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
Law and policies
Evolution of information technology
Interstate Identification Index
Federal initiatives and legislation

Criminal Justice Information Policy

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20531
John Ashcroft
Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs
Deborah J. Daniels
Assistant Attorney General
World Wide Web site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Statistics
Lawrence A. Greenfeld
Acting Director
World Wide Web site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

For information contact:
BJS Clearinghouse
1-800-732-3277

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

December 2001, NCJ 187670

U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lawrence A. Greenfeld
Deputy 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 © 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.

ii

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
Deputy Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

iii

Contents

Glossary

xi

Introduction

1
2
2

3
4

Purpose of this report
Background
Repositories of criminal
history record information
— State systems
— Federal systems
Timely criminal history
record information issues
— Data quality
— Decentralized
recordkeeping
— New technologies
Content of this report

Chapter I:
How the criminal
justice system
works and how it
uses criminal
history records

7

Background

Section 1:
Typical State
criminal justice
system structure

7

2
2
2
3
3

Section 2:
Typical State
criminal justice
process

8
8
8
8
9

Criminal codes and
procedures
Police agencies
Local detention facilities
Prosecution agencies
Courts
Corrections agencies

12
12
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
17

Investigation
Arrest
Booking
Initial court appearance
Preliminary hearing
Pretrial release decision
Prosecutor review
Grand jury indictment
Arraignment
Trial court action
Appeal
Sentencing
Correctional supervision

Section 3:
How criminal
justice
practitioners use
criminal history
records

17
18
18
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
21

Chapter II:
Overview of
existing criminal
history record
systems

23
23
24

Background
State-level systems
Federal-level systems

Section 1:
Evolution of
criminal history
record systems

24

Establishment of early police
departments
Early identification and
recordkeeping systems
Efforts to establish criminal
history record systems
— Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration
efforts to establish State
systems
— Federal Bureau of
Investigation efforts to
establish Federal systems

25
25
26

v

Background
Police uses
Pretrial release uses
Prosecutor uses
Court uses
— For bail, pretrial, and trial
decisions
— For sentencing decisions
— For probation and
parole decisions
Corrections uses
Types of information needed
Time frames within which
information is needed

26

Section 2:
Information
maintained in the
Nation’s criminal
history record
systems

27
28
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
30
30

Background
Identification information
— Personal description
— Fingerprints
Criminal history information
Juvenile record information
Other information
— Interim dispositions
— Felony flags
— Misdemeanor data
Master name indexes
— Contents, usage
— Number of records
indexed

Section 3:
The current status
of the Nation’s
criminal history
record systems

30
30
30
31
31
31
32
32
32
35
35
35
36
36
36
37
37

Section 4:
The product of the
repositories —
the criminal
history record

38
39
39
40
40
41
41
41
42
42
43

Chapter III:
Overview of laws
regulating
criminal history
record systems

45

Section 1:
Constitutional and
common law
doctrines

45
45

Section 2:
Statutory and
regulatory
requirements

46

Background
Number of records
— State records
— Federal records
Extent of automation
— State criminal history files
— State criminal fingerprint
files
— Federal files
Reporting of information to
the repositories
— Types of information
reported
— Reporting requirements
— Time frame within which
reporting takes place
Access methods for
authorized requestors
— Criminal justice inquiries
— Noncriminal justice
inquiries
— Computer searches
Response times
Accuracy and completeness
Linking of arrest and
disposition data
— Current practice
— Case-tracking systems
— Charge-tracking systems
Content and format
— Differences in content
— Differences in format
and terminology
— Problems in
deciphering records
— Calls for reform
— Transmission
specifications

Section 3:
Two key issues —
data quality and
dissemination

47
48
48
48
48
49
49
50
50
50
50
52
55

Chapter IV:
The evolution of
information
technology

58

Background

Section 1:
Automated
reporting to
repositories

60
60

Automated arrest reporting
— Problems with manual
reporting
— Automation aids in arrest
reporting
— Benefits
Automated disposition
reporting
— Reporting by local
prosecutors, courts
— Reporting by State courts
systems
— Reporting by State
corrections
— Benefits

60
60
60
60
61
61
61

Section 2:
Advances in
fingerprint
technology

Constitutional doctrines
Common law doctrines

61
62
62

63

46
46
47

Federal statutes and
regulations
— Statutes
— Regulations
State statutes and
regulations

vi

Federal data quality
regulations
— Completeness provisions
— Accuracy provisions
State data quality laws and
strategies
— Mandatory reporting
requirements
— Transaction log
requirements
— Other requirements
— Data quality strategies
Dissemination of criminal
history record information
— Dissemination for
criminal justice purposes
— Dissemination for
noncriminal justice purposes
— Dissemination trends
— Statutory dissemination
policies in the 21st century

Automated fingerprint
processing
— Livescan
The benefits of automated
fingerprint systems for
criminal history repositories
The scope of automated
fingerprint identification
system implementation

Section 3:
Justice system
integration

64
64

65

66

Section 4:
Data warehousing
tools

67
67
68

Section 5:
Data exchange
standards

69

Section 6:
Internet security
strategies

70

69

71

The technology of
integration
The benefits of integration
for criminal history
repositories
The integration of criminal
justice information and
benefits achieved
Integration’s future and its
potential impact on criminal
history repositories

76
77

77
77
79
81
81

The data warehousing
process
The benefits of data
warehousing
The scope of data
warehousing in justice
agencies

84

84

How standards are
developed
What standards govern
Kansas’ use of the Internet
to exchange criminal history
records
The Internet’s potential for
small justice agencies, and
how increased access will
benefit criminal history
repositories

Section 7:
Policy
innovations

71
72

How policies are formulated
Policies governing
integrated justice information
systems

Chapter V:
National criminal
history record
checks and the
Interstate
Identification
Index

73

Background

Section 1:
Maintenance and
use of current
Federal Bureau of
Investigation files

74
75

Section 2:
The Interstate
Identification
Index system

Current record
maintenance practices
Authorized users of data

vii

Section 3:
Interstate
Identification
Index system
impact

88

88
88
88
88
88
88
89
89

Interstate Identification Index
system approach
Interstate Identification Index
system implementation
status
— System availability status
— Criminal justice searches
— Noncriminal justice
searches
— Decentralization
implementation status
— Interstate Identification
Index record responses for
criminal justice purposes
— Interstate Identification
Index record responses for
noncriminal justice purposes
— Discontinuance of
Federal Bureau of
Investigation records of
State offenders
Benefits of Interstate
Identification Index
participation
— Improved record quality
— Cost savings
— Increased system
security
Benefits of National
Fingerprint File participation
— Duplicate files eliminated
— Uniform dissemination
standard
— Faster response times
Burdens of Interstate
Identification Index
participation

Section 4:
The National
Crime Prevention
and Privacy
Compact

89
90

Background
Compact provisions

Chapter VI:
Federal initiatives
and criminal
history records

91

Background

Section 1:
Federal Bureau of
Investigation
system upgrades

92

92
92

Section 2:
The Brady Act
and its impact

93
93

94
Section 3:
Federal grant
programs and
related initiatives

94

94
95
96
96
97
97

97
98

98

99
99

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

101

105

109

Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification
System
Criminal Justice Information
Services Division relocation
National Crime Information
Center 2000
Background
The National Instant
Criminal Background Check
System
Other Brady Act provisions
The National Criminal
History Improvement
Program
— Background
— Creation of the program
— Purposes for using grants
— Data quality, system
improvement strategies
— Status of the program
Bureau of Justice
Assistance block grant setaside program
— Fund guidelines
The National Technical
Assistance and Evaluation
Program
Reporting alien convictions
to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service
Sex Offender
Registry Assistance
Federal Bureau of
Investigation/Bureau of
Justice Statistics voluntary
reporting standards
Statutes making possession
of a firearm by a convicted
felon a criminal offense
Statutes requiring or
permitting prior criminal
records to be considered in
bail decisions
Statutes authorizing
sentencing of persistent
recidivists to enhanced
terms as career criminals or
habitual criminals

viii

Appendix 4

113

Statutes providing for
upgraded charges for
offenders with prior
convictions

Appendix 5

117

Statutes providing for
enhanced sentences for
offenders with prior
convictions

Appendix 6

121

Statutes authorizing
consideration of criminal
history in correctional
classification and
supervision

Appendix 7

125

Statutes providing that
parole eligibility shall or may
be affected by prior
convictions

Appendix 8

129

Arrest records with
fingerprints, 1989 and 1992

Appendix 9

133

Overview of State criminal
history record systems,
December 31, 1999

Appendix 10

137

Automation of master name
index and criminal history
file, 1989, 1993, 1997 and
1999

Appendix 11

141

Number of subjects
(individual offenders) in
State criminal history file,
1995, 1997 and 1999

Appendix 12

145

Number of final dispositions
reported to State criminal
history repository, 1993,
1995, 1997 and 1999

Appendix 13

149

Arrest records with
fingerprints, 1989, 1993,
1997 and 1999

Appendix 14

153

Notice to State criminal
history repository of release
of arrested persons without
charging, 1989, 1993, 1997
and 1999

Appendix 15

157

Average number of days to
process arrest data
submitted to State criminal
history repository and
current status of backlog,
1999

Appendix 16

161

Average number of days to
process disposition data
submitted to State criminal
history [repository] and
current status of backlog,
1999

Appendix 17

165

Methods to link disposition
information to arrest/charge
information on criminal
history record, 1999

Appendix 18

169

Data quality audits of State
criminal history repository,
1999

Appendix 19

173

Model interstate criminal
history record

Appendix 20

183

Federal Bureau of
Investigation/Bureau of
Justice Statistics
Recommended Voluntary
Reporting Standards for
Improving the Quality of
Criminal Record Information

Appendix 21

185

National Crime Prevention
and Privacy Compact and
Section-by-Section Analysis

ix

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 oftendisparate 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.)

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Glossary • xi

Interstate Identification
Index (III): An “indexpointer” 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.)

Glossary • xii

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.)

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

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 9394.)
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 justicerelated 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.)

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.)

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.)

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Glossary • xiii

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 Information1 described in nontechnical terms the complex
and interrelated network of
Federal, State,2 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
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).
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.

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.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 1

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

Page 2

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 threequarters 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.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

— 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-todate, 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 3

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.

Page 4

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,

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

•

•

•

•

•

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 costeffective 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.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 5

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 Statelevel 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 7

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 Congress3 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
3

In this report, “the Congress” refers to the United States Congress.

Page 8

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.

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.

Local detention facilities
Courts
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.

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. Lowerlevel trial courts, often called
Municipal Courts, County
Courts, or District Courts, are

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

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 onehalf 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.

•
•
•

appeal
sentencing
correctional supervision.

(See figure 1, which illustrates the sequence of events
in the criminal justice system.)4

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

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 fullcolor 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.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 9

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
Page 12

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 (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:

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.

•
•

•

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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

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 openarrest 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 and audits have shown
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.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 13

that failure to send such notices, even where required by
law, is a pervasive problem.

•

In nonserious cases, the
entire case may be completed and a disposition
may be entered.

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.

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.

Initial court appearance

Preliminary hearing

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.

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.

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.

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.

Selected tables from the 1999 Survey are set out in this report as appendixes 9-18.

Page 14

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

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.

Once a case is filed, it takes a
court order based upon good
cause shown to drop any of
the charges.

Prosecutor review

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.”

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 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.
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.

Grand jury 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 courtappointed 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,

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 15

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
Page 16

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.

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 The presentence report

Appeal
8

An appeal may follow sentencing or may be instituted

Paul L. Woodard, Statutes Requiring the Use of Criminal History
Record Information, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

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.

“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

Correctional supervision
The final step in the criminal
justice process is correctional
supervision. Basically, this
step includes the so-called

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.

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 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.

9

Ibid., p. 1.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 17

•

•

•

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
Page 18

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
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
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.

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
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

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.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

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.

enhanced prison terms.12 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.

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

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 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.
12

Ibid., pp. 13-14 and table 5. An
excerpt from table 5 is included in
this report as appendix 3.
13
Ibid., p. 11 and table 3. An excerpt from table 3 is included in this
report as appendix 4.

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 con-

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 19

nection 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 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
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
— 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
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 and in
making decisions about eligibility for good time credits,
early release, work furlough,
or release on parole.19
17

Ibid., p. 14.
Ibid., p. 51 and table 8. Table 8
is included in this report as appendix 6.
19
Ibid., pp. 55-56 and table 9. An
excerpt from table 9 is included in
this report as appendix 7.
18

14

Ibid., p. 14 and table 4. An excerpt from table 4 is included in this
report as appendix 5.
15
Ibid., p. 14.
16
Ibid., p. 13.

Page 20

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:

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

•

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

•

•

•

•

•

•

Finally, it should be reemphasized 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

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.

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 timecritical. 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 21

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.

Page 22

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

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.

Background
State-level systems

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.

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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 23

central repositories for
criminal history records.21
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 firstarrest 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 subse21

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.

Page 24

quent 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

major urban area and all regional and State areas had
established law enforcement
agencies.22
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
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.
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

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 postCivil 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
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

fective method for the use of
fingerprints to positively
identify previous offenders
and to search identification
files.26 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 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
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
26

At about the same time, the
“Henry Classification System” emerged as the first efPublic Policy,” 46 Journalism
Quarterly 475 (Autumn 1969) n.1.
24
Intelligence and Investigative
Records, p. 18. See also, Gilbert, p.
17.
25
Gilbert, p. 17.

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.
27
Ibid.
28
F.A. Reed, “The Finger Mark,
the Prime Piece of Scientific Evidence,” Journal of Forensic Sciences (January 1981) p. 9.
29
Collins, p. 2.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 25

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
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 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

— Federal Bureau of
Investigation efforts to
establish Federal
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
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

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 mid1960s, 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, useroriented 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
34

30

Ibid.
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).

Page 26

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.
33
Ibid.

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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

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.

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

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 reposito35

obtained from the NCIC Operating
Manual and other documents published by the FBI, and from NCIC
officials and staff.

ries often limit their collection of criminal history information to
felonies or serious misdemeanors.

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 no-

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

tations 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.
36
1999 Compendium, supra note
21, p. 4.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 27

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

Page 28

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
By 1992, that number had
grown to 41 States, the District of Columbia, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands.38 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

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.
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.
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 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

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.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

offenders differently than
adult offenders.41 On July 15,
1992, the Attorney General
adopted a rule authorizing the
FBI to accept State-reported
records of serious offenses by
juveniles.42 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
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
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.
42
U.S. Department of Justice,
“Juvenile Records,” 56 Federal
Register 25642 (June 5, 1991).
43
Amending 28 C.F.R. §
20.32(a)(b).

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 Such information can be essential for
users of criminal history re44

1999 Survey, supra note 6, table
1. Table 1 is included in this report
as appendix 9.

cords. 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 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
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

45

National Task Force Report, supra note 20, page 3.
46
For example, complete misdemeanor information sometimes is
helpful in assisting courts in distinguishing chronic offenders from
first or infrequent offenders. See,
ibid.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 29

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.

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

— Contents, usage

Section 3: The current
status of the Nation’s
criminal history record
systems

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.

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 Information in this section that
describes the status of State
criminal history record systems is drawn from this 1999
survey.

— 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 All
47

FBI CJIS Division memorandum, August 20, 1999, citing

Page 30

Identification Automated Services
Volume Statistics Report.
48
1999 Survey, supra note 6, table
4. Table 4 is included in this report
as appendix 10.
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.

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 In comparison, the
repositories held only 30.3
50

Ibid., table 2. Table 2 is included in this report as appendix 11.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

million subjects in their
criminal history files in 1984,
and 42.4 million in 1989.51
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
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 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
51

1992 Survey, supra note 38, table 2.
52
1999 Survey, p. 2 and table 3.
Table 3 is included in this report as
appendix 12.
53
Source: Mr. Robert Mudd,
Management Analyst, CJIS Division, FBI.

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 im-

properly 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 That figure had
grown to 20 States when
SEARCH conducted its survey two years later.55 By
1999, 40 States reported that
more than 75% of their
criminal history records were
automated,56 compared to 26
States in 1992.57
54

1999 Survey, supra note 6, table
2. See, appendix 11.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid.
57
1992 Survey, supra note 38, table 2.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 31

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
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 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
— State criminal
fingerprint files

automated fingerprint technology.62

Reporting of information
to the repositories

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.

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.

— Federal 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 onehalf of the States were operating statewide criminal justice automated fingerprint
identification systems
(AFIS).61 At the beginning of
the 21st century, every State
operates or has access to

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 Approximately 5
million older records are
maintained in manual form
and there are no plans to
automate them.64
62

58

1999 Survey, supra note 6, table
2. See, appendix 11.
59
Ibid, table 4. See, appendix 10.
60
Ibid., table 2. See appendix 11.
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.

Page 32

Source: Mr. Thomas J. Roberts,
Assistant Program Manager, IAFIS,
FBI.
63
Source: Mr. Robert Mudd,
Management Analyst, CJIS
Division, FBI.
64
Interstate Identification Index
(III) National Fingerprint File
(NFF) Program: A Summary, CJIS
Division, FBI, revised December
1999.

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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

the CJIS Division’s headquarters in Clarksburg, West
Virginia.65 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.)

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.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 33

User Criminal
Justice Agencies:

Fingerprinting
Agencies:

Police, Bail,
Prosecution, Courts,
Corrections,
Probation/Parole,
Others

Arresting Agencies
and Corrections

Name
Search of
Computerized
Criminal
History

Full
Criminal
History
Records*

Full or
Summary
Criminal
History
Data

Fingerprint
Cards

AFIS

via mail, hand, or
electronic
transmission

mail or
terminal

Automated
Name
Index

Report Arrest
and Disposition
Information by
Terminal, Mail,
Delivery**

Automated
Criminal
History
Records

Manual
Name
Index

Manual
Criminal
History
Records

Automated
Fingerprint
Records
(AFIS)

Manual
Fingerprint
Records

REPOSITORY
mail

*Response time may be several days to several weeks.
**Reporting may be via an agency automated management information
system, such as a prosecutor case management system (e.g., D.A.’s
Assistant) or an Offender-Based State Corrections Information System
(OBSCIS), or via a parent agency, such as the office of state court
administrator.
***Response time may be several weeks to several months.

Full or
Partial
Criminal
Records***

Fingerprint
Card

mail

Noncriminal
Justice
Agency

Figure 2: Flow of information to State central criminal record repositories

Page 34

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

— 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 re-

quire that fingerprints be
forwarded for at least some
misdemeanor arrests.66
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.
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.

For example, 35 States have
statutes or regulations requiring prosecutors to report
decisions to decline prosecution in criminal cases to the
State repository,67 while 47
States, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands have laws
or regulations requiring
courts to report dispositions
in felony cases.68
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
— 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
67

Ibid., table 5, p. 23.
Ibid.
69
Ibid., table 7, included in this
report as appendix 14.
68

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 35

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 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

history databases is 39 days
or less.73

— Noncriminal justice
inquiries

Access methods for
authorized requestors

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
The average time between
receipt of final trial court dispositions by the State repositories and entry of the
dispositions into criminal

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.

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 oncampus 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 preemployment background
checks, whose results are returned in 72 hours or less.

— 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

73

Ibid., p. 6.
“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.)
74

70

Ibid., p. 5 and table 12. Table 12
is included in this report as appendix 15.
71
Ibid., p. 6 and table 12.
72
Ibid., p. 6 and table 13. Table 13
is included in this report as appendix 16.

Page 36

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

— 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
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, online 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 jus75

tice 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.

1999 Compendium, supra note
21, p. 10.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 37

•

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 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

76

Project SEARCH, Technical
Report No. 2: Security and Privacy
Considerations in Criminal History
Information Systems (Sacramento:
California Crime Technological
Research Foundation, July 1970).

Page 38

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
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
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.

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
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

78

1999 Survey, supra note 6, p. 2
and table 1. See, appendix 9.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

number of State central repositories with final dispositions of 50% or less increases
to 14.79

and reporting terminology
have also been proven to
have a favorable impact on
data accuracy.80

For its part, about one-half of
the State-reported criminal
history records maintained by
the FBI’s CJIS Division do
not have dispositions.

Linking of arrest and
disposition data

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,
79

Ibid., table 1.

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 arrest81 and are associated with the fingerprints
taken in connection with that
arrest. The numbers are used
thereafter to identify the indi80

Data Quality Report, supra note
5, pp. 61-62.
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.

vidual 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
records are then consolidated.
A more difficult problem is
encountered when the repositories try to match reported prosecutor, court, and
correctional dispositions with
underlying arrest and charging information for a particular case. Although it may
be relatively easy to identify
the appropriate offender record, it may be difficult to
identify the appropriate case
on that record to which the
reported disposition data
should be matched. This is
particularly problematic
when the individual has more
than one active case or when
the reported disposition data
for a particular case do not
appear to match the recorded
charge data due to such factors as charge modifications
by the prosecutor or the acceptance of pleas to lesser
charges. Failure to properly
link reported information can
result in unrecorded disposi-

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 39

tions or, less commonly, the
association of disposition
data with the wrong case.
— Case-tracking
systems
Some repositories apparently
have successfully implemented data-linking systems
that use the subject’s name in
combination with the various
case identification numbers
assigned by criminal justice
agencies. However, the few
extensive repository audits
that have been undertaken
have shown that accurate
linking of data is best facilitated by systems that utilize
unique case-tracking numbers.82
These case-tracking numbers
are assigned at the arrest
stage (or at the case initiation
stage, if the case is not originated by an arrest) and are
included with all reported
data associated with that case
as it is processed through the
criminal justice system.
The unique tracking numbers
may be pre-printed on fingerprint cards and disposition
reporting forms or may be
assigned by arresting agencies and passed along with
case papers. Whatever the
approach used, it is important
82

For example, SEARCH Group,
Inc., “Audit of the Completeness
and Accuracy of Criminal History
Record Information Maintained by
the Maryland Criminal Justice Information System, Final Report:
Audit Results for Baltimore County
and Baltimore City” (unpublished,
August 11, 1988).

Page 40

that the unique tracking number be assigned at the time of
arrest and that it be attached
to or recorded on the arrest
fingerprint card forwarded to
the central repository. In this
way, the tracking number can
be tied to positive identification of the arrested individual
(and his FBI/SID number)
and to the charges stemming
from the arrest.

Aside from facilitating data
linking, unique tracking
numbers also increase the
effectiveness of error notification procedures and can
greatly facilitate data quality
auditing if the numbers are
included on all source documents.

In cases that begin by citation
or summons (without arrest),
the tracking number may be
assigned at the individual’s
first court appearance and the
individual’s fingerprints may
be taken at that time and
submitted, with the tracking
number, to the repository.

Although unique-number
case-tracking systems can
virtually ensure that disposition information is associated
with the right case cycle, they
do not necessarily provide the
basis for reliably associating
particular dispositions with
particular charges and counts
within a particular case.

These unique-number casetracking systems have been
shown to virtually eliminate
data linking problems.83 In
automated systems, particularly if reporting to the repository is automated,
procedures can be implemented to ensure that tracking numbers are accurately
entered with all reported disposition data. Data entry
screens can include the
tracking number as a required
data field and system edit
procedures can reject disposition data entries that do not
include the number. An additional safeguard is to include
a check digit in the tracking
number and to institute system edit procedures to monitor accurate keying of the
number.

— Charge-tracking
systems

Because many arrests result
in multiple police charges,
and because initial police
charges may be modified or
augmented at later stages of
the case (for example, after
prosecutor screening, grand
jury action, or plea bargaining), it is common for repositories to receive court
dispositions that do not match
the charges initially reported
by the police. Even though
these disposition data may be
associated with the proper
case, the criminal history record may appear ambiguous
as to whether the disposition
data are complete and accurate.
This problem has been successfully addressed in some

83

Ibid.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

States84 by implementing a
refinement of the uniquenumber tracking system, usually referred to as “chargetracking.”

made mandatory. Likewise,
no mandatory guidelines regarding the content of criminal history records have ever
been promulgated.

Under this approach, each
charge reported to the repository in a particular case is
assigned a number (01, 02,
03, for example), and these
numbers, in combination with
the tracking number for the
case, are used in subsequent
processing of the case for
reporting disposition data to
the repository. If, for example, a charge is dropped or
modified by the prosecutor,
the action is reported to the
repository by charge number
and shown on the criminal
history record. If the prosecutor or a grand jury adds
new charges, the charges are
assigned new numbers and
the information is reported to
the repository. Court disposition information is then reported by tracking number
and charge number, and a
disposition is reported and
recorded for each charge.
This enables the repository to
account for each charge
shown on the criminal history
record, thus eliminating a
primary source of ambiguity.

State and Federal repositories
have been left to adopt their
own record formats and approaches concerning the
types of offenses that should
be included on criminal history records and the types of
information about these offenses that should be included. Not surprisingly, this
has resulted in considerable
diversity in the formats of the
criminal history records presently generated by the State
repositories, as well as in the
content of these records.

Content and format
Although the FBI and
SEARCH, among others,
have proposed model criminal history record formats
over the years, adoption of a
uniform criminal history record format has never been
84

— Differences in content
For example, while virtually
all repositories attempt to
obtain and record information
about all felony offenses,
there is diversity concerning
the types of misdemeanor
offenses, if any, included on
criminal history records.
Moreover, there are considerable differences in the way
State penal codes designate
particular offenses as felonies
or misdemeanors. Indeed, a
few State codes do not even
utilize these terms.
As pointed out in section 2 of
this chapter, there is also diversity concerning the types
of case processing information obtained and recorded by
the repositories. While some
repositories attempt to obtain
little more than arrest charges

and final dispositions, other
repositories obtain and record
other information, including
bail and pretrial release data,
pretrial detention data, prosecutor charge modifications,
and correctional admission
and release data.
— Differences in format
and terminology
The formats in use vary so
greatly that it is probably true
that no two State criminal
history record formats are
identical and many of them
are not even similar.
The formats vary from columnar designs with titles
over values to various forms
of linear designs utilizing
indentations or upper- and
lower-case type to distinguish
titles from values. Some of
the records may leave some
data fields blank while others
display “unknown” in all
spaces where information is
not provided.
While most of the formats
utilize both literal descriptions, as well as State penal
code citations, to display arrest charges and disposition
charges, the terminology in
use differs considerably from
State to State. In some formats, disposition charges
may not match arrest charges
in cases where charges were
modified or augmented after
the police reported the initial
charges. And some formats
show dispositions for all
charges, while others may

Illinois is an example.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 41

show only one disposition
even if there are multiple
charges.
— Problems in
deciphering records
As a result of these differences and deficiencies in
format, content, and terminology, many of the criminal
history records currently circulated by the repositories are
difficult to decipher, particularly by noncriminal justice
users and out-of-State users.
While criminal justice personnel within a particular
State usually become familiar
enough with the State repository’s criminal history
record format to be able to
interpret the records they receive, noncriminal justice
users often lack a sufficient
familiarity with criminal justice case processing and
criminal justice terminology
to be able to easily interpret
and understand the records
made available to them. Indeed, criminal justice personnel often have difficulty
interpreting out-of-State records because of differences
in format and terminology.
The problem of the difficulty
of deciphering out-of-State
records has become more
serious in recent years with
the advent of the III, a national-level criminal history
record system for servicing
interstate and Federal-State
record searches and record
exchanges. (The III system is
addressed in chapter V.)
Page 42

In the past, the FBI, utilizing
its files of Federal and State
offenders, has serviced most
national searches. In servicing these requests, the FBI
incorporates the State offender information in its files
into a standard format, the
FBI rap sheet, with which
most criminal justice personnel in the country have become familiar.
The new system, on the other
hand, utilizes an “indexpointer” approach to enable
criminal justice personnel to
obtain criminal history records directly from State repositories in other States. As
a result, criminal justice personnel who have in the past
received out-of-State offender information in a single
familiar format are now receiving such information in
numerous and diverse formats. Available evidence
suggests that they are finding
these records difficult to interpret. At a 1992 national
conference on data quality
issues,85 officials from three
States acknowledged during
question-and-answer periods
that interpretation of out-ofState records has presented a
problem in the implementation of point-of-sale criminal
record checks on gun purchasers.

85

Data Quality Conference, supra
note 77.

— Calls for reform
Not surprisingly, the problems outlined above have led
to calls for reforms in the
content and format of criminal history records.
• The National Task Force
on Increasing the Utility
of the Criminal History
Record published its report in December 1995
following a series of
meetings during which it
developed recommendations on improving the
content of criminal history records that were
exchanged among the
States.86 The task force
also developed an easyto-read, non-columnar
model “rap sheet” format
to facilitate the exchange
of criminal history information.87 During its
deliberations, the task
force determined that reforms were needed to respond to the variety of
formats, content, and
terminology that made it
difficult for out-of-State
users, and particularly
noncriminal justice users,
to decipher the criminal
history records they received.

86

SEARCH Group, Inc., Increasing the Utility of the Criminal History Record: Report of the National
Task Force, NCJ 156922 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
December 1995). Hereafter, Rap
Sheet Task Force Report.
87
Ibid., p. 23. The Task Force’s
recommended model rap sheet is
included as appendix 19.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

• Recognizing the need for
improving the value of
criminal history records,
the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, initiated
the National Criminal
History Improvement
Program (NCHIP) in
1995 to improve the
quality, timeliness, and
immediate accessibility
of criminal histories and
related records. Every
State had received an
award under this program
by the end of Fiscal Year
1998. The program disbursed more than $314
million in direct grants to
States during Fiscal
Years 1995 through
2000. The NCHIP appropriation for Fiscal Year
2000 was $45 million.
• The Compendium of
State Privacy and Security Legislation: 1999
Overview, prepared by
SEARCH, The National
Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics, and published by
BJS in July 2000, reported continuing problems with data accuracy
and completeness despite
regulations in many
States spelling out procedures for maintaining
data quality.88 The Compendium also found that
III implementation was
being hampered by the
wide degree of formats
used by States to record
88

1999 Compendium, supra note

21.

criminal history information that other States and
noncriminal justice users
found difficult to decipher. The Compendium
suggested that implementation of the National
Crime Prevention and
Privacy Compact, which
incorporates a dissemination standard identical
to the Federal standard
applicable to the FBI’s
Identification Division,
could lead to increased
standardization of criminal history formats
among the States.
In 1999, then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno
indicated that incomplete
criminal history records
at the State level, particularly the absence of
dispositions, were responsible for the sale of
firearms to approximately 1,700 individuals
who were barred from
owning or possessing
weapons by the Brady
Act.89 Attorney General
Reno said the lack of dispositions forced the FBI
to contact State criminal
history repositories to
determine how a criminal
charge listed on an individual’s rap sheet was
disposed. The sales occurred between November 1998, when the NICS

•

went on-line, and midJune 1999.
Finally, the FBI and BJS
have issued voluntary reporting standards that include recommended
minimum data elements
for arrest and disposition
information reported to
the State repositories and
to the FBI. The standards
are discussed in more
detail in chapter VI and
the full text is set out as
appendix 20.

•

— Transmission
specifications
Efforts have been under way
since 1995 to develop a more
readable and uniform rap
sheet along with specifications to permit the rap sheet’s
electronic interstate transmission. Initially, the National
Task Force of Increasing the
Utility of the Criminal History Record, comprised of
Federal, State, and local justice officials and related interest groups, drafted a
sample transmission format
and an interim rap sheet presentation format to facilitate
this goal.90
The Joint Task Force on Rap
Sheet Standardization began
in 1996 to transform the proposed formats into operational processes through
which the interstate electronic transfer of a uniform

89

Craig Whitlock, “Delays in FBI
Checks Put 1,700 Guns in the
Wrong Hands; System Failed to
Detect Banned Buyers Within Time
Limit” Washington Post (June 25,
1999) p. A01.

90

Rap Sheet Task Force Report,
supra note 86.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 43

rap sheet could be accomplished. The Joint Task Force
has released several rap sheet
transmission specifications
for testing, the most recent of
which — 2.01, based on eXtensible Markup Language
(XML) — was in draft form
in mid-2001.91 The Joint Task
Force membership includes
representative from the FBI;
the FBI’s CJIS APB; the National Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System;
SEARCH, The National Consortium of Justice Information and Statistics; and state
and local law enforcement
agencies.

91

The Joint Task Force’s “Interstate Criminal History Transmission
Specification” is available at
http://www.search.org.

Page 44

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Chapter III: Overview of laws regulating criminal
history record systems
This chapter summarizes
relevant law applicable to
criminal history records, and
focuses on two dominant
criminal history record information issues.
Section 1: Constitutional
and common law doctrines,
discusses the impact of these
doctrines on the collection,
maintenance, or dissemination of criminal history record information.
Section 2: Statutory and
regulatory requirements,
reviews the various Federal
and State statutes and regulations that govern the collection, maintenance, and
dissemination of criminal
history record information.
Section 3: Two key issues
— data quality and dissemination, discusses in detail these dominant criminal
history record issues. As for
data quality, how accurate
and complete should criminal
history record information be,
and how can legal directives
and other strategies help improve data quality? As for
dissemination, how confidential should criminal history record information be
and, to the extent that the records are not confidential,
who should be permitted to
see them and for what purposes?

Section 1:
Constitutional and
common law doctrines
Constitutional doctrines
The courts have ruled that
constitutional privacy principles have little impact on the
collection, maintenance, or
dissemination of criminal
history record information by
criminal justice agencies. It is
no exaggeration to say that
the U.S. Constitution is
largely neutral with respect to
the dissemination of criminal
history record information.
The Constitution does recognize a legitimate privacy interest in sensitive personal
information.92 In 1976, however, the U.S. Supreme Court
held, in Paul v. Davis, that
constitutional privacy principles do not limit dissemination by criminal justice
agencies of information about
official acts, such as an arrest.93
In a statutory context, the
Court has recognized a privacy interest in an automated
comprehensive criminal history record.94 Most experts,
however, think it is unlikely
92

Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589
(1977).
93
424 U.S. 693, 713 (1976).
94
Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of
the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989).

that this principle will be applied in such a way as to
permit the Constitution to
pre-empt State statutes that
make criminal history record
information available to the
public or to specified public
users.
In a 1995 ruling with privacy
implications, the Court rejected a violation of privacy
rights claim based on a
marijuana-possession arrest
that was initiated when a
Phoenix, Arizona, police officer accessed inaccurate
criminal history information
through the laptop computer
in his patrol car.95 The Court
ruled 7-2 that the arresting
officer acted in good faith,
and that the defendant’s constitutional right to fourth
amendment “exclusionary
rule” protection did not apply
because the court employee
responsible for the misinformation’s presence had no
stake in the criminal proceedings that followed.
Common law doctrines
Common law privacy doctrines have also proven to be
largely irrelevant to the handling of criminal history record information. Sovereign
immunity, civil and official
immunity, and the need to
95

Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1
(1995), 115 S.Ct. 1185.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 45

show tangible harm arising
from the alleged misuse of
the criminal history records
pose insurmountable obstacles to most common law
actions by record subjects.96

Section 2: Statutory
and regulatory
requirements
The collection, maintenance,
and dissemination of criminal
history record information
are governed by a mosaic of
Federal and State statutes and
regulations.
Federal statutes and
regulations
At the Federal level, the
Congress by law and the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ)
by regulation have established minimum requirements
for the management of criminal history record systems,
leaving it to the States to develop more specific laws and
policies to attempt to ensure
that State criminal history
records are complete, accurate, easily accessible to lawful users, and held in
confidence with respect to the

96

Intergovernmental Relations
Standing Committee, Technical
Memorandum No. 12: Criminal
Justice Information: Perspectives
on Liability (Sacramento: SEARCH
Group Inc., August 1977) pp. 5-20.
Robert R. Belair and Paul L. Woodard, Case Law Digest: Court Decisions on the Handling of Criminal
History Records — Summaries and
Analysis (Sacramento: SEARCH
Group Inc., July 1981).

Page 46

public and other authorized
users.
— Statutes
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) basic statutory authority to maintain
criminal history records is
found in Section 534 of Title
28 of the United States Code.
Specifically, subsections
(a)(1) and (a)(4) authorize the
Attorney General to “acquire,
collect, classify and preserve
identification, criminal identification, crime and other
records” and to “exchange
such records and information
with, and for the official use
of, authorized officials of the
Federal Government, the
States, cities and penal and
other institutions.”97
During the early 1970s, at a
time when public concern
about privacy, automation,
and governmental and private
information systems was
running high, the Congress
considered several legislative
proposals that would have
imposed a uniform national
information management
scheme for State and local
handling of criminal history
record information.
Although the Congress never
enacted comprehensive legislation, it did enact a 1973
amendment to the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe
97

Other Federal laws and regulations authorizing the Attorney General to disseminate criminal history
records are set out in chapter V,
footnote 181.

Streets Act of 1968, the socalled Kennedy Amendment,98 providing that all
criminal history record information collected, maintained, or disseminated by
State and local criminal justice agencies with financial
support made available under
the Act must be complete and
secure, must be made available for review and challenge
by record subjects, and must
be used only for law enforcement and other lawful
purposes.
— Regulations
In 1976, the U.S. DOJ’s Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) issued
comprehensive regulations to
implement the amendment.
Although the regulations did
not expressly require the
States to establish central
criminal history record repositories, the commentary
published with the regulations noted that the accuracy
and completeness standards
were written with State central repositories in mind. Indeed, provisions dealing with
completeness state that complete records “should” be
maintained in State central
repositories.99

98

Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.
§ 3789g(b), as amended by § 524(b)
of the Crime Control Act of 1973,
Pub. L. No. 93-83, 87 Stat. 197
(1973).
99
28 C.F.R. § 20.21(a)(1).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

State statutes and
regulations
As intended, the LEAA
regulations proved instrumental in stimulating the
States to enact their own statutes dealing with criminal
history records, including the
establishment of State central
repositories.
Approximately one-half of
the States have enacted comprehensive criminal history
record statutes and all of the
other States have enacted
laws dealing with at least
some aspects of criminal
history records. Many of
these laws impose requirements that are stricter than
the requirements in the
LEAA regulations.100
Virtually all States have enacted legislation governing at
least the dissemination of
criminal history records. The
overwhelming majority of
State laws follow the scheme
of the Federal LEAA regulations, which distinguish between information referring
to convictions and current
arrests on the one hand, and
nonconviction data on the
other. Nonconviction information refers to arrests that
are more than 1 year old and
are without recorded dispositions or that have dispositions
favorable to the accused,
such as when the police or
prosecutor drop the charges
or when the accused is acquitted at trial.
100

1999 Compendium, supra note
21, p. 4.

A majority of States now
permit access to some criminal history records by at least
some types of noncriminal
justice agencies and private
entities to screen applicants
for security clearances, licensing, and for suitability
for sensitive positions in security and child and elder
care.
Each State permits subjects to
review their records and to
institute procedures to correct
errors. Virtually all States
require the fingerprinting of
persons arrested for serious
offenses and the submission
of such fingerprints to the
State repository and, in addition, most of the States have
statutory or regulatory provisions requiring criminal justice agencies to report
disposition information to the
repository.

Section 3: Two key
issues — data quality
and dissemination
In the years since the issuance of the LEAA regulations, State legislative
activity, as well as media and
public policy debate, have
focused on two key issues
with respect to criminal history record information: data
quality and dissemination.
This section discusses these
two issues in more detail,
including a look at:
• Federal data quality
regulations.

•

•

State laws and strategies
designed to improve data
quality, such as mandatory reporting requirements, transaction log
requirements, and other
data quality safeguards.
Dissemination of criminal history records for
criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes;
dissemination trends; and
statutory dissemination
policies at the beginning
of the 21st century.

Federal data quality
regulations
As noted previously, data
quality was one of the primary concerns motivating
passage of the Kennedy
Amendment in 1973 and the
subsequent adoption of the
LEAA regulations. Reflecting sensitivity to the wide
disparity in the quality of records in State criminal history record systems, the
Kennedy Amendment provides that State criminal history records must be
complete and accurate, but
does not set specific data
quality standards. The LEAA
regulations provide somewhat more specific guidance
to the States, although the
regulations still leave the
States wide discretion to set
their own standards by State
legislation and regulations.
Specifically, the Federal
regulations require all covered criminal justice agencies
to implement operational
procedures designed to en-

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 47

sure that criminal history record information is complete
and accurate.101

•

A process of data
collection, entry, storage,
and systematic audit that
will minimize the possibility of recording or
storing inaccurate information.
Procedures for sending
notices of corrections to
all criminal justice agencies known to have received inaccurate
information of a material
nature.

