

the criminal history 

database is just over 

687,000, as reported by 

12 States, American 

Samoa, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands. 

As reported by 15 

States and the Virgin 

Islands, the total 

number of unprocessed 

or partially processed 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 14

fingerprint cards for 

the automated 

fingerprint 

identification system 

(AFIS) database is 

more than 476,400. 

Non-felony arrest

data/fingerprints:

• Based on the responses 

of 32 jurisdictions, the 

length of time between 

non-felony arrest and 

receipt of arrest data 

and fingerprints by the 

State criminal 

repositories ranges 

from 1 day or less in 15 

States, the District of 

Columbia, and 

American Samoa, to 57 

days in Kansas. 

• Based on the responses 

of 33 jurisdictions, the 

length of time between 

receipt of non-felony

arrest fingerprints by 

the State criminal 

history repository and 

entry into the master 

name index by the 

State criminal history 

repositories ranges 

from 1 day or less in 19 

States, the District of 

Columbia, and 

American Samoa, to 80 

days in Oregon for 

manual processes. 

• Based on the responses 

of 36 jurisdictions, the 

length of time between 

receipt of non-felony

arrest fingerprints by 

the State criminal 

history repository and 

entry into the criminal 

history database ranges 

from 1 day or less in 19 

States, the District of 

Columbia, and 

American Samoa, to 80 

days in Oregon for 

manual processes. 

—Disposition data 

Length of time to process 

disposition data submitted 

to State criminal history 

repository and current 

status of backlog, 2006 

(table 21): 

• Twenty-four States, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

report a backlog of 

entering court 

disposition data into 

the criminal history 

database. 

• A total of more than 

1.1 million 

unprocessed or 

partially processed 

court disposition forms 

are reported by 20 

States, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands, 

ranging from 25 in 

Minnesota to 320,100 

in Missouri. 

• Based on responses 

from 36 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 180 days in West 

Virginia. 

• 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 

Indiana, New Jersey, 

and New York to 180 

days in Kentucky. 

• Three States 

(California, Indiana, 

and Virginia) 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, 2006 (table 22): 

• Based on responses 

from 34 jurisdictions, 

the length of time 

between the receipt of 

correctional 

information and its 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 15

entry into the criminal 

history database ranges 

from 1 day or less in 21 

jurisdictions, to 15 

days in the Virgin 

Islands. 

• Twenty-two 

jurisdictions report that 

at least one 

correctional agency is 

reporting by automated 

means. 

• Sixteen jurisdictions 

receive 95% or more of 

admission/status 

change/release activity 

information via 

agencies using 

automated reporting 

means. 

• Eleven jurisdictions 

indicate that they have 

or had backlogs in 

entering the 

correctional 

information into the 

criminal history 

database. A total of 

more than 28,000 

unprocessed or 

partially processed 

custody-supervision 

reports are reported 

from six jurisdictions. 

Criminal and 

noncriminal justice 

background checks 

Criminal and noncriminal 

justice background checks 

submitted electronically, 

2006 (table 18): 

• Forty-four States, the 

District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands report a 

total of 9.7 million 

fingerprints submitted 

to the repository via 

livescan devices for 

criminal justice

purposes. 

• Thirty-five States, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands report a 

total of over 4.2 

million fingerprints 

submitted to the 

repository via livescan 

devices for noncriminal 

justice purposes. 

• Twenty-five States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and the Virgin Islands 

report that 80% or 

more of all criminal 

justice purpose 

fingerprints are 

submitted to the 

repository via livescan 

devices. Eleven States, 

the District of 

Columbia, and the 

Virgin Islands report 

that 90% or more of all 

criminal justice 

purpose fingerprints 

are submitted via 

livescan devices. 

• Nine States report that 

80% or more of all 

noncriminal justice 

purpose fingerprints 

are submitted to the 

repository via livescan 

devices. Three States 

(California, Hawaii, 

and Rhode Island) 

report that 90% or 

more of all noncriminal 

justice purpose 

fingerprints are 

submitted via livescan 

devices. 

• Twenty-eight States, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, and the Virgin 

Islands indicate that the 

fingerprint databases 

maintained by their 

State repositories 

contain some

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints. Four 

States and American 

Samoa report 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints represent 

50% or more of the 

criminal history 

fingerprint records. 

Thirteen States and 

American Samoa 

report noncriminal 

justice fingerprints 

represent 30% or more 

of the criminal history 

fingerprint records. 

• Forty-five States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands report 

over 5,600 agencies 

submitting fingerprints 

via livescan devices for 

criminal justice

purposes. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 16

• Forty-three States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands report 

over 4,400 agencies 

submitting fingerprints 

via livescan devices for 

noncriminal justice

purposes. 

• Twenty-four States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands report 

over 4,300 agencies 

without livescan 

devices, that receive 

livescan services from 

other agencies. 

Certification and 

privatization of fingerprint 

capture services, 2006 

(table 19): 

• Eight States, the 

District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands have a 

certification program 

for persons taking 

fingerprints. California 

reported that its 

certification program 

was established 

through legislation. 

Oklahoma reported 

using a memorandum 

of understanding 

(MOU). 

• Twelve States have 

privatized the taking of 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints. Florida 

uses several private 

vendor agreements. 

Seven States (Hawaii, 

Michigan, Missouri, 

New Jersey, Tennessee, 

Texas, and Wisconsin) 

report using State 

contracts awarded to a 

single or multiple 

vendor(s). Ohio uses 

“WebCheck” computers 

at private companies to 

capture and send 

fingerprints. 

Pennsylvania operates 

on an agency-byagency basis. 

Noncriminal justice namebased background checks, 

2006 (table 23): 

• Thirty-nine States, the 

District of Columbia, 

Guam, and the Virgin 

Islands report receiving 

a total of over 15.5 

million name-based 

noncriminal 

background checks. 

Three States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, and 

Guam reported an 

identification rate of 

50% or more. Three 

States, American 

Samoa, and Guam 

reported an 

identification rate of 

90% or more. 

• Eighteen States, Guam, 

and the Virgin Islands 

received name-based 

noncriminal 

background checks via 

the Internet, with a 

reported total of over 

10.2 million. 

• Thirty-five States 

received name-based 

noncriminal 

background checks via 

mail, with a reported 

total of over 2.8 

million. 

• Six States received 

name-based 

noncriminal 

background checks via 

telephone, modem, or 

public walk-in access, 

with a reported total of 

801,000. 

Noncriminal justice namebased background check 

processing, 2006 (table 

23a): 

• Forty-three States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

report an average of 

five identifiers are 

required for a namebased criminal history 

records search. In most 

cases, these identifiers 

include first name, last 

name, date of birth, 

year of birth, and 

gender. Six States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, and the Virgin 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 17

Islands require seven 

or more identifiers for 

a name-based criminal 

history records search. 

• Forty-two States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

report an average of 

four identifiers are 

required to have “hit” 

on a name-based 

criminal history 

records search before a 

response is returned. In 

most cases, these 

identifiers include first 

name, last name, date 

of birth, and year of 

birth. Three States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

require six or more 

identifiers to have “hit” 

on a name-based 

search before a 

response is returned. 

• Thirty-two States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, and the Virgin 

Islands offer at least 

one search feature for 

name-based criminal 

history background 

checks. 

Noncriminal justice namebased background check 

results, 2006 (table 23b): 

• In 19 States, American 

Samoa, Guam, and the 

Virgin Islands, a namebased noncriminal 

justice background 

check returns the full

criminal history record. 

• In 18 States, the District 

of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico, a namebased noncriminal 

justice background 

check returns 

convictions only. 

Noncriminal justice 

fingerprint-based 

background checks, 2006 

(table 24): 

• Twenty-seven States, 

the District of 

Columbia, American 

Samoa, Guam, Puerto 

Rico, and the Virgin 

Islands retain some 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints. 

• Twenty States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico offer some 

form of “rap back” 

notification. 

• In 28 States, the 

District of Columbia, 

Guam, and the Virgin 

Islands, the full record 

is contained in the 

results of a fingerprintbased noncriminal 

justice background 

check. 

• In 8 States and Puerto 

Rico, the results of a 

fingerprint-based 

noncriminal justice 

background check 

contain conviction 

information only. 

Noncriminal justice 

fingerprint-based 

background check 

requirements, 2006 (table 

24a): 

• Forty-nine States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands report 

legal requirements 

exist to perform 

criminal history 

background checks for 

the following: 

 nurses/elder 

caregivers (41 

jurisdictions) 

 daycare providers 

(49 jurisdictions) 

 individuals who 

live in the 

residences of 

home-based 

daycare providers 

(43 jurisdictions) 

 school teachers (49 

jurisdictions) 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 18

 non-teaching 

school employees 

(40 jurisdictions) 

 volunteers with 

children (31 

jurisdictions) 

 prospective foster 

care parents (47 

jurisdictions) 

 prospective 

adoptive parents 

(48 jurisdictions) 

 relative caregivers 

(24 jurisdictions) 

 non-teaching 

school personnel 

(40 jurisdictions) 

 hazardous materials 

licensees (27 

jurisdictions) 

Database systems and 

vendors 

State automated 

fingerprint identification 

system (AFIS) database 

and vendors (table 25): 

• Sixteen States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and American Samoa 

report partnering with 

one or more States for 

the automated 

fingerprint 

identification system 

(AFIS). Seven States 

(Alaska, Oregon, 

Idaho, Utah, Nevada, 

Montana, and 

Wyoming) partner 

under the Western 

Identification Network 

(WIN), which also 

includes California and 

Washington interface 

sites. Three States 

(North Dakota, 

Minnesota, and South 

Dakota) partner under 

the Midwest 

Automated Fingerprint 

Identification Network 

(MAFIN). Three States 

(Maine, New 

Hampshire, and 

Vermont) partner in the 

northeast, and the 

States of Connecticut 

and Rhode Island are 

AFIS partners. 

• Thirty-four States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands report 

enhancing, upgrading, 

or redesigning its AFIS

in 2006. 

 9 States reporting a 

planning/securing 

funding phase as of 

December 31, 

2006. 

 7 States report a 

drafting or 

finalizing 

specifications 

phase as of 

December 31, 

2006. 

 5 States report a 

review of bids or 

proposals phase as 

of December 31, 

2006. 

 15 States, the 

District of 

Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and 

the Virgin Islands 

report an 

implementation and 

testing phase as of 

December 31, 

2006. 

• Forty-nine States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands report 

contracting with the 

following AFIS vendor 

as of December 31, 

2006: 

 NEC (19 States) 

 Motorola/PrintTrak 

(17 States, the 

District of 

Columbia, and the 

Virgin Islands) 

 Sagem Morpho (9 

States and 

American Samoa) 

 Cogent (3 States 

and Puerto Rico) 

 Lockheed-Martin 

(West Virginia) 

State criminal history 

database system and 

vendors, 2006 (table 25a): 

• Twenty-seven States, 

the District of 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 19

Columbia, American 

Samoa, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands 

report enhancing, 

upgrading, or 

redesigning its 

computerized criminal 

history (CCH) database 

system in 2006. 

 Six States 

(Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Illinois, 

Maine, and North 

Dakota) reported an 

upgrade of the 

CCH database 

system. 

 Nine States, 

American Samoa, 

and the Virgin 

Islands reported a 

redesign of the 

CCH database 

system. 

 Nine States and 

Puerto Rico 

reported an 

enhancement of the 

CCH database 

system. 

• Thirty-six States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico report 

using one or more 

vendors for its criminal 

history database, as of 

December 31, 2006. 

(Note: “Vendors” can 

include in-house IT 

staff services.) They 

were: 

 In-house services 

(16 jurisdictions) 

 Computer Projects 

of Illinois (4 

jurisdictions) 

 SAIC Corporation 

(3 jurisdictions) 

 Analysts 

International (2 

jurisdictions) 

 Northrop Grumman 

(2 jurisdictions) 

 Bearing Point (1 

jurisdiction) 

 BIT Consultants (1 

jurisdiction) 

 Cogent Systems (1 

jurisdiction) 

 Holt, Sheets, and 

Associates (1 

jurisdiction) 

 Knowteck, Inc. (1 

jurisdiction) 

 Maximus (1 

jurisdiction) 

 Norsoft Consulting 

(1 jurisdiction) 

 Nudawn Tech, Inc. 

(1 jurisdiction) 

 Oracle (1 

jurisdiction) 

 SENT Software, 

Inc. (1 jurisdiction) 

 SRA International 

(1 jurisdiction) 

 Tiburon (1 

jurisdiction) 

 TIER Consultants 

(1 jurisdiction) 

 Unisys (1 

jurisdiction) 

 Vision Tek, Inc. (1 

jurisdiction) 

Public and private 

availability of State 

criminal history records 

Court and State criminal 

history repository record 

availability to public and 

commercial entities, 2006 

(table 31): 

• Six States offer bulk 

State repository data to 

commercial third 

parties for redissemination. 

• Thirteen State court 

systems offer bulk data 

to commercial third 

parties for redissemination. 

• Twenty-nine States, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico make court 

system case 

information public over 

the Internet. 

Fees for State criminal 

history repository 

services 

Fees charged by State 

criminal history repository 

for noncriminal justice 

purposes, 2006 (table 32): 

• Twenty-eight States, 

the District of 

Columbia, American 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 20

Samoa, Guam, and the 

Virgin Islands offer 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprint-supported

criminal history 

checks, at an average 

price of $25.24 with 

retention of 

fingerprints. Fees range 

from $2.00 in 

American Samoa to 

$75.00 in New York. 

• Thirty-three States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, and 

the Virgin Islands offer 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprint-supported

criminal history 

checks, at an average 

price of $21.75 without 

retention of 

fingerprints. Fees range 

between $2.00 in 

American Samoa and 

Pennsylvania to $75.00 

in New York. 

• Nineteen States and 

American Samoa offer 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprint-supported

criminal history checks 

for volunteers at an 

average price of $18.08 

with retention of 

fingerprints. 

• Twenty-five States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and American Samoa 

offer noncriminal 

justice fingerprintsupported criminal 

history checks for 

volunteers at an 

average price of $14.81 

without retention of 

fingerprints. 

Fees charged for 

additional services by 

State criminal history 

repository, 2006 (table 

33): 

• Twenty-five States 

allocate all fees 

collected to State 

repository operations 

or support agency. 

• Twelve States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and American Samoa 

allocate all fees 

collected to the State 

general fund. 

• Eight States, Guam, 

and the Virgin Islands, 

allocate a percentage of 

fees collected to State 

repository operations. 

Fees charged for webbased services by State 

criminal history repository 

or other entity for 

noncriminal justice 

purposes, 2006 (table 34): 

• Twenty State 

repositories provide 

web-based noncriminal 

justice background 

checks with an average 

fee of $15.20 per 

search. 

• Thirteen State Offices of 

Court Administration 

provide web-based 

noncriminal background 

checks with an average 

fee of $8.26 collected by 

the private agencymaintained website. Of 

these fees collected, an 

average of $7.75 is 

returned to the State 

repository. 

• Five States report both 

repository and offices of 

court administration 

provide web-based 

noncriminal background 

checks. 

Other data quality 

procedures 

Strategies employed by 

State criminal history 

repository to ensure 

accuracy of data in 

criminal history database, 

2006 (table 26): 

• Thirty-three States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

conduct a manual 

review of incoming 

source documents or 

reports. 

• Forty-four States, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico use 

computer edit and 

verification programs 

to ensure accuracy of 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 21

data in criminal history 

database. 

• Twenty-six States, 

American Samoa, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

conduct a manual 

review of criminal 

record transcripts 

before dissemination. 

• Fifteen States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico perform 

random sample 

comparisons of the 

State criminal history 

repository files with 

stored documents. 

• Twenty-two States 

generate error lists that 

are returned to the 

reporting agencies. 

Audits 

Audit activities of State 

criminal history 

repository, 1999, 2001, 

2003, and 2006 (table 27): 

• Twenty States, the 

District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands 

performed random 

sample audits of 

criminal history 

records from 

contributing agencies 

in 2006. These audits 

were conducted to 

ensure data quality and 

compliance with laws. 

Thirty-six States and 

Puerto Rico conducted 

random sample audits 

in 2003. 

Data quality audits of State 

criminal history 

repository, 2006 (table 

28): 

• During the 5 years 

before the survey, an 

audit of the State 

criminal history 

repository’s database 

(other than ongoing 

systematic sampling) 

was conducted in 24 

jurisdictions to 

determine the level of 

accuracy and 

completeness of the 

criminal history file. 

• Of the jurisdictions 

where audits were 

performed, 17 

jurisdictions report that 

another agency 

conducted the audit. 

The repository 

conducted its own 

audit in 5 jurisdictions; 

and 2 jurisdictions 

indicated that auditing 

was conducted by both 

an outside agency and 

the repository. 

• Twenty-eight States, 

Guam, American 

Samoa, and the Virgin 

Islands reported that no 

data quality audit had 

been conducted during 

the previous 5 years. 

• Forty-two States, the 

District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands had 

initiatives underway at 

the repository or 

contributing agencies 

to improve data 

quality. Initiatives 

included— 

 automation 

conversion/redesign

/enhancements (34) 

 disposition/arrest 

reporting procedures/ 

enhancements (37) 

 felony flagging (8) 

 fingerprint card/system 

conversion/ 

enhancements (27) 

 inter-agency/local 

agency interface 

(24) 

 legislation (13) 

 plan/strategy 

development (20) 

 task force/advisory 

group establishment 

(14) 

 training seminars/ 

policy and 

procedures manuals 

(32). 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 22

Interstate Identification 

Index 

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, 2006 (table 

35): 

• As of December 31, 

2006, over 39.3 million 

III records are indexed 

with the States’ 

identification (SID) 

pointers. 

Approximately 19.9 

million records are 

maintained by the FBI 

for the States. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 23
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Introduction • 24
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2006 Data Tables • 25

Data tables
Table 1. Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 2006

Total Automated All arrests

Arrests within past 

5 years

Total 80,665,300 73,615,700 

Alabama ... ... ... ... ... 

Alaska 242,700 232,200 ... ... ...

American Samoa 300 0 100% 100% 100%

Arizona 1,334,700 1,157,800 64 64 64

Arkansas 1,194,100 1,021,700 78 26 na

California 7,744,000 a 6,427,600 ... ... ...

Colorado 1,254,000 971,500 23 57 6

Connecticut 1,108,800 908,800 95 95 100

Delaware 580,000 580,000 87 94 96

District of Columbia 957,900 602,900 ... 16 ...

Florida 5,237,900 5,237,900 59 46 68

Georgia 2,866,700 2,866,700 71 77 70

Guam 31,800 31,800 0 0 100

Hawaii 472,200 472,200 95 85 96 

Idaho 244,100 244,100 61 50 61

Illinois 4,899,100 4,342,200 ... 62 83

Indiana 1,242,500 574,800 45 64 ...

Iowa 507,400 507,400 95 95 na

Kansas 1,134,900 664,800 56 50 56

Kentucky 1,032,000 936,100 30 11 ...

Louisiana 1,993,000 1,342,200 23 5 na

Maine 400,400 400,400 ... ... ...

Maryland 3,345,600 3,345,600 84 95 na

Massachusetts 2,907,600 2,194,600 99 99 na

Michigan 2,100,000 2,100,000 80 80 80

Minnesota 672,200 672,200 ... ... ...

Mississippi 381,900 381,900 14 20 5

Missouri 1,283,100 1,125,200 81 80 83

Montana 179,100 179,100 45 63 38

Nebraska 306,400 306,400 60 70 67

Nevada 521,700 521,700 33 18 33

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

New Jersey 2,662,800 2,662,800 90 65 90

New Mexico 448,500 448,500 22 24 ...

New York 6,803,600 6,803,600 87 87 88

North Carolina 1,200,000 1,150,000 ... ... ...

North Dakota 129,900 110,600 82 84 ...

Ohio 1,771,700 1,771,700 50 45 ...

Oklahoma 749,700 673,000 33 37 35

Oregon 1,238,000 1,238,000 ... ... ...

Pennsylvania 2,094,000 1,794,200 65 49 86

Puerto Rico 261,500 261,500 88 87 88

Rhode Island 350,000 350,000 ... ... ...

South Carolina 1,371,700 1,322,400 67 na 90

South Dakota 255,000 235,700 95 95 95

Tennessee 1,523,300 1,341,000 40 57 38

Texas 7,986,300 7,986,300 na 74 na

Utah 545,000 545,000 68 89 79

Vermont 209,400 161,800 ... 99 >99

Virgin Islands 13,100 4,100 50 ... ...

Virginia 1,704,600 1,527,600 85 85 87

Washington 1,346,000 1,346,000 ... ... ...

West Virginia 543,000 250,000 50 70 ...

Wisconsin 1,138,800 1,138,800 93 91 95

Wyoming 143,300 143,300 82 ... 81

State

Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State 

criminal history file

Percent of arrests in database that 

have final dispositions recorded Percent of felony 

charges with final 

disposition
a The California total number of combined criminal and applicant records on file as of December 31, 2006,

 was 16 million, of which 48.4% were criminal and 85% of the criminal records were automated.

Data footnotes:

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

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

 and New Hampshire, from which no data were submitted.

▪ 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.

Table 1 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. 
Table 1a. Overview of State criminal history record system functions, 2006

Number 

Percent of 

2006 volume Number 

Percent of 

2006 volume Number 

Percent of 

2006 volume

Total 19,812,400 12,098,100 3,111,400 4,602,900 7,714,300

Alabama ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Alaska 55,500 27,200 49% 0 0% 28,300 51% 28,300

American Samoa 800 300 38 500 62 0 0 500

Arizona 526,600 229,100 43 176,700 34 120,800 23 297,500

Arkansas 141,100 88,500 63 52,600 37 0 0 52,600

California 3,455,600 1,751,800 51 0 0 1,703,800 49 1,703,800

Colorado 370,300 259,000 70 0 0 111,300 30 111,300

Connecticut 188,100 151,400 80 0 0 36,700 20 36,700

Delaware 64,300 36,400 57 0 0 27,900 43 27,900

District of Columbia 57,500 48,100 84 9,400 16 0 0 9,400

Florida 1,936,200 1,051,600 54 560,200 29 324,400 17 884,600

Georgia 612,900 444,400 73 168,500 27 0 0 168,500

Guam 4,400 3,300 75 ... ... 1,100 25 1,100

Hawaii 51,700 31,000 60 20,700 40 0 0 20,700

Idaho 137,100 75,800 55 58,600 43 2,700 2 61,300

Illinois 957,700 652,000 68 26,900 3 278,800 29 305,700

Indiana 257,300 206,700 80 50,600 20 0 0 50,600

Iowa 78,600 76,300 97 2,300 3 0 0 2,300

Kansas 151,800 126,000 83 0 0 25,800 17 25,800

Kentucky 208,000 172,100 83 35,900 17 0 0 35,900

Louisiana 475,700 365,400 77 0 0 110,300 23 110,300

Maine 31,600 20,600 65 2,000 6 9,000 29 11,000

Maryland 295,900 117,200 40 ... ... 178,700 60 178,700

Massachusetts ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Michigan 689,500 459,900 67 17,400 3 212,200 31 229,600

Minnesota 194,400 162,700 84 31,700 16 0 0 31,700

Mississippi 163,500 56,200 34 107,300 66 ... ... 107,300

Missouri 325,000 213,200 66 ... ... 111,800 34 111,800

Montana 37,900 20,200 53 17,700 47 0 0 17,700

Nebraska 667,900 646,200 97 0 0 21,700 3 21,700

Nevada 257,400 93,800 36 133,900 52 29,700 12 163,600

New Hampshire 53,600 37,800 71 15,800 29 0 0 15,800

New Jersey 584,900 237,200 40 114,300 20 233,400 40 347,700

New Mexico 142,600 75,800 53 66,800 47 0 0 66,800

New York 1,135,000 689,100 61 0 0 445,900 39 445,900

North Carolina 322,300 192,800 60 22,200 7 107,300 33 129,500

North Dakota 14,500 11,600 80 2,900 20 0 0 2,900

Ohio 953,600 285,000 30 668,600 70 ... ... 668,600

Oklahoma 133,500 102,400 76 2,200 2 28,900 22 31,100

Oregon 219,000 a 150,400 69 55,500 25 13,100 6 68,600

Pennsylvania 464,200 302,900 65 154,400 33 6,900 2 161,300

Puerto Rico 31,100 b 18,900 61 0 0 12,200 39 12,200

Rhode Island 53,000 41,500 78 11,500 22 0 0 11,500

South Carolina 265,700 238,300 90 25,600 10 1,800 1 27,400

South Dakota 53,800 28,600 53 19,600 36 5,600 11 25,200

Tennessee 431,200 323,300 75 36,400 c 8 71,500 c 17 107,900

Texas 1,273,100 949,500 75 68,600 5 255,000 20 323,600

Utah 114,900 61,500 54 53,300 46 100 0 53,400

Vermont 32,100 19,800 61 12,200 38 100 1 12,300

Virgin Islands 1,100 1,000 91 100 9 0 0 100

Virginia 433,300 273,400 63 159,900 37 0 0 159,900

Washington 387,100 276,100 71 111,000 29 na ... 111,000

West Virginia 84,400 37,000 44 0 0 47,400 56 47,400

Wisconsin 200,700 141,500 70 21,700 11 37,500 19 59,200

Wyoming 33,400 16,300 49 15,900 48 1,200 3 17,100

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 (2006 total)

Background checks for criminal 

justice purposes
Table 1a explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

a Includes Oregon applicant fingerprint cards processed for criminal justice agencies.

