crime ch use

8/12/2019 Crime Ch Use

1/159

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: AComprehensive Report

(outside cover)


2/159

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: AComprehensive Report

(inside cover)


3/159


4/159

iii

Foreword

The Bureau of Justice Statisticsis pleased to publish Use and

Management of CriminalHistory Record Information: AComprehensive Report. Thereport is the first descriptivereview of the Nations criminalhistory information systems anddiscusses in nontechnical termsthe complex, interrelatednetwork of local, State andFederal information systems thatprovide criminal history recordsto both criminal justice andnoncriminal justice users.

The report is the latest in BJSsefforts to assist States inimproving the quality ofcriminal history recordinformation and to ensure thataccurate data is readily availablefor operational and researchpurposes. We hope that thereport will be of value topolicymakers and practitionersaddressing the critical issuesrelating to criminal historyrecord information which willaccompany expanded

development of systems for theinterstate exchange of thisinformation.

Lawrence A. GreenfeldActing DirectorBureau of Justice Statistics


5/159

v

Contents

Glossary G-1

Introduction 1 Purpose of this report

1 Background

1 Repositories of criminal

history record information1 State systems

2 Federal systems

2 Timely criminal history

record information issues

2 Data quality

2 Decentralized recordkeeping

2 New technologies

3 Content of this report

Chapter I 5 Background

How the

criminal justice

system works

and how it

uses criminal

history records

Section 1 5 Criminal codes and procedures

Typical State 6 Police agencies

criminal justice 6 Local detention facilities

system 6 Prosecution agencies

structure 6 Courts

7 Corrections agencies

Section 2 7 Investigation

Typical State 7 Arrest

criminal justice 10 Booking

process 11 Initial court appearance

11 Preliminary hearing

11 Pretrial release decision

12 Prosecutor review

12 Grand jury indictment

12 Arraignment

12 Trial court action

13 Appeal

13 Sentencing

13 Correctional supervision

Section 3 14 Background

How 14 Police uses

criminal justice 14 Pretrial release usespractitioners 15 Prosecutor uses

use criminal 15 Court uses

history records 15 For bail, pretrial and trial decisions

15 For sentencing decisions

16 For probation and parole decisions

16 Corrections uses

16 Types of information needed

17 Time frames within which

information is needed

Chapter II 19 Background

Overview of 19 State-level systems

existing 20 Federal-level systems

criminal history

record systems

Section 1 20 Establishment of early

Evolution of police departments

criminal history 20 Early identification and

record systems recordkeeping systems

21 Efforts to establish criminal history

record systems

21 LEAA efforts to

establish State systems

22 FBI efforts to establish

Federal systems


Information 23 Identification information

maintained in 23 Personal description

the Nations 23 Fingerprints

criminal history 23 Criminal history information

record systems 23 Juvenile record information

23 Other information

23 Interim dispositions

24 Felony flags

24 Misdemeanor data

24 Master name indexes

24 Contents, usage

24 Number of records indexed


The current 25 Number of records

status of the 25 State records

Nations 25 Federal records

criminal history 25 Extent of automation

record systems 25 State criminal history files

25 State criminalfingerprint files26 Federal files

26 Reporting of information

to the repositories

26 Types of information reported

28 Reporting requirements

28 Time frame in which

reporting takes place

28 Access methods for

authorized requestors28 Criminal justice inquiries

29 Noncriminal justice inquiries

29 Computer searches

29 Response times


6/159

vi

Section 4 29 Accuracy and completeness

The product 31 Linking of arrest and disposition data

of the 31 Current practice

repositories: 31 Case-tracking systems

The criminal 32 Charge-tracking systems

history record 32 Content and format

32 Differences in content

33 Differences in format and

terminology

33 Problems in deciphering records

33 Calls for reform

Chapter III 35

Overview of

laws regulating

criminal history

record systems

Section 1 35 Constitutional doctrines

Constitutional 35 Common law doctrines

and common

lawdoctrines

Section 2 36 Federal statutes and regulations

Statutory and 36 Statutes

regulatory 36 Regulations

requirements 36 State statutes and regulations

Section 3 37 Federal data quality regulations

Two key 37 Completeness provisions

issues data 37 Accuracy provisions

quality and 38 State data quality laws and strategies

dissemination 38 Mandatory reporting requirements

38 Transaction log requirements

38 Other requirements

39 Data quality strategies

39 Dissemination of criminalhistory record information

39 Dissemination for

criminal justice purposes

39 Dissemination for noncriminal

justice purposes

40 Dissemination trends

41 Statutory dissemination

policies in the early 1990s

Chapter IV 43 Background

The impact

of new

technologies

Section 1 44 Automated arrest reporting

Automated 44 Problems with manual reporting

reporting to the 44 Automation aids in arrest reporting

repositories 44 Benefits

44 Automated disposition reporting

44 Reporting by local prosecutors,

courts

44 Reporting by State courts systems

44 Reporting by State corrections

45 Benefits


Automated 45 Problems with manual

fingerprint fingerprint processing

processing 46 Fingerprint image production

and transmission

46 Live-scan devices

46 Card-scan devices

46 Use of automated fingerprint

identification systems to search files

46 AFIS benefits

47 State AFISs

47 Federal AFIS

Chapter V 49 Background

National

criminalhistory

record checks

and the

Interstate

Identification

Index

Section 1 50 Current practice

Maintenance 50 Fingerprint submissions

and use of 50 Disposition submissions

current FBI 51 Extent of automation

files 51 Authorized users of data

52 Terminal access to FBI files

52 Criminal justice inquiries

52 Noncriminal justice inquiries


The Interstate 53 Use of III for criminal justice pur-

poses

Identification 57 Use of III for noncriminal

Index justice purposes

57 Revision of State laws andpolicies necessary

58 Uniform dissemination

standard proposed

58 Pilot test underway

Section 3 59 Benefits of III participation

III system 61 Benefits of NFF participation

impact 61 Duplicate files eliminated

61 Uniform dissemination standard

62 Faster response times

62 Burdens of III participation

62 Expected overall impact

Section 4 62 BackgroundThe proposed 62 Emergence of the III compact

III compact 63 Compact advantages

63 Compact development status

63 Compact provisions


7/159

vii

` Chapter VI 65 Background

Federal

initiatives

and criminal

history records

Section 1 65 IAFIS

FBI system 66 CJIS Division

upgrades 66 NCIC 2000

66 Short-term goals


Federal 67 Telephone checks

database for 67 Felon database

identifying 68 FBI record system enhancement

felons 68 Advances in biometric technology

Section 3 68 BJS criminal history record

Federal grant improvement program

programs and 69 Purposes for using grants

related 69 Data quality, system

initiatives improvement strategies

69 Status of the program

70 BJA block grant set-aside program

70 Fund guidelines

70 Reporting alien convictions to INS

71 FBI/BJS voluntary reporting

standards

Section 4 72

The Brady Bill

Appendix 1 73 Statutes making possession of

a firearm by a convicted

felon a criminal offense

Appendix 2 77 Statutes requiring or permitting

prior criminal records to be

considered in bail decisions

Appendix 3 80 Statutes authorizing sentencing

of persistent recidivists to

enhanced terms as career

criminals or habitual criminals

Appendix 4 83 Statutes providing for upgraded

charges for offenders with prior

convictions

Appendix 5 86 Statutes providing for enhanced

sentences for offenders with prior

convictions

Appendix 6 89 Statutes authorizing consideration of

criminal history in correctional

classification and supervision

Appendix 7 93 Statutes providing that parole

eligibility shall or may be affected by

prior convictions

Appendix 8 96 Sample criminal history record

formats: Florida, Hawaii, Utah,

Virginia

Appendix 9 110 Federal Bureau of Investigation/

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Recommended Voluntary Reporting