— Completeness
provisions
To be complete, the regulations state that a record of an
arrest must contain information concerning any disposition occurring within the
State within 90 days after the
disposition has occurred. In
an effort to promote the dissemination of complete and
up-to-date criminal history
records, the regulations also
require that State and local
agencies must query the State
central repository prior to
disseminating any criminal
history information to ensure
that the agency has the most
recent disposition data available.102
— Accuracy provisions
The regulations address accuracy by defining the term literally to mean, “no record
containing criminal history
information shall contain erroneous information.”103 To
promote accuracy, two types
of operational procedures are
required:
101

28 C.F.R. § 20.21(a).
28 C.F.R. § 20.21(a)(1). The
regulations provide two exceptions
where prior contact with the State
central repository is not necessary:
(1) when the agency is sure that the
criminal history information is the
most recent available; or (2) when
time is of the essence and the repository is incapable of responding
within the necessary time period.
103
28 C.F.R. § 20.21(a)(2).
102

Page 48

•

As a practical matter, this
provision requires agencies to
maintain dissemination logbooks so that corrections can
be sent to individuals who
have received incorrect information.104 Finally, the
regulations require agencies
to give subjects an opportunity to review their criminal
history records and to establish procedures for correcting
erroneous information.105
State data quality laws
and strategies
The Federal LEAA regulations had the intended effect
of prompting the States to
adopt laws to ensure the accuracy and completeness of
criminal history records.
Prior to adoption of the
regulations in 1974, only 14
States had enacted any type
of statutory data quality safeguards. Fifty-two States have
now adopted laws that deal
with some aspect of data

quality.106 These laws and
implementing regulations are
discussed in the following
sections.
— Mandatory reporting
requirements
An important element of virtually all State data quality
laws is mandatory arrest and
disposition reporting. In all,
52 jurisdictions, as a matter
of statute, regulation, or established practice, require
State and local agencies to
report arrest and disposition
data to the State central repository for all serious offenses (usually felonies and
specified serious misdemeanors). Required information
generally includes an arrest
subject’s name and identification information; arrest
event information (for example, date, place of arrest);
arrest charges; and inked fingerprint impressions. Fingerprint cards with space for the
required textual information
were once the most common
method for transmitting this
information to State criminal
history repositories, but a
growing number of justice
agencies are now utilizing
automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS) to
supply State repositories with
the required data. All 50 U.S.
States had access to AFIS
technology at the end of the
1990s. Some States relied
106

104

28 C.F.R. § 20.
28 C.F.R. § 20.21(g).

105

The term “State” includes the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Every
State except the Virgin Islands has
enacted a data quality statute.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

almost exclusively on electronically transmitted data,
while others installed automated systems in metropolitan areas while continuing to
use fingerprint cards that
were mailed by rural jurisdictions to State repositories.
— Transaction log
requirements
The second most common
form of statutory data quality
safeguard, after mandatory
arrest and disposition reporting requirements, is transaction log requirements. Thirtyfive States have enacted statutes requiring criminal justice
agencies to maintain logs
identifying recipients of
criminal history record information and the dates of the
disseminations.107 Twentythree of the 35 States include
detailed and specific transaction log requirements.108

107

1999 Compendium, p. 43.
These 35 States are: Alabama,
Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
108
Ibid, p. 7.

— Other requirements
Many States have also
adopted a variety of other
statutory safeguards:
• 35 States require the
State central repository to
conduct some type of
data quality audits.109
• 28 States require the repositories to audit State
and local criminal justice
agencies that submit records to the repository.110
• 17 States require the repository to conduct an
annual in-house audit.111
• 15 States require both an
in-house repository audit
109

Ibid. These 35 States are:
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico,
South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas, Virginia, Washington, and
Wyoming.
110
Ibid. These 28 States are:
Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and
Wyoming.
111
Ibid. These 17 States are:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Missouri, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. (Alaska requires in-house
audits every 2 years. Arizona’s law
requires periodic in-house audits.)

and audits of contributing
agencies.112
Statutes in 13 States require
the repository to implement a
delinquent disposition monitoring system (for example, a
system designed to periodically identify arrest entries
for which dispositions are
probably available but not
reported).113 Six States impose training requirements on
personnel involved in entering data into criminal history
record systems.114 Seven
States have adopted statutory
provisions that address the
use of automated programs to
provide systematic editing
procedures for the purpose of
detecting missing or nonconforming data.115

112

Ibid. These 15 States are:
Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas, and Wyoming.
113
Ibid. These 13 States are: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa,
Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and
Washington.
114
Ibid. These 6 States are: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, and Wyoming.
115
Ibid, pp. 7-8. These 7 States
are: Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Kentucky, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Virginia.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 49

— Data quality strategies
In addition to statutory requirements, State central repositories report that they
have voluntarily employed a
number of data quality improvement strategies, even
though those strategies are
not mandated by statute. For
example, 26 State repositories and the District of Columbia report that they are
currently using a delinquent
disposition monitoring system that generates a list of
arrests with no dispositions.
Repositories in 31 States and
the District of Columbia
make field visits to contributing agencies. Twenty-nine
State repositories send form
letters indicating data quality
problems, and repositories in
38 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands telephone contributing agencies to discuss problems.116 Further, repositories
in 38 jurisdictions are using
some type of tracking number
system to link disposition and
charge information.117 In addition, 23 jurisdictions have
undergone data quality audits
in the past 5 years,118 and 32
States and the District of
Columbia have conducted
audits of agencies that contribute criminal history information to the repository or
116

1999 Survey, supra note 6, pp.
7-8, and table 15.
117
Ibid., p. 7 and table 16. Table
16 is included in this report as appendix 17.
118
Ibid., p. 8 and table 20. Table
20 is included in this report as appendix 18.

Page 50

obtain information from the
repository.119
Dissemination of
criminal history record
information
There is wide agreement, as a
policy matter, about the importance and the need for the
highest possible quality of
criminal history record information. There is far less
agreement as a policy matter
with respect to the other issue
that has dominated criminal
history record information
policy — the purposes for
which criminal history record
information should be disseminated.
— Dissemination for
criminal justice
purposes
From the outset, it has been
recognized that criminal history record information
should be available for virtually all purposes related to
law enforcement and the administration of criminal justice. Indeed, the criminal
history record owes its creation to the recognition that
such a record would be of
critical importance for criminal justice decisionmaking.
In recent years, there has
been a significant increase in
the availability and use of
criminal history record information within the criminal
justice community for a wide
variety of criminal justice
purposes. These purposes
119

Ibid., p. 8 and table 19.

include using criminal history
record information for:
• Bail and other pretrial
determinations.
• Prosecution, including
decisions about upgrading charges.
• The enhancement of
sentences, including, in
particular, enhancement
with respect to chronic
offenders.
• Preparing pre-sentence
reports and making probation eligibility decisions.
• Correctional classification purposes.
• Parole eligibility determinations.
As noted in chapter I, numerous State statutes have been
adopted in recent years that
not only reflect these trends
but, in fact, require criminal
justice decisionmakers to
take criminal history record
information into account.120
— Dissemination for
noncriminal justice
purposes
Use of criminal history record information for noncriminal justice purposes,
however, has been a much
more problematic matter. In
recent years, many public and
private noncriminal justice
agencies have made persuasive arguments for access to
these records. Governmental
120

Statutes Report, supra note 8,
tables 1-10. Selected tables from the
Statutes Report are set out in this
report as appendixes 1-7.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

agencies and, in particular,
national security agencies
and the military services have
argued that it is essential that
they be able to obtain criminal history information for
use in making decisions
about eligibility for military
service, for security clearances, and for access to sensitive facilities.
Responding to these needs,
the Congress in 1985 enacted
the Security Clearance Information Act (SCIA), which
requires State and local
criminal justice agencies to
release criminal history record information to certain
Federal agencies for national
security background
checks.121
Private employers have also
argued persuasively that they
should be entitled to obtain
criminal history record information for background
checks on prospective employees who will be placed in
sensitive positions handling
substantial amounts of money
or other valuable assets or,
even more importantly, caring for vulnerable populations, such as children or
elderly persons. In this connection, the Congress passed
legislation in the 1980s permitting Federally held criminal history record
information to be released for
employment background
checks for positions at certain
kinds of banking institutions
121

Pub. L. No. 99-169, codified in
part at 5 U.S.C. § 9101.

and securities organizations.122
Landlords have also argued
for access to criminal history
record information for background checks of employees.
Indeed, both employers and
landlords have been found
liable under the negligent
hiring doctrine for failing to
check available criminal history data in cases where the
putative subjects of those
checks subsequently engaged
in destructive and unlawful
behavior that might have
been predicted and avoided
had a background check been
completed.123 Along these
lines, the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act
of 1996 provided Public
Housing Authorities with
access to National Crime In122

15 U.S.C. § 78q(f)(2). Today,
numerous States permit or require
the release of criminal history information for background checks
for individuals who work with children. See, Robert R. Belair, Public
Access to Criminal History Record
Information, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, NCJ
111458 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, November 1988)
p. 29. See also, Pub. L. 92-544, 86
Stat. 1109, which authorizes the FBI
to disseminate criminal history records to State and local governments for employment and licensing
purposes when authorized by a State
statute and approved by the U.S.
Attorney General (October 25,
1972).
123
Robert R. Belair and Gary R.
Cooper, Privacy and the Private
Employer, Criminal Justice Information Policy series (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 1981) pp. 47-52.

formation Center records to
conduct criminal history
background checks on applicants for public housing.124
An important step to providing better quality criminal
history records for noncriminal justice purposes was
achieved in 1998 when Congress passed the Crime Identification Technology Act of
1998 (CITA) in which was
embodied the National Crime
Prevention and Privacy
Compact.125 The compact
established for the first time a
series of procedures and requirements for States to follow when accessing the
criminal history records of
other States for noncriminal
justice checks. It eliminated
the need to maintain duplicate criminal history records
at the State and Federal levels. More importantly, it facilitated access to State-level
criminal history records,
which are typically more current, and therefore more accurate, than those maintained
at the Federal level.
The compact may also help
standardize the variety of
formats States use to report
criminal history information
to one another. Previously,
justice officials in one State
found it difficult to decipher
the presentation of codes and
other information on another

124

Pub. L. No. 104-120.
42 U.S.C. § 14601. The Compact text and a section-by-section
analysis is included as appendix 21.
125

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 51

State’s rap sheet. This difficulty was even more pronounced for noncriminal
justice agencies and organizations that obtained criminal
history information to conduct background checks and
to determine employment
suitability.
Another tool to help improve
the comprehension of criminal history records is the
“Interstate Criminal History
Transmission Specification,”
developed by a task force of
Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agency representatives and related interest
groups. The transmission
specification is designed to
merge separate segments of a
multi-State rap sheet into a
single rap sheet in time sequence and absent redundant
data. Several versions of the
specification have been released for testing. The most
recent version, numbered
2.01 and based on eXtensible
Markup Language (XML),
was still in draft form in mid2001.126
Also embodied in CITA was
the Volunteers for Children
Act, which amended the National Child Protection Act of
1993127 to authorize organizations that deal with children, the elderly, and the
disabled to request authorized
State agencies to conduct
national fingerprint-based
checks of volunteers or em126

The draft transmission specification is available at
http://www.search.org.
127
42 U.S.C. 5119a.

Page 52

ployees even if the State had
not implemented procedures
to conduct such searches.
Some proponents of more
open access to criminal history records have argued that
inasmuch as an arrest and any
subsequent adjudication are
public events, the records of
those events, particularly
when maintained by governmental agencies at public
expense, should be available
to the public without regard
to the requestor’s identity or
need for the record. Indeed,
at least a few States, including Florida, Iowa, Oklahoma,
and Wisconsin, have adopted
policies under which the
public can obtain virtually all
criminal history record information for almost any
purpose. Initial studies indicate that these “open record”
policies have not resulted in
significant privacy violations
or other concerns.128
On the other hand, advocates
of stricter dissemination limits argue that criminal history
record information can be
and is used to stigmatize and
harm offenders who are trying to rehabilitate themselves
and re-enter society. These
advocates also argue that release of this kind of information has a disproportionately
adverse impact on minorities
and the young. Furthermore,
128

Paul L. Woodard, A Florida
Case Study — Availability of Criminal History Records: The Effect of
an Open Records Policy
(Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc.,
March 1990).

advocates point to the fact
that many criminal history
records are inaccurate or incomplete or no longer timely
and, for all of these reasons,
fail to present an accurate and
representative image of the
record subject. Advocates
argue that, at a minimum,
only conviction record information should be made
available for noncriminal
justice purposes and that arrest information without a
recorded disposition should
be withheld in deference to
the presumption of innocence.129
— Dissemination trends
In the decade from the mid1960s through the mid-1970s,
most experts felt that dissemination trends had moved
in the direction of increased
confidentiality and the imposition of restrictions upon the
release of criminal history
records for noncriminal justice purposes. However, as
mentioned earlier, congressional efforts in the early
1970s to set nationwide standards for the dissemination of
criminal history records for
noncriminal justice purposes
failed.
Similarly, the LEAA regulations refrained from attempting to establish a
uniform national standard for
129

Technical Report No. 13: Standards for Security and Privacy of
Criminal History Record Information, third edition (Sacramento:
SEARCH Group, Inc., July 1988)
pp. 2-5.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

noncriminal justice access.
Rather, the regulations gave
State legislatures and State
executive agencies broad
authority to set their own
standards governing the dissemination of criminal history records for noncriminal
justice purposes. Specifically,
the regulations authorized
noncriminal justice access if
“authorized by statute, ordinance, executive order, or
court rule, decision or order
as construed by appropriate
State or local officials or
agencies.”130 The States initially used this flexibility to
enact legislation that, for the
most part, restricted privatesector access to criminal history records and particularly
to nonconviction records.131
This trend reversed in the
mid-1970s. Most observers
cite the U.S. Supreme Court’s
1976 decision in Paul v.
Davis132 as providing impetus
for judicial and, in particular,
statutory efforts to loosen
restrictions on access to
criminal history records. In
that case, the Court rejected a
record subject’s claim that a
law enforcement agency’s
public dissemination of a
flyer that included his name
and photograph and identified him as an active shoplifter violated his
constitutional right of privacy. The Court dismissed
the notion that an arrest record is private information:
130

28 C.F.R. § 20.21(b)(2).
1999 Compendium, supra note
21, p. 4.
132
424 U.S. 693 (1976).

“[Davis] claims constitutional protection against
the disclosure of the fact
of his arrest on a shoplifting charge. His claim
is based not upon any
challenge to the State’s
ability to restrict his freedom of action in a sphere
contended to be private,
but instead on a claim
that the State may not
publicize a record of an
official act such as an arrest. None of our substantive privacy decisions
hold this or anything like
this, and we decline to
enlarge them in this
manner.”133
For the 15 years following
this decision, the trend in
both judicial decisions and
statutory enactments was decidedly in the direction of
making criminal history record information more available to the private sector and
even to the public.
As the 1990s started, there
were signs that the pendulum
was swinging again in the
direction of privacy. Once
again the bellwether was a
U.S. Supreme Court decision.
In 1989, in Department of
Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press,134 the Court held that
an individual has a cognizable privacy interest in his
criminal history record information, even though all of
the constituent parts of the
record may be public infor-

131

133

Ibid., at 713.
489 U.S. 749 (1989).

134

mation. The Court reasoned
that the compilation of an
entire history of an individual’s criminal activity, and, in
particular, its automation in a
format that makes the record
easily retrievable, vastly increases the privacy risk to the
record subject and made it
appropriate to extend privacy
protections to the record.
At the start of the 1990s,
polling data also indicated
that privacy concerns were at
historically high levels.135 In
addition, in the early 1990s,
serious congressional consideration was given to several
pieces of Federal legislation
that restricted access to previously public record information, such as motor vehicle
records held by State departments of motor vehicles and
change-of-address information maintained by the U.S.
Postal Service.
This trend toward privacy
began to reverse course in the
mid-1990s as greater access
to criminal history records
was provided at both the
State and Federal levels. The
Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act,136 approved
by Congress in November
1993, facilitated national
criminal history checks to
determine whether a potential
gun purchaser’s criminal
135

Louis Harris & Associates,
Inc., and Alan F. Westin, The
Equifax Report on Consumers in the
Information Age (Atlanta, Ga.:
Louis Harris & Associates, 1990) p.
5.
136
Pub. L. No. 103-159.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 53

background prohibited the
purchaser from owning or
possessing a firearm. Also in
1993, Congress approved the
National Child Protection
Act,137 which permits noncriminal organizations that
serve children, the elderly,
and the disabled to request
State agencies to conduct
national criminal history
background checks of potential employees or volunteers.
As noted earlier, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1995
allowed the use of evidence
in a drug prosecution, even
though the evidence was obtained through the use of inaccurate computerized
criminal history information.138 The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
based in Cincinnati, Ohio,
ruled in 1996 in favor of
broader dissemination of
criminal history information
in a privacy case involving
the mug shots of eight individuals under indictment and
awaiting trial on Federal
charges.139 In that case, a request by the Detroit Free
Press to obtain the mug shots
was denied by the U.S.
DOJ’s Marshals Service on
the grounds that release of
the photographs would violate the personal privacy interests of the criminal
defendants. The Free Press
successfully sued the DOJ
under the Freedom of Information Act.
137

42 U.S.C. 5119a.
138
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1
(1995).
139
73 F. 3d 93 (6th Cir.).

Page 54

The Topeka Capital-Journal
newspaper reported in 1998
that Kansas had implemented
25 new statutory provisions
in the past decade requiring
or allowing criminal history
background checks for certain individuals.140 According
to the Capital-Journal, the
number of criminal history
background checks conducted in Kansas rose slightly
from 496,669 in 1992 to
503,960 in 1997.141 Also
noted previously, Congress
approved the National Crime
Prevention and Privacy
Compact, embodied in the
Crime Identification
Technology Act of 1998,142
which provided a series of
procedures and requirements
to access State-level criminal
history records for noncriminal justice purposes.
Still, the always-volatile nature of privacy expectations
and the potential for another
trend shift was demonstrated
in March 1999 when the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana ruled
against the Times-Picayune
Publishing Corporation, publisher of the New Orleans
Times-Picayune newspaper,
which sought the mug shot of
a prominent businessman
who had pleaded guilty to
charges filed in connection
140

Roger Myers, “Background inquiries by the State increasing,”
Topeka Capital-Journal, Copyright
1998. Available at
http://www.cjon-line.com/stories
/042398/cyb_background.shtml.
141
Ibid.
142
42 U.S.C. § 14601.

with a highly publicized corruption scandal involving
prominent individuals in
Louisiana.143 The Court ruled
in favor of the U.S. Marshals
Service, which cited a Freedom of Information Act exemption clause144 in its
refusal to provide the mug
shot.
To further demonstrate the
dichotomy in U.S. privacy
expectations at the beginning
of the 21st century, the U.S.
Marshals Service provides
mug shots in response to media requests only in the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
home of the Detroit Free
Press ruling, which reviews
appeals from Federal district
courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.145
The Marshals Service routinely denies mug shot requests made by media
organizations in all other circuit court jurisdictions in the
United States.
In another decision with constitutional overtones, the U.S.
Supreme Court on December
7, 1999, ruled 7-2 in favor of
a California law that prohibited the dissemination of police record information solely
for commercial purposes,
reversing two lower court
rulings that found the law
invalid under the first
amendment.
143

37 F. Supp. 2d 472.
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C).
145
Source: Mr. Bill Dempsey,
Staff Public Information Officer,
U.S. Marshals Service.
144

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

In Los Angeles Police Dept.
v. United Reporting Publishing Corp.,146 the Court
considered the validity of
California Government Code
§ 6254, which was amended
effective July 1, 1996, to
limit public access to the addresses of individuals arrested for crimes and of
crime victims.
While the amended law permitted dissemination of the
addresses to those who declared, under penalty of perjury, that the information
would be used for scholarly,
journalistic, political, or governmental purposes, or by
licensed private investigators,
it could not be used directly
or indirectly to sell a product
or service.
United Reporting Service, a
company that provided the
names of recently arrested
individuals to attorneys, insurance companies, drug and
alcohol counselors, driving
schools, and others for mass
business solicitation mailings, challenged the constitutionality of the law prior to its
effective date.
Both a Federal district court
and a Federal appeals court
agreed that the law violated
United Reporting’s commercial free speech rights. The
Supreme Court heard arguments in October 1999.

The petitioner claimed that
the lower courts applied the
wrong analysis when examining the law under the Supreme Court’s commercial
speech doctrine, arguing that
the statute was no more than
an access restriction that did
not restrict speech. The respondent countered that the
law was designed to prohibit
what the State considered
unsavory solicitation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit had earlier agreed with the United
Reporting Publishing Corp.,
ruling that the section of the
California Government Code
in question was, indeed, unconstitutional.147 In doing so,
the court concurred with Fifth
and Eleventh circuit appeals
courts, which struck down
similar statutes in Texas and
Georgia, and diverged from
the supreme courts of Louisiana and South Carolina,
which upheld similar statutes
in those States.
— Statutory
dissemination policies in
the 21st century
Despite a fair amount of variance, most State statutory
dissemination schemes now
share at least two common
elements:
1. A majority of States now
permit access to criminal
history records for some
compelling noncriminal

justice purposes, including, for instance, background screening by
licensing boards and private employers of applicants for sensitive
positions, such as those
involving child care,
public safety, supervision
of property, or fiduciary
responsibilities.148
2. Most States continue to
treat conviction records
differently from nonconviction records.
Customarily, States place few
or no restrictions on the dissemination of conviction records, and a number of States
also do not restrict the dissemination of open arrest
records less than 1 year old.
Nonconviction records, however, including records of
cases with no disposition recorded after the passage of a
year or longer, are restricted
in most States and in some
States may not be disseminated at all for noncriminal
justice purposes or may be
disseminated only for limited
and specifically defined purposes.149 However, as noted
previously, there are signs
that this practice is also beginning to change.

148

146

120 S.Ct. 483; 145 L. Ed. 2d
451; 28 Media L.Rep. 1041.

147

146 F. 3d 1133.

1999 Compendium, supra note
21, p. 8.
149
Ibid., p. 9.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 55

Chapter IV: The evolution of information technology
The evolution of information technology, the creation of key electronic information exchange standards,
the development of security strategies that allow the Internet transfer of criminal history records, and
policy innovations are among the factors that are significantly transforming the Nation’s criminal history
environment as the 21st century dawns.
This chapter briefly describes some of the technological innovations and information management strategies now in use or available to criminal history repositories to improve record quality and the ability to
exchange information. They include:
Section 1: Automated reporting to the repositories, which speeds the processing of arrest and disposition information and its reporting to the criminal history repository.
Section 2: Advances in fingerprint technology, which allow criminal history repositories to obtain
higher quality fingerprints and to respond to identification verification requests in a matter of hours while
fulfilling responsibilities to share information with other justice entities.
Section 3: Justice system integration, which provides higher quality criminal history records by reducing redundant data entry. Integration facilitates the transfer of information to agencies participating in the
criminal justice process and, ultimately, to the criminal history repository. It also allows information
sharing with appropriate noncriminal justice entities such as social service agencies.
Section 4: Data warehousing tools, which program incoming data and transform existing data so they
can be used in detailed research, analysis, and planning.
Section 5: Data exchange standards, which allow information sharing among justice agencies using
equipment manufactured by different vendors.
Section 6: Internet security strategies, which may ultimately allow the wide-scale transfer of criminal
history information on the Internet, reducing dependence on costly dedicated networks and improving
data quality at the repository level by providing cost-effective on-line access to smaller justice agencies.
Section 7: Policy innovations, which allow justice entities to maximize the capabilities of emerging information technologies and systems by developing recognized policies and requirements for system operation. Policy compliance increases trust in a system, which attracts more justice participants.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 57

Background
An observation on the evolution of computer memory
chips first made by Intel Corporation founder Gordon
Moore in 1965 has remained
remarkably consistent. Moore
noted that each new generation of chip or microprocessor that appeared on the
market was released 18 to 24
months after its predecessor
and contained twice as much
memory. This observation
has come to be known as
Moore’s Law.
The world’s first commercial
microprocessor — Intel’s
4004, released in November
1971 — contained 2,300
transistors and could perform
about 60,000 calculations per
second.150 Intel’s Pentium II
Processor, released in 1997,
contained 7.5 million transistors and could perform
hundreds of millions of calculations per second.151 Intel’s 9.5 million-transistor
Pentium III Processor, released in May 1999, was 53%
to 108% faster than its predecessor, depending on the
specifications used to test its
performance.152 Intel’s

150

Source:
http://www.intel.com/education
/teachtech/learning/mpuworks
/index.htm.
151
Source:
http://developer.intel.com/design
/PentiumII/prodbref/.
152
Source:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom
/archive/releases/dp051799.htm.

Page 58

Pentium 4 Processor, introduced in November 2000 and
capable of performing up to a
billion and a half calculations
per second, delivered new
levels of performance in
processing audio, video, and
graphics applications, and in
utilizing Internet technologies.153
These dramatic advances in
computing power made possible not only the swift exchange of information, but
also the use and transfer of
multimedia applications such
as sounds and intricate
graphics. New technological
capabilities, combined with
declining computer prices
prompted in part by competition among chip manufacturers and other factors, sparked
tremendous interest in information technology throughout the United States in the
1990s.
A U.S. Commerce Department report found that, as of
August 2000, more than 41%
of all American homes were
connected to the Internet, and
more than one-half of all
American homes contained a
computer.154 The report also
found that there were 116.5
million Americans on-line in
some location in August
153

Source:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom
/archive/releases/dp112000.htm.
154
Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Commerce, October 2000).
Available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome
/digitaldivide/.

2000, 31.9 million more than
there were just 20 months
earlier.155 An earlier
Commerce Department report
found that the Internet passed
the 50-million-user mark just
4 years after its introduction.
Television was available for
13 years and radio for 38
years before they attracted
that many users.156
The U.S. business community rushed to incorporate
new information technologies
to provide on-line access to a
variety of goods, such as
books, software, compact
disks, and airline tickets, and
services, such as banking and
bill paying. U.S. justice
agencies were equally eager
to join the information revolution to take advantage of
the administrative benefits
and opportunities for improved performance made
possible by emerging technologies.
Many agencies automated
information processing and
services, and a growing number began efforts to integrate
their information systems
with those of other justice
entities. Efforts also took
place to define acceptable
standards to break down the
walls that prevented information exchanges among
different vendors’ systems,
155

Ibid.
Emerging Digital Economy
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1998).
available at
http://www.ecommerce.gov
/viewhtml.htm.
156

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

and to establish policies to
govern the electronic transfer
of criminal history data.
While information technology grew increasingly sophisticated, a series of highprofile sex offenses stoked
public interest in programs to
monitor convicted sex offenders released into the
community and to check the
backgrounds of individuals
who were hired to work in
sensitive positions, including
security, and child and elder
care. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) reported
that more than one-half of the
12,826,933 10-print fingerprint cards submitted to the
Bureau in 1997 were for noncriminal justice background
checks.157
The increased backgroundcheck duties strained the capacity of many repositories to
meet their responsibilities.
Agencies mailing fingerprint
cards to the FBI in March
1998, for example, waited an
average of 72 days for a response. Organizations submitting prints for background
checks waited an average of
24 days for a response.
Meanwhile, a growing backlog of unprocessed prints
surpassed 750,000.158
Increasingly, criminal history
repositories looked to tech157

Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)
Program Overview, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, U.S. Department of
Justice, March 24, 1998.
158
Ibid.

nology to meet the growing
demand for their services.
Ten States reported fully
automated criminal history
record files and master name
indexes in 1989, and 47
States and the District of
Columbia had automated
some records in either the
criminal history record file or
master name index.159 By
1999, 21 States had fully
automated files and indexes,
and all 50 States, the District
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
had automated at least some
records in their criminal history record files.160
Meanwhile, growing public
concerns over safety
prompted the Federal government to fund a variety of
programs to help justice
agencies fight crime. Criminal history repositories benefited from programs such as
the National Criminal History
Improvement Program and
the Crime Identification
Technology Act of 1998,
which were designed to increase the utility and accessibility of criminal history
records.
The confluence of improved
information technology, Federal funding, and the desire to
meet increased expectations
for public safety are combining to significantly change
the criminal history environ-

ment as the 21st century begins. This chapter examines
some of the technologies,
standards, and policies that
have been implemented in
recent years to facilitate the
accumulation and exchange
of criminal history information.

Section 1: Automated
reporting to the
repositories
Although most criminal justice agencies have terminal
access to their State repositories and to FBI files to conduct name searches and to
obtain automated records,
many agencies still use paper
documents such as fingerprint cards and disposition
forms to report case processing information to the repositories and to the FBI.
Increasingly, however, computer technology is being
used to speed the reporting
process and save resources.
This section discusses methods for:
• Automated arrest reporting.
• Automated disposition
reporting.

159

Survey Report, supra note 37,

p. 1.
160

1999 Survey, supra note 6,
tables 1 and 2. Tables 1 and 2 are
included in this report as appendixes
9 and 11, respectively.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 59

Automated arrest
reporting
— Problems with manual
reporting
Historically, arrest information161 has been reported to
State repositories and to the
FBI on fingerprint cards. In
addition to spaces for inked
fingerprint impressions, these
cards contain spaces for typing or writing in textual information. Many State laws
require fingerprint cards for
reportable offenses to be
submitted to the repositories
within 24 to 48 hours after
arrests, while most other
States require submission
“promptly” or “without undue delay.”
Even where these laws are
complied with, however,
mailing time and normal
processing time at the repository may mean that arrest
information is not entered
into the repository’s database
until a week or more after the
arrests. In addition to the delay, the manual processing of
fingerprint cards and the entry of arrest information by
repository personnel is a significant drain on repository
resources.
— Automation aids in
arrest reporting
Many high-volume law enforcement agencies through161

This includes subject identification information, as well as information specific to the arrest
event and the arrest charges.

Page 60

out the country have implemented automated information management systems,
including automated booking
components. Because information entered into these
systems for local agency use
typically includes all arrest
information required by the
State repository for its criminal history database, these
systems are often utilized as
the basis for automated arrest
reporting by computer tape or
by direct computer-tocomputer transmission to the
repositories.
— Benefits
Direct computer linkage can
provide for real-time transmission, which means that
the information can be entered into the repository database as the arrested person is
booked at the local agency
immediately following the
arrest.
These automated booking
systems can incorporate the
same kinds of edit and verification programs used by the
repository to guard against
the entry of inaccurate information and ensure the entry
of all required information.
Redundant typing of arrest
information by arresting
agency personnel is eliminated, as is the necessity for
data entry at the repository.
Fingerprint cards may sometimes still be mailed to the
repository for identification,
but, as explained in section 2
of this chapter, a growing

number of automated fingerprint identification systems
are being installed in municipal, county-level, and regional law enforcement
agencies in most States.
Automated disposition
reporting
The mailing of paper disposition forms to repositories by
prosecutors, courts, and correctional agencies is also being replaced in many
jurisdictions by automated
reporting. Many agencies
have installed automated case
management systems, which
can generate case disposition
information required by repositories. These data can be
generated in magnetic tape
form or directly entered into
a repository database through
an information system that is
integrated with a State’s local
justice agencies.
— Reporting by local
prosecutors, courts
Moderately priced or public
domain software has been
available for some years to
support prosecutor information management systems. As
a result, many high-volume
prosecutors’ offices and some
smaller offices have installed
automated case management
systems. Similarly, courts in
some high-volume jurisdictions have also installed
automated case management
systems. A growing number
of State repositories are implementing links with local
prosecutor and court systems

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

to obtain disposition information in automated form.

and more economical reporting.

— Reporting by State
courts systems

In some cases, careful planning and cooperation among
local and State agencies has
resulted in the implementation of automated systems in
those agencies that:
• Have saved time and
money for the agencies in
performing their own recordkeeping functions.
• Have made reporting to
the State repository a byproduct of these functions. This occurs when
agencies cooperate in
adopting procedures,
which allow the linkage
of arrests and/or charges
to dispositions.

Some States with unified
court systems have implemented automated information management systems at
the State level. In some of
these States, local courts report case disposition information to the State system by
using paper forms or computer tape, and the State system then edits and combines
this information and reports
to the State criminal history
repository by direct electronic link or computer tape.
— Reporting by State
corrections
Finally, some States have
implemented State-level
automated correctional information systems or have
installed automated information systems in some State
correctional facilities. These
systems can typically generate the correctional disposition information needed by
the criminal history record
repositories and are being
used in some States to report
the information in automated
form.
— Benefits
Automated reporting techniques make disposition reporting more accurate,
because duplicate data entry
processes are eliminated, and
also result in faster, easier,

Section 2: Advances in
fingerprint technology
American justice agencies
first explored the potential of
digitized fingerprint images
in the mid-1960s, and the
first automated fingerprint
reading machines based on
digitized images began to
appear in the early 1970s.
Subsequent advances and
refinements improved
fingerprint technology to
such a degree that many
State-level criminal history
repositories and some justice
agencies in larger
metropolitan areas began to
implement automated
fingerprint identification
systems (AFIS) in the midand late-1980s. Thirty-nine
States utilized or were
planning to procure

automated fingerprint
systems in 1993. As of 1999,
virtually all States had access
to AFIS technology.162
This section discusses:
• The production and
transmission of digitized
fingerprint images.
• The benefits of automated fingerprint systems for criminal history
repositories.
• The scope of AFIS implementation.
Automated fingerprint
processing
Prior to the invention of
AFIS and for a period of time
following its implementation,
10-print fingerprint cards
were the primary vehicles for
collecting and transmitting
fingerprint images. A law
enforcement officer would
generally collect three sets of
prints — one for the law enforcement agency’s records,
one for the State criminal
history repository, and one
for the FBI. The process was
time-consuming and often
resulted in poor-quality
162

Six States belonging to the
Western Identification Network
(WIN), a not-for-profit corporation
formed in 1989 to facilitate the development of a multi-State AFIS
network, share access to an AFIS,
which is located in Sacramento,
California. The states are Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,
and Wyoming. Other WIN members
are Alaska, California, and Washington. (Source: Mr. Thomas J.
Roberts, Assistant Program Manager, Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, FBI).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 61

prints. The FBI rejected 2%
of the criminal cards and
10% of the civil cards it received by mail because of
smudging, smearing, and under- or over-inking.163
The process was also timeconsuming in that the captured fingerprints and accompanying personal and
criminal history information
were mailed to the State repository, which mailed the
information to the FBI. The
Bureau’s response would be
mailed to the State criminal
history repository, which
would then mail the information to the local law enforcement agency. Weeks passed
before the law enforcement
agency learned the true identity and warrant status of the
subject individual. AFIS development reduced this time
significantly.
— Livescan
AFIS has the capacity to use
an optical scanner, or a
“livescan” as they are called
in the criminal justice community. The subject individual’s fingers are placed one at
a time on a glass plate and
scanned. The device transforms the fingerprint images
into unique bit maps consisting of rows and columns of
dots, each with stored bits of
data. The digitized images
163

Peter T. Higgins, “Standards
for the Electronic Submission of
Fingerprint Cards to the FBI,” Journal of Forensic Identification, Vol.
45, No. 4 (July/August 1995) pp.
409-418.

Page 62

can then be attached to an
email for electronic transmission through a network to a
criminal history repository.
The repository’s AFIS
quickly searches its stored
digitized images for a match.
Responses can be returned
on-line in a matter of hours or
less. AFIS eliminates the
need to take multiple sets of
prints, as the images can be
easily copied. Technicians
can also determine fingerprint quality on site and retake inferior quality prints
before sending them to the
repository.
The benefits of
automated fingerprint
systems for criminal
history repositories
Automated fingerprint systems provide the following
benefits for criminal history
repositories:
1. Faster searches:
Searching card-based
fingerprint files for a
match to a submitted
print is a time-consuming
task. The files are broken
down into categories
based on the Henry Fingerprint Classification
System, which classifies
fingerprints based on
ridge formations and
other unique patterns,
termed “minutia.”164 De164

Sir Edward Henry, Assistant
Commissioner of the Criminal Investigation Department at Scotland
Yard, devised the Henry Fingerprint
Classification System at the end of
the 19th century.

spite this breakdown,
each classification category still contains thousands of cards in most
State criminal history repositories. A technician
searching for a match to a
submitted fingerprint
must retrieve a card from
a file and then examine
its image through a magnifying glass. Automated
fingerprint systems can
search through thousands
of digitized print images
in seconds. The FBI’s
powerful Integrated
Automated Fingerprint
Identification System
(IAFIS) can examine 3
million fingerprints per
second.165
2. Less storage space:
Digitized fingerprint images require far less
space for storage than do
fingerprint cards.
Whereas California’s
database of more than 9
million fingerprints
would fill a warehouse
full of print cards, the
same sized database
would fill an average
room if digitized.
3. Higher quality
fingerprints: The use of
livescan devices to capture fingerprints during
165

Eric C. Johnson, “From the
Inkpad to the Mousepad: IAFIS and
Fingerprint Technology at the Dawn
of the 21st Century,” Technical
Bulletin series (Sacramento:
SEARCH Group, Inc., December
1998). Published with funding from
the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
U.S. Department of Justice. Hereafter, IAFIS Technical Bulletin.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

booking ensures that
higher quality prints will
ultimately be transmitted
to the criminal history
repository. Livescan
technology allows a
booking officer or technician to review prints as
they are taken to ensure
quality. Poor quality
prints can be retaken
immediately. Original
prints can be copied,
eliminating the potential
for mistakes that may occur when multiple sets of
prints are obtained. AFIS
technology permits the
replacement of one fingerprint image or an entire set of digitized prints
stored in a repository if
more recently submitted
fingerprints are of higher
quality.
4. Faster filing: While
approximately two-thirds
of all arrest subjects have
been arrested previously,
one-third have not, and
therefore do not have arrest records on file at the
repository. When their
fingerprints are submitted
to a repository and a
match is not found, the
prints must be classified
before storage — another
time-consuming process
during which a technician
with a magnifying glass
pores over the images to
categorize them. AFIS
can accomplish this task
in a small fraction of the
time.
5. Cost efficiencies: While
a State may spend several
million dollars purchas-

ing an AFIS when hardware, software, and
training costs are taken
into account, the financial savings eventually
realized make the purchase worthwhile. Storage costs are
substantially lower for
digitized fingerprint images. The more efficient
processing, retrieval, and
examination of fingerprints free personnel for
more productive tasks
and could ultimately lead
to staff reductions. Less
reliance on the mail to
exchange fingerprint
cards means less postal
charges and more savings.
The scope of automated
fingerprint identification
system implementation
While virtually all State
criminal history repositories
have implemented automated
fingerprint systems, there are
significant variations as to
how they use the technology.
Some States have been electronically transmitting fingerprint images and
accompanying personal and
criminal history data to the
FBI for several years, and 10
States were able to electronically transmit fingerprint and
criminal history data to the
FBI when the Bureau’s
IAFIS started service in July
1999.166 Twenty-two States
166

The States were California,
Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New
Mexico, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and

were transmitting electronic
fingerprint data to the FBI by
February 2000, although only
a handful was sending transmissions in any significant
numbers.167
Most State repositories are
not yet capable of electronically transmitting data to the
FBI, even though they have
implemented AFIS internally.
Some States are installing
livescan devices in every
county for transmitting data
to the State criminal history
repository. Others plan to
install livescan devices in
larger metropolitan areas, but
law enforcement agencies in
rural areas will continue to
mail fingerprint cards to State
repositories.