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

Data footnotes:

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

 card at the State Police Department.

 law enforcement applicant prints.

b Approximate number based on Puerto Rico State repository arrests registered, which must have a related fingerprint 

c Tennessee began retaining civil/applicant fingerprints on 5/31/2006. Number of retained "noncriminal" prints includes 
Table 2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 2001, 2003, and 2006

2001 2003 2006 total Manual file Automated file 2001 2003 2006

2001-

2003

2003-

2006

Total 63,943,100 70,661,400 80,665,300 7,049,600 73,615,700 89% 93% 91% 11% 14%

Alabama 1,200,000 1,150,000 ... ... ... 75 78 ... -4 ...

Alaska 240,600 222,500 242,700 10,500 232,200 96 95 96 -8 9

American Samoa ... ... 300 300 0 ... ... 0 ... ...

Arizona 1,031,300 1,689,800 1,334,700 176,900 1,157,800 100 61 87 64 -21

Arkansas 606,300 683,500 1,194,100 172,400 1,021,700 61 66 86 13 75

California 7,619,200 6,099,100 7,744,000 a 1,316,400 6,427,600 74 98 83 -20 27

Colorado 989,200 1,136,600 1,254,000 282,500 971,500 100 100 77 15 10

Connecticut 881,600 1,427,700 1,108,800 200,000 908,800 69 85 82 62 -22

Delaware 347,500 488,600 580,000 0 580,000 86 90 100 41 19

District of Columbia 551,300 670,500 957,900 355,000 602,900 81 84 63 22 43

Florida 4,221,300 4,606,700 5,237,900 0 5,237,900 100 100 100 9 14

Georgia 2,336,900 2,542,700 2,866,700 0 2,866,700 100 100 100 9 13

Guam ... ... 31,800 0 31,800 ... ... 100 ... ...

Hawaii 397,800 444,500 472,200 0 472,200 100 100 100 12 6

Idaho 191,300 212,800 244,100 0 244,100 89 100 100 11 15

Illinois 3,928,100 4,162,000 4,899,100 556,900 4,342,200 85 86 89 6 18

Indiana 913,900 1,061,100 1,242,500 667,700 574,800 100 100 46 16 17

Iowa 435,300 536,600 507,400 0 507,400 93 99 100 23 -5

Kansas 897,400 882,400 1,134,900 470,100 664,800 50 56 59 -2 29

Kentucky 784,000 865,700 1,032,000 95,900 936,100 100 100 91 10 19

Louisiana 1,970,300 ... 1,993,000 650,800 1,342,200 61 ... 67 ... ...

Maine 446,900 313,900 400,400 0 400,400 34 100 100 -30 28

Maryland 843,300 1,162,400 3,345,600 b 0 3,345,600 100 100 100 38 188

Massachusetts 2,662,300 3,533,300 2,907,600 713,000 2,194,600 72 79 75 33 -18

Michigan 1,372,300 1,521,700 2,100,000 0 2,100,000 100 100 100 11 38

Minnesota 468,200 532,000 672,200 0 c 672,200 88 90 100 14 26

Mississippi 225,600 291,200 381,900 0 381,900 100 100 100 29 31

Missouri 1,013,700 1,328,300 1,283,100 157,900 1,125,200 84 88 88 31 -3

Montana 151,000 164,000 179,100 0 179,100 100 100 100 9 9

Nebraska 223,100 280,000 306,400 0 306,400 100 100 100 26 9

Nevada 339,600 448,500 521,700 0 521,700 100 100 100 32 16

New Hampshire 282,500 310,500 ... ... ... 89 90 ... 10 ...

New Jersey 1,602,700 1,747,400 2,662,800 0 2,662,800 100 100 100 9 52

New Mexico 400,000 844,500 448,500 d 0 448,500 100 100 100 111 -47

New York 5,320,000 5,976,200 6,803,600 0 6,803,600 100 100 100 12 14

North Carolina 889,700 1,077,300 1,200,000 50,000 1,150,000 100 99 96 21 11

North Dakota 115,000 114,200 129,900 19,300 110,600 100 83 85 -1 14

Ohio 1,260,400 e 1,468,600 e 1,771,700 0 1,771,700 97 97 100 17 21

Oklahoma 584,500 655,600 749,700 76,700 673,000 88 89 90 12 14

Oregon 1,039,000 1,112,100 1,238,000 0 1,238,000 100 100 100 7 11

Pennsylvania 1,817,900 1,869,900 2,094,000 299,800 1,794,200 ... 81 86 3 12

Puerto Rico 193,600 209,200 261,500 0 261,500 100 100 100 8 25

Rhode Island 240,000 229,000 350,000 0 350,000 100 100 100 -5 53

South Carolina 1,076,300 1,192,400 1,371,700 49,300 1,322,400 100 96 96 11 15

South Dakota 176,800 192,600 255,000 19,300 235,700 89 90 92 9 32

Tennessee 1,028,200 3,000,000 f 1,523,300 182,300 1,341,000 100 100 88 192 -49

Texas 6,639,500 7,184,500 7,986,300 0 7,986,300 100 100 100 8 11

Utah 437,500 487,500 545,000 0 545,000 100 100 100 11 12

Vermont 181,100 193,100 209,400 47,600 161,800 66 70 77 7 8

Virgin Islands ... ... 13,100 9,000 4,100 0 0 31 ... ...

Virginia 1,304,700 1,487,600 1,704,600 177,000 1,527,600 87 89 90 14 15

Washington 1,049,500 1,194,000 1,346,000 0 1,346,000 100 100 100 14 13

West Virginia ... 530,600 543,000 293,000 250,000 ... 40 46 ... 2

Wisconsin 910,900 1,007,400 1,138,800 0 1,138,800 100 100 100 11 13

Wyoming 104,000 119,100 143,300 0 143,300 100 100 100 15 20

Percent change in 

total file

State

Number of subjects in manual and 

automated files

Number of subjects in manual and automated files, 

2006 Percent of automated files
Table 2 explanatory notes:

 and New Hampshire, from which no data were submitted.

▪ The total number of subjects in manual and automated State criminal history files for 2006 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:

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

 include multiple files for an individual offender.

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

▪ na Not applicable.

▪ 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.

 totals, not averages.

c As of 12/31/06, Minnesota had 46,531 manual records; however, the identification information is automated.

d New Mexico's conversion to a new fingerprint system with only one card from every arrest, allows for 

 a better representation of database numbers.

e Ohio figures revised based on additional State-submitted data.

a The California total number of combined criminal and applicant records on file as of December 31, 2006,

 was 16 million, of which 48.4% were criminal and 85% of the criminal records were automated.

b The Maryland total increased due to changes in processing operations.
Table 3. Biometric and image data collection by State criminal history repository, 2006

State

 Rolled ten-prints 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

Alaska X X X X X Signature

American Samoa XXXXXXXXXX

Arizona X X XXXXX

Arkansas X X

California X X X X X

Colorado X X

Connecticut X X X X

Delaware XXXXXXXXX

District of Columbia XXXXXXXXXX

Florida XXXX

Georgia X X

Guam na

Hawaii X X X X X

Idaho X X

Illinois X X X

Indiana X X

Iowa X X X X X X

Kansas X X X X

Kentucky XXXXX XX

Louisiana XXXX XXX

Maine X X

Maryland X X X X

Massachusetts X X X X

Michigan X X X X X X

Minnesota X X X X X

Mississippi X X X X

Missouri X X X

Montana X

Nebraska XXXXXXXX Signature

Nevada X X Slap prints (part of ten-print)

New Hampshire X X X

New Jersey X X X X X Developing palm repository

New Mexico X X X X X X X

New York X X XXXX

North Carolina

North Dakota X X

Ohio XXXX X

Oklahoma X X XXXX

Oregon X X X X X DNA verification, thumbprints a

Pennsylvania XXXXXXXXX

Puerto Rico X X X X X

Rhode Island X X X X X

South Carolina X X X

South Dakota X X Palm prints for sex offenders

Tennessee X X X X X

Texas X X X X

Utah X X

Vermont X X X X X X

Virgin Islands X X X X X

Virginia XXXX XX

Washington XXXX X

West Virginia X X

Wisconsin X X XXXX

Wyoming X

Repository accepted biometric information
Table 3 explanatory notes:

 fingerprint identification system.

a Latent prints are submitted to the forensic labs, but entered into the Oregon repository automated 

▪ 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.

▪ na Not applicable.

Data footnotes:
Table 3a. Biometric and image data in State criminal history repository, 2006

State

Number of images of scars, 

marks, and tattoos in repository 

database

Number of facial images or 

booking photos in repository 

database

Number of palm print images in 

repository database

Total 1,556,400 12,067,500 1,062,900

Alabama

Alaska 0 0 0

American Samoa ... 300 300

Arizona 220,000 2,730,000 0

Arkansas na 285,000 0

California 400 1,200 700

Colorado 0 0 0

Connecticut 0 0 109,000

Delaware ... 195,000 ...

District of Columbia 0 48,100 366,900

Florida 0 0 0

Georgia ... ... 0

Guam 0 0 0

Hawaii 21,300 97,300 35,000

Idaho 0 0 0

Illinois 415,100 93,500 ...

Indiana 0 0 0

Iowa na 61,700 41,900

Kansas 0 ... 0

Kentucky ... 154,600 0

Louisiana na na na

Maine 0 0 0

Maryland 98,500 2,000,000 0

Massachusetts ... ... ...

Michigan 510,100 a 735,200 b 0

Minnesota 208,300 877,200 0

Mississippi 0 9,700 0

Missouri 0 0 40,000

Montana 0 0 0

Nebraska 0 2,900 0

Nevada 0 0 0

New Hampshire na ... ...

New Jersey 0 60,000 0

New Mexico ... 77,500 0

New York 0 3,162,000 0

North Carolina ... ... ...

North Dakota 0 0 0

Ohio 0 0 0

Oklahoma 73,800 728,800 166,900

Oregon 0 ... 112,000

Pennsylvania ... ... 32,300

Puerto Rico 8,700 300,000 ...

Rhode Island ... ... ...

South Carolina na 41,300 148,900

South Dakota 0 0 0

Tennessee ... ... ...

Texas 0 329,600 0

Utah 0 0 0

Vermont 200 17,300 0

Virgin Islands 0 9,000 9,000

Virginia na 500 na

Washington 0 19,800 c 0 d

West Virginia na na na

Wisconsin ... 30,000 ...

Wyoming na na na
Table 3a explanatory notes:

 individual counts cannot be obtained.

Data footnotes:

a Michigan records include facial side views.

▪ Numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

b Michigan records include facial front view.

c Refers to the number of Washington sex offender registration photos.

d Other images and palm prints for Washington are bundled in the transaction and 
Table 4. Mental health information to facilitate firearm suitability determinations, 2006 

State

Repository receives mental 

health information

Number of repository 

mental health records Agency providing mental health information

Alabama Yes ... Courts

Alaska No

American Samoa No ...

Arizona No 

Arkansas No

California No

Colorado No

Connecticut Yes 300 Courts

Delaware Yes ... Health and Human Services

District of Columbia No 

Florida No

Georgia Yes 2,700 Courts

Guam No

Hawaii No

Idaho No

Illinois No

Indiana No

Iowa No

Kansas Yes 3,400 Courts

Kentucky No ... Courts

Louisiana No

Maine No

Maryland No

Massachusetts No Department of Mental Health

Michigan Yes 75,200 Courts, public and private mental health providers

Minnesota No

Mississippi No 

Missouri No ... Courts a

Montana No

Nebraska Yes 3,700 Public mental health providers

Nevada No

New Hampshire No

New Jersey Yes ... NJ Div. of Mental Health Services

New Mexico No

New York No

North Carolina ... ... ...

North Dakota No

Ohio Yes 14,800 Courts, public mental health providers

Oklahoma Yes b na OK Dept. of Mental Health & Substance Abuse

Oregon Yes ... Dept. of Human Services

Pennsylvania Yes ... Public and private mental health providers

Puerto Rico No

Rhode Island No 0

South Carolina No

South Dakota No

Tennessee No

Texas No

Utah Yes 3,000 Court Admin. Office

Vermont No

Virgin Islands No 

Virginia Yes 84,800 Courts, public mental health providers

Washington No ... Courts

West Virginia No

Wisconsin Yes 400 Courts

Wyoming Yes 0 Courts
Table 4 explanatory notes:

 from mental health agencies. No repository database.

Data footnotes:

a Missouri State Highway Patrol is a pass-through agency for mental health records.

b Only for Oklahoma concealed weapon permits. Only receive "yes" or "no" 

▪ Numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.
Table 5. Protection order information and records, 2006

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 858,800 576,600

Alabama Yes ... ... Yes All- when conviction information is entered

Alaska ... ... ... ... All- when conviction information is entered

American Samoa No ... ... No Some- when arrest information is entered

Arizona Yes 1,700 a 18,100 b ... All- when conviction information is entered

Arkansas Yes 0 5,500 ... All- when conviction information is entered

California Yes 289,000 205,400 ... No

Colorado Yes 140,700 79,600 No All- when conviction information is entered

Connecticut Yes ... ... ... All- when conviction information is entered

Delaware Yes 4,400 1,000 Yes All

District of Columbia Yes ... ... Yes No

Florida Yes 144,700 144,700 ... Some-at both arrest and conviction

Georgia Yes 7,300 7,000 ... All- when conviction information is entered

Guam Yes 100 0 Yes All

Hawaii Yes 2,800 0 Yes All- when conviction information is entered

Idaho Yes 900 100 ... All- at both arrest and conviction

Illinois Yes 60,400 0 ... All- at both arrest and conviction

Indiana Yes 30,000 ... ... All- at both arrest and conviction

Iowa No ... ... ... All- when conviction information is entered

Kansas No ... ... ... Some-at both arrest and conviction

Kentucky No 19,000 19,000 ... No

Louisiana No ... ... ... Some- when conviction information is entered

Maine No ... ... ... All

Maryland ... ... ... Yes No

Massachusetts Yes 21,000 21,000 Yes No

Michigan Yes 33,500 33,500 ... All- when conviction information is entered

Minnesota Yes 6,700 c 5,500 c ... All- when conviction information is entered

Mississippi Yes ... 100 ... All

Missouri Yes 9,600 9,600 ... All- when conviction information is entered

Montana No ... ... ... No

Nebraska No ... 1,100 ... All- at both arrest and conviction

Nevada Yes 21,100 0 Yes All- at both arrest and conviction

New Hampshire No ... ... ... No

New Jersey Yes ... 0 ... All- when arrest information is entered

New Mexico No ... ... ... Some- when conviction information is entered

New York No ... ... Yes All- when conviction information is entered

North Carolina ... ... ... ... Some- when arrest information is entered

North Dakota Yes 1,000 ... ... No

Ohio No na na ... Some

Oklahoma No na ... ... Some- when conviction information is entered

Oregon Yes d ... 0 ... All- when conviction information is entered

Pennsylvania Yes ... ... No All- at both arrest and conviction

Puerto Rico ... ... ... No All- at both arrest and conviction

Rhode Island Yes na ... Yes All- at both arrest and conviction

South Carolina Yes ... ... ... Some- when conviction information is entered

South Dakota No ... ... ... All- when conviction information is entered

Tennessee Yes 4,300 3,500 Yes All- when conviction information is entered

Texas Yes 12,200 10,800 ... Some- when conviction information is entered

Utah Yes 15,000 0 ... All- when conviction information is entered

Vermont Yes 0 e 0 ... All- when conviction information is entered

Virgin Islands ... 0 0 ... No

Virginia Yes 16,300 All Yes All- when conviction information is entered

Washington No ... ... ... No

West Virginia No ... ... ... Some- when conviction information is entered

Wisconsin Yes 12,700 9,000 ... All- when conviction information is entered

Wyoming Yes 4,400 2,100 Yes All- when conviction information is entered
Table 5 explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

 Center (NCIC) Protective Order File. 

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

e All Vermont protection orders are entered into NCIC.

a As of 12/31/2006, 5 of 15 Arizona counties reported to the State database for a total of 1,670 records.

b Statewide, 18,077 Arizona records (from all 15 counties) were reported to the FBI National Crime Information 

c Minnesota figure as of 08/27/07.

d Oregon receives protection order information via LEDS (control terminal agency).
Table 6. State registry of sex offenders, 2006

State

Total number of 

registered sex 

offenders 

Number of registered sex 

offenders on publicly 

available State registry

Actual total record 

count from FBI-NCIC 

(1/1/2007)

Percentage on 

publicly available 

State registry

Repository able to 

flag criminal history 

records for sex 

offenders

Total 534,000 330,100 457,320 

Alabama ... ... 3,832 ... Yes

Alaska ... ... 3,581 ... 

American Samoa 100 100 0 100% No

Arizona 13,800 2,000 11,526 14 Yes

Arkansas 7,200 2,800 3,240 39 Yes

California 111,000 64,700 51,075 58 a

Colorado 8,500 5,900 7,587 69 Yes

Connecticut 4,600 4,600 4,031 100 Yes

Delaware 3,100 1,900 3,046 61 Yes

District of Columbia 700 600 994 86 

Florida 39,800 39,800 38,054 100 Yes

Georgia 12,800 12,800 11,108 100 Yes

Guam 400 300 105 75 Yes

Hawaii 2,400 1,600 1,711 67 Yes

Idaho 2,900 2,900 2,666 100 

Illinois 18,800 23,000 b 17,398 122 

Indiana ... ... 6,376 ... Yes

Iowa 6,200 5,800 5,885 94 

Kansas 4,600 4,000 3,611 87 Yes

Kentucky 6,000 4,800 4,577 80 Yes

Louisiana 7,400 7,400 6,330 100 Yes

Maine 2,600 2,600 2,567 100 Yes

Maryland 5,300 4,600 4,853 87 Yes

Massachusetts ... ... 12,912 ... Yes

Michigan 40,200 29,600 34,552 74 

Minnesota ... ... 10,443 ... 

Mississippi 4,300 4,300 3,312 >99 No

Missouri 11,200 7,700 7,153 69 

Montana 1,700 1,700 1,532 100 Yes

Nebraska 2,500 1,100 2,416 44 Yes

Nevada 6,000 2,100 2,104 35 Yes

New Hampshire 3,600 1,500 1,773 42 

New Jersey 11,600 2,400 10,589 21 Yes

New Mexico 2,100 1,700 1,844 81 Yes

New York 24,300 5,900 22,231 24 Yes

North Carolina ... ... 9,651 ...

North Dakota 1,000 900 c 894 90 Yes

Ohio 16,000 16,000 9,977 100 Yes

Oklahoma ... ... d 5,524 ... 

Oregon ... ... 11,970 na Yes

Pennsylvania 10,700 8,800 7,419 82 Yes

Puerto Rico 900 900 583 100

Rhode Island 1,800 200 1074 11 Yes

South Carolina 10,100 10,100 5,930 100 Yes

South Dakota 2,400 2,400 2,187 100 

Tennessee 9,900 4,500 e 7,779 45 Yes

Texas 54,300 ... 39,622 ... Yes

Utah ... ... 395 ... Yes

Vermont 2,400 300 1,867 13 Yes

Virgin Islands 0 0 22 0 

Virginia 15,200 15,200 13,035 100 Yes

Washington 19,400 ... 14,363 ... 

West Virginia 2,800 2,700 1,929 96 Yes

Wisconsin 19,600 17,800 16,935 91 Yes

Wyoming 1,800 100 f 1,150 6 Yes
Table 6 explanatory notes:

 from which no data was submitted.

Data footnotes:

a In California, although there is no flag for sex offenders, the repository does carry a

 registration event entry as part of the subject's criminal history record.

b Approximately 4,200 registered sex offenders whose information was available on the

 Illinois public sex offender registry as of Dec. 31, 2006, had left the state. Consequently,

 even though the state reported 18,800 registered sex offenders in Illinois as of that date,

 the publicly accessible sex offender registry contained information on 23,000 registered

 sex offenders.

c Information on a number of North Dakota juvenile offenders is not available to public.

d The Oklahoma State Bureau of Identification does not maintain the sex offender registry.

e As of 7/1/07, all Tennessee registered sex offenders are on a publicly accessible State registry. 

 As of 8/8/07, there are 10,704 registered.

f The Wyoming State registry has been substantially amended in 2007 to come closer to 

 complying with Adam Walsh Act. Currently, all sex offenders required to register are 

 on a publicly available registry website.

▪ The total number of State registered sex offenders does not include Alabama,

▪ 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.
Table 6a. Community notification services and public access to records, 2006

State Community notification services?

Sex offender 

registry

Orders of protection 

/ Protection orders

Wants & warrants / 

Wanted persons

Retained 

applicant 

prints

Rap back for 

criminal justice 

purposes

Firearm 

registration

Alabama Victim notification to crime victims XX X

Alaska

American Samoa Victim notification to crime victims X X X XX X

Arizona X

Arkansas XX X

California X X XX

Colorado X X X XX

Connecticut X

Delaware Sex offender residency, employment, or school; 

victim notification to crime victims XX XX X

District of Columbia Sex offender residency, employment, or school XX X X

Florida Sex offender residency, employment, or school; 

victim notification to crime victims

Georgia X X

Guam Sex offender residency, employment, or school X X

Hawaii X

Idaho XX X

Illinois

Indiana X Xa

Iowa X

Kansas XX b

Kentucky X

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

Maine Sex offender residency, employment, or school X X

Maryland Sex offender residency, employment, or school; 

victim notification to crime victims X X

Massachusetts Victim notification to crime victims XX X X

Michigan XX X XX

Minnesota X

Mississippi XX X X

Missouri XX X

Montana X

Nebraska X X Xc

Nevada Sex offender residency, employment, or school d

New Hampshire

New Jersey X X XX X

New Mexico Sex offender residency, employment, or school

New York Sex offender residency, employment, or school X X X XX

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio X

Oklahoma X

Oregon X X X XX e

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

Puerto Rico X X

Rhode Island Sex offender residency, employment, or school; 

victim notification to crime victims X

South Carolina Sex offender residency, employment, or school X XX

South Dakota XX f

Tennessee X X g

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

Utah X X

Vermont Sex offender residency, employment, or school; 

victim notification to crime victims

Virgin Islands Sex offender residency, employment, or school X XX X

Virginia Sex offender residency, employment, or school XX X

Washington Sex offender residency, employment, or school X

West Virginia Sex offender residency, employment, or school X X

Wisconsin XX X h

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

In addition to criminal history information, to what other records 

did your State provide access in 2006?
Table 6a explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

Data footnotes:

a Vehicle crash records.

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

f Expungement.

g Wanted persons, missing children.

h Not all protection orders are eligible.

b Wants and warrants-misdemeanors.

c Missing persons, concealed handgun permit.

d State point-of-contact for firearms.

e Some Department of Corrections actions.
Table 7. Data required to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 2006

State

Prosecutor 

declinations

Final dispositions by courts 

with felony jurisdiction

Correctional 

admissions

Correctional 

releases

Probation 

information

Parole 

information

Alabama ... ... ... ... ... ...

Alaska

American Samoa X 

Arizona X X X X X

Arkansas X Via administrative offices XXXX

California X X X 

Colorado X X X X X

Connecticut X X 

Delaware X X

District of Columbia X X X X X

Florida X a X X X X X

Georgia X X X X X X

Guam X

Hawaii X X b b

Idaho X X c X c X c X c

Illinois X X X X X X

Indiana X X X

Iowa X X X X X X

Kansas X X X X X

Kentucky X

Louisiana X X X X X X

Maine X

Maryland X Via administrative offices XXXX

Massachusetts X X X X

Michigan X

Minnesota X X X 

Mississippi X X X

Missouri X X X X X X

Montana X X

Nebraska X

Nevada X X X d d

New Hampshire X

New Jersey X X 

New Mexico X Via administrative offices X X

New York X Via administrative offices XXXX

North Carolina

North Dakota X e X X X X

Ohio X f X X X X

Oklahoma X X X X X X

Oregon X X X X X

Pennsylvania X Via administrative offices X XX

Puerto Rico X X X X X

Rhode Island 

South Carolina X X

South Dakota Via administrative offices XXXX

Tennessee X

Texas X X

Utah X Via administrative offices 

Vermont X X X

Virgin Islands Via administrative offices XXXX

Virginia X X X X X

Washington X Via administrative offices X

West Virginia X 

Wisconsin X X X X X

Wyoming X X X X X X
Table 7 explanatory notes:

▪ na Not applicable.

Data footnotes:

▪ ... Not available.

a Florida court clerks are responsible for reporting prosecutor data.

b The Hawaii Department of Public Safety, responsible for all jails and correctional facilities,

 sends all admissions, releases, and status changes to the repository via

 an electronic file transfer/interface on a daily basis. However, information as to the

 timeliness of this information, etc., is not available.

c While there are legal requirements, Idaho only receives admissions data at this time.

d By law, the Nevada Division of Parole and Probation is not required to send the repository

f In Ohio, dispositions come from prosecutors.

 parole/probation information. However, the division does have to make sure their

 offenders comply with any felony/sex offender registration requirements, which 

 are reported to the repository.

e North Dakota State's Attorneys have statutory responsibility for reporting dispositions.
Table 8. Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2006 

State 1999 2001 2003 2006 1999-2001 2001-2003 2003-2006

Total 7,566,800 6,855,300 6,993,000 10,475,400

Alabama 115,900 ... ... ... ... ... ... 

Alaska 43,000 46,500 51,000 47,200 8% 10% -7%

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

Arizona 190,500 296,800 a 406,700 255,800 56 37 -37

Arkansas 93,700 127,400 96,500 114,000 36 -24 18

California 1,381,000 1,058,000 ... 1,500,000 -23 ... ...

Colorado 5,900 29,900 46,900 36,000 407 57 -23

Connecticut 102,200 108,100 68,900 ... 6 -36 ...

Delaware 78,700 104,900 105,900 154,200 33 1 46

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

Florida 259,800 843,900 b 644,700 1,036,600 c 225 24 61

Georgia 331,000 360,000 397,400 454,600 9 10 14

Guam ... ... ... 500 ... ... ...

Hawaii 70,500 99,000 68,800 75,100 40 -31 9

Idaho 10,600 21,600 37,000 111,500 d 104 71 201

Illinois 393,700 400 ... 492,500 -100 ...