Standards for Improving the Quality

of Criminal History Record

Information

Appendix 10 112 Overview of State criminal

history record systems, 1992

Appendix 11 115 Number of subjects (individual

offenders) in State criminal history

file, 1984, 1989 and 1992

Appendix 12 118 Number of final dispositions reported

to State criminal history repository,

1983, 1989 and 1992

Appendix 13 120 Automation of master name index

and criminal history file, 1989 and

1992

Appendix 14 123 Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989

and 1992

Appendix 15 126 Notice to State criminal history

repository of release of arrested

persons without charging, 1989 and

1992

Appendix 16 128 Average number of days to process

arrest data submitted to Statecriminal history repository, 1989 and

1992

Appendix 17 131 Average number of days to process

disposition data submitted to State

criminal history repository, 1989 and

1992

Appendix 18 134 Procedures employed by State

criminal history repository to

encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting, 1992

Appendix 19 137 Methods used to link dispositioninformation to arrest/charge

information on criminal history

record,

1992

Appendix 20 140 Data quality audits of State criminal

history repository, 1992

Appendix 21 143 Interstate and Federal-State

Compact on the Exchange of

Criminal History Records for

Noncriminal Justice Purposes


8/159

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Glossary 1

Glossary of Terms

Automated Fingerprint Identification System

(AFIS):An automated system for searching fingerprintfiles and transmitting fingerprint images. AFIScomputer equipment can scan fingerprint impressions(or utilize electronically transmitted fingerprintimages) and automatically extract and digitize ridgedetails and other identifying characteristics insufficient detail to enable the computers searchingand matching components to distinguish a singlefingerprint from thousands or even millions offingerprints previously scanned and stored in digitalform in the computers memory. The processeliminates the manual searching of fingerprint filesand increases the speed and accuracy of ten-printprocessing (arrest fingerprint cards and noncriminal

justice applicant fingerprint cards). AFIS equipmentalso can be used to identify individuals from latent(crime scene) fingerprints, even fragmentary prints ofsingle fingers in some cases. Digital fingerprint imagesgenerated by AFIS equipment can be transmittedelectronically to remote sites, eliminating thenecessity of mailing fingerprint cards and providingremote access to AFIS fingerprint files. (See pages 25-26 and 46-47.)

Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal HistoryRecord Improvement (BJS CHRI) Program:The$27 million grant program, administered by the Bureauof Justice Statistics, under which awards were made toall 50 States to improve the quality of criminalrecords, flag felony records and increase participationin the Interstate Identification Index (III). Awards weremade over a three-year period: fiscal years 1990, 1991and 1992. (See pages 68-70.)

Central Repository:The database (or the agencyhousing the database) which maintains criminalhistory records on all State offenders. Records includefingerprint files and files containing identificationsegments and notations of arrests and dispositions. Thecentral repository is generally responsible for State-level identification of arrestees, and commonly servesas the central control terminal for contact with FBIrecord systems. Inquiries from local agencies for anational record check (for criminal justice or firearmcheck purposes) are routed to the FBI via the centralrepository. Although usually housed in the Departmentof Public Safety, the central repository may in someStates be maintained by the State Police or someother State agency. (See page 19.)

Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) or

Criminal History Record Information System:Arecord (or the system maintaining such records) whichincludes individual identifiers and describes anindividuals arrests and subsequent dispositions.Criminal history records do not include intelligence orinvestigative data or sociological data such as druguse history. CHRI systems usually include informationon juveniles if they are tried as adults in criminalcourts, but in most cases do not include datadescribing involvement of an individual in the juvenilejustice system. All data in CHRI systems are usuallybacked by fingerprints of the record subjects to providepositive identification. State legislation variesconcerning disclosure of criminal history records for

noncriminal justice purposes. (See Chapter II.)

Data Quality:The extent to which criminal historyrecords are complete, accurate and timely. The keyconcern in data quality is the completeness of recordsand the extent to which records include dispositions aswell as arrest and charge information. Other concernsinclude the timeliness of data reporting to State andFederal repositories, the timeliness of data entry bythe repositories and the readability of criminal historyrecords. (See pages 29-34, 37-39 and 59.)

Felon Identification for Firearms Sales (FIFS):The system and procedures developed by the FBI andState officials for the identification of felons whoattempt to purchase firearms. FIFS includes theestablishment of a felony flagging system in the IIIsystem to identify offenders who have been chargedwith or convicted of felonies. When implemented,system users will use a special inquiry code andresponses will include a code indicating that theindividual has a felony conviction, has no felonyconviction or pending felony arrest, or has a record ofunknown nature and status. One State, Virginia, ispresently participating in a test to flag all records inthe FBI index. (See page 66).

Felony or Serious Misdemeanor:The category ofoffenses for which fingerprints and criminal historyinformation are accepted by the FBI and entered inthe Bureaus files, including the III system. Seriousmisdemeanor is defined to exclude certain minoroffenses such as drunkenness or minor traffic offenses.(See page 50.)


9/159

Glossary 2 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

Interstate Identification Index (III):An index-pointer system for the interstate exchange of criminalhistory records. Under III, the FBI maintains anidentification index to persons arrested for felonies orserious misdemeanors under State or Federal law. Theindex includes identification information (for example,name, date of birth, race, sex, etc.), FBI Numbers andState Identification Numbers (SIDs) from each Stateholding information about an individual. Searchinquiries from criminal justice agencies nationwideare transmitted automatically via Statetelecommunications networks and the FBIs NationalCrime Information Center (NCIC) telecommunicationslines. Searches are made on the basis of name andother identifiers. The process is entirely automated andtakes approximately five seconds to complete. If a hitis made against the Index, record requests are madeusing SIDs or FBI Numbers and data are automaticallyretrieved from each repository holding records on theindividual and forwarded to the requesting agency. At

present, 25 States participate in III and the systemoperates for criminal justice inquiries only. Responsesare provided from FBI files where the State originatingthe record is not a participant in III. Participationrequires that the State maintain an automated criminalhistory record system capable of interfacing with theIII system and capable of responding automatically toall interstate and Federal/State record requests. Ifextended to cover noncriminal justice inquiries, asplanned, the III system would eliminate the need forduplicate recordkeeping at the Federal and State levelsince it would no longer be necessary for the FBI tomaintain records on State offenders. At present, IIIensures higher quality criminal justice responses

because, in most cases, reply data are supplieddirectly by the State from which the record originates.(For complete information, see Chapter V.)

Interstate Identification Index (III) Compact:Aninterstate and Federal/State compact designed tofacilitate the exchange of criminal history data amongStates for noncriminal justice purposes and toeliminate the need for the FBI to maintain duplicatedata about State offenders. Under the compact, theoperation of this system would be overseen by apolicymaking council comprised of representatives ofthe Federal and State governments, as well as systemusers. The key concept underlying the compact is

agreement among all States that all criminal historyinformation (except sealed records) will be providedin response to noncriminal justice requests fromanother State regardless of whether the informationbeing requested would be permitted to bedisseminated for a similar noncriminal justice purposewithin the State

holding the data. (That is, the law of the State whichis inquiringabout the data rather than the law ofthe State which originated the data governs itsuse.) In some cases, ratification of the compact willhave the effect of amending existing State legislationgoverning interstate record dissemination, since mostStates do not currently authorize dissemination to allof the Federal agencies and out-of-state usersauthorized under the compact. At present, noncriminaljustice inquiries are handled by the FBI from its filesof voluntarily contributed State arrest and dispositionrecords. This requires that the FBI maintain duplicatesof State records and generally results in less completerecords being provided, since FBI files of Staterecords are not always complete due to reportingdeficiencies. The FBI cannot abandon the duplicaterecords without a formal compact, however, sincesubsequent failure of a State to continue participationafter cessation of the FBIs State offender files wouldjeopardize future noncriminal justice services to the

Federal and State agencies that now rely on thosefiles. The compact has been approved by the U.S.Attorney General and it is expected that it will beconsidered by the U.S. Congress in 1993 or 1994. AfterCongressional approval, the compact will besubmitted for ratification by State legislatures. (SeeChapter V.)

Juvenile Justice Records:Official records ofjuvenile justice adjudications. Most adult criminalhistory record systems do not accept such records,which are frequently not supported by fingerprints andwhich usually are confidential under State law.Pursuant to an order dated July 15, 1992, the FBI now

accepts, and will disseminate, juvenile records on thesame basis as adult records. States are not required tosubmit such records to the FBI, however. (See page23.)

Live-scan and Card-scan:Automated devices forgenerating and transmitting fingerprint images. Live-scan devices capture fingerprint images directly fromsubjects fingers, which are rolled onto scanning pads.The devices can print out multiple fingerprint cards orcan transmit electronic fingerprint images to remotesites for printout or direct use in automated fingerprintidentification computers. Card scanners scan standardinked fingerprint cards and can transmit electronic

images, with related textual data, to remote sites forprintout or direct use. (See page 46.)