Section 3: Justice
system integration
Integration occurs when 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.
The potential benefits of integrated or interlinked information systems that would
permit the unfettered electronic exchange of information between justice agencies
attracted great interest in the
late 1990s. However, many
Wisconsin. (Source: Mr. Thomas J.
Roberts, Assistant Program Manager, IAFIS, FBI.)
167
FBI State EFCON Submission
Totals, 2-1-2000 to 2-29-2000.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 63

of the agencies that attempted
integration projects found the
planning, design, and implementation process to be more
than they bargained for.
Funding for projects that extended beyond bureaucratic
boundaries and longestablished budgeting practices was a problem. Turf
battles were common, as individual agencies fought to
maintain what they perceived
as “control” over the data
they had collected. Technological innovations were necessary to connect legacy
information systems manufactured by different vendors
that shared no existing interfaces.
Still, many of the agencies
whose persistence resulted in
some form of information
system integration achieved
results that demonstrated the
value of their efforts, and that
have encouraged other justice
agencies to follow suit. This
section examines:
• The technology of integration.
• The benefits of
integration for criminal
history repositories.
• Criminal history
repositories that have implemented some form of
information system integration and the benefits
they have achieved.
• Integration’s future and
its potential impact on
criminal history repositories.

Page 64

The technology of
integration
Information system integration is not a radical concept.
However, justice agencies
that established integrated
networks in the past — the
Western Identification Network is a good example —
most often utilized equipment
manufactured by the same
vendor. One barrier to expanded integration was the
inability of information systems manufactured by different vendors to share
information electronically.
This problem was addressed
in the 1990s by the development of programming,
termed “middleware,” that
allowed two separate and
already existing programs to
work together. Middleware
allowed the intermingling of
data in separate systems
maintained by different justice agencies on different
hardware and software platforms.
Another development that
contributed to increased integration efforts by justice
agencies in the 1990s was the
creation of commonly accepted standards that governed the composition of data
transmitted between agencies. For example, standards
governing the size, resolution, compression, and other
components of fingerprint
images allowed justice agencies to transmit data to the
FBI’s IAFIS no matter what
vendor’s equipment was used

to capture the images. Standards will be discussed in
more detail in section 5.
The benefits of
integration for criminal
history repositories
While integration benefits all
justice agencies participating
in an integrated information
system, criminal history repositories may be the prime
beneficiaries. Criminal history records are accumulations of information
submitted from a variety of
sources during the criminal
justice processing of the individuals who are the subjects
of the records. In a truly integrated system, this information is of higher quality than
that gathered by traditional
means, in part because an
integrated information system
reduces the need for redundant data entry.
For example, an individual’s
vital statistics entered into a
police department’s computer
system during booking can be
automatically transmitted
from agency to agency as an
individual is processed
through the criminal justice
system. The potential for
mistakes such as the transposition of numbers in an individual’s birth date or the
misspelling of his or her
name — incidents that, piece
by piece, begin to erode the
veracity of data — can be
eliminated.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Integrated systems also allow
the quick transfer of information, so records on file at a
repository are more current
when they are accessed by
agencies seeking to verify an
individual’s identity or
criminal history background.
They permit local and regional court systems to easily
transfer disposition data to
the State repository following
a trial’s completion, again
improving the quality of a
State’s criminal history records.
Further, repositories can respond more quickly to requests for service when they
are transmitting data to requesting agencies through
integrated systems. Such
systems also allow simultaneous access to the same record from multiple locations
around the clock.
The integration of
criminal justice
information and benefits
achieved
While the benefits of information system integration are
well known, there are significant challenges that must be
met before integration can
occur. Issues that arise when
planning, funding, implementing, and maintaining an
integrated system require innovative procurement procedures that generally transcend
established practices. As of
mid-2001, no State had implemented a truly integrated
system that allowed the collection and transfer of data
from the patrol car to the

State criminal history repository and to all points in
between. However, the
criminal justice community’s
interest in information system
integration was increasing
throughout the country, and a
growing number of justice
agencies were already beginning to enjoy its benefits. A
few are identified here:
•

Colorado Crime Information Center: The
center, Colorado’s criminal records repository, is
directed by the Colorado
Bureau of Investigation,
which is one of five
member agencies of the
Colorado Integrated
Criminal Justice Information System (CICJIS).
CICJIS creates a single,
virtual criminal justice
information system by
utilizing middleware
tools to connect the five
participating agencies’
databases to a central
machine that can be accessed by any of the five
legacy systems’ frontends. The system has improved public safety by
making higher quality information available to
criminal justice agencies
and to individual decisionmakers. It also aids
decisionmaking by increasing the availability
of statistical measures for
evaluating public policy;
makes workers more
productive by reducing
redundant data collection
and input efforts; and
provides access to more

timely, accurate, and
complete information for
both criminal justice
agencies and the public.168
•

Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC):
Georgia’s criminal records repository has
benefited from the State’s
Criminal Justice Records
Improvement Plan, which
focuses on increased
automation and integration between local and
State justice agencies.
Since the plan was approved in 1996, the number of counties
submitting automated
court dispositions to
Georgia’s criminal history repository has grown
from four to 30. The
number of felony arrests
for which final dispositions are recorded grew
from 60% in 1994 to
82% in 1999.169

•

Los Angeles County
Consolidated Criminal
History Reporting System (CCHRS): Before
CCHRS implementation,
judges, law enforcement
officers, and prosecutors
had to check eight disparate and incompatible

168

Source:
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir_
/cicjis/index.html.
169
Source:
http://www.search.org/integration
/state_profile.asp?KeyID=35.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 65

legacy170 databases171 in
order to piece together a
subject’s most up-to-date
criminal history; this
process could take 45 to
90 minutes. CCHRS
(nicknamed Cheers) presents an individual’s
criminal history record
through a single query in
less than 2.5 seconds.
CCHRS 100-gigabyte,
single-source data warehousing system contains
criminal history information on more than 8 million subjects. It can alert
judges to a defendant’s
special circumstances,
such as risk of suicide or
drug history, and can
provide a list of potential
suspects based only on
incomplete information
such as an individual’s
unique tattoo, nickname,
or physical characteristics.172
•

The Florida Integrated
Criminal History Network: The network uses
state-of-the-art livescan
fingerprint technology to
capture, transmit, and
share electronic finger170

Legacy systems are mainframe
or microcomputers in which companies or organizations have invested considerable time and
money.
171
CCHRS combined information
from systems maintained by Los
Angeles County’s jails, prosecutors,
courts, the sheriff’s, probation and
juvenile departments, a countywide
warrant system, and the State.
172
Source:
http://www.search.org/integration
/local_profile.asp?KeyID=48.

Page 66

print and arrest data. The
network’s AFIS component contains more than
1.8 million criminal offender fingerprints. Its
computerized criminal
history component includes identification, arrest, disposition, and
custody segments.
•

Delaware Criminal Justice Information System: The system
instantly retrieves from a
single-source, accurate,
comprehensive, and understandable criminal
history data on all individuals passing through
the criminal justice system. The system has provided tremendous time
and cost savings in obtaining information, has
reduced staff workload,
has provided faster policy
analysis and more accurate identification, and
has produced more effective sentencing and
incarceration of criminals.

•

The Pennsylvania Justice Network (JNET):
Brings together 13 State
public safety agencies in
a common network to
make criminal history
files widely available to
State and local police, as
well as to prison and probation officials. JNET
utilizes an Internetbrowser-based system
running on a Stateoperated intranet and a
middleware solution to

integrate disparate
agency systems throughout the State in a modular
fashion.

Integration’s future and
its potential impact on
criminal history
repositories
A number of factors will
most likely fuel the increased
pace of integration and increase its impact in the coming years on justice agencies
and criminal history repositories. Innovations in information technology will provide
new and desirable capabilities. Pressures for the use of
criminal history records for
noncriminal justice background checks and other purposes are likely to grow,
prompting repositories to explore technological methods
to respond to increased public
expectations. The successful
implementation of integrated
systems by justice agencies
will provide useful best practices, standards, and other
information that will spare
other interested agencies
from “reinventing the wheel”
when they consider integration.
In addition to those mentioned above, a number of
other justice agency integration projects with positive
ramifications for collecting,
updating, and disseminating
criminal history records are
already well into the planning, testing, or early implementation stage throughout

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

the country, including projects in Oregon, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas,
Texas, Indiana, Kentucky,
South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and
Rhode Island. Previous integration successes have demonstrated the benefits these
projects can achieve if properly pursued. Faster data
collection, higher data quality, and the ability to electronically interact with other
justice agencies are just a
few.

Section 4: Data
warehousing tools
The term “data warehousing”
describes a process that allows data from different and
often disparate electronic
sources to be collected in a
single database for use in
queries, detailed analysis, and
report preparation. The process builds a database of analytic data that is encoded
upon collection to interact
with similar data elements in
a database. Traditional or
transactional databases generally collect only raw data
that are not easy to query or
analyze. Commercial entities
utilize data warehousing
techniques to target segments
of society for promotional
campaigns. Justice agencies
use data warehousing techniques to analyze crime statistics and related information
to uncover activity patterns,
to predict events, and to allo-

cate resources. This section
examines:
• The data warehousing
process.
• The benefits of data
warehousing.
• The scope of data
warehousing in justice
agencies.
The data warehousing
process
A data warehouse is a managed database in which the
data are subject-oriented, integrated, time-variant (so
they do not solely reflect the
point of time in which they
were collected), and nonvolatile (in that the existing
data are appended rather than
replaced by new data).173 A
data warehouse separates a
system’s analytical data from
its operational data so it can
be analyzed more quickly
without slowing the performance of the operational system.
Data can be integrated from
multiple sources, allowing
users to cross-reference data
from these applications. Time
is the primary filter for data
warehouse activity. An analyst may query a database
seeking the number of times
a certain activity occurred
during a specific week,
month or year, or the analyst
173

Toru Sakaguchi and Mark N.
Frolick, “A Review of the Data
Warehousing Literature,” Journal of
Data Warehousing, 2(1), 1997, pp.
34-54. Available at
http://www.nku.edu/~sakaguch
/dw-web.htm.

may conduct a year-to-year
comparison of the activity.
Data warehouses are expensive and challenging to establish, but decreasing
hardware prices, increased
computing power, and the
development of powerful
server operating systems and
related programs have allowed a greater number of
organizations to implement
them.
The benefits of data
warehousing
Data warehouses provide users with a number of benefits,
including:
• Analytic capabilities that
far exceed those of traditional transactional databases. Data are stored in
relational tables so they
can be examined in many
different ways without
prior knowledge of what
similarities may exist
between data elements.
The process allows for
more in-depth data analysis to extract buried or
previously unknown
pieces of information or
patterns from large databases. (Transactional databases store information
based on each transaction
and do not easily provide
for the comparison of
data stored during one
transaction with data
stored during other transactions.)
• Greater storage capacity,
which allows the maintenance of a larger number

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 67

•

•

•

•

•

of older records, thus
permitting more detailed
and precise analysis.
Integration opportunities
made possible by the
availability of an effective platform for combining multiple-source
applications.
Easier access to data.
Users can conduct queries on their own without
having to seek help from
information specialists.
Larger databases, because data warehouses
can pull information together from multiple
sources.
The ability to handle
more users, transactions,
queries, and messages
than transactional systems without overtaxing
the data warehouse.
The ability to make wellinformed decisions based
on quantitative factors
derived from historical
data.

The scope of data
warehousing in justice
agencies

•

•

A growing number of justice
agencies have incorporated
data warehousing capabilities
into their information management strategies, and others are planning and
designing systems with such
capabilities. They include:
• The Los Angeles
County Consolidated
Criminal History Reporting System, which
collects data from eight
Page 68

•

incompatible legacy systems to respond to identification queries in less
than 2.5 seconds.
The Nebraska Criminal
Justice Information
System (CJIS). The
CJIS data warehouse being assembled in mid2001 will house information from the Nebraska
State Patrol’s criminal
history system, probation, corrections, the sex
offender registration
system, and new detainee
file.
Coplink Concept Space.
Developed by the University of Arizona’s Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory in association
with the Tucson, Arizona, Police Department,
Coplink allows investigators to access information and to research
connections between six
different types of data:
people, locations, organizations, vehicles, crime
types, and weapons.
Iowa Criminal Justice
Information System.
Data warehousing solutions help the State project indigent defense
needs and predict additional prison needs following the
implementation of
tougher criminal and
truth-in-sentencing laws.

Section 5: Data
exchange standards
Data exchange standards can
be described as a “language”
created by different participants in a system who wish to
understand each other. They
usually include agreed-upon
definitions of terms and an
understanding of how these
terms will be used in a system.174 Standards can also
include an agreement on a
format governing the size,
resolution, compression, and
other elements of a graphic
image, or on the types of
hardware and software that a
system will employ.
The importance of standards
was demonstrated during the
creation of the FBI’s IAFIS,
when the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI)
published the Data Format
for the Interchange of Fingerprint Information in November 1993.175 The standard
was developed during a series
of workshops held by the FBI
and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology
(NIST) and attended by representatives from Federal,
State, and local criminal justice agencies. It dictated the

174

Center for Technology in Government, Tying a Sensible Knot: A
Practical Guide to State-Local Information Systems (Albany, N.Y.:
State University of New York, June
1997). Available at
http://www.ctg.albany.edu
/resources/pdfrpwp/iis1.pdf.
175
ANSI/NIST-CSL 1-1993.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

content, format, and measurements necessary for exchanging fingerprint data
with the Bureau. For the first
time, automated fingerprint
systems manufactured by
different vendors could exchange information electronically, paving the way for a
national fingerprint network.
Standards are also important
when States are interested in
electronically exchanging
information within their own
borders, and are often among
the first components developed when an integrated information system is designed.
Agencies considering participation in an integrated system
may have years of data stored
on legacy systems and, therefore, may be reluctant to migrate to new and unfamiliar
technology in order to integrate with other agencies.
Standards can facilitate the
exchange of information
between legacy systems
manufactured by different
vendors so each agency can
participate in an integrated
system while continuing to
use the system with which it
is most comfortable. Standards may also define the
types of information that will
be exchanged between agencies, as well as the format by
which it will be exchanged,
the resolution and compression of exchanged images,
and even the levels of security that will be applied to
information exchanges. This
section will examine:

•
•

How standards are developed.
What standards govern.

How standards are
developed
The creation of standards is a
time-consuming but necessary process in the development of an information
system. Generally, standards
are decided upon when the
operational users of a planned
system are brought together
to discuss their needs and the
types of information they will
need to exchange. For example, the Criminal Justice
Data Element Dictionary was
created for Florida’s Offender-Based Transaction
System with the assistance of
hundreds of members from
the State’s criminal justice
community who submitted
both oral and written comments. In Michigan, the
Court Data Standards Task
Force, comprised of judges,
clerks, and court administrators from different types of
courts throughout the State,
held three meetings in 1997,
during which time it developed standards to integrate
the operations of 39 independent computer systems
that previously served the
State’s courts.
What standards govern
Standards govern every conceivable aspect of electronic
information exchange between justice agencies. They
may dictate the way a justice
agency enters a license plate

number, date of birth, a suspect’s descriptive data, or the
address of a crime into an
information system. Standards may define the format
of a transmitted mug shot or
fingerprint image, including
the image’s size, resolution,
grayscale, compression, and
other factors. They may dictate what types of information are required when a file
is created, and the levels of
security that must be supplied
to various types of information.
An ongoing national effort
began in the mid-1990s to
devise a set of standards to
enable the automated transmission of a model criminal
history record or “rap sheet.”
The first “Interstate Criminal
History Transmission Specification” was released for
testing in 1998. The most
recent version of the transmission specification, numbered 2.01 and based on
eXtensible Markup Language
(XML), was still in draft
form in mid-2001.176
In Florida, standards are being developed for the Criminal and Juvenile Justice
Information System to govern telecommunications and
networking, data elements,
image transmission, and
hardware and software compatibility. In Kansas, standards have been created to
govern applications, data,

176

The draft specification is available at http://www.search.org.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 69

imaging, networks,
messaging, and hardware for
the State’s Criminal Justice
Information System. In North
Carolina, the Criminal Justice
Information Network Data
Sharing Standard
Development Project began
in 1998 to document common
data definitions; standardize
common offense code identifiers; and create standards for
programming interfaces and
common database views.

Section 6: Internet
security strategies
Hundreds of justice agencies
throughout the country use
the Internet to inform the
public about pertinent issues
by establishing World Wide
Web sites, but only one State
is using the Internet as its
primary network for exchanging criminal history
information and transmitting
it to the State repository:
Kansas.
Kansas’ groundbreaking use
of the Internet in this fashion
may dramatically increase the
number of justice agencies
that are able to integrate their
information services. Prior to
Kansas’ breakthrough, the
prevailing school of thought
taught that costly dedicated
networks with limited access
were the only electronic
transmission methods safe
enough to protect the privacy
and confidentiality rights of
those whose criminal histories were exchanged. Moving
to the Internet meant making
Page 70

the information accessible to
hackers and others who were
not authorized to view it.
However, recent dramatic
developments in security and
encryption methods have
prompted justice agencies to
view the Internet transmission of criminal history records in a new light. Use of
existing information exchange networks may spare
smaller justice agencies from
having to fund the creation of
their own networks. This
section examines:
• The “Kansas model” for
use of the Internet to exchange criminal history
records.
• The Internet’s potential
for smaller justice agencies, and how increased
access will benefit criminal history repositories.
Kansas’ use of the
Internet to exchange
criminal history records
Kansas justice officials faced
a dilemma when work began
on the State’s Criminal Justice Information System in
1996. The State could install
a dedicated high-speed network for information and
graphics exchanges, or it
could provide the services by
piggybacking on the existing
Kansas Wide-Area Information Network (KANWIN) for
a cost savings of $2.5 million. To use KANWIN, Kansas officials would have to
create a security strategy to
protect the highly sensitive
criminal history information

they would be transmitting
that would also meet the exacting standards required for
participation in the National
Crime Information Center
and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System.
Kansas officials decided to
use KANWIN by creating a
virtual private network
(VPN), which allows one
information system to interact with another information
system over the Internet using security features previously available only to
private networks. This is accomplished through security
tools such as firewalls, encryption, authentication, and
other resources.
The Kansas Criminal Justice
Information System (KCJIS)
uses the following security
components:
• Firewalls, which are
systems designed to prevent unauthorized access
to or from a private network by examining messages passing through the
firewall and blocking
those that do not meet
specified criteria.
• Secure identification
tokens to identify specific users. Tokens contain code numbers that
change on a regular basis.
A system user will enter
his or her password plus
the number displayed on
the token to gain access
to the system. Each
password/number combination is used only once.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

•

•

•

•

Certificates, to identify
specific devices used to
transmit data. A certificate authority issues a
“public key” to a system
user, who uses the key
for identification when
encrypting a message.
The individual who receives the message must
use the public key plus
his or her own private
key to decrypt the message. The KCJIS became
its own certificate
authority to facilitate the
system’s implementation.
Encryption, to protect
unauthorized access to
information transmitted
over KANWIN.
Intrusion detection,
which monitors information packets moving
through the network to
identify patterns that indicate hostile activity or
misuse.
Internet scanner, to
continuously monitor the
system to identify vulnerabilities.

The FBI’s Criminal Justice
Information Services Advisory Policy Board approved
Kansas’ security strategy in
December 1998.
The Internet’s potential
for smaller justice
agencies, and how
increased access will
benefit criminal history
repositories
Kansas’ successful implementation of a VPN to permit
Internet use for the transfer of

criminal history records is a
significant development for
smaller justice agencies.
These agencies may now be
incorporated into integrated
justice networks that were
previously too costly to join
because of the necessity for
private, dedicated networks.
Naturally, the participation of
a greater number of agencies
will increase data quality at
the State criminal history repository, and will benefit
agencies from throughout the
country that may access the
data.

Section 7: Policy
innovations
Dramatic increases in the use
of state-of-the-art communication technologies by justice
agencies have necessitated
the formulation of new policies to govern the exchange
of criminal history information in the electronic realm.
Issues such as privacy, confidentiality, accessibility, and
accountability must be addressed on the national, State,
and local levels to ensure that
individual rights and longrecognized protections are
not casualties of the rush by
justice agencies to automate
and integrate information
systems.
Policies are also necessary to
govern the responsible use of
shared criminal history information so justice agencies
are confident that records
they contribute to integrated

systems will not be misused.
The creation and implementation of effective policies
will improve the quality of
available criminal history
information by encouraging a
greater number of justice
agencies to participate in and
contribute to integrated information systems.
This section will examine:
• How policies are formulated.
• Policies governing
integrated justice information systems.
How policies are
formulated
Ideally, policies governing
the electronic exchange and
use of criminal history records are formulated when
the system is being designed,
although they may also be
developed and instituted
when the need for such policies becomes apparent. Policies may also come about as
the result of legislative activity. Justice-related organizations may examine issues of
concern and propose model
policies that can be tailored
and instituted by interested
governmental entities.
In Ohio, for example, the
Criminal Justice Information
Services Policy Board meets
regularly to address such
topics as improving criminal
justice data quality, monitoring system development, determining State and local
training needs, and developing policies and procedures

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 71

regarding the accessibility to
and interfacing among local,
State, and national criminal
justice information systems.
The board is comprised of
representatives from the
Buckeye State Sheriffs’ Association, the State Bureau of
Criminal Identification and
Investigation, the State Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the
Clerks of Court Association,
the County Commissioners
Association, the departments
of Administrative Services,
Rehabilitation and Correction, and Youth Services, the
Judicial Conference, the offices of Criminal Justice
Services and the Governor,
the Ohio Association of
Chiefs of Police, the Ohio
Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association, the Ohio State Highway Patrol, the Supreme
Court of Ohio, and regional
crime information centers.
In Florida, The Policies and
Standards Work Group of the
Criminal and Juvenile Justice
Information System developed a set of guiding principles for the efficient and
effective sharing of criminal
and juvenile justice information among users and providers throughout the State. The
Florida Legislature codified
the guiding principles into
law in 1996.
Policies governing
integrated justice
information systems
The most comprehensive and
far-reaching policy governing
the electronic exchange of
criminal history records is the
Page 72

National Crime Prevention
and Privacy Compact, which
was embodied in the Crime
Identification Technology Act
of 1998 approved by the U.S.
Congress.177 The compact
provides a formal legal basis
for justice agencies to follow
when referencing the Interstate Identification Index (III)
for authorized noncriminal
justice purposes, such as for
background checks conducted for security clearances, licenses, and
applicants for employment in
sensitive occupations such as
child and senior care.

(June 1, 2000), South Carolina (June 22, 2000), Arkansas (February 21, 2001),
Kansas (April 10, 2001),
Alaska (May 7, 2001), Oklahoma (May 17, 2001), and
Maine (June 8, 2001). (See
chapter 5, section 4.)

It established a council of
State and Federal officials to
formulate policies governing
noncriminal use of State
criminal history records. The
compact created a true national partnership between
Federal and State representatives to oversee the use of III
information for noncriminal
purposes. Approval by two
State legislatures was required for the compact’s provisions to become effective.
Georgia became the second
State to ratify the compact on
April 28, 1999. Montana was
the first State to ratify the
compact (April 8, 1999).
Other States that have ratified
the Compact are: Nevada
(May 14, 1999), Florida
(June 8, 1999), Colorado
(March 10, 2000), Iowa
(April 7, 2000), Connecticut

177

42 U.S.C. § 14601. See, appendix 21.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Chapter V: National criminal history record checks
and the Interstate Identification Index
This chapter describes procedures for conducting national
criminal record checks for
criminal and noncriminal
justice purposes and provides
an in-depth look at the Interstate Identification Index (III)
system and the National
Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact.
Section 1: Maintenance and
use of current Federal Bureau of Investigation files,
addresses the use of Bureau
files to conduct national
criminal history checks, including current file maintenance and use practices;
authorized categories of file
users; and file access for
criminal justice and noncriminal justice inquiries.
Section 2: The Interstate
Identification Index system,
describes the III concept and
explains how the III
processes search inquiries
and record responses.
Section 3: Interstate Identification Index system impact, identifies the principal
benefits and impacts of the
III system for the States and
the Federal government.
Section 4: The National
Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, explains the
major provisions of the
Compact and how it relates to
the fully implemented III
system.

Background
Most persons arrested for
criminal offenses have prior
arrest records, and many have
arrest records in more than
one State. Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) officials
estimate that of all Federal
and State arrest fingerprint
cards processed by the Bureau, which includes submissions for most of the
country’s serious-offense
arrests, two-thirds of the arrest subjects have prior arrests. Further, of the criminal
subjects in the FBI’s automated files of State and Federal offenders, an estimated
25 to 30% are “multi-State”
offenders; that is, they have
both Federal and State records or arrests in more than
one State.178
Obviously, then, there is a
need for an efficient means of
performing a national criminal record search, other than
the impractical approach of
making separate queries to all
States and jurisdictions that
operate central criminal history record repositories.
Prior to 1971, the means of
obtaining access to a national
search was by application to

178

Statutes Report, supra note 8,

p. 1.

the FBI, which, under congressional authorization dating back to 1924, maintained
criminal record files containing fingerprints and arrest
and disposition information
pertaining to Federal and
State offenders. Most search
applications were handled by
mail and required manual
processing by FBI personnel.
In 1971, the FBI’s National
Crime Information Center
(NCIC) implemented an online interstate computerized
system called the Computerized Criminal History (CCH)
Program. Like the FBI manual system, CCH was a “national repository” system;
that is, full criminal history
records for Federal and State
offenders from participating
States were maintained in the
FBI’s centralized database.
The system was used for both
criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes.
Access for criminal justice
purposes was by name search
or by Federal or State offender identification numbers
submitted through terminals
connected to the nationwide
NCIC network. Applications
for searches for authorized
noncriminal justice purposes
required either a State or
Federal offender identification number for an on-line
record or the submission of
fingerprint cards by mail to
the FBI.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 73

The CCH system continued
to operate throughout the
1970s even though State participation was poor, due primarily to objections to the
cost and difficulty of maintaining duplicate files on
State offenders at both the
State and Federal levels. The
FBI’s centralized files were
continued during this period,
and the Bureau began automating them in 1974.
Most State officials preferred
the development of a “decentralized” national criminal
history record system; that is,
a system that would not entail
the continuance of a duplicative national repository of
State offender records, but
that instead would undertake
to strengthen the State repositories and provide the
means of tying them together
into a viable interstate system
relying on State-maintained
records.
Prior to the 1970s, it was
generally conceded that most
of the existing State repositories lacked the technology
and the policy and organizational structure necessary to
effectively participate in such
a program. By the end of that
decade, however, substantial
progress had been made in
improving existing State repositories, establishing repositories in States that
lacked them, and providing
these agencies with the technology, organizational capability, and policy structures
necessary to create a decentralized national criminal
Page 74

history program based on
shared responsibilities and
mutual commitments.
Recognizing this progress,
the U.S. Department of Justice and State officials approved the Interstate
Identification Index (III) concept in 1978. The FBI and
selected States began phased
testing and implementation of
the concept in 1980. At present, 43 State repositories are
participating as record providers for criminal justice
purposes (see section 2 of
this chapter). Only four of
those States are also providing records for noncriminal
justice purposes, but the approval of the National Crime
Prevention and Privacy
Compact in October 1998 is
making it easier for additional States to participate in
this way (see section 4 of this
chapter).

Section 1:
Maintenance and use
of current Federal
Bureau of
Investigation files
This section discusses how
the FBI maintains fingerprints and criminal history
records, and how these files
are used. This discussion includes:
• Practices for submitting
and storing fingerprint
and criminal history data.
• Authorized users of FBI
files for criminal justice
or noncriminal justice
purposes, and the data

they are entitled to receive.
Current record
maintenance practices
Under the authority of Title
28, Section 534 of the United
States Code, the FBI currently maintains fingerprints
and criminal history records
for persons arrested for Federal offenses. The FBI also
maintains State offender records that, to a great extent,
duplicate the records contained in State repositories.
For their mutual benefit,
State and local arresting
agencies throughout the
country are encouraged to
submit arrest information to
the FBI for all arrests for
“criterion offenses,” defined
as all felonies and all misdemeanors except designated
nonserious ones. Arrest information submitted to the
FBI by those agencies includes fingerprints, subject
identification information,
and charge information.
For many years, this information was submitted to the
FBI on standard 10-print
cards that provided space for
fingerprint images and textual information, such as the
arrest subject’s name, vital
statistics, arrest offense, and
other information. As described in chapter IV, the
evolution of automated fingerprint technology began to
bring about a change in this
process in the mid-1980s,
when the FBI and a growing
number of States started to

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

implement automated fingerprint identification systems
(AFIS).
In all except a few States,
fingerprints and related arrest
information are submitted to
the FBI through the State
criminal history record repository pursuant to the “single-source submission”
program, under which the
FBI does not accept fingerprint submissions directly
from arresting agencies. This
approach ensures that the
State repositories are not bypassed at the critical arrest
fingerprint reporting stage.
In the few States that have
not implemented singlesource submission, fingerprints and arrest information
may be submitted directly to
the FBI by State and local
law enforcement agencies.
The FBI thus has records of
some State offenses that were
not reported to the State repositories, primarily records
established before singlesource fingerprint reporting
was implemented or before
the State repositories began
automating records in the
past quarter-century.
The FBI accepts and records
final disposition and correctional information for these
State arrests. Both arrest and
disposition reporting to the
FBI are voluntary, however,
and the incidence and quality
of reporting varies from State
to State. Arrest reporting to
the FBI is thought to be good
in most States, but is known

to be poor in a few States.
Disposition reporting to the
FBI from most States is incomplete, perhaps averaging
about 50%.179 By comparison, felony trial court disposition reporting to the State
repositories is estimated to be
significantly higher, with reporting in 14 States at 95% or
higher.180
As of mid-2001, the FBI was
obtaining disposition information from 19 State repositories by machine-readable
data computer tape, which
results in more complete and
timely reporting.
The FBI maintains more than
43 million automated criminal history records of Federal, State, and foreign
subjects, including numerous
older records converted to
automated format during the
Manual Conversion Project
conducted by the FBI’s
Criminal Justice Information
Services (CJIS) Division. The
FBI will maintain approximately 5 million older records in manual format.
Authorized users of data
Criminal history records
maintained by the FBI are
available for criminal justice

179

Source: Mr. Robert Mudd,
Management Analyst, Criminal
Justice Information Services Division, FBI.
180
1999 Survey, supra note 6, table 8.

and noncriminal justice purposes. The FBI is authorized
by law181 to provide criminal
record services to the following major categories of
users:
• Federal and State
criminal justice agencies
for criminal justice purposes, including the
screening of applicants
for criminal justice employment.
• Federal noncriminal justice agencies for official
purposes authorized by
Federal statute or executive order, such as national security purposes
and background screening of Federal employees.
• The Federal Aviation
Administration for conducting criminal history
background checks on
individuals applying for
positions that provide unescorted access to aircraft
or to secured areas of an
airport.
• Federally chartered or
insured banks and
authorized segments of
the securities and com181

28 U.S.C. § 534; PL 99-169, as
amended by PL 99-569 and PL 101246, 5 U.S.C. § 9101; Exec. Orders
10450 and 12968; PL 91-452; PL
101-647; PL 92-544, 86 Stat. 1115;
PL 100-413, 102 Stat. 1101; PL 9429, as amended by PL 100-181, 15
U.S.C. § 78q(f)(2); PL 97-444, 7
U.S.C. §§ 12a, 21(b)(4)(e); PL 99399, 42 U.S.C. § 2169; PL 101-604,
49 U.S.C. 44936; 28 CFR 0.85(b);
U.S. Dept. of Justice Order 556-73,
28 CFR 16.30-16.34; 5 CFR 732 &
736; PL 103-159; PL 103-209; PL
103-322.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 75

•

•

•

modities industries, for
employment screening.
State and local governmental agencies for licensing and employment
purposes, if authorized
by a State statute approved by the U.S. Attorney General.
States with appropriate
statutes to access and review State and Federal
criminal history records
through the national
criminal history background check system to
determine whether care
providers for the elderly,
disabled, and children
have criminal histories
that impact their fitness
to assume such responsibilities.
Licensed firearms dealers
to determine the eligibility of potential gun purchasers.

Authorized government
agencies receive the FBI’s
complete criminal history on
offenders with all reported
arrests regardless of whether
there is a disposition for each
arrest notation and regardless
of the nature of recorded dispositions. It should be noted
that information about State
offenses submitted to the FBI
and incorporated into the
FBI’s files has been interpreted to be Federal information subject to the Federal
Privacy Act and other Federal
standards that provide for the

Page 76

disseminations outlined
above.182

Interstate Identification
Index system approach

Pursuant to these standards,
noncriminal justice agencies
in some States are able to
receive State offender information from FBI files that
they could not obtain directly
from repositories in States
that have laws regulating
noncriminal justice use which
are more restrictive than the
Federal standard. Conversely,
in States with more open
laws, some noncriminal justice agencies can obtain State
records but are denied access
to FBI data.

The III system is an interstate/Federal-State computer
network that currently provides the means of conducting national criminal history
record searches to determine
whether a person has a record
anywhere in the country. It
has replaced the centralizeddatabase system described in
section 1 of this chapter,
which utilized a database of
Federal and State offenders183
maintained by the FBI for
conducting national searches.
In contrast, the III system is
designed to tie the automated
criminal history record databases of State central repositories and the FBI together
into a national system by
means of an “index-pointer”
approach.

Section 2: The
Interstate
Identification Index
system
This section provides a detailed look at the III system
and its use in conducting national criminal record
searches for criminal justice
and noncriminal justice purposes. It also explains how
the III system differs from
the national search system
used prior to 1980, and how
implementation of the system
permits the FBI to discontinue maintaining records of
State offenders.
182

When a Federal agency receives “records” from a State
agency, these records become Federal records for purposes of Federal
law. Records Disposal Act, 44
U.S.C. § 3301; Forsham v. Harris,
445 U.S. 169, 185 (1980); Kissinger
v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136,
151-52 (1980).

Under this approach, the FBI
maintains an automated
master name index, referred
to as the National Identification Index (NII), which includes names and identifying
data concerning all persons
whose automated criminal
history records are available
by means of the III system.184
If a search of this index indicates that the search subject
has a III-indexed record, the
183

“State offenders” are persons
arrested and prosecuted under State
law.
184
Both the FBI and the State repositories have some records of
older offenders that have not been
automated because the persons have
been criminally inactive. These
manual records are not available via
the III system.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

index will “point” the inquiring agency to the FBI
and/or to one or more of the
State repositories from which
the record or records may be
obtained. The inquiring
agency may then obtain the
records directly from the indicated sources by means of
the NCIC and the National
Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
(NLETS). The FBI also
maintains the 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.
The major advantages of the
III approach, when fully implemented, stem from its decentralization component;
that is, the shift from reliance
on FBI-maintained State offender records for national
search purposes to reliance
on State-maintained records
for such purposes. The two
main advantages are: (1)
criminal history records
maintained by the State repositories are more accurate
and complete than State offender records maintained by
the FBI185 and (2) if State
repositories provide record
185

This is primarily due to the fact
that the submission of arrest and
disposition information to the State
repositories by State and local agencies is mandated by law in most
States, whereas the submission of
such information to the FBI by such
agencies is voluntary.

responses for national search
purposes, the FBI can discontinue the maintenance of
its files of State offender records.
Interstate Identification
Index system
implementation status
— System availability
status
From an availability standpoint, the III system is fully
operational nationwide. The
NCIC system and interfaced
State telecommunication
systems, together with the
FBI’s Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification
System (IAFIS) and interfaced State AFIS systems,
provide III system access to
Federal, State, and local
criminal justice agencies
throughout the country. The
system is used to conduct
national searches, both nameand fingerprint-based, and to
provide record responses
from FBI and State repository
sources for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice
purposes. Procedures for
conducting searches for
criminal justice purposes differ from those for conducting
searches for noncriminal justice purposes.

— Criminal justice
searches
III searches for criminal justice purposes, such as for
purposes related to criminal
investigations and prosecutions, are conducted pursuant
to Federal regulations.186 For
these purposes, criminal justice agencies may conduct
name searches and offenderidentification-number
searches of the NII. If there is
a hit, they may obtain the
out-of-State record segments
on-line via NLETS or NCIC.
Criminal justice agencies
may also obtain national fingerprint-based searches for
criminal justice purposes by
transmitting search subjects’
fingerprints to the FBI by
mail or by electronic means.
This is often done to ensure
that arrested persons do not
prevent discovery of their
prior records by using aliases.
III records provided by the
FBI and the State repositories
for criminal justice purposes
include all criminal history
record information relating to
the record subjects, including
favorable and unfavorable
dispositions, as well as arrests without recorded dispositions regardless of how old
the arrests are. Figure 3
shows how III record requests and record responses
are routed for criminal justice
purposes.

186

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

28 CFR Part 20, Subpart C.

Page 77

Criminal justice
agencies throughout
the country can obtain
criminal history
records through the III
system. Record
request messages are
transmitted to the
State repository by
means of the State
telecommunications
network. The
repository forwards
the message to the III
computer by means of
the NCIC network.
The III computer
switches the messages
to State repositories
that maintain records
on the inquiry subject
and/or to the FBI if
the subject has a
Federal record or a
record in one or more
States not
participating in III.

III RECORD REQUEST ROUTE: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PURPOSE
III Participating State Repositories

State A

Local Criminal
Justice Agency

State B

FBI III Computer
State Repository

III RECORD RESPONSE ROUTE: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PURPOSE
III Participating State Repositories

State A

Local Criminal
Justice Agency

State B
via NLETS

State Repository
via

NC

IC

FBI Automated
Records

Records supplied
from the FBI’s
automated files are
returned to the
inquiring State
repository via the
NCIC network.
Participating State
repositories utilize the
NLETS network to
transmit record
responses. The
receiving State
repository assembles
multi-State record
components, if
necessary, and
transmits a response
to the requesting
agency. The entire
process usually takes
less than a minute.

FBI Automated
Records
Figure 3: III record request and response processing for criminal justice purposes

Page 78

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

— Noncriminal justice
searches
III searches for noncriminal
justice purposes, such as for
military recruiting, national
security activities, State or
Federal governmental employment, or occupational
licensing or suitability, are
conducted pursuant to the
National Crime Prevention
and Privacy Compact (see
section 4). The compact permits such searches for any
purpose specified in a Federal
statute or executive order, or
in a State statute approved by
the U. S. Attorney General as
authorizing III searches. Such
searches must be fingerprintbased, and record requests
must be based upon positive
identification of record subjects by fingerprint comparison.187
To obtain a national criminal
history search under the
compact provisions, a noncriminal justice agency
authorized under State law is
required to submit the search
subject’s fingerprints to the
State repository in the State
where the agency is located.
The repository is required to
first conduct a search of its
State-level criminal history
187

There are some limited circumstances, based on Federal law, under
which the III system may be used
for conducting name searches for
noncriminal justice purposes. An
example is the United States Housing Act, pursuant to which the Attorney General has permitted III
name searches for background
screening of public housing tenants
and applicants.

files. If this search results in a
fingerprint-verified determination that the individual has
a criminal history record in
that State, the repository may
access the NII to determine
whether the individual has an
out-of-State record and, if so,
to be pointed to the FBI or to
the State repository from
which the records may be
obtained.
If the State-level search is
negative, the repository
transmits the fingerprints to
the FBI (in card or electronic
form) for a search of its fingerprint files. If this search
results in positive identification of the subject, the FBI
will notify the State repository and the repository may
use the NII to obtain the outof-State record or records.
Federal noncriminal justice
agencies and other organizations authorized to obtain
national criminal record
searches under Federal law
submit search subjects’ fingerprints directly to the FBI.
If the FBI positively identifies a subject, it may use the
NII to obtain any record
segments available from
State repositories.
Records exchanged by the
FBI and the State repositories
for noncriminal justice purposes under the compact
must include all criminal
history record information
concerning record subjects,
with the exception of information that has been

sealed.188 Before responding
to noncriminal justice agencies that have submitted III
search requests, the State repositories screen records received from out of State, if
necessary, and delete any
information that cannot be
released to particular agencies under their State dissemination laws. As
explained in chapter III,
criminal history record dissemination laws differ greatly
from State to State concerning the types of noncriminal
justice agencies that may obtain criminal history record
information, the purposes for
which such information may
be used, and the types of information that may be released to particular agencies.
Figure 4 shows how III record requests and record responses are routed for
noncriminal justice purposes.