Indiana 40,000 113,000 222,000 211,400 183 96 -5

Iowa 70,700 67,400 121,900 141,500 -1 81 16

Kansas 40,000 86,700 99,100 240,200 117 14 142

Kentucky 6,200 31,900 20,000 101,600 e 415 -37 408

Louisiana 36,200 21,200 26,200 15,000 -41 24 -43

Maine 36,700 ... ... ... ... ... ...

Maryland ... 190,800 190,800 58,500 ... 0 -69

Massachusetts 417,700 ... ... 424,700 ... ... ...

Michigan 214,200 f 559,800 332,200 295,000 161 -41 -11

Minnesota 84,000 g 101,000 131,500 ... ... 30

Mississippi 1,500 100 1,600 13,300 -93 1500 731

Missouri 132,200 105,000 h 159,400 158,200 -21 52 -1

Montana 30,400 15,000 16,900 17,800 -51 13 5

Nebraska 29,200 38,900 55,000 51,100 33 41 -7

Nevada 31,900 45,000 180,000 i 84,000 i 41 300 -53

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

New Jersey 287,500 337,500 j 354,100 465,900 17 5 32

New Mexico 16,000 ... ... 14,300 ... ... ...

New York 698,900 679,200 722,500 482,900 -3 6 -33

North Carolina 106,000 ... ... ... ... ... ...

North Dakota 6,000 8,800 10,900 12,500 47 24 15

Ohio 55,900 158,600 262,700 211,100 184 66 -20

Oklahoma 152,000 4,600 k ... 56,400 -97 ... ...

Oregon 116,300 176,200 ... 166,000 52 ... ...

Pennsylvania 167,600 102,600 195,900 331,400 -39 91 69

Puerto Rico 49,100 59,900 ... 53,500 22 ... ...

Rhode Island 18,000 72,000 ... ... 300 ... ...

South Carolina 211,200 ... ... 199,600 ... ... ...

South Dakota 19,600 ... ... 42,900 ... ... ...

Tennessee 26,000 ... 94,500 131,300 ... ... 39

Texas 723,000 ... 744,500 1,015,300 ... ... 36

Utah 35,800 61,400 26,600 158,200 l 72 -57 495

Vermont 25,900 28,700 36,400 29,100 11 27 -20

Virgin Islands ... ... ... 0 ... ... ...

Virginia 272,400 335,900 353,900 315,700 23 5 -11

Washington 246,300 289,200 221,400 262,000 17 -23 18

West Virginia 24,500 ... 111,600 43,000 ... ... -61

Wisconsin 55,900 63,200 301,700 354,700 13 377 18

Wyoming 5,500 5,200 9,800 10,500 -5 88 7

Number of final case dispositions Percent change
 Computerized Criminal History (CCH) interface and Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 

 to CCH interface. 

g Minnesota court dispositions only.

 dispositions received from 1995-1999

h The decrease in Missouri dispositions from 1999 is reflective of the larger metropolitan area decline 

c 818,953 entered into the Florida computerized criminal history file.

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

f The figure represents Michigan court dispositions. Although prosecutor declinations are reported, the

 number is unknown.

a Figure represents Arizona felonies and misdemeanors.

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

 with the courts case management system.

 in reporting, and the central repository electronic integration project that is currently being implemented 

k This figure included only Oklahoma dispositions received in 2001; the figure for 1999 includes 

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

j The figure represents final New Jersey charge dispositions.

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

Table 8 explanatory notes:

 Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 (October 2000), Table 3. 

▪ Except for Georgia, Nebraska, Puerto Rico, and Ohio, for which corrected data were submitted, 

 or final trial court disposition. 

 the data for 1999 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

▪ 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Data footnotes:

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

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

 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History 
Table 8a. Final disposition reporting, 2006

State

Total 10,475,400 4,652,100

Alabama ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 

Alaska 47,200 ... 100% ... ... ... ...

American Samoa 300 ... 0 0% 0% 100% 100%

Arizona 255,800 255,800 100 0 0 64 57

Arkansas 114,000 36,400 20 80 0 na na

California 1,500,000 1,500,000 100 0 0 na

Colorado 36,000 0 0 0 0 6 na

Connecticut ... ... na na na 100 100

Delaware 154,200 154,200 0 0 0 96 ...

District of Columbia 28,500 0 ... ... ... ... ...

Florida 1,036,600 a 0 0 0 0 68 70

Georgia 454,600 454,600 100 ... ... 70 ...

Guam 500 300 0 0 100 100 100

Hawaii 75,100 56,500 100 0 0 96 92 b

Idaho 111,500 0 ... ... ... 61 na

Illinois 492,500 0 ... ... ... 83 ...

Indiana 211,400 0 0 0 0 ... ...

Iowa 141,500 Very few 0 3 3 (fax) na na

Kansas 240,200 0 na na na 56 na

Kentucky 101,600 ... 0 100 0 ... na

Louisiana 15,000 20,300 0 ... ... na na

Maine ... 0 0 0 0 ... ...

Maryland 58,500 0 na 0 0 na na

Massachusetts 424,700 0 ... ... ... na na

Michigan 295,000 34,000 0 100 0 80 na

Minnesota ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Mississippi 13,300 0 0 0 0 5 ...

Missouri 158,200 158,200 90 10 0 83 ...

Montana 17,800 0 38 72

Nebraska 51,100 51,100 100 0 0 67 na

Nevada 84,000 2,500 0 3 0 33 31

New Hampshire ... ... ... ... ... ... na

New Jersey 465,900 0 na na na 90 90

New Mexico 14,300 12,500 0 100 0 ... na

New York 482,900 Convictions 90 10 0 88 na

North Carolina ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

North Dakota 12,500 12,500 100 0 0 ... na

Ohio 211,100 211,100 100 0 0 ... na

Oklahoma 56,400 13,700 100 35 na

Oregon 166,000 0 na na na ... na

Pennsylvania 331,400 ... 100 ... ... 86 65

Puerto Rico 53,500 0 0 0 0 88 na

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

South Carolina 199,600 199,600 100 ... ... 90 na

South Dakota 42,900 25,800 97 3 0 95 95

Tennessee 131,300 131,300 55 45 0 38 na

Texas 1,015,300 1,015,300 100 0 0 na na

Utah 158,200 0 0 0 0 79 na

Vermont 29,100 6,100 c 0 1 0 >99 >99

Virgin Islands 0 600 0 80 20 ... ...

Virginia 315,700 100 0 100 0 87 na

Washington 262,000 262,000 100 0 0 ... ...

West Virginia 43,000 27,000 ... 100 ... ... ...

Wisconsin 354,700 100 0 100 0 95 93

Wyoming 10,500 10,500 100 ... ... 81 72

Percent of domestic 

violence 

misdemeanor 

charges with final 

disposition

Percent of felony 

charges with final 

disposition

Percent of FBIforwarded 

dispositions sent by 

other than MRD or 

hard copy

Total final case 

dispositions 

received in 2006

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
 subjects' fingerprints must be removed from the FBI, which might result in the expungement of the record.

b Domestic violence misdemeanor charges were identified as those that were charged with Abuse of Household Member,

a 818,953 entered into the Florida computerized criminal history file.

 Household Member.

c The majority of Vermont final dispositions sent to the FBI are cases which end in nonconviction. In these cases, the 

Table 8a explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

 violence situation but the offender was charged with misdemeanor assault, or something other than Abuse of a

Data footnotes:

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

 Section 709-906, Hawaii Revised Statutes. It does not include those cases that may have been the result of a domestic
Table 9. Automation of disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 2006 

State

Total 453,100 422,015

Alabama ... ... ... No ...

Alaska ... ... ... ... ...

American Samoa 300 ... 0% No No

Arizona 66,000 15 15 Online No

Arkansas na na 5 Tape No

California ... ... 30 Email, CD, tape, online, FTP Yes

Colorado ... na 7 Online Yes

Connecticut ... ... 0 Tape No

Delaware 900 ... 0 Online Yes

District of Columbia ... ... 0 Yes Yes

Florida 208,000 63,700 21 Online Yes

Georgia ... ... ... Online a Yes

Guam ... ... ... No No

Hawaii 23,700 ... <1 Electronic file transfer Yes

Idaho ... ... 40 FTP Yes

Illinois ... 4,800 4 Tape Yes

Indiana 0 53,400 25 .... Yes

Iowa 3,200 0 5 Tape Yes

Kansas 3,000 63,300 25 Online Yes

Kentucky 0 na 60 Online Yes

Louisiana ... ... ... FTP Yes

Maine ... ... ... Online No

Maryland 14,700 14,700 14 Online No

Massachusetts ... ... ... Batch nightly Yes

Michigan ... na 20 Interface No

Minnesota ... b ... ... Interface Yes

Mississippi ... ... 40 No Yes

Missouri 11,200 c ... 4 File transfer Yes

Montana 100 ... 6 Direct access Yes

Nebraska ... ... 0 Interface Yes

Nevada ... ... ... No ...

New Hampshire ... ... ... No No

New Jersey ... 54,900 12 Interface No

New Mexico ... ... 15 No No

New York 30,200 ... 1 Online Yes

North Carolina ... ... ... ... ...

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

Ohio ... ... 55 CD Yes

Oklahoma ... ... 0 No Yes

Oregon ... ... ... Batch weekly No

Pennsylvania 164,100 35 Online No

Puerto Rico 0 0 0 No Yes

Rhode Island ... ... 0 No No

South Carolina ... ... 5 Email, CD, online ...

South Dakota na ... 3 Online Yes

Tennessee ... ... 10 FTP ...

Texas 56,100 1,100 2 Online Yes

Utah 2,300 500 38 FTP No

Vermont 0 ... 0 No No

Virgin Islands ... ... 0 No No

Virginia na na 12 Online Yes

Washington ... ... ... Interface Yes

West Virginia ... ... 15 No No

Wisconsin 33,200 1,000 4 Online Yes

Wyoming 200 d 500 10 No No

Number of prosecutor 

dispositions received that 

could not be linked to 

arrest information

Number of 

prosecutor 

declinations

Court disposition data reported 

directly to the repository by 

automated means? 

If yes, how transmitted?

Correctional agencies report 

admission/release/status information 

to the repository by automated 

means?

Percentage of all 

dispositions received that 

could not be linked to a 

specific arrest record
▪ ... Not available.

Data footnotes:

d Automated system used by some Wyoming prosecutor's offices to report.

c Combination of Missouri law enforcement and prosecutor submitted.

 issued, or prosecuted in other jurisdictions.

b Minnesota received 12,185 forms, which included notice declining prosecution, referral to city prosecutor, tab citation 

 Authority. With new computerized criminal history (CCH), courts can still submit via the authority or directly via a 

a In 2006, Georgia courts could submit directly via case management systems or Georgia Superior Court Clerks Cooperative 

 computerized criminal history user interface.

▪ na Not applicable.

Table 9 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. 
Table 9a. Submission of disposition information to State criminal history repository, 2006

State

Law 

enforcement Local courts

State court 

administrative offices or 

other State entity

Law 

enforcement Local courts

State court 

administrative offices or 

other State entity

Alabama ... ... ... ... ... ... 

Alaska ... ... ... ... ... ...

American Samoa 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Arizona 1 83 16 <1 10 6

Arkansas 5 36 59 0 0 59

California 20 80 0 60 80 0

Colorado 7 2 91 0 100 100

Connecticut ... ... 100 ... ... 100

Delaware 100 100 100 100 100 100

District of Columbia ... 100 ... ... 100 ...

Florida 0 100 a 0 0 91 0

Georgia ... ... ... ... ... ...

Guam 100 ... ... 100 ...

Hawaii 16 na 83 b 88 na 100 b

Idaho ... ... 100 ... ... 100

Illinois 0 100 ... ... ... ...

Indiana 0 20 80 0 0 0

Iowa 0 100 0 0 99 0

Kansas 0 ... ... 0 ... ...

Kentucky 90 10 0 0 1 0

Louisiana ... ... ... ... ... ...

Maine ... 100 ... ... 100 ...

Maryland 2 0 98 0 na 100

Massachusetts 0 0 100 0 0 100

Michigan 0 100 0 0 90 0

Minnesota ... ... ... ... ... ...

Mississippi ... ... ... 0 0 0

Missouri 29 2 c 68 ... 0 100 

Montana 0 100 0 0 3 0

Nebraska ... 100 ... ... 100 ...

Nevada ... ... ... 0 0 0

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

New Jersey 0 55 45 0 0 99

New Mexico 20 5 75 0 0 0

New York <1 <1 99 <1 <1 99

North Carolina ... ... ... ... ... ...

North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ohio 0 100 0 0 100 0

Oklahoma ... ... ... ... ... ...

Oregon <1 10 90 0 0 48

Pennsylvania 1 1 98 ... 100

Puerto Rico 0 0 100 0 0 0

Rhode Island ... ... 100 ... ... 0

South Carolina na na ... na na 100

South Dakota 0 90 10 ... 85 15

Tennessee 30 15 55 0 0 100

Texas 0 100 0 0 80 0

Utah 0 99 1 0 75 100

Vermont 0 0 100 0 0 0

Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0

Virginia 0 <1 <100 0 0 100

Washington ... ... ... ... ... ...

West Virginia ... 99 ... ... ... ...

Wisconsin 14 85 1 90 72 88

Wyoming ... 100 ... ... 0 ...

Percentage of dispositions submitted Percentage of dispositions submitted electronically
a The number of Florida dispositions submitted by law enforcement vs. courts is unknown, although the 

 majority would be from individual courts. 51% of all dispositions were received by the repository 

 respective agencies. 1.2% of final dispositions were received by county prosecutors' offices.

b The percentages reflect the amount of Hawaii's final dispositions received by the repository from the 

 will be linking dispositions to individual charges.

 electronically from the court. With the State's new computerized criminal history, the repository 

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

Table 9a explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

c Reported 2% is from the Missouri prosecutor's office.

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.
Table 10. Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 2006 

State

Procedures used to encourage 

complete disposition reporting Other procedures used to track missing disposition data

Alabama ... ...

Alaska

American Samoa 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 

Arizona 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 na

Arkansas 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 Notebook Project⎯electronic submission utilizing a laptop computer.

California 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9

Colorado 8, 9

Connecticut Other

Delaware Other Electronic interface

District of Columbia 7, 9

Florida 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 Listing of the percent of dispositions on file, by year and by county, to the Florida Association of Court Clerks.

Georgia 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10 Dispositions that cannot be linked to specific arrests are stored in automated suspense file which is checked upon 

entry of new arrests. Applies suspended disposition when match found. Approximately 10% of suspended dispositions

are eventually applied automatically. 

Guam Upon Request

Hawaii 1, 2, 7

Idaho 1, 8, 9, 10

Illinois 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10

Indiana 1

Iowa 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Four-year-old disposition requests. Audit of agencies.

Kansas 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Kentucky 4, 10

Louisiana 6, 7

Maine 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Maine law allows for nonfingerprint-supported court information to be disseminated.

Maryland 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Some NICS checks go to the repository; others go to the Maryland State Archive. We are copied on the source 

documents when they go to the archive and find a disposition that we do not have.

Massachusetts

Michigan 1, 2, 3, 10, Other Automated reporting a

Minnesota 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Other Data Quality Assurance Studies. Direct access to court data.

Mississippi 2, 6, 7

Missouri 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Montana 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 We hired 2 trainers and 2 auditors to evaluate disposition reporting.

Nebraska 6, 7, 9

Nevada 2, 6, 7 Pilot project with the NV Administrative Office of the Courts to receive dispositions electronically, but as of 

CY 2006, the system was only in the testing phases for 2 courts.

b

New Hampshire

New Jersey 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 SBI maintains field staff dedicated to these functions. Automated error reporting on electronic interfaces with county 

corrections systems.

New Mexico 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 Since 2002, NMSA 20-3-8 requires disposition reporting from the AOC and the AODA. Search the court website as 

needed.

New York 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 Joint committee between DCJS and Office of Court Administration

North Carolina

North Dakota 1, 5, 6, 7, 8

Ohio 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 When criminal checks are received and without disposition information on the CCH, we contact the courts in that 

jurisdiction.

Oklahoma 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Oregon 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 We look for missing disposition information in OJIN (Oregon Judicial Information Network).

Pennsylvania 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 Cross-check between courts and repository; rap sheet processing; Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS); 

Megan's Law.

Puerto Rico 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10

Rhode Island 3, 8

South Carolina 9

South Dakota 1, 2, 7

Tennessee 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Texas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9

Utah 7, 8, 9

Vermont 1, 7

Virgin Islands 2, 3 Final disposition data transferred to a new system in January 2007.

Virginia 2, 6, 7, 10 The Courts Automated Information Systems (CAIS) unit uses the Virginia Supreme Court database to search for 

missing dispositions that we can match to an arrest.

Washington 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 Research of open arrests to determine if a final disposition has been reached.

West Virginia 7

Wisconsin 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 State Court website

Wyoming 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 State Archive
Data footnotes:

10 Audits.

9 Conferences / workshops / meetings.

 the end of calendar year 2006 to hire temporary workers to enter the backlog of court dispositions. Project

b The Nevada Records Bureau received a federal National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) grant at 

 judicial warehouse maintained by the State Court Administrative Office.

a Michigan's plans for 2007 include conducting a data comparison between criminal history record database and 

3 Field visits to courts.

2 Notices to criminal justice agencies.

1 Periodic generation of lists of arrests in the criminal history database for which final dispositions have not been reported.

Procedures legend:

 completion by the end of calendar year 2007 was anticipated.

▪ na Not applicable.

▪ ... Not available.

Table 10 explanatory notes:

8 Training.

7 Telephone calls.

6 Form letters.

5 Field visits to prosecutors.

4 Field visits to arresting agencies.
Table 11. Methods to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 2006

Automated 

system

Manual 

system

Automated 

system

Manual 

system

Automated 

system

Manual 

system

Automated 

system

Manual 

system

Automated 

system

Manual 

system

Automated 

system

Manual 

system

Alabama ...

Alaska

American Samoa Yes XXXXXX

Arizona Yes X X X X X X

Arkansas Yes XXXXX

California No X X X X

Colorado Yes X X X X

Connecticut Yes X X X X X

Delaware Yes XXXXXX

District of Columbia Yes X X X 

Florida Yes X X X X X

Georgia No X X X X

Guam Yes X X

Hawaii Yes X X X

Idaho No X X X X X

Illinois Yes X

Indiana No X X X X

Iowa No X

Kansas No X X X X X X

Kentucky No X X X X

Louisiana Yes X X X X X X

Maine XXXXXX

Maryland Yes XXXXXX

Massachusetts Yes X X X X

Michigan Yes X X X

Minnesota No X X

Mississippi No X X X X X

Missouri Yes X X X X

Montana No X X X X X

Nebraska Yes XXXXXX

Nevada Yes XXXXX

New Hampshire Yes X

New Jersey Yes X

New Mexico Yes X X X X X

New York Yes XXXXX

North Carolina

North Dakota Yes X X

Ohio No X X X

Oklahoma No X X X X

Oregon No X X X X X X

Pennsylvania Yes XXXXXX

Puerto Rico Yes XXXXX

Rhode Island

South Carolina Yes X

South Dakota Yes XXXXXX

Tennessee Yes X X X X X

Texas Yes XXXX

Utah Yes XXXXXX

Vermont Yes XXXX

Virgin Islands No X X XXXX

Virginia Yes X XXXXX

Washington Yes X X X X X

West Virginia Yes XXXXX

Wisconsin Yes XXXXXXXXXX

Wyoming Yes X X XXXX

State

Date of birth

Repository methods 

allow for linking 

disposition 

information and 

arrest/charge 

information to 

particular charges

Unique tracking 

number for individual 

subjects

Unique arrest event 

identifier

Unique charge 

identifier Arrest date Subject name
Table 11 explanatory notes:

▪ ... Not available.
Table 12. Additional methods to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 2006 

Automated 

system

Manual 

system

Automated 

system

Manual 

system

Automated 

system

Manual 

system

Automated 

system

Manual 

system

Automated 

system

Manual 

system

Automated 

system

Manual 

system

Alabama ... ... ... ...........................

Alaska

American Samoa X XXXX

Arizona X X X X X 

Arkansas X X X X X State ID#

California X X X X

Colorado X X

Connecticut X

Delaware XXXXX

District of Columbia

Florida X X X X X 1

Georgia

Guam X 

Hawaii

Idaho X X

Illinois

Indiana X

Iowa

Kansas X X X

Kentucky X XX

Louisiana X XX X X

Maine X X

Maryland X X

Massachusetts X

Michigan X

Minnesota X 2

Mississippi

Missouri X 3

Montana X X

Nebraska XXXXX

Nevada X X 4 4

New Hampshire

New Jersey State ID#

New Mexico X X XX

New York X X

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma X XX

Oregon X X X X X 

Pennsylvania XXXXX

Puerto Rico X X

Rhode Island

South Carolina 3

South Dakota XX X

Tennessee X

Texas

Utah X XXXX

Vermont X X

Virgin Islands XX XX X

Virginia XX X X X

Washington X X

West Virginia X X

Wisconsin X

Wyoming XXXXX

State

Social security number

Reporting agency 

identifier (ORI) Other means

Unique state case 

number FBI number

Name and reporting 

agency case number
Legend for other means responses:

▪ ... Not available.

4 SSN optional.

3 Specific charge codes.

2 Reporting agency case #.

1 Offense charged.

Table 12 explanatory notes:
Table 13. Policies and practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 2006 

State

State law provides for 

expungement of 

felony convictions

State law provides for 

set-asides of felony 

convictions

State law provides for 

pardons of felons

State law provides for 

restoration of civil 

rights

State law provides for 

sealing of conviction 

record

Alabama ... ... ... ... ...

Alaska

American Samoa X

Arizona X

Arkansas X a X X X X

California X X X X

Colorado X X 

Connecticut X

Delaware X

District of Columbia X X X X

Florida X X X X X

Georgia X X X

Guam

Hawaii X X

Idaho X X X

Illinois X

Indiana X

Iowa X

Kansas X X X X

Kentucky X X X

Louisiana X X X X

Maine X

Maryland X X X X

Massachusetts X X X X

Michigan X X

Minnesota X X

Mississippi X

Missouri X X X

Montana X

Nebraska X X X b

Nevada c X d X

New Hampshire X X

New Jersey X X

New Mexico X

New York X X

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio X e X X X X

Oklahoma X X X X

Oregon

Pennsylvania X X

Puerto Rico X X X

Rhode Island X

South Carolina X

South Dakota X X X X X

Tennessee

Texas X X

Utah X

Vermont X X X X

Virgin Islands X X X X X

Virginia X X X

Washington X X X X X

West Virginia X

Wisconsin X

Wyoming X X X
a In Arkansas, to "seal" or "expunge" means to seal, sequester, or set aside. It does not mean to destroy.

▪ ... Not available.

Table 13 explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

 For juvenile records, "seal" or "expunge" means to destroy.

e Ohio expungement for juveniles only.

c Nevada does not expunge its criminal history records.

b Nebraska gun rights restored only when specifically ordered in pardon.

d Nevada pardons are granted by the governor.
Table 14. Procedures followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information in the criminal history database, 2006

Arrest 

assumed from 

court 

disposition

Court 

dispositions 

assumed from 

correctional 

data

Alabama ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 

Alaska

American Samoa X ... 0%

Arizona X X (15%) 15 a

Arkansas X 1 na 5

California X X 30

Colorado X na 7

Connecticut X 0

Delaware ... 0

District of Columbia X ...

Florida X 1,2 63,700 21

Georgia 3 ...

Guam na

Hawaii X 0

Idaho X 2 40

Illinois 4 4,800 4

Indiana 5 53,400 25

Iowa 6 0 0

Kansas X X 63,300 25

Kentucky X na 60

Louisiana X ...

Maine X 

Maryland X 14,700 14

Massachusetts 

Michigan X na 20

Minnesota 7 ...

Mississippi X X 8 ... 40

Missouri X 9 ... 4

Montana X 6

Nebraska X 0

Nevada X X ... ... b

New Hampshire X

New Jersey X X 10 54,900 12

New Mexico X X ... 15

New York X 11 ... 1

North Carolina 

North Dakota X 

Ohio X 12 55

Oklahoma 0

Oregon X ...

Pennsylvania X X 164,100 35

Puerto Rico X X 0 0

Rhode Island 0

South Carolina 5

South Dakota X 3

Tennessee 13 10

Texas X 14 1,100 2

Utah X 500 38

Vermont 0

Virgin Islands X ...0

Virginia X na 12

Washington X X ... ...

West Virginia X 15

Wisconsin X X 1,000 4

Wyoming X 500 10

 Enter court 

information 

without any 

linkage to prior 

arrest

Number of final 

prosecutor dispositions 

received which cannot 

be linked to 

arrest/charge 

information

Percent of 

dispositions 

received which 

cannot be linked to 

a specific arrest 

State record

Other procedures 

used to link to 

court dispositions 

and arrest 

information

Create a "dummy" segment

Do not enter 

the unlinked 

court 

information

Return to arresting 

agency to obtain 

arrest fingerprint 

card or arrest 

information
▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

2 Manually research and correct errors.

Legend for other procedures used: 

14 Created reports from unsupported entry to try to obtain arrest data.

13 A rejection report is sent to the agency (who sent the disposition) requesting arrest information.

12 Have flats identified if available from disposition form and enter arrest and disposition information.

11 Contact arresting agency for arrest report.

▪ ... Not available.

10 Field staff mission.

9 Dispositions are in a "hold" table to be processed.

8 Return to submitting court agency.

7 Information not linked to an individual criminal history.

1 Periodically reprocess unmatched records.

5 Enter information into a related database not linked to an offender.

4 Enter and maintain until linking arrest is reported.

3 Place in an automated suspense file.

6 Disposition information goes to a manual in-house report.

Table 14 explanatory notes:

b Nevada has subjective assessments that this figure is a fairly large percentage, but has no definitive proof.

 paper dispositions that could not be linked to a specific arrest, but estimate about 15%.