10/159

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Glossary 3

Master Name Index (MNI):A subject identificationindex maintained by criminal record repositories thatincludes names and other identifiers for all personsabout whom a record is held in the systems. As of1992, almost all State MNIs were automated andincluded almost 100 percent of record subjects in therepositories. The automated name index is the key torapidly identifying persons who have criminal recordsfor such purposes as presale firearm checks, criminalinvestigations or bailsetting. MNIs may includefelony flags, which indicate whether record subjectshave arrests or convictions for felony offenses. (Seepages 24 and 67.)

National Crime Information Center (NCIC):Anautomated database of criminal justice and justice-related records maintained by the FBI. The databaseincludes the hot files of wanted and missingpersons, stolen vehicles and identifiable stolenproperty, including firearms. Access to NCIC files is

through central control terminal operators in eachState that are connected to NCIC via dedicatedtelecommunications lines maintained by the FBI.Local agencies and officers on the beat can access theState control terminal via the State law enforcementnetwork. Inquiries are based on name and othernonfingerprint identification. Most criminal historyinquiries of the III system are made via the NCICtelecommunications system. NCIC data may beprovided only for criminal justice and otherspecifically authorized purposes. For criminal historysearches, this includes criminal justice employment,employment by Federally chartered or insured bankinginstitutions or securities firms, and use by State and

local governments for purposes of employment andlicensing pursuant to a State statute approved by theU.S. Attorney General. Inquiries regarding presalefirearm checks are included as criminal justice uses.(See page 22 and Chapter V.)

National Fingerprint File (NFF):A system andprocedures designed as a component of the III system,which, when fully implemented, would establish atotally decentralized system for the interstateexchange of criminal history records. The NFF willcontain fingerprints of Federal offenders and a singleset of fingerprints on State offenders from each Statein which an offender has been arrested for a felony or

a serious misdemeanor. Under the NFF concept,States will forward only the first-arrest fingerprints ofan individual to the FBI accompanied by otheridentification data such as name, date of birth, etc.Fingerprints for subsequent arrests would not beforwarded. Disposition data on the individual wouldalso be retained at the State repository and would notbe forwarded to the FBI. Upon receipt of the first-arrestfingerprint cards (or electronic images when new

technologies are implemented), the FBI will enter theindividuals fingerprint impressions in the NFF


11/159

Glossary 4 Draft Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

and will enter the persons name and identifiers in theIII, together with an FBI Number and a StateIdentification Number for each State maintaining arecord on the individual. Charge and dispositioninformation on State offenders will be maintained onlyat the State level and State repositories will berequired to respond to all authorized record requestsconcerning these individuals for both criminal justiceand noncriminal justice purposes. States would have torelease all data on record subjects for noncriminaljustice inquiries regardless of whether the data couldbe released for similar purposes within the State. TheNFF concept is presently being tested in two States,Florida and North Carolina. Both of these States are ina position to conduct the test since they havenonrestrictive laws governing release of data fornoncriminal justice purposes. (See Chapter V.)

National Law EnforcementTelecommunications System (NLETS):A

computerized high-speed message switching systemmaintained by the States which provides for theinterstate exchange of criminal justice-relatedinformation between local, State and Federal criminaljustice agencies. NLETS supports inquiries into Statecriminal history files, motor vehicle registration files,drivers license files and other State databases. It alsointerfaces with NCIC and other FBI files, the RoyalCanadian Mounted Police, the National InsuranceTheft Bureau, the National Center for Missing andExploited Children and other national-level files. Stateagencies use NLETS for the interstate exchange ofcriminal history records. More than 121,000 terminalssend and receive more than a quarter-billion messages

annually. NLETS is supported by fees paid by useragencies and is set up as a not-for-profit corporationheadquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. (Referencedthroughout the report.)

NCIC 2000:An initiative undertaken by the FBI todesign, develop and implement a new generationautomated NCIC system for the compilation,dissemination and exchange of timely criminal justiceinformation, including criminal history records, recordsof wanted and missing persons, and records ofidentifiable stolen property. Among otherimprovements, the new system will have upgradedhardware and telecommunications capabilities to

support the paperless exchange of information,including graphic information such as mug shots,tattoos and signatures of offenders. NCIC 2000 isscheduled to be fully implemented by the end of 1995.(See page 66.)

NCIC Advisory Policy Board (APB):A 30-memberadvisory committee, comprised of criminal justiceofficials, representatives of criminal justiceassociations and user representatives, that providespolicy input to guide the FBI in the administration ofthe NCIC system. The APB meets at least twice ayear to consider issues originating from periodicmeetings of NCIC Control Terminal Officers in thefour NCIC Regions or from other sources, such asNCIC participants meetings, technical meetings orFBI/NCIC staff. At present, the FBI is reviewing theroles of its advisory committees with a view torestructuring them in accordance with ongoinginitiatives to upgrade and expand FBI informationsystems. (See pages 22 and 34.)

Positive Identification:Identification of anindividual using biometric characteristics which areunique and not subject to alteration. Basically, inpresent usage, the term refers to identification by

fingerprints but it may also include identification byretinal images, voiceprints or other techniques.Positive identification is to be distinguished fromidentification using name, sex, date of birth, etc., asshown on a document subject to alteration orcounterfeit such as a birth certificate, social securitycard or drivers license. Because individuals can haveidentical or similar names, ages, etc., identificationsbased on such characteristics are not reliable. (Seepages 20-21.)

Security Clearance Information Act (SCIA):Federal legislation requiring that States make criminalhistory records available to certain Federal agencies

in connection with screening for security clearances.(See page 39.)

Survey of Criminal History InformationSystems (the BJS Survey):A comprehensive50-State survey describing the status of State criminalhistory record systems as of December 1992.Information includes the number of records, level ofautomation, record completeness, fingerprintprocedures, firearm checking procedures, andparticipation in III. The survey updates an earliersurvey conducted in 1989. The survey was conductedby SEARCH Group, Inc. under a grant from the Bureauof Justice Statistics. (See pages 24-29.)


12/159

Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report Page 1

Introduction

Purpose of this report

This report is the firstcomprehensive examination of theNations criminal history recordsystems and the major issues anddevelopments that affect them.

It describes in nontechnical termsthe complex and interrelatednetwork of Federal, State and localinformation systems that providecriminal history records to criminaljustice personnel and to authorizednoncriminal justice users.

It also assesses the role thesesystems play in the effectivefunctioning of the criminal justicesystem, and reviews the impact thatnew technologies and strategies arehaving on the completeness,accuracy and availability ofcriminal history records.

This report includes:

An overview of how typicalState criminal justice systemsare structured, how the criminal

justice process works, and howcriminal history records are usedin the justice system;

An overview of existing Stateand Federal criminal historyrecord systems and of theproduct they provide thecriminal history record;

An overview of laws regulatingcriminal history record systems,and a look at two key issuesaffecting the systems dataquality and dissemination;

A summary description of newtechnologies that affect criminalhistory record systems;

A description of the InterstateIdentification Index system and

the role it plays in thedecentralization of the Nationscriminal history recordinformation system; and

An overview of Federalinitiatives and activities thataffect criminal history recordsystems.

It is hoped that readers will derive ageneral understanding of howcriminal history record systemswork, the types of information they

maintain, who reports theinformation to them and by whatmeans, how accurate and completethe information is, and who obtainsthe information and for whatpurposes.

This report should also help readersto understand the changingrelationship among local, State andFederal systems and how presentlyavailable and emerging technologyis affecting the efficiency of thesystems and the quality of the

information they maintain anddisseminate.

With this background, State andFederal legislators and otherpolicymakers, as well as the generalpublic, should better understand thecritical role the criminal recordrepositories play and also how dataquality problems and otherproblems and the new strategiesand technologies being used tosolve them affect the usefulnessof the systems and ultimately the

efficiency of criminal caseprocessing and the effectiveness ofcrime control strategies.

Background

Repositories of criminalhistory record information

This report discusses in detail theoperations of the State and nationalrepositories of criminal historyrecords that provide informationabout individuals past criminalinvolvement to criminal justicepractitioners and to noncriminaljustice agencies and organizationsthat need such information to carryout their duties and functions.

State systems

Each State operates a centralcriminal history record repositorythat receives case processinginformation contributed by lawenforcement agencies, prosecutors,courts and corrections agenciesthroughout the State. Theserepositories compile thisinformation into comprehensivecriminal history records or rapsheets, as they are often called.Rap sheets are made available tocriminal justice personnel, forauthorized purposes, by means ofstatewide telecommunicationssystems.