188

The Compact sets out a narrow
definition of “sealed information.”
Compact, Art. I, Sec. 21.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 79

Fingerprint
Card

Mail

FBI
FBI automated
files of Federal
offenders and
State offenders
from non-NFF
States

Record
Response

Non-ident.
IC

NC

via NCIC

via

State
Repository

Ident.
via

III Index

Record Request
Notification
(via NCIC)

NL

ET

via

Mail

S

S

ET

NL

Fingerprint
Card

Record
Response

Record
Response

Mail

NFF State A
Record
Response

Authorized
State Agency

NFF State B

Figure 4: III record request and response processing for noncriminal justice purposes

Page 80

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

— Decentralization
implementation status
Figure 4: III record request and responses for noncriminal
justice purposes

A State noncriminal justice agency authorized by law to obtain a III
record search must submit the search subject’s fingerprints to its
State repository. If the repository positively identifies the subject as
having an in-State criminal record (“Ident.”), its files will contain
an FBI number for the subject that can be used to access III to determine whether the subject also has a Federal record or a record in
another State. If the repository is a III participant, its files will contain “flags” indicating whether the subject has a record in another
State (or a Federal record), making III inquiries unnecessary if the
subject is not a “multi-State” offender. If the subject does have an
out-of-State record, the III computer automatically transmits record
request notifications to any NFF State repository maintaining a record on the subject and/or to the FBI if the subject has a Federal
record or a State offender record for which the FBI has III responsibility. The NFF returns full-record responses to the originating
State repository, which screens the records and forwards to the requesting noncriminal justice agency all information that can be released under State law.
If the State repository cannot identify the subject in its files (“Nonident.”), it forwards the fingerprint card — or, in increasing numbers, the digitized fingerprint images — to the FBI for processing.
If the FBI positively identifies the subject as having a Federal record or a record in a non-NFF State, it provides these records from
its automated files. If the subject has a record in one or more NFF
States, those repositories are automatically notified to provide the
records directly to the originating State repository.
If the subject cannot be identified at the State or Federal level, an
appropriate “no-record” response is returned to the requesting
agency.
Federal noncriminal justice agencies submit fingerprints directly to
the FBI, which processes the requests essentially as described
above, assembles record components, as necessary, including obtaining records from NFF States, as appropriate, and provides an
appropriate record response to the requesting Federal agency.

Although the III system is
fully operational nationwide
and is being used to conduct
national searches and exchange records for both
criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes, the
decentralization aspect of the
system concept has not yet
been fully implemented. This
aspect of the system — the
shift from reliance on FBImaintained records of persons
arrested and prosecuted under
State law to a reliance on
State-maintained records of
State offenders — is being
implemented on a State-byState basis. Under this implementation approach, State
repositories that are participating as record providers for
III national search purposes
have undertaken these responsibilities in two stages:
first, they have assumed responsibility for providing
records for criminal justice
purposes only, and, at some
later point, they have assumed responsibility for providing records for
noncriminal justice purposes
as well.
— Interstate
Identification Index
record responses for
criminal justice
purposes
In the first stage of III participation, a State repository
assumes the responsibility of

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 81

providing designated criminal
history records on-line in response to III record requests
for criminal justice purposes
only. Because all of the
States’ criminal record laws
authorize interstate and Federal-State record exchanges
for criminal justice purposes,
there has been no legal impediment in any State to III
participation at this level.
However, participating State
repositories need efficient
automated criminal history
record systems capable of
interfacing with the III system and meeting system support requirements, such as
response time standards.
As of mid-2001, repositories
in 43 States were participating in the III system as record
providers for criminal justice
purposes.189 These States are
usually referred to as “III
States” or “III participants.”
All of the other State repositories are in the process of
upgrading their systems to
enable III system participation in the near future. In the
meantime, the FBI is providing III record responses
for State offenders of States

whose repositories are not III
participants.
The FBI also continues to
provide records of some State
offenders in III States. Some
III States have agreed to be
responsible for providing
only records of persons arrested and/or charged as firsttime offenders in the State
after the date when III participation began. Other repositories assumed
responsibility for new firsttime arrestee records as well
as for some pre-existing records of in-State offenders if
their automated State files
contained at least as much
information about those record subjects as the FBI’s
files contained.190 The FBI
continues to provide all State
offender records for which III
State repositories have not
assumed responsibility.191
Table 1 shows totals and
State-by-State breakdowns of
the records indexed in the III
system as of August 2, 2001,
the latest available figures. At
that time, the system provided access to 43,533,575

automated criminal history
records. Of these, 25,614,711
records were available for
criminal justice purposes
from the 43 III State repositories and 17,918,864 records
were available for such purposes from the FBI. Column
1 of the table (“Statesupported Records”) shows
the numbers of records for
which the repositories in III
States have assumed responsibility for criminal justice
response purposes. Column 2
(“FBI-supported Records”)
shows the numbers of records
of State offenders of III
States for which the FBI
continues to be responsible.
Column 3 (“Others”) shows
the number of III-indexed
records of persons arrested
and prosecuted in States (and
territories) whose repositories
are not participating in the III
system, as well as the number
of Federal offender records
and foreign offender records
indexed in the system. The
FBI provides the records
listed in Columns 2 and 3 in
response to III record requests for criminal justice
purposes.

190

189

The States are Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.

Page 82

The FBI’s files contain records
of some arrests for State offenses
that were not reported to the State
repositories. This occurred primarily
before the FBI instituted its “singlesource submission” policy, discussed earlier. For the same reasons,
the files of the State repositories
include some arrests that were not
reported to the FBI.
191
The FBI also continues to provide some records of persons in III
States whose records have not been
automated at the State level (primarily older persons who have not
recently been criminally active).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Interstate Identification Index (III)
Total Subjects
State-supported Records

FBI-supported Records

(III Participants)
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

TOTAL

(III Participants)

RECORDS
114,832
56,939
201,911
179,442
4,800,352
585,002
188,754
109,778
2,767,855
1,829,046
136,070
437,605
129,666
92,362
103,844
551
875,040
311,157
24,954
450,454
76,789
180,430
26,039
11,118
1,194,524
51,581
2,450,366
768,725
21,379
833,638
166,466
496,732
914,602
459
845,188
61,559
2,719,436
235,721
736,974
289,211
17,829
52,999
67,332

25,614,711

August 3, 2001

STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

TOTAL

(Non-III, U.S. Territories,
Federal and Foreign)

RECORDS
428,405
73,555
664,223
155,163
792,048
182,438
149,509
70,491
582,314
188,657
37,627
1,484,134
394,237
271,357
739,943
298,054
151,122
48,205
185,076
236,473
53,697
217,765
144,769
104,490
80,038
251,959
292,011
68,573
33,240
242,795
257,774
90,517
403,103
109,062
56,406
87,528
245,957
53,541
281,455
462,461
130,657
460,140
20,795

11,281,764

NON-III STATE
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Tennessee
Vermont
SUBTOTAL
U.S. TERRITORY
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
SUBTOTAL

RECORDS
168,017
147,961
401,414
367,574
707,064
70,541
729,688
47,833
2,640,092
RECORDS
618
16,879
4,594
95,903
11,983
129,977

Federal
Foreign

3,795,491
71,540

TOTAL

6,637,100

Total Records 43,533,575*
*The number of total records exceeds total subjects due to multi-State offenders

Table 1: Records indexed in the III system as of August 3, 2001
Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 83

— Interstate
Identification Index
record responses for
noncriminal justice
purposes
Four of the 43 III States
(Florida, New Jersey, North
Carolina, and Oregon) have
assumed responsibility for
providing their III-indexed
criminal history records for
noncriminal justice purposes
as well as for criminal justice
purposes. These States are
usually referred to as “NFF
States” because they submit
offender fingerprints and
charge/disposition information to the FBI pursuant to
the National Fingerprint File
concept (discussed below).
NFF States must have legal
authority to provide full
criminal history records to
the FBI and to other State
repositories for any noncriminal justice purpose
authorized by Federal law or
by any other State’s law. As
noted earlier, in responding
to III record requests, they
are required to provide all
unsealed information relating
to record subjects. The information is screened and
edited, if necessary, under the
laws of the receiving State
repositories before it is made
available to noncriminal justice agencies.
States in which the repositories lack the record dissemination authority to participate
in the NFF may provide such
authority by amending their
criminal history record laws.

Page 84

They may also do so by ratifying the National Crime
Prevention and Privacy
Compact. Among other
things, the compact authorizes party State repositories
to make records available to
the FBI for Federally authorized noncriminal justice purposes, and to any State
repository for any noncriminal justice purpose that is
authorized by law in that
State. Because a compact
supersedes conflicting provisions of State law, the act of
ratifying the compact has the
effect of amending a State’s
record dissemination law.
Ratification of the compact
also binds party State repositories to their roles in
processing national searches
for noncriminal justice purposes.
— Discontinuance of
Federal Bureau of
Investigation records of
State offenders
Because NFF State repositories are obligated to provide
their III-indexed State offender records (those for
which they have assumed III
responsibility) for both
criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes, the
FBI no longer needs to
maintain duplicates of these
records for national search
purposes. Hence, after a State
begins NFF participation, the
State repository and criminal
justice agencies in the State
no longer follow the practice
of forwarding fingerprints

and charge/disposition information to the FBI for all persons arrested for or charged
with criterion offenses in the
State (as described in section
1 of this chapter). Instead,
they forward criminal history
record information to the FBI
as follows:
1. Upon the arrest192 of a
person who has never before been arrested in the
State, the repository forwards to the FBI only the
person’s fingerprints together with textual subject identification
information.193 The identification information is
used to add the person to
the NII, or to update the
index, if necessary, if the
person is already in the
index, and to set a pointer
indicating that the repository maintains a
criminal history record
concerning the individual
that is available for
authorized III purposes.
The individual’s fingerprints are added to the
NFF (see figure 5).
2. Upon the arrest of a
person who has been arrested previously in the

192

This includes persons who are
charged with criminal offenses by
summons or citation without being
arrested.
193
Standard fingerprint cards,
which usually are forwarded by
mail, contain spaces for both fingerprint images and textual subject
identification information. Increasingly, both types of information are
transmitted to the FBI by electronic
means.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

State and whose State offender record is the responsibility of the State
repository for III purposes, no fingerprints or
charge/disposition data
are forwarded to the
FBI.194
3. Upon the arrest of a
person who has been
arrested previously in the
State but whose State
offender record remains
the responsibility of the
FBI for III purposes, the
State repository forwards
fingerprints and charge/
disposition information
as per pre-NFF practices
so that the FBI can keep
the record current.
Thus, an NFF State
repository is relieved of the
burden of submitting charge/
disposition data to the FBI
for first-time in-State
offenders and of submitting
fingerprints or charge/
disposition data upon the
arrest of persons whose prior
in-State records are the
repository’s responsibility for
III purposes. The FBI is
relieved of the burden of
processing these submissions
194

NFF repositories do send electronic notices of such arrests to the
FBI, which enables the FBI to provide notices to law enforcement
agencies that have entered active
“wanted person” notices concerning
the arrested persons. The repositories also submit revised subject
identification information, as necessary, to keep the NII updated and
they may send better-quality fingerprints for the NFF if previously
submitted fingerprints were of poor
quality.

and maintaining duplicate
records of these persons. Full
criminal history records of
these persons are maintained
only at the State repository
level.
At present, about 59% of the
State offender records available by means of the III system for criminal justice
purposes are the responsibility of the 43 III State repositories, and the other
approximately 41% are the
responsibility of the FBI.
However, the FBI is responsible for approximately 86%
of the State offender records
provided by the system for
noncriminal justice purposes,
with the other 14% being the
responsibility of the four NFF
State repositories. In time,
when all of the State repositories are participating in the
III system and are NFF participants as well, and when
the records of State offenders
for which the FBI retains III
system responsibility have
been purged from the system
because of the old age or
death of the subjects, the FBI
will maintain and provide no
records of State offenders. It
will maintain only Federal
offender records and the records of a few foreign offenders. At that time, the
decentralization component
of the III system will have
been fully implemented.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 85

Figure 5: Reporting and maintenance of records in a decentralized III system

A

B

NON-NFF

NFF

Page 86

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update
•Police
•Prosecutors
•Courts
•Corrections
•Others

Criminal Justice
Agencies

Arresting
and Custodial
Agencies

Ident. and
Charge Data

Ident. and
Charge Data

*Required to be reported by State law

All “reportable”*
arrests and
corresponding
dispositions

Case
Disposition
Reports

Criminal
Fingerprint
Cards

*Required to be reported by State law

All “reportable”*
arrests and
corresponding
dispositions

Case
Disposition
Reports

Criminal Justice
Agencies
•Police
•Prosecutors
•Courts
•Corrections
•Others

Criminal
Fingerprint
Cards

Arresting
and Custodial
Agencies

NFF
STATE REPOSITORY

Automated
Criminal
History
Records

Fingerprint
Records

Automated/Manual

NON-NFF
STATE REPOSITORY

Criminal
History
Records

Automated/Manual

Criminal
Fingerprint
Records

Automated/Manual

Charge Data

Ident. Data

FBI

Automated
Fingerprint
Records

Automated
Criminal
History
Records

III Index

Ident. Data
Updates

Ident. Data

FBI

Automated
National
Fingerprint
File

Automated
Criminal
History
Records

III Index

*Felony arrests and misdemeanor arrests except those for nonserious offenses

FIRST ARRESTS
ONLY
for “criterion” *
offenses

Criminal
Fingerprint
Cards

*Felony arrests and misdemeanor arrests except those for nonserious offenses

All “criterion”*
arrests and
corresponding
dispositions

Disposition
Reports

Automated/Manual

Fingerprint
Cards

Figure 5: Reporting and maintenance of records in a decentralized III system

Figure 5a shows procedures for the reporting of arrest and custodial fingerprints and case disposition data
to the FBI by State repositories that are not participating in the decentralization phase of the III system
(referred to as non-NFF repositories). This includes repositories that are not participating at all in III, as
well as repositories that are participating in III as record providers for criminal justice purposes only.
Since these repositories are not providing records from their files to all Federal and out-of-State noncriminal justice agencies authorized to obtain national record searches, criminal justice agencies in these
States continue to submit fingerprints and charge/disposition information to the FBI for all arrests for criterion offenses. This is done in order that the FBI may provide record services (Federal offender and State
offender records) to authorized noncriminal justice users.
Figure 5b shows how reporting and record maintenance works for State repositories that participate in the
decentralization phase of III implementation (often referred to as implementation of the NFF). These repositories (referred to as NFF repositories) assume an obligation to provide interstate record services to
all authorized III users for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes. Thus, there is no need
for these States to continue submitting fingerprints and criminal history data to the FBI for arrests of persons whose records are the States’ responsibility for III purposes. They submit fingerprint and offender
identification information only for the first arrest of an individual for a criterion offense within each State.
This enables the FBI to include the record subject in the III index (and set a “pointer” to the submitting
State), and to include the subject’s fingerprints in the NFF.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 87

Section 3: Interstate
Identification Index
system impact

— Cost savings

This section, in addressing
the impact of the III system,
describes the following:
• Benefits of III participation.
• Benefits of NFF participation.
• Burdens of III participation.
Benefits of Interstate
Identification Index
participation
— Improved record
quality
Full III implementation will
offer significant benefits to
criminal justice practitioners
and to noncriminal justice
agencies that obtain records
through the system. Since
studies and audits have indicated that records maintained
at the State level are sometimes more complete and
timely than comparable State
offender records maintained
by the FBI, the ability to obtain records directly from
State repositories is expected
to result in an improvement
in the quality of available
information. Further data
quality improvements will
result from computer matching of State and Federal records and the resolution of
identified discrepancies.

Page 88

III participation affords costsaving benefits whether a
State repository participates
fully or only as a record provider for criminal justice purposes. The III computer
interface automatically updates State files to add newly
assigned FBI numbers, eliminating the mailing of forms
and the manual matching and
data entry previously performed by State personnel.
The repositories are also able
to set single-State/multi-State
flags in their files indicating
whether their records on particular offenders are complete
or whether there are additional data available from
other States or the FBI.
— Increased system
security
In addition, an increase in
system security results from
III requirements for written
agreements with all user
agencies concerning security
measures designed to prevent
unauthorized access to or use
of system data. These measures include:
• Physical and system security.
• Transaction logging.
• Organizational/
administrative
requirements.
• Sanctions for noncompliance.

Benefits of National
Fingerprint File
participation
There will be additional
benefits for repositories that
participate in NFF (providing
records in response to III requests for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice
purposes) and for the FBI.
— Duplicate files
eliminated
Maintenance of duplicate
State and Federal files for
offenders from these States
will be discontinued. State
repositories will be relieved
of the burden of submitting
second and subsequent arrest
fingerprints and charge/
disposition information to the
FBI for offenders whose inState records are the States’
responsibility for III
purposes. The FBI will be
relieved of the burden of
maintaining these State
offender records. This will
free personnel and resources
that can be applied to other
programs to further improve
Federal and State criminal
record files.
— Uniform
dissemination standard
Full III implementation will
establish a single uniform
standard governing the interstate exchange of criminal
history record information for
purposes of noncriminal justice dissemination. This standard will replace the varied
and sometimes conflicting
standards set out in current

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Federal and State laws, which
have severely restricted interstate dissemination of State
repository records for noncriminal justice purposes. At
the same time, however, State
repositories receiving full
criminal history records from
other State repositories or the
FBI will be able to screen
these records and delete any
information that cannot be
released for intrastate purposes under their own dissemination laws.
— Faster response times
Some noncriminal justice
users will enjoy faster response times because the repositories in their States will
receive automated record responses from the FBI rather
than the mailed responses
that are now provided.
Burdens of Interstate
Identification Index
participation
There are some new burdens
to the States associated with
III participation. Most of the
States that are not now participating will need to upgrade the technical capability
of their repositories in order
to interface with III and
achieve required system support levels. This work is in
progress in most of these
States. In addition, there are
some modest start-up costs
for system software and other
changes necessary for the
basic III interface.

Once full participation begins, the repositories assume
increased responsibilities for
providing records in response
to out-of-State inquiries that
are now serviced by the FBI
— both criminal justice and
noncriminal justice inquiries.
However, because many
criminal justice responses are
already handled electronically, and because the volume of noncriminal justice
record responses is low,195
these new burdens should not
be significant in States that
have efficient systems.

Section 4: The
National Crime
Prevention and
Privacy Compact
This section discusses the
National Crime Prevention
and Privacy Compact, which
governs the use of the III
system for noncriminal justice purposes.196
Background
It was apparent to the State
and Federal officials who
developed the III concept that
full participation in the indexpointer system would eventually require most States to
modify their existing laws
and policies governing the
availability of criminal his195

Analysis has shown that the
“hit rate” for noncriminal justice
searches is 7-8% for all categories
of subjects.
196
The compact text, and sectionby-section analysis, is included as
appendix 21.

tory records for noncriminal
justice purposes in order to
meet the proposed interstate
standard on record availability. In addition, Federal and
State officials recognized a
need to formally commit the
FBI and participating State
repositories to long-term participation in a decentralized
system.
These goals could possibly
have been realized through
the enactment of Federal
legislation in combination
with uniform State laws or
independent State legislative
action. However, there was a
strong consensus from the
emergence of the III concept
that favored the use of an
interstate/Federal-State compact to implement the system
for the following reasons:
• A compact must be
ratified in identical form
by all parties and, after
ratification, no party can
unilaterally amend it.
• Ratifying parties can
withdraw from the compact only through the
same formal action used
for ratification, a feature
that provides some assurance of long-term participation by ratifying
parties.
• Because compacts take
precedence over conflicting State laws, and
because the compact
authorizes the State repositories to provide record responses for all
authorized III purposes,

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 89

ratification of the compact would have the effect of providing the
repositories with needed
interstate record dissemination authority in those
cases in which such
authority is now lacking
under State law.
The compact was approved
by the Congress on October
8, 1998, and signed by the
President on October 9,
1998.197 It became effective,
by its terms, on April 28,
1999, when ratified by the
second State. As of mid2001, 13 States — Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana,
Nevada, South Carolina, Arkansas, Alaska, Oklahoma,
and Maine — have ratified
the compact. Based on representations of State officials, it
appears likely that numerous
other States will ratify the
compact in the not-toodistant future.

•

•

•

•

Compact provisions
Major provisions of the National Crime Prevention and
Privacy Compact are:198
• The compact binds the
FBI and ratifying States
to participate in the noncriminal justice access
197

Public Law 105-251; 112 Statutes at Large 1870. Codified at 42
USCA § 14611 et seq.
198
Paul L. Woodard, National
Crime Prevention and Privacy
Compact: Resource Materials, NCJ
171671 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, January 1999).

Page 90

•

program of III in accordance with the compact
and established system
policies.
Authorized users are the
same as those currently
authorized to obtain records from the FBI’s
files.
Participating State repositories are authorized
and required to make all
unsealed criminal history
records available in response to authorized
noncriminal justice requests.
All noncriminal justice
access to the system is
through the FBI and the
State repositories and is
based upon fingerprint
identification of record
subjects to ensure positive identification.
Release and use of information obtained
through the system for
noncriminal justice purposes is governed by the
laws of the receiving
States, and the receiving
repositories are required
to screen record responses and delete any
information that cannot
legally be released within
the State.
The compact establishes
a compact council, comprised of Federal and
State officials and other
members representing
user interests, to establish
operating policies for
noncriminal justice uses
of the III system.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Chapter VI: Federal initiatives and criminal history
records
This chapter looks at major
national initiatives that affect
how criminal history records
are maintained and used.
Section 1: Federal Bureau
of Investigation system upgrades, discusses the Bureau’s comprehensive
program to upgrade its identification and information
services.
Section 2: The Brady Act
and its impact, discusses the
Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act and its impact
on State and Federal criminal
history record maintenance
and improvement.
Section 3: Federal grant
programs and related initiatives, identifies criminal
history record grant programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as
national initiatives that involve criminal history records.

Background
The Federal government
plays a principal role in
criminal history record information policies and practices. As described in chapter
V, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) fingerprint files and criminal
history records are and will
continue to be a critical part
of the Nation’s criminal history record system. In addition, Federal noncriminal
justice agencies, including
the military services and Federal intelligence agencies, are
among the largest consumers
of criminal history record
information.
Federal justice assistance
grant programs also contribute to the Federal government’s central role in the
Nation’s criminal history record system. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ),
through the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS), the Bureau
of Justice Assistance (BJA),
and other Office of Justice
Programs (OJP) agencies,
annually provides millions of
dollars in grants to State and
local agencies to support and
enhance criminal history record systems, and to improve
criminal history record data
quality.

In addition, Congress has
enacted broad statutory requirements relating to criminal history records and data
quality applicable to State
and local agencies receiving
Federal grants; and the U.S.
DOJ, originally through its
Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration and, after its
demise in 1979, through BJS
and BJA, has issued regulations governing the collection, storage, and
dissemination of criminal
history record information by
State and local agencies.
In the past few years, the
Federal government has
launched several initiatives
that also have a material effect on how criminal history
records are maintained and
used at the local, State, and
Federal levels. This chapter
looks at the most important
of these initiatives.

Section 1: Federal
Bureau of
Investigation system
upgrades
The FBI has made significant
progress in a comprehensive
program to upgrade and revitalize its identification and
information services capabilities.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 91

This section looks at these
FBI initiatives:
• The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS).
• Relocation of the Criminal Justice Information
Services (CJIS) Division.
• National Crime Information Center (NCIC) 2000.
Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification
System
The completed IAFIS became operational on July 28,
1999. IAFIS includes FBI
facilities for automated storage and search of arrest fingerprints, as well as
telecommunication facilities
for the exchange of fingerprint images and related data
with State identification bureaus. IAFIS can respond to
identification requests submitted for criminal justice
purposes within 2 hours for
end-to-end electronic transmissions, and within 24 hours
for noncriminal justice endto-end electronic transmissions. The FBI estimates that
the quick turn-around will
prevent the release of an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 fugitives freed each year
because of delays in establishing their true identities
and warrant status.199 All
communication of fingerprint
image data will be conducted
using a national standard
format, which can also be
adopted by States to link
199

IAFIS Technical Bulletin, supra note 165.

Page 92

State identification bureaus
with local arrest booking
agencies. At $640 million,
IAFIS was the U.S. DOJ’s
largest financial undertaking
ever. In March 2001, of the
nearly 45,000 fingerprints
received by the FBI each day,
close to 60% of civil prints
and just over 50% of the
criminal fingerprints were
submitted electronically.200
Sixty-three percent of the
criminal prints and 10% of
the civil prints submitted
were matched with prints on
file.201
Criminal Justice
Information Services
Division relocation
Another key part of the FBI’s
modernization program was
the relocation of its CJIS Division from FBI headquarters
in Washington, D.C., to expanded and improved facilities in Clarksburg, West
Virginia, the largest relocation in the Bureau’s history.
The Clarksburg facility features approximately 500,000
square feet of workspace with
room for 2,500 employees at
the 986-acre site. FBI personnel began to move to the
new CJIS facility in 1995.202

National Crime
Information Center 2000
Another FBI initiative called
NCIC 2000 upgraded NCIC’s
legacy telecommunications
system and hardware to permit the paperless exchange of
information. In addition,
NCIC can now handle
graphic information, including mugshots, tattoos, and
signatures, in an electronic
imaging format. NCIC 2000
enhancements include nearhit capabilities for birth date
inquiries, and formulas for
conducting sound-alike name
searches, such as for
Knowles and Nowles, and for
name variations such as
James, Jim, and Jimmy.203
The upgraded system provides investigators with access to 17 databases,
including information on deported felons, missing persons, and stolen guns and
vehicles, and can identify
relationships between information in the databases, such
as between a stolen car and a
stolen gun.204 NCIC 2000
went on-line on July 11,
1999. As of May 1, 2000,
NCIC averaged more than
2.3 million transactions per
day.

200

Figures compiled by the FBI’s
CJIS Division.
201
Presentation by Mr. David R.
Loesch, Assistant Director in
Charge, CJIS Division, FBI, to the
SEARCH Membership Group, July
28, 2000, Honolulu, Hawaii.
202
Source: Federation of American Scientists’ Intelligence Resource Program, available at
http://www.fas.org/irp/facility/fbi
_clarksburg.htm.

203

Federal Bureau of Investigation, NCIC 2000: Improving Law
Enforcement Nationwide, revised
April 1999.
204
L. Scott Tillett, “FBI turns on
new crime-fighting system,”
Federal Computer Week, July 15,
1999.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Section 2: The Brady
Act and its impact
Background
On November 30, 1993,
President Clinton signed into
law the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public
Law 103-159), which facilitates background checks of
firearm purchasers to identify
persons who are prohibited
by the Gun Control Act of
1968 from owning or possessing firearms.205 The
Brady Act’s interim provisions imposed a 5-day waiting period on handgun
purchases, during which the
chief law enforcement officer
of the handgun purchaser’s
place of residence was required to make a reasonable
effort to determine whether
the gun sale was in accordance with the law.206
205

18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.
The Brady Act provision requiring local law enforcement officers to determine the legality of gun
sales was ruled unconstitutional by
the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27,
1997, in Printz v. United States (521
U.S. 898). The ruling resulted from
lawsuits filed by two sheriffs (Jay
Printz of Montana and Richard
Mack of Arizona) who argued that
the background check provision was
unconstitutional based on 10th
amendment protections given to the
States. (The 10th amendment states
that constitutional powers not given
to the Federal government nor explicitly removed from the States’
domain are reserved for the States
and the people.) District courts
hearing the cases ruled that the interim measures were unconstitutional but severable from the rest of
the Brady Act. The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled the interim
206

The Gun Control Act prohibits the purchase or possession
of firearms by individuals
who are under indictment for
or who have been convicted
of crimes punishable by
prison terms exceeding 1
year; fugitives from justice;
unlawful users of certain
controlled substances; persons adjudicated as mental
defectives; illegal or unlawful
aliens; persons discharged
dishonorably from the armed
forces; persons who have
renounced their United States
citizenship; persons who
have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic
violence; and certain persons
who are subject to outstanding court protection orders.207
The Brady Act’s permanent
provisions required the Attorney General to establish
within 5 years of its enactment a National Instant
Criminal Background Check
System (NICS) to expedite
determinations of the suitability for ownership of all
potential gun purchasers, at
which time the Act’s interim
provisions would expire.
National Instant Criminal
Background Check
System
The NICS became operational on November 30, 1998.
In most cases, NICS can pro-

vide a suitability determination within 30 seconds for
firearm purchases, although
the Brady Act provides for up
to 3 days for a response.
States have the option of
serving as Points of Contact
(POC) to conduct their own
criminal history background
checks, or they can hand the
responsibility for firearms
checks over to the FBI. As of
August 2001, 16 States
served as POCs for all firearm-purchase background
checks; 5 States that require
individuals to obtain permits
from criminal justice officials
before purchasing firearms
conducted the background
checks for handgun permits,
with the FBI handling longgun-purchase background
checks; 5 States conducted
background checks for handguns purchased directly from
dealers, with the FBI handling long-gun-purchase
background checks; and the
FBI conducted all background checks for 29
States.208 The 15 POC States
represent some of the Nation’s most populous, including California, Florida,
Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and
these POC States conduct
about one-half of all NICS
background checks.209
208

measures were constitutional. The
U.S. Supreme Court reversed that
ruling 5-4, stating that “Congress
cannot compel that States enact or
enforce a Federal regulatory program.”
207
Public Law 90-618.

Source: Ms. Lisa Vincent, Assistant Operations Manager, NICS.
209
Gun Control: Options for Improving the National Instant Criminal Background Check System,
GAO/GGD-00-56 (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. General Accounting
Office, April 2000).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 93

The FBI maintains two call
centers to respond to inquiries from Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) in non-POC
States seeking suitability determinations for prospective
firearm purchasers. Delayed
responses to such inquiries
are forwarded to the FBI for
further investigation. FFLs in
POC States conduct the suitability inquiries through a
designated state agency,
which contacts the FBI for a
search of III, NCIC and
NICS.
The system’s central database
taps into Federal criminal
history databases, including
NCIC and the Interstate
Identification Index (III), and
into databases maintained by
six other Federal agencies
that provide information on
military and immigration and
naturalization status. Once a
name is entered, the NICS
check is made against III records (including Federal
computerized criminal history records), the NCIC database (including wants and
warrants), and the NICS database. Based on the results
of the check, the dealer is
advised that the sale may
proceed, is denied or is delayed. Delayed sales are
transferred to an FBI analysis
center for further investigation, and FBI personnel call
the dealer with the results of
their investigation.
The FBI reported that, in the
first 13 months of NICS operation, approximately 72%
of the background checks it
Page 94

conducted for States that declined to serve as POCs resulted in immediate clearance
to transfer a weapon.210 It is
estimated that NICS conducts
up to 30,000 Federally mandated criminal history background checks on potential
gun buyers each day211 for a
community of approximately
60,000 Federally licensed
firearm dealers.212
Other Brady Act
provisions
The Brady Act also required
the Attorney General to expedite the upgrade and index
of State criminal history records in the Federal criminal
history record system maintained by the FBI; the development of hardware and
software to link State criminal history check systems to
NICS; and the FBI’s revitalization initiatives for technologically advanced
fingerprint and criminal records identification. The Act
also established a grant program, authorized at $200
million.

210

National Instant Criminal
Background Check System Operations Report (November 30, 1998December 31, 1999), CJIS Division,
FBI.
211
Science Applications International Corporation, 1999 Annual
Report, p. 39.
212
Science Applications International Corporation, “Criminal Justice Information Systems,” available
at http://www.saic.com/justice
/integrated.html.

Section 3: Federal
grant programs and
related initiatives
This section looks at:
• The National Criminal
History Improvement
Program.
• The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local
Law Enforcement Assistance Program 5% setaside.
• A law requiring States to
report alien convictions
to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
• The National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program.
• The National Technical
Assistance and Evaluation Program.
• Voluntary reporting standards promulgated by the
FBI and BJS.
The National Criminal
History Improvement
Program
— Background
The recognition of the role
played by accurate and complete criminal history in effective law enforcement that
resulted in the creation of the
National Criminal History
Improvement Program
(NCHIP) was evident when
its predecessor program, the
Criminal History Record Improvement (CHRI) Program,
was introduced in 1990.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

At the time, a task force appointed by the Attorney General to identify options for the
establishment of a national
felon identification system
cited the lack of complete
and accurate criminal history
records, at both the State and
Federal levels, as one of the
most significant impediments
to the implementation of a
point-of-sale system for the
identification of felons who
attempted to purchase firearms.
The task force recognized,
moreover, that incomplete
and inaccurate criminal history records frustrated not
only attempts to identify felons, but also the ability of
judges to make informed bail
and pretrial release decisions,
the ability of prosecutors to
charge repeat offenders under
tough career criminal statutes, and the ability of judges
and probation officers to
make intelligent sentencing
and post-confinement supervision decisions based on a
defendant’s criminal history
record.
One of the major components
of the Attorney General’s
efforts to develop a nationwide system to identify felons who attempted to
purchase firearms was the
announcement that discretionary grant funds authorized under the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 would be
allocated beginning in Fiscal
Year 1990 for grants to the
States for the specific purpose of improving and up-

dating their criminal history
record information systems.
The CHRI Program ultimately distributed more than
$27 million to all 50 States to
enhance State criminal history records by improving
quality and timeliness, to assist States in meeting new
standards for voluntary
criminal record information
reporting to the FBI, and to
overcome obstacles that
hampered the identification
of felons who attempted to
purchase firearms. The CHRI
Program was discontinued
after Fiscal Year 1993.
NCHIP, its successor program, was instituted 2 years
later.
— Creation of the
program
The Brady Act authorized a
grant program to be administered by BJS to provide
funds for all states to upgrade
records and interface with the
FBI. As a result of the
authorization in 1995, BJS
created the National Criminal
History Improvement Program (NCHIP). NCHIP was
designed to enhance the
quality, completeness, and
accessibility of the Nation’s
criminal history record system to facilitate the timely
identification of individuals
prohibited by the Brady Act
from owning or possessing
firearms; to ensure that individuals caring for children,
elders, and the disabled did
not have disqualifying criminal histories, as mandated by
the National Child Protection

Act of 1993;213 and to improve access to protection
orders and records of individuals wanted for stalking
and domestic violence, as
required by the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.214
In 1998, NCHIP was extended to help States improve
criminal history record accuracy and dissemination capabilities in response to Federal
directives to develop or improve sex offender registries
and to contribute data to a
national sex offender registry.215 Twenty-five million
dollars were allocated for this
purpose. States could use the
money to automate registries
or to enhance automation, to
improve on-line access for
law enforcement agencies
throughout their States, to
purchase automated fingerprint systems, and for a host
of other improvements.
NCHIP is closely coordinated
with the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program, a BJA
213

P.L. 103-209, 107 Stat. 1536
(1993).
214
P.L. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796
(1994).
215
The Jacob Wetterling Crimes
Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, included in the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(42 U.S.C. § 14071); the Pam
Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking
and Identification Act of 1996 (42
U.S.C. § 14072); and the Federal
version of “Megan’s Law,” enacted
in 1996 to amend the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994 (P.L. 104-145, 100 Stat.
1345).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 95

program that requires that
States must use at least 5% of
their awards for the improvement of criminal history
records. Every State has received an award from
NCHIP, which has disbursed
more than $354 million in
direct grants to the States
during Fiscal Years 1995
through 2001.

•

— Purposes for using
grants

•

In its program announcement,
BJS identified the following
goals for which Federal
NCHIP grants to the States
could be used:
• To establish programs
and systems to facilitate
full participation in the
NCIC’s III.
• To implement systems to
facilitate full participation in any compact relating to NCIC’s III.
• To develop systems to
facilitate full NICS participation.
• To establish programs to
support the availability of
criminal record data for
authorized noncriminal
justice purposes, including background checks
on persons with responsibility for children, the
elderly, or the disabled.
• To ensure that noncriminal history record information systems relevant
to firearms eligibility
determinations become
available and accessible
to NICS.

Page 96

•

•

•

•

•

To improve the level of
automation, accuracy,
completeness, and flagging of adult and juvenile
records, including arrest
and disposition reporting.
To implement and upgrade automated fingerprint identification
systems (AFIS) and to
purchase supporting
livescan equipment.
To support the development of accurate and
complete State sex offender identification and
registration systems that
interface with the FBI’s
Sex Offender Registry
and meet applicable Federal and State requirements.
To identify, classify,
collect, and maintain records of protection orders, warrants, arrests,
and convictions of persons violating protection
orders so as to protect
victims of stalking and
domestic violence.
To identify (through interface with the National
Incident-Based Reporting
System (NIBRS) when
necessary) records of
crimes involving use of a
handgun and/or abuse of
children, the elderly, or
disabled persons.
To participate in system
integration plans that
permit interface of systems operated by different criminal justice
components.
To support court-based
criminal justice informa-

tion systems that promote
disposition reporting.
To establish domestic
violence offender identification and information
systems.
To ensure that States develop the capability to
monitor and assess State
progress in meeting legislative and programmatic goals.
To ensure that criminal
justice systems are designed, implemented, or
upgraded to be compatible, where applicable,
with NIBRS, NCIC 2000,
NICS, IAFIS, and applicable statewide or regional criminal justice
information sharing standards and plans.216

•

•

•

— Data quality, system
improvement strategies
BJS identified a number of
proven data quality and system improvement strategies
and authorized States to use
NCHIP grant funds to implement these strategies. Specifically, the BJS guidelines
authorized funds for the following types of programs:217
• III participation.
• Database enhancement.
• Record flagging.
• NICS participation.
216

National Criminal History Improvement Program Fiscal Year
1999 Program Announcement, NCJ
175033 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, February 1999)
pp. 3-4.
217
Ibid.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

Firearm permits.
National Sex Offender
Registry participation.
To improve on-line law
enforcement access to
sex offender registry
data.
Protection order file participation.
Interface between criminal history records, sex
offender registry, and
civil protection order
files.
Uniform rap sheet format.
Year 2000 compliance.
Record automation.
AFIS/Livescan acquisition and upgrade.
Establish mug shot identification capability.
NIBRS interface.
Research, evaluation,
monitoring, and audits.
Conversion of juvenile
records to the adult system.
Reduction of missing
dispositions backlog.
Equipment upgrades.
Training and participation in seminars and
meetings.
Reducing cost of background checks.
Coordinating activities
under this program with
the implementation of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service’s new
criminal records reporting program.

— Status of the program
As noted previously, more
than $354 million has been
distributed directly to the
States in connection with
NCHIP since 1995. In Fiscal
Year 2001, almost $40 million was awarded to States
under the Crime Identification Technology Act to cover
NCHIP activities. In FY
2001, 27 States received
funds to acquire or upgrade
AFIS and supporting livescan
technology. Thirty-six States
received funds to increase the
number of criminal history
records with dispositions in
their repositories, either
through automation, backlog
reduction, or integration. In
28 of those States, funds were
awarded directly to the
courts. Other projects being
pursued by States to improve
the quality of their criminal
history records include automation, technological upgrades, flagging,
Internet/Intranet use, document imaging, case tracking,
business plan development,
training, increase in support
personnel, and information
auditing.218
Bureau of Justice
Assistance block grant
set-aside program
The Congress also recognized the importance of improving the quality and
completeness of State crimi-

nal history record systems by
including a provision in the
Crime Control Act of 1990
that requires each State to set
aside at least 5% of its Edward Byrne Memorial State
and Local Law Enforcement
block grant monies from BJA
for the improvement of
criminal justice records.219
The improvements may include the following:
• Completion of criminal
histories to include final
dispositions of all felony
arrests.
• Full automation of all
criminal history and fingerprint records.
• Increasing the frequency
and quality of criminal
history records sent to the
FBI.
Section 106(a) of the Brady
Act and Section 4(a) of the
National Child Protection
Act amended Section 509 of
the Crime Control Act of
1990 to make system improvements that are in furtherance of the acts’ goals
additional purposes of the
criminal justice record improvement goals of the setaside program.
— Fund guidelines
BJA, which administers the
Byrne grant program, has
issued guidelines for the expenditure of the 5% set-aside

218

Status information provided by
the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice, available at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

219

Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat.
4850 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §
3759(a)).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 97

funds.220 The guidelines require every State to take the
following actions before
spending any of its set-aside
funds:
• Establish a criminal
justice records improvement task force.
• Conduct an assessment of
the completeness and
quality of criminal history records within the
State.
• Identify the reasons why
criminal history records
are incomplete or inaccurate.
• Develop a records improvement plan, which
must be approved by
BJA.
The 5% minimum set-aside
applied to funds appropriated
beginning in Fiscal Year
1992 and all subsequent
yearly formula grants
awarded under the Byrne
grant program.
BJA’s guidelines provide that
set-aside funds may be used
for other innovative purposes,
such as the development of
law enforcement incidentbased reporting systems. The
Director of BJA, at the request of a State, may waive
the 5% set-aside upon a
finding, supported by an independent audit, that the
quality of the State’s criminal
220

U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Byrne
Formula Grant Program Guidelines
and Application Kit, available at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA
/html/bfguide.htm.

