U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Survey of State Criminal 

History Information Systems, 

2014 

Criminal Justice Information Policy 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20531 

Loretta E. Lynch 

Attorney General 

_______

Office of Justice Programs 

Karol V. Mason 

Assistant Attorney General 

World Wide Web site: 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

_______

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

William J. Sabol, Ph.D. 

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, 2014 

A Criminal Justice Information Policy Report 

December 2015 

Criminal Justice Information Policy 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 ii

U.S. Department of Justice 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

William J. Sabol, Ph.D. 

Director 

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

Information and Statistics, Brad Truitt, Chairman, and Scott M. Came, Executive Director. The 

project director was Becki R. Goggins, Director, Law and Policy. Ms. Goggins and Dennis A. 

DeBacco, Justice Information Services Specialist, Law and Policy, authored the report. Mr. 

DeBacco conducted the survey and compiled the results. Support was provided by Twyla R. 

Putt, Manager, Corporate Communications; Jane L. Bassett, Corporate Communications 

Specialist; and Christine E. Lee, Webmaster. This project was supported by Cooperative 

Agreement No. 2011-MU-MU-K054 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), Office of 

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) to SEARCH, The National Consortium 

for Justice Information and Statistics, 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 270, Sacramento, California 

95831. The Federal project monitor was Devon B. Adams, Chief, Criminal Justice Data 

Improvement Program, USDOJ/BJS. Points of view in this document are those of the authors 

and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 iii

Contents 

List of data tables iv

Glossary of terms v 

Maps ix

 Compact States and Territories ix

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

Note to readers 1 

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 and image data 4

Protection order information 4

Warrants and wanted persons 4

Flagging of records 5 

Accessibility of records and services through state repositories 5 

Dispositions 6 

State criminal history repository practices and technologies employed 8 

Noncriminal justice background checks 10 

Rap back 11 

Data tables 13 

Survey instrument: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 iv

List of data tables 

Table 1. Overview of state criminal history record 

systems, December 31, 2014 

Table 1a. Overview of state criminal history record 

system functions, 2014 

Table 2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) 

in state criminal history file, 2010, 2012, 

and 2014 

Table 3. Biometric and image data collection by 

state criminal history repository, 2014 

Table 4. Protection order information and record 

counts, 2014 

Table 5. Warrant and wanted person file 

information, 2014 

Table 5a. Warrant and wanted person file record 

counts, 2014 

Table 6. Flagging of records, 2014 

Table 6a. Access to records, 2014 

Table 7. Number of final dispositions reported to 

state criminal history repository, 2008, 

2010, 2012, and 2014 

Table 7a. Disposition reporting to the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 2014 

Table 7b. Interim disposition reporting and posting 

of indictment information, 2014 

Table 7c. Disposition reporting by local 

prosecutors, 2014 

Table 7d. Matching of dispositions between 

prosecutors and the repository, 2014 

Table 8. Receipt of court disposition information 

by automated means and record matching, 

2014 

Table 8a. Matching of dispositions received to 

specific arrest events, 2014 

Table 9. Arrest fingerprint cards processed, 2008, 

2010, 2012, and 2014 

Table 10. Criminal history system software 

employed by state criminal history 

repositories, 2014 

Table 11. Arrest/fingerprint reporting, 2014 

Table 11a. Electronic fingerprint capture devices and 

the submission of arrest fingerprints, 2014 

Table 11b. Electronic fingerprint capture devices and 

the use of livescan/cardscan for criminal 

and noncriminal justice purposes, 2014 

Table 11c. Electronic fingerprint capture devices and 

the submission of fingerprints for 

noncriminal justice purposes, 2014 

Table 11d. Mobile technology for capturing and 

transmitting fingerprints, 2014 

Table 12. Record/database content and combining 

criminal events with noncriminal justice 

applicant information, 2014 

Table 13. Privatization of noncriminal justice 

fingerprint capture services, 2014 

Table 14. Record processing times, livescan devices 

in courtrooms, and disposition backlogs, 

2014 

Table 15. Noncriminal justice name-based 

background checks, 2014 

Table 16. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based 

background checks, 2014 

Table 17. Legal authority for conducting 

noncriminal justice background checks, 

2014 

Table 18. Lights-out fingerprint processing, 2014 

Table 19. Assessment and allocation of fees, 2014 

Table 20. Web-based services for noncriminal 

justice purposes, 2014 

Table 21. Criminal history records of Interstate 

Identification Index (III) participants 

maintained by state criminal history 

repositories and the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), 2014 

Table 22. Criminal justice rap back services, 2014 

Table 23. Noncriminal justice rap back services, 

2014 

Table 23a. Noncriminal justice rap back services, 

continued, 2014 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 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 use electronically transmitted fingerprint 

images) and automatically extract and 

digitize ridge details and other identifying 

characteristics in sufficient detail to enable 

the computer’s searching and matching 

components to distinguish a single 

fingerprint from thousands or even millions 

of fingerprints previously scanned and 

stored in digital form in the computer’s 

memory. The process eliminates the manual 

searching of fingerprint files and increases 

the speed and accuracy of ten-print 

processing (arrest fingerprint cards and 

noncriminal justice applicant fingerprint 

cards). 

AFIS equipment also can be used to identify 

individuals from “latent” (crime scene) 

fingerprints, even fragmentary prints of 

single fingers in some cases. 

Criminal history record information 

(CHRI) or criminal history record 

information system: A record (or the 

system maintaining such records) that 

includes individual identifiers and describes 

an individual’s arrests and subsequent 

dispositions. Criminal history records do not 

include intelligence or investigative data or 

sociological data such as drug use history. 

CHRI systems usually include information 

on juveniles if they are tried as adults in 

criminal courts. Most, however, do not 

include data describing involvement of an 

individual in the juvenile justice system. 

Data in CHRI systems are usually backed by 

fingerprints of the record subjects to provide 

positive identification. State legislation and 

practices vary widely concerning disclosure of 

juvenile record information and access to 

criminal history records for noncriminal justice 

purposes. 

Data quality: The extent to which criminal 

history records are complete, accurate, and 

timely. In addition, accessibility sometimes is 

considered a data quality factor. The key 

concern in data quality is the completeness of 

records and the extent to which records include 

dispositions as well as arrest and charge 

information. Other concerns include the 

timeliness of data reporting to state and Federal 

repositories, the timeliness of data entry by the 

repositories, the readability of criminal history 

records, and the ability to have access to the 

records when necessary. 

Interstate Identification Index (III): A 

fingerprint-supported “index-pointer” system 

for the interstate exchange of criminal history 

records. Under III, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) maintains an identification 

index to persons arrested for primarily felonies 

or serious misdemeanors under state or Federal 

law. The index includes identification 

information (such as name, date of birth, race, 

and sex), FBI Numbers, and State Identification 

Numbers (SID) from each state that holds 

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. 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 5, 2008, 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Glossary vi

all 50 states and the District of Columbia 

participated in III. Responses are provided 

from FBI files when a jurisdiction, such as a 

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

III system may also be employed when 

responding to fingerprint-based noncriminal 

justice purpose record background checks. 

Participation in III requires that a state 

maintain an automated criminal history 

record system capable of interfacing with 

the III system and also capable of 

responding automatically to all interstate 

and Federal/state record requests. 

Juvenile justice records: Official 

records of juvenile justice adjudications. 

Most adult criminal history record systems 

do not accept such records, which are 

frequently not supported by fingerprints and 

which usually are confidential under state 

law. The FBI accepts and disseminates 

juvenile records. States, however, are not 

required to submit such records to the FBI 

and may be legislatively prohibited from 

doing so. 

Lights-out processing: “Lights-out” 

criminal record processing occurs when 

fingerprint data submitted to a criminal 

record repository by a local justice 

jurisdiction for the purpose of determining 

an individual’s identity, and frequently 

associated criminal history record 

information, is processed electronically and 

a response is returned electronically to the 

submitting jurisdiction, all without human 

intervention. 

Livescan: The term “livescan” refers to 

both the technique and technology used to 

electronically capture fingerprint and palm 

print images without the need for the more 

traditional ink-and-paper methods. Livescan 

devices also allow the electronic transfer of 

digitized images and accompanying textual 

information to a criminal history repository. 

National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC): A computerized information system 

available to law enforcement and criminal 

justice agencies maintained by the FBI. The 

system includes records for wanted persons, 

missing persons, other persons who pose a 

threat to officer and public safety, and various 

property files. The III is accessible through the 

NCIC system. The NCIC operates under a 

shared-management concept between the FBI 

and local, state, tribal, and Federal criminal 

justice agencies. The FBI maintains the host 

computer and provides a telecommunications 

network to the Criminal Justice Information 

Services Systems Agency (CSA) in each of the 

50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and Canada, as 

well as Federal criminal justice agencies. A 

CSA is a criminal justice agency that has overall 

responsibility for the administration and usage 

of NCIC within a district, state, territory, or 

Federal agency. NCIC data may be provided 

only for criminal justice and other specifically 

authorized purposes. 

National Crime Prevention and Privacy 

Compact: An interstate and Federal/state 

compact that establishes formal procedures and 

governance structures for the use of the 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 state and Federal officials. 

The key concept underlying the Compact is 

agreement among all signatory states that all 

criminal history information (except sealed 

records) will be provided in response to 

noncriminal justice requests from another 

state—regardless of whether the information 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Glossary vii

being requested would be permitted to be 

disseminated for a similar noncriminal 

justice purpose within the state holding the 

data. (That is, the law of the state that is 

inquiring about the data—rather than the 

law of the state that originated the data—

governs its use.) In some cases, ratification 

of the Compact will have the effect of 

amending existing state legislation 

governing interstate record dissemination, 

since most states do not currently authorize 

dissemination to all of the Federal agencies 

and out-of-state users authorized under the 

Compact. Noncriminal justice inquiries sent 

to the FBI are handled by a combination of 

information retrieval by the FBI from its 

files of voluntarily contributed state arrest 

and disposition records and by accessing 

state-held information. This requires that the 

FBI maintain duplicates of state records (see 

National Fingerprint File discussion for 

exception) and generally results in less 

complete records being provided, since FBI 

files of state records are not always as 

complete due to reporting deficiencies. 

The Compact was passed by Congress and 

signed into law by President Clinton in 

October 1998. The Compact became 

effective in April 1999, following 

ratification by two state legislatures: 

Montana on April 8, 1999, and Georgia on 

April 28, 1999. As of April 2013, 28

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); 

Hawaii (May 2006); Michigan (January 2009); 

Vermont (July 2010); and New York (March 

2013). Eleven other 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, and 

Virginia. 

National Fingerprint File (NFF): A system 

and procedures designed as a component of the 

III system, which, when fully implemented, 

would establish a totally decentralized system 

for the interstate exchange of criminal history 

records. The NFF will contain fingerprints of 

Federal offenders and at least one set of 

fingerprints on state offenders from each state in 

which an offender has been arrested, primarily 

for a felony or a serious misdemeanor. Under 

the NFF concept, states are required to forward 

only the first-arrest fingerprints of an individual 

to the FBI, accompanied by other identification 

data such as name and date of birth. 

Fingerprints for subsequent arrests are not 

required to be forwarded. Disposition data on 

the individual also is retained at the state 

repository and is not forwarded to the FBI. 

Upon receipt of the first-arrest fingerprint card 

(or electronic images), the FBI enters the 

individual’s fingerprint information, name and 

identifiers in the III, together with an FBI 

Number and an SID Number for each state 

maintaining a record on the individual. Charge 

and disposition information on state offenders 

are maintained only at the state level, and state 

repositories are required to respond to all 

authorized record requests concerning these 

individuals for both criminal justice and 

noncriminal justice purposes. States are required 

to release all data on record subjects for 

noncriminal justice inquiries, regardless of 

whether the data could legally be released for 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Glossary viii

similar purposes within the state. As of 

January 2015, the NFF has been 

implemented in 19 states: Colorado, Florida, 

Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, 

Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, 

New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, West 

Virginia, and Wyoming. 

Next Generation Identification (NGI): 

The NGI system, developed over multiple 

years, is an incremental replacement of the 

FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint 

Identification System (IAFIS) that provides 

new functionality and improves existing 

capabilities. This technological upgrade 

accommodates increased information 

processing and sharing demands from local, 

state, tribal, Federal, and international 

agencies. The NGI system offers state-ofthe-art biometric identification services and 

compiles core capabilities that serve as the 

platform for multimodal functionality. 

Achievement of full operational capabilities 

of NGI was attained on September 15, 2014. 

Positive Identification: Identifying an 

individual using biometric characteristics 

that are unique and not subject to alteration. 

In present usage, the term refers to 

identification by fingerprints, but may also 

include identification by iris images, 

voiceprints, or other techniques. Positive 

identification is distinguished from 

identification using name, sex, date of birth, 

or other personal identifiers as shown on a 

document that could be 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. The employer or designated 

entity is then notified of the individual’s arrest. 

There is a fee for the service in some states; 

other states provide the service free. Some states 

also provide “rap back” services for 

notifications within the criminal justice system. 

For example, this might involve a notification to 

a parole or probation officer of the arrest of a 

person under supervision. 

State central repository: The database (or 

the agency housing the database) that maintains 

criminal history records on all state offenders. 

Records include fingerprint files and files 

containing identification segments and notations 

of arrests and dispositions. The central 

repository is generally responsible for statelevel identification of arrestees. The repository 

agency often is the Criminal Justice Information 

Services Systems Agency (CSA) for contact 

with FBI record systems. Non-fingerprint-based 

inquiries from local agencies for a national 

records check are routed to the FBI via the 

central repository. Although usually housed in 

the Department of Public Safety, the central 

repository is maintained in some states by the 

State Police, Attorney General, or other state 

agency. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Maps ix

Maps 

Compact States and Territories 

(April 10, 2013) 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Maps x

Interstate Identification Index (III) 

National Fingerprint File (NFF) 

(January 13, 2015) 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Introduction • 1

Note to readers

This is the thirteenth 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. Use caution in drawing comparisons 

between the results of earlier surveys and the 

data reported here. Over the course of the 

survey years, the U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), has 

continued to administer assistance programs 

dedicated to improving criminal history 

records. As a result, some states focused new 

or additional resources on the condition of 

their records and, in many cases, know more 

about their records today than in the past. 

Similarly, expansion, advancement, and 

adoption of technology have also made a 

beneficial impact. Some state repositories, 

however, have suffered fiscal cutbacks and 

consequently have had to shift priorities away 

from certain criminal history information 

management tasks. For these and other 

reasons, trend comparisons may not as 

accurately reflect the status of each 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 previous survey questions and 

developed a revised survey instrument for 

2014. 

SEARCH updated formats for easier response 

and collection of data and also added new 

questions to collect information on new and 

emerging information sharing practices. Many 

of these changes were suggested by users and 

respondents during the review process. 

Comments and suggestions focused on: 

 increasing data on wanted person and 

disposition reporting 

 charge tracking and record flagging 

 livescan usage and repository operations 

 rap back services 

 how information is disseminated and how 

it is used. 

SEARCH continues to use an online database 

system to collect more complete and 

comprehensive survey data. Features include 

online, password-protected reporting forms 

that allow 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, 2014 consists of 36 data 

tables of information, and reflects the evolving 

criminal record management environment.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Introduction • 2

Introduction 

This report is based upon the 

results from a survey 

conducted of the 

administrators of the state 

criminal history record 

repositories in March–June 

2015. SEARCH surveyed 56 

jurisdictions, including the 

50 states, the District of 

Columbia, American Samoa, 

the Territory of Guam, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands.1 All 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, 

and Puerto Rico submitted 

survey responses. This 

report presents a snapshot as 

of December 31, 2014. 

Throughout this report, the 

50 states are referred to as 

“states”; the District of 

Columbia, American Samoa, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, 

and the Virgin Islands are 

referred to as “territories,” 

and “Nation” refers 

collectively to both states 

and territories. 

 

1

 Hereafter, these territories are 

referred to as the District of 

Columbia, American Samoa, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and the Virgin 

Islands. 

In addition, the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) was the source for 

some of the information 

relating to criminal history 

records, including state 

participation in the Interstate 

Identification Index (III) 

system (the national 

criminal records exchange 

system) and the number of 

III records maintained by the 

FBI on behalf of the states; 

the number of records in the 

wanted person file; and the 

protection order file of the 

FBI’s National Crime 

Information Center (NCIC) 

database. 

Major findings 

Criminal history files 

Overview of state criminal 

history record systems, 

December 31, 2014 (table 1):

 Forty-nine states, the 

District of Columbia, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

report the total number 

of persons in their 

criminal history files as 

105,569,200, of which 

100,024,400 are 

automated records. (An 

individual offender may 

have records in more 

than one state.) 

 Twenty-nine states, the 

District of Columbia, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

have fully automated 

criminal history files. 

Level of disposition 

reporting 

Overview of state criminal 

history record systems, 

December 31, 2014 (table 1): 

 Seventeen states and 

Guam, representing 38% 

of the individual 

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. 

 Twenty-five states and 

Guam, representing 49% 

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. 

 Twenty-nine states and 

Guam, representing 59% 

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: 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Introduction • 3

— Twenty-one states 

and Guam,

representing 41% 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. 

— Twenty-six states 

and Guam,

representing 54% 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. 

— Thirty-one states and 

Guam, representing 

65% 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. 

 In 11 states and Guam,

90% or more felony 

charges have a final 

disposition recorded in 

the criminal history 

database. In 19 states 

and Guam, 80% or more 

felony charges have a 

final disposition 

recorded in the criminal 

history database. 

Overview of state criminal 

history record system 

functions, 2014 (table 1a): 

 Fifty states, the District 

of Columbia, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico processed 

23,886,000 fingerprint 

records in 2014; of 

these, 11,687,700 were 

used for criminal justice 

purposes and 12,198,500 

were used and submitted 

for noncriminal justice 

licensing, employment,

and regulatory purposes. 

 In 14 states and Guam, 

fingerprints processed 

for criminal justice 

purposes account for 

60% or more of the 

state’s total number of 

fingerprints processed. 

 Thirty-seven states, the 

District of Columbia,

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

retain all fingerprints 

processed for criminal 

justice purposes. 

 Ten states do not retain 

any fingerprints 

processed as part of 

conducting noncriminal 

justice background 

checks. 

Detailed findings 

Status of state criminal 

history files 

Number of subjects 

(individual offenders) in 

state criminal history file, 

2010, 2012, and 2014 (table 

2): 

 Ninety-five percent of 

the approximately 105

million criminal history 

records maintained by 

the state criminal history 

repositories are 

automated. 

 Five states (Arizona, 

California, Connecticut, 

Michigan, and Oregon) 

report an overall 

decrease in the total 

number of subjects in 

manual and automated 

files between 2012 and

2014.

 Four states (Louisiana, 

Massachusetts, 

Mississippi, and New 

York) report an overall 

increase of at least 20% 

in the total number of 

subjects in manual and 

automated files between 

2012 and 2014.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Introduction • 4

 Forty-five states, Guam,

and Puerto Rico report 

an overall increase in the 

total number of subjects 

in manual and automated 

files between 2012 and 

2014. 

Criminal history records of 

Interstate Identification 

Index (III) participants 

maintained by state criminal 

history repositories and the 

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), 2014 as 

of January 14, 2015 (table 

21):

 Nationwide, over 85.9 

million criminal history 

records are accessible 

through the III. The 

states maintain 70% of 

all III records and the 

FBI maintains 30%. 

Biometric and image data 

Biometric and image data 

collection by state criminal 

history repository, 2014 

(table 3): 

 Twenty-five states, the 

District of Columbia,

and Guam reported

accepting latent 

fingerprint images. 

 Eleven states, the 

District of Columbia,

and Guam accept flat 

fingerprint images. 

 Twelve states accept 2-

finger print images for 

identification purposes. 

 Fifteen states accept 10-

finger print images for 

making incarceration/ 

release decisions. 

 Twenty-one states, the 

District of Columbia,

and Guam accept palm 

print images. 

 Ten states and the 

District of Columbia 

accept facial images or 

digitized mug shots. 

Three states accept facial 

recognition data and 

associated biometric 

information.

 Three states (Illinois, 

Michigan, and 

Minnesota) report 

accepting biometric 

information regarding 

scars, marks, and tattoos. 

 One state (California) 

captures biometric iris 

information and one 

state reports accepting 

less than 10-finger print 

images for disposition 

reporting/processing 

purposes. 

Protection order 

information 

Protection order 

information and record 

counts, 2014 (table 4): 

 Forty-two states, the 

District of Columbia,

and Guam maintain 

protection order files, 

which total over 2.1

million records. 

 All states, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, and 

the Virgin Islands enter 

protection order records 

onto NCIC, totaling over 

1.4 million records. 

 Protection orders in 24 

states, the District of 

Columbia, and Guam are 

entered into state 

protection order files by 

courts. 

 In 8 states without 

protection order files, all 

indicate that law 

enforcement agencies 

enter protection orders 

directly to NCIC. 

Warrants and wanted 

persons 

Warrant and wanted 

person file information, 

2014 (table 5),

Warrant and wanted 

person file record 

counts, 2014 (table 5a):
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Introduction • 5

 Forty states, the District 

of Columbia, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico maintain 

warrant files, which total 

over 7.8 million records. 

Of these, over 725,000 

represent felony-level 

warrants and over 3.8 

million represent 

misdemeanor-level 

warrants. 