Maintenance of such centralrepositories relieves local and Statecriminal justice agencies of theneed to maintain expensive andduplicative information systemsthat attempt to compilecomprehensive offender records.They need only maintain systemsthat support their own caseprocessing needs and can rely uponthe State central repositories forinformation about the processing ofcases in other agencies.


13/159

Page 2 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report

The State repositories also makecriminal history records available tosome noncriminal justice agencies,such as State agencies that areauthorized by law to obtain therecords for such purposes asemployment screening andoccupational licensing.

Federal systems

At the Federal level, the FederalBureau of Investigation (FBI)maintains criminal history recordfiles on Federal offenders, as wellas files on State offenders to theextent that such information isvoluntarily submitted by States.The FBI has accepted and recordedState offender information for some

70 years and has compiled acriminal history database that, to agreat extent, duplicates the files ofthe State repositories.

The FBI also maintains anationwide telecommunicationssystem that enables Federal, Stateand local criminal justice agenciesto conduct national record searchesand to obtain information aboutindividuals who are arrested andprosecuted in other States.

In addition, the FBI providescriminal record services to Federaland nonfederal noncriminal justiceagencies that are authorized byFederal law to obtain such records.

Timely criminal history recordinformation issues

This report, which describes theState and Federal criminal historyrecord repositories and theproblems, issues and developmentsthat affect them, should be timely

for a number of reasons.

Data quality

First, recent developments havehighlighted this fact: Theinformation maintained by the Stateand Federal repositories is notalways accurate and up-to-date, dueprimarily to the failure of criminaljustice agencies to reportinformation accurately, completelyand regularly, but due also in somecases to a lack of adequateequipment and procedures at therepositories. For example, the lowquality of the data stored in manyrepositories has hampered ongoingefforts to establish a nationaldatabase of persons who have priorfelony convictions and are thereforeprohibited by Federal law from

purchasing firearms.

Surveys and audits have shown thefollowing:

That a high percentage of arrestson file in many repositories lackdispositions;

That arrest and dispositioninformation may be inaccurate;and

That the content and format ofthe records made available bysome of the repositories do notmeet the needs of some users.

These developments have led to anumber of initiatives to improvecriminal history record data qualitynationwide, including Federal grantassistance to the States and thepromulgation of voluntary dataquality standards. Compliance withthese standards will requireofficials in many States to seekfunds from their State legislaturesto provide additional equipmentand other resources to the

repositories and to the criminaljustice agencies that provideinformation to the repositories.

Given the complexity of theserecent developments, it is hopedthat this report will guide and assistlegislators and other policymakersin understanding thesedevelopments and the importantrole the repositories play in nationalinitiatives to improve data quality.

Decentralizedrecordkeeping

Second, the State repositories andthe FBI are engaged in acooperative program designed toeliminate the maintenance ofduplicative State offender recordsat both the State and Federal levels.

The current practice of maintaining

centralized State offender files atthe FBI will be replaced by a newsystem, the Interstate IdentificationIndex, which will make the Staterepositories primarily responsiblefor providing State criminal historyrecords for interstate and Federal-State purposes. Full participation inthis program will require most ofthe States to modify their recorddissemination laws and policies andto upgrade the technical capabilitiesof their repositories in order torealize the long-term cost savings

inherent in the new approach.

New technologies

Third, new technologies areemerging that offer great potentialfor significantly increasing theefficiency of the criminal historyrecord repositories and the qualityof the information they maintainand disseminate. Thesetechnologies are expensive,however, and it is often difficult topersuade legislators and other

policymakers that investment inthis new equipment makes sense intimes of tight State budgets.


14/159


Content of this report

This report contains six majorchapters that provide acomprehensive, nontechnicalreview of criminal history recordinformation systems nationwide,and how the records contained inthose systems are used andmanaged. Supporting tables andinformation are presented in 21appendices. To find specific topicsor areas of interest, readers areencouraged to refer to the detailedtable of contents. Readers are alsoencouraged to refer to a glossarywhich defines the terms used in thisreport, and which is locatedfollowing the table of contents.

Because the scope of this report isbroad, readers may wish to refer tothe other compendia, reports ordocuments cited throughout thisreport in footnotes for morespecific or timely data. In addition,readers may find a certain amountof duplication between chapters;this is because each chapter isdesigned to stand alone as areference document.

The chapters and the topics theycover are as follows:

Chapter I provides a briefoverview of how typical Statecriminal justice systems arestructured, how the criminal justiceprocess works and how criminaljustice practitioners use criminalhistory records. It describes themain case processing steps in atypical States criminal justicesystem and identifies the decisionpoints in these processes thatrequire a reliance on criminalhistory records, with a brief

explanation of the types ofinformation needed and the timeframes within which it is needed.The chapter also identifies thedecisions and actions that occur inthe course of criminal case

processing that are reflected, orshould be reflected, on criminalhistory records.

Chapter IIprovides an overviewof existing criminal history recordsystems, with emphasis on the Statecentral repositories and the FBIscriminal history record systems.The chapter includes a summary ofthe historical evolution of the Staterepositories and the FBIs recordsystems. It then describes the typesand numbers of records maintainedby the repositories and the FBI, theextent of present and plannedautomation, the number of inquirieshandled, and major criminal justiceand noncriminal justice users. Thechapter also describes how

information is reported to therepositories and the FBI and howusers have access to theinformation. Finally, the chapterdescribes the quality of theinformation maintained by therepositories, the format and contentof the criminal history records theydisseminate, and the principalsystematic and proceduralstrategies utilized to ensure dataquality and system integrity.

Chapter III analyzes the legal

standards applicable to the criminalhistory record repositories,including constitutional andcommon law doctrines, as well asstatutory and regulatoryrequirements. This chapter alsoanalyzes in some detail the laws,regulations and policies relevant totwo major issues concerningcriminal justice informationmanagement data quality anddissemination.

Chapter IVprovides a summarydescription of new technologies andnew technology applications thataffect the efficiency, and thereforethe cost, of criminal history recordinformation systems and the qualityof the records they provide. Newtechnologies described include:

Automated fingerprintidentification technology and itsimpact on the accuracy of theidentification function and theefficiency of inquiry andresponse procedures;

Live-scan and card-scanfingerprint technology and theimpact it will have on theefficiency and accuracy of arrestsubject processing, inquiryprocessing and the transmission

of fingerprint images to therepositories; and

Automated reporting of criminalhistory information to therepositories by law enforcementagencies, prosecutors, courts andcorrections agencies.

Chapter Vdescribes the InterstateIdentification Index system,including an overview of thesystems structure and the historyof phased testing andimplementation up to the present.The chapter describes how theprocessing of criminal justice andnoncriminal justice inquiriespresently works using FBI files andhow such processing will workwhen the new system, including theNational Fingerprint File, is fullyimplemented. The chapter alsodescribes the principal burdens andbenefits that participation in thesystem will entail for the Staterepositories and the FBI. Finally,the chapter summarizes the

provisions of a proposed interstatecompact designed to implement thesystem and formalize participationby the FBI and the Staterepositories.


15/159


16/159


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

This chapter provides anoverview of how the criminaljustice system works and howcriminal history records areutilized by criminal justicepersonnel.

Section 1: Typical Statecriminal justice systemstructure, describes a typicalState criminal justice system

structure, and includes adiscussion of criminal codesand procedures, policeagencies, local detentionfacilities, prosecution agencies,courts and correctionsagencies.

Section 2: Typical Statecriminal justice process,describes how criminal casesare processed in a typical Statecriminal justice system from investigation through

arrest, prosecution,adjudication and correctionalsupervision.

Section 3: How criminaljustice practitioners usecriminal history records,identifies the actions anddecisions in the criminaljustice process that require areliance on criminal historyrecord information. Thissection also explains the typesof information needed and the

time frames within which it isneeded.

Background

This discussion is intended forthose readers who may not befamiliar with the structure of thecriminal justice system and howpersons accused of criminaloffenses are processed through thesystem. This should enable thesereaders to understand why criminalhistory record systems arenecessary and how the efficiency of

these systems and the quality of theinformation they provide cansignificantly impact theeffectiveness of criminal caseprocessing and the success of crimecontrol strategies.