Page 98

history records meets standards set out in the guidelines.
The National Technical
Assistance and
Evaluation Program
Under this NCHIP component, BJS has funded a grant
to SEARCH, The National
Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, to
provide onsite and telephone
assistance to States that have
received funds to assist in
upgrading record systems.
Requests for such assistance
must be originated by the
agency receiving BJS funding, although it may be provided to an alternate agency
designated by the grant recipient. NCHIP technical assistance has aided States’
efforts to participate in III,
reviewed and made recommendations on computerized
criminal history systems, and
provided advice on information audits and automated
fingerprint system.
Reporting alien
convictions to the
Immigration and
Naturalization Service
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 requires
each State, as a condition of
receiving formula funds under the Edward Byrne block
grant program, to implement
procedures to provide the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) with certified copies of criminal
history records of aliens convicted of violating the State’s

criminal laws.221 The records
had to be provided to INS
within 30 days of the conviction date, and the State could
not charge a fee for such records.
The reporting provision in the
Immigration Act was designed to assist both INS and
State and local governments
in dealing with criminal aliens. For INS, the provision
assists in the prompt identification of aliens who have
committed offenses for which
they can be deported. INS
estimates that more than 10%
of the inmates currently in
State prisons are foreignborn. Once released from
prison, these offenders may
be deported, thus reducing
the likelihood of recidivist
behavior in this country. The
States also save court and
correctional supervision costs
as a result of the deportation
of alien offenders who are
convicted but not yet sentenced.
In 1991, Congress further
amended the Immigration Act
to reduce the reporting burden on State and local law
enforcement agencies imposed by the 1990 law. As
amended, the law now permits the States to provide
INS initially with a notice of
the conviction of a suspected
221

Immigration and Nationality
Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649,
104 Stat. 4978 (November 29,
1990), which amended § 503(a) of
the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (codified as
42 U.S.C. § 3753(a)(11)).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

alien and to provide a certified copy of the conviction
record later, if requested by
INS.222 The amendment also
permits States to provide
copies of conviction records
in the most convenient format
to the States, ranging from
paper records held by the
courts to electronic documentation maintained by the
State central repositories.
Sex Offender Registry
Assistance
A component of NCHIP, the
National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program
(NSOR-AP), established in
FY 1998, was designed to
support the establishment and
maintenance of an effective
national sex offender registry.
Funding for sex offender
registry assistance has been
provided under general
NCHIP since FY 1999. Although all States have registries in place, many cannot
share accurate information
efficiently. Therefore, sex
offender registry assistance
was designed to help States
ensure that:
• State sex offender
registries identify, collect, and properly disseminate relevant
information that is con222

H.R. 3049 — The Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and
Naturalization Service Amendments
Act of 1991, amending § 503 (a)(11)
of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, as added
by § 507 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1990 (December
18, 1991).

•

sistent, accurate, complete, and up to date.
States establish appropriate interfaces with the
FBI’s national system so
that State registry information on sex offenders
can be obtained and
tracked from one jurisdiction to another.

Federal Bureau of
Investigation/Bureau of
Justice Statistics
voluntary reporting
standards
The Attorney General’s recommendations to the Congress regarding the
development of a system for
the identification of felons
who attempted to purchase
firearms included an announcement that the FBI, in
conjunction with BJS, would
develop voluntary standards
to encourage the States to
improve disposition reporting
and otherwise improve their
criminal history records.
In making this announcement, the Attorney General
noted that the current state of
criminal history records
among the States was not
sufficiently advanced to facilitate the development of a
national system for the immediate and accurate identification of felons: No one list
of felons existed. In addition,
many of the criminal history
records maintained by law
enforcement were either outof-date or incomplete, or
both. Finally, records often
contained arrest information

without notification of a final
disposition.223
After publication of a draft of
the voluntary standards in
March 1990, and review by
the FBI’s Advisory Policy
Board, SEARCH and other
interested organizations, the
FBI and BJS published the
final “Recommended Voluntary Standards for Improving
the Quality of Criminal
Record Information” on February 13, 1991.224 The complete text of the standards is
set out in appendix 20.
In brief, the standards:
• Set minimum requirements for the content of
arrest and disposition reports submitted to the repositories and to the FBI,
and establish minimum
reporting time frames.
• Provide for the maintenance of fingerprints to
support all criminal history records maintained
by the repositories and
for the submission of fingerprints to the FBI for
inclusion in the national
system.
• Provide for the flagging
of felonies in criminal
history databases and in
disposition reports submitted to the repositories
and to the FBI.
223

Letter from Attorney General
Richard Thornburgh to the Honorable Thomas S. Foley, Speaker of
the U.S. House of Representatives,
November 20, 1989.
224
FBI and BJS, U.S. Department
of Justice, 56 Federal Register 5849
(February 13, 1991).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Page 99

•

Provide for annual audits
of criminal history record
systems and for security
measures to protect
criminal history record
information from unauthorized access, modification, or destruction.

The commentary accompanying the standards stated
that the intent was to emphasize enhanced recordkeeping
for arrests and convictions
occurring within the 5-year
period prior to publication of
the standards and in the future. The commentary noted
that the standards were voluntary and that adoption by
criminal history record systems nationwide should be
viewed as a goal and not as a
requirement. Nevertheless,
the standards were widely
accepted as representing a
consensus of informed
thought on the subject of record maintenance and data
quality, and compliance with
the standards has been incorporated as a major goal of
virtually all of the States’
criminal history record improvement plans.

Page 100

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 1
“Statutes making possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a criminal offense”
Table 10 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 1 • Page 101

Table 10
Statutes making possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a criminal offense
State

Citation

Prohibited
weapons*

If previously
convicted of

Penalty
(or offense level)

United States

18-922(g), 924

Firearm or ammunition
shipped in interstate
commerce

Any felony**

Up to 10 years or $5,000
fine, or both

Alabama

13A-11-72, 84

Pistols

Crime of violence or
attempt

Up to five years

Alaska

11.61.200

Concealable firearm

Any felony within five
years***

Class C felony

Arizona

13-3101, 3102

Firearm or lethal weapon

Violent felony or
possession of deadly
weapon

Class 6 felony

Arkansas

5-73-103

Firearm

Any felony

Class D felony

California

P. C. § 12021

Firearm

Any felony

Felony

P. C. § 12560

Firearm

Felony with firearm

Up to $1,000 fine or one
year, or both

Colorado

18-12-108

Firearm or deadly
weapon

Burglary, arson or felony
involving violence or
deadly weapon within 10
years

Class 5 felony; second or
subsequent offense is
class 4 felony

Connecticut

53a-217

Handgun or electric stun
gun

Capital felony or other
serious felony

Class D felony (must
serve two years)

Delaware

11-1448

Deadly weapon

Felony, crime of
violence or certain drug
offenses.

Class E felony

District of Columbia

22-3203, 22-3215

Pistol

Felony, pandering,
bawdy house or
vagrancy

Up to $1,000 fine or one
year, or both.

Florida

790.23

Firearm or electric stun
gun

Felony

Second degree felony

Hawaii

134-7(b), (f)

Firearm or ammunition

Crime of violence or
drug trafficking

Class B felony

Illinois

38-24-1.1

Firearm, ammunition or
other dangerous weapon

Any felony

Class 3 felony

Iowa

724.26

Firearm or offensive
weapon

Any felony

Aggravated
misdemeanor

Kansas

21.42041

Firearm with barrel
under 12"

Any felony within five
years

Class D felony

Kentucky

527.040

Handgun

Any felony

Class D felony

Louisiana

14:95.1

Firearm

Enumerated serious
felonies within 10 years

$3,000-5,000 fine and
three to 10 years without
probation or parole

Maine

15-393

Firearm

Felony or any offense
with dangerous weapon
or firearm

Class C crime

* The statutes uniformly criminalize owning or possessing specified, prohibited weapons. Some statutes also prohibit buying, concealing, transporting, carrying or using or
intending to use such weapons.
** The Federal law defines “felony” as a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
*** The statutes that apply only to crimes committed within specified time periods prior to the new offense usually calculate the time from the date of the earlier crime or the
date of release from supervision resulting from any sentence imposed for the earlier crime, whichever is later.

Page 102 • Appendix 1

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Table 10 (cont.)
Statutes making possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a criminal offense
State
Maryland

Citation
Art. 27 § 445(c)

Prohibited
weapons*
Handgun

If previously
convicted of

Penalty
(or offense level)

Crime of violence,
weapon violation or drug
violation

Misdemeanor. Up to
$5,000 fine or three
years, or both

Art. 27-374, 375

Machine gun

Crime of violence

Felony. Up to 10 years

Minnesota

624.713

Pistol

Crime of violence within
10 years or drug offense

Felony

Mississippi

97-37-5

Deadly weapon

Felony

Felony. One to five
years

Missouri

571.070

Concealable firearm

Dangerous felony within
five years

Class C felony

Montana

45-8-316

Deadly weapon

Any felony

$1,000 fine or up to five
years, or both

Nebraska

28-1206

Firearm with barrel
under 18" or brass
knuckles

Any felony

Class IV felony

Nevada

202.360

Firearm

Any felony

$5,000 fine and one to
six years

202.380

Tear gas bomb or
weapon

Felony drug offense or
other enumerated serious
felonies

Felony

New Hampshire

159:3

Firearm or dangerous
weapon

Any felony

Class B felony

New Jersey

2C:39-7

Firearm or other lethal
weapon

Enumerated serious
offenses or drug offense

Fourth degree crime

New Mexico

30-7-16

Firearm

Any felony within 10
years

Misdemeanor

New York

Pen. Law § 265.01

Rifle or shotgun

Felony or serious offense

Class A misdemeanor

Pen. Law § 265.02

Firearm

Felony or class A
misdemeanor within five
years

Class D felony

North Carolina

14-415.1

Handgun or firearm with
barrel under 18" or
overall length under 26"
or any weapon of mass
death and destruction

Enumerated felonies and
serious offenses within
five years

Class 1 felony

North Dakota

62.1-02-01

Firearm

Violent felony within 10
years or any other felony
or misdemeanor
involving violence or use
of firearm or dangerous
weapon within five years

Class C felony

Ohio

2923.13

Firearm or dangerous
ordnance

Violent felony or drug
offense

Fourth degree felony

Oklahoma

21-1283, 84

Concealable firearm

Any felony

Felony

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 1 • Page 103

Table 10 (cont.)
Statutes making possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a criminal offense
State

Citation

Prohibited weapons*

If previously
convicted of
Felony involving firearm
or switchblade knife
within 15 years

Penalty
(or offense level)
Class C felony

Oregon

166.270

Firearm or enumerated
dangerous weapons

Pennsylvania

18-6105, 6119

Firearm

Crime of violence

First degree
misdemeanor

Rhode Island

11-47-5

Firearm

Crime of violence

Two to 10 years without
probation

South Carolina

16-23-30, 50

Pistol

Crime of violence

Felony

Tennessee

39-17-1307

Firearm, club, knife with
blade over 4"

Violent felony or felony
with deadly weapon
within five years

Class E felony

Texas

Pen. Code § 46.05

Firearm

Violent felony

Third degree felony

Utah

76-10-503

Firearm or dangerous
weapon

Crime of violence

Felony (level depends on
circumstances)

Virgin Islands

14-2253(a)

Firearm

Felony

Up to 15 years and
$12,000 fine depending
on type of weapon

Virginia

18.2-308.2

Firearm or enumerated
dangerous weapons

Felony

Class 6 felony

Washington

9.41.040

Pistol or firearm with
barrel under 12"

Violent crime, felony
with firearm or felony
drug offense

Class C felony

West Virginia

61-7-7

Firearm or other deadly
weapon

Felony

Misdemeanor. 90 days
to a year or fine or both

Wisconsin

941.29

Firearm

Felony

Class E felony

Wyoming

6-8-102

Firearm

Violent felony or attempt

Felony

Page 104 • Appendix 1

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 2
“Statutes requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions”
Excerpt of table 2 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 2 • Page 105

Table 2
Statutes* requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions
(Note: States which do not have statutes requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions are omitted from the table.)

State

Citation

Statutory provision
(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

United States (Federal)

18 USC § 3142(e)(1); (f)1;
(g)(3)(A)

Bail considerations may include criminal history and record of
appearance; rebuttable presumption of denial of bail if previously
convicted of crime of violence or enumerated serious offenses or
combination of offenses.

Alabama

Rules Judic. Admin., R. 2

Bail factors shall include evidence of prior convictions.

Rules Crim. Proc., R. 7.2

Courts may impose conditions of release to secure appearance or to
protect the public based upon, among other things, defendant’s prior
criminal record.

Alaska

12.30.020(c)(8)

Factors affecting conditions of release shall include the person’s record
of convictions and record of appearance.

Arizona

13-3967(C)

Factors affecting method of release or amount of bail shall include
person’s record of arrests and convictions and appearance at court
proceedings.

Const., art. II, § 22

Provides for denial of bail for felony offenses committed while on bail
for a prior felony offense.

Arkansas

Rule Crim. Proc., R. 9.2

Factors affecting amount of bail shall include person’s prior criminal
record and history of response to legal process.

California

Pen. Code § 1275

Bail factors shall include defendant’s previous criminal record.

Colorado

16-4-101 et seq.

Factors affecting bail amount or denial of bail on grounds of public
danger shall include defendant’s prior criminal record and record of
appearance.

Const. art. 2, §§ 19, 20

Authorizes denial of bail on grounds of dangerousness for persons
charged with crimes of violence committed while on release, parole or
probation or who have specified prior felony convictions.

Connecticut

54-63b

Release criteria shall include defendant’s prior criminal record and
record of appearance. Bail commissioner’s report shall include
defendant’s prior criminal record.

Delaware

11-2105(b)

Bail factors shall include defendant’s prior criminal record and record of
appearance.

District of Columbia

23-1303

Bail agency report to judicial officer shall include defendant’s prior
criminal record.

23-1321(b)

Judicial bail determinations regarding imposition of release conditions
shall be based upon, among other things, defendant’s record of
convictions and record of appearance.

23-1322

Authorizes pretrial detention to protect public based upon, among other
things, defendant’s prior criminal history.

903.046(2)(d)

Bail factors shall include defendant’s record of convictions and record
of appearance. Prior record of failure to appear renders defendant
ineligible for some types of bond.

907.041

Authorizes pretrial detention to protect public, based upon, among other
factors, specified previous convictions, previous violations of release, or
commission of a dangerous crime while on probation, parole or release.

17-6-1

Prohibits bail, except upon order of Superior Court, of persons charged
with enumerated serious felonies who have previously been convicted of
such a felony or who committed the new offense while on probation,
parole or bail for such a felony.

Florida

Georgia

*Including constitutional provisions or court rules.
Page 106 • Appendix 2

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Table 2 (cont.)
Statutes* requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions
(Note: States which do not have statutes requiring or permitting prior criminal records to be considered in bail decisions are omitted from the table.)

State

Citation

Statutory provision
(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Hawaii

804.3

Rebuttable presumption of danger to community (and denial of bail) if
defendant has been convicted of a crime of violence during previous 10
years, or if defendant was on bail, probation or parole for a violent felony
charge at time of arrest.

Illinois

38-110-5(a)

Bail factors shall include defendant’s record of convictions and
delinquency adjudications, and whether defendant is already on bail or
under supervision.

Indiana

35-33-8-4

Factors relevant to release on bail (and bail amount) shall include
defendant’s criminal or juvenile record and record of non-appearance.

Iowa

811.2

Bail considerations shall include defendant’s record of convictions and
record of appearance or flight.

Kansas

22-2802(4)

Pretrial bail considerations shall include defendant’s record of convictions
and appearance or non-appearance or flight, and whether defendant is on
parole.

Kentucky

431.525

Amount of bail shall be considerate of the past criminal acts of the
defendant.

Louisiana

Code Crim. Proc., art. 317

Factors in determining amount of bail shall include the defendant’s
previous criminal record.

Art. 317.1

Magistrate setting bail may apply to juvenile court for defendant’s
juvenile abstract.

15-1026.4

Pretrial bailsetting official shall consider defendant’s criminal record and
record of appearance and whether defendant is on probation or parole or
other supervision.

15-1051.2

Same factors shall be considered in post-conviction bail determinations.

Art. 27, § 616 1/2(c)

Rebuttable presumption of bail denial for person charged with
enumerated serious offenses committed while on bail for prior
enumerated serious offenses.

Art. 27, § 616 1/2(d)

No personal recognizance for person charged with enumerated serious
offenses if previously convicted of such an offense.

Massachusetts

276-58

Bail factors shall include defendant’s record of convictions and record of
failure to appear or flight, and whether defendant already is on bail,
parole, probation or other form of supervision.

Michigan

Const., art. 1, § 15

Permits denial of bail for persons charged with violent felonies if
convicted of two or more violent felonies within previous 15 years, and
persons charged with violent felonies while on bail, probation or parole
for previous violent felony.

765.6

Amount of bail shall reflect the defendant’s previous criminal record.

Const., art. 1 § 15

Bail may be denied for person charged with a violent felony who has been
convicted of two violent felonies within previous 15 years or who was
already on bail, parole or probation in connection with a violent felony
charge or conviction.

Minnesota

Rules Crim. Proc., R. 6.02(2)

Release condition factors shall include defendant’s record of convictions
and record of appearance or flight.

Mississippi

99-3-18

Release factors concerning a person arrested for a misdemeanor shall
include prior arrest record.

Maine

Maryland

*Including constitutional provisions or court rules.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 2 • Page 107

Appendix 3
“Statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to
enhanced terms as career criminals or habitual criminals”
Excerpt of table 5 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 3 • Page 109

Table 5
Statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to
enhanced terms as career criminals or habitual criminals
(Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to enhanced terms as career or habitual criminals are omitted from the table.)

State

Citation

Statutory provision
(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

28 U.S.C. §§ 994(h)

Provides that sentencing guidelines shall ensure substantial prison terms
for persons who commit crimes of violence and have two or more
previous felony convictions for crimes of violence or serious drug
offenses.

Sentencing Guidelines §4B1.1

Provides for sentencing of career offenders (as defined above) at the
maximum criminal history category level, which substantially increases
the maximum and minimum sentences.

13A-5-9

Provides for enhanced punishment for persons who commit felonies after
committing prior felonies, ranging from one grade level enhancement for
persons who have one prior felony conviction to life imprisonment
without parole for persons who have three prior felonies and commit
another class A felony.

13A-12-231

Provides for sentencing under the recidivist statute of persons who
commit serious drug offenses after one or more prior felony convictions.

32-5A-191

Repeat DUI offenders. Provides for sentencing to increasingly enhanced
fines and jail terms based on number of prior DUI convictions within
specified time periods.

Alaska

12.55.155

Provides for sharply enhanced sentencing for aggravating factors,
including prior felony convictions or repeated offenses similar to the
instant offense.

Arizona

13-604

Dangerous and repetitive offenders. Provides for enhanced sentences for
repetitive offenders up to five times the normal sentence, with limited
parole eligibility, based upon the seriousness of the offense charged and
the number and seriousness of prior offenses.

13-604.01

Dangerous crimes against children. Provides for enhanced sentences, up
to life imprisonment without parole, for persons who commit enumerated
offenses against children and who have prior convictions for such
offenses.

5-4-501

Provides for sentencing of habitual offenders to enhanced terms, up to
life imprisonment for persons with four or more prior felonies, depending
on the seriousness of the present offense and the number of prior felony
convictions.

16-90-202

Provides that persons who commit murder, rape, carnal abuse or
kidnapping and who have two or more prior convictions for any such
offenses shall be deemed habitual criminals and sentenced to life
imprisonment, if the death penalty does not apply.

California

Pen. Code 667.7

Provides for enhanced sentences as habitual offenders for persons who
commit violent felonies and who have served two or more previous
sentences for violent or serious offenses within the previous 10 years.

Colorado

16-13-101

Provides that persons convicted of felonies who have previously been
convicted of two felonies within the past 10 years or three felonies at any
time shall be adjudged to be habitual offenders and sentenced to 25-50
years (two previous felonies) or life imprisonment (three or more
previous felonies), if not sentenced to death.

Connecticut

53a-40

Provides for enhanced sentences for persistent dangerous felony
offenders, persistent serious felony offenders, persistent larceny offenders
and persistent felony offenders, depending on the offense charged and the
number and nature of prior convictions and sentences.

United States (Federal)

Alabama

Arkansas

Page 110 • Appendix 3

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Table 5 (cont.)
Statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to
enhanced terms as career criminals or habitual criminals
(Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing sentencing of persistent recidivists to enhanced terms as career or habitual criminals are omitted from the table.)

State

Citation

Statutory provision
(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Delaware

11-4214

Provides for enhanced penalties for persons convicted for the third time of
enumerated serious felonies (mandatory life imprisonment if death is not
imposed) or for the fourth time of any felony offense (up to life
imprisonment).

District of Columbia

22-104a

Provides for enhanced sentences up to life imprisonment for persons
convicted for the third time of felony offenses.

Florida

775.084 et seq.

Provides for enhanced penalties (up to life without parole) for habitual
felony offenders (two or more previous felonies) and habitual violent
felony offenders (previous violent felony conviction). Requires law
enforcement agencies to employ enhanced law enforcement management
efforts and resources for investigation, apprehension and prosecution of
career criminals.

Georgia

17-10-7(b)

Provides that persons convicted of fourth felony must be given maximum
term and cannot be paroled.

Hawaii

706-606.5

Provides for enhanced sentences (up to 30 years imprisonment) for
persons with prior felonies within specified periods, depending on the
seriousness of the charged offense and the number of prior felony
convictions.

706-661, 662

Provides for enhanced penalties (up to life) for persistent offenders (two
or more previous felonies) and professional criminals.

845-1 et seq.

Establishes a career criminal prosecution program to provide additional
financial and technical resources for the prosecution of persons with prior
convictions of designated types within specified periods.

Idaho

19-2514

Provides for mandatory prison terms of five years to life for persistent
violators - persons who have three or more felony convictions.

Illinois

38-33B-1

Provides for mandatory life terms, if death penalty is not imposed, for
persons who commit violent offenses and who have two or more prior
convictions for violent offenses within 20 years.

Indiana

35-50-2-7.1, -8

Provides for adding eight to 30 years to normal sentences for habitual
felony offenders who have two or more prior felony convictions,
depending on the crime charged, the nature of the previous offenses and
the time period during which they were committed.

35-50-2-10

Provides for enhanced terms of three to eight additional years for habitual
drug offenders - those with two or more drug offense convictions within
specified periods.

Iowa

902.8, 9

Provides for mandatory minimum prison terms for persons convicted of
designated felonies who have two or more felony convictions.

Kansas

21-4504

Provides for sentences of up to twice the prescribed minimum and
maximum sentences for persons convicted for the second time for a
felony offense and for up to three times the prescribed minimum and
maximum for persons convicted of three or more felonies.

Kentucky

532.080

Provides for enhanced prison terms for persistent felony offenders - those
who have one or more prior felony convictions within specified periods.
Sentences range from the next highest degree of offense to life, depending
on the seriousness of the present offense and the number of prior felonies.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 3 • Page 111

Appendix 4
“Statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions”
Excerpt of table 3 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 4 • Page 113

Table 3
Statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions
(Note: States which do not have statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State

Citation

Statutory provision
(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Alabama

13A-12-213

Second offense of simple possession of marijuana is class C felony.

Alaska

11.46.130

Theft of property of value of $50 - $500 is class C felony if person has
been convicted and sentenced for theft or concealment offenses twice
within the previous five years.

11.46.140

Theft of property of value of less than $50 is a class A misdemeanor if the
person has been convicted and sentenced for theft or concealment
offenses twice within previous five years.

11.46.220

Concealment of stolen merchandise by a person who has been convicted
and sentenced for the same offense twice within the previous five years is
a class C felony if the value of the property is $50 to $500, and is a class
A misdemeanor if the property is a value under $50.

11.46.484

Criminal mischief involving property valued at $50 - $500 is a class A
misdemeanor, but if the person has been convicted of criminal mischief
within the previous seven years, the offense is a class C felony.

11.71.010

Drug misconduct is an unclassified felony if the criminal offense is a
felony and is part of a continuing series of at least five drug violations
undertaken with at least five other persons supervised by the offender.

13-1406.01

First offense of sexual assault of a spouse is a class 6 felony; subsequent
offenses are class 2 felonies.

13-3410

Serious drug offenders (those who commit serious drug offenses as part
of a pattern of at least three related drug violations) shall be sentenced to
life imprisonment.

13-3415

Consideration of whether an object is prohibited drug paraphernalia shall
include, among other factors, any prior drug convictions of person owning
or controlling the object.

28-692.01.E

Person convicted of a second driving under the influence of drugs or
alcohol (DUI) violation within 60 months is guilty of a class 1
misdemeanor. A third or subsequent violation is a class 5 felony.

Pen. Code § 666

Person convicted of petty theft after previous conviction for theft, robbery
or burglary shall be sentenced to up to one year in county jail.

Pen. Code § 313.4

Person convicted of distribution or exhibition of harmful matter to minor
is punishable by up to $2,000 fine or up to one year in jail or both.
Subsequent offense is punishable as a felony by imprisonment in state
prison.

Pen. Code § 314

Indecent exposure is punishable by up to one year in jail. Subsequent
offense is punishable as a felony and imprisonment in state prison.

12-22-127

First offense of violation of provisions relating to druggists and sale of
drugs is a class 2 misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense is a class 6
felony.

18-12-108

First offense of possession of firearm by convicted felon is a class 5
felony. Second or subsequent offense is a class 4 felony.

Arizona

California

Colorado

Page 114 • Appendix 4

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Table 3 (cont.)
Statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions
(Note: States which do not have statutes providing for upgraded charges for offenders with prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State

Citation

Statutory provision
(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Connecticut

53a-40

Provides for sentencing of persons with designated prior convictions as
(1) a persistent dangerous felony offender (class A felony), (2) a
persistent serious felony offender (next most serious degree of felony), (3)
a persistent larceny offender (class D felony) or (4) a persistent felony
offender (next most serious degree of felony).

Delaware

Senate Bill No. 58, July 1,
1989, Truth in Sentencing Act

Classifies offenses for sentencing purposes, including some offenses
upgraded based on prior convictions.

Georgia

16-5-45

Interference with child custody. First offense is a misdemeanor; second
offense is upgraded misdemeanor; third offense is a felony.

16-8-14

Shoplifting. First offense is a misdemeanor; second offense is an
upgraded misdemeanor with mandatory fine; third offense is an upgraded
misdemeanor with mandatory jail term; fourth or subsequent offense is a
felony.

16-11-126

Carrying concealed weapon. First offense is a misdemeanor; second or
subsequent offense is a felony.

16-11-128

Carrying a firearm without a license. First offense is a misdemeanor;
second or subsequent offense is a felony.

Idaho

18-8005

DUI. First offense is a misdemeanor with possible fine and jail term;
second offense within five years is a misdemeanor with mandatory jail
term; third or subsequent offense within five years is a felony.

Illinois

23-2355

Child endangerment. First offense is a class A misdemeanor; second or
subsequent offense is a class 4 felony.

38-11-14

Prostitution. First and second offenses are misdemeanors; third and
subsequent offenses are felonies.

38-11-20

Obscenity is a class A misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense is a
class 4 felony.

38-12-15

Criminal sexual abuse is a class A misdemeanor; second or subsequent
offense is a class 2 felony.

38-16-1

Theft of property not exceeding $300 in value is a class A misdemeanor,
but if the offender has previously been convicted of theft, robbery,
burglary, possession of burglary tools or home invasion, the offense is a
class 4 felony.

38-24-1

Unlawful use of weapons. First offense for carrying or possessing an
unlawful weapon is a class A misdemeanor; a second or subsequent
violation is a class 4 felony.

38-28-3

Keeping a gambling place. First offense is a class C misdemeanor; a
second or subsequent offense is a class 4 felony.

38-33A-3

Commission of a felony with a category II weapon is a class 2 felony; a
second or subsequent violation is a class 1 felony.

38-37-1

Maintaining a public nuisance. First offense is a class A misdemeanor;
second or subsequent offense is a class 4 felony.

56 1/2-1406

Controlled substance offenses. First offenses are class A misdemeanors;
second and subsequent offenses are class 4 felonies.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 4 • Page 115

Appendix 5
“Statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions”
Excerpt of table 4 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 5 • Page 117

Table 4
Statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions
(Note: States which do not have statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State

Citation

Statutory provision
(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

United States (Federal)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Page 118 • Appendix 5

18-924(c)

Firearms violations. Provides for enhanced sentences for second and
subsequent offenses involving crimes of violence or drug trafficking
committed with a firearm. First offender gets five years (30 if the weapon
is a machine gun or is equipped with a silencer); second and subsequent
offenders get 20 years (machine guns or silencer: life without release).

18-841(h)

Use of explosives to commit a felony. First offense - one to 10 years;
second or subsequent offenses - five to 25 years with no suspension or
probation.

28-991 et seq.

Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Provides for sentence enhancements for
all except minor offenses based upon seriousness of the offense and prior
criminal record.

15-18-9

Repeat felony offenders. Second or subsequent class B or C felony
offenses are increased by one level of degree; second or subsequent class
A felony offenses are punishable by 15 years to life.

13A-5-49

Capital offenses. Provides that aggravating circumstances supporting
death sentence shall include fact that offender has previously been
convicted of a capital felony or a violent felony.

13A-12-231

Drug trafficking. First offense - class A felony; second or subsequent
offense is punishable under the habitual felony offender law (13A-5-9).

20-2-71(a)(3)

Drug offenses- failure to keep required records. First offense - class A
misdemeanor; second or subsequent offense - class B felony.

32-5A-191

DUI. Provides for enhanced penalties for second or subsequent offenses,
including a mandatory 60-day jail term for a third offense.

12.55.125, .145

Repeat felony offenders. Sets out enhanced presumptive sentences for
second and third convictions of various classes, if prior offenses occurred
within 10 years.

12.55.175

Sentencing of felony offenders. Provides that the presumptive sentences
for felony offenders may be increased if the offenders have three or more
prior felony convictions.

13-604

Sentencing of dangerous and repetitive offenders. Provides for enhanced
sentences (up to five times the normal sentence) for persons charged with
felonies who have prior convictions for felonies.

13-604.01

Dangerous crimes against children. Provides for enhanced presumptive
sentences for persons with prior offenses.

13-703

Capital offenses. Aggravating circumstances supporting death sentence
include prior convictions for capital offenses or violent offenses.

13.604.02

Offenses committed while on release. Provides for enhanced sentences
(up to life without parole sooner than 25 years) for felony offenses
committed while on parole, probation or other release following a prior
felony conviction.

5-4-604

Capital offenses. Aggravating circumstances supporting death sentence
include prior convictions for violent felonies and commission of offense
while escaped after sentencing for felony conviction.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Table 4 (cont.)
Statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions
(Note: States which do not have statutes providing for enhanced sentences for offenders with prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State

Citation

Statutory provision
(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Arkansas (cont.)

16-90-201

Repeat felony offenders. Provides for enhanced sentences up to one and
one-half times the normal sentence, depending on the number of prior
convictions and the seriousness of the new offense.

20-64-304

Drug offenses. Provides for enhanced penalties for second offenses (up to
$2,000 fine and three to five years) and third offenses (up to $5,000 fine
and five to 10 years).

Pen. Code § 190.05

Murder. Provides that a person convicted of second degree murder who
has a prior conviction for first or second degree murder shall be sentenced
to life without parole or 15 years to life, depending on aggravating or
mitigating circumstances.

Pen. Code § 190.2

First degree murder. Provides that aggravating circumstances supporting
death penalty shall include prior convictions for first or second degree
murder.

Pen. Code § 666.5

Felony vehicle theft. Second offense - three to five years.

Pen. Code § 666.7

Receiving stolen vehicles or parts. Provides for enhanced penalty (up to
$10,000 fine or four years, or both) for third or subsequent offense.

Pen. Code § 667.5

Violent offenses. Provides for sentence enhancements of three years for
every previous prison term served for a violent offense within 10 years.

Pen. Code § 667.51

Lewd acts with child. Provides for enhanced prison terms for previous
offenses.

Pen. Code § 667.6

Sex crimes. Provides for an enhancement of five years for each prior
conviction within 10 years and a 10 year enhancement for each prior
prison term served within 10 years.

Pen. Code § 667.7

Violent offenses. Two prior prison terms for such offenses within 10
years - life with no parole prior to 20 years. Three or more prior prison
terms within 10 years - life without parole.

Pen. Code § 667.75

Drug violations. Provides for enhanced term of life without parole sooner
than 17 years if offender has served two or more prison terms for drug
offenses within 10 years.

Pen Code § 667.9, .10

Violent offenses against aged, disabled or underage persons. Provides for
a two-year enhancement for each prior conviction for such offenses.

Colorado

18-18-105

Drug trafficking. Provides for a mandatory 20 year prison term for
second offense of drug trafficking in or near a school.

Connecticut

53a-46a

Capital offenses. Provides that aggravating factors supporting death
penalty shall include two or more prior felony convictions.

21a-277

Drug offenses. Provides for enhancements for second or subsequent
offenses up to 30 years and a $250,000 fine.

11-4209.

Capital offenses. Provides that aggravating factors supporting death
penalty shall include a prior conviction for murder, manslaughter or a
violent felony.

16-4763

Drug offenses. Provides for enhanced penalties for second or subsequent
offenses based upon the new offense committed.

16-4764

Drug offenses. Provides for conditional discharge for first offense of
possession.

California

Delaware

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 5 • Page 119

Appendix 6
“Statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in
correctional classification and supervision”
Table 8 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 6 • Page 121

Table 8
Statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in
correctional classification and supervision
(Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional classification and supervision are omitted from the table.)

State

Citation

Statutory provision
(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Alabama

15-22-25

Requires that the board of pardons and paroles shall make a complete
investigation of each newly received prisoner and compile a report that
must include the prisoner’s criminal record.

Alaska

33.30.091

Requires commissioner of public safety to assign prisoners to programs
based upon, among other things, the prisoner’s record of convictions, with
particular emphasis on convictions for sex crimes.

Arizona

13-701

Provides that the presentence report, which includes the offender’s
criminal history, must be forwarded to the Department of Corrections.

Arkansas

12-27-113(e)

Requires the director of the Department of Corrections to compile a
complete record on each inmate including trial, conviction and past
history.

12-29-101

Requires the director of the Department of Corrections to establish a
system for classifying prisoners according to deportment, taking into
consideration their records prior to commitment.

California

Pen. Code § 5068

Requires the Director of Corrections to classify a prisoner for program
assignment based upon all pertinent circumstances including "the
antecedents of the violation of law because of which he or she has been
committed."

Florida

921.20

Requires the classification board to compile a classification summary for
each prisoner, including "criminal, personal, social and environmental
background."

944.17(5)

Requires the sheriff or other officer delivering an offender to the
Department of Corrections to deliver any available presentence reports.

944.1905

Requires the Department of Corrections to classify inmates pursuant to an
objective classification scheme that takes into consideration the inmate’s
verified history involving intentional violence.

Georgia

42-8-291

Requires that presentence reports (including State and FBI criminal
history sheets) shall be delivered with each offender to the Department of
Corrections and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Hawaii

353-7

Authorizes establishment of a high security correctional facility for high
risk inmates, including recidivists.

Idaho

20-224

Requires the Board of Corrections to establish a record on each inmate,
including the inmate’s previous criminal record.

Illinois

38-1003-8-1

Requires the sheriff delivering a prisoner to the Department of
Corrections to deliver the presentence report which must include the
inmate’s criminal history.

Indiana

35-38-3-5

Requires classification of new inmates as to degree of security and
candidacy for home detention based upon, among other things, prior
criminal record.

Iowa

901.4

Requires presentence reports, with criminal history records, to be
delivered to the Department of Corrections with inmates.

Page 122 • Appendix 6

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Table 8 (cont.)
Statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in
correctional classification and supervision
(Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional classification and supervision are omitted from the table.)

State

Citation

Statutory provision
(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Louisiana

Code Crim. Proc. art. 875, 876

Requires a presentence report (which includes offender’s previous
criminal record) to be sent to the division of probation and parole if the
offender is committed. If an offender is committed and no presentence
report has been compiled, the division must compile one within 60 days.

Maryland

27-691

Requires the Division of Correction to compile a case record for each
inmate including previous criminal record and to classify inmates to
training, treatment or employment programs on the basis of such case
record.

Massachusetts

127-2

Requires the superintendents of correctional institutions to keep full and
accurate records on inmates and gives such superintendents access to the
State criminal record repository for such purposes.

127-27

Requires the prosecutor of committed offenders to forward their criminal
history records to the Department of Corrections.

Michigan

791.264

Requires the bureau of penal institutions to classify prisoners on the basis
of files established by classification committees and requires clerks of
court and probation officers to make criminal records available to the
classification committees.

Mississippi

47-5-103

Requires classification committee to consider an inmate’s criminal and
juvenile history in determining work duties, living quarters, rehabilitation
programs and privileges.

Missouri

217.305

Requires sheriff delivering a prisoner to the Department of Corrections to
deliver prisoner’s previous criminal record.

217.345

Requires the Department of Corrections to establish treatment programs
for first offenders.

Nebraska

83-178(1)(d), (2)

Requires the chief executive officer of each correctional facility to
establish files for inmates to be used for classification, transfer, parole and
other purposes. Each such file must contain the inmate’s criminal history
record.

Nevada

209.351(2)(d)

Requires the director of the Department of Corrections to establish a
system of classification, based upon, among other things, the inmate’s
record of convictions.

209.481

Makes eligibility for assignment to honor camp dependent upon, among
other things, past criminal history.

30:4-141

Requires the board of managers to obtain and record information about
each inmate’s "past life," among other things.

30:4-147

Authorizes inmates between the ages of 15 and 30 to be committed to the
youth correctional complex if they have not previously been sentenced to
prison.

New York

Cr. Proc. Law § 390.60

Requires copies of presentence reports (which include criminal histories)
to be delivered with offenders committed to terms of imprisonment.

Ohio

2929.221

Provides that a person convicted of a third or fourth degree felony may
serve the term of imprisonment in a county jail if offender has no prior
felony conviction.

Rhode Island

12-19-2

Provides that certain first offenders may be sentenced to work release at a
minimum security facility.

New Jersey

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 6 • Page 123

Table 8 (cont.)
Statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in
correctional classification and supervision
(Note: States which do not have statutes authorizing consideration of criminal history in correctional classification and supervision are omitted from the table.)

State

Citation

Statutory provision
(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Rhode Island (cont.)

42-56-20.2

Prohibits eligibility for community confinement if convicted or previously
convicted of certain enumerated crimes.

South Carolina

24-13-710

Makes eligibility for supervised furlough dependent on, among other
things, previous criminal convictions and sentences.

Texas

Govt. Code § 497.002

Requires the Department of Corrections to classify inmates on the basis
of, among other things, criminal histories.

Utah

76-3-404

Requires the Department of Corrections to conduct presentence
investigations and prepare reports that must include criminal histories.

Washington

9.94A.110

Requires that presentence reports, which include criminal history
information, must accompany offenders committed to the Department of
Corrections.

West Virginia

62-12-7, 7a

Requires that presentence reports, which include information on
offenders’ criminal histories, be delivered to the Department of
Corrections.

Wisconsin

972.15(5)

Provides that the Department of Corrections may use presentence reports,
which include criminal history information, for correctional classification
and parole purposes.

Wyoming

7-13-104

Requires the State board of parole to keep complete records on all
prisoners and requires the State criminal record repository to make
records available for that purpose.

7-13-303

Requires the presentence report, which includes criminal history record
information, to be forwarded to the penal institution with committed
offenders.

Page 124 • Appendix 6

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 7
“Statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions”
Excerpt of table 9 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 7 • Page 125

Table 9
Statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions
(Note: States which do not have statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State

Citation

Statutory provision
(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Alabama

15-22-27.1

Person convicted of murder or a violent felony resulting in serious injury
who has a conviction for a violent felony within previous five years is
ineligible for parole.

15-22-27.2

Person given life sentence for second class A felony is ineligible for
parole.

33.16.090, .100

Limits eligibility for discretionary parole for persons sentenced to
enhanced terms as repeat offenders.

33.16.110

Provides that the parole board shall consider the presentence report
compiled for the sentencing court, including the prisoner’s criminal and
juvenile history and his previous experience on parole or probation.

41-1604.07

Bases rates of earned release credits upon, among other things, prior
criminal record.

13-604

Limits parole eligibility [person must serve a designated number of years
before becoming eligible for parole consideration] for dangerous and
repetitive offenders, based upon the seriousness of the offense and the
number and seriousness of prior offenses.

13-604.01

Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted of dangerous crimes
against children who have prior convictions for such offenses.

13-604.02

Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted of felonies while on parole,
probations or any other form of release.

31-233.01

Provides that eligibility for release on work furlough shall depend on,
among other things, the prisoner’s prior criminal record.

31-233(I)

Prohibits early release (because of overcrowding) of prisoners with prior
felony convictions.

13-1406.01

Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted for a second or subsequent
time of sexual assault of a spouse.

Arkansas

16-93-601 thru 610

Establishes parole eligibility depending on date of offense, seriousness of
offense and prior criminal record.

California

Pen. Code § 667.7

Limits parole eligibility for habitual offenders based upon number of prior
prison terms served for enumerated serious offenses.

Pen. Code § 667.75

Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted of enumerated drug
offenses who have served prior prison terms for drug offenses.

Pen. Code § 190.05

Provides for life sentence without parole for a person convicted of second
degree murder who has served a prison term for murder.

Pen. Code § 190.2

Provides for life without parole for a person convicted of first degree
murder who has a prior conviction for murder.

Colorado

17-22.5-303.5

Establishes parole guidelines that set out aggravating circumstances
affecting the length and conditions of parole, including whether the
offender was on parole or probation when he comitted the crime for
which he was committed and the offender has numerous or increasingly
serious adult or juvenile convictions.

Florida

947.002, .165

Provides for establishment of objective parole criteria for persons serving
parole-eligible sentences based upon the offender’s present criminal
offense and his past criminal record.

Georgia

17-10-7

Prohibits parole for persons convicted of a felony for the fourth or
subsequent time.

Alaska

Arizona

Page 126 • Appendix 7

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Table 9 (cont.)
Statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions
(Note: States which do not have statutes providing that parole eligibility shall or may be affected by prior convictions are omitted from the table.)

State

Citation

Statutory provision
(Statutory provisions are summarized or paraphrased.)

Hawaii

706-669

Requires the state paroling authority to establish guidelines for
determining minimum terms of imprisonment, taking into account the
seriousness of the offense and the offender’s prior criminal history.

706-660.1

Provides for mandatory terms of imprisonment without parole for persons
convicted of second or subsequent firearm felony offenses.

Idaho

20-223(b)

Provides that persons serving sentences for sex offenses who have a
history of previous sex offenses shall be ineligible for parole.

Illinois

38-1003-3-4

Provides that parole board shall make its determination based upon,
among other things, the presentence report (which contains information
about the offender’s criminal history).

38-1005-5-3

Provides for sentencing certain offenders to terms of imprisonment
without parole based upon prior criminal history.

Indiana

11-13-3-3

Provides that parole decisions shall be based in part upon inmates’ past
criminal histories.

Iowa

902.8

Habitual offenders not eligible for parole until minimum sentence is
served.

902.11

Person convicted of a forcible felony with a prior violent felony
conviction or convicted of a nonforcible felony with a prior forcible
felony conviction within previous five years is ineligible for parole until
half of maximum sentence is served.

906.5

Parole board to consider previous criminal history.

Kansas

22-3717(f)

Parole board to consider previous criminal history.

Kentucky

532.045

Prohibits parole for persons convicted of second or subsequent sex
offense against a minor.

439.340

Parole board required to obtain criminal history record of all paroleeligible offenders. Board shall consider previous criminal record in
parole decisions.

15:574.4

Portion of sentence that convicted felon must serve before parole
eligibility dependent upon numbers of previous felony convictions and
whether previous sentence has been served. Parole board shall consider
previous criminal record.

Code Crim. Proc. art. 875, 876

Requires presentence report (with criminal history) to be sent to division
of probation and parole with committed offender.

Louisiana

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

27-286, -286D

Limits parole eligibility for persons convicted of repeat drug violations.

27-643B

Provides for mandatory 25-year term with limited parole eligibility for
person convicted of third crime of violence who has served at least one
prior prison term for a crime of violence. Provides for life without parole
for fourth conviction for a crime of violence.

127-133B

Person convicted as habitual offender not eligible for parole until half of
maximum term is served.

94C-32H

Person convicted of repeat drug offenses not eligible for parole until
mandatory minimum term is served.

333.7413

Person convicted of drug trafficking for second or subsequent time
sentenced to life without parole.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 7 • Page 127

Appendix 8
“Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989 and 1992”
Table 6 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 8 • Page 129

Table 6. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989 and 1992

State

Number of arrest
fingerprint cards
submitted to
State criminal
history repository
1989

1992

Percent
change,
1989-92

Quality of fingerprint submissions
Percent of arrest fingerprint
Percent of returned
cards returned by State
fingerprints
criminal history
resubmitted and
repository as unacceptable
accepted
1989
1992
1989
1992

Percent of arrest
events in criminal
history files which
are fingerprintsupported
1989
1992

Total

6,012,400

6,255,800

4%

Alabama
Alaskab
Arizona
Arkansas
California

292,900
15,900
101,900
23,000
1,000,000

197,200
12,000
110,000
32,400
1,100,000

-33%
-25
8
41
10

4%
18-20
4
3
0

3%
0c
3
2
0

0%
0
1
1

0%
0
...
10

100%
75 d
100
100
100

99% a
39
100
100
100 e

-5%f
17
25
327
-13

8-15%
<1
<1

0%
0
0

0-1%
0

100%
75 g
95 h
95 l

100%
100
90 i

6

3%
1
0
1
0-1

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbiaj
Florida

137,000
97,100
40,000
10,000 k
585,400

130,700
114,000
50,000
42,700
507,000 m

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana

330,000
52,700
27,300
200,300
46,400

346,500
52,600
28,200
404,800
52,300

5%
-<1
3
102
13

4%
...
2
0
15

1%
0
0
0
40

0%
...
10

Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

30,000
46,800
22,500
179,000
6,500

47,300
62,100
41,300
...
7,300

58%
33
84
...
12

7%
0
10-15
10
<1

2%
0
0p
5q

<1%

0-1

103,000
50,000-55,000
116,800
26,500
9,000

105,300
60,000
124,100
35,600
8,400

-31%
9-20
6
34
-7

0%
5-10
0
3
50

1-2%
5
0
2-3
...

Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

92,000
12,000
13,700
36,300
9,300

91,900
26,000
18,500
53,700
...

-<1%
117
35
48
...

10%
5
25
7
0

0-1%
0u
10
1
...

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota

145,700
26,200
520,100
63,200
5,000

123,300
33,600
496,500 x

-15%w
28
-5
19
40

8%
1
<5
5
10

2%
6
0-5
5
10

4%
5
100
10
0

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Ricob

114,500
60,000
92,100
166,700
...

140,900
59,500
106,000
168,100
...

23%
-<1
15
1
...

5%
17
<1
11
...

5%
8
...
0

1%
10
<1
75
...

Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

30,000
154,400
17,600
75,000
398,400

...
161,900
20,000
90,000
450,000

...
5%
14
20
13

1%
5
5-7
5
0

...
1
0y

...
2%
<1
25

Utah
Vermontb
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington

50,200
9,000
110,000
...
131,600

53,500
7,000
134,100
300
160,600

7%
-22
22
...
22

0%
35-45
20
...
5

5%
30
1
3
2

West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

37,200
78,600
11,100

...
96,500
10,100

...
23%
-9

5%
...
0

...
13%
1

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi

Page 130 • Appendix 8

75,000
7,000

12
0

25

5

0
30-50
0-5%

10

100%
98 n

100
100

100
100
100

100%
100
100
100
100
100%
0-65
100
100
30

90-95
90
50

3q
50

100%
70-75 o
98
100
30 r

. . .s

...
15%

100%
0t

<1%
75

50
...

100
100
100

100%
0
100
100
100

0
25
...

100%
100
100
100
25-35 v

100%
100
100
100
50

50%
1
100
10
0

100%
98
90
100
100

100%
100
99
100
100

100%
100
100
100
...

100%
100
100
100
0

100%
100
100
100
100

100%
100
100
100
100

...
10
5
0
...

100%
35-40 z
100
...
100

100%
20aa
100
100
100

...
...
0%

100%
100
100

100%
100
100

0%
1
1
1

20%
90
...
3
1%
...

0%
...

100

0%

...
...

...
0%
1-2

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Explanatory Notes for Table 6
The notes below expand on the data in Table 6. The explanatory information was provided by the respondents.

Note: Percentages and numbers reported are results of estimates.
Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been
rounded to the nearest whole number. The total arrest fingerprint cards
submitted to State criminal history repositories in 1989 and in 1992
was calculated using the mid-point of the range where a range appears
in the underlying data. Except as noted in the explanatory notes, arrest
information is reported to all State criminal history repositories by
fingerprint cards only.
Except for Maryland and Wisconsin, for which corrected data were
submitted, the data in the columns for 1989 are taken from Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of
Criminal History Information Systems (March 1991), Table 6.

jThe Metropolitan Police Department also serves as the central repository
for criminal records for the District of Columbia; fingerprinting, therefore,
is performed by the Police Department/repository.
kFigure is for fiscal year 1989 rather than calendar year 1989.
lArrest information is reported by hard copies of the arrest report.
m Repository no longer receives fingerprint cards for nonserious charges.
nArrest information is reported by terminal.

. . . Not available.

oArrest information is reported by fingerprint cards, terminal, final
dispositions, FBI abstracts and other documents.

a A change in procedure now allows the use of a court disposition as
an arrest document when no arrest fingerprint card is received.

pApproximately 50% of the fingerprints received are unacceptable;
however, none are returned. Approximately 40% do get resubmitted.

bState does not have a legal requirement that fingerprints and arrest data
for all felony arrests must be submitted to the State criminal history
repository.

qThe practice of returning most unacceptable fingerprints has been
discontinued due to the low rate of resubmissions. This percentage is for
agencies which have persons in custody or under supervision, i.e., the
Department of Corrections and Probation and Parole.

cThe State repository retains all fingerprint cards. Approximately 20%
of the cards submitted are of such poor quality that they are not entered
into the automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS), but they are
retained as manual paper cards.
dArrest information is reported by fingerprint cards, terminal and court
judgments.
eAll disseminated arrests are fingerprint-based, with the exception of inhouse bookings at the California Department of Corrections (CDC).
Those bookings are based on a hook-up to the original fingerprint
submitted by CDC. Dummy arrests are not disseminated and are
considered statistical data only, not criminal history data.
fDue to resource constraints, submission of certain fingerprints have
been discouraged; these include subsequent traffic arrests from the same
agency (driving under the influence, hit and run, vehicular homicide
excepted), and failure to appear and/or contempt of court when
fingerprints were submitted for the original charges.
gArrest information is reported on fingerprint cards and on uniform
arrest reports which may not include fingerprints.
hArrest information is reported by fingerprint cards and criminal
summonses.
iIn some cases of minor offenses, State law and/or policy does not
require information to be supported by fingerprints; information is
entered from criminal summonses that are not supported by fingerprints.
The decrease in the percent of arrest events in the criminal history file
from 1989 is the result of more accurate figures based on a recent data
quality audit.

rApproximately 70% of all persons charged with a criminal offense are
summoned to appear in court. In 1987, the fingerprint law was changed to
provide that persons being summoned instead of arrested are to be
fingerprinted. Prior to the change, the law mandated that a person had to be
"in custody charged with the commission of a crime" to be fingerprinted.
Training is ongoing to bring the submission rate into compliance.
sResubmissions are rare.
tAlthough arrests are fingerprint-supported, the arrests are not linked to the
case cycle; therefore, the criminal history file is not fingerprint-supported.
uThe repository is no longer returning unacceptable fingerprints.
vArrest information is reported by fingerprint cards and court abstracts.
wThe decrease in fingerprint cards submitted was due to a decrease in
criminal arrests.
xThe 1992 figure reflects a decrease in arrests.
yApproximately 8% of the fingerprints submitted are unacceptable, but
none are returned; a jacket is created to store the fingerprint card.
zArrest information is reported on an arrest/custody form which need not be
accompanied by fingerprints.
aa Response is based on the results of an audit.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 8 • Page 131

Appendix 9
“Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 1999”
Table 1 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 9 • Page 133

Table 1: Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 1999

Criminal history
records
automated in
whole or in part

State

Total

Number of subjects (individual
offenders) in State criminal history
file–
Total
Automated

59,065,600

52,814,000

Percent of arrests in database that
have final dispositions recorded–
Arrests within
All arrests
past 5 years

System flags
subjects with
felony
convictions*

System has
information to
identify
unflagged felony
convictions

All

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1,077,000
251,100
915,100
499,800
6,166,000

747,400
221,300
915,100
285,800
5,287,000

40%
86
50
58
75

65%a
85
…
77
85

All**
All†
All**
All†
Some†

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

886,300
825,600
713,300
532,000
3,754,200

886,300
595,400
665,600
425,500
3,754,200

12%
90
81
46
68b

12%
90
92
84
68c

Some**
All†

All**

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

2,132,600
379,400d
180,600
3,280,000
900,000

2,132,600
379,400d
150,300
3,080,000
850,000

69
89e
70
61
6

80
81e
75
67
5

All†
All†
All**
All†
All**

Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

401,900
821,000
850,900
1,654,000
359,500

370,700
380,600
734,700
980,000
153,300

91%
46
69
40
90

91%f
57
59
55
90

Some†
Some**

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1,053,700
2,530,000
1,259,500
384,000
250,000

1,053,700
1,825,000
1,259,500
326,500
250,000

…
100%
76
72
40

…
100%
76g
63h
40

Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

914,500
141,800
197,600
305,600
409,900

748,800
141,800
197,600
305,600
409,900

64%
85
55
38
80

62%a
85
29
27
90

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1,304,300
352,000
4,765,700
793,500
230,400

1,304,300
327,000
4,721,400
793,500
85,400

85%
33
85
94
86

95%
35
84
95
78

All†i
Some†
All**
Some†

Some

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico

Y
Y
Y
Y

1,600,000
782,000
965,200
1,667,800

1,500,000
579,600
965,200
1,277,500

56%
35
50
60

…
47%
50
31

All**
Some†
Some†
All**

Some
Some

Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

240,000
1,002,600
159,500
826,700
6,157,100

240,000
948,600
138,100
826,700
6,157,100

60%
72
97
6
55

60%
85
99
…
…

Some†
Some†
All††
Some**

Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington

Y
Y
N
Y
Y

392,800
164,900
…
1,245,900
974,800

392,800
85,500
0
1,073,300
974,800

60%
…
50
83
79

62%
96
15
82
70a

All†k
All**

West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Y
Y
Y

488,100
828,100
97,300

109,800
702,500
97,300

69l
76
79

70l
67
65

Some†
All†
All†

Page 134 • Appendix 9

Some
All
All

†

Some
Some†

Some
Some
Some
Some
All

Some†
Some†
All†

Some

All†
Some
All†
Some**

All
Some

All
Some

All†
Allj
All

Some

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Explanatory Notes for Table 1

Percentages and numbers are results of estimates. Numbers have
been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been rounded to
the nearest whole number. The "number of subjects (individual
offenders)" in the State criminal history file for each year applies only
to the criminal history file, including partially automated files and does
not include release by police without charging, declinations to proceed
by prosecutor, or final trial court dispositions.
…

Not available.

*The flag is set:
** At both arrest and conviction.
†
When conviction information is entered.
††

When arrest information is entered.

e As of January 24, 2000.
f Iowa law requires that all open arrests without dispositions must be
expunged after four years; therefore the percent of arrests in the
database with final dispositions is the same for the last five years and
for the entire database.
g Response is for last four years.
h Figure is for period of 1994-98 and does not include dispositions of
“released without charging” or “decline to prosecute.”
i Since 1993.
j At arraignment and conviction.

a For the five year period of 1994-98.

k Also when Department of Corrections entries are made.

b Through 1997.

l Automated files only.

c 1992-97 felonies and misdemeanors.
d As of January 21, 2000.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 9 • Page 135

Appendix 10
“Automation of master name index and criminal history file,
1989, 1993, 1997 and 1999”
Table 4 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 10 • Page 137

Table 4: Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1989, 1993, 1997 and 1999

Master name index is automated
1989
1993
1997
1999

State

Criminal history file is automated
1989
1993
1997
1999

Prior manual record is automated
if offender is re-arrested
1989
1993
1997
1999

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California

Y
Y
Y
P
Y

Y
Y
Y
P
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

P
P
P
N
P

P
P
P
P
P

Y
P
Y
P
P

P
P
Y
P
P

Y
Y
Y
N
N

Y
Y
Y
Y
N

Y

…
Y

Y
Na

Y
Na

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

Y
Y
P
P
Y

Y
Y
Y
Pc
Y

Y
Y
Pc
Y

Y
Y
P
Y

Y
P
P
N
P

Y
P
P
P
Y

Y
P
P
P
Y

Y
P
P
P
Y

Y
Na
…
Y

Y
Nb
Na

Y
…
Na

Y
Na
Na

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana

Y
Y
Y
P
Y

Y
Y
Y
Yd
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
P

Y
Y
Y
P
P

Y
Y
P
P
Y

Y
Y
P
P
P

Y
Y
P
P
P

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y
…

Y
Y
Y

Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

Y
Y
P
Y
N

Y
Y
Pf
Y
Pg

Y
Y
Y
Y
Pg

Y
Y
Y
Y
N

P
P
P
P
N

P
P
P
P
N

P
P
Y
P
N

P
P
P
P
P

Y
N
Y
Y

Y
Ne
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Nb

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi

Y
Y
Y
Y
N

Y
Y
Y
Y
P

Y
Y
Y
Y
P

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

P
P
Y
P
N

Y
Y
Y
P
P

Y
P
Y
P
P

Y
P
Y
P
Y

…
Y

Y

Y

N

Y
N

Na
N

Na

Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

Y
Y
P
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

P
Y
P
Y
P

P
Y
Yh
Y
Y

P
Y
P
Y
Y

P
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota

Y
Y
Y
Y
P

Y
Y
Y
Y
Pi

Y
Y
Y
Y
Pi

Y
Y
Y
Y
Pi

P
N
P
P
P

P
N
P
P
P

Y
Y
P
P
P

Y
P
P
Y
P

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico

P
Y
Y
Y
Y

Pj
Y
Y
Y
Y

P
Y
Y
Y

Pk
Y
Y
Y

P
P
Y
P
Y

P
P
Y
P
Y

P
P
Y
P

P
P
Y
P

Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

Y
Y
Y
P
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
P
P
N
P

Y
P
P
P
Y

Y
P
P
P
Y

Y
P
P
Y
Y

Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington

Y
Y
NA
Y
Y

Y
Y
NA
Y
Y

Y
Y
NA
Y
Y

Y
Y
N
Y
Y

P
N
…
P
Y

Y
N
N*
P
Y

Y
P
N*
P
Y

Y
P
N*
P
Y

West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

N
Y
Y

P
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N
P
P

N
P
Y

P
P
Y

P
P
Y

Page 138 • Appendix 10

Y
Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N
Y

N
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Nl

Y

Na

Y
Y

Y
Y
N
Ym

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

…
Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Explanatory Notes for Table 4

The notes below expand on the data in Table 4. The information was
provided by the respondent.

c Traffic and misdemeanor cases are not included in the master

Note: Except for Arkansas and Puerto Rico, for which additional
information has been submitted, the data in the columns for 1989 were

d All subjects with dates of birth 1920 or later are automated.

taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information
Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems (March
1991), Table 4. The data for 1993 were taken from Bureau Justice
Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal
History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995), Table 4. Except
for South Carolina, for which corrected data were submitted, the data
for 1997 were taken from Bureau Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice
Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information
Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 4.

name index (MNI).

e Only new arrest information since July 1, 1993 is automated at this
time due to lack of personnel.
fThe manual file is not in the automated MNI.
g Fingerprint-supported subjects are in an automated MNI; nonfingerprinted-supported records are completely manual.
hAlthough the criminal history database that is utilized in Nebraska
is fully automated, there are approximately 6,000 partially automated
records that are in the process of being deleted.

Y

Yes

N

No

P

Partial

in the automated MNI.

*

State is fully manual.

j The automated MNI contains all arrest subjects since 1972.

…

Not available.

k Subjects with dates of birth prior to 1940 are in the manual file. A
conversion project is underway.

i Only those subjects with dates of birth of 1940 or later are included

NA Not applicable.
l The record is automated only upon a request for the record.

aOnly the new information is automated.
bThe new information is added to the manual file.

m If a subject's prior fingerprint record was of poor quality, it would
not have been automated; upon receipt of AFIS (Automated
Fingerprint Identification System) quality fingerprints, the record will
be automated.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 10 • Page 139

Appendix 11
“Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1995, 1997 and 1999”
Table 2 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 11 • Page 141

Table 2: Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1995, 1997 and 1999
Number of subjects in
manual and automated files

Number of subjects in manual and
automated files, 1999
1999
Manual
Automated
total
file
file

Percent of automated files

Percent change in
total files

1995

1995-97

1997-99

State

1995

1997

Total

49,697,000

54,059,400

59,065,600

6,251,600

52,814,000

1,077,000
251,100
915,100
499,800
6,166,000

329,600
29,800
0
214,000
879,000

747,400
221,300
915,100
285,800
5,287,000

100%
77
…
46
88

100%
85
100
55
84

69%
88
100
57
86

-39%
3
12
23
17

-1%
24
15
3
15

1,800,000
195,100
711,600a

1997

1999

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California

395,000
4,630,800

1,091,000
201,900
798,700
484,700
5,349,700

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

…
744,000
476,600
507,000
3,172,700

900,000
811,200
566,500
507,000
3,369,500

886,300b
825,600
713,300
532,000
3,754,200

0
230,200
47,700
106,500
0

886,300
595,400
665,600
425,500c
3,754,200

100%
56
90
30
100

100%
61
92
30
100

100%
72
93
80
100

…
9%
9
0
6

-2%
2
26
5
11

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana

1,700,600
338,300
152,000
2,613,600
1,200,000

1,922,200
359,700
159,700
3,042,600
850,000

2,132,600
379,400d

0
0
30,300
200,000
50,000

2,132,600
379,400d
150,300
3,080,000
850,000

100%
100
73
92
100

100%
100
79
93
94

100%
100
83
94
94

13%
6
5
16
-29

11%
5
13
8
6

Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

349,500
697,100
574,700
1,651,000
350,000

363,400
748,400
644,200
1,730,000
350,000f

401,900
821,000
850,900
1,654,000e
359,500

31,200
440,400
116,200
674,000
206,200

370,700
380,600
734,700
980,000
153,300

83%
33
85
45
0

91%
41
85
51
0

92%
46
86
59
43

4%
7
12
86
0

11%
10
32
-4
3

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi

908,300
2,100,000
1,074,100
294,100
…

723,500g
2,344,800
1,155,200
333,600
368,000

1,053,700
2,530,000
1,259,500
384,000
250,000

0
705,000
0
57,500
0

1,053,700
1,825,000
1,259,500
326,500
250,000

100%
75
100
78
…

100%
69
100
82
…

100%
72
100
85
100

-20%
12
8
13
…

46%
8
9
15
-32

165,700
0
0
0
0

748,800
141,800
197,600
305,600
409,900

77%
100
100
100
67

80%
100
95
100
100

82%
100
100
100
100

12%
14
16
14
141

11%
-7
14
24
4

Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

180,600
3,280,000
900,000

738,600
133,900
149,800
204,500
163,300

824,300
152,700
173,300
245,500
392,900

914,500
141,800
197,600
305,600
409,900

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota

1,800,000
260,000
4,851,100
623,000
227,200

1,300,000
310,000
4,563,800i
697,400
223,900

1,304,300
352,000
4,765,700
793,500
230,400

0
25,000h
44,300
0
145,000

1,304,300
327,000
4,721,400
793,500
85,400

100%
100
89
95
30

100%
100
99
99
34

100%
93
99
100
37

-38%
19
-6
12
-1

<1%
14
4
14
3

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico

909,700
656,700
788,600
1,431,400

1,483,000
710,000
879,200
1,550,700

1,600,000
782,000
965,200
1,667,800

100,000
202,400
0
390,300

1,500,000
579,600
965,200
1,277,500

88%
63
100
66

81%
70
100
71

94%
74
100
77

63%
8
11
8

8%
10
10
8

240,000
1,002,600
159,500
826,700
6,157,100

0
54,000
21,400
0
0

240,000
948,600
138,100
826,700
6,157,100

100%
93
74
100
100

100%
100
82
61
100

100%
95
87
100
100

5%
7
6
11
13

7%
11
15
14
11

Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

213,400
843,700
130,800j
655,400k
4,912,100

225,000
902,400
138,600
727,700
5,556,200

Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington

311,400
133,500
13,700
1,015,400
782,000

346,400
150,900
…
1,124,200
885,000

392,800
164,900
…
1,245,900
974,800

0
79,400
…
172,600
0

392,800
85,500
0
1,073,300
974,800

86%
0
0
81
60

100%
36
0
84
100

100%
52
0
86
100

11%
13
…
11
13

13%
9
…
11
10

West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

362,800
666,200
82,700

478,900
752,400
89,500

488,100
828,100
97,300

378,300
125,600
0

109,800
702,500
97,300

<1%
76
100

13%
81
100

22%
85
100

32%
13
8

2%
10
9

Page 142 • Appendix 11

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Explanatory Notes for Table 2
Except for Utah, for which corrected data was submitted, the data in
the columns for 1995 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History
Information Systems, 1995 (May 1997), Table 2. Except for Nebraska
and Kentucky, for which corrected data were submitted, the data in the
columns for 1997 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History
Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 2.
Percentages and numbers are results of estimates. Numbers have
been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been rounded to
the nearest whole number. The "number of subjects (individual
offenders)" in the State criminal history file for each year applies only
to the criminal history file, including partially automated files and does
not include the master name index.
…

Not available.

a As of July 1, 1996.
b The decrease in the total number of records is the result of a more
accurate computer-generated number, as well as file maintenance,
deletion of subjects over 80 years of age, and deletion of duplicate
records.

d As of January 21, 2000.
e The decrease in the total number of records is due to updating the
file by the deletion of “wants,” records of individuals presumed dead,
records with multiple state identification numbers and incomplete
records.
f There is no change between 1995 and 1997 due to deleting files of
deceased individuals.
g Decrease is due to a re-evaluation of the criminal history system.
The response for 1997 is based only on subjects for whom sufficient
criminal history data is available to produce a rap sheet. This includes
subjects for whom charge, disposition or supervision information is
available. As a result of reviewing records on this basis, the number of
subjects in the criminal history file has decreased from the responses
of the previous years for which data were submitted.
h This number reflects a current backlog, which will be automated
upon processing.
i Decrease between 1995 and 1997 is due to a major purge of manual

c The recidivism rate for the District of Columbia is 70%; therefore, as

records completed by the Office of Operations.

subjects with manual records are re-arrested, their files are partially
automated and the manual file size decreases as the automated file
size increases.

j Figure represents total as of July 1996.
k Figure represents total as of August 7, 1996.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 11 • Page 143

Appendix 12
“Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository,
1993, 1995, 1997 and 1999”
Table 3 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 12 • Page 145

Table 3: Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1999
State

1993

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California

…
31,300
117,500
21,000
1,100,000

Number of dispositions
1995
1997

1999

1993-95

Percent change
1995-97

1997-99

107,000
38,200
140,800
32,000
1,100,000

121,700
41,200
170,100
40,100
1,134,500

115,900
43,000
190,500
93,700
1,381,000

…
22%
20
52
0

14%
8
21
25
3

-5%
4
12
134
22

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

…
107,500
80,000
15,200a
162,000b

…
111,200
64,900
1,600
174,300

…
107,400
…
1,900
…

5,900
102,200
78,700
…
259,800

…
3%
-19
-89
8

…
-4%
…
18
…

…
-5%
…
…
…

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana

545,000
51,700
19,300
95,600
23,500

265,000c
57,800
…
115,000
26,500

303,600
87,300
…
98,700
…

371,100
70,500
10,600
393,700
40,000

-51%
12
…
20
13

15%
51
…
-14
…

22%
-19
…
299
…

54,200
34,300
…
21,400
29,000

48,200
…
…
…
20,400

45,300
…
18,000
16,300
34,500

70,700
40,000
6,200d
36,200e
36,700

16%
…
…
…
-30

-6%
…
…
…
69

56%
…
-66
122
6

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi

…
300,000
178,100f
60,000
…

…
…
207,200f
2,500
…

210,400
…
240,600g

…
417,700
214,200h
84,000i
10,000

…
…
16%
-96
…

…
…
16

…
…
-11
…
…

Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

65,100
26,200
23,000
…
31,000

62,800
78,400
22,300
32,500
…

72,000j
…
24,400
79,000
…

132,200k
30,400
19,100l
31,900m
…

-4%
…
-3
…
…

15%
…
9
143
…

84%
…
-22
-60
…

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota

260,000
11,100
383,500
…
6,500

280,000
12,000
399,900
…
3,200

285,000
12,500
523,900
…
4,600

287,500
16,000
698,900
106,000
6,000

8%
8
4
…
-51

2%
4
31
…
44

1%
28
33
…
30

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico

…
15,000
36,900
203,700
24,300

…
37,200
…
274,300
…

…
57,700
…
…

100,000
152,000
116,300
167,600

…
81%
…
35
21

…
53%
…
…

…
163%
…
…

Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

10,000
212,600
…
…
…

…
194,100
…
…
…

…
282,400
…
…

18,000
211,200n
19,600
26,000
723,000

…
-9%
…
…
…

…
45%
…
…
…

…
-25%
…
…
…

Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington

17,800
…
…
211,500
157,800

22,900
…
…
231,500
178,000

26,300
22,300
…
211,100
277,800

35,800
25,900
…
272,400
246,300o

29%
…
…
9
13

15%
…
…
-9
56

36%
16
…
29
-11

West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

…
99,000
6,000

…
103,600
5,700

…
123,000
7,800

24,500
55,900p
5,500q

…
5%
-14

…
19%
37

…
-55%
-29

Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

Page 146 • Appendix 12

…

…

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Explanatory Notes for Table 3

The notes below expand on the data in Table 3. The
explanatory information was provided by the respondent.
Note: Final dispositions include release by police without
charging, declination to proceed by prosecutor, or final trial
court disposition. Percentages and numbers reported are
results of estimates. Numbers have been rounded to the
nearest 100. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest
whole number. Except for Connecticut, Oklahoma, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina and Utah, for which corrected data were
submitted, the data for 1993 were taken from Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State
Criminal History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995),
Table 3. Except for Connecticut, for which corrected data were
submitted, the data for 1995 were taken from Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State
Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 (May 1997).
Except for Connecticut, for which corrected data were
submitted, the data for 1997 were taken from Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State
Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999).
…

Not available.

i Court dispositions only.
j Final charge dispositions entered in 1997.
k This was the result of a disposition backlog and an overtime
project to assist in reducing the backlog.
l The decrease in dispositions is due to lack of staffing. The
focus of the Nebraska criminal history repository has been on
automating the arrests being received and filing the
dispositions being received. This allows Nebraska to at least
establish identity. The dispositions are not being automated
until a request is made. Although the disposition ratio
continues to decrease relative to the number of arrests being
received, the dispositions are available for quick automation.
Nebraska also is working on automating the dispositions from
the courts, so that they may be attached electronically, allowing
Nebraska to increase the disposition ratio.
m During 1997, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
processed a backlog of dispositions, which were then passed
on to the State repository for entry. This accounts for the larger
number of dispositions received in 1997 than in 1999.
n In fiscal year 1997, in order to alleviate a backlog of current

charging and 15,000 prosecutor declinations; final court
dispositions are not reported to the repository.

work, four additional temporary employees were hired to
process delinquent dispositions; therefore, the number of
dispositions in 1997 is greater than the number reported for
1999.

b Figure represents the number received as of April 11, 1994.

o In 1997, the State repository worked with the Seattle

a This figure includes 155 [200] releases by police without

c The number of dispositions reported to the repository is
measured by the number of dispositions processed. In 1993,
the repository was in the process of eliminating a backlog of
submitted disposition reports. This backlog elimination project
accounts for the significant decrease from 1993 to 1996.
d Kentucky no longer enters dispositions for the courts and
prosecutors; they are entered by tape, so the repository does
not have a count to include in the dispositions figure.
e The Bureau of Identification previously was unable to process
incoming dispositions due to lack of personnel. In 1998,
disposition reporting was given priority, and since that time,
many agencies have increased disposition reporting.

Municipal Court (King County) to obtain disposition reports by
downloading the information from the court’s database. The
initial download was 65,000 disposition reports. As a result,
the number of dispositions received during 1999 shows a
decrease from the 1997 figure.
p Represents counts of 1999 arrest dispositions posted to the
computerized criminal history. Previous years are counts of
charge dispositions.
q During the latter part of 1998 and 1999, personnel turnover
and increased civil card processing created a backlog that
resulted in reduced disposition form collections.

f Police release and prosecutor declinations are reported on
the arrest card.
g The figure represents 190,600 processed dispositions and
50,000 backlogged dispositions.
h Figure represents court dispositions. Although prosecutor
declinations are reported, the number is unknown. The
number of dispositions decreased from 1997 to 1999 because
in 1997 the state repository was working on an NCHIP project
to resolve missing dispositions. The count provided in 1997
includes the dispositions provided in this project during that
year.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 12 • Page 147

Appendix 13
“Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989, 1993, 1997 and 1999”
Table 6 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 13 • Page 149

Table 6: Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989, 1993, 1997 and 1999

State

Number of arrest fingerprint cards and livescan
images submitted to State criminal history
repository
1989
1993
1997
1999

Total

6,012,400

6,255,800

7,625,900

8,852,400

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California

292,900
15,900
101,900
23,000
1,000,000

192,300
14,000
114,800
36,000
1,100,000

253,500
18,700
192,500
82,000
1,170,600d

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida

137,000
97,100
40,000

129,000
115,000
44,700

10,000i
585,400

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana

Percent
change
1989-93

Percent
change
1993-97

Percent
change
1997-99

4%

22%

16%

290,600
25,100a
209,000
68,800
1,456,000

-34%
-12
13
57
10

32%
34
68
128
6

15%
34
9
-16
24

…
139,500
49,200

138,000
52,000

-6%
18
12

…
21%
10

…
-1%
6

41,800
500,600

38,900
637,500

33,200
831,700

330,000
52,700
27,300
200,300
46,400

350,000
53,200
34,300
336,700
50,400

397,500
66,900
59,200
448,700
75,000

441,300
67,000l
54,800
530,000
86,600

6%
1
26
75
9

14%
26
73
33
49

11%
<1
-7
18
15

Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

30,000
46,800
22,500
135,900
6,500

53,100
64,500
…
154,700
5,500

61,800
79,900
…
206,400
4,800

66,600
84,000
46,600
307,800
7,200

77%
38
…
14
15

16%
24
…
33
-13

Maryland
Massachusetts

103,000
50,00055,000
116,800
26,500
9,000

162,400
65,000

228,700
85,000

115,100
87,500

58%
38

114,800
40,000
9,000

131,200
48,500
12,000

159,900t
60,000
43,600

92,000
13,000
13,700
36,300
9,300

89,500
…
16,500
49,600
20,100

135,000
28,700
44,400
50,300
17,500

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota

145,700
26,200
520,100
63,200
5,000

110,900
34,800
492,900
76,300
7,200

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico

114,500
60,000
92,100
166,700
…

149,200
46,000bb

Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota

30,000
154,400
17,600

Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont

75,000
398,400
35,200
9,000

Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington

…
110,000
131,600

West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

37,200
78,600
11,100

Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

Percent of arrest events in State criminal
history files that are fingerprint-supported
1989
1993
1997
1999

100%
48c

100%
62c

100
100
100

100%
39
100
100
100

100
100
99e

100
100
99e

100%
75f
95h

100%
100
90h

100%
70
90h

%
90g
90h

95j
100

100
100

80k
100

80k
100

100%
98m
100
100
100

100%
<100n
100
100
100

100%
100
100
100
100

100%
99n
100
100
100

8%
5
…
49
50

100%
70-75o
98
100
30r

100%
80p
…
100
30r

100%
85q
48
100
30r

100%
85q
…
100
30r

41%
31

-50%
3

100%
0

100%
0

100%
0s

-2
51
0

14
21
33

22
24
263

100
100
100

100
100
100

100
100
0

100
100
100

139,900u
25,600
21,600
78,500
18,500

-3%
…
20
37
116

51%
…
169
1
-13

4%
-11
-51
56
6

100%
100
100
100
25-35w

100%
100
98v
100
100

100%
100
100
100
65e

100%
100
100
100
75e

129,400
38,000
611,200
141,900
9,300

150,400
46,000
583,600
145,100
10,800

-24%
33
-5
21
44

17%
9
24
86
29

16%
21
-5
2
16

100%
98
90
100
100

100%
100
70x
100
94aa

100%
100
…y
100
90e

100%
100
99z
100
100

165,000
71,900
141,000
191,500
…

158,000
79,000
148,200
305,900
…

30%
-23
-1
-14
…

11%
56
54
33
…

-4%
10
5
60
…

100%
100
100
100
…

100%
100
100
100
17

100%
100
100
100
…

100%
100
100
100

25,000
167,300
19,00020,000
83,200
581,400
44,400
5,000
NAff

…
180,400
27,800

33,000
200,400
26,700

17%
8
11

…
8%
46

…
11%
-4

100%
100
100

100%
100
100

100%
100
100

100%
100
100

…
575,800
…
7,800
NAff

198,300
588,000
61,800
11,300
NAff

11
46
26%
-44

…
-<1
…
56%

…
2
…
45%

100
100
100%
35-40cc

100
100
100%
25dd

…
100
100%
30l

100
100
100%
35ee

136,400
168,300

196,200
199,400

216,700
211,800

…
24
28

NA
44
18

NA
10
6

…
100
100

NA
100
100

NA
100
100

NA
100
100

…
100,000
9,800

41,700
125,400
8,300

…
119,900
11,000

…
27%
-12

…
25%
-15

…
-4%
33

100%
100
100

100%
100
100

100%
100
100

100%
100
100

91,400
143,700
15,800

Page 150 • Appendix 13

318
-14

-7
27

-15
30

100%
75b

75%r
0

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Explanatory Notes for Table 6
The notes below expand on the data in Table 6. The explanatory
information was provided by the respondent.
Note: Numbers and percentages reported are results of estimates.
Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have
been rounded to the nearest whole number. The total number of
arrest fingerprint cards submitted to State criminal history repositories
in 1989 and in 1993 was calculated using the mid-point of the range
where a range is indicated in the underlying data. Except as noted in
the "Explanatory Notes for Table 6," arrest information is reported to all
State criminal history repositories by arrest fingerprint cards only.
Except for Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Utah and Wisconsin, for
which corrected data were submitted, the data in the columns for 1989
were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice
Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information
Systems (March 1991), Table 6. Except for Alabama, for which
corrected data were submitted, the data in the columns for 1993 were
taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information
Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1993
(January 1995), Table 6. The data in the columns for 1997 were taken
from Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal
History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 6.
…

Not available.

NA Not applicable.

n The small percentage of arrests that are not supported by
fingerprints are assigned State identification numbers with a "U"
(unknown) prefix. This allows for easy identification of these
exceptions. Unsupported arrests sometimes occur when an offender
is hospitalized, or refuses, or for some other reason is unable to be
fingerprinted.
o Arrest information was reported by fingerprint cards, terminal, final
dispositions, FBI abstracts and other documents.
p Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and criminal
summonses which are not fingerprint-supported; also cases handled in
other ways, such as diversion agreements, are unsupported by
fingerprints.
q Arrest information for older records was entered from final
dispositions that were not fingerprint-supported.
r Arrest information is entered from criminal summonses that are not
fingerprint-supported.
s Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and criminal
summonses that are not fingerprint-supported.
t The increase in volume is due to live scan and fingerprints submitted
for identification purposes only.
u Figure includes felony and most misdemeanor arrest cards.
v Pre-1968 arrests are supported by FBI fingerprints.

a Figure is for fiscal year 1999.

w Arrest information was reported by fingerprint cards and court

b Arrest information is reported by fingerprint cards, judgments and

abstracts.

computers.

x New York law requires that fingerprints associated with sealed

c Arrests are reported by terminal, and arrest information is entered

records must be purged.

from final dispositions that are not fingerprint-supported.

y With few exceptions, most unsealed arrest events are supported by

d Figure is for fiscal year 1997-98.

fingerprints.

e Arrest information is entered from final dispositions that are not
fingerprint-supported.
fArrest information was reported by fingerprint cards and on uniform
arrest reports that may not have included fingerprints.
g Some arrest information is entered from final dispositions that are not
fingerprint-supported.
h Arrests are reported by terminal; State law and/or policy does not
require arrest information to be supported by fingerprints; and arrest
information is entered from final dispositions and from criminal
summonses that are not supported by fingerprints.
i Figure is for fiscal year 1989.
j Arrest information was reported by a hard copy of the arrest report.
kState law and/or policy does not require arrest information to be
supported by fingerprints.
l Figure includes adult and juvenile records.
m Arrest information is reported by computers.

z Reported case dispositions that can be linked to a record but not an
arrest event are not fingerprint-supported.
aa Arrests for "not sufficient funds" checks are entered with only an
index fingerprint.
bb Figure is lower than figure for 1989 because the figure for 1993
does not include applicant cards, as did the figure for 1989.
cc Arrest information was reported on an arrest/custody form, which
does not need to be accompanied by fingerprints.
dd Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and citations
that are not supported by fingerprints. The State regulations requiring
fingerprints also are not enforced.
ee In 1999, State law and/or policy did not require that arrest
information be supported by fingerprints. Effective July 1, 2000, all
felonies and most misdemeanors are required by law to be fingerprintsupported.
ff Arrest information is entered from arrest forms submitted to the
Records Bureau by the Police Department. Fingerprints are taken and
retained in the Forensic Bureau.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 13 • Page 151

Appendix 14
“Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging,
1989, 1993, 1997 and 1999”
Table 7 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 14 • Page 153

Table 7: Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1989, 1993, 1997 and 1999

State

If an arrestee is not charged after submission of fingerprints to State
repository, State law requires notification of State repository
1989
1993
1997
1999

Number of cases
1999

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California

Yes
No
No
No
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yesa
Yes
Yes
Yes

…
…
…
…
66,000

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

Yes
No
Yes
…
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
Yesb
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
…
Yes

No
Yes
Yes
Yes

NA
5-10
1,700
…

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No

…
10,800
NA
400
NA

Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yesc
Yes
…
No
Yes

Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes

Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes

NA
…
NA
NA
…

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi

Yes
No
…
Yes
No

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No

Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes

…
NA
…
NA
…

Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

…
…
NA
…
…

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota

No
No
No
No
Yes

No
No
No
Yesd
Yes

No
No
Yes
Yesd
Yes

No
No
Yes
Yesd
Yes

NA
NA
…
…
…

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico

No
No
No
No
No

Yese
No
Yes
No
No

Yes
No
No
Yes
…

No
Yes
No
No

NA
…
NA
NA

Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

No
No
Yes
No
No

Nof
No
Yes
No
Yesa

No
No
Yes
…
Yesa

No
No
Yes
No
Yesa

NA
NA
…
NA
…

Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington

Yes
No
…
No
No

Yes
No
NA
No
Yes

Yes
No
No
No
Yes

Yes
No
No
No
Yes

…
NA
NA
NA
…

West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Yes
Yes
Yes

No
Yes
Yes

No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

…
…
…

Page 154 • Appendix 14

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Explanatory Notes for Table 7

The notes below expand on the data in Table 7. The explanatory
information was provided by the respondent.
Note: Numbers are results of estimates. Except for Delaware, Florida,
Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Utah, Vermont and Washington,
for which corrected data were submitted, the data in the column for
1989 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice
Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information
Systems (March 1991), Table 7. Except for Louisiana, Pennsylvania
and Texas, for which corrected data were submitted, the data in the
column for 1993 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal
Justice Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information
Systems, 1993 (January 1995), Table 7. The data in the column for
1997 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice
Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information
Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 7.

…

a Decision is reported by the prosecutor, not the police.
b Both the fingerprinting and filing of charges are performed at the
same unit.
c The law requires the total expungement of arrests that result in
acquittals or dismissals. "No charges filed" are considered
dismissals; therefore, no statistics are maintained.
d Police must release or charge an individual before sending
fingerprints to the repository.
e Notification is accomplished by disposition forms.
f Police departments report dispositions.

Not available.

NA Not applicable.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 14 • Page 155

Appendix 15
“Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository
and current status of backlog, 1999”
Table 12 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 15 • Page 157

Table 12: Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1999

Average
number
of days
between
arrest
and receipt
of arrest
data and
fingerprints

State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California

7
…
3
10-14
<1-30a

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

3-5
3
1
<1-39e

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana

1
1-20i
14
<1-5j
7-30

Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

10
14
1-10k
1-3
14

Average number of days
between receipt of
fingerprints and entry of
data into:
Master name
index
7
…
2
3-5
1-30b

Criminal
history
database
7
…
14
30
1-30b

Number of
arresting
agencies
reporting
arrest
data by
automated
means

Percentage
of daily
arrests
in State
represented
by arresting
agencies
reporting by
automated
means

Backlog of
entering
data into
criminal
database
exists

2
1
178
19
367

15%
25
89
58
80

Yes
…
No
Yes
No

30
0
1
1-36f

90
0
<1
1-36f

211c
65
23
57g

100%
100
100
62

Nod
No
No
Yes

<1-3h
2
3
75
30

<1-3h
…
3
75
30

150
1
1
141
1

60%
58
17
>60
2

No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

7

19%

No
Yes
Yes
No
No

2
4
1-3
2

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi

…
30
…
26
93

…
20
30
5
…

Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

…
3-5
30-60
2
30

30
2
30-60
2
7

2
90
90
1-3
…
NA
30
5
…
30
21l
30-60
2
7

89
<1

25

60%

13
2
…

8
10
…

Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes

15

…

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

21
9
45

42%
65
90

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota

1-10m
15
>1p
…
7-10

1-2n
<1-60+o
<1
5
6-10

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico

15
5-7
…
1q

5
38
8
1q

5
38
8
1q

135
1
68

65

Rhode Island
South Carolina

21
3

7-10
12

7-10
12

10

50%

Yes
No

South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

1-10
18
7

1
180
1-150r

2
70
28

30
30
60

No
Yes
Yes

Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington

3-7
10
2
<1-3s
25

30
90
NA
<1-3s
65

50%

Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes

West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

…
45
10

3
4
…

Yes
Yes
Yes

Page 158 • Appendix 15

1
180
1-150r

1-2n
<1-60+o
<1
5
6-10

88
2

30
90
5
<1-3s
65
7
4
…

6

1
60

66

40
85%
15

60

80%

No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Number of
unprocessed
or partially
processed
fingerprint
cards

Number of
person-days
needed to
eliminate
backlog

…
…

180
…

14,500

300

161,400

140

300

35

41,900
10,000

60
5

21,000
…

168
90

28,900

96

7,500
5,000

15
20

19,400
1,500
2,500

50
20
80

50

1-2

30,000

300

4,500

10

12,500
2,200
9,000

90
4
33

300

2

20,000
100,000

70
150

1,000
1,500

5
37

84,000

3,600

…
18,800t
13,400

…
90
210

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Explanatory Notes for Table 12

The notes below expand on the data in Table 12. The explanatory
information was provided by the respondent.
Note: Numbers and percentages have been rounded to the nearest
whole number. Numbers of unprocessed or partially processed
fingerprint cards have been rounded to the nearest 100.
…

Not available.

NA Not applicable.

j Livescan is received the same day.
kLivescan is received the same day; inked fingerprints are received
between 3 and 10 days.
l Current backlog is related to AFIS and the new criminal history
system.
m Automated cards are received within 1 day; manual cards are
received within 10 days.
n Automated data is entered within 1 day; manual data is entered

a The average time for automated reporting is 4 hours. The average

within 2 days.

for manual reporting is 7 to 30 days.
o Livescan data is entered immediately.
b The average time for entry of automated data is 1 day. The average
time for manual data is 30 days.

p Approximately 55 percent of the arrests in New York City are

c Arresting agencies’ reporting is automated via the arraignment

received in less than 1 day. Approximately 5 percent of the arrests
throughout the rest of the State are received in less than 1 day.

procedure and through the court.
q Livescan information is received and entered within 1 day.
d No backlog exists with respect to the processing of fingerprint cards;
however, a backlog of 159,000 records exists in the resolution of
pending criminal history records. The records are “pending” due to
incomplete arrest data.
e Fingerprint cards average 39 days; livescan is received from 30

r Livescan is received and entered within 1 day; manual cards are
entered within 150 days.
s Livescan is received and entered within 2 minutes; mail-in cards are
received and entered within 2-3 days.

minutes to 24 hours.
f Livescan, 24 hours; felony cards, 3 days; misdemeanor cards, 36

t All current data is entered; the backlog consists of old records sent in
by a single agency in a single batch.

days.
g Booking agencies.
hLivescan is entered within 30 minutes; manual cards are entered
within 3 days.
i The average time for Honolulu Police Department and Honolulu
Sheriff’s Department, from which 67% of the arrests originate,
fingerprint cards is 3 to 5 days; arrest data is received from Honolulu
Police Department and Honolulu Sheriff’s Department in 1 to 4 days.
For the remaining arrests throughout the State, the average time for
receipt of fingerprint cards is 20 days; for arrest data, the average time
is 7 to 14 days.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 15 • Page 159

Appendix 16
“Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history
[repository] and current status of backlog, 1999”
Table 13 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 16 • Page 161

Table 13: Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history and current status of backlog, 1999

Average number
of days between
occurrence of
final felony court
disposition and
receipt of data

State

Average number
of days between
receipt of
final felony court
disposition and
entry of data
into criminal
history database

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California

…
…
…
30
75

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

3-5
1
1
…

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana

45
14
15
…
14

30
1-14
2
30
30

Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

35
21
…
…
14

2
…
30
…
2

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi

…
2
…
7
160

…
<1
30
2
…

…
83
109
86

Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

…
15
30
60
5

…
180
>180
10
5

c

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota

1
60
…
…
30

1
>90
1
1
60

560

100%

…d
100

…
100

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico

21
30
…
…

365
30
60
…

30
1
26
f

47%
10-15
65
100

46
…

100%
100

40

60

Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

7-10
5
14
63
30

…
…
30
100a
70

Number of
courts currently
reporting
by automated
means

Percent of
cases disposed
of in State
represented by
courts reporting
by automated
means

3-5
1
1
7

30
5
14
5
1-60g

Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington

30
10
60
10
15

0
90
…
3
35

West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

…
110
…

…
4
…

Page 162 • Appendix 16

Backlog of
entering
court data
into criminal
history database

1
30
145

>1%
…
45

Yes
…
No
Yes
No

36
29
1
67

100%
100
75
100

No
No
No
Yes

100
14
44
51

20%
80
100
>60

No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

8
81

61

100%
100
30
100

No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

75%
50

63%

Number of
unprocessed
or partially
processed
court disposition
forms

Number of
person-days
needed
to eliminate
backlog

…
…

180
…

14,750

60

…

…

114,000b

2,200

…

180

500
300,000
…
30,000

3
800
60
300

5,000

20

25,000
12,000
163,000

80
120
400

…

5

No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

35,000
5,000
21,800

200
30e
90

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

148,000
15,000
10,900
135,000

120
90
68
900

Yes
No
No
No
Yes

2,500

21

11,500

60

200
9,600
…

5
63
…

220,000

5,200

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

…

10

800

10

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Explanatory Notes for Table 13

The notes below expand on the data in Table 13. The explanatory
information was provided by the repositories.

d Automated information is supplied through the State Office of

…

e Town and village court dispositions are entered manually.

Not available.

NA Not applicable—no legal requirement mandates the reporting of
the information to the State criminal history repository.

Court Administration.

f All disposition information is reported to the Administrative Office of
the Courts, which in turn sends tapes to the State criminal history
repository.

a Due to backlog.

g Dispositions received electronically are applied within 1 day of
receipt; manually reported dispositions are applied within 60 days.

b The court disposition backlog reflects the number of delinquent court
cases that are identified through ongoing delinquent monitoring
programs; the repository does not receive court forms per se, for the
purpose of ongoing data entry.
c All courts, with the exception of Jackson County and the St. Louis
area, send disposition information to the Office of State Courts
Administrator, which in turn provides the information to the State
repository. It is then printed and entered into the system. A new
system is currently being designed that will replace this method.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 16 • Page 163

Appendix 17
“Methods to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on
criminal history record, 1999”
Table 16 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 17 • Page 165

Table 16: Methods to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 1999
Unique tracking
number for
individual
subjects

State

Alabama*
Alaska*
Arizona*
Arkansas*
California*

Unique arrest
event identifier

Unique charge
identifier

Arrest date

Subject name

Name and
reporting
agency case
number

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

Colorado
Connecticut*
Delaware*
District of Columbia*
Florida*

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

Georgia
Hawaii*
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana*

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

Iowa*
Kansas*
Kentucky*
Louisiana*
Maine*

X

Maryland*
Massachusetts*
Michiganf
Minnesota
Mississippi*

X

X
X

X
X

X

X
X

New Jersey*
New Mexico*j
New York*
North Carolina
North Dakota*

X
X
X
X
X
X

Rhode Island*
South Carolina*
South Dakota*
Tennessee
Texas*

X

Utah
Vermont*
Virgin Islands*
Virginia*
Washington*

X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

Xe

X

X

Xg

X
X

X

X

X
X

X

Xh

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X
X

X

X

X
X
X

Xi

Xk

X
X
X

X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X

Page 166 • Appendix 17

Xd

X

X
X
X

X
X
X

Xc

X
X

X
X

Xb

X
X

X
X

Xa

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

West Virginia*
Wisconsin
Wyoming*

X
X

X

Missouri*
Montana
Nebraska*
Nevada*
New Hampshire

Ohio
Oklahoma*
Oregon
Pennsylvania*
Puerto Rico

X

Other

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Xl
Xm
Xi

Explanatory Notes for Table 16

The notes below expand on the data in Table 16. The explanatory
information was provided by the respondent.
Note: State repositories were asked to list all methods that may be
utilized to link disposition information. Matching of several items of
information may be used to confirm that the appropriate link is being
made. Also, if information of one type is missing, repositories may
look to other types of information contained on the disposition
report.

e Probation control file (PCF) number.
f The record reflects an authorized criminal case providing
whatever charges are filed for the case by the arresting agency,
prosecutor and court.
g Date of birth and reporting agency’s ORI number.
h State Identification (SID) number.

* Method(s) utilized by the State repository for linking disposition
information and arrest/charge information also permit the linking of
dispositions to particular charges and/or specific counts.

i ORI number.
j Not in all cases.

a Arrest agency and booking number.
b Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) case number.
c Originating agency number (ORI), Florida Department of Law

k Warrant number arrest event identifier.
l Thumbprints.
m Arrest offenses and process control number.

Enforcement or FBI number, sex, race, date of birth.
d Submission of fingerprints.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 17 • Page 167

Appendix 18
“Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 1999”
Table 20 from 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

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 18 • Page 169

Table 20: Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 1999

State

State criminal
history
repository
database
audited for
completeness
within last
5 years

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California

No
No
No
No
No

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana

No
Yes
Yes

Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi

No
No
Noe
No
No

Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota

No
Yes
No
No
No

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico

Yes
Yes
No
Yes

Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota

Date of
last audit

1997
1996
1998;
2000

Period of
time covered
by audit

1986-97
1995
1988-97;
1989-99

Agency that
performed audit

Other agency
Other agency
Other agency;
repository

Changes to
improve data
quality were made
as a result of audit *

1,2,3,6,8,9
2,3,5,6,8,11
2,3,7,8,11

No
Nob
1997
…

1996
…

Other agency
Other agency

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

2000
1994

1998-99
random

Other agency
Other agency
Other agency

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

1997-98
…

1991-96
…

Other agency
Other agency

1995

1 year

Other agency

1994

random

Other agency

4,6,8,9,10,11

1999
1999

…
12/99

Repository
Other agency

11

1998

1997

Other agency

8,9

No
Yes
Yes

2000
2000

1 year
1935-99

Other agency
Other agency

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

Tennessee
Texas

No
Yes

…

…

Other agency

2,3,5,11

Utah
Vermont

Yes
No

1999

All

Other agency

Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington

No
Yes
Yes

1999
1997

9-10/99
1994-96

Other agency
Other agency

1,8

West Virginia

Yes

1995

Other agency

Wisconsin
Wyoming

Yes
No

1999

entire
database
1998

Other agency

Page 170 • Appendix 18

2,5
12f

Data
quality
audits
planned or
scheduled
for next
3 years

Initiatives
underway
to improve
data quality*

No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11
1,2,3,5,6,8,10,11
1,2,3,5,6,10,11
1,2,3,5,6
2,3,6,7,12a

No
No
Yes
Yes

3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

No
Noc

1,3
2,5,6,12d
1,2,3,5,6,7,8,10,11
1,2,3,6,8,9,10,11
2,3,5,6,8,10

No
Yes
No

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

Yes
Yes
…
…
Yes

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

Yes
No
Yes
Yes

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

No
No
No
No
No

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

No
Yes
No
No
No

1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9
1,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11
1,2,3,5,6,7,9,11,12g
1,2,3,4,5,6
2,3,5,6,10

Yes
Yes
No
Yes

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

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

2,3,6,8,9,10,11

No
Yes

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

…
Yes

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

…
Yes
No
Yes
No

2,11
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9h,10,
11
2
1,2,3,6,7,8,11,12i
2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

2,4,8,9

No

2,5,9,10

j

Yes
No

2,3,5,6,8,9
3,4,11

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Explanatory Notes for Table 20

The notes below expand on the data in Table 20. The explanatory
information was provided by the respondent.
…
*

Not available.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Audit/audit functions/procedures
Automation conversion/redesign enhancements
Disposition/arrest reporting procedures/enhancements
Felony flagging
Fingerprint card/system conversion/enhancements
Inter-agency/local agency interface
Legislation
Plan/strategy development
Task force/advisory group establishment
Tracking number implementation/improvements
Training seminars/policy and procedures manuals
Other

c There are no immediate plans for data quality audits of the State
repository's records within the next three years. The State has
experienced severe budgetary cutbacks that resulted in reductions in
the data processing resources available in the Hawaii Criminal Justice
Data Center. The data quality audit program undertaken in 1994-95
will no longer be retained.
d Missing disposition research.
e The level of completeness is monitored by the annual system
reports.
f A new criminal history record system was developed and deployed in
December 1999.
g Standard practices and interagency legislative initiatives.
h Continuation of task force/advisory group.

a Data standardization projects.
b The last complete audit of the State repository's criminal history
record information system was conducted in August 1992 by another
agency. Although no subsequent audit has been done, the repository
continues to incorporate many of the audit recommendations.

i Felony flagging.
j Findings of the audit are pending publication.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 18 • Page 171

Appendix 19
“Model interstate criminal history record”
From Increasing the Utility of the Criminal History Record: Report of the National Task Force
NCJ 156922, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 1995

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 19 • Page 173

Recommendation 3: A State transmitting a record to another State or to a Federal agency should
structure the record in the following format:
— Model interstate criminal history record

S TATE X CRIMINAL H ISTORY R ECORD
Date Transmitted: March 22, 1995

This record is provided in response to your request. Use of the information contained in this record is governed by State and
Federal laws and regulations. Misuse of any information, including release to unauthorized agencies or individuals, may be
subject to civil or criminal penalties.
The response is based upon a search using the fingerprints and/or identification data you supplied. You are cautioned that
searches based solely on name and non-unique identifiers are not fully reliable. If based on identification data only,
additional information may be obtained by submission of the request subject’s fingerprints.
The response is based upon fingerprint-supported criminal history record information in the files of the State X Criminal
Identification Bureau on this date. Since the Bureau’s files are revised as new information is received, please request an
updated record for any subsequent needs. If explanation of any information is needed, please contact the agency identified as
the contributor.
Additional information, including sealed information, may be available in the files of State or local criminal justice
agencies identified in this record or in the files of other agencies such as departments of motor vehicles. Some of this
information may not be fingerprint-supported and should be used with caution.
Classification of offenses as felonies or misdemeanors is based upon offense classifications set out in the State X penal
code, Title 28 of the Revised Statutes (“RS”).
THIS IS A PORTION OF A MULTISTATE RECORD. ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD
INFORMATION IS INDEXED IN NCIC-III FOR OTHER STATE OR FEDERAL OFFENSES

IDENTIFICATION D ATA
Name:
John M. Schultz

Page 174 • Appendix 19

Aliases:
John Martin Smith
John Martin Schultz
John M. Smith, Jr.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Sex:
Male

Race:
White

Weight:
184 lbs.

Hair:
Brown

Date of Birth:
June 8, 1966
June 6, 1968
Eyes:
Blue

Height:
6 ft. 2 in.

Scars, Marks, Tattoos, Amputations:
Scar upper left arm. Tattoo right bicep:
“Born to Lose”

Place Born:
Central City, State X
Toronto, Canada

Citizenship:
US
Canadian

Fingerprint Class:
NCIC
CO 12 10 PI 12
17 CO 12 17 16

State Ident. No.:
SA123456J

FBI No.:
1233543H

Soc. Sec. No.:
212 36 7245
212 46 7245

Driver Lic. No.:
SX-1234598AD6
SY-3212345AF7

INS Reg. No.
86-3257PR

Misc. No.:
Plumbers Union 327256
USCG - 9876543R

Palm Print Avail:
State X Dept. of Justice
Central City PD, State X

Photo Avail:
State X Dept. of Justice
Central City PD

DNA Sample Avail:
State X Dept. of Justice
ORI SA13685432
FBI CJIS, Clarksburg, WV

Occupation:
Plumber (Feb. 14, 1992)

Employer:
City Heating, 123 Main St., Central City, State X
(Feb. 14, 1992)
Star Electrical Co., No. 7 City Ctr., Farmville, State Y
(Mar. 3, 1993)

Electrician (Mar. 3, 1993)

Residence:
3021 W. Atlas St., Central City, State X (Feb. 14, 1992)
925 Cayuga Ave., Farmville, State Y (Mar. 3, 1993)
Miscellaneous Comments: AFIS fingerprints available, State X Dept. of Justice. Subject stutters, limps.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 19 • Page 175

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUMMARY DATA

Felony Convictions: 3
Total No. Arrests/Indictments: 6 (6 Felony, 0 Misdemeanor)
Total No. Convictions: 3 (3 Felony, 0 Misdemeanor)
Date of Last Arrest: March 3, 1993
Last Reported Event: Received June 14, 1993, State X State Prison, Central City,
25 yrs. without parole
Failure to Appear: 1
Violation of Release Conditions: 1
Bail Revocation: 1
Probation Revocation: 1
Parole Revocation: 1
Caution: Convicted of violent offenses; Convicted of firearms-related offenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CRIMINAL HISTORY DATA
CYCLE NO. 1
A RREST/CHARGE DA T A
Name Used: John M. Schultz
Date of Arrest: June 6, 1983
Arrest Type: Juvenile as Adult
Date of Offense: June 5, 1983
Case Tracking No.: 83-132674567
Arresting Agency: Central City PD ORI SA12343210
Arresting Agency Case No.: 83-12367J
Arresting Agency Offender Ident. No.: 367425C
Arrest Charges:
01 ARMED ROBBERY/FIREARM
RS 28-12345(c)
02 CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON, HANDGUN
RS 28-2367(b)

NCIC 1204
Class A Felony
NCIC 5202
Class C Felony

C OURT DA T A
Court: Farm County Cir. Ct. ORI SA98764321
Court Case No.: 83CR3264
Failure to Appear/Bail Revoked: July 12, 1983
Bench Warrant Issued: July 13, 1983
Court: Farm County Cir. Ct. ORI SA98764321
Court Case No.: 83CR3264
Charges Disposed of:
01 ARMED ROBBERY/FIREARM
NCIC 1204
RS 28-12345(C)
Class A Felony
Disposition: Convicted on Guilty Plea
Disposition Date: Nov. 22, 1983
Sentence: 4 yrs. State Prison (suspended); 6 mos. Farm County Jail;
3 1/2 yrs. Probation. Restitution to victim $750.
Sentence Date: Nov. 29, 1983

Page 176 • Appendix 19

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

02 CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON, HANDGUN
RS 28-2367(B)
Disposition: Dismissed
Disposition Date: Nov. 22, 1983

NCIC 5202
Class C Felony

C ORRECTIONS DA T A
Agency: Farm County Jail ORI SA32764328
Inmate Name: John M. Schultz
Inmate Ident. No.: FC 83-2246J
Received: Nov. 22, 1983
Term: 6 mos.
Released to Probation: May 21, 1984
Agency: Farm County Cir. Ct. Probation Dept. ORI SA32764233
Offender Name: John M. Schultz
Offender Ident No.: FCP 327-84-J
Received: May 22, 1984
Term: 3 1/2 yrs.
Probation Revoked: Nov. 21, 1984. Failure to Pay Restitution;
Violation of Probation Conditions
Agency: State X State Prison, Central City ORI SA33684293
Inmate Name: John M. Schultz
Inmate Ident. No.: SPM332624
Received: Dec. 2, 1984
Term: Remainder of 4 yrs. from Nov. 29, 1983
Released on Parole: July 6, 1987
Agency: State X Parole Bd., Central City ORI SA32678911
Offender Name: John M. Schultz
Agency Offender Ident. No.: PB 36294-87
Received: July 7, 1987
Term: Remainder of 4 yrs. from Nov. 29, 1983
Unconditionally Released: Nov. 29, 1987

CYCLE NO. 2
A RREST/CHARGE DA T A
Name Used: John Martin Smith
Date of Arrest: Dec. 12, 1987
Arrest Type: Adult
Date of Offense: Dec. 12, 1987
Case Tracking No: 87-235764832
Arresting Agency: Central City PD ORI SA12343210
Arresting Agency Case No.: 87-2374
Arresting Agency Offender Ident. No.: 367425C
Arrest Charges:
01 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, FIREARM
RS 28-324(C)
02 CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON, FIREARM
RS 28-2367(B)

NCIC 1304
Class C Felony
NCIC 5202
Class C Felony

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 19 • Page 177

PROSECUTION DA T A
Prosecuting Agency: Farm County Prosecutor ORI SA37674897
Prosecuting Agency Case No.: 87CR1367D
Date of Action: Jan. 13, 1988
Charge 02 Changed to:
Possession of Firearm By Felon
RS 28-2368(C)

NCIC 5203
Class B Felony

C OURT DA T A
Court: Farm County Cir. Ct. ORI SA98764321
Court Case No.: 87CR5782
Charges Disposed of:
01 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, FIREARM
RS 28-324(c)
Changed to: Simple Assault
RS 28 324(a)
Disposition: Convicted on Guilty Plea
Disposition Date: May 13, 1988
Sentence: 1 to 3 yrs.
Sentence Date: May 22, 1988
02 POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY FELON
RS 28-2368(C)
Changed to: Possession of Unlicensed Firearm
RS 28-325(b)
Disposition: Convicted on Guilty Plea
Disposition Date: May 13, 1988
Sentence: $100 fine
Sentence Date: May 22, 1988

NCIC 1304
Class C Felony
NCIC 1313
Class D Felony

NCIC 5203
Class B Felony
NCIC 5210
Class B Misdemeanor

C ORRECTIONS DA T A
Agency: State X Prison, Central City ORI SA33684293
Inmate Name: John Martin Smith
Inmate Ident. No.: SPM32624
Received: May 14, 1988
Term: 1-3 yrs.
Released on Parole: Oct. 15, 1989
Agency: State X Parole Board, Central City ORI SA32678911
Offender Name: John Martin Smith
Offender Ident. No.: PB36294-89
Received: Oct. 21, 1989
Term: Remainder of 1-3 yrs.
Parole Revoked: Jan. 3, 1990
Agency: State X State Prison, Central City ORI SA33684293
Inmate Name: John Martin Smith
Inmate Ident. No.: SPM32624
Received: Jan. 8, 1990
Term: Remainder of 1-3 yrs.
Released at Sentence Expiration: May 21, 1991

Page 178 • Appendix 19

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------CYCLE NO. 3
A RREST/CHARGE DA T A
Name: John Martin Schultz
Indicted: Farm County Cir. Ct. Grand Jury ORI SA32467321
Date of Indictment: July 31, 1991
Date of Offense: July 1, 1991
Case Tracking No.: 91-003265433
Summons Issued: July 31, 1991
Charges:
01 RAPE, FIREARM
RS 28-723B
02 POSSESSION FIREARM BY FELON
RS 28-2368(C)

NCIC 1101
Class A Felony
NCIC 5203
Class B Felony

C OURT DA T A
Court: Farm County Cir. Ct. ORI SA98764321
Court Case No.: 91 CR322
Charges Disposed of:
01 RAPE, FIREARM
RS 28-723B
Disposition: Found Not Guilty by Jury
Disposition Date: Sept. 10, 1991
02 POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY FELON
RS 28-2368(C)
Disposition: Found Not Guilty by Jury
Disposition Date: Sept. 10, 1991

NCIC 1101
Class A Felony

NCIC 5203
Class B Felony

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------CYCLE NO. 4
A RREST/CHARGE DA T A
Name Used: John M. Schultz
Date of Arrest: Oct. 3, 1991
Arrest Type: Adult
Date of Offense: Oct. 2, 1991
Case Tracking No.: 91-12467524
Arresting Agency: Central City PD ORI SA12343210
Arresting Agency Case No.: 91-2467
Arresting Agency Offender Ident No.: 367425C
Arrest Charges:
01 BURGLARY/FORCED ENTRY RESIDENCE
RS 28-468(D)
02 POSSESSION STOLEN PROPERTY
RS 28-63(K)

NCIC 220
Class B Felony
NCIC 2804
Class A Misdemeanor

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 19 • Page 179

P ROSECUTOR D ATA
Prosecuting Agency: Farm County Pros. ORI SA37674897
Prosecuting Agency Case No.: 91-CR-4267
Disposition: Declined to Prosecute all Charges
Disposition Date: Oct. 5, 1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------CYCLE NO. 5
A RREST/CHARGE DA T A
Name Used: John M. Smith, Jr.
Date of Arrest: Feb. 14, 1992
Arrest Type: Adult
Date of Offense: Feb. 12, 1992
Case Tracking No.: 91-12467325
Arresting Agency: Central City PD ORI SA12343210
Arresting Agency Case No.: 91-0032
Arresting Agency Offender Ident. No.: 36774250
Arrest Charges:
01 POSSESSION STOLEN VEHICLE
RS 28-2264
Disposition: Released Without Prosecution
Disposition Date: Feb. 15, 1992

NCIC 2407
Class D Felony

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------CYCLE NO. 6
A RREST/CHARGE DA T A
Name Used: John M. Schultz
Date of Arrest: Mar. 3, 1993
Arrest Type: Adult
Date of Offense: Mar. 3, 1993
Case Tracking No.: 93-367428967
Arresting Agency: Farmville PD ORI SA32642823
Arresting Agency Case No.: C93421
Arresting Agency Offender Ident. No.: C324274
Arrest Charges:
01 ARMED ROBBERY WITH FIREARM
RS 28-12345(C)
02 POSSESSION FIREARM BY FELON
RS 28-2768(C)
03 DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY
RS 28-313a
04 TRESPASSING
RS 28-103

Page 180 • Appendix 19

NCIC 1204
Class A Felony
NCIC 5203
Class B Felony
NCIC 2902
Class B Misdemeanor
NCIC 5707
Class D Misdemeanor

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

C OURT DA T A
Court: Farm County Dist. Ct. ORI SA98463224
Court Case No.: 2367-CR-93
Charges Disposed of:
01 ARMED ROBBERY WITH FIREARM
RS 28-1234(C)
Disposition: Bound Over to Cir. Ct.
Disposition Date: May 10, 1993
02 POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY FELON
RS 28-2768(C)
Disposition: Bound Over to Cir. Ct.
Disposition Date: May 10, 1993
03 DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY
RS 28-313a
Disposition: Dismissed
Disposition: Mar. 10, 1993
04 TRESPASSING
RS 28-103
Disposition: Dismissed
Disposition: Mar. 10, 1993

NCIC 1204
Class A Felony

NCIC 5203
Class B Felony

NCIC 2902
Class B Misdemeanor

NCIC 5707
Class D Misdemeanor

C OURT DA T A — CIRCUIT C OURT D ATA N OT R EPORTED
C ORRECTIONS DA T A
Agency: State X State Prison, Central City ORI SA33684291
Inmate Name: John M. Schultz
Inmate Ident. No.: SPM32624
Received: June 14, 1993
Committing Court: Farm County Cir. Ct. ORI SA98764321
Committing Court Case No.: 93CR42732
Conviction Offenses: Armed robbery; possession of firearm by felon; repeat violent
offender
Commitment Term: 25 yrs. without parole
A PPELLATE C OURT D ATA
Court: State X Court of Appeals ORI SA 98665431
Court Case No: 93CR221
Decision: Judgment and Sentence as Repeat Violent Offender Confirmed
Date of Decision: Oct. 22, 1993

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 19 • Page 181

Appendix 20
Federal Bureau of Investigation/Bureau of Justice Statistics
Recommended Voluntary Reporting Standards
for Improving the Quality of Criminal Record Information

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 20 • Page 183

Federal Bureau of Investigation/Bureau of Justice Statistics
Recommended Voluntary Reporting Standards
for Improving the Quality of Criminal Record Information

The following 10
“Recommended Voluntary
Standards for Improving the Quality
of Criminal History Record
Information” were jointly developed
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.1 After adoption of
these standards, the functions
referred to as FBI Identification
(FBI ID) in the standards were taken
over by the Criminal Justice
Information Services Division of
FBI (FBI-CJIS).
1. Every State shall maintain
fingerprint impressions or copies
thereof as the basic source document
for each arrest (including incidents
based upon a summons issued in
lieu of an arrest warrant) recorded in
the criminal history record system.
2. Arrest fingerprint impressions
submitted to the State repository and
the FBI Identification Division (ID)
should be complete, but shall at least
contain the following data elements:
date of arrest, originating agency
identification number, arrest
charges, a unique tracking number
(if available) and the subject's full
name, date of birth, sex, race and
social security number (if available).
3. Every State shall ensure that
fingerprint impressions of persons
arrested for serious and/or
significant offenses are included in
the national criminal history records
system.

4. All disposition reports submitted
to the State repository and the FBI
ID shall contain the following: FBI
number (if available), name of
subject, date of birth, sex, state
identifier number, social security
number (if available), date of arrest,
tracking number (if available), arrest
offense literal, court offense literal,
and agency identifier number of
agency reporting arrest.
5. All final disposition reports
submitted to the State repository and
the FBI ID that report a conviction
for an offense classified as a felony
(or equivalent) within the State shall
include a flag identifying the
conviction as a felony.
6. States shall ensure to the
maximum extent possible that arrest
and/or confinement fingerprints are
submitted to the State repository
and, when appropriate, to the FBI ID
within 24 hours; however, in the
case of single-source states, state
repositories shall forward
fingerprints, when appropriate, to
the FBI ID within two weeks of
receipt.

8. Every State shall ensure that
annual audits of a representative
sample of State and local criminal
justice agencies shall be conducted
by the State to verify adherence to
State and Federal standards and
regulations.
9. Wherever criminal history record
information is collected, stored, or
disseminated, each State shall
institute procedures to assure the
physical security of such
information, to prevent unauthorized
access, disclosure, or dissemination,
and to ensure that such information
cannot improperly be modified,
destroyed, accessed, changed,
purged, or overlaid.
10. Every State shall accurately
identify to the maximum extent
feasible all State criminal history
records maintained or received in
the future that contain a conviction
for an offense classified as a felony
(or equivalent) within the State.

7. States shall ensure to the
maximum extent possible that final
dispositions are reported to the State
repository and, where appropriate, to
the FBI ID within a period not to
exceed 90 days after the disposition
is known.

1 U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation and
Bureau of Justice Statistics,
“Recommended Voluntary
Standards for Improving the Quality
of Criminal History Record
Information,” Federal Register 56
(February 13, 1991) p. 5849.

Page 184 • Appendix 20

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 21
“National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact and Section-by-Section Analysis”
From National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact: Resource Materials
NCJ 171671, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1999

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 21 • Page 185

National Crime Prevention
and Privacy Compact and
Section-by-Section Analysis
Senate Bill 2022, which includes the Compact, was
passed by Congress and signed into law by the
president in October 1998.1. The section-by-section
analysis of the Compact is a statement of Sen. Mike
DeWine (R-OH), which was read into the October
16, 1998, edition of the Congressional Record.2
TITLE II—NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY
ACCESS AND CHILD PROTECTION ACT

purposes on a uniform basis, while permitting each
State to effectuate its own dissemination policy
within its own borders; and
(5) such a compact will allow Federal and State
records to be provided expeditiously to governmental
and nongovernmental agencies that use such records
in accordance with pertinent Federal and State law,
while simultaneously enhancing the accuracy of the
records and safeguarding the information contained
therein from unauthorized disclosure or use.
Section 213. Definitions.
In this subtitle:

Section 201. Short Title.
This title may be cited as the “National Criminal
History Access and Child Protection Act”.
Subtitle A—Exchange of Criminal History
Records for Noncriminal Justice Purposes
Section 211. Short Title.
This subtitle may be cited as the “National Crime
Prevention and Privacy Compact Act of 1998”.

(1) ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The term “Attorney
General” means the Attorney General of the United
States.
(2) COMPACT.—The term “Compact” means the
National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact set
forth in section 217.
(3) COUNCIL.—The term “Council” means the
Compact Council established under Article VI of the
Compact.

Section 212. Findings.
(4) FBI.—The term “FBI” means the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.

Congress finds that—
(1) both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and State
criminal history record repositories maintain
fingerprint-based criminal history records;
(2) these criminal history records are shared and
exchanged for criminal justice purposes through a
Federal-State program known as the Interstate
Identification Index System;
(3) although these records are also exchanged for
legally authorized, noncriminal justice uses, such as
governmental licensing and employment background
checks, the purposes for and procedures by which
they are exchanged vary widely from State to State;
(4) an interstate and Federal-State compact is
necessary to facilitate authorized interstate criminal
history record exchanges for noncriminal justice

(5) PARTY STATE.—The term “Party State” means
a State that has ratified the Compact.
(6) STATE.—The term “State” means any State,
territory, or possession of the United States, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
Section 214. Enactment and Consent of the United
States.
The National Crime Prevention and Privacy
Compact, as set forth in section 217, is enacted into
law and entered into by the Federal Government. The
consent of Congress is given to States to enter into
the Compact.
Section 215. Effect on Other Laws.
(a) PRIVACY ACT OF 1974.—Nothing in the
Compact shall affect the obligations and
responsibilities of the FBI under section 552a of title

1 Title II of Pub. L. 105-251.
2 Cong. Rec. S12671-S12673 (daily ed. October 16, 1998)
(statement of Sen. DeWine).

Page 186 • Appendix 21

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

5, United States Code (commonly known as the
“Privacy Act of 1974”).
(b) ACCESS TO CERTAIN RECORDS NOT
AFFECTED.—Nothing in the Compact shall
interfere in any manner with—
(1) access, direct or otherwise, to records pursuant to-

(1) to be, for any purpose other than to effect the
Compact, officers or employees of the United States
(as defined in sections 2104 and 2105 of title 5,
United States Code); or
(2) to become entitled by reason of Council
membership to any compensation or benefit payable
or made available by the Federal Government to its
officers or employees.

(A) section 9101 of title 5, United States Code;
Section 216. Enforcement and Implementation.
(B) the National Child Protection Act;
(C) the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
(Public Law l03-l59; 107 Stat. 1536);
(D) the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 2074) or
any amendment made by that Act;
(E) the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437 et seq.); or
(F) the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et
seq.); or

All departments, agencies, officers, and employees of
the United States shall enforce the Compact and
cooperate with one another and with all Party States
in enforcing the Compact and effectuating its
purposes. For the Federal Government, the Attorney
General shall make such rules, prescribe such
instructions, and take such other actions as may be
necessary to carry out the Compact and this subtitle.
Section 217. National Crime Prevention and
Privacy Compact.
The Contracting Parties agree to the following:
OVERVIEW

(2) any direct access to Federal criminal history
records authorized by law.
(c) AUTHORITY OF FBI UNDER
DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE, AND
COMMERCE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATION ACT,
1973.—Nothing in the Compact shall be construed to
affect the authority of the FBI under the Departments
of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1973 (Public
Law 92-544 (86 Stat. 1115)).
(d) FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ACT.—The Council shall not be considered to be a
Federal advisory committee for purposes of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
(e) MEMBERS OF COUNCIL NOT FEDERAL
OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES.—Members of the
Council (other than a member from the FBI or any atlarge member who may be a Federal official or
employee) shall not, by virtue of such membership,
be deemed—

(a) IN GENERAL.—This Compact organizes an
electronic information sharing system among the
Federal Government and the States to exchange
criminal history records for noncriminal justice
purposes authorized by Federal or State law, such as
background checks for governmental licensing and
employment.
(b) OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES.—Under this
Compact, the FBI and the Party States agree to
maintain detailed databases of their respective
criminal history records, including arrests and
dispositions, and to make them available to the
Federal Government and to Party States for
authorized purposes. The FBI shall also manage the
Federal data facilities that provide a significant part
of the infrastructure for the system.
ARTICLE I—DEFINITIONS
In this Compact:
(1) ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The term “Attorney
General” means the Attorney General of the United
States.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 21 • Page 187

(2) COMPACT OFFICER.—The term “Compact
Officer” means—

(ii) a governmental agency or any subunit thereof
that—

(A) with respect to the Federal Government, an
official so designated by the Director of the FBI; and

(I) performs the administration of criminal justice
pursuant to a statute or Executive order; and

(B) with respect to a Party State, the chief
administrator of the State’s criminal history record
repository or a designee of the chief administrator
who is a regular full-time employee of the repository.

(II) allocates a substantial part of its annual budget to
the administration of criminal justice; and

(3) COUNCIL.—The term “Council” means the
Compact Council established under Article VI.
(4) CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS.—The term
“criminal history records”—
(A) means information collected by criminal justice
agencies on individuals consisting of identifiable
descriptions and notations of arrests, detentions,
indictments, or other formal criminal charges, and
any disposition arising therefrom, including acquittal,
sentencing, correctional supervision, or release; and
(B) does not include identification information such
as fingerprint records if such information does not
indicate involvement of the individual with the
criminal justice system.
(5) CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD
REPOSITORY.—The term “criminal history record
repository” means the State agency designated by the
Governor or other appropriate executive official or
the legislature of a State to perform centralized
recordkeeping functions for criminal history records
and services in the State.
(6) CRIMINAL JUSTICE.—The term “criminal
justice” includes activities relating to the detection,
apprehension, detention, pretrial release, post-trial
release, prosecution, adjudication, correctional
supervision, or rehabilitation of accused persons or
criminal offenders. The administration of criminal
justice includes criminal identification activities and
the collection, storage, and dissemination of criminal
history records.
(7) CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY.—The term
“criminal justice agency”—

(B) includes Federal and State inspectors general
offices.
(8) CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES.—The term
“criminal justice services” means services provided
by the FBI to criminal justice agencies in response to
a request for information about a particular individual
or as an update to information previously provided
for criminal justice purposes.
(9) CRITERION OFFENSE.—The term “criterion
offense” means any felony or misdemeanor offense
not included on the list of nonserious offenses
published periodically by the FBI.
(10) DIRECT ACCESS.—The term “direct access”
means access to the National Identification Index by
computer terminal or other automated means not
requiring the assistance of or intervention by any
other party or agency.
(11) EXECUTIVE ORDER.—The term “Executive
order” means an order of the President of the United
States or the chief executive officer of a State that has
the force of law and that is promulgated in
accordance with applicable law.
(12) FBI.—The term “FBI” means the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
(13) INTERSTATE IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM.—The term “Interstate Identification Index
System” or “III System”—
(A) means the cooperative Federal-State system for
the exchange of criminal history records; and
(B) includes the National Identification Index, the
National Fingerprint File and, to the extent of their
participation in such system, the criminal history
record repositories of the States and the FBI.

(A) means—
(i) courts; and

Page 188 • Appendix 21

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

(14) NATIONAL FINGERPRINT FILE.—The term
“National Fingerprint File” means 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.
(15) NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION INDEX.—The
term “National Identification Index” means an index
maintained by the FBI consisting of names,
identifying numbers, and other descriptive
information relating to record subjects about whom
there are criminal history records in the III System.
(16) NATIONAL INDICES.—The term “National
indices” means the National Identification Index and
the National Fingerprint File.
(17) NONPARTY STATE.—The term “Nonparty
State” means a State that has not ratified this
Compact.

(i) not available for criminal justice uses;
(ii) not supported by fingerprints or other accepted
means of positive identification; or
(iii) subject to restrictions on dissemination for
noncriminal justice purposes pursuant to a court order
related to a particular subject or pursuant to a Federal
or State statute that requires action on a sealing
petition filed by a particular record subject; and
(B) with respect to juveniles, whatever each State
determines is a sealed record under its own law and
procedure.
(22) STATE.—The term “State” means any State,
territory, or possession of the United States, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
ARTICLE II—PURPOSES
The purposes of this Compact are to—

(18) NONCRIMINAL JUSTICE PURPOSES.—The
term “noncriminal justice purposes” means uses of
criminal history records for purposes authorized by
Federal or State law other than purposes relating to
criminal justice activities, including employment
suitability, licensing determinations, immigration and
naturalization matters, and national security
clearances.
(19) PARTY STATE.—The term “Party State”
means a State that has ratified this Compact.
(20) POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION.—The term
“positive identification” means a determination,
based upon a comparison of fingerprints or other
equally reliable biometric identification techniques,
that the subject of a record search is the same person
as the subject of a criminal history record or records
indexed in the III System. Identifications based solely
upon a comparison of subjects’ names or other
nonunique identification characteristics or numbers,
or combinations thereof, shall not constitute positive
identification.
(21) SEALED RECORD INFORMATION.—The
term “sealed record information” means—
(A) with respect to adults, that portion of a record
that is—

(1) provide a legal framework for the establishment
of a cooperative Federal-State system for the
interstate and Federal-State exchange of criminal
history records for noncriminal justice uses;
(2) require the FBI to permit use of the National
Identification Index and the National Fingerprint File
by each Party State, and to provide, in a timely
fashion, Federal and State criminal history records to
requesting States, in accordance with the terms of this
Compact and with rules, procedures, and standards
established by the Council under Article VI;
(3) require Party States to provide information and
records for the National Identification Index and the
National Fingerprint File and to provide criminal
history records, in a timely fashion, to criminal
history record repositories of other States and the
Federal Government for noncriminal justice
purposes, in accordance with the terms of this
Compact and with rules, procedures, and standards
established by the Council under Article VI;
(4) provide for the establishment of a Council to
monitor III System operations and to prescribe
system rules and procedures for the effective and
proper operation of the III System for noncriminal
justice purposes; and

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 21 • Page 189

(5) require the FBI and each Party State to adhere to
III System standards concerning record dissemination
and use, response times, system security, data quality,
and other duly established standards, including those
that enhance the accuracy and privacy of such
records.
ARTICLE III—RESPONSIBILITIES OF
COMPACT PARTIES
(a) FBI RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Director of the
FBI shall—
(1) appoint an FBI Compact officer who shall—
(A) administer this Compact within the Department
of Justice and among Federal agencies and other
agencies and organizations that submit search
requests to the FBI pursuant to Article V(c);

(4) modify or enter into user agreements with
Nonparty State criminal history record repositories to
require them to establish record request procedures
conforming to those prescribed in Article V.
(b) STATE RESPONSIBILITIES.—Each Party State
shall—
(1) appoint a Compact officer who shall—
(A) administer this Compact within that State;
(B) ensure that Compact provisions and rules,
procedures, and standards established by the Council
under Article VI are complied with in the State; and
(C) regulate the in-State use of records received by
means of the III System from the FBI or from other
Party States;

(B) ensure that Compact provisions and rules,
procedures, and standards prescribed by the Council
under Article VI are complied with by the
Department of Justice and the Federal agencies and
other agencies and organizations referred to in Article
III(1)(A); and

(2) establish and maintain a criminal history record
repository, which shall provide—

(C) regulate the use of records received by means of
the III System from Party States when such records
are supplied by the FBI directly to other Federal
agencies;

(B) the State’s III System-indexed criminal history
records for noncriminal justice purposes described in
Article IV;

(A) information and records for the National
Identification Index and the National Fingerprint
File; and

(3) participate in the National Fingerprint File; and
(2) provide to Federal agencies and to State criminal
history record repositories, criminal history records
maintained in its database for the noncriminal justice
purposes described in Article IV, including—
(A) information from Nonparty States; and
(B) information from Party States that is available
from the FBI through the III System, but is not
available from the Party State through the III System;
(3) provide a telecommunications network and
maintain centralized facilities for the exchange of
criminal history records for both criminal justice
purposes and the noncriminal justice purposes
described in Article IV, and ensure that the exchange
of such records for criminal justice purposes has
priority over exchange for noncriminal justice
purposes; and

Page 190 • Appendix 21

(4) provide and maintain telecommunications links
and related equipment necessary to support the
services set forth in this Compact.
(c) COMPLIANCE WITH III SYSTEM
STANDARDS.—In carrying out their responsibilities
under this Compact, the FBI and each Party State
shall comply with III System rules, procedures, and
standards duly established by the Council concerning
record dissemination and use, response times, data
quality, system security, accuracy, privacy protection,
and other aspects of III System operation.
(d) MAINTENANCE OF RECORD SERVICES.—
(1) Use of the III System for noncriminal justice
purposes authorized in this Compact shall be
managed so as not to diminish the level of services
provided in support of criminal justice purposes.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

(2) Administration of Compact provisions shall not
reduce the level of service available to authorized
noncriminal justice users on the effective date of this
Compact.
ARTICLE IV—AUTHORIZED RECORD
DISCLOSURES
(a) STATE CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD
REPOSITORIES.—To the extent authorized by
section 552a of title 5, United States Code
(commonly known as the “Privacy Act of 1974”), the
FBI shall provide on request criminal history records
(excluding sealed records) to State criminal history
record repositories for noncriminal justice purposes
allowed by Federal statute, Federal Executive order,
or a State statute that has been approved by the
Attorney General and that authorizes national indices
checks.
(b) CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES AND
OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OR
NONGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.—The FBI, to
the extent authorized by section 552a of title 5,
United States Code (commonly known as the
“Privacy Act of 1974”), and State criminal history
record repositories shall provide criminal history
records (excluding sealed records) to criminal justice
agencies and other governmental or nongovernmental
agencies for noncriminal justice purposes allowed by
Federal statute, Federal Executive order, or a State
statute that has been approved by the Attorney
General, that authorizes national indices checks.
(c) PROCEDURES.—Any record obtained under this
Compact may be used only for the official purposes
for which the record was requested. Each Compact
officer shall establish procedures, consistent with this
Compact, and with rules, procedures, and standards
established by the Council under Article VI, which
procedures shall protect the accuracy and privacy of
the records, and shall—
(1) ensure that records obtained under this Compact
are used only by authorized officials for authorized
purposes;
(2) require that subsequent record checks are
requested to obtain current information whenever a
new need arises; and

(3) ensure that record entries that may not legally be
used for a particular noncriminal justice purpose are
deleted from the response and, if no information
authorized for release remains, an appropriate “no
record” response is communicated to the requesting
official.
ARTICLE V—RECORD REQUEST
PROCEDURES
(a) POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION.—Subject
fingerprints or other approved forms of positive
identification shall be submitted with all requests for
criminal history record checks for noncriminal justice
purposes.
(b) SUBMISSION OF STATE REQUESTS.—Each
request for a criminal history record check utilizing
the national indices made under any approved State
statute shall be submitted through that State’s
criminal history record repository. A State criminal
history record repository shall process an interstate
request for noncriminal justice purposes through the
national indices only if such request is transmitted
through another State criminal history record
repository or the FBI.
(c) SUBMISSION OF FEDERAL REQUESTS.—
Each request for criminal history record checks
utilizing the national indices made under Federal
authority shall be submitted through the FBI or, if the
State criminal history record repository consents to
process fingerprint submissions, through the criminal
history record repository in the State in which such
request originated. Direct access to the National
Identification Index by entities other than the FBI and
State criminal history records repositories shall not be
permitted for noncriminal justice purposes.
(d) FEES.—A State criminal history record
repository or the FBI—
(1) may charge a fee, in accordance with applicable
law, for handling a request involving fingerprint
processing for noncriminal justice purposes; and
(2) may not charge a fee for providing criminal
history records in response to an electronic request
for a record that does not involve a request to process
fingerprints.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 21 • Page 191

(e) ADDITIONAL SEARCH.—
(1) If a State criminal history record repository
cannot positively identify the subject of a record
request made for noncriminal justice purposes, the
request, together with fingerprints or other approved
identifying information, shall be forwarded to the
FBI for a search of the national indices.

that, in the absence of the requisite number of
Compact officers available to serve, the chief
administrators of the criminal history record
repositories of Nonparty States shall be eligible to
serve on an interim basis.
(2) Two at-large members, nominated by the Director
of the FBI, each of whom shall serve a 3-year term,
of whom—

(2) If, with respect to a request forwarded by a State
criminal history record repository under paragraph
(1), the FBI positively identifies the subject as having
a III System-indexed record or records—

(A) 1 shall be a representative of the criminal justice
agencies of the Federal Government and may not be
an employee of the FBI; and

(A) the FBI shall so advise the State criminal history
record repository; and

(B) 1 shall be a representative of the noncriminal
justice agencies of the Federal Government.

(B) the State criminal history record repository shall
be entitled to obtain the additional criminal history
record information from the FBI or other State
criminal history record repositories.

(3) Two at-large members, nominated by the
Chairman of the Council, once the Chairman is
elected pursuant to Article VI(c), each of whom shall
serve a 3-year term, of whom—

ARTICLE VI—ESTABLISHMENT OF A
COMPACT COUNCIL

(A) 1 shall be a representative of State or local
criminal justice agencies; and

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

(B) 1 shall be a representative of State or local
noncriminal justice agencies.

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a council to
be known as the “Compact Council”, which shall
have the authority to promulgate rules and procedures
governing the use of the III System for noncriminal
justice purposes, not to conflict with FBI
administration of the III System for criminal justice
purposes.

(4) One member, who shall serve a 3-year term, and
who shall simultaneously be a member of the FBI’s
advisory policy board on criminal justice information
services, nominated by the membership of that policy
board.

(2) ORGANIZATION.—The Council shall—

(5) One member, nominated by the Director of the
FBI, who shall serve a 3-year term, and who shall be
an employee of the FBI.

(A) continue in existence as long as this Compact
remains in effect;
(B) be located, for administrative purposes, within
the FBI; and
(C) be organized and hold its first meeting as soon as
practicable after the effective date of this Compact.
(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Council shall be
composed of 15 members, each of whom shall be
appointed by the Attorney General, as follows:
(l) Nine members, each of whom shall serve a 2-year
term, who shall be selected from among the Compact
officers of Party States based on the recommendation
of the Compact officers of all Party States, except

Page 192 • Appendix 21

(c) CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—From its membership, the
Council shall elect a Chairman and a Vice Chairman
of the Council, respectively. Both the Chairman and
Vice Chairman of the Council—
(A) shall be a Compact officer, unless there is no
Compact officer on the Council who is willing to
serve, in which case the Chairman may be an at-large
member; and
(B) shall serve a 2-year term and may be reelected to
only 1 additional 2-year term.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

(2) DUTIES OF VICE CHAIRMAN.—The Vice
Chairman of the Council shall serve as the Chairman
of the Council in the absence of the Chairman.
(d) MEETINGS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Council shall meet at least
once a year at the call of the Chairman. Each meeting
of the Council shall be open to the public. The
Council shall provide prior public notice in the
Federal Register of each meeting of the Council,
including the matters to be addressed at such
meeting.
(2) QUORUM.—A majority of the Council or any
committee of the Council shall constitute a quorum
of the Council or of such committee, respectively, for
the conduct of business. A lesser number may meet
to hold hearings, take testimony, or conduct any
business not requiring a vote.
(e) RULES, PROCEDURES, AND
STANDARDS.—The Council shall make available
for public inspection and copying at the Council
office within the FBI, and shall publish in the Federal
Register, any rules, procedures, or standards
established by the Council.
(f) ASSISTANCE FROM FBI.—The Council may
request from the FBI such reports, studies, statistics,
or other information or materials as the Council
determines to be necessary to enable the Council to
perform its duties under this Compact. The FBI, to
the extent authorized by law, may provide such
assistance or information upon such a request.
(g) COMMITTEES.—The Chairman may establish
committees as necessary to carry out this Compact
and may prescribe their membership, responsibilities,
and duration.

ARTICLE VIII—MISCELLANEOUS
PROVISIONS
(a) RELATION OF COMPACT TO CERTAIN FBI
ACTIVITIES.—Administration of this Compact shall
not interfere with the management and control of the
Director of the FBI over the FBI’s collection and
dissemination of criminal history records and the
advisory function of the FBI’s advisory policy board
chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(5 U.S.C. App.) for all purposes other than
noncriminal justice.
(b) NO AUTHORITY FOR NONAPPROPRIATED
EXPENDITURES.—Nothing in this Compact shall
require the FBI to obligate or expend funds beyond
those appropriated to the FBI.
(c) RELATING TO PUBLIC LAW 92-544.—
Nothing in this Compact shall diminish or lessen the
obligations, responsibilities, and authorities of any
State, whether a Party State or a Nonparty State, or of
any criminal history record repository or other
subdivision or component thereof, under the
Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act,
1973 (Public Law 92-544) or regulations and
guidelines promulgated thereunder, including the
rules and procedures promulgated by the Council
under Article VI(a), regarding the use and
dissemination of criminal history records and
information.
ARTICLE IX—RENUNCIATION
(a) IN GENERAL.—This Compact shall bind each
Party State until renounced by the Party State.
(b) EFFECT.—Any renunciation of this Compact by
a Party State shall—

ARTICLE VII—RATIFICATION OF
COMPACT

(1) be effected in the same manner by which the
Party State ratified this Compact; and

This Compact shall take effect upon being entered
into by 2 or more States as between those States and
the Federal Government. Upon subsequent entering
into this Compact by additional States, it shall
become effective among those States and the Federal
Government and each Party State that has previously
ratified it. When ratified, this Compact shall have the
full force and effect of law within the ratifying
jurisdictions. The form of ratification shall be in
accordance with the laws of the executing State.

(2) become effective 180 days after written notice of
renunciation is provided by the Party State to each
other Party State and to the Federal Government.
ARTICLE X—SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Compact shall be severable,
and if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of
this Compact is declared to be contrary to the

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 21 • Page 193

constitution of any participating State, or to the
Constitution of the United States, or the applicability
thereof to any government, agency, person, or
circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the
remainder of this Compact and the applicability
thereof to any government, agency, person, or
circumstance shall not be affected thereby. If a
portion of this Compact is held contrary to the
constitution of any Party State, all other portions of
this Compact shall remain in full force and effect as
to the remaining Party States and in full force and
effect as to the Party State affected, as to all other
provisions.
ARTICLE XI—ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTES
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Council shall—
(1) have initial authority to make determinations with
respect to any dispute regarding—
(A) interpretation of this Compact;
(B) any rule or standard established by the Council
pursuant to Article V; and
(C) any dispute or controversy between any parties to
this Compact; and
(2) hold a hearing concerning any dispute described
in paragraph (1) at a regularly scheduled meeting of
the Council and only render a decision based upon a
majority vote of the members of the Council. Such
decision shall be published pursuant to the
requirements of Article VI(e).
(b) DUTIES OF FBI.—The FBI shall exercise
immediate and necessary action to preserve the
integrity of the III System, maintain system policy
and standards, protect the accuracy and privacy of
records, and to prevent abuses, until the Council
holds a hearing on such matters.
(c) RIGHT OF APPEAL.—The FBI or a Party State
may appeal any decision of the Council to the
Attorney General, and thereafter may file suit in the
appropriate district court of the United States, which
shall have original jurisdiction of all cases or
controversies arising under this Compact. Any suit
arising under this Compact and initiated in a State
court shall be removed to the appropriate district
court of the United States in the manner provided by
section 1446 of title 28, United States Code, or other
statutory authority.

Page 194 • Appendix 21

NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION AND
PRIVACY COMPACT OF THE NATIONAL
CRIMINAL HISTORY ACCESS AND CHILD
PROTECTION ACT SECTION-BY-SECTION
ANALYSIS
Section 211.—This section provides the short title of
the Act.
Section 212.—This section sets forth the
congressional findings upon which the Act is
predicated. The section reflects congressional
determinations that both the FBI and the states
maintain fingerprint-based criminal history records
and exchange them for criminal justice purposes and
also, to the extent authorized by federal law and the
laws of the various states, use the information
contained in these records for certain noncriminal
justice purposes. Although this system has operated
for years on a reciprocal, voluntary basis, the
exchange of records for noncriminal justice purposes
has been hampered by the fact that the laws and
policies of the states governing the noncriminal
justice use of criminal history records and the
procedures by which they are exchanged vary widely.
A compact will establish a uniform standard for the
interstate and federal-state exchange of criminal
history records for noncriminal justice purposes,
while permitting each state to continue to enforce its
own record dissemination laws within its own
borders. A compact will also facilitate the interstate
and federal-state exchange of information by
clarifying the obligations and responsibilities of the
respective parties, streamlining the processing of
background search applications and eliminating
record maintenance duplication at the federal and
state levels. Finally, the compact will provide a
mechanism for establishing and enforcing uniform
standards governing record accuracy and protecting
the confidentiality and privacy interests of record
subjects.
Section 213.—This section sets out definitions of key
terms used in this subtitle. Definitions of key terms
used in the compact are set out in Article I of the
compact.
Section 214.—This section formally enacts the
compact into federal law, makes the United States a
party, and consents to entry into the Compact by the
States.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Section 215.—This section outlines the effect of the
Compact’s enactment on certain other laws. First,
subsection (a) provides that the Compact is deemed
to have no effect on the FBI’s obligations and
responsibilities under the Privacy Act. The Privacy
Act became effective in 1975, and can generally be
characterized as a federal code of fair information
practices regarding individuals. The Privacy Act
regulates the collection, maintenance, use, and
dissemination of personal information by the federal
government. This Section makes clear that the
Compact will neither expand nor diminish the
obligations imposed on the FBI by the Privacy Act.
All requirements relating to collection, disclosure and
administrative matters remain in effect, including
standards relating to notice, accuracy and security
measures.
Second, enactment of the Compact will neither
expand nor diminish the responsibility of the FBI and
the state criminal history record repositories to permit
access, direct or otherwise, to criminal history
records under the authority of certain other federal
laws (enumerated in subsection (b)(1)). These laws
include the following:
The Security Clearance Information Act (Section
9101 of Title 5, United States Code) requires state
and local criminal justice agencies to release criminal
history record information to certain federal agencies
for national security background checks.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
prescribes a waiting period before the purchase of a
handgun may be consummated in order for a criminal
history records check on the purchaser to be
completed, and also establishes a national instant
background check system to facilitate criminal
history checks of firearms purchasers. Under this
system, licensed firearms dealers are authorized
access to the national instant background check
system for purposes of complying with the
background check requirement.
The National Child Protection Act of 1993 (42
U.S.C. § 5119a) authorizes states with appropriate
state statutes to access and review state and federal
criminal history records through the national criminal
history background check system for the purpose of
determining whether care providers for children, the
elderly and the disabled have criminal histories
bearing upon their fitness to assume such
responsibilities.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 authorizes federal and state civil courts
to have access to FBI databases containing criminal
history records, missing person records and court
protection orders for use in connection with stalking
and domestic violence cases.
The United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended
by the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act
of 1996, authorizes public housing authorities to
obtain federal and state criminal conviction records
relating to public housing applicants or tenants for
purposes of applicant screening, lease enforcement
and eviction.
The Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act authorizes Indian tribes or tribally
designated housing entities to obtain federal and state
conviction records relating to applicants for or
tenants of federally assisted housing for purposes of
applicant screening, lease enforcement and eviction.
Nothing in the Compact would alter any rights of
access provided under these laws.
Subsection (b)(2) provides that the compact shall not
affect any direct access to federal criminal history
records authorized by law. Under existing legal
authority, the FBI has provided direct terminal access
to certain federal agencies, including the Office of
Management and Budget and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, to facilitate the processing of
large numbers of background search requests by
these agencies for such purposes as federal
employment, immigration and naturalization matters,
and the issuance of security clearances. This access
will not be affected by the compact.
Subsection (c) provides that the Compact’s
enactment will not affect the FBI’s authority to use
its criminal history records for noncriminal justice
purposes under Public Law 92-544—the State,
Justice, Commerce Appropriations Act of 1973. This
law restored the Bureau’s authority to exchange its
identification records with the states and certain other
organizations or entities, such as federally chartered
or insured banking institutions, for employment and
licensing purposes, after a federal district court had
declared the FBI’s practice of doing so to be without
foundation. (See Menard v. Mitchell, 328 F. Supp.
718 (D.D.C. 1971)).

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 21 • Page 195

Subsection (d) provides that the Council created by
the Compact to facilitate its administration is deemed
not to be a federal advisory committee as defined
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This
provision is necessary since nonfederal employees
will sit on the Compact Council together with federal
personnel and the Council may from time to time be
called upon to provide the Director of the FBI or the
Attorney General with collective advice on the
administration of the Compact. Without this
stipulation, such features might cause the Council to
be considered an advisory committee within the
meaning of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Even though the Council will not be considered an
advisory committee for purposes of the Act, it will
hold public meetings.
Similarly, to avoid any question on the subject,
Subsection (e) provides that members of the Compact
Council will not be deemed to be federal employees
or officers by virtue of their Council membership for
any purpose other than to effect the Compact. Thus,
state officials and other nonfederal personnel who are
appointed to the Council will be considered federal
officials only to the extent of their roles as Council
members. They will not be entitled to compensation
or benefits accruing to federal employees or officers,
but they could receive reimbursement from federal
funds for travel and subsistence expenses incurred in
attending council meetings.
Section 216.—This Section admonishes all federal
personnel to enforce the Compact and to cooperate in
its implementation. It also directs the U.S. Attorney
General to take such action as may be necessary to
implement the Compact within the federal
government, including the promulgation of
regulations.
Section 217.—This is the core of the subtitle and sets
forth the text of the Compact:
Overview. This briefly describes what the Compact
is and how it is meant to work. Under the Compact,
the FBI and the states agree to maintain their
respective databases of criminal history records and
to make them available to Compact parties for
authorized purposes by means of an electronic
information sharing system established cooperatively
by the federal government and the states.

Page 196 • Appendix 21

Article I—Definitions. This article sets out
definitions for key terms used in the Compact. Most
of the definitions are substantially identical to
definitions commonly used in federal and state laws
and regulations relating to criminal history records
and need no explanation. However, the following
definitions merit comment:
(20) Positive Identification. This term refers, in brief,
to association of a person with his or her criminal
history record through a comparison of fingerprints
or other equally reliable biometric identification
techniques. Such techniques eliminate or
substantially reduce the risks of associating a person
with someone else’s record or failing to find a record
of a person who uses a false name. At present, the
method of establishing positive identification in use
in criminal justice agencies throughout the United
States is based upon comparison of fingerprint
patterns, which are essentially unique and
unchanging and thus provide a highly reliable basis
for identification. It is anticipated that this method of
positive identification will remain in use for many
years to come, particularly since federal and state
agencies are investing substantial amounts of money
to acquire automated fingerprint identification
equipment and related devices which facilitate the
capturing and transmission of fingerprint images and
provide searching and matching methods that are
efficient and highly accurate. However, there are
other biometric identification techniques, including
retinal scanning, voice-print analysis and DNA
typing, which might be adapted for criminal record
identification purposes. The wording of the definition
contemplates that at some future time the Compact
Council might authorize the use of one or more of
these techniques for establishing positive
identification, if it determines that the reliability of
such technique(s) is at least equal to the reliability of
fingerprint comparison.
(21) Sealed Record Information. Article IV,
paragraph (b), permits the FBI and state criminal
history record repositories to delete sealed record
information when responding to an interstate record
request pursuant to the Compact. Thus, the definition
of “sealed” becomes important, particularly since
state sealing laws vary considerably, ranging from
laws that are quite restrictive in their application to
others that are very broad. The definition set out here
is intended to be a narrow one in keeping with a basic
tenet of the Compact—that state repositories shall

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

release as much information as possible for interstate
exchange purposes, with issues concerning the use of
particular information for particular purposes to be
decided under the laws of the receiving states.
Consistent with the definition, an adult record, or a
portion of it, may be considered sealed only if its
release for noncriminal justice purposes has been
prohibited by a court order or by action of a
designated official or board, such as a State Attorney
General or a Criminal Record Privacy Board, acting
pursuant to a federal or state law. Further, to qualify
under the definition, a court order, whether issued in
response to a petition or on the court’s own motion,
must apply only to a particular record subject or
subjects referred to by name in the order. So-called
“blanket” court orders applicable to multiple
unnamed record subjects who fall into particular
classifications or circumstances, such as first-time
non-serious drug offenders, do not fit the definition.
Similarly, sealing orders issued by designated
officials or boards acting pursuant to statutory
authority meet the definition only if such orders are
issued in response to petitions filed by individual
record subjects who are referred to by name in the
orders. So-called “automatic” sealing laws, which
restrict the noncriminal justice use of the records of
certain defined classes of individuals, such as firsttime offenders who successfully complete probation
terms, do not satisfy the definition, because they do
not require the filing of individual petitions and the
issuance of individualized sealing orders.
Concerning juvenile records, each state is free to
adopt whatever definition of sealing it prefers.
Article II—Purposes. Five purposes are listed:
creation of a legal framework for establishment of the
Compact; delineation of the FBI’s obligations under
the Compact; delineation of the obligations of party
states; creation of a Compact Council to monitor
system operations and promulgate necessary rules
and procedures; and, establishment of an obligation
by the parties to adhere to the Compact and its related
rules and standards.
Article III—Responsibilities of Compact Parties.
This article details FBI and state responsibilities
under the Compact and provides for the appointment
of Compact Officers by the FBI and by party states.
Compact officers shall have primary responsibility
for ensuring the proper administration of the
Compact within their jurisdictions.

The FBI is required to provide criminal history
records maintained in its automated database for
noncriminal justice purposes described in Article IV
of the Compact. These responses will include federal
criminal history records and, to the extent that the
FBI has such data in its files, information from nonCompact States and information from Compact
States relating to records which such states cannot
provide through the III System. The FBI is also
responsible for providing and maintaining the
centralized system and equipment necessary for the
Compact’s success and ensuring that requests made
for criminal justice purposes will have priority over
requests made for noncriminal justice purposes.
State responsibilities are similar. Each Party State
must grant other states access to its III systemindexed criminal history records for authorized
noncriminal justice purposes and must submit to the
FBI fingerprint records and subject identification
information that are necessary to maintain the
national indices. Each state must comply with duly
established system rules, procedures, and standards.
Finally, each state is responsible for providing and
maintaining the telecommunications links and
equipment necessary to support system operations
within that state.
Administration of Compact provisions will not be
permitted to reduce the level of service available to
authorized criminal justice and noncriminal justice
users on the effective date of the Compact.
Article IV—Authorized Record Disclosures. This
article requires the FBI, to the extent authorized by
the Privacy Act, and the state criminal history record
repositories to provide criminal history records to one
another for use by governmental or nongovernmental
agencies for noncriminal justice purposes that are
authorized by federal statute, by federal executive
order, or by a state statute that has been approved by
the U.S. Attorney General. Compact parties will be
required to provide criminal history records to other
compact parties for noncriminal justice uses that are
authorized by law in the requesting jurisdiction even
though the law of the responding jurisdiction does
not authorize such uses within its borders. Further,
the responding party must provide all of the criminal
history record information it holds on the individual
who is the subject of the request (deleting only sealed
record information) and the law of the requesting
jurisdiction will determine how much of the

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 21 • Page 197

information will actually be released to the
noncriminal justice agency on behalf of which the
request was made. This approach provides a uniform
dissemination standard for interstate exchanges,
while permitting each compact party to enforce its
own record dissemination laws within its borders.
To provide uniformity of interpretation, state laws
authorizing noncriminal justice uses of criminal
history records under this article must be reviewed by
the U.S. Attorney General to ensure that the laws
explicitly authorize searches of the national indices.
Records provided through the III System pursuant to
the Compact may be used only by authorized
officials for authorized purposes. Compact officers
must establish procedures to ensure compliance with
this limitation as well as procedures to ensure that
criminal history record information provided for
noncriminal justice purposes is current and accurate
and is protected from unauthorized release. Further,
procedures must be established to ensure that records
received from other compact parties are screened to
ensure that only legally authorized information is
released. For example, if the law of the receiving
jurisdiction provides that only conviction records
may be released for a particular noncriminal justice
purpose, all other entries, such as acquittal or
dismissal notations or arrest notations with no
accompanying disposition notation, must be deleted.
Article V—Record Request Procedures. This
article provides that direct access to the National
Identification Index and the National Fingerprint File
for purposes of conducting criminal history record
searches for noncriminal justice purposes shall be
limited to the FBI and the state criminal history
record repositories. A noncriminal justice agency
authorized to obtain national searches pursuant to an
approved state statute must submit the search
application through the state repository in the state in
which the agency is located. A state repository
receiving a search application directly from a
noncriminal justice agency in another state may
process the application through its own criminal
history record system, if it has legal authority to do
so, but it may not conduct a search of the national
indices on behalf of such an out-of-state agency nor
may it obtain out-of-state or federal records for such
an agency through the III System.

Page 198 • Appendix 21

Noncriminal justice agencies authorized to obtain
national record checks under federal law or federal
executive order, including federal agencies, federally
chartered or insured financial institutions and certain
securities and commodities establishments, must
submit search applications through the FBI or, if the
repository consents to process the application,
through the state repository in the state in which the
agency is located.
All noncriminal justice search applications submitted
to the FBI or to the state repositories must be
accompanied by fingerprints or some other approved
form of positive identification. If a state repository
positively identifies the subject of such a search
application as having a III System-indexed record
maintained by another state repository or the FBI, the
state repository shall be entitled to obtain such
records from such other state repositories or the FBI.
If a state repository cannot positively identify the
subject of a noncriminal justice search application,
the repository shall forward the application, together
with fingerprints or other approved identifying
information, to the FBI. If the FBI positively
identifies the search application subject as having a
III System-indexed record or records, it shall notify
the state repository which submitted the application
and that repository shall be entitled to obtain any III
System-indexed record or records relating to the
search subject maintained by any other state
repository or the FBI.
The FBI and state repositories may charge fees for
processing noncriminal justice search applications,
but may not charge fees for providing criminal
history records by electronic means in response to
authorized III System record requests.
Article VI—Establishment of Compact Council.
This article establishes a Compact Council to
promulgate rules and procedures governing the use of
the III System for noncriminal justice purposes. Such
rules cannot conflict with the FBI’s administration of
the III System for criminal justice purposes. Issues
concerning whether particular rules or procedures
promulgated by the Council conflict with FBI
authority under this article shall be adjudicated
pursuant to Article XI.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

The Council shall consist of 15 members from
compact states and federal and local criminal justice
and noncriminal justice agencies. All members shall
be appointed by the U.S. Attorney General. Council
members shall elect a Council Chairman and Vice
Chairman, both of whom shall be compact officers
unless there are no compact officers on the Council
who are willing to serve, in which case at-large
members may be elected to these offices.
The 15 Council members include nine members who
must be state compact officers or state repository
administrators, four at-large members representing
federal, state and local criminal justice and
noncriminal justice interests, one member from the
FBI’s advisory policy board on criminal justice
information services and one member who is an FBI
employee. Although, as noted, all members will be
appointed by the U.S. Attorney General, they will be
nominated by other persons, as specified in the
Compact. If the Attorney General declines to appoint
any person so nominated, the Attorney General shall
request another nomination from the person or
persons who nominated the rejected person.
Similarly, if a Council membership vacancy occurs,
for any reason, the Attorney General shall request a
replacement nomination from the person or persons
who made the original nomination.
Persons who are appointed to the Council who are
not already federal officials or employees shall, by
virtue of their appointment by the Attorney General,
become federal officials to the extent of their duties
and responsibilities as Council members. They shall,
therefore, have authority to participate in the
development and issuance of rules and procedures,
and to participate in other actions within the scope of
their duties as Council members, which may be
binding upon federal officers and employees or
otherwise affect federal interests.
The Council shall be located for administrative
purposes within the FBI and shall have authority to
request relevant assistance and information from the
FBI. Although the Council will not be considered a
Federal Advisory Committee (see Section 215(d)), it
will hold public meetings and will publish its rules
and procedures in the Federal Register and make
them available for public inspection and copying at a
Council office within the FBI.

Article VII—Ratification of Compact. This article
states that the Compact will become effective
immediately upon its execution by two or more states
and the United States Government and will have the
full force and effect of law within the ratifying
jurisdictions. Each state will follow its own laws in
effecting ratification.
Article VIII—Miscellaneous Provisions. This
article makes clear that administration of the
Compact shall not interfere with the authority of the
FBI Director over the management and control of the
FBI’s collection and dissemination of criminal
history records for any purpose other than
noncriminal justice. Similarly, nothing in the
Compact diminishes a state’s obligations and
authority under Public Law 92-544 regarding the
dissemination or use of criminal history record
information (see analysis of Section 214, above). The
Compact does not require the FBI to obligate or
expend funds beyond its appropriations.
Article IX—Renunciation. This article provides that
a state wishing to end its obligations by renouncing
the Compact shall do so in the same manner by
which it ratified the Compact and shall provide six
months’ advance notice to other compact parties.
Article X—Severability. This article provides that
the remaining provisions of the Compact shall not be
affected if a particular provision is found to be in
violation of the Federal Constitution or the
constitution of a party state. Similarly, a finding in
one state that a portion of the Compact is legally
objectionable will have no effect on the viability of
the Compact in other Party States.
Article XI—Adjudication of Disputes. This article
vests initial authority in the Compact Council to
interpret its own rules and standards and to resolve
disputes among parties to the Compact. Decisions are
to be rendered upon majority vote of Council
members after a hearing on the issue. Any Compact
party may appeal any such Council decision to the
U.S. Attorney General and thereafter may file suit in
the appropriate United States district court. Any suit
concerning the compact filed in any state court shall
be removed to the appropriate federal district court.

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report
2001 Update

Appendix 21 • Page 199