U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report, 2001 Update Laws and policies The evolution of information technology Interstate Identification Index Federal initiatives and legislation Criminal Justice Information Policy -------------------------------------------------------- This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to the http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#umchri This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/umchri01.htm -------------------------------------------------------- December 2001, NCJ 187670 U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld Acting Director Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Kenneth E. Bischoff, Chair, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project director was Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Executive Director. The report was written by Robert R. Belair, SEARCH General Counsel; Paul L. Woodard, Senior Counsel; and Eric C. Johnson, Policy Research Analyst. Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, Corporate Communications, edited this report, and Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Specialist, provided layout and design assistance. The Federal project monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, Criminal History Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Report of work prepared under Cooperative Agreement number 96-BJ-CX-K010, awarded to SEARCH Group, Incorporated, 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice. Copyright (c) SEARCH Group, Incorporated, dba SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 2001 The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise use all or any part of the copyrighted material to this publication, except for those items indicating they are copyrighted or printed by any source other than SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics. Foreword The Bureau of Justice Statistics is pleased to publish Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report, 2001 Update. The report is an update of a report first published in 1993 that was the first descriptive review of the Nation's criminal history information systems. The report discusses in nontechnical terms the complex, interrelated network of local, State, and Federal information systems that provide criminal history records to both criminal justice and noncriminal justice users. The 2001 update reflects changes in the handling of criminal history records that occurred in the 1990s following policy developments, societal changes, technological advances, and other factors. The report is the latest in BJS's efforts to assist States in improving the quality of criminal history record information and to ensure that accurate data are readily available for operational and research purposes. We hope that the report will be of value to policymakers and practitioners who are addressing the critical issues relating to criminal history record information that will accompany expanded development of systems for the interstate exchange of this information. Lawrence A. Greenfeld Acting Director Bureau of Justice Statistics Glossary Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS): An automated system for storing, searching, and transmitting digitized fingerprint images. (See pages 32, 48-49, and 61-63.) Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act): The Brady Act amended the 1968 Gun Control Act to mandate background checks for potential gun buyers before a firearm purchase can be completed. (See pages 54, and 93-94.) Criminal History Record Improvement (CHRI) Program: Administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, this was the first grant program in a long-term and multifaceted effort by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to help States improve the quality of their criminal history records. (See pages 94-97.) Central Repository: The database, or agency housing the database, that maintains criminal history records on all State offenders. Records include fingerprint files and files containing identification segments, arrest notations, and dispositions. (See pages 2, and 23-24.) Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) or Criminal History Record Information System: A record, or system for maintaining records, that includes individual identifiers and that describes an individual's arrests and subsequent dispositions. (See chapter II.) Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board (APB): Successor to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) APB, the CJIS APB is comprised of 30 criminal justice officials who provide policy input to guide the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the administration of its CJIS Division. The CJIS Division administers the NCIC, the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), and other information system programs determined by the FBI director to have some relationship with these programs. (See page 27.) Data Quality: The extent to which criminal history records are complete, accurate, and timely. (See pages 3, 37-39, 47-50, and 88.) Data Warehousing: A term used to describe a data management process that permits the collection of data from different and often-disparate electronic sources in a single database for use in queries, detailed analysis, and report preparation. (See pages 5, and 67-68.) Felony or Serious Misdemeanor: The offense categories for which fingerprints and criminal history information are accepted by the FBI and entered in the Bureau's files, including the III. "Serious misdemeanor" is defined to exclude certain minor offenses, such as drunkenness or minor traffic offenses. (See pages 12, 27, 31, and 74.) Integration: A process by which a computerized information system maintained by one entity is programmed to electronically interact and share data with a computerized information system maintained by another entity. (See pages 63-67.) Interstate Identification Index (III): An "index-pointer" system maintained by the FBI for the interstate exchange of criminal history records. (For complete information, see chapter V.) Juvenile Justice Records: Official records of juvenile justice adjudications. (See pages 27-29.) Livescan and Cardscan: Automated devices for generating and transmitting digitized fingerprint images. Livescan devices capture fingerprint images directly from subjects' fingers, which are rolled onto glass scanning plates. Cardscan devices scan and digitize standard inked fingerprint cards and can transmit electronic images with related textual data to remote sites for printout or direct use. (See page 62.) Master Name Index (MNI): A subject identification index maintained by criminal record repositories that includes names and other identifiers for all persons about whom records are held. (See pages 29-30.) National Child Protection Act of 1993: A Federal law whose provisions include the establishment of a national criminal background check system to which a designated criminal justice agency in each State must report or index child abuse crime information for child-care provider background checks. (See page 54.) National Crime Information Center (NCIC): An automated, nationally accessible database of criminal justice and justice-related records maintained by the FBI that includes "hot files" of wanted and missing persons, stolen vehicles, and identifiable stolen property, including firearms. (See pages 26-27 and chapter V.) National Crime Information Center 2000: The new generation of the automated NCIC system. NCIC 2000, which electronically compiles, disseminates, and exchanges timely criminal justice information; pertinent graphic images, including mug shots, tattoos, and signatures; and records of wanted and missing persons and of identifiable stolen property, became operational on July 11, 1999. (See page 92.) National Crime Information Center Advisory Policy Board (APB): An advisory committee comprised of criminal justice officials, representatives of criminal justice associations, and user representatives that provided policy input to guide the FBI in the administration of the NCIC system. The NCIC APB was reorganized as the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) APB in 1994. (See page 27.) National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact: An interstate and Federal/State compact designed to facilitate use of the III to exchange criminal history data among States and the Federal government for noncriminal justice purposes. (See pages 89-90.) National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP): An umbrella funding program administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. DOJ, designed to assist States in meeting evolving Federal and State requirements concerning criminal history and related records, such as protective orders and sexual offender registry records. (See pages 43, 94-97.) National Fingerprint File (NFF): A database of fingerprints, or other uniquely personal identifying information, relating to an arrested or charged individual maintained by the FBI to provide positive identification of record subjects indexed in the III System. (See pages 24, 77, 84-89.) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS): An automated system established in accordance with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to check the eligibility of prospective gun purchasers. (See pages 93-94.) National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS): A computerized, high-speed message-switching system maintained by the States that provides for the interstate exchange of criminal justice-related information among local, State, and Federal criminal justice agencies. (Referenced throughout report.) National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program (NSOR-AP): Instituted in FY 1998 to help States respond to Federal mandates to establish sex offender registries and to contribute data to a national sex offender registry. Funded under the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) beginning in FY 1999. (See page 99.) Positive Identification: Identification of an individual using unique biometric characteristics not subject to alteration. Positive identification is distinguished from identification using name, sex, birth date, and other nonbiometric identifiers typically displayed on documents subject to alteration or counterfeit, such as birth certificates, Social Security cards, or drivers' licenses. ( See pages 12 and 25.) Security Clearance Information Act (SCIA): Federal legislation requiring States to make criminal history records available to certain Federal agencies in connection with screening for security clearances. (See page 51.) Sex Offender Registry: A registry established to help law enforcement agencies keep track of convicted sex offenders released into the community. (See page 99.) Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems: A comprehensive survey of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, funded by BJS, U.S. DOJ, that describes the status of their criminal history record systems. SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, has conducted this biennial survey six times since 1989, most recently in 1999. (See pages 30-36.) Introduction Purpose of this report In 1993, SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, produced the first comprehensive examination of the Nation's criminal history record systems and the major issues and developments that affected them. Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information -1 [Robert R. Belair and Paul L. Woodard, Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 143501 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 1993).] described in nontechnical terms the complex and interrelated network of Federal, State, -2 [As used in this publication, the term "State" refers to all 50 U.S. States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.] and local information systems that provided criminal history records to criminal justice personnel and to authorized noncriminal justice users. It also assessed the roles these systems played in the effective functioning of the criminal justice system, and reviewed the impact that new technologies and strategies had on the completeness, accuracy, and availability of criminal history records. The report served as a valuable reference tool through the mid- and late-1990s. Now, as the 21st century dawns, Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information has been revised to reflect changes in the handling of criminal history records that occurred in the 1990s following policy developments, societal changes, technological advances, and other factors. This revised report includes: * An overview of how typical State criminal justice systems are structured, how the criminal justice process works, and how criminal history records are used in the justice system. * An overview of existing State and Federal criminal history record systems and of the product they provide - the criminal history record. * An overview of laws regulating criminal history record systems, and a look at two key issues affecting the systems - data quality and dissemination. * An examination of the evolution of information technology and information system capabilities that affect criminal history record systems. * A description of the Interstate Identification Index (III) system and the role it plays in the decentralization of the Nation's criminal history record information system. * An overview of Federal initiatives and activities that affect criminal history record systems. It is hoped that readers will derive a general understanding of how criminal history record systems work, the types of information they maintain, who reports the information to these systems and by what means, how accurate and complete the information is, and who obtains the information and for what purposes. This report should also help readers understand the changing relationship among local, State, and Federal systems, and how presently available and emerging technology is affecting the efficiency of the systems and the quality of the information they maintain and disseminate. With this background, State and Federal legislators and other policymakers, as well as the general public, should better understand the critical importance of criminal record repositories, and also how data quality problems and other difficulties - and the new strategies and technologies being used to solve them - affect the usefulness of the systems, and ultimately the efficiency of criminal case processing and the effectiveness of crime control strategies. Background Repositories of criminal history record information This report discusses in detail the operations of State and national criminal history record repositories that provide information about individuals' past criminal involvement to criminal justice practitioners and to noncriminal justice agencies and organizations that need such information to carry out their duties and functions. - State systems Each State operates a central criminal history record repository that receives case processing information contributed by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, and corrections agencies throughout the State. These repositories compile this information into comprehensive criminal history records or "rap sheets," as they are often called. Rap sheets are made available to criminal justice personnel, for authorized purposes, by means of statewide telecommunications systems. Maintenance of such central repositories relieves local and State criminal justice agencies from maintaining expensive and duplicative information systems