Section 1: Typical Statecriminal justice systemstructure

Although there are criminal justicesystems at the local, State and

Federal levels, most crimes by farare prosecuted under State law. Forthis reason, this discussion willfocus primarily on the state-levelsystems and will describe a more orless typical State criminal justicestructure. It should be stressed,however, that the systems at thethree levels are significantlyinterrelated and depend upon a highlevel of cooperation among local,State and Federal officials.

This section discusses thesecomponents of a State criminaljustice system:

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

Criminal codes andprocedures

Some crimes are Federal by nature,such as attempts to assassinate thepresident, certain antitrustviolations and some criminalconspiracies or enterprises thatutilize the mails or otherinstruments of interstate commerce.These crimes are prosecuted inFederal courts and convictedoffenders are usually, but notalways, incarcerated in Federalcorrectional facilities.

Other crimes or violations are localin nature, such as loitering or publicdrunkenness. These less seriousoffenses are processed throughlocal systems at the city, townshipor county level.

Most crimes, however, are Statecrimes, including the crimes ofmurder, robbery, burglary and rape,and other dangerous crimes thatconstitute the core of the Nations

serious crime problem.


17/159


Each of these governmental levels local, State and Federal defines its own criminal laws andcriminal procedures. At the Federallevel, the Congress1 has enacted aFederal criminal code definingFederal crimes and a code ofFederal criminal procedure settingout rules applicable in processingcriminal cases through the Federalcourts. State legislatures enactcriminal statutes and proceduralcodes at the State level. Citycouncils or similar governingbodies act at the local level.

Each of these levels depends upon ahigh degree of cooperation withcriminal justice officials at othergovernmental levels. This

interrelation and cooperation isespecially important between localand State governments and exists atevery phase of the criminal justiceprocess, from investigation throughcorrectional treatment. Sometimesthese roles are defined by law,sometimes by formal agreementsand sometimes by informalpractice.

Police agencies

Police protection is primarily local

in nature a function of cities,municipalities or counties. Mostviolations of State law areinvestigated by local police andsuspects in these crimes arearrested and charged at the locallevel. In addition, other police units such as State troopers, FederalDrug Enforcement Administrationofficers or FBI agents may beinvolved with local police in theinvestigation, arrest andprosecution of certain cases.

1In this report, the Congressrefers to the United States Congress.

Local detention facilities

Jails, which also are primarily localin nature, detain not only personsarrested for local offenses, but alsovirtually all persons charged andawaiting trial under State law.Local jails may also house Federaldetainees and often house Stateprison-ready inmates personswho have been convicted andsentenced and are ready to moveinto a State prison but, because ofovercrowding or other reasons,cannot be moved. In most suchcases, State or Federal governmentspay fees to the local communitieswhich house these prisoners.

Prosecution agencies

Prosecution is another essentiallylocal function that plays a vital rolein the enforcement of State criminallaws. Most prosecutors are electedlocally, at the city, county ordistrict level. They may be calledDistrict Attorneys, as they are inCalifornia and Wyoming, or StatesAttorneys, as they are in Illinoisand South Dakota. They also maybe called Prosecuting Attorneys,Commonwealths Attorneys,County Attorneys or City

Attorneys.

These locally-elected and locally-accountable officials are chargedwith the responsibility ofprosecuting not only local offensesbut also virtually all offensesdefined under State law. For manyof them, prosecuting State crimes istheir primary function, sometimestheir exclusive function.

Courts

Courts exist at the local, State andFederal levels. Most States haveintegrated court systems, that is,systems which as a result of reformand modernization have a more orless uniform statewide structure,combining local and State courtsinto essentially one system. SomeStates, such as Alaska andMaryland, have what are known asunified court systems. In suchsystems, all courts are directlyadministered by the State, usuallythrough a state-level Office ofCourt Administration.

In the typical State judicial system,there are magistrates courts, lower-

level trial courts, felony trial courts,and intermediate and final appellatecourts. Magistrates, orCommissioners in some States,conduct initial appearances incriminal cases and may set bail, butusually have no trial jurisdiction.Lower-level trial courts, oftencalled Municipal Courts, CountyCourts or District Courts, usuallyare limited to trying misdemeanorcases and conducting probablecause hearings in felony cases.

The next tier is the felony trialcourt, commonly called the CircuitCourt or Superior Court. In NewYork, this court is called theSupreme Court. These are the basicState trial courts, with jurisdictionover felony offenses and often overmisdemeanor cases that areappealed from the lower trialcourts.


18/159


About half of the States haveintermediate appellate courts,usually called the Court of Appeals.At the top of the structure, the StateSupreme Court is the highest Stateappellate court. In New York, thiscourt is called the Court ofAppeals.

Generally, there is a right of appealto the State Supreme Court fromthe intermediate appellate court ordirectly from the trial courts if nointermediate appellate court exists.Under some circumstances, such asalleged denials of constitutionalrights, State court decisions can bereviewed by Federal courts.

Corrections agencies

Corrections is generally anumbrella term for probationagencies, State prisons and paroleagencies. Correctional supervisionis primarily a State function,although, again, cooperation amonggovernmental entities is common. Ithas already been noted that localjails may hold State prisoners.

In addition, State prisons may holdFederal prisoners, such as thosewho are in special protection

programs, while Federal prisonsmay hold State prisoners who are atparticular risk in the State systems.Sometimes a prisoner may serveboth State and Federal sentences orState and local sentencesconcurrently.

Section 2: Typical Statecriminal justice process

Although there may be aspects ofevery States criminal justice

system that are unique, the essentialsteps or functions in the system aresimilar in practically all States. Thefollowing discussion describes thefunctioning of these essential stepsin a typical State system and points

out some pitfalls in the process thatmay detract from the creation ofadequate records of criminal cases.

The steps or functions discussed inthis section are:

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

Sentencing; and Correctional supervision.(See Figure 1, which illustrates thesequence of events in the criminaljustice system.)

Investigation

Most criminal investigations arecarried out by the police, butinvestigations may be undertakenby grand juries or other specialbodies such as crime commissionsor legislative committees. Most ofthe information utilized by criminalinvestigators is commonly referredto as intelligence information(information compiled in an effortto anticipate, prevent or monitorpossiblecriminal activity) orinvestigative information(information obtained in the courseof the investigation of specificalleged criminal acts).

Many State laws make a sharpdistinction between this type of

information and criminal historyrecord information. Intelligence andinvestigative information isregarded as more sensitive andpotentially more harmful to privacyand confidentiality interests and

consequently is more strictlyregulated in many States.Investigators do use criminalhistory record information,however, as shown in Section 3 ofthis chapter.

Arrest

The next stage in the process, inmost cases, is the arrest. An arrestmay occur pursuant to an arrestwarrant, although generally anarrest warrant is not needed exceptfor a misdemeanor offensecommitted outside of the arrestingofficers presence or when theofficer must enter the subjectspremises to make the arrest. Themore typical arrest is sometimes

referred to as an on view arrest.This occurs when the officerpersonally witnesses the crime orhas sufficient information from areliable source to establish probablecause that a crime occurred and thearrest subject was involved.

In most instances, the arrest is theevent that triggers the creation of acriminal history record for aparticular case. Virtually all of theStates have laws or regulationsrequiring arresting agencies to

report certain arrests to the centralrepository.2 (State central criminalhistory record repositories aredescribed in Chapter II.) Theselaws usually apply to all arrests foroffenses classified as felonies orserious misdemeanors.

2U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Data Quality of CriminalHistory Records, Criminal JusticeInformation Policy series, by Robert R.Belair, SEARCH Group, Inc.(Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, October 1985) p. 36.(Hereafter, Data Quality Report.)


19/159


Figure 1: Sequence of Events in the Criminal Justice System(Figure not available in electronic format)


20/159


Figure 1: Sequence of Events in the Criminal Justice System(Figure not available in electronic format)


21/159


In addition to reporting informationabout the arrest, the arrest subjectand arrest charges, arrestingagencies are also required to obtainand submit the arrest subjectsfingerprints. These fingerprintsprovide so-called positiveidentification of the record subjectand are crucial for these reasons:

Searching criminal historyrecord systems;

Linking prior arrest andconviction records to personswho subsequently use falsenames, and

Ensuring the admissibility ofcriminal records in subsequentproceedings for such purposes assentencing.

For these reasons, it is vitallyimportant that fingerprints beobtained and submitted to therepository for all cases that arerequired by law to be included inthe repositorys database.