 Twenty-two states and 

the District of Columbia 

indicate that local law 

enforcement agencies 

enter warrants onto the 

state warrant file. 

 Five states (Hawaii, 

Massachusetts, North 

Carolina, Utah, and 

West Virginia), Guam, 

and Puerto Rico indicate 

that courts enter 

warrants onto the state 

file. 

 In 14 states and the 

District of Columbia, 

entry onto the state file 

is made by both law 

enforcement and courts. 

 In states without warrant 

files, 9 states report that 

law enforcement 

agencies enter warrants 

directly to NCIC. 

 All states, American 

Samoa, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, Puerto 

Rico, and the Virgin 

Islands enter warrant 

records into NCIC,

totaling over 2.1 million 

records as of December 

31, 2014.

Flagging of records 

Flagging of records, 2014 

(table 6): 

 Thirty-three states have 

felony flagging 

capability for all 

criminal history subjects.

 Nine states have felony 

flagging capability for 

some criminal history 

record subjects. 

 Eight states, the District 

of Columbia, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico do not have 

a felony flagging 

capability for criminal 

history record subjects. 

 States employ flagging 

to indicate: 

— a sex offender 

registrant (35 states 

and Guam) 

— a convicted drug 

offender (3 states—

Kansas, Maryland, 

and South Carolina) 

— a violent offender 

(10 states) 

— a domestic violence 

conviction (12 states 

and Guam) 

— a mental health 

adjudication (5 

states—Arkansas, 

California, Hawaii, 

Illinois, and 

Massachusetts) 

— DNA available (30 

states) 

— DNA not yet 

collected (10 states) 

— a person ineligible 

for firearms 

purchases under 

Federal law (14 

states and Guam) 

— a person ineligible 

for firearms 

purchases under state 

law (10 states and 

Guam) 

Accessibility of records 

and services through state 

repositories 

Access to records, 2014 

(table 6a): 

 State repositories offer 

access to: 

— a sex offender 

registry (42 states, 

the District of 

Columbia, Guam, 

and Puerto Rico) 

— orders of protection 

(28 states, the 

District of Columbia,

and Guam) 

— warrants and wanted 

persons information 

(32 states, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Guam) 

— retained applicant 

prints (22 states) 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Introduction • 6

— rap back for criminal 

justice purposes (12 

states) 

— firearm registration 

information (7 states) 

— domestic violence 

incident reports (6 

states) 

Dispositions 

Number of final dispositions 

reported to state criminal 

history repository, 2008, 

2010, 2012, and 2014 (table 

7):

 Forty-eight states, the 

District of Columbia, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

provided data on the 

number of final 

dispositions reported to 

their criminal history 

repositories. They 

indicated that over 12.1 

million final dispositions 

were reported in 2014—

a 12% decrease from 

that reported in 2012. 

Disposition reporting to the 

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), 2014 

(table 7a):

 In accordance with 

acceptable National 

Fingerprint File (NFF) 

practices, 14 NFFparticipating states have 

elected not to send 

disposition information 

to the FBI on second and 

subsequent arrests. 

 Twenty-nine states and 

Guam sent nearly 6.2 

million final case 

dispositions to the FBI. 

 Eighteen states sent 95% 

or more final case 

dispositions to the FBI 

via machine-readable 

data (MRD). 

 Four states (Connecticut, 

Minnesota, New 

Mexico, and Virginia), 

the District of Columbia,

and Guam sent 100% of 

final case dispositions to 

the FBI via hard copy or 

paper. 

 Ten states sent 100% 

final case dispositions to 

the FBI via III message 

key. 

Interim disposition reporting 

and posting of indictment 

information, 2014 (table 

7b): 

 Twenty-five states 

collect charge tracking 

information (interim 

dispositions) to show 

case status through the 

criminal justice process. 

 Sixteen states and Guam 

post indictment 

information to the 

criminal history record. 

Disposition reporting by 

local prosecutors, 2014 

(table 7c): 

Matching of dispositions 

between prosecutors and the 

repository, 2014 (table 7d): 

 Thirty-four states, the 

District of Columbia,

and Puerto Rico receive 

dispositions from local 

prosecutors. 

 Seven states receive 

dispositions from local 

prosecutors via 

automated means. 

 Seven states and Puerto 

Rico receive dispositions 

from local prosecutors 

via prosecutorial case 

management systems. 

 Fifteen states receive 

dispositions in paper 

form. 

 Eighteen states and the 

District of Columbia 

receive dispositions from 

local prosecutors via a 

mix of automated and 

paper-based processes. 

 Twenty-one states match 

dispositions received 

from prosecutors 

through the assignment 

of a Process Control 

Number (PCN) or a 

Transaction Control 

Number (TCN) during 

booking and/or 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Introduction • 7

subsequent to the 

arrest/booking process. 

 Eleven states match 

dispositions received 

from prosecutors 

through a comparison of 

the State Identification 

Number (SID) and 12 

states match dispositions 

by the Arrest Number. 

 Nineteen states match 

dispositions received 

from prosecutors by the 

subject’s name and date 

of birth, and 9 states 

match dispositions by 

charge. 

Receipt of court disposition 

information by automated 

means and record matching, 

2014 (table 8):

 Thirty-nine states and 

the District of Columbia 

receive court disposition 

data by automated 

means. 

 Seventeen states report 

that 90% or more of all 

court dispositions are 

reported to repositories 

by automated means. 

 Twenty-six states match 

dispositions received 

from courts through the 

assignment of a PCN or 

a TCN during booking 

and/or subsequent to the 

arrest/booking process. 

 Twenty-one states and 

the District of Columbia 

match dispositions 

received from courts 

through a comparison of 

the SID, and 19 states 

and the District of 

Columbia match 

dispositions by the 

Arrest Number. 

 Thirty-two states match 

dispositions received 

from courts by the 

subject’s name and date 

of birth, and 16 states 

match dispositions by 

charge. 

Matching of dispositions 

received to specific arrest 

events, 2014 (table 8a):

 Eight states report that

25% or more of all 

dispositions received 

could not be linked to a 

specific repository arrest 

record. 

 Twenty-three states 

place dispositions that 

cannot be matched to a 

specific arrest into a 

suspense log for further 

investigation, and 13 

states reject the 

disposition information. 

 Repository staff in 28 

states and Puerto Rico 

conducts follow-up 

actions when 

dispositions cannot be 

matched to a specific 

arrest. In 25 states and 

Puerto Rico, repository 

staff follows-up and 

contacts the court to 

obtain additional 

information. 

Record processing times, 

livescan devices in 

courtrooms, and disposition 

backlogs, 2014 (table 14)

 Forty states, the District 

of Columbia, and Guam 

report a total of over 3.3

million felony arrests in 

2014.

 Twenty-one states 

reported having backlogs 

in entering court 

disposition data into 

their criminal history 

database. 

 Collectively, 20 states 

have over 3 million 

unprocessed or partially 

processed court 

disposition forms, 

ranging from 200 in 

Michigan and North 

Dakota to over 1 million 

in Nevada. 

 The length of time 

between occurrence of 

the final felony court 

disposition and its 

receipt by the repository 

ranges from 1 day or less 

in 9 states and Guam to 

507 days in Missouri. 

 The number of days 

between receipt of a 

final felony court 

disposition and its entry 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Introduction • 8

into the criminal history 

database ranges from 1 

day or less in 19 states to 

over 2,200 days in 

Michigan. 

 Ten states use livescan 

devices in the courtroom 

to link positive 

identifications with 

dispositions. 

State criminal history 

repository practices and 

technologies employed 

Arrest fingerprint cards 

processed, 2008, 2010, 

2012, and 2014 (table 9): 

 During 2014, over 11.6 

million arrest fingerprint 

cards were submitted to 

state criminal history 

repositories. This is an

8% decrease from that 

reported in 2012. 

 Twenty-one states report 

an overall increase in the 

total number of arrest 

fingerprint cards 

submitted to the state 

repository. 

 Nine states report an 

overall increase of at 

least 10% in the total 

number of arrest 

fingerprint cards 

submitted to the state 

repository. 

 Twenty-nine states 

report an overall 

decrease in the number 

of arrest fingerprint 

cards submitted to the 

state repository. 

Criminal history system 

software employed by state 

criminal history 

repositories, 2014 (table 

10):

 Software components of 

state criminal history 

systems: 

— Current system was 

acquired from a 

software vendor and 

configured for the 

state’s environment, 

but with no software 

modifications (2 

states—New 

Hampshire and 

Wyoming—and 

Guam) 

— Current system was 

acquired from a 

software vendor, but 

customized changes 

were made to 

account for the 

state’s environment 

(19 states and the 

District of Columbia) 

— Current system was 

built in-house either 

by staff or 

contractors (26 states 

and Puerto Rico) 

 Software environment / 

platform used for state 

criminal history systems: 

— Microsoft.NET 

platform (9 states) 

— Java platform (14 

states, the District of 

Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico) 

— Mainframe platform 

(11 states) 

— Other (14 states and 

Guam) 

Arrest/fingerprint reporting, 

2014 (table 11):

 Forty-nine states, the 

District of Columbia, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

report having a total of 

25,439 law enforcement 

agencies. Of these, over 

10,000 law enforcement 

agencies submit arrest 

fingerprint images to 

state repositories using 

livescan technology. 

 Over 400 law 

enforcement agencies 

submit arrest fingerprint 

images to state 

repositories using 

cardscan technology. 

 Nearly 2,700 law 

enforcement agencies 

submit hard copy arrest 

fingerprint cards to state 

repositories. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Introduction • 9

Electronic fingerprint capture 

devices and the submission of 

arrest fingerprints, 2014 (table 

11a):

 Forty-nine states, the 

District of Columbia, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

report receiving over 

10.3 million arrest 

fingerprint records by 

livescan. 

 Over 89,000 fingerprint 

records were scanned 

and submitted to 

repositories using 

cardscan, and over 

591,000 hard copy arrest 

fingerprint cards were 

submitted and received 

from law enforcement. 

Electronic fingerprint capture 

devices and the use of 

livescan/cardscan for criminal 

and noncriminal justice 

purposes, 2014, (table 11b):

 Forty-one states, the 

District of Columbia, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

report having 6,810

livescan devices and 500 

cardscan devices in use 

for both criminal and 

noncriminal justice 

purposes. Similarly, 

8,704 livescan devices 

and 168 cardscan 

devices are used 

exclusively for 

noncriminal justice 

purposes. 

Electronic fingerprint 

capture devices and the 

submission of fingerprints 

for noncriminal justice 

purposes, 2014 (table 11c)

 Forty-three states, the 

District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico report 

receiving over 10 

million noncriminal 

justice fingerprint 

requests by livescan and 

over 627,000 by 

cardscan. 

 Forty-three states, the 

District of Columbia,

and Puerto Rico indicate 

over 80% of noncriminal 

justice fingerprints are 

submitted using livescan 

while 5% are submitted 

using cardscan. 

 Four states and Guam 

indicate that all 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints are 

submitted using other 

methods.

Mobile technology for 

capturing and transmitting 

fingerprints, 2014 (table 11d):

 Twenty-eight states, the 

District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico use 

mobile technology to 

transmit fingerprints for 

identification purposes. 

 Four states use mobile 

technology to transmit 

fingerprints for booking 

purposes. 

 Eight states and the 

District of Columbia 

plan to implement 

mobile technology to 

capture non-fingerprint 

biometric information.

 Twenty-four states 

employ Rapid ID and 

have conducted over 1.7 

million searches that 

produced over 1 million 

“hits” or positive 

responses. 

Record/database content 

and combining criminal 

events with noncriminal 

justice applicant 

information, 2014 (table 

12): 

 Twenty-five states and 

Puerto Rico combine 

both criminal events and 

noncriminal justice 

applicant information in 

the same record. 

 Four states and Puerto 

Rico indicate that 30% 

or more of their records 

contain both criminal 

events and noncriminal 

justice applicant 

information. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Introduction • 10

Privatization of noncriminal 

justice fingerprint capture 

services, 2014 (table 13):

 Thirty-two states have 

privatized the capture of 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints. In 18 of 

these states, a single 

vendor provides this 

service. 

 In 30 states, the vendor 

assesses a fee above 

what the state charges 

for the background 

check. These fees range 

from $8–$20.

Noncriminal justice 

background checks 

Noncriminal justice namebased background checks, 

2014 (table 15):

 Forty-two states and the 

District of Columbia 

performed over 19.4 

million name-based 

noncriminal justice 

background check 

requests. 

 Twenty-nine states 

performed over 17.4 

million name-based 

noncriminal justice 

background checks that 

were received via the 

Internet. 

 Thirty-five states and the 

District of Columbia 

performed over 1.1 

million name-based 

noncriminal justice 

background checks that 

were received via the 

mail. 

 Two states—Nevada and 

Oregon—received 

112,700 name-based 

noncriminal justice 

background checks via 

telephone.

 Twelve states and the 

District of Columbia 

performed 732,100 

additional name-based 

noncriminal justice 

background checks that 

were received via other 

means, such as modem 

or public walk-in access.

Noncriminal justice 

fingerprint-based 

background checks, 2014 

(table 16): 

 Information contained in 

the results of a 

fingerprint-based 

noncriminal justice 

background check: 

— Full record (39 

states, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, 

and Puerto Rico) 

— Convictions only (3 

states—Kentucky, 

Maine, and New 

Hampshire) 

— Juvenile records (5 

states) 

— Arrests without 

dispositions—over 1 

year old (18 states 

and the District of 

Columbia) 

— Other (20 states) 

 Twenty-four states 

report that 10% or more 

fingerprint-based 

noncriminal justice 

transactions are 

identified against arrest 

fingerprints. 

 Twenty-three states 

attempt to locate missing 

disposition information 

before responding to 

fingerprint-based 

noncriminal justice 

inquiries. 

Legal authority for 

conducting noncriminal 

justice background checks, 

2014 (table 17)

 All states, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico report 

having legal authority to 

conduct noncriminal 

justice background 

checks against a wide 

range of occupational 

groups, and licensing 

and regulatory functions. 

This authority is granted 

most often through 

specific state statute and 

where applicable, 

Federal statute pursuant 

to U.S. Public Law 92-

544, the National Child 

Protection Act (NCPA), 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Introduction • 11

and the Volunteers for 

Children Act (VCA). In 

instances where legal 

authority is not 

available, noncriminal 

justice background 

checks are not 

conducted. See table 17 

for the specific 

circumstances under 

which these background 

checks are conducted. 

Lights-out fingerprint 

processing, 2014 (table 18):

 Thirty-seven states, the 

District of Columbia,

and Guam conduct 

“lights-out” fingerprint 

processing (an 

identification decision is 

made without fingerprint 

technician intervention). 

 Twenty-one states and 

Guam report 60% or 

more of criminal and 

noncriminal fingerprints 

received are handled 

using “lights-out” 

processing techniques. 

Assessment and allocation 

of fees, 2014 (table 19):

 All states, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico report 

charging a fee to conduct 

a search of the state’s 

criminal history database 

for noncriminal justice 

purposes. 

 Fifteen states and the 

District of Columbia 

allocate all fees collected 

for such purposes to 

their state general fund. 

 Three states (Georgia, 

New Jersey, and New 

York) allocate a 

percentage of collected 

fees to state repository 

operations. 

 Twenty-one states and 

Guam allocate all fees 

collected for noncriminal 

justice background 

checks to their state 

repository. 

 Eleven states and Puerto 

Rico allocate all fees to 

fund other activities/ 

programs. These include 

funding of Automated 

Fingerprint 

Identification Systems 

(AFIS), criminal justice 

information system 

support, information 

sharing activities, etc. 

Web-based services for 

noncriminal justice 

purposes, 2014 (table 20):

 Twenty-seven states 

provide web-based 

noncriminal justice 

background checks to 

the public. 

 Twenty-five states collect 

a public access fee to 

conduct a background 

check of Internet requests. 

Fees charged per inquiry 

range from $1 in Missouri 

to $31 in Maine. 

Rap back 

Criminal justice rap back 

services, 2014 (table 22)

 Eighteen states provide 

in-state criminal justice 

rap back services. 

 At year’s-end 2014, no

states were participating 

in the FBI’s Next 

Generation Identification 

(NGI) criminal justice 

rap back service. 

 Nearly 59,000 in-state 

criminal justice rap back 

notifications were made 

by 10 states. 

 Purposes in which 

criminal justice agencies 

can be notified of a 

subsequent inquiry 

and/or record posting via 

the in-state criminal 

justice rap back service: 

— Error 

correction/record 

management updates 

(6 states) 

— Investigative lead (1 

state—Kansas) 

— Sex offender (2

states—Florida and 

New York) 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Introduction • 12

— Parolee (5 states—

Florida, Hawaii, 

Louisiana, New 

York, and Texas) 

— Probationer (6 states) 

— Permit/privileged 

license revocation (4 

states—Connecticut, 

Delaware, Kansas, 

and Kentucky—and 

the District of 

Columbia) 

— Noncriminal justice 

purpose fingerprint 

search (2 states—

Connecticut and 

Florida) 

— Other – criminal 

justice employment, 

arrests, CCW permit 

revocation, warrants,

and record updates 

(8 states) 

Noncriminal justice rap 

back services, 2014 

(tables 23 and 23a)

 Twenty-seven states 

provide in-state 

noncriminal justice 

rap back services. In 

25 of those states, 

rap back is 

authorized by state 

law or administrative 

regulation. In 19 

states, state law or 

administrative 

regulation specifies 

the purposes in 

which agencies can 

be notified. 

 Over 1.1 million instate noncriminal 

justice rap back 

notifications were 

made by 16 states. 

 At year’s-end 2014, 

no states were 

participating in the 

FBI’s NGI 

noncriminal justice 

rap back service. 

 Occupational groups in 

which agencies can be 

notified for subsequent 

record postings: 

— Persons working 

with children (22 

states) 

— Persons working 

with the elderly (19 

states) 

— Healthcare providers 

(19 states) 

— Security guards (16 

states) 

— Police, fire, and 

public safety 

personnel (19 states) 

— Other (16 states) 

 Six states charge a 

fee for enrolling in 

the state’s 

noncriminal justice 

rap back service and 

3 states charge a fee 

upon making a rap 

back notification. In 

Texas, fees are 

assessed for both 

enrollment and each 

notification. 

 Ten states report 

having in-state 

noncriminal justice 

rap back validation 

requirements similar 

to that required by 

NGI for all or some 

of its rap back 

subscriptions. 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Introduction • 13

Data tables 
Table 1. Overview of state criminal history record systems, December 31, 2014

State Total Automated Manual All arrests

Arrests within past 

5 years

Felony charges with 

final disposition

Total 105,569,200 a 100,024,400 5,544,800

Alabama 2,164,900 2,164,900 0 na 20 na

Alaska 270,400 260,200 10,200 91 91 92

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr nr

Arizona 1,653,400 1,653,400 0 58 66 71

Arkansas 712,000 712,000 0 68 79 90

California 11,365,000 9,568,700 1,796,300 na na na

Colorado 1,641,800 1,641,800 0 19 34 21

Connecticut 1,155,400 556,200 599,200 68 98 97

Delaware 2,380,800 2,380,800 0 96 96 96

District of Columbia 470,300 470,300 0 43 43 43

Florida 6,346,900 6,346,900 0 71 66 81

Georgia 3,965,200 3,965,200 0 71 85 71

Guam 2,100 2,100 0 100 100 100

Hawaii 543,800 543,800 0 95 89 95

Idaho 394,100 394,100 0 50 39 57

Illinois 6,646,200 6,071,100 575,100 69 37 17

Indiana 1,700,000 1,700,000 0 46 43 14

Iowa 721,100 703,100 18,000 92 88 32

Kansas 1,455,200 1,004,100 451,100 56 41 62

Kentucky 1,355,900 1,355,900 0 38 19 48

Louisiana 2,809,700 2,109,600 700,100 21 na na

Maine 544,600 506,700 37,900 82 65 70

Maryland 1,578,800 1,578,800 0 98 95 28

Massachusetts 1,715,300 1,715,300 0 na na na b

Michigan 2,967,900 2,967,900 0 84 75 84

Minnesota 1,080,700 1,080,700 0 nr nr nr

Mississippi 866,600 866,600 0 14 11 10 c

Missouri 1,640,300 1,491,400 148,900 69 70 53

Montana 232,200 232,200 0 48 53 41

Nebraska 411,900 411,900 0 70 75 78

Nevada 823,500 823,500 0 49 55 10

New Hampshire 495,200 470,400 24,800 83 83 90

New Jersey 2,255,400 2,215,600 39,800 88 83 96

New Mexico 629,000 534,200 94,800 24 20 27

New York 9,289,000 9,289,000 0 90 88 85

North Carolina 1,608,900 1,608,900 0 85 72 91

North Dakota 179,800 169,800 10,000 87 81 na

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr

Ohio 2,360,800 2,021,700 339,100 53 40 68

Oklahoma 975,600 905,800 69,800 39 34 53

Oregon 1,225,900 1,225,900 0 82 78 92

Pennsylvania 2,713,000 2,431,500 281,500 75 62 89

Puerto Rico 342,200 342,200 0 nr nr nr

Rhode Island 1,189,600 1,189,600 0 85 na na

South Carolina 1,672,200 1,626,000 46,200 65 na na

South Dakota 285,100 285,100 0 84 na na

Tennessee 1,909,800 1,898,700 11,100 50 75 na

Texas 13,050,800 13,050,800 0 86 92 72

Utah 741,300 741,300 0 77 72 83

Vermont 244,700 244,700 0 93 88 92

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr

Virginia 2,230,500 2,172,700 57,800 88 89 89

Washington 1,706,900 1,706,900 0 96 94 99

West Virginia 654,100 421,000 233,100 na na na

Wisconsin nr d nr d nr d 87 83 83

Wyoming 193,400 193,400 0 84 82 87

 Number of subjects (individual offenders) in 

state criminal history file 

Percent of arrests in database that have final case dispositions 

recorded
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. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

▪ 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.

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

 American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and Wisconsin, from which no data

 were submitted. 

Data footnotes:

b. Massachusetts Courts do not submit fingerprint-supported final dispositions to the repository. A major project is

 currently underway to link court disposition data to the repository.

c. Low percentages are due to a number of factors. Lack of training of court clerks, turnover, illegible

 handwriting on manual documents, court information system not linked to criminal history repository system, 

 updated records at local level are not being forwarded to repository system, etc.

d. Wisconsin's DOJ IT personnel were unable to provide this data within the timeframe requested. 

a. The total number of subjects in state criminal history files does not equal the sum of automated and 

 manual files due to rounding.
Table 1a. Overview of state criminal history record system functions, 2014

State

Total criminal 

justice purposes Retained

Percent 

of 2014 

volume Not retained

Percent 

of 2014 

volume Retained

Percent 

of 2014 

volume Not retained

Percent 

of 2014 

volume

Total 23,886,000 a 11,687,700 11,286,800 400,900 12,198,500 8,434,000 3,764,500

Alabama 268,800 225,000 225,000 84 0 0 43,800 43,800 16 0 0

Alaska 62,000 22,200 22,200 36 0 0 39,900 39,900 64 0 0

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr

Arizona 475,100 346,500 346,500 73 0 0 128,600 128,600 27 0 0

Arkansas 228,200 127,500 127,500 56 0 0 100,600 100,600 44 0 0

California 3,379,000 1,465,700 1,446,500 43 19,200 1 1,913,200 1,913,200 57 0 0

Colorado 394,100 235,400 235,200 60 200 0 158,800 152,400 39 6,400 2

Connecticut 182,100 97,200 97,200 53 0 0 84,900 84,900 47 0 0

Delaware 85,200 34,300 34,300 40 0 0 50,900 50,900 60 0 0

District of Columbia 12,500 600 600 5 0 0 11,900 700 6 11,200 90

Florida 2,178,100 773,400 773,400 36 0 0 1,404,700 497,300 23 907,400 42

Georgia 903,500 503,000 503,000 56 0 0 400,600 0 0 400,600 44

Guam 4,000 2,500 2,500 63 0 0 1,500 1,500 37 0 0

Hawaii 87,500 48,200 48,000 55 200 0 39,400 0 0 39,400 45

Idaho 145,900 63,200 63,200 43 0 0 82,600 5,500 4 77,100 53

Illinois 951,300 503,900 463,300 49 40,600 4 447,400 402,700 42 44,700 5

Indiana 618,500 237,800 237,800 38 0 0 380,700 380,700 62 0 0

Iowa 129,300 87,100 87,100 67 0 0 42,200 0 0 42,200 33

Kansas 186,800 131,200 131,200 70 0 0 55,700 55,700 30 0 0

Kentucky 227,400 172,300 172,300 76 0 0 55,100 400 0 54,700 24

Louisiana 466,800 327,200 327,200 70 0 0 139,600 139,600 30 0 0

Maine 43,300 30,700 17,000 39 13,700 32 12,600 10,400 24 2,200 5

Maryland 535,000 266,800 266,800 50 0 0 268,200 268,200 50 0 0

Massachusetts 351,100 150,000 146,700 42 3,300 1 201,000 201,000 57 0 0

Michigan 667,200 384,200 279,400 42 104,800 16 282,900 279,500 42 3,400 1

Minnesota 202,100 154,300 152,300 75 2,000 1 47,800 100 0 47,700 24

Mississippi 223,400 88,200 88,200 39 0 0 135,200 0 0 135,200 61

Missouri 394,800 220,400 220,400 56 0 0 174,400 174,400 44 0 0

Montana 49,100 21,000 21,000 43 0 0 28,100 0 0 28,100 57

Nebraska 69,500 43,600 43,600 63 0 0 25,900 25,900 37 0 0

Nevada 275,800 81,200 79,000 29 2,200 1 194,600 47,600 17 147,000 53

New Hampshire 75,700 42,000 42,000 56 0 0 33,700 0 33,700 44

New Jersey 606,000 185,100 164,200 27 20,900 3 420,900 233,700 39 187,200 31

New Mexico 182,700 79,800 79,800 44 0 0 102,900 102,900 56 0 0

New York 1,476,400 886,900 713,100 48 173,800 12 589,600 554,600 38 35,000 2

North Carolina 539,500 270,300 251,700 47 18,600 3 269,200 64,500 12 204,700 38

North Dakota 50,500 25,600 25,600 51 0 0 24,900 8,200 16 16,700 33

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr

Ohio 1,216,100 277,300 277,300 23 0 0 938,800 938,800 77 0 0

Oklahoma 291,600 152,200 152,200 52 0 0 139,300 139,300 48 0 0

Oregon 262,200 137,500 137,500 52 0 0 124,700 34,500 13 90,200 34

Pennsylvania 813,500 335,200 335,200 41 0 0 478,400 22,000 3 456,400 56

Puerto Rico 41,600 15,400 15,400 37 0 0 26,200 26,200 63 0 0

Rhode Island 51,300 32,000 32,000 62 0 0 19,200 0 0 19,200 38

South Carolina 366,400 281,300 281,300 77 0 0 85,200 49,400 13 35,800 10

South Dakota 30,500 29,500 29,500 97 0 0 1,000 0 0 1,000 3

Tennessee 601,500 385,700 384,300 64 1,400 0 215,800 215,800 36 0 0

Texas 1,687,700 818,500 818,500 48 0 0 869,200 868,800 51 400 0

Utah 381,800 117,000 117,000 31 0 0 264,800 69,100 18 195,700 51

Vermont 29,600 15,300 15,300 52 0 0 14,300 0 0 14,300 48

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr

Virginia 507,600 256,500 256,500 51 0 0 251,000 0 0 251,000 49

Washington 440,800 220,600 220,600 50 0 0 220,300 8,600 2 211,700 48

West Virginia 187,800 105,300 105,300 56 0 0 82,500 82,500 44 0 0

Wisconsin 201,500 157,900 157,900 78 0 0 43,700 8,200 4 35,500 18

Wyoming 46,300 16,200 16,200 35 0 nr 30,100 1,400 3 28,700 62

Total number 

of fingerprints 

processed

Total 

noncriminal 

justice 

purposes

Fingerprints processed for criminal justice 

purposes

Fingerprints processed for 

noncriminal justice purposes
▪ nr (not reported).

a. The total number of fingerprints processed does not equal the sum of fingerprints processed for criminal and

 noncriminal justice purposes due to rounding.

Table 1a explanatory notes:

 American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands, from which no data were submitted.

Data footnotes:

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ The total number of fingerprint-based background checks in state criminal history files does not include
Table 2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in state criminal history file, 2010, 2012, and 2014

State 2010 2012 2014 total Manual file Automated file 2010 2012 2014

2010-

2012

2012-

2014

Total 95,960,700 100,596,300 105,569,200 5,544,800 100,024,400 92% 94% 95% 5% 5%

Alabama 1,751,700 2,021,200 2,164,900 0 2,164,900 89 100 100 15 7

Alaska 248,000 258,600 270,400 10,200 260,200 96 96 96 4 5

American Samoa nr 900 nr nr nr na na na na na

Arizona 1,594,400 1,706,500 1,653,400 0 1,653,400 100 100 100 7 -3

Arkansas 613,300 676,800 712,000 0 712,000 100 100 100 10 5

California 10,641,300 11,438,800 11,365,000 1,796,300 9,568,700 85 83 84 7 -1

Colorado 1,495,800 1,547,200 1,641,800 0 1,641,800 100 100 100 3 6

Connecticut 1,265,800 1,301,200 1,155,400 599,200 556,200 67 53 48 3 -11

Delaware 2,114,300 2,263,300 2,380,800 0 2,380,800 100 100 100 7 5

District of Columbia 645,100 nr 470,300 0 470,300 100 na 100 na na

Florida 5,844,000 6,300,800 6,346,900 0 6,346,900 100 100 100 8 1

Georgia 3,541,500 3,759,600 3,965,200 0 3,965,200 100 100 100 6 5

Guam 2,000 2,000 2,100 0 2,100 100 100 100 0 5

Hawaii 519,100 540,600 543,800 0 543,800 100 100 100 4 1

Idaho 364,300 349,700 394,100 0 394,100 100 100 100 -4 13

Illinois 5,752,100 6,164,800 6,646,200 575,100 6,071,100 90 91 91 7 8

Indiana 1,488,500 1,595,700 1,700,000 0 1,700,000 100 100 100 7 7

Iowa 619,100 677,000 721,100 18,000 703,100 100 98 98 9 7

Kansas 1,303,200 1,381,200 1,455,200 451,100 1,004,100 68 70 69 6 5

Kentucky 1,211,900 1,280,900 1,355,900 0 1,355,900 100 100 100 6 6

Louisiana 2,193,000 2,231,100 2,809,700 700,100 2,109,600 71 71 75 2 26

Maine 464,000 522,000 544,600 37,900 506,700 89 92 93 13 4

Maryland 1,455,600 1,522,600 1,578,800 0 1,578,800 100 100 100 5 4

Massachusetts 1,114,600 1,179,600 1,715,300 0 1,715,300 73 75 100 6 45

Michigan 3,350,000 4,053,000 a 2,967,900 0 2,967,900 100 100 100 21 -27 a

Minnesota 837,900 1,022,600 1,080,700 0 1,080,700 100 100 100 22 6

Mississippi 510,600 689,800 866,600 0 866,600 100 100 100 35 26

Missouri 1,520,600 1,617,200 1,640,300 148,900 1,491,400 90 91 91 6 1

Montana 207,500 213,500 232,200 0 232,200 100 100 100 3 9

Nebraska 366,600 388,400 411,900 0 411,900 100 100 100 6 6

Nevada 704,500 772,500 823,500 0 823,500 100 100 100 10 7

New Hampshire 427,700 422,900 495,200 24,800 470,400 94 94 95 -1 17

New Jersey 2,072,700 2,155,200 2,255,400 39,800 2,215,600 100 93 98 4 5

New Mexico 544,200 595,700 629,000 94,800 534,200 100 81 85 9 6

New York 8,075,100 7,379,600 9,289,000 0 9,289,000 100 100 100 -9 26

North Carolina 1,545,300 1,490,500 1,608,900 0 1,608,900 98 100 100 -4 8

North Dakota 153,300 170,800 179,800 10,000 169,800 87 89 94 11 5

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr na na na na na

Ohio 2,114,000 2,239,400 2,360,800 339,100 2,021,700 87 100 86 6 5

Oklahoma 852,400 920,900 975,600 69,800 905,800 92 92 93 8 6

Oregon 1,429,500 1,526,600 1,225,900 0 1,225,900 100 100 100 7 -20

Pennsylvania 2,661,900 2,528,100 2,713,000 281,500 2,431,500 81 91 90 -5 7

Puerto Rico nr 312,500 342,200 0 342,200 na na 100 na 10

Rhode Island 1,035,500 1,117,200 1,189,600 0 1,189,600 97 100 100 8 6

South Carolina 1,544,200 1,609,500 1,672,200 46,200 1,626,000 99 97 97 4 4

South Dakota 252,100 268,700 285,100 0 285,100 99 100 100 7 6

Tennessee 2,266,300 1,651,000 b 1,909,800 11,100 1,898,700 100 95 99 -27 16

Texas 10,883,600 11,824,200 13,050,800 0 13,050,800 100 100 100 9 10

Utah 534,300 704,700 741,300 0 741,300 80 100 100 32 5

Vermont 229,700 238,000 244,700 0 244,700 100 100 4 3

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr na na na na na

Virginia 1,996,600 2,109,900 2,230,500 57,800 2,172,700 80 97 97 6 6

Washington 1,569,600 1,666,000 1,706,900 0 1,706,900 55 100 100 6 2

West Virginia 599,300 629,200 654,100 233,100 421,000 100 58 64 5 4

Wisconsin 1,263,000 1,374,600 nr c nr nr 100 100 na 9 na

Wyoming 170,100 182,000 193,400 0 193,400 100 100 100 7 6

Number of subjects in manual and 

automated files

Number of subjects in manual and 

automated files, 2014 Percent of automated files

Percent change in 

total file
▪ nr (not reported).

a. 2012 totals were overstated by including applicant retained fingerprint cards. This total was adjusted from 

 4,053,000 to 2,967,900 in this year's report.

b. The decrease between 2010 and 2012 totals is from adjusting how law enforcement applicants and other retained

c. Wisconsin's DOJ IT personnel were unable to provide this data within the timeframe requested. 

 expunged from state files in 2012.

▪ na (not available).

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

 column totals, not averages.

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ The total number of subjects in manual and automated state criminal history files for 2014 does not include

 American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and Wisconsin, from which no data

▪ 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.

 were submitted.

 applicant fingerprint cards are accounted for in the state database. Additionally, 90,310 records were

Data footnotes: 

Table 2 explanatory notes:
Table 3. Biometric and image data collection by state criminal history repository, 2014

State

Latent 

prints Flat prints

2-finger 

prints for ID

purposes

2-finger prints 

for 

incarceration/ 

release

10-finger 

prints for 

incarceration/ 

release Palm prints

Facial images/ 

mug shots

Scars, marks, 

tattoos

Facial 

recognition 

data

Iris 

capture

1- or 2-finger 

prints for 

updating 

dispositions Other

Total 2,196,200 28,327,300 568,444 0 1,687,000 10,811,200 3,457,500 185,100 1,900 16,000 4,200 305,201

Alabama 6,800 1,400

Alaska 400 4,200

American Samoa nr

Arizona 900

Arkansas nr

California 38,700 110,400 179,500 42,400 1,264,600 16,000 29,400 a

Colorado 7,900 387,500 344 240,200 6,100

Connecticut 7,000 84,700

Delaware nr

District of Columbia 200 598,900 227,800 120,100

Florida 163,900 21,817,500 507,200 4,881,700 1,458,400 b

Georgia 300

Guam 100 100 100

Hawaii 10,700 200 8,800 100

Idaho 3,000 600 7,300 41,300 8,800

Illinois na 42,000 na 1,002,800 2,200 c

Indiana 2,800 230,100 400

Iowa 1,200

Kansas nr

Kentucky 1,200

Louisiana nr

Maine nr

Maryland 6,800 410,500 233,200 266,100 106,400

Massachusetts 6,100 791,800 132,900 190,900

Michigan 5,300 649,500 800 298,100 298,600 160,900 1,400

Minnesota 118,000 6,600 22,000 400 1 d

Mississippi nr

Missouri 8,000 13,300 9,100 326,300

Montana 400

Nebraska 14,400 69,500 400 69,500 46,100

Nevada 1,000 4,400 10,700 275,800 e

New Hampshire nr

New Jersey 5,500 5,000 233,500 28,800 101,300

New Mexico 700 79,800 4,700 79,800 68,300

New York nr

North Carolina nr

North Dakota 3,800

No. Mariana Islands nr

Ohio nr

Oklahoma nr

Oregon nr

Pennsylvania nr

Puerto Rico nr

Rhode Island nr

South Carolina 5,000 845,400 115,300

South Dakota nr

Tennessee 1,500 125,600 146,400

Texas 120,000 700 8,200 72,200 1,446,500

Utah 117,000 117,000 50,000

Vermont nr

Virgin Islands nr

Virginia nr

Washington 1,776,800 3,294,100 583,700

West Virginia na c

Wisconsin nr

Wyoming nr

Volume/acceptance of repository biometric information
Table 3 explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

a. Images maintained together (facial, mug shots, scars, marks, tattoos, etc.).

b. Numbers represent counts as of April 2015.

c. Biometric and image date is collected by the repository but volumes for this report are not available.

d. Footprints

e. Latent prints include those entered by NVDPS and remote AFIS processing sites. Other = 10-digit rolled for criminal and civil.
Table 4. Protection order information and record counts, 2014

State

State 

maintains a 

protection 

order file

Law 

enforcement Courts Other

Protection 

orders 

entered to 

NCIC

Law 

enforcement Courts Other

Number of active 

records in state 

protection order 

database as of 

12/31/2014

Number of active 

records in NCIC 

protection order file 

as of 12/31/2014

Total 2,143,002 1,404,205

Alabama Yes X Yes X 9,944 4,434

Alaska Yes X Yes X 4,866 1,267

American Samoa nr nr nr nr 0

Arizona Yes X Yes X 16,500 17,918

Arkansas No Yes X 11,357

California Yes X X Yes X X 278,029 65,112

Colorado Yes X X Yes X X 185,360 110,967

Connecticut Yes X X Yes X X 29,808 28,939

Delaware Yes X Yes X 2,221 1,695

District of Columbia Yes X Yes X 2,233 1,828

Florida Yes X Yes X 276,157 187,693

Georgia Yes X Yes X X 8,918 8,148

Guam Yes X Yes X 141 465

Hawaii Yes X Yes Repository 11,485 3,842

Idaho Yes X Yes X 6,441 979

Illinois Yes X X Yes X 88,670 29,057

Indiana Yes X Yes X 84,294 83,105

Iowa Yes X X Yes X X 50,640 21,709

Kansas No Yes X 4,735

Kentucky Yes X Yes X 16,390 16,409

Louisiana Yes Supreme Court Yes X na 10,716

Maine Yes ME State Police Yes ME State Police na 4,625

Maryland Yes X Yes X 5,506 7,654

Massachusetts Yes X Yes CJ Services 35,728 19,540

Michigan Yes X X Yes X 29,428 15,265

Minnesota Yes X Yes X Repository 11,614 16,301

Mississippi Yes X X Yes X X 11,541 607

Missouri Yes X Yes X 15,497 14,581

Montana Yes X Yes X 4,524 4,438

Nebraska Yes X Yes X 5,101 1,111

Nevada Yes X X State Repository Yes X 2,715 25 a

New Hampshire Yes X X Yes X X 18 3,702

New Jersey Yes X Yes X Interface w/AOC 168,000 169,956

New Mexico No Yes X 6,304

New York Yes X Yes X DCJS interface 228,360 230,664

North Carolina No Yes X 11,649

North Dakota Yes X Yes X 1,362 31

No. Mariana Islands nr nr 0

Ohio No Yes X 32,493

Oklahoma No Yes X 5,835

Oregon Yes X X Yes X Co. sheriffs only 11,644 15,130

Pennsylvania Yes X X Yes X X 65,272 29,392

Puerto Rico nr nr nr 0

Rhode Island Yes Attorney General Yes Attorney General 47,576 12,713

South Carolina No Yes X 2,380

South Dakota Yes X Yes X 3,821 2,901

Tennessee No Yes X 16,404

Texas Yes X Yes X 17,141 15,920

Utah Yes X Yes Court Advocates 192,897 4,181

Vermont Yes X Yes X 2,166 2,166

Virgin Islands nr Yes 102

Virginia Yes X Yes X 85,756 26,914

Washington Yes X X Yes X X 102,726 98,948

West Virginia Yes X Yes X 3,556 2,617

Wisconsin Yes X Yes X 18,296 18,295

Wyoming Yes X Yes X 660 986

Agencies entering protection orders onto 

the state file

Agencies entering protection orders directly 

to NCIC
Table 4 explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

a. At year's end 2014, 25 protection orders were entered to NCIC. Nevada courts are not 24x7. This causes courts not to be able

 to comply with longstanding NCIC policy requiring "hits" against NCIC records to be confirmed by the entering agency 24x7.

 Also, courts and law enforcement are not available or willing to validate the accuracy of protection orders under the existing

 NCIC validation requirement. Protection orders that meet NICS entry criteria are entered to the NICS Index by repository staff

 for use in making firearm suitability determinations.
Table 5. Warrant and wanted person file information, 2014

State

State maintains 

a warrant file

Law 

enforcement Courts Other

Law 

enforcement Courts Other

Alabama Yes X X

Alaska Yes X X

American Samoa nr

Arizona Yes X X X

Arkansas No X

California Yes X X X X

Colorado Yes X X X X

Connecticut Yes X X X X

Delaware Yes X X X X

District of Columbia Yes X X X

Florida Yes X X

Georgia No X

Guam Yes X X

Hawaii Yes X X

Idaho Yes X X

Illinois Yes X X X X

Indiana Yes X X

Iowa Yes X X

Kansas Yes X X

Kentucky Yes X X

Louisiana No X

Maine Yes X X

Maryland Yes X Parole Commission X Parole Commission

Massachusetts Yes X X

Michigan Yes X X X X

Minnesota Yes X

County and State 

Departments of 

Corrections 

X

County and State 

Department of 

Corrections

Mississippi No X

Missouri Yes X X

Montana Yes X X

Nebraska Yes X X

Nevada Yes X X X X

New Hampshire Yes X X X X

New Jersey No X

New Mexico No X

New York Yes X X X X

North Carolina Yes X X

North Dakota Yes X X

No. Mariana Islands nr

Ohio No X X X X

Oklahoma No X

Oregon Yes X X X X

Pennsylvania Yes X X X X

Puerto Rico Yes X X X

Rhode Island Yes X X Attorney General X X Attorney General

South Carolina No X

South Dakota Yes X X

Tennessee No X

Texas Yes X X

Utah Yes X

Adult Probation and 

Parole, State Board of 

Pardons

X

Adult Probation and 

Parole, State Board of 

Pardons

Vermont Yes X X

Virgin Islands nr

Virginia Yes X X

Washington Yes X X X X

West Virginia Yes X X

Wisconsin Yes X X

Wyoming Yes X X

Agencies that enter warrants to state file Agencies that enter warrants to NCIC
Table 5 explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:
Table 5a. Warrant and wanted person file record counts, 2014

State

Number of records in state 

warrant database as of 

12/31/2014

NCIC Wanted Person File 

record count, as of 

12/31/2014 Felony warrants

Misdemeanor 

warrants Other

Total 7,823,581 a 2,126,579 a 725,076 3,868,351 859,476

Alabama 184,351 11,577 17,179 167,160 12 c

Alaska 13,597 404 2,576 3,821 7,200 c

American Samoa nr 1

Arizona 342,950 18,735 43,158 874,595

Arkansas b 147,253 b

California 1,068,009 242,694 278,337 780,672

Colorado 236,044 36,770 26,281 142,921 66,842 c

Connecticut 16,753 3,331 9,585 7,168

Delaware 220,856 3,259 10,820 174,361 35,682 c

District of Columbia 10,105 615

Florida 244,311 269,619

Georgia b 222,756 b

Guam 1,394 364 248 242 904 c

Hawaii 91,199 524 0 33052 58,147 c

Idaho 74 24,514

Illinois 384,481 35,802

Indiana 86,354 52,452

Iowa 51,469 11,715 2,454 49,015

Kansas 39,529 8,956 0 39,529

Kentucky 313,616 10,231

Louisiana b 12,926 b

Maine na 1,420

Maryland 195,106 19,168

Massachusetts 428,409 16,827 95,112 333,297

Michigan 948,775 77,498 26,488 377,133 545,154 c

Minnesota 66,838 16,552 14,565 12,610

Mississippi b 11,321 b

Missouri 271,330 28,296 28,188 114,356

Montana 20,628 2,938

Nebraska 17,003 6,377 17003

Nevada 203,048 14,484

New Hampshire 31,116 2,742

New Jersey b 57,363 b

New Mexico b 99,991 b

New York 288,174 33,745 66,626 195,168 26,380 c

North Carolina 831,703 25,146 na na na

North Dakota 32,321 1,232

No. Mariana Islands nr 0

Ohio b 14,946 b

Oklahoma b 19,405 b

Oregon na 17,054 na na na

Pennsylvania 104,839 106,811 20,042 46,898 37,899 c

Puerto Rico 1,522

Rhode Island na 1,817

South Carolina b 64,218 b

South Dakota na 1,057

Tennessee b 33,143 b

Texas 223,553 219,227

Utah 222,241 1,594 16,276 184,627 11,118 c

Vermont 5,407 256

Virgin Islands nr 80

Virginia 175,996 52,671

Washington 215,845 44,673 49,284 165,731 830 c

West Virginia 12,022 1,528 4,096 7,916 10 c

Wisconsin 176,134 15,812 13,761 93,075 69,298 c

Wyoming 48,001 1,167 0 48001

Breakdown of warrants in state warrant database
Table 5a explanatory notes:

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

a. State counts may include warrants ineligible for NCIC entry, such as civil warrants,

 and certain traffic and juvenile warrants.

b. State does not maintain a warrant file.

c. States reporting "Other" indicate that warrants in this category pertain to attempt to locate civil, 

 child support, juvenile, ordinance infractions, small claims, and/or traffic-related matters.

▪ na (not available).
Table 6. Flagging of records, 2014

State

Sex offender 

registrant

Convicted drug 

offender

Violent offender

Domestic violence 

conviction

Mental health 

adjudication

DNA available

DNA not yet 

collected

Ineligible for firearms 

purchases under 

Federal law

Ineligible for firearms 

purchases under 

state law

Other

Alabama Yes, all X

Alaska Yes, all X X X X X X

American Samoa nr

Arizona Yes, all X X

Arkansas Yes, all X X X X

California No X X X X

Colorado No X X X a

Connecticut Yes, all X X

Delaware Yes, all X X X

District of Columbia No b

Florida Yes, some X X c

Georgia Yes, all X X X

Guam No X X X X d

Hawaii Yes, all X X X X X e

Idaho Yes, all X

Illinois Yes, all X X X X X X X

Indiana No

Iowa Yes, all X X

Kansas Yes, all X X X X

Kentucky Yes, some X X X X

Louisiana Yes, some X X X

Maine No

Maryland Yes, some X X X f

Massachusetts No X

Michigan Yes, all X X X

Minnesota Yes, some X

Mississippi No X

Missouri Yes, all X X X X

Montana Yes, all X X X

Nebraska Yes, all X X

Nevada Yes, all X X

New Hampshire No

New Jersey Yes, all X X X X g

New Mexico Yes, all X

New York Yes, all X X X h

North Carolina Yes, all X X X

North Dakota No

No. Mariana Islands nr

Ohio Yes, some X X X i

Oklahoma Yes, some

Oregon Yes, all X X X X j

Pennsylvania Yes, all X X X X

Puerto Rico No

Rhode Island Yes, all X

South Carolina Yes, some X X X X X

South Dakota Yes, all

Tennessee Yes, some X X

Texas Yes, all X X X

Utah Yes, all

Vermont Yes, all X X X

Virgin Islands nr

Virginia Yes, all X X

Washington Yes, all X X X X

West Virginia Yes, all X X X X X k

Wisconsin Yes, all X X X X X

Wyoming Yes, all X

Flagging also employed to indicate 

Felony 

conviction 

flagging 

capability for 

criminal history 

record subjects
Table 6 explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

a. Deceased, identity theft

b. Most violent offender

c. All registrations

d. Warrants, custody status

e. Career criminal, firearms risk

f. Domestic crimes

g. Gang-related

h. Parole, probation, deported alien, wanted, missing persons

i. Wanted, sealed, caution flags

j. Deceased, presumed dead

k. Child abusers, bail enforcement, CCW permits
Table 6a. Access to records, 2014

State

Sex offender 

registry

Orders of 

protection

Wanted 

persons/ 

warrants

Retained 

applicant 

prints

Rap back for 

criminal 

justice 

purposes

Firearm 

registration

Domestic 

violence 

incident 

reports Other

Alabama X X X X X

Alaska X X X X a

American Samoa nr

Arizona X X X

Arkansas X X X

California X X X

Colorado X X X X X

Connecticut X X

Delaware X X X X X X

District of Columbia X X X

Florida X X X b

Georgia X X X

Guam X X X

Hawaii X X X

Idaho X X X c

Illinois X X

Indiana na

Iowa X X X

Kansas X X X X X

Kentucky X X X

Louisiana X X X

Maine

Maryland X X X X X X X

Massachusetts X

Michigan X

Minnesota X X X X d

Mississippi X X X

Missouri X X X X e

Montana X

Nebraska X X X X

Nevada X X X c, f

New Hampshire X

New Jersey X X X X X X X

New Mexico

New York X X X X X

North Carolina X

North Dakota X X X c

No. Mariana Islands nr

Ohio X X X

Oklahoma X

Oregon X X X

Pennsylvania X X X X X X

Puerto Rico X

Rhode Island X X X

South Carolina

South Dakota X X X

Tennessee X X X

Texas X X X

Utah X X X

Vermont X X X X

Virgin Islands nr

Virginia X X X g

Washington X X X X

West Virginia X X X

Wisconsin

Wyoming X X X

Other records and services that are accessable through state repositories
Table 6a explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

a. State rap back for certain non-criminal justice clients

b. Missing persons, child support writs

c. Concealed weapons permits

d. Domestic abuse no-contact orders, arrest photos, concealed weapons permits

e. Rap back service for schools

f. Parole and probation information

g. Mental health, machine gun, concealed handgun permits
Table 7. Number of final dispositions reported to state criminal history repository, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014

State 2008 2010 2012 2014 2008-2010 2010-2012 2012-2014

Total 12,215,600 12,964,000 13,798,300 12,181,300 6% 7% -12%

Alabama 65,500 66,600 27,800 31,700 2 -58 a 14

Alaska 46,200 34,100 72,100 46,700 -26 111 b -35

American Samoa nr nr 1,300 nr nr nr nr

Arizona 185,800 172,100 278,700 370,500 -7 62 33

Arkansas 185,800 44,500 42,900 54,800 -76 -4 28

California 1,784,100 1,616,800 1,565,000 1,471,100 -9 -3 -6

Colorado 22,800 66,700 34,300 115,500 93 -49 237 c

Connecticut 104,800 53,200 88,600 70,200 -49 67 -21

Delaware 127,000 341,100 476,700 451,600 169 40 -5

District of Columbia nr nr nr 30,200 nr nr nr

Florida 1,316,800 2,224,700 2,057,400 1,419,800 69 -8 -31

Georgia 600,600 728,000 658,900 729,100 21 -9 11

Guam 900 1,100 5,000 4,300 22 355 d -14

Hawaii 51,200 67,400 70,400 72,700 32 4 3

Idaho 126,000 156,500 141,200 171,600 24 -10 22

Illinois 436,600 380,400 275,000 289,200 -13 -28 5

Indiana 201,600 295,400 244,400 169,000 47 -17 -31

Iowa 253,400 306,800 305,000 350,800 21 -1 15

Kansas 192,900 168,600 229,000 115,600 -13 34 -50 e

Kentucky 95,000 62,000 141,000 106,500 -35 127 f -24

Louisiana 18,600 32,800 42,400 21,300 76 29 -50 g

Maine 10,200 92,300 32,900 33,500 805 -64 h 2

Maryland 335,900 248,500 282,000 239,500 -26 13 -15

Massachusetts 423,200 na i na i na i na i na i na i

Michigan 348,000 440,300 824,200 428,100 27 87 j -48 j

Minnesota 166,200 k 152,400 93,400 114,700 -8 -39 23

Mississippi 13,100 15,400 15,200 28,600 18 -1 88 l

Missouri 188,500 134,600 157,800 172,400 -27 17 9

Montana 21,400 23,100 26,200 22,600 8 13 -14

Nebraska 47,900 65,600 56,200 72,200 37 14 28

Nevada 35,900 46,400 50,000 119,800 29 8 140 m

New Hampshire nr nr nr 73,800 nr nr na

New Jersey 525,700 370,500 693,200 139,200 -30 87 n -80 n

New Mexico 16,300 21,700 10,000 4,900 33 -54 o -51 o

New York 517,400 532,300 576,200 548,700 3 8 -5

North Carolina 312,500 307,300 256,000 243,300 -2 -17 -5

North Dakota 19,000 18,000 nr 19,800 -5 na na

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr nr

Ohio 288,300 575,100 p 351,800 400,400 99 -39 14

Oklahoma 68,800 69,000 75,500 85,200 <1 9 13

Oregon 190,600 164,000 149,400 q 87,500 -14 -9 -41 q

Pennsylvania 157,300 153,900 141,200 172,900 -2 -8 22

Puerto Rico nr nr 18,100 41,500 nr nr 129

Rhode Island 13,300 23,300 15,900 7,800 75 -32 -51

South Carolina 204,500 151,900 183,800 112,100 -26 21 -39

South Dakota 64,900 59,800 na 350,900 -8 na na

Tennessee 223,600 266,000 255,700 258,600 19 -4 1

Texas 986,200 959,700 1,398,300 1,040,100 -3 46 -26

Utah 180,600 202,900 118,300 79,900 12 -42 -32

Vermont 28,500 19,700 19,500 19,400 -31 -1 -1

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr nr

Virginia 433,600 432,500 464,400 460,800 <1 7 -1

Washington 305,200 287,700 396,800 396,900 -6 38 <1

West Virginia 46,000 66,000 66,500 na 43 1 na

Wisconsin 211,000 231,500 302,400 302,500 10 31 r <1

Wyoming 16,400 13,800 10,300 11,500 -16 -25 12

Number of final case dispositions Percent change
▪ nr (not reported).

a. Final dispositions reported in 2008 and 2010 include dispositions in backlog. The 2012 total does not. 

 to the repository by statewide courts. This also influences the 2014 percent change notation.

c. The 2014 increase in reported dispositions is caused by a change in counting methodologies from previous 

 cycles. The current method is to count each charge within each arrest event, as opposed to only counting 

 individual arrest events and not each charge.

e. The 2014 decrease in reported dispositions is caused by a legislative change that required courts to electronically

 report dispositions to the repository by July 1, 2013. Prior to that date, statewide prosecutors reported

 dispositions; however, on the effective date of the new law, courts were not ready to report dispositions and prosecutors

 discontinued reporting. Prosecutors have since begun to report again and work is being done to build electronic

 court exchanges to report dispositions to the repository.

g. The 2014 decrease in disposition receipts is caused by the clearing of a 2012 backlog of disposition reports. 

h. The 2012 decrease in reported dispositions is caused by completing a 2010 project with statewide courts to

 recover past "legacy" disposition data. 

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

 are not submitted to the repository. Massachusetts reports 99% of records in its database have dispositions. 

 charges for which final dispositions were not reported. The 2014 decrease follows a 2013 legislative change making 

 deferrals nonpublic and not subject to reporting of same to the repository.

k. In the 2008 survey, Minnesota reported 230,100 final dispositions. This total was overstated by 63,900 and 

 adjusted in this report to total 166,200.

l. The 2014 increase in reported dispositions is caused by a major educational outreach project with statewide 

 courts.

m.The 2014 increase in reported dispositions is caused by a major outreach project and backlog reduction effort

 following a fall 2013 audit of criminal history records between the repository and statewide courts.

n.The 2012 increase in reported dispositions is caused by implementing an automated linking and flagging process 

 between the New Jersey State Police and statewide courts. This process went into production in 2011 and

 stabilized following a backlog reduction effort in 2013 and 2014.

o. The 2012 and 2014 decreases in reported dispositions are caused by completing a backlog reduction project.

p. Ohio's 2010 total number of final case dispositions received was decreased from 770,900 to 575,100 in this 

 year's report. Also, the 2008–2010 percent change figure was adjusted to reflect this change. The higher number

 included dispositions that were processed from an accumulated backlog.

q. Oregon's 2012 total number of final case dispositions received was decreased from 202,500 to 149,400 in this

 year's report. Also, the 2010–2012 percent change figure was adjusted to reflect this change. The 2014 decrease

 in reported dispositions is caused by a change in counting methodologies from previous cycles. 

r. The 2012 increase in reported dispositions is a result of receiving electronic dispositions from statewide county

 prosecutors.

Data footnotes:

b. The 2012 increase in reported dispositions is caused by efforts to enter case dismissals that are reported

d. The 2012 increase in reported dispositions is caused by efforts to complete a backlog reduction project. 

j. The 2012 increase in reported dispositions is caused by efforts to research and enter dispositions for

f. The 2012 increase in reported dispositions is caused by NCHIP- and NARIP-funded efforts to research and 

 enter dispositions for charges for which final dispositions were not reported.

Table 7 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. 

▪ na (not available).

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

 or final trial court disposition. 
Table 7a. Disposition reporting to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 2014

State

Of total dispositions 

received, number sent 

to the FBI

Machine readable 

data (MRD) Hard copy or paper

Interstate Identification 

Index (III) Message 

Key

NFF-participating states 

electing not to send 

disposition information to 

FBI on second and 

subsequent arrests

Total 6,196,600

Alabama nr 100

Alaska 41,500 99 1

American Samoa nr

Arizona 370,500 0 75 25

Arkansas 54,800 95 1 4

California 1,010,500 99 1

Colorado 0 a Yes

Connecticut 16,000 100

Delaware 451,600 100

District of Columbia nr 100

Florida 0 a Yes

Georgia 0 a Yes

Guam 2,100 100

Hawaii 5,000 a 100 No

Idaho 0 a Yes

Illinois 272,400 100

Indiana 144,800 100

Iowa 6,900 a 100 No

Kansas 0 a Yes

Kentucky 94,400 100

Louisiana na

Maine 7,600 100

Maryland 10,400 a 100 No

Massachusetts na

Michigan 428,100 100

Minnesota nr a 100 Yes b

Mississippi 28,600 100

Missouri 0 a Yes

Montana 0 a Yes

Nebraska nr 100

Nevada 30,000 100

New Hampshire nr

New Jersey nr a No

New Mexico 4,900 100

New York 548,700 100

North Carolina 0 a Yes

North Dakota 19,800 100

No. Mariana Islands nr

Ohio 400,400 a 100 No

Oklahoma 0 a 100 Yes

Oregon 0 a Yes

Pennsylvania 149,800 100

Puerto Rico nr

Rhode Island 7,800 100

South Carolina 112,100 100

South Dakota 210,000 98 b

Tennessee 0 a Yes

Texas 1,040,100 100

Utah 0 c

Vermont 16,700 95 5

Virgin Islands nr

Virginia 22,400 d 100

Washington 396,900 100

West Virginia 0 a Yes

Wisconsin 291,800 100

Wyoming 0 a Yes

Of dispositions sent to the FBI, percent sent by:
Table 7a explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

a. NFF-participating state.

b. The repository sends dispositions to the FBI when requested for specific cases.

c. A project to send disposition information to the FBI is underway. It began in 2015 and it includes 

 dispositions received by the repository in previous years.

d. The Virgina State Police is redesigning its criminal history system to include sending disposition 

NOTE: National Fingerprint File (NFF) states are signatories to the 

National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, under which these 

states have agreed to provide all criminal history information when 

responding to requests received from the FBI in connection with 

national civil purpose background checks. Consequently, disposition 

information is made available for all inquiries received from the FBI 

for arrests that occurred subsequent to the state becoming an NFF 

participant. In some instances, an NFF state may provide information 

that predates NFF participation. States that do not participate in the 

NFF program continue to voluntarily forward disposition information 

to the FBI.

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 
Table 7b. Interim disposition reporting and posting of indictment information, 2014

State

State collects charge tracking information (interim 

dispositions) on the criminal history record to show case 

status through the criminal justice process

State posts indictment information 

to the criminal history record

Alabama Yes nr

Alaska No No

American Samoa nr nr

Arizona nr No

Arkansas Yes No a

California No No

Colorado No Yes

Connecticut No nr

Delaware Yes Yes

District of Columbia No nr

Florida Yes No

Georgia Yes Yes b

Guam No Yes

Hawaii Yes Yes c

Idaho No Yes

Illinois Yes No

Indiana No No

Iowa No No

Kansas Yes Yes

Kentucky No No

Louisiana No No

Maine Yes Yes

Maryland Yes Yes

Massachusetts No nr

Michigan Yes Yes

Minnesota No No

Mississippi Yes Yes

Missouri Yes Yes

Montana Yes No

Nebraska No No

Nevada Yes No

New Hampshire Yes Yes

New Jersey Yes No

New Mexico No No

New York Yes No

North Carolina No No

North Dakota Yes No

No. Mariana Islands nr nr

Ohio Yes Yes

Oklahoma No

Oregon No No

Pennsylvania No nr

Puerto Rico nr nr

Rhode Island No nr

South Carolina No Yes

South Dakota No No

Tennessee No No

Texas Yes No

Utah Yes Yes

Vermont Yes No

Virgin Islands nr nr

Virginia No No

Washington No No

West Virginia No No

Wisconsin Yes Yes

Wyoming Yes No
Table 7b explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

a. Arkansas rarely uses indictments. Instead, a criminal information is filed, which starts the

 criminal proceeding. Information obtained about the person and arrest and status of the

 criminal proceeding are posted to the record as received. 

b. Indicted disposition entered at the discretion of the prosecutor.

 booked.

c. Indictment information is posted to the criminal history record once the offender is served the warrant and
Table 7c. Disposition reporting by local prosecutors, 2014

State

Does the repository receive 

any final case dispositions 

from local prosecutors? Automated means

Prosecutors' case 

management system Is paper-based

Mix of automated and 

paper-based

Alabama No

Alaska Yes X

American Samoa nr

Arizona Yes X

Arkansas Yes X

California Yes X

Colorado No

Connecticut No

Delaware Yes X

District of Columbia Yes X

Florida No

Georgia Yes X X X

Guam No

Hawaii Yes X X

Idaho Yes X

Illinois Yes X

Indiana Yes X

Iowa No

Kansas Yes X

Kentucky No

Louisiana Yes X

Maine Yes X

Maryland No X

Massachusetts a

Michigan Yes X

Minnesota Yes X

Mississippi Yes X

Missouri Yes X

Montana Yes X

Nebraska No

Nevada Yes X

New Hampshire Yes X

New Jersey Yes X

New Mexico Yes

New York Yes

North Carolina No

North Dakota Yes X

No. Mariana Islands nr X

Ohio Yes X

Oklahoma Yes X

Oregon Yes X X

Pennsylvania No

Puerto Rico Yes X

Rhode Island No

South Carolina Yes X

South Dakota Yes X

Tennessee No

Texas Yes X

Utah Yes X X X X

Vermont No

Virgin Islands nr

Virginia No

Washington Yes X

West Virginia No

Wisconsin Yes X X X X

Wyoming Yes X X X X

How dispositions are received
Table 7c explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

 are not submitted to the repository. Massachusetts reports 99% of records in its database have dispositions.

a. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a separate disposition database. Currently these dispositions 
Table 7d. Matching of dispositions between prosecutors and the repository, 2014

State

N/A, state does 

not receive 

automated 

dispositions from 

prosecutors

PCN or TCN 

assigned at 

time of arrest/ 

booking†

PCN or TCN 

assigned 

subsequent to 

arrest/ booking†

State 

ID # Arrest # Name

Date of 

birth Charges Other

Alabama X

Alaska X

American Samoa nr

Arizona X X X

Arkansas X X X X X

California X X X X X

Colorado X

Connecticut X

Delaware

District of Columbia X

Florida X

Georgia X X X X

Guam X

Hawaii X X X X X X Social Security Number

Idaho X X X X X

Illinois X

Indiana X X X Case number

Iowa X

Kansas X X X

Kentucky X

Louisiana X X X

Maine X X Arrest tracking number

Maryland X

Massachusetts a

Michigan X X

Minnesota X X Controlling agency number

Mississippi X

Missouri X

Montana X X X

Nebraska X

Nevada X X X Date of arrest

New Hampshire X

New Jersey X X X Date of incident

New Mexico X X X X Originating agency identifier

New York X X Arrest date

North Carolina X

North Dakota X

No. Mariana Islands nr

Ohio X X X

Oklahoma X

Oregon X X X X X X

Pennsylvania X

Puerto Rico X

Rhode Island X

South Carolina X X X X X

South Dakota X

Tennessee X

Texas X X X

Utah X

Vermont X

Virgin Islands nr

Virginia X

Washington X X X X X X

West Virginia X

Wisconsin X X X

Wyoming X X X

How records are matched between prosecutors and the repository
Table 7d explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

† Process Control Number (PCN), Transaction Control Number (TCN)

Data footnotes:

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

 are not submitted to the repository. Massachusetts reports 99% of records in its database have dispositions.
Table 8. Receipt of court disposition information by automated means and record matching, 2014

State

Was any court 

disposition data 

reported directly to 

the repository by 

automated means?

Percentage of 

court 

dispositions 

reported by 

automated 

means

PCN or TCN assigned 

at arrest/booking†

PCN or TCN assigned 

after arrest/booking†

State ID number

Arrest number

Name

Date of birth

Charges

Other

Alabama No

Alaska No

American Samoa nr

Arizona Yes 24% X X X X X

Arkansas Yes 70 X X X X

California Yes 80 X X X X X

Colorado Yes 57 X X X Docket number

Connecticut Yes 99 X X X

Delaware Yes 100 X

District of Columbia Yes X X

Florida Yes 100 X X X X X X

Georgia Yes 99 X X X X X X X

Guam No

Hawaii Yes 100 X X X X X X Social Security Number

Idaho Yes 100 X X X

Illinois Yes 45 X X

Indiana Yes 83 X X X Case number

Iowa Yes 70 X X X

Kansas Yes 1 X X X

Kentucky Yes 13 X Citation number

Louisiana Yes na

Maine Yes 99 X X X

Maryland Yes 100 X X X X X X

Massachusetts a

Michigan Yes 93 X X X X X X

Minnesota Yes nr X X Controlling agency case #

Mississippi No

Missouri Yes 78 X

Montana Yes 7 X X X X Court docket number

Nebraska Yes 100 X X X X X

Nevada Yes 26 X X X X

New Hampshire No X X X X X X

New Jersey Yes nr X X X

New Mexico No

New York Yes 100 X X Arrest date

North Carolina Yes nr X X

North Dakota No

No. Mariana Islands nr

Ohio Yes 74 X X X X

Oklahoma No

Oregon Yes 64 X X X

Pennsylvania Yes 100 X X X X Social Security Number

Puerto Rico No

Rhode Island Yes 100 Interface does electronic match

South Carolina Yes 60 X X X X Warrant number

South Dakota Yes 60 X X X X

Tennessee Yes 65 X

Texas Yes 92 X X X X X X

Utah No

Vermont Yes 95 X X X X

Virgin Islands nr

Virginia Yes 95 X X X X X X

Washington Yes 83 X X X X X X

West Virginia No X X X X X X X

Wisconsin Yes 100 X X X X

Wyoming No

Records matched between the court system and repository
Table 8 explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

† Process Control Number (PCN), Transaction Control Number (TCN)

Data footnotes:

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

 are not submitted to the repository. Massachusetts reports 99% of records in its database have dispositions.
Table 8a. Matching of dispositions received to specific arrest events, 2014

State

Percentage of all 

dispositions received that 

could not be linked to a 

specific arrest record

Placed in 

suspense file (no 

further action)

Placed in a 

suspense file for 

further investigation

Disposition 

information is 

rejected

Follow-up actions 

are taken by 

repository staff

Court is 

contacted Other

Alabama unknown X X

Alaska unknown a

American Samoa nr

Arizona 16 X

Arkansas 1 X X

California 8 b

Colorado 44 c

Connecticut 15 X

Delaware 0 X X

District of Columbia nr

Florida 28 X X X

Georgia 0

Guam 0

Hawaii 22 X X X

Idaho nr X X

Illinois 3 X X X

Indiana 40 X

Iowa 2 X

Kansas nr X

Kentucky 18 X

Louisiana 14 X X

Maine unknown X

Maryland 26 X X X

Massachusetts nr

Michigan 11 X X X

Minnesota nr X X X

Mississippi nr X

Missouri 17 X X X

Montana 5 X X X

Nebraska 0

Nevada 44 X X X X

New Hampshire 41 d

New Jersey 19 X X X

New Mexico nr

New York 8 X

North Carolina 0 X X

North Dakota nr X X X X

No. Mariana Islands nr

Ohio 47 X X X X

Oklahoma nr X

Oregon 12 X X X X

Pennsylvania 26 X

Puerto Rico 0 X X

Rhode Island 0 X e

South Carolina unknown X X

South Dakota nr X

Tennessee 2 X

Texas 2 X f

Utah 19 X X X

Vermont 5

Virgin Islands nr

Virginia 21 X X X X

Washington 3 X X X g

West Virginia 2 X X X X h

Wisconsin 8 X X X

Wyoming 3 X

Actions taken when disposition cannot be matched
Table 8a explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

a. Known information is added and flagged to indicate the information is not fingerprint supported.

b. Added to repository as an "orphan disposition".

c. Placed in a temporary file for later processing and matching to arrests.

d. Disposition is entered to CCH without arrest information.

e. BCI contacts law enforcement for follow-up with court.

f. Placed in a suspense file and checked daily for arrest.

g. Arresting law enforcement agency is contacted.

h. Arresting law enforcement agency is contacted.
Table 9. Arrest fingerprint cards processed, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014

State 2008 2010 2012 2014 2008-2010 2010-2012 2012-2014

Total 12,106,400 11,921,800 12,691,630 11,687,700 -2% 6% -8%

Alabama 169,500 273,100 265,800 225,000 61 -3 -15

Alaska 23,000 24,900 23,300 22,200 8 -6 -5

American Samoa nr nr 30 nr

Arizona 234,100 207,000 189,600 a 346,500 -12 -8 a 83 a

Arkansas 103,500 116,700 118,000 127,500 13 1 8

California 1,579,300 1,654,100 1,463,700 1,465,700 5 -12 <1

Colorado 249,400 236,100 228,500 235,400 -5 -3 3

Connecticut 166,000 132,200 98,000 97,200 -20 -26 -1

Delaware 41,600 34,600 40,400 34,300 -17 17 -15

District of Columbia 49,600 46,400 nr 600 -6

Florida 1,060,900 904,300 914,000 773,400 -15 1 -15

Georgia 506,100 531,800 491,200 503,000 5 -8 2

Guam 3,700 2,300 nr 2,500 -38

Hawaii 33,100 38,600 42,200 48,200 17 9 14

Idaho 82,800 81,100 71,000 63,200 -2 -12 -11

Illinois 691,500 624,000 575,800 503,900 -10 -8 -12

Indiana 201,100 216,200 244,500 237,800 8 13 -3

Iowa 87,700 83,700 92,100 87,100 -5 10 -5

Kansas 148,400 161,500 136,700 131,200 9 -15 -4

Kentucky 213,600 188,900 199,100 172,300 -12 5 -13

Louisiana 336,900 297,400 326,900 327,200 -12 10 <1

Maine 25,400 30,700 28,900 30,700 21 -6 6

Maryland 234,000 244,200 256,300 266,800 4 5 4

Massachusetts 169,200 148,700 135,100 150,000 -12 -9 11

Michigan 435,100 383,500 370,100 384,200 -12 -3 4

Minnesota 153,900 143,200 157,100 154,300 -7 10 -2

Mississippi 77,600 87,500 91,400 88,200 13 4 -4

Missouri 225,900 240,000 223,300 220,400 6 -7 -1

Montana 20,700 19,900 21,200 21,000 -4 7 -1

Nebraska 47,800 54,000 49,000 43,600 13 -9 -11

Nevada 109,100 104,200 103,200 81,200 -4 -1 -21

New Hampshire 29,500 35,800 45,000 42,000 21 26 -7

New Jersey 234,000 225,800 205,000 185,100 -4 -9 -10

New Mexico 88,000 94,200 107,600 79,800 7 14 -26

New York 730,100 762,500 737,300 886,900 4 -3 20

North Carolina 148,500 171,500 283,900 b 270,300 15 66 b -5

North Dakota 11,800 14,000 22,800 25,600 19 63 12

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr

Ohio 308,200 288,500 426,900 277,300 -6 48 -35

Oklahoma 98,200 123,600 143,900 152,200 26 16 6

Oregon 122,800 123,900 120,800 137,500 1 -3 14

Pennsylvania 283,200 309,100 334,100 335,200 9 8 <1

Puerto Rico nr nr 586,400 15,400

Rhode Island 39,400 37,500 34,100 32,000 -5 -9 -6

South Carolina 275,700 240,700 229,400 281,300 -13 -5 23

South Dakota 27,100 26,400 28,300 29,500 -3 7 4

Tennessee 393,100 368,300 428,000 385,700 -6 16 -10

Texas 914,200 882,100 1,101,300 818,500 -4 25 -26

Utah 106,900 107,400 76,500 117,000 <1 -29 53

Vermont 25,800 23,400 18,000 15,300 -9 -23 -15

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr

Virginia 302,800 296,600 296,100 256,500 -2 -1 -13

Washington 265,500 243,800 235,900 220,600 -8 -3 -6

West Virginia 32,900 66,000 97,300 105,300 101 47 8

Wisconsin 172,500 154,000 162,200 157,900 -11 5 -3

Wyoming 15,700 15,900 14,400 16,200 1 -9 13

Fingerprints processed for criminal justice purposes Percent change
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. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

a. 2012 totals were understated, causing the 2012-2014 percent change increase.

b. The 2012 increase of fingerprint card submissions to the repository is caused by an increase of

 misdemeanor offenses submitted by large municipal police agencies throughout the state.
Table 10. Criminal history system software employed by state criminal history repositories, 2014

State

Software components of state 

criminal history systems

Microsoft .NET 

platform Java platform Mainframe platform Other

Alabama 2 X

Alaska 3 X

American Samoa nr

Arizona 3 X

Arkansas 3 X

California 3 a

Colorado 2 X

Connecticut 3 X

Delaware 3 X

District of Columbia 2 X

Florida 2 X

Georgia 2 X

Guam 1 b

Hawaii 3 X

Idaho 2 X

Illinois 3 c

Indiana 2 X

Iowa 3 d

Kansas 2 e

Kentucky 2 f

Louisiana 2 X

Maine 3 g

Maryland 3 X

Massachusetts 2 X

Michigan 3 X

Minnesota 3 h

Mississippi 3 X

Missouri 2 X

Montana 3 i

Nebraska 2 X

Nevada 3 X

New Hampshire 1 j

New Jersey 3 X

New Mexico 2 k

New York 3 X

North Carolina 3 X

North Dakota 3 l

No. Mariana Islands nr

Ohio 2 m

Oklahoma 3 X

Oregon 2 n

Pennsylvania 3 X

Puerto Rico 3 X

Rhode Island nr

South Carolina 2 X

South Dakota 4 X

Tennessee 3 X

Texas 3 X

Utah 3 X

Vermont 2 X

Virgin Islands nr

Virginia 2 X

Washington nr

West Virginia 2 o

Wisconsin 3 X

Wyoming 1 X

Software environment / platform used for state criminal history system
Table 10 explanatory notes:

Legend: Software components of state criminal history systems

3. Built in-house either by staff or contractors.

4. Other.

Data footnotes:

a. PL/SQL on Oracle 11G, Linux OS on Dell servers.

c. Oracle forms and reports.

d. Oracle software.

e. Microsoft Visual Basic 6 with COM+ components.

f. Sequel servers.

g. PL / SQL.

h. Microsystem cluster with multiple languages (C++, COBOL, PL/I, SQL).

i. Oracle 11g database/Oracle 10g GUI on Windows platform.

j. Access.

k. Oracle.

l. Progress.

m. C++.

o. Oracle forms.

n. CRIMEvue is on a Windows 2003 platform using mostly C++ code. Moving to either Windows 2008R2 or 

Windows 2012 this summer. The data is stored on a Microsoft SQL Server 2005 database.

1. Acquired from software vendor and configured for the state's environment, but with no software 

modifications.

2. Acquired from software vendor but customized changes were made to account for the state's environment.

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

b. Omnixx Enterprise Platform that incorporates BixTalk servers. Datamaxx message switch and SQL servers.
Table 11. Arrest/fingerprint reporting, 2014

State

Total number of 

law enforcement 

agencies

Number of law 

enforcement agencies 

that submit arrest prints 

via livescan

Percentage of arrest 

prints submitted via 

livescan

Number of agencies that 

submit arrest fingerprints 

via cardscan

Number of agencies 

that submit hard copy 

arrest fingerprint cards

Number of felony 

arrests reported to the 

repository

Total 25,439 10,062 203 2,442 3,340,600

Alabama 962 166 nr nr nr nr

Alaska 49 41 96 0 15 5,300

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr nr

Arizona 136 97 97 16 113 66,900

Arkansas 590 531 90 nr nr 52,500

California 1,648 a nr 100 nr nr 662,000

Colorado 249 249 97 0 0 81,700

Connecticut 174 174 87 173 nr nr

Delaware 76 76 74 0 0 10,000

District of Columbia 36 4 100 0 0 40,700

Florida 401 401 96 0 0 292,900

Georgia 672 652 99 0 0 162,100

Guam 1 1 100 0 0 3,200

Hawaii 14 14 100 5 5 6,700

Idaho 152 147 97 0 5 18,000

Illinois 1,670 612 93 3 36 125,800

Indiana 986 634 92 1 3 15,600

Iowa 366 57 89 0 309 37,400

Kansas 394 160 90 0 45 26,300

Kentucky 1,153 nr 100 0 0 56,900

Louisiana 821 201 na 2 21 nr

Maine 400 nr 70 nr nr 9,600

Maryland 219 204 99 0 nr 41,500

Massachusetts 400 250 88 0 nr nr

Michigan 650 650 98 0 nr 90,400

Minnesota 465 465 99 0 0 30,400

Mississippi 268 144 95 nr nr 21,100

Missouri 663 306 88 0 357 122,800

Montana 126 122 26 0 4 5,300

Nebraska 228 20 84 0 187 14,100

Nevada 95 95 100 nr nr 23,700

New Hampshire 212 nr nr nr 0 6,100

New Jersey 630 610 97 0 18 88,800

New Mexico 624 182 72 nr 150 8,500

New York 602 543 99 nr 42 153,400

North Carolina 568 269 99 nr nr 94,600

North Dakota 123 78 82 0 38 nr

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr

Ohio 962 na 90 0 nr na

Oklahoma 327 284 91 0 43 59,600

Oregon 171 173 96 0 254 157,800

Pennsylvania 1,879 nr 95 nr nr 48,700

Puerto Rico 6 nr nr nr nr nr

Rhode Island 41 41 100 2 2 6,600

South Carolina 272 65 89 0 62 na

South Dakota 204 34 99 nr nr nr

Tennessee 400 389 99 0 11 nr

Texas 2,737 531 93 0 nr 282,200

Utah 175 50 nr nr nr 25,100

Vermont 92 59 92 nr nr 2,600

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr

Virginia 343 na 97 na na 164,800

Washington 179 152 88 1 27 188,900

West Virginia 765 72 70 0 693 26,800

Wisconsin nr nr nr nr nr nr

Wyoming 63 57 95 nr 2 3,200
Table 11 explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

a. Number represents the total number of law enforcement agencies that have California Law Enforcement

 Telecommunications System (CLETS) access. It does not account for the total number of agencies.

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).
Table 11a. Electronic fingerprint capture devices and the submission of arrest fingerprints, 2014

State Via livescan Via cardscan Hard copy Total

Total 10,322,100 89,300 591,800 11,042,500 a

Alabama 202,400 22,600 24,000 249,000

Alaska 21,100 0 900 21,900

American Samoa nr nr nr nr

Arizona 184,300 0 20,300 204,600

Arkansas 119,000 0 8,600 127,500

California 1,258,800 0 2,000 1,260,800

Colorado 229,200 0 6,000 235,100

Connecticut 84,700 0 12,100 96,800

Delaware 25,400 0 8,900 34,300

District of Columbia 40,600 0 100 40,700

Florida 743,800 0 28,900 772,600

Georgia 497,200 0 5,800 503,000

Guam 2,500 0 0 2,500

Hawaii 48,000 0 0 48,000

Idaho 63,000 0 300 63,300

Illinois 359,500 0 25,600 385,100

Indiana 192,800 100 700 193,700

Iowa 77,500 0 9,700 87,100

Kansas 118,700 0 12,500 131,200

Kentucky 171,600 0 700 172,300

Louisiana 324,200 0 3,000 327,200

Maine 11,500 0 5,500 17,000

Maryland 263,800 0 3,000 266,800

Massachusetts 129,400 0 17,300 146,700

Michigan 642,600 6,800 17,700 667,200

Minnesota 112,000 0 300 152,300

Mississippi 84,000 4,300 0 88,200

Missouri 194,300 0 26,000 220,400

Montana 5,500 0 15,500 21,000

Nebraska 36,600 0 7,100 43,600

Nevada 79,200 0 2,900 82,100

New Hampshire 30,000 0 12,100 42,000

New Jersey 160,700 0 103,600 264,300

New Mexico 57,600 22,200 0 79,800

New York 548,200 na 1,000 549,200

North Carolina 223,800 0 2,800 226,600

North Dakota 17,400 0 3,800 21,100

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr

Ohio 261,100 0 22,900 284,000

Oklahoma 138,200 0 14,100 152,200

Oregon 130,700 0 5,000 135,600

Pennsylvania 317,400 0 17,800 335,200

Puerto Rico 15,300 0 0 15,300

Rhode Island 32,000 0 0 32,000

South Carolina 249,200 0 32,100 281,300

South Dakota 28,600 0 800 29,500

Tennessee 376,200 0 8,100 384,300

Texas 754,900 0 63,600 818,500

Utah 117,000 0 0 117,000

Vermont 14,200 1,100 0 15,300

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr

Virginia 251,000 nr 5,500 256,500

Washington 208,300 0 11,000 219,300

West Virginia 51,100 32,200 22,000 105,300

Wisconsin nr nr nr nr

Wyoming 16,000 0 200 16,200

Number of arrest fingerprints submitted to the repository by livescan, cardscan, and hard copy
Table 11a explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

a. Due to rounding, the total does not equal the sum of livescan, cardscan, and hard copy.
State

Noncriminal justice purposes 

only a

Used for both criminal and 

noncriminal justice purposes a

Noncriminal justice purposes 

only a

Used for both criminal and 

noncriminal justice purposes a

Total 8,704 6,810 168 500

Alabama 0 166 2 2

Alaska 40 20 2 0

American Samoa nr nr nr nr

Arizona 0 0 2 0

Arkansas 16 75 0 0

California 3,010 1,835 0 0

Colorado 23 386 23 386

Connecticut 25 55 nr 0

Delaware nr nr nr nr

District of Columbia 15 37 2 2

Florida 1081 0 0 0

Georgia na na 0 0

Guam 2 3 1 2

Hawaii 17 0 8 0

Idaho 29 4 2 0

Illinois 558 238 3 0

Indiana 67 0 2 0

Iowa nr nr nr nr

Kansas 12 160 0 0

Kentucky 72 180 0 0

Louisiana 2 142 66 5

Maine 6 22 1 2

Maryland 238 108 10 10

Massachusetts 25 250 0 0

Michigan 150 450 2 2

Minnesota 14 0 2 0

Mississippi 180 324 0 0

Missouri 68 302 0 5

Montana 1 34 1 1

Nebraska 8 0 0 0

Nevada 105 19 2 2

New Hampshire 3 41 0 0

New Jersey 27 644 1 0

New Mexico 105 0 0 12

New York nr nr nr nr

North Carolina 44 167 0 0

North Dakota 17 41 0 0

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr

Ohio 2,352 0 0 0

Oklahoma 9 95 0 0

Oregon na na 0 0

Pennsylvania 0 279 0 3

Puerto Rico 15 15 8 8

Rhode Island 41 41 2 41

South Carolina 16 0 4 4

South Dakota nr nr nr nr

Tennessee 55 185 1 0

Texas 98 0 1 0

Utah nr nr 1 6

Vermont 0 59 0 0

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr

Virginia na na na na

Washington 126 293 16 3

West Virginia 32 110 3 4

Wisconsin nr nr nr 0

Wyoming 0 30 0 0

Livescan use Cardscan use

Table 11b. Electronic fingerprint capture devices and the use of livescan/cardscan for criminal and noncriminal justice purposes, 2014
Table 11b explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

a. Refer to table 11 for criminal justice totals.

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).
State Via livescan Via cardscan Other

Total 10,097,100 627,700 1,439,000 83 5 12

Alabama 31,100 12,700 0 71 29 0

Alaska 3,000 1,300 35,600 8 3 89

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr nr

Arizona 0 11,500 117,100 0 9 91

Arkansas 10,200 0 90,400 10 0 90

California 1,908,800 4,400 0 99.8 0.2 0

Colorado 102,500 49,900 6,400 65 31 4

Connecticut 0 23,900 61,000 0 28 72

Delaware nr nr 50,900 nr nr 100

District of Columbia 11,900 0 0 100 0 0

Florida 1,404,700 0 0 100 0 0

Georgia 400,600 0 0 100 0 0

Guam 0 0 1,500 0 0 100

Hawaii 34,500 4,800 0 88 12 0

Idaho 21,500 22,800 38,300 26 28 46

Illinois 444,500 1,800 1,100 99.4 0.4 0.2

Indiana 162,500 5,400 212,800 43 1 56

Iowa 2,800 0 39,400 7 0 93

Kansas 10,000 0 45,700 18 0 82

Kentucky 17,600 0 37,500 32 0 68

Louisiana 139,600 0 0 100 0 0

Maine 8,900 100 3,600 71 1 28

Maryland 253,400 14,800 0 94 6 0

Massachusetts 162,400 0 38,600 81 0 19

Michigan 276,100 6,800 0 98 2 0

Minnesota 6,000 14,100 27,700 13 29 58

Mississippi 117,800 17,400 0 87 13 0

Missouri 154,900 19,500 0 89 11 0

Montana 27,800 300 0 99 1 0

Nebraska 19,100 0 6,800 74 0 26

Nevada 143,000 51,600 0 73 27 0

New Hampshire 18,000 0 15,700 53 0 47

New Jersey 308,600 0 112,300 73 0 27

New Mexico 82,200 15,600 5,100 80 15 5

New York 562,900 31,200 4,600 94 5 1

North Carolina 230,400 0 38,800 86 0 14

North Dakota 0 0 24,900 0 0 100

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr

Ohio 938,800 0 0 100 0 0

Oklahoma 73,200 0 66,100 53 0 47

Oregon 38,000 0 86,700 30 0 70

Pennsylvania 478,400 0 0 100 0 0

Puerto Rico 5,100 5,100 16,000 19 19 62

Rhode Island 19,200 0 0 100 0 0

South Carolina 22,100 63,100 0 26 74 0

South Dakota nr nr 1,000 nr nr 100

Tennessee 200,400 0 15,400 93 0 7

Texas 825,800 43,400 0 95 5 0

Utah 86,000 174,200 4,600 32 66 2

Vermont 12,100 0 2,200 85 0 15

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr

Virginia 71,500 9,700 169,800 28 4 68

Washington 198,300 0 22,000 90 0 10

West Virginia 50,900 22,300 9,300 62 27 11

Wisconsin nr a nr nr nr nr nr

Wyoming 0 0 30,100 0 0 100

Percentage of noncriminal justice 

fingerprints submitted 

via other method

Table 11c. Electronic fingerprint capture devices and the submission of fingerprints for noncriminal justice purposes, 2014

Number of noncriminal justice fingerprints submitted to the repository 

by livescan and cardscan

Percentage of noncriminal justice 

fingerprints submitted 

via livescan

Percentage of noncriminal justice 

fingerprints submitted 

via cardscan
Table 11c explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

▪ na (not available). 

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

a. Wisconsin's DOJ IT personnel were unable to provide this data within the timeframe requested. 
Table 11d. Mobile technology for capturing and transmitting fingerprints, 2014

State

For identification 

purposes

For booking 

purposes a

Number of 

searches Number of hits

Total 1,716,241 1,023,288

Alabama No No Yes No

Alaska No No No No

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr

Arizona Yes Yes nr Yes 114,772 81,068

Arkansas Yes No No Yes 1,235 764

California Yes No No Yes 179,460 106,313

Colorado Yes No No Yes 344 na

Connecticut No No nr nr

Delaware Yes No No No

District of Columbia Yes No Yes No

Florida Yes No No Yes 699,391 500,698

Georgia Yes No No Yes 331,530 82,549

Guam No No No No

Hawaii Yes No No Yes 600 nr

Idaho Yes No No Yes 1 1

Illinois Yes No No Yes nr nr

Indiana No No No No

Iowa No No No No

Kansas Yes No No No

Kentucky No No No No

Louisiana No No No No

Maine No No Yes No

Maryland Yes No No Yes 233,197 145,625

Massachusetts Yes No No Yes 100 2

Michigan Yes No Yes Yes 753 327

Minnesota Yes No No Yes 118,010 87,269

Mississippi No No Yes No

Missouri Yes No Yes Yes 13,325 9,768

Montana No No No No

Nebraska Yes No No No

Nevada No No No No

New Hampshire No No No No

New Jersey No No No Yes nr nr

New Mexico Yes Yes No Yes 4,662 2,725

New York Yes No No Yes 396 343

North Carolina Yes No No Yes 4,520 1,180

North Dakota No No No No

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr

Ohio Yes No Yes Yes nr nr

Oklahoma No No No No

Oregon No No Yes No

Pennsylvania No No No No

Puerto Rico Yes No No No

Rhode Island Yes No No No

South Carolina Yes Yes Yes Yes 4,520 1,180

South Dakota No No No No

Tennessee Yes No No Yes 96 4

Texas Yes No No Yes 8,195 2,909

Utah No No No No

Vermont No No No No

Virgin Islands nr No nr nr nr nr

Virginia No No No No

Washington Yes No No Yes 2 2

West Virginia Yes No No Yes 1,132 561

Wisconsin Yes Yes No No

Wyoming No No No No

Using mobile technology to transmit 

fingerprints Plans to implement mobile 

technology to capture 

nonfingerprint biometric 

information

Currently employing 

Rapid ID

Rapid ID
Table 11d explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ na (not available).

Data footnotes:

a. Nonfingerprint biometric information includes the capture of scars, marks and tattoo images, facial recognition 

and iris data.
Table 12. Record/database content and combining criminal events with noncriminal justice applicant information, 2014

State

Does your state combine both criminal events and 

noncriminal justice applicant information in the same 

record?

Of the total records in your database, what 

percentage represents records that contain both 

criminal events and noncriminal justice applicant 

information?

Alabama Yes 5%

Alaska Yes na

American Samoa nr nr

Arizona No

Arkansas Yes

California Yes 18

Colorado Yes 11

Connecticut Yes 49

Delaware Yes

District of Columbia nr

Florida No

Georgia No

Guam No

Hawaii No

Idaho Yes a

Illinois Yes 9

Indiana No

Iowa No

Kansas No

Kentucky Yes

Louisiana Yes

Maine No

Maryland Yes 31

Massachusetts No

Michigan Yes 7

Minnesota Yes <1

Mississippi No

Missouri Yes 7

Montana No

Nebraska No

Nevada Yes 1

New Hampshire No

New Jersey No

New Mexico Yes 100

New York Yes

North Carolina No

North Dakota No

No. Mariana Islands nr

Ohio No

Oklahoma Yes 34

Oregon Yes 5

Pennsylvania Yes 2

Puerto Rico Yes 100

Rhode Island No

South Carolina No

South Dakota Yes

Tennessee No

Texas Yes 8

Utah No

Vermont No

Virgin Islands nr

Virginia No

Washington Yes na

West Virginia Yes

Wisconsin No

Wyoming No
Table 12 explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates.

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

a. Maintained as part of the same record but distinguished from one another by the SID.
Table 13. Privatization of noncriminal justice fingerprint capture services, 2014

State

Has the state 

privatized the taking 

of noncriminal justice 

fingerprints?

Fingerprinting service 

provided by single (S) 

vendor or multiple (M) 

vendors

Does the vendor assess 

a fee above what the 

state charges for the 

background check? Fee

Additional vendorprovided services

Alabama Yes M Yes nr a

Alaska Yes M Yes Varies b

American Samoa nr nr nr nr

Arizona Yes S Yes $8.00 c

Arkansas Yes M Yes nr d

California Yes M Yes nr e

Colorado No

Connecticut No

Delaware No

District of Columbia No

Florida Yes M Yes nr f

Georgia Yes S Yes 9.00 g

Guam No

Hawaii No

Idaho Yes M Yes Unknown h

Illinois Yes M Yes Varies

Indiana Yes S Yes 12.00 i

Iowa No

Kansas No

Kentucky No

Louisiana No

Maine Yes S Yes Varies j

Maryland Yes M Yes 20.00

Massachusetts Yes S Yes 10.00 k

Michigan Yes M Yes nr l

Minnesota No

Mississippi Yes M Yes nr m

Missouri Yes S Yes 8.00

Montana No

Nebraska No

Nevada Yes M Yes nr n

New Hampshire No

New Jersey Yes S Yes 10.00 o

New Mexico Yes S Yes 8.00 p

New York Yes S Yes 10.00 q

North Carolina No

North Dakota No

No. Mariana Islands nr

Ohio Yes M Yes Varies r

Oklahoma Yes S Yes 12.00

Oregon Yes S Yes 13.00 s

Pennsylvania Yes S Yes 8.00 t

Puerto Rico No

Rhode Island Yes S nr

South Carolina Yes S Yes 14.00 u

South Dakota No

Tennessee Yes S Yes 8.00 v

Texas Yes S Yes 10.00 w

Utah Yes M No

Vermont No

Virgin Islands nr

Virginia No

Washington Yes M Yes nr x

West Virginia Yes S Yes 9.00 y

Wisconsin Yes S Yes 8.00 z

Wyoming No
Table 13 explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

▪ Fees charged have been rounded to the nearest dollar.

Data footnotes:

Additional vendor-provided services:

b. In at least one case, the vendor delivers the fingerprint cards to the repository for processing.

c. Electronic application form and fee collection.

d. No additional services beyond taking prints is authorized.

e. Vendors collect and remit license/cert/permit fees to the California Department of Justice.

f. Private vendors do not receive CHRI. Results go directly to the noncriminal justice entity.

i. Sending responses back to the requester.

j. Sends responses back. Collects fees. Schedules the capturing.

k. Hosting website for response review.

l. Fee collection.

m. None

n. None

o. None

p. Results are sent back to a portal for review by the requesting agency.

q. Verification of identification documents, photo capture, and transmission.

r. Evaluating responses for the requester, sending responses back to the requester.

s. Fingerprint capture and transmit only.

t. Sends responses to authorized recipient.

u. None

v. Fee collection.

w. None

y. Mails responses back to requester.

z. Sends responses to requesters.

a. Fees are set between the agency contracting the vendor for this service. Sending responses 

back to the requester.

g. 3M Cogent provides customized website registration, and electronically captures and submits 

applicant fingerprints to GCIC.

h. Some do fingerprint capture only, while others transmit the prints electronically to the repository 

on behalf of the authorized agency.

x. Fieldprint & L1 vendors (out-of-state store and forward) set appointments, provide fee 

collection, tracking, and reports for state agencies.
State

Number of felony 

arrests reported to 

repository during 

calendar year 2014

Average number of 

days between 

occurrence of final 

felony trial court case 

disposition and receipt 

of data by repository

Average number of 

days between receipt 

of final felony court 

disposition and entry 

of data into criminal 

history database

Livescan devices 

used in the 

courtroom to link 

positive 

identifications with 

dispositions

Number of 

livescan 

devices in 

courtrooms

Backlog of entering 

court disposition data 

into criminal history 

database (i.e., not 

entered within 48 

hours of receipt at 

repository)

Number of 

unprocessed or 

partially 

processed court 

dispositions

Total 3,340,600 3,053,400

Alabama nr 1 nr No Yes 100,000

Alaska 5,300 23 35 No Yes 3,800

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr nr

Arizona 66,900 16 2 Yes 1 No

Arkansas 52,500 21 1 No No

California 662,000 nr 60 Yes nr No

Colorado 81,700 0 0 No Yes 504,400

Connecticut nr 1 1 No Yes 373,500

Delaware 10,000 1 1 No No

District of Columbia 40,700 nr nr No No

Florida 292,900 28 1 No No

Georgia 162,100 30 2 No No

Guam 3,200 1 2 No No

Hawaii 6,700 9 0 No Yes 149,700

Idaho 18,000 1 1 No Yes a 171,600

Illinois 125,800 30 32 No No

Indiana 15,600 nr 1 Yes 2 No

Iowa 37,400 7 7 No No

Kansas 26,300 nr nr No Yes 57,600

Kentucky 56,900 90 90 No No

Louisiana nr na 60 No No

Maine 9,600 15 0 No No

Maryland 41,500 10 0 Yes 1 nr

Massachusetts nr nr nr No No

Michigan 90,400 248 2,233 Yes 14 Yes 200

Minnesota 30,400 <1 1 No nr

Mississippi 21,100 nr 2 No No

Missouri 122,800 507 2 No Yes 122,400

Montana 5,300 16 32 No Yes 3,500

Nebraska 14,100 1 1 No No

Nevada 23,700 nr nr No Yes 1,023,500

New Hampshire 6,100 nr nr No No

New Jersey 88,800 nr 7 No Yes 37,500

New Mexico 8,500 nr nr No Yes 12,000

New York 153,400 1 1 No No

North Carolina 94,600 12 0 No No

North Dakota nr nr 0 No Yes 200

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr

Ohio na na na Yes 46 Yes 2,300

Oklahoma 59,600 30 30 No No

Oregon 157,800 na 100 Yes 10 Yes 54,000

Pennsylvania 48,700 nr 1 No Yes 281,100

Puerto Rico nr nr nr nr nr

Rhode Island 6,600 5 5 No No

South Carolina na 16 1 No No

South Dakota nr nr nr No No

Tennessee nr 30 nr No No

Texas 282,200 30 1 Yes 50 No

Utah 25,100 0 0 Yes 11 Yes 47,300

Vermont 2,600 60 60 No No

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr

Virginia 164,800 14 14 No Yes 108,400

Washington 188,900 7 5 No No

West Virginia 26,800 nr nr Yes 5 Yes

Wisconsin nr nr nr No No

Wyoming 3,200 60 2 No Yes 400

Table 14. Record processing times, livescan devices in courtrooms, and disposition backlogs, 2014
Table 14 explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

a. Due to data integrity issues in the court data feed in 2014, all dispositions were held until corrections were made. The 2014 

dispositions were uploaded in early 2015.
Table 15. Noncriminal justice name-based background checks, 2014

State Total Via Internet Via mail Via telephone Other

Total 19,486,300 a 17,481,500 1,160,000 112,700 732,100

Alabama 5,800 4,600 1,200 0 0

Alaska 19,400 0 2,200 0 17,200

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr

Arizona 2,700 0 2,700 0 0

Arkansas 219,800 201,300 18,500 0 0

California 8,100 0 0 0 8,100

Colorado 347,600 345,200 2,400 0 0

Connecticut 35,000 0 35,000 0 0

Delaware nr nr nr nr nr

District of Columbia 29,700 0 2,700 0 27,000

Florida 911,600 887,500 24,100 0 0

Georgia 0 0 0 0 0

Guam 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 357,800 318,200 3,200 0 36,500

Idaho 17,500 0 16,900 0 700

Illinois 561,200 141,800 22,500 0 396,900

Indiana 724,700 692,900 24,900 0 6,900

Iowa 255,100 6,200 22,800 0 226,200

Kansas 305,400 303,900 1,500 0 0

Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0

Louisiana 32,000 29,100 2,900 0 0

Maine 284,800 275,300 22,400 0 0

Maryland 0 0 0 0 0

Massachusetts nr nr nr nr nr

Michigan 1,861,200 1,860,000 1,100 0 0

Minnesota 91,000 0 91,000 0 0

Mississippi 3,900 0 3,900 0 0

Missouri 443,900 423,300 20,700 0 0

Montana 154,000 150,800 3,100 0 0

Nebraska 41,300 17,400 23,900 0 0

Nevada 146,100 45,900 0 95,400 4,800

New Hampshire 131,600 0 131,600 0 0

New Jersey 115,000 17,900 97,100 0 0

New Mexico 11,300 0 8,000 0 3,400

New York nr nr nr nr nr

North Carolina 22,600 0 22,600 0 0

North Dakota 25,800 0 22,600 0 3,100

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr

Ohio 938,800 882,400 56,300 0 0

Oklahoma 231,300 0 231,300 0 0

Oregon 267,500 244,800 5,400 17,300 0

Pennsylvania 1,258,700 1,181,200 77,500 0 0

Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 475,100 429,600 45,500 0 0

South Dakota 800 0 0 0 800

Tennessee 143,100 143,100 0 0 0

Texas 6,722,700 6,722,700 100 0 0

Utah 14,200 14,200 0 0 0

Vermont 132,400 132,400 0 0 0

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr

Virginia 257,200 153,900 103,300 0 0

Washington 1,089,600 1,080,700 8,900 0 0

West Virginia 800 100 200 0 500

Wisconsin 775,100 775,100 0 0 0

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0

Number of name-based noncriminal justice background checks performed
Table 15 explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

a. The total number of name-based checks received does not equal the sum of individual state

 background checks received via the Internet, mail, telephone, and other sources, due to rounding.

▪ nr (not reported).

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ na (not available).
Table 16. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based background checks, 2014

State

Information contained in the results 

for fingerprint-based noncriminal 

justice background checks

Percentage of fingerprint-based 

noncriminal justice transactions 

identified against arrest fingerprints

Repository attempts to locate missing 

disposition information before responding to 

fingerprint-based noncriminal justice 

inquiries

Alabama 4 na Updated upon request

Alaska 1,2,4,5 16 No

American Samoa nr nr nr

Arizona 1 17 Yes

Arkansas 5 3 Yes

California 1,2,4,5 18 Yes

Colorado 1,5 16 No

Connecticut 1,2,4,5 25 Yes

Delaware 1,2,4,5 nr No

District of Columbia 1,4 7 No

Florida 1,4,5 14 No

Georgia 1 19 No

Guam 1 na No

Hawaii 1 17 No

Idaho 1 39 Yes

Illinois 1,2 20 Yes

Indiana 1,3,4 14 Yes

Iowa 1 7 No

Kansas 5 na Yes

Kentucky 2 nr No

Louisiana 1,2,4,5 na No

Maine 2 1 Yes

Maryland 1,2,4 13 Yes

Massachusetts 1 7 No

Michigan 1,2,3,4,5 nr No

Minnesota 1,2,3,4,5 19 Yes

Mississippi 1 10 No

Missouri 1,2,4 5 Yes

Montana 1,5 15 Yes

Nebraska 1 na Yes

Nevada 1,4,5 6 No

New Hampshire 2 nr Yes

New Jersey 1,2,4,5 na No

New Mexico 1 na No

New York 1,5 12 No

North Carolina 1 11 No

North Dakota 1 11 Yes

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr

Ohio 2,5 10 Yes

Oklahoma 1 na No

Oregon 1,5 20 No

Pennsylvania nr nr nr

Puerto Rico 1 na No

Rhode Island 1,4 na No

South Carolina 2,4 13 Yes

South Dakota 1,2,4 na Yes

Tennessee 1 15 No

Texas 1,5 34 No

Utah 1,2,3 nr Yes

Vermont 1 8 Yes

Virgin Islands nr nr nr

Virginia 5 na Yes

Washington 2,3,5 nr Yes

West Virginia 1 na No

Wisconsin 1,4 12 No

Wyoming 1 9 No
Table 16 explanatory notes:

▪ Percentages reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

Legend: Information contained in the results for fingerprint-based noncriminal justice

background checks

1. Full record

2. Convictions only

3. Juvenile records

4. Arrests without disposition — over 1 year old

5. Other
Table 17. Legal authority for conducting noncriminal justice background checks, 2014

State

Daycare 

providers

Caregivers 

at residential 

facilities

School 

teachers

Nonteaching 

school 

personnel

Volunteers 

working with 

children

Prospective 

foster care 

parents

Prospective 

adoptive 

parents

Relative 

caregivers

Nurses/ 

elder 

caregivers

Legal 

guardians

Hazardous 

materials 

licensees

Medical 

marijuana 

(dispensers, 

caregivers)

Alabama 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 3

Alaska 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr

Arizona 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 1

Arkansas 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1

California 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3 2,3 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3

Colorado 2,3 2 2,3 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3,4 2,3 1 2

Connecticut 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

Delaware 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

District of Columbia 4 4 3,4 4 4 3,4 3,4 3,4 3,4 3,4

Florida 3 3,4 3 3,4 3 4 3,4 3,4 3 3 3

Georgia 3 3 3 3,4 4 3 2,3 1 3 3 1 1

Guam 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Hawaii 3 3 3 3 3,4 3 3 1 1 1

Idaho 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1

Illinois 3 2 3 3,4 4 3 3 3 3,4 1 1 3

Indiana 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Iowa 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1,2 1 1

Kansas 3 3 3 3,4 4 3 3 1 3 3 1 1

Kentucky 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 1

Louisiana 2 2 3 2 2 3 2,3 2 2,3 1 3 1

Maine 3 1 2,3 2 1 2,3 2,3 1 1 1 3 1

Maryland 2 2 2

Massachusetts 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1

Michigan 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 2

Minnesota 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 1 2,3

Mississippi nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr

Missouri 3,4 2 3,4 3,4 3,4 3 3,4 3 3,4 3 3

Montana 4 2,4 4 2,4 4 3 4 2,4 4 2,4 1 3

Nebraska 1 1 3 1 3,4 3 3 1 1 2 1 1

Nevada 3 3 3 3,4 4 3 3,4 3 3 3 1 2,3

New Hampshire 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 1 1 3

New Jersey 3 3 3,4 3,4 3,4 3,4 3,4 3 3 3,4 3 3

New Mexico 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

New York 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 1 3 3 3 2

North Carolina 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1

North Dakota 3 3 3 2,3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr

Ohio 2 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 2

Oklahoma 4 3,4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1

Oregon 3 3 3 3 3,4 3,4 1 1 3 1 1 3

Pennsylvania 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

Puerto Rico 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Rhode Island 3 3 3 2,3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3

South Carolina 3,4 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 1 1

South Dakota 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2

Tennessee 3 3,4 3 3 3,4 3 3 3,4 3,4 3 1 1

Texas 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 1

Utah 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1

Vermont 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 1 3

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr

Virginia 2 2 2 2 2,4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

Washington 3 3 3,4 2,3 2 3 2,3 3 3 4 1 3

West Virginia 4 4

Wisconsin 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3

Wyoming 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 1

Legal authority used for background checks
Table 17 explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

1. N/A (State does not conduct these checks)

2. State statute

3. Public Law 92-544

4. National Child Protection Act (NCPA) / Volunteers for Children Act (VCA)

Legend: Legal authority states use to conduct background checks for the following 

occupational/regulatory inquiries.
Table 18. Lights-out fingerprint processing, 2014

State

Repository conducts lights-out 

processing Total Criminal Noncriminal

Alabama No

Alaska Yes 10 10 10

American Samoa nr nr nr nr

Arizona Yes 67 27 80

Arkansas No

California Yes 81 80 82

Colorado Yes 54 nr nr

Connecticut Yes 1 1 2

Delaware Yes nr nr nr

District of Columbia Yes 29 0 100

Florida No

Georgia Yes 95 95 95

Guam Yes 100 100 100

Hawaii Yes 87 89 85

Idaho Yes 50 50 50

Illinois Yes 51 65 41

Indiana Yes 71 40 31

Iowa No

Kansas Yes 80 80 70

Kentucky Yes 58 76

Louisiana Yes 87 95 85

Maine No

Maryland Yes 98 98 98

Massachusetts Yes 54 89 90

Michigan Yes 55 55 55

Minnesota Yes 100 100 100

Mississippi Yes 96 95 69

Missouri Yes 90 90 90

Montana Yes na na na

Nebraska Yes 15 0 25

Nevada Yes nr nr nr

New Hampshire Yes 100 100 100

New Jersey Yes 91 91 91

New Mexico Yes 98 79 19

New York Yes 75 79 72

North Carolina Yes 87 79 99

North Dakota nr 16 0 32

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr

Ohio Yes nr nr nr

Oklahoma Yes 63 91 48

Oregon No

Pennsylvania No

Puerto Rico No

Rhode Island No

South Carolina Yes 98 79 99

South Dakota No

Tennessee Yes 95 95 95

Texas Yes 80 80 90

Utah No

Vermont Yes 89 92 85

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr

Virginia No

Washington Yes nr nr nr

West Virginia No

Wisconsin Yes nr nr nr

Wyoming Yes 12 10 2

Percentage of fingerprints handled with lights-out processing
Table 18 explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

▪ nr (not reported).

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ na (not available).
State

Fee charged to conduct a search of the criminal 

history database for noncriminal justice purposes

How fees are 

allocated 

Alabama Yes 1

Alaska Yes 4 a

American Samoa nr nr

Arizona Yes 4 b

Arkansas Yes 4 c

California Yes 3

Colorado Yes 3

Connecticut Yes 1

Delaware Yes 1

District of Columbia Yes 1

Florida Yes 4 d

Georgia Yes 2

Guam Yes 3

Hawaii Yes 3

Idaho Yes 3

Illinois Yes 3

Indiana Yes 1

Iowa Yes 1

Kansas Yes 3

Kentucky Yes 3

Louisiana Yes 3

Maine Yes 1

Maryland Yes 1

Massachusetts Yes 4 e

Michigan Yes 4 f

Minnesota Yes 3

Mississippi Yes 4 g

Missouri Yes 3

Montana Yes 3

Nebraska Yes 4

Nevada Yes 3

New Hampshire Yes 3

New Jersey Yes 2

New Mexico Yes 3

New York Yes 2 h

North Carolina Yes 1

North Dakota Yes 1

No. Mariana Islands nr nr

Ohio Yes 1

Oklahoma Yes 3

Oregon Yes 3

Pennsylvania Yes 1

Puerto Rico Yes 4

Rhode Island Yes 1

South Carolina Yes 4

South Dakota Yes 3

Tennessee Yes 3

Texas Yes 3

Utah Yes 1

Vermont Yes 4

Virgin Islands nr nr

Virginia Yes 4

Washington Yes 3

West Virginia Yes 1

Wisconsin Yes 3

Wyoming Yes 1

Table 19. Assessment and allocation of fees, 2014
Table 19 explanatory notes:

▪ na (not applicable).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes:

a. Fees collected go to support repository operations, while excess funds revert to the state general fund.

b. Fees support the program's Applicant Clearance Card team and the Arizona Board of Fingerprinting.

c. Fees are used to maintain criminal history records and AFIS.

d. Fees collected are placed into a legislative trust fund to support criminal justice information systems.

e. 61% of fees collected go to support repository operations.

f. Fees are collected and designated for special purposes.

g. Fees support the state's Crime Information Center.

h. 33% of fees collected go to support repository operations.

Legend: How fees are allocated.

1. All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment.

2. A percentage of fees go to support repository operations.

3. All fees go to support repository operations.

4. Other

▪ Fees charged have been rounded to the nearest dollar.
Table 20. Web-based services for noncriminal justice purposes, 2014

State

Repository provides web-based 

noncriminal justice background 

checks to the public

Are public access fees 

collected for Internet access Fee

Alabama Yes Yes $15

Alaska nr No

American Samoa nr nr

Arizona No No

Arkansas Yes Yes 2

California No No

Colorado Yes Yes 7

Connecticut No nr

Delaware No nr

District of Columbia No No

Florida Yes Yes 24

Georgia Yes Yes 15

Guam No No

Hawaii Yes Yes nr

Idaho No nr

Illinois Yes Yes 10

Indiana Yes Yes 16

Iowa Yes Yes 15

Kansas Yes Yes 20

Kentucky Yes nr

Louisiana No nr

Maine Yes Yes 31

Maryland No No

Massachusetts No nr

Michigan Yes Yes 10

Minnesota Yes No

Mississippi No nr

Missouri Yes Yes 1

Montana Yes Yes 14

Nebraska Yes Yes 15

Nevada No nr

New Hampshire No nr

New Jersey Yes Yes 2

New Mexico No nr

New York No nr

North Carolina No nr

North Dakota No nr

No. Mariana Islands nr nr

Ohio Yes Yes nr

Oklahoma No nr

Oregon Yes Yes 10

Pennsylvania Yes Yes 10

Puerto Rico No No

Rhode Island No No

South Carolina Yes Yes 25

South Dakota No nr

Tennessee No No

Texas Yes Yes 3

Utah Yes Yes 15

Vermont Yes Yes 30

Virgin Islands nr nr

Virginia No nr

Washington Yes Yes 10

West Virginia No nr

Wisconsin Yes Yes 7

Wyoming No nr
Table 20 explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

▪ Fees charged have been rounded to the nearest dollar.

Data footnotes:
Table 21. Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by state criminal history repositories and

 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 2014

State

Total III records in state 

and FBI files State-supported records FBI-supported records

Percent supported by 

state repositories

Percent supported by 

the FBI

Total 85,909,018 60,208,743 25,700,275 70% 30%

Alabama 1,251,180 709,662 541,518 57 43

Alaska † 229,073 147,529 81,544 64 36

American Samoa 697 0 697 0 100

Arizona † 1,750,198 1,031,604 718,594 59 41

Arkansas † 711,897 537,461 174,436 75 25

California 9,641,796 8,397,114 1,244,682 87 13

Colorado * † 1,455,710 1,229,800 225,910 84 16

Connecticut † 543,411 364,724 178,687 67 33

District of Columbia 306,143 54,767 251,376 18 82

Delaware 303,025 260,962 42,063 86 14

Florida * † 5,813,156 5,410,471 402,685 93 7

Georgia * † 3,579,395 3,353,554 225,841 94 6

Guam 33,763 0 33,763 0 100

Hawaii * † 302,476 240,157 62,319 79 21

Idaho * † 394,008 343,610 50,398 87 13

Illinois 3,479,628 1,826,490 1,653,138 52 48

Indiana 1,430,771 941,300 489,471 66 34

Iowa * † 698,925 417,614 281,311 60 49

Kansas * † 846,267 495,093 351,174 59 41

Kentucky 973,459 570,789 402,670 59 41

Louisiana 1,474,719 1,041,397 433,322 71 29

Maine † 180,126 45,039 135,087 25 75

Maryland * † 1,347,709 960,684 387,025 71 29

Massachusetts 957,253 595,021 362,232 62 38

Michigan † 2,181,141 1,924,365 256,776 88 12

Minnesota * † 919,799 868,186 51,613 94 6

Mississippi 503,694 297,985 205,709 59 41

Missouri * † 1,474,148 1,161,371 312,777 79 21

Montana * † 209,591 196,825 12,766 94 6

Nebraska 391,604 280,119 111,485 72 28

Nevada † 907,220 657,958 249,262 73 27

New Hampshire † 267,561 161,307 106,254 60 40

New Jersey * † 2,032,745 1,883,147 149,598 93 7

New Mexico 609,093 320,241 288,852 53 47

New York † 4,006,653 3,674,185 332,468 92 8

North Carolina * † 1,694,851 1,554,968 139,883 92 8

North Dakota 142,409 107,288 35,121 75 25

No. Mariana Islands 4,560 nr 4,560 0 100

Ohio * † 2,069,768 1,718,964 350,804 83 17

Oklahoma * † 887,004 583,904 303,100 66 34

Oregon * † 1,034,203 918,247 115,956 89 11

Pennsylvania 2,341,987 1,823,707 518,280 78 22

Puerto Rico 186,642 0 186,642 0 100

Rhode Island 210,824 187,597 23,227 89 11

South Carolina † 1,517,552 1,444,808 72,744 95 5

South Dakota 270,499 182,043 88,456 67 33

Tennessee * † 1,741,295 922,713 818,582 53 47

Texas 6,479,565 5,906,536 573,029 91 9

Utah 593,078 519,735 73,343 88 12

Vermont † 110,084 59,590 50,494 54 46

Virgin Islands 19,846 0 19,846 0 100

Virginia 2,008,027 1,661,803 346,224 83 17

Washington 1,507,863 1,218,888 288,975 81 19

West Virginia * † 378,208 224,788 153,420 59 41

Wisconsin 1,125,780 605,294 520,486 54 46

Wyoming * † 193,664 167,339 26,325 86 14

Federal 10,057,065 0 10,057,065 0 100

Foreign 126,210 0 126,210 0 100

 (The information in this table was provided by the Criminal Justice Information Services Division, FBI - Statistics as of January 14, 2015)
Table 21 explanatory notes:

* State is a participant in the National Fingerprint File (NFF).

† State is a signatory of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact.

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

FBI-supported: The FBI provides the criminal history records for persons arrested by a Federal 

 agency and arrest data that III-participating states are unable to provide.

State-supported: A designated agency within a state referred to as a "III participant" provides records 

from its file upon receipt of an electronic notification from III.

(Source: FBI/CJIS, Interstate Identification Index/National Fingerprint File Operations and 

Technical Manual, December 2005).

Data footnotes:
Table 22. Criminal justice rap back services, 2014

State

State provides 

in-state 

criminal justice 

rap back 

services

Number of in-state 

criminal justice rap 

back notifications 

made for criminal 

justice purposes

Error correction/ 

record 

management 

updates

Investigative 

lead 

Sex offender

Parolee

Probationer

Permit/privileged 

license 

revocation

Noncriminal 

justice purpose 

fingerprint 

search

Other

Currently 

participates in 

NGI criminal 

justice rap 

back service 

Total 58,922

Alabama No No

Alaska No No

American Samoa nr nr

Arizona No No

Arkansas Yes 0 X No

California Yes 14,200 X No

Colorado Yes na X No

Connecticut Yes nr X X No

Delaware Yes 10,185 X a No

District of Columbia No X No

Florida Yes 11,684 X X X X X b No †

Georgia No No

Guam No nr

Hawaii Yes 12,247 X X No

Idaho No No

Illinois Yes 6,397 X No

Indiana No No

Iowa No No

Kansas Yes 2,882 X X a No

Kentucky No No

Louisiana Yes na X X X No

Maine No No

Maryland Yes 13 No

Massachusetts No No †

Michigan Yes 136 X No

Minnesota Yes na X c No

Mississippi No No

Missouri No No

Montana No No

Nebraska No No

Nevada No No

New Hampshire No No

New Jersey Yes nr No †

New Mexico No No

New York Yes na X X X d No

North Carolina No No

North Dakota Yes 273 e No

No. Mariana Islands nr nr

Ohio No No

Oklahoma No No

Oregon No No

Pennsylvania No nr

Puerto Rico nr nr

Rhode Island No No

South Carolina No No

South Dakota No No

Tennessee Yes 905 a No

Texas Yes nr X X f No

Utah No No †

Vermont No No

Virgin Islands nr nr

Virginia No No

Washington No No

West Virginia No No

Wisconsin No No

Wyoming No No

Purposes in which criminal justice agencies can be notified of a 

subsequent inquiry and/or record posting via the in-state criminal justice 

rap back service
Table 22 explanatory notes:

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

† NGI rap back plans are pending development/programming.

Data footnotes:

a. Criminal justice employment

b. Arrests

c. Crime scene elimination prints

d. Warrants

e. CCW revocation advisement

f. On record searches, updates, and arrests
Table 23. Noncriminal justice rap back services, 2014

State

Persons 

working 

with 

children

Persons 

working 

with the 

elderly

Healthcare 

providers

Security 

guards

Police, fire, 

public safety 

personnel Other

Alabama Yes Yes Yes X X X X X

Alaska Yes Yes No X X X X X X a

American Samoa nr nr nr

Arizona No

Arkansas Yes Yes Yes X X X X X b

California Yes Yes Yes X X X X X X c

Colorado Yes Yes No X X X d

Connecticut Yes Yes Yes X X X X X X e

Delaware Yes Yes Yes X X X X X f

District of Columbia No

Florida Yes Yes No X X X X X g

Georgia No

Guam No

Hawaii No

Idaho No

Illinois Yes Yes Yes X X X X X

Indiana No

Iowa No

Kansas Yes No X X X X X X h

Kentucky No

Louisiana Yes No X X X X

Maine Yes Yes Yes X i

Maryland Yes Yes Yes X X X

Massachusetts No

Michigan Yes Yes Yes X X X X X j

Minnesota No

Mississippi No

Missouri Yes k Yes Yes

Montana No

Nebraska Yes No X X X X X

Nevada Yes Yes Yes X X l

New Hampshire No

New Jersey Yes Yes No X X X X X

New Mexico Yes Yes Yes X X X X X

New York Yes Yes m Yes X X X X X X n

North Carolina No

North Dakota No

No. Mariana Islands nr

Ohio Yes Yes Yes X X X X 0

Oklahoma Yes Yes No p

Oregon No

Pennsylvania No

Puerto Rico nr

Rhode Island No

South Carolina Yes Yes No X X X q

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes X

Tennessee No

Texas Yes Yes Yes X X X X X

Utah Yes Yes Yes X X X X X r

Vermont Yes Yes Yes X

Virgin Islands nr

Virginia No

Washington No

West Virginia Yes Yes Yes X X X X s

Wisconsin No

Wyoming No

Occupational groups in which agencies can be notified for subsequent 

State record postings

law/regulation 

specifies the 

purposes in 

which agencies 

can be notified

State provides instate 

noncriminal 

justice rap back 

service

Authorized by 

state law or 

administrative 

regulation
Table 23 explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

c. Licensing, certification, and permits.

e. Board of Education and special revenue employees.

f. School staff and CCW permits.

g. Loan originators, professional solicitors, and parimutuel wagering.

h. Conceal carry permit and real estate licensure.

i. Department of Education.

j. Adult foster care, firearms, gaming, certified school employees, and driver's education.

l. CCW, Department of Education, and school district personnel.

m. Unless otherwise precluded by statute, DCJS may notify the print contributor of subsequent arrests.

n. Pistols, banking/finance, taxi/tow, hazmat, and controlled substance licenses.

o. Casino Commission.

p. All noncriminal justice applicants.

q. All prints stored by SLED.

r. Driving Privilege Cards, water districts, Motor Vehicle Enforcement Division.

s. Volunteers.

k. Rap back is scheduled to be completed January 2015 and will be available for school employees.

a. Alcohol beverage handlers.

b. Concealed carry licenses.

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

d. Concealed weapons, real estate, mortgage broker, marijuana sales, gaming, liquor, and lottery.
Table 23a. Noncriminal justice rap back services, continued, 2014

State

Total number of instate noncriminal 

justice rap back 

notifications 

Noncriminal 

justice rap back 

fingerprint 

enrollment fee

Noncriminal 

justice rap back 

notification fee

In-state noncriminal justice 

subscriptions require 

validation similar to NGI

Participant in NGI 

rap back service

Total 1,119,483

Alabama 4,688 No No No No

Alaska na No nr Yes, all subscriptions No

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr

Arizona No

Arkansas 16 No No Yes, some subscriptions No

California 537,867 No No Yes, some subscriptions No

Colorado nr No $1 No No

Connecticut 120,000 nr nr No No

Delaware 12,499 No No No No

District of Columbia No

Florida 24,708 $24 No Yes, some subscriptions No

Georgia No

Guam No

Hawaii No

Idaho No

Illinois 77,209 No No No No

Indiana No

Iowa No

Kansas 2,882 No $3 a Yes, all subscriptions No

Kentucky No

Louisiana na No No No

Maine 20 No No No No

Maryland 35,412 No No Yes, all subscriptions No

Massachusetts No

Michigan 58,758 No No No No

Minnesota No

Mississippi No

Missouri Yes, all subscriptions No

Montana No

Nebraska nr No No No

Nevada 643 $10.50 No No No

New Hampshire No

New Jersey nr $10 No nr No

New Mexico 10,994 No No Yes, all subscriptions No

New York 173,142 No No Yes, some subscriptions No

North Carolina No

North Dakota No

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr

Ohio nr $5 No No No

Oklahoma nr b No No No No

Oregon No

Pennsylvania No

Puerto Rico nr nr nr nr

Rhode Island No

South Carolina na No No No No

South Dakota nr No No No No

Tennessee No

Texas 58,373 $15 $1 Yes, some subscriptions No

Utah 2,272 $5 No No No

Vermont nr No No No No

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr

Virginia No

Washington No

West Virginia nr No No No No

Wisconsin No

Wyoming No
Table 23a explanatory notes:

Data footnotes:

a. Fee is assessed annually.

b. The CCH was replaced in 2014. The number of rap back notifications for that time

 frame is unknown.

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).
1

OMB No. 1121-0312: Approval Expires 03/31/2018

Survey of State Criminal History 

Information Systems, 2014

Since 1989, the Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems has been used to collect the nation’s most complete, 

comprehensive and relevant data on the number and status of state-maintained criminal history records and on the increasing 

number of operations and services involving noncriminal justice background checks provided by the state repositories. This 

data collection is supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 2011-MU-MU-K054 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. As in previous years, response to this survey is voluntary. 

Respondents using the online survey tool, accessible at http://www.search.org/surveys/repository/, to enter 2014 data can 

view previously submitted 2012 data for comparison purposes. Where applicable, your state’s 2012 responses are displayed 

in color within each section of the online survey. It is hoped that this information will assist respondents in completing the 

survey more accurately and efficiently. The password to gain access to your state’s online survey is provided in the 

cover letter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact SEARCH staff Dennis DeBacco at 916-392-2550 ext. 

325, email dennis@search.org. 

If more convenient, you may print the survey sections, complete them manually, and fax (916-392-8440) or mail them to the 

attention of Dennis DeBacco at SEARCH, 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 270, Sacramento, CA 95831. The deadline for 

survey submission is April 30, 2015.

The survey is divided into 6 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 they are 

responsible. Repository directors are responsible to see that the survey is submitted in its entirety. Please note the 

following: 

1. All reported data should be for calendar year 2014, or as of December 31, 2014. 

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 that seek responses based on a “legal requirement” refer only to a state statute or a state administrative 

regulation having the force of law. 

4. If additional space is needed, please use the “Additional Comments” area at the end of each section. 

5. Please use the “Additional Comments” area at the end of each section to identify questions for which “no data is 

available” and to describe significant changes between the current response and data reported in the 2012 survey. 

6. If a question is not applicable to your repository, please indicate “NA” in the “Additional Comments” area at the end 

of each section. 

Burden Statement 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. The survey will be sent to criminal history repositories in 56 jurisdictions, including 

the 50 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. The average time required for each agency to complete the survey is estimated at 6.3 hours. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this survey, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Director, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street, NW, Washington DC 20531. Do not send your completed form to this 

address. 
2

SECTION I: REPOSITORY

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________

Agency _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________

Date completed ________________________ 

The following questions relate to descriptions of your state’s criminal history record information 

and master name index databases: 

1. How many subjects (individual criminal offenders) were in your criminal history file as 

of December 31, 2014? Tables 1 and 2

(a) Automated records __________________ (include subjects whose records 

are partially automated) 

(b) Manual records __________________ 

(c) Total records __________________ 

2. Fingerprints processed in 2014: Tables 1a and 9

 Percentage of 

 Purpose Number 2014 volume Totals 

(a) Criminal (retained) ___________ _________% 

(b) Criminal (not retained) ___________ _________% (a+b)_____________

(c) Noncriminal (retained) ___________ _________% 

(d) Noncriminal (not retained) ___________ _________% (c+d)_____________

(e) What was the total number of fingerprint-based 

background checks conducted during 2014? (a+b+c+d)___________
3

3. (a) Does your state combine both criminal events and noncriminal justice applicant 

information in the same record? Table 12

 Yes  No

(b) Of the total records in your database, ___________ % represent records that 

contain both criminal events and noncriminal justice applicant information. 

4. (a) Do you have felony conviction flagging, i.e., does your criminal history record 

database include a data field or flag enabling you to quickly determine whether a 

given record subject has a felony conviction? Table 6

 Yes, all subjects with felony convictions 

 Yes, some subjects with felony convictions 

 No

(b) Do you employ flagging to indicate? (Check all that apply.)

 Ineligible to purchase firearms 

 Sex offender registrant 

 Convicted drug offender 

 Violent offender 

 Domestic violence conviction 

 Mental health adjudication 

 DNA available 

 DNA not yet collected 

 IFFS, indicating ineligible for firearms purchase under federal law 

 IFFS, indicating ineligible for firearms purchase under state law 

 Other (describe) ______________________________________ 

The following questions refer to repository administration, procedures and practices. 

5. (a) As of December 31, 2014, did your repository conduct “lights out” processing of 

fingerprints (an identification decision is made without fingerprint technician 

intervention)? Table 18

 Yes  No

(b) If yes, what percentage of fingerprints was 

handled with “lights out” processing? __________ % 

(c) If yes, what percentage of criminal fingerprints 

was handled with “lights out” processing? __________ % 

(d) If yes, what percentage of noncriminal applicant 

fingerprints was handled with “lights out” processing? __________ % 

6. (a) Does your state maintain a protection order file? Table 4

 Yes  No 
4

(b) If yes, which agency(s) enter protection orders onto the state file? 

(Check all that apply.) 

 Law enforcement 

 Courts 

 Other (describe) 

(c) If yes, how many active records were in the state protection order record database as 

of December 31, 2014? 

__________ records 

(d) Are protection orders entered onto the FBI-NCIC Protection Order File? 

 Yes  No 

(e) If yes, which agency(s) enter protection order information to the FBI-NCIC Protection 

Order File? (Check all that apply.) 

 Law enforcement 

 Courts 

 Other (describe) 

7. (a) Does your state maintain a warrant file? Table 5

 Yes  No 

(b) If yes, which agency(s) enter warrants onto the state file? (Check all that apply.) 

 Law enforcement 

 Courts 

 Other (describe) 

(c) If yes, how many records were in the state warrant database as of December 31, 2014? 

__________ records Table 5a

(d) Of this total, indicate the number of: 

Felony warrants 

Misdemeanor warrants 

Other (explain) 

(e) Which agency(s) enter warrant information to the FBI-NCIC Wanted Person File? 

(Check all that apply.) Table 5

 Law enforcement 

 Courts 

 Other (describe) 
5

8. In addition to criminal history information, to what other records does your state’s 

repository provide access? (Check all that apply.) Table 6a

 Sex offender registry 

 Orders of protection 

 Wanted persons/warrants 

 Retained applicant prints 

 Rap back services for criminal justice purposes 

 Firearm registration 

 Domestic violence incident reports 

 Other (specify) 

9. (a) Which of the following most accurately describes the software components of your 

criminal history system? Table 10

 Acquired from a software vendor and configured for the state’s environment, 

but with no software modifications 

 Acquired from a software vendor, but software changes were necessary to 

customize for the state’s environment 

 Built in-house (either by staff or contractors), such that the state’s system is 

unique for our state 

 Other (specify) ________________________________________ 

(b) Which of the following most accurately describes the software environment or 

platform used for your criminal history system? 

 Microsoft .NET platform 

 Java platform 

 Mainframe platform (e.g., COBOL, Natural, PL/I, etc.) 

 Other (specify) _________________________________________ 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 
6

SECTION II: ARREST/FINGERPRINT 

REPORTING AND ENTRY

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________

Agency _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________

Date completed ________________________

1. How many felony arrests were reported to your repository during calendar year 2014? 

____________ arrests Tables 11 and 14 

2. How many arrest fingerprints were submitted to your repository during 2014? (a+b+c = d) 

(a) _________________ via livescan Table 11a

(b) _________________ via cardscan 

(c) _________________ hard copy fingerprints 

(d) _________________ total arrest fingerprints 

3. What types of biometric information are currently utilized in identification search 

processes conducted by your agency? (Check all that apply, and indicate volume.)

 Latent fingerprints Table 3 ____________ 2014 volume 

 Flat prints ____________ 2014 volume 

 2-finger prints for identification purposes ____________ 2014 volume 

 2-finger prints for updating incarceration 

or release information to criminal history ____________ 2014 volume 

 10-finger prints for updating incarceration 

or release information to criminal history ____________ 2014 volume 

 Palm prints ____________ 2014 volume 

 Facial images/mug shots ____________ 2014 volume 

 Scars, marks, and tattoo images ____________ 2014 volume 

 Facial recognition data ____________ 2014 volume 

 1- or 2-finger prints for updating 

disposition information ____________ 2014 volume 

 Iris capture ____________ 2014 volume 

 Other (specify) ___________________ ____________ 2014 volume 
7

4. (a) Are you using mobile technology to transmit fingerprints for identification purposes? 

 Yes  No Table 11d 

(b) Are you using mobile technology to transmit fingerprints for booking purposes? 

 Yes  No

(c) Do you have plans to implement mobile technology that captures non-fingerprint 

biometric information? 

 Yes  No

(d) Is your state employing Rapid ID? 

 Yes  No 

Number of searches conducted in 2014_______________

Number of hits in 2014 _______________ 

5. (a) Total number of law enforcement agencies in your state _______________ Table 11

(b) Number of law enforcement agencies that submit arrest prints 

via livescan (including agencies without livescan devices that 

receive livescan services from agencies that do have that 

equipment, such as a sheriff that provides booking services 

for multiple local police departments) _____________

(c) Number of agencies that submit arrest fingerprints via cardscan _____________

(d) Number of agencies that submit hard copy arrest fingerprint cards _____________

(e) Percentage of arrest prints submitted via livescan during 2014 ______% 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
8

SECTION III: DISPOSITIONS

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________

Agency _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________

Date completed ________________________

The following questions seek to determine to what extent the records in your criminal history 

record database contain final case disposition information. (“Final case disposition” is defined 

as release by police after charging; decline to proceed by prosecutor; or final trial court 

disposition.) 

1. If you are a National Fingerprint File (NFF) state, have you elected not to forward 

disposition information on second and subsequent arrests to the FBI? Table 7a

 Yes  No  N/A (Not an NFF participant) 

2. Does your state collect charge tracking information (sometimes referred to as “interim 

disposition information”) on the criminal history record showing the status of a case as it 

moves through the justice system? (E.g., reporting of an indictment, charges filed that 

are different than arrest charges, etc.) Table 7b

 Yes  No

3. (a) How many final case dispositions 

did your repository receive during 2014? Table 7 ____________ dispositions 

(b) Of those, how many were sent to the FBI? Table 7a

____________ dispositions 

Of the dispositions forwarded to the FBI: 

(c) What percentage was sent by Machine Readable 

Data (MRD) such as tape/CD/DVD? ____________ % 

(d) What percentage was sent via hard copy/paper? ____________ % 

(e) What percentage was sent by Interstate 

Identification Index (III) message key? ____________ % 
9

4. What percentage of all arrests in the criminal history database have final case dispositions 

recorded? Table 1

(a) Arrests entered within past 5 years ____________ % 

(b) Arrests in the entire database ____________ % 

(c) Felony charges ____________ % 

5. (a) Of the dispositions received at the repository during 2014, what percentage could not 

be linked to a specific arrest record, either because of failed matching criteria or the 

arrest had not been reported to the repository? Table 8a

_______________% 

(b) When a disposition cannot be matched, the following action(s) is taken: (Check all 

that apply.) 

 Placed in a suspense file (no further action) 

 Placed in a suspense file for further investigation 

 Disposition information is rejected 

 Follow-up actions are taken by repository staff 

 Court is contacted 

 Other ______________________________________________ 

6. (a) As of December 31, 2014, was any court disposition data reported directly to the 

repository by automated means? (Note: “automated” means a method by which data 

is transmitted by the court to the repository where it is matched against criminal 

history records and entered on the criminal history record, usually without manual 

intervention. This does not include dispositions received via fax or email, which 

require manual activity for criminal history record matching and data entry.) Table 8

 Yes  No

(b) If yes, what percentage of dispositions was reported in 2014 by automated means? 

____________%

(c) How are records matched between the court system and the repository? (Check all 

that apply.) 

 Process Control Number (PCN) or Transaction Control Number (TCN) 

assigned when fingerprints were taken at time of arrest/booking 

 PCN or TCN assigned subsequent to arrest/booking 

 State Identification Number 

 Arrest Number 

 Name 

 Date of birth 

 Charges 
10

 N/A. My state does not receive automated disposition information from courts 

 Other (please explain)_____________________________________________ 

7. In 2014, what was the average time elapsed between the occurrence of final felony trial 

court case dispositions and receipt of information concerning such dispositions by the 

repository? Table 14

____________ Days 

8. In 2014, what was the average time elapsed between receipt of final felony trial court 

disposition information by the repository and entry of that information into the criminal 

history record database? Table 14

____________ Days 

9. (a) As of December 31, 2014, was your state using any livescan devices in 

courtrooms/courthouses to link positive identifications with dispositions? Table 14

 Yes  No

(b) If yes, how many livescan devices are in courtrooms/courthouses? 

____________ Devices 

10. (a) As of December 31, 2014, was there a backlog of court disposition data to be entered 

into the criminal history record database (i.e., not entered within 48 hours of receipt at 

repository, including dispositions that could not be matched to a criminal history 

record within 48 hours of receipt at the repository)? Table 14

 Yes  No

(b) If yes, how many unprocessed or partially processed court case dispositions did you 

have? 

________________

11. (a) Does the repository receive any final case disposition information (e.g., decline to 

proceed) from local prosecutors or a statewide prosecutors association? Table 7c

 Yes  No

(b) If yes, this information is: (Check all that apply.) 

 Received via automated means 

 Received via the prosecutor’s case management system 

 Paper-based 

 A mix of automated and paper-based 
11

(c) If yes, how are records matched between prosecutors and the repository? (Check all 

that apply.) Table 7d 

 N/A. My state does not receive automated disposition information from 

prosecutors 

 Process Control Number (PCN) or Transaction Control Number (TCN) 

assigned when fingerprints were taken at time of arrest/booking 

 PCN or TCN assigned subsequent to arrest/booking 

 State Identification Number 

 Arrest Number 

 Name 

 Date of birth 

 Charges 

 Other (please explain)_____________________________________________ 

12. Does your state post indictment information to the criminal history record? Table 7b

 Yes  No 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
12

SECTION IV: NONCRIMINAL 

BACKGROUND CHECKS

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________

Agency _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________

Date completed ________________________

BACKGROUND CHECKS 

1. (a) Does your state charge a fee to conduct a search of the criminal history record 

database for noncriminal justice purposes? Table 19

 Yes  No

(b) If yes, how are fees allocated? 

 All fees go to the state general fund, with repository 

funded by general fund allotment 

 A percentage of fees go to support repository operations __________ % 

 All fees go to support repository operations 

 Other _______________________________________________________ 

2. Please indicate the legal authority your state uses for each of the following background 

checks. (Check all that apply.) Table 17

N/A (state does not 

do these checks)

State check only PL 92-544 statute NCPA/VCA

Daycare providers

Caregivers–residential facilities

School teachers

Non-teaching school personnel (including volunteers)

Volunteers working with children

Prospective foster care parents

Prospective adoptive parents

Relative caregivers

Nurses/Elder caregivers

Legal guardians

Hazardous materials licensees N/A

Medical marijuana (dispensers, caregivers) N/A
13

FINGERPRINT-BASED SEARCHES 

3. (a) Has your state privatized the taking of fingerprints for noncriminal justice purposes? 

 Yes  No Table 13

(b) Is this service provided by? 

 A single vendor  Multiple vendors 

(c) Does the vendor(s) assess a fee above what the state charges to perform the 

background check? 

 Yes, Fee $  No

(d) Does the vendor provide any additional services besides the fingerprint capture? (e.g., 

evaluating responses for the requestor, sending responses back to the requestor, etc.) 

_______________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 

4. (a) Total number of noncriminal justice fingerprints 

submitted to the repository via livescan during 2014 Table 11c ____________ 

(b) Total number of noncriminal justice fingerprints 

submitted to the repository via cardscan during 2014 ____________ 

(c) Percentage of noncriminal justice fingerprints 

submitted via livescan during 2014 ____________ 

(d) Percentage of noncriminal justice fingerprints 

submitted via cardscan during 2014 ____________ 

(e) Total number of livescan devices available for 

noncriminal justice purposes only Table 11b ____________ 

(f) Total number of cardscan devices available for 

noncriminal justice purposes only ____________ 

(g) Total number of livescan devices used for both 

criminal and noncriminal justice purposes ____________ 

(h) Total number of cardscan devices used for both 

criminal and noncriminal justice purposes ____________ 

5. What information is contained in the results for fingerprint-based noncriminal justice 

background checks? (Check all that apply.) Table 16 

 Full record 

 Convictions only 

 Juvenile records 

 Arrests without disposition–over 1 year old 

 Other _______________________________________________________ 
14

6. What percentage of fingerprint-based noncriminal justice transactions are identified 

against arrest fingerprints? Table 16

_________ % 

7. Does the repository attempt to locate missing disposition information before responding 

to a fingerprint-based noncriminal justice inquiry? Table 16

 Yes  No

NAME-BASED SEARCHES 

8. How many name-based noncriminal justice background checks were performed in 2014? 

(a+b+c+d = e) Table 15

(a) Received via Internet ____________ 

(b) Received via mail ____________ 

(c) Received via telephone ____________ 

(d) Other ____________ 

(e) Total ____________ 

INTERNET ACCESS 

9. Does your repository provide web-based noncriminal justice background checks to the 

public? Table 20 

 Yes  No

10. Are fees involved for Internet access for the general public (not including any registration 

or account fees)? Table 20

 Yes, Fee $ ____________  No

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 
15

SECTION V: CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

RAP BACK SERVICES

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________

Agency _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________

Date completed ________________________

1. Does your state currently provide an in-state criminal justice rap back service? 

 Yes  No Table 22

If you answered “No,” skip to question 4. 

2. What are the purposes in which criminal justice agencies can be notified of a subsequent 

inquiry and/or record posting via your in-state criminal justice rap back service? (Check 

all that apply.) Table 22

 Error correction/record management update 

 Investigative lead 

 Sex offender 

 Parolee 

 Probationer 

 Permit/privileged license revocation (i.e., CCW permit, gaming work card, 

etc.) 

 Noncriminal justice purpose fingerprint search 

 Other (describe) 

3. In 2014, how many in-state criminal justice rap back notifications were made to agencies 

for criminal justice purposes? Table 22

 

4. Do you currently participate in the FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) rap back 

service for criminal justice purposes? Table 22

 Yes  No 

If you answered “No,” skip questions 5 through 7. 
16

5. As a participant in NGI’s rap back service, do you allow criminal justice agencies in your 

state to subscribe to the following supervision populations in NGI, as described in the 

NGI Rap Back Criminal Justice Policy and Implementation Guide? (Check all that 

apply.) [No table]

 Sex offenders 

 Parolees 

 Probationers 

 Other supervised persons (describe) 

 Uncertain 

6. As a participant in NGI’s rap back service, do you allow law enforcement agencies in 

your state to create law enforcement investigative subscriptions in NGI, as described in 

the NGI Rap Back Criminal Justice Policy and Implementation Guide? [No table]

 Yes  No  Uncertain 

7. As a participant in NGI’s rap back service, do you plan to: (Select one.) [No table]

 Keep your in-state criminal justice rap back service 

 Keep your in-state criminal justice rap back service and allow enrollment in 

NGI 

 Retire your in-state criminal justice rap back service and use NGI for both instate and national rap back services 

 Uncertain 

 My state does not provide an in-state criminal justice rap back service 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 
17

SECTION VI: NONCRIMINAL JUSTICE 

RAP BACK SERVICES

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________

Agency _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________

Date completed ________________________

Note: Questions 1–7 apply to in-state rap back programs for noncriminal justice purposes. 

1. Does your state currently provide an in-state noncriminal justice rap back service? 

 Yes  No Table 23

If you answered “No,” skip to question 8. 

2. (a) Is your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service authorized by state law or 

administrative regulation? Table 23

 Yes  No

(b) If yes, does the state law or administrative regulation specify the purposes in which 

noncriminal justice agencies can be notified of a subsequent inquiry and/or record 

posting? 

 Yes  No 

3. Does your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service have a subscription validation 

process similar to that required for NGI rap back participation, as described in the NGI 

Rap Back Noncriminal Justice Policy and Implementation Guide? Table 23a

 Yes, for all subscription populations 

 Yes, for some subscription populations 

 No

4. What are the occupational groups in which noncriminal justice agencies can be notified 

of a subsequent record posting? (Check all that apply.) Table 23

 Individuals working with children 

 Individuals working with the elderly 
18

 Individuals providing healthcare 

 Security guards 

 Police, fire, public safety 

 Other (describe) 

5. In 2014, how many in-state noncriminal justice rap back notifications were made to 

agencies for noncriminal justice purposes? Table 23a

 

6. Does your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service impose a fee to enroll a subject’s 

fingerprints for a prescribed period of time? Table 23a

 Yes $ ________ 

 No

7. Does your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service impose a fee for noncriminal 

justice rap back notifications? Table 23a

 Yes $ ________ 

 No

8. Do you currently participate in NGI’s rap back service for noncriminal justice purposes? 

Table 23a

 Yes  No 

If you answered “No,” skip questions 9 through 10(d). 

9. As a participant in NGI’s rap back service, does your state restrict NGI subscribers from 

selecting from any of the available fees and their associated subscription terms? [No table]

 Yes, we limit NGI subscribers in our state to the following: (Select all that 

apply.) 

 Two-year – $2.25 

 Five-year – $6.00 

 Lifetime – $13.00

 No, our subscribers can choose from any of the three fees and their associated 

subscription terms for their populations 

 Yes, we limit our subscribers to using only the Lifetime fee ($13.00) and 

subscription term 

 Yes, we limit our subscriber’s choice of fees in a different manner 

(describe) 
19

10. As a participant in NGI’s rap back service— [No table]

(a) Do you plan to: (Select one.) 

 Keep your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service 

 Keep your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service and allow enrollment 

in NGI 

 Retire your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service and use NGI for both 

in-state and national rap back services 

 Uncertain 

 My state does not provide an in-state noncriminal justice rap back service 

(b) Do you restrict the Privacy Risk Mitigation Strategies that your subscribers can 

choose? 

 Yes, we limit the Privacy Risk Mitigation Strategy choices to the following: 

(Check all that apply.) 

 Pre-notification with mandatory validation/expiration within 3 years 

 Authority for duration of a license 

 Statutory authority for a set period of time 

 One-year validation/expiration 

 Subscription synchronization through automated or formalized procedures 

 No, we will allow the subscribers to choose any of the Privacy Risk 

Mitigation Strategies 

 Not certain 

(c) Do you restrict the Triggering Events that your subscribers may choose for future 

NGI Rap Back Activity Notifications? 

 Yes, we currently restrict, or plan to restrict, the Triggering Event choices to 

the following: (Check all that apply.) 

 Criminal Retain Submission 

 Dispositions 

 Expunge/Partial Expungement 

 Warrant entry with FBI Number included 

 Warrant Deletion 

 Warrant Modification 

 Sex Offender Registry Entry 

 Sex Offender Registry Deletion 

 Sex Offender Registry Modification 

 Death Notices 

 No, we will allow our subscribers to choose any of the Triggering Events to 

receive as future Rap Back Activity Notifications 

 Not certain 

(d) Do you use Event-Based Subscription Management (i.e., multiple enrollment of the 

same subject into NGI) or Category-Based Subscription Management (i.e., single 
20

enrollment into NGI with additional enrollments held at the state level), as described 

in the NGI Rap Back Noncriminal Justice Policy and Implementation Guide? 

 Event-Based Subscription Management 

 Category-Based Subscription Management 

 Both Event- and Category-Based Subscription Management 

 Uncertain 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: