Abstract:
The present invention relates to a method and a system by which non-law enforcement operator(s) can conduct checks (requests, queries or searches) against CJIS (Criminal Justice Information System), NCIC (National Criminal Information Center) and other law enforcement only secure databases and comply with the rules and regulations for disseminating such data. In doing so, the invention provides for a system and process by which the checks (request, queries or searches) of individuals and/or articles are made against the CJIS/NCIC and/or other “law enforcement only” restricted databases, such that the indicia relating to persons and/or articles is compared with said databases. The resulting information regarding matches (and, in certain embodiments, non-matching results) flows to law enforcement officials so that they may use any results deemed relevant for response thereto. Said responses may vary, but in one embodiment, may provide for at least the notification of non-law enforcement operator who originated the above-described checks.

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION  
       [0001]     The present invention relates to a computer-based system and method that allows third parties such as corporations and other private, non-law enforcement entities to avail themselves of criminal databases checks that are currently permitted for use by law enforcement, without violating the legal prohibitions against non-law enforcement usage of such databases.  
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  
       [0002]     Law enforcement entities currently have certain computer systems and other hardware to perform real time field checks on individuals, vehicles and articles. Typically, these checks are performed by submitting identity indicia to be checked against Federal and/or local criminal check systems such as CJIS (Criminal Justice Information System) or NCIC (National Criminal Information Center), and other sensitive law enforcement only databases. While certain inter-departmental law enforcement sharing of information has increased the productivity and efficiency of law enforcement, it is evident that law enforcement cannot be everywhere, all the time. To this end, a limited number of law enforcement resources would necessitate an efficient information sharing of private and public security resources so that the reach of law enforcement can be legitimately expanded in the ongoing efforts to fight crime and terrorism.  
         [0003]     To make matters worse, critical infrastructure (such as power plants, chemical or nuclear facilities, bridges, skyscrapers, ports, etc.) and other important facilities are often controlled, if not owned, by private entities. Frequently, the premises of critical infrastructure and important facilities may be watched by private security guards or teams. Given this reality, and considering the logistical and physical limitations on law enforcement in helping to protect the public, it is wise to consider options that might involve private corporations and private individuals (such as private security forces of designated facilities and infrastructure) who could assist in preventing and/or solving acts of crime and terrorism that might transpire in connection with, or on the premises of such private entities. Unfortunately, current private/law enforcement partnerships tend to include such programs like community outreach, neighborhood watches, etc. and typically do not offer a concrete way to combat crime and homeland security. Moreover, private entities who may control important facilities and infrastructure do not really benefit from such partnerships, particularly given that such private entities have no reliable way to conduct checks of their own on those that enter on their premises, as access to law enforcement databases is restricted to public law enforcement only. Thus, without such capabilities, the current “checks” (e.g., having sign in sheets, writing down ID and license plate numbers, etc.) that private entities may do on those who enter their premises is of little benefit to either the private entity, in terms of protecting its property and on-site persons, and is of virtually no benefit to law enforcement in preventing or solving illegal activities. As such, there is a need for a private-public mechanism that allows credible security checks of private property entrants at designated sites through law-enforcement avenues, without running afoul of prohibitions against private access to sensitive law-enforcement databases.  
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
       [0004]     On its broadest level, the invention relates to a computer based system for providing designated private entities (e.g. companies, schools, and non-law enforcement individuals etc.) with a means to log individuals entering their premises by their drivers license and/or license plate number, and to have it checked in real time or through an offline database through Federal and/or local criminal check systems such as CJIS (Criminal Justice Information System), NCIC (National Criminal Information Center), and/or other criminal or law enforcement restricted databases. In doing so, designated private entities may indirectly conduct real-time checks on subjects such as individuals, vehicles, and articles that are on their premises by forwarding subject identification data or indicia such as license plate numbers, driver license numbers, serial numbers, social security numbers, passport numbers, etc. to the law enforcement controlled criminal databases. Once the relevant indicia is checked against the target database(s), a result is then forwarded to designated law enforcement agencies so that they may take appropriate action as necessary. When provided in this manner, a public-private network information sharing system partnership is developed, such that law enforcement would then be able to receive expanded information from private entities, while the private entities are able to afford themselves of improved security through the reception of law enforcement response(s) to any relevant matches that may happen to emanate from their submissions to law enforcement databases.  
         [0005]     In one embodiment of the system, the private entity offers or submits information to the criminal check systems regarding the location of persons or articles on its property, and if the indicia sent matches with the criminal check system records, or if for any other reason the person or property is deemed to be of interest, then the interested law enforcement agent(s) (e.g., those that are specifically linked or associated with the local query and/or others that may have a need to be interested based on other considerations) will then choose how to respond, based on the submission(s) that originated from the non-law enforcement (e.g. private, third party) entities via the system. In one embodiment, if the person entering is a not criminal, terrorist, or other person of interest (or if the article or vehicle is not stolen or otherwise wanted), then the check will not flag the entrant (or item), but otherwise, if there is a “match”, then law enforcement may be notified so that they may respond in real time, if needed.  
         [0006]     Because government (e.g., law enforcement) criminal check systems do not permit the dissemination of this data to non-law enforcement entities or operators, in one embodiment, law enforcement, rather than the private entity (or their operator) that submitted the information relating to the person, article or vehicle, will receive the “match” response (if any). Thus, in one embodiment, the non-law enforcement entity making the request would get back a response as to whether the check being conducted is clear/not clear response. This avoids the dissemination of this sensitive data to non-authorized (e.g., non-law enforcement) entities, and yields a benefit for the non-law enforcement entities and a benefit for law enforcement.  
         [0007]     However, in an alternate embodiment, the private entity may instead thereafter receive a response from law enforcement so that they may be alerted to the presence of certain, say, dangerous people or wanted property on their premises. Either way, the response may be an alert, no alert, or may be in the form of a law enforcement visit to the originating location.  
         [0008]     The benefits for a private entity are that the physical security will increase from their use of the law enforcement systems in cases where it ordinarily might not because of legal restrictions on private usage. Similarly, law enforcement benefits by receiving information that it would not normally have, but for the help of private entities who are trying to further secure their own premises. Provision of such allows for superior security over systems where say, police officers run criminal and checks pursuant to a traffic stop of a motorist. In those systems, the private entity (who is prohibited by law from using this same system) is not supplying identification data from potential criminals, terrorists, etc. who may be entrants on their premises. 
     
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
       [0009]     Some of the features, advantages, and benefits of the present invention having been stated, others will become apparent as the description proceeds when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:  
         [0010]      FIG. 1  is an exemplary depiction of the physical instantiation of an information flow path between a non-law enforcement, private entity operator and the relevant law enforcement environment in accordance with the system of  FIG. 2  as described hereafter;  
         [0011]      FIG. 2  is an exemplary block diagram rendering of the interconnectivity of the inventive system by which non-law enforcement (private entity) operator(s) can conduct checks against various law enforcement databases;  
         [0012]      FIG. 3  is an illustrative graphical depiction of dome of the details that may form the basis of the data involved in a check (e.g., submission event) by the private entity operator in accordance with the system of  FIGS. 1 and 2 ;  
         [0013]      FIG. 4  is an exemplary block diagram illustrating the possible details of a user profile in accordance with the system of  FIGS. 1 and 2 ; and  
         [0014]      FIG. 5  is an illustrative flow diagram indicating one possible method of generating checks and the receiving of results in accordance with the system of  FIGS. 1 and 2 .  
     
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION  
       [0015]     At its broadest level, the present invention provides for a computer system, method, and a computer based product, including computer operated instructions, for securing critical infrastructure and important facilities comprising the receiving by computer system resident within a law-enforcement controlled domain of identification indicia that has been input from at least one third party originator, so that the identification indicia may be compared with criminal records of at least one database of a law-enforcement network that is connected to said computer system resident within the law enforcement-controlled domain, in order to generate a response from the input of the originating third party. The response may indicate an existence of a match between the identification indicia and the criminal records, such that there will be an output of the response to at least a location within a law enforcement-controlled domain. In particular, the step of receiving the identification indicia may be effectuated by the provision of substantially uniformly formatted input from at least one third party originator and may further include receiving identification indicia relating to at least a third party identification and a subject identification. The outputting of a response may be directed to a designated law enforcement operator for further review and taking of responsive action as needed, while the outputting of the same response may be made to the third party originator where there is an all clear indication (e.g., where there is no said match between said identification indicia and said criminal records), but alternatively, where there is at least one said match between said identification indicia and said criminal records, there can be provision for preventing the outputting of the response to said third party originator. The response may be preserved for record keeping within the law enforcement domain as needed, and may further include, where a match exists between said identification indicia and the criminal records, an alert to prompt said taking of responsive action based on the particular type of match generated.  
         [0016]     With general reference then to  FIG. 1 , the inventive method and system provides the advantages described herein by providing for a non-law enforcement (e.g., private) entity (or their operator as used interchangebly herein)  100  at a checkpoint  102  locate at or in proximity to the physical premises of the critical infrastructure or other important facility  106  of the private entity with a solution for inputting information pertaining at least to the identity indicia of a vehicle, person or article (not depicted) into any wired or wireless input device (such as a PDA, mobile computer, PC, cell phone, or other device) and any related keyboard, display, scanner, digital camera, other digital imaging products (not depicted) and an interface to a wired or wireless private network  110  for transmission through a connection network  112  for processing through at least one law enforcement database network  114 .  
         [0017]     In one embodiment, input device  104  may comprise a handheld or mobile computing device utilizing software such as the Info-Cop™ software marketed by GTBM, Inc. of East Rutherford, N.J. Input device  104  may be located at the appropriate security checkpoint  102 , of say, chemical plant entrances, transportation hubs, schools, hospitals, nuclear power plants, ports, and other critical infrastructure or important facility, and may be located in a vehicle, carried by a security individual, or retained in other suitable fixed and mobile locations. For example fixed locations may include parking lots, receiving loading docks and other security checkpoints. Operator  100  of input device  104  may be non-law enforcement personnel, private security personnel, and other suitable personnel who might be employed by the designate private entity to help secure the physical premises of the critical infrastructure or important facility.  
         [0018]     Whether propagated immediately through certain channels to a law enforcement database network interface, or whether first pre-processed locally (e.g., through a private database or computer module  108  in connection either wired or wireless private network with  110  with said input device  104 ) before transmission via network  112  (which may be wired, wireless, or any other connective network, and may be via the internet, WAN, or any other network as known in the art) to the given law enforcement database network  114 , the data relating to the given input or query propagated by the private (third party) operator  100  contains data signals that convey identity indicia that would go to at least one server located within a given law enforcement-controlled domain at  114 , which would then process the query or information through criminal databases such as the CJIS and NCIC databases and/or any other law enforcement databases for checking information pertaining to the vehicle, person, or article being checked, according to a originating (third party originator) operator ID tag or identification information (not depicted) that indicated that the originating source of the request/information was “non-law enforcement”. In many cases, the CJIS/NCIC and other law enforcement-only databases that may comprise law enforcement database network  114  will typically be searchable databases from which queries are processed for matches of data and affiliated data, but the results must, as described elsewhere herein, be processed in accordance with the third party identification, so that certain (if not all, depending on the particular laws of the jurisdiction) responses or results may need to forwarded to the designated law enforcement agent.  
         [0019]     To this end, the server(s) of the law enforcement database network  114  would process the information being checked. In order to do so, a query will be run according to standard database querying techniques known in the art, to see if (any of) the database(s) has (have) returned any “hits” on the information (also known as matches). Any such results, whether hits or not, may, in one embodiment, notify the requesting non-law enforcement user if the person, vehicle, or article is “Cleared” or “Not Cleared” in real time via the input device  104 . Thus, if the check results come back as an “all cleared” indication, the operator  100  is notified with one type of message and all pertinent information about the check is logged with date, time, operator information and all demographics on the vehicle, person or, article being checked. If a “hit” (match) is returned by the law enforcement database network  114 , chance are that the particular database is a law enforcement-only (e.g., restricted) database, such that the results from the check or submitted information must (based on the presence of a “non-law enforcement operator” ID tag in the data packet of the query) be redirected to an authorized, designated law enforcement operator  116  (whether local police department, police dispatching center(s), state police, FBI, etc. as designated based on geographic and/or subject matter jurisdiction concerns) for review and the taking of responsive action by law enforcement, and may optionally provide for an alert to prompt the same, based on the kind of match. When provided as such, the originating input operator would then be notified with an appropriate message that would not violate the pertinent rules relating to the dissemination of this restricted information from the database(s) of the law enforcement database network  114 .  
         [0020]     Accordingly,  FIG. 2  illustrates an exemplary system  210  according to the inventive system and method of providing non-law enforcement operators  100  with the capability of real time checks of the various articles or persons on the property of the private entity. System  210  comprises the fixed or mobile device  104 , at least one response or result  213 , a wireless network  214 , a server  215 , a plurality of computer readable storage modules  216  and  218  (e.g., databases). System  210  is operable to provide the capability for checking against the law enforcement databases  114 . System  210  supports the updating of the database(s) of law enforcement database network  114  in response to checks (requests  214 ) generated by the fixed or mobile devices  104  and creation of at least one result  213  returned by a computer based system or server associated with law enforcement database network  114 . Results are directed to authorized users or operators based on profiles associated with users and the results of the checks sent to law enforcement databases  114 . Further, system  210  provides the capability for controlling access to databases and results of checks based on the operator&#39;s device  104  and his user identification as evidenced by the operator ID tag described hereafter.  
         [0021]     With reference now to  FIG. 2 , checks  211  may comprise information regarding occurrences and situations encountered by operators  100  of input device  104 . As described above, network  112  may comprise any wired or wireless data communication system operable to communicate data between input device  104  and the law enforcement database network  114 , but in one embodiment may comprise a wireless network utilizing Cellular Digital Packet Data (CDPD) or (CDMA) communications (or other others, such as GPRS, EVDO, etc.) that is capable of providing substantially uniformly formatted output (e.g., input from operator  100  of the third party originator to the law enforcement database network  114 ). In one embodiment, a software module is provided at the third party location for installation on the input device  104  that will have a common data input interface that, as one skilled in the art may appreciate, may be configured in different ways as needed depending on the exact input device  104  used, and according to the realities of the particular application. This software module will, in one embodiment, be user-friendly and will have computer-based instructions therein for providing substantially uniformly formatted output (e.g., input from operator  100  of the third party originator to the law enforcement database network  114 ). In an alternative embodiment, it is possible for the common data input interface to also be pushed from the law enforcement domain onto the input device  104  as needed.  
         [0022]     As detailed, one embodiment provides for a law enforcement server-based switch or interface  215  within the law enforcement domain that can be used for processing the originating request after it leaves the non-law enforcement domain. The interface  215  may comprise any general purpose or specialized computing device known in the art for parsing incoming data from connected nodes, so that it can examine data received directly from fixed or mobile entity device  104  or indirectly via private server module  108  and private network with  110 . More specifically, interface  215  may determine which data to pass on from device  104  to law enforcement database network  114 , and later on, back to device  104  or to private network  110 . Interface  215  may also comprise input and output devices for receiving information directly. For example, specific messages may be entered at a server of the interface  215  instead of being received from device  104 . Data may also be entered at a terminal associated with a server of interface  215 . In one embodiment, the interface  215  may typically be associated with a particular precinct or organizational unit associated with law enforcement and other suitable entities. For example, a server of interface  215  may be associated with each precinct in a city, with the city as a whole, or in some other combination of precincts and cities. Interface  215  may therefore comprise a simple server for handling checks  214  (request, queries or searches) at  211  or a more powerful server. Any given server of interface  215  may be networked to additional servers (not depicted) as desired and configured. In one embodiment, interface  215  may comprise (not all of which is depicted) a central processing unit (CPU) (not depicted) and computer readable storage (not depicted), a notification module (essentially code indicating access rights (largely dictated by the preset originating ID tag received), standard messages (notifications) to be generated, and decision trees relevant to the sending of the various messages based upon said access rights), and a plurality of user profiles and software to process results based on established criteria, all of which can be programmed in accordance with the best manner determined by one skilled in the art. To this end, interface  215  may comprise an executable software module to receive the check  211  from input device  104 , generates a response results  213  at steps  220  (“cleared”) or  226  (“not cleared”) for forwarding to input device  104  after executing steps  217  (determining that no match or “hit” is applicable) or step  219  (determining that a match or “hit” is applicable), and after logging the relevant data from requests at  222  or  224  for future use and record keeping, all of which is described hereafter in greater detail in  FIG. 5 . Alternatively, as mentioned above, one separate embodiment would provide for modifying the above so that the private entity and/or its operator  100  would not receive such cleared/not cleared messages, but would instead receive no particular response, save emergency notification or follow up police visits.  
         [0023]     Turning then to  FIG. 3  is a block diagram illustrating details of a check  211  in accordance with the system of  FIGS. 1 and 2 . In one embodiment, check  311  comprises type  300 , an ID tag  302 , a date  304 , a time  306 , a location  308 , one or more access levels  309 . Type  300  comprises a numeric, alphanumeric or other value for indicating the kind of the check  311 . Type  300  may be used to categorize checks  211 . For example, type  300  may indicate a vehicle, a person, or an article such as a gun or sensitive. ID tag  302  comprises a numeric, alphanumeric or other value for uniquely identifying each check  211  and distinguishing checks  211  from each other. For example, ID tag  302  may comprise a check number. Date  304  indicates a month, day and year associated with a check  211 , such as the date the check  211  occurred. Time  306  is a field that may indicate the time associated with the reporting time of a check  211 . Location  308  comprises one or more indications of the location of the check  211  origin. For example location  308  may indicate that say, the Dow Company chemical plant in Perth Amboy, N.J. Location  308  may also be more detailed, such as the global positioning coordinates of where the entry device was when check  211  was sent.  
         [0024]     Access levels  309  comprise one or more indications of exactly who may receive results of checks  211  from the law enforcement database network  114 . Access levels  309  are configurable for each system user as the log on from input device  104 /private network  110 . For example, one type of access level  309  might indicate that security personal may not receive CJIS/NCIC or other sensitive law enforcement-only data. Yet another illustrative access level  309  might indicate that full CJIS/NCIS and other sensitive law enforcement-only data may be displayed. In general, access levels  309  may indicate different levels of access to particular elements of checks  211  to different types of users.  
         [0025]     With attention now to  FIG. 4  depicted is an illustrative block diagram showing possible details of user profiles  430 , which may comprises a type  300  and user data  302 . Type  300  may comprise a numeric, alphanumeric or other identifier for indicating the type of user associated with profile  430 . Type  300  may indicate whether the operator  100  is a non-law enforcement user or a law enforcement user. Type  300  may be used with access levels  309  to determine what checks  211  and the particular results thereof, may be provided to users. For example, a non-law enforcement operator  100  is not allowed to receive matching CJIS/NCIS data. In another example, a law enforcement user is allowed complete access to CJIS results and the results originating from non-law enforcement operators. In general access levels  309  may be configured to allow access to some, all or none of the date  304 , time  306 , location  308  and check  211  results  213  based on subscriber type  300 .  
         [0026]     As seen in  FIG. 4 , user data  402  comprises information about user in user profile  430 . More specifically, user data  402  may comprise contact data  412  and an electronic email address  410 . Contact data  412  may comprise name, department, address, phone number, host server and other user information associated with user profile  430 . User data  402  indicates checks  211  which the particular operator  100  associated with profile  430  is interested in, and may comprise one or more notify criteria  420  and one or more notification methods  422 . Each notification criteria  420  may comprise one or more elements of checks  211  indicating what the operator should receive notifications about. More specifically, each of the criteria  420  may indicate one or more items from check  211 , such as date  304 , time  306 , location  308  and access levels  309 , that indicate checks  211  of interest to authorized operators  100 . For example, notify criteria  420  may specify only checks  211  with say, associated matching CJIS results to not get sent to originating input device  104 /private network  110 . Notify criteria  420  may also allow combination of items from checks  211  and redirection of results to appropriate other users in various methods. For example, a particular notify criteria  420  may indicate that check  211  results  213  be forwarded to the nearest law enforcement department user, and also be sent to additional law enforcement users but not sent to the originating operator  100  if the originator is a non-law enforcement user or operator.  
         [0027]     Notification method  422  comprises an indication how to communicate checks  211  generated in response to notify criteria  420  regarding matches on checks  211 . Typically, a notification method  422  is associated with each of the notify criteria  420 . More specifically, notification method  422  indicates whether electronic mail, or other delivery methods should be used for communicating results to users associated to profiles. Multiple notification methods  422  may be associated with a single criterion  420 , such as when a operator  100  desires to be notified by electronic mail and electronic page.  
         [0028]     Accordingly, user profile  430  may comprise rules and other directives resident at server-based interface  215  for handling checks  211  received from a particular input device  104 /private network  110  and is generated by a server at interface  215 . For example, based on the particular checks  211  received and the respective data contained therein (illustratively type  300 , ID tag  302 , date  304 , time  306 , location  308 , and access levels  309 ), profile  430  may direct that results of sensitive matching data not be provided to an originating input device  104 /private network  110  based on access rights or a user authorization table (not depicted). Notification method  422  may comprise messages and responses to users, based on matches emanating from queries and the parsing of reformatted data (e.g., in easy to use fashion as may be appreciated by those skilled in the art) and then redirected to law enforcement users. The response to the non-law enforcement originator would therefore not include restricted sensitive data, so legal restrictions regarding use of the law enforcement databases  114  are thereby respected.  
         [0029]     As stated above, user profile  430  may comprise, among other things, various information about operators and/or private (or even public) entities utilizing the system  210 . User data  402  may be created and updated by an administrator (not depicted) associated with system  210  with the consent of a law enforcement user. User data  402  may therefore relate, among other things, to the identities of operators such as business security persons, school security persons, transportation facility security persons, hospital security persons and any other non-law enforcement organization or entity individually or collectively. Each user therefore has a profile  430 . System  210  may provide a generic profile for classes of users, however each user and device ideally form a unique non-anonymous user for query origination logging and auditability. For example an administrator may generate the generic profiles manually for say, a chemical plant security entrance. By way of yet another example, a generic profile might be created for say, airport security stations. Either way, once in operation, one or more checks  211  are generated by input device  104 /private network  110  and communicated to interface  215 . As stated earlier, operators  100  generate checks  211  to perform security task anywhere. For example, a check  211  may therefore be generated at say, a chemical plant check point, at an airport security check point, at a parking facility, etc. However utilized, the device, user, location, date and time are always known on every check  211 . In one possible embodiment, any results  213  generated may also be further classified and sorted at a server of interface  215 . For example criteria  420  may indicate that a copy of certain results get further distributed to another server in a secure network system to further share important information beyond the nearest law enforcement station.  
         [0030]     With attention now to  FIG. 5  is depicted an exemplary flow diagram indicating a method for checking result responses for transmission to the appropriate operators  100 . The method begins at step  500  where check request data is received at input device  104 . The check request data may be received by a human operator  100  entering the information or by some other equivalent method. Next, at step  502 , check  211  request is generated using the received check  211  request data. More specifically, type  300  is assigned to check  211  using the check information, date  304  and time  306  are set, type  300  is set to identify the input device  104  and/or the private network  110  generating the check  211  and is then sent to a server of interface  215 . Then, at step  504 , check  211  is communicated to a server within interface  215 .  
         [0031]     Proceeding then to step  506 , check  211  is received at a server within interface  215 , and step  508  entails the forwarding of the same to a database within the law enforcement database network  114 . At step  510 , the given server performs the check on the given database, and step  512  returns the results  213  of check  211  to the server of interface  215 . In decisional step  514 , the given server of interface  215  also determines whether operator  100  has access to matched checks  211 , based on type  300  of operator  100  and access levels  309  of matched checks  211 . If operator  100  should not, by definition, have access to law enforcement data, then the NO branch of decisional step  514  is followed. If, however, one or more of checks  211  meet notify criteria  420 , then the YES branch of step  514 , leading then to step  516 . At step  516 , system  210  determines the notification method  422  for each met notify criteria  420 . Then, at step  517 , notification method  422  is generated by system  210 , as appropriate, for notification method  422 . By way of just one illustrative example, a message and an email notification of results about a matched check are sent to law enforcement operators. Then in step  518 , notification method  422  is communicated to the operators associated with the profile  430  with matched notify criteria  420 . Notification method  422  may include all or a portion of the information in the given matched check  211 . Access levels  309  associated with matched checks  211  may also limit the information included in notification method  422 . For example non-law enforcement profiles may not get results which law enforcement profiles are authorized. While steps  516 ,  517 , and  518  get followed regardless of the operator&#39;s  100  authorized level, the system  210  diverts and edits the allowed response to the operator  100  based on whether or not the operator  100  is law enforcement or non law enforcement.  
         [0032]     It should be recognized that other changes, substitutions and alterations are also possible without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention, as defined by the following claims.