In cases that begin by arrest, mostarresting agencies have bookingprocedures designed to ensure thatfingerprints are obtained andsubmitted as required. Not all casesbegin by arrest, however. Citations,used in the past mostly for minoroffenses, are being used more andmore in many States for seriousmisdemeanors and even for somefelonies.

Citations are paper forms that aregiven to the subject in lieu of arrestand booking, and which contain alegally-enforceable order to appearin court on a specified date or asordered. Since the subject is notdetained and booked, fingerprintsare not obtained and submitted to

the repository in the usual way.

If there are no procedures in placeto ensure that fingerprints areobtained at the time of the subjectscourt appearance, or at some otherpoint in the proceedings, the casehistory may lack a basis for positiveidentification and any resultingconviction may not be legallyadmissible in subsequentproceedings. Moreover, withoutpositive identification, caseinformation cannot reliably beassociated with information aboutprior and subsequent offensescommitted by the record subject,which is needed to form acomprehensive criminal history.

A similar problem is presented bycases in which additional charges

are filed against persons alreadycharged in other cases. Forexample, a person who is arrested,charged and fingerprinted inconnection with an alleged burglarymay, through subsequentinvestigation, be linked toadditional burglaries, which may becharged as separate cases. Newfingerprints are often overlookedfor these new cases, even thoughthe subject may still be in custody,and appropriate steps may not betaken to establish a link between

the new cases and the earlierfingerprints.

Where an arrest does occur, thedetained person may later bereleased without being booked andcharged. In such cases, no report tothe repository is required and noneshould be made. (This assumes thatno report on the arrest, that is, afingerprint card, has already beensubmitted to the repository.)

Booking

The booking process is a criticalstage in the information flow in acriminal case. Booking typicallyinvolves an entry into achronological arrest log or arrestregister, the filing of an arrestreport by the arresting officer, andthe preparation of a statement ofcharges as the arresting officer seesthem.

The booking process also includesthe taking and recording ofpersonal information about thearrestee, such as name, address,date of birth, sex, race, eye and haircolor, weight and any scars, marksor tattoos that may be useful in

identifying the person.

As noted earlier, if the arrest is fora felony or a serious misdemeanor,the subject is fingerprinted.Typically, three sets of fingerprintsare made one for the arrestingagencys files and two to be sent tothe State repository (one for therepositorys use and one to beforwarded to the FBI in appropriatecases).

At some point in the booking

process, the agency makes inquiriesof available criminal history recordsystems to determine whether thesubject has a record of prior orpending cases that may affect howhe is processed. The agency checksits own files and makes an inquiryof the State system and possibly theInterstate Identification Index, anational system that can determinewhether the subject has a Federalrecord or a record in another State.(This national-level system, oftenreferred to as III or Triple I, is

discussed in detail in Chapter V.)


22/159


The booking stage is another pointat which the arrestee may bereleased without prosecution. If thisoccurs, it may cause a problem forcriminal history record reportingpurposes. If the subject has beenfingerprinted before release and thefingerprints have already been sentto the repository, notice of therelease must also be sent to avoidthe creation of an open arrest recordwithout a notation that the case hasbeen officially terminated. A recentsurvey of State repositoriesrevealed that slightly more thanhalf of the States have laws orregulations that require lawenforcement agencies to send suchnotices to the repository,3andaudits have shown that failure to

send such notices, even whererequired by law, is a pervasiveproblem.

Not all arresting agencies havebooking facilities. In such cases,the arrestee is usually turned overto another agency for processing.This is commonly noted on thesubjects record as TOT,followed by the name of thereceiving agency.

Initial court appearance

The next step is the defendantsinitial appearance before a court ormagistrate. This must occurwithout unnecessary delay, whichin some States means within 24hours.

3U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Bureau of JusticeStatistics, Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems,1992,Criminal

Justice Information Policy series, bySheila J. Barton, SEARCH Group, Inc.(Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, forthcoming) Table 7.(Hereafter, 1992 Survey.) Selectedtables from the 1992 Survey are set outin this report as Appendices 10-20.

At the initial appearance, a numberof things can happen:

The judge or magistrate maymake a probable cause finding.In felony cases, however, this isusually delayed until the next

step in the process, thepreliminary hearing, unless thetwo stages are combined, as theyare in some jurisdictions.

Charges against the defendantmay be dismissed at this point.

Legal counsel may be assignedif the defendant is indigent.

A pretrial release decision maybe made.

In nonserious cases, the entirecase may be completed and adisposition may be entered.

All of this information, with theexception of the handling of thenonserious case, typically isreportable to the State repositoryand has consequences for thecompleteness and accuracy of thecriminal history record.

Preliminary hearing

The next step is the preliminaryhearing. Such a hearing may not berequired in all jurisdictions,

particularly in cases in which agrand jury must issue anindictment. Simply put, the purposeof the preliminary hearing is todetermine whether there is enoughevidence to hold (bind over) thedefendant for trial. To make thisdetermination, the judge ormagistrate must be satisfied beyonda reasonable doubt that a crime wascommitted and must find probablecause that the defendant committedthe crime.

The court may take other actions atthis time as well. For example, ifthe prosecutor cannot presentenough evidence to meet therequired findings, the judge willdismiss some or all of the charges.The judge may also make or changea pretrial release decision, such asan increase or decrease in bail.

Pretrial release decision

As noted, the pretrial releasedecision may occur as early as theinitial appearance and may bereviewed and changed, possiblyseveral times, at later stages of theproceedings in the case.

Courts have a number of pretrial

release choices, based uponavailable information about thecrime with which the defendant ischarged, his prior criminal record,and the likelihood that he willappear or fail to appear for trial:

The defendant may be jailedwithout bail if he is charged witha capital offense or if the courtfinds that he may not appear fortrial or may pose an undue riskto the community if released;

He may be jailed in default ofbond, if bail is set and he is

unable to post bond;

He may be released on cashbond or without bond (releasedon his own recognizance orROR); or

He may be released on specificconditions or restrictionsdesigned to keep him out oftrouble and reduce the likelihoodof flight.

If the defendant is released and failsto appear for arraignment or trial,

an arrest warrant may be issued,and bond may be revoked orchanged.


23/159


24/159


may resume or the court may entera judgment of conviction on theguilty plea and proceed tosentencing.

Another such outcome is indefinitepostponement. This also is usuallyordered pursuant to a pleanegotiation and is undertaken todetermine whether the defendantcan refrain from law enforcementcontact for a specified period. If so,the case is dismissed. If not, trial isresumed.

Deferred judgments of this kindpresent recordkeeping problemsbecause oftentimes no notice is sentto the State repository at the end ofthe probationary period indicating

whether the charges were dismissedor reinstated. As a result, thecriminal history record maintainedby the repository may beambiguous as to whether the casehas been concluded and what thefinal outcome was.

The conclusion of trial proceedingsis another point at which bail maybe reviewed and changed. Afterconviction, the risk of flight may bethought to have increased andincreased bail may be justified. Bail

may also be denied pendingsentencing or appeal.

Appeal

An appeal may follow sentencingor may be instituted beforesentence is imposed. Some appealsmay be automatic, as in deathpenalty cases, and in other cases theconvicted person may have a rightto appeal if he chooses. In othercases, however, appeal may be inthe discretion of the appellate court.

There are also so-called post-conviction actions that can resultin appellate review of some aspectsof criminal cases. The mostcommon is the writ of habeas

corpus, the function of which is toobtain release from unlawfulimprisonment. This and other post-conviction actions can be based onclaims of inadequate legalrepresentation or denial of certainconstitutional rights, among othergrounds, and can result in review inState and Federal appellate courts.

Sentencing

A sentence may be decided orrecommended by the jury, as incapital cases, or imposed by thejudge. Typically, a sentencinghearing is held for felony cases. Inall States, the sentencing judge hasthe discretion, by express statutoryauthority or by virtue of inherent

judicial powers, to order thepreparation of a presentence reportto guide the sentencing decision.5

The presentence report almostalways includes information aboutthe defendants past criminalactivity.

Sentencing options may include(separately or in combination):

The death penalty; Incarceration in a prison, jail or

other facility;

Probation;

A suspended sentence, in wholeor in part;

A fine; Restitution; Forfeiture of the proceeds of the

crime;

5U. S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Bureau of JusticeStatistics, Statutes Requiring the Use ofCriminal History Record Information,Criminal Justice Information Policy

series, by Paul L. Woodard, SEARCHGroup, Inc. (Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, June1991) Table 7 at pp. 47-50. (Hereafter,Statutes Report.) Selected tables fromthe Statutes Report are set out in thisreport as Appendices 1-7.

Confinement in a mental healthfacility; or

Community service.

The judge may have discretion as tosentence choices and sentence

length, but State law may providefor mandatory, determinate orenhanced sentencing in some cases,and may limit or deny probationeligibility. Sentencing approachesare discussed in Section 3 of thischapter.

Correctional supervision

The final step in the criminal justiceprocess is correctional supervision.Basically, this step includes the so-called three Ps: probation, prison

and parole.

Incarceration in a State prison isusually for persons who areconvicted of felonies and receivesentences of one year or more.Sentences of less than a yearusually are served in local jails orother local facilities. A person mayreceive a split sentence; that is,he may serve some time but alsoreceive a period of probation. If aperson is placed on probation inlieu of incarceration and fails to

comply with the terms of probation including making monetaryrestitution, if so ordered probation may be revoked and theperson may be sent to jail or prison.The same applies to a person whois paroled after serving part of aterm of incarceration and fails tocomply with the conditions ofparole.


25/159


Section 3: How criminaljustice practitionersuse criminal historyrecords

This chapter has previously

mentioned some of the uses thatcriminal justice practitioners makeof criminal history records. Thissection reviews in more detail theuses, both mandatory anddiscretionary, that suchpractitioners make of criminalhistory records as they performtheir duties in processing offendersthrough the criminal justice system.These uses include:

Police uses; Pretrial release uses;

Prosecutor uses; Court uses; and Corrections uses.

This section also discusses thetypes of criminal history recordinformation needed to guidecriminal justice decisionmaking,and also discusses the time frameswithin which the information isneeded.

Background

The importance of the criminalhistory record to the effectivefunctioning of the criminal justicesystem can hardly be overstated.Research has shown that as manyas two-thirds of all persons arrestedfor criminal offenses have priorcriminal records, often includingoffenses in multiple jurisdictions orStates.6 Many arrestees, ifidentified as prior offenders, wouldbe treated differently than firstoffenders. For example:

Prior offenders might not bereleased on bail or on their ownrecognizance;

6Ibid., p. 1.

Prior offenders might not be ableto legally purchase firearms,which then enable them tocommit more crimes;

In many cases, prior offenderswould not be eligible for

probation or other lenienttreatment;

In some cases, prior offenderswould be subject to upgraded orenhanced charging andsentencing and would receivelonger prison terms; and

In some cases, prior offendersmight be subject to sentencing ascareer or habitual offenders tolong prison terms withoutparole.

Thus, simply put, the availability ornonavailability of complete,accurate and timely criminal historyrecords can have a direct impact onthe functioning of the criminaljustice system.

Police uses

Police agencies use criminal historyrecords in numerous ways,including as an investigative tool.Criminal records can aid them incompiling suspect lists, based upon

prior criminal patterns, or ineliminating suspects who can bedetermined to have beenincarcerated at the time of thecrime. Information about asuspects prior record can also behelpful in obtaining a searchwarrant or establishing criminalknowledge or motive.

The record can be extremely usefulto the police officer in the field.When an officer makes a stop,information about the stopped

persons dangerousness or pastviolent activity can save theofficers life. In addition,information about a suspectscriminal record may be necessaryto determine whether a crime has

occurred, such as possession of afirearm or other dangerous weaponby a felon. There are provisions inthe penal codes of the FederalGovernment, 43 States, the Districtof Columbia and the U.S. VirginIslands making it a criminaloffense, usually a felony, for aperson previously convicted of afelony to own, possess or carry afirearm or, in some States, certainother dangerous weapons.7

A suspects status as an escapee orhis failure to comply withconditions of his current status as aprobationer, parolee or bailee canalso be determined from hiscriminal record, if it is completeand current.

Pretrial release uses

The presence or absence of a priorcriminal record is arguably themost relevant information to ajudge or magistrate decidingwhether and under what conditionsto release a person on bail pendingtrial. Indeed, 47 States, the FederalGovernment, the District ofColumbia, the U.S. Virgin Islandsand Puerto Rico have statutory orconstitutional provisions or court

rules that explicitly require orpermit the consideration of anarrested persons prior criminalrecord in making pretrial and post-trial release decisions.8

In some cases, pretrial release isprohibited by law if personscharged with designated offenseswere already on bail when arrestedor if they have previous convictionsfor designated offenses. In addition,laws in many States permit courts

7Ibid., Table 10 at pp. 64-66, and p.63. Table 10 is included in this reportas Appendix 1.

8Ibid., Table 2 at pp. 7-10, and pp.5-6. An excerpt from Table 2 isincluded in this report as Appendix 2.


26/159


to order preventive detention ofpersons with prior records thatindicate that they would bedangerous or might commit furthercrimes if released.

Information that an arrested personhas previously failed to appear asordered (usually noted on criminalhistory records as FTA) is alsoimportant at the bail-setting stage.Virtually all States permit suchinformation to influence pretrialrelease decisions, including thedenial of bail if the subject isdeemed likely to flee based on priorFTAs and the seriousness of thecurrent crime.

Prosecutor uses

Prosecutors are among the heaviestusers of criminal history records.They use such records from themoment they become involved incriminal cases until the cases areterminated at the defendants parolehearings or earlier. Complete andaccurate criminal history recordinformation is needed byprosecutors to provide input andmake decisions regarding:

Bail; Enhanced charging; Plea bargaining; Presentations to grand juries; Habitual or career criminal

prosecutions;

Impeachment of witnesses; Sentence recommendations; and Parole board hearings.

All of the States have statutoryprovisions that authorize or requirearrested persons with designatedprior convictions to be charged as

repeat offenders, habitual offendersor career offenders, and, ifconvicted, to be sentenced to

enhanced prison terms.9 Undersome of these laws, the prosecutormust allege habitual or repeatoffender status in the chargingdocument or give early notice of hisintent to seek an enhancedsentence.

In addition, almost all of the Stateshave provisions applicable tocertain crimes that upgrade secondand subsequent offenses, of thesame or similar type, to higherclasses of crimes than first offenses from a misdemeanor to a felony,for example, or to a more seriousclass of felony or misdemeanor.10

In some of these cases, theupgraded offense must be specifiedin the charging document. This

means that the prosecutor musthave complete information about adefendants prior record at the timethe case is filed in court because theclass of offense charged can affectthe type of charging document thatmust be used or the court in whichthe case must be filed.

Court uses

Courts are also heavy users ofcriminal history record information,although in some cases judges may

not be aware that the informationcomes primarily from repository-supplied criminal history records,since they customarily receive theinformation in modified form inbail reports prepared by bailagencies or other agencies, inpresentence reports prepared byprobation departments or inpresentations by the prosecutor.

9Ibid., Table 5 at pp. 36-41, and pp.13-14. An excerpt from Table 5 isincluded in this report as Appendix 3.

10Ibid., Table 3 at pp. 17-23, and p.11. An excerpt from Table 3 is includedin this report as Appendix 4.

For bail, pretrial and trialdecisions

As noted above, courts needcriminal history record informationfor bail and pretrial releasedecisions at an early stage incriminal proceedings, many timeswithin 24 hours of the defendantsarrest. They also use criminalhistory record information inmaking probable causedeterminations, issuing arrestwarrants, and accepting or rejectingpleas.

In some instances, courts areauthorized to consider evidence ofprior crimes by a defendant duringthe trial itself. Such evidence may

be admissible, for example, to showmotive, intent, criminal knowledge,common plan or scheme, or methodof operation (modus operandiorM.O.) Certain prior convictionsalso may be admissible to attack thecredibility of the defendant, if hetestifies, or of other witnesses.

For sentencing decisions

The most frequent use of criminalhistory records by courts, however,is in connection with sentencing.

As mentioned, many State lawspermit or require courts to upgradecharges or impose enhancedsentences for persons with priorconviction records, including, insome cases, life sentences withoutparole for certain habitualoffenders.


27/159


Some of these enhancement lawstake into consideration not onlypast convictions but also thenumber and duration of prisonterms previously served and thelength of time between release andrenewed criminal involvement.11Inaddition, virtually all of these lawstake into account convictions in anyState or Federal court and, in somecases, in territorial or foreign courtsas well.12

In lieu of, or in addition to, specificupgrade or enhancement laws,some jurisdictions have establishedsentencing guidelines orpresumptive or determinatesentencing structures that are basedin part on prior convictions as

aggravating factors or on sentencecomputation formulas that includeprior convictions as factors in thecomputation.13

For probation and paroledecisions

Courts also take criminal historyrecord information into account indeciding whether to place offenderson probation or to impose limits onparole eligibility for incarceratedoffenders. In some jurisdictions,

these decisions are left to thediscretion of the courts. In otherinstances, the limitations aremandatory. For example, many ofthe repeat offender, habitualoffender and sentence enhancementlaws mentioned earlier provide formandatory prison terms,foreclosing probation as a possiblesentence, and many of them denyor limit parole eligibility. Probationmay also be prohibited by law forcertain convicted persons who have

11Ibid., Table 4 at pp. 24-35, and p.14. An excerpt from Table 4 is includedin this report as Appendix 5.

12Ibid., p. 14.13Ibid., pp. 12-13.

previously been convicted ofcertain serious offenses, such asmurder or other offenses involvingviolence.14

Corrections uses

The most frequent use of criminalhistory record information bycorrectional agencies is in thepreparation of presentence reports,which commonly are prepared byparole or probation agencies.Correctional officials also use suchinformation for classificationpurposes,15however, and inmaking decisions about eligibilityfor good time credits, early release,work furlough or release onparole.16

As noted earlier, numerous Stateshave reformed their sentencingstructures in recent years to providefor determinate sentencing pursuantto sentencing guidelines ormandatory sentencing structures.Under some of these laws,offenders are required to serve thesentences imposed, less good timecredits only, with release on paroleprior to sentence expiration nolonger permitted.

Other State laws deny or limitparole eligibility for certainoffenders based on the number andseriousness of prior convictions.Even where parole eligibility is notspecifically constrained by statute,parole decisions commonly arebased in large part upon theseriousness of the offenderspresent offense and his pastcriminal record.

14Ibid., p. 14.15Ibid., Table 8 at pp. 52-54, and p.

51. Table 8 is included in this report asAppendix 6.

16Ibid., Table 9 at pp. 57-61, andpp. 55-56. An excerpt from Table 9 isincluded in this report as Appendix 7.

Types of information needed

It should be obvious that criminaljustice practitioners use criminalhistory records to guide decision-making at every stage of thecriminal justice process. It shouldalso be obvious that the informationthey need for these purposesincludes more than just a list ofarrest charges and courtdispositions. Proper enforcement ofthe laws and effectiveimplementation of crime controlstrategies may require them toknow not only the number, natureand dates of prior convictions, butalso:

Whether an offender was on bailor some other form of

supervision at the time of arrest; Whether an offender has a

history of violation of releaseconditions or failure to appear asordered;

Whether other cases are pendingagainst the offender and thestatus of such cases;

Whether particular past crimesinvolved the use of dangerousweapons or actual or threatenedviolence;

Whether prior convictions werefor felonies or misdemeanors;

Whether an offender has servedprevious terms of imprisonment;and

Whether new and prior incidentsof criminal involvement wereseparated by specified periodsduring which the individual wasfree of criminal involvement.


28/159


In addition, court officials oftenexpress a need for informationabout previous failures to pay finesor restitution and information aboutless serious offenses that in manyStates are not required to bereported to the repository,17usuallybecause there is no legalrequirement to obtain fingerprintsin such cases.

Finally, it should be re-emphasizedthat virtually all of the laws thatrequire or permit criminal justicedecisions to be based upon pastcriminal involvement take intoaccount prior convictions in anyState or Federal court andsometimes in territorial or foreigncourts as well.

Time frames within whichinformation is needed

The time frame within whichcriminal history record informationis needed by criminal justicepractitioners varies considerably.As mentioned earlier, informationfor bail-setting purposes may beneeded within 24 hours of arrest.Some of the investigative needs oflaw enforcement officers may alsonecessitate short response times.

Prosecutors need criminal historyrecord information at an early stageof criminal proceedings forcharging purposes and making bailrecommendations.

17U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Bureau ofJustice Statistics,Report of the National

Task Force on Criminal History RecordDisposition Reporting, Criminal JusticeInformation Policy series, by SEARCHGroup, Inc. (Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, June1992) p. 3. (Hereafter, National TaskForce Report.)

Few States presently haveprocedures and facilities for makingfingerprint-verified criminal historyrecord responses available withinsuch short time frames. Somejurisdictions have bail agencies orother agencies that are charged withthe responsibility of obtaining andproviding information for use inbail determinations. In some cases,these agencies may have the staffand facilities for making inquiriesto obtain complete and accurateinformation concerning priorcriminal records. In most cases,however, the only informationavailable in time for initial baildeterminations is a criminal historyrecord transcript received inresponse to a name search of the

States criminal history system andwhatever information is providedby the police or is known to theprosecutor or the court.

Since name searches are not fullyreliable and existing criminalrecord files may be inaccurate andincomplete, particularly withrespect to case dispositioninformation, some short-term needsof criminal justice officials are notcurrently being met. In somejurisdictions, however, new

technology is solving some of theseproblems. (This is discussed inChapter IV.)

Other needs are not as time-critical.For example, agencies ordered toprepare presentence reportsgenerally have time forinvestigation and compilation ofneeded information. There is oftentime to obtain a fingerprint-basedsearch of the States criminalrecord system, thus avoiding therisk of missing previous recordinformation if the subject gave afictitious name when arrested.There may also be sufficient time toreceive a response from the IIIsystem indicating whether thesubject has a record in anotherjurisdiction. Finally, there may besufficient time to contact courts andcorrectional agencies, if necessary,to obtain missing disposition

information or to verify theaccuracy of recorded arrest anddisposition information.


29/159



30/159


Chapter II:Overview of existingcriminal history record systems

This chapter describes the Nations existing criminal history recordsystems at both the State and Federal levels.

Section 1: Evolution of criminal history record systems, provides abrief historical review of the evolution of criminal history recordsystems at the State and Federal levels.

Section 2: Information maintained in the Nations criminal historyrecord systems, summarizes the type of information maintained inState and Federal criminal history record repositories, includingidentification, criminal history and juvenile information.

Section 3: The current status of the Nations criminal historyrecord systems, summarizes a recent Bureau of Justice Statisticssurvey of State criminal history record systems and describes:

The number of criminal history records maintained by State andFederal repositories;

The extent of repository automation; and

The reporting and access procedures utilized by the repositories.

Section 4: The product of the repositories: The criminal historyrecord, discusses the quality of information maintained by therepositories, and the adequacy of the content and format of thecriminal history records they produce.

Background

State-level systems

Criminal history records at theState level are collected, maintainedand disseminated by State centralrepositories, which are agencies orbureaus within State governments,often housed within the State policeor a cabinet-level agency withpublic safety and criminal justice

responsibilities, such as theDepartment of Law Enforcement orthe Department of Public Safety.

Customarily, the repositories arecharged under State law with thefollowing:

Establishing comprehensive filesof criminal history records;

Establishing an efficient andtimely system for retrieving therecords;

Ensuring that the records areaccurate and up-to-date; and

Establishing rules and regula-tions governing the dissemina-tion of criminal history recordsto criminal justice and non-criminal justice users. Today, all50 States, Puerto Rico and theDistrict of Columbia haveestablished central repositoriesfor criminal history records.18

18U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Criminal HistoryRecord Information: Compendium ofState Privacy and Security Legislation,1992, by SEARCH Group, Inc.(Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, July 1992) p. 5.(Hereafter, 1992 Compendium.)


31/159


Federal-level systems

At the Federal level, the FederalBureau of Investigation (FBI)functions as a repository forcriminal history information,holding both Federal offenderinformation and records of arrestsand dispositions under State law.As discussed in this chapter, theFBIs criminal history recordinformation role is changing.

Currently, the FBI operates acentralized criminal history file thatserves as the primary source fornational record searches andinterstate record exchanges. By theend of this century, however, theFBI will serve primarily as the

51st State repository with respectto Federal offenders. The FBI willalso maintain these systems:

The Interstate IdentificationIndex, which will permitauthorized requestors todetermine whether any State orFederal repository maintains acriminal history record about aparticular subject; and

The National Fingerprint File,which will provide positiveidentification of all offendersindexed in the national system.

(These national systems arediscussed in detail in ChapterV.)

Section 1: Evolution ofcriminal history recordsystems

Although the Nations criminalhis

crime ch use

Documents