 History Records Section is not entering these rejects in NFAD so cannot provide any percentage statistics on 

a Arizona errors from electronic dispositions are about 20% and Arizona Disposition Reporting System is about 

Data footnotes:

▪ na Not applicable.

 1%. Based on annual Non-Fingerprint-based Arrest and Disposition (NFAD) reports, the Arizona Criminal 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 
Table 15. Procedures followed to obtain missing dispositions, 2006 

The 

prosecutor

Specific court or 

statewide 

administrator

The 

prosecutor

Specific court or 

statewide 

administrator

The 

prosecutor

Specific court or 

statewide 

administrator Other procedure(s)

Alabama

Alaska

American Samoa X X

Arizona X

Arkansas X X

California X X X

Colorado

Connecticut X

Delaware X X

District of Columbia X X

Florida X X X a Inquiry to clerk of court b

Georgia X New CCH provides capture

Guam X

Hawaii X X

Idaho X

Illinois X

Indiana

Iowa X Visit clerks' offices based upon their 

submissions

Kansas X X

Kentucky X X

Louisiana XX c

Maine X X

Maryland X X

Massachusetts X

Michigan X - 30 months X d Audits e

Minnesota X X

Mississippi X

Missouri X - 1 year X X

Montana X

Nebraska X X

Nevada X X

New Hampshire X X

New Jersey X X X X

New Mexico X X Phone inquiry (case by case)

New York X X 

North Carolina

North Dakota X

Ohio X Manual inquiry to arresting agency

Oklahoma Special projects

Oregon X X

Pennsylvania X X X X X

Puerto Rico X X Manual inquiry to the courts

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota X X X

Tennessee X

Texas X Field staff contacts agencies

Utah X

Vermont X X

Virgin Islands X X

Virginia X X

Washington X Research open arrests f

West Virginia X

Wisconsin X X

Wyoming X - 30 days X X

State

Automated inquiry upon a 

predetermined period of time

Automated inquiry upon a 

criminal history query

Manual inquiry upon a criminal 

history query
b Florida court clerks are responsible for reporting prosecutor data.

a Florida repository staff has access to query several automated systems. These are not system-generated.

f Washington disposition audit project.

e If a Michigan prosecutor charge does not append record, it goes to a problem queue for manual intervention.

d Michigan also sends out an open case report periodically to the courts.

c No statistics maintained in Louisiana on originator of dispositions received.

Data footnotes:
Table 16. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2006 

State 1999 2001 2003 2006

1999-

2001

2001-

2003

2003-

2006 1999 2001 2003 2006

Total 8,841,500 9,667,800 10,626,200 12,098,700 9% 10% 14%

Alabama 290,600 300,000 289,300 ... 3 -4 ... 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Alaska 25,100 a 27,900 31,000 27,200 11 11 -12 62 b 70 c 73 c ...

American Samoa ... ... ... 300 ... ... ... ... ... ... 0

Arizona 209,000 208,000 209,600 229,100 -<1 1 9 100 100 100 100

Arkansas 68,800 66,200 74,400 88,500 -4 12 19 100 100 100 100

California 1,456,000 1,318,200 1,485,600 1,751,800 -9 13 18 99 d 99 e 99 d 100

Colorado ... 223,300 232,800 259,000 ... 4 11 ... 100 100 100

Connecticut 138,000 128,300 121,800 151,400 -7 -5 24 90 e 85 f 85 f 80

Delaware 52,000 51,500 36,700 36,400 -1 -29 -1 90 90 90 f 85

District of Columbia 33,200 ... ... 48,100 ... ... ... 80 80 90 g 100

Florida 831,700 912,800 994,000 1,051,600 10 9 6 100 100 100 100

Georgia 441,300 432,800 437,500 444,400 -2 1 2 100 100 100 100

Guam ... ... ... 3,300 ... ... ... ... ... ... 100

Hawaii 67,000 h 56,000 29,600 31,000 -16 -47 5 99 99 g 99 g 99 

Idaho 54,800 57,200 50,700 75,800 4 -11 50 100 100 100 100

Illinois 530,000 566,400 573,100 652,000 7 1 14 100 100 100 100

Indiana 86,600 123,000 192,000 206,700 42 56 8 100 100 100 100

Iowa 66,600 63,400 122,600 76,300 -5 93 -38 100 100 100 100

Kansas 84,000 94,200 111,100 126,100 12 18 14 85 i 96 j 96 j 86

Kentucky 46,600 145,100 144,100 172,100 211 -1 19 ... 100 74 75

Louisiana 307,800 307,500 319,200 365,400 -<1 4 14 100 100 100 100

Maine 7,200 6,200 21,600 20,600 -14 248 -5 30 f 33 k 65 k 51

Maryland 115,100 158,200 208,700 117,200 37 32 -44 100 100 100 99

Massachusetts 87,500 ... 108,800 ... ... ... ... 0 l 0 0 m 0

Michigan 159,900 250,800 391,500 459,900 57 56 17 100 100 100 100

Minnesota 60,000 102,800 142,000 162,700 71 38 15 100 100 100 100

Mississippi 43,600 66,500 70,600 56,200 53 6 -20 100 100 100 89

Missouri 139,900 n 147,300 152,600 213,200 5 4 40 100 100 100 100

Montana 25,600 20,600 18,900 20,200 -20 -8 7 100 100 100 100

Nebraska 21,600 34,000 20,000 h 646,200 57 -41 3131 100 100 100 100

Nevada 78,500 84,000 89,200 93,800 7 6 5 100 100 100 100

New Hampshire 18,500 36,100 37,400 37,800 95 4 1 75 d 80 48 l ...

New Jersey 150,400 173,000 53,300 237,200 15 -69 345 100 100 100 100

New Mexico 46,000 48,000 65,000 75,800 4 35 17 100 100 100 100

New York 583,600 550,300 522,900 689,100 -6 -5 32 99 o 100 100 100

North Carolina 145,100 153,100 164,400 192,800 6 7 17 100 100 100 100

North Dakota 10,800 6,500 11,800 11,600 -40 82 -2 100 100 100 100

Ohio 158,000 269,400 315,600 285,000 71 17 -10 100 100 100 100

Oklahoma 79,000 92,300 79,000 102,400 17 -14 30 100 100 100 100

Oregon 148,200 150,100 153,600 150,400 1 2 -2 100 100 100 100

Pennsylvania 305,900 252,300 320,600 302,900 -18 27 -6 100 100 100 100

Puerto Rico 4,600 4,800 4,200 18,900 4 -13 350 ... 100 0 5

Rhode Island 33,000 37,000 37,500 41,500 12 1 11 100 100 100 100

South Carolina 184,900 188,900 211,000 238,800 2 12 13 100 100 100 100

South Dakota 26,700 25,000 25,300 28,600 -6 1 13 100 100 100 100

Tennessee 198,300 293,000 286,300 323,300 48 -2 13 100 100 100 100

Texas 588,000 755,300 836,500 949,500 28 11 14 100 100 100 100

Utah 61,800 63,000 40,500 61,500 2 -36 52 100 100 100 100

Vermont 11,300 11,700 21,800 19,800 4 86 -9 35 37 f 71 p 75

Virgin Islands na q na na 1,000 ... ... ... na na 25 q 100

Virginia 216,700 240,500 310,600 273,400 11 29 -12 100 100 100 100

Washington 211,800 198,400 242,800 276,100 -6 22 14 100 100 100 100

West Virginia ... ... 40,200 37,000 ... ... -8 100 100 100 100

Wisconsin 119,900 154,300 150,600 141,500 29 -2 -6 100 100 100 100

Wyoming 11,000 12,600 16,300 16,300 15 29 0 100 100 100 100

Percent of arrest events in State criminal 

history files that are fingerprint-supported

Number of arrest fingerprint cards and livescan images submitted to 

State criminal history repository Percent change
 fingerprint-supported.

b Alaska arrests were reported by terminal, and arrest information was entered from final dispositions, which are not 

a Figure is for Alaska fiscal year 1999.

h Figure includes adult and juvenile records.

g State law and/or policy does not require arrest information to be supported by fingerprints.

f Arrest information was entered from criminal summonses, which are not fingerprint-supported.

e Some arrest information was entered from final dispositions, which are not fingerprint-supported.

 fingerprint-supported.

 summonses, which are not fingerprint-supported.

d Arrest information was entered from final dispositions, which are not fingerprint-supported.

c Alaska arrests were reported by terminal, and arrest information was entered from final dispositions and criminal 

 fingerprints, in compliance with State law regarding submission of fingerprints. 

k Maine arrest information was entered from final dispositions and criminal summonses that are not supported by 

j Kansas arrest information was entered from final dispositions, which are not supported by fingerprints; booking 

i Kansas arrest information for older records was entered from final dispositions that were not fingerprint-supported. 

 fingerprints are occasionally unusable for comparison.

Data footnotes:

 History Information Systems, 1999 (October 2000), Table 6.

q Virgin Islands fingerprints retained by Forensic Bureau.

 information is entered from final dispositions, which are not supported by fingerprints. 

p Vermont State law and/or policy does not require arrest information to be supported by fingerprints and arrest 

o Reported New York case dispositions that can be linked to a record but not an arrest event are not 

n Missouri figure includes felony and most misdemeanor arrest cards.

 History Systems Board, and fingerprint cards and arrest data go directly to the State Police. 

m Massachusetts has a bifurcated process in which case and disposition data are reported directly to the Criminal 

l Arrest information was entered from final dispositions and criminal summonses, which are not fingerprint-supported.

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

▪ Except for Puerto Rico, for which corrected data were submitted, the data in the columns for 1997 were taken from 

 Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 6.

 Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 (September 2003), Table 6.

▪ The data in the columns for 2001 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information 

 for 1999 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal 

▪ Except for Puerto Rico and South Carolina, for which corrected data were submitted, the data in the columns 

Table 16 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. 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.
Table 17. Arrest records submitted electronically, 2006 

State

Criminal justice 

purposes only

Noncriminal 

justice 

purposes only

Criminal and 

noncriminal

Total 4,982 3,433 2,417 

Alabama ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...

Alaska 4 a 4 0 ... ... ...

... ... ...

...... ...

... ... ...

American Samoa 1 0 1 Dept. Public Safety 80 Yes

Port Authority 10 ...

High Court 5 ...

...... ...

Arizona 90 10 20 Phoenix PD 20% Yes

Tucson PD 9 Yes

Maricopa Co. SO 9 Yes

Mesa PD 6 Yes

Arkansas 22 0 0 Pulaski Co. 15 Yes

Washington Co. 10 Yes

Sebastian Co. 10 Yes

Jefferson Co. 5 Yes

California 383 1,248 667 Los Angeles Co. 26 Yes

San Bernardino Co. 10 Yes

Orange Co. 6 Yes

Riverside Co. 6 Yes

Colorado 125 3 125 Denver PD 17 Yes

Aurora PD 6 Yes

CO Springs PD 5 Yes

Adams Co. PD 3 Yes

Connecticut 115 105 10 Hartford PD 14 Yes

New Haven PD 10 Yes

Waterbury PD 10 Yes

Bridgeport PD 7 Yes

Delaware 39 5 ... DE State PD 39 Yes

New Castle Co. PD 25 Yes

Wilmington PD 7 Yes

Dover PD 9 Yes

District of Columbia 15 1 0 DC Metro PD 83 Yes

US Park PD 10 Yes

US Capitol PD 5 Yes

US Marshal 2 Yes

Florida 524 143 381 Miami-Dade PD 6 Yes

Jacksonville SO 5 Yes

Orange Co. SO 5 Yes

Hillsborough Co. SO 5 Yes

Georgia 196 ... 45 ... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...

Are arrests reported via 

livescan?

Number of livescan devices in use as of 12/31/2006

Largest arresting 

agencies

Percent of 

statewide 

arrests 

processed
Table 17. Arrest records submitted electronically, 2006 (continued)

State

Criminal justice 

purposes only

Noncriminal 

justice 

purposes only

Criminal and 

noncriminal

Guam 0 0 0 Guam PD ... No

... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...

Hawaii 9 35 0 Honolulu PD 57% b Yes

Hawaii County PD 17 Yes

Maui Co. PD 14 No

State Sheriffs Division 7 Yes

Idaho 20 8 2 Ada Co. Sheriff 16 Yes

Canyon Co. Sheriff 14 Yes

Bannock Co. Sheriff 7 Yes

Bonneville Co. Sheriff 5 Yes

Illinois ... 470 171 Chicago PD 37 Yes

Aurora PD 2 Yes

Peoria PD 2 Yes

Cook Co. Sheriff 1 Yes

Indiana 79 43 0 Indianapolis Metro PD 28 Yes

Fort Wayne PD 4 Yes

Hammond PD 2 Yes

South Bend PD 2 Yes

Iowa 45 0 0 Polk County Sheriff ... Yes

Scott Co. Sheriff ... Yes

Blackhawk Co. Sheriff ... Yes

Linn Co. Sheriff ... Yes

Kansas 47 10 47 KS 0870300 13 Yes

KS 1050200 8 Yes

KS 0460000 5 Yes

KS 0870000 4 Yes

Kentucky 108 9 2 Louisville Metro PD 17 Yes

Lexington-Fayette Urban 

Div. of Police

10 Yes

Covington PD 3 Yes

Jefferson Co. Sheriff 2 Yes

Louisiana 134 37 171 SO Jefferson Parish 10 Yes

Orleans Parish Sheriff 6 Yes

Shreveport PD 5 Yes

Lafayette Sheriff 5 Yes

Maine 1 1 0 Portland ... ...

Lewiston/Auburn ... ...

Bangor ... ...

...... ...

Maryland 32 11 0 Baltimore City PD 53 Yes

Baltimore Co. PD, Prince 

George's Co.

10, 12 Yes

Anne Arundel Co., 

Harford Co.

7 Yes

Prince George's Co. 6 Yes

Are arrests reported via 

livescan?

Largest arresting 

agencies

Percent of 

statewide 

arrests 

processed

Number of livescan devices in use as of 12/31/06
Table 17. Arrest records submitted electronically, 2006 (continued)

State

Criminal justice 

purposes only

Noncriminal 

justice 

purposes only

Criminal and 

noncriminal

Massachusetts ... ... ... Boston PD ... Yes

Worcester PD ... Yes

Springfield PD ... ...

...... ...

Michigan 400 150 300 Detroit PD 13% Yes

Grand Rapids PD 4 Yes

Flint PD 2 Yes

Kent Co. Sheriff 2 Yes

Minnesota 178 167 11 c ... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...

Mississippi 87 35 3 DeSoto Co. Sheriff 7 ...

Laurel PD 5 ...

Pike Co. Sheriff 5 ...

Madison Co. Sheriff 5 ...

Missouri 175 30 ,,, St. Louis City PD 19 Yes

Kansas City PD 8 Yes

St. Louis Co. PD 7 Yes

Springfield PD 2 Yes

Montana 27 0 2 Yellowstone Co. 17 Yes

Missoula Co. 10 Yes

Cascade Co. 9 Yes

Flathead Co. 7 Yes

Nebraska 14 12 0 Omaha PD 14 Yes

Sarpy Co. Sheriff 13 Yes

Lincoln PD 9 Yes

Grand Island PD 5 Yes

Nevada ... 23 d 36 e Las Vegas Met. PD 61 Yes

Reno PD 8 Yes

N. Las Vegas PD 6 Yes

Henderson PD 5 Yes

New Hampshire 27 na na ... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...

New Jersey 301 f 30 f 0 Newark City 10 Yes

Trenton City 6 Yes

Camden City 4 Yes

Paterson City 4 Yes

New Mexico 0 0 0 Albuquerque PD 35 No

Central NM Correctional 

Facility

10 ...

Santa Fe PD 5 Yes

Gallup PD 5 Yes

Number of livescan devices in use as of 12/31/06

Largest arresting 

agencies

Percent of 

statewide 

arrests 

processed

Are arrests reported via 

livescan?
Table 17. Arrest records submitted electronically, 2006 (continued)

State

Criminal justice 

purposes only

Noncriminal 

justice 

purposes only

Criminal and 

noncriminal

New York 516 208 5 NYPD 53 Yes

Sheriff's Offices 7 Yes

NY State Police 5 Yes

Suffolk Co. PD 4 Yes

North Carolina ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...

North Dakota 9 9 0 Fargo PD 10% Yes

Cass Co. Sheriff 10 Yes

Grand Forks PD 6 Yes

Grand Forks Sheriff 6 Yes

Ohio 158 na 0 Columbus PD 6 Yes

Hamilton Co. Sheriff 14 Yes

Cuyahoga Co. Sheriff 17 Yes

Cleveland PD 7 Yes

Oklahoma 3 4 g 28 g Tulsa PD ... Yes

Oklahoma City PD ... No

Cleveland Co. Sheriff ... Yes

Comanche Co. Sheriff ... Yes

Oregon 31 h 10 h 6 h ... ... Yes

... ... Yes

...... ...

...... ...

Pennsylvania 10 1 161 Philadelphia 27 Yes

Pittsburgh 15 Yes

Montgomery Co. 3 Yes

York Co. Sheriff 3 Yes

Puerto Rico 8 7 1 State Police SIB 100 Yes

...... ...

...... ...

...... ...

Rhode Island 0 1 51 Providence PD Yes

Woonsocket PD Yes

Pawtucket PD ... Yes

Warwick PD ... Yes

South Carolina 35 3 2 Greenville Det. Center ... Yes

Richland Det. Center ... No

Charleston Det. Center ... Yes

Spartanburg Det. Center ... Yes

South Dakota 14 14 0 Minnehaha Co. 50 Yes

Pennington Co. 30 Yes

Brown Co. 10 Yes

Davison Co. 10 Yes

Number of livescan devices in use as of 12/31/06

Largest arresting 

agencies

Percent of 

statewide 

arrests 

processed

Are arrests reported via 

livescan?
Table 17. Arrest records submitted electronically, 2006 (continued)

State

Criminal justice 

purposes only

Noncriminal 

justice 

purposes only

Criminal and 

noncriminal

Tennessee ... ... ... ... ... ...

...... ...

...... ...

...... ...

Texas 285 213 72 i Houston PD 7% Yes

Dallas PD 5 Yes

San Antonio PD 5 Yes

Austin PD 4 Yes

Utah 90 29 50 Salt Lake Co. Sheriff 40 Yes

Utah Co. Sheriff 20 Yes

Weber County Sheriff 15 Yes

Davis Co. Sheriff 10 Yes

Vermont 38 19 0 Burlington PD 10 Yes

Rutland PD 4 Yes

Bennington PD 3 No

Brattleboro PD 3 No

Virgin Islands 1 0 1 Virgin Islands PD ... Yes

Sup Ct Marshals ... Yes

Dept of Justice ... Yes

Port Authority ... Yes

Virginia 318 159 na Fairfax PD ... Yes

Richmond City Sheriff ... Yes

Virginia Beach Sheriff ... Yes

Roanoke PD ... Yes

Washington 95 34 33 King County Sheriff ... Yes

Pierce Co. Sheriff ... Yes

Snohomish Co. Sheriff ... Yes

Spokane Co. Sheriff ... Yes

West Virginia 0 1 0 Charleston PD 11 No

Martinsburg PD 5 No

Huntington PD 5 No

Beckley PD 4 No

Wisconsin 159 130 13 Milwaukee Co. Sheriff 11 Yes

Dane Co. Sheriff 6 Yes

Brown Co. Sheriff 5 Yes

Milwaukee PD 3 Yes

Wyoming 14 1 0 Laramie Co. Sheriff 12 Yes

Natrona Co. Sheriff 11 Yes

Campbell Co. Sheriff 9 Yes

... 8 Yes

Are arrests reported via 

livescan?

Number of livescan devices in use as of 12/31/06

Largest arresting 

agencies

Percent of 

statewide 

arrests 

processed
 jail as of Dec. 2006.

c Answers refer to Minnesota's noncriminal justice agencies. 

 at correctional facilities and the Anchorage Court House, account for 63% of all arrest fingerprint 

 card submissions.

 enforcement agencies that have contracts with the Department of Corrections. The four livescans, located 

b As of Oct. 2006, the Honolulu Police Dept. had one sub-station piloting a livescan. Other prints were card 

 scanned and sent to Hawaii's Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) electronically.

Table 17 explanatory notes: 

a In Alaska, most arrested subjects are booked and fingerprinted at correctional facilities or at local law 

▪ na Not applicable.

 law enforcement agencies that may submit civil applicant fingerprints electronically. We do not know

 purchase of livescan devices (which is the number reflected). However, most of those were not submitted

d The Nevada State Health Division and the Department of Public Safety Records Bureau are jointly 

 participating in a pilot program for the submission of civil fingerprints via livescan. As of Dec. 2006, 

 36 entities (governmental agencies/private businesses) had received funding through this program for the 

 electronically due to security/connectivity issues. This number does not include any local

i A portion of these Texas livescan sites are mobile.

 agencies use this vendor service. The State Bureau of Identification is piloting municipalities and law

g The Oklahoma Department of Education is the only submitter of applicant prints for purposes of licensing.

h Most Oregon livescan devices are at county jails who book for all local law enforcement within the county

 (police, sheriff, State police). 23 of 36 total counties had livescan devices within the county 

 how many other businesses or agencies outside of this pilot program have livescan devices.

e Nevada is in the process of replacing 23 livescan devices statewide. This number does not include 

 livescan devices in the Las Vegas Metro and Henderson Police Departments, Federal law enforcement 

f New Jersey has privatized the capture and transmission of noncriminal justice fingerprinting. All State 

 enforcement agencies tasked with licensing responsibilities.

 agencies in Nevada, or correctional institutions statewide.

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

Data footnotes:

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ ... Not available.
Table 18. Criminal and noncriminal justice background checks submitted electronically, 2006

State

Criminal justice 

purposes

Percentage of

total

Noncriminal 

justice 

purposes 

Percentage 

of total

Criminal justice 

purposes

Noncriminal 

justice 

purposes 

Total 9,700,900 4,256,800 5,618 4,467 4,354

Alabama ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Alaska 12,400 63% 0 0% ... 4 0 ...

American Samoa 0 ... 0 ... 100% 1 1 2

Arizona 219,400 96 0 0 0 44 0 na

Arkansas 70,100 84 na 0 0 21 0 21

California 1,500,000 100 1,600,000 98 51 839 940 ...

Colorado 259,000 93 111,300 10 3 93 2 155

Connecticut 109,600 80 73,800 17 75 110 0 1

Delaware 26,800 69 26,700 87 30 17 0 0

District of Columbia 48,100 95 0 5 ... 20 2 146

Florida 960,500 91 671,100 58 10 81 1,947 840

Georgia 395,700 89 52,700 31 0 550 45 399

Guam 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0

Hawaii 13,800 50 20,700 100 0 5 3 0

Idaho 54,000 71 20,500 35 2 24 1 66

Illinois 545,300 84 254,600 83 32 367 87 ...

Indiana 178,100 86 11,900 24 0 65 4 700

Iowa 61,700 81 na na 0 42 43 na

Kansas 72,800 51 6,700 25 ... 47 10 ...

Kentucky 161,700 94 2,200 6 0 429 4 429

Louisiana 347,600 96 6,700 na 27 136 28 na

Maine 2,900 14 0 0 32 ... 0 18

Maryland 148,900 86 19,100 5 30 22 2 ...

Massachusetts ... ... ... 0 0 ... ... ...

Michigan 399,100 87 191,000 83 10 251 164 300

Minnesota 159,400 98 8,300 31 0 113 11 a 537

Mississippi 47,300 84 75,900 71 ... 90 38 27

Missouri 122,100 57 76,800 69 40 190 75 ...

Montana 15,500 76 2,500 14 0 25 27 27

Nebraska 646,200 70 21,700 15 ... 14 9 63

Nevada 85,100 91 38,100 23 64 23 b ... ...

New Hampshire ... ... ... ... ... 27 27 ...

New Jersey 161,400 c 68 281,400 c 81 39 301 43 0

New Mexico 7,600 10 d 0 0 1 0 0 0

New York 566,600 82 267,900 60 43 202 49 27

North Carolina ... 88 ... 13 9 ... ... ...

North Dakota 6,700 58 0 0 0 9 0 15

Ohio 216,300 84 na 83 na 155 na 60

Oklahoma 59,800 68 6,700 25 38 e ...

Oregon 113,900 75 f ... 0 f 6 ... ... g ...

Pennsylvania 302,900 93 161,300 7 4 366 355 195

Puerto Rico 18,900 0 h 12,200 0 h 1 1 14

Rhode Island 41,500 100 11,500 100 0 50 50 2

South Carolina 128,500 53 5,800 21 2 20 2 126

South Dakota 21,600 75 0 0 9 12 1 15

Tennessee ... 92 ... 80 2 ... ... ...

Texas 702,600 77 52,800 18 18 181 i 4 j ...

Utah 48,000 78 30,000 56 <1 125 200 85

Vermont 3,500 17 6,300 52 <1 38 19 ...

Virgin Islands 1,000 99 100 1 15 2 2 2

Virginia 238,500 86 94,400 60 0 237 107 na

Washington 236,900 86 23,800 23 0 122 61 ...

West Virginia 0 0 2,700 7 55 0 1 0

Wisconsin 150,900 71 6,400 55 34 95 101 52

Wyoming 10,700 65 1,200 10 47 14 1 30

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:

 noncriminal justice licensing responsibilities.

 development.

 submissions.

▪ na Not applicable.

Table 18 explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

▪ ... Not available

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

a Answers refer to Minnesota noncriminal justice agencies. 

b Nevada is in the process of replacing 23 criminal livescan devices throughout law enforcement agencies statewide. This 

 enforcement agencies located in Nevada, and correctional institutions statewide.

c New Jersey has privatized the capture and transmission of noncriminal justice fingerprinting. All state agencies use

 number does not include livescan devices in the Las Vegas Metropolitan PD, the Henderson PD, Federal law

 this vendor service. The State Bureau of Identification is piloting municipalities and law enforcement agencies tasked with

d New Mexico livescan submissions were discontinued April 2006 for new Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) 

e Oklahoma Department of Education is the only submitter of applicant prints for purposes of licensing.

f Not all Oregon livescan devices submit directly to the repository interface.

j Four Texas noncriminal justice agencies own equipment, but we have a statewide contract with one vendor for applicant 

g Most Oregon livescan devices are at county jails that book for all local law enforcement within the county (police, sheriff,

 State police). 23 of 36 total counties had livescan devices within the county jail as of end of 2006.

h In Puerto Rico, electronic submission through the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) started August 2007.

i Some Texas agencies centralize booking and report for every agency in their county.
Table 19. Certification and privatization of fingerprint capture services, 2006

State

Does your State have a 

certification program for 

persons taking 

fingerprints?

Established 

through 

legislation?

Authority 

citation

Has your State privatized 

the taking of noncriminal 

justice fingerprints? How was this accomplished?

Alabama No ... ... No ...

Alaska ... ... ... ... ...

American Samoa No ... ... No ...

Arizona No ... ... No ...

Arkansas Yes No ... No ...

California Yes Yes 11102.1 PC Yes Legislation allowed private service providers to provide fingerprinting 

services for noncriminal justice purposes.

Colorado No ... ... No ...

Connecticut No ... ... No ...

Delaware No ... ... No ...

District of Columbia Yes No ... No ...

Florida No ... ... Yes No statewide privatization. Numerous private vendors submit noncriminal fingerprints by agreement.

Georgia No ... ... No ...

Guam No ... ... No ...

Hawaii No ... ... Yes The Dept. of Human Services and Dept. of Health have awarded a 

contract to a private agency for fingerprinting.

Idaho No ... ... No ...

Illinois No ... ... No ...

Indiana Yes No ... No a ...

Iowa No ... ... No ...

Kansas No ... ... No ...

Kentucky No ... ... No ...

Louisiana No ... ... No ...

Maine ... ... ... ... ...

Maryland Yes b No ... No ...

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

Michigan No ... ... Yes RFP requiring statewide coverage.

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

Mississippi No ... ... No 

Missouri Yes No ... Yes State contracted bid process.

Montana No ... ... No ...

Nebraska No ... ... Yes We train Nebraska Dept. of Health and Human Services service 

providers to roll prints of applicants. Exploring the requirement for 

certification.

Nevada No ... ... No ...

New Hampshire No ... ... No c ...

New Jersey No ... ... Yes State contract awarded through open bid process.

New Mexico No ... ... No ...

New York No ... ... No ...

North Carolina ... ... ... ...

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

Ohio No ... ... Yes Private companies purchase Webcheck computers from State; they 

capture and send prints to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification 

and Investigation.

Oklahoma Yes No d ... No ...

Oregon No ... ... No ...

Pennsylvania No ... ... Yes Agency-by-agency basis.

Puerto Rico Yes No ... No ...

Rhode Island No ... ... No ...

South Carolina Yes No ... No e ...

South Dakota No ... ... No ...

Tennessee No ... ... Yes RFP/competitive bid.

Texas No ... ... Yes f We maintain a statewide contract with one vendor.

Utah No ... ... No ...

Vermont Yes No ... No ...

Virgin Islands Yes No ... No

Virginia No ... ... No ...

Washington No ... ... No ...

West Virginia No ... ... No ...

Wisconsin No ... ... Yes State contract for capture vendor.

Wyoming No ... ... No g No prohibition. No entity is offering such services.
 Bureau of Investigation.

Table 19 explanatory notes: 

▪ ... Not available.

Data footnotes:

a One Indiana State agency uses vendor. Department of Child Services uses PrideRock Holding Corp to submit fingerprints 

 electronically. Indiana will be pursuing one vendor to do all noncriminal justice applicant fingerprinting.

b Maryland State regulations and legal decisions in place (as of 7/17/07) to allow us to start certification program.

g Waiver requirements under current Wyoming statutes make privatization problematic.

c No privatization of taking civil fingerprints in New Hampshire, but we do accept fingerprints from private businesses.

d In Oklahoma, this was established through a Memorandum of Understanding.

e South Carolina presently reviewing bids for applicant channeling agency.

f Texas has outsourced for 6 years. Vendor schedules applicant, collects fees, and transfers prints to Texas 
Table 20. Length of time to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2006

Master name

index

Criminal 

history 

database

Master name

index

Criminal 

history 

database

Total 4,114,700 687,015 476,450

Alabama ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Alaska 2,300 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

American Samoa 300 <100 ... 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour

Arizona 83,800 1,800 1,800 3 a na immediate b immediate na b 8

Arkansas 57,600 9,900 ... 1 1 1 1 24 hours 1

California 776,300 ... ... 1 1 1 1 1 1

Colorado 73,100 300,000 100,000 6 hours 2 hours 2 hours 6 hours 2 hours 2 hours

Connecticut ... 154,100 154,100 3-7 ... ... 3-5 ... ...

Delaware 42,000 na 9,600 <1 hour 45 45 <1 hour 45 45

District of Columbia 48,100 ... ... 3 hours 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 

Florida 400,900 ... ... 9 1 1 12 <4 <4

Georgia 134,600 ... ... 1-2 c 2 hours 2 hours 1-2 2 hours 2 hours

Guam 600 ... ... 7 ... 2 7 ... ...

Hawaii 8,200 ... 2,500 1 d ... ... e 1 d ... ...

Idaho 107,900 ... ... ... 3 hours 3 hours ... 3 hours 3 hours

Illinois 159,000 ... 43,500 ... ... ... ... ... ...

Indiana 23,000 ... ... 24 24 24 18 18 18

Iowa 3,100 ... ... 1 2 2 2 2 2

Kansas 25,700 7,200 7,200 62 60 60 57 60 40

Kentucky ... na 700 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours

Louisiana ... 3,300 na 1 hour f 1 hour 1 hour f 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 

Maine ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Maryland 117,200 g ... ... 1 1 1 3 3 3

Massachusetts ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Michigan 368,200 ... ... 1-3 hours <1 hour <1 hour 1-3 hours <1 hour <1 hour

Minnesota ... ... <1 hour 2 hours 2 hours h <1 hour 2 hours 2 hours h

Mississippi 20,700 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Missouri 93,200 1,000 1,000 20 20 20 24 24 24

Montana 4,600 ... ... 31 2 2 34 2 2

Nebraska 42,900 ... 1000-1500 ... ... ... ... ... ...

Nevada 35,200 103,900 103,900 ... na 0 i ... na 0 i

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

New Jersey ... 40,000 12,000 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour

New Mexico ... 6,000 ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

New York 169,100 ... ... <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

North Carolina ... ...

North Dakota 4,200 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Ohio 119,200 ... ... 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2

Oklahoma 49,200 ... ... ... 1 1 ... 1 1

Oregon 24,400 16,200 5 j 80 80 k 5 j 80 k 80

Pennsylvania 40,200 ... ... ... 2 hours 2 hours ... 2 hours 2 hours

Puerto Rico 404,300 (5%) ... 1 1 5 na na na

Rhode Island ... ... 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours

South Carolina 59,900 ... ... <1 hour <1 hour <1 hour <1 hour <1 hour <1 hour

South Dakota ... ... 1 1 1 1-10 1 1

Tennessee ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Texas 274,500 ... ... ... 1 hour 1 hour ... 1 hour 1 hour

Utah 23,100 10,000 10,000 ... ... ... ... ... ...

Vermont 4,900 ... ... 10 <7 <7 10 <7 <7

Virgin Islands 800 5,100 5,100 l ... ... ... ... ... ...

Virginia 252,100 ... ... 4 hours 4 hours 4 hours 4 hours 4 hours 4 hours

Washington ... ... ... ... ... ... m ... ... ... m

West Virginia 37,000 ... ... ... 10 10 ... 10 10

Wisconsin 44,600 ... 7,600 9 ... 6 9 ... 6

Wyoming 3,100 ... ... ... 1 1 ... 1 1

Number of 

reported 

felony arrests

Average number 

of days between 

non-felony arrest 

and receipt of 

arrest data and 

fingerprints

Average number of days 

between receipt of nonfelony arrest fingerprints and 

entry of data into:

Number of unprocessed or 

partially 

processed 

fingerprint cards 

for criminal 

history database

Number of unprocessed or 

partially 

processed 

fingerprint cards 

for AFIS database

Average number 

of days between 

felony arrest and 

receipt of arrest 

data and 

State fingerprints

Average number of days 

between receipt of felony 

arrest fingerprints and 

entry of data into:
▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

c Georgia livescan criminal cards processed within 2 hours; manual cards are processed within 2 days of receipt. Average 

a 61% of Arizona arrests were entered the same day; 26% were entered within one day.

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

Table 20 explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

 data for felony versus nonfelony submissions.

d Time between the arrest and the receipt of fingerprints by the Hawaii State repository.

e Done either directly into the Hawaii State repository by the police or through an automated interface with the police 

 time from date of arrest to receipt of manual cards is 25 days. Criminal justice agencies with livescan devices may use 

 them exclusively for criminal arrest processing, or may provide local service for employment/licensing applicants.

 booking system, and is not related to the receipt of fingerprints.

f Based on Louisiana livescan submittals.

g Incoming Maryland arrest data not broken down by felony or misdemeanor.

h Minnesota does not differentiate processing felony arrests from nonfelony arrests.

i Nevada does not have a separate master name index.

b Arizona does not have a master name index.

Data footnotes:

m Entry in Washington master name index and criminal history database occur concurrently. Cannot obtain individual 

j Oregon averages 1 hour for automated process (directly submitted to our interface).

k Oregon averages 2 hours for automated processes.

l All fingerprint cards are electronically submitted via Information Database Information System (IDIS). Virgin Islands is in

 per definition of a repository system.

 process of having all criminal and noncriminal cards automated to further develop and maintain the criminal history files
Table 21. Length of time to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2006

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 1,138,625

Alabama ... ... ... ... ...

Alaska ... ... ... ... ...

American Samoa 2 3 No No ...

Arizona 43 26 a No Yes 17,300

Arkansas 45 30 No Yes 27,300

California ... 1 Yes No ...

Colorado 1 1 No Yes ...

Connecticut 1-7 1-7 No Yes ...

Delaware 2 1 No No ...

District of Columbia 3 ... No No ...

Florida 27 b 1 No No ...

Georgia 30 83 No Yes 48,500

Guam 1 ... No Yes ...

Hawaii 20 c 1 c No Yes 120,800 d

Idaho 1 2 No No ...

Illinois na na No No ...

Indiana ... <1 Yes No ...

Iowa 30 30 No Yes ...

Kansas ... ... No Yes 286,900

Kentucky 30 180 No Yes 1,000

Louisiana na na No Yes 33,000

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

Maryland ... 1 No No ...

Massachusetts 1 1 No No ...

Michigan 2 1 No No ...

Minnesota ... ... No Yes 25

Mississippi ... ... No No ...

Missouri 91 91 No Yes 320,100

Montana 26 38 No No ...

Nebraska 1 1 No No ...

Nevada ... ... e No Yes 84,000

New Hampshire ... ... No Yes 33,000

New Jersey 1 hour 1 hour No Yes 70,000

New Mexico ... ... No Yes 200

New York Real time Real time No No ...

North Carolina ... ... ... ... ...

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

Ohio 7 1-2 No Yes 6,000 f

Oklahoma 30 30 No No ...

Oregon 30 g 30 gh No Yes 25,900

Pennsylvania 7 7 No No ...

Puerto Rico 3 5 No Yes 500

Rhode Island 2 2 No No ...

South Carolina 5 1 No Yes ...

South Dakota 1-3 1-3 No No ...

Tennessee ... 7 No Yes 3,000

Texas 30 1 No No ...

Utah ... ... No Yes (100s)

Vermont 10 14 No Yes 300

Virgin Islands 15 ... No Yes 600

Virginia <27 <6 Yes No na

Washington ... 0-30 No No ...

West Virginia 180 30 No Yes 60,000

Wisconsin 29 1 No No ...

Wyoming 30 3 No Yes 200
Table 21 explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

b Florida averages 26.9 days from felony court disposition to final entry into computerized criminal history.

f Ohio paper documents received in mail.

e Some Nevada backlog dispositions date back to 2001. State received National Criminal History 

 expiring December 2008.

 Improvement Program (NCHIP) grant in FY2006 to hire temp workers. Project under way April 2007, and 

 that we identify through our ongoing delinquent monitoring programs because the repository does not receive

g A 30-day holding period is used in Oregon to ensure arrest is entered.

h In Oregon, the lapsed time was 50 days for manual entry of records failing automated process.

Data footnotes:

 court forms for the purpose of ongoing data entry. Court dispositions are posted primarily via

 electronic interfaces to the repository.

d The Hawaii court disposition backlog reflects the number of delinquent court charges and pending charges 

c Hawaii figure shows median days elapsed.

a Arizona figure is for fiscal year 7/1/2006 - 6/30/2007.
Table 22. Length of time to process correctional admission data submitted to State criminal history repository 

 and current status of backlog, 2006

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 

custody-supervision 

reports

Alabama ... ... ... ... ...

Alaska ... ... ... ... ...

American Samoa na ... ... Yes <100

Arizona na ... ... No ...

Arkansas na ... ... Yes 21,000

California 1 17 95% No ...

Colorado 1 41 100 No ...

Connecticut ... ... ... No ...

Delaware 0 All 100 No ...

District of Columbia 3 a 1 100 ... ...

Florida 1 1 b 100 No ...

Georgia ... 1 100 No ...

Guam 0 ... ... No ...

Hawaii ... c ... ... ...

Idaho 1 ... ... No ...

Illinois na na 27 No ...

Indiana 0 80 100 No ...

Iowa 2 9 d 95 Yes ...

Kansas 1 e 1 ... No ...

Kentucky 2-10 2 f 100 No 0

Louisiana na ... ... Yes 3,000

Maine ... ... ... ... ...

Maryland 3-5 ... ... No g ...

Massachusetts 7 1 central 100 No ...

Michigan na ... h ... No ...

Minnesota 3 ... ... No ...

Mississippi ... 1 i ... No ...

Missouri na j ... k ... Yes ...

Montana 1 2 100 No ...

Nebraska 1 ... ... No ...

Nevada 0 l ... l ... No ...

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

New Jersey 1 na ... No na

New Mexico ... ... ... Yes <100

New York Real time 24 19 No ...

North Carolina ... ... ... ... ...

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

Ohio 1-2 4 0 No ...

Oklahoma 1 1 100 Yes ...

Oregon ... ... ... No ...

Pennsylvania 1 ... ... No ...

Puerto Rico 5 1 100 Yes ...

Rhode Island 0 ... ... No ...

South Carolina 1 2 100 No ...

South Dakota 1 ... ... No ...

Tennessee ... ... ... ... ...

Texas 7 1 100 No

Utah 14 ... ... No ...

Vermont 7 ... ... Yes <100

Virgin Islands 15 ... m ... Yes ...

Virginia <1 7 40 Yes 4,300

Washington 1-14 1 ... No ...

West Virginia 10 ... ... No ...

Wisconsin 8 2 100 No ...

Wyoming na ... ... No ...
 (JUSTIS) database.

 central office.

 entered. Images were loaded into AFIS but no event loaded into computerized criminal

c The Hawaii Department of Public Safety, which is responsible for all jails/correctional facilities, sends

Table 22 explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ ... Not available.

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

 Department of Justice for criminal history and sexual offenders data, respectively.

i Automated Mississippi Department of Corrections admissions only.

j The Missouri State Highway Patrol is currently working with the Department of Corrections on an 

 be receiving data from the last 7 years.

k Missouri currently receiving admission information on offenders from livescan devices. The release 

 simultaneously, assuming there are no errors on the livescan submission. To our knowledge, we 

m Repositories are standalone systems controlled by Virgin Islands Police Department and 

 and status change will be reviewed from the electronic interface. 

 run through our Western Identification Network Automated Fingerprint Identification System 

 (WIN-AFIS) and sent to the FBI electronically. Our computerized criminal history system is updated 

 are not receiving status change or release reports.

▪ na Not applicable.

Data footnotes:

a Corrections data available through the District of Columbia Integrated Justice Information System

b Data is submitted from all of the Florida's Department of Corrections Reception Centers and the 

e Only one Kansas prison reporting.

g There was a period of time in the history of the Maryland repository where no correctional cards were 

f Kentucky corrections submits prints for each new inmate.

 electronic interface to receive correctional data on offenders. This is now in testing phase, and will 

 of Corrections during the inmate intake process. These come in through livescan devices and are 

 admissions, releases, and status changes to the repository via an electronic file transfer/interface 

 history. Probably a resource issue. National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP)

 funds may help to resolve deficit.

h The Michigan State Police criminal history records are linked to the Department of Corrections information. 

 Correctional information is not actually submitted to the criminal history record.

 on a daily basis. However, information as to the timeliness of this information, etc., is not available.

d In Iowa, information is received via livescan for charge and conviction data.

l The Nevada Criminal History Repository receives only fingerprint submissions from the Department
Table 23. Noncriminal justice name-based background checks, 2006

State Total received Via Internet Via mail Via telephone

Total 15,546,900 10,237,600 2,841,400 801,000

Alabama ... ... ... ... ...

Alaska ... ... ... ... ...

American Samoa ... ... ... ... 100%

Arizona 13,900 na 13,900 na ...

Arkansas 158,600 115,500 43,100 0 2

California ... na ... ... ...

Colorado 347,100 341,500 5,600 ... 20

Connecticut 93,200 0 93,200 0 90

Delaware 2,700 ... 2,700 ... ...

District of Columbia 36,000 0 ... ... 50

Florida 1,226,800 581,300 75,700 569,800 a 19

Georgia na na na na b ...

Guam 100 100 ... ... 100

Hawaii 30,200 c 22,800 7,400 ... 10

Idaho 17,400 0 17,400 0 18

Illinois 656,000 591,200 64,800 0 ...

Indiana 535,200 424,700 98,700 11,800 d 4

Iowa 257,500 128,800 128,700 ... 20

Kansas 229,600 217,400 12,200 0 27

Kentucky 45,100 0 45,100 0 5

Louisiana 30,600 na 30,600 na na

Maine 230,900 ... ... ... ...

Maryland 3,000 0 3,000 0 100

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

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

Minnesota 96,000 ... 96,000 0 ...

Mississippi ... ... ... ... ...

Missouri 544,200 e 0 544,200 0 e ...

Montana 73,800 0 73,800 0 20

Nebraska 94,900 0 94,900 0 ...

Nevada 133,100 f 70,000 ... 63,100 ...

New Hampshire 178,300 na 178,300 na ...

New Jersey 150,000 0 150,000 0 ...

New Mexico 120,500 ... 120,000 500 15

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

North Carolina ... ... ... ...

North Dakota 19,800 0 19,800 0 18

Ohio 0 0 0 0 g na

Oklahoma 310,900 ... 310,900 ... ...

Oregon 179,200 22,000 11,400 145,800 h 13

Pennsylvania 1,171,800 916,900 254,900 ... 8

Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 ...

Rhode Island 13,000 0 3,000 10,000 na

South Carolina 494,500 447,400 47,100 na na

South Dakota na na na na i 95

Tennessee 40,300 ... 40,300 ... ...

Texas 3,747,100 3,744,600 2,500 ... ...

Utah 10,000 3,000 7,000 0 5-10

Vermont 95,700 na 95,700 na 9

Virgin Islands 1,200 1,200 na na ...

Virginia 277,400 167,300 110,100 ... 15

Washington 856,100 850,300 5,800 0 ...

West Virginia ... na ... ... ...

Wisconsin 625,200 591,600 33,600 na 16

Wyoming na ... ... ... ...

Identification rate for namebased background checks (%)

Number of name-based noncriminal background checks 
Table 23 explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

a Florida figure is for name-based background check requests by modem.

b Georgia repository does not provide name-based searches for noncriminal justice 

 purposes. However, name-based searches of the computerized criminal history (CCH) 

 are permitted by local law enforcement. The full record is provided, with consent 

 (signed or fingerprints) with the exception of sealed records. Without consent, only 

 felony conviction information is provided.

c 109,000 requests via walk-in public access terminals at Hawaii County Jail Diversion 

 locations and police departments.

d Indiana figure is for walk-in background checks.

e Includes checks received through public office at Missouri Highway Patrol and 

 mail-in requests.

f Includes data from Brady firearms program and Nevada civil name check program.

g Ohio will only process name-based searches if fingerprints are submitted and the ridge detail

 is poor quality and cannot be searched.

h Oregon figure is for firearm sales transaction calls.

i South Dakota repository does not offer name-based checks as a first response. All 

 our checks are fingerprint-based. However, there are occasions where we cannot 

 obtain legible prints. Under these circumstances, we offer a name-based check.

▪ 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 23a. Noncriminal justice name-based background check processing, 2006

State

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

Other features

Alabama XXXX X XXXX X 

Alaska

American Samoa XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX Phonetic, "loose" spelling, 

Arizona X X X X X X X a Phonetic-assisted spelling 

Arkansas XXXXXXX XXXXX X

California

Colorado XXXX XXXX Phonetic, "loose" spelling, 

interchangeable names

Connecticut XXXX XXXX "Loose" spelling

Delaware XXXXXXXX XXXX Phonetic-assisted spelling

District of Columbia XXXXXXXX XXXXX X Phonetic-assisted spelling 

Florida XXXXX X b Phonetic-assisted spelling 

Georgia

Guam XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX Phonetic-assisted spelling 

Hawaii X X c X X c Phonetic-assisted spelling

Idaho XXXXX XX XXX X Phonetic, "loose" spelling, 

interchangeable names

Illinois X X X X X X X Phonetic-assisted spelling

Indiana X X X X X X X X

Iowa X X X X X X X X

Kansas X X X X Phonetic-assisted and 

"loose" spelling

Kentucky XXXX XXXX Phonetic-assisted spelling, 

interchangeable names

Louisiana XXXXXXX XXXXX Phonetic-assisted and 

"loose" spelling

Maine XXXX XXXX Phonetic, "loose" spelling, 

interchangeable names

Maryland XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX Phonetic-assisted spelling

Massachusetts X X X X X X Phonetic-assisted spelling

Michigan X X X X X X X X X Phonetic-assisted and 

"loose" spelling

Minnesota X X X X X X d Phonetic-assisted spelling

Mississippi X X X X X X X X X X "Loose" spelling 

Missouri X X X X X X X X Phonetic-assisted spelling 

Montana XXXX XXX "Loose" spelling 

Nebraska X X X X X X X X Phonetic, "loose" spelling, 

interchangeable names

Nevada X X X X X e X X X X X e "Loose" spelling

New Hampshire X X X X X Phonetic-assisted spelling 

New Jersey X X X X X X X X X

New Mexico XXXX XXXX Phonetic-assisted spelling

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota XXXX X XXXX X Phonetic-assisted spelling 

Ohio X X X X X X X X

Oklahoma XXXX XXX Phonetic-assisted and 

"loose" spelling

Oregon XXXX X XXXXX Phonetic-assisted and 

"loose" spelling

Pennsylvania X X X X X X

Puerto Rico XXXXXX XXXXXX

Rhode Island X X X X X X

South Carolina X X X X X X

South Dakota XXXXXXX XX XXXXXX Phonetic-assisted spelling

Tennessee XXXXX X XXXXX X Phonetic-assisted spelling

Texas X X X X X

Utah XXXXXX XXXXX

Vermont X X X X X X f "Loose" spelling

Virgin Islands XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX X Phonetic-assisted spelling, 

interchangeable names

Virginia XXXXX XXXXX Interchangeable first/last name

Washington X X X X X X Phonetic-assisted spelling

West Virginia

Wisconsin X X X X X X X X X Phonetic-assisted and 

"loose" spelling

Wyoming

Identifiers required for name-based search

Minimum identifiers to have "hit" 

before response is returned
Table 23a 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. 

▪ ... 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 If any combination of these three match, Arizona will release record.

b In Florida, hits determined by automated algorithm and manual review of candidates.

c Although social security number not required, a search in Hawaii can be done by social security number only.

d Minnesota Internet checks are exact match.

e SSN is helpful, but not required for Nevada search. Under these circumstances, we offer a name-based check.

f Vermont uses any three exact demographic matches.
Table 23b. Noncriminal justice name-based background check results, 2006 

State Full record

Convictions 

only

Juvenile 

records Arrests w/o disposition-over 1 yr old

Alabama State record only

Alaska

American Samoa X

Arizona X

Arkansas X X

California

Colorado X Some juvenile records not releasable

Connecticut Convictions, pending, 13 mo nolle

Delaware X

District of Columbia X Arrests w/ convictions within 10 years

Florida X X X a All data authorized by law b

Georgia c

Guam X

Hawaii X X d

Idaho X

Illinois X

Indiana X Arrests <1 year old regardless of disposition

Iowa X

Kansas X Depends upon dissemination rules

Kentucky X

Louisiana Fingerprints are requested to make positive 

identification / depends on reason for submittal

Maine X X

Maryland X X X

Massachusetts Combination-no juveniles, though

Michigan X Does not include nonpublic records

Minnesota Depends on request type

Mississippi X

Missouri X

Montana All except dismissed deferred impositions of 

sentence

Nebraska e

Nevada X X f X Nevada and NCIC Wants/Warrants, Dangerous 

Offender

New Hampshire X

New Jersey X X

New Mexico X X

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota X X

Ohio X

Oklahoma X

Oregon X Arrests w/o disposition within 1 year

Pennsylvania X X Arrests w/o disposition <3 years old.