that attempt to compile comprehensive offender records. They need only maintain systems that support their own case processing needs, and can rely upon State central repositories for information about case processing in other agencies. State repositories also make criminal history records available to some noncriminal justice agencies, such as State agencies authorized by law to obtain the records for such purposes as employment screening and occupational licensing. Increasingly, local law enforcement agencies are being required by State and Federal law to conduct criminal history background checks on individuals pursuing employment in sensitive positions in child and elder care and security, and for certain license authorizations. State criminal history repository databases are among those searched during such background checks. - Federal systems At the Federal level, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) maintains criminal history record files on Federal offenders, as well as files on State offenders, to the extent that States voluntarily submit such information. The FBI has accepted and recorded State offender information for more than three-quarters of a century and has compiled a criminal history database that, to a great extent, duplicates the files of the State repositories. The FBI also maintains a nationwide telecommunications system that enables Federal, State, and local criminal justice agencies to conduct national record searches and to obtain information about individuals who are arrested and prosecuted in other States. In addition, the FBI provides criminal record services to noncriminal justice agencies authorized by Federal law to obtain such records. Timely criminal history record information issues This report, which describes State and Federal criminal history record repositories and the problems, issues, and developments that affect them, should be timely for a number of reasons. - Data quality First, when Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information was published in 1993, records maintained by State and Federal repositories were not always accurate and up-to-date, primarily due to the failure of criminal justice agencies to report information accurately, completely, and regularly, but also in some cases due to a lack of adequate equipment and procedures at the repositories. While data quality has improved since then, in part because of the growing recognition of the value of accurate and up-to-date criminal history records and the increased Federal and State funding that resulted from this recognition, there is still room for improvement. Local justice agencies, for example, are providing State repositories with more final court dispositions for recent arrests than in the past, but not for older arrests previously reported to the repositories. Recent surveys and audits have also shown the following: * There is a wide disparity among the States in the time it takes final court dispositions to reach State repositories, and in the time it takes for the repositories to enter disposition data into their databases. * More than half of the State criminal history repositories developed backlogs in entering arrest and disposition data into their databases. * Most State criminal history repositories receive some final court dispositions that they are unable to link to arrest records. As noted previously, a number of initiatives have been implemented to improve criminal history record data quality nationwide, including Federal grant assistance to the States and the promulgation of voluntary data quality standards. States may be required, in some instances, to provide matching funds or to institute appropriate information-reporting procedures before they are deemed eligible for some Federal grant programs. This may require legislative activity for funding to support technology purchases and increased staffing, or to institute or amend existing laws and regulations to facilitate broader information exchange. Given the complexity of these recent developments, it is hoped that this report will guide and assist legislators and other policymakers in understanding these developments and the important role the repositories play in national initiatives to improve data quality. - Decentralized recordkeeping Second, State repositories and the FBI are engaged in a cooperative program to eliminate the maintenance of duplicative State offender records at both the State and Federal levels. The current practice of maintaining centralized State offender files at the FBI is being replaced by the III, which will make the State repositories primarily responsible for providing State criminal history records for interstate and Federal-State purposes. Full participation in this program will require many States to modify record dissemination laws and policies, and to upgrade their repositories' technical capabilities to realize the long-term cost savings and potential for improved performance available through III participation. - New technologies Third, new technologies continue to emerge that offer great potential for significantly increasing the efficiency of the criminal history record repositories and the quality of the information they collect, maintain, and disseminate. The declining cost and impressive capabilities of state-of-the-art information technology are motivating many States to automate their information systems and to integrate them with justice agencies in their States, in other States, and at the Federal level. However, these automation efforts raise new questions that must be addressed concerning privacy, confidentiality, data ownership, funding responsibilities, long-term maintenance, and other issues. Content of this report This report contains six major chapters that provide a comprehensive, nontechnical review of criminal history record information systems nationwide, and how the records contained in those systems are used and managed. Supporting tables and information are presented in 21 appendixes. To find specific topics or areas of interest, readers are encouraged to refer to the detailed table of contents. Readers are also encouraged to refer to a glossary of terms used in this report, located following the table of contents. Because the scope of this report is broad, readers may wish to refer to the other compendia, reports, or documents - cited throughout this report in footnotes - for more specific or timely data. In addition, readers may find a certain amount of duplication between chapters; this is because each chapter is designed to stand alone as a reference document. The chapters and the topics they cover are as follows: Chapter I provides a brief overview of how typical State criminal justice systems are structured, how the criminal justice process works, and how criminal justice practitioners use criminal history records. It describes the main case processing steps in a typical State's criminal justice system and identifies the decision points in these processes that require reliance on criminal history records, with a brief explanation of the types of information needed and the time frames within which it is needed. The chapter also identifies the decisions and actions that occur in the course of criminal case processing that are reflected, or that should be reflected, in criminal history records. Chapter II provides an overview of existing criminal history record systems, with emphasis on the State central repositories and the FBI's criminal history record systems. The chapter includes a summary of the historical evolution of the State repositories and the FBI's record systems. It then describes the types and numbers of records maintained by the repositories and the FBI, the extent of present and planned automation, the number of inquiries handled, and major criminal justice and noncriminal justice users. The chapter also describes how information is reported to the repositories and the FBI and how users have access to the information. Finally, the chapter describes the quality of the information maintained by the repositories, the format and content of the criminal history records they disseminate, and the principal systematic and procedural strategies utilized to ensure data quality and system integrity. Chapter III analyzes the legal standards applicable to the criminal history record repositories, including constitutional and common law doctrines, as well as statutory and regulatory requirements. This chapter also analyzes in some detail the laws, regulations, and policies relevant to two major issues concerning criminal justice information management - data quality and dissemination. Chapter IV describes some of the technological innovations and information management strategies now in use or available to criminal record repositories to improve record quality and the ability to exchange information. Technologies, innovations, and strategies described include: * Automated reporting of criminal history information to the repositories by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, and corrections agencies. * Automated fingerprint identification technology, its impact on the accuracy of the identification function, and the efficiency of inquiry and response procedures. * Livescan fingerprint technology and its impact on the efficiency and accuracy of arrest subject processing, inquiry processing, and the transmission of fingerprint images to the repositories. * Justice system integration that provides higher quality criminal history records by reducing redundant data entry, and that facilitates the transfer of information to agencies participating in the criminal justice process and, ultimately, to the criminal history repository. * Data warehousing tools that program incoming data and transform existing data so the data can be used in detailed research, analysis, and planning. * Data exchange standards that allow information sharing among justice agencies using equipment manufactured by different vendors. * Internet security strategies that may allow the wide-scale transfer of criminal history information on the Internet, and which may ultimately reduce dependence on costly dedicated networks and improve data quality at the repository level by providing cost-effective on-line access to smaller justice agencies. * Policy innovations that allow justice entities to maximize the capabilities of emerging information technologies and systems and that increase trust in the systems by developing recognized policies and requirements for system operation, which attract more justice participants. Chapter V describes the III, including an overview of the system's structure and the history of phased testing and implementation up to the present. The chapter describes how the processing of criminal justice and noncriminal justice inquiries presently works using FBI files, the National Fingerprint File, the Master Name Index, and other information sources. The chapter also describes the principal burdens and benefits that participation in the system will entail for the State repositories and the FBI. Finally, the chapter summarizes the provisions of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, which formalizes III participation by the FBI and the State repositories for noncriminal justice purposes. Chapter VI provides a brief overview of current Federal initiatives and activities that affect or are related to criminal history record systems, including: * The FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. * The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. * Federal grant programs to improve data quality. * The National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program. * The Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998. * The National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact. Chapter I: How the criminal justice system works and how it uses criminal history records This chapter provides an overview of how the criminal justice system works and how criminal justice personnel utilize criminal history records. Section 1: Typical State criminal justice system structure, describes a typical State criminal justice system structure, and includes a discussion of criminal codes and procedures, police agencies, local detention facilities, prosecution agencies, courts, and corrections agencies. Section 2: Typical State criminal justice process, describes how criminal cases are processed in a typical State criminal justice system - from investigation through arrest, prosecution, adjudication, and correctional supervision. Section 3: How criminal justice practitioners use criminal history records, identifies the actions and decisions in the criminal justice process that require a reliance on criminal history record information, and explains the types of information needed and the time frames within which it is needed. Background This discussion is intended for those readers who may not be familiar with the structure of the criminal justice system and how persons accused of criminal offenses are processed through the system. This should enable these readers to understand why criminal history record systems are necessary, and how the efficiency of these systems and the quality of the information they provide can significantly impact the effectiveness of criminal case processing and the success of crime control strategies. Section 1: Typical State criminal justice system structure Although there are local, State, and Federal criminal justice systems, the vast majority of crimes are prosecuted under State law. For this reason, this discussion will focus primarily on State-level systems, and will describe a more-or-less typical State criminal justice structure. It should be stressed, however, that the local, State, and Federal systems are significantly interrelated and depend upon a high level of cooperation among officials at all three levels. This section discusses these components of a State criminal justice system: * criminal codes and procedures * police agencies * local detention facilities * prosecution agencies * courts * corrections agencies. Criminal codes and procedures Some crimes are Federal by nature, such as attempts to assassinate the president, certain antitrust violations, and some criminal conspiracies or enterprises that utilize the mails or other instruments of interstate commerce. These crimes are prosecuted in Federal courts and convicted offenders are usually, but not always, incarcerated in Federal correctional facilities. Other crimes or violations are local in nature, such as loitering or public drunkenness. These less serious offenses are processed through local systems at the city, township, or county level. Most crimes, however, are State crimes, including murder, robbery, burglary, rape, and other dangerous crimes that constitute the core of the Nation's serious crime problem. Each of these governmental levels - local, State, and Federal - defines its own criminal laws and criminal procedures. At the Federal level, the Congress -3 [In this report, "the Congress" refers to the United States Congress.] has enacted a Federal criminal code defining Federal crimes and a code of Federal criminal procedure setting out applicable rules for processing criminal cases through the Federal courts. State legislatures enact criminal statutes and procedural codes at the State level. City councils or similar governing bodies act at the local level. Each of these levels depends upon a high degree of cooperation with criminal justice officials at other governmental levels. This interrelation and cooperation is especially important between local and State governments and exists at every phase of the criminal justice process, from investigation through correctional treatment. These roles are sometimes defined by law, sometimes by formal agreements, and sometimes by informal practice. Police agencies Police protection is primarily local in nature - a function of cities, municipalities, or counties. Most State law violations are investigated by local police, and crime suspects are arrested and charged at the local level. In addition, other police units - such as State troopers, Federal Drug Enforcement Administration officers, or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents - may be involved with local police in the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of certain cases. Local detention facilities Jails, which are also primarily local in nature, detain not only persons arrested for local offenses, but also virtually all persons charged and awaiting trial under State law. Local jails may also house Federal detainees and State "prison-ready" inmates - convicted and sentenced persons whose transfer to State prison is delayed by overcrowding or other reasons. In most such cases, State or Federal governments pay fees to the local communities that house these prisoners. Prosecution agencies Prosecution is another essentially local function that plays a vital role in the enforcement of State criminal laws. Most prosecutors are elected at the city, county, or district level. They may be called District Attorneys, as they are in California and Wyoming, or State's Attorneys, as they are in Illinois and South Dakota. They also may be called Prosecuting Attorneys, Commonwealth's Attorneys, County Attorneys, or City Attorneys. These locally elected and locally accountable officials are responsible for prosecuting local offenses, and also virtually all offenses defined under State law. For many of them, prosecuting State crimes is their primary, and often their exclusive, function. Courts Courts exist at the local, State, and Federal levels. Most States have "integrated" court systems that, as a result of reform and modernization, have a more or less uniform statewide structure that combines local and State courts into essentially one system. Some States, such as Alaska and Maryland, have what are known as "unified" court systems. In such systems, all courts are directly administered by the State, usually through a State-level court administration office. There are magistrates' courts, lower-level trial courts, felony trial courts, and intermediate and final appellate courts in a typical State judicial system. Magistrates, or Commissioners in some States, conduct initial appearances in criminal cases. They may set bail, but usually have no trial jurisdiction. Lower-level trial courts, often called Municipal Courts, County Courts, or District Courts, are usually limited to trying misdemeanor cases and conducting probable cause hearings in felony cases. The next tier is the felony trial court, commonly called the Circuit Court or Superior Court. In New York, this court is called the Supreme Court. These are the basic State trial courts with jurisdiction over felony offenses and often over misdemeanor cases appealed from the lower trial courts. About one-half of the States have intermediate appellate courts, usually called the Court of Appeals. The State Supreme Court tops the structure as the highest State appellate court. In New York, this court is called the Court of Appeals. Generally, there is a right of appeal to the State Supreme Court from the intermediate appellate court, or directly from the trial courts if no intermediate appellate court exists. Under some circumstances, such as alleged denials of constitutional rights, Federal courts can review State court decisions. Corrections agencies "Corrections" is an umbrella term for probation agencies, State prisons, and parole agencies. Correctional supervision is primarily a State function, although, again, cooperation among governmental entities is common. It has already been noted that local jails may hold State prisoners. In addition, State prisons may hold Federal prisoners, such as those who are in special protection programs, while Federal prisons may hold State prisoners who are at particular risk in the State systems. A prisoner may sometimes serve concurrent State and Federal or State and local sentences. Section 2: Typical State criminal justice process Although there may be unique aspects of every State's criminal justice system, the essential steps or functions of practically each State's system are similar. The following discussion describes how these essential steps function in a typical State system, and points out some shortcomings in the process that may detract from the creation of adequate criminal case records. The steps or functions discussed in this section are: * investigation * arrest * booking * initial court appearance * preliminary hearing * pretrial release decision * prosecutor review * grand jury indictment * arraignment * trial court action * appeal * sentencing * correctional supervision. (See figure 1, which illustrates the sequence of events in the criminal justice system.) -4 [The flowchart in figure 1, which illustrates the sequence of events in the criminal justice system, updates the original chart prepared by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 1967, and which appeared in the Commission's report, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. The chart summarizes the most common events in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, including entry into the criminal justice system, prosecution and pretrial services, adjudication, sentence and sanctions, and corrections. Downloadable electronic files of both full-color and black-and-white versions of the chart, as well as instructions for ordering full-color posters of the chart, appear on the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/flowchart.htm.] Investigation Police conduct most criminal investigations, but grand juries or other special bodies, such as crime commissions or legislative committees, may also undertake investigations. Most information utilized by criminal investigators is commonly referred to as "intelligence" information (compiled in an effort to anticipate, prevent, or monitor possible criminal activity) or "investigative" information (obtained in the course of an investigation into specific alleged criminal acts). Many State laws make a sharp distinction between this type of information and criminal history record information. Intelligence and investigative information is regarded as more sensitive and potentially more harmful to privacy and confidentiality interests. Consequently, it is more strictly regulated in many States. Investigators do use criminal history record information, however, as shown in section 3 of this chapter. Arrest The next stage in the process, in most cases, is the arrest. An arrest may occur pursuant to an arrest warrant, although an arrest warrant is not generally needed except for a misdemeanor offense committed outside of the arresting officer's presence or when the officer must enter the subject's premises to make the arrest. The more typical arrest is sometimes referred to as an "on view" arrest. This occurs when the officer personally witnesses the crime, or has sufficient information from a reliable source to establish probable cause that a crime occurred and that the arrest subject was involved. In most instances, the arrest is the event that triggers the creation of a criminal history record for a particular case. Virtually all States have laws or regulations requiring arresting agencies to report certain arrests to the central repository. -5 [Robert R. Belair and Paul L. Woodard, Data Quality of Criminal History Records, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 98079 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1985). Hereafter, Data Quality Report.] (State central criminal history record repositories are described in chapter II.) These laws usually apply to all arrests for offenses classified as felonies or serious misdemeanors. In addition to reporting information about the arrest, the arrest subject and arrest charges, arresting agencies are also required to obtain and submit the arrest subject's fingerprints. These fingerprints provide so-called "positive identification" of the record subject and are crucial for these reasons: * Searching criminal history record systems. * Linking prior arrest and conviction records to persons who subsequently use false names. * Ensuring the admissibility of criminal records in subsequent proceedings for such purposes as sentencing. For these reasons, it is vitally important that fingerprints be obtained and submitted to the repository for all cases that are required by law to be included in the repository's database. In cases that begin with arrest, most arresting agencies have booking procedures designed to ensure that fingerprints are obtained and submitted as required. Not all cases begin with arrest, however. Citations, used in the past primarily for minor offenses, are being used more often in many States for serious misdemeanors and even for some felonies. Citations are paper forms given to the subject in lieu of arrest and booking, and which contain a legally enforceable order to appear in court on a specified date or as ordered. Since the subject is not detained and booked, fingerprints are not obtained and submitted to the repository in the usual way. If there are no procedures in place to ensure that fingerprints are obtained at the time of the subject's court appearance, or at some other point in the proceedings, the case history may lack a basis for positive identification. Any resulting conviction may not be legally admissible in subsequent proceedings. Moreover, without positive identification, case information cannot reliably be associated with information about prior and subsequent offenses committed by the record subject, which is needed to form a comprehensive criminal history. A similar problem is presented by cases in which additional charges are filed against persons already charged in other cases. For example, a person who is arrested, charged, and fingerprinted in connection with an alleged burglary may, through subsequent investigation, be linked to additional burglaries, which may be charged as separate cases. New fingerprints are often overlooked for these new cases, even though the subject may still be in custody, and appropriate steps may not be taken to establish a link between the new cases and the earlier fingerprints. Where an arrest does occur, the detained person may later be released without being booked and charged. In such cases, no report to the repository is required and none should be made. (This assumes that no report on the arrest, that is, a fingerprint card, has already been submitted to the repository.) Booking The booking process is a critical stage in a criminal case's information flow. Booking typically involves an entry into a chronological arrest log or arrest register, the filing of an arrest report by an arresting officer, and the preparation of a statement of charges as the arresting officer sees them. Personal information about an arrestee, such as name, address, date of birth, sex, race, eye and hair color, weight, and any scars, marks, or tattoos that may be useful in identifying the person, is obtained and recorded during the booking process. As noted previously, the subject is fingerprinted if the arrest is for a felony or a serious misdemeanor. Typically, three sets of fingerprints are obtained - one for the arresting agency's files and two to be sent to the State repository (one for the repository's use and one to be forwarded to the FBI in appropriate cases). At some point in the booking process, the agency queries available criminal history record systems to determine whether the subject has a record of prior or pending cases that may affect how he or she is processed. These record systems include the agency's own files, files maintained by the criminal history record repository in the State where the agency is located, and files included in the Interstate Identification Index (III), if positive identification is not established during the local and State inquiries. (III is a national system that can determine whether the subject has a Federal record or a record in another State. This national-level system, often referred to as "Triple I," is discussed in detail in chapter V.) The booking stage is another point at which an arrestee may be released without prosecution - an event that could cause problems for criminal history record reporting purposes if the subject was fingerprinted before release and the fingerprints were already sent to the repository. A notice of the release must also be sent to avoid the creation of an open-arrest record without a notation that the case was officially terminated. A recent survey of State repositories revealed that around 60% of the States have laws or regulations that require law enforcement agencies to send such notices to the repository, -6 [Sheila J. Barton, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 184793 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 2000) p. 4 and table 7. Hereafter, 1999 Survey. Selected tables from the 1999 Survey are set out in this report as appendixes 9-18.] and audits have shown that failure to send such notices, even where required by law, is a pervasive problem. Not all arresting agencies have booking facilities. In such cases, the arrestee is usually turned over to another agency for processing. This is commonly noted on the subject's record as "TOT," followed by the name of the receiving agency. Initial court appearance The defendant's initial appearance before a court or magistrate is the next step. This must occur "without unnecessary delay," which in some States means within 24 hours. A number of things can happen at the initial appearance: * The judge or magistrate may make a probable cause finding. In felony cases, however, this is usually delayed until the next step in the process, the preliminary hearing, unless the two stages are combined, as they are in some jurisdictions. * Charges against the defendant may be dismissed. * Legal counsel may be assigned if the defendant is indigent. * A pretrial release decision may be made. * In nonserious cases, the entire case may be completed and a disposition may be entered. All this information, with the exception of the handling of the nonserious case, is typically reportable to the State repository and has consequences for the completeness and accuracy of the criminal history record. Preliminary hearing The next step is the preliminary hearing, which may not be required in all jurisdictions, particularly in cases in which a grand jury must issue an indictment. Simply put, the preliminary hearing determines whether there is enough evidence to hold ("bind over") the defendant for trial. To make this determination, the judge or magistrate must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed, and must find probable cause that the defendant committed the crime. The court may take other actions at this time as well. For example, if the prosecutor cannot present enough evidence to meet the required findings, the judge will dismiss some or all of the charges. The judge also may make or change a pretrial release decision, such as an increase or decrease in bail. Pretrial release decision As noted, the pretrial release decision may occur as early as the initial appearance. It may be reviewed and changed, possibly several times, at later stages of the case proceedings. Courts have a number of pretrial release choices based upon available information about the crime with which the defendant is charged, the defendant's prior criminal record, and the likelihood that the defendant will appear or fail to appear for trial: * The defendant may be jailed without bail if the defendant is charged with a capital offense, or if the court finds that the defendant may not appear for trial or may pose an undue risk to the community if released. * The defendant may be jailed in default of bond, if bail is set and the defendant is unable to post bond. * The defendant may be released on cash bond or without bond (released on his or her own recognizance or "ROR"). * The defendant may be released on specific conditions or restrictions designed to keep the defendant out of trouble and to reduce the likelihood of flight. If the defendant is released and fails to appear for arraignment or trial, an arrest warrant may be issued, and bond may be revoked or changed. Prosecutor review Although the point at which the prosecutor first becomes involved in the process varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, this involvement typically begins soon after arrest. After reviewing the offense circumstances, the arrestee's prior record, if any, and any other available information, the prosecutor may decide to file all of the charges indicated by the arresting officer in the statement of charges, or the prosecutor may decline to prosecute some or all of the charges. The prosecutor may also add or modify charges. If the prosecutor decides to go ahead with the proceedings, the prosecutor may initiate prosecution in some cases by filing an "information" with the appropriate court. -7 [An "information" is a formal accusation against a person for the commission of a crime. It differs from an indictment in that an information is presented by a public officer, usually the prosecutor, upon his oath, rather than by the grand jury.] The prosecutor may also present the charges to a grand jury and seek an "indictment." Grand jury indictment is commonly required in felony cases unless waived by the defendant. Once a case is filed, it takes a court order based upon good cause shown to drop any of the charges. Grand jury indictment A grand jury is "grand" because it is typically larger than a regular trial jury, which usually consists of 12 persons. Grand juries frequently consist of 23 jurors, although State laws may set other sizes. Grand juries receive complaints and accusations in criminal cases, hear evidence presented by the prosecutor, and decide whether there should be a trial. If a grand jury finds that there is sufficient credible evidence to sustain the charges presented by the prosecutor, it issues a "true bill of indictment." It is also possible in some cases for the grand jury to conduct investigations and initiate criminal proceedings on its own. It then issues what is commonly called a "grand jury original" indictment. If the subject of the indictment is not already in custody, the appropriate court may issue an arrest warrant. The court may also issue a "summons" directing the person to appear in court on a specified date. In such cases, care must be taken to ensure that the person's fingerprints are obtained at the court appearance or the case record may lack positive identification. Arraignment After charges are formally filed by indictment or information, the accused person is scheduled for arraignment before a court. At this appearance, the accused is advised of the charges filed and of his or her rights under the law. For example, if the accused person does not already have legal counsel, he or she is advised of right to counsel, including the right to court-appointed counsel if the accused is indigent. If the accused person has counsel or waives legal representation, he or she is asked to enter a plea. Plea options include guilty or not guilty to some or all of the charges, or nolo contendere (no contest) to some or all of the charges. The accused may also plead not guilty by reason of insanity or diminished capacity, or guilty but insane. In this regard, before the trial can continue, the judge must determine whether the accused is competent to understand the proceedings and to assist counsel in his or her defense. The defendant may enter a plea as a result of charge or sentence negotiations with the prosecutor. The judge may reject a guilty plea if the judge finds that the defendant was coerced or does not understand the charges or the consequences of his or her plea. If the judge accepts a guilty or a no-contest plea, the judge normally enters a judgment of conviction on the record. The judge may also impose sentence if the charges are not serious. Sentencing is usually set for a later date in cases involving felonies or serious misdemeanors, and the judge may order a presentence report to guide the sentencing decision. If the defendant pleads not guilty to some or all of the charges or if a guilty plea is rejected, the case is scheduled for trial on the remaining charges. Trial court action Trial usually results in an acquittal or conviction on some or all of the charges. Other common trial court judgments can include, as to some or all of the charges: dismissal, nolle prosequi (no further prosecution), not guilty by reason of insanity, and guilty but insane. There are other trial outcomes that can result in confusing criminal history records, such as "probation without verdict." This usually results from plea negotiations, and can occur before a plea is entered or after the entry of a guilty plea but before the entry of a judgment of conviction. In such cases, the defendant is placed on probation with specified restrictions or conditions for a designated period. At the end of that time, the charges are dismissed if the defendant has complied with the conditions. If the defendant has not complied, trial may resume or the court may enter a judgment of conviction on the guilty plea and proceed to sentencing. Another such outcome is indefinite postponement. This is usually ordered pursuant to a plea negotiation and is undertaken to determine whether the defendant can refrain from law enforcement contact for a specified period. If so, the case is dismissed. If not, trial is resumed. Deferred judgments of this kind present recordkeeping problems because, oftentimes, no notice is sent to the State repository at the end of the probationary period indicating whether the charges were dismissed or reinstated. As a result, the criminal history record maintained by the repository may be ambiguous as to whether the case has been concluded and what the final outcome was. The conclusion of trial proceedings is another point at which bail may be reviewed and changed. After conviction, the risk of flight may be thought to have increased and a higher bail may be justified. Bail may also be denied pending sentencing or appeal. Appeal An appeal may follow sentencing or may be instituted before sentence is imposed. Some appeals may be automatic, as in death penalty cases; in other cases, the convicted person may have a right to appeal if he or she chooses. In certain cases, however, appeal may be at the discretion of the appellate court. There are also so-called "post-conviction actions" that can result in appellate review of some aspects of criminal cases. The most common is the writ of habeas corpus, the function of which is to obtain release from unlawful imprisonment. This and other post-conviction actions can be based on claims of inadequate legal representation or denial of certain constitutional rights, among other grounds, and can result in review by State and Federal appellate courts. Sentencing A sentence may be decided or recommended by the jury, as in capital cases, or imposed by the judge. Typically, a sentencing hearing is held for felony cases. In all States, the sentencing judge has the discretion, by express statutory authority or by virtue of inherent judicial powers, to order the preparation of a presentence report to guide the sentencing decision. -8 [Paul L. Woodard, Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History Record Information, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 129896 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 1991) p. 15. Hereafter, Statutes Report. Selected tables from the Statutes Report are set out in this report as appendixes 1-7.] The presentence report almost always includes information about the defendant's past criminal activity. Sentencing options may include (separately or in combination): * the death penalty * incarceration in a prison, jail, or other facility * probation * a suspended sentence, in whole or in part * a fine * restitution * forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime * confinement in a mental health facility * community service. The judge may have discretion as to sentence choices and sentence length, but State law may provide for mandatory, determinate, or enhanced sentencing in some cases, and may limit or deny probation eligibility. Sentencing approaches are discussed in section 3 of this chapter. Correctional supervision The final step in the criminal justice process is correctional supervision. Basically, this step includes the so-called "three Ps": probation, prison, and parole. Incarceration in a State prison is usually for persons who are convicted of felonies and receive sentences of 1 year or more. Sentences of less than a year are usually served in local jails or other local facilities. A person may receive a "split sentence"; that is, the person may serve some time but also receive a period of probation. If a person is placed on probation in lieu of incarceration and fails to comply with the terms of probation - including making monetary restitution, if so ordered - probation may be revoked and the person may be sent to jail or prison. The same applies to a person who is paroled after serving part of a term of incarceration and fails to comply with the conditions of parole. Section 3: How criminal justice practitioners use criminal history records This chapter has previously mentioned some of the uses that criminal justice practitioners make of criminal history records. This section reviews in more detail the uses, both mandatory and discretionary, that such practitioners make of criminal history records as they perform their duties in processing offenders through the criminal justice system. These uses include: * police uses * pretrial release uses * prosecutor uses * court uses * corrections uses. This section discusses the types of criminal history record information needed to guide criminal justice decisionmaking, and also discusses the time frames within which the information is needed. Background The importance of the criminal history record to the effective functioning of the criminal justice system can hardly be overstated. Research has shown that as many as two-thirds of all persons arrested for criminal offenses have prior criminal records, often including offenses in multiple jurisdictions or States. -9 [Ibid., p. 1.] Many arrestees, if identified as prior offenders, would be treated differently than first offenders. For example: * Prior offenders might not be released on bail or on their own recognizance. * Prior offenders might not be able to legally purchase firearms, which would enable them to commit more crimes. * In many cases, prior offenders would not be eligible for probation or other lenient treatment. * In some cases, prior offenders would be subject to upgraded or enhanced charging and sentencing and would receive longer prison terms. * In some cases, prior offenders might be subject to sentencing as career or habitual offenders to long prison terms without parole. Thus, simply put, the availability or nonavailability of complete, accurate, and timely criminal history records can have a direct impact on the functioning of the criminal justice system. Police uses Police agencies use criminal history records in numerous ways, including as an investigative tool. Criminal records can aid them in compiling suspect lists, based upon prior criminal patterns, or in eliminating suspects who can be determined to have been incarcerated at the time of the crime. Information about a suspect's prior record can also be helpful in obtaining a search warrant or establishing criminal knowledge or motive. The record can be extremely useful to the police officer in the field. When an officer makes a stop, information about the stopped person's dangerousness or past violent activity can save the officer's life. In addition, information about a suspect's criminal record may be necessary to determine whether a crime has occurred, such as possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a felon. There are provisions in the penal codes of the Federal Government, 49 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands making it a criminal offense, usually a felony, for a person previously convicted of a felony to own, possess, or carry a firearm or, in some States, certain other dangerous weapons. -10 [Ibid. at table 10 lists the 43 States that had implemented such laws when the Statutes Report was issued in 1991. Six States - Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, and South Dakota - have since banned those convicted of or charged with, but not yet tried for, felonies from possessing firearms. Vermont was the only State in mid-2001 not to have such laws. Table 10 is included in this report as appendix 1.] A suspect's status as an escapee or failure to comply with the conditions of his or her current status as a probationer, parolee, or bailee can also be determined from the suspect's criminal record, if it is complete and current. Pretrial release uses The presence or absence of a prior criminal record is arguably the most relevant information to a judge or magistrate deciding whether and under what conditions to release a person on bail pending trial. Indeed, all 50 States, the Federal Government, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico have statutory or constitutional provisions or court rules that explicitly require or permit the consideration of an arrested person's prior criminal record in making pretrial and post-trial release decisions. -11 [Ibid. at table 2 lists the 47 States that had implemented such laws when the Statutes Report was issued in 1991. Idaho, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma have since implemented similar laws. An excerpt from table 2 is included in this report as appendix 2.] In some cases, pretrial release is prohibited by law if persons charged with designated offenses were already on bail when arrested, or if they have previous convictions for designated offenses. In addition, laws in many States permit courts to order "preventive detention" of persons with prior records that indicate that they would be dangerous or might commit further crimes if released. Information that an arrested person has previously failed to appear as ordered (usually noted on criminal history records as "FTA") is also important at the bail-setting stage. Virtually all States permit such information to influence pretrial release decisions, including the denial of bail if the subject is deemed likely to flee based on prior FTAs and the seriousness of the current crime. Prosecutor uses Prosecutors are among the heaviest users of criminal history records. They use such records from the moment they become involved in criminal cases until the cases are terminated at the defendants' parole hearings or earlier. Complete and accurate criminal history record information is needed by prosecutors to provide input and make decisions regarding: * bail * enhanced charging * plea bargaining * presentations to grand juries * habitual or career criminal prosecutions * impeachment of witnesses * sentence recommendations * parole board hearings. All States have statutory provisions that authorize or require arrested persons with designated prior convictions to be charged as repeat offenders, habitual offenders, or career offenders, and, if convicted, to be sentenced to enhanced prison terms. -12 [Ibid., pp. 13-14 and table 5. An excerpt from table 5 is included in this report as appendix 3.] Under some of these laws, the prosecutor must allege habitual or repeat offender status in the charging document, or give early notice of his intent to seek an enhanced sentence. In addition, almost all of the States have provisions applicable to certain crimes that upgrade second and subsequent offenses, of the same or similar type, to higher classes of crimes than first offenses - from a misdemeanor to a felony, for example, or to a more serious class of felony or misdemeanor. -13 [Ibid., p. 11 and table 3. An excerpt from table 3 is included in this report as appendix 4.] In some of these cases, the upgraded offense must be specified in the charging document. This means that the prosecutor must have complete information about a defendant's prior record at the time the case is filed in court, because the class of offense charged can affect the type of charging document that must be used or the court in which the case must be filed. Court uses Courts are also heavy users of criminal history record information, although judges may not be aware in some cases that the information before them comes primarily from repository-supplied criminal history records. They customarily receive the information in modified form - in bail reports prepared by bail agencies or other agencies, in presentence reports prepared by probation departments, or in presentations by the prosecutor. - For bail, pretrial, and trial decisions As noted previously, courts need criminal history record information for bail and pretrial release decisions at an early stage in criminal proceedings, many times within 24 hours of the defendant's arrest. They also use criminal history record information in making probable cause determinations, issuing arrest warrants, and accepting or rejecting pleas. In some instances, courts are authorized to consider evidence of prior crimes by a defendant during the trial itself. Such evidence may be admissible, for example, to show motive, intent, criminal knowledge, common plan or scheme, or method of operation (modus operandi or "M.O."). Certain prior convictions may also be admissible to attack the credibility of the defendant, if the defendant testifies, or of other witnesses. - For sentencing decisions The most frequent use of criminal history records by courts, however, is in connection with sentencing. As mentioned, many State laws permit or require courts to upgrade charges or impose enhanced sentences for persons with prior conviction records, including life sentences without parole for certain habitual offenders in some cases. Some of these enhancement laws take into consideration not only past convictions, but also the number and duration of prison terms previously served and the length of time between release and renewed criminal involvement. -14 [Ibid., p. 14 and table 4. An excerpt from table 4 is included in this report as appendix 5.] In addition, virtually all of these laws take into account convictions in any State or Federal court and, in some cases, in territorial or foreign courts as well. -15 [Ibid., p. 14.] In lieu of, or in addition to, specific upgrade or enhancement laws, some jurisdictions have established sentencing guidelines or presumptive or determinate sentencing structures based in part on prior convictions as aggravating factors, or on sentence computation formulas that include prior convictions as factors in the computation. -16 [Ibid., p. 13.] - For probation and parole decisions Courts also take criminal history record information into account when deciding whether to place offenders on probation or to impose limits on parole eligibility for incarcerated offenders. In some jurisdictions, these decisions are left to the discretion of the courts. In other instances, the limitations are mandatory. For example, many repeat offender, habitual offender, and sentence enhancement laws noted previously provide for mandatory prison terms, foreclosing probation as a possible sentence. Many of them also deny or limit parole eligibility. Probation may also be prohibited by law for certain convicted persons who have previously been convicted of certain serious offenses, such as murder or other offenses involving violence. -17 [Ibid., p. 14.] Corrections uses The most frequent use of criminal history record information by correctional agencies is in the preparation of presentence reports, which commonly are prepared by parole or probation agencies. Correctional officials also use such information for classification purposes, -18 [Ibid., p. 51 and table 8. Table 8 is included in this report as appendix 6.] and in making decisions about eligibility for good time credits, early release, work furlough, or release on parole. -19 [Ibid., pp. 55-56 and table 9. An excerpt from table 9 is included in this report as appendix 7.] As noted earlier, numerous States have reformed their sentencing structures in recent years to provide for determinate sentencing pursuant to sentencing guidelines or mandatory sentencing structures. Under some of these laws, offenders are required to serve the sentences imposed, less good time credits only, with release on parole prior to sentence expiration no longer permitted. Other State laws deny or limit parole eligibility for certain offenders based on the number and seriousness of prior convictions. Even where parole eligibility is not specifically constrained by statute, parole decisions commonly are based in large part upon the seriousness of the offender's present offense and his past criminal record. Types of information needed It should be obvious that criminal justice practitioners use criminal history records to guide decisionmaking at every stage of the criminal justice process. It should also be obvious that the information they need for these purposes includes more than just a list of arrest charges and court dispositions. Proper enforcement of the laws and effective implementation of crime control strategies may require them to know not only the number, nature, and dates of prior convictions, but also: * Whether an offender was on bail or some other form of supervision at the time of arrest. * Whether an offender has a history of violation of release conditions or failure to appear as ordered. * Whether other cases are pending against the offender and the status of such cases. * Whether particular past crimes involved the use of dangerous weapons or actual or threatened violence. * Whether prior convictions were for felonies or misdemeanors. * Whether an offender has served previous terms of imprisonment. * Whether new and prior incidents of criminal involvement were separated by specified periods during which the individual was free of criminal involvement. In addition, court officials often express a need for information about previous failures to pay fines or restitution and information about less serious offenses that, in many States, are not required to be reported to the repository, usually because there is no legal requirement to obtain fingerprints in such cases. -20 [SEARCH Group, Inc., Report of the National Task Force on Criminal History Record Disposition Reporting, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 135836 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 1992) p. 3. Hereafter, National Task Force Report.] Finally, it should be re-emphasized that virtually all laws that require or permit criminal justice decisions based upon past criminal involvement take into account prior convictions in any State or Federal court, and sometimes in territorial or foreign courts as well. Time frames within which information is needed The time frame within which criminal history record information is needed by criminal justice practitioners varies considerably. As noted previously, information for bail-setting purposes may be needed within 24 hours of arrest. Some of the investigative needs of law enforcement officers may also necessitate short response times. Prosecutors need criminal history record information at an early stage of criminal proceedings for charging purposes and for making bail recommendations. A growing number of States have procedures, facilities, and automated information systems for making fingerprint-verified criminal history record responses available within such short time frames. Some jurisdictions have bail agencies or other agencies charged with the responsibility of obtaining and providing information for use in bail determinations. In some cases, these agencies may have the staff and facilities for making inquiries to obtain complete and accurate information concerning prior criminal records. In many cases, however, the only information available in time for initial bail determinations is a criminal history record transcript received in response to a name search of the State's criminal history system and whatever information is provided by the police or is known to the prosecutor or the court. Because name searches are not fully reliable and existing criminal record files may be inaccurate and incomplete, particularly with respect to case disposition information, some short-term needs of criminal justice officials are not currently being met. In some jurisdictions, however, new technology is solving some of these problems. (This is discussed in chapter IV.) Other needs are not as time-critical. For example, agencies ordered to prepare presentence reports generally have time to investigate and compile needed information. There is often time to obtain a fingerprint-based search of the State's criminal record system, thus avoiding the risk of missing previous record information if the subject gave a fictitious name when arrested. There may also be sufficient time to receive a response from the III system indicating whether the subject has a record in another jurisdiction. Finally, there may be sufficient time to contact courts and correctional agencies, if necessary, to obtain missing disposition information or to verify the accuracy of recorded arrest and disposition information. Chapter II: Overview of existing criminal history record systems This chapter describes the Nation's existing criminal history record systems at the State and Federal levels. Section 1: Evolution of criminal history record systems, provides a brief historical review of the evolution of criminal history record systems at the State and Federal levels. Section 2: Information maintained in the Nation's criminal history record systems, summarizes the types of information maintained by State and Federal criminal history record repositories, including identification, criminal history, and juvenile information. Section 3: The current status of the Nation's criminal history record systems, summarizes a recent Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of State criminal history record systems and describes: * The number of criminal history records maintained by State and Federal repositories. * The extent of repository automation. * The reporting and access procedures utilized by the repositories. Section 4: The product of the repositories - the criminal history record, discusses the quality of information maintained by the repositories, and the adequacy of the content and format of the criminal history records they produce. Background State-level systems State-level criminal history records are collected, maintained, and disseminated by "State central repositories," which are agencies or bureaus within State governments. These repositories are often housed within the State police or a cabinet-level agency with public safety and criminal justice responsibilities, such as the Department of Law Enforcement or the Department of Public Safety. Customarily, the repositories are charged under State law with the following: * Establishing comprehensive criminal history records. * Establishing an efficient and timely record retrieval system. * Ensuring accurate and up-to-date records. * Establishing rules and regulations governing the dissemination of criminal history records to criminal justice and noncriminal justice users. Today, all 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia have established central repositories for criminal history records. -21 [Paul L. Woodard and Eric C. Johnson, Compendium of State Privacy and Security Legislation: 1999 Overview, NCJ 182294 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2000) p. 5. Hereafter, 1999 Compendium.] Federal-level systems At the Federal level, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) functions as a criminal history information repository for both Federal offender information and for records of arrests and dispositions under State law. As discussed in this chapter, the FBI's criminal history record information role is changing at the beginning of the 21st century. In the past, the FBI operated as a centralized criminal history file that served as the primary source for national record searches and interstate record exchanges. Actions are under way that will transform the Bureau's role to that of a "51st State repository" that will maintain and make available information on Federal offenders primarily. States will send only first-arrest information to the FBI, which will use the data to keep current the Interstate Identification Index (III), a listing of offenders and the States that maintain their criminal history records. States will collect any subsequent criminal history information that accrues on the offenders, and will make offenders' entire criminal histories and related information available for queries from other States or from authorized Federal entities. This process will spare State repositories and the FBI from maintaining costly duplicate records, and will provide greater access to State-level criminal history information, which is generally more accurate than that maintained at the Federal level. Under this process, the FBI will maintain these systems: * The III, which will permit authorized requestors to determine whether any State or Federal repository maintains a criminal history record about a particular subject. * The National Fingerprint File, which will provide positive identification of all offenders indexed in the national system. (These national systems are discussed in detail in chapter V.) Section 1: Evolution of criminal history record systems Although the Nation's criminal history record system is far from complete, vast strides have been made, both in terms of the extent to which the system is organized in an effective and coordinated manner, and in terms of the quality of the system's product. It was not always so. This section reviews the historical evolution of criminal history record systems, and includes discussions of the following: * Establishment of early police departments. * Early identification and recordkeeping systems. * Efforts to establish State and Federal criminal history record systems. Establishment of early police departments At the beginning of the 20th century, there was hardly such a thing as a criminal history record, much less a criminal history record system. Indeed, prior to 1835, not a single American city enjoyed even an organized police force, much less an organized police record system. In 1835, Boston became the first city to establish a full-time police force. New York followed suit in 1844. State governments took on the role of establishing organized police forces in less populated areas of the country. Texas, for instance, established the Texas Rangers in 1853. Shortly thereafter, Arizona established its own State police force. By the end of the 19th century, every major urban area and all regional and State areas had established law enforcement agencies. -22 [Robert R. Belair, Intelligence and Investigative Records, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 95787 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 1985) p. 14. Hereafter, Intelligence and Investigative Records. See also, James N. Gilbert, Criminal Investigation (Columbus, Oh.: Charles Merrill and Company, 1980) chapter 3. Hereafter, Gilbert.] Early identification and recordkeeping systems This is not to say, however, that 19th century police forces were keeping criminal history record information. Rather, throughout the 19th century, most urban American police departments, if they kept records at all, kept what can be called the precursor of the criminal history record - the so-called "police blotter." The blotter was, and is, a purely chronological listing of events occurring each day in a particular police department or, more often, in a particular precinct or subdivision of a police department. Customarily, the blotter contains the name, age, sex, and race of persons arrested, along with citations to alleged offenses. -23 [Robert R. Belair, Original Records of Entry, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 125626 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 1990) pp. 6-7. See also, Michael J. Petrick, "The Press, the Police Blotter and Public Policy," 46 Journalism Quarterly 475 (Autumn 1969) n.1.] It was not until the emergence of a reliable system for identifying individuals, and thus "positively" linking records to individuals, that law enforcement agencies began to keep records that were "about individuals," as opposed to being "about events." As early as the post-Civil War period, famed detective Allan Pinkerton launched his own crude criminal history record system with respect to persistent criminals. Pinkerton called for the establishment of a national system to collect and maintain records, including photographs, of active criminals. -24 [Intelligence and Investigative Records, p. 18. See also, Gilbert, p. 17.] The first systematic attempts to develop criminal identification systems included name-based registers of habitual criminals combined with photographs, and an anthropometric system for taking exact measurements of physical features which was developed in the mid-19th century by Alfonse Bertillon of France. In 1896, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) established the first "national" criminal identification system in Chicago. -25 [Gilbert, p. 17.] At about the same time, the "Henry Classification System" emerged as the first effective method for the use of fingerprints to positively identify previous offenders and to search identification files. -26 [Clarence G. Collins, Fingerprint Science: How to Roll, Classify, File and Use Fingerprints (Placerville, Ca.: Copperhouse (formerly Custom) Publishing Company, 1985) p. 1. Hereafter, Collins.] In 1908, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) formed the Identification Bureau (the forerunner of the FBI), whose responsibilities included the establishment of a fingerprint-based criminal history record information system. -27 [Ibid.] By 1911, fingerprinting was a commonplace and important part of the American criminal justice system. Fingerprints were being used by the police, in the courts, by corrections agencies, and for many other justice and government purposes. -28 [F.A. Reed, "The Finger Mark, the Prime Piece of Scientific Evidence," Journal of Forensic Sciences (January 1981) p. 9.] Efforts to establish criminal history record systems Fingerprinting and related recordkeeping received an important impetus in 1924 when the U.S. Congress directed the FBI to create an "Identification Division" to acquire, maintain, and use fingerprint information for criminal identification and for certain other purposes. -29 [Collins, p. 2.] The Identification Division started with slightly more than 800,000 fingerprints, which represented contributions from the files of the IACP; the Federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas; and the DOJ's own Identification Bureau records. -30 [Ibid.] Notwithstanding this significant progress, the Wickersham Report - the product of a congressionally chartered comprehensive examination of the criminal justice system undertaken in the 1930s - concluded that vast improvements were needed in the Nation's criminal justice record system. Serious work on those improvements, however, had to wait almost 40 years. In 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice published a comprehensive critique of the criminal justice system. It concluded that crime in the United States was a massive problem and that the Nation's criminal justice system was too antiquated to mount an effective response. -31 [President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, February 1967).] The report called for, among other things, a significant Federal effort to establish and automate a national criminal history record system. - Law Enforcement Assistance Administration efforts to establish State systems In 1969, the U.S. DOJ's Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), established in response to the Commission's recommendations, initiated Project SEARCH, a consortium of the States charged with developing and demonstrating a computerized system for the interstate exchange of criminal history record information. At about the same time, the U.S. Attorney General authorized the FBI to manage the interstate exchange aspects of any operational system resulting from this successful demonstration. -32 [CCH Project Committee, Technical Report No. 14: The American Criminal History Record: Present Status and Future Requirements (Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc., September 1976) p. 6.] In 1972, LEAA launched a Comprehensive Data Systems program (CDS) designed to encourage each State to develop a criminal justice information system to meet its own needs. By 1976, 26 States were participating in the Computerized Criminal History (CCH) component of the CDS program. These States and others had established central State repositories charged with maintaining statewide criminal history record systems. -33 [Ibid.] - Federal Bureau of Investigation efforts to establish Federal systems As noted earlier, the FBI has collected and maintained criminal history records since the early part of the 20th century. From its inception in the mid-1920s through the mid-1960s, the FBI's criminal history recordkeeping operation, centered in the Identification Division, maintained manual criminal history records. The records could be retrieved by name and other biographic identifiers, as well as by an FBI number. In addition, the records were "fingerprint-supported," which meant that a fingerprint card was maintained as a part of each criminal history record to provide positive identification of the offender. In 1967, the FBI established the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) to provide a nationwide, user-oriented computer response for criminal justice records. NCIC maintains so-called "hot files" containing information about wanted and missing persons, stolen vehicles, license plates, guns, boats, securities, and articles of personal property, and certain other types of files. -34 [Paul L. Woodard and Robert R. Belair, Criminal Justice "Hot" Files, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 101850 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 1986) pp. 11-14. Information on the NCIC "hot files" was obtained from the NCIC Operating Manual and other documents published by the FBI, and from NCIC officials and staff.] NCIC maintains its own nationwide telecommunications system and operates as a cooperative Federal-State venture. Policy input is provided through the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board (CJIS APB), which also reviews and makes recommendations on the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR), the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), and other information systems determined to have some relationship with these programs. In 1971, NCIC implemented an interstate computerized criminal history record system - the CCH System - containing records of individuals arrested for both Federal and State felonies and serious misdemeanors. By the mid-1970s, NCIC/CCH held several million automated criminal history records. However, concerns about the practicality, cost, and wisdom of establishing a national centralized criminal history record system led the FBI to phase out the CCH program in the early 1980s in favor of the decentralized III national criminal history record system. (See chapter V.) Section 2: Information maintained in the Nation's criminal history record systems This section details the types of information maintained in State and Federal criminal history record systems, including: * subject identification * criminal histories * juvenile records * other information (such as pretrial release information and felony conviction flags) * master name indexes. Background The heart of the mission of the State and Federal repositories is to maintain comprehensive criminal history records or "rap sheets." Criminal history records maintained by the State and FBI repositories contain: * Information identifying the subject of the record. * Information about the record subject's current and past involvement with the criminal justice system (including arrests or other formal criminal charges, and any dispositions resulting from these arrests or formal charges). -35 [The term "criminal history record information" is defined by Federal regulations to mean "information collected by criminal justice agencies on individuals consisting of identifiable descriptions and notations of arrests, detentions, indictments, information, or other formal criminal charges, and any disposition arising therefrom, sentencing, correctional supervision, and release." 28 C.F.R. ¤ 20.] The repositories often limit their collection of criminal history information to felonies or serious misdemeanors. Other types of criminal justice information are not included in criminal history files. For example, "investigative information," "intelligence information," and records relating to traffic offenses and certain other petty offenses are specifically exempted from the definition of "criminal history records" in Federal regulations governing Federally funded record systems and are seldom maintained in State repositories. -36 [1999 Compendium, supra note 21, p. 4.] Generally, State criminal history record repositories did not accept or maintain records of juvenile offenses, except for cases in which juveniles were tried as adults. However, a dramatic increase in the juvenile crime rate in the early 1990s, combined with a series of highly publicized crimes committed by juvenile offenders, some with extensive criminal histories, prompted Congress and many State legislatures to consider changing this practice as the 1990s came to a close. Among the changes being considered were maintaining State repository files for juveniles whose crimes would be considered felonies if committed by adults; supporting juvenile files with identifiers such as photographs and fingerprints; and merging an individual's juvenile and adult criminal records. (Both houses of Congress, in fact, considered significant changes in 2000 to the methods used to maintain and disseminate juvenile criminal history records, although no new Federal laws had been enacted in this area as of mid-2001.) Identification information An individual's criminal history record typically includes the following identification information: - Personal description Identification information usually includes the subject's name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, sex, race, and physical characteristics such as hair and eye color, height, weight, and any distinguishing scars, marks, or tattoos. Identification information may also include the subject's place of employment, automobile registration, and other pertinent information. - Fingerprints Most importantly, personal information also includes a biometric identifier - fingerprint information. The number of States reporting 100% fingerprint support for their criminal history files has fluctuated since SEARCH conducted its first survey of criminal history information systems in 1989. Thirty-eight States responding to that survey, which covered the status of the States' criminal history repositories through year-end 1989, reported that 100% of their criminal history files were fingerprint-supported. - 37[Sheila J. Barton, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 125620 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1991) table 6. Hereafter, Survey Report.] By 1992, that number had grown to 41 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. -38 [Sheila J. Barton, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ 143500 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 1993) table 6. Hereafter, 1992 Survey. Table 6 is included in this report as appendix 8.] The most recent figures, which cover the repositories' status through year-end 1999, show that 37 States reported 100% fingerprint support for their criminal history files. More than 8.8 million fingerprint cards or electronic substitutes were submitted to State criminal history repositories in 1999. -39 [1999 Survey, supra note 6, p. 3.] Criminal history information Criminal history information includes information about any arrests, along with available disposition data. Disposition data most commonly include information about "final" dispositions - decisions or actions that terminate cases, including police decisions to drop all charges, prosecutor decisions to not prosecute the cases, and trial court dispositions. Where court action results in a conviction, the criminal history record should show the sentence imposed and information about correctional reception and release. Juvenile record information As noted previously, the FBI, like most State repositories, did not maintain juvenile record information, except with respect to juveniles tried as adults. -40 [Testimony of Lawrence K. York, Assistant Director, Identification Division, FBI, before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, March 20, 1992.] However, dramatic increases in juvenile crime that occurred in the early 1990s, when juveniles were involved in 14% of arrests for violent crime (compared to around 10% of such arrests in the early- to mid-1980s), prompted a re-evaluation of the nearly century-long practice of adjudicating juvenile offenders differently than adult offenders. -41 [See, "The juvenile share of the crime problem decreased in 1997," Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, available at http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjbulletin/9812_2/crime.html.] On July 15, 1992, the Attorney General adopted a rule authorizing the FBI to accept State-reported records of serious offenses by juveniles. -42 [U.S. Department of Justice, "Juvenile Records," 56 Federal Register 25642 (June 5, 1991).] In December 1992, the FBI announced that juvenile record information received pursuant to the new rule would be disseminated under the same standards that apply to the dissemination of adult criminal history records. -43 [Amending 28 C.F.R. ¤ 20.32(a)(b).] While juvenile crime began to decline following its statistical peak in 1994, public interest in more punitive treatment of juvenile offenders continued, motivated in large part by a series of highly publicized and emotionally wrenching school shootings by students that occurred in the latter half of the 1990s. Both houses of Congress passed legislation in 2000 that weakened or eliminated many of the previous protections provided to juvenile offenders. Included in both bills were provisions that would change the way juvenile criminal history records were disseminated; that would allow the fingerprinting of juvenile offenders who committed crimes that would be considered felonies if committed by adults; that would create grant programs for States interested in improving the accuracy and accessibility of their juvenile criminal history records; and other provisions related to these records. Neither bill was enacted, however, and a House and Senate conference formed to iron out differences between the two bills had not reached a consensus as of mid-2001. Other information Practices vary as to additional information that may be contained in a criminal history record. - Interim dispositions Some repositories include information about pretrial release or confinement and "nonfinal" or "interim" dispositions, such as prosecutor decisions to file, modify, or drop charges referred by the police. - Felony flags Forty-two States currently "flag" some or all felony convictions in their criminal history databases, and an additional 20 States collect sufficient data to flag at least some felonies. -44 [1999 Survey, supra note 6, table 1. Table 1 is included in this report as appendix 9.] Such information can be essential for users of criminal history records. For example, because the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the purchase or possession of firearms by persons convicted of felonies or domestic violence misdemeanors, systems that flag these types of convictions can help to quickly identify individuals who are barred from buying or carrying firearms. - Misdemeanor data While some State repositories collect comprehensive arrest and disposition information about misdemeanor offenses, most repositories collect information only about the most serious classes of misdemeanor offenses. -45 [National Task Force Report, supra note 20, page 3.] This lack of comprehensive misdemeanor arrest and disposition data has been identified as one of the major deficiencies in State criminal history record systems from the viewpoint of judicial users. -46 [For example, complete misdemeanor information sometimes is helpful in assisting courts in distinguishing chronic offenders from first or infrequent offenders. See, ibid.] Master name indexes In addition to criminal history record files, State central repositories and the FBI also maintain "master name indexes." The master name index (MNI) is a key element of the criminal history system of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (known as "NICS") used for point-of-sale background checks of potential gun purchasers because it permits the user to identify a felony flag on a record of a named offender. - Contents, usage The MNI is simply an index of names and identifiers for every offender for which the repository has a partial or complete criminal history file. The MNI may be made up of the identification segments of the criminal history file, or it may be a separate file. In either case, if a criminal justice agency queries a repository's MNI and a "hit" is made, the inquiring agency usually must then re-query the repository for the complete criminal history record file. That query may be serviced instantaneously if both the MNI and criminal history record file are automated. If the repository maintains only a hard copy of the desired file, the query is processed manually. - Number of records indexed The FBI maintains an automated MNI with about 38.5 million entries, to which it adds more than 149,000 new entries per month. -47 [FBI CJIS Division memorandum, August 20, 1999, citing Identification Automated Services Volume Statistics Report.] All States and the District of Columbia have automated some or all of their master name indexes. All but six States have 100% of their records in an automated MNI. -48 [1999 Survey, supra note 6, table 4. Table 4 is included in this report as appendix 10.] Section 3: The current status of the Nation's criminal history record systems Background The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S. DOJ, has completed its latest survey in a series that assesses the quality of the criminal history record information maintained by State repositories, as well as the policies of the States in such areas as criminal history file automation, felony flagging procedures, and data quality audit activity. The survey covered the status of all State record systems through 1999. -49 [See, 1999 Survey, supra note 6. The survey was the sixth such survey SEARCH has prepared for BJS. Previous surveys in the series covered 1989, 1992, 1993, 1995, and 1997.] Information in this section that describes the status of State criminal history record systems is drawn from this 1999 survey. Data on Federal record systems is drawn from other sources. This section looks at the following: * The number of records in State and Federal criminal history record systems. * The extent of automation in State criminal history files, State criminal fingerprint files, and Federal files. * Reporting of information to the repositories, including the type of information reported, reporting requirements, and the time frame for reporting. * Access methods for authorized requestors. * Response times. Number of records The number of criminal history records maintained by the State central repositories and the FBI is enormous - and continues to grow. - State records According to the 1999 survey, which SEARCH conducted for BJS, more than 59 million individual offenders were in the criminal history files of the State central repositories as of December 31, 1999. -50 [Ibid., table 2. Table 2 is included in this report as appendix 11.] In comparison, the repositories held only 30.3 million subjects in their criminal history files in 1984, and 42.4 million in 1989. -51 [1992 Survey, supra note 38, table 2.] Thus, the number of criminal history files maintained by State repositories has almost doubled from 1984 to 1999. More than 7.6 million dispositions were reported to 48 State repositories in 1999. -52 [1999 Survey, p. 2 and table 3. Table 3 is included in this report as appendix 12.] In comparison, 4.7 million dispositions were reported in 1992 to 33 State repositories that provided disposition data for the 1992 survey, and 3.5 million dispositions were reported by the 34 States that provided data to a similar survey in 1989. - Federal records At the Federal level, the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division maintains automated, fingerprint-based criminal history record information with respect to more than 43 million individuals in III. -53 [Source: Mr. Robert Mudd, Management Analyst, CJIS Division, FBI.] The records represent all people with an FBI record who were born in 1956 or later; all persons born prior to 1956 whose first arrest fingerprint card was submitted to the FBI on July 1, 1974, or later; and numerous older records converted to the automated system in the CJIS Division's Manual Conversion Project, as well as certain fugitives and repeat offenders. They include records relating to Federal offenders, as well as records of State offenders voluntarily reported to the FBI by State agencies. Not included are some 5 million older records that the FBI will keep in manual format. The CJIS Division's criminal history record system includes information about arrests for felonies and "serious or significant" misdemeanors. Records are not maintained with respect to arrests for drunken driving, vagrancy, disturbing the peace, and most types of traffic offenses. Extent of automation There is enormous variation in the extent to which State central repositories have automated their criminal history records. Automation is universally considered to be a critical component of a successful criminal history record system. Automation: * Reduces the cost of maintaining a criminal record system. * Improves the system's ability to record dispositions and otherwise amend and update files. * Speeds retrieval times. * Vastly improves a system's ability to be audited. * Improves security by making it more difficult for information to be improperly accessed or modified. * Improves a system's ability to monitor problems by facilitating the use of delinquent disposition monitoring systems and other types of reporting and audit protocols. Simply stated, automation makes recordkeeping easier, less expensive, more reliable, and far more effective overall. And, of course, automation makes it possible for a system to interface with the national criminal history record system. - State criminal history files State repositories have been making rapid progress in the last decade in automating their criminal history files. Eighteen respondents to SEARCH's survey assessing the state of State criminal history repositories in 1995 reported that 100% of their criminal history records were automated. -54 [1999 Survey, supra note 6, table 2. See, appendix 11.] That figure had grown to 20 States when SEARCH conducted its survey two years later. -55 [Ibid.] By 1999, 40 States reported that more than 75% of their criminal history records were automated, -56 [Ibid.] compared to 26 States in 1992. -57 [1992 Survey, supra note 38, table 2.] By 1999, only 5 jurisdictions had automated less than 50% of their files (compared to 13 in 1992), and only 2 States lacked any automated criminal history records (as opposed to entries in the MNI). -58 [1999 Survey, supra note 6, table 2. See, appendix 11.] Twenty-two States indicated that they were steadily automating their manual criminal history records each time an offender with a prior manual record was arrested. -59 [Ibid, table 4. See, appendix 10.] Overall, about 52.8 million of the estimated 59 million criminal history records maintained by the State repositories nationwide were automated as of year-end 1999. -60 [Ibid., table 2. See appendix 11.] - State criminal fingerprint files In addition, the States have made an enormous investment in and commitment to the automation of criminal fingerprint files. As of 1990, for example, more than one-half of the States were operating statewide criminal justice automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS). -61 [Robert R. Belair and Robert L. Marx, Legal and Policy Issues Relating to Biometric Identification Technologies (Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc., April 1990) appendix I.] At the beginning of the 21st century, every State operates or has access to automated fingerprint technology. -62 [Source: Mr. Thomas J. Roberts, Assistant Program Manager, IAFIS, FBI.] As described in more detail in chapter IV, an AFIS is a computer-based identification system that matches the fingerprints of search subjects with fingerprints held in an automated database. Fingerprint impressions are scanned into the computer system and converted to a digital format that can be matched against digital codes assigned to other fingerprints that have been similarly scanned. The States are also actively implementing livescan and cardscan fingerprinting and other "paperless" technologies, which also are described in more detail in chapter IV. - Federal files At the Federal level, more than 43 million files maintained by the FBI in the III are fully automated, including numerous older records converted to the automated system during the CJIS Division's Manual Conversion Project. -63 [Source: Mr. Robert Mudd, Management Analyst, CJIS Division, FBI.] Approximately 5 million older records are maintained in manual form and there are no plans to automate them. -64 [Interstate Identification Index (III) National Fingerprint File (NFF) Program: A Summary, CJIS Division, FBI, revised December 1999.] Reporting of information to the repositories Criminal history record information is reported to the State repositories and to the FBI by criminal justice agencies at every level of government - Federal, State, and local - and at each stage of the criminal justice system - by police departments, prosecutors, courts, and corrections agencies. For example, when a local police agency in California arrests an individual, the agency transmits fingerprints and information about the arrestee to the State central repository operated by the California Department of Justice. As the individual proceeds through the criminal justice process, the prosecutor's office, courts, and corrections agencies provide disposition data about the individual to the repository. In a growing number of cases, the reporting agency transmits the arrest or disposition information via electronic mail (email) through a State's dedicated law enforcement telecommunications network that links justice agencies throughout the State to a central criminal history repository. All States have been linked to the FBI CJIS Wide-Area Network (WAN), allowing them to electronically transmit criminal history information and accompanying graphic data such as fingerprint images to the CJIS Division's headquarters in Clarksburg, West Virginia. -65 [The CJIS WAN was installed to facilitate information transfers for the FBI's IAFIS, which began operations in July 1999. Ten States were technically capable of IAFIS participation when it went on-line: California, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Twenty-two States were transmitting fingerprint images to IAFIS as of February 2000, although only a handful was sending significant numbers.] Some justice agencies may still use the mail to transmit criminal history information and fingerprint images to their State's repository, which may also mail the information to the FBI. However, justice officials at both the State and Federal levels are working toward the eventual completion of a nationwide telecommunications system that will permit the electronic exchange of criminal history information and related graphics throughout the country in a paper-free, "lights-out" environment. (See figure 2, which shows the flow of information to State central criminal record repositories.) - Types of information reported The types of criminal history information reported to the repositories vary according to: (1) what type of agency is sending the information (that is, police department, district attorney, corrections agency); and (2) State or Federal statutes, regulations, and policies imposing reporting requirements. Customarily, the first agency to make an entry about an individual is a police department or other law enforcement agency that arrests the individual. The arresting agency usually provides the following information to the State central repository: * Name (and any known aliases). * Sex, race, birth date, and Social Security number. * Address (both home and business). * Auto registration or driver's license information. * Any pertinent physical characteristics (weight, height, eye and hair color, and tattoos or other distinctive physical characteristics). The agency also reports the charges for which the individual was arrested. In most cases, the arresting agency must also submit a full set of fingerprints to the State central repository for all felony arrests. Most States also require that fingerprints be forwarded for at least some misdemeanor arrests. -66 [1999 Survey, supra note 6, table 6, included in this report as appendix 13. Only three jurisdictions - Delaware, the District of Columbia, and New Hampshire - do not require arresting agencies to submit fingerprints to the State central repository for felony arrests.] Other agencies provide disposition data as the arrested individual proceeds to subsequent phases of the criminal justice process. For example, the prosecutor's office should notify the repository if initial charges are dropped or modified or if new charges are added. Courts should notify the repository of any final dispositions, such as if the individual is acquitted or convicted. If the individual is sentenced to correctional supervision, correctional facilities should report receipt and release information to the repository. - Reporting requirements State and Federal statutes and regulations impose criminal history reporting requirements on criminal justice agencies. Most of these reporting requirements are aimed at ensuring that "down stream" criminal justice agencies - prosecutors, courts, probation/parole offices, and corrections agencies - provide accurate and prompt disposition data to the State central repository. For example, 35 States have statutes or regulations requiring prosecutors to report decisions to decline prosecution in criminal cases to the State repository, -67 [Ibid., table 5, p. 23.] while 47 States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have laws or regulations requiring courts to report dispositions in felony cases. -68 [Ibid.] However, there is still substantial variation among disposition reporting requirements. Thirty-two States require law enforcement agencies to notify the State central repository when an arrested person is released without formal charging after fingerprints have been sent to the repository, while 19 jurisdictions have no such requirement. In this regard, only North Carolina requires police departments to charge or release a suspect prior to sending fingerprints to the State repository. -69 [Ibid., table 7, included in this report as appendix 14.] - Time frame within which reporting takes place How quickly criminal history record information is reported to the State central repository varies greatly depending upon the type of agency doing the reporting and other factors. According to SEARCH's 1999 survey of State central repositories, the average number of days between arrest and receipt of arrest data and fingerprints by the State repository is 13, ranging from less than 1 day in California (for information submitted electronically) and in the District of Columbia (where the Metropolitan Police Department is both the reporting agency and the State repository) to up to 93 days in the State of Mississippi. -70 [Ibid., p. 5 and table 12. Table 12 is included in this report as appendix 15.] The average time between receipt of fingerprints by the State repository and entry of names and identifying data into the master name index is 21 days, ranging from zero days in Delaware to up to 150 days in Texas. -71 [Ibid., p. 6 and table 12.] The reporting time frames are often longer for "down stream" criminal justice agencies. The average number of days between final trial court dispositions and receipt of information by the State repository is 30 days, ranging from less than 1 day in Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and New Jersey to 110 days in Wisconsin. -72 [Ibid., p. 6 and table 13. Table 13 is included in this report as appendix 16.] The average time between receipt of final trial court dispositions by the State repositories and entry of the dispositions into criminal history databases is 39 days or less. -73 [Ibid., p. 6.] Access methods for authorized requestors - Criminal justice inquiries The majority of criminal justice inquiries to State repositories for criminal history record information are received on-line from remote computer terminals. On-line remote terminals provide direct access to the repository's MNI for the purpose of performing searches and to the criminal history files for the purpose of obtaining records. -74 ["Characteristics and Operational Capabilities of State Criminal History Repositories to Supply Prompt and Accurate Criminal History Information," an unpublished report provided to BJS, April 25, 1989, by Fisher-Orsagh Associates, Inc., p. 2. (This involved a survey and analysis of 20 State central repositories conducted in 1988-1989.)] The remote terminal may be physically located in a police department, courthouse, corrections facility, or other criminal justice facility. In a growing number of jurisdictions, remote terminals have been installed in individual police cars, giving police officers access to criminal history records in the field. Other criminal justice inquiries to the repositories come via the telephone, walk-in, teletype, or mail. - Noncriminal justice inquiries While most noncriminal justice inquiries are mailed to State repositories, a growing number are electronically transmitted because of the need for a quick response so an important position can be filled. In California, for example, background checks for school district employees must be completed before positions can be filled. The requirement was instituted following the 1997 on-campus murder of a high school student by a substitute janitor and ex-felon whose background check was not completed even though he had already been on the job for 10 days. California installed livescan automated fingerprint systems in law enforcement agencies throughout the State, in part to assist in mandated pre-employment background checks, whose results are returned in 72 hours or less. - Computer searches Computer searches for criminal history records are usually made using the subject's name, date of birth, sex and race. In certain cases, a search can be conducted using only a name and birth date. These so-called "name searches" can provide one of three results: 1. If there is an exact match or "hit," the criminal history file is provided to the individual conducting the search. (If there is no exact hit, systems in some States search for alternative spellings of the subject's name in a process known as "fuzzing." In addition, some systems "fuzz" the subject's date of birth by using the given date of birth plus or minus 1, 2, or more years.) 2. If there are multiple "hits" due to similarities in names and birth dates, the full identification segments of the candidate records can be retrieved and reviewed to determine whether there is an identification. In addition, some systems prompt the searcher to provide additional information to narrow the search and increase the probability of a hit. 3. If no match is made, the inquirer is given a "no record" response, often worded to indicate that no record could be found using the information provided. If fingerprints are submitted with search requests, they may be used to verify the results of name searches. If name searches fail to identify matching records, fingerprints can be utilized to perform "technical" searches of fingerprint files to determine whether the search subjects have records under different names. Many States require that the subject's fingerprints be submitted with all noncriminal justice access requests and permit the release of records only when a fingerprint comparison positively verifies that the record relates to the subject of the request. -75 [1999 Compendium, supra note 21, p. 10.] Response times Response times vary according to the purpose of the request and the communication mode used to conduct the search. Customarily, queries for criminal justice purposes receive a higher priority than noncriminal justice searches and thus enjoy a significantly shorter response time. As would be expected, on-line searches via remote terminals are the fastest. The goal of the FBI's IAFIS, for example, is to respond to identification verification requests within 2 hours when the requests originate from an AFIS. (AFIS and other justice technology innovations are discussed in detail in chapter IV.) The FBI seeks to respond to name-only III searches in under a minute. Similarly, statewide automated fingerprint systems can usually respond to electronically transmitted requests in a matter of hours or less. Requests also have been submitted by using facsimile (fax) machines or the telephone (for name-only searches). Information verification requests submitted by mail require the longest response time. However, fingerprint images mailed on 10-print cards can now be digitized at the repositories by card scanners, which significantly reduces the amount of time necessary to classify the prints and to search for matches. Even mailed requests can be returned in a week or so using this process. Identification verification requests mailed to the FBI before automation required 2 months or longer for a response. Section 4: The product of the repositories - the criminal history record This section looks at the repository's product - the criminal history record - and includes a discussion of: * The accuracy and completeness (data quality) of criminal history records. * Proper linking of arrest and disposition data on records, which is one of the most difficult data quality problems faced by repositories. * The content and format of criminal history records, including differences in content, format, and terminology. Accuracy and completeness The issue of the accuracy and completeness of criminal history records was identified as an important concern during the earliest stages of the development of a national criminal history record program. -76 [Project SEARCH, Technical Report No. 2: Security and Privacy Considerations in Criminal History Information Systems (Sacramento: California Crime Technological Research Foundation, July 1970).] More recently, the data quality issue has emerged as one of the most important and timely issues confronting the criminal justice community. As noted earlier, criminal history record information plays an essential role at virtually every stage of the criminal justice process. For example: * The ability of a police officer to obtain an arrest or search warrant may turn on the subject's criminal history record. * A prosecutor may or may not decide to formally charge an individual based upon a past record. * In many States, judges are required to consider a subject's criminal history record in determining whether to grant or deny bail and in sentencing a convicted offender. If criminal history records are not accurate or if the record lacks a disposition, the record cannot be used at all. If it is used, there is a substantial risk that the user will make an incorrect or misguided decision. In this regard, former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh once posited that there is a "straight-line relationship" between high-quality criminal history record information and the effectiveness of the Nation's criminal justice system. -77 ["Keynote Address" in SEARCH Group, Inc., National Conference on Improving the Quality of Criminal History Records: Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH Conference, NCJ 133532 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1992) p. 6. Hereafter, Data Quality Conference.] Accurate and complete criminal history information also protects the privacy interests of individuals, ensuring that innocent people are not mistakenly arrested and that inaccurate information is purged from an individual's criminal history record. Finally, accurate criminal history record information affects more than just the criminal justice community. Increasingly, criminal history records are being used for a variety of noncriminal justice purposes, including the screening of individuals prior to public or private employment in sensitive positions and the screening of persons seeking to purchase firearms. In the view of most experts, inadequacies in the accuracy and completeness of criminal history records is the single most serious deficiency affecting the Nation's criminal history record information systems. Although SEARCH's 1999 survey found that in 32 States and the District of Columbia, representing 64% of the Nation's population and 66% of its criminal history records, 60% or more of arrests within the past 5 years had final dispositions recorded, there is still widespread variation among the States in the extent to which they maintain complete disposition data. -78 [1999 Survey, supra note 6, p. 2 and table 1. See, appendix 9.] In the survey, 10 State repositories reported that for arrests logged within the past 5 years, 90% or more have final dispositions recorded, while in another 10 States, final dispositions are available for 50% or less of the arrests logged within the past 5 years. When all arrests in State criminal history files are taken into account, the number of State central repositories with final dispositions of 50% or less increases to 14. -79 [Ibid., table 1.] For its part, about one-half of the State-reported criminal history records maintained by the FBI's CJIS Division do not have dispositions. While criminal justice officials generally agree that unreported arrests and missing or incomplete disposition data constitute the principal data quality problem afflicting criminal history record systems, the inaccuracy of arrest and disposition data also is a problem. Although there have been relatively few in-depth audits or reviews of the accuracy of the information maintained by State and Federal criminal history record repositories, most of those that have been conducted have found unacceptable levels of inaccuracies. These audits have also shown, however, that automating reporting processes and using automated edit and review processes at the repositories to monitor data entry and to prevent the entry of incomplete or questionable data have had a significant favorable impact on the quality of the data entered into the repositories' databases. Efforts to redesign data collection forms and to simplify and standardize reporting forms, reporting procedures, and reporting terminology have also been proven to have a favorable impact on data accuracy. -80 [Data Quality Report, supra note 5, pp. 61-62.] Linking of arrest and disposition data Aside from the failure of criminal justice agencies to report complete and accurate arrest and disposition data to the repositories, perhaps the most difficult data quality problem faced by the repositories is the proper linking of reported data to the appropriate individual and case, so that arrest, prosecutor, court, and correctional data are linked to the appropriate offender record and the appropriate case event on that record. - Current practice All of the States and the FBI assign unique numbers to identify individual criminal offenders. These numbers - FBI numbers and State identification (SID) numbers - are assigned upon an individual's first arrest -81 [The State bureau of identification will assign a new SID number to a first offender and, if the arrest is reported to the FBI, an FBI number will be assigned and transmitted back to the State bureau so that the two numbers can be associated on the offender's record at both the State and Federal levels.] and are associated with the fingerprints taken in connection with that arrest. The numbers are used thereafter to identify the individual throughout his or her criminal career and to ensure that all criminal cases in which he or she is involved are included on a single comprehensive criminal history record. Although this system works well, duplicate records for the same individual sometimes are created because of the use of false names and identifiers by arrested persons or because of clerical errors. These duplicate records are usually detected, however, when the fingerprints for the newer cases are processed, and the