Puerto Rico X

Rhode Island X

South Carolina X

South Dakota X

Tennessee X

Texas X Data may be limited based on authority

Utah X

Vermont X

Virgin Islands X

Virginia X

Washington X

West Virginia

Wisconsin Full adult record

Wyoming

Information contained in the results for a name-based noncriminal justice background check

Other information contained in the results
Table 23b 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. 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

a Content of a Florida record is based on the requestor and the purpose of the request. Some noncriminal justice

 agencies get sealed records and notices of expunged records.

b Based upon correspondence/modem submissions. Florida does not monitor hit rate on Internet.

c Georgia repository does not provide name-based searches for noncriminal justice purposes. However, name-based 

 searches of the computerized criminal history are permitted by local law enforcement. The full State record is 

 provided, with consent (signed or fingerprints) with the exception of sealed records. Without consent, only felony 

 conviction information is provided.

d Hawaii full record supplied with signature of person of record, otherwise arrests over 1 year old without disposition will 

 not be supplied.

e 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.

f Only some juvenile records disclosed depending on Nevada statute.

Data footnotes:
Table 24. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based background checks, 2006

State

Information contained in results of 

fingerprint-based noncriminal 

background check

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 ... ... ... 3

Alaska ... ... ... ...

American Samoa ... Always ... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Arizona Full record Arrest only a 9% 5 X X X

Arkansas Full record, arrests w/o 

disposition > 1 year old

... 2 None

California All data meeting dissemination 

criteria for requesting agency

Always 47 1, 2, 3, 4 X X

Colorado Full record (excluding some 

juvenile)

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

Connecticut Convictions, pending charges 

and nolle charges <13m

 Agency requests 95 1, 3, 4, 5 X X X

Delaware Convictions ... 35 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 X X

District of Columbia Full record When notified by 

another jurisdiction

20 6 X

Florida Full record, juvenile, arrests w/o 

disposition > 1 year old

b Arrest only 13 4 X X

Georgia Full record ... 13 None

Guam Full record ... 99 3 X X

Hawaii Full record, convictions ... 10 None

Idaho Full record ... 22 3 X X X

Illinois Convictions Conviction only ... 1, 3, 4 X X X

Indiana Full record ... 14 None

Iowa na ... ... None

Kansas Depends upon specific 

dissemination rules

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

Kentucky Convictions ... 5 None

Louisiana Depends on statute authorizing 

access

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

Maine Convictions, juvenile, arrests w/o 

disposition > 1 year old

Always ... 1 X X X

Maryland Full record, juvenile, arrests w/o 

disposition > 1 year old

Arrest only 9 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 X X X

Massachusetts ... ... ... None

Michigan Full record c If required 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 X X

Minnesota Depends on request type ... 18 None

Mississippi Full record ... ... 3 X X X

Missouri Full record ... ... 1, 2, 3, 4 X X

Montana Full record ... 10 None X

Nebraska ... d Conviction only 1, 2, 3, 5 X X X

Nevada Varies depending on reason 

fingerprinted

Manual process 

for teachers only

10 X X

New Hampshire Convictions ... ... None

New Jersey Full record, juvenile, convictions, 

arrests w/o disposition > 1 year 

old

Always 7-8 1, 3, 4 X X X

New Mexico Full record ... 18 None X X

New York Full record Arrest only 43 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 X X

North Carolina ... ... ...

North Dakota Depends if PL 92-544 ... ... X X X

Ohio Full record ... na 1, 2, 3, 4 X

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

Oregon Full record e Arrest only 7 1, 2, 3, 4 X X

Pennsylvania Full record Arrest only 0 1, 2, 3 X X X

Puerto Rico Convictions Conviction only ... 1, 3 X

Rhode Island Full record ... na None

South Carolina Full record LE only 10 3 X X X

South Dakota Full record ... 95 X X

Tennessee Full record ... ... 1, 2, 3, 4 X X

Ways noncriminal justice retained 

fingerprints are utilized
Table 24. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based background checks, 2006 (continued)

State

Information contained in results of 

fingerprint-based noncriminal 

background check

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 f Arrest only 100 1, 3, 4 X X X

Utah Convictions ... 5-10 X X

Vermont Convictions ... <1 None

Virgin Islands Full record ... ... 3, 4 X X X

Virginia Convictions ... na None X X X

Washington Convictions ... ... X

West Virginia Full record Arrests only 20 1, 2, 3, 4 X X X

Wisconsin Full record ... 14 None

Wyoming Full record ... 30 None

Table 24 explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

Data footnotes:

a Only for certain types of Arizona applicants.

b Content of Florida record based on requestor and purpose of request. Some noncriminal justice agencies get 

 sealed record and notices of expungement.

c Excludes Michigan nonpublic records.

d 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.

e Oregon responses are "yes" or "no" only based on criteria provided by the qualified entity. These are nonprofits not 

 regulated by a state agency.

f Some Texas data limited based on authority.

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.

6 DC Metropolitan Police Department officers.

Ways noncriminal justice retained 

fingerprints are utilized
Table 24a. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based background check requirements, 2006

State Legal requirements to perform background checks

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

Alaska ...

American Samoa 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8

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

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

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

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, 7, 8, 9, 10

District of Columbia 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

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

Georgia 2, 4, 5, 7, 10

Guam ...

Hawaii 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8

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

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

Indiana 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11

Iowa 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11

Kansas 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11

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

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

Maine 4, 5, 8, 10

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

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

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

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

Mississippi 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11

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

Montana 2, 7, 8

Nebraska 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11

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

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

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

New Mexico 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10

New York 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11

North Carolina ...

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

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

Oklahoma 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 b

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

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

Puerto Rico 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11

Rhode Island 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10

South Carolina 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8

South Dakota 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10

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 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 c

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

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

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

Wisconsin 1, 2, 4

Wyoming 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Table 24a explanatory notes:

▪ ... Not available.

Data footnotes:

a No Minnesota statute on hazardous materials exists, but checks are done under the Patriot Act.

b Oklahoma daycare provider/resident background checks are name search only. 

c Except for Virgin Islands school teachers, all are performed by Department of Justice.

Legal requirements legend:

1 Nurses/elder caregivers.

3 Individuals living in residences of home-based daycare providers.

4 School teachers.

5 Non-teaching school employees.

6 Volunteers with children.

7 Prospective foster care parents.

8 Prospective adoptive parents.

9 Relative caregivers.

10 Non-teaching school personnel.

11 Hazardous materials licensees.

2 Daycare providers.
Table 25. State automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) database and vendors, 2006

State

AFIS partner with one 

or more States

How enhancing, upgrading or redesigning 

State AFIS database system

Phase of enhancement/upgrade on 

December 31, 2006

AFIS vendor as of 

December 31, 2006

Alabama ... ... ... NEC

Alaska WIN States a X b Drafting or finalizing specs/RFP NEC

Arizona Upgrade to next generation AFIS Drafting or finalizing specs/RFP Sagem Morpho

Arkansas Planning/securing funding Motorola-PrintTrak

American Samoa HI Upgrading booking station Implementation and testing Sagem Morpho

California Increased matching and storage capacity Implementation and testing NEC

Colorado X Planning/securing funding Sagem Morpho

Connecticut RI Redesign Planning/securing funding Cogent

Delaware Livescans devices for local agencies Planning/securing funding Motorola-PrintTrak

District of Columbia VA, MD New AFIS/biometric/mugshot system c Implementation and testing Motorola-PrintTrak

Florida Replacing AFIS 2000 system Planning/securing funding; drafting or 

finalizing specs/RFP

 Motorola-PrintTrak 

Georgia NEC

Guam na

Hawaii Am. Samoa Implementing "lights out" processing Implementation and testing Sagem Morpho

Idaho WIN States To include palms and slap prints Drafting or finalizing specs/RFP NEC

Illinois NEC

Indiana NEC

Iowa To Motorola BIS 9.6.1.1 Implementation and testing Motorola-PrintTrak

Kansas X Implementation and testing Motorola-PrintTrak d

Kentucky 10 additional LiveScan devices Implementation and testing Motorola-PrintTrak

Louisiana To Motorola BIS Drafting or finalizing specs/RFP Motorola-PrintTrak

Maine NH, VT To next generation OmniTrak Implementation and testing Motorola-PrintTrak

Maryland New AFIS vendor, redesign Implementation and testing Sagem Morpho

Massachusetts Planning/securing funding NEC

Michigan Increase throughput and storage, to include 

palm prints

 Reviewing bids or proposals NEC

Minnesota MAFIN States e Full replacement Other f Motorola-PrintTrak

Mississippi Upgrade Planning/securing funding NEC

Missouri MetaMorpho Implementation and testing Sagem Morpho

Montana WIN States Drafting technical specs Drafting or finalizing specs/RFP NEC

Nebraska Upgrade Implementation and testing Motorola-PrintTrak

Nevada WIN States NEC

New Hampshire ME, VT To OmniTrak Implementation and testing Motorola-PrintTrak

New Jersey Full replacement Reviewing bids or proposals Sagem Morpho

New Mexico To Sagem Morpho Implementation and testing Sagem Morpho

New York Sagem Morpho

North Carolina

North Dakota MAFIN States Full replacement Reviewing bids or proposals Motorola-PrintTrak

Ohio Upgrade, to include palm prints Implementation and testing Cogent

Oklahoma Motorola-PrintTrak

Oregon WIN States WIN upgrades NEC

Pennsylvania Palm prints Planning/securing funding; reviewing 

bids

NEC

Puerto Rico Redesign to NIST compliant system Implementation and testing Cogent

Rhode Island CT Cogent

South Carolina Motorola-PrintTrak

South Dakota MAFIN States X Implementation and testing Motorola-PrintTrak

Tennessee g Motorola-PrintTrak

Texas Increase throughput and storage, to include 

palm prints

 Drafting or finalizing specs/RFP NEC

Utah WIN States WIN upgrades, palm prints Implementation and testing NEC

Vermont NH, ME Upgrade Implementation and testing Motorola-PrintTrak

Virgin Islands Software and hardware upgrades Implementation and testing Motorola-PrintTrak

Virginia Palm prints Reviewing bids or proposals NEC

Washington Seeking approval to join WIN Planning/securing funding NEC

West Virginia Lockheed-Martin

Wisconsin Sagem Morpho

Wyoming WIN States NEC
e The Midwest Automated Fingerprint Identification Network (MAFIN) is a shared regional database involving

 North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota.

▪ na Not applicable.

a The Western Identification Network (WIN) houses the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) 

 California and Washington. There are also a few Federal agencies members.

Table 25 explanatory notes:

▪ ... Not available.

 May 31, 2006.

f Minnesota had chosen a vendor and was in negotiations.

g Tennessee went "live" with Motorola's latest Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) offering on 

Data footnotes:

b WIN service strategy available at: http://www.winid.org/winid/what/documents/WIN_Service_Strategy.pdf.

c In 2006, a District of Columbia request for proposals included a new records management system (including 

 records management system.

d Kansas now converting to new Sagem-Morpho Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS).

 records of Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Montana, and Wyoming. Interface sites include

 a module to replace our criminal justice information system). No vendor selected in 2007. Building in-house
Table 25a. State criminal history database system and vendors, 2006

State

How enhancing, upgrading or redesigning 

State criminal history database system

Phase of enhancement/upgrade on 

December 31, 2006

Criminal history database vendor as of 

December 31, 2006*

Alabama Upgrade arrest and disposition entries Implementation and testing none

Alaska Redesign of APSIN Implementation and testing State of Alaska

American Samoa From a PA-LEMIS to Windstorm Drafting or finalizing specs/RFP Nudawn Tech, Inc.

Arizona 

Arkansas na

California From COBOL legacy system to Oracle Implementation and testing SRA International

Colorado Redesign Planning/securing funding Vision Tek Inc.

Connecticut 

Delaware Charge file reorganization Implementation and testing DELJIS

District of Columbia X Drafting or finalizing specs/RFP a In-house

Florida Replacement of legacy system Planning/securing funds; drafting or 

finalizing specs; reviewing bids/proposals

na 

Georgia Modernization of system Implementation and testing Maximus

Guam na

Hawaii 

Idaho Tiburon

Illinois Upgrade of software and hardware Implementation and testing na

Indiana Holt, Sheets & Assoc.

Iowa AFIS/CCH interface Implementation and testing CPI of Chicago

Kansas In-house IT staff

Kentucky Interface with courts for felony dispositions Implementation and testing SAIC (vendor), Analyst Int. (interface)

Louisiana X Reviewing bids/proposals na

Maine Upgrades and OmniTrak interface Implementation and testing Northrop Grumman

Maryland MD Dept. of Public Safety

Massachusetts X Planning/securing funding In-house

Michigan SAIC

Minnesota Redesign Documenting requirements for new 

computerized criminal history

 Bearing Point

Mississippi

Missouri Interface with prosecutors, courts, and 

corrections

Implementation and testing MO State Highway Patrol Information 

Systems Staff, TIER consultants

b

Montana In-house

Nebraska Redesign Implementation and testing Analysts International

Nevada In-house and outsource through Norsoft 

Consulting

New Hampshire CPI

New Jersey In-house

New Mexico AFIS/CCH interface Implementation and testing In-house

New York From legacy system to Oracle Oracle database

North Carolina

North Dakota Upgrade Drafting or finalizing specs/RFP na c

Ohio From Informix to Oracle Implementation and testing Cogent Systems

Oklahoma Northrop Grumman

Oregon d

Pennsylvania Implemented Sept. 2007 Implementation and testing Unisys

Puerto Rico To VB.Net, SQL 2005+, WEB services e Reviewing bids/proposals Knowteck, Inc. (OpenK)

Rhode Island 

South Carolina Court codes (CDR) updates, storage 

modification

Implementation and testing In-house programming

South Dakota Automated livescan descriptors Implementation and testing BIT - SD

Tennessee Other f SENT Software, Inc.

Texas In-house staff with Austin Project Group

Utah In-house

Vermont Replacement Implementation and testing Spillman replaced by CPI

Virgin Islands New database methods/vendor Planning/securing funding

Virginia Juvenile disposition and offense no. 

interface, verification upgrades

Planning/securing funding In-house

Washington Electronic applicant project Drafting or finalizing specs/RFP SAIC

West Virginia Computer Projects of Illinois, Inc

Wisconsin In-house

Wyoming To become NFF Implementation and testing
* Some States reported using more than one vendor, including in-house IT staff.

 Adults & Juveniles). 

a At end of 2006, the District of Columbia put out an RFP for new records management system (RMS), which 

 included a module to replace our criminal justice information system (CJIS). No vendor was selected to replace

▪ ... Not available.

Table 25a explanatory notes

 our CJIS. No vendor selected in 2007 due to pricing issues⎯building an in-house RMS.

▪ na Not applicable.

Data footnotes:

f Continually enhancing our Tennessee Criminal History Repository.

b Missouri contracted with L1 Identity Solutions for noncriminal justice background checks. 

 receipt of requests and electronic transmission of results, and produce reports.

 to automatically account for background check fees and collect applicant information, secure electronic 

e Includes Puerto Rico's computerized criminal history, PCMS (Prosecutor's Case Management System - 

 procedures, and independent accounting procedures, and an independent accounting system into the

c Computerized criminal history in North Dakota is not a vendor product.

d The Oregon Electronic Applicant Project is incorporating applicant fingerprint livescan transactions, manual 

 AFIS/W2 automated work-flow. Once implemented, this project will allow the Washington State Patrol
Table 26. Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 2006 

State

Manual review of 

incoming source 

documents or 

reports

Computer edit 

and verification

programs

Manual review of 

criminal record 

transcripts before 

dissemination

Random sample comparisons 

of State criminal history 

repository files with stored 

documents

Error lists 

returned to 

reporting 

agencies Other

Alabama X X X 

Alaska X X X X X

American Samoa X X X

Arizona X X X X X

Arkansas X X X 

California X X X

Colorado X

Connecticut X X X 

Delaware X X X

District of Columbia X X X

Florida X X X X X

Georgia X X 

Guam X X 

Hawaii X X X

Idaho X X X X

Illinois X X

Indiana X X X 

Iowa X X X X 

Kansas X X X

Kentucky X X X 

Louisiana X X

Maine X X Internal reports/sampling, record challenges

Maryland X X X 

Massachusetts

Michigan X X X

Minnesota X X Manual review on ad hoc basis

Mississippi X X X

Missouri X X X X

Montana X X X

Nebraska X X X X X

Nevada X X X X

New Hampshire X X 

New Jersey X X X 

New Mexico X X X X Respond with rejects-explanation

New York X X X 

North Carolina

North Dakota X X X X

Ohio X X X X

Oklahoma X X Dual data entry

Oregon X X X Manual review after entry; agency notification after 

automated notice of new entry

Pennsylvania X X X

Puerto Rico X X X X 

Rhode Island X X 

South Carolina X 

South Dakota X X X X

Tennessee X X 

Texas X X

Utah

Vermont X X X X X 

Virgin Islands

Virginia X X

Washington X Random 5% quality control of entered docs; 100% 

review during new employee training

West Virginia X X 

Wisconsin X X 

Wyoming X X X Quarterly disposition audit forms sent to contributors
Table 26 explanatory notes:

▪ ... Not available.
Table 27. Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1999, 2001, 2003 and 2006 

State 1999 2001 2003 2006

Law 

enforcement/ 

criminal justice Courts

Noncriminal 

justice entities Others

Agency that 

performed audit

Alabama Yes Yes No No ... ... ... ... ...

Alaska Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 0 Various a Repository, Office of 

Legislative Audit

b

American Samoa ... ... ... No

Arizona Yes Yes Yes No Repository

Arkansas No No Yes No

California Yes Yes Yes No

Colorado Yes Yes Yes 41 3 Repository

Connecticut No No No No 

Delaware No No No Yes 26 5 na na State police, other

District of Columbia Yes No Yes ... ... ... ... ...

Florida Yes Yes Yes Yes 751 67 70 Repository

Georgia Yes Yes Yes No

Guam No

Hawaii Yes Yes Yes No

Idaho Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 0 0 State Police

Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes IL CJ Information 

Authority, FBI CJIS

Indiana No No No No

Iowa Yes Yes Yes Yes 16 7 0 8 Co. Attorneys 

Offices

Div. of Criminal 

Investigation

Kansas No No No No

Kentucky Yes Yes Yes Yes 400 State Police

Louisiana No No No No

Maine No No No No

Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes 39 0 10 0 Repository

Massachusetts No Yes Yes No

Michigan Yes Yes Yes Yes 13 3 Repository

Minnesota No Yes No

Mississippi No No Yes No 

Missouri Yes Yes Yes No

Montana Yes Yes No

Nebraska No No No

Nevada Yes Yes Yes Yes 54 4 casinos Repository

New Hampshire No No No Yes ... na 11 na FBI

New Jersey Yes Yes Yes Yes 250 271 0 State Police

New Mexico No No No No

New York Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 26 0 0 Repository

North Carolina No Yes Yes

North Dakota Yes Yes Yes No

Ohio Yes Yes Yes Yes 48 48 Repository

Oklahoma Yes Yes No No

Oregon No No Yes No

Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes Repository/Attorney 

General

Puerto Rico No No Yes Yes 4 5 0 0 Repository

Rhode Island No Yes No No

South Carolina Yes No No No

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes No

Tennessee No Yes Yes Yes 102 Repository

Texas Yes Yes Yes No

Utah Yes Yes Yes No

Vermont Yes Yes Yes Yes All 34 Repository

Virgin Islands No No No Yes FBI/CJIS 

Virginia Yes Yes Yes Yes DECKS

Washington Yes Yes Yes No

West Virginia Yes Yes Yes No

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes Yes 28 LE in 2005 Contract vendor

Wyoming Yes No Yes No

Random sample audits of criminal records from 

contributing agencies conducted to ensure data 

quality and compliance with laws Number of agencies audited
▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

Table 27 explanatory notes:

 (from background check requests) (75), Missing Sex Offender Registration (SOR) statutes (56), Missing arrest 

 info (24), Other missing charge data (31), Missing dispositions (1000).

 duration/research (144), Record resolution (331), Permanent fund dividend appeals (7), missing dispositions 

a Alaska audits includes FBI Machine Readable Data (MRD) issues (1041), Sex Offender Registration (SOR) 

b Alaska's Office of Legislative Audit (recidivism and sex offender study).

Data Footnotes:
Table 28. Data quality audits of state criminal history repository, 2006

State

State criminal history 

repository database audited

for completeness within last 

5 years

Date of last 

audit

Period of time covered 

by audit

Agency that performed 

audit

Changes to improve 

data quality were 

made as a result of 

audit

Initiatives underway to 

improve data quality

Alabama ... ... ... ... 2

Alaska 1,2,4,5,7,9

American Samoa 2,4,5,7,8,9

Arizona X 12/2004 2,9

Arkansas X 12/2004 1993-2003 FBI CJIS 3,8 1,2,5,6,9 a

California 1,2,5,6,7,8

Colorado X 2006 2004-5 Judicial agency, FBI 2,10 3,7,8

Connecticut 1

Delaware X 8/2007 1971-8/2007 DELJIS 3,10 2,7,8

District of Columbia X 9/2006 4/2006-6/2006 Repository, FBI 1,2,5,10 4,5,6,7,9

Florida X 6/2004 1/1/2003-

12/31/2004

Repository 10 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9

Georgia 1,2,7,9

Guam None at this time

Hawaii 1,5 b

Idaho 9

Illinois X 9/2003 1994-1998 IL Criminal Justice 

Information Authority

2,3,5 1,2,6

Indiana 1,2,3,4,5,9

Iowa X 4/2002 10/2001 - 4/2002 Criminal & Juvenile 

Justice Planning

1 1,5,9

Kansas 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9

Kentucky None at this time

Louisiana None at this time

Maine X 11/2006 11/2006-10/2007 Maine SAC In process 4,5,9 c

Maryland X 8/2002 10/2000-7/2002 Dr. Welford 1,3,5,6,7,8,10 1,2,4,6,7,8,9

Massachusetts 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Michigan X 2004 10/1/1999-

3/12/2002

Auditor General 2,3,6,8 2 d

Minnesota X Fall 2002 1990-2002 MTG 1,2,3,7,8,9,10 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9 e

Mississippi na

Missouri 1,2,5,9

Montana 1,2,3,4,5,9

Nebraska 1,2,3,4,5,7,9

Nevada X 2002 10/1/2000-

3/30/2001

State Legislative Auditor 1,3,10 1,2,4,9

New Hampshire None at this time

New Jersey X Ongoing 2003-present Repository, State Police 1,2,4,5

New Mexico X 2004 FBI triennial audit 7,8,10 f 1,2,4,7,9

New York X 11/2004 11/2001 - 11/2004 Repository 1,3,5,10 1,2,4,5,7,8,9

North Carolina

North Dakota 1,2 g

Ohio X In progress Inception-present Repository 1,2,4,7,9

Oklahoma 1,2,8,9

Oregon X 2002-2003 Random audit MTG Mgmt., Inc. 3,4,8 1,2,4,9 h

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

Puerto Rico X 12/2006 1987-2006 Repository 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 2,9

South Dakota X 9/2006 Spot audit CJIS 8 1,2,4,5,6

Tennessee 2,9

Texas X 2007 1/1/2005-

12/31/2005

Repository 1,3,8 1,2,4,5,6,9

Utah 

Vermont 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 i

Virgin Islands 2007 1/2006-1/2007 FBI/CJIS 1,2,4,5,9

Virginia X 2003 na FBI 8 1,2,4

Washington X 7/2006 FBI CJIS Division 1 None at this time

West Virginia 1,3,4

Wisconsin X 2005 2002-2004 Contract vendor 3,10 1,2,4,9

Wyoming 7,9
 

Table 28 explanatory notes:

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

a New Arkansas criminal and civil print submission workflows.

Data footnotes:

b Hawaii requesting new auditing position.

c Maine upgraded AFIS 2000 to Omnitech and deployed 10 new livescans.

d Michigan database cleanup project focusing on open cases.

e Minnesota publishes agency statistics.

f New Mexico system validation/reporting tools.

g Ongoing training for North Dakota law enforcement, state's attorneys, and jail staff.

h Ongoing contact with Oregon agencies and monthly fingerprint training classes.

i Vermont data auditing restricted to fingerprint submissions. Only rap sheets for civil applicants are checked prior to 

Changes to improve data quality legend:

1 Audit functions/procedures.

2 Automation conversion/redesign/enhancements.

3 Disposition/arrest reporting procedures/enhancements.

4 Felony flagging.

5 Fingerprint card/system conversion/enhancements.

6 Interagency/local agency interface.

2 Disposition/arrest reporting procedures/enhancements.

7 Legislation.

8 Plan/strategy development.

9 Task force/advisory group establishment.

10 Training seminars/policy and procedures manuals.

 dissemination.

8 Task force/advisory group establishment.

9 Training seminars/policy and procedures manuals.

3 Felony flagging.

4 Fingerprint card/system conversion/enhancements.

5 Interagency/local agency interface.

6 Legislation.

Initiatives underway to improve data quality legend:

1 Automation conversion/redesign/enhancements.

7 Plan/strategy development.
Table 29. Fingerprint record processing by state criminal history repository, 2006

Total Criminal Noncriminal Electronic Mail

Alabama ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Alaska

American Samoa na na

Arizona na 5 6 days

Arkansas 4 42 4-5 days

California X 70% 80% 60% 3 4 3 days

Colorado 1 3-5 3 days

Connecticut X 7-14 

Delaware 10 14

District of Columbia 1 30-45 1 day

Florida X 0 0 0 1 5 5 days

Georgia X 92 ... ... 1 45 7 days

Guam 7 

Hawaii 2 5 5 days

Idaho X 1-2 3 3 days

Illinois X 58 46 39 1-2 ... 

Indiana X ... ... ... 

Iowa 

Kansas 2 10 1 day

Kentucky X 57 ... ... 3-4 4-5 14 days

Louisiana na 7-10 14 days

Maine 

Maryland X 34 22 47 1 3-5 3-5 days

Massachusetts X 70

Michigan X 80 80 80 2 14 

Minnesota 2 7 

Mississippi X 74 na na 1 5

Missouri X 66 66 66 12 21 1 day

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

Nebraska 3 3 3 days

Nevada X 15 41 29 10 30 5 days

New Hampshire X 2 3 3 days

New Jersey na na na 1 hour 30 10 days

New Mexico ... 28-42 Automated

New York X 42 51 28 <1 3 <3 days (criminal)

North Carolina

North Dakota 3 3 days

Ohio 3 30 30 days

Oklahoma X 90 90 70 1 14 

Oregon X 3 a ... ... 9-19 9-19 8 days

Pennsylvania X 83 83 83 2 hours 60 60 days

Puerto Rico 5 

Rhode Island X 75 75 75 2 14 

South Carolina X 85 85 85 1 3

South Dakota na 1-5 1 day

Tennessee X 85 85 85 1 3 ...

Texas X 80 80 50 1 3 3 days

Utah X 30 30 0 5 42 14 days

Vermont na 45 60 days

Virgin Islands 10 14

Virginia 1 5 

Washington X ... ... ... 5 7-14 2 days

West Virginia 3 14 

Wisconsin X 10 0 90 1 2 

Wyoming 1 21 

Goal established for 

maximum processing time

Percentage of fingerprints handled with "lights 

out" processing

State

Average processing time (days) 

from fingerprint receipt to response Repository conducts 

"lights out" 

processing
a Represents last 3 months of year. Oregon did not previously track this activity.

▪ na Not applicable.

Data footnotes:

Table 29 explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ ... Not available.
Table 30. State criminal history repository recovery practices and operating hours, 2006

State M - F Sat Sun M - F Sat Sun

Alabama Routine back-up every 1 day ... 8

Alaska Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day a 

American Samoa Routine back-up every 1 week Vendor (Sagem Morpho) 8 8 8 8

Arizona Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 week 24 24 24 24 16 16

Arkansas Routine back-up every 1 week Routine back-up every 1 day 24 24 24 24 24 24

California Routine back-up every 3 days Mirroring system 24 24 24 24 24 24

Colorado Mirroring system Routine back-up every 7 days 24 24 24 24 24 24

Connecticut Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 8 14

Delaware Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 8 8

District of Columbia Mirroring and routine back-up every 7 

days

Mirroring system; daily and weekly 

back-up; external back-up

24 24 24 24 24 24

Florida Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 24 24 24 24 24 24

Georgia Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 24 24 24 24 24 24

Guam Mirroring system 8 8

Hawaii Mirroring system; daily back-up; FTP 

to test server

Mirroring system; daily and hourly 

back-up

8 8

Idaho Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 8 10 10 10

Illinois Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 7 days 24 18 18 20 18 18

Indiana Routine back-up every 1 day Mirroring; routine back-up; images; 

tape back-up

8 16

Iowa Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 8 8

Kansas Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 week 16 16 8 8

Kentucky Mirroring, routine back-up every day Routine back-up every 7 days b 8 16 8 8

Louisiana Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 8 8

Maine 8 12

Maryland Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 week 24 24 24 24 24 24

Massachusetts Both mirroring and routine back-up 24 24 24

Michigan Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day c 10 24 8 8

Minnesota Routine back-up every 1 day 24 24 24 24 24 24 d

Mississippi Mirroring system every 1 month; 

journaling daily back-up

24 24 24 8

Missouri Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 week 24 24 24 24 24 24

Montana Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 8 8

Nebraska Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 10 12

Nevada Routine back-up every 1 day Back-up through WIN 8 10 10 12 12 12

New Hampshire 16 16 8 8

New Jersey Mirroring system Offsite back-up recovery system 24 24 24 24 24 24

New Mexico Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 week 16 16

New York Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 24 24 24 24 24 24

North Carolina

North Dakota Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 8 8

Ohio Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 8 24 24 24

Oklahoma Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 24 24 24 10

Oregon Routine back-up every 12 hrs Routine back-up every 1 month 24 24 24 24 24 24

Pennsylvania Mirroring; routine back-up every day; 

full back-up every 14 days

Routine back-up every 7 days; tape 

back-up

24 24 24 24 24 24

Puerto Rico Clustering back-up every day Clustering back-up every day 24 24 24 16 12 12

Rhode Island Routine back-up every 1 day Mirroring system 10 16

South Carolina Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 week 8 8

South Dakota Routine back-up Routine back-up e 8 8

Tennessee Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 24 24 24 12

Texas Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 5 days 24 24 24 24 24 24

Utah Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 24 24 24 24 8 8

Vermont Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day f 8 10

Virgin Islands Routine back-up every 7 days 8 8 8 8

Virginia Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 8 24 24 24

Washington Routine back-up every 1 month 24 24

West Virginia Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 7 days 16 16

Wisconsin Routine back-up every 1 day Routine back-up every 1 day 10 10

Wyoming Routine back-up every 1 day; tape 

back-up on- and off-site

Back-up through WIN 24 24 24 8

Back-up recovery practices or 

technologies used for computerized 

criminal history database

Back-up recovery practices or 

technologies used for the AFIS 

database

State repository operating 

hours per day with onsite 

fingerprint technicians

State repository operating 

hours per day
 electronically.

 6:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Monday-Friday.

▪ na Not applicable.

Data footnotes:

Table 30 explanatory notes:

▪ ... Not available.

a In Alaska, NEC completes daily back-ups of IMARS, minutia and images; monthly cold saves are done during 

b Kentucky performs incremental backups, as well as daily full backup.

c Michigan performs daily "warm" backups and quarterly "cold" backups. A criminal history reporting 

 of prosecutors are submitting charges electronically, and 94% of courts are submitting dispositions 

 evenings. 3 generations copied.

 automation project has been completed. Currently, 96% of all arrests are submitted electronically, 95% 

f Vermont uses a Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID) 5 backup.

d Only Minnesota identification section operates 24 hours. Criminal history section operates 

e Information is for South Dakota's old Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). We backup 

 will have a Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID) archive server with automatic backup.

 our archive server manually every night. The back end is maintained by Minnesota. New AFIS 
Table 31. Court and State criminal history repository record availability to public and commercial entities, 2006

State

State repository 

bulk data to 

commercial third 

parties for 

redissemination

State repository fees 

charged to 

commercial third 

parties

State court 

system bulk data 

to commercial 

third parties for 

redissemination

Court system fees 

charged to 

commercial third 

parties

Court system 

makes court case 

information public 

over internet

Court system fees 

charged for court case 

information

Alabama ... X ... ... ...

Alaska

American Samoa X

Arizona X $3,000 per year X $0

Arkansas X $100 per request

California

Colorado X $6 per name search

Connecticut X ... X ...

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida $23 per record X Varies X Varies

Georgia X a

Guam

Hawaii X $20 per name X Varies by contract X $0

Idaho

Illinois X $0

Indiana

Iowa X

Kansas X $1 per case

Kentucky

Louisiana na X 

Maine

Maryland X $0

Massachusetts

Michigan X b na

Minnesota X $40 per month X X $0

Mississippi

Missouri X c X X d $0

Montana

Nebraska X

Nevada X $0

New Hampshire

New Jersey na na na

New Mexico X $0

New York X X $52 per search

North Carolina

North Dakota X

Ohio X $0

Oklahoma X

Oregon X X

Pennsylvania X

Puerto Rico X $0

Rhode Island X $0

South Carolina X $0

South Dakota $15 per name

Tennessee X

Texas X $166.50 per copy X ... X ...

Utah X ...

Vermont X $.50 per docket query

Virgin Islands

Virginia X $1 per page

Washington X ... X ...

West Virginia

Wisconsin X $0

Wyoming
Table 31 explanatory notes:

▪ ... Not available.

 committee. No distribution of court records shall be made for commercial gain.

d Available free through Missouri website www.courts.mo.gov on casenet.

Data footnotes:

▪ na Not applicable.

a Some Georgia counties provide court info via public site, but no State entities.

b Limited to Michigan public data.

c Bulk distribution of Missouri court records shall be made only upon approval of the State judicial records 
Table 32. Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes, 2006 Retained Nonretained Nonprofit Government Others

 Nonprofit Government Other Retained Nonretained Retained Nonretained Retained Nonretained

Alabama X ... ... $25 $25 $25 ... ... $25 ... ... na na ... ...

Alaska ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

American Samoa X $2 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0

Arizona X $25 $5 na na na na 0 ... ... na na ... ...

Arkansas X $23 $20 $23 $23 $10 $10

California X $32 $32 na na na na na na $32 $32 na na na na

Colorado X $16.50 $6.85 $13 $16.50

Connecticut X $25 $25 na na na $25 0 $18 $18 na na $18 $18

Delaware X $37.50 $37.50

District of Columbia X $35 $35 $35 $35 na a na na na $5 a

Florida X $23 $23 $23 $23 $23 $23 $23 $23 na $18 na $23 na $23 b

Georgia X $15 na na na na na na $15 na na na na

Guam X $32

Hawaii X na $20 $13 na $13 $20 $20 c $20 na $20 na $13 na $20 c

Idaho X $10 na na na na $10 $10 $10 $10 na na na $10 $10

Illinois X $15-$44 $15-20 $16 $16 $20 $20 $15-44 $15-20 $16 $20

Indiana X $0 $10 $0 $0 $15 $0 $0 $7 $0 $10 $0 $15 $0 $7

Iowa X $10 $10 $13 $13 $15 $5 $5

Kansas X $30 na $17.50 $17.50 $12.50 $20 $20 15 $20 na $17.50 na $20 na

Kentucky X na $10 na na na $10 $10 $10 na $10 na na na $10

Louisiana X $26 $26 $26 $26

Maine X $25 $25 $15 $0 $25 $0

Maryland X $38 d na na na na $38 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 $0 $0 $0 e $8 $15 $15 $0 $15

Mississippi X $32

Missouri X $14 na na na na $5 $5 $5 $14 na na na na

Montana X $10 $11.50 $11.50 $11.50 $10 $10 $10 $10 $11.50 $10

Nebraska X $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15

Nevada X $21 $21 na na na f na na f na $21 $21 na na na na f

New Hampshire X na na $7.50 0 $15 na $7.50

New Jersey X $40 $30 na na na $10 $18 $18 na $18 na na na $10

New Mexico X $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10

New York X $75 $75 na na na $50 na na na na

North Carolina ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

North Dakota X $15 $5 $15 $15 $15 $15

Ohio X $15 $15 na na na na na na $15 $15 na na na na

Oklahoma X $19 $19 na na na $15 $15 $15 na na na na na $15

Oregon X $27 $28-53 $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 na $35 na na na $0 $0 $5 na na na na na $5

South Carolina X $25 $25 $8 $18 $18 $18

South Dakota X $20

Tennessee X $24 $29 $29 $29 $18 $29

Texas X $15 $15 $1 $1 $1 $10 $10 $10 $15 $15 $1 $1 $10 $10

Utah X $20 $15 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $20 $15 $10 $10 $10 $10

Vermont X na $10 na na na $10 $10 $10 na $0 na na na $0

Virgin Islands X g $39 $39 $0 $0

Virginia X $37 $8/$16 $15/$20 $8/$16 $15/$20 $26

Washington X $30 $0 $10 $10 $0 $35 $35 $0 $10 $0

West Virginia X $20 na na

Wisconsin X na $15 $2 $5 $13 $7 $10 $18 na $15 na na na na

Wyoming X $15 na na na na $10 na na

Name search 

via mail

State

Fee for 

conducting 

criminal history 

record search 

for noncriminal 

justice 

requester

Amount of fee charged for volunteers

Name search via Internet

Amount of fee charged 

Name search via 

Internet

Fingerprintsupported searchFingerprintName search via mail supported search
 justice purposes.

 supported with fingerprints.

Alabama www.background.alabama.gov

Florida

Hawaii

Indiana

Kansas

Maine

Michigan

Minnesota

Montana

South Carolina

Texas

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

▪ na Not applicable.

Table 32 explanatory notes:

▪ ... Not available.

Data footnotes:

a Local District of Columbia criminal searches are $7. Cost of a fingerprint-based FBI search is $35.

b All Florida criminal history checks are $23 except those done by submission of fingerprints under the National Child 

 Protection Act. Prints are retained only by specific authorization in statute. Volunteer prints are not retained.

c In Hawaii, no fee is assessed if the volunteer being checked is to work for a nonprofit agency with direct contact with 

 children, the elderly, or the disabled. No fee is assessed for government checks through the mail if for criminal

d In Maryland, the fee is $38 ($18 for the rap computerized criminal history prep and delivery, $20 for the fingerprinting). 

e Minnesota public information only.

f Nevada does not provide a name check search outside of our Civil Name Check Program, which is mainly geared toward 

g Manual checks in Virgin Islands are conducted along with an National Crime Information Center (NCIC) check that is 

 casinos.

Websites for public criminal history information:

http://www2.fdle.state.fl.us/CCHinet/ 

www.ecrim.ehawaii.gov 

http://www.in.gov/ai/appfiles/isp-lch/ 

www.kansas.gov/kbi/criminalhistory

www.maine.gov/pcr

www.michigan.gov/ICHAT

https://cch.state.mn.us/

https://watch.wsp.wa.gov

http:\\wi-recordcheck.org

https://app.mt.gov/choprs/

www.sled.sc.gov

http://records.txdps.state.tx.us

http:apps.vsp.virginia.gov/NCJIS
Table 33. Fees charged for additional services by State criminal history repository, 2006 

Mailed fingerprint 

cards/forms

"No resubmission of 

prints" Retained service "Rap back" service Fee allocation to repository operations

Alabama ... ... ... ... % of fees to repository

Alaska

American Samoa $2 $2 $1 $1 All fees go to general fund

Arizona na na na na All fees to repository

Arkansas 50% of fees to repository

California na na na na All fees to general fund

Colorado % of fees to repository

Connecticut $0 na na na All fees to general fund

Delaware All fees to general fund

District of Columbia All fees to general fund

Florida $0 na $6 na All fees to trust fund

Georgia All fees to general fund

Guam 6% of fees to repository

Hawaii na na na na All fees to repository

Idaho na na na na All fees to repository

Illinois $20-44 All fees to repository

Indiana $10 na na na All fees (-$8) to general fund 

Iowa All fees to repository

Kansas $0 $0 $0 $0 All fees to repository

Kentucky $0 na na na All fees to repository

Louisiana All fees to Criminal ID fund

Maine $25 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 % of fees to repository

Minnesota All fees to repository

Mississippi All fees to Dept. of Public Safety

Missouri na na na na All fees to repository

Montana All fees to repository

Nebraska $15 $15 $0 All fees to repository

Nevada $0 $0 na na All fees to repository

New Hampshire na All fees to repository

New Jersey $0 $18 $10 $10 All fees to repository

New Mexico 25% of fees to repository

New York $0 $75 $0 $0 ...

North Carolina

North Dakota All fees go to general fund

Ohio $0 $0 $0 $0 All fees to repository

Oklahoma na All fees to repository

Oregon na na na na All fees to repository

Pennsylvania All fees go to general fund

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island na na na na All fees go to general fund

South Carolina All fees to support agency

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 All fees to repository

Virgin Islands % of fees to repository 

Virginia $13 All fees go to general fund

Washington $30 / $35 a 44% of fees to repository

West Virginia na All fees to trooper retirement fund

Wisconsin $0 na na na 53% of fees to repository

Wyoming $0 na na na All fees go to general fund

State

Amount charged for additional service 
a In Washington, notarized letters are $5 per notary seal.

Table 33 explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.
Table 34. Fees charged for web-based services by State criminal history repository or other entity for noncriminal justice purposes, 2006

to repository

to office of court 

administration

Alabama Yes Registration info $25 per check Yes $25 $22 33%

Alaska No

American Samoa No No na na na

Arizona No Yes na

Arkansas Yes Credit info $22 per person

California No No

Colorado Yes Credit info $6.85 per name Yes $6.85 $5.25 $0

Connecticut No Yes ... ... ...

Delaware No No na na na

District of Columbia No No

Florida Yes Credit info $23 per record No na

Georgia No No

Guam No No

Hawaii Yes Registration info; 

credit info

a $13 per printout No b $3 $10 

Idaho No No

Illinois No No

Indiana Yes Credit info $16.32 per search No $8 $0 $0

Iowa No c Yes

Kansas Yes Credit info $17.50 per name No

Kentucky No

Louisiana No

Maine Yes Registration info; 

credit info

$25 per search No

Maryland No No

Massachusetts Yes Registration info; 

credit info

$30 per check No

Michigan Yes Registration info; 

credit info

$10 per search No na na na

Minnesota Yes d Yes

Mississippi No

Missouri No Yes 

Montana Yes Credit info $11.50 per request $11.50 $10

Nebraska No

Nevada No No

New Hampshire No No

New Jersey No na No na na na

New Mexico Yes Registration info $10 per check No $3 $7 $0

New York No No

North Carolina No

North Dakota No Yes

Ohio Yes Registration info $15 per check No

Oklahoma No Yes

Oregon Yes e Registration info $10 per name check No na na na

Pennsylvania Yes Registration info; 

credit info

$10 Yes na

Puerto Rico No No na

Rhode Island No No

South Carolina Yes Registration info; 

credit info

Yes f No

South Dakota No No

Tennessee No No

Texas Yes Registration info; 

credit info

$3.15 per search No

Utah No No

Vermont No Yes $.50 per docket 

query

$0 ...

Virgin Islands No

Virginia Yes Registration info No na na na

Washington Yes Registration info g $10 per name/DOB Yes

West Virginia No No

Wisconsin No Registration info Per inquiry Yes 

Wyoming No No

Requirements for 

public Internet 

access 

Repository provides 

web-based noncriminal background 

State checks

Amount returned by private 

agency-maintained website

Amount collected by 

private agencymaintained website

State office of court 

administration provides 

web-based noncriminal 

background checks

Fees for public 

Internet access
Information Network of Kansas: www.kansas.gov/kbi/criminalhistory

State websites for public noncriminal background checks/court records check:

Arizona: www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/notification/default.asp

Arkansas State Police/Information Network: www.asp.ar.gov

Colorado courts: www.cocourts.com

Data footnotes:

d Minnesota public records only.

e Oregon provides inquiry and "no record" responses only. Actual record is mailed via U.S. Mail (USPS).

a Public users in Hawaii can also register with portal vendor and setup account/billing.

b Hawaii court case information is publicly available regardless of reason.

c Iowa is finalizing Internet access for the public to acquire background criminal history record checks for a fee of $10.

 It will require a valid credit card. Planned implementation is spring 2008. 

Table 34 explanatory notes:

▪ ... Not available.

▪ na Not applicable.

Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation: www.webcheck.ag.state.oh.us

f South Carolina also charges an $8 Internet fee for nonprofit organizations.

g Washington provides searches using a credit card or by establishing billing account. No fee for nonprofit account setup.

Michigan State Police and Department of Information Technology: www.michigan.gov/ICHAT

Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension: https://cch.state.mn.us/, www.mncourts.gov

Missouri Office of State Court Administration: www.courts.mo.gov

Montana Interactive/Repository: https://app.mt.gov/choprs/

Florida Department of Law Enforcement: http://www2.fdle.state.fl.us/CCHinet

Hawaii: Private contractor: www.ecrim.ehawaii.gov

Indiana Office of Technology: http://www.in.gov/ai/appfiles/isp-lch

Oklahoma State Courts Network: www.oscn.net

Oregon State Police: www.osp.state.or.us/public records

Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System: www.courts.state.pa.us

Washington State Patrol: https://watch.wsp.wa.gov

Wisconsin Department of Justice: http://wi-recordcheck.org, http://wcca.wicourts.gov

South Carolina: www.sled.sc.gov

Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Records Service: http://records.txdps.state.tx.us

Vermont Courts Online: https://secure.vermont.gov/vtcdas/user

Virginia State Police, Central Criminal Records Exchange: https://apps.vsp.virginia.gov/NCJIS
State Total III records

State-supported 

records FBI-supported records

Percent supported by 

State

Percent supported by 

FBI

Total 59,244,926 39,310,404 19,934,522 66% 34%

Alabama 731,004 281,911 449,093 39 61 

Alaska † 169,868 95,422 74,446 56 44

American Samoa 698 ... 698 0 100

Arizona † 1,210,130 534,441 675,689 44 56

Arkansas † 477,011 319,067 157,944 67 33

California 7,345,981 6,424,106 921,875 87 13

Colorado *† 1,045,292 848,505 196,787 81 19

Connecticut † 400,504 242,097 158,407 60 40

Dist of Columbia 215,319 2 215,317 0 100

Delaware 225,054 184,683 40,371 82 18

Florida *† 4,387,521 3,784,899 602,622 86 14

Georgia † 2,559,281 2,347,137 212,144 92 8

Guam 23,061 ... 23,061 0 100

Hawaii † 185,470 17,655 167,815 10 90

Idaho † 249,502 208,026 41,476 83 17

Illinois 2,597,400 1,048,821 1,548,579 40 60

Indiana 882,666 457,928 424,738 52 48

Iowa † 495,498 219,425 276,073 44 56

Kansas *† 548,914 126,161 422,753 23 77

Kentucky 572,111 119,920 452,191 21 79

Louisiana 1,020,720 480,738 539,982 47 53

Maine † 112,194 2 112,192 0 100

Maryland † 1,029,154 676,260 352,894 66 34

Massachusetts 586,339 256,277 330,062 44 56

Michigan 1,505,381 1,320,256 185,125 88 12

Minnesota † 609,969 559,706 50,263 92 8

Mississippi 277,036 86,448 190,588 31 69

Missouri † 976,009 718,781 257,228 74 26

Montana *† 157,990 137,324 20,666 87 13

Nebraska 259,165 109,559 149,606 42 58

Nevada † 583,624 356,625 226,999 61 39

New Hampshire † 156,181 54,797 101,384 35 65

New Jersey *† 1,587,748 1,487,653 100,095 94 6

New Mexico 417,397 159,115 258,282 38 62

New York 3,172,109 2,980,287 191,822 94 6

North Carolina *† 1,114,041 1,026,947 87,094 92 8

North Dakota 80,339 48,704 31,635 61 39

N. Mariana Islands 4,579 ... 4,579 0 100

Ohio † 1,443,735 1,169,530 274,205 81 19

Oklahoma *† 593,020 323,807 269,213 55 45

Oregon *† 776,067 679,210 96,857 88 12

Pennsylvania 1,696,820 1,252,988 443,832 74 26

Puerto Rico 133,460 ... 133,460 0 100

Rhode Island 153,284 122,874 30,410 80 20

South Carolina † 1,159,324 1,104,319 55,005 95 5

South Dakota 195,201 107,690 87,511 55 45

Tennessee † 1,116,419 287,569 828,850 26 74

Texas 4,300,877 4,006,073 294,804 93 7

Utah 399,876 340,988 58,888 85 15

Vermont 75,289 2 75,287 0 100

Virgin Islands 14,940 ... 14,940 0 100

Virginia 1,404,884 1,102,280 302,604 78 22

Washington 1,078,385 605,392 472,993 56 44

West Virginia † 230,150 96,212 133,938 42 58

Wisconsin 757,963 278,050 479,913 37 63

Wyoming † 132,175 113,735 18,440 86 14

Federal 5,510,043 ... 5,510,043 0 100

Foreign 100,754 ... 100,754 0 100

Table 35. 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, 2006

 (The information in this table was provided by the Criminal Justice Information Services Division, FBI.)
† State is a signatory of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact.

Table 35 footnotes:

 * State is a participant in the National Fingerprint File (NFF).
Survey instrument: Survey of State Criminal

History Information Systems, 2006
1

OMB No. 1121-0312: Approval Expires 05/31/2010 

Survey of State Criminal 

History Information 

Systems, 2006 

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 53 jurisdictions including 

the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 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. 

Those of you who have responded to the survey in past years will notice major changes in both process and 

format, the most significant being that your survey answers can be submitted online. If more convenient, the 

survey sections may also be printed, completed manually, and faxed to Mr. Kevin Romero, SEARCH at 916-

392-8440. Responses will also be accepted by mail. 

Some survey questions have been added, while others have been deleted in order to more precisely track 

developing trends over time. To assist the repositories, the survey has been divided into ten 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. These survey revisions are 

due, in part, to responses to our request for suggestions and changes. 

Please make note of the following: 

1. All reported data should be for calendar year 2006 or as of December 31, 2006. 

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. If a question is not applicable to your repository, please indicate “NA” in the “Additional Comments” 

area at the end of each section. 
2

(table 1, 2) 

(table 2) 

(table 1, 2) 

(table 1a, 16) (table 1a) 

(table 1a) (table 1a) 

(table 1a) (table 1a) 

(table 1a) 

(table 18) 

(table 18) 

(table 18) 

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, 2006? 

Automated Records _______________ (Include subjects whose records 

are partially automated) 

Manual Records ________________ 

Total Records ________________ 

2. Fingerprints processed in 2006: 

 Purpose Number Percentage of Totals

 2006 volume

a) Criminal ___________ ____________ 

b) Non-Criminal (not retained) ____________ ____________ 

c) Non-Criminal (retained) ____________ (b+c)____________ 

d) What was the total number of fingerprint-based 

 background checks conducted during 2006? (a+b+c)___________ 

3. (a) Non-criminal justice fingerprints represent ___________ percent of the total fingerprints 

maintained by the state criminal history repository. 

(b) Percentage of criminal prints submitted via LiveScan during 2006? __________ % 

(c) Percentage of non-criminal prints submitted via LiveScan during 2006? __________ % 

SECTION I: REPOSITORY 

This section completed by 

Name ___________________________ Title ____________________________ 

Agency ____________________________________________________________ 

Phone __________________________ Email ____________________________ 

Date Completed _____________________________________________________ 
3

(table 16) 

(table 16) 

(table 5) 

(table 5) 

4. (a) What percentage of arrest events (case cycles) in your automated criminal history file are 

supported by fingerprints? __________ % 

(b) If less than 100%, check all that apply. 

 State law and/or policy does not require all arrest information to be supported by fingerprints 

 Arrest information is entered from final dispositions which are not supported by fingerprints 

 Arrest information might be entered from criminal summonses or cite & release situations, 

 which are not supported by fingerprints 

 Arrest reported with fingerprints, but subsequently purged by law or court order 

 Prior manual records are only automated upon receipt of new information 

 Other __________________________________________________________ 

5. (a) Do you currently have felony 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? 

 Yes, all subjects with felony convictions 

 Yes, some subjects with felony convictions 

 No 

(b) If any yes response above, when is the flag set? 

 When arrest information is entered 

 When conviction information is entered 

 At both arrest and conviction 

 Other __________________________________________________________ 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
4

(table 20) 

(table 20) 

(table 20) 

(table 20) 

(table 20) 

(table 20) 

1. How many felony arrests were reported during calendar year 2006? 

____________ arrests 

2. (a) In 2006, what was the average time elapsed between the occurrence of a felony arrest and 

the receipt of the fingerprints and arrest data by the repository? 

____________ days or __________ hours or  Unknown 

(b) In 2006, what was the average time elapsed between receipt of felony arrest fingerprints by 

the repository and entry of identification data into the master name index? 

____________ days or __________ hours or  Unknown 

(c) In 2006, what was the average time elapsed between receipt of felony arrest fingerprints by 

the repository and entry of identification data into the criminal history database? 

____________ days or __________ hours or  Unknown 

 

3. (a) In 2006, what was the average time elapsed between occurrence of non-felony arrest and the 

receipt of the fingerprints and arrest data by the repository? 

____________ days or __________ hours or  Unknown 

(b) In 2006, what was the average time elapsed between the receipt of non-felony arrest

fingerprints by the repository and entry of identification data into the master name index? 

____________ days or __________ hours or  Unknown 

SECTION II: ARREST / FINGERPRINT 

REPORTING AND ENTRY 

This section completed by 

Name ___________________________ Title ____________________________ 

Agency ____________________________________________________________ 

Phone __________________________ Email ____________________________ 

Date Completed _____________________________________________________ 
5

(table 20) 

(table 18) 

(table 18) 

(table 17) 

(table 20) 

(table 20) 

(table 20) 

(table 20) 

(c) In 2006, what was the average time elapsed between the receipt of non-felony arrest

fingerprints by the repository and entry of arrest data into the criminal history database? 

____________ days or __________ hours or  Unknown 

4. How many fingerprints were submitted to the repository via LiveScan during 2006? 

____________ criminal justice 

____________ non-criminal justice 

5. What are the four largest arresting agencies in your state, and what percentage of statewide 

arrests are processed by each of those four agencies? 

Agency Name Percent of statewide Are arrests reported 

 arrests processed via LiveScan devices?

______________________________ ____________%  Yes  No 

______________________________ ____________%  Yes  No 

______________________________ ____________%  Yes  No 

______________________________ ____________%  Yes  No 

6. (a) As of December 31, 2006, was there a backlog of arrest data to be entered into the criminal 

history database? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) If yes, how many unprocessed or partially processed arrest data or fingerprint cards (work 

backlog) did you have at that time? 

____________ 

7. (a) As of December 31, 2006, was there a backlog of arrest data to be entered into the AFIS 

database? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) If yes, how many unprocessed or partially processed fingerprint cards (work backlog) did 

you have at that time? 

____________ 
6

(table 3) 

(table 3a) 

(table 17) 

(table 3a) 

(table 3a) 

(table 17) 

(table 17) 

(table 17) 

8. What biometric information does your repository accept? Check all that apply. 

 Rolled ten-prints 

 Latent fingerprints 

 Flat prints 

 2-Finger prints for identification purposes 

 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: ___________________________________ 

9. (a) As of December 31, 2006, how many images of scars, marks, and tattoos did you have in 

your repository database? 

_______________ 

(b) As of December 31, 2006, how many facial images or booking photos did you have in your 

repository database? 

_______________ 

(c) As of December 31, 2006, how many palm print images did you have in your repository 

database? 

_______________ 

10. Please indicate the number of LiveScan devices in use as of December 31, 2006: 

(a) Total number of LiveScan devices available for 

 criminal justice purposes only: __________ 

 (b) Total number of LiveScan devices available for 

non-criminal justice purposes only: __________ 

 (c) Total number of LiveScan devices used for both 

criminal and non-criminal justice purposes: __________ 

 (d) Grand total of LiveScan devices in use: __________ 
7

(table 18) 

(table 18) 

(table 18) 

11. Please indicate: 

 (a) Total number of agencies that submit criminal prints via LiveScan: ____________ 

 (b) Total number of agencies that submit non-criminal prints via LiveScan: ____________ 

 (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): ____________ 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
8

(table 27) 

(table 27) 

(table 28) 

(table 28) 

1. (a) Does the repository or some other agency perform random sample audits of criminal history 

 records of contributing agencies to ensure accuracy and completeness of repository records, 

 and to ensure that the agencies comply with applicable laws and regulations? Check all that 

 apply: 

 Yes. If yes, please check all that apply: 

 Number of Law Enforcement / Criminal Justice agencies audited in 2006 ____________ 

 Number of Courts audited in 2006 ____________ 

 Number of Non-criminal justice entities audited in 2006 ____________ 

 Number of Others audited ____________ 

 Please identify others: _____________________________________________________ 

 No audits performed 

(b) By whom / what agency were the audits conducted? 

 Repository Function 

 State Police 

 Judicial Agency 

 State Accounting Office 

 Other State Agency __________________________________________________________ 

 Other _____________________________________________________________________ 

2. (a) Has an audit of the repository’s computerized criminal history database (other than ongoing 

systematic sampling) been conducted within the past five years to determine the level of 

accuracy and completeness of the criminal history record file? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) If such an audit has been conducted, what was the date of the last audit? 

____________ 

SECTION III: DATA QUALITY PROCEDURES 

This section completed by 

Name ___________________________ Title ____________________________ 

Agency ____________________________________________________________ 

Phone __________________________ Email ____________________________ 

Date Completed _____________________________________________________ 
9

(table 28) 

(table 28) 

(table 28) 

(table 28) 

(table 26) 

(table 30) 

(c) What period of time was covered by that audit? 

____________ to ____________ 

(d) By whom / what agency was that audit conducted? 

 Internal Repository Function 

 State Police 

 Judicial Agency 

 State Accounting Office 

 Other State Agency __________________________________________________________ 

 Other _____________________________________________________________________ 

(e) Were any changes made as a result of the audit to improve data quality? Check all that 

apply. 

 Audit functions / procedures 

 Automation conversion / redesign / enhancements 

 Disposition / arrest reporting procedures / enhancements 

 Felony flagging 

 Fingerprint card / system conversion / enhancements 

 Inter-agency / local agency interface 

 Legislation 

 Plan / strategy development 

 Task force / advisory group establishment 

 Training seminars / policy and procedures manuals 

 Other _____________________________________________________________________ 

(f) If there is a URL or other source that may be accessed to view the results of your audit, 

please provide: ________________________________________________________________ 

3. What procedures does the repository employ to prevent the entry and storage of inaccurate 

data, and to detect and correct inaccurate entries? Check all that apply. 

 Manual review of incoming source documents or reports 

 Computer edit and verification programs 

 Manual review of the criminal history record before dissemination 

 Random sample comparisons of repository files with stored source documents 

 Error lists returned to reporting agencies 

 Other _____________________________________________________________________ 

4. (a) What back-up recovery practices or technologies are used for computerized criminal history 

 database? 

 Mirroring System 

 Routine back-up every ______________________ Days Weeks Months (circle one) 

 Other _____________________________________________________________________ 
10

(table 3a) 

(table 28) 

(b) What back-up recovery practices or technologies are used for the AFIS database? 

 Mirroring system 

 Routine back-up every _____________________ Days Weeks Months (circle one) 

 Other ____________________________________________________________________ 

 5. Are any initiatives to improve data quality currently under way? 

 Automation conversion / redesign / enhancements 

 Disposition / arrest reporting procedures / enhancements 

 Felony flagging 

 Fing erprint card / system conversion / enhancements 

 Inter-agency / local agency interface 

 Legislation 

 Plan / strategy development 

 Task force / advisory group establishment 

 Training seminars / policy and procedures manuals 

 None at this time 

 Other _____________________________________________________________________ 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 
11

(table 25) 

(table 25) 

(table 25) 

(table 25) 

1. (a) Is your state an AFIS partner with one or more states? 

 Yes 

 No 

Is so, please list the names of your partner states: ____________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________ 

 (b) As of December 31, 2006 was your state enhancing, upgrading or redesigning its AFIS 

 database system? 

 

 Yes. Briefly describe: _______________________________________________________ 

 No 

(c) As of December 31, 2006 in what phase was your enhancement / upgrade? 

 Planning phase / securing funding 

 Drafting or finalizing specifications / RFP 

 Reviewing bids or proposals 

 Implementation and testing phase 

(d) Who was your AFIS vendor as of December 31, 2006? 

 

 Lockheed –Martin 

 Sagem Morpho 

 Motorola-PrintTrak 

 Cogent 

 NEC 

 Other _____________________________________________________________________ 

SECTION IV: DATABASE SYSTEMS AND VENDORS

This section completed by 

Name ___________________________ Title ____________________________ 

Agency ____________________________________________________________ 

Phone __________________________ Email ____________________________ 

Date Completed _____________________________________________________ 
12

(table 25a) 

(table 25a) 

(table 25a) 

2. (a) As of December 31, 2006 was your state enhancing, upgrading or redesigning its 

 computerized criminal history database system? 

 Yes. Briefly describe: _______________________________________________________ 

 No

(b) If yes, as of December 31, 2006 in what phase was your criminal history database 

enhancement / upgrade? 

 Planning phase / securing funding 

 Drafting or finalizing specifications / RFP 

 Reviewing bids or proposals 

 Implementation and testing phase 

(c) Who was your computerized criminal history vendor as of December 31, 2006? 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 
13

(table 8, 8a) 

(table 8a) 

(table 8a) 

(table 8a) 

(table 8a) 

(table 1) 

(table 1) 

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 2006? 

____________ dispositions 

(b) Of those, how many were sent to the FBI? 

____________ dispositions sent to the FBI 

(c) Of the dispositions forwarded to the FBI, what percent were sent by Machine Readable Data 

(MRD)? 

____________ % 

(d) What percent were sent via hard copy / paper? 

____________ % 

(e) What percent were sent by other than MRD or hard copy? 

____________ % 

2. What percentage of all arrests in the criminal history database have had final dispositions 

recorded? 

__________% Arrests entered within past five years 

__________% Arrests in entire database 

 

SECTION V: DISPOSITIONS 

This section completed by 

Name ___________________________ Title ____________________________ 

Agency ____________________________________________________________ 

Phone __________________________ Email ____________________________ 

Date Completed _____________________________________________________ 
14

(table 1, 8a) 

(table 8a) 

(table 9a) 

(table 9a) 

(table 9a) 

(table 9a) 

(table 9a) 

(table 9a) 

(table 9, 14) 

(table 10) 

 __________% of felony charges with final dispositions 

 __________% of domestic violence misdemeanor charges with final dispositions 

 Cannot determine domestic violence charges specifically. 

3. (a) In 2006, what percentage of dispositions were submitted to the state criminal history 

repository? 

___________ % from law enforcement agencies 

___________ % from local courts 

___________ % from state court administrators office or other state entity 

(b) Of those in 3(a) above, what percent were submitted electronically? 

____________ % from law enforcement agencies 

____________ % from local courts 

____________ % from state court administrators office or other state entity 

4. Of the dispositions received at the repository during the year 2006, what percentage could not 

be linked to a specific arrest record? 

____________ % 

5. What procedures does your repository employ to encourage complete disposition reporting? 

 Periodic generation of lists of arrests in the criminal history database for which final 

 dispositions have not been reported 

 Notices to criminal justice agencies 

 Field visits to courts 

 Field visits to arresting agencies 

 Field visits to prosecutors 

 Form letters 

 Telephone calls 

 Training 

 Conferences / workshops / meetings 

 Audits 

 Other _____________________________________________________________________ 
15

(table 10) 

(table 11) 

(table 12) 

(table 11) 

6. Please provide a list of any other procedures that your repository used to track missing 

disposition information during 2006. 

______________________________________ __________________________________ 

______________________________________ __________________________________ 

______________________________________ __________________________________ 

______________________________________ __________________________________ 

______________________________________ __________________________________ 

7. How is disposition information associated with arrest / charge information in your state’s 

criminal history record database? Check all that apply to each system shown. 

Automated Manual 

System By: System 

 Unique tracking number for individual subject 

 Unique arrest event identifier 

 Unique charge identifier 

 Arrest date 

 Subject name 

 Date of birth 

 Social Security Number 

 Reporting agency ORI 

 Unique state case number 

 FBI number 

 Name and reporting agency case number 

 Other means (please specify) 

 ________________________________ ______________________________

8. Do the methods utilized by your repository for linking disposition information and arrest / 

charge information permit the linking of dispositions to particular charges? 

 Yes 

 No 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
16

(table 7) 

(table 8) 

(table 9) 

(table 9, 14) 

(table 15) 

1. (a) Is there a legal requirement that the repository be notified when a prosecutor declines to 

prosecute a case? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) How many such notifications did the repository receive during calendar year 2006? 

____________ 

2. (a) During the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, did the repository receive 

final prosecutor disposition information that could not be linked to arrest information in the 

criminal history record database? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) If yes, how many of the prosecutor dispositions received in 2006 could not be linked? 

____________ final prosecutor dispositions

(c) What procedure(s) do you follow to obtain missing prosecutorial dispositions? Check all 

that apply. 

 Automated inquiry to the prosecutor upon a pre-determined period of time 

 Indicate time period ________________ 

 Automated inquiry to the prosecutor 

 Manual inquiry to the prosecutor 

 None 

 Other _________________________________________ 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 

SECTION VI: PROSECUTOR REPORTING 

This section completed by 

Name ___________________________ Title ____________________________ 

Agency ____________________________________________________________ 

Phone __________________________ Email ____________________________ 

Date Completed _____________________________________________________ 
17

(table 9) 

(table 31) 

(table 31) 

(table 9) 

(table 31) 

(table 31) 

1. (a) As of December 31, 2006 was any court disposition data reported directly to the repository 

by automated means? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) If yes, indicate how transmitted: 

 Email 

 CD 

 Tape 

 Online 

 Other _____________________________________________________________________ 

 

2. (a) Does the repository provide bulk data to commercial third parties for redissemination? 

 Yes 

 No 

 (b) What fee(s) does the repository charge to those commercial entities? 

 $_______________________ per _______________________________ 

3. (a) Does the court system in your state provide bulk data to commercial third parties for 

redissemination? 

 Yes 

 No 

 (b) What fee(s) does the court system charge to those commercial entities? 

 $_______________________ per _______________________________ 

SECTION VII: COURT REPORTING 

This section completed by 

Name ___________________________ Title ____________________________ 

Agency ____________________________________________________________ 

Phone __________________________ Email ____________________________ 

Date Completed _____________________________________________________ 
18

(table 31) 

(table 7) 

(table 21) 

(table 21) 

(table 21) 

(table 21) 

(table 21) 

(table 31) 

4. (a) Does the court system in your state make court case information publicly available over the 

internet?

 

 Yes 

 No 

 (b) What fee(s) does the court charge for court case information? 

 $_______________________ per _______________________________ 

5. Courts with felony jurisdiction are legally required to report final trial court dispositions to:

 State repository 

 Administrative offices (e.g. Administrative Office of the Courts) which then forward to the 

 state repository 

 No legal reporting requirement exists 

6. In 2006, 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? 

____________ days 

7. In 2006, 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? 

____________ days 

8. As of December 31, 2006, was your state using LiveScan devices in the courtroom to link 

positive identifications with dispositions? 

 Yes 

 No 

9. (a) As of December 31, 2006, was there a backlog of court disposition data to be entered into 

the criminal history database? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) If yes, how many unprocessed or partially processed court disposition forms (work 

backlog) did you have? 

____________ forms 
19

(table 14) 

(table 14) 

(table 15) 

(table 13) 

10. (a) During the calendar year 2006, did the repository receive final court dispositions that could 

not be linked to arrest information in the criminal history record database? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) What procedures do you follow when a link cannot be made? Check all that apply. 

 Create a “dummy” arrest segment with information from the court disposition record 

 Create a “dummy” court segment with information from the correctional data 

 Enter the court information into the database without any linkage to a prior arrest 

 Do not enter the unlinked court information 

 Return to arresting agency to obtain arrest fingerprint cards or arrest information 

 Other __________________________________________________________________ 

(c) What procedure(s) do you follow to obtain missing dispositions? Check all that apply. 

 Automated inquiry to a specific court or statewide court administrator upon a 

 pre-determined period of time. Indicate that time period: _________________________ 

 Automated inquiry to a specific court or statewide court administrator 

 Manual inquiry to a specific court or statewide court administrator 

11. (a) With regard to felony convictions, which of the following does your state law provide for? 

 Expungement of the conviction 

 Setting aside of the conviction 

 Granting a pardon 

 Restoration of offender’s civil rights 

 Sealing of conviction record 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 
20

(table 22) 

(table 9) 

(table 22) 

(table 22) 

(table 22) 

1. In 2006, what was the average time elapsed between receipt of correctional data by the 

repository and entry of that information into the criminal history database? 

____________ days 

2. (a) Do any correctional agencies currently report admission / release / status change 

information to the repository by automated means? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) If yes, how many correctional agencies currently report by automated means? 

____________ Agencies representing ______% of the admission/release/status change activity 

3. (a) As of December 31, 2006, was there a backlog of correctional data to be entered into the 

criminal history database? 

 Yes 

 No 

 (b) If yes, how many unprocessed or partially processed correctional reports (work backlog) did 

 you have? 

 ____________ reports 

SECTION VIII: CORRECTIONAL REPORTING 

This section completed by 

Name ___________________________ Title ____________________________ 

Agency ____________________________________________________________ 

Phone __________________________ Email ____________________________ 

Date Completed _____________________________________________________ 
21

(table 7) 

(table 7) 

4. Is there a legal requirement that correctional admissions or releases are reported to the 

repository concerning the admission or release of sentenced felony offenders? 

Admissions Yes No 

Releases Yes No 

5. Is there a legal requirement that probation/parole information be reported to the repository?

 

Probation information  Yes  No 

Parole information  Yes  No 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
22

(table 32) 

(table 32) 

1. (a) Does your state charge a fee for conducting a search of the criminal history record database 

for non-criminal justice purposes? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) If yes, what fees are charged for the state record search as of December 31, 2006? 

 Fingerprint-supported search: $_______ retained 

 $_______ non-retained 

 $_______ volunteer (retained) 

 $_______ volunteer (not retained) 

 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 

 

SECTION IX: REPOSITORY ADMINISTRATION 

This section completed by 

Name ___________________________ Title ____________________________ 

Agency ____________________________________________________________ 

Phone __________________________ Email ____________________________ 

Date Completed _____________________________________________________ 
23

(table 33) 

(table 33) 

(table 29) 

(table 4) 

(table 29) 

(table 29) 

(table 29) 

(table 4) 

(table 4) 

 Additional service fees: $_______ mailed finger-print cards / forms 

 $_______ “no resubmission of prints” for repeat applicant 

 $_______ retained service 

 $_______ “rap back” service 

2. How are fees allocated? 

 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, 2006, does your repository conduct “lights out” processing of 

fingerprints (an identification decision is made without fingerprint technician intervention)? 

 Yes 

 No 

 (b) If yes, what is the total percentage of fingerprints handled with “lights out” processing? 

 __________% 

 (c) If yes, what percentage of submitted criminal fingerprints are handled with “lights out” 

processing? __________% 

(d) If yes, what percentage of submitted non-criminal applicant fingerprints are handled with 

“lights out” processing? ___________% 

4. (a) As of December 31, 2006, does your repository receive mental health information to 

facilitate firearm suitability determinations? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) If yes, how many records are in the repository mental health record database? 

____________ records 

(c) Name of agency providing mental health information (Check all that apply): 

 

 Courts 

 Public mental health providers 

 Private mental health providers 

 Other state agency: _________________________ 
24

(table 5) 

(table 30) 

(table 6a) 

(table 5) 

(table 5) 

(table 30) 

5. (a) Does your repository receive protection order information? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) If yes, how many records are in the state protection order record database as of 

 December 31, 2006? 

 ____________ records 

 (c) Of those in 7(b), how many are also in the FBI-NCIC Protective Order File? 

 ____________ records 

6. (a) As of December 31, 2006, what were the operating hours at your state repository? 

 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 

7. In addition to criminal history information, to what records does your state’s repository provide 

access? 

 Sex Offender Registry 

 Orders of Protection 

 Wants & Warrants 

 Retained Applicant Prints

 Rap back services for criminal justice purposes 

 Wanted persons 

 Protection order 

 Firearm registration 

 Community notification (Check all that apply):  Sex offender residency, employment, 

 or school 

  Victim notification to crime victims 

 Other: ______________________________ 
25

(table 6) 

(table 6) 

(table 6) 

(table 6) 

(table 5) 

8. As of December 31, 2006, what is the total number of registered sex offenders in your state? 

 __________ 

9. Total number of registered sex offenders on publicly available state registry? 

 

 __________ 

10. Percentage of registered sex offenders on publicly available state registry? 

 

 __________ % 

11. Is there a flag on your state’s computerized criminal history for sex offenders? 

 Yes 

 No 

12. Is there a flag on your state’s computerized criminal history for protective orders? 

 Yes 

 No 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
26

(table 24a) 

(table 24) 

X-1: BACKGROUND CHECKS:

1. Is there a state legal requirement to perform background checks for any of the following? 

Check all that apply. 

 Nurses / elderly 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: 

 Yes, always 

 Yes, but only for notification of subsequent arrest 

 Yes, but only for notification of subsequent conviction 

 Other: _____________________________________________ 

SECTION X: NON-CRIMINAL BACKGROUND 

CHECKS 

This section completed by 

Name ___________________________ Title ____________________________ 

Agency ____________________________________________________________ 

Phone __________________________ Email ____________________________ 

Date Completed _____________________________________________________ 
27

(table 29) 

(table 24) 

(table 24) 

(table 24) 

(table 24) 

(table 29) 

X-2: FINGERPRINT-BASED SEARCHES

1. (a) What is the average processing time from fingerprint receipt to response? 

For electronic requests: ____________ days 

For mail requests ____________ days 

(b) Has a goal been established for maximum processing time? 

 Yes, ____________ days 

 No 

2. What information is contained in the results for fingerprint-based non-criminal justice 

background checks? 

 Full record 

 Convictions only 

 Juvenile records 

 Arrests without disposition-over 1 year old 

 Other _____________________________________________________________________ 

3. What is the identification rate of fingerprint-based non-criminal background checks? 

____________ % 

4. Does your state retain fingerprints submitted for any of the following non-criminal justice 

purposes? 

 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. 

5. If your state does retain non-criminal justice fingerprints for any purpose, how are the 

fingerprints utilized? Check all that apply. 

 Matched against existing criminal history database 

 Matched against latent fingerprint database 

 Flagged and matched against subsequent criminal fingerprint submissions 

 Other _____________________________________________________________________ 
28

(table 23) 

(table 23a) 

(table 23a) 

(table 23a) 

X-3: NAME-BASED SEARCHES

1. How many name-based non-criminal background checks were performed in 2006? 

Received via internet ____________ 

Received via mail ____________ 

Received via telephone ____________ 

Total received ____________ 

2. (a) What identifiers are required for a name-based search? Check all that apply. 

 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. 

 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 either of the following? 

 Phonetic-assisted spelling features 

 “Loose” spelling features (first name abbreviations, jr / sr assistance, etc) 

 Interchangeable first/last name 
29

(table 23b) 

(table 23) 

(table 34) 

(table 34) 

(table 34) 

(table 34) 

(table 34) 

(table 34) 

(table 34) 

3. What information is contained in the results for a name-based non-criminal background check? 

Check all that apply. 

 Full record 

 Convictions only 

 Juvenile records 

 Arrests without disposition-over 1 year old 

 Other _________________________________________________________________ 

4. What is the identification rate for name-based non-criminal background checks performed? 

____________ % 

X-4: INTERNET ACCESS

1. (a) Does your repository provide web-based non-criminal background checks to the public? 

  Yes 

  No 

(b) If yes, which agency maintains the website? _________________________________ 

(c) What is the website location (URL)? __________________________________ 

(d) What is required for internet access for the general public? 

 Registration / account information only 

 Credit card payment information only 

(e) Are fees involved for internet access for the general public (not including any registration or 

 account fees)? 

  Yes, $____________ per ____________________ 

  No 

2. (a) Does the state office of court administration provide web-based non-criminal background 

 checks to the public? 

  Yes 

  No 

 (b) If yes, what is the website location (URL)? ________________________________ 
30

(table 34) 

(table 19) 

(table 19) 

(table 19) 

(table 19) 

3. (a) If a private agency maintains the website, how much does it collect per transaction? 

$___________________ per ____________________ 

(b) Of that amount, what how much is returned to the repository? 

$ ___________________ per ____________________ 

(c) How much is returned to the office of court administration? 

$ ___________________ per ____________________ 

X-5: Fingerprint Capture Certification and Privatization

1. (a) Does your state have a certification program for persons taking fingerprints? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) If yes, was this program established through legislation? 

 Yes; Authority Citation: ____________________________________________ 

 No 

2. (a) Has your state privatized the taking of non-criminal justice purposes fingerprints? 

 Yes 

 No 

(b) If yes, how was this accomplished?_____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: