(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Criminal justice data banks--1974, hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of..., 93-2.."

CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA BANKS— 1974 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMIHEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL EIGHTS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
ON 

S. 2542, S. 2810, S. 2963, and S. 2964 



MARCH 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, AND 14, 1974 



Volume II — Appendix 



Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 







V^- 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
34-788 WASHINGTON : 1974 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Qovemment Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $9.80 



NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSIPy SCHOOL of LAW LIBRAR" 



COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska 

SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii 

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan HUGH SCOTT, PcAnsylvania 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 

BIRCH BAYH, Indiana MARLOW W. COOK, Kentucky 

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida 
JOHN V. TUNNEY, California 



Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights 

SAM J. ERVIN, JR„ North Carolina, Chairman 
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska 

BIRCH BAYH, Indiana HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 

JOHN V. TUNNEY. California 

Lawrence M. Baskir, Chief Counsel and Staff Director. 

Mark Gitbnstein, Counsel 

Joseph B. C. Kluttz, Research Assistant 

(II) 



CONTENTS 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA BANKS 

Volume II — Appendix 



MATERIALS RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Page 
The Department of Justice — General: 

Regulations proposed by the Attorney General on February 8, 1974 
[See Volume I, pp. 712-718.] 

The Kennedy-McClellan Amendment and related materials 1 

Staff Memorandum on Major Criminal Justice Data Banks 13 

Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

Observations by Director Clarence M. Kelley on S. 2964, S. 2963, 

H.R. 188, H.R. 9783. [See Volume I, pp. 199-208.] 
Correspondence from Lawrence M. Baskir to David Bowers, F.B.I., 
on February 19, 1974; Response by Clarence M. Kelley [See 
Volume I, pp. 658-667.] 
Regulations issued by Clarence M. Kelley on November 21, 1973 

[See Volume I, pp. 668-669.] 
Questions submitted by Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. to Patrick 
Gray III on March 1, 1973 before the Senate Judiciary Committee; 

Response by Mr. Gray 15 

Magazine Article, "The National Crime Information Center," F.B.f. 
Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1974 [See Volume I, pp. 46-48.] 
Identification Record on Anonymous Individual from Cahfornia [See 
Volume I, p. 232.] 

Report by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, January 7, 1974 55 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration: 

Correspondence from Lawrence M. Baskir to Richard Velde on 
February 20, 1974; Response by Mr. Velde [See Volume I, pp. 694-731.] 
Comprehensive Data Systems Program — 

"Comprehensive Data Systems Program," April 1972 [Volume 
I, pp. 698-712.] 

"The Plan for the Development of the Colorado Comprehensive 

Criminal Justice Data System" 801 

Chapter 5 — Privacy and Security Policies and Standards for 
Criminal Justice Information Systems, Excerpted from "A 
Master Plan for Criminal Justice Information Systems for the 

State of Florida" 850 

Excerpts from the report of the National Advisory Commission on 

Criminal Justice Standards and Goals 186 

State-by-State Surveys, conducted by the Law Enforcement Assist- 
ance Administration: 

Excerpts from "Security and Privacy Considerations in Com- 
puterized Criminal Justice Information Systems, May 10, 1971. 190 
Appendix D: System Function Index — Excerpted from "1972 
Directory of Automated Criminal Justice Information Sys- 
tems," December 1972 200 

MATERIALS RELATING TO THE CASE OF MENARD v. MITCHELL 

Judicial Opinions _ _ 261 

Bible Rider, P.L. 92-544 1 .'..'.. I. .. 311 

(III) 



IV 

Page 
Statement of Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., "The Conference Report on 

H.R. 8916, Legislative Legerdemain, November 14, 1973 311 

MATERIALS RELATING TO PROJECT SEARCH 

Computerized Criminal History Demonstration: 

Technical Memorandum #2, January 1971 317 

"Comparative Analysis of Project SEARCH," October 23, 1970, by 

Data Dynamics Inc 322 

Correspondence and Memorandum from Arnold R. Weber, Associate 
Director, Office of Management and Budget, to John N. Mitchell, 
Attorney General of the United States, September 3, 1970 364 

Memoranda from the Director of the FBI and Associate Adminis- 
trators of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 369 

Committee on Security and Privacy: 

Technical Report #2, "Security and Privacy Considerations in Crim- 
inal History InJFormation Systems," July 1970 387 

Technical Memorandum #3, "A Model State Act for Criminal Offender 

Record Information," May 1971 430 

Technical Memorandum #4, "Model Administrative Regulations for 

Criminal Offender Record Information," March 1972 441 

Technical Memorandum #5, "Terminal Users Agreement for CCH and 

Other Criminal Justice Information," November 1973 461 

A Proposed Federal Statute Approved by the SEARCH Project 

Group, November 2, 1973 465 

MATERIALS RELATING TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTELLIGENCE 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

New England Organized Crime Intelligence System (NEOCIS) : 

Excerpts from "Evaluation of the New England Organized Crime 
Intelligence System (NEOCIS)" prepared by Dunlop and Associ- 
ates, Inc., November 30, 1972 469 

Interstate Organized Crime Index (IOCI) : 

Application to the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration for 

Grant Funds 488 

Final Report of the Interstate Organized Crime Index Prototype 
Demonstration by the Project SEARCH Organized Crime Task 
Force, January 7, 1973 496 

Excerpts from "Evaluation of the Interstate Organized Crime Index 

(IOCI)," by the Arthur Young and Company, January 1974 610 

"Security and Privacy Policy and Procedure Manual" of the Inter- 
state Organized Crime Index 643 

New York State Identification and Intelligence System (NYSIIS): 

Regulations on Privacy and Security, February 25, 1972 654 

Newspaper Article, Josh Friedman, "State Junks Computer Fight on 

the Mob," New York Post, February 7, 1974 661 

New York City Police Department Intelligence Division: 

Procedures, Public Security Activities of the Intelligence Division 663 

MATERIALS RELATING TO THE NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 

Application to the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration for 

Grant Discretionary Funds 676 

Memoranda Exchanged Within the Department op Justice on 

Message Switching at the National Crime Information Center 694 

Abbreviated Minutes of a Meeting of the Board of Directors of 
the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, 
January 15-17, 1974 702 

Correspondence With C. J. Beddome, Executive Director, National 

Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems, Inc 702 

Correspondence from Clay T. Whitehead, Director, Office of 
Telecommunications Policy to William B. Saxbe, Attorney 
General OF THE United States, March 4, 1974 708 

Statement by John Eger, Deputy Director, Office of Telecommuni- 
cations Policy, May 7, 1974 709 



MATERIALS RELATING TO GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT INFORMA- 
TION SCIENCES AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE INFOR- 
MATION SYSTEMS 

A Model State Act [See Volume, I, p. 534] Page 

Correspondence from Andrews O. Atkinson and Excerpts from "G- 
MIS Project '73, an Administrative Guideline for Security and 
Confidentiality." 711 

MATERIALS RELATING TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

Surveys of State Statutes: 

Survey of State Statutes on Access to Criminal Records, Prepared 
by the Congressional Research Service for the Subcommittee on 

Constitutional Rights 715 

Summary of State Statutes Providing for Expungement, Sealing, 
Destruction or Return of Various Criminal Records, Prepared 
by the Congressional Research Service for the Subcommittee on 

Constitutional Rights 718 

Excerpts from "Laws, Licenses, and the Offender's Right to Work," 
A Report by the American Bar Association's National Clearing- 
house on Offender Employment Restrictions 721 

Individual State and Local Materials: 
Alaska : 

Regulations Governing LEAA funded Criminal Justice Informa- 
tion Systems Adopted by the Governor's Commission on the 

Administration of Justice, January 1973 743 

Correspondence from William A. Egan, Governor of the State 
of Alaska, to Francis W. Sargent, Governor of the State of 

Massachusetts, Octobers, 1973 756 

California: 

California Criminal Records Law Materials, Submitted by 
O. J. Hawkins, Assistant Director, California Department of 
Justice [See Volume I, pp. 74-115] 
Municipal Ordinance on Privacy and ConfidentiaUty, Berkeley, 

California 756 

R. L. Kenney and J. K. Boyer, "Results and Evaluation of the 
PATRIC Operational Test-Bed," International Symposium on 
Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Systems, October, 

1972 776 

Newspaper Article, by Bill Siemer, "Judicial Council and Justice 
Agency in Wrangle over Trial Court Reports, Los Angeles 

Daily Journal April 29, 1974 793 

Colorado : 

Davidson v. Dill, 503 P. 2d 157 (1972) 796 

"The Plan for Development of the Colorado Comprehensive Crim- 
inal Justice Data System" 801 

Connecticut: 

"An Act Concerning Employment Discrimination Against Persons 

With Criminal Records." May 25, 1973 825 

District of Columbia: 

"Report of the Committee To Investigate the Effect of Police 
Arrest Records on Employment Opportunities in the District 

of Columbia" I 826 

Regulations and Forms used by the Metropolitan PoHce De- 
partment 836 

Florida : 

Correspondence from Reubin O'D. Askew, Governor of Florida, 
to Robert H. Bork, Acting Attorney General of the United 

States, November 26, 1973 850 

Chapter 5 — Privacy and Security Policies and Standards for 
Criminal Justice Information Systems, Excerpted from "A 
Master Plan for Criminal Justice Information Systems for the 

State of Florida" 850 

Iowa: 

Correspondence with Charles W. Larson, Commissioner of Public 
Safety, State of Iowa, and "An Act Relating to the Disclosure 
of Criminal History and Intelligence Data, and Providing 
Penalties" 858 



VI 

Page 
Massachusetts : 

Massachusetts General Laws, 6 § 167-178 863 

"The Criminal Justice Data Banks Controversy, A Chronologj' of 

Significant Events" 869 

Materials submitted by Governor Francis Sargent to the Sub- 
committee on Constitutional Rights, March 5, 1974 870 

Opinion of the Justices, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 

March 28, 1974 924 

Minnesota: 

H.F. 1316, As Amended and Passed by the Minnesota Senate 

and Repassed by the House 928 

Missouri; 

Melvin F. Bockelman, "Privacj" and Security of Computerized 

Criminal Justice Systems" 931 

New York: 

New York State Identification and Intelligence System (N YSIIS), 

Regulations on Privacj' and Securit.v, February 25, 1972 654 

"Considerations of Privacy, Confidentiality and Judicial Perspec- 
tive in the Development of Court Computer Systems," Speech 
delivered by Gerald Stern at the Project SEARCH Inter- 
national Symposium, May 1974 953 

Ohio: 

Newspaper Articles by Richard Zimmerman, Cleveland Plain 

Dealer, January 1973 959 

Tennessee : 

Forms Used by the State of Tennessee Department of Personnel. _ 966 
Correspondence from Winfield Dunn, Governor, State of Ten- 
nessee, to Francis Sargent, Governor, State of Massachusetts, 

November 9, 1973 975 

Utah: 

Correspondence from Calvin Rampton, Governor, State of Utah, 
to Francis Sargent, Governor, State of Massachusetts, Novem- 
ber 19, 1973 975 

Virginia: 

Correspondence from Linwood Holton, Governor, State of 
Virginia, to Francis Sargent, Governor, State of Massachusetts, 
November 7, 1973 976 

MATERIALS RELATING TO THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

Reports to Congress 977 

Correspondence With Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr 992 

MATERIALS RELATING TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE 

The Retail Credit Company: 

Excerpts from "Field Representative Manual." 994 

American Life Insurance Association: 

Exhibits submitted by R. Otto Meletzke, Assistant General Counsel, 

on April 9, 1974 998 

American Bankers Association: 

Materials submitted by Matthew Hale, General Counsel, on March 7, 

1974 1012 

MATERIALS RELATING TO LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTAL 

RECORDS RELEASE POLICY 

"Model Rules for Law Enforcement — Release of Arrest and Con- 
viction Records," Project on Law Enforcement Policy and Rule- 
making, College of Law, Arizona State University 1042 

Report of the Committee to Investigate the Effect of Police 
Arrest Records on Employment Opportunities in the District 
of Columbia 826 

Regulations and Forms Used by the Metropolitan Police Depart- 
ment FOR the District of Columbia 836 



vn 

Page 
Dayton, Ohio, Police Department Records Release Policy, General 

Order 10-73, and Correspondence Concerning the Policy 1056 

Newspaper Articles on Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Police 
Departmental Records Release Policy, by Bill Bancroft, Ap- 
pearing in the Winston-Salem Journal, March 1974 1061 

GENERAL NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE ARTICLES 

Aryeh Neier, "Have You Ever Been Arrested?" The New York 

Times Magazine, April 15, 1973 1065 

Richard E. Cohen, "Justice Report: Nixon Administration Weighs 
Restrictions on Use of Criminal History Data Banks," National 
Journal, October 27, 1973 1071 

Richard E. Cohen, "Justice Report: Hearings Focus on Privacy 
Limitations on Use of FBI Data," National Journal, February 
16, 1974 1083 

Articles Appearing in The Los Angeles Times 1091 

Articles and Editorials Appearing in The Washington Post 1096 

MATERIALS RELATING TO INDIVIDUALS INJURED BY MISUSE 
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION 

Cases Brought to the Attention op the Subcommittee on Constitu- 
tional Rights by the American Civil Liberties Union [See Volume 
I, pp. 244-262] 

Correspondence With Senator Sam J. Ervin on Individual Cases.. 1098 

BIBLIOGRAPHIES 

Selected Bibliography — Law Review Articles Relating to the 

Use of Criminal Justice Information 1011 

General Bibliography Submitted by Kenneth Orr to the Subcom- 
mittee ON Constitutional Rights 1112 



NOTE 

This is Volume II of two volumes of hearings into Criminal Justice 
Data Banks held by the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional 
Eights during March of 1974. Volume I contains oral testimony, addi- 
tional statements, and selected supplementary materials. 

The material in this volume was assembled by the staff of the sub- 
committee during its investigation into practices relating to the dis- 
semination and use of criminal justice information. The table of 
contents lists the documents contained in this volume, along with cross 
references to materials inserted in the record in Volume I. 

(IX) 



MATERIALS RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
The Department of Justice — General 

The Kennedy-McClellan Amendment and Related Materials 

The following excerpts relating to the Kennedy-McClellan amend- 
ment are taken from the Congressional Record. Dates and page 
numbers precede individual excerpts. 

[Thursday, June 28, 1973, page S 12435] 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. President, now I call up my amendment No. 273 and ask 
that it be stated. 

The Presiding Officer. The amendment will be stated. 

"On page 47, insert the following after the word 'title' : 'AH criminal history 
information collected, stored, or disseminated through support under this title 
shall contain, to the maximum extent feasible, disposition as well as arrest 
data where arrest data is included therein.'." 

The Presiding Officer. Will the Senator from Massachusetts clarify a point 
for the Chair? 

Mr. Kennedy. I shall be glad to do so. 

Mr. President, I have just sent an amendment to the desk and asked that it 
be stated. 

The Presiding Officer. Is that in lieu of amendment No. 273? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is an unprinted amendment which is a modification of 
amendment No. 273. 

The Presiding Officer. The modification to amendment No. 273 will be 
stated. 

The legislative clerk read as follows : 

"On page 47, line — , insert the following after the word 'title' : 'All criminal 
history information collected, stored, or disseminated through support under 
this title shall contain, to the maximum extent feasible, disposition as well as 
arrest data where arrest data is included therein. The collection, storage, and 
dissemination of such information shall take place under procedures reasona- 
bly designed to insure that all such information is kept current therein.'." 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to encourage 
agencies and governments operating data and information systems which are 
in any way supported by LEAA funds to include information concerning dispo- 
sitions where arrest information is included in the system. 

The use and misuse of arrest records in data banks has been the subject of 
extensive attention. In June 1971 a District Court in the District of Columbia 
considered a lawsuit to require expungement of an arrest record and in the 
course of the court's opinion indicated not only that there exists many possible 
opportunities for improper dissemination and misuse of criminal information, 
but also that arrest record material "is incomplete and hence often inaccurate, 
yet no procedure exists to enable individuals to obtain, to correct or to sup- 
plant the criminal record information used against them." The court recog- 
nized that constitutional guarantees — including the presumption of innocence, 
due process, the right to privacy, and the freedom from unreasonable search — 
may be threatened by misuse of arrest records, and it invited legislative guid- 
ance setting national policy to build into criminal information systems ade- 
quate sanctions and safeguards. 

An advisory group of LEAA, the Privacy and Security Committee of Project 
SEARCH, in a 1970 technical report, urged that procedures be adopted to 
regularly purge master tapes of out-dated information that would give an inac- 
curate picture of a subject's current behavior, and the American Civil Liber- 
ties Union and many other experts support the purging of all arrest records 
where convictions did not follow. 

(1) 



This amendment does not adopt a rigid, inflexible standard requiring purges 
or inputs into any criminal information system, and it recognizes ttie difficul- 
ties where disposition information does not reach law enforcement authorities 
because of judicial control over such information. The amendment does require 
that where LEAA funds are used — either discretionary or block grant funds — 
'•procedures" be adopted to assure that every arrest record indicate the cur- 
rent status of the criminal charge growing out of that arrest. By "procedures," 
it is intended that the criminal justice information system at least adopt the 
procedures set out in Technical Report No. 2 of the Privacy and Security Com- 
mittee of Project SEARCH. LEAA is presently attempting to require criminal 
justice information systems it funds under its comprehensive data systems pro- 
gram to adopt these procedures. Unfortunately LEAA has met resistance in its 
effort probably because of the absence of any explicit Federal statutory re- 
quirement, such as that proposed by this amendment. 

This amendment is not a comprehensive and final answer to the problem of 
collection and dissemination of criminal history information. The administra- 
tion and several committees of the House and Senate have been studying this 
question for several years. The administration and several Members of Con- 
gress have sponsored legislation in this and prior Congresses. Indeed, last year 
the Senate adopted an absolute prohibition on the FBI's dissemination of ar- 
rest records unless they indicated that the defendant was convicted of the 
charge arising out of that arrest. I understand that the administration is 
working on such legislation at the present time. Therefore this amendment is 
designed to protect innocent individuals from being harmed by incomplete or 
inaccurate criminal history records until such time as Congress adopts more 
comprehensive legislation. 

This is not really a new problem or a new issue. The Judiciary Committee 
has been concerned with this problem, under the leadership of Senator Ervin, 
for some period of time. We have seen that computerized criminal history in- 
formation has been used by our new Director of the Federal Bureau of Inve.sti- 
gation, he believes, with considerable success. 

I know that this particular aspect of the collection of information and the 
availability of information in relation to arrests is of concern not only to law 
enforcement personnel but also to all citizens, and we must make sure that a 
final disposition is indicated in the collection and in the distribution of the in- 
formation. 

I know that this entire issue will be examined by the Committee on the Ju- 
diciary and that there will be final comprehensive legislation on it. But this is 
at least an initial step to insure that information systems and data banks 
which are supported by the Law Enforcement As.sistance Administration will 
include the disposition where arrest information is included in the system. 

I think this amendment is a bare minimum attempt by us to provide protec- 
tion to individuals whose names would appear in such systems. It is a simple 
amendment, and I hope it will be accepted by the manager of the bill. 

Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, I yield myself three minutes. 

I think the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts is a good 
amendment. But I think it needs to be supplemented, and I send such an 
amendment to the desk. 

The Presiding Officer. The amendment will be stated. 

The legislative clerk read as follows : 

"At the end of the amendment proposed by Mr. Kennedy to amend the 
amendment (numbered 248) proposed by Mr. McClellan (for himself and Mr. 
Hruska) to H.R. 8152, an act to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to improve law enforcement and criminal justice, 
and for other purposes, before the amendment add '(1)' and add the following 
at the end : 'the Adii.inistration shall assure that the security and privacy of 
all information is adequately provided for and that information shall only be 
used for law enforcement and criminal justice and other lawful purposes. In 
addition, an individual who believes that criminal history information concern- 
ing him contained in an automated system is inaccurate, incomplete, or main- 
tained in violation of this title shall, upon satisfactory verification of his 
identity, be entitled to review such information and to obtain a copy of it for 
the purpose of challenge or correction.' 

"(2) On page 47, line 21, of amendment numbered 248, strike the word 
'such' and insert in lieu thereof 'research or statistical'. 



"(3) On page 52, following line 23, insert the following new subsection: '(n) 
"Criminal history information" includes records and related data, contained in 
an automated criminal justice informational system, compiled by law enforce- 
ment agencies for purposes of identifying criminal offenders and alleged of- 
fenders and maintaining as to such persons summaries of arrests, the nature 
and disposition of criminal charges, sentencing, confinement, rehabilitation and 
release.' " 

Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, If this amendment to the amendment is ac- 
ceptable to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, I am prepared to 
accept his amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. President, I believe that the amendment to my amend- 
ment actually strengthens the amendment itself. It would provide that an indi- 
vidual would have access to the material that has been collected on him. And it 
would require information in these computers be relevant to law enforcement 
and criminal justice purposes. This would be enormously useful and extremely 
important, and I think it is a very constructive addition. I think it strengthens 
my amendment. 

With these two provisions, the Senate goes on record today in a very impor- 
tant way to insure fairness and equity in the protection of individual liberties 
for the American citizen. 

Mr. Mathias. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? 

Mr. Kennedy. I yield. 

Mr. Mathias. I am glad that the Senator has brought the subject of this 
amendment to the attention of the Senate. I generally support the thrust of 
the amendment. But I am somewhat concerned by the use of the words, on 
line 4, "to the maximum extent feasible." 

"To the maximum extent feasible" is a phrase we sometimes use which has 
the effect of vesting a considerable amount of discretion in the Department of 
Justice. I would hope that at some time we would have statutory guidelines 
which would really shoulder the burden of responsibility that Congress ought 
to be carrying. 

I wonder whether the Senator would comment on his general feeling about 
what "to the maximum extent feasible" is. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is an attempt to write into the legislation the language to 
insure that there is no excuse by the departments — the law enforcement agen- 
cies, the police departments, and other relevant agencies— for not complying 
with this provision. This is the strongest language I could think of at this 
time, without being totally inflexible, to insist that the local departments that 
do receive the LEAA funds will actually comply with our intentions. 

I invite the attention of the Senator from Maryland to the next line in my 
amendment, which reads : 

"The collection, storage and dissemination of such information shall take 
place under procedures reasonably designed to insure that all such information 
is kept current therein." 

I would expect that these procedures be incorporated promptly, immediately. 
Procedures already have been developed under an LEAA grant, project SEARCH. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 
recommendations as to the procedures contained in the SEARCH report. 

There being no objection, the recommendations were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows : 

"Recommended System Policies Related to Security and Privacy 

"The following list comprises those specific points that the committee be- 
lieved to be important enough to establish a policy early in the development of 
a final system concept. Although one of the direct tasks of the committee was 
to propose procedures for inclusion in the Project SEARCH Operating Manual 
that would be used during the demonstration, it was very diflScult to prepare 
procedures in the absence of general policies regarding a total system. It be- 
came apparent that a set of major policy statements had to be derived as an 
initial starting point for the procedures relative to the demonstration. Al- 
though it is not always easy to determine which policies could be directly im- 
plemented for a two-month demonstration, there was general agreement re- 
garding the long-range issues to be treated. 



"The Project Group officially approved these statements of recommended 
policy, and the procedures stipulated in the Operating Manual are based on 
this list. 

"The reasoning behind each recommendation is presented in the discussions 
of the following chapters, and a page is cited for reference to the appropriate 
discussion, where the context is explained. The recommendations are grouped 
into categories related to later discussion sections. 

"RECOMMENDED POLICY 

"Data content 

"1. Data included in the system must be limited to that with the character- 
istics of public record, i.e. : (Reference pages 16-18) 

"a. Recorded by officers of public agencies directly and principally concerned 
with crime prevention, apprehension, adjudication, or rehabilitation of offend- 
ers. 

"b. Recording must have been made in satisfaction of public duty. 

"c. The public duty must have been directly relevant to criminal justice re- 
sponsibilities of the agency. 

"2. Participants shall adopt a careful and permanent program of data 
verification : (Reference pages 19-20) 

"a. Systematic audits shall be conducted to insure that files have been regu- 
larly and accurately updated. 

"b. Where errors or points of incompleteness are detected, the Agency of 
Record shall notify the central index (if necessary) and any participant to 
which the inaccurate or incomplete records have previously been transmitted. 

"c. The Agency of Record shall maintain a record of all participants that 
have been sent records. 

"d. Within a state, a record should be kept of all agencies to which the sys- 
tem's data has been released. 

"e. All known copies of records with erroneous or incomplete information 
shall be corrected. 

"3. Purge procedures shall be developed in accordance with the Code of Eth- 
ics. Each participating agency shall follow the law or practice of the state of 
entry with respect to purging records of that state. (Reference pages 20-22) 

"4. A model state statute for protecting and controlling data in any future 
system should be drafted and its adoption encouraged. (Reference pages 
34-37) 

"Rules of access and data use 

"5. Direct access to the system should continue to be restricted to public 
agencies which perform, as their principal function, crime prevention, appre- 
hension, adjudication, or rehabilitation of offenders. (Reference pages 23-28) 

"6. Definitional questions as to users should be presented for resolution to 
representatives of all the participating states in the system. (Reference pages 
23-28) 

"7. In order to limit access, the following restrictions should be made: (Ref- 
erence pages 2()-27 ) 

"a. Participating states should limit closely the number of terminals within 
their jurisdiction to those they can effectively supervise. 

"b. Each participating state should build its data system around a central 
computer, through which each inquiry must pass for screening and verification. 
The configuration on and operation of the center should provide for the integ- 
rity of the data base. 

"c. Participating agencies .should be instructed that their rights to direct ac- 
cess encompass only requests reasonably connected with their criminal justice 
responsibilities. 

"8. Requests from outside the criminal justice community to examine data 
obtained through the system should be honored only if the receiving agency is 
authorized access by local law, state statute, or vaiid administrative directive. 
Efforts should be made to limit the scope of such requirements. (Reference 
pages 26-27) 

"9. The security and privacy staff should study various state "public record" 
doctrines and begin prompt efforts to obtain appropriate exemptions from 
these doctrines for the system's data. (Reference page 27) 



"10. 'riie use of data for research shall involve the following restrictions: 
(Reference pages 32-34) 

"a. I'roposed programs of research should acknowledge a fundamental com- 
mitment to respect individual privacy interests. 

"b. Representatives of the system shall fully investigate each proposed pro- 
gram. 

"c. Identification of subjects should be divorced as fully as possible from the 
data. 

"d. The research data should be shielded by a security system comparable to 
that which ordinarily safeguards system's data. 

"e. Codes or keys identifying subjects with data should be given special pro- 
tection. 

"f. Raw data obtained for one research purpose should not subsequently be 
used for any other research purpose without consent of system's representa- 
tives. 

"g. Security and data protection requirements should be Included in any re- 
search contract or agreement. 

"h. Non-disclosure forms should be required and the system should retain 
rights to monitor and, if necessary, terminate any project. 

"Data dissemination 

"11. Data received through the system should be marked and readily identi- 
fiable as such. (Reference page 27) 

"12. Heads of agencies receiving information should sign a copy of an appro- 
priate recommended non-disclosure agreement. (Reference page 32) 

"13. Educational programs should be instituted for all who might be expected 
to employ system data. (Reference page 30) 

"14. Users should be informed that reliance upon unverified data is hazard- 
ous and that positive verification of identity should be obtained as quickly as 
possible. ( Reference pages 30-31 ) 

"15. Users should be clearly informed that careless use of this data repre- 
sents unprofessional conduct, and may be subject to disciplinary actions. (Ref- 
erence pages 30-31 ) 

"16. The central computer within each state, through which all data inquir- 
ies should pass, will screen all inquiries to exclude those that are inconsistent 
with system rules. (Reference pages 26 and 34) 

"Rights of challenge and redress 

"17. The citizen's right to access and challenge the contents of his records 
should form an integral part of the system consistent with state law. (Refer- 
ence page 28) 

"18. Civil remedies should be provided for those injured by misuse of the 
system where not provided for by state law. (Reference pages 36-37) 

"Organization and administration 

"19. The system participants should elect a board of directors (governing 
body) to establish policies and procedures governing the central index opera- 
tion. (Reference pages 36-37) 

"20. The system should remain fully independent of noncriminal justice data 
systems and shall be exclusively dedicated to the service of the criminal jus- 
tice community. (Reference page 26) 

"21. A permanent committee or staff should be established to consider prob- 
lems of security and privacy and to conduct studies in that area. (Reference 
page 35 ) 

"22. The permanent staff should undertake a program to identify differences 
among the states in procedures and terminology, and to disseminate informa- 
tion concerning them to all participants. (Reference page 35) 

"23. A systems audit should be made periodically by an outside agency. 
(Reference page 20)" 

Mr. Kennedy. I think the recommendations in the search report are really 
first rate. I think there will be very little excuse for there not to be prompt 
adoption by local agencies. These recommendations are sound, constructive, 
and well thought out. With the mandate "to the maximum extent feasible," ap- 
plied in conjunction with the second sentence of the amendment, I would ex- 
pect that there would be immediate action by local agencies. 



Mr. Mathias. It is the Senator's view tliat, in the absence of statutory 
guidelines, until they can be provided, it should be very strictly construed and 
rigidly enforced? 

Mr. Kennedy. The Senator is correct. 

We want to recognize again that this is not a final answer to the problems 
raised by the collection and dissemination of criminal history information. It 
is enormously complex. It is difficult. It is a sensitive issue and problem. There 
are competing issues in this area. But this is a first step. I think it is a step 
which is responsible and one which can be implemented immediately. 

I hope the amendment will be accepted. 

Mr. Mathias. I thank the Senator. I think it is very useful to make clear 
the continuing interest of the Senate in the subject. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. President, I move to modify my amendment, to accept the 
McClellan amendment. 

The Presiding Officer. The Senator has the right to modify his amendment, 
and it is so modified. 

Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time on 
both the amendment to the amendment which has been accepted and on the 
amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. 

Mr. Kennedy^. Mr. President, 1 yield back the remainder of my time. 

The Presiding Officer. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the 
Senator from Massachusetts, as modified. 

The amendment, as modified, was agreed to. 

Mr. Hruska. Mr. President, I should like to make this comment with respect 
to the amendment which has just been agreed to. I support the amendment. It 
contains certain features of a bill, S. 2456, which was considered in the 92d 
Congress by the Committee on the Judiciary. The language in this amendment 
is not dispositive of the entire problem, but additional legislation will be forth- 
coming soon on that subject, and it will supplement and complement this 
measure. 



[Friday, June 29, 1973, page S 12510] 

Senate Adopts Arrest Records Amendment 

Mr. Ebvin. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate adopted amendment No. 273 
to H.R. 8152, the LEAA authorization bill. That amendment is a commendable 
first step by the Senate to place interim restrictions upon the practices of 
criminal justice information systems funded by LEAA. 

This amendment grows out of the concern voiced by citizens, various crimi- 
nal justice experts and the courts about the misuse of criminal history infor- 
mation by State and Federal criminal justice information systems. The Ameri- 
can Civil Liberties Union, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and other 
groups have presented a compelling case for the debilitating effect that incom- 
plete criminal history records can have upon an innocent individual. For exam- 
ple, there are many instances where incomplete records of an arrest have been 
disseminated to prospective employers. Records of an arrest of a job applicant 
will fall into the hands of a prospective employer where the record indicates 
no subsequent disposition of the charge arising out of that arrest but the de- 
fendant was ultimately acquitted of the charge. Of course, such damaging in- 
formation eliminates any chance of that applicant being hired. 

I believe that the best approach to this problem is a complete ban on dis- 
semination of criminal history information unless records of arrest indicate 
that the defendant has been convicted of the charge arising out of that arrest. 
Quite frankly, I can see no use whatsoever, by prospective employers or law 
enforcement officials, for an arrest record which does not indicate conviction. 
Therefore, last year I convinced the Senate to adopt a rider to the FBI appro- 
priation which would prohibit the dissemination of criminal history records 
unless they indicated conviction. I only wish the Senate had gone that far in 
yesterday's action. 

Amendment No. 273 only restricts dissemination of criminal history records 
to those which contain dispositions. However, the amendment also requires 
that State and local criminal justice systems adopt minimum operating proce- 
dures designed to protect privacy and confidentiality of criminal history infor- 



mation and those systems must also guarantee a right of access to subjects 
who have records in the data banlc. According to Senator Kennedy, sponsor of 
the amendment, this means that at the very least all criminal justice informa- 
tion systems which receive any LEAA funds will have to adopt immediately 
the privacy and security regulations recommended by the Privacy and Security 
Committee of Project Search in 1970. 

I was initially concerned by the fact that Senator Kennedy's amendment re- 
quires the State and local data banks to include dispositional information only 
"to the maximum extent feasible." However, Senator Kennedy in response to 
an inquiry by Senator Mathias, explained that this means that the systems 
must adopt the search rules immediately and begin including disposition infor- 
mation on records it disseminates as soon as is humanly possible. Accordingly, 
this language cannot be used as an excuse by law enforcement agencies who 
simply do not cooperate with court personnel to get dispositional information. 
Bureaucratic complications will not be tolerated under this amendment and 
neither should complaints about cost. Of course, it will cost more for the 
courts and police to interface their information systems so that criminal his- 
tory records are complete but that is what the search rules require and that is 
what this amendment requires. 

Finally, it is clear from yesterday's Record that Senators Kennedy, Mc- 
Clellan, and Hruska, who all have an interest in this field, agree that amend- 
ment 273 is only an interim, stop-gap measure and is not a final comprehensive 
solution to this problem. As Senator Hruska said yesterday — 

"The language in this amendment is not dispositive of the entire problem, 
but additional legislation will be forthcoming soon on that subject, and it will 
supplement and complement this measure." 

The Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights on which Senator Hruska sits 
and which I chair shares jurisdiction over this matter with the Subcommittee 
on Criminal Laws and Procedures. I have instructed my staff to prepare com- 
prehensive legislation on this question and I understand that the administra- 
tion is doing the same. Therefore, I hope we will have a bill introduced within 
the next few weeks and that the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights can 
hold hearings in the near future on that legislation and on the progress of 
LEAA in enforcing the Kennedy amendment. 



[Thursday, July 26, 1973, page H 6657] 

Conference Report on H.R. 8152, Law Enforcement Assistance 

Amendments 

Mr. RoDiNO submitted the following conference report and statement on the 
bill (H.R. 8152) to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 to improve law enforcement and criminal justice, and for 
other purposes : 

"Conference Report (H. Rept. No. 93-^01) 

"The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 8152) to amend title I of the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to improve law enforce- 
ment and criminal justice, and for other purposes, having met, after full and 
free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respec- 
tive Houses as follows : 

"That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Sen- 
ate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows : 

"In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment in- 
sert the following : 

"That this Act may be cited as the "Crime Control Act of 1973". 

"Sec. 2. Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 
is amended to read as follows : 

"title I — LAW enforcement ASSISTANCE 
* * * * * « * 

''Part F — Admimstrative Provisions 
******* 

"Sec. 524. (a) Except as provided by Federal law other than this title no 
oflBcer or employee of the Federal Government, nor any recipient of assistance 
under the provisions of this title shall use or reveal any research or statistical 



34-788 O - 74 



8 

information furnislied under this title by any person and identifiable to any 
specific private person for any purpose other than the purpose for which it 
was obtained in accordance with this title. Copies of such information shall be 
immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the person 
furnishing such information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose 
in any action, suit, or other judicial or administrative proceedings. 

"(b) All criminal history information collected, stored, or disseminated 
through support under this title shall contain, to the maximum extent feasible, 
disposition as well as arrest data where arrest data is included therein. The 
collection, storage, and dissemination of such information shall take place 
under procedures reasonably designed to insure that all such information is 
kept current therein ; the Administration shall assure that the security and 
privacy of all information is adequately provided for and that information 
shall only be used for law enforcement and criminal justice and other lawful 
purposes. In addition, an individual who believes that criminal history infor- 
mation concerning him contained in an automated system is inaccurate, incom- 
plete, or maintained in violation of this title, shall, upon satisfactory verifica- 
tion of his identity, be entitled to review such information and to obtain a 
copy of it for the purpose of challenge or correction. 

"(c) Any person violating the provisions of this section, or of any rule, reg- 
ulation, or order issued thereunder, shall be fined not to exceed $10,000, in ad- 
dition to any other penalty imposed by law. 

* * * * * i^ * 

"joint explanatory statement of the committe:e of conference 

******* 

"Security and privacy provisions 

"The House bill provided for the security and privacy of statistical and re- 
search information. The Senate amendment added language to the House bill 
giving access to criminal history records information maintained by State and 
local governments with LEAA funds to individuals who had reason to believe 
that their own records were inaccurate. In addition, it required that an indi- 
vidual's criminal history records include not only any arrests but, where possi- 
ble, the disposition of the case subsequent to arrest and that a definition for 
criminal history information be added to title I. 

"The Senate amendment also provided that identified individuals have access 
to their own automated records and criminal history information, which such 
individuals might believe to be inaccurate or irrelevant. Dissemination of such 
information was permitted in limited cases and with certain safeguards. 

"The conferees accepted the Senate version but only as an interim measure. 
It should not be viewed as dispositive of the unsettled and sensitive issues of 
the right of privacy and other individual rights affecting the maintenance and 
dissemination of criminal justice information. More comprehensive legislation 
in the future is contemplated." 



[Thursday, July 26, 1973, page S 14745] 

Law Enforcement Assistance — Conference Report 

(S. Rept. No. 93-349) 

******* 

"Security and Privacy of statistical and research information provisions 
have been added to the Act. There is a requirement that criminal history in- 
formation shall contain disposition as well as arrest data to the maximum ex- 
tent feasible. An individual who believes criminal history information concern- 
ing him in an automated system is inaccurate, incomplete and is entitled to 
review such information for the pui"pose of correction. Guidelines are to be is- 
sued to provide the safeguards necessary to assure security and privacy." 



[Thursday, Aug. 2, 1973, page S 15560] 

Mr. Hruska. Mr. President, on June 25, 1973, the Senate overwhelmingly 
passed the Crime Control Act of 1973, H.R. 8152. The primary purpose of the 



9 

bill was to authorize continued appropriations for the Law Enforcement As- 
sistance Administration. The bill also made a number of amendments to the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. 

The Senate bill did not differ dramatically from the bill passed by the 
House. By and large, the basic structure and authority of the LEAA was re- 
tained. We attempted to streamline the agency's block grant funding mecha- 
nism and to emphasize LEAA's responsibility for administering the programs 
and assisting the States in comprehensive planning. 

While the Senate amendment contained approximately 35 points of difference 
with the House bill, the results of the conference cannot reflect the significant 
agreements in both Houses on approximately 25 other changes which appeared 
in both the House and Senate bills. The report submitted along with this bill 
reflects a compromise on a number of issues. 

For the most part, I believe this compromise to be better than either the 
House bill or the Senate amendment. Some unworkable provisions have been 
made workable ; some provisions have been changed to reflect the most feasible 
alternative. 

It is significant that the efforts of the conference were of a bipartisan na- 
ture. During the 3 days of conference this fact was repeated time and again. 
The goal of the conferees was an obvious commitment to devise the most effec- 
tive legislation for LEAA. 

I believe that the beliefs and points of view by all those who testified and 
all those who offered amendments to these bills were fully addressed and that 
the result is a bill which will enable LEAA to continue its invaluable service. 
I would like to fully endorse and concur with the major features of the con- 
ference which the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McClellan) has brought to the 
attention of the Senate. Additionally, I would like to add several other items 
which merit notice. 

With respect to the compromise reached by the conferees in the area of ju- 
venile justice, there was no intention to denigrate the activities of the Interde- 
partmental Council To Coordinate All Federal Juvenile Delinquency Programs 
or the individual activities of Federal agencies in the juvenile delinquency 
area. It was recognized that the Federal effort to reduce juvenile delinquency 
grew from a handful of Federal programs in 1961 to an effort involving 16 
Federal agencies with 197 programs and annual expenditures of approximately 
$13 billion by 1971. 

With respect to the training programs for police, the conferees recognized 
that as to those programs outside the bailiwick of the FBI, the administration 
necessarily shared the national institute's training role as a parent organization 
and in keeping with sound management concepts. 

With respect to the liberalized hard-match features, I would like to observe 
that in applying these requirements to situations involving transferred person- 
nel, it would be wise for LEAA to require equivalent State-appropriated dol- 
lars to cover salaries for the required hard match. The burden of matching 
has been so lightened, that it would be inappropriate to do otherwise. 

Another amendment in this bill will provide the Administrator of LEAA 
with full authority to donate, through the General Services Administration, 
surplus property to State agencies for use in the criminal justice system. 
There may be some technical questions about this provision, but in my judg- 
ment, it is adequate to authorize such donations. 

There are large inventories of helicopters, light aircraft, rescue and patrol 
boats, rough terrain and special purpose vehicles, and special communications 
equipment which are available to improve and extend the capabilities of police 
agencies. This is all surplus Federal property. 

Scientific and laboratory equipment is also available for use in drug abuse 
and forensic crime laboratories. Significant quantities of machine-shop tools 
and skilled occupational machinery, as well as training equipment, is available 
for use in rehabilitation facilities and programs. Correctional facilities have a 
need for all types of surplus Federal property. This is especially true today 
with the great unrest in State prisons. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law and extensive administrative 
regulations in this area, the surplus property amendment, as presently drafted, 
gives such full authority to the Administrator of LEAA. 

Finally, I wish to assure Senators that with respect to the new technical as- 
sistance provisions, the conferees recognized the international scope of many 
law enforcement and criminal justice problems. Thus, we intended to give 



10 

LEAA authority to provide technical assistance abroad in traditional police 
areas of international concern such as narcotics interdiction, skyjacking, and 
terrorism. However, these specific references are only intended to be illustra- 
tive and it would, therefore, be entirely appropriate for technical assistance to 
be provided in other criminal justice areas, including corrections, where there 
were particular benefits in terms of expertise that could only be derived 
abroad. 

Mr. President, on March 14 of this year, I introduced S. 1234, a bill to pro- 
vide for special law enforcement revenue sharing, at the request of the admin- 
istration. Although that bill did not finally emerge as the vehicle for the ex- 
tension of LEAA's authority, there are so many conceptual similarities 
between it and H.R. 8152 that I view the bill at hand as a prototype of special 
revenue sharing in substance, in the area of law enforcement. Thus, by approv- 
ing the instant legislation we will confirm the belief that crime is essentially a 
local problem, to be solved by local controls and initiatives. This has long been 
a goal of President Nixon which is shared by this Senator and many of my 
colleagues. 

The changes we now propose for LEAA will do much to strengthen and im- 
prove what is now a very effective anticrime effort. They deserve the support 
of the Senate. 

Mr. Ebvijt, Mr. President, I am pleased that the House-Senate conference 
committee on H.R. 8152, the LEAA authorization bill has retained the Kennedy- 
McClellan arrest records amendment. That amendment represents an impor- 
tant first step by the Congress to place interim restrictions upon the operations 
of criminal justice information systems funded by LEAA. 

The purpose of this amendment is to direct LEAA and the criminal justice 
information systems which it funds to adopt privacy and security guidelines. 
Senator Kennedy says that it is the objective of his amendment that LEAA 
consider requiring the systems to adopt the safeguards set out in technical re- 
port No. 2 of Project Search and the model administrative regulations also 
prepared by SEARCH. Other excellent privacy and security guidelines which 
LEAA should look to in preparing these regulations include LEAA's own com- 
prehensive data systems program guidelines, the recommendations of the Infor- 
mation Sy.stems and Statistics Task Force of the National Advisory Commis- 
sion on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals and the model rules for release 
of arrest and conviction records prepared by Gerald Caplan, formerly general 
counsel for the District of Columbia Police Department. 

In a statement on June 29, immediately after the Senate enacted the amend- 
ment, I pointed out that the amendment should be strictly construed and vig- 
orously enforced. The amendment speaks in terms of local systems complying 
with restrictions on use of criminal records "to the maximum extent feasible." 
However, the legislative hisitory makes it abundantly clear that the LEAA 
must force the local information systems to adopt privacy and confidentiality 
guidelines immediately or as soon as humanly possible, and that bureaucratic 
complications and cost should not be accepted as excuses for noncompliance. 

Furthermore, the amendment as adopted by the Senate and ratified by the 
conference committee allows criminal justice information to be disseminated 
for law enforcement and "other lawful purposes." The inclusion of this lan- 
guage would appear to allow the continued dissemination of arrest records for 
civil service and other employment screening. Of course, this is exactly the 
kind of use of criminal justice records, in particular arrests records not fol- 
lowed by conviction, which should be halted as soon as possible. The Attorney 
General should take these abuses into consideration in promulgating privacy 
and security guidelines. LEAA and the Department could and, under the Ken- 
nedy-McClellan amendment should condition any Federal funds it provides on 
the requirement that the systems avoid most noncriminal justice use of records. 
It is incumbent upon the Justice Department to conduct a complete review of 
all State statutes which permit noncriminal justice use of criminal justice rec- 
ords and include restrictions and safeguards in the rules it promulgates pur- 
suant to this amendment. 

Finally, it is clear from the legislative history of this provision that Sena- 
tors Kennedy, McClellan, and Hruska believe that the Kennedy-McClellan 
amendment is only an interim stop-gap measure and not a final comprehensive 
solution to this problem. As Senator Hruska stated at the time that amend- 
ment was adopted by the Senate : 



11 

"The language in this amendment is not dispositive of the entire problem 
but additional legislation will be forthcoming soon on that subject, and it will 
supplement and complement this measure." 

The Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights on which Senators Hruska, Mc- 
Clellan, and Kennedy sit and which I chair, shares jurisdiction over this mat- 
ter with the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures. I have instructed 
my staff to prepare comprehensive legislation on this question and I under- 
stand that the administration is doing the same. Therefore, I hope we will 
have a bill introduced within the next few weeks. The Subcommittee on Con- 
stitutional Rights will hold hearings in the near future on that legislation and 
on the progress of LEAA in enforcing the Kennedy-McClellan amendment. 



Public Law 93-83— 93bd Congress, H. R. 8152, August 6, 1973 

AN ACT To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 
to Improve law enforcement and criminal justice, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of Atnerira in Cnjtgress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the 
"Crime Control Act of! ;i973". 

Sec. 2. Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is 
amended to read as follows : 

"TITLE I— LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE 
"declaration and purpose 

******* 

"Part F — Administrative Provisions 
******* 

"Sec. 524. (a) Except as provided by Federal law other than this title, no 
officer or employee of the Federal Government, nor any recipient of assistance 
under the provisions of this title shall use or reveal any research or statistical 
information furnished under this title by any person and identifiable to any 
specific private person for any purpose other than the purpose for which it 
was obtained in accordance with this title. Copies of such information shall be 
immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the person 
furnishing such information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose 
in any action, suit, or other judicial or administrative proceedings. 

"(b) All criminal history information collected, stored, or disseminated 
through support under this title shall contain, to the maximum extent feasible, 
disposition as well as arrest data where arrest data is included therein. The 
collection, storage, and dissemination of such information shall take place 
under procedures reasonably designed to insure that all such information is 
kept current therein; the Administration shall assure that the security and 
privacy of all information is adequately provided for and that information 
shall only be used for law enforcement and criminal justice and other lawful 
purposes. In addition, an individual who believes, that criminal history infor- 
mation concerning him contained in an automated system is inaccurate, incom- 
plete, or maintained in violation of this title, shall, upon satisfactory verifica- 
tion of his identity, be entitled to review such information and to obtain a 
copy of it for the purpose of challenge or correction." 



August 6, 1973. 
Hon. Elliot Lee Richardson, 
The Attorney Oeneral, 
Wa^shington, D.C. 

Dear aiB. Attorney General : For some time the Subcommittee on Constitu- 
tional Rights has been concerned with two important legislative issues of di- 
rect interest to the Department of Justice. The first is the problem of arrest 
records and the dissemination of criminal justice information, the subject of 
this letter. The other concerns speedy trial, and S. 754, which I will address in 
a separate letter. Both would greatly benefit by a reassessment of the Depart^ 
ment's present position, which I strongly urge. 



12 

For several years, the Subcommittee has been studying the collection and 
dissemination of arrest records and other criminal history information by 
state, federal and local criminal justice agencies. These subjects were ad- 
dressed at the Subcommittee's 1971 hearings on data banks at which you testi- 
fied on behalf of Health, Education and Welfare. On a number of occasions I 
have corresponded with your predecessors about the Justice Department's in- 
volvement in such activity, in particular, about the Identification Division and 
National Crime Information Center of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
and the funding of state and local criminal justice information systems by the 
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. 

I am sure that you are aware of several events in recent months which 
make it incumbent upon the Congress and the Department of Justice to formu- 
late a comprehensive policy designed to protect the security and confidentiality 
of records collected and disseminated by criminal justice information systems. 
First, on June 28 the Senate adopted the Kennedy-McClellan arrest records 
amendment to the LEAA authorization bill, H.R. 8152. That amendment places 
certain restrictions upon the operation of criminal justice information systems 
which receive LEAA money. It further requires the Attorney General to adopt 
certain privacy and security regulations for the operation of such systems sim- 
ilar to those contained in Technical Report Number 2 issued by Project 
SEARCH. 

A second development concerns the controversy which has arisen in Massa- 
chusetts as a result of the arrest records statute which has just recently, gone 
into effect in that state. It is my understanding that Massachusetts has threat- 
ened to drop out of the Computerized Criminal History program of NCIC if the 
FBI does not adopt privacy and security regulations which are at least con- 
sistent with the Massachusetts statute. 

On the other hand, the Justice Department has sued the state to require it 
to make available certain criminal history information to federal agencies de- 
spite the fact that such dissemination might violate the new law. I understand 
a similar dispute has arisen in Iowa. Thus, it appears that the federal govern- 
ment is in the embarrassing position not only of failing to take the lead in 
protecting privacy, but of applying legal and monetary pressure against others 
who have. 

The NCIC and fingerprint identification division operation of FBI have been 
the subject of considerable controversy before passage of the Massachusetts 
statute. For example, during the hearings before the Judiciary Committee con- 
sidering the nominations of L. Patrick Gray and Clarence Kelley to be Direc- 
tors of the FBI, Senators Mathias, Byrd, Hruska and Tunney asked many 
questions about NCIC and the fingerprint operation. Had I been able to attend, 
I would have joined their expressions of concern. 

Another question of some concern to me is the outstanding order in the case 
of Menard v. Mitchell 328 F. Supp. 718 which prohibits the dissemination out- 
side the Federal Government of RAP sheets by the FBI. Unfortunately, the 
Congress has suspended that order for the past few years via a rider to the 
FBI appropriation bill, but this question will come up again in the next month 
or so. While it is clear that the rider was only a temporary expedient pending 
the resolution of an issue in which the Senate has expressed its concern, I am 
now distressed to learn that the Department has argued the permanency of 
this clearly temporary measure. 

I believe that all of these developments provide an excellent opportunity for 
the Department and the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights to develop a 
comprehensive policy on the operation of criminal justice information systems. 
I view this letter as a first step in that effort and hope that further communi- 
cation between ourselves and our staffs might facilitate that process. 

First, I am anxious to know what steps LEAA and you will take in response 
to the Kennedy-McClellan arrests record amendment. In particular, I am anx- 
ious to know precisely what privacy and security regulations you intend to 
adopt in response to the legislation. In that regard, I am enclosing two state- 
ments which I made on the Senate floor suggesting that the amendment be 
strictly construed and vigorously enforced. 

Second. I hope that our staffs can communicate generally about the Massa- 
chusetts controversy and about any revision of the NCIC guidelines which re- 
sult from that situation. 

Third, I hope that our staffs could communicate further about the Depart- 
ment's position on the Menard rider. It seems that, at a minimum, if the 



13 

Department is to have a meaningful privacy and security policy, it must op- 
pose any effort in the Congress to suspend the Menard order. 

Fourth, my staff has been working on comprehensive arrest records legisla- 
tion which I hope to introduce after the August recess. I also understand that 
as a result of several of the developments which I described earlier that you 
are redrafting the arrest records legislation which the Department introduced 
in the last Congress. It might be very helpful for our staffs to get together to 
discuss comprehensive legislation in the hope that they might possibly reach a 
consensus on what is needed in this field. 

I know that your interest in privacy remains strong as evidenced by your 
continued support of the HEW privacy committee study. The Department of 
Justice is the natural place for the creation of a government-wide policy on all 
data banks, not only those directly managed or sponsored by the Department. 
I hope we can work closely in a cooperative effort toward this end. 

With kindest wishes, 
Sincerely yours, 

Sam J. Ervin, Jr., 

Chairman. 



Office of the Attorney General, 

Washington, D.C., August 21, 1973. 
Hon. Sam J. Ervin, 

Chairman, Subconunittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, 
U.S. Senate, Washington, B.C. 

Dear Senator Ervin : Thank you for your letters of August 2 and August 6 
regarding, respectively, the recently issued report entitled "Records, Computers 
and the Rights of Citizens", and the development of legislation concerning ar- 
rest records and the dissemination of criminal justice information. 

I share your view that the Advisory Committee has discharged its responsi- 
bilities, and I am committed to the view that comprehensive legislation and 
regulations are needed to govern this area. 

Members of my staff are now at work on both comprehensive criminal jus- 
tice information systems security and privacy legislation, and regulations to 
implement Section 524(b) (the Kennedy-McClellan Amendment) of the 1973 
Crime Control Act. 

It is our expectation that the regulations will be published in the near fu- 
ture and that public hearings will be held thereafter. We expect, in addition, 
to have a bill to introduce sometime after the recess. At the appropriate time, 
I would be more than happy for our staffs to get together to discuss this and 
other approaches in the hope that some consensus might be reached. 

With respect to the Massachusetts controversy and the NCIC guidelines, I 
assure you that I am considering the Department's position in that case and I 
have directed the FBI to cooperate with LEAA as the latter develops regula- 
tions under Section 524(b), so that regulations will be jointly issued in the 
weeks to come. 

With respect to the Menard case and its suspension by Congress, be assured 
that the issue is being considered in the context of the legislation that is now 
being drafted, and that a Department position will emerge when that process 
is completed. 

I appreciate your expressions of concern regarding the Department's role in 
assuring protection for rights of privacy. I, too, look forward to a cooperative 
effort to that end. 

With kindest wishes, 

Elliot L. Richardson. 



Staff Memorandum on Major Criminal Justice Data Banks 

FACT SHEET 1 

MAJOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA SYSTEMS 

1. Project SEARCH 

Project SEARCH is a consortium of states receiving LEAA funds, created in 
1969 to develop a prototype computerized network to facilitate the exchange of 

1 Prepared by the Staff of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights March 1974. 



14 

criminal history records between states. Original membership included ten 
states, but now has expanded to twenty states. 

Operation of the computerized criminal history (CCH) prototype developed 
by SEARCH was taken over by the FBI pursuant to the directive of Attorney 
General Mitchell on December 10, 1970. 

SEARCH has continued in existence, funding various projects on criminal 
justice information technology, including the development of another interstate 
criminal justice computer network to share information regarding organized 
crime. In 1971, in coordination with the Law Enforcement Intelligence Units, 
it began development of the computerized Interstate Organized Crime Index 
(lOCI). The project, which was funded by LEAA, was intended to provide 
state and local law enforcement authorities with a means of exchanging infor- 
mation dealing with organized crime. Sixteen state and local agencies partici- 
pated in the initial development in 1972. 

2. Department of Justice 

The Justice Department maintains several manual and computerized crimi- 
nal justice data banks, which are available to federal, state and local law 
enforcement. 

(a) FBI Identification Division Files. — Contain fingerprint cards on approxi- 
mately 60 million persons : 20 million are in criminal files and 40 million are 
in civil files. Fingerprint cards in the criminal files contain a notation of the 
arrest of the person fingerprinted, and are commonly referred to a3 "rap 
sheets." Currently, 11,000 requests for rap sheet information are received by 
the FBI daily. Approximately 6,000 requests are from non-law enforcement 
sources. These files are in the process of being computerized. They are avail- 
able to law enforcement agencies at all levels and to some non-law enforce- 
ment agencies. 

(b) FBI National Crime Information Center (NCIC).— Begun in 1966, NCIC 
is a computerized criminal justice data bank which is operated and controlled 
by the FBI. It contains eight categories of criminal justice information : stolen 
motor vehicles ; stolen boats ; stolen securities ; stolen license plates ; stolen ar- 
ticles ; stolen, missing or recovered guns ; wanted persons ; and computerized 
criminal histories (CCH). CCH, developed in prototype by Project SEARCH, 
became part of the NCIC in 1971 and is its most controversial component. 

At present, 4.8 million records are contained in NCIC. Included are criminal 
history files (CCH) on 450,000 persons. Although more than 40 states have 
signed agreements to participate in NCIC/CCH, at present only six states plus 
the District of Columbia, are submitting records. The central computer is di- 
rectly accessed by 89 control terminals located at state agencies and major 
metropolitan areas, and by 59 other control terminals at FBI field oflBces 
throughout the United States. Roughly 6,000 police agencies have access to 
NCIC. Approximately 121,000 transactions are handled daily. Estimated costs 
for FY 73 were $5.2 million. 

As projected, NCIC was expected to be fully operational by July 1, 1975. 
Over 45,000 criminal justice agencies were expected to have access. It has been 
projected that by 1979, NCIC will contain 10.1 million records, and by 1984, 
will have 21.7 million including 8 million criminal histories. GAO has esti- 
mated that total cost for NCIC — including all state and local funding — may 
reach as high as $100 million if and when the system becomes fully opera- 
tional. 

(c) LEAA. — While LEAA does not operate its own criminal justice data sys- 
tem, it funds numerous state and local computerized systems. A 1972 LEAA 
directory of automated criminal justice data systems listed 454 such systems 
at the state and local levels. Of these, 104 were designed as "criminal history" 
systems containing data on arrests and dispositions. Other data banks contain 
different kinds of information, including intelligence. It is also clear that many 
of the state and local systems interface with one another to form a myriad of 
local, regional and national computerized networks. The configurations are so 
numerous and complex that this memo cannot treat them with precision. 

(d) Other Files. — Insofar as criminal justice information is shared between 
federal authorities and state and local authorities, the FBI Identification Sys- 
tem and NCIC have the greatest significance. The FBI does maintain a compu- 
terized file on known professional check passers (2,000 records in 1970), and 
other components of the Department of Justice maintain computerized files 



15 

that are used for law enforcement purposes. The Organized Crime Section 
maintains a computerized intelligence file known as the Organized Crime Intel- 
ligence System (250,000 records in 1972). The Immigration and Naturalization 
Service maintains a computerized tile on aliens and other i>ersons admitted to 
the U.S. on a temporary basis (40 million names in the master index file in 
1972). The Criminal Division became heir to the computerized files of the de- 
funct Internal Security Division containing intelligence information bearing on 
potential civil disturbances (45,000 records in 1972). 

It is clear that state and local law enforcement, as well as federal agencies, 
have some access to these computerized data collections, but the subcommittee 
has no figures to indicate either the nature and extent of such access, or how 
often it is sought. 

3. National Laio Enforcement Teletype System (NLETS) 

NLETS is a national law enforcement teletype system linking law enforce- 
ment agencies at all levels. It is a non-profit corporation established for the 
purpose of facilitating the exchange of operational and administrative data. It 
is a cooperative state-operated and state-controlled program. 

In June 1973, LEAA approved a grant of $1.2 million to NLETS to upgrade 
the existing teletype system, both in terms of its speed and availability. Under 
the proposed plan, each state will have a terminal with direct access to the 
NLETS computer. Each state terminal will, in turn, connect to its own state 
network, making possible access to the NLETS computer by a local terminal. 
The new system proposes to handle 13,000 messages daily. By 1977, it is esti- 
mated the system will handle 26,000 messages daily. NLETS is used as a 
back-up for NCIC/CCH communications, and the FBI has proposed that it 
take operational control of NLETS. 

4. Treasury Enforcement Communications System {TECS) 

TECS is a computerized data system established by the Department of the 
Treasury in 1973. It contains criminal justice information, including criminal 
history and criminal intelligence information, for use by the Secret Service, In- 
ternal Revenue Service, Customs Bureau, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms. The Secret Service maintains a computerized file of at least 
69,000 persons who are of interest to the Service in their responsibility to pro- 
tect the President. It is estimated that a total of 300,000 persons are in the 
Secret Service files. 



Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Questions Submitted by Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., to L. Patrick 
Gray III on March 1, 1973, Before the Senate Judiciary Committee ; Re- 
sponse BY Mr. Gray 



Senator Mathias. Mr. Chairman, could I have the floor? 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator Mathias. Mr. Gray, as you know, there has been consider- 
able interest in the National Crime Information Center, its size, and 
its utility as a crime fighting, law enforcement service and device. 

The Chairman. Suppose we adjourn at 4:15 until 10:30 Tuesday 
morning. That gives Senator Bayh 15 minutes. 

Senator Tunney. Where does that leave me. 

The Chairman. It leaves you out. (Laughter.) 

I am not going to stay around here all afternoon. Proceed. 

Senator Mathias. As you know, there has been considerable interest 
in the Xational Crime Information Center, its size, its utility as a 
crime-fighting and law-enforcement device, its effect on personal 
rights to privacy, and all of this area. 



16 



Despite the NCIC's national importance and the nationwide in- 
terest in its potential, there is, in fact, very little, if any, legislative 
base for it. We, in Congress, never really have set statutory standards 
for its development and for its operation, for the philosophy with 
which its activities are conducted, and the statutory base that does 
exist is a precomputer concept. 

Now, what I am w^ondering is whether 3'ou would be willing to co- 
operate with the Congress in a serious and announced effort to provide 
a statutory basis for the NCIC, and to the related facilities. 

What I have in mind is a basis that will serve as a guide, and as a 
foundation upon which w^e could build the kind of broad public 
confidence that this part of j^our activities shoidd have. . 

Mr. Gray. Senator Alathias, I, too, share the feeling that all of 
the many pluses, the many positive aspects of NCIC have not been 
sufficiently impressed upon the mind of the people in the United 
States. This may be our fault, and again it may not be our fault, but 
to answer your question specifically: Yes; I would be willing — more 
than willing — to work with this committee, or any subcommittee, or 
any other appropriate committee of the U.S. Senate, as I am working 
now with Congressman Don Edwards, House Judiciary Subcommittee 
No. 4, in this very area. 

Senator Mathias. Well, I think this is important because here 
we have a great data bank of information which is not just of theo- 
retical interest but of enormous personal interest to practically every 
American, and we have no statutory guidelines as to who holds the 
key, or under what circumstance he delivers it up, and to whom the 
key should rightfully be entrusted. All of that is just really a pretty 
vague and misty area. 

I was pleased to note that in appendix A, which you submitted to 
the committee in your opening statement, you listed as one of the 
13 avenues of inquiry instituted during the time you were the Acting 
Director, the avenue entitled Bureau Files, and you suggest certain 
questions wdiich you asked with regard to the National Crime Infor- 
mation Center and the Identification Division. I am interested in 
the NCIC, because I think it can be of great value to the country, 
but I am interested in it also because I think it offers the potential 
for ver}^ serious abuse, very easy abuse. 

The questions that you asked in the fifth avenue of inquiry were 
these: Are we taking accurate security precautions to prevent leaks 
to unauthorized persons? Are State safeguards adequate to insure 
the confidentiality of National Crime Information Center infor- 
mation? This, of course, relating to the ability of various State and 
local police authorities to get printouts from the system. Are classi- 
fication procedures completely responsive to our needs and the needs 
of other Federal agencies? Is there a need for certain of our files of 
a very sensitive nature including greater security than the criminal 
files? 

What sort of investigation, can you tell the committee, did you 
undertake in order to get the answers to these questions? 

Mr. Gray. Well, initially, Senator, what was done in the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation was to prepare position and study papers 
on each of these areas, and these were given to me and all of the top 



17 



executives of the FBI who constitute the executive conference. We 
had an opportunity to study them, and then we went down for 2 days 
at the National Academy at Quantico. We had a very thorouci;h dis- 
cussion of each study paper and, as I said in my opening statement, 
this formed the first of a long series of avenues of inquiry. We have 
progressed much beyond what I have here in exhibit D to my state- 
ment. We have been having contmuous meetings on this, and I think 
that really we have once again not gotten across to the public what 
we are doing in the National Crime Information Center and, indeed, 
what the National Crime Information Center really is — the fact that 
we have the advisory policy board, and how that advisory policy 
board is selected. We have an awful lot to tell about NCIC, and I 
had a lot of questions on it earlier. I actually have been over there, 
watched it operate, know the monitoring, checked out the safeguards. 
We have the codings, and we have the terminals and controls, and that 
sort of thing. 

Senator Mathias. Well, could you answer your own first question 
here? 

Mr. Gray. Yes. 

Senator Mathias. Are we taking adequate security precautions 
to prevent leaks? 

■Sir. Gray. Yes, sir; I can answer that question. But I will also have 
to say that the experts in computer systems technology \\dll say to 
you that a computer system that cannot be penetrated is not yet 
designed. So there is always that risk. We have tried, working with 
the computer companies, to build in all the safeguards that we can 
conceivably build in, and to guard carefully the terminals, to guard 
carefully our codes. We have a constant problem, as you probably 
know, and it is a real problem w^tli the States, because we require 
dedication either of the computer, or that the computer be under the 
control of a law enforcement agency. W^e are contractually in agree- 
ment ^vith these law enforcement agencies so that we do have some 
sanctions, and if we find that abuse is occurring, we can terminate 
their participation in the NCIC. That is the only sanction we have 
right now. Those are contractual — those are signed contracts. 

Senator Mathias. So that really your answ^er to your question — 
your second question — is that you are not totally happy with State 
safeguards? 

]\Ir. Gray. Well, I say that we have some problems because there 
are States, and there are big municipalities, who don't want to come to 
agreement with us and, as a result, are not in the system. We v/on't 
let them in, and this is a problem. 

The Governors have this problem, and the mayors and the law 
enforcement officials of some of the bigger cities. An example is 
Cincinnati. I don't know w^hether we have settled it with Cincinnati 
or not, but apparently not. 

Senator Mathias. But lack of safeguards m major metropolitan 
areas that might really need this kind of device prevents them from 
getting it? 

Mr. Gray. Yes; it could be a problem, yes, sir. The fact they 
will not dedicate — they have either to dedicate the computer or to 
give control to a law enforcement agency. The real danger here, you 
know, is the co-mingling of all this information that is programmed in a 



18 



State or municipal computer system. You have all kinds of informa- 
tion there which we don't want co-mingled with the criminal justice 
system. 

Senator Mathias. So if you and I hold credit cards from the same 
company, and I get your bill or you get mine, this same problem 
might occur? 

^Ir. Gray. That could happen, yes, sir, but that would be remote. 

Senator Mathias. What about classification procedures; do you 
find them responsive? 

Mr. Gray. So far, working with our advisory committee, we are 
satisfied with those. 

Senator Mathias. Wliat about a classification of files of a sensitive 
nature giving them greater security treatment than criminal files? 

]\Ir. Gray. Are we talking of these last two questions directed right 
to our files? We are not in the NCIC area now and that is what I 
had reference to. Within the Federal Bureau of Investigation we 
chopped heavily, that is, in the number of officials of the Bureau who 
could classify. We cut them down heavily, far more actually than I 
wanted to cut them down, under the pressure of the Commission 
established by the President to oversee the Federal Government. I 
resisted the cuts and we had to take them bitterly. They have been 
cut and the classification authority is much more narrow now. 

The other one, yes, there is a need for certain of our files of a very 
sensitive nature to be given greater security than the criminal files, 
and indeed they are, and indeed they are separate and distinct from 
them. One of the things that concerns me very greatly is the handling 
of those files on a day-to-day basis, the accountability of those files, 
and the dissemination of information. I have done everything that I 
can do, and will continue to do, to tighten up, and the people in the 
FBI know I am not satisfied yet. 

Senator Mathias. Would you illustrate to the committee the kind 
of files that you are referring to? 

Mr. Gray^.. The highest order of national security. 

Senator Mathias. I have prepared a number of written questions. 
I am not going to take your time or the committee's time to propound 
them to you now. I will submit them for the record and give you a 
copy of them. I would say that I recognize the time pressures that 
are on you and the voluminous information that is requested of you 
by the .committee up to this point. Some of these questions will 
recjuire merely factual answers but others are really looking for your 
personal views. So, notwithstanding the time pressure, it would be 
very helpful if you can respond to these questions because I think to 
the extent that it involves your evaluation, your personal evaluation, 
it can be heljjful to the Committee and to the Senate, and I think 
ma3"be helpful to you in getting the approval of the Senate. 

Mr. Gray. I am pleased to do that. Senator. The only thing I would 
like to invite your attention to is that yesterday the committee wanted 
us to key responses to the pages of the transcript, and I said I would 
l)rovido answers in 48 hours. That was modified to provide answers 
48 hours after receipt of the transcript. 



19 



Senator Mathias. Well, in order to facilitate that process I will ask 
unanimous consent now that the questions be included at this point 
in the record 

Mr. Gray. All right, that v/ill help. 

Senator Mathias (continuing). As if propounded. 

Senator Kennedy (presiding). It is so ordered. 

(The document referred to follows:) 

Questions by Senator Mathias Submitted in Writing to L. Patrick Gray 
AND Inserted in the Record of the Hearings on Mr. Gray's Nomination 
OF THE Senate Judiciary Committee 

(A) How many individual files are now contained in the NCIC? How many 
of these are suniman^ files? How many are complete files? How do you distinguish 
between the two categories? What would be 3'our personal estimate as to the rate 
of growth in the number of files that would be contained in the NCIC over the 
next year, five years, ten years? 

(B) How many of the files above are criminal history files of particular individ- 
uals? How many of these are summary files? How inanj' are complete files? 
What is your personal estimate as to the number of such files the NCIC will 
contain or have access to in one year, five years, ten years? 

(C) What Federal oflScials are authorized to have access to these files? For what 
purpose may a Federal official attain such access? For how long may he retain 
the information he has so acquired? Is the rule governing access available in a 
written form? If so, could you provide a complete set of such rules or regulations 
to the Committee? What procedures are there for ensuring that the rules governing 
access are actually obeyed? In what waj-, if any, have you altered the rules govern- 
ing access to the files contained in the NCIC in your tenure as Acting Director? 
Have j^ou instituted any studies to determine if these rules are adequate and are 
being obeyed? If so, could j-ou provide the results of these studies to the Com- 
mittee? What regulations have been established for dealing with cases of improper 
access to these files? Could you provide the Committee with a copy of these 
regulations? Have you knowledge of anj^ cases of improper access? If so, could 
you provide us with the pertinent details? 

(D) May a Federal official give information obtained from the NCIC to any 
officials outside the FBI? If so, to whom? For what purpose? Under whose author- 
ity? What safeguards have been established to make sure that the regulations 
governing the dissemination of information are obe3''ed? In what way have you 
changed the regulations governing dissemination of information during your 
tenure as Acting Director? Have you instituted studies to determine if further 
changes are advisable? If so, could you provide the Committee with a description 
of these studies and the results of these studies? If you have determined that 
there have been instances of improper dissemination of information, could you 
suppl> us with the relevant details, together with a description of the action 
taken regarding the individuals involved in such improper conduct? 

(El) Do you demand that states establish a system of safeguards as stringent 
as that which j-ou have established? If not, why not? Could you provide a summary 
of the safeguards against improper access of dissemination of information con- 
tained in the NCIC or related state systems that have been established by each 
state that provides or receives information from the NCIC? In your opinion, are 
these safeguards entirely adequate? If not, do you believe the Federal govern- 
ment should take a more active role to assure that adequate safeguards are 
developed and enforced by participating states? If not, why not? Have you ever 
provided to the States a model set of regulations to safeguard the NCIC system 
from improper access or abuse? If so, could you provide this committee with 
these regulations? If not, do you believe that such a model might help to assure 
that the NCIC and related state systems would be properl}' utilized? 

(F) How much money will it cost to operate the NCIC this year? To operate 
related state systems? Approximately how much of the funds for operating re- 
lated state systems originate with the Federal government and through which 
Federal agency are they channelled to the states? How much money has been 
spent to develop the NCIC and related state systems in the past? From what. 



20 



sources did this money originate? What is your best estimate of the amount of 
funds necessary to expand the NCIC as projected during the next year, five 
\-ears? To expand related state systems as projected during this same period? 
To operate the s.ystem as so expanded during each of these A'ears? Would you 
regard this expenditure of funds as a more cost effective method of assuring 
criminal justice than a comparable expenditure of funds on other activities of 
the FBI? 

KJ) Could you provide the committee with a complete accounting of how the 
NCIC deals with arrest records in cases where a trial is still pending, in which 
charges have been drf)pi)ed, in which the individual has been found innocent, in 
which the individual has been found guilty, etc.? Do you insist that the informa- 
tion in this regard in the NCIC be up to date? Do you insist that states and 
Federal officials ])rovide disposition records as well as arrest records? If so, what 
sanctions have been established to deal with officials or states that do not regu- 
larly provide disposition records? Do you insist on the same standards of per- 
formance 1)3' participating state systems? What safeguards have you instituted to 
make certain that the regulations established in this regard are being carried out? 
In what way have you changed the procedures in this area since you became 
Acting Director? 

For what purpose does the FBI disseminate arrest records, conviction records, 
or both? 

VV^ho are the recipients of FBI arrest and conviction records? Are the recipients 
ever private agencies or organizations? Are the recipients ever public agencies 
other than law-enforcement agencies? If so, who are they and what is the purpose 
in disseminating FBI records to such private or non-law-enforcement public 
agencies? 

(H) Does the FBI collect records of juvenile delinquency hearings or of hear- 
ings to determine whether a person is in need of supervision (PINS)? 

What procedures does the Bureau have to learn whether such juvenile records 
are required to be kept secret by State law? What procedures does the Bureau have 
to implement these State law requirements of confidentiality? 

Are juvenile records which are required to be kept confidential by State law 
ever disseminated to any other public or private agency? If so, to whom and why? 

When federal agencies such as the Civil Service Commission cease to request 
arrest information from the prospective employees, does the Bureau still continue 
to furnish such information? If so, why? 

What is the rationale for ever disseminating arrest records where the arrest 
involved did not result in a conviction? 

(I) What procedures exist for challenging; the contents of a citizen's FBI file 
where (a) the originating source for the information in the file is not the Justice 
Department, or (b) it is the Justice Department? 

In addition to the above questions requesting basic information, I would 
appreciate answers to the following questions which I have prepared with the 
cooperation of the Senior Senator from North Carolina, Senator Ervin. 

(J) What is the legal status of guidelines adopted by the NCIC Advisory 
Policy Board on March 31, 1971 and amended on August 31, 1971? Are they 
simply general operational guidelines or have they been formally adopted by 
the Director of the FBI? Why have they not been promulgated by the Attorney 
General pursuant to section 301 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code? 

(K) It is clear that these guidelines relate to the interchange of information 
between the central NCIC comj^uter and the various state information systems. 
As a general matter, the guidelines require the individual state systems to adopt 
their own rules and regulations on specific issues concerning privacy and security. 
However, it is not procedures concerning information it stores in its own computer, 
e.g. information on multi-state offenders and information stored at NCIC's 
own computer on an interim basis for participating states which do not yet 
have the capability of keeping complete criminal history files on offenders. For 
example, guideline II B. requires states to adopt a systematic audit to assure that 
files are regularly and accurately updated. However, there seems to be no require- 
ment that NCIC do the same with its central computer, including, how often is it 
conducted? Another examjjle of this ambiguity in the guidelines, is guideline 
VI concerning Right to Challenge. That guideline makes it clear that state systems 
must adopt procedures permitting a right of access and challenge. However, it 
is not clear whether NCIC has done the same for its own computer and if so, 
exactly what those rules provide. 



21 



(L) In a letter dated October 24, 1972 attached to the GAO report on NCIC, 
L. M. Pellerzi, Assistant Attorney General for Administration refers to an 
inaccuracy in an earlier draft of the report concerning a 9 month expungement 
rule for arrests not followed by disposition. Although this is clearly not a present 
rule of NCIC, was this ever used by NCIC possibly as a result of the order in the 
case of Menard v. Mitchell? If such an expungement rule has never been followed, 
what policy was followed by NCIC during the period that the system was subject 
to the order in Alenard? What technical problems exist which would make it 
impossible for NCIC to operate under such an expungement rule if Congress 
were to reinstate Menard or a similar rule prohibiting dissemination of raw arrest 
data to non-criminal justice agencies? 

(M) Ms. Carey in her report on LEAA at page 45 suggests that certain state 
CCH systems participating in NCIC collect and disseminate non-public record 
information. However, I assimie that even if this is the case, interstate exchange 
of that information over NCIC would be prohibited by the guidelines. If that 
assumption is invalid, please correct me. 

(N) A number of provisions in the Advisory Committee guidelines require 
affirmative action by the states and would take on greater meaning if the state 
regulations adopted in response thereto could be made available to the Sub- 
committee. P]xamples of such jjrovisions are Rule II B requiring systematic audits, 
Rule IV on Control of Criminal Justice Systems and Rule VI on Right to Chal- 
lenge. Could you please make available to the Subcommittee staff copies of the 
rules relating to securitj' and privacy, as well as the general systems descriptions 
for all the state CCH systems which have signed contracts with NCIC. 

(O) The guidelines state at Rule VIII that a permanent Committee on Security 
and ConfidentiaUty will be established. Has this Committee been established? If 
so, please forward a list of its membership. Please do the same for the NCIC 
Advisory Policy Board. Guideline VIII also mentions that the Committee on 
Securitj' and Confidentiality would address itself to three specific areas including 
purging and secondary access. Has the Committee conducted these studies? If so, 
please provide the Subcommittee with copies of anj' reports concerning these 
studies. 

(P) Have there been any inspections pursuant to Rule IX F? If so, please make 
the results of such inspections available to the Subcommittee. Have an}^ incidents 
of non-compliance with the guidelines come to the attention of the Privacy and 
Security Committee? If so, please explain what action has been taken in each case. 

(Q) bo the NCIC guidelines discussed above apply to the "Wanted Pei'son 
File" of NCIC or only to the CCH? If these guidelines do not apply, i^lease 
explain why? 

(R) Earlier letters written by the Department in response to the survey ques- 
tions prepared by the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights concerning 
both the Fingerprint Record Files concerning NCIC suggest an interface between 
the fingerprint files and the NCIC. For example, the following statement appears 
in the November 3 response by the Identification Division: 

The FBI automated fingerprint processing system is being designed so that it 
will be completely compatible with the Computerized Criminal History (CCH) 
system . . . 

Throughout the NCIC guidelines reference is made to the FBI fingerprint 
identification card as the source document for a record entry. For example, 
guideline I C is explicit in requiring some type of interface between the Identifi- 
cation Records and NCIC: 

Each cycle in an individual's record will be based upon fingerprint identifi- 
cation. Ultimately the criminal fingerprint card documenting this identification 
will be stored at the state level or in the case of a Federal offense, at the national 
level. At least one criminal fingerprint card must be in the files of the FBI Identi- 
fication Division to support the computerized criminal history record in the 
national index. 

Does this interface mean that all information circulating in the NCIC system 
will become a part of the fingerprint identification records (RAP sheets)? Or is 
this interface only one way, in the sense that information from RAP sheets will 
go into the NCIC system but NCIC information will not go into the Bureau's 
fingerprint RAP sheet dissemination system? 

(S) To what extent do the NCIC guidelines apph^ to the criminal history 
information contained on the RAP sheets — for example, records of arrest which 
frequently appear on the RAP sheets. If these guidelines do not apply, why not? 



22 



(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the 
record :) 

Mr. Gray. I have had answers prepared to the questions submitted for the 
Record by Senator Mathias. Our response is keyed to the alphabetical designation 
given to each question. 

(A) As of February 23, 1973, there was a total of 3,943,468 records contained in 
the NCIC computer. This total is broken down as follows: 

Stolen securities 1, 331, 099 

Stolen vehicles 782, 983 

Stolen articles 616, 1 23 

Stolen guns 572, 232 

Stolen license plates 222, 976 

Stolen boats 6, 490 

Wanted persons 123, 358 

Criminal histories 288, 207 

Total 3,943,468 

None of these records are summaries. With respect to the records concerning 
stolen property, each record contains information which specifically identifies the 
stolen item as well as the identity of the police agency which placed the article into 
NCIC and which holds the theft report. 

Information in tlie wanted persons file relates to individuals for whom Federal 
warrants are outstanding or individuals who have committed or who have been 
identified with an offense which is classified as a felony or serious misdemeanor 
under the existing penal statutes of the jurisdiction originating the entry and for 
whom a warrant has been issued. Each record shows the identity of the police 
agency entering the record and includes information concerning the name (and 
alias) of the wanted person; descriptive data (sex, race, height, weight, hair 
color), as well as at least one numerical identifier (date of birth, FBI Number, 
Social Security Number, automobile operator's license number) ; fingerprint classi- 
fication, if known; offense charged with; date of warrant; and agency holding 
warrant. 

Information concerning computerized criminal histories is contained in the 
response to the Question (B) . 

The estimate of the number of records that will be contained in NCIC one year 
hence is 5,200,000; five years hence is 10,100,000; and ten vears hence is 
21,700,000. 

(B) As of February 23, 1973, there were 288,207 criminal history records entered 
in the NCIC computer. Each record represents one particular individual. None 
of these are summary records. By way of explanation, computer programs have 
been prepared which aUow the computer, upon request, to prepare a summary 
computerized criminal history record based upon the data contained in the 
complete computerized criminal history record. There are submitted for the 
Record two documents which will acquaint the Committee with the format of 
both the complete computerized criminal history record as well as the summarj^ 
record: Simulated Record, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, National Crime Information Center Criminal History Record; 
and Simulated NCIC Summary Record. It is estimated that the NCIC computer 
will contain 1,000,000 computerized criminal history records one year hence; 
3,000,000 computerized criminal history records five years hence; and 8,000,000 
computerized criminal history records ten years hence. With respect to the 8,000,- 
000 total this is believed to be the maximum that will be stored in the NCIC 
convputer. 

(C) Any Federal agency can request and receive all information contained in 
the NCIC for purposes of discharging its official and mandated responsibilities. 

Federal agencies authorized direct access, meaning the ability to access the 
NCIC computerized files by means of a terminal device, are limited to: 

(1) Law enforcament agencies and departments that are responsible for 
enforcement of Federal criminal laws, 

(2) Federal prosecutive agencies and departments, 

(3) Federal courts with a criminal or equivalent jurisdiction, 

(4) Federal parole, probation, and correctional agencies. 

• There is no limitation on the length of time NCIC information may be retained 
by a Federal agency. 



23 



Rules governing direct access to NCIC wanted persons and stolen property 
records (which are equally applicable to Federal agencies) are set forth in the 
558-page NCIC Operating Manual (five copies of which will be provided the 
Committee), which states, "The National Crime Information Center is a com- 
puterized information system established as a service to all law enforcement 
agencies — local, state and Federal." Rules governing direct access to the NCIC 
criminal history records are set forth on pages 12 and 13 under "Who May 
Access Criminal History Data" of a document captioned, "National Crinie 
Information Center, Computerized Criminal History Program, Background, 
Concept and PoHcy, As Approved bj' NCIC Advisory Polic.y Board," dated 
September 20, 1972. (A copy of this paper has previously been furnished for the 
Record.) 

With respect to procedures adopted governing direct access to NCIC, a brief 
background of the origin of the provisions contained in. the NCIC policy paper 
maj^ be helpful. I would like to point out that the procedures apply to all users 
of NCIC, both at the Federal and state levels. 

Prior to implementation of the NCIC criminal history file, a resolution was 
adopted May 15, 1967, by the Committee on Uniform Crime Records, Inter- 
national Association of Chiefs of Police (lACP), which provided that the controls 
governing access to NCIC data must remain, as they have been historically 
placed, with law enforcement agencies That is, terminals having direct transaction 
capability with NCIC must be located in a law enforcement agency. The NCIC 
Advisory Policy Board took note of the above and concm-red fully with the content 
of the lACP resolution at its meetmg in Washington, D.C., on June 4, 1969. 

The issue of shared-time governmental computerized information systems 
and their compatibility with the lACP resolution was considered at length during 
the June 4, 1969, Board meeting. This discussion was predicated upon the fact 
that in certain localities law enforcement accessed NCIC through a computer 
system operated by a civilian governmental agencj^ 

The NCIC Advisory Policy Board noted that the needs of law enforcement in 
information storage and retrieval as well as in message interchange could not be 
adequately served by other than a dedication of computer and related hardware. 
Further, it was noted that in those instances where such dedication of the sj'stem 
to law enforcement did not exist, management control of the law enforcement 
application within that system should be established. 

The wanted persons and stolen property data stored in NCIC is considered 
documented police information and access to that data is for use of duh^ authorized 
law enforcement agencies. It is incumbent upon agencies operating an NCIC 
terminal to afford the necessary measures to make that terminal secure from any 
unauthorized use. Any departure from this responsibility would warrant the re- 
moval of the offending terminal from further system participation in order to 
protect all other users. 

Agencies participating in the NCIC as control terminals are charged with 
assuming responsibility for and enforcing sj^stem security with regard to all other 
agencies which they in turn service. 

The FBI daily monitors transactions coming into the NCIC computer. We also 
utilize communications equipment and computer programs which assist in 
assuring that security requirements are being met. In the last analysis, we must 
depend on the individual agencies for maintenance of the confidentiality of 
NCIC information. 

With the establishment of the NCIC Computerized Criminal History Program 
in December, 1970, the NCIC Advisory Policy Board in March, 1971, readdressed 
NCIC policy specifically as it relates to the interstate exchange of criminal history 
data. One requirement adopted by the NCIC Advisory Policy Board in March, 
1971, and approved by the Attorney General in June, 1971, was that all computers 
capable of interfacing directly with the NCIC computer for the interstate exchange 
of criminal history information must be rmder the management control of a crim- 
inal justice agency authorized as a control terminal agency. 

Control terminal agencies in the NCIC system prior to being allowed the right 
to receive criminal history data are required to complete an agreement binding 
the agency to abide by all present and future rules, policies, and procedures of 
the NCIC as approved by the NCIC Advisory PoHcy Board and adopted by 
NCIC. The control terminal agency has responsibility for enforcing s.ystem 
security with regard to other agencies which it in turn services. A control terminal 
not qualified to receive criminal history data is locked out of receiving such data 
hy the NCIC computer. 



34-788 O - 74 



24 



From May 3, 1972, to date, three changes have occurred with respect to criminal 
history policy of the NCIC. 

As state computer systems' development progressed, it became evident that 
some states were centralizing computer operations in other than criminal justice 
agencies. In order to allow participation in the criminal history program by 
those states where the state computer is not under the direct control of a criminal 
justice agency, the NCIC Advisory Policy Board on September 20, 1972, adopted 
the following modification of policy which is in effect at the present time. 

In those instances where criminal justice agencies are utilizing equipment and 
personnel of a noncriminal justice agency for NCIC/CCH purposes, the following 
criteria will apply in meeting NCIC/CCH management control provisions: 

(1) The hardware, including processor, conmiunications control, and storage 
devices, to be utilized for the handling of criminal history data must be dedicated 
to the criminal justice function. 

(2) The criminal justice agency must exercise management control with regard 
to the operating of the aforementioned equipment by: 

a. having a written agreement with the noncriminal justice agency operat- 
ing the data center providing the criminal justice agency authority to select 
and supervise personnel, 

b. having the authority to set and enforce policy concerning computer 
operations, and 

c. having budgetary control with regard to personnel and equipment. 
Further, the original policy paper of NCIC designated the types of agencies, 

such as the police, prosecutive departments, the courts, and correctional institu- 
tions that could directly access the NCIC/CCH File. No allowance was made 
for a state agency which had as its sole function by statute the development and 
operation of a criminal justice information system. Thus, it became necessary 
for the NCIC Advisory Policy Board to consider the matter of whether such 
a state agency would be able to have direct access to the criminal historj" informa- 
tion contained in NCIC. After consideration, on September 20, 1972, the Board 
broadened the category of agencies that can access NCIC for criminal historj' 
data to include such agencies. 

The policy of the NCIC, before it was amended September 20, 1972, provided 
that criminal history data on an individual from the national computerized file 
would be made available outside the Federal Government only to criminal justice 
agencies for criminal justice purposes. This precluded the dissemination of such 
data for use in connection with licensing and local or state employment other than 
with a criminal justice agency. The policy specifically stated, "There are no ex- 
ceptions pending legislative action at state and Federal level or Attorney General 
regulations." 

Public Law 92-184, approved December 15, 1971, provided for the exchange of 
identification records, as authorized by state statutes and approved by the 
Attorney General, with officials of state and local governments for purposes of 
employment and licensing. 

By reason of the passage of Public Law 92-184, this particular section of the 
NCIC policy paper was amended to read as follows: 

"Criminal history data on an individual from the national computerized file 
will be made available outside the Federal Government only to criminal justice 
agencies for criminal justice purposes. This precludes the dissemination of such 
data for use in connection with licensing or local or state employment, other than 
with a criminal justice agency, or for other uses unless such dissemination is 
pursuant to state and Federal statutes. There are no exceptions." 

Experience to date indicates that the security and confidentiality requirements 
as contained in the NCIC policy paper governing access to criminal history 
records are sufficiently stringent and no studies have been conducted since May 3, 
1972, in this area. 

Presently, NCIC criminal history records are being exchanged with various 
criminal justice agencies which have signed agreements with the FBI to abide by 
all rules, polices and procedures of the NCIC as approved by the NCIC Advisory 
Policy Board. This agreement includes a provision which states that NCIC 
reserves the right to immediately suspend furnishing criminal history data to a 
criminal justice agency when either the security or dissemination requirements 
approved by the NCIC Advisory Policy Board and adopted by the NCIC are 
violated. Agencies serviced within a state by a state computer system tied to the 
NCIC enter into a similar agreement with the state system. It is a responsibility 
of the state system to insure its users abide by policy, security and dissemination 



25 



requirements of the NCIC. Any noncompliance is subject to inspection and review 
by the NCIC Advisory Pohcy Board and failure to conform with NCIC policy 
can result in discontinuance of service to the user agency. 

We have no knowledge of any case of improper access to NCIC. 

(D) A Federal agency can give information obtained from NCIC to another 
agency outside the FBI. 

With respect to information obtained from the NCIC Wanted Persons and 
Stolen Property liles by a Federal agency, there is no specific restriction as to 
further dissemination of the information by that agency. The NCIC Operating 
Manual recognizes that information obtained can be exchanged with other gov- 
ernmental bodies (at any level) on a need-to-know basis. Traditionally, data such 
as this has been freely exchanged among law enforcement agencies and we have 
no regulations governing such exchange. 

With respect to furnishing a computerized criminal history record to another 
Federal agency, an admonition is contained on the record that it is provided for 
official use onty. The FBI has no further control over the information once it 
leaves our possession. We must rely upon the Federal agency to afford proper 
security to the information. We give the record to the Federal agency for its 
official use. If the Federal agency has an official use in furnishing the record to 
someone outside the FBI (such as a U.S. Attorney giving the record to a U.S. 
Judge), then it could do so. Criminal history records are regarded as confidential 
and safeguards protecting against their unauthorized disclosure rest at the Federal 
agency level to which dissemination is made. Unauthorized use of a criminal 
history record by a Federal agency could subject that agency to possible termina- 
tion of the NCIC criminal history service. 

The only changes in NCIC policy during my tenure as Acting Director have 
been set out in the answer to Question (C). 

By reason of the fact that any dissemination we make of criminal history data 
is made pursuant to Federal statute or regulations, and further because we have 
absolute])' no knowledge of instances of improper dissemination of criminal history 
data, no studies have been undertaken directed toward changing dissemination 
policy. The FBI will support Federal legislation which would provide civil and 
criminal remedies against anyone responsible for unauthorized dissemination of a 
criminal histor}^ record. 

(E) Initially it should be understood that the NCIC is a user's system. The 
states have been instrumental in the development of all NCIC policy including 
that which deals with security and privacy. The policy has been developed and 
discussed at various regional and national meetings since the inception of NCIC. 

The states are expected to establish a stringent system of safeguards comparable 
to NCIC. Each has been provided copies of the NCIC policy paper. This paper 
along with the security procedures and policy included in the NCIC Operating 
Manual and the NCIC/CCH agreement which must be signed by participants in 
the Computerized Criminal History Program provides a model on which the state 
systems can base state regulations for safeguards against misuse or improper 
access. 

A summary of safeguards regarding each state which provides or receives in- 
formation from NCIC is not available. There is being submitted for the Record, 
pursuant to the request made in Question (N), a copy of one state's rules and 
regulations, as well as copies of two states' user agreements, which we believe to 
be representative of the safeguards being adopted by the states. 

Although states following NCIC safeguards are considered to have adequate 
safeguards, we recognize a need for Federal legislation containing provisions for 
civil and criminal remedies for misuse of the system, especially the Computerized 
Criminal History File. In this regard, legislation was introduced on September 20, 
1971, cited as "Criminal Justice Information Systems Security and Privac.y Act of 
1971." This proposed legislation, in addition to other provisions, contained man- 
agement control requirements consistent with the NCIC j^olicy and provided civil 
and criminal remedies for misuse of criminal history data. This proposed legislation 
was not enacted. 

(F) With respect to the questions posed concerning NCIC costs, it should be 
pointed out that costs for development and operation of the NCIC fall into two 
areas — FBI costs and state costs. FBI costs are for the central computer in NCIC 
and for 0})erating this facility and the network it serves; namely, the dedicated 
communications lines to the vai'ious state and local law enforcement control 
terminals. The only communications costs to be borne by the states are the intra- 
state conununications lines making up state network systems. The FBI's portion 



26 



of NCIC costs is specifically earmarked in the FBI's budget and is paid out of 
ap))ropriated funds. 

Insofar as state costs are concerned, cost data could only be obtained through a 
detailed analysis with respect to each of the 50 states because of the separate and 
varying problems and conditions that exist in each state. As a consequence, we 
have no knowledge or information concerning states' costs for development and 
operation of their data systems which may be devoted in whole or in part to the 
NCIC system. We have been advised that LEAA has a Comprehensive Data 
Systems Program for funding state data systems which in many cases will include 
NCIC and computerized criminal history facilities. We have been advised that 
LEAA is requiring each state to submit a computerized data system plan which 
will include an estimate of total costs plus required incremental cost to be sup- 
ported by the Federal Government. Based on this reported LEAA requirement, it 
is expected that state costs for development of data S3"stems, including state 
NCIC costs, will become available in the future. 

In response to the request for FBI cost data, a schedule showing the amount of 
funds expended by the FBI from the inception of NCIC, along with funds budg- 
eted for the next five 3'ears for NCIC operations, follows: 

FBI costs for National Crime Information Center 

Year: Cost 

1966 $94, 329 

1967 105, 194 

1968 130, 915 

1969 325, 598 

1970 1, 752,516 

1971 2, 786,865 

1972 3, 978, 508 

1973 » 5, 178,455 

19741 7, 888. 142 

19751 6,623,813 

1976 1 7, 656,948 

19771.... 9,081, 226 

19781 - 10,933,214 

> Actual and estimated. 

In 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration 
of Justice declared, "An integrated national information system is needed to 
serve the combined needs at the national, state, regional and metropolitan or 
county levels of the police, courts, and correction agencies, and of the public 
and research community." The NCIC system substantially complies with the 
kind of system prescribed by the President's Commission. It has been widely and 
enthusiastically accepted by the law enforcement community and hailed by 
law enforcement people at all levels. It is one of law enforcement's greatest 
advances. In our view the tax dollars spent on this valuable criminal justice 
information sj'stem are well invested and highly justified in relation to other 
expenditures in the fight against crime. 

(G) In responding to this question, it should be recfignized that while the 
Wanted Persons File and the Stolen Property Files of NCIC have full participa- 
tion bj- all states, there is limited participation at this time by the states in the 
interstate exchange of criminal history records. The state programs which will 
result in the full system described in the NCIC policy paper are in varying stages 
of development. For the system to be fully operational will require that each of 
the states possess essential services such as identification, information flow, and 
computer systems capabilities. Until such time as this full capability is realized, 
we must operate with the criminal history data that is acquired by the states and 
within the framework of the states' technical resources. 

By way of further background, the FBI Identification Division has served 
since 1924 as the national clearinghouse for fingerprint cards and identification 
records. In that capacity it acts as the custodian of fingerprint identification 
information submitted by various law enforcement and governmental agencies 
on the Federal, state and local levels. Responsibility for the accuracy and com- 
pleteness of the information contained in the record rests with the arresting or 
contributing agency and onh^ that agency can change or alter the record. The 
FBI's function is to exchange such data with these authorized sources. There has 
been previously furnished for the Record Section 534, Title 28 of U.S. Code and 



27 



the pertinent portion of Public Law 92-544 which is the statutory authoritjr for 
the FBI to collect and exchange identification records. 

With specific reference to how NCIC deals with an arrest record, once a com- 
puterized criminal history record has been established concerning an individual, 
any arrest data received is entered into that record. At such time as additional 
information is received, such as charges dropped, acquittal, or conviction, this 
data likewise would be entered into the record to show the disposition of the 
arrest. 

If an inquiry is received at anj- time for the criminal history record, the record 
as currenth' existing is furnished. 

We have constantly urged that both arrest and disposition data be submitted 
promptly to the FBI so that the manual records, as well as those records that 
have been computerized, can be kept up-to-date. We have supplied to the Com- 
mittee a detailed account of FBI efforts in this respect. 

There are no sanctions, mandatory requirements or performance standards to 
assure nationwide reporting of disposition to either the computerized or manual 
systems. This is unfortunate, but true, and I support Federal legislation to require 
reporting of arrest disposition. Participation in both the computerized and man- 
ual programs is voluntary on the part of all states and contributors. The design 
of the NCIC/CCH system was accomphshed with the cooperation of the states 
and was done wi,th the intention of better serving the criminal justice system 
and improving the reporting processes. Implicit in the design is the inclusion of 
arrest dispositions. 

Since May 3, 1972, two changes hav'e occurred in the handling of identification 
records in the manual system. On December 26, 1972, the Attorney General 
approved a policy whereby the FBI will not accept for retention or recording 
on the record, data on certain minor offenses. In addition, in our manual system 
we are no longer maintaining data on persons 80 years or older. These changes 
were initiated to make the manual system consistent with criteria adopted for 
handling of computerized criminal history records. 

In accordance with statutory authority, arrest and conviction data is dis- 
seminated to authorized recipients of such data for law enforcement purposes, 
Federal employment screening purposes, and employment and licensing pvu-poses 
on the local level when appropriately authorized by state statute. It should be 
noted at this point in time, such dissemination is almost entirel}'' from the manual 
system by reason of the limited data base of CCH. 

Arrest and conviction data is disseminated from our files to authorized officials 
of the Federal Government, the states, cities and penal and other institutions 
for official use only. Any Federal agencies, upon request, can receive such data 
for official use. Except for federally chartered or insured banking institutions as 
specifically provided by statute (Title II, PubHc Law 92-544), no arrest or con- 
viction data maintained by the FBI is disseminated to private agencies. In accord- 
ance with our statutory authority, we do disseminate arrest and conviction data 
to Federal, state and local governmental agencies for other than law enforcement 
purposes. Such dissemination is for the purpose of employment screening or 
licensing. Examples of such agencies include Education Boards, Alcoholic Beverage 
Control Boards, Real Estate Boards, as well as licensing authorities for issuing 
of gun permits, legal and medical licensing boards and the like. 

(H) The FBI Identification Division does not collect records of juvenile delin- 
quency hearings or of hearings to determine whether a person is in need of super- 
vision. Data collected by the Identification Division relates to individuals who 
have been arrested and the disposition of such arrests. If an individual Ls placed 
on parole or probation as the result of arrest charges furnished to the FBI, the 
parole or probation information will be posted to his identification record. Subse- 
quent arrest data received during the term of parole or probation will be furnished 
to the criminal justice agenc}^ supervising the individual during the probationary 
or parole period. 

With respect to procedures the FBI has to learn whether juvenile records are 
required to be kept secret by state laws, the massive size of the criminal files of our 
manual identification system prohibits the segregation of juvenile arrest records 
from adult arrest records. All contributors of arrest data are aware that the FBI 
does not have any provisions for keeping juvenile arrest records which have been 
ordered sealed or which are otherwise required to be kept confidential in a separate 
file and all contributors were last advised of this fact by letter dated January 22, 
1971. Consequently, the FBI Identification Division has filed juvenile arrest 
records in its general criminal file when such cards were submitted to it unless the 
arrest data contained on the juvenile arrest fingerprint card or disposition report 



28 



indicated that the arrest information had been ordered sealed or was otherwise 
required to be kept confidential. All incoming arrest data to the FBI Identification 
Division is reviewed upon receipt and those juvenile records containing informa- 
tion indicating the arrest data has been ordered sealed or otherwise kept confi- 
dential are extracted and returned to the submitting agencies for appropriate 
compliance with the sealing provisions of state law. No record of such juvenile 
arrest data is maintained by the FBI Identification Division and no subsequent 
dissemination of such juvenile arrest data is possible. This procedure implements 
state law requirements of confidentiality as to juvenile arrest records. 

The NCIC/CCH file from its inception has excluded juvenile offender informa- 
tion unless the juvenile has been tried in court as an adult. With the approval of 
the Attorney General to establish a uniform criteria for juvenile arrest data 
maintained by the FBI, in February, 1973, all contributors of arrest information 
were advised that juvenile arrest records would be excluded from the files of the 
manual identification system unless the arrest data submitted clearly indicated 
that the juvenile had been tried in court as an adult. In implementing this policv, 
all juvenile records currently being received by the FBI which do not clearly 
indicate the juvenile has been tried in court as an adult are being returned to the 
submitting agency and no record of the arrest is maintained by the FBI. 

Juvenile arrest records submitted to the Identification Division which contain 
information indicating the arrest data is required to be kept confidential by state 
law are not retained by the FBI, and therefore, are never disseminated to any 
other agencies. Arrest data from a juvenile record which is retained by the FBI, 
such as a record of a juvenile tried in court as an adult for a serious offense, may 
be disseminated upon inquiry from agencies authorized to receive such data. 
Such dissemination is made in the same manner and to the same agencies entitled 
by our statutory authority to receive adult criminal arrest data. Except for 
Federally chartered or insured banking institutions as specifically provided by 
statute (Title II, Public Law 92-544) no arrest data maintained bj^ the FBI is 
disseminated to private agencies. 

Even though Federal agencies such as the Civil Service Commission may cease 
to request arrest information from prospective employees, the FBI Identification 
Division will furnish arrest data to the particular agency in response to the receipt 
of an applicant fingerprint card from that agency. This is done in compliance with 
Title 28, Section 534, United States Code and Public Law 92-544, which author- 
izes the FBI, among other things, to collect and exchange identification records 
with officials of the Federal Government. To prohibit the dissemination of an 
arrest record of an applicant for Federal employment could have harmful effects 
on our national security and our ability to maintain the integrity of our govern- 
mental institutions. Military facilities would be unable to properly evaluate the 
propriety of placing an applicant in a position where he would have access to 
sensitive information or a Government agency, attempting to fill a position in its 
payroll office, would not be able to determine if an applicant had been arrested fur 
embezzlement if dissemination of such prior arrest records were prohibited. 

The arrest record files of the FBI Identification Division as well as those of 
many State and local Identification Bureaus are replete with lengthy arrest records 
of long-time hoodlums and members of organized crime whose arrests never re- 
sulted in conviction. Many sex offenders of children are not prosecuted because 
parents of the victim do not want to subject the child to the traumatic experience 
of testifjing. Others are not tried because ke^' evidence has been suppressed or 
witnesses are, or have been made, unavailable. The latter situation is not uncom- 
mon in organized crime cases. To prohibit dissemination of such arrest records 
would be a disservice to the public upon whom they might prey again. Regardless 
of whether or not an arrest is supported by a conviction, certainly the Federal 
Government and the law enforcement communit}^ have the riglat to be informed of 
arrest data for purposes of Federal security clearances and in discharging all law 
enforcement responsibilities. We have had cases in recent years wherein the subject 
of a rape case has had the case against him dismissed because of a legal technicality 
and subsequently the subject admitted before a United States District Judge that 
he was in fact guilty of the crime. Barring expungement, should law enforcement be 
prohibited from receiving the past arrest record of this individual who may well 
commit a similar crime again? In another such case, an individual attacked one of 
our own female FBI employees with a knife; he was subsequently committed to 
St. Elizabeth's Hospital and then released. Following his release, he was arrested 
again for assault and not convicted. Thereafter, he applied for employment with a 
law enforcement agency and this arrest information certainly would be pertinent in 



29 



considering his application. When one considers the potential school teacher with 
two prior rape arrests and no convictions, a gun permit applicant with three prior 
felonious assault arrests and no convictions, an applicant at a Federally chartered 
bank with a grand larceny arrest and two bank burglary arrests and no convictions, 
and a |)olice applicant with a prior jjeeping torn arrest and no conviction, the 
rationale for disseminating arrest records not supported by convictions is sub- 
stantial. 

It should be noted that all arrest records disseminated from the FBI Identifica- 
tion Division carry a caveat that admonishes the recipient to communicate with 
the agency contributing the fingerprints, where the disposition is not shown or 
further explanation of the charge or disposition is desired. In addition, our Final 
Disposition Report forms, which are made available without charge tt) ail con- 
tributors of fingerprints to the Identification Division, contain instructions and 
an admonishment pertaining to the vital value of the Final Disposition Report. 
This Final Disposition Report form points out emphatically that it is vitally 
important for completion of a subject's record in the FBI Identification Division 
files that the report be submitted in every instance where fingerprints were pre- 
viously forwarded without the final disposition noted thereon. 

(I) Procedures have been in existence for many years which allow a citizen to 
challenge the contents of his fingerprint arrest record maintained by the FBI 
Identification Division. Generally, such challenges must be initiated with and/or 
channeled through the original arresting agenc3^ 

In the case of non-Federal arrests and convictions the FBI Identification 
Division serves merely as custodian of the information submitted by contributing 
agencies and any request for altering, amending or removing data in the finger- 
print files must be received from the law enforcement agency which originally 
submitted the information. This procedure provides authentication for tlie re- 
quest, as well as providing positive identifying data which enables us to make the 
necessary changes in the particular arrest record. The FBI interposes no objection 
to expunging such non-Federal arrest data and regularly effects such expunction 
by retm-ning fingerprints to the arresting agency. This usually occurs when 
charges have been dismissed, subject acquitted or other similar action taken. The 
return of the fingerprints results in the complete and automatic expunction of 
the arrest record from our files. 

Concerning Federal arrests and convictions (where the originating source for the 
information in file is the Justice Department or some other Federal law enforce- 
ment agency) the FBI Identification Division will, upon receipt of inquiry from 
a citizen who provides sufficient identifying data to locate an arrest and conviction 
record in our files, look into the matter through contact with the Federal arresting 
agency involved and correct or amend the arrest record based on the facts that 
are established. Federal arrest fingerprints may be expunged only on the basis of an 
official court order and the courts usually require the Federal agency originally 
submitting the arrest fingerprints to the FBI Identification Division to retrieve 
the record. In other words, the original submitting agency should request expunge- 
ment of the record in question. In all Federal expungem.ent cases, the United 
States Attorney requests the court to order that the fingerprints of the part}^ 
seeking expungement be taken for comparison with the prints on the record to be 
expunged in order to assure that the right record is erased. 

The same basic procedures would apply in the event a record in the CCH file 
was challanged. 

(J) The NCIC Policy Paper takes on legal status when a state seeking participa- 
tion signs an agreement, which is in the nature of a contract, to abide by the 
terms set forth therein. This paper, which has been furnished to the Committee, 
has remained substantially the same since March 31, 1971, v.ith only minor 
modifications, since that time. The material contained in this document has been 
formally adopted by the Director of the FBI and approved by the Attorney 
General. 

No suggestion has been made to the Attorney General to promulgate the 
provisions of the NCIC policy paper pursuant to Section 301 of Title .) of the 
U.S. Code as it is believed that specific Federal legislation is needed. 

It is noted in this regard that Public Law 91-644 amending the Omnibus 
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 provides in Section 519(b) of the Act 
that, "Not later than May 1, 1971, the Administration shall submit to the Presi- 
dent and to the Congress recommendations for legislation to assist in the purposes 
of this title with respect to promoting the integrity and accuracy of criminal 
justice data collection, processing, and dissemination systems funded in whole 



30 



or in part by the Federal Government, and protecting the constitutional rights 
of all persons covered or affected by such systems." 

On September 20, 1971, the Attorney General submitted to the Congress for 
its consideration a legislative proposal entitled "Criminal Justice Information 
Systems Security and Privacy Act of 1971." Section 6 of this Legislative Proposal 
states, "The Attorney General is authorized, after appropriate consultation with 
representatives of State and local law enforcement agencies participating in 
information systems covered by this Act, to establish such rules, regulations and 
procedures as he may deem necessary to effectuate the provisions of this Act." 
The proposed legislation was not enacted. 

(K) The FBI functions both as administrator of the NCIC system and as a 
user agency. The FBI, as a user, is subject to and abides by the rules, policies, 
and procedures as set forth in the NCIC policy paper. The NCIC staff receives 
from the Identification Division arrest and disposition data on Federal offenders 
for entry or updating in the CCH File. Similar data submitted by nonparticipating 
states where there is an existing CCH record on file is received from the Identifica- 
tion Division so that the existing CCH record can be updated. Procedures utilized 
for the processing of the data provide for a continuing audit of the records on file. 

The NCIC policy paper states, "The person's right to see and challenge the 
contents of his record shall form an integral part of the system with reasonable 
administrative procedures." "Access" is permitted only for criminal justice 
agencies. Item (I) above discusses procedures for challenging the contents of a 
manual record. These procedures are also applicable to the computerized record. 

(L) The draft of the report by the Comptroller General of the United States 
to the Congress of the United States entitled "Development of a Criminal History 
Exchange — Need to Determine Cost and Improve Reporting" erroneously 
reported that an NCIC official had said that if an arrest recorded in the criminal 
history exchange system is not followed by a related disposition entry within 
9 months, the arrest entry will be removed. 

No such 9-month rule for removal of arrest entries has been or is in existence 
in the NCIC computerized criminal history program and, consequently, was 
never used by NCIC as a result of the order in the case of Menard v. Mitchell 
or any other case. 

The expungement policy followed by NCIC with respect to the computerized 
criminal history program since its inception has remained unchanged. It is as 
follows : 

Each control terminal agency (a state criminal justice agency on the NCIC 
system servicing statewide criminal justice users with respect to criminal history 
data) shall follow the law or practice of the state or, in the case of a Federal control 
terminal, the applicable Federal statute, with respect to purging/expunging data 
entered by that agency in the nationally stored data. Data may be purged or 
expunged only by the agency originally entering that data. If the offender's 
entire record stored at the national level originates with one control terminal and 
all cycles (a "cycle" consists of data concerning an arrest and the subsequent 
judicial action and correctional status changes related thereto) are purged/ex- 
punged by that agency, all information, including personal identification data 
will be removed from the computerized NCIC file. 

This policy rests on a fundamental concept of the NCIC computerized criminal 
history program which is stated as follows: 

* *' * The NCIC system places complete responsibility for all record entries 
on each agency — local, state, or Federal. Likewise, clearance, modification and 
cancellation of these records are also the responsibility of the entering agency. 
Each record, for all practical purposes, remains the possession of the entering 
agency. * * * 

Should the Congress prohibit dissemination of "raw arrest data to noncriminal 
justice agencies" it would be possible, technically, to identify the "raw arrest 
data" in NCIC on the basis of definition. Responsibility for restricting dissemina- 
tion would rest with the control terminal agency in each state and the Federal 
control terminal (FBI). It is technically possible to so restrict the dissemination, 
having knowledge of the identity of the requesting/inquiring agency. 

(M) Nonpublic information may not be stored, exchanged or disseminated 
through or by the NCIC system. 

(N) Copies of the various regulations adopted by the states relativ^e to security 
and privacy, and general descriptions of their individual systems have not generally 
been made available to the FBI. 



31 



We do have and make available for the Record the rules and regulations for 
the Ohio System (document titled "LEADS, Rules and Regulations"). We also 
have available copies of an agreement which the States of Michigan and Georgia 
require to be signed by their system users. These are submitted for the Record 
(document captioned "Exchange of Criminal Justice Information Agreement" 
and document captioned "Law Enforcement Information Network, ComiDuterized 
Criminal History Participation Agreement-LEIN/NCIC"). 

The security and privacy provisions of the NCIC system, as contained in the 
NCIC policy paper previously submitted to the Committee, represent the mini- 
mum required of the participating states in that regard, and the individual states 
may, of course, establish more stringent requirements within the provisions 
adopted for the NCIC system overall. The NCIC policy paper requires under 
Rule IX A that, "Each control terminal agency shall sign a written agreement 
with the NCIC to conform with system policy before participation in the criminal 
history program is permitted. This would allow for control over the data and 
give assurance of system security." The agreement required by Rule IX A is 
signed by the head of the appropriate state agency and the Director (or Acting 
Director) of the FBI. A copy of the standard agreement is attached for the 
Record (document titled "Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Crime 
Information Center, Interstate Exchange of Computerized Criminal Histories 
Agreement"). 

(O) The permanent Committee on Security and Confidentiality was estabhshed 
by the NCIC Advisory Policy Board on August 18, 197L The" hst of members 
follows: 

Colonel John Plants, Michigan State Police — Chairman 

Mr. Herbert D. Brown, Illinois Department of Law Enforcement 

Dr. Robert R. J. Gallati, New York State Identification and Intelligence 
System 

Mr. O. J. Hawkins, California Department of Justice 

Colonel D. B. Kelly, New Jersey State Police 

Dr. Howard Livingston, North Carolina Police Information Network 

Mr. William L. Reed, Florida Department of Law Enforcement 

Colonel Wilson E. Speir, Texas Department of Public Safety 

FBI— NCIC Representative 

The current Chairman of the NCIC Advisory Policy Board is selecting a new 
Security and Confidentialit^v Committee. 

The current membership of the NCIC Advisory Policy Board is as follows: 

Chairman 

Mr. O. J. Hawkins 

Assistant Director 

California Department of Justice 

Sacramento, California 

Vice Chairman 

Colonel D. B. Kelly 

Superintendent 

Department of Law and Public Safety 

Division of State Police 

West Trenton, New Jersey 

Mr. William E. Kirwan 
Superintendent 
New York State Police 
Albany, New York 

Major Albert F. Kwiatek 
Director of Technical Services 
Pennsylvania State Police 
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

Colonel Walter E. Stone 
Superintendent 
Rhode Island State Police 
North Scituate, Rhode Island 
Mr. John R. West 
Deputy Superintendent 
Boston Police Department 
Boston, Massachusetts 

See footnotes at end of fable, p. 246. 



Colonel Robert M. Chiaramontc 

Superintendent 

Ohio State Highway Patrol 

Columbus, Ohio 

Mr. Edmund I. Hockaday ^ 

Superintendent 

Missouri State Highway Patrol 

Jeflferson City, Missouri 

Mr. Clarence M. Kelley 
Chief of Police 
Kansas City, Missouri 

Mr. Robert K. Konkle 
Superintendent 
Indiana State Police 
Indianapolis, Indiana 

Colonel John R. Plants 

Director 

Division of State Police 

East Lansing, Michigan 

Colonel R. L. Bonar 

Superintendent 

West Virginia State Police 

South Charleston, West Virginia 

Captain J. H. Dowling 
Communications Bureau 
Police Department 
Memphis, Tennessee 



32 



Dr. Howard M. Livingston Mr. Oliver Furseth ^ 

Director, North Carolina Police Infor- Chief 

mation Network Washington State Patrol 

Department of Justice Olj-mpia, Washington 

Raleigh, North Carolina Mr. L. Clark Hand 

Colonel Raj' Pope Superintendent 

Director Idaho State Police 

Department of Public Safety Boise, Idaho 

Atlanta, Georgia Colonel James J. Hegarty 

Honorable William L. Reed Director 

Commissioner Arizona Department of Public Safety 

Florida Department of Law Enforce- Phoenix, Arizona 

^ "?ent Mr. George P Tielsch 

Tallahassee, Florida Chief of Police 

Seattle, Washington 
1 Now retired — these former members not yet replaced. 

The Security and Confidentiality Committee addressed the matter considering 
the criteria for the purging of records from the NCIC computerized criminal history 
flic by recommending that consideration should be given to this purging at the 
national level only in the event of inaction by the states and that no action should 
be instituted at the national level to establish purge criteria at that time. It was 
believed bj' the Committee that each state should be developing its own criteria 
for purging. The NCIC Advisory Policy Board which met September 19-20, 1972, 
in Washington, D.C., concurred in the Committee's recommendation. 

No considerations have been afforded criteria for secondary access to criminal 
history data or a model state statute for protecting data in the development of a 
new sj'stem. 

(P) There have been no inspections pursuant to Rule IX F of the NCIC poHcy 
paper. Since the inception of CCH on-line availability on November 29, 1971, 
there have been no allegations of security violations made to the Security and 
Confidentiality Committee and thus there has been no need for an inspection. 

It can be noted that the Security and Confidentiality Committee has been 
active with respect to the security and privacy issue. In 1972, the Committee 
reviewed a number of criminal justice information systems which were desirous 
of participating in the interstate exchange of criminal history information in the 
near future to determine if they would meet the criminal justice management 
control provisions of the NCIC Advisory Policy Board. Five states and one 
metropolitan sj'stem were found to not meet the requirements at this time. These 
agencies have been advised of the reasons for exclusion by the Committee so they 
may take necessary steps to qualify for CCH participation. 

(Q) Provisions of the NCIC Computerized Criminal Historj^ Program Back- 
ground, Concept, and Policy document relate to the NCIC Computerized Crim- 
inal History Program and not to the NCIC Wanted Person File. 

The NCIC Advisory Policy Board considers data in the NCIC Computerized 
Criminal History File to be sensitive and, as such, to be guarded against misuse. 
It does not take that position with respect to persons for whom arrest warrants 
are outstanding (wanted persons). It is considered to be in the public interest to 
allow information concerning persons who are fugitives from justice to be made 
readil}^ available to persons in the criminal justice community and the public (the 
more exposure — the greater the likelihood the fugitive will be identified and 
apprehended). As a practical matter, it should be recognized that although the 
same restrictions do not exist concerning wanted persons records as on criminal 
history records, only criminal justice agencies have the capability of accessing 
wanted persons information in the NCIC computer. However, no restrictions 
exist with respect to dissemination of wanted persons records received by criminal 
justice agencies. 

(R) Recognizing that the liberty, or even the life, of an individual might be at 
stake, law enforcement has traditionally taken greater care to determine the true 
identity of the subjects of its records than any other record-keeping profession. 
The most positive means of identifying individuals known to date is fingerprint 
examination. Yet, only law enforcement over the j^ears has used fingerprint 
identification as a means of insuring the accuracy and integritj' of its records. 



33 



For example, it has been standard operating procedure at the FBI Identification 
Division to require that every entry on a manual identification record ("rap" 
sheet) be backed by an arrest fingerprint card. This means that before any new 
arrest data is added to an existing record, the fingerprints appearing on a current 
arrest card must be compared with the fingerprints already on file of the person 
who is the subject of the record. Further, it is onl}^ on the basis of a fingerprint 
comparison that a manual identification record will be disseminated as positively 
belonging to a particular individual. 

The fingerprint comparisons are performed by skilled technicians. If a finger- 
print technician finds the two sets of fingerprints to be identical, his finding must 
be verified by having another technician compare the prints, as a "double check" 
procedure, before new arrest data is added or the record is disseminated as a 
positive identification. The objective of this meticulous procedure is to avoid 
false entries in a person's identification record and to insure against associating a 
record with the wrong person. 

In view of the traditional use of fingerprints as a device to insure the validity 
of law enforcement records, it was only natural that the fingerprint card would 
be adopted by laAv enforcement when it developed the Computerized Criminal 
History (CCH) program for NCIC. Hence, the NCIC guidelines require a "crimi- 
nal fingerprint card taken at the time of arrest as the basic source document 
for all record entries and updates" and "at least one criminal fingerprint card 
must be in the files of the FBI Identification Division to support the computerized 
criminal history record in the national index." 

Besides its identification role, the FBI Identification Division assists the CCH 
program by making available manual identification records (rap sheets) on persons 
who have a prior history of arrests so that these past arrests can be made a part 
of the computerized record when that person is made a subject in CCH. Under 
the NCIC guidelines concept, once a person's manual record is converted to a 
computerized record in CCH, the CCH record supplants the manual record. 
Therefore, under this concept, arrest information from manual rap sheets will be 
entered into the CCH system, but CCH arrest information will not go into the 
FBI's manual rap sheet dissemination system. 

The FBI Identification Division is presently engaged in a program to automate 
its own internal work procedures. This is being done to achieve greater efficiency 
and to realize manpower and operating cost savings to the Government. The 
automated fingerprint processing system for the Identification Division is being 
designed to be compatible with the CCH system. This is being done in order to 
facilitate and improve the Identification Division's ability to carry out its re- 
sponsibilities under the NCIC/CCH program. 

(S) The NCIC guidelines apply only to criminal history information contained 
in the Computerized Criminal History (CCH) system and not to that contained 
in manual identification records ("rap" sheets). This is because the guidelines 
were written to provide guidance and controls for the computerized information 
system tlxat makes up CCH and not the older manual rap sheet sj^stem which 
is to be eventuall}^ supplanted. Further, it must be recognized that many of the 
system requirements of the NCIC guidelines would be inapplicable, unnecessary, 
or impractical in the case of manual files. Of course, once criminal history infor- 
mation is coined from a manual identification record and entered into a CCH 
record, that information becomes part of the CCH system and is governed by 
the NCIC guidelines. 

Although the NCIC guidelines do not apply to manual identification record 
files, most of the major provisions of the guidelines are followed in the operation 
of the maiuial files. This results partially from the fact the guidelines incorporate 
responsibilities and constraints contained in enabling statutes, laws, and regula- 
tions that affect both the computerized and manual systems. And, partially from 
a conscious effort on the part of the administrators of both the NCIC and the 
manual identification record systems to achieve uniformity wherever practical. 
Examjiles of this are the adoption by the NCIC guidelines of the traditional 
manual system practice of requiring a fingerprint comparison prior to entering 
data into a record, and the recent adoption by the FBI Identification Division 
of the NCIC guideline policy of no longer accepting records on nonserious offenses 
for storage at the national level. 



34 



SIMULATED RECORD 

OTITBD STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INV'ESTIOATION 

RATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CBITER 

CRIMINAL HISTORY r^=™D^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ,^^3/73 

HKE/EH-C SAM/DOE, JOHN SHX/M RACA' POB/FL 008/09221*3 HGT/507 WGT/160 

EYEz-BRO HAI/ERO SMT/SC R KID FPC/200610C01O120J03091O ICO/ABMD AND DANGEROUS 

ADDITIONAL IDelTIFIERS - 
SI'i/SC CHIN SC L HMD 
AKA/SXIIH, HARRY/DOE, JIM 
ESIA'S DP,E/02t372 DLU/110W72 

CYCLE 1 - 

ARREST- AGCY/US MARSHALL INDIAHAPOLIS I" STATE ID/F0922'*3 NAME USED/SMITH, HARRY DATE ARR/122668 

CHAf.GL 110/01 CITATICN/T18/US/2312 

OFFEIISE/ir.'TERSTATE TRAJISP STOLEN VEH-DYER ACT 
CHARGE NO/02 
OFFENSE/CARRYING CONCEALED-CCW 

COURT- AGCY/ 

COUl.'T :io/oi 

OiFL'i'St/IKTERSTUTE TRA,N3P STOLEN VEH-DYER ACT DISP/CONVICIED 

C0nFIMED/60H FINE/t2000 OTHER/INDETEM 

CUSTODY- ACCY/IN UEP TERRE HAl'TE 

A DAVE/0;;0269 ST/.TUS/REOEIVED 

A(-CY/IIi USP TERRE HAUTE 
B DATE/01.2271 STATUS/PAROLED 

CYCLE 2- 

ARKE3T- AOCYAS MARSHALL LOUISVILLE KY STATE 1D/F0922l*3 NAME USED/DOE, JIM DATE ARR/063071 

Cll/.IiOi: NC/01 

CFrbJISE/HOBBERY-BANKING-HPE INST 
CMRIX NO/02 
OFFHISE/PAROLE VIOLATION 

COURT- ACCY/ 

csw;x NO/Cl 

OFFBiSE/fiOBBEnY-BANXINO-TYPE INST DISP/CONVICTED 

C0NrIHED/12OM OTHEH/REl' PAR VIO COJiC W/THIS CHG 

CUSTODY- AGCY/IN USP TERRE KAUTE 

A DATE/110371 ETATUS/Rr'.CEIVED 

CD 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - ARREST DATA BASED ON 
FIKGERPM:1I IDaillFICATION BY SUBMITTING J^'-■ :'T OR FBI 

SIMULATED NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER 
SUMMARY RECORD 



"FBI rdenlLnFalioii Nunibor p!^\'. on'^SH."'! 

NCIC SUMMARY MULTIPLE _STATE FBI/i23-'5GI__01/23/73 

"£7u7y TV|Vc~ JtacT .DateoJlhnK' '\\cn:,hl WDi-lJt_ Eye Color. 

^EK-C DOE, JOHN M W FL DOb7g32243 HGT/'507 WGT/160 EYE/BRO 

w ' I t _-_ - — "■ ■" — " 

Cau;i::7;..i4.cat"or2 Jcx 'staie~of llirlli _Scar6^M_ar'K.Sj_Jattpqs,_Elc^ 

HAI/BRO FPC/200610Cpl6l"2Q50S0910 SMT/SC R_HNp_,_ SXT CHIN 

"iJair Color Kinijcrprir.t Cl.iP5.iiicntio_n (Scars "rlfiht hn nd, chin) 



,COMMENT/ARMp-DANG- :Ar.n,ed-p,-,nliiT3Ui: 

Additional C omn^oni r\£\6_ Rca'ibn for Cnution 

TOTAL ARRESTS - 2 



Offense Charges Convictions 



Stolen vehicle 

Weapon offenses. 

Robbery 

Parole violation.. 



1 


1 


1 





1 


1 


1 






35 



LAST ARREST STATUS (INCLUDED ABOVE) - 

Date Last Arrcsl "Arrcbti n.; A.;crcy (t ;s Marshal) 

_ 063071 USM LOUISVILLE KY 

~Arre?t C harfo Nunibcrs_ 

01 ROBBERY-BANKING-TYPE INST 

Arrest Offenses 

02 PAROLE VI6l/.TI0N 

.COURT STATUS (mCLUDED ABOVE) - 

Court Co,!ni N' .. .--r 'Court Ofiense "CburlTDlspysTtToif 

01 J?qBBE^Y-BANKING^-XYJPE_ps'S'I^-CONVICTED 

Cpniijicinent-iqO Momli£ .Olher_ Sentence I'rovi^oiTslKcturncd aTvarolcViolator 

CONFINE/120M OTrlER/RETPAR VIO CONG V//THIS CIIG 

Concurrent with lJiibjCliar^;o 

CUSTCDY_STATUS- "' 

C_ubU.dy or S_uiHrviMo"~AielK7 Date rtcFcucd 'Cusiody_or7Su'»cTvisIonSlatus 

IN US.P T ERRE HAUTE 110371 RECEIVED 

(ysJPe iTi ic n t i ar y J 

END 

^nd of liecord 

Federal Bureau of Investigation National Crime Information Center, 
Interstate Exchange of Computerized Criminal Histories Agreement 

The National Crime Information Center of the FBI, hereinafter called NCIC, 

agrees to furnish to , a criminal justice agency serving 

as a control terminal agency in the NCIC system such criminal history informa- 
tion as is available in NCIC files subject to the following provisions. 

agrees to abide b}^ all present rules, policies, and 

procedures of the NCIC as approved by the NCIC Advisory PoHcy Board as well 
as any rules, policies, and procedures hereinafter approved by the NCIC Advisory 
Policj' Board and adopted by the NCIC. 

NCIC reserves the right to immediately suspend furnishing criminal history 

data to w^hen either the security or dissemination 

requirements approved by the NCIC Advisory Pohcy Board and adopted by the 
NCIC are violated. NCIC may reinstate the furnishing of criminal history data 
in such instance upon receipt of satisfactory assurances that such violation has 
been corrected. 

Either NCIC or may, upon 30 days notice in 

writing, discontinue service. 

agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, its Director and employees from and against any and all 
claims, demands, actions, suits, and proceedings by others; against all liability to 
others, including but not limited to any liability for damages by reason of or 
arising out of any false arrest or imprisonment or any cause of action whatsoever, 
and against any loss, cost, expense, and damage resulting therefrom, arising out 

of or involving any negligence on the part of in the 

exercise or enjoyment of this Agreement. 

This Agreement will become effective on 

In witness whereof, the parties hereto caused this agreement to be executed by 
the proper officers and ofiricials. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTI- NCIC CONTROL TERMINAL 
GATION NATIONAL CRIME IN- AGENCY: 

FORMATION CENTER: 

Bv By 

Title: Acting Director. Title 

Date , Date 



36 



LEADS — Rules and Regulations 

To assure the continued proper functioning of the Ohio LEADS, each agency 
signing an agreement for LEADS services shall conform to the following rules and 
regulations duly agreed upon in regular session by the Ohio LEADS Steering 
Committee. Each agency further agrees to abide by whatever actions the Steering 
Committee shall decide to take as a result of violations of these rules and 
regulations. 

Failure to comply with the rules and regulations may result in the order of 
terminal suspension by the Steering Committee. 

SECTION I GENERAL 

(1.1) LEADS terminal agencies shall meet all monetary- obligations to the 
terminal vendor. 

(1.2) Suggestions, tips, or other pertinent instructions listed in the manual, 
newsletter, or bulletins will have the same effect as rules or regulations wherein 
that effect may be reasonably applied. 

(1.3) Rules and regulations of the National Crime Information Center or that 
of any other data or message switching system, when i^rooerly disseminated, will 
have the same weight as the rules and regulations of LEADS. 

(1.4) LEADS operators, supervisors or agencj' heads shall cooperate with any 
efforts of the Steering Committee, or persons authorized to act in their name, in 
actions, investigations, or efforts to improve the s\'stem. 

(1.0) LEADS manuals, NCIC manuals, or other authorized printed materials 
necessary to the proper functioning of a terminal shall be maintained in an up-to- 
date condition readily accessible to those persons charged with terminal operation 
or control. 

(1.6) Operational instructions from LEADS Control will have the same effect 
as orders from the Steering Committee. 

(1.7) LE.\DS terminals shall not be changed in any manner or moved from the 
installed position without permission of the Steering Comaiittee or persons em- 
powered to act in their behalf. Anj^ relocation charge shall be at the expense of 
the user. 

(1.8) LE.\DS terminal agencies shall be responsible for assuring ths original 
and continuing training of all persons whom they authorize to operate their 
terminal. 

(1.9) Each terminal agency will make every reasonable effort to acquaint the 
enforcement personnel of their agencj' with the capabilities, rules, regulations, and 
services offered by LEADS. 

(1.10) Each LEADS terminal agency shall designate one person as LEADS 
Terminal Supervisor for purposes of supervision, training, and control of their 
terminal. 

SECTION II OPERATIONAL 

(2.1) Data stored in LEADS, NCIC, or other interfaced system shall be re- 
stricted to the use of duly authorized law enforcement personnel and shall not be 
sold, transmitted, or disseminated to any non-law enforcement agency or person. 

(2.2) LEADS message switching shall not be used for personal communication 
between operators. 

(2.3) Procedures for entry, inquiry, and message switching as outlined in the 
LEADS manual shall be adhered to. 

(2.4) Messages, entries or inquiries for a non-terminal law enforcement agency 
should be handled by a terminal user upon request. Any formal or informal 
agreement made between a terminal agency and non-terminal agencies, for the 
purpose of this rule, shall be filed with the LEADS Steering Committee. 

(2.5) LEADS terminal agencies shall validate entries by that terminal as often 
as necessary. Invalid entries will be removed as soon as possible. 

(2.6) LE.\DS terminal agencies shall correctly maintain equipment leased to it, 
and shall notify the equipment contractor as soon as a malfunction is noted. 

(2.7) Each terminal agency shall make every reasonable effort to assure 
accuracy, completeness, and conci-seness of all messages transmitted. 

(2.8) Each terminal user shall make every reasonable effort to promptly respond 
to messages requiring a reply directed to their terminal. 

(2.9) ALLTERM and Quadrant messages will be strictly controlled to assure 
that only those messages reasonably meeting statewide or area la\v enforcement 
needs will be transmitted. 



37 



•(2.10) LEADS terminals shall not be turned off, unplugged, or rendered in- 
operative in an,y manner unless such action has been authorized by LEADS 
Control or the equipment contractor. 

These rulcrs and regulations were adopted at the regular meeting of the LEADS 
Steering Committee, December 16, 19G9. 

Exchange of Criminal Justice Information Agreement 

THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of , 19.., by 

and between the Georgia Department of Public Safety (Georgia Crime Informa- 
tion Center), hereinafter sometimes referred to as GCIC, and 

hereinafter sometimes referred to as Customer. 

GCIC agrees to furnish to Customer, a criminal justice agency v.ithin the 
State of Georgia, such criminal history, NCIC, and Georgia Law 'Enforcement 
System information as is available to GCIC, subject to the f(jllowing conditions. 

Customer agrees to abide by all rules, policies, and procedures now or hereafter 
established by the National Crime Information Center of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (NCIC) and by GCIC. 

Customer agrees and acknowledges that its access terminal location and security, 
and its computer system configuration are subject to approval b}' and will conform 
to continuing requirements estabhshed by NCIC and GCIC. Customer agrees 
to notify GCIC at least thirty (30) minutes prior to the performance of any 
maintenance upon Customer's access terminal by any person who is not a member 
of Customer's staff authorized to operate the terminal; Customer agrees and 
acknowledges that its access terminal will be placed in a restrictive mode during 
such maintenance by such unauthorized personnel. 

GCIC reserves the right to terminate Customer's access to criminal history/data 
without notice to the Customer, at any time it may appear to GCIC that any 
security or dissemination requirement of NCIC or GCIC has been violated. 
GCIC may thereafter reinstate Customer's access upon receipt of satisfactor}^ 
assurances that such violation has been corrected. Customer agrees and acknowl- 
edges that its computer system use and configuration will be continuously mon- 
itored by a GCIC command terminal. 

Either GCIC or Customer may, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the 
other, discontinue service under this Agreement. 

This Agreement will become effective , 19 

In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the 
date first above written. 

Customer Georgia Department of Public Safety 

(Georgia Crime Information Center) 

By By 

Title Title 

Date Date 



Law Enforcement Information Network — Computerized Criminal History 

Participation Agreement 

(LEIN/NCIC) 

The National Crime Information Network of the FBI, hereinafter called NCIC, 

agrees to furnish to , a criminal justice agtncj'. 

Agency 
through the Michigan Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN), criminal 
history information as is available in NCIC files, subject to the following Pro- 
visions: 

, agrees to abide bj" all present rules, policies, and 

Agency 
procedures of LEIN and NCIC as approved by the LEIN Advisory Committee 
and the NCIC Advisory Policy Board, as well as any rules, policies, and procedures 
hereinafter approved and adopted by these respective groups. 

LEIN reserves the right to immediately suspend furnishing criminal history 
data to the aforementioned criminal justice agency when either the security or 



38 



dissemination requirements approved and adopted by the LEIN Advisory Com- 
mittee or the NCIC Advisory Policy Board are violated. LEIN may reinstate 
the furnishing of criminal history data in such instance upon receipt of satisfactory 
assurances that such violation has been corrected. 

, agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Law 

Agency 
Enforcement Information Network and its officials and employees from and 
against any and all claims, demands, actions, suits, and proceedings by others, 
against all liability to others, including but not limited to any liability for damages 
by reason of or arising out of any false arrest or imprisonment, or any cause 
of action whatsoever, and against any loss, cost, expense, and damage result- 
ing therefrom, arising out of or involving any negligence on the part of 

, in the exercise of enjoyment of this agreement. 

Agency 

This agreement will become effective upon the confirming signature of the 
Director of the Michigan State Police. 

In witness whereof, the parties hereto caused this agreement to be executed 
by the proper officers and officials. 

Law Enforcement Information Network 

BY AGENCY 

Signature BY 

TITLE Director, Department of State Signature 

PoUce TITLE 

DATE DATE . 

Senator Mathias. Now, in appendix D, under the section entitled 
"Additional Changes in FBI Policies and Procedures," you list 32 
changes. Only three of these, I think, relate directly to the information 
retention; No. 12, which you referred to, purged inactive arrest 
records of individuals age 80 and older from the fingerprint files. 
No. 28 discontinued the program of gathering biographical data on 
nonincumbent congressional candidates, and No. 31 discontinued 
the compilation of statistics on the recovery of stolen motor vehicles 
which were transported in interstate commerce, unless the vehicle 
was recovered specifically as a result of FBI investigative efforts. 

Now, I would suggest that these are all steps in the right direction, 
but I am wondering if they are all the changes in this particular area 
that have been made and whether you could provide us with a more 
complete list, if there are additional items in this area, and particularly 
Nnth the changes that relate to the NCIC, and to the facilities that 
relate to NCIC? 

Mr. Gray. The only other one that I can think of quickly and off- 
hand is that requiring weekly reports of any serials — that is papers, 
individual papers — that are legitimately charged out of our files. The 
reason for that is once again my concern for dissemination and access 
and that sort of thing. I did state earlier today, Senator Mathias, 
that we do have a rather good records management program in the 
FBI, and I would submit information for the record concerning that, 
but I will take a look and see what other things we have done. We 
tried to hit just the highlights here. We did not list all the changes. 
Some of them are not even listed here. 

Senator Mathias. That is why I raised the point, because I won- 
dered whether this was a comprehensive list. 

Mr. Gray. No, it is not. In fact, the changes that have been made 
in the organized crime area, for example, regarding strategy and 
tactics, are not in here, and I would not list them at all in any com- 
pilation. We have made substantial changes in that area. 

Senator Mathias. If you can advise the committee to the fullest 
extent possible of those changes, I think it is important. 



39 



Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. 

(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the 
record :) 

Mr. Gray. I have previously supplied to the Committee a background, con- 
cept and policy paper dated September 20, 1972, which sets out detailed standards 
concerning the operation of the NCIC and the computerized criminal history 
program. From May 3, 1972, to date, the following changes have occurred with 
respect to the policy of the NCIC: 

One requirement adopted by the NCIC Advisory Policy Board in March, 1971, 
and approved by the Attorney General in June, 1971, was that all computers 
capable of interfacing directly with the NCIC computer for the interstate exchange 
of criminal history information must be under the management control of a 
criminal justice agency authorized as a control terminal agency. Subsequently, as 
the development of state computer systems progressed, it became evident that 
some states preferred to place responsibility for computerized operations in other 
than a criminal justice agency. In order to allow participation in the criminal his- 
tory program by those states wherein the computer is not under the direct control 
of a criminal justice agency, the NCIC Advisory Policy Board on September 20, 
1972, adopted the following policy which is in effect at the present time: 

"In those instances where criminal justice agencies are utilizing equipment and 
personnel of a noncriminal justice agency for NCIC/CCII purposes, the following 
criteria will apply in meeting the above management control provisions: 

1. The hardware, including processor, communications control, and storage 
devices, to be utilized for the handling of criminal history data must be dedicated 
to the criminal justice function. 

2. The criminal justice agency must exercise management control with regard 
to the operating of the aforementioned equipment by: 

a. having a written agreement with the noncriminal justice agency operating 
the data center providing the criminal justice agency authority to select and 
supervise personnel, 

b. having the authority to set and enforce policy concerning computer opera- 
tions, and 

c. having budgetary control with regard to personnel and equipment, in the 
crhninal justice agency. 

Further, the original policy paper of NCIC designated the types of agencies, 
such as the police, prosecutive departments, the covu-ts, and correctional institu- 
tions that could directly access the NCIC/CCH File. No allowance was made 
for a state agency which had as its function the operation of an information 
svstem for the state's criminal justice agencies. Thus, it became necessary for 
the NCIC Advisory Policy Board to consider the matter of whether such a state 
agency would be able to "have direct access to the criminal history information 
contained in NCIC. After consideration, on September 20, 1972, the Board 
broadened the category of agencies that can access NCIC for criminal historj- 
data to include: 

"State control terminal agencies which have as a sole function by statute the 
development and operation of a criminal justice information system." 

The policy of the NCIC, before it was amended September 20, 1972, provided 
that criminal history data on an individual from the national computerized file 
would be made available outside the Federal Government only to criminal 
justice agencies for criminal justice purposes. This precluded the dissemination 
of such data for use in connection with licensing and local or state employment 
other than with a criminal justice agency. The policy specifically stated, "There 
are no exceptions pending legislative action at state and Federal level or Attorne}^ 
General regulations." 

Public Law 92-184, approved December 15, 1971, provided for the exchange 
of identification records, as authorized by state statutes and approved by the 
Attorney General, with officials of state and local governments for purposes of 
employment and licensing. 

By reason of the passage of Public Law 92-184, this particular section of the 
NCiC policy paper was amended to read as follows: 

"Criminal history data on an individual from the national computerized file 
will be made available outside the Federal government to criminal justice agencies 
for criminal justice purposes. This precludes the dissemination of such data for 
use in connection with licensing or local or state employment, other than with a 
criminal justice agency, or for other uses unless such dissemination is pursuant to 
state and Federal statutes. There are no exceptions." 



34-788 O - 74 - 4 



40 



Senator Mathias. Finally, Mr. Gray, there was a study published 
by the Lawyers Committee for Ci\'il Rights Under Law, entitled 
"Law and Disorder: State and Federal Performance Under Title I of 
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968." In chapter 
2 of that publication, there are some comments and a series of recom- 
mendations and conclusions on the subject of Computerized Criminal 
Information and IntelHgence Systems." 

In calling attention to this article, I do not necessarily endorse all 
of the recommendations, but I think they are worth looking at and 
evaluating, and I am wondering if you would take a look at those 
recommendations and let the committee have yoxir comment on 
them. 

Mr. Gray. Senator, I would like to say that we are alert to these 
kinds of things because all too frequently we find— and this, once 
again may be due to our fault because we have not opened the win- 
dows — that there exists a paucity of information, so that these reports 
get off on the wrong track. 

Senator Mathias. This is a good opportunity to put that record 
straight. That is the reason I am asking these questions. 

Mr. Gray. I know it, and we are happy to do it. As a matter of 
fact, Senator Mathias, we have been working on analyzing this 
particular report in our Computer Systems Division. We will supply 
the analysis to the committee. 

Senator Mathias. I will ask unanimous consent, for the purpose 
of keeping the record straight, that chapter 2 of this study be inserted 
in the record at this point and that ^I^. Gray be allowed to supply 
his comments on it for the record at this point. 

Senator Bayh (presiding). Without objection. 

(The document referred to follows :) 

Chapter II — Computerized Criminal Ixformation and Intelligence 

Systems 

from "law and disorder: state and federal performance under title 1 
of the omnibus crime control and safe streets act of 1968", prepared 

BY THE lawyers' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LA^V, 1973 

The application of computer technologj^ to criminal justice information systems 
was recommended by the President's Crime Commission as au important tool for 
improving the deployment of criminal justice resources and for keeping track of 
criminal offenders. The commission warned, however, that special precautionary 
steps would have to be taken to protect individual rights and recommended that 
primarj' control of computerized information systems be retained at the state 
and local levels to avoid the development of a centralized file subject to Executive 
manipulation. 

LEAA has effectively concentrated a variety of resources, including research, 
discretionary and block grants, in the development of computerized information 
and intelligence systems. It has not, however, given adequate attention to the 
warnings of the Crime Commission or demonstrated adequate appreciation of the 
consequences of a massive accumulation of personal dossiers at the national level. 

Millions of dollars of Institute and discretionary grants have supported the 
creation of a national computerized file of criminal histories that is fed by LEAA 
block grant-funded state information systems. The initial design of the system 
followed the decentralized model recommended by the Crime Commission, but 
in Januar}' 1970, former Attorney General John IST. Mitchell decided — over the 
objections of LEAA — to make the system a more centrahzed one. To accomplish 
this purpose, he transferred the file system from LEAA to the FBI. 

LEAA has simultaneously given the states substantial grants to create intelli- 
gence systems directed primarily toward organized crime, civil disorders and the 
activities of dissenters. (See Chapters I and IV.) ' Some of these files are being 
maintained by the same agencies that operate the more reliable information files, 

I See also Chapter III, describing the new kinds of iatalligence and monitoring devices that LEAA grants 
have purchased. 



41 



creating the possibility that the two will be used jointly. At the federal level the 
Attorney General has the power to combine intelligence with information files, but 
he apparently has not exercised that power, on a regular basis. 

All of this has occurred without broad public policy debate about the desirability 
of the new systems and with little serious effort to determine whether the contri- 
bution they make to controlling crime outweighs their potential for eroding privacy 
and individual autonomy, or whether that potential can be reduced or controlled. 

LEAA's investment in information and intelligence systems must be placed in 
the context of the over-all Justice Department strategy for strengthening the law 
enforcement capability of the federal government and for building up the 
powers of police and prosecutors at all levels. During his tenure as Attorney Gen- 
eral (1968-72) John N. Mitchell made it clear that these were major goals of his 
administration. To this end he greath^ expanded federal surveillance of citizens 
thought to be threats to internal security, justifying his action on the theory that 
the Executive has inherent and discretionary power to protect itself.^ He made 
aggressive use of existing laws, and sought and obtained significant new legislation 
to arm police and prosecutors with expanded authority to monitor individual con- 
duct in order to prevent or punish potential crimes. ^ These developments, when 
viewed in conjunction with the new surveillance technology funded by LEAA 
grants and the national computerized file on criminal offenders, greatly increase the 
capability of the government to monitor the activities of all citizens and to step in 
to prevent or punish those activities where it chooses to do so.* 

The new criminal justice information network can be used in conjunction with 
the vast government and private computer dossiers being compiled by credit 
bureaus, insurance companies, welfare agencies, mental health units and others.* 
Cumulatively, these files threaten an "information tyranny" that could lock each 
citizen into his past; they signal the end of a uniquely American promise — that 
the individual can shed past mistakes and entanglements, and start out anew. 

There are no federal and few state laws regulating the national criminal infor- 
mation system or its com)Donents. Few laws control the host of related public and 
private information systems. And any constitutional protections that exist are 
limited and narrowly defined.^ Without controls, the systems continue to evolve 
primarily by force of their own momentum. In part through the well-meaning 
actions of LEAA the prophecy of Dr. Jerome Wiesner, MIT president, is being 
realized : 

Such a depersonalizing state of affairs could occur without overt decisions, without 
high-level encouragement or support and totally independent of malicious intent. The 
great danger is that ws could become information bound, because each step in the 
development of an information tyranny appeared to be constructive and useful.'' 

2 See the statempnt of William H. Kehnquist, Hearings on Federal Data Banks, Computers and the Bill of 
Rights, Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, 92ncl Congress, 1st Session (February-March 1971) 
p. 597, et. seg., March 11, 1971. (Referred to hereafter as Senate Constitulloml Righ's Subcommittee Hearings.) 
The s'upreme Court rejected tho argument that warrantless wiretapping is permissible, in United States v. 
United States District Court, _ U.S. _, 40 U.S.L.W. 4761 (1972). 

3 For example, under Mitehell's leadership the Justice Department implemented Titles II (expanding 
federal wiretapping powers) and III (weakcriing the strict exclusionary rules developad after the Supreme 
Court's ruling in Mirandi v. .\ri:onn) of the Safe Streets Act of 1965. In addition the deoartrn'-nt has sought 
and obtained new lpgi-;l ition such as the D.C. Crim ' Bill, the Organized Crime Act of 1970 and the Compre- 
hensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which greatly expanded federal law enforcement 
powers. Thes? three bills include a number of provisions of dulnous consfitutiona'.ity, such 'as authority for 
preventive detention of suspects, for police to ent-.^r homes without warning ("no-knock"), for courts to 
impose greatly expanded sentences for "dangerous special offenders," and for grand juries to function with 
increised powers. 

* A recent federal court ruling on another matter describes the congressional intent not to create a national 
police force through the LEAA program, in Ely v. VeUe, 451 F.2d 1131, at 1130 (4th Cir. 1972), the court 
stated: "The dominant concern of Congress apparently was to guard against any tendency toward federal- 
ization of local poUce and law enforcement, agencies." Congress f.-^ared that "overbroad federal control of 
state law enforcement could result in the creation of an Orwellian 'federal police force.' . . . The legislative 
history reflects the congressional purpose to shield the routine operations of local Dolice forces from ongoing 
control by LEAA — a control which conceivably could turn the local police into an arm of the federal 
government." 

> The courts can and do protect individuals' constitutional rights when they are specifically threatened by 
overt government action. But judicial intervention is, by nature, episodic and primarily remedial rather 
than preventive. Until government overreaching ripens into concrete, demonstrable injury— such as the use 
of illegal evidence at trial, the loss of employment or the disbanding of a political organization— the courts 

will not recognize that it is harmful. See, for examnle, Laird v. Taturn, U.S. _, 40 U.S.L.W. 48.50 (.Tune 

26, 1972), rejecting a claim that military surveillance of persons involved in domestic political activities 
violates the Constitution. 

• In many ways these data banks are far more threatening than those maintained by criminal justice 
agencies. 'The over-all problem of computers and privacy is well presented in Miller, Assault on Privacy: 
Computers, Datn. Banks and Dossiers (1972), and in the hearings cited above, n. 2. 

' Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee Hearings, March 11, 1971, p. 671. 



42 



Computerized criminal history files 

When the LEAA program began, a few states had established centralized files 
of criminal offender histories to assist police departments in the identification 
and prosecution of suspects. For example, New York State's Identification and 
Intelligence System (NYIIS), operating on an annual budget in excess of $5 
million, had more than two or three million fingerprints and 500,000 summary 
criminal histories on its computer. « Additional fingerprints and criminal histories 
existed in manual files. Included in both the files were "criminal wanteds" for 
felonies and misdemeanors, escapees from penal institutions, parole and probation 
absconders, elopees from mental institutions and missing persons. More than 
3,600 local law enforcement agencies submitted information to the files and used 
them to check out suspects and new arrests. Other states, such as California, 
Michigan and Florida, were developing systems, but for the most part centralized, 
compiiterized recordkeeping was rudimentary. The extent to which the state files 
expedited or otherwise improved law enforcement had not been demonstrated. 

At the national level the FBI maintained the National Crime Information 
Center (NCIC). This system operated through local law enforcement control 
terminals (as of early 1972 there were 102 terminals, of which 48 were com- 
puterized) that put the FBI in direct touch with approximately 4,000 of the 
nation's 40,000 local law enforcement agencies. NCIC cost about $2.3 million per 
year to operate. The system contained files on stolen items, such as vehicles, 
firearms, boats and securities, and on wanted persons. Of the 3.1 million NCIC 
files, only about 300,000 were active criminal offender records. On an average, 
the NCIC system found a record or produced a "hit" on about 6 percent of the 
queries it received from local agencies (some estimates have been as low as 2 
percent). In addition to the NCIC system, the FBI maintained more than 190 
million identification and fingerprint files and approximately 20 million criminal 
offender records in permanent manual files. 

Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies all contributed information 
to and could extract information from the NCIC files. In addition, NCIC records 
were searched as part of the identification service that the FBI provides for agen- 
cies of federal and state governments and other authorized institutions, including 
hospitals and national banks, which seek information on an individual's arrest 
record for purposes of employment clearances and licensing. » 

Todaj- it is clear the NCIC and the few systems such as NYIIS were relatively 
primitive, first generation data banks. In the past three years, with the investment 
of more than $50 million in Institute, discretionary and block grant funds, LEAA 
has launched a program that by 1975 promises computerized criminal history files 
kept by all 50 states that will be tied in to ("interfaced with") a massive national 
file run by the FBI. The states will place in the central FBI file only information 
of public record pertaining to people who have been accused of "serious and other 
significant violations." The central file will consist of comprehensive histories of 
persons who violate federal laws or who commit crimes in more than one state 
and summary histories on offenders who have been involved solely in intrastate 
crimes. 1" Anj'^ authorized inquirers '^ will have access to the central records, and 
will be referred to the relevant state files for further information. The individual 
state systems will include whatever information or intelligence the states choose 
to put into them and will be accessible on terms defined by each state. 

This ambitious centralized program developed out of the System for Electronic 
Analj^sis and Retrieval of Criminal Histories (Project SEARCH), a $16-million 
demonstration project supported by LEAA discretionarj^ and Institute grants, in 

8 NYIIS perfonns a variety of functions in regard to this data: fingerprint processing (not yet computer- 
ized), name searching, wanted system (NCIC interface), personal appearance/arrestee file searches and re- 
view of latent fingerprinting material. (NYIIS Fact Sheet) 

» Executive Order 10450 (April 19.S3) calls for an investigation of any individual appointed "in any depart- 
ment or agency of the government," and provides that "in no event shall the investigation include less than 
a national agency check Cincluding a check of the fingerprint files of the FBI), and written inquiries to 
appropriate local law enforcement agencies . . . ." In Menard v. Mitchell, 328 F. Supp. 718 (D.D.C. 1971), 
the court suggested the Executive Order should be reexamined, but refused to enjoin the use of NCIC for 
tliis purpose. The court did preclude the distribution of arrest records except for law enforcement and 
federal employment purposes, but Congress overruled this exclusion in approving the FBI's 1972 appro- 
priation. (.See n. 20, infra.) 

10 Summary criminal histories contain public record information such as fingerprints (where available), 
personal description, arrests, charges, dates and places of arrest, arresting agencies, court dispositions, 
sentences, limited institutional data and limited information concerning parole and probation. 

" "Authorized inquirers" include any agency that now participates in the FBI's system, plus any agency 
subsequently permitted to do so by the Attorney General. 



43 



which 20 states shared criminal histories through a computerized central data 
index. '2 SEARCH was intended as a prototype for a national computer file which 
would facilitate prompt apprehension of interstate felons. '^ 

The project was funded through the California Council on Criminal Justice. 
Primary developmental responsibility was contracted to Public Systems Inc. 
(PSI), a research and development lirm based in San Jose.'* PSI was aided by task 
forces and advistjrj^ committees composed of representatives from the particiiiating 
states. The major assignment of the SP^ARCll group was to develoj) standard, 
computerized criminal historj^ records, summaries of which could be filed in a 
central index. Computer terminals in the individual states could submit informa- 
tion to the central index and query it for identification of suspects. If the central 
index contained matching references concerning the subject of a query, the sum- 
mary index data was transmitted to the inquiring police officer and he was told 
which state had the full file on the suspect. The officer could then request and 
obtain a copy of the suspect's full record via teletype from the state agenc.v. The 
initial focus of the system — like its predecessors — was on police requirements; 
but the project design anticipated subsequent development of a capability to 
service the information needs of courts and corrections officials as well. ^^ 

On March 9, 1971, LEAA Associate Administrator Richard W. Velde testified 
before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights that: 

The basic problems facing SEARCH in the demonstration period have been solved. 
A common format for criminal histories was developed, and in machine-readable 
form. Each active participant converted at least 10,000 felony records to the SEARCH 
system for the demonstration. As the test period showed, a state making an inquiry 
of the central index with perhaps no more information than a driver's license number 
could find out if that person were in the (national) index and then be switched to the 
state holding the complete criminal history. It takes merely seconds to do all of that 
and receive the information.^^ ? 

Computer exj^erts were less sanguine about the success of the exi^eriment. Some 
noted that only a small number of the SEARCH states had actually participated 
in the demonstration and suggested that the test simply duplicated what the 
FBI's NCIC had already demonstrated. Datamation magazine reported on the 
SEARCH demonstration as follows: 

Ten states officially participated in the demonstration, but only New York made 
any extensive operational uses of the system, and a total of only five states conducted 
any demonstrations. . . . SEARCH met its demonstration objectives from a conceptual 
point of view, but did not achieve much operational success, because of design com- 
promises, lack of updating capability for the central index and failure to develop 
record formats acceptable to all users, among other reasons.^'' 

Despite these criticisms, and over the protests of LEAA Director Jerris Leonard 
and the states that had participated in the project, SEARCH became the launching 
pad for an expanded and "improved" criminal offender sj'stem to be operated by 
the FBI. Transfer of system control to the FBI meant that, instead of a network 
of state-controlled files tied into a limited central index, the SEARCH system 
became a national file run b}' a line operating agenc}'. More importantly, judging 
from the debate on the subject that raged for months, FBI control meant dimin- 
ished operational standards for the sj'stem's integrity, and attenuation of safe- 
guards for individual privacy. 



12 The states participating in the SEARCH experiment were Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New 
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Washington. 

13 As the FBI put it: "The purpose of centralization . . . is to contend with increasing criminal mobility." 
(NCIC Advisory Board, "Computerized History Program: Background, Concepts and Policy," as ap- 
proved March 31, 1971, and amended Aug. 31, 1971). FBI data show that 2.5 percent of arrests involve inter- 
state movement by felons. A preliminary survey by SEARCH put the figure at around 27 percent but 
estimated that most of these arrests were in contiguous states. 

i« Eight of PSI's key personnel are from Sylvania Sociosystems Lab (a research and development arm of 
GTE Sylvania), and one is the former head of California's SPA, the Cahfornia Council on Criminal Justice. 

15 We disagree with LEAA's assumption that across-the-board increases in offender data are desirable for 
all decision-making processes witliin the criminal justice system. For example, arrest records not followed by 
convictions or juvenile offenses probably should not be made available to sentencing judges or to parole 
boards. LEAA recently made a grant to the Federal Judicial Center to finance the transfer of all data proc- 
essed through the federal courts to the Justice Department. Sen. Ervin has questioned the propriety of this 
arrangement under the separation of powers principle. (Letter of July 27, 1972, from Sen. Erviu to the Hon. 
Alfred P. Murrah, Federal Judicial Center.) 

19 Senate C onat it utional Rights Subcommittee Hearings, p. 611. 

1' Phil Hirsch, Datamation magazine, June 15, 1971, pp. 28-31. 



44 



The conflict between the FBI and the Project SEARCH group had emerged in 
May 1970. In a letter dated May 8, 1970, Jerome J. Daunt, then director of the 
FBI's NCIC system, wrote to the SEARCH group complaining about various 
recommendations in the Interim Report of the SEARCH Committee on Security 
and Privacy. Among other items, the letter stated: 

Throughout the report Project SEARCH is described as an ongoing system. Future 
developments of this system are not the proper objectives of the Project SEARCH 
group. . . . 

In view of the limited purpose of the Project SEARCH, further studies in the area 
of privacy and security are not justified. If there is a need, it should be done by some 
other body. 

The conflict became more pointed. In a letter of Oct. 15, 1970, John F. X. Irving, 
then chairman of the state planning agency's executive committee, wrote to 
Attorney General Mitchell protesting the proposed transfer of control over the 
SEARCH sj-stem to the FBI as well as certain "changes in direction" of the 
system. Irving complained that duplication would result because the states 
intended to continue developing their own sj'stems ^^ and protested that the 
FBI's plan to focus on data useful to the police only ignored the needs of courts 
and corrections agencies. Irving also argued that the FBI system, by dealing 
directly with city police departments instead of going through the states, would 
subvert the federal-state relationship contemplated by the Safe Streets Act. 

The strongest protest in Irving's letter was directed to the potential invasions 
of privacy inherent in a federal information system. 

Last, but certainly not least, the FBI's proposed file is significantly different in 
both conception and content from the state-held files contanplated by Project SEARCH. 
The basic underlying concept of Project SEARCH is that no new national data 
hanks or criminal history fiL"s should be created because of the inherent threats to 
individual privacy and the security of records. The Project SEARCH operating 
concept is state-hdd files with a national index or directory of offenders. . . . The 
FBI file, on thz other hand, would contain as much detailed data on offenders as the 
FBI was willing and able to collect. It is not a true index but rathei a federal data 
bank on offenders. 

The FBI countered that expanding SEARCH as a state-dominated sj'stem 
would increase the over-all costs and would duplicate the NCIC system. More 
importantly", a system subject to the control of 50 state executives could be abused 
too easily. As Jerome Daunt put it: "If the governor controlled the system, he 
could control who gets elected." 

The protests by the states and by Jerris Leonard were to no avail. The FBI 
took control of the SEARCH index in December 1970. The decision was John 
Mitchell's. In November 1971 the bureau notified the press that: 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun operation of a computerized criminal 
history data bank Chat eventually will give police almost instantaneous access to an 
individual's crimirial arrest record from all 50 states and some federal investigative 
agencies and the courts. . . . The system . . . will make available by 1975 on a 
nationwide computer network most of the information now handled through the FBI's 
vast criminal record and fingerprint files. . . . It replaces a pilot effort, called Proj- 
ect SEARCH, in which only a computerized index was maintained, capable of telling 
police if a suspect had a record.^^ 

Although the November 1971 announcement signaled the end of LEAA control 
of the system, the agency has continued to be involved in the development and 
expansion of information systems. Project SEARCH has been given discretionary 
and research grants for developing related technology, such as satellite transmis- 
sion of information, automatic fingerprint identification/verification and additional 
work on transaction-based criminal justice statistics. And LEAA block grants 
have continued to serve as the primary source of funding for the state information 
systems that will be the major components of the NCIC criminal history infor- 
mation system. Despite LEAA's expressed concern for privacy considerations in 
the operation of information systems, it has not sought to precondition the use 
of its funds for such systems on the development by the states of adequate statu- 
tory or regulatory safeguards. 



1' By altering the basic system design for SEARCH, FBI requirements could increase the cost by 30 to 
40 percent, apart from the possil^le duplication involved. Ial,ei view with Jerry Emmer, LEAA official. 
'" Justice Department news release, November 1971. 



45 



It is difficult to obtain reliable information concerning the present or projected 
scope, cost or structure of the new FBI data bank. At the federal level a variety 
of agencies are scheduled to participate in the system, most of which have been 
previously active in the NCIC system. Among others, the system will receive 
data and answer inquiries from the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service, 
the Alcohol and Tax Division of the Treasury Department, the Bureau of Customs, 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. 
Courts, U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals. As far as the states are concerned, at 
the time of the FBI's November 1971 press release, only one state — Florida — 
was actually contributing information to the file. The next two states — New York 
and California— were not scheduled to participate until July 1972. (As Chapter 
IV shows, California will probably not be ready for full participation until 1973.) 
In most instances, the states do not have their own systems operational— or even 
designed. 

Oificial estimates of the total number of individuals who will eventually be 
included in the national file range from five million (the FBI estimate) to 20 
million or more (the LEAA estimate). The number of files in the total system 
including all the state files will, of course, be much greater. Neither LEAA nor 
the FBI will provide information on the total costs involved. 

Nor is it clear whether the FBI's file will be comprehensive, or simply a summary 
index that refers inquirers to the state files. The FBI has stated that it plans to 
maintain complete files only on offenders who have been arrested in more than 
one state, maintaining ''summary files" on offenders who have been arrested 
within a single state only. State control centers will be able to add or remove 
information from the national file. However, for those states that have not yet 
built a central computerized information file, the FBI is presently maintaining 
complete offender files in both situations. The fact that the agency is presently 
maintaining complete files for all states makes it doubtful that they will subse- 
quently abandon those files. 2° 

The kinds of information to be stored in the data file and the conditions of 
participation in the system are not defined by statute or by formal regulations. 
The only standards regulating the system are those set forth in the NCIC Ad- 
visory Board policy paper.^i Each state seeking to participate in the system must 
sign a contract with the director of the FBI, agreeing to abide by the terms of 
the policy paper and by any "rules, policies and procedures hereinafter adopted 
by NCIC." The contracting state must also agree to indemnify the federal agency 
against any legal claims arising out of the operation of the information system. 
The FBI claims that the majority of the states — "all but three or four," according 
to Daunt, "and those have technical not substantive problems with the sys- 
tem" — have signed the contract and thereby accepted the terms of the policy 
paper. 

The NCIC standards are substantially less rigorous than those developed by 
LEAA's Project SEARCH, and in manj^ instances their adoption was met by 
vigorous objections from LEAA, the SPAs and the Project SEARCH participants. 

Under the NCIC policies, the national file is restricted to data on "serious and 
other significant violations." This is defined by exclusion: 

Excluded from the national index will be juvenile offenders as defined by state law 
(u7iless the juvenile is tried in court as an adult); charges of drunkenness and/or 
vagrancy; certain public order offenses, i.e., disturbing the peace, curfew violations, 
loitering, false fire alarm; traffic violations {except data will be stored on arrests for 
manslaughter, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and 'hit and run'); 
and nonspecific charges of suspicion or investigation.^^ 

2° The basic policies developed for the FBI system by the NCIC Advisory Policy Board state: 

"In the developed system, single state records will become an abbreviated criminal history record in the 
national index with switcliing capability for the states to obtain the detailed record. Such an abbreviated 
record should contain sufficient data to satisfy most inquiry needs, i.e., identification segment, originating 
agency, charge data, disposition of each criterion offense and current status. This will substantially reduce 
storage costs and eliminate additional duplication." 

2' The NCIC Policy Paper, supra n. 13. The board is appointed by and serves at the discretion of the 
director of the FBI. Its members are individuals responsible for the administration on state information 
systems or state or local terminals on the NCIC system. Recently, procedures were introduced for electing 
board members from among participating state officials. It does not include ODnstitutional lawyers, computer 
experts or other nonlaw enforcement representatives. 

« NCIC Policy Paper, supra a. 18, p. 11. 



46 



Narcotic or mental commitment records will be maintained if they are part of 
the criminal justice process. Domestic crimes such as nonsupport or adultery and 
victimless crimes such as homosexuality, gambling and others are considered 
"serious" in some jurisdictions. ^^ Moreover, any state or locality may store addi- 
tional information in its own files, which can be disseminated upon requests 
referred to the state or local poUce department by the central index.^^ Besides the 
criminal record data on serious offenders, the Justice Department has asserted 
an absolute right to keep recoi'ds on persons who are "violence prone" and other 
"persons of interest" for national security reasons. 

Contributions to each individual file depend on participating state and local 
agencies. According to the NCIC poHcy paper, each file is supposed to show arrests, 
charges, the disposition of each case, sentencing details and custody and super- 
vision status, but experience indicates that agencies contributing to the files 
rarely remove arrests records that do not lead to convictions ^s and often include 
damaging extenuating inforination. Personal identification information such as 
name, age, sex and physical descriptio;i are included as well as FBI numbers, 
state numbers, social security numbers, date and place of birth and other miscel- 
laneous numbers. At least one criminal fingerprint card is filed in the FBI identi- 
fication division "to support the computerized criminal history record in the 
natioi^al index." ^* 

No federal law or regulation calls for deletion of out-dated records. The NCIC 
policy paper states: "Each control terminal agency shall follow the law or practice 
of the state . . . with respect to purging/expunging of data entered by that 
agency in the nationally stored data" (p. 12). Most states have no purging re- 
quirements at present. The policy paper endorses the concept of state and federal 
penalties for misuse of the data,^^ and suggests that the individual be given the 
right to see and correct his file, but makes no specific recommendations. Experience 
at the state and local levels indicates that it is extremely difficult for an individual 
to correct an erroneous or incomplete file without resorting to lengthy court 
proceedings. 

The major deficiency in the guidelines and the system as a whole is the absence 
of proper controls on access to the data contained in the files. The policy paper 
states that access will be provided primarily to criminal justice agencies in the 
discharge of their official responsibilities. In addition, "agencies at all govern- 
mental levels which have as a principal function the collection and provision of 
fingerprint identification information" will have access, as will all those agencies 
that presently use NCIC. This means that the files will still be used for clearing 
federal employees and the employees of federal contractors,^^ and the information 



23 HR 1, the welfare reform proposal which was extensively revised by the Senate Finance Committee 
before the 92nd Congress adjourned, would make nonsupport a federal crime and place a special assistant 
U.S. attorney in every judicial district to prosecute violators whose desertion caused their families to po on 
welfare. This new crime would assure that personal data files on welfare recipients will be mingled with the 
files on criminal offenders. 

2< A number of jurisdictions maintain harmful, irrelevant data. The Kansas City, Mo., ALERT System, 
for example, Includes the following categories of infonnation in its computerized WarrantA^'ant Real Time 
Files: "local and national intelligence on parole status; active adult and juvenile arrest records with abstract 
data; area dignitaries; persons with a history of mental disturbance; persons known to have confronted or 
opposed law enforcement personnel in the performance of their duty; college students known to have par- 
ticipated in disturbances primarily on college campus areas." (Statement of Sen. Charles Mathias. March 9, 
1971, Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee Hearings, p. ,576.) 

" The inclusion of arrest records that do not lead to conviction is particularly onerous. In 20 to 30 percent 
of arrests, the police do not bring charges for a variety of reasons including mistaken identification, lack of 
evidence, etc. Yet only eight states have statutes providing for expungement of such records. And of the 
eight, only one allows expungement of arrest records for an individual who has had a previous conviction. 

26 NCIC Policy Paper, supra n. 13. 

2' At present the only penalty for misuse of data maintained in the NCIC system is the provision in 28 
use § .534 allowing the FBI to withdraw the privilege of participating in the exchange system from an 
agency that fails to abide by NCIC standards. As the exercise of that sanction means that the agency would 
also cease contributing data to NCIC, the provision has been invoked rarely. 18 USC § 1905 provides weak 
criminal sanctions for the disclosure of confidential financial information by federal officials. It would not 
extend to the state participants in the NCIC system, and it protects only white-collar criminals whose 
offenses involve financial misdealings. 

28 Federal contractors such as Lockheed Aircraft have in the p.ast obtained such records from the federal 
departments with which they do business. 



47 



will be shared with federally insured banks, hospitals, insurance companies, etc.^' 

At the state level, the N YIIS experience suggests that a wide range of state 
agencies and some private firms will have access to the tiles for clearing potential 
employees or licensees.^" The guidelines provide that state agencies (except for 
criminal justice agencies) cannot use the data in connection with licensing or state 
and local employment, luiless "legislative action at the state and federal level or 
Attorney General Regulations" provide otherwise. But, as the New York ex- 
perience shows, a number of states already have clearance authorization laws, and, 
since Congress has authorized the sharing of identification information with such 
states — -with the approval of the Attorney General — the exclusion promises to 
be of limited value. (The Attorney General has never withheld approval from a 
state agencj^ seeking access.) Even if approval or clearance should be denied, local 
policy will inevitably determine the terms of access because the NCIC system 
lacks adequate sanctions to apply to nonconforming states. At least one state, 
Iowa, is considering making the information available to anyone willing to pay 
for it.3> 

The looseness of the access jjrovisions becomes more ominous in view of the 
parallel rapid growth of law enforcement intelligence files containing sensitive and 
unsubstantiated information. ^2 In addition, the provisions virtually invite linkages 
with information files maintained by public and private agencies. LEAA is 
presently cooperating with HUD and several other federal agencies to fund ex- 
perimental programs in six cities ^^ that will provide city managers or mayors 
with "integrated municipal information systems" (IMIS) for management pur- 
poses. The IMIS is being promoted by theNational League of Cities as a "sig- 
nificantly new approach to the process of local government itself," one "that will 
require a degree of commitment and level of expenditure by municipalities which 
has never before been associated with computer-based systems." The new sys- 
tems will eventually include data from all urban service departments — police, 
welfare, schools, etc. — as well as underlying demographic and other facts that 
could be useful in making urban management decisions. The enlarged, organized 
data base supposedly will point lo new relationships aniong urban problems, and 
consequently will improve policy-making. 

The IMIS could present serious problems; total recall of statistics could be 
extremely harmful to the individual citizen. As Robert Knisely, the director of the 
program has written: 

If vital stalislics, and school, employment and criminal justice records can be pulled 
together on a named individual at will, a child's teachers may find oxtt he is illegitimate, 
his poor grades may keep him from getting a job, his lack of a job may lead to crime and 
his criminal justice records may keep him permanently unemployed}^ 

Although Knisely sees certain potential benefits in the program, he concludes 
that they are overbalanced by the likelihood that neither the courts nor the legisla- 
tures will exert adequate control over the emerging technology. In any event, 
the possibility that criminal information files will become a part of a larger city- 
wide integrated information system is a real one. In California, Iowa and other 

25 On Dec. 3, 1971, Congress approved, as part of the fiscal 1972 FBI appropriation, the following blanket 
authorization for the distribution of FBI data: 

"The funds provided in the Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 1972, for Salaries and Expenses, 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, may be used, in addition to those uses authorized thereunder, for the 
exchange of identification records with officials of federally chartered or insured banking institutions to pro- 
mote or maintain the security of those institutions, and, if authorized by state statute and approved by the 
Attorney General, to ofllcials of state and local governments for purposes of employment and licensing, 
any such exchange to be made only for the oflicial use of any such official and subject to the same restric- 
tion with respect to dissemination as that provided for under the aforementioned Act." {Congressional 
Record, Dec. 3, 1971, S 20461.) 

In 1972 a proposal was submitted to Congress to reverse the 1971 action. At the time of this report that 
proposal, an amendment to the pending Justice Department appropriations bill, was before a House-Senate 
Conference Committee. In the meantime the Justice Department (through Sen. Hruska) introduced 
S. 3834 (HR 15929) to assure the broad availability of FBI records. 

3" See letter from Aryeh Neier. executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, to Sen. Sara J. 
Er\nn (D N.C.), March 23, 1971 (copy on file with the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights), 
listing state agencies with access to N YIIS files. 

31 Des Moines Sunday Register, July 2, 1972, p. 3A. 

32 We have already pointed out that LEAA is funding regional and state intelligence networks for the col- 
lection and analysis of data on organized crime, as well as state and local intelligence-gathering systems on 
civil disorders and militants and other nonconformers. Because of the difficulty of standardizing intelligence 
information, it is unlikely that interstate computer exchange of such data will be realized, at least for some 
time. However, once the data are centralized at the state level under the auspices of the agency responsible 
for operating the central criminal information files, it becomes accessible to other state or federal agencies 
who will be directed to the state of record through the NCIC system. And the Attorney General has the 
power under the present statutory scheme to combine federal investigative and intelligence files with the 
NCIC criminal offendei files. 

23 The IMIS cities are: Dayton, St. Paul, Long Beach, Calif., Reading, Pa., Charlotte, N.C., and Wichita 
Falls, Tex. Other jurisdictions are combining criminal justice computer data with information from other 
public agencies on their own. 

3< Knisely, Robert A., "The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge— Privacy Problems in Integrated Municipal 
Information Systems," Dec. 7, 1971, p. 7. 



48 



jurisdictions, data from a variety of social service agencies are already being com- 
bined in a single administrative unit that is also responsible for criminal justice 
data.35 

Beyond I MIS, which is a deliberate, small-scale experiment, it is likely that 
private and public decisionmakers will step up their generalized demands for 
whatever data are available on the individuals with whom they are concerned.^^ 
Senator Sam Ervin (D-N.C.) has described the problem this way: 

*' Interrelationship" is the key word here. Once the correlating process begins on 
individual personal data in the many files of government, all the weaknesses and limita- 
tions of the computer as a machine will he operating on a grand scale to make possible a 
massive invasion of the privacy of millions, and it raises the specter of a possible 
program of routine denial of due process. Interagency, inter-business networks are 
being established of computers that talk only to each other. Decisions affecting a per- 
son's job, retirement benefits, security clearance, credit rating or many other rights 
may be made without benefit of a hearing or confrontation of the evidence. 

The computer reduces his opportunity to talk back to the bureaucrats. It removes 
his chances to produce documents, photographs or other evidence to alter a decision.^'' 

The problem of potential linkages between criminal justice system and other 
governmental files on individuals has been centered in a debate that has plagued 
the new system since its inception. The NCIC guidelines initially required partici- 
pating states to utilize computers "dedicated" to law enforcement uses only and 
managed by law enforcement personnel. Many of the states have opposed this 
policy on the grounds that dedicated computers cost more and, in some cases, 
that state law requires that all computer systems be centralized under the control 
of the governor.38 According to Donald Roderick, Jerome Daunt's successor, 
the FBI will now permit each state to set its own rules in accordance with existing 
provisions for statewide computer administration. If a decision is reached to use 
a nondedicated computer, however, that state must make a showing that the 
criminal justice data are under the control of law enforcement officials. 

The Need for New Legislation 

Neither the FBI nor LEAA, the two agencies of the Justice Department with 
the resources or powers to impose regulatory controls, has developed adequate 
safeguards for the fast-growing computer files on criminal offenders. The NCIC 
guidelines are inadequate. As we have indicated, most of them are nonspecific, 
relying on state statutes to spell out specific protections. Since most of the states 
have no regulatory legislation on the books and the few laws that have been 
passed are inadequate, the system affords little protection against abuse. Further, 
the enforcement of the few NCIC standards that are binding depends exclusively 
on the FBI's willingness to exclude a noncomplying state from the system. This 
ultimate sanction has never been invoked. 

Project SEARCH developed more comprehensive privacy and operational 
guidelines,'^ but these guidelines are advisor}^ onh', and not legally binding on 
the states. LEAA has been unwilling to impose the SEARCH standards as a 
condition of its grants. It has simply suggested that states contemplating the 
purchase of information systems with LEAA money "ensure that adequate 
provisions are made for system security, for protection of individual privacj' and 
the insurance of the integrity and accuracj'' of the data collection." 



3' Iowa's TRACTS (Traffic Records and Criminal Justice Information System), for example, will connect 
with the state's Department of Public Instruction, the Department of Social Services and others. And the 
California CLETS system (see Chapter TV) will be able to relate to records from the public schools. 

3« In recognition of this growing tendency and the immense data flies available through his department , 
particularly those tied into social security numbers (as is the NCIC system), HEW Secretary Elliot L. 
Richardson has appointed an Advisory Committee on Automated Personnel Data Systems to develop 
safeguards to "protect against potentially harmful consequences to privacy and due process." (See "Charter 
of the Secretarv's Advisorv Committee on Automated Personnel Data S^•stems," Feb. 27, 1972.) 

" "The Coniputer and Individual Privacy," address of Sen. Sam J. Ervin (D N.C.) to the American 
Management Association, March 6, 1967. 

^ Jerris Leonard sided with the states, sa3ring, "As long as I am here, we are going to carry out the philos- 
ophy of this administration and that is the states will decide what they need ... If the FBI doesn't want 
to provide the service, we'll find someone else." (Washington Evening Star, Jan. 22, 1972.) In addition the 
National Association for State Information Systems formally protested the dedication requirement to 
Attorney General Mitchell. 

2' See Technical Report No. 2, July 1970, "Security and Privacy Considerations in Criminal History 
Information Systems," prepared by the Project SEARCH Committee on Security and Privacy. The com- 
mittee has also prepared a model state statute and model regulations for the governance of state information 
sj-stems. These have been introduced but not acted upon in several state legislalnres. 



49 



Congress anticipated the need for regulation of the growing law enforcement 
information network in 1970 and added an amendment to the Safe Streets Act 
requiring LEAA to submit legislation b.y May 1, 1971, to ensure: 

The integrity and accuracy of criminal justice data collection, processing and 
dissemination systems funded in whole or in part by the federal government, and pro- 
tecting the constitutional rights of all persons covered or affected by such systems. 

On Sept. 20, 1971, Senator Roman Hruska (R-Ncb.) introduced S. 2546, "The 
Criminal Justice Information Systems Security and Privacy Act of 1971," on 
behalf of the Administration. The bill essentially would codify the standards 
establislied by the NCIC policy board and give the Attorney General the authority 
to alter the scope of the national system as he deems necessar\'. The bill, which 
has been severely criticized for failing to provide adequate protection against 
misuse of data, was never assigned to an appropriate subcommittee for hearings. 

In addition in 1970 Congress mandated the creation of a National Commission 
on Individual Rights to study, among other things, the impact "of the accumulation 
of data on individuals by federal agencies as authorized by law or "required by 
executive action" and to determine which practices "are effective, and whether 
they infringe upon the individual rights of the people of the United States." 
(Section 12, The Organized Crime Bill of 1970.) This provision has never been 
imjjlemented. 

There are serious questions whether the state and national computerized files 
are necessary, whether they are worth their cost, both social and financial, and 
whether they work. Perhaps with more experience the FBI or LEAA will develop 
a convincing case concerning the manner in which the computerized information 
systems have developed. However, the Justice Department has not yet confronted 
the very real problems that the new NCIC system is creating, particularly in 
regard to governmental overreaching, invasions of privacy and infringement of 
basic constitutional rights. 

Underlying the deficiencies of the new NCTC criminal offender records system 
is the vagueness of the legislation under which it operates. 28 USC § 534 enables 
the Attorney General to set up (and alter) a system to "acquire, collect, classify 
and preserve identification, criminal identification, crime and other Tccoi^ds." and to 
"exchange these records with, and for the official use of, authorized o'ficials of the 
federal government, the states, cities and penal and other institutions." (Emphasis 
added.) The statute contains no standards; and despite the fact that the Attorney 
General has full power to do so, no regulations have ever been issued to govern the 
information system except to delegate the Attorney General's administrative 
authority to the FBI (28 CFR § 0.85). 

In addition to the question of the Justice Department's statutory power, 
several aspects of the system as it is presenth' administered raise importaiit con- 
stitutional questions. To include information unrelated to criminal convictions in 
the state files (and by automatic referral in the national file) may well \iolate the 
First Amendment and the due process and equal protection clauses of the United 
States Constitution. 

For example, on numerous occasions the Supreme Court has held or indicated 
that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantee of due process protects 
individuals from injury caused by public bodies acting without giving the individ- 
ual the opportunity to challenge or clarify the factual assumptions on which the 
agency is operating.^" The protection against arbitrary action and the right to be 
heard apply even when the activities involved do not entail direct civil or criminal 
penalties, and extend to the circulation by the government of prejudicial informa- 
tion. 

In Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath,*^ the Supreme Court con- 
fronted a situation remarkably similar to that posed by certain aspects of the 
present-day Justice Department data distribution program. Ruling that the 
Attorney General must provide an opportunity for a hearing before including an 
organization on his subversive list, Justice Felix Frankfurter stated: 



" See, e.g.. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McOrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951); Greene v. McElroy, 360 
U.S. 474 (19.59). 

*i Supra, n. 40. Although the Attorney General was ordered to Institute proper procedures before adding 
an organization to the subversive list, the majority of the Court did not join any one opinion. Justice Frank- 
furter's constitutional reasoning has become the most noted of the opinions entered in that case. In Wisconsin 
V. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971), the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a Wisconsin statute author- 
izing local authorities to post public notices prohibiting the sale of liquor to persons who drink excessively, 
without affording the interdicted individual a right to challenge the determination. 



50 



The heart of the mailer is thai democracy implies respect for the elementary rights of 
m,en, however suspect or unmorthy; a democratic government must therefore practice 
fairness; and fairness can rarely be obtained by secret one-sided determination of 
facts decisive of rights. . . . No better instrument har been devised for arriving at truth 
than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and 
opportunity to meet it. . . . The Attorney General is certainly not immune from the 
historic requirements of fairness merely because he acts, however conscientiously, in 
the name of security. 341 U.S. at 170-174. 

Under the new NCIC system the federal and state agencies which disseminate 
background intelligence information or data pertaining to arrests not followed by 
conviction, without giving the subject the chance to clarify or correct his record, 
could be found in violation of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth 
Amendments. 

It is also quite possible that the NCIC criminal history file violates the equal 
protection clause, by magnifj^ng the consequences of present discriminatory 
police practices. Because the data it collects focus on street crimes and offenses that 
tend to be committed by the disadvantaged and minorities, and because of its in- 
discriminate inclusion of data on arrests for ill-defined crimes (such as arrests for 
suspicion) and arrests not followed by charges or convictions, the NCIC file rein- 
forces the existing class and racial bias of the criminal justice system. Arrests for 
"suspicion" or "investigation," for vagrancy and other vague crimes, constitute 
a major form of police discrimination against blacks and Chicanos. Keeping 
permanent computerized files of such arrests (and in some cases convictions) adds 
another layer of discrimination to the criminal justice s.ystem, encouraging sur- 
veillance, the imposition of stiflFer penalties, etc., on minorities. When such records 
are made available to employers, discrimination in the hiring process is com- 
pounded. (See Gregory v. Litton Systems.) *^ 

■ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. LEAA is investing substan- 
tially in the creation of a national computerized criminal offender information file 
serving state and local contributors and users. The files at present contain too much 
information and are accessible to too many agencies, including private business con- 
cerns. Few safeguards protect legitimate rights of personal privacy or prevent use of the 
information in a discriminatory manner. Standing alone, the new information sys- 
tems requi)e immediate and comprehensive regulations and controls. The potential 
harm that they could inflict, however, is made even more critical by (a) the coincident 
development of new state-level intelligence files on civil disorders and dangerous persons 
that are maintained by the same agencies that administer the information files and that 
are accessible to participants in the national system, and (b) the rapid expansion of 
computerized records on individuals maintained by welfare, health, education and other 
public and private agencies that can be (and have been) readily interfaced with the 
criminal offender files. To ensure integrity and fairness of such systems: 

No further federal funds should be distributed for the operation, expansion or 
development of state and/or national information systems prior to the completion of a 
study by a neutral and reputable scientific body — stich as the National Academy of 
Sciences or the National Commission on Individual Rights — setting forth the policy 
options facing the nation in regard to such systems. In particular, the study should 
examine: the necessity for various possible kinds of information (and intelligence) 
systems to effective law enforcement ; the most appropriate structure (s) for such systems 
(centralized, decentralized, state controlled, law enforcement controlled, etc.); the 
kinds of safeguards that can and should be built into such systems; the relationship of the 
data banks developed under such systans to other data banks; and the proper forms for 
public regulation of such systems. 

If a national or multi-state criminal justice information system is found to be 
justified after the full report by the independent body, federal legislation should be 
passed creating an affirmative right to privacy, which would require the government to 
justify in advance any activity that would conflict with that right. In addition, regula- 
tory laws should be passed to control all information systems (1) developed and main- 
tained by agencies of the federal government, (2) operated by state or local agencies but 
supported wholly or partly by federal funds and (3) interfacing with federal systems or 



«316 F. Supp. 401 (CD. Calif. 1970). The President's Commission on Federal Statistics. Vol. HI (1971), 
p. .'>46, reported: "An applicant who lists a previous arrest faces at best a 'second trial' in which, without 
procedural safeguards, he must prove his innocence; at worst the listing of the arrest disqualifies him per se. 
The arrest record is the first of a series of status degradation ceremonies in the criminal law process." The 
commission pointed to the fact that in a recent survey of 39 counties, not one lists arrests that have not led to 
convictions. "The 'criminal record' in these 39 counties includes only convictions, and often only those for 
serious crimes" (p. ."^48). For a detailed treatment of the problems inherent in the broad dissemination of 
arrest lecords, see Security and-Pripaai of Criminal Arrest Records. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 4 of 
tlie House Committee on the Judiciary, 02nd Congress, 2nd Session (April 1972). 



51 



federally supported systems. {If such legislation is not passed, the Attorney General 
should issue formal regulations under his present powers.) Among the kinds of safe- 
guards that should be considered for inclusion in the legislation are the following: 

# The legislation should spell out with specificity (rather than defining by exclusion) 
the scope of the criminal history offender files and the matter to be included therein. 
Only serious crimes that pose actual danger to the public and are likely to involve 
interstate mobility should be included.*^ The national file should contain only iden- 
tifying data, records of active arrests, convictions and sentencing and an identification 
of the state agency maintaining the full records. Records of arrests not followed by 
indictment or information within one year, or conviction within two years, should 
be deleted from the files. When a criminal law is repealed, the record of prior violations 
of it should be deleted from the computer. Ari affirmative obligation should be placed 
on all participating states to delete such information from their own files as well as the 
FBI files. Failure to do so should result in termination of participation in the system 
and imposition of financial penalties. 

# Specific congressional approval should be required for any expansion or modifica- 
tion of the initial system, such as a decision to interface with other data banks within 
the Justice Department or other federal agencies. 

# The legislation should provide for operation and/or monitoring of the national 
system by an independent agency or commission that toould conduct audits and 
spot-checks on both the operating agency and the contributing agencies, and would 
report annually (and periodically, as requested) to Congress. The commission, which 
should include constitutional lawyers, representatives of citizen's groups and other 
civilians, would share responsibility with the operating agencies for the development 
of detailed guidelines to govern the operation of the system. No state should be allowed 
to participate in the federal system until such time as it has passed its own statute 
reflecting the national standards, creating a state monitoring body and providing for 
the protection of individuals whose records are included in the system. 

# Each individual should be granted the right of access, notice and challenge to all 
information pertaining to him. A person should receive notification when his file is 
opened, and upon each entry he should be informed of his right to access and challenge. 
During a challenge, to protect the individual from incomplete and inaccurate informa- 
tion, an embargo should be placed on use of the information. 

# The legislation itself should establish general standards for the operation of the 
system and should require the Attorney General to issue more specific, mandatory 
regulations to govern dissemination of the information to criminal justice agencies, 
the courts and corrections institutions and other public agencies. The information 
should be graded so that only the summary computer record (not access to supplementary 
state investigative files) will be available to certain recipients, such as federal and state 
employers, or courts seeking to determine sentences.*^ 

(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the 
record :) 

Mr. Gray. Before responding to the request of Senator Mathias that I comment 
on the conclusions and recommendations contained at the end of Chapter II of the 
pubHcation "Law and Disorder III," I would like to remind the Committee that 
there has been furnished for the record a paper dated September 20, 1972, cap- 
tioned "National Crime Information Center (NCIC), Computerized Criminal 
History Program, Background, Concept and Policy as approved by the NCIC 
Advisory Policy Board." A close analysis of this paper, I think, will show that we 
in law enforcement have recognized not only the need for applying computer 
technology to law enforcement's needs but also the absolute necessity for stringent 
safeguards to protect privacy rights. 

Further, I believe it pertinent to point out that the FBI operates only the one 
computerized information system and that is NCIC. We are not associated with 
any other systems that are operating or under development at the Federal level. 

« This would remove most victimless crimes from the file as well as the other petty offenses that are most 
subject to enforcement patterns that are socially discriminatory. 

" The legislation should probably also waive sovereign immunity on behalf of the United States and make 
them jointly liable with any individual who disseminates information to an unauthorized recipient, on a 
strict liabihty basis. The law should include minimum damage penalties, attorneys' foes, and a provision 
for treble damages; the individual defendant and the governmental employer shall have the burden of prov- 
ing a good-faith effort to make sure that the recipient did have authority to request and receive the infonna- 
tion, in order to escape punitive and treble damages. The same sanctions should apply for dissemination of 
erroneous information. U.S. district courts should be given jurisdiction without regard to the amount in 
controversy. 



oZ 



We do not plan to become a part of any such systems. Please bear in mind that the 
only computerized data in the NCIC system is information on wanted persons, 
stolen articles, and criminal histories. 

We have studied Chapter II and disagree with many of the observations and 
inferences expressed. The authors have based their recommendations and conclu- 
sions on many of these questionable statements. I will address mj-self to the 
areas wherein we disagree by commenting specifically on each of the recom- 
mendations and conclusions. I must confine my remarks primarily to the NCIC 
system because we do not possess any detailed knowledge of other systems alluded 
to in Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law report. 

The first conclusion of the report is that too nmch information is being placed 
into a computerized form; too many agencies, including private business concerns, 
have access to this computerized data; and few safeguards exist to protect the 
right of personal privacy. 

All of the information in NCIC is needed by law enforcement agencies and 
other criminal justice agencies on a daily basis and enables them to carry out 
their responsibilities in a much more efficient manner. 

I frankly do not believe the authors have any sincere argument that a com- 
puterized file on wanted persons and stolen articles threatens any rights of an 
individual. 

The authors make the statement that the NCIC Criminal History File possibly 
violates "the equal protection clause." I cannot agree with this contention. In 
simple terms, what we have set out to do, with respect to the criminal history file, 
is to put into a digital form for computer storage information concerning the stages 
of a criminal offender's formal contacts with the criminal justice agencies, i.e., 
information to identif.v him, data on arrest and charge, what the court action was, 
and custody or supervision status. All of this information is a matter of public 
record. It is the same information already on hand in a manual format in the FBI 
Identification Division. The progiam we have imderwaj'^ is to computerize the 
information so that it can readily be obtained in a much more rapid manner. The 
file will contain no other information. In fact, the NCIC policy paper clearlj' states 
that " Data included in the system must be limited to that with the characteristics 
of public record." 

We have provided safeguards designed to control the dissemination of criminal 
history data and to restrict its availability. Brieflj^ stated, criminal history data is 
available outside the Federal Government only to criminal justice agencies for 
criminal justice purposes, unless other dissemination is specifically provided for by 
Federal or state statutes. I believe it worthwhile to quote the following excerpt 
from the NCIC policj*: "This precludes the dissemination of such data for use in 
connection with licensing or local or state employment, other than with a criminal 
justice agency, or for other uses unless such dissemination is pursuant to state and 
Federal statutes. There are no exceptions." 

We require each state control terminal having the ability to accept the criminal 
history file of NCIC to sign an agreement to abide by the NCIC policy. The agree- 
ment specifically provides that service will be immediatelj' suspended if securit.y or 
dissemination requirements as detailed in the NCIC policy paper are violated. I 
can assure the Committee the FBI most certainly will cause immediate termination 
of service to any agency guilty of unauthorized dissemination of data. The state 
people know this. They need the NCIC service and I do not foresee a problem. In 
this respect, 1 would like to point out that since 1924 the FBI has been exchanging 
arrest data, in the form of identification records (so-called "rap sheets"), with 
local and state agencies. There have been only a verj^ few instances where an 
agency has been found to have allowed unauthorized use of such information and 
in those cases we have taken action, including the discontinuance of the identifica- 
tion service. 

By reason of the well-defined safeguards under which the NCIC sj-stem operates, 
I just cannot accept the assertion that private business concerns have access to 
criminal history data. 

The Law and Disorder III report states that comprehensive controls are needed 
because the states are developing systems that have "intelligence files on civil dis- 
orders and dangerous persons" which are accessible to participants in the national 
system. Further, it is alleged that computerized data maintained by welfare, 
health, education and other public and private agencies can and has been inter- 
faced with the criminal offender files. 

We are not in a position to comment on whether the states are creating com- 
puterized intelligence files because any such files would not be a part of the NCIC 



63 



system. I can make the positive statement that the FBI has no such intelligence 
files in NCIC nor do we have any plan to develop such files. I can also assure 
you that the NCIC system as designed and operating makes it absolutely impos- 
sible for the NCIC computer to obtain information from a state intelligence file. 
Further, it is likewise impossible for any particular state or Federal computer or 
terminal to direct a message through the NCIC computer for the purpose of 
inquiring into another state intelligence file. 

The validity of the statement in the report to the effect that computers of public 
and private agencies (I presume the authors are not making reference to criminal 
justice agencies) can and have been interfaced with computers containing crim- 
inal offender files is highly questionable. We know of no such situation as alluded 
to by the authors and honestly doubt that any criminal justice agency would 
permit this kind of access. 

The NCIC policy paper specifically delineates who can access criminal history 
data, i.e., police departments, prosecutive agencies, courts, correctional depart- 
ments, parole commissions, identification agencies, and state agencies which by 
statute have as their sole function the operation of a criminal justice information 
system. In addition, NCIC requires that any and all equipment capable of 
directly interfacing with the NCIC computer be under the management control 
of a criminal justice agency. 

Another requirement in the NCIC policy is that criminal history records will 
not be centrally stored or controlled in "data bank" systems containing noncrim- 
inal justice-related information such as welfare, hospital, education, revenue, 
voter registration, and other noncriminal files. 

The Lawyers' Committee recommends no further Federal funding of state 
and/or national information systems until an independent study has been made 
to establish: 

1. "Necessity for various kinds of information (and intelligence) systems to 
effective law enforcement," 

2. "The most appropriate structure (s) for such systems (centralized, decen- 
tralized, state controlled, law enforcement controlled, etc.)," 

3. "The kinds of safeguards that can and should be built into systems," 

4. "The relationships of the data banks developed under such systems to 
other data banks," 

5. "The proper forms for public regulations of such systems." 

In 1967, The President's Crime Commission asserted there was a need for 
". . . an integrated national information system to serve the combined needs 
at the national, state, regional and metropolitan or county levels of the police, 
courts, and correction agencies, and of the public and research community" 
(Page 267, Chapter 11, Science and Technology, "The Challenge of Crime in a 
Free Society"). The NCIC system was designed and implemented to fill this 
need. The system is fulfilling the need as evidenced by the enthusiastic and 
extensive use being made of it. There are now nearly 4,000,000 records on file. 
Approximatelj" 100,000 transactions per day are being made and the file is averag- 
ing approximately 800 "hits" per day. 

The system concept and limitations as to type of data filed in NCIC (no intel- 
ligence or unverified information) have been carefully and minutely documented 
in the NCIC policy paper to which all participants must adhere. Security safe- 
guards are carefully delineated in this document to insure individual privacy 
rights are protected. Sanctions are prescribed and will be imposed in the event of 
violations. 

The Lawyers' Committee recommends that legislation be enacted that will 
limit criminal histor}^ files to "only serious crimes that pose actual danger to the 
public and are likely to involve interstate mobility. . ." Present NCIC policy 
has already taken cognizance of this problem. Only more serious offenses will be 
included in the CCH file. Specifically excluded are arrests for. drunkenness, vag- 
rancy, suspicion, traffic offenses (other than driving under the influence or "hit 
and run"), juvenile offenses (unless tried as an adult) and other similar minor 
offenses. The record will include no more than identifying data, arresting agency, 
charge, disposition and custody or other postsentence information. Legislation, 
if believed necessary, would simply re-enforce the present NCIC policy and 
procedures now in effect. 

The a.uthors assert that arrests not followed by indictment or information within 
one year or conviction within two years should be deleted from the computerized 
file. This recommendation should realistically be considered in light of present 
court backlogs and trial delays brought about by pretrial maneuvering. An arrest 
record might well be expunged before the case came to trial. 



54 



The recommendation does highlight the problem of obtaining arrest disposition 
data in a system wherein input derives from voluntary submissions by the par- 
ticipants. The problem is not peculiar to the computerized record but rather has 
been with us a long time in relation to manual files. Some states have laws man- 
dating the entry of arrest disposition data by the arresting agencies, many have 
not. We would support and encourage any reasonable measures, including Federal 
legislation, that will help deal with this problem. 

It should be noted that it is a "fact of life" that arrest information, with or 
without disposition or conviction data shown, is valuable to poUce agencies in the 
discharge of their obhgations. 

The Lawyers' Committee recommends that specific congressional approval be 
required for any expansion or modification of the system "... such as a decision 
to interface with other data banks within the Justice Department or other federal 
agencies." 

This recommendation seems to imply a possible expansion of the NCIC system 
for interchange of inteUigence or personal histon,- information among various 
agencies. The point is moot. The NCIC system, as stated earUer, just does not 
nor will not contain other than documented information on stolen property, wanted 
persons and criminal histories. The NCIC does not nor will not access any other 
data banks. 

The Law\'ers' Committee recommends creation of a "watch dog" commission 
to operate or monitor the NCIC system. We believe that our present self -policing 
procedures in which the user agencies fully participate, will insure against misuse 
of the sj'stem while providing maximum service to the criminal justice community. 
It is our view that legal remedies presently available in event of system abuse are 
adequate. 

The recommendation is made that each individual be granted right of access, 
notice and challenge to all information concerning him, should be notified when 
his file is opened and on each entrj' should be informed of his right to challenge. 

The only file in NCIC on a person is (1) a record of his status as a wanted person 
with warrant outstanding (the problem of advising him of this record of his fugi- 
tive status is obvious) and (2) criminal history record resulting from his arrests. 
(It would seem the fact of his arrest and being fingerprinted would to him create a 
presumption and thus notification that a record entry had been made.) NCIC 
policy supports the individual's right to see and challenge the contents of his 
criminal historj^ record. 

Finally, the Lawyers' Committee suggests that legislation should ". . . establish 
general standards for operation of the system. . ." and require the Attorney 
General to ". . . issue more specific, mandator}' regulations to govern dissemina- 
tion of the information. . ." 

As to need for legislation to establish operating standards for the system — the 
NCIC policy paper has been furnished to the Justice Department, various con- 
gressional committees and members of the Congress and has been disseminated 
elsewhere — including the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. We 
believe the procedures and standards set forth in this document are well conceived, 
logical and properly balance security and privacy safeguards with the practical 
needs of the criminal justice community. Any need to modify or redefine the pres- 
ent policies or to reenforce them by legislative enactment is not apparent to us. 

The Lawyers' Committee recommends there be legislation to limit dissemination 
to the "summary computer record" and not supplementary data in state files. 
This recommendation seems to acknowledge that the data in NCIC is properly 
subject to dissemination and that supplementary information in state files (pre- 
sumably intelligence and investigative information) is not. That is the present 
NCIC policy, hence the only question here is whether the policy should be re- 
affirmed by federal law. We defer to the Congress as to necessity for any such 
reaffirmation. 

In conclusion, it is our view that Chapter II of the Lawyers' Committee report 
should certainly be considered in the light of the four basic premises which the 
authors admit may color their conclusions and recommendations. These are: 

"A strengthened criminal justice system alone cannot begin to solve the 'crime 
problem.' " 

"In a democratic society all available alternatives should be explored before the 
role of the police is expanded." 

"The agencies of the criminal justice system should be subjected to broad public 
review and participation." 

"The criminal justice system as a whole is presently characterized by widespread 
discrimination against the poor and minorities." 



55 

Report by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, January 7, 1974 

United States Department of Justice, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

Washington, D.C., April 1, 1974. 
Hon. Sam J. Ebvin, Jr., 
U.S. Senate, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Senator Ervin : During my testimony before the Subcommittee on Con- 
stitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary on March 7, 1974, Senator 
Hruska requested a copy of any report received on the Study being made by the 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory on the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications 
Requirements. 

There is enclosed a copy of the Preliminary Report issued by the Jet Propul- 
sion Laboratory, dated January 7, 1974. An additional Report is expected in the 
near future and when received will promptly be made available to your Committee. 
Sincerely yours, 

Clarence M. Kelley, 

Director. 
Enclosure. 



34-788 O - 74 



56 



PRELIMINARY 

NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

REQUIREMENTS 



1200-133 



January 7, 1974 



Approved by: 





R. L. Sohn 
Task Leader 



Approved by: 




PatrlcITJ. Rygt 
Project Manage 



JET PROPULSION LABORATORY 

CALIFOBNIA INSTITUTE OF TtCHNOlOGY 
PASADENA CALIFORNIA 



57 



1200-133 



PREFACE 



The National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System 
Requirements document presents a preliminary statement of user require- 
ments projected through one decade. The requirements reflect an extension 
of present national law enforcement nets, plus the introduction of new classes 
of users and data types, such as the automated transmission of fingerprint 
data, and the use of computerized criminal histories in a fully operational 
mode. This statement of law enforcement communication requirements will 
permit effective network concepts and implementations to be developed and 
tradeoffs prepared to support decisions regarding plans and programs. 

The LEAA and JPL recognize the urgent need for early publication of 
this document because many law enforcement agencies at all levels — local, 
state, and federal —have begun to develop information storage and retrieval 
systems and supporting data communication nets to enable their users to 
access data files and exchange administrative messages with other agencies. 
These efforts, which are encouraged by LEAA grants, conferences, and 
issuance of planning implementation guidelines, must be coordinated so that 
in the aggregate these independent efforts will be cost effective and will fully 
meet user needs and expectations. 

It is recognized that this requirements document will be used by many 
organizations for their individual purposes: planning by specific user organi- 
zations, developing implementation plans or programs, and testing the 
effectiveness of regulatory practices, funding levels, and operation pro- 
cedures. This document is intended to provide detailed information in a 
usable format to serve the needs of these various user and planning organi- 
zations. 

Finally, this document is intended as a vehicle for user and planning 
organizations to communicate their future needs in more precise, quantita- 
tive terms. As this document is reviewed by representatives of the law 
enforcement community and their comments are received and evaluated, a 



58 



1200-133 



more precise statement of needs, problems, and issues will emerge so that, 
through a reasoned approach, a well tested and debated implementation pro- 
gram can be developed. 

Enormous increases in technological capability, such as massive, low- 
cost information systems, easily accessible through nationwide computer / com- 
munications networks, will force decisions on the law enforcement community 
in the relatively near future. Early planning can well serve the community to 
better meet its needs. 



59 



1200-133 



FOREWORD 



The following personnel contributed to preparation of this 
document: 



J. E. Fielding, Traffic Modeling 



S. D. Foulkes, Definition of User Community and New 
Requirements 



R. Granit, New Requirements 

R. L. Sohn, Traffic Modeling 

The authors wish to extend their appreciation to R. M. Marx, 
Project Monitor, whose consultation and advice have been very- 
helpful in conducting the requirements analysis, particularly in 
the area of new classes of users and new data types. We also 
wish to thank the members of the NALECOM Steering Committee 
for their careful review and helpful suggestions offered at the 
project review meeting on December 13, 1973. 



60 



1200-133 



1. SUMMARY 



This document presents preliminary requirements for a National Law 
Enforcement Telecommunications system (NALECOM), based on analyses 
performed for the National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, 
of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, United States Department 
of Justice. The results are summarized in the form of system origin- 
destination traffic load estimates for state -to -national and state -to- state com- 
munications through 1983. The results indicate that traffic can be expected to 
increase by a factor of 30 compared to present transaction levels. 

The system requirements definition task was comprised of four 
elements: 

1) Define the user community. 

2) Perform an on-site survey of representative users. 

3) Develop an analysis methodology and perform requirements 
analyses. 

4) Prepare a statement of system requirements. 

The user community was defined to include: law enforcement, courts, 
corrections, prosecution, and probation and parole; each function was clas- 
sified as local/regional, state and federal. Other federal users were consi- 
dered on a limited basis, and will be surveyed in more detail for the final 
requirements document. 

An on-site survey of 24 representative user agencies was conducted by 
the Project SEARCH staff to acquire a data base for preparing traffic pro- 
jections. Data acquired included: (1) information on existing or planned 
information and communication systems, (2) information required in perform- 
ing criminal justice functions, (3) jurisdiction served, (4) number of terminals, 
and (5) current and projected traffic levels. Supportive data was obtained from 
the Uniform Crime Reports and state criminal justice master plans; valuable 
comments and data were received from informal contacts with the NALECOM 
Steering Committee and from various authorities in the criminal justice 
community. 



61 



1200-133 



Analysis methods were developed for application to the primary classes 
of communications traffic: (1) projections of present traffic, (2) estimates of 
extended uses (such as Computerized Criminal Histories and OBTS systems), 
and (3) new uses such as transmission of coded fingerprint data. Statistical 
analyses were performed on traffic data for existing nets to develop traffic 
growth models, for individual states, based on parameters such as population, 
crime rate, law enforcement personnel, and degree of system automation, all 
of which are shown to have a strong impact on traffic level. Growth rate is 
strongly correlated with existing traffic levels. Traffic estimates generated 
by the models are in reasonable agreement with actual data, and are appropri- 
ate for predicting growth trends. 

A modified "gravity" model was developed to aid in generating interstate 
origin-destination traffic matrices in which traffic was varied with population 
and distance between states. Extended or basically new requirements and new 
users were analyzed on the basis of limited operational experience of various 
interstate and local agencies with new information systems, or on the basis of 
projected estimates of key variables such as criminal offenses, number of 
arrests and other factors. 

The preliminary results of these analyses for the year 1983 are given in 
Table 1. 1. Estimates of message volume in millions, average character 
length per message type, and average traffic load expressed in bits per second 
are shown for each usage category and separated into state-to-state and state- 
to-national communications. A brief statement about each usage category in 
Table 1. 1 follows. 

Estimates based on empirical models indicate that current types of traf- 
fic projected to 1983 (item 1) will constitute approximately 18. 9% of the traffic 
load. Hence, new applications will account for 81. 1% of the traffic, which 
represents a major increase in services supplied by a NALECOM type system. 
Use of current types of services will increase by a factor of 1 5 for state to- 
state traffic, (due in part to the recent LETS upgrade), whereas state-to- 
national traffic will increase by a factor of 4. 8 over 1972 levels. 



62 



2 
O,. 

U 00 

< ~ 






rt] C QJ 
(A C >< 



< 



O 



:< 



o o 

O 00 



o o 
o o 
o o 



in m 

-^ 00 



< < 

Z2 



<^2 
u 



01 3 



»H O 

) cr 4, 

;5k 



< < 

zz 



-.* _* (*i p^ 2 Z 



;« « 



3 1, - = 

o- - 3 .;; 



X X en tn 



O T3 

?5 



:£;^ 



O O sO nO rO (M 
•^ nO i/> if* iT in 
O O — — O O 

d o d o o o 



o 6- 



O — ro 

^o iTi r- 



o ir\ o 

sO (NJ o 

— • (M 



Ml m J 



3 (o TJ 

? 0) a 



3 a 



.:: c 3 

h o o* 

H. " 

? " ■ 

. * 

' Q 



5 " S 

1- = 
S- *• o 

«) 3 « 

, £ ce 
I I 

a: 

•-> 
o 

2 



00 o ro r- 



O O O M 
O O O f*! 

m -^ r- 'f 



" J! 

S S 

h o 

■2 a 

3 m m 
o- 0, u 



£ -3 



OQ 



■s s 

>. 6 

J, 3 

c — 



S u 



gX 

So 



0.2 



01 

> 


Cour 
on 7, 
cable 


< 


a. 


^1 i — « 
u 9- 


CO 


>- 4, Q. 




o to < 


o 


« 4j - 
" u 

3 to2 




# « * 




■U ■» 



63 



1200-133 



Traffic due to the use of Computerized Criminal Histories (CCH) was 
estimated by assuming a national "pointer index", with the actual CCH retained 
on file at the state of original jurisdiction (item 2). It was further assumed that 
state identification bureaus would be in operation and capable of servicing 50% 
of the requests directed to them. Based upon these assumptions, there will be 
9.6 million interstate messages and 24.1 million state-to-national messages in 1983. 

Based on the further development of digital encoding of fingerprints, coupled 
with the development of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's FINDER system for 
search and retrieval of encoded fingerprints data, transmission of fingerprint data 
is expected by 1983. Assuming that it will be technically feasible to transmit a set 
of fingerprints with 150,000 bits, transmission of slightly under 3 million sets in 
1983 will account for 33.5% of NALECOM traffic. This estimate is based upon the 
existence of state identification bureaus with a capability to identify 50% of finger- 
print requests. 

All states are expected to develop driver and vehicle records, and that 
a law enforcement officer through his state identification bureau, will be able 
to access any other such bureau over NALECOM. These systems will generate 
approximately 49 million messages per year in 1983, which will account for 
2. 5% of the traffic. These messages are distinct from the messages related 
to the National Driver's Registry which is not considered a user of NALECOM 
because of federal legal restraints on the use of the Registry. 

It is envisioned that criminal justice planners, administrators, and managers 
will utilize the national data banks containing information on offender based trans- 
action statistics (OBTS), on research programs sponsored by the U. S. Department 
of Justice, and on the results of innovative law enforcennent techniques. The traffic 
involved in this application has been assumed to be exclusively national and account- 
ing for approximately 0.1% of the total traffic. 

Another new use examined was the potential development of a national organ- 
ized criminal information system similar to the one in operation in the New England 
states. Based upon the usage of the New England system and scaling it to a national 
level, it is predicted that such a use might account for 5.1% of the NALECOM traffic; 
but, it should be reiterated that this usage is highly speculative. 

Finally, the use of NALECOM by crime laboratories for the prelinninary 
transmission of specimen facsimilies among the state crime laboratories and the 
FBI criminal laboratory was examined. Written, pictorial and other specimens 



64 



1200-133 



are amenable to facsimile transmission and can support preliminary crime 
lab analyses prior to sending the actual specimen for examination; it is 
estimated that such use would account for 36.6% of the predicted traffic. This 
high percentage is due to the fact that the average facsimile would require 
approximately 100,000 characters for purposes of encoding and transmission. 

It should be noted that although uses for courts, prosecution, and cor- 
rections do not explicitly appear in Table 1.1, these uses are accounted for 
in the estimates of Criminal Histories and Criminal Justice Planners. 

The sumnnary indicates that the average traffic load on NALECOM in 
1983 will be 47, 339 bits per second.* However, this estimate may be amended 
based on the results of continuing tasks outlined below. 

Additional analysis will be performed in the following areas: 

1) Federal Users — Careful review will be made of other potential 
federal users not considered herein. Also those interstate 
regional networks whose complete operational data were unavail- 
able during this preliminary analysis will be analyzed. 

2) National File System vs State Files — Additional analysis will be 
performed to assess the sensitivity of the traffic estimates to 
the assumption of state files with a national pointer index versus 
a national file system, 

3) Sensitivity of Estimates — Estimates of new user requirements 
will be examined for sensitivity to changes in underlying assump- 
tions. 

4) Traffic Model Refinements — The effect of increased equipment 
automation, of the introduction of mobile terminals, of cost, and 
of urban versus rural usage will be explored through the traffic 
models. 



*Bits per second results from the following conversion: 

„ „ Messages Characters 8 bits 1 year 

°^^ ' Year " Message " Character 31, 536, 000 seconds 



65 



1200-133 



5) Traffic Dynamics — The effects of message queues (i.e., message 
delays or waiting) on the communications traffic will be analyzed 
to determine effects on system design requirements. 

6) Privacy — The impact of citizens' right to privacy and supporting 
legislation thereto will be considered as it affects the building of 
files, the access to files, and the content of files. 



66 



1200-133 



2. INTRODUCTION 



The National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System preliminary 
requirements document has been prepared for the National Criminal Justice 
Information and Statistics Service, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 
United States Department of Justice, in response to a statement of work which 
is in JPL Proposal No. 51-213A, dated June 12, 1973, and which has been 
incorporated into task order RD-152, Amendment No. 22 (basic) of contract 
NAS7-100 and the LEAA-NASA Interagency Agreement LEAA- J-IAA-037 -73. 

This document is a preliminary statement of National Law Enforcement 
Telecommunications System requirements, projected through one decade and 
encompassing the interstate, state -to-federal, and federal-to-federal agency 
transactions; transactions generated at local and regional levels captured by 
the national nets are included. The statement of user requirements encom- 
pases extensions of present national law enforcements nets, plus the intro- 
duction of new classes of users and data types, such as fully operational Com- 
puterized Criminal History (CCH) systems, automated transmission of encoded 
fingerprint data, and support of criminalistics and other elements and functions 
in the criminal justice system. Information presented in this document pro- 
vides a basis for the design and development of NALECOM network concepts 
and implementation planning and programming. The results of the study are 
summarized in Chapter 1. 

Chapter 3 states the purpose and scope of the user requirements analysis. 
Chapter 4 gives a statement of the problems encountered by the criminal justice 
community relative to the needs for new information systems, a brief descrip- 
tion of existing information systems and national communications networks, 
several major new requirements that must be met by advanced system imple- 
mentations in the coming decade, and the approach used in developing the state- 
ment of system requirements. 

Chapter 5 briefly describes the user community in terms of types of 
agencies, e.g., police departments, prosecutors, courts, corrections and pro- 
bation and parole, and hierarchy of users, local, regional, state, and federal. 



67 



1200-133 



Data describing the characteristics of the users are included to support cor- 
relations of traffic estimates with various parameters, such as crime rate, 
population, and other variables. Detailed information is given in Appendix D. 

Traffic load estimates are presented in Chapter 6 for both interstate and 
state -to-federal communications projected to 1983. The estimates are based 
on traffic models based on NCIC and NLETS operational data, augmented by 
estimates of traffic against new information files, traffic generated by new 
users in the criminal justice community, and new types of data, such as image 
transmissions, and fingerprints. The number of characters per message can 
be expected to increase significantly as new information types are introduced 
onto the nets; projections of the increases in message lengths are included in 
the overall estimate. An important consideration relates to peak-to-average 
traffic loading values; estimates are included for this factor. 

Chapter 7 discusses extended and basically new requirements, utilizing 
the operational experience of various agencies and estimates of key variables 
such as number of arrests, number of records in state and federal data files, 
and other factors. Numerous consultations with various user agencies provided 
valuable inputs to the analyses. A summary of total system traffic anticipated 
for NALECOM is given in Chapter 7 (see also Table 1.1, page 1-5). 

Chapter 8 presents response time requirements, based on recommen- 
dations by the National Advisory Con-imission on Criminal Justice Standards 
and Goals. The requirements values reflect both officer safety criteria and 
maximum values for investigatory and identification functions. 

Supporting data are given in the Appendices. 



68 



1200-133 



3. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE USER REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICATIONS 

3. 1 Purpose 

The primary purposes of the user requirements analysis are to 

1) Estimate user needs for a 10-year planning horizon, and 

2) Prepare a statement of present and future requirements of 
local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies for inter- 
state telecommunications. 

The major purpose of the user requirements task is to develop a state- 
ment of system requirements such that concepts and implementations of the 
NALECOM net can be developed to meet future user requirements. 

Definitions of the user community were prepared to identify agencies in 
the law enforcement community and the characteristics of these users in terms 
of size, jurisdiction, number of law enforcement personnel, resources avail- 
able to the agency, and functions for which the agency is responsible. A survey 
of the user agencies was made to acquire data on their present operations, and 
to determine their future needs and plans. 

3. 2 Scope 

Certain assumptions have been made in formulating system requirements 
for NALECOM. These include the following: 

1) NALECOM is a telecommunications network for: 

a) The exchange of criminal justice information among the 
states, the District of Columbia, and territories of the 
United States. 

b) The exchange of criminal justice information between the 
states, the District of Columbia and the territories of the 



69 



1200-133 



United States and the various Federal departments involved 
in law enforcement and criminal justice. 

c) The exchange of criminal justice information between the 
states, the District of Columbia and territories of the United 
States and authorized Federal agencies, outside the criminal 
justice system, where the primary need for exchange is pur- 
suant to criminal justice responsibilities. 

d) The exchange of criminal justice information between the 
states, the District of Columbia and territories of the United 
States and criminal justice agencies in Canada and Mexico. 

Z) It is assumed that NALECOM have the capacity to serve the needs 

of the major functions and agencies of criminal justice: law enforce- 
ment, courts, prosecution, probation and corrections, and others. 

3) It is assumed that states and territories will exercise jurisdictional 
control over access to and use of information originating within 
their boundaries either through reciprocal agreement with other 
states and agencies and/or controlled access. 

4) For traffic analysis purposes, each state is considered as a single 
"port" into the system. This does not preclude multiple terminals 
in a state, provided each terminal is controlled by the state author- 
ity. 

5) Intrastate traffic will not be provided by the system, but will be 
considered in the requirements analysis to determine traffic volume 
captured by the national system. 

6) It is assumed that the system will not impose constraints on data 
types or formats. 

7) It is assumed that digital records, fingerprints, photographs and 
possibly other data types can be transmitted; video transmissions 
will not be considered initially. 

8) A 10-year planning horizon is assumed. 



1 



LEAA communication to P.J. Rygh, JPL NALECOM Project Manager, re 
scope of NALECOM study, November 9, 1973, 



70 



1200-133 



4. BACKGROUND 
4. 1 Problem Statement 

Crime in the United States is a phenomenon of national concern. Crime 
rates have increased over the past decade making it necessary to initiate pro- 
grams at all levels of government (local, state and federal) to deter crime and 
to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Greater resources 
are being made available to the system for more personnel, modernization of 
facilities and equipment, and introduction of new hardware and operations 
technology. 

Along with many other sectors, the cruninal justice system is experien- 
cing an "information" explosion with a greatly increased capability to gather, 
process, and transmit information, and is experiencing steadily increasing pres- 
sures for more information and reduced response times. For the effective admin- 
istration of justice, information must be made available rapidly on the identity, 
location, characteristics, and description of the offender. Improved officer 
safety and the increasingly stringent legal requirements to protect the rights of 
the individual place enormous demands on crime information systems and on 
communication nets supporting those systems. Information is required quickly 
and accurately not only for the apprehension of criminals but also because of the 
strong necessity to avoid the use of inaccurate information, which can have 
adverse reactions in the form of legal actions against the law enforcement com- 
munity. 

The complexity of the problem is placed in perspective by the sheer num- 
bers of agencies that have the need to exchange information. LEAA has esti- 
mated that there are approximately 40,000 such agencies. This suggests a 
communication matrix of enormous dimensions, and one that will m.ake it dif- 
ficult to achieve response times within seconds and minutes instead of hours 
and days as is all too frequently the case with present facilities. 

In response to the need for improved information systems, local, state, 
and federal law enforcement agencies have begun work on both specialized 



71 



1200-133 



information storage and retrieval systems and telecommunication system that 
will ensure user access to the information files and the exchange of administra- 
tive messages with other agencies. Thus far, these efforts are largely unco- 
ordinated, and there is concern that the aggregate of new or expanded law 
enforcement telecommunications systems may not be fully cost-effective and 
may not fully meet the needs of the users. 

In essence, the present interstate telecommunications systems must be 
modified or expanded to support larger traffic loads and the introduction of 
extended and new functions. Standards for establishing law enforcement tele- 
communication systems have not been completely defined. There are few 
existing provisions for handling data on organized crime or interfacing with 
crime labs. Furthermore, the introduction of new data transmission require- 
ments, such as the transmission of fingerprint information, will greatly 
increase the loading on the present networks and will require substantial 
upgrades to maintain adequate performance. 

In summary, the following general communications problems can be 
stated for law enforcement applications: 

1) National telecommunications networks which can meet user require- 
ments and constraints must be defined. 

2) System implementation needs must be defined in terms of capacity, 
response time and operational dates. 

3) The issue of privacy and security constraints on data handling has 
not been resolved; criminal histories and offender based trans- 
actions statistics pose particular problems in regard to file 
content, location and access. 

The following sections address these problems and present them in terms 
of quantified user requirements. 



34-788 O - 74 - 6 



72 



1200-133 



4. 2 Existing Information Systems and Communication Nets* 

Basically, two major law enforcement information and communications 
networks are in use at the present time: the National Crime Information Center 
(NCIC) and the national Law Enforcement Teletypewriter Service (LETS). 
LETS provides a state-to-state administrative communication capability but has 
no central data files, whereas NCIC provides a state -to-national near -real-time 
access to data files on stolen vehicles, stolen property, wanted persons, and 
criminal histories. A brief review of these systems is given to provide the 
framework for traffic projections for the NALECOM system, although it is not 
necessarily intended that NALECOM will be a simple combination of these two 
existing nets, 

4.2.1 NCIC 

NCIC is a computerized information system established to provide a ser- 
vice to all law enforcement agencies at local, state, and federal levels. The 
system is essentially a computerized index to documented police information con- 
cerning crime and criminals of a nationwide interest. The FBI is responsible 
for operating NCIC; data files and supporting equipment are located in Washing- 
ton, D.C. 

The NCIC presently runs on an IBM 370 computer system with an IBM 
2703 transmission control unit capable of handling 48 134. 5-baud terminals, 140 
110-baud terminals, and 12 2400-baud terminals. Practically all these termi- 
nals are in use at the present time, and the NCIC is in the process of an upgrade 
to accommodate additional traiffic. 

Eight data files make up the NCIC data bank, including wanted persons, 
stolen vehicles, stolen boats, stolen license plates, stolen articles, stolen guns, 
stolen or missing securities, and criminal histories. There were over 4 mil- 
lion data and index references as of 1972, and it is anticipated that a substantial 
Increase In the crlm.lnal history file will be experienced over the next several 
years. 



*More complete descriptions of existing nets are given in Appendix B. 



73 



1200-133 



A number of types of messages are permitted against each file including 
inquiries, tests, entries, clears, cancels, modifies, and locates. These mes- 
sage types are handled on line in real time; each receives a response from the 
computer on a one in, one out basis without priority. 

The inconning messages are confined largely to inquiries (57%) and entries 
(8%). The average incoming message contains 50 characters, and the average 
outgoing message 85 characters. The latter can be expected to increase if the 
CCH files are built up at the national level since criminal history records typi- 
cally contain several hundred characters per record. 

The NCIC network was initiated in 1967, and transactions against the 
system in 1968 were approximately 7 million. The 1973 transactions are esti- 
mated at 37 million, based on June and July averages. 

4. 2. 2 LETS 

The second major national law enforcement net (LETS) consists of 9 cir- 
cuits providing interstate communications to the 48 contiguous states. Each state 
has at least one entry point on the network; direct intra-circuit communication 
J^s possible without going through the central message switcher located in 



Phoenix. The LETS system does not contain an internal data base. 
The basic types of information provided by LETS include 

1) Persons of concern to criminal justice agencies. 

2) Stolen vehicles and property, 

3) Vehicle and driver's license data. 

4) Road and weather conditions, 

5) Administrative messages. 

Approximately 4500 law enforcement agencies participate in LETS system 
at the present time, and the system handles approximately 2. 5 million messages 
a year. The average message length handled by LETS is 432 characters per 
message. 



74 



1200-133 



The LETS system is being upgraded, and the network configuration is 
being changed from the circuit concept to a network in which all users have 
direct lines to the central message switcher. Initially, approximately half of 
the users will be provided with high-speed lines such that direct computer-to- 
computer interfaces can be accommodated. This new system came on line in 
late December, 1973. 

Other major law enforcement nets have been implemented on a regional 
basis, such as the Kansas City, Missouri, ALERT System, Cincinnati CLEAR 
System, and several others. These nets provide service to many clients in the 
regions in which they operate and will be considered in the development of con- 
cepts for the NALECOM System. 

4. 3 Future Needs 

The most difficult aspect of user requirements definition relates to the 
identification/quantification of growth factors, particularly those generated by 
new data types and users, or by new technology. A list of potential growth fac- 
tors extracted from various master plans for criminal justice information sys- 
tems prepared by state planning agencies is given in Table 4. 1, page 4-7. These 
documents have been prepared in response to requests and guidelines by LEAA 
and are good examples of statements of needs and priorities developed by the 
state agencies. The list is divided into 2 main areas: (1) expanded access to 
existing data banks and (2) expanded data types, services, and users. Expanded 
access includes the installation of additional terminals and the increased use of 
criminal history records. Expanded data types include a full implementation of 
the CCH system, which includes OBTS, the latter being a major attempt to 
"instrument" the criminal justice information system by accumulating longitudi- 
nal traces of offenders in the system. Other new data types include fingerprint 
and other video transmissions, general support for crime analysis, resource 
allocation, and other services. Each item is considered for possible incor- 
poration into NALECOM. 



75 



1200-133 



4. 4 Analysis Methodology 

The System Requirements Analysis Task is comprised of five elements: 

1) Define the user community. 

2) Perform an on-site survey of representative users. 

3) Develop analysis methodology. 

4) Perform requirements analyses. 

5) Prepare a statement of system requirements. 

Primary reliance was placed on the on-site surveys and informal contacts 
with many agencies and individuals in the criminal justice community to obtain 
realistic estimates of user requirements. 

Initial activities were devoted to defining the user community which is com- 
prised of all agencies involved in the several aspects of criminal justice, such 
as law enforcement, prosecution, courts, corrections, parole and probation and 
others. It has been estimated that there are over 40, 000 such agencies in the 
United States, ranging from several large institutions in major metropolitan 
areas to single organizations in small communities. In defining the user com- 
munity, the emphasis was placed on relating agency functions to the information 
needed to perform these functions. Information describing the user agencies and 
their jurisdictions (population served, number of law enforcement personnel, 
crime rate, and economic base) were obtained to support the analysis activities. 

Subsequent to defining the user community, on-site interviews were con- 
ducted with a number of representative users to obtain data describing existing 
or planned information and communication systems, information types and mes- 
sage functions used in performing criminal justice functions, number of clients 
served, including the number of access terminals, and data relating to the vol- 
ume of traffic against the information files. This information was combined with 
data contained in the Uniform Crime Reports, state criminal justice master 
plans, and other supporting documents to comprise a prime data base for develop- 
ment of user requirements. Many valuable comments and data were received 
from informal contacts with the SEARCH Ad Hoc Telecommunications Committee 
and from various authorities in the criminal justice community. 



76 



1200-133 



Table 4. 1. Growth factors 



Expanded Access 

Criminal Histories 

Courts 

Prosecutors 

Probation /Pa role 

Corrections 
Expanded In-Kind User Access (Added Terminals) 
New Users 

Expanded Information Services 

OBTS 

Parole/Probation Data Centers 

Expanded Support Services 

Crime Analysis 

Organized Crime Information 

Crime Lab and M, O. Support 

Expanded Identification Activities 

Fingerprint Transmission and Identification 
Video Transmission 

Reference Files 



77 



1200-133 



Methodologies were developed to utilize the functional descriptions and 
supporting data assembled through the field surveys and interviews, and to 
develop a statement of user requirements for the 1983 planning horizon. Analy- 
sis methods were developed for application to three primary classes of commu- 
nication traffic: (1) projections of present traffic (as represented by existing 
nets such as LETS and NCIC), (2) estimates of extended uses (such as CCH and 
OBTS systems), and new uses (such as transmission of graphics and video data). 
To project traffic uses to 1983, statistical analyses were performed on traffic 
volumes on existing nets, resulting in traffic growth models on a state-by-state 
basis and reflecting parameters such as population served, crime rate, law 
enforcement personnel, and degree of system automation, all of which have a 
strong impact on traffic level. Growth per year is strongly correlated with 
existing traffic levels. Traffic estimates generated by the model are in reason- 
able agreement with actual data. 

State-to-state traffic predictions were developed by a somewhat different 
technique: traffic between states was related to population and airline distance 
between states. The total was adjusted to agree with LETS actuals. The LETS 
upgrade, which is reaching completion, was accounted for by incorporating 
adjustments for the installation of automatic switchers in place of manual "torn 
tape" equipments; this upgrade is predicted to have a substantial impact on 
system loading. 

Extended or basically new requirements and new users were analyzed on 
the basis of operational experience of various agencies and on estimates of key 
variables, such as number of arrests, previous history of the arrestee, and 
other factors. Fingerprint transmission by digital communication techniques 
tends to dominate new communication traffic volume requirements. 

The requirements projections are summarized in tables and origin-des- 
tination traffic assignment matrices. Estimates of the number of characters 
per message are given to facilitate the analysis and planning for communications 
systems hardware. 

Details of the system requirements analyses are presented in the following 
sections. 

4-8 



78 



1200-133 



5, THE USER COMMUNITY 



In specifying requirements for NALECOM, it was necessary to define the 
structure and organization of the community for which the system is intended. 
This section provides a brief overview of the components and functions of the 
criminal justice system, and indicates the manner in which the requirements 
analyses were related to the structure of the criminal justice system. A more 
complete description can be found in Appendix D. 

Agencies within the criminal justice system are generally divided by type 
of function and geographic jurisdiction. These are not unique divisions, and a 
great deal of overlap exists. However, these divisions are somewhat useful in 
outlining the various components. The most common functional categories are: 

1) Law enforcement. 

2) Prosecution. 

3) Adjudication (criminal courts). 

4) Probation and parole. 

5) Correctional institutions. 

6) Other. 

The "other" category is necessary to include such agencies as crime labs and 
various criminal justice commissions. 

Geographically the system is divided by: 

1) City. 

2) County. 

3) State. 

4) Federal. 

For our purposes the "city" and "county" classifications were grouped together 
Into a "local" category. Thus, there are only 3 geographical divisions. 



79 



iZOO-iii 



To completely understand the user comnnunity, we would need to contact 
each criminal justice agency in the U.S. individually. Since this is impractical, 
it was necessary to survey selected agencies in an attempt to obtain a represen- 
tative sample. The actual sample was selected by the Project SEARCH staff 'and 
includes only those agencies which currently have some type of information sys- 
tem. Thus, the sample is somewhat biased towards the medium to large agen- 
cies. However, there is no reason to believe that the needs of smaller agencies 
will be fundamentally different except for level of traffic volume. 

Table 5. 1 indicates the range of agencies surveyed, and gives the number 
of systems surveyed in each category. 

No listings are presented under Prosecution or Probation and Parole 
because they were not expressly listed as applications of any system surveyed. 
However, it is safe to assume that the prosecutor is considered as part of the 
criminal court by most systems, and similarly probation, parole, and correc- 
tional institutions are combined under the term correction. With this assumption, 
the full range of agencies are covered by the sample. 



*The Project SEARCH staff work was primarily accomplished by Public Systems, 
Inc. 

5-2 



80 



1200-133 



Table 5. 1 Information systems surveyed 



Type of Agency 


Local 


Statewide 


Nationwide 


Served 


Jurisdiction 


Jurisdiction 


Jurisdiction 


Law Enforcement 


8 


10 


3 


Prosecution 


- 


- 


- 


Adjudication 


4 


5 


- 


(Criminal Courts) 








Probation and 


- 


- 


- 


Parole 








Correctional 


4 


5 


- 


Institutions 








Others 


4 


4 


- 



81 



1200-133 



6. ANALYSIS AND PREDICTED GROWTH OF PRESENT SYSTEMS 



6. 1 NALECOM Network 

The National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NALECOM), 
which is to provide for rapid interstate communication between criminal justice 
agencies, is envisioned as a combination of two functions: state-to-state com- 
munications including controlled automated access of state-based files, and 
state-to-national traffic with automated access of a central national crime data 
file. The states retain control over crime data and can determine which data 
can be given over to the central national file or retained within a state file. 

Two alternative configurations can be postulated, but each has certain dis- 
advantages. The first calls for all data banks to be maintained by the state of 
origin, plus a national "pointer" file. If a state seeks out-of-state information, 
it first locates the desired information through the "pointer" file and then 
queries that file for the information. The second alternative calls for a single 
national data file which contains complete information from all of the states. 
This eliminates the need for a "pointer" file; however, it is unlikely that all 
states will rely entirely on a national data bank since their own intrastate sys- 
tems would necessarily duplicate many of the national data files; in addition, 
many questions remain regarding safeguards for sensitive information such as 
that contained in criminal histories. 

NALECOM is expected to accommodate concepts involving both state and 
national crime data banks, using combinations of state- to-national and inter- 
state communication links. Regional switching centers or concentrators may 
be used to facilitate network linkage, but regional data banks are not believed 
desirable or feasible. 

Although NALECOM system analyses consider each state as a "port" into 
the system, several terminals may in fact constitute the "port, " provided that 
all constraints imposed by the state relating to the exchange of information and 
access to the system are adhered to. 



82 



1200-133 



In order to develop traffic projections for NAL.ECOM, it was found useful 
to utilize data from an existing state- to-national net (NCIC) and from a state-to- 
state net (LETS). Since its inception in 1967, NCIC lias accumulated compre- 
hensive data records on traffic volumes, providing an excellent data base for 
NALECOM state-to-national traffic projections. LETS has not monitored system 
traffic at a detailed level, and a less substantial data base is available for model- 
ing state-to-state traffic. 

Growth trends projected by the traffic models are believed reasonable 
since adjustments were incorporated for the anticipated jump in traffic due to 
system automation (available LETS data reflect the torn tape system which is 
currently being replaced). 

6. 2 State-to-Natlonal Traffic Modeling 

6. 2. 1 Approach 

NALECOM state-to-national traffic projections were estimated by develop- 
ing correlations between transaction level and several independent variables 
including state population, crime rate, number of law enforcement personnel, 
and degree of automation. Traffic is predicted for each state and summed to 
give national totals. Yearly growth is correlated with the above variables and 
with transaction level. With the resulting regression coefficients, projections 
of future traffic can be made by first estimating traffic volume for each state 
for a given base year, extrapolating to the target year, and summing the values 
for all states to give total traffic to the national data file. The resulting estimate 
should anticipate major trends in state-to-national crime information traffic 
volume, although precise predictions obviously cannot be generated. The follow- 
ing sections describe the multivariate regression analysis techniques and pre- 
sent traffic predictions based on the resulting models. 

6. 2. 2 Data Base 

Table 6. 1 summarizes data available on the NCIC state-to-national crime 
information net, including transactions by individual state for 1972, degree of 



83 



1200-133 





M 










C 








0^ 


^ «, 


*-^ .*-* <— «» 


^ ^ 




4^ 


O « 


CO ro fO 


ro ro 




rt 


4J U 


r- r^ r- 


r- r- 







^1 


O^ 0^ c^ 


o^ cr- 




^ ^ ^ 


^ "^ 




4J 


v 


m m'~'mtf)''^ wmw win'^mmm 


'■^ « CO m ^^ (/) 




a 


« w 


(U0<U0(UO00DilJiD0QJ<U0fl>CJ(lJ 


U 0) OJ 0) 




< 




JH Z >H 2 >H >, 2 2 >^ >H >. 2 JH >H 2 >^ >H >H 2 >H >H >^ 2 2 JH 






C/3 








ai 










n c 

u -J 


o "c" 
o 








O '"• 








2 <-• 


-H "S 


oso^fO-^o^-'l'orouiin-^oocCLn— <cooo 


a- c~- iri t^ in po 00 




n) 


n! 


o^ooa^Ti<iD(N]r~aooiriOTt<ror-r--rgmiri 


Tj" o^ o in f<^ po rvj 




po in 


t. "5 


COPO ^H(M ^HP«^^HO^-HfM (\]^^^H 


— 1 ro (NJ ro 




r- c 


0) a 








cr- n) 


Q- 








^H 1h 


^^ a 








H 










c 


u "c 








4) 


U 








E 


a-- 











~ rt 








o 


•— • -^ 


oooooooooooooooooo 


O O O O O o O 




u 


c a 


OsOr~f«iooomf«iooc30sOrjpjpdrooooo 


00 oo <r- vO in 00 o 







r~T)'inNOv£)o^r<^t}<Tj<r~oo^r~-£i-^oou-if<^ 


vO r~ in — c sO -.£) Tt< 




c 


C 

a 








-^(MPvl-HfM-Hfsi(sJt\j-H'rOrtPJ-<'-H-;.-^(\) 


-H fvi (vj (SI -H -H ro 




u 












^2 








J 












o 








■4-) 


2"= 








rt 


2 








03 


o •" 


oooooooooooooooooo 


O O O O O O O 






o j2 


■<tmm— 1— (inr~v£)(Mr^(Mcooo[^sOTj"r~r~ 


(~j 00 o (s) vO (vj in 




1> 




co-it-o-oo-^ — OTj'o-i'^rj^-ir-^ 


in CO ro 00 fNj ro in 




^c^fO-HTj-TtiMfnroiNjrorvlMrJ— '(M— i(M 


— < en f<i f<i (M — < (NJ 




u 


4* 2 








U 


Q. ^ 










c ^^ 










m 










oE 


Tfor^Min— iroinoo-'t^-H— ct>(Miri(\jTf 


CT^ (M O^ t^ O (SI 00 






■^rot~a-o^(MOunr-irir~t^— 1— <00(sjfMvO 


O^ C^ vO 00 00 fSJ sO 




POO-^-HOfSjrOoOTfoO-HinMPOroro 


o CO in 00 fo (sj ■^" 






'^ -^ 








(X -£. 














to ' 










4J 










•U 








4-1 


4) 








_ a 


(/) Q- 






4) 




"I i! 6C " in 3 

4) - ^ •- <U ■- 

c r*- ■" x; c to to 








■;: - 2 <-» C in in 













84 



1200-133 



M 




C 






^^ ^ ^ 


Z V J>^ 


CO ro ro 


rt t; y 


r~ t- r^ 


£V> 


Qs C^ O^ 


2"^ « 


m m'^mmin mtnmui "^ Mto inui "^ 


a 4) w 


ovovoiDV(i)0<u(uv<uooovvoo<uiuooo 


<1S 


2>-2>.Z>h>.>k2>.>h>h>,Z22;>->-ZZJh;h222 


•4^ 
w 




(0 




U c --. 




X o c 




U -^ 5 2 




2 " o 't; 


fO\O^HOOv^ino^sDOr^oirit^iot^i/i(N4fO<7^0'^o^rs]^HLn 


nj '-^ fd 


ro(y-oor^Ov£)ininvOcooOvOt^T}<— «0'<^o^r^ — ^oor~Tj<rri 


t-- c ^^ :• 


(\j»H ro-HiM-^ .^-H ro ^ _4^^rt^rt^ (\j 


a- rt i; a- 




_, k. «!• o 




H^'^ 








<U V o 




£ Q--^ 




OJ rt 




(J ^^ ^^ 


ooooooooooooooooooooooooo 


^- J! 2 


TfvAor^rgt^r-c^ror~-— iiri(Mv£>oori<oofor^-Ht^t^in-H 


o S g- 


o^r-oooooo-Ht^r-u^t^CT-o— "roi/^iriooo^oot^o-CT^fMMO 


S-, C O 




c a- 


-H-HfO-HPjpgrO-H— i— I-H(VJ(M(M-^— < — -<-H'-<-H — — <(\lfM 






5 «> 2 

«a2 




J 




ii|? 




rt o 




^.§1 


ooooooooooooooooooooooooo 


corj'}"ooro(v)o^rO(N)v£)0'«J'oor-a^ooovO'*iArovOvOoo-H 


c^r~(vjciO'<t'*ooro«'^r~-(MPJ(M-<voin'^o— "or-CT^ 


•^■^1 


.-<«^-<fOfOCO-H^(VJ(VlfO«CO<SJ-^<V)(MfM-HP>JfO-H-H-^ 


*H 4) g 




Q 0.0- 




C ^ 




tn 




■■2 S 


O^OOCr-ror-fSJ<T^OOMinvOOO^"^CT-vO(MOvOTl<in«Tj'fvJPO 


n> 2 


sO^^C^-HO^^O^ONOli^Or^O^l^NDC^tMO^^^t^^CO 


OrtOor^-»vOiriooPO<M-<oMorort-HO'^<*i-H'^o 


n°e 


^-* ^H — H *^^ 




Cl,C- 








n! 


2Z22Z222ZOOOCLHrtwwHH;3>>???^ 


W 





6-4 



85 



1200-133 



automation of the state terminal, and additional data on crime rate, population 
and law enforcement personnel level. Automation is defined herein to indicate 
whether or not computer message switchers are available at the state terminal 
to interface with carrier lines to the NCIC. The rationale for this index of auto- 
mation is as follows: rapid response to a query against a stolen vehicle/wanted 
persons file is essential in meeting an officer safety criterion: a response must 
be available to the officer in 1-2 minutes or less (see Chapter 8). Since most 
queries from the field involve at least one manual operation (i. e. , one voice 
communication plus a terminal entry), response time constraints cannot be met 
if a second manual operation is introduced into the operation, such as a manual 
relay at the state terminal. Hence, systems which do not have automatic switch- 
ing interfaces with NCIC probably do not meet service standards. Also, a high 
volume of queries cannot be accommodated with a double manual operation. 
Reference 1 lists the message switching configuration for each state and was 
used in establishing the level of automation; however, several errors have 
been noted in this document, and a more careful classification is being made. 
Also, many upgraded state systems are or have recently come on-line, and 
some states may be misclassified for this reason. Initial correlations, however, 
indicate a marked difference in NCIC traffic between the "have" and "have not" 
states. 

Traffic growth data were obtained from NCIC records by individual states 
for the years 1971-1973 (June totals) and averaged to give yearly growth. These 
data were correlated with traffic levels, population, and degree of automation. 

6. 2. 3 Trial Variables 

Candidate independent variables were determined by graphing the raw data 
shown in Table 6. 1 versus trial variables and by noting possible trends. If 
trends were identified, the variable was included in a formal regression analysis 
as described in the following section. The dependent variable in all cases was 
transaction level per 1000 population. 



1. Anon., 1973 Directory of Automated Criminal Justice Information Systems . 
Dept. of Justice LEAA, December 1972. 



86 



1200-133 



The first trial variable examined was crime rate which varies from 

1, 020 serious crimes per 100, 000 population for North Dakota to 4, 610 per 

2 
100, 000 population for California (1972 Uniform Crime Report). A serious 

crime is defined here in accord with UCR standards.* The scatter diagram 

given in Fig. 6. 1 shows a significant correlation between transaction level and 

crime rate, and hence, crime rate is included as an independent variable in the 

regression analysis. 

The level of automation was next tested as a trial variable and was noted 
to have a strong effect on transaction level, particularly for the less populous 
states. The variable was included in the regression analysis, although as noted 
previously, the data in Reference 1 may not be entirely accurate in regard to 
operational dates or the exact interpretation of "computer message switching"; 
these data are being verified. Population level also has a strong effect on 
transaction rate. The "super" states, California and New York, exhibit a 
lower than average transaction rate, whereas the small states (less than 2 mil- 
lion population) have higher than average but wide divergences in use rates. 
Population level and degree of automation were included in the regression analy- 
sis as independent variables. 

The number of law enforcement personnel per capita is also a candidate 
independent variable since the number of transactions reflects the relative 
number of enforcement personnel. It was found that a relatively strong 
correlation exists between the number of enforcement personnel and crime rate 
(see Fig. 6.2), hence one or the other variable should be included in the regres- 
sion model. Crime rate only was incorporated into the model. 

Growth data were obtained by averaging transaction levels over the period 
1971-1973. The values in percent growth per year appear to correlate with 
existing transaction level, population, and level of automation. Many of the 
states that did not have a computer message switching function at the state level 



*Serious crimes include: criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggra- 
vated assault, burglary, grand larceny, and auto theft. 

2. C. Kelley, "FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1972. " 



87 



1200-133 



500 r 



g 400h 
§ i 300 



I— 



200- 

100 




QD 





Qo 


o 




o 


r 


o 


oO o 

O °^ Oo 



f 9' 



o 

o 



_L 



J_ 



1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 
CRIME RATE 
(per 100, 000 POPULATION! 

Fig. 6. 1. Transactions vs crime rate 



5r 



O z 

ca — 

Q. < 



•^ a. 

y o 

q; a ^ - 

O S 



1- 



o 

o O 



8. 



^o ^ 



O Or 



s-'\'f 



O "^l °o 



O O 



X 



J 



1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 

CRIME RATE 

(per 100. 000 POPULATION) 

Fig. 6.2. Law enforcement personnel vs crime rate, 1972 



34-788 O - 74 - 7 



88 



1200-133 



had zero growth over the past few years. Matured systems such as Kansas City 
(Mo) ALERT II also show a leveling off over the time period of interest. A 
regression analysis was conducted to test these hypotheses. 

6.2.4 Regression Analysis 

A least squares technique was used to develop correlations between trans- 
action level and growth rate as a function of the above independent variables. 
The usual procedures were followed in determining the best coefficients for the 
assumed model relations. The analysis of transactions levels will be discussed 
first. 

Transaction levels per capita were assumed to be a function of population 
level, crime rate, law enforcement personnel per capita, and level of automa- 
tion. The data of Table 6. 1 were first segregated by level of automation, and 
curve fits were attempted for each grouping. The independent variables were 
introduced in first and second order terms. A constant term was allowed: 

T = Cq + CjR + c^E + CjP + c^R^ + c^E^ + c^P^ + c^RE + CgRP + c^PE 

The sum of the squares of the residuals is 

Q = z;(T - T)^ 



Setting the partials of Q with respect to c. equal to zero yields the appropriate 
set of equations for solution of the least squares coefficients. The sample 
deviation is 



s.d. ^ ' ^ 



IN - n 
Where N is the sample number (50), and n the degrees of freedom (2). 

The results of the analysis yield the following relations: 



89 



1200-133 




fSI 



DC 

C 



j:: 
o 









c 
o 






en 

W 



CO 

vD 



(NOIiVindOd OOOT J9d) SNOIiDVSNVyi 



90 



1200-133 



T = 0. 0845R - 0. 0GZ6 P x R (automatic message 

switching) 



where T = transactions per 1000 populaion 

R = major crimes per 100, 000 population 
P = population in millions 



and 



2 

T = 196.3 - 81. 8P * 9.78P (non-automatic mes- 

sage switching) 

Graphs of these relations are presented in Figs. 6.3 and 6.4. Comparisons of 
actual versus predicted transaction rates are shown in Figs. 6.5 and 6.6 for 
automated and nonautomated message switching, respectively. The mean devia- 
tions are relatively high, but trends are reasonably well predicted. 

Growth rates were correlated on a similar basis, but no significant 
dependence on crime rate or law enforcement personnel levels was found. How- 
ever, a pronounced dependence on level of automation was apparent (see Fig. 
6.8). The resulting relations are 

Growth (% per year) = 34.62 - 0. 0576T (automatic message switching) 
- = 24.46 - 0.0756T (non-automatic message switching) 

where T = transactions per 1000 population. The relations are presented in 
Fig, 6. 8, and the comparisons of actual to predicted growth rates are shown in 
Figs, 6.9 and 6, 10 for automated and nonautomated message switching, 
respectively. 

6. 2. 5 Predicted Growth in Total State-to-National Transactions 

The relations derived in the preceding section have been used to predict 
state-to-national transactions for the 10-year planning horizon. The states that 
presently have automatic message switching for NCIC interface were assumed to 
increase traffic in accordance with the growth relationships given above. Trans- 
actions in 1983 for all such states are 



91 



1200-133 











/ 1 




^ 






- 




.. — 




—- i 


f - 


cvj 




' 


/ 




Q. 






/ 




oo 






/ 




• 






/ 




o^ 






/ 


— 


+ 






/ 




Q. 






/ 










/ 




OO o 






/ 








/ 


/ 


— 


' -J 










on> US 










• Q. 










^? 










r-l Q. 










n » 










1— a. 

1 


/ 








: / 


/ 








/ 


w 






~ 


■c-i^--... ..- 


>, 


— - 






« 


1 


' 


1 





- '^ 



- Cf\ 



- CM 



J/1 

o 



O 

I— 
< 



a. 
o 






C 



V 

ni 

(A 

4J 



n) 

a 
o 

c 



c 
o 

u 

CO 

C 
n) 
^1 



nJ 

c 
o 

rt 

0) 

rt 

en 

•D 
a 

£ 

4-1 

tn 

W 






(dod 0001 J8d) SNOIiOVSNVai 






92 



1200-133 



Z 

o 

1— 

z< 
<> 

5 Q 



c 
o 




1/1 

if 

< < 

i>n —I 
Z P 

< 

Of 



o 

a. 



Q § 



e 






Is 

ni -. 
C 
I 

u " 

^ <u 

a. « 

3 
U 



Q. 



(NOIiVindOd 0001 ii3d) 
SNOIiDVSNVili IVniDV 



o 

u 



in 



Of 



93 



1200-133 



Z 

g 

t— 

z< 

<> 

5 n 



00 



CO 



I 

CO 






§z 

u •- 

< < 

10 —I 

t- a. 

11 II 

t— a. 




(NoiivindOd 0001 a3d) 
SNOIiDVSNVm ivniDv 



c 

2 M 

nl <T- 

C — I 
I 

Z at 

rt c 



4) •- 



0) 



in " 

3 

O 



C 

o 
<n 

a 

E 
o 
U 









94 



1200-133 



CO 

O 

t— 

< 

on 
< 



(1) 
^1 



nj 
B 
O 

n! 
B 
I 

<U 

ns 



(dV3A h36 iN30d3d) HiMOiiO 



00 

c 

O 



SNOIlDVSNVyi 



o 

u 




< 

LlJ 



u 
m 
o 

a 

< 






95 



1200-133 







CNJ 



sS 






o 



c 
It 



e 
o 



s. 






w 




c 


to 


Id 


"^ 


h 


o 








1— 




o 





< 


4^ 


C/1 


(« 



T3 



00 



(yV3A d3d iN30iJ3d) S3iVd HIA\0d9 



90 



1200-133 



Z 

o 



0£. 
< 



0£ 

a. 



U 



o 
o 



Z 

o 

I— 

u 
< 

1/1 

z 
< 



CO 

II 

X 
t— 

O 

en 
O 




(ilV3A J13d iN3Dii3d) 

HIMOHO ivniDv 



o 
u 



(1) 

o ^ 

ni — I 

c r^ 

■4-1 

nJ . 

■" M 

in g 



<n 
en 

i) 



o u 

° £ 

o 



c 
o 

en 

>-i 
nl 

a 

£ 

o 

o 






97 



1200-133 



0£ 
< 



UJ 



U 

UJ 1/1 

^ z 

o 



o 



I 



CM 



o 

O 



I/) 

z 
< 



z 
o 

z < 
< > 

5 Q 




(W3A ll3d iN3Da3d) 

HiMoao ivniDv 



^ 









>4 




60 




U 








«*-« 








B! 




U 




'W 


CO 


. 


r^ 


n1 


o 


C 


■^ 


o 








J-t 


(^ 




CT~ 


(U 




4-1 


bn 


n) 


r 


•u 




0) 


J3 


T) 


4-1 


OJ 




-w 
() 


5 






T) 




(1) 


V 


b 


QC 


a 


n) 




m 


m 


m 


> 


(U 


^^ 


F 


nl 




2 


U 


4-1 




r} 


4J 


nl 


(« 


V4 


h 


o 







4J 


c 


3 





i« 


0) 


C 


• -- 


o 




r 


(fl 




a. 




E 









U 








98 



1200-133 



m n 

Transactions = S T. , tt [(1+G..)| P. , 
i = i '• j = l 'J '• 

where T. , = Transactions per capita for state (i) for 1972 

G. . = Growth rate for state (i) at transaction level T 

iJ ij 

P. , = Population of state (ij'for 1972 

i = State, i = 1, 2, . . . m 

j = Year, j = 1, 2, . . . n 

For states that do not now have automatic message switching interfaces with 
NCIC, an automated interface was assumed to be installed by 1976. Transaction 
levels were generated on this basis and projected to 1983 by the above algorithm. 
The totals for both classes of states were summed to give a traffic volume level 
for 1983 of 142 million messages. This result is approximately 45 percent 
greater than the value of 98. 2 million messages obtained by a straight line extra- 
polation of 1968-1973 actuals. A comparison of estimates is given in Fig. 6. 11. 
The higher value is assumed for the overall total traffic estimates that are given 
in Table A-1 of Appendix A. 

Figure 6. 12 illustrates a "ramp" growth in transaction level for the state 
of Missouri as reflected by the Kansas City ALERT II system. The growth curve 
as predicted by the foregoing model is shown for comparison, assuming that the 
system is upgraded from nonautomatic to automatic message switching in the 
second year. Although the comparison is favorable, similar ramp growths were 
not found in the NCIC data for individual states, and questions are raised as to 
the validity of comparing local or regional system startup growth trends to traf- 
fic buildup against NCIC files. 

6. 2. 6 Comments 

Several comments are offered regarding the regression analysis. First, 
it is noted that the variances are relatively large, as could be expected; near 
term trends are reasonably valid, however. The smaller states, in particular, 
are difficult to model (on a per capita basis). 



99 



1200-133 



S6 
o 




3 






o^ 






f— 1 






oo 




to 

c 


r-. 







o^ 










4>* 

o 

4) 

a 


vO 




o 


r^ 






o<> 




«-i 


i-H 


cc 


rt 




< 






UJ 






>- 


c 




'«• 




(4 


r^ 




c 


o 




1 


1 

01 



C/3 






(Nomiw) 

aV3Ay3d SNOIiOVSNViJi 



100 



1200-133 



MODEL 
ALERT 1 1 




TRANSITION TO AUTOMATIC 
MESSAGE SWITCHING 



1 2 3 

YEARS 



The growth rate function is noted to depend on current transaction level 
only; other independent variables were rejected by the regression technique. 
This does not imply that population growth rate and crime rate increase are 
excluded, however; since the raw data were obtained from the average actual 
growth over the time period from 1971 to 1973, changes in crime rate and popu- 
lation are implicitly included in the raw data points. Extrapolations of future 
growth thus assume the same percent per year changes in population and crime 
rate. A second point to note in regard to growth rate is that transaction rates 
for all states will tend to asymptote to nearly equal values, which may or may 
not be valid. 



Other approaches that may be explored in subsequent analyses of traffic 
models include correlations with the sizes of the various data files since pre- 
sumably transaction rate is a function of completeness of the files, and therefore 
the hit rates. Another variable of interest is the percent of urbanized areas 
serviced by modern law enforcement communication nets since most of the 



101 



1200-133 



population is concentrated in such areas (over 70 percent). Because over 80 
percent of the total population reside in states with automated message switching 
interfaces with NCIC, large increases in total traffic may not occur as nonauto- 
mated systems are upgraded. 

6.3 Interstate Traffic Modeling 

The national Law Enforcement Teletypewriter Service (LETS) was ana- 
lyzed to gain insight into the state -to -state traffic component of the proposed 
NALECOM system. Unlike the state-to-national study, the proposed NALECOM 
system requires not only the traffic volume, but also a 50-state origin-destina- 
tion matrix. 

6. 3. 1 Modeling Approach 

The increase in state-to-state traffic volume was estimated to increase on 
the basis of the prediction models presented in Section 6. 2. A significant 
change in the base year projection was made, however, to account for the 
fact that the LETS historical data reflect traffic levels for an unautomated system. 
Hence, an adjustment was made on the basis of the unautomated versus automa- 
ted prediction models in the base year projection to reflect upgrade to automatic 
switching and file access. Assuming 1972 traffic volume to be 6640 messages per 
day, * a value of 101, 000 messages per day was obtained for 1983 (36, 850, 000 
messages per year). 

Once traffic volumes were projected, an origin-destination matrix was 
needed to specify interstate traffic assignments. In order to generate this 
matrix, a modified gravity model was developed. The model assumes 

1) Originating traffic volume is directly proportional to state popula- 
tion. 

2) Destination traffic varies directly with the population of the destina- 
tion state and inversely with the distance from the originating state. 



*See Appendix B. 



102 



1200-133 



6. 3, 2 Originating Traffic 

The traffic allocation model is developed as follows. For originating 
traffic, the number of messages is assumed to vary directly with the population 
of the originating state. 



T. = T 



m 



where T. = Traffic originating from state i 
I 
T = Total system traffic 

P. = Population of state i 

P = Total population 

i = I, 2, . . . N originating states 

Unfortunately LETS did not maintain comprehensive records of its state-to- 
state transactions (O-D traffic); records are limited to the percentage of total 
traffic generated by each of the nine circuits (see Fig. 6. 13). 



Results obtained with the allocation model agree reasonably well with the 
available LETS traffic data (Table 6.2). The sparsely settled western 
states (Circuits 7 and 8) are underestimated by the model; Circuit (5), which 
is covered in part by the ALECS network, is overestimated. 



6.3.3 Destination Traffic 

Destination traffic allocation is estimated by assuming that message 
volume arriving at a state varies directly with its population and inversely with 
its distance to the originating state. The total traffic received by each state 
(T.; j = l, 2, . . .N) is calculated as follows: 

Defining T.. as traffic originating in state (i) and terminating in state (j), 
we can say 

-P. 



T.. = T 



■BU «.) 



103 



1200-133 




'> 

la 

u 

4) 

a 



c 



c 
ni 






o 
oo 



O 
O 



34-788 O - 74 - 8 



104 



1200-133 



Messages Originated 

Circuit A ^ 1 x/ J 1 

Actual Model 



1 


10. 0% 


10.5% 


2 


9.3 


13, 1 


3 


13. 1 


14.3 


4 


12. 2 


13.4 


5 


14. 1* 


18.0 


6 


11.6 


12. 1 


7 


7. 5 


3. 9** 


8 


12. 1 


4. 9** 


10 


9.2 


9.9 



100.0% 100.0% 

*ALECS Network not included. 

**Rocky Mountain and Western States 
circuits. 

Table 6.2. Comparison of actual and predicted messages originated 

LETS (state-state) 



where: P. = Population of state j 

T^ = Total traffic that originates from state (i) 

r.. = Airline distance from terminal in state (i) to terminal in 
'J state (j) 

R. = Constant 

The term {-^ R. ) can be interpreted as the fraction of traffic origina- 
ting in state (i) that go'«^8 to state (j). Keeping this interpretation in mind: 

/P. 



j = lVP r.. ., 



1 



for i = 1. 2, . ..N 



or 



105 



1200-133 



m^) 



for i = 1, 2, . . . N. 



Once the R.s have been calculated, the T.. matrix can be constructed. The 
terms in a column of the O-D matrix will sum to the total transactions into a 



state: 



for i = 1, 2, ... N. 



N 
T. = ST.. 
J i = l ^J 



Results of the analysis (O-D traffic assignment matrix) are given in Appen- 
dix A, Table A-2. 

The values obtained using the above analysis were checked with the limited 
available LETS actuals by comparing traffic departing a circuit to traffic routed 
to other users on the same circuit, i.e., the ratio of intra to inter circuit traf- 
fic. The comparison is given in Table 6. 3. 

It is noted that the destination model assumes the number of messages 
transmitted to be independent of the number of messages received. Since 
obviously many messages are generated in response to queries, the assumption 
of independence reduces the model to a purely statistical fit of messages 
received. 

The two NALECOM functions, state-to-state communication and state-to- 
national communications, are relatively independent. Thus, NALECOM traffic 
can be estimated by directly combining the projections of the two traffic types. 
However, these estirrates have accounted for existing types of information 
transferred across the NALECOM network. The next chapter discusses new 
uses of the NALECOM network and assesses the impact on total traffic volume. 



106 



1200-133 



Circuit Actual Model 

1 40% 

2 14 

3 32 

4 22 

5 27 

6 22 

7 19 

8 33 



32% 


26 


21 


25 


32 


14 


8 


12 



Average 27 24 



Table 6. 3. Comparison of actual and predicted intra-circuit traffic 

LETS (state-state) 



6. 4 Peak-to-Average Loading 

The National Law Enforcement Telecommunications system has strict 
response time constraints (see Chapter 8) and thus cannot tolerate delays of 
more than a few seconds. These messages, in general, relate to greater police 
officer safety. Since officer safety is involved, NALECOM must have sufficient 
line capacity or queuing capacity to ensure that high priority messages will not 
encounter delays, even during peak hours. 

To facilitate the capac ity /queuing analysis, some measure of peak traffic 
flow is needed. A good system indicator is the peak-to-average traffic flow 
ratio. The following approach was used. NCIC provides hourly transaction 
numbers for each day of the week and for each of its users. Nine representative 
NCIC users were chosen, including: 

1) Boston, Massachusetts, Police Department, 

2) Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. 

3) Salt Lake City Department of Public Safety. 

4) NCIC Albany, New York, State Police. 



107 



1200-133 



5) New York City Police Department. 

6) Phoenix Highway Patrol. 

7) FBI, Los Angeles. 

8) Dade County Department of Public Safety. 

9) Wisconsin Department of Justice. 

For each user, the daily peak-to-average ratio was calculated by dividing 
the number of transactions that occurred during the busiest hour of a day by the 
average hourly transactions for that day. Thus for each user, there were seven 
ratios, one for each day of the week. The largest of the seven was chosen as the 
peak-to-average ratio. These ratios versus transactions per month are pre- 
sented in Fig. 6. 14 and indicate that as the number of transactions increases, 
the hourly peak-to-average ratios decreases. The peak-to-average ratio 
asymptotes to an approximate value of Z. 

It is noted that although the peak-to-average ratio was calculated on an 
hourly basis, the allowable delay time will be only a few seconds. Unless the 
assumption is made that the mean arrival rate is constant over the hour under 
study, a queuing analysis will not yield accurate results. Accuracy would be 
improved if smaller than hourly time units were used in calculating the peak-to- 
average ratio. It is apparent that data relating to queuing procedures within the 
NCIC system would be helpful in determining actual delays. Such data will be 
sought in the follow-on studies. 



108 



1200-133 



g 



C3 



o 

nO 



jQ- 






O 




ir\ 



nl 

a 

u 
Id 

U 

O 

2 

c 
o 

T3 
V 

a 
flj 



0) 

o 



V 

OS 
14 

Ih 

> 

n) 
I 
O 



tt 
V 

Pi4 






OliVb30Vy3AVOi>IV3d 



109 



1200-133 



7. ANALYSIS OF NEW SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS 



7. 1 Criminal Histories 

The need for speedy and reliable background information on defendants 
and suspects within the Criminal Justice System is well known. Determining 
the correct charge, setting bail, and many other activities can be justly done 
only if the background of the person in question is known. To meet this need 
the concept of a computerized criminal history (CCH) was developed. 

A national computerized criminal history (CCH) file has been under develop- 
ment for the last several years. This effort was highlighted by the Project 
SEARCH esiperinnents and the establishment of a CCH file in the NCIC system. 
As it currently exists the CCH system is a centralized data file at the FBI into 
which the states place criminal records of offenders. Once in the file, any 
authorized terminal can access that record and retrieve a copy of the file. In 
most cases, a copy of the criminal history is not considered valid unless positive 
identification has been made (normally through the use of fingerprints) and thus 
the CCH record can be positively linked to the person in question. In this manner 
the transmission of CCH's and fingerprints are directly related (see Section 7.2 
on fingerprints). . 

7.1.1 General Methodology and Assumptions 

Current Computerized Criminal History files are maintained in a single 
centralized file at NCIC, and, thus, only state-to-national traffic exists. How- 
ever, it is the stated policy of the FBI to encourage the creation of state held 
CCH files. Consequently the future CCH system will quite likely consist of some 
type of national file supplemented by or in conjunction with, state files. The 
exact structure of any future system is not clear and several alternatives are 
available. Consequently, we have examined four configurations that we believe 
cover the range of possibilities: 

1) All files remain at the national level (no significant change). 

2) Each state maintains its own files on single-state offenders within 
their state, with only multi-state offenders and a pointer in a national 
file. 



no 



1200-133 



3) All files are maintained at the state level with only a pointer at the 
national level. 

4) All files are maintained at the state level with a pointer and a 
Criminal Summary (CS) file at the national level. 

While playing a significant role in determining the loadings on the com- 
munication links, we have assun-ied that the overall system configuration (inclu- 
ding any of the 4 cases listed above) will not affect the total number of inquiries 
and updates being generated at the state and local levels. Thus, our basic 
methodology has been to estimate the total number of inquiries and updates to 
be generated and then examine each case to determine how and by whom these 
messages are received and acted upon. 

7.1.2 Total Inquiries and Updates (State and Local) 

We have assumed that regardless of the structure, there will be two 
types of inquiries generated: 

1) Requests for a complete Criminal History (CH). 

2) Requests for a Criminal Summary (CS). 

We have further assumed that there will be one (1) inquiry for a CH for each 
arrest, to be used during the booking process and the determination of bail. 
Due to the long delay associated with the criminal justice process it cannot be 
assumed that the record originally obtained at the time of arrest will be ade- 
quate throughout the process. Thus we will assume that there will also be a 
CH inquiry by the prosecutor for each arrest to aid in the decision as to whether 
or not to prosecute. An additional CH inquiry will probably be necessary for 
each case prosecuted for the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation by a 
probation officer. If the defendent is convicted and sentenced to some correc- 
tional program, there will be a need for CH's by various corrections agencies. 
Exactly how many inquiries will be made by corrections personnel is uncertain 
at this time. To estimate the expected traffic, however, we will assume an 



1. For the purposes of this report "arrests" will include all arrests of persons 
over 18 years for all offenses reported in the UCRs except drunkenness. 



l.T. 



Ill 



1200-133 



average of three (3) CH inquiries per convicted defendant. In summary, we 
will assume two (2) CH inquiries per arrest; one (1) CH inquiry per case 
prosecuted; and three (3) CH inquiries per conviction. These estimates are 
quite possibly high in that the need for a criminal history at each point described 
above varies from case to case. Depending on the actual personnel involved 
a CH may or may not be requested. However, for the purpose of sizing a tele- 
communications system, these estimates should provide adequate upper bounds 
on CH inquiries. 

In addition to CH inquiries we anticipate that information on criminal 
records will be needed in the course of investigations. Again no figures exist 
on which to estimate the expected traffic from such a use. Thus, we have 
assumed that a criminal summary (CS) will be adequate for this purpose and 
that there will be approximately two (2) CS inquiries per arrest made. 

Obviously, the above assumptions are meaningless without some esti- 
mates of the number of arrests ( up to 1983). Changes in crime definition, 
social values, and attitudes make any prediction of arrest trends somewhat 
tenuous. Thus, it was not felt necessary to develop a detailed model to predict 

the growth in arrests, and a simple linear extrapolation of current growth 

2 
trends (1963 to 1973) was considered sufficient. This extrapolation yielded 

1975 and 1983 estimates of 4. 3 million and 5. 8 million arrests per year, 

respectively. 

To completely determiine the total expected CH inquiries it is necessary to 
know the percentage of offenders actually prosecuted and the percentage con- 
victed (and placed in custody or under supervision). Figures available on felony 

arrests indicate that 73% of all arrestees are actually prosecuted (for some 

4 
offense) and 42% are convicted. 

The total number of state and local updates to be generated is somewhat 
more difficult to determine. Current update traffic on NCIC is probably not a 



2. "Uniform Crime Reports, " Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1963-1972. 

3. See Appendix C for details of the extrapolation procedure. 

4. International Synposium on Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Sys- 
tems, Project SEARCH, "The Use of Offender-Based Transaction Statistics 
in Criminal Justice Planning, " October 1972, p. 465. 



112 



1200-133 



good estimate due to its relatively small file size and the future inclusion of 
more data (for compatability with an OBTS system) in the CCH files. To esti- 
mate update traffic we will assume that for each major step in the criminal jus- 
tice process there will be one (1) update. The major steps are: 

1) Arrest. 

2) Preliminary hearing. 

3) Verdict. 

4) Admission to corrections. 

5) Probationary release, 

6) Final release. 

As discussed above, based on felony arrests, 73% of all arrestees are actually 
prosecuted (preliminary hearing), 47% are held to answer some charge (receive 
some verdict), and 42% are convicted of some offense (admitted to corrections). 
We will assume that for each conviction there will be three (3) updates. Thus 
for each arrest we expect approximately 3. 5 updates to be generated. Under 
the above assumptions we are able to calculate the expected total number of 
inquiries and updates to be generated. Table 7. 1 summarizes these results. 

Table 7. 1. Total inquiries and updates to be generated by state and local 
agencies for 1978 and 1983 (millions per year) 





1978 


1983 


CH inquiries generated* 




15.9 




21.5 


CS inquiries generated 




8.6 




10.6 


Total inquiries generated 




24. 5 




32. 1 


Updates 




15.1 




20.3 


*CK inquiries per arrest = 


: 2 + 1 X 0. 42 
X 0.90 = 3. 


+ 3 
7 


X 0.42 



5. Ibid. 

6. Updates per arrest = 1 (arrest) + 1 x 0. 73 (prelim, hearing) + 1 x 0.47 
(verdict) + 3 x 0, 42 (corrections) = 3. 46 = 3. 5. 



113 



1200-133 



7. 1.3 NALECOM System Traffic for Each of the Four Cases 

Case 1 - All Criminal History (CH) and Criminal Summary (CS) Files 
at the National Level (No Change from NCIC) 

We have assumed in this case that no state CCH files exist and thus all 
requests for criminal histories and summaries must be addressed to the national 
file. 

State-to-National Traffic 

State-to-national traffic should consist only of inquiries and updates, for 
the states do not have data files and thus cannot respond to inquiries (from any- 
one). Thus'all inquiries and updates generated must go to the national level. 
The traffic volumes are identical to those in Table 7. 1. 

National-to-State Traffic 



For Case 1 national-to- state traffic will consist only of responses to 
inquiries. Thus the total number of national-to-state messages (responses) 
should equal the number of inquiries. However, it is necessary to distinguish 
between "hit" (a criminal history or summary is found) and "no hit" (no record 
in the file) responses. In the former case the record itself will be sent, whereas 
in the latter case a "no record available" message is sent. 

For the initial CH inquiry at the time of arrest we would expect the "hit" 
rate^ to be equal to the percentage of offenders who are recidivists (65%). 
Subsequent inquiries by prosecutions and corrections, however, will always 
receive "hits" because a CCH file will have been created on the offender. Thus 
the number of "hit" responses should equal 0. 65 times the number of arrests 
plus 2. 7 times the number of arrests. 



7. The percentage of inquiries for which a record is actually found and returned. 

8. Op. cit., "Uniform Crime Reports, " p. 36. 

9. 2. 7 X arrests equals the number of prosecutions and corrections CH inquiries. 



114 



1200-133 



CS inquiries, on the other hand, are, by assumption, the results of the 
various investigatory functions. Thus, we would expect far fewer "hits" because 
this system is used less discriminately than the CH files. Since no accurate 
figures are available, we can only say that the "hit" rate for CS inquiries should 
be lower than for CH inquiries, perhaps 25% to 50% lower. For purposes of this 
document, however, we will assume in all cases that the "hit" rates for CS and 
CH inquiries are equal to avoid underestimating the traffic volumes. Table 7. 2 
shows the 1978 and 1983 estimates for national-to-state traffic under Case 1, 

Table 7,2. National-to-state traffic under Case 1 (millions per year) 





1978 


1983 




CH "hit" responses 


14.4 


19. 5 




CH "no hit" responses 


1. 5 


2.0 




CS "hit" responses 


5.6 


6.9 




CS "no hit" responses 


3. 


3.7 




Total responses 


24.5 


32. 1 





State-to-State Traffic 

Under this case there will be no state-to- state traffic. Figure 7. 1 out- 
lines the flow of messages under Case 1. 



Case 2 - State Files on Single-State Offenders with a National Pointer 
and Multi-State Offender File 



In this case we have assumed that the states maintain files on single-state 
offenders. Thus a state would first search its own CCH files before forwarding 
any inquiry to the national level. The national file would contain a pointer to 
the state files and hold all the records of multi-state offenders. A pointer at 
the national level is simply an index to state-held CCH files. For each record 
held by a state, the national pointer contains the name, identification data, and 
the state of record. In the event of a "hit" on the pointer file (indicating the 
transition of a single-state offender into a multi-state offender) the state cur- 
rently holding the record would be requested to forward that record to the 
national file (and create a new multi-state offender record at the national level). 



115 



1200-133 



z 




l>0 


g 

< 

O 
u- 

z 


4/1 

5 


LU 

< 

»— 
CO 


LU 


UJ 

X 
»— 

o 





















z, , 












► 


o^ 












>o 














00 


X >- 

r< 




o- 








LU 


















U- 














< 

z 




*^ 












"•■•■■"""•^ 

o 










o 




o 










t— 














< 






UJ 








z 




NO 


UJ d 
I u. 

•- _J 
> < 

^ o 














? < 












o^ 


" Z 




i 


iL 


i 


k 








8 


8l 
"I 


o 
o 












z 












o 














u. i= : 


5 












1- < L 


U 












^2 


o 














o 












u. 














Z 














^ 














^ 


' t 


i 


i 








8 


8i 


o 
o 














-I 
1 














V 


■> I/O 










1/1 


u 


J UJ 










Ul 
















c 


^ s 








> 


U 

Z 

LU 


c 


5 3 
J O 


1/1 

UJ 

1 — 






"^ Q 9 


O 


I 


: z 


< 






;^ s z 


< 




^ 


Q 






o ►- < 




1 


Z t'^ 


a. 






MESSA 
INITIA 
STATE 


< 

g 






8 







U 



4) 

C 



M 
(A 









^ 








o 
















^*-l 






fjO 


01 






UJ 


Si 






< 


M 


X 


Co 


e 




u 


U 


3 


<— « 


o 


O 


o 


1^ 


7 


z 


z 










7 


z 


z 


M 


QC 


DC 


a: 




UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


Uh 


«.; 


u 


U 


7 


z 


z 




O 


o 


o 




u 


u 


u 




</i 


oo 


v/l 






UJ 


UJ 




O 


o 


o 




< 


< 


< 




oo 




*/l 




un 


U) 


on 





5 5 5 



116 



1200-133 



This record would then be forwarded to the inquiring state along with a request 
to send their records on the individuals (to complete the national record). 

State-to-National Traffic 

State-to-national traffic under Case 2 will consist of inquiries (when no 
state file is located), updates, and responses (when a new multi-state offender 
file is created). An FBI study done from 1970 to 1972 indicated that: 

65% of all arrestees are repeat offenders. 

44% of all repeaters are multi-state repeaters. 

64% of all multi-state repeaters had records in only two (2) states. 

If these percentages are assumed to be representative of the nation, the follow- 
ing figures can be derived: 

29% of all arrestees are multi-state offenders. 

36% of all arrestees are single-state recidivists, 

35% of all arrestees are new offenders. 

18% of all arrestees are recidivists with records in only two (2) states. 

All CS and CH inquiries will first be checked against the state files. Since 
all multi- state files will have been removed, those offenders with records 
in only one state will be "hit" at the state level. Thus 36% of all CS and CH inqui- 
ries will automatically be cut off by the states. Of the remaining 64%, 29% 
represent multi-state offenders and 35% are new offenders. For CS inquiries 
all 64% continue to the national level. However, for CH inquiries we will assume 
that one (1) inquiry per arrest will be national for new offenders and all other 
CH inquiries regarding new offenders will be stopped at the state level. With an 
average of 3. 7 inquiries per arrest this means that approximately 27% of all new 
offender CH inquiries will be national. Since new offenders account for 35% of 
the total traffic, about 9% (0.27 x 0. 35 = 0. 094) of the total CH inquiries gener- 
ated will be first-offender national inquiries. Combining this with multi-state 



10. Op. Cit. , "Uniform Crime Reports, " p. 36. 

11. The numbers have been rounded to maintain only the appropriate number of 
significant figures. 



117 



1200-133 



offender traffic gives 38% of the total CH inquiries generated continuing to the 
national level. The basic assumption is that once a state file is created further 
inquiries about that offender should be stopped by the State. 

All updates for single-state offenders (36% of arrestees) would only reach 
the state level. In addition, new offenders (35% of arrestees) would only require 
one (1) update (for the pointer) per arrest. Thus, only 29% of all updates gen- 
erated (from Table 7. 1) plus one (1) per new offender arrest would be national 
updates under Case 2. This gives 5.9 million updates /year (0. 29 x 15.1 +0.35 
X 4. 3 = 5. 9) and 7. 9 million updates/year (0. 29 x 20. 3 + 0. 35 x 5.8 = 7.9) for 
1978 and 1983, respectively. 

As discussed above, each time a new multi-state offender file is created, 
both states will be requested to forward their files to the national level. Thus 
there will be two state-to-national "responses" for each new multi-state file 
created at the national level. Unfortunately, the number of times we could 
expect this to occur is not available. However, the FBI study referenced earlier 
indicated that 18% of all arrestees have records in two (2) and only two (2) states. 
To obtain a rough approximation of the number of new multi-state files created, 
we will assume that all of the two-state recidivists are classified as such on the 

basis of the arrest in question (and thus a new file at the national level is crea- 

12 
ted). With 3.7 inquiries per arrest, the first inquiry represents 27% of the 

inquiries related to that arrest. If 27% of all inquiries are the initial inquiry 

(for a particular arrest) and 18% of the initial inquiries create a new national 

file (new multi-state offender), then 5% (18% x 27%) of all inquiries will create 

new national files. This would rriean that 5% of the total CH inquiries would not 

be "hit" at the state file but would be "hit" at the national pointer and thus require 

the two states involved (the arresting state and the state identified by the pointer) 

to forward their records on that arrestee to the national file. Thus the total 

state-to-national responses should equal two times 0.05 times the number of CH 

inquiries generated. Table 7. 3 shows the figures for state-to-national traffic 

under Case 2 for 1978 and 1983. 



12. This is actually an upper bound, for in reality we would expect less than 

18%. However, since no estimates exist, we will assume the larger figure. 



118 



1200-133 



Table 7. 3. State-to-national traffic under Case 2 (millions per year) 





1978 


1983 . 


CH inquiries 


6.0 


8.2 


CS inquiries 


5. 5 


6. 8 


Total inquiries 


11.5 


15.0 


Updates 


5.9 


7.9 


"Responses" or CCH file 






transfers (twice the number 






of new national files created) 


1.6 


2. 2 



National-to-State Traffic 

Under Case 2 national-to-state traffic will consist of responses to inquiries 
and requests for new files (new multi-state offendersy". When an inquiry is 
received at the national level, one of three things occurs: 

1) A "hit" on a multi-state offender record, 

2) A "hit" on the pointer file. 

3) No "hit. " 

Concerning the national-to-state traffic Case 2 strongly differentiates between 
CH and CS inquiries. When either inquiry (CH or CS) receives a "hit" on the 
multi-state offender file a "hit" response (of the appropriate type) is sent. How- 
ever, "hits" on the pointer file ("pointer-hits") are treated differently according 
to the type of inquiry (CH or CS). 

For CH inquiries, if a "pointer hit" is made, the state holding the record 
is requested to forward its file (as described above) to the national level. Once 
this file is received, the standard "hit" response (for CHs) is sent to the origi- 
nal requesting state. In addition, the requesting state is asked to forward its 
files to the national level as well (to complete the multi-state record). Thus, 
for a CH "pointer hit" two national-to- state "inquiries" are generated and one 
standard "hit" response is sent. 



T-\n 



119 



1200-133 



For CS inquiries, on the other hand, when a "pointer hit" is made, no 
new multi-state file is to be created (for, by assumption, no new arrest has 
been made). Thus, simpley a "pointer hit" response will be sent and it will be 
up to the requesting state to obtain the CS file. A "pointer hit" response 
simply informs the requesting state where the records on the individual in ques- 
tion are being held. 

Based on the percentages given earlier, estimates of the traffic loads for 
each message type are calculated as follows: 

1) CH "hit" responses (from the multi-state file) should occur on 29% 

13 
of all CH inquiries generated. 

2) The number of national-to- state CH "inquiries" will be 0. 10 (2 x 0. 05) 
times the total number of CH inquiries generated. 

3) CS "hit" responses (from the multi-state file) will equal 29% of all 
CS inquiries generated. 

4) CS "pointer-hit" responses will be 18% of the total CS inquiries 
generated (by assumption). 

5) The number of "no hit" responses will equal the total number of 
inquiries (reaching the national level) less the "hit" (for CH and CS) 
and "pointer-hit" (CS only) responses. 

Table 7.4 shows the national-to- state traffic under Case 2 for 1978 and 1983. 

Table 7.4. National-to- state traffic under Case 2 (millions per year) 





1978 


1983 


CH "hit" responses 


4.6 


6.2 


CH "no hit" responses 


1.4 


2. 


CCH transfer requests 


1. 6 


2. 2 


CS "hit" responses (multi-state file) 


2. 5 


3. 1 


CS "pointer hit" responses 


1.5 


1.9 


CS "no hit" responses 


1. 5 


I. 8 



13. This includes those "hit" responses sent after a new file has been created 
("pointer hit"). 



34-788 O - 74 - 9 



120 



1200-133 



State-to-State Traffic 

The only state-to- state traffic under Case 2 is to retrieve Criminal 
Summaries (CSs). Thus, there should be one state-to- state inquiry and "hit" 
response for each "pointer-hit" on the national-state traffic. The values are 
summarized in Table 7. 5. 

Table 7.5. State-to-state traffic under Case 2 (millions per year) 





1978 


1983 


CS inquiries 
CS responses 


1.5 
1. 5 


1.9 
1.9 



An overall outline of the flow of messages under Case 2 is given in 
Fig. 7.2. 

Case 3 - State Files with Only A "Pointer" at the National Level 

Under Case 3 the states will be the repository of all files. When an offen- 
der is arrested all available files are transferred to that state; the national 
pointer indicates the new state of record; and inquiries by any other state (for 
criminal summaries) will be directed to that state. Thus all inquiries (both CH 
and CS) will first check the state file; if they are the state of record a response 
(of the appropriate length) will be sent. If no record is found (no "hit"), the 
inquiry will be forwarded to the national "pointer. " If the "pointer" indicates 
that some other state has a file on the individual, the inquiring state will then 
initiate an inquiry to the appropriate state. For CH inquiries an arrest has 
been made (by assumption) and thus the inquiring state will become the state of 
record. CS inquiries, on the other hand, are for investigatory purposes (by 
assumption) and thus no transfer of records takes place. 

State-to-National Traffic 



For CH inquiries, after the initial inquiry (by the booking agency) the 
requesting state will become the state of record regardless of the past history 



121 



1200-133 



Z 

o 



z 
o 







Z 


t/l 














O z 


UJ 


















*n 


FORMAT! 
YSTEMS 1 


< 

>— 

oc 

UJ 

X 






CO 


-^ 


HIT" BY 

OTHER 

STATE'S 

FILES 










2 V, 


O 










1 








I i/i 


r 














U UJ 




















U -I 


















1 ■" "" 


V-> 




1 














■ :y Q 








1 


f 












NEW 

MULTI 

STATE Fl 

CREATE 
















»o 






--4l 










UJ 

u. 






rv 


- 


i HITS" 
ANY 
ILE 








^ 




^ 




Co 


CO 




-J 

< 










O Z '^ 
ZO 






















to 

1— 






X 






z 

O 






CK 






l/l 




UJ 






UJ 


















D 






1— 






t— 












o 

UJ 

a: 


^ 
^ 1 




z 
o 

a. 






< 

z 








— ♦■ 








u- 








• 1 


z 
< 

X 


^^ 






m 










'~R~ 


■*" 


•HIT" BY 
HE MULTI 

STATE 

)FFENDER 

FILE 














u 














■* 




■ P U 


u 














Csl 










i 


L 


i 


1 


t 


i 1 








X 








1 














oo 


1) 1/1 




S 




-Ol 


a 












1 






LU 








1 


















U-) 








1 








■ ■•^fe 


BY 
STEM 






z 












'••^^ 






o 

UJ f= 


5 






^ 






ll-> 




^ "^ 


UJ 










\u <■ > 




1 2 


> 






~S" 


""^ 


2^1 


— — ► 


z 












•^ >-Q 


00 








— 








-O 










i 

8 


I 


t 
§1 


8 


k 




















-1 
1 














rf > 
















UJ 


i/i 


kn 












> — 


UJ 


Ui 












AGES 
TEDB' 
: AND 
OENC 




a: 


UJ 










o 


a 


< 










•Ci,<\ii< 


iZ 


^2. 


e 










ME 

INIT 

STA 

OCAL 


8 


8 


8 


























^ 


















0) 

c 

3 










< 


^ 






o 







uo 


a. 






<J 


3 






O 

z 


o 

Z 


<u 

H 




7 


z 








oe 






UJ 








<,J 


U 


<M 




Z 


z 




t/n 


o 


O 


C^ 


O 


u 


VJ 


, 


< 


UJ 


UJ 


M 


<•! 


o 


o 


fe 


UJ 


< 


< 


i 


t/> 






to 






T 


UJ 


UJ 




U 


5 


s. 





122 



1200-133 



of the offender. Consequently, all further inquiries during the course of the 
criminal justice process (by prosecutor, etc.) will be stopped at the state level. 
Therefore, to estimate traffic loads on a national network we need only consider 
the initial CH inquiry by a state. By assumption, then, the number of such 
"initial inquiries" would equal the number of arrests. However, since the 
inquiring state may already be the state of record not all the initial CH inquiries 
will be national. To estimate the number of CH inquiries not cut off by the state 

we will again use the fact that 36% of all offenders are single-state recidivists, 

14 
29% are multi-state recidivists, and 35% are new offenders. All CH inquiries 

concerning single-state recidivists will be cut off along with a certain percentage 
of the multi-state recidivists. However, since we are unable to estimate the 
likelihood of a multi-state offender having a record in the inquiring state, we 
will assume that all such inquiries are national. Thus all the initial CH inqui- 
ries (one per arrest) with regards to new offenders (35%) and multi-state reci- 
divists (29%) will be assumed to be national traffic. In other words, the number 
of national CH inquiries expected will equal 64% of total number of arrests made. 

For CS inquiries we can only expect the inquiring state to be the state of 
record for single-state offenders and again some multi-state offenders. Since 
we cannot estimate the fraction of the multi-state offenders that will be cut off, 
we will assume an upper bound in which none will be cut off. Thus the number 
of National CS inquiries expected should be 64% of the total CS inquiries 
generated. 

Since all files would be state-held, the only reason to update the national 
pointer is once for new arrestees or recidivists in a new state. As presented 
earlier, about 35% of all arrestees are new offenders and we estimated about 
18% of all arrestees are new multi-state offenders (see page 7-7). Thus we 
would expect the number of national updates to be about 53% (35 + 18) of the 
total number of arrests made. Table 7-6 summarizes the estimates for 
Btate-to-national traffic under Case 3. 



14. Op. Cit., "Uniform Crime Reports, " p. 36, 



123 



1200-133 



Table 7.6. State-to-national traffic under Case 3 (millions per year) 





1978 


1983 


CH inquiries 
CS inquiries 
Updates 


2.7 
5.5 
2.3 


3. 7 
6.8 
3. 1 



National-to-State Traffic 

For each inquiry received at the national file either a "pointer-hit" or a 
"no hit" response will be returned. We will assume that 29% (the percentage of 
all offenders who are multi-state offenders) of all CS inquiries generated (at the 
local level) will receive a "pointer-hit" response from the national file. Simi- 
larly 29% of all the initial CH inquiries (by the booking agency) will receive 
national "pointer-hit" responses. Thus the total number of "pointer-hit" respon- 
ses should equal 0. 29 times the sum of CS inquiries (total generated) and initial 
CH inquiries (number of arrests). All other responses will be "no hit" respon- 
ses. The results are summarized in Table 7.7. 



Table 7,7. National-to-state traffic under Case 3 (millions per year) 



"Pointer-hit" responses 
"No hit" responses 



1978 



3.7 
4. 5 



1983 



4. 8 
5.7 



State-to-State Traffic 



For every "pointer-hit" on the national file, there will be a state-to- state 
iniquiry and a response (see Table 7. 8). An outline of the overall flow of mes- 
sages is given in Figure 7. 3. 



124 



1200-133 








r" 


1 
.J 












LO 


r 
O z! 














CO 


1- ". 

X > 














UJ 

-J 






§< 





— j— 


Co 

X 




o- 










1 

0£ 








—1 
< 










♦ 








UJ 








Z 




lO 








7 








o 
































2 


-«- 






< 

7 




















00 
















^1 
















1 


i 


k 




i 

1 


i 


^ 






1 


rv 






,1 


m 








00 


4 








^1 










5 






'^1 








1 




00 


^ z 


"l^ 


r 


Z 

o 

"J I:? 
>— < 


2 

LU 
























5 5 


in 






^ " 


Q ^ 


^, 




•^•o 


>- 






CO 


2 o 






LL. 










Q. l/l 








2 












O UJ 

t- t- 
l/l < 












00 






- 


1 




4 


i^ 




8 






1 


8 






v/1 
















^1 
1 












U) 














LU 






t/i 


























(J 

^ 5 


a: 




DC 










3 




3 


i/i 








LU Q 7 iJ 

rs uj 4 ^ 
v3 ►- < 


o 




(H 


UJ 








z 




z 


< 

e 

8 








MESSA 
INITIA 
STATE 
LOCAL 


X 

8 




8 











< 


X 


Co 


a. 


u 


u 


Z3 


5 


o 

z 


o 

7 








z 


z 


7 


oc 


ac 


Of 




LU 


LU 


o 


^.J 


u 


z 


z 


7 


o 


o 


O 


u 


u 


u 


*/l 


OO 






UJ 




o 


o 


o 


< 


< 


< 




Ul 


«l0 




oo 


^n 



5 5 5 



CO 

V 
(0 

14 
U 

u 
t) 
■o 

c 

3 

OD 
V 
60 
l« 
10 

n 



o 



H 



m 
bit 



125 



1200-133 



Table 7.8. State-to-state traffic under Case 3 (millions per year) 





1978 


1983 


CH inquiries 


1.2 


1.7 


CS inquiries 


2. 5 


3. 1 


Total inquiries 


3.7 


4. 8 


CH responses 


1-2 


1.7 


CS responses 


2. 5 


3. 1 


Total responses 


3.7 


4. 8 



Case 4 - Complete State Files with a "Pointer" and a Criminal Summary 
(CS) at the National Level 

The final case is essentially the same as Case 3 except that requests for 
CSs will be satisifed at the national level. Since all offenders will have a CS 
File at the national level, all updates will be national. 

State-to-National Traffic 



State-to-national traffic will be the same as in Case 3 (except for updates). 
Since there is a criminal summary at the national level we would expect the 
same number of updates as if the total file were national. Thus the number of 
national updates should equal the total number generated. (See Table 7. 1.) 

National-to-State Traffic 



The absolute volume of traffic will be the same as in Case 3, only now CS 
"hit" responses will replace "pointer hit" responses to CS inquiries (see Table 
7.9). 



126 



1200-133 



Table 7.9. National-to-state traffic under Case 4 (millions per year) 





1978 


1983 


"Pointer-hit" 






responses 


1.2 


1.7 


CS "hit" responses 


2. 5 


3. 1 


"No hit" responses 


4. 5 


5.7 



State-to-State Traffic 

The only state- to- state traffic will be for the retrieval of criminal histor- 
ies (CHs). Thus all the "pointer-hit" responses of Table 7. 9 will generate CH 
inquiries and responses to another state (see Table 7. 10). An outline of the 
flow of messages under Case 4 is shown in Fig. 7.4. 

Table 7-10. State-to-state traffic under Case 4 (millions per year) 





1978 


1983 


CH inquiries 
CH responses 


1.2 
1.2 


1.7 
1.7 



7. 1,4 Character Lengths of Each Message Type 



As discussed on the preceding pages, there are 7 types of messages: 



1) CH inquiries, 

2) CS inquiries. 

3) Updates. 

4) CH "hit" responses, 

5) CS "hit" responses. 

6) "Fbinter hit" responses. 

7) "No hit" responses. 



127 



1200-133 









z 








on Ln 








o z 








LU LU 
X -1 








IFORMATI 
SYSTEMS 
OTHER 
STATES 






^ 


oS 










00 


w 


^ LO 

CO I— 














1- < 














— t— 








^ 








X 1/1 




i 


I 


























--*■ 


^ - 
















u^ 




O -J 
















n 




»— u- 
X > 












Co 

h- 












S5 














X 
t 




UJ 




o- 










oc 




u. 
















UJ 


^— 


—t- 
























z 


03 


< 
















o 




z 
g 






>>^ 




o 


■"^^ 










Ou 








o 
















< 




















z 




"T 


-► 


LU 

= t/1 

X UJ 

= X 




i 


1 


i 












t^ 


1 


si 
















'~' 














00 






1 














z 




1 


^ 






STATE 

RMATIO 

YSTEM 




"^ 




i BY THE 

SOWN 

TEM 


CO 








-■ Q o^ 

z 








PPED 

ATE' 

SYS 




CO 
00 


























8 


■ 4 

1 
21 


8i 














1 

1 
















tn in 
















LU UJ *'' 
















LLJ 














>- 

X3 


ENC 

UIR 
UIRI 


uo 










Ky-) . 


2^ 

- 1- 

Z t: 

— 1/ 


> o <J a 


LU 










LU 

< ' 

LU = 


LOCAL A' 

00 CH IN 
00 CS IN 


< 

Q 

3 

o 
o 














• •" 


•^ 









„ ^ < 

X Cn £ 

U <-> O 

o o o 

z z z 

z z z 

a: Of a: 

UJ LU UJ 

u u u 

z z z 

O o o 

vj u u 

UO l/l L/1 

UJ UJ UJ 

o o o 

< < < 

t/) l/l CO 

LO to W-) 

LU UJ LU 

S S 5 



U 

C 

3 



01 

nl 



0) 






128 



1200-133 



Based on current NCIC message formats we estimate that CH and CS 

15 
inquiries will be about 70 characters in length. The length of update message 

depends on the type of file being updated (pointer or CH) and the particular sec- 
tion of the file to be updated (if it's a CH file). For CH files, the average sec- 
tion is 186 characters. Thus we will assume the average CH update will be 
about 186 characters plus 70 characters for identification (256 total). No 
"pointer" system currently exists from which we can determine the character 
length of "pointer" updates. However, since it contains much the same infor- 
mation as an inquiry, we will assume "pointer" updates will be 70 characters in 
length. 

CH "hit" responses will vary in length according to the number of arrests 
described in the file and how many steps in the criminal justice process were 
completed per arrest. NCIC formats allow 195 characters for identification, 206 

for each arrest, 240 for the judicial process (plus 168 supplementary to the judi- 

17 
cial section), and 119 for custody after conviction. As discussed on page 7-4, 

73% of all arrestees are actually prosecuted, 47% receive some verdict, and 

42% are admitted to corrections. Thus, on the average, we would expect the 

file to contain 195 characters (for identification) plus 510 characters for each 

1 8 
arrest. The careers in crime study done by the FBI indicated approximately 

19 
3 arrests per offender. Consequently we estimate approximately 1725 char- 

20 
acters per CH "hit" response. 

CS "hit" responses are simply short summaries of the CH file. Although 
it does vary in length according to the number of arrests, CS "hit" responses 
are much less sensitive to this because only a summary is given. Based on 



15. "NCIC CCH Message Keys, " issued June 30, 1971, p. 22-23. 

16. Ibid. , pp. 2-2, 3-2, 4-2, 5-2. Based on total characters allowed per sec- 
tion. The smallest section has 119 characters and the largest 240 characters. 

17. Ibid. 

18. 206 + . 73 x 240 + .47 X 168 + .42 X 119 = 510.14=510. 

19. Op. Cit., "Uniform Crime Reports, " p.. 36. 65% have an average of 4 
arrests and 35% only 1 arrest. 

20. 195 + 3 X 510 = 1725. ^'. 



129 



1200-133 



examples of NCIC Criminal Summaries, about half the characters are for 

21 
identification. This indicates an average CS "hit" response of 390 (2 x 195) 

characters. 

"Pointer hit" and "no hit" responses basically contain the same informa- 
tion as an inquiry plus one line giving the state of record or a negative response. 
Thus we will estimate the lengths of both of these responses to be 70 characters 
(the same as inquiries). 

The above character lengths are based on current formats, but we will 
assume that these figures will remain constant over the next 10 years. Table 
7-11 summarizes the results for computerized criminal histories. 



21. Op. cit., "NCIC Message Keys." 



130 



1200-133 



4) 

B 

(0 

0) 



o 









JO 





; 


1 ^ 


% 


1 


1 


s 


1 




'i 


1 


' 


;; 


5 
s 

i 

i 

z 


I 


i 


; : 1 i : 5 : 


i 


- 4 - ^ ' ' ; 


« 


!■;;•-: 


s 


. . . s S_ o . 


5 


Hi 


< < 5 g < 2 < 

2 Z - " 2 2 




s « ; s s E ; 

Z - " 2 




< < < < 2 ? < 
z z z z z 




< < < 1 £ £ < 
z £ z " z 




hi 


2 2 — * Z ' Z 




~ ^ : ; : : 1 




z z z z * ' z 




£££''"'£ 


; 




■ ■. i i ': ' : 


: 


' = 5 • ~ ' ' 


s 


::::'': 


! 


:.'! = -: 


; 


ill 


< < JN O < O < 

2 Z K S z " Z 




; I ; g s s i 

■^ 2 S S "^ '^ 2 




< < < < o o < 
Z Z Z Z " " Z 




< < < o O o < 

£ £ £ 5 " "^ £ 




in 


< < * * < '^ < 

z z ; " z ■• z 




- o •-.--■ J 




Z Z Z Z " ' z 




£££""'£ 


1 
1 

1 


1 


I 


;?::;; 2 


s 


« 5 i 1 ; : ; 


? 


S 5 , , , , ; 


: 


5 ;:,,,. S 


? 


' ~ 




■ - 






£ ° < < < < S 
z z z z "* 




= ^ HI 4 = 




2 S < < < . £ 

£ z £ ? 




g £ < < < < S 

££££"" 




li 


" ^ < < < < " 
^ S z z z z ° 




" - - S J ? - 




" ' ; i i ~ 

"*£££'?'' 




" * 5 i i 5 *" 

" ^ z z £ £ S 






£;....£ 


. 


2 - s : : : 1 


1 


;;...,; 


= 


5 ; . , , . 3 


• 




- 




- 


i 


o o < < < < JJ 

■^ ■" z z z z ;c 




s E ; i i i s 

^ 2 Z . « 




O O < < < , o 

" " S £ Z ? " 




o o < < < < -o 

" " z z z z £ 




li 


- " z z z z - 




^ : -■ J J 4 : 




f -^ < < < . M 

.^ * £ z £ ? « 




^ .f< £ £ £ £ ' 


1 

i 
1 


- 








;=:?;:: 


3 


- ' r 2 ; ; ; 


5 


- o 'i a '■ 


J 








z z " z z z 




S ^ t $ < < < 
- " £ £ z 




S < ;5 < < < < 
£"££££ 




hi 
ill 


In. 
k 

< 




. c- . ^ < < < 

?-<?-£ z X 




,.-,.-<<< 




.- . f . * < * 
-■?-?£££ 


r 


s 






; ~ ; ? ; : ; 


S 


S 3 S ; : 




z i S ^ : : : 


• 








z 




< o < » < < < 

Z " Z " Z Z Z 




o o * o < < < 

■^ " ^ - £ £ £ 


1 


a < ^ < < < < 

•^ £?;£££ £ 




»ii 
in 






. *. . ^ < < < 

«? - *? J X £ z 




« -> M -« < < < 

h-' N - M Z Z £ 




" • " ■ * J 5 
-?-"?£££ 








a a 

= : • 1 • 
■^ 2 < : 9 

] M ■ i 

= npi If 1 

• iS 3 g S ? F 


! 


ll 1 1 • M i : 
= HPPJfl 

~ X m X V) I i 
5 o u o o r r 

u 


1 


i iih 

= 1 J M n J 

I g 3 g S ^ F 

u 




1 1 H : 
I i - I 

1 H • "! ■ ; 

, 1 1 P i I 1 i 

S o o o u r r 

u 


1 



131 



1200-133 



7.2 Fingerprint Transmission 

Fingerprints are considered one of the most reliable means of 
distinguishing one person from another. With the growing volume of law 
enforcement data traffic (see Chapter 6) and the increased numbers of arrests 
annually, there is an increasing demand for faster and more convenient methods 
of evaluating fingerprints. 

Currently, FBI fingerprint card identification procedure is based upon 
processing of cards received via the mail; there is no capability to receive 
or process cards on a real-time basis. Although, facsimile equipment has 
been used operationally for a number of years to transmit fingerprints from 
an arresting agency to a state identification bureau and, experimentally, to 
the FBI, when used on a limited scale involving only high priority cases, 
facsimile has been found to be both efficient and effective. 

The primary limitation to expansion of existing facsimile systems lies 
in their long transmission times. Limited as they are by the bandwidth of 
the commercial telephone services, the most advanced facsimile systems 
would require at least 4 minutes to transmit a single standard fingerprint 
card with resolution sufficient fdr use in identification. To transmit any appre- 
ciable percentage of the fingerprint cards generated daily within the United 
States, a tremendous number of telephone lines and facsimile transmitters and 
receivers would be required. However, the art of processing fingerprints 
has been enhanced by the development of automated systems based on advance- 
ments in the technologies of pattern recognition and data processing. Currently, 

23 
the FBI is evaluating a system called FINDER which is a fingerprint reader 

which operates upon inputs of quantized minutiae {ridge endings and forks) and 

ridge direction data from an inquiry print for registration, classification, and 

matching. In conjunction with this development, digital fingerprint processing 

significantly reduces the amount of information that must be processed. 



22 

"Satellite Transmission of Fingerprint Images: The Results of a Feasibility 
Experiment," Project SEARCH Technical Report No. 7, p. 5, 1972. 

^■^ "Automatic Fingerprint Identification, " IEEE Spectrum, pp. 36 -45, Sept. 1973. 



132 



1200-133 



Asidefrom conventional data-compression techniques that may be used 
to enhance whole-print transmission, studies indicate that considerable band- 
width reduction can be attained prior to transnnission. That is, if minutiae 
encoding was done at the point of transmission, a whole fingerprint card could 
be reduced to 150, 000 bits. 

Although there will be no transmission of digital fingerprint data within 
the next few years because of the experimental status of above techniques and 
the time required for implementation of such new technologies, estimates for 
potential traffic for the years 1978 and 1983 are presented below. 

The interstate transmission of fingerprints is associated with two specific 
activities: 

1) Positive identification of booked offenders. 

2) Identification of latent fingerprints found in the course of 
investigation. 

Two cases will be examined. In Case 1, arrest data can be used to gen- 
erate an initial estimate of traffic in fingerprint transmission for booked offenders. 
In the latter case, an extrapolation of current transaction levels can be utilized 
to generate estimates. 

Case 1 

Estinnates are based upon the following assumptions: 1) each state will 
have its own Identification Bureau, and 2) only those prints which cannot be 
identified at the state level will be forwarded to the FBI. Furthermore, it is 
assumed that offenders under 18 years of age and most of the drunk and mis- 
demeanor offenders will not have their cards forwarded to the FBI. 

All other offenders will have a fingerprint card sent to the state identifica- 
tion bureau which should be able to identify approximately 50% of all the cards 

24 
at the state level. Therefore, the total number of fingerprint sets being 



24 
"Design of a Model State Ident Section Bureau", Project SEARCH Technical 

Report No. 8. 



133 



1200-133 



transmitted to the FBI will equal 0. 5 x A-, where A- is the estimated number 

25 
of projected arrests for year{i) . Initial estimates for 1978 and 1983 are shown 



in Table 7-12. 



Case 2 



Based on requests received by the Latent Fingerprint Section of the FBI 
in the years 1971 and 1970, there were 32,864 such cases in 1971 which repre- 
sented an 8% increase over 1970. Assuming that there would be a constant 
growth in requests at the national level each year and that the increasing level 
of expertise at the state and local level would absorb any increased growth in 
requests at the local level, an initial estimate for the years 1978 and 1983 is 
shown in Table 7-12. It is assumed that on the average, latent fingerprints 
requests will occupy about 1/3 of an 8-1/2" x 11" page, and that they will be 
sent by facsimile at a scan rate of 200 x 200 per square inch or will require 
approximately 750, 000 bits per transmission. 

Table 7-12. Fingerprint transmission estimates 





1978 


1983 


Case 1. Booked Offenders 






Projected Arrests (A.) 


4, 880, 000 


5. 830, 000 


Proportion of Prints Sent to FBI 


50% 


50% 


Total Fingerprint Requests to FBI 


2,440. 000 


2, 915, 000 


Bits per transmission 


150, 000 


150, 000 


Average BPS Rate 


11.639 


13.900 


Case 2. Latent Fingerprints 


56. 000 


83,000 


Bits per Transmission 


750, 000 


750. 000 


Average BPS Rate 


1,336 


1,980 


Total Average BPS (bits per second) 


12,975 


15. 880 



25 



See Appendix C 



134 



1200-133 

7. 3 Courts and Prosecution 

The data requirements of the courts and prosecution are considered jointly 
because of the similarity of their impact on any national teleconnmunications 
system. 

With respect to courts, the information needs are primarily of an intra- 
state nature; however, those of an interstate or national nature would be the 
computerized criminal histories (CCH) of defendents, driving records of the 
defendants, statute and case law related to the offense, and criminal justice 
research data from other jurisdictions. CCH data transactions have been accounted 
for earlier (Section 7.1). Driver or vehicle related data would be available through 
the state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and would be obtained on an inter- 
state basis as discussed in Section 7.8. 

A statute and case law retrieval system might require a state -to-national 
telecommunications capability. LEXIS, a privately contracted computer service, 
offers a computer assisted access to a national electronic law library. In the 
future, whether there would be a complete electronic law library within each 
state or only one complete library at the national level with state laws and cases 
at the state level is not clear at this time. However, initial indications are that 
the most frequent use of this system would be intrastate with a much smaller 
interstate demand unless due to cost there would be regional data banks. 

Use of a criminal justice data base would be from the standpoint of intro- 
ducing new procedures or programs into the courts and prosecutor's offices in 
one jurisdiction based upon their history in another jurisdiction. Such data might 
be derived from the Grants Management Information System (GMIS), Offender 
Based Transactions Statistics (OBTS), Prosecutor's Management Information 
System (PROMIS), and other criminal justice data sources. The use of crimi- 
nal justice data for planning, research, and program implementation purposes 
is discussed in Section 7. 5. 



26 
Furthermore, it is doubtful whether such a proprietary system would be an 

allowable user candidate for NALECOM, and since there are no federally 

funded activities in this area, no estimates are included. 



135 



1200-133 



Other uses by the courts and prosecution would be largely of a management 
and/or administrative nature and therefore consist of local or intrastate trans- 
actions as pointed out earlier. 

In summary, the transactions involving CCH and driving offense records 
have been accounted for in Sections 7. 1 and 7.8; legal research transactions 
cannot be assessed at this time, and criminal justice data base uses are dis- 
cussed in Section 7. 5. 

7. 4 Corrections (Probation, Parole, Institutional Supervision) 

Corrections in this discussion encompasses all agencies which have 
responsibility for supervising offenders, the term includes pretrial detention, 
probation, parole, and institutional supervision. 

Correctional agencies will require detailed information and statistics for 
administrative and nnanagennent functions, for research, for offenders accounting, 
and for other purposes. In terms of interstate or national information require- 
ments, this activity would consist of computerized criminal histories, offender 
based transaction statistics (OBTS), and other criminal justice statistical data. 

In terms of the demand for and updates of CCH's, the impact of corrections 
has been accounted for in Section 7. 1. As to statistical and research data 
requirements, the impact of corrections has been accounted for in Section 7. 5. 

Any other impact on the network has been assumed to be nonexistent based 
on the research performed to date. 

7. 5 Crinninal Justice Planning Information 

"Criminal Justice Planners" as discussed here, will include planners and 
administrators at all levels and in all agencies of the Criminal Justice System. 
Although fornnal planning agencies are very important and require a great deal 
of information, most policy and procedural changes are nnade by agency admin- 
istrators. Thus a system to provide planning information must insure that this 
information is made available to all types of agencies at all levels of the system. 



34-788 O - 74 - 10 



136 



1200-133 



There are currently three federal programs designed in part to disseminate 
criminal justice planning infornnation: 

Grants Management Infornnation System (GMIS) 

National Criminal Justice Statistics Data Base (NCJSDB) 

National Crinninal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) 

GMIS is a computer based infornriation system designed to track the pro- 
gress of the various progranns funded by LEAA. The principal goal is to allow 
LEAA to more effectively distribute the funds they have available. The system 
includes the capability to search the data file, identify programs involving a 
particular subject area, and provide certain information on each program iden- 
tified. Thus criminal justice planners and adnninistrators could inquire as to 
what programs are currently going on regarding a particular subject (drug 
rehabilitation for instance) and receive a listing describing all such progranns. 

GMIS is currently processing about 250 inquiries per week, of which about 

28 
50 are from LEAA's Washington Office. Once the system is better known, 

they expect approximately 400-500 total inquiries per week (21, 000 to 26, 000 

29 
per year). Character lengths per message (inquiry and response) are not 

known but are likely to be on the order of those for a criminal history (70 char- 
acters for an inquiry and about 1725 characters for a response). 

Assuming the number of inquiries grows at a rate of 10% per year yields 
the estimates given inTable 7-13. 

As currently planned NCJSDB will be a computerized statistical data base 
to provide "demographic data, crime statistics, and geographic infornriation to 
facilitate analysis of the criminal justice system". Since the system is still 

quite new and has few access ternninals it is difficult to estimate the volume of 



27 

"LEAA - GMIS", Information Systems Divisions, Office of Operations Support, 

Law Enforcement Assist. Ad. 1972. 

28 

Telephone conversation with Lou Arnold of GMIS. 

Ibid . 

'■^^"Third Annual Report of LEAA", 1971, p. 101. 



137 



1200-133 



traffic to be expected. However, a major use of the system is expected to be in 
conjunction with the GMIS systenn to obtain relevant background data on areas 
where new programs are ongoing. Thus we estinnate 2-3 statistical inquiries 

for each GMIS inquiry or 800-1500 per week (42, 000-78, 000 per year). Charac- 
ter lengths for inquiries and responses are not available, however, "order of 
magnitude" estimates would be 50 characters for inquiries and 500 characters 
for responses. 

To obtain message volume estimates for 1978 and 1983 we have assumed 
that the number of inquiries will grow at a rate of 10% per year. 

NCJRS is a document retrieval system to assist criminal justice personnel 
and researchers in obtaining documents relevant to their activities. Currently 
the service contains documents generated throughout the criminal justice system 
including documents describing programs funded by LEAA and thus in the GMIS 
system. The NCJRS does not contain all crinninal justice documents, but it is 
rapidly expanding. The system currently has an "on-line" access capability for 
a limited number of users (within NCJRS itself) with the majority of users access- 
ing the system by telephone or mail. NCJRS currently receives 1, 500-1, 800 
requests for searches per month (18, 000-22, 000 per year). It can be assumed 
that at least this number would be received if "on-line" access were available. 

Currently, NCJRS supplies the documents themselves to the requestor by 

mail. Consequently, the character length would be enormous. However, assum- 

33 
ing only an Abstract is supplied, a typical response might be 1, 000 characters. 

1978 and 1983 estimates are based on an assumed growth of 10% per year 
and are given in Table 7-13. 



Ibid . 

Telephone conversation with Mr. Murphy at NCJRS. 
■'^Based on an example given in the NCJRS "Users Manual", 1972, p. 15. 



138 



1200-133 



Table 7-13 Traffic Volume Related to Criminal Justice Planners 









AVERAGE 






MESSAGE 


VOLUME 


LENGTH 




YEAR 


TYPE 


(messages/yr) 


(characters) 


EPS 




1978 


GMIS 










Inquiries 


37, 100* 


70 


.66 




Responses 


37, 100 


1725 


16.26 




NCJSDB 










Inquiries 


96, 700** 


50 


1.23 




Responses 


96, 700 


500 


12.28 




NCJRS 










Inquiries 


32, 200*** 


50 


.41 




Re sponses 


32, 200 


1000 


8. 18 


1978 TOTAL 




39. 02 


1983 


GMIS 










Inquiries 


59.700 


70 


1.06 




Re sponses 


59, 700 


1725 


26.16 




NCJSDB 










Inquirie s 


155, 600 


50 


1. 94 




Responses 


155,600 


500 


19.76 




NCJRS 










Inquiries 


51, 900 


50 


.68 




Responses 


51, 900 


1000 


13. 18 


1983 TOTAL 


62.78 



** 



*s!SSi6 



23, 000/yr used as a 1973 base figure 
60, 000/yr used as a 1973 base figure 
20, 000/yr used as a 1973 base figure 



139 



1200-133 



7. 6 Criminalistics Information 

Crime labs are playing an ever increasing role in criminal investigations. 
To what extent a telecommunication system can aid in this field is, however, 
difficult to determine. In most cases the mere comnnunication of information is 
not sufficient and it is necessary to physically transport evidence to the lab. 

In some cases, however, it would be desirable to obtain preliminary 
results quickly over a telecommunication system to establish grounds for 
holding a suspect until a complete analysis is available (e.g., handwriting or 
signature analysis). In addition, certain tests can be run remotely and the 
results transmitted to a crime lab (e.g., infrared spectrographic tests). Such 
applications have only recently begun to be developed and no such system actually 
exists on a large scale. 

The system of crime labs currently envisioned is primarily state oriented. 
The aim is to develop state crime lab systenns which will be capable of dealing 
with most cases. In addition, it is believed that each state system will develop 
some type of expertise in particular areas. Thus, in the future, interstate 
communications between crime labs in quite likely. 

In the current state of development, it is impossible to accurately deter- 
mine traffic loads related to crime labs. However, since this may be a signi- 
ficant load in the future we will attempt to establish upper bounds on the probable 
loads for three different types of interactions: 1) facsimile transmission, 
2) data transmission, and 3) administrative messages. 

7.6.1 Facsimile Transmission 

To transmit one (1) 8-1/2" x 11" page by facsimile required approximately 
300, 000 characters (800, 000 bits). Thus the number of such transmissions 
could significantly effect system loads. In FY 1971 the FBI crime lab received 
291,000 specimens for examination. 



140 



1200-133 



The exact nature of these specimens is not known at this time and thus it 
is impossible to accurately estinnate what percentage of these cases could use 
an interstate telecommunication system. To obtain a rough estimate, however, 
we will assume that certainly no more than half (50%) the cases sent to the FBI 
could be aided by a telecommunication system. In addition, since state labs will 
be developing their own specializations, we will assume half of these are state- 
to-state and half state-to-national. To estimate the expected number of cases 
in 1978 and 1983 we will further assume a growth rate roughly parallel to the 

growth in arrests (3. 75% per year). Thus as an upper bound we estimate 

34 
188,300 and 226,500 cases will be handled in 1978 and 19§3 respectively. 

Assuming a fifty-fifty split between interstate and state-to-national yields the 

results shown in Table 7-14. 

7.6.2 Data Transmission 

The only crime lab data transmission system currently in existence is the 
New York State spectrographic data file. This system is used in identifying 
unknown substances. The New York system was utilized on approximately 30 to 

40 cases per month (360-480 per year) with about 3 searches per case (110-1400 

35 
searches per year). To translate this into a national figure is tenuous, how- 

ever, a rough estimate based on relative populations would indicate about 
12,000 to 16,000 transactions per year. Assuming this volume increases with 

the arrest rate (3.75% per year) gives 1978 and 1983 estimates of 16,800 and 

37 
20, 600 respectively. Estimates of the character length per message (inquiry 

38 
and response) are based on a sample output from the New York system. In 

this example there were about 100 characters of input and about 700 characters 

of output. We will assume the New York system will remain in operation and thus 

all traffic will be state-to-state. 



^"^Based on 145,500 (291,000 x 0.5) cases/year in 1971. 

International Symposium on Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Systems , 
"Pilot Computerized Infrared Data File for Forensic Science Laboratories, " 
October 1972, p. 393. 

^^Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1971, p. 201. 

Using abase figure of 14,000 trans/year. 

^®Op. cit., International Symposium on Criminal Justice Information and Statistics , 
p. 399. Inquiry length was determined by adding up all other characters indicated 
as "operator entries", all other characters were counted as output. 



141 



1200-133 



Table 7-14 Traffic Related to Criminalistics Laboratories 









AVERAGE 








VOLUME 


LENGTH 


AVERAGE 


YEAR 


MESSAGE TYPE 


(messages /yr ) 


(characters) 


BPS 


1978 


Facsimile Transmission 










Interstate 


94, 150 


300, 000 


7, 174.23 




State-National 


94, 150 


300, 000 


7, 174.23 




Data Transmission 










Inter state -Inquiry 


16, 800 


100 


.43 




-Response 


16, 800 


700 


2.99 




State -National 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 




Administrative Messages 










Interstate 


205, 100 


432 


22.51 




State -National 


188, 300 


432 


20.66 


1978 TOTAL 


14. 395.05 


1983 


Facsimile Transmission 










Interstate 


113, 250 


300, 000 


8, 629.65 




State-National 


113,250 


300,000 


8,629.65 




Data Transmission 










Inte r s tate - Inquiry 


20, 500 


100 


.52 




-Response 


20, 500 


700 


3.64 




State-National 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 




Administrative Messages 










Interstate 


247, 000 


432 


27. 10 




State-National 


226, 500 


432 


24. 85 


1983 TOTAL 


17, 315.41 



7.6.3 Administrative Messages 

The number and length of such messages cannot realistically be estimated. 
However, to place a "first guess" upper bound on the traffic we will assume one 
(1) administrative message for each data transmission (inquiry-response) and 
two (2) for each facsimile transmission. The character length will be assumed 
to be the same as current administrative messages on NLETS (432 characters) 



39 



39 



NLETS data estimate. 



142 



1200-133 



7. 7 Organized Crime Intelligence Information 

The need to combat organized crime on an interstate basis has been known 
for some time. Thus the exchange of information pertaining to organized crime 
activities between the states and perhaps the federal government would be quite 
useful. Although some pilot systems have been developed recently, no nationwide 
system currently exists. At the present time it is impossible to meaningfully 
speculate as to how a nationwide system might develop. 

In both California and New England intelligence systems are currently 
being developed. However, no data is available on the California system and the 
New England system is in the process of reorganization. The New England sys- 
tem currently disseminates information to the six states in the area on a regular 
basis and to other states on occasion. They are currently handling about 200 
formal communications per nnonth (2, 400/year) and about 40 informal messages 
per day ( 1 4, 600 /year). The distinction is not completely clear but generally 
formal messages are prepared and set out to all concerned parties by mail. 
Informal messages are more likely to be over the phone to check or confirm 

information. On the average both types of messages would average about 1-1/2 

A 40 

typed pages. 

To obtain a rough estimate of the potential NALECOM traffic in organized 

crime intelligence information, we will assume that the New England data will be 

41 
typical of interstate traffic. Based on relative populations we could expect 

2.9 million/year (17,000 x 17.2) interstate transactions. Assuming approximately 

1,500 characters per typed page (double spaced) yeilds about 2,250 characters per 

message. Due to the rapidly changing nature of these systems no estimates of 

future growth are possible. In addition, there is some question as to whether or 

not intelligence information will continue to be transmitted at all. Thus for our 

purposes we will assume that the above estimates will apply to 1978 and 1983. 



40 

All information pertaining to NECOIS was obtained through a telephone conver- 
sation with Ted Finegan of NECOIS in Massachusetts. 

41 

New England represents 5. 8% of the U.S. population. 



143 



1200-133 



Estimates of national-to-state traffic can be obtained from the FBI's 
current dissemination of organized crime intelligence information. In FY 1971, 

340,451 items of organized crime intelligence information were distributed to the 

42 
states by the FBI. Character lengths per message are assumed to be the same 

as in the New England system. 

To obtain a rough estimate of the traffice volume we will assume that the 
growth rate between 1970 and 1971 will continue (12% per year). 

Table 7-15 Traffic Volume Related to Organized Crime 



YEAR 


MESSAGE 
TYPE 


VOLUME 
(messages/year) 


AVERAGE 

LENGTH 

(characters) 


AVERAGE 
•BPS 


1978 


Interstate 
National -State 


2. 9 million 
. 75 miillion* 


2,250 
2,250 


1, 657. 35 
428.63 


1978 TOTAL 


2, 085.98 


1983 


Interstate 
National-State 


2 . 9 million 
1 . 3 million 


2, 250 
2. 250 


1, 657. 35 
742.95 


1983 TOTAL 


2,400.30 


' 340, 000/year was used as the base level in 1971. 



7. 



Driver and Vehicle Records 



Currently, there is not a national vehicle registry nor is the National 

43 
Drivers Register , which is administered by National Highway Traffice Safety 

Administration, accessible by law enforcement agencies. However, the Amer- 
ican Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), an association of 
state and provincial officials responsible for the administration and enforcement 
of motor vehicle and traffic laws in the United States and Canada, is currently 
sponsoring several programs which may have an impact on NALECOM, 



42 



43 



"Attorney General's First Annual Report", U. S. Government Printing Office, 
1972, p. 198. 

Public Law 89-563, 89 Stat. 730, Title IV, Sec. 402 specifically limits the 
Register's use to licensing activities only. 



144 



1200-133 



Among these programs are the following: 

1) A project to develop a model registration and certificate of 
ownership data bank. 

2) A project to develop a state-oriented Model Motorist Data Base. 

3) A pilot project to implement an interstate data net with the capability 
of instantaneous interjurisdictional data transmission relative to 
vehicles and drivers. 

The proposed scope of these projects includes the development of automated 
data processiiig procedures adaptable to state vehicle administrative functions in 
the field of vehicle registration and certificate of ownership, drivers licensing, 
nnotor vehicle inspection, highway safety and accident statistics, and nnotorists 
financial responsibility and other vehicle reciprocal agreements. These proce- 
dures are projected for communication between all states on a systems network, 
enabling nnessage switching and interfacing with other computers as the need 
arises (i.e., NCIC and the National Drivers Register) for overall coordinated 
unity and intercommunication. 

44 
Although department of motor vehicle usages of NALECOM is excluded, 

if the state files suggested by AAMVA are developed (currently 35 states main- 

45 
tain licensing and registration data on computer systems) , it could be accessed 

on an interstate basis by out-of-state criminal justice agencies. 

Transactions would be those engendered by automobile and license plate 
thefts, vehicle use in perpetration of a felony, and moving traffic citations to 
out-of-state drivers (i.e., prior to an officer making a pullover, he will want 
to know whether the vehicle is stolen, who is the vehicle owner, and whether the 
driver is wanted). NCIC files would be able to address the first and third ques- 
tions, but prior to the pullover, the name of the registered owner of the out-of- 
state car would have to be run against the data files of the registering state 



Letter regarding NALECOM Scope from Lloyd A. Bastian, Acting Director, 
Systems Development Division, National Criminal Justice Information and 
Statistics Service, dated November 9, 1973. 

1972 Director of Automobile Criminal Justice Information System. U.S. 
Department of Justice, December 1972, PD-35. 



145 



1200-133 



before an NCIC check of the owners nanne is possible if data on the vehicle is 
not already in the NCIC file. 

In estimating the interstate traffic which might be generated under the 
above systenn, the following assumptions are made: (1) all out-of-state vehicles 
and drivers will be checked at both NCIC and the state of origin, (2) 50% of the 

queries against NCIC vehicle and license files are made on out-of-state vehicles 

46 
or plates, and (3) present transaction rates against NCIC files is representa- 

47 
tive of transactions in 1983. 

Based on an analysis of current NCIC transaction data, approximately 1/3 
of all transactions are against the vehicle/license plate files. The projected 
state-to-national traffic in 1983 will be 142,000 transactions (see Section 6.2). 
Applying the 1/3 estimate of vehicle/license plate queries as a base for pre- 
dictions, it would appear that there will be approximately 47, 300, 000 queries 
expected in 1983. From this estimate, it has been assumed that 1/2 will trig- 
ger interstate queries so that 23, 650, 000 vehicle/license plate queries would 
be expected to occur. Since state-to-national traffic was presented earlier in 
Section 6.2, only interstate traffic projections are shown in Table 7-16. 



Table 7-16 Estin^ated Interstate Driver /Vehicle Record Traffic 



Year 


Message 
Type 


1 

Volume 


Average 
Length 
(Characters)* 


Total Bit 
Requirement 
(8/character) 


Average 
BPS 
Rate 


1978 
1983 


Inquiry 

Response 

Update 

Inquiry 

Response 

Update 


14,170,000 

14,170,000 

850,000 

23,650,000 

23,650,000 

1,420,000 


60 
125 
200 

60 
125 
200 


6.80 X 109 
14. 17 X 109 

0. 17 X 109 
21. 14 X 109 

11.35 X 109 

23.65 X 109 

0.28 X 109 

35.28 X 109 


216 

450 

43 

709 

360 

751 

72 

1183 


^Average message length estimates were compiled from the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration and the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators. 



46 
47 



Estimate based on telephone survey of five largest state users. 

This estimate will be an upper bound since transactions against other files 
will probably grow faster than vehicle file use. 



146 



1200-133 



7. 9 Video Circuits 

Presently, the criminal justice purposes which may require the use o£ 
video circuits are in the area of training, education, and trial court procedures. 

However, the cost of utilizing video circuits in terms of capital costs and opera- 

48 
ting costs are significant. Therefore, additional analysis is required of alter- 

native methods to disseminate video data from the standpoint of cost and effective- 
ness before a definite estimate can be made for telecomnnunications requirennents 
due to video usage. 

It should be noted that with respect to training and education, the response 
time requirements are not urgent since scheduling can be made in advance to 
coincide with low-demand periods based on prior historical use patterns. Since 
scheduling is a factor in this application, the dissemination of video tapes is a 
viable, and a cost-competitive alternative which should be considered. 

With respect to use of video in the courts, current uses have primarily 
consisted of local closed-circuit applications and video tapes of witness testi- 
mony and depositions. The frequency of interstate use of such techniques is not 
presently un 
applications. 



49 
presently under active consideration by jurisdictions which have used such 



A summary of total system traffic anticipated for NALECOM in 1983 is 
shown in Table 1. 1. 



48 

Satellite Transmission of Fingerprint Images , Project SEARCH Technical 

Report No. 7, Chapter 3. 

49 

Based on discussion with a number of State Court Administrators. 



147 



1200-133 



8. RESPONSE TIME REQUIREMENTS 



Overall response times from the time the user requests information until 
he receives information should be compatible with those specified in Table 8. 1. 
Since the response times quoted will necessitate intrastate transmission func- 
tions as well as the functions of the national net, no more than 5 to 10% of the 
total allotted response time should be consumed by the national net. The values 
given are those developed by the National Advisory Commission on Criminal 
Justice Standards and Goals, and represent the best available values for response 
times. 

The response times in Table 8. 1 suggest 3 priorities for messages: 

(1) the highest priority for activities involving officer safety, (2) a lower priority 
for time-limited investigatory functions such as person identification, and 

(3) routine messages of low priority and no specified time constraint. Category 

(2) priority is now dictated by statutory regulations in many cases, and can 
be expected to be controlled more closely in the future. 



148 



1200-133 



Table 8. 1 Response Time Requirements* 



User 


Maximum Delay 


1. For users engaged in unpredictable 
field activity of high potential 
danger (e.g., vehicle stop) 


120 seconds 


2. For users engaged in field activity 
without exposure to high potential 
danger (e.g., checking parked 
vehicles) 


5 minutes 


3. For users engaged in investigatory 
activity without personal contact 
(e.g., developing suspect lists) 


8 hour s 


4. For users engaged in postapprehen- 
sion identification and crinninal 
history determinations 


4 hours 


""Criminal Justice System", National Advisory C 
Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. 23 Janu 


Commission on 
ary 1973. 



149 



1200-133 



9. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Bassioumi, M. Cherif, Criminal Law and Its Processes . Charles C. Thomas 
Publishers, Springfield, Illinois, 1969. 

Blumberg, Abraham S. , Criminal Justice , Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1967. 

Bristow, Allen P. , A Handbook in Criminal Procedure and the Administration 
of Justice. Glencoe Press, California, 1966. 

Germann, Day, and Galleti, Introduction to Law Enforcement and Criminal 
Justice . Charles C. Thomas Publishers, Springfield, Illinois, 1966. 

Goldfarb, R.L. , and Singer, L.R., After Conviction . Simon and Schuster, 
New York, 1973. 

Houts, Marshall, From Arrest to Release . Charles C. Thomas Publishers, 
Springfield, Illinois, 1958. 

Kaplan, John, Criminal Justice: Introductory Cases and Materials . The Foun- 
dation Press, Miniola, N.Y., 1973. 

Wright, Charles, A., Handbook of the Law of Federal Courts . West Publishing 
Co., 1970, 

"Attorney General's First Annual Report, " U.S. Government Printing Office, 
Washington, D. C, 1972. 

"Automatic Fingerprint Identification", IEEE Spectrum, September 1973. 

"Comparative Data Reports, " International Association of Chiefs of Police , 
Maryland. 

Criminal Justice Agencies in the United States: 1970 ; U.S. Dept. of Justice, 
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C, 

"Design of a Model State Identification Bureau, " Project SEARCH Technical 
Report No. 8. 

Expenditure and Employment Data for the Criminal Justice System: 1970-71 . 
U.S. Department of Justice and Commerce. U.S. Government Printing Office, 
Washington, D. C. 

International Symposium on Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Systems , 
Project SEARCH, October 1972. 

"LEAA-GMIS, " Information Systems Division, Office of Operations Support, Law 
Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Government Printing Office, 
Washington, D.C., 1971. 

"NCIC CCH Message Keys, " Federal Bureau of Investigation, June 30, 1971. 



150 



1200-133 



Regional Criminal Justice PU..nning, A Manual for Local Officials . National 
Association of Counties Research Foundation, Washington, D. C. , 1971. 

"Satellite Transmission of Fingerprint Images: The Results of a Feasibility- 
Experiment, " Project SEARCH Technical Report No. 7, 1972. 

State Comprehensive Plans for Law Enforcement and the Administration of 
Justice, prepared by the State Planning Agencies. 

"Third Annual Report of LEAA, " Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1971. 

"Users Manual, " National Criminal Justice Reference Service, U.S. Govern- 
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972. 

U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime 
Reports , U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1963-1972. 

1972 Directory of Automated Criminal Justice Information Systems , prepared 
by NASIS for LEAA. 



151 



1200-133 



APPENDIX A. 
PROJECTIONS OF PRESENT USE TRAFFIC THROUGH 1983 



A. 1 State-to-National Traffic Projections 

Table A-1 presents projections of state-to-national traffic estinnates 
based on models described in Section 6.2, through 1983. The projections based 
on the key variables which includes degree of automation, population, crime 
rate, number of law enforcement personnel per capita, and base year (1972) 
transaction levels are given for each state. The traffic values are given in units 
of transactions per year where a transaction is defined as an incoming message 
(query, update, etc.) plus the response to the incoming message. 

The average number of characters per message (c/m) is noted to be 
50 c/m for incoming traffic and 85 c/m for responses. The response c/m values 
can be expected to increase as traffic builds up against the Computerized Criminal 
History (CCH) files; CCH traffic is estinnated separately in Chapter 7. 1, and 
hence, the above values for c/m are applicable for 1983 transactions. 

A. 2 State-to-State Traffic Projections 

Table A-2 presents projections of state-to-state traffic estimates based 
on estimation techniques (described in Section 6.3), through 1983. The estimates 
are given in the form of an origin-destination matrix and represent messages 
(not transactions) from the originating state to the destination state. 

The average number of characters per message is estimated at 432, the 
value currently experienced by the LETS network. 



34-738 O - 7-1 - 11 



152 



1200-133 



Table A-1, State -to -national traffic projections (1983) 
(transactions per year in millions) 



State 




Transactions 


State 




Transactions 


Ala 


1 


2. 074 


Mont 


26 


.370 


Alk 


2 


.211 


Neb 


27 


1. 176 


Ariz 


3 


2. 198 


Nev 


28 


.575 


Ark 


4 


.867 


NH 


29 


.856 


Calif 


5 


12.899 


NJ 


30 


4.286 


Colo 


6 


1. 937 


NM 


31 


.955 


Conn 


7 


1.732 


NY 


32 


13.083 


Del 


8 


.367 


NC 


33 


2. 534 


Fla 


9 


7.073 


ND 


34 


.256 


Ga 


10 


3.313 


Ohio 


35 


7.334 


Ha 


11 


.603 


Okla 


36 


1.507 


Id 


12 


. 397 


Ore 


37 


2.381 


111 


13 


9. 584 


Pa 


38 


6.570 


Ind 


14 


2.826 


RI 


39 


.610 


Iowa 


15 


1. 512 


SO 


40 


1.268 


Kan 


16 


1.890 


SD 


41 


.298 


Kent 


17 


2. 143 


Tenn 


42 


2. 742 


La 


18 


2.611 


Tex 


43 


8.980 


Ma 


19 


.478 


Utah 


44 


.601 


Md 


20 


3. 175 


Ver 


45 


.220 


Mass 


21 


3.758 


Va 


46 


3. 002 


Mich 


22 


7. 736 


Wash 


47 


2.654 


Minn 


23 


1.854 


WV 


48 


.646 


Miss 


24 


.994 


Wise 


49 


2. 197 


Mo 


25 


4.816 


Wy 


50 


. 181 



153 



1200-133 



V 
V 

a. 

m 
V 
Qfi 
nt 
tn 
in 
4) 

2 



CO 
00 



w 
Z 

O 

H 
U 
W 

•-> 
O 
« 

a. 
o 

< 

H 

W 
H 

<; 

H 
CO 

I 

o 

H 
I 

H 
< 
H 
w 

(M 
I 

< 



Rl 

H 



«'Kiff'»'^'isi'^B)'-'cpU'ff«<rMtj^Cj»n^cj>Hi-*CJui"^0<rwf-i-t»»-«r«<r-»^«)h-(si'"»o'n(i*t-«»(s*w»O(r** 



r~ a tM rf\ O' g r 
r^ a O f^ f^ ^ r» 
^ — '^ ai O m ■' 



• ■- t_i ■'» *n •> oi • 

, »v. f f'' ~ - ' 















» U> "^ * 
O* _ :^ «v 



» «■ ^ 3 • 



1 » w- ^ 3 

> ^ -^^ (s. O 



V> r^ 9 ^ -^Mr-OiflCj 






tn r.. J n 
CI » 7 «o 

c- c '^ <-• 



* (M "^ » 
W* ,^ a> r- 
f^ «> '^ (M 



O o •" C 



r, M r- V ixi c K) « 



■S^ffi^O U9*^tvr^^if\f^r^9 9t m l^ iff ^ O^^l INJ^O^* 4'r<4tf<*49> U>OJ 



•^ »0 '^ (SI ' 
• c^ O" y^ < 



z 
o 



CM fT) U> ^- 
i« f\. «" ^. 

f<n ^ IT ^ 



«iifiifliar-"^o^<T'«r»<n»^aio r^jm.-«-^iAi/i-jr««r^r-asp.*»"*fl«r »OP"»oo»**0'*U>Mff*»^'^«»<^ 



- r- O C ' 

O- »Sj ff' I 

K> (^ f\J I 

^- M I 



-• •-« M (M 



i^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 



4 m W^ W U ^ 



H tr ct » V iM • 



(\j»niflr^f^»20"v*ip'^-' 



>r^v0«ir4U*« tffntfrs«nr*vi 



tA a? iO rv C 



n^^^Ml^ff>B)*n^^.ff. ^. w^C3' 



<w^v^rvOM~<rgo*' 

p pg U m (T M w O 



^•M''^ fn^p4'^(«jfn(N«rvrHfftphrsiutf'r4«t|pri,iroio'^9>r>4r4Oa'^0'u^Mo>f^*40(n^is*r4iAtftAtnm 






Z 
w O 

' o 



!XZ. 



<<<<uuuoiOx9i22iiS32SSSS2SlzzZZ2ZZZ0 00 2swSSitSD>>S 



*s 



154 



1200-133 



t fff \tl 1^ r-t 



r^ iw V uf w ^ ^ ui -^ 

Ml ^ r- ^ i«"p ff" u> * 



*^ M CM 



^ f\j O rj » ^ i_i 

»n p^ t-t cr m "^ u> 

' li) »-< iX * '^ fsi 

• * O M <S( CJ ^ 



■i f^r^toln cn^(j« (T^uDjo tflr^uij- jrs*'-ia>Oj, j^oifsjM ina,tn^B>^0(j«r>ui **a)«>f^", entr- 



(J f^ (M 
(T* rj i/^ fs« 



y-, m to ^ ^ 
<p (Si m u r 

» fNt ffl '^ t- 



•D fij r* ^fl 
» t '^ 



*«tr -^( 






*rt P- r^ J , 

»! n M O' Wl 



r* «\ O M (SI vt 3 • 
(^ p4 «■ • 



( « (O (^ U) ' 
•^ 'M Wl 3 • 



a U> r 



in T>i r- OKI *Dwi W^io '~U)^ 



' m Kl ^ a> O uO ' 

, -^M ^ -. ** o ' 

, W Kl •-< m '^ U) ' 






i ^ iD <■ -. - w - -■ 

- H m (T. a- r- »» » I 

1 » l-l (M ^ I 

^-t rsi -^ m I 



'i O ui 



» rw "^^ 



pg 0' «■ a- ^ ^a 

- ■ ^ ID (Si O (T 



> r> f«. ^4 u^ 
- U> IT <^ tf 
. »n yj in ^ 



» ** Kl ■> K-, "J If. 



.-■''' If. *'"tP^'0"<ri^« infoCT>M ». 



a 
o 
O 



I 

< 

V 

^^ 

<i 
H 






Kl IM " K. •-• Ml -^ 



ff O rst <" r 
» O (Tl 1" - 



» cs. "»-. 



uj *^ cr 
en K> ^ 
»f> •-• »ti 



„ O (Sj 



-« O ** (M 

r ct f^ ff I - -. • 

n (T ii> u< u" (Si 

*> Ki (SI ^ bO *4 



"-» f- u^ » 

O tst ^ t- 
<r V tr ro 



tn (Ti ry r-i fn I 

O ^ ^ O) a> I 

tn c * <r yi I 

» r4 -« tn • 






M ir> ffi 

K -4 1* 






- -'. ^ (M ^4 c I' 









__,„a>-*o>oia'3»s«#-H(P«^m»iOi«j'M-«ip; 

-- „ ^ ^ u, IT »n -< r> " — ^ *- "" ' 



tjf t^ tr t\i to ^ I 

— K* ai-«"** -^ f^ 91 



<n J I 

u) C r 

'^ o 

(M r- « 









1 V> O u> ir> 

. 1 fSI M -^ •< 

wT <s« <r «* » 



■•«n*s*r* »ci**^tnvi>«>*'''^' 



. r^ *^ f^ <r> a KC ^-ffl/^fMff'9' 



7 IMtr" »•^^ tJ"' •■»' rv"^' i->v- «- ■ 
1 «l ■< a f>4 » --■ •"«-•"—•"• — "■ 



. rfi ^- ifl "N rg lO ff" I 
' K) ^ (J 1/1 a rsi iT 



> «f tf <r in 
I o (Nt a » 

I # u^ M, » 



- sa *" <r "^ ^ 






• IT 



, tf <n ^ *n 

1 if> • »" '^ 
in 

^ (T (s, a> 

<o c cj a 

«> (P r^ f^ 

« U> r4 V^ 



.-.■iu)»^m''r--'D-*0'^ »Oon*tn»rtc:^»"W>'^'- ff^Kl^„^r-Off'*lft^J■c.^u, 
j»— »ll»oi»o fv,rjcrMr^.-'M«ntnLor>-tr'KfN<«rU)tir^(rnn»^r-^c'U>*£u. 



* ai K> a< ^M (T rs, 

» O -^ '^ »rt * «M 

' m U) •* wi <*' ■! 

4 in w rsi '^ 



»»— - — - -■ ■ - 



VI w o' m, ^_, ■ • r- tnntn»'n«)en(ra>i»iMmci<st<sj 






35 
<< 









23^ 

x-i 2>- uo i^ oi. 



Z X I .. 
Z><<! 



z zz zz zz ooo2 5»RSt=3>>s s-es 



155 



1200-133 



3 * O ** 
^ a a ^ 



ro i« U U a% 
to ^ u ° •-» 

«1 ■» (N* 



*r< ^ tn r^tn 

^ -4 10 CSj 1^ 






^ 0> <^ to 
'-' — ff> fg 



*-• (M U Ui I 



1 (J W' 









tP u r^ ^ m r. •H 
•H •-< M r^ » D V 



» « "^ rf «■ U1 
C f^ eo « ^ o 



•- "■ f»J IN, 



IT •■ r^ ^ U> tfi ^ 
^ h- *4 'H 0> fs, 



OJ K» 






1^ ' u> 

J "^ 3- 



f- p. ii> aa I 

f^i r- "^ M 
O tc f^ (T < 



, tn ^ O 



C C f" ( 



(S( ^ .^ (^g IM 



O a. -* (s. • 






»n I*, o » » 
O' a •* r\( ■ 






' <r> ^ » u> O u 3 
> g-. f' r>< 4^ •^ tr, f- 
"* f* o to * at ''^ 



•-* (T o^ U) * 

1* IT -^ ff " 












ID *« <n u 1^ 7 ?^ I 

U> r4 C b ^- •• ll> I 
U) fN( Ti CD *' •-• f^ I 



i<r<i)f^iA*^tttfi'^--4f-<rn(ntri(nfoi^u^'*>rNi . 



c 
o 
O 



I 

< 









■* tr O tsi lo 3 iM . 
-* » M ^ rx 






3- ^jrjffifr>g^'-*-*rv 












1^ r^ r^ tf iV (Ni u" I 
ri I'M rsi _j IT w^ ic < 
- - ^ r c «-. »^ I 



9 M IT H n « ir 

(NJ ffl m 






fM 









1 ^ tn 3 CD 
- i/> J rj 






in O 



iflr-ic*'^»^B'o^i'^r^'''&<'' ^^csj&«*if>Mi^»««nfsj^m NrMrs4U^roLOffi^^^ON*^o^^ 
-^ •-. -« rsi « -1 



a* ii OS O" '^ 
tf> r4 tf> ru O 
«i •■ w r^ '^ 



qC <d'^ dfT p-*<Ti 1^3 OlT* ,-^., „ _. _. _ 

^^fpO^^O^^KiiPOO^^^ ^'^ O CD ^1 >-■ ^^ V 
" «r y, r- yi Ki r» O f^ isj O". ui rv » 



~ -—— — -- — --— ,J^^f^^" otrtfratotD«>4^Ki 






iC ^j*s<iri3 cri0^oi«" o^f^m^C .^a^f«-ff^<rO'-*0 <pM*j»^»«"<nOto^ *^^M^n#Q^-(■^^^^/^ff'r^Q(^,QO^M'^ 

r^fnr^tfii^ir>u^v4<ra(r>c>aa(no(^'^cD^jirK)0^iD9w«0iu^Vv4t£ r\,r^^s^4fv,o«4tj4scD*'^^>«4'nr<»tp(Mf^ 
-^py'^*''*tfl'"«>'^3'"'v<'^**''i*^eD*'o**r*j'^»>^u>^«ff'0'-'fM'^»*rti)^-oi(ra'^^*^»»''uj^*><r3 

< <<<0uCloiOi9=;?92S25 55 55 5 5 5ZZZZZZZZ0 002sy°ti^S^D>>5SS5 



156 



1200-133 



T3 

4-* 

c 
o 
O 

ro 
I 

< 



H 






at 9< p~ ai 

* VJ J K1 

i«. M p» 

o " ^^ V ' a ' 



» in • • »^ o •^ 






■4 □ O 9^ L0 

r (Nj o in « -- 









n ^ tf' tf a vo ^ 
o 1^ « » -* " 












'~?« 












— — — -pnuJfM"*" » 



_ <S( O ffi « ff* « i 
tf> «^ O v* (0 ff* ^ < 



an o uB 
e o^ i« 
K* ff> • 



w •« N >^ « m tf ' 



M < 






, r4 n # m lA r~ ■ 

r m m 9 • » • ' 



< ^^^uuuoiOxSi £iiii»i IJ22222222ZZZZZZZZO OO a.o« OSv^ ^i-3>>*s 



s* 



157 



1200-133 



APPENDIX B. 

DESCRIPTIONS OF EXISTING LAW ENFORCEMENT 
INFORMATION - COMMUNICATIONS NETS 



B. 1 National Crime Information Center (NCIC) 

A brief description of the NCIC net is given in Chapter 4,2. Additional 
information is given in this appendix. 

Map 1 displays NCIC users as of June 1973. Inforn:iation from the cen- 
tral data files in Washington, D. C. , is available to each user through a dedicated 
carrier line. Communication between individual users is not possible on the 
present NCIC net, i.e., NCIC does not provide a message switching service. 

In some cases, the users, presented in Map 1, actually represent 
several individual agencies that have access to NCIC. For example, the Talla- 
hassee FCIC Terminal in Florida serves the Florida Highway Patrol along with 
a number of local police and sheriff's departments throughout Florida. In addi- 
tion, many states have more than one terminal in the state with direct connection 
to NCIC. 

B.1.1 Traffic and Records 

A major user requirements analysis task using NCIC actuals as a 
data base involved the projection of state-to-national traffic. Table B. 1 is an 
example of the data available for this purpose and presents figures representing 
traffic coming into NCIC from the New York State Police for the month of July 1 972; 
similar data are available for each of the 160 NCIC users. Also presented is the 
amount of traffic separated out by message function and data type and separated 
out by hour of the day. For purposes of predicting traffic, monthly totals were 
used. Peak-to-average values were obtained from the hour-of-the-day tables. 
Message distribution functions were derived from the traffic values by message 
function and file type. The number of records in each data file are given below 
(June 1, 1973). 



158 



1200-133 





:S 










a 


« t! 




£ -g 


« 




c 

e 








». 


> ^ 






>? 




= 8 




II 


1 ? ' 




c o 


i 5 

E E 




























n IV 








k§ 


11 


® • 






<* 



u 
o 

■AJ 
V 

y 
o 

2 



a 



159 



1200-133 



B 
o 

t< 

ni 
4J 

nl 
Q 

O 

I— I 

O 

z 

H 

u 

• fH 

a 



CQ 

(U 



I I 



fA-^^AO^p^aav" 



4f ' 



r* * m « m « 



«.4rifilO'MO(^>40r>| O O « •%» "mI 



■ N (> .«■ .n s 



»- i ,0 'JIO 



« ^ 9 0>-9 -f 





^ 




M 




■r 






oo 


o o o 


V 


-1 




m 


■*■ » 








•* 


t~ m 
































;j 










z 










^ 


J 




* 


o -< 
















< 
























< 












^ 




* 


_ 


<N( 




« 




tr 
















?£ 














IT 






X 
















1 




O 




to 


o'- 










1 




3 






















X 






V 


^ 




























^ 
























■ 


UJ 






' 


o 








O 






u 


< 


il: 






:> 






1 



O O "3 O O O O'^ 

o -) i.' J o o o •: 

^ r- TOO* -J — p«' 
O O Oi'J -■ -• -* - 

I t I ; I I I I I 
o ^> rilo o o n c 
" " o ■> 3 o : 
o > ■> — ' 
o o - 



s o o o'o coo 



>?■*> 3^nc*o- 



o 



I 



> o o ^ 



m « -^ * 

r* j m 

1 




1 

» ~3 








* -.** C^ 





> 4 ;j -« ^ s 






■> *» «J J ^^ rj 



I 






'•'.' 

« 3 






J I. 






160 



1200-133 



Number and Percent 
Type (millions) 

1. Stolen Securities 1.40(32.5%) 

2. Stolen Motor Vehicles ,83(19.1%) "^ 

3. Stolen/Mission Guns .60(14.0%) 

4. Stolen Articles .76 (17.5%) 

5. Wanted Persons .13(3.1%) 

6. Stolen License Plates .27 (6.2%) 

7. CCH .32 (7.4%) 

B. 1.2 Message Formats 

There are eight data files making up the NCIC data bank. They are 

1) Wanted persons. 

2) Stolen vehicles. 

3) Stolen boats . 

4) Stolen license plates. 

5) Stolen articles. 

6) Stolen guns. 

7) Stolen or missing securities. 

8) Aliases. 

There are six message types that may be used against each file on the 
NCIC system. They are 



1) 


Inquiries 


2) 


Entries. 


3) 


Clears. 


4) 


Cancels. 


5) 


Modifies. 


6) 


Locates. 



A description of the purpose of each of these messages follows: 

1) Inquiry - To request a search of an NCIC file against information 

available to the inquiring agency. 



161 



1200-133 



2) Entries - To (1) place a new record in a file or (2) enter alias(es) 
and/or other additional identifiers as a supplemental record to an 
active wanted person record. 

3) Clears - To record recovery of stolen/missing property or ap- 
prehension of a wanted person on file in NCIC; may be nnade 
only by agency originally entering the record. 

4) Cancel - To cancel an entire record in any file or to cancel 
alias(es) and/or identifiers in a supplemental record previously 
added to a wanted person record. Records may be canceled only 
by the agency which originally entered the record. Entire 
records should be canceled only for reasons other than recovery 
of property or apprehension of a wanted person, i. e. , record was 
later determined to be invalid, withdrawal of prosecutive action, 
etc. 

5) Modify - To add data to, to delete data from, or to change a 
portion of data which is part of an active NCIC record; may be 
made only by agency which originally entered record. 

6) Locate - To indicate (until the originating agency clears the 
record) that the property has been located or the person appre- 
hended. This message is sent by an agency other than the origina- 
ting agency which has located stolen/missing property or wanted 
person on file in the system. The record, including located infor- 
mation, will remain in file until the agency which originally 
entered the record transmits a "clear" message. 

Table B. 2 presents the total NCIC transaction breakdown by file type 
(vehicles/plates, wanted person, etc.) for June of 1972. In addition, the total 
NCIC query transaction breakdown is shown. Over 60% of all transactions were 
inquiries out of which 56% of these inquiries were on vehicles/plates or wanted 
persons. 



162 



1200-133 



Table B.2 NCIC Traffic by File 
June 1972 



a. All activity against each file during the month. 



File Transactions Percentage 

Vehicles/plates 46,793 51.6 

Wanted persons 30,820 34.0 

Articles 3,997 4.4 

Guns 3.126 3.4 

Securities 952 1.0 
Boats 
-'(Rejects) 

Total 90,762 100.0 



Average Daily 


Num 


ber of 


Transactions 


46, 


793 


30, 


820 


3, 


997 


3. 


126 




952 




56 


5, 


019 



1 

5. 5 



b. Average daily number of Q(inquiry) transactions against each file. 



Average Daily 
Number of 



File 


-X 


ransactions 


Percentage 


Vehicles/plates 




29,069 


32. 1 


Wanted persons 




22„359 


24.6 


Articles 




2, 199 


2.4 


Guns 




1,662 


1.8 


Securities 




449 


.5 


Boats 




19 


.0 



Total 55,756 61.4 



"'a reject, although not a specific message type itself, results 
whenever an incorrect or faulty message is sent by a terminal 
user. 



B. 1.3 Message Frequency Distributions and C/M 

An analysis of message frequency distributions and characters per 
message is required to provide a data base for network simulations to test the 
degree of contention for line access at nodes, queue size, storage requirements, 
and possible need for prioritization. Initial frequency distributions and C/M 
analyses have been prepared and are presented in the accompanying tables. 



163 



id'i'j- 1 J J 



Queries require fewer characters than entries as appropriate 
identifiers only are placed in the message. Responses to entry, cancel, clear, 
modify, and locate messages are short acknowledgements that the message has 
been received and processed. There are two possible responses to an incoming 
query. The first and by far the most common is a NO RECORD response which 
requires approximately 50 characters. The second is a positive response or a 
"hit" which constitutes a considerably longer response. The length of this 
response is variable with the type of file (vehicle, person, boat, etc. ). Tables 
B. 3 and B. 4 present the matrix of message lengths by message type and file 
for incoming and outgoing messages, respectively. These data can be com- 
bined with the observed frequencies for each type of message to arrive at an 
average value of C/M for all transactions. Tables B. 5 and B. 6 present the 
message frequency distributions and average C/M values. 



Table B.3. Characters per message into 


NCIC 


Entry 


Wanted 1 


Vehicle 


Article 


Person 


Security 


Gun 


Boats 


72 


74 


237 


132 


66 


98 


Modify 


48 


46 


94 


55 


46 


47 


Locate 


46 


52 


60 


53 


46 


46 


Cancel 


41 


47 


61 


48 


41 


41 


Clear 


54 


60 


63 


61 


54 


54 


Query 


41 


47 


52 


49 


38 


34 


Test Query 


41 


47 


51 


49 


38 


34 



Table B.4. Characters per message out of NCIC 



Entry 


Wanted 


Vehicle 


Article 


Person 


Security 


Gun 


Boat 


Reject 


35 


39 


39 


47 


36 


37 




Modify 


28 


28 


46 


28 


28 


28 




Locate 


28 


36 


47 


34 


28 


28 




Cancel 


28 


34 


59 


34 


28 


28 




Clear 


27 


33 


45 


33 


27 


27 




Query 


67 


47 


60 


47 


32 


42 




Test Query 


67 


47 


60 


47 


32 


42 




Reject 














26 



164 



1200-133 



4) 

£ 

3 
C 






n) 

O 



U 



u 




2 


V 


o 


(30 


■M 


(« 


^■» 


a 


c 




0) 


6 


« 


^ 


4) 


4) 


tic 


fli 


(It 




81 


a 


CD 


*H 


V 


U 


g 






tt 


K 


u 


c 


n1 


o 


J3 


•4J 


O 


3 




J3 





(4 

ID 

n 



n 

I-' 

(4 

H 















to 










r^ 








lO 


■=r 


hr> 


OO 


OO 


_l 


CO 






CD 


Lr\ 


^^ 


•=r 


^ 


^r 


< 




CT> 


UD 


-3- 


^^ 


UD 


^^ 




^. 


1- 


hr\ 


LH 


cr 


"--^ 


CD 


• 


oc 


in 


<=) 


o 




•^ 


^^ 


.=r 


• 


r-1 


* 


> 


o 




ho 


C3 


C3 


- 


.— 1 


OO 


ho 


en 


1— 1 



Ui 
















OO 


OO 


t- 
















^3- 


•3- 


u 
















'^^^ 


^«. 


UJ 
















OD 


UD 


-3 
















• 


• 


UJ 
















CD 


cn 


oi 


CO 










:3- 






CD 


H 


cn 


r^ 


UD 


t— 1 


•a- 


N^ 


■=r 




•3- 


< 


^^ 


■=r 


^3- 


•=r 


LTl 


-^ 


hO 




"^ 


O 


CD 


^^ 


"^ 


^ 


^x. 


r-i 


'^ 




t-H 


CQ 




CD 


O 


CD 


CD 


OO 


CD 




N^ 




tc 






.—1 


■3- 


N^ 


OO 




iT 




LD 


(X- 


OD 


-=r 


LTV 


"^ 


t>A 




^^ 


Z 


"^^^ 


cr 


■=r 


*N^ 


^ 


-3- 


^ 




UD 


3 


ro 


>Ss^ 


^^^ 


ho 


CD 


• 


-3- 




• 


CD 




CD 


CD 




- 


i-H 


- 




CNJ 



»^ 


cn; 


LH 














tN» 


ck: 


1— 1 


in 




OO 

.3- 


t-H 
UD 


CT> 

■3- 


CD 




to 


3 


•3- 




■^ 


u 


■~>^ 


^v. 


■^ 


''»^^ 


■^^^ 


"^^ 


'^s,^ 




»— 1 


Ul 


CD 


cr> 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 




• 


CO 












r-H 






CNI 


Q Z 


r^ 










LTv 






LTV 


UJ O 


IVO 








N~V 


^**s,^ 


.—1 




^ 


1- w 


CSI 


■3" 


CD 


1— 1 


UD 


CD 


LO 




cr 


z a: 


"-^ 


CT> 


UD 


UD 




■ 


"^^ 




• 


< UJ 


rr>. 


^^ 


^. 




CNI 


•3- 


cn 




LO 


SQ- 




O 


CD 


CD 




-3- 


' 




■3- 


UJ 

_l 


•3- 










1^ 






cr> 


o 


1^ 











■3- 


1^ 




Ln 


^^ 


^ 


UD 


CNI 


r-^ 


UD 


^. 


■3- 




^. 


1- 


CD 


-3- 


ir\ 


■3- 


"^ 


.-H 


*N^ 




LO 


q: 


m 


■^^ 


'v.^ 


•^.^ 


t— 1 


• 


K> 




• 


<a: 


1— ( 


CD 


cr5 


CD 


" 


t-H 






CNJ 






I— 1 




Ul 










1^ 


_l 


CSI 










•3- 


I-H 




•3- 


o 


1^ 






I-H 


-3- 


•^ 


.3- 




^ 


•-M 


'X^^ 


CXD 


UD 


.3- 


LTV 


CD 


*>^ 




r>^ 


X 


LO 


•3- 


cr 


'S.s^ 


•"■s,^ 


• 


CNJ 




m 


UJ 


m 


^^ 


>v,^ 


1— t 


cn 


U^ 






CD 


> 


1—1 


O 


o 




- 


N^ 


CNJ 




rA 


Ul 




















_l 
















to 








>■ 


Ul 


_l 






> 


H 




1 LJ- 


>- 


u. 


1- 


UJ 


a: 


>- 


IT 





-1 


V 


tr 




< 


a 


< 


ck: 


H UJ 


Ul 


< 


\ 


1- 


a 


o 


z 


UJ 


Ul 


Ui Z> 


-D 


»- 


\ 


z 


o 


o 


< 


_l 


r) 


UJCZ 


UJ 





\ 


UJ 


s: 


_l 


t_> 


<_) 


cz 


t— 


Od 


1— 



165 



1200-133 



X) 















csl 










p-^ 








o 


to 


CD 


LC 


1^ 


_J 


hO 






CD 


csl 


--- 


UD 


csi 


Lr\ 


< 


"^ 


Csl 


oo 


fv~> 


-^ 


UD 


^^ 


^"^ 


^>^ 


h- 


ho 


K^ 


OJ 




CNl 


• 


CX) 


UD 


C3 


o 






■^ 


^- 




f-H 


• 


• 


CD 




ro 


CD 


en 




1— 1 


CO 


hO 


cr> 


1—1 



c 


»- 
















UD 


UD 


3 

C 


O 
















CnI 


CSJ 


lU 
















'^ 


^^ 


u 


-3 
















UD 


UD 




111 
















cn 


cn 


n) 






















■*-> 














CJ 






Csl 


rt 


1- 


r>» 


OO 


OO 


OO 


1^ 


.3- 


csl 




^T 


4-1 




< 


K> 


CS< 


csl 


CSJ 


CSJ 


^^ 


-=r 




^. 


o 


*v^ 


*^ 


^^ 


^^ 


"^ 


i-H 


"^ 




I— 1 


# 


PQ 


CD 


CD 


CD 


o 


o 




CD 




* 


y 














CSJ 






CSJ 


u 
z 




UD 






OO 




K^ 


CSJ 




hc, 


z 


hO 


OO 


OO 


CSJ 


r^ 


^^ 


hO 




^^ 


=> 


^^ 


Csj 


CSJ 


■-V, 


CSI 


•3- 


^•v^ 




to 


i^ 


tD 


.=r 


•^ 


^^ 


N^ 


^^ 


• 


J- 




- 






CD 


CD 




CD 


r-l 


- 




CSJ 


in W) 






















v-i rt 






















.. « 


>- 




















C » 


»- 




















en g 


^-1 

3 


hv. 


OO 


.=r 


■=r 


hO 


1^ 


h^ 






<n u 


O 


^T 


Csl 


N^ 


N^ 


N^ 


■=r 


:3- 




■*'^ 


V D 


ai 


•~-^ 


^-« 


^-^ 


"^ 


^''s^^ 


**N^^ 


-^ 




I-H 


cm o. 


oo 


cn 


CD 


CD 


CD 


O 


CD 


CD 




- 


01 to 






















in Vi 




































CD 






CD 


Q Z 












UD 






K^ 


ni 


UJ O 


cn 








Ln 


■^^-s^ 







^ 


g!S 

2-fi 


H- CO 


N^. 


UJ 


h-v 


cn 


^3- 


CD 


UD 




•:J- 


z a: 


'-'N^ 


^3- 


^r 


in 


"**^^ 


- 


*V^ 




• 


< UJ 


ro 


'"s*^ 


^ 


■^ 


CSJ 


cr 


cn 




\S\ 


4J O 

3 


3;a- 




CD 


o 


CD 


- 


cr 


- 




■=r 












































^ 






















4-> 


Ul 




















to 


_i 


CT> 










r-^ 






N^ 


•D 


o 


ro 








N~\ 


-a- 


1^ 




cr 




^. 


OO 


UD 


cr 


hO 


•^s.^ 


■=r 




•s^ 


4) 


p 


CD 


CSJ 


ro 


N^ 


--^ 


i-H 


^^ 




in 


M 


a: 


• 


^^ 


*N^ 


•^ 


•—1 


- 


r^ 




• 


en 

in 


<s: 


I— 1 


CD 


CD 


O 




I-H 


" 




csl 


ID 

2 


y 


LT* 










UD 


r^ 




^3- 
UD 




u 


N^ 






OO 


r^ 


•*>s^ 


U3 




^v» 


v^ 


•-« 


"^ 


OO 


OO 


Csl 


csl 


CD 


^^ 




r>>. 




I 


LO 


CSJ 


Csl 


^■^ 


^^ 


- 


CSJ 




• 




UJ 








I— 1 


CD 


\S\ 


- 




CT> 


.> 


t— 1 


CD 


C? 


" 


■ 


N^ 


CSJ 




K> 


3 


LU 
. _J 
















v> 




H 


\ - 




>- 


UJ 


_J 






>- 


y- 






\l-l- 


>- 


U. 


1- 


UJ 


a. 


> 


oc 





—I 




lA 


q: 


•—1 


< 


o 


< 


q: 


\- UJ 


UJ 


< 




a-\ 


)— 


Q 


o 


z 


UJ 


UJ 


«/) r) 


-D 


h- 




> \ 


■z. 


O 


o 


< 


_i 


ZD 


UJC2I 


UJ 







^- \ 


LU 


s: 


_J 


t_> 


t_} 


C3 


►— 


Q^ 


1— 



166 



1200-133 



B. Z Law Enforcement Teletypewriter Service (LETS) 

The national Law Enforcement Teletype Service (LETS) consists of 
nine circuits providing interstate communications to the 48 contiguous states 
(see Map 2). Each of these 48 states has at least one entry point on the LETS 
network (see Table B. 7). Direct Lntracircuit communication is possible without 
going through the central message switcher located in Phoenix, Arizona. How- 
ever, if an entry point in one circuit wishes to communicate with an entry point 
in another circuit, the message is routed through the central message switcher. 
There is only one line per circuit going into the central message switcher. Cur- 
rently, LETS operates with half-duplex circuits. 

Out of the 52 LETS terminals, 45 are located in state capitols, 5 are 
located in cities which are not state capitols, and 2 are located in Washington, 
D.C. Only two states, New York and Illinois, have more than one terminal. 

It should be noted that the LETS system is now undergoing an upgrade. 
The network configuration is being changed from the nine-circuit concept to a 
network in which all terminals have a direct line to the central message switcher. 
This new system is scheduled to be in operation by December 24, 1973. 

In the analysis of LETS traffic, the following statistics were available: 

1) Total yearly traffic in messages. 

2) Percent of traffic originating from each circuit. 

3) Percent of intracircuit traffic for each circuit. 

Table B. 8 is an example of the data available from LETS. The first column of 
the table presents the total number of messages received (RC) by the central 
message switcher from each circuit during the second quarter of 1972. The 
second column records the number of messages transmitted between stations 
on the same circuit (OL) for the first quarter of 1972. 

The number of characters per message observed on LETS is 432. 



167 



1200-133 



o 


L^ 


*-~ 


ce: 


ZD 


ZD 


o 






1— 1 


■^ 






o 


o 


o 


CM 


CO 




'> 

to 
u 



p. 



G 

£ 

D 

u 
u 
o 

C 



p. 



O 

ce: 

o 
oo 



o 
o 

C3 



34-783 O - 74 - 12 



168 



1200-133 



Table B. 7. National law enforcement teletype system 



State 


Relay Center 


Type 


Alabama 


Montgomery 


ST 


Arizona 


Phoenix 


DPS 


Arkansas 


Little Rock 


SP 


California 


Sacramento 


HP 


Colorado 


Denver 


SPAT 


Connecticut 


Hartford 


SP 


Washington, D. C. 


Washington, D, C. 


PD 


Delaware 


Dover 


SP 


Washington 


NCIC 




Florida 


Tallahassee 


HP 


Georgia 


Atlanta 


SPAT 


Idaho 


Boise 


SP 


Illinois 


Springfield 


SP 


Illinois NATB 


Chicago 


NATB* 


Indiana 


Indianapolis 


SP 


Iowa 


Des Moines 


DPS 


Kansas 


Topeka 


HP 


Kentucky 


Frankfort 


SP 


Louisiana 


Baton Rouge 


SP 


Maine 


Augusta 


SP 


Maryland 


Pikesville 


SP 


Massachusetts 


Boston 


SP 


Michigan 


East Lansing 


SP 


Minnesota 


St. Paul 


HP 


Mississippi 


Jackson 


SFP 


Missouri 


Jefferson City 


HP 


HP - Highway Patrol 
SPAT - State Patrol 
SP - State Police 


SFP - Safety Patr( 
ST - State Troope 
DPS - Dept. of Pu 


3l 

rs 

blic Safety 



169 



1200-133 



Table B. 7 (Contd) 



State 

Montana 
Nebraska 
Nevada 

New Hampshire 
New Jersey- 
New Mexico 
New York 
New York 
North Carolina 
North Dakota 
Ohio 

Oklahoma 
Oregon 
Pennsylvania 
Rhode Island 
South Carolina 
South Dakota 
Tennessee 
Texas 
Utah 
Vermont 
Virginia 
Washington 
West Virginia 
Wisconsin 
Wyoming 



Relay Center 

Billings 

Lincoln 

Carson City 

Concord 

Trenton 

Santa Fe 

Albany 

New York City 

Raleigh 

Bismarck 

Columbus 

Edmond 

Salem 

Harrisburg 

Providence 

Columbia 

Pierre 

Nashville 

Austin 

Salt Lake C ity 

Montpelier 

Richmond 

Olympia 

Charleston 

Madison 

Cheyenne 



Type 

HP 

SFP 

HP 

SP 

SP 

SP 

SP 

PD 

HP 

HP 

SP 

DPS 

SP 

SP 

SP 

HP 

SP 

HP 

DPS 

HP 

SP 

SP 

SP 

DPS 

SP 

SPAT 



HP - Highway Patrol 
SPAT - State Patrol 
SP - State Police 



SFP - Safety Patrol 
ST - State Troopers 
DPS - Dept. of Public Safety 



170 



1200-133 



Table B. 8. LETS traffic statistics (second quarter, 1972) 



Circuit 


Received Messages 


On-Line Messages 


1 


35, 934 


24,437 


2 


44, 595 


10. 189 


3 


53, 056 


25. 023 


4 


58, 653 


16. 105 


5 


62, 916 


23, 294 


6 


56, 940 


15, 572 


7 


38, 198 


8,971 


8 


51,394 


24, 940 


10 

Total 


54, 211 

455, 888 




148, 528 

1 


Florida Crii 


Tie Information Center 



B.3 

The Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC) is a good example of a 
regional system that is linked to the National Crime Information Center. Through- 
out the state, FCIC presently has terminals in 80 sheriff's stations, 144 polic( 
stations, 42 Florida Highway Patrol stations, 17 Florida Department of Lr- 
Enforcement offices, and 16 other criminal justice agencit 



jaw 



les. 



The inquiry cycle* is as follows: 

1) Information request. Initiated by the field officer via radio 
transmission to a dispatcher. 

2) Inquiry. Formulated by dispatcher who transmits from his 
computer teleprocessing terminal to FCIC via high-speed tele- 
phone lines. 



*The only exception to this inquiry cycle is when mobile terminals are used. 
These terminals came into existence in 1973 and allow the field officer to 
transmit his message directly to the computer. Mobile terminals are now 
being used by the Palm Beach Sheriff's Department (17 mobile terminals). 
Kansas City Alert System is also using 15 mobile terminals. 



The 



171 



1200-133 



3) Response. Constructed by FCIC after scanning its data base 
and automatically checking NCIC or other interfaced files, if 
applicable, and transmitted to the dispatcher. 

4) Reply. Formulated by dispatcher and transmitted, via radio, 
to field office. 

Map 3 represents the FCIC network and shows that FCIC allows local 
criminal justice agencies in Florida access to NCIC, LETS, Department of 
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, and FCIC data banks. 

r 

B.4 Kansas City ALERT 

The Kansas City ALERT network is another example of a regional sys- 
tem that has direct interface to NCIC. It serves Z2 Police Departments, 6 
Sheriffs, the Kansas City FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspector, 2 Sheriff's Patrols, 
the Municipal Court, the Jackson County Prosecutor, and the Jackson County 
Juvenile Court. In addition to having direct interface with NCIC, Kansas City 
ALERT is also connected to 40 state police computers and 15 major city police 
computers as well as having direct computer interface to the Missouri Highway 
Patrol system called Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System (MULES). 
Inquiries on the Kansas City ALERT system are made in similar manner as on 
the FCIC network. 

Data similar to that available from NCIC is available from the ALERT 
net and provides a valuable basis for traffic modeling. Traffic is recorded by 
data type and message function for each terminal. In addition, information is 
available on the traffic against the NCIC files. 



172 



1200-133 




u 

V 

■M 

e 

V 

u 

a 
o 

o 



u 

(4 

o 



a 

nl 

2 



173 



1200-133 



APPENDIX C 



PRELIMINARY ARREST PROJECTIONS TO 1983 



Some of the inherent limitations in predictive statistical techniques are the 
inability to quantify and/or identify those parameters which will be influential 
upon the variable of interest (in this instance, arrests). Specifically, when 
dealing with societal behavior, the changing social standards, both legal and 
moral, will have significant impact upon law enforcement, as well as all crimin- 
nal justice agencies in the discharge of their duties. In the year following the 
Miranda vs. Arizona Case (384US436, 1966), which dealt with interrogations 
and confessions, significant impact upon the manner in which law enforcement 
agencies could interrogate offenders occurred. During the current session of 
the United States Supreme Court, a case challenging the Miranda Decision may be 
taken under submission of the Court; if so, depending upon the decision, there 
may be significant impact once again upon the criminal justice process. 

Changes are added which might arise due to the following issues: (I) the 
balancing of the rights of an individual to his privacy against the rights of society 
to be protected; (2) the review of search and seizure laws by the California 
Supreme Court; (3) the impact of the "energy crisis" upon legislation which may 
identify activities which will be considered criminal acts in the future, but are 
not now so considered; and (4) gun control legislation, as well as any number of 
changes which might occur during the next 10 years. 

Before embarking upon any time-consuming attempt to develop a factorial 
analysis or a stepwise multiple regression technique to predict future arrests, 
a careful review of the above mentioned limitations must be made. It was 
decided, therefore, that before performing extensive technical analysis, a 
simple linear regression would be performed on arrest data published in the 
Uniform Crime Reports from 1963 through 1972. The actual arrests listed 
represented those reported to the FBI less those for juveniles and those for 
minor offenses. Results of the regression reflect an approximate growth late in 
arrests of interest on the order of 3.75% per year, which would be equivalent to 



174 



1200-133 



5,833,210 arrests in 1983. At the 95% confidence level, this estimate would 
range from 5, 283, 35 1 to 6, 383, 069 arrests. 





Table C- 


1. Results of a linear regression of arrest data 






Linear 






95% 




Actual 


Predicated 




Standard 


Confidence 




Arrests 


Arrests 


Difference 


Deviation 


Limits 


Year 


(Y) 


(Fit) 


(R = Y-Fit) 


(S = SD of Fit) 


(C = 1.96 * S) 


1963 


2, 230, 398 


2, 028, 088 


202, 310 


95, 007 


186, 213 


1964 


2, 287. 045 


2, 218, 344 


68. 701 


80, 577 


157, 930 


1965 


2, 447. 778 


2, 408. 601 


39, 177 


67. 767 


132, 823 


1966 


2.410. 904 


2, 598, 857 


-187, 953 


57, 667 


113, 027 


1967 


2, 695. 654 


2. 789, 113 


- 93, 459 


51, 885 


101, 694 


1968 


2. 781, 042 


2, 979. 369 


-198, 327 


51, 885 


101, 694 


1969 


2. 984, 773 


3. 169. 625 


-184, 852 


57, 667 


113, 027 


1970 


3.438, 124 


3. 359. 881 


78, 243 


67, 767 


132. 823 


1971 


3,691,891 


3. 550. 137 


141. 754 


80. 577 


157. 930 


1972 


3. 874, 499 


3, 740. 393 


134. 406 


95, 007 


186. 213 


1973 





3. 930. 649 





110, 424 


216. 430 


1974 





4. 120. 905 





126, 467 


247. 875 


1975 





4. 311, 161 





142. 926 


280, 135 


1976 





4, 501, 418 





159. 672 


312, 958 


1977 





4, 691, 674 





176. 624 


346, 183- 


1978 





4, 881, 930 





193. 727 


379, 706 


1979 





5. 072, 186 





210. 945 


413, 453 


1980 





5. 262, 442 





228, 252 


447, 374 


1981 





5, 452. 698 





245, 629 


481, 432 


1982 





5. 642, 954 





263. 062 


515, 601 


1983 





5, 833, 210 





280. 540 


549. 859 



175 



1200-133 



APPENDIX D 



USER AGENCY CHARACTERISTICS 



This section outlines the various components of the criminal justice 
community and briefly describes the activities performed. The section also 
discusses the sample of users selected by the project SEARCH staff. 

D. 1 Outline of the Criminal Justice System 

Agencies within the criminal justice system are generally divided by type 
of function and geographic jurisdiction. These are not unique divisions, and a 
great deal of overlap exists. However, these divisions are somewhat useful In 
outlining the various components. The most common functional categories are: 

1) Law enforcement. 

2) Prosecution. 

3) Adjudication (criminal courts). 

4) Probation and parole. 

5) Correctional Institutions. 

6) Other. 

The "Other" category Is necessary to Include such agencies as crime labs and 
various criminal justice commissions, etc. 

Geographically the "system Is divided by: 

1) City. 

2) County. 

3) State. 

4) Federal. 



176 



1200-133 



Quite often, however, "city" and "county" are grouped together into a "local" 
category and are not considered separately. The "local" category will be used 
here with only minor exceptions. 

D. 1. 1 Law Enforcement Agencies 

Law enforcement agencies constitute the largest and most visible compo- 
nent of the criminal justice system. At the local level, these would be the city 
police, the county sheriff, and the coroner. State-wide law enforcement agencies 
are highway patrols, state police, or departments of public safety. 

The local law enforcement agency is primarily responsible for 

1) Detecting deviant or criminal behavior. 

2) Preventing such behavior if possible. 

3) Apprehending offenders if a violation occurs (when either observed 
by an officer or reported to him). 

In addition, these agencies are quite often asked to intervene in a wide variety 
of non-criminal activities, such as family disputes, civil defense, rescue, and 
other emergency situations. While officially classified as a law enforcement 
agency, the county coroner is primarily an investigator. His investigations are 
restricted to those cases involving the death of a human being and generally are 
concerned only with the cause of death. 

In the United States in 1970, there were approximately 14, 603 local law 
enforcement agencies. Exactly 4, 356 of these were in states with populations 
of 10 million or more (6 states) and 10, 790 in states of 3, 000, 000 or more (24 
states). 

State law enforcement agencies are generally of two types: a state police 
with general police powers to enforce all state laws (22 states), or a highway 
patrol which specializes in the operation of vehicles on public highways (26 
states, Alaska and Hawaii not included). Each state, however, has a slightly 
different assignment of responsibility although most emphasize one of the two 
aforementioned types. In other states, there is a state coroner's office which 



177 



1200-133 



replaces the county coroner. Thus, the number of state law enforcement agencies 
per state varies from 1 (13 states) to 33 (Kansas) with the mean being 4, but the 
median about 2. 

D. 1 . 2 Prosecution 

At the local level, the criminal prosecutor is generally the county district 
attorney. Many cities have city attorneys but only in very large cities do they 
handle criminal cases to any extent. The primary responsibilities of the district 
attorney are to investigate and prepare cases for prosecution and, when neces- 
sary, present these cases in court. In the vast majority of cases, the prosecu- 
tion is allowed to decide whether or not to prosecute. If he decides to prosecute, 
however, he cannot take the case directly to court. First, he must obtain a 
grand jury indictment or hold a preliminary hearing before a judge (the defendant 
can, of course, waive his right to a preliminary hearing-). If the judge or grand 
dury agrees that there is sufficient evidence for a trial, the defendant is "held 
to answer" to the charges filed against him. 

In most criminal cases today, the formal criminal procedure is only par- 
tially carried out and plea bargaining takes place. The prosecutor's role in this 
process is one of a principal negotiator. With the unofficial concurrence of the 
judge, the prosecutor and the defense attorney (or sometimes the defendant 
himself) agree on a lesser charge and sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. 
While strictly unofficial, this process is so widespread that it must currently 
be considered as part of the prosecutor's job. 

The state prosecutor is normally referred to as the state attorney general. 
In states where the county district attorney prosecutes the criminal cases, the 
state attorney general plays a small role in the prosecution of criminal cases. 
However, in some states there is a state prosecutor in each county or Judicial 
District who essentially replaces the county DA and prosecutes all the criminal 
cases. In operation, there is very little difference between the two systems. 

There are 8, 501 prosecutor's offices in the U. S. ; of these, 7, 868 are 
at the local level and 633 at the State level. These figures are somewhat inflated 
in that over 5, 000 of these offices are at the city or township level and thus play 



178 



1200-133 



a small role in the criminal justice process (felony cases). Of the 8, 501 agencies, 
6, 349 are located in the 24 largest states. 

D. 1. 3 Adjudication (Criminal Courts) 

The local judicial system is normally divided into courts of "inferior" 
jurisdiction and courts of "general" jurisdiction. Courts of "inferior" juris- 
diction are police courts, magistrates' courts, peace courts, recorders' courts, 
mayors' courts, city courts, justice courts, and municipal courts. These courts 
hold preliminary hearings on serious cases (felonies) and render final disposition 
for minor offenses (traffic violations and most misdemeanors). 

Courts of general jurisdiction include county courts, superior courts, 
supreme courts (N. Y. ), district courts, or circuit courts. * These courts are 
considered the highest courts of original jurisdiction within the state system. 
They conduct trials on all major offenses (felonies), disposing of these cases, 
and also can hear appeals from "inferior" courts on misdemeanor cases. 

The next level in the state judicial system is normally a court of appeals 
with either multicounty or statewide jurisdiction. In most states, there are 
two levels of appeal, the first being to a district court of appeals, and the 
second to a state supreme court or court of last appeal. Unless a ruling involves 
the U. S. Constitution, it cannot be appealed beyond the state supreme court. 
If proper grounds are presented, certain decisions can be appealed directly to 
the U. S. Supreme Court. 

There are 13, 235 state and local courts in the U.S. Out of these, 9, 897 
are in the 24 largest states. Almost 50% (6, 248) of the courts are at the county 
level, and about 137o (I, 690) at the state level. 

D. 1.4 Probation and Parole 

Both probation and parole have two major concerns: 



♦Unfortunately many of these names conflict with federal court designations but 
they are in no way related. 



179 



1200-133 



1) The decision to parole or place on probation. 

2) The supervision of those on parole or probation. 

In the first case, probation and parole are quite different; whereas in the latter 
case, they are very similar and often identical. 

Whether or not a defendant is placed on probation is determined by the 
sentencing authority, usually the trial judge. He bases his decision on his 
observations in court and a "presentence investigation" report prepared by a 
probation officer. 

Whether or not an imate is paroled, however, is determined by the state 
parole board. The board's decision is based on a report prepared by the staff 
at the inmate's institution and a personal "interview. " In addition, a parole 
officer may prepare a report on the inmate's background or the presentence 
report can also be used. Once the decision is made (in both parole and proba- 
tion), there is very little review and no avenues for appeal. 

The supervisory aspects of probation and parole, on the other hand, are 
quite similar. The probationer or parolee is required to meet periodically with 
the supervisor (usually a parole or probation officer but sometimes a private 
"sponsor"). In addition, other "conditions" are also generally included in the 
probation or parole agreement. If any violation of the conditions occurs, the 
officer can recommend that probation or parole be revoked, and the defendant 
sent to jail. In such cases, the time served on parole or probation is generally 
not counted towards the completion of a jail term. 

Although quite similar in many ways, there are significant differences 
between probation and parole. The former is normally used with first offenders 
and minor offenses. In some cases, probation may be accompanied by a short 
(a few months) jail term. Parole, on the other hand, is used only for serious 
offenders. Inmates in county jails (sentence of less than 1 to 2 years) are 
generally not eligible for parole. Since longer terms are usually served in state 
prisons, parole is normally a state function. 



180 



1200-133 



There are 2, 445 probation offices in the U. S. , 1, 867 at the local level. 
The number of probation officers per office varies from over 2, 000 for large 
agencies like Los Angeles to 1 or 2 officers in small agencies. The caseloads 
per officer also vary a great deal. Roughly two-thirds of the probation officers 
(assigned to adult felons) have caseloads of over 100 with some approaching 300. 
In addition to his supervisory work, probation officers are asked to perform 
up to 14 presentence investigations per month. 

D. 1. 5 Correctional Institutions 

Correctional institutions generally refer to county jails and state and 
federal prisons. Municipal jails are usually "holding areas" where defendants 
are held for trial. 

In addition to county jails, at the local level, there are a wide variety of 
honor camps, detention camps, road crews, etc. which also serve as adult 
correctional institutions. The degree of freedom allowed the inmate also varies 
widely according to the type of institution. 

At the state level, there are a wide variety of institutions ranging from 
maximum security prisons to conservation camps and vocational centers. To 
properly assign a convicted defendant to the institution which will best suit him, 
various classification methods are in use. In almost all cases, inmates are 
separated according to age and length of term. In some states, special diag- 
nostic techniques are used. The general procedure in most states is that, 
based on the presentence report, the judge assigns the defendant to an institution. 
Once the inmate arrives at the insitution, he is assigned to a particular program 
within the institution. In a few states, all convicted defendants are first sent to 
a "reception center" where they are interviewed and tested to determine the best 
institution and program. The inmate is then transferred to the proper institution. 

There are currently 4, 435 state and local adult correctional institutions 
in the U. S. with 3, 024 of these run by county governments. There are about 400 
state institutions, and an unknown number of city jails and police "holding tanks. " 



181 



1200-133 



D. 1 . 6 Institutions for Juveniles 

In addition to adult correctional institutions, all states have institutions 
for "delinquent" children. These are usually called detention homes, juvenile 
halls, training schools, or youth camps. The reasons for sending a juvenile to 
one of these institutions ranges from simply being "neglected" to committing 
murder. In most states, it is assumed that a juvenile is incapable of commit- 
ting a crime, and thus no "criminal" record is maintained. It is commonly felt 
that "labeling" a juvenile a "criminal" will adversely affect rehabilitation. 

D. 1. 7 Other Types of Agencies 

There are a great many agencies which play a part in the criminal justice 
process but do not fit into any uf the previously described categories. These 
would include: 

1) Crime labs. 

2) Police academies. 

3) County marshals. 

4) Criminal mental hospitals. 

5) Legislative committees. 

6) Planning agencies. 

7) Executive departments. 

These are not described, but are identified as distinct parts of the criminal 
justice community and potential users of a NALECOM system. 

D. 2 A Sample of Users 

To completely understand the user community, we would need to contact 
each criminal justice agency in the U. S. individually. Since this is impractical, 
i.t was necessary to select assorted agencies Ln an attempt to obtain a represen- 
tative sample. The actual sample selected by Project SEARCH staff includes 
only those agencies which currently have some type of information system. Thus, 
the sample is somewhat biased towards the medium to large agencies. However, 
there is no reason to believe that the needs of smaller agencies ■^n.U be of a fun- 
damentally different type but rather only on a different scale in terms of volume. 



182 



1200-133 



Figure D. 1 indicates the range of agencies which were surveyed. The 
numbers in the boxes indicate the name of the information system surveyed as 
listed in Table D. 1. No listings are presented under Prosecution or Probation 
and Parole because these were not expressly listed as applications of any system 
surveyed. However, it is safe to assume that the prosecutor is considered as 
part of the criminal court by most systems, and similarly probation, parole, and 
correctional institutions are combined under the term correction. With this 
assumption, the full range of agencies are indeed covered by the sample. 



Agency 



Law Enforcement 



Prosecution 

Adjudication 
(Criminal Courts) 

Probation and 
Parole 

Correctional 
Insitutions 

Others 



Local 



5. 9, 10, 14, 
15, 16, 17,20 



10, 14, 20, 21 



10, 17, 20, 21 



14, 16, 20, 21 



State* 



I, 2, 6, 7. 

II, 12, 13, 
18, 19 



2, 6, 11, 13, 
18 



6, 11, 13. 18, 
19 

2, 8, 13, 19 



Federal 



1 



22, 23, 24 



*State Jurisdiction, as used in this figure, implies that the 
system is designed to be used by all_ the agencies in the state, 
not just those designated "state agencies" (e.g., state police, 
etc.). 



Fig. D. 1. Agencies surveyed 



183 



1200-133 



Table D. 1. Survey List 

1. ACIC - Arizona Crime Information Center 

Contact: Curt Baer, Data Processing Manager 
P.O. Box 6638, 2010 W. Encantc Blvd. 
Phoenix, Arizona 85008 

2. CLETS - California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System 

Contact: Henry P. Gietzen, Sr. D. P. Systems Analyst 
7171 Bowling Drive 
Sacramento, California 95823 

3. CJIS - California Justice Information System 

Same as CLETS 

4. AMIS - Automated Management Information System 

Same as CLETS 

5. AWWS - Automated Want/Warrant System 

Contact: Antonio Miera, Asst. Chief Data Services 
200 North Spring Street, Rm. 400, City Hall East 
Los Angeles, California 90012 

6. NYSIIS - New York State Identification and Intelligence System 

Contact: Adam D'Alessandro, Dept. Dir., Sys. Dev. & Opn. 
Exec. Park - Stuyvesant Plaza 
Albany, New York. 12203 

7. NYSPIN - New York Statewide Police Information System 

Contact: Fred Frank, Director, Electronic Data Processing 
St. Campus, Public Security Bldg. 
Albany, New York 12226 

8. LEIS - Law Enforcement Information System 

Contact: Mike Stewart, UCJIS Coordinator 

304 State Office Bldg. 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 

9. SKA - Sea King Alert 

Contact: Maj. Harvey Hallom 
Wash. S. P. 

General Administration Building 
Olympia, Washington 98504 

10. CJIC - Criminal Justice Information Control 

Contact: George Vandermate, Gen. Serv. Agency 

Data Processing Center 

1555 Berger Drive 

San Jose, California 95112 



34-788 O - 74 - 13 



184 



1200-133 



Table D. 1. (Contd) 



11. FCIC 



Florida Crime Information Center 
Contact: Emory B. Williams, Dir. 

and Information 
P.O. Box 1489 
Tallahassee, Florida 32302 



Div. of Crim. Ident. 



12. LEIN 



13. MINCIS 



15. PIN 



16. PSIS 



17. AJIS 



18. NJCIS- 
Phll 



19. MILES 



20. CLEAR - 



Law Enforcement Information Network 

Contact: David R. Fergason, Dir., Data Processing Division 

Michigan State Police 

714 South Harrison Road 

East Lansing, Michigan 48223 

Minnesota Crime Information System 
Contact: Michael J. Stump, Maj. System Mgr. 
5th Floor Centennial Bldg. 
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 

Police Information Network 

Contacts: Shig Naito, Data Processing Supervisor 
Art Dahl, Director of the Data Center 
Gordon Milliman, Spec. Cons, for Data Proc. 

1221 Oak Street 

Oakland, California 94612 



Public Safety Information System 
Contact: George M. Medak, Proj. 

Prl 
444 West Ocean Blvd. - Suite 808 
Long Beach, California 90802 



Dir., Public Safety Demo. 



Automated Justice Information System 

Contact: Capt. James White, LASD Records Bureau 

211 West Temple Street, Rm. 376 

Los Angeles, California 90012 

New Jersey Statewide Comm. Information System 
Contact: Lt. Ronald E. Ayres, Asst. Dir. 
P.O. Box 1453 E. State Street 
Trenton, New Jersey 08607 

Maryland Inter-Agency Law Enforcement System 

Contact: Col. Robt, Lally, Sec, Public Safety/Correctional 

Services 
Executive Plaza - 5th floor 
CockeysvlUe, Maryland 21030 



Regional Crime Information Center 
•Contact: Andrews O. Atkinson, Supt. 
138 East Court Street 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 



RCIC 



185 



1200-133 



Table D. 1 (Contd) 



21. 



PCS 



Philadelphia Courts System 

Contact: Larry P. Polansky, Chief Deputy Court Admin. 

City Hall Rm. 370, Court Admin. 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 



22. NHTSA - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Contact: Brian Connell, Dir., Natl. Driv. Register 
400 - 7th Street S. W. 
Washington, D. C. 20590 



23. 



NCIC 



National Crime Information Center 
Contact: John Cary, Spec. Agt. x 2628 

Dennis G. Lofgren, Spec. Agt. NCIC-3117RB 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 
9th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue 
Washington, D. C. 20535 



24. NLETS - National Law Enforcement Teletype System 
Contact; Sgt. George Falter 
P.O. Box 6638, 2010 W. Encanto Blvd. 
Phoenix, Arizona 85008 



186 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 

Excerpts from the Report of the National Advisory Commission on 
Criminal Justice Standards and Goals 

A NATIONAL STRATEGY TO RE:DUCE CRIME, PP. 51-60 

Criminal Justice Information 8ystem,s 

Organizing the Nation's criminal justice information into a useful body of 
knowledge was talked about for decades but little was done. Recently, how- 
ever, the urgency of the Nation's crime problem, and the availability of com- 
puters and data processing equipment, have made integrated State and na- 
tional information systems a possibility. 

Along with many other disciplines, criminal justice has been experiencing 
an "information explosion" since the late 1960's. Its characteristics are stead- 
ily increasing demands for more capability in gathering, processing, and trans- 
mitting information, and steadily increasing information needs. 

More frequent use of the computer and other automated technology is a na- 
tional trend. In 1968, according to LEAA, there were just 10 States in the 
United States with automated State-level criminal justice information systems. 
By 1972, 47 States had operational automated information systems serving at 
least one component of the system. 

The uses of information and compute! 3 vary from jury selection to police 
manpower allocation to correctional program placement. A recent survey of 
States by LEAA identified 39 different police functions, 23 different court func- 
tions, and 13 different corrections functions performed by automated informa- 
tion systems in one or more States or cities (see Table 3.1). 

TABLE 3.1.— CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS 



Police: Function 



Courts: Function 



Corrections: Function 



Activity reporting 

Administration/finance 

Alphabetic Index 

Arrests 

Command and control 

Communications— message switching 

Communications-on-line inquiry 

Communications — other 

Computer-assisted dispatch 

Crime lab 

Crime trend analysis 

Criminal associates 

Criminal history 

Evidence control 

Field contact reporting 

Fingerprint processing 

Juvenile index 

Licensing/registration 

Missing persons 

Modus operandi 

Narcotics control • 

Organized crime 

Performance evaluation 

Planning 

Police personnel 

Research statistics 

Resource/allocation 

Simulation/modeling 

Stolen licenses 

Stolen property— guns 

Stolen property— vehicles 

Stolen property— other 

Subjects in process 

Training 

Uniform crime reporting 

Vehicle maintenance 

Warrants/wanted persons 

White-collar crime 

Workload analysis 



Administration/finance 
Assignment— attorneys 
Assignment— courtroom 
Assignment — judges 
Calendaring/scheduling 
Case control 
Case disposition reports 
Citation control 
Courts personnel 
Criminal history 
Defendant control 
Docketing 
Evidence control 
Fines, collateral, bail 
Jury management 
Juvenile records 
Probation control 
Process service control 
Research/statistics 
Simulation/modeling 
Summons control 
Warrant control 
Witness control 



Administration/finance 
Corrections personnel 
Inmate accounting 
Inmate records 
Menu planning 
Performance evaluation 
Physical goods inventory 
Planning 
Prison industries 
Prisoner behavior models 
Rehabilitation 
Research/statistics 
Trust fund accounting 



Source : United States Department of Justice, LEAA, Computer Summaries from the 
Directory of Automated Criminal Justice Information Systems (1973). pp. 37, 45, 53. 

Criminal justice agencies — like most public and private agencies — are vora- 
cious consumers of information. As the pace and complexity of change in the 



187 

criminal justice system quiclcens, police, courts, and corrections agencies will 
seek more information and a faster response in its delivery. 

To avoid duplication of effort and to facilitate effective collection and proper 
dissemination of information during this period of rapid expansion, the Com- 
mission recommends that : 

State offices coordinate development of information systems. 
High priority be given to development of criminal history and offender- 
based transaction statistics systems. 

Each State establish a Security and Privacy Council to prevent im- 
proper use of information. 

DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

Decisions must be made as to which information systems deserve priority 
attention and which ones are less important. Choosing the right jurisdictional 
level at which to apply and use the developing criminal justice information 
systems technology is also a critical decision. 

At the present time, local. State, and Federal agencies are spending consider- 
able moneys for the hardware and impediments of incompatible and duplica- 
tive information systems. Money is being wasted and the human resources, 
technical talents, and skills available for development of a criminal justice in- 
formation system are being diffused in many redundant development efforts. 

The availability of Federal funds has contributed to the diffusion of effort. 
Most State criminal justice planning agencies have been faced with decisions 
on a project-by-project basis where all projects appear to be reasonable and no 
setting of priorities is possible. As funding expands, the demand increases. 
Nearly every State is in the position of having a plethora of information sys- 
tems which cannot be integrated into a usable network. The price of neglected 
planning is often high ; millions of dollars are spent by State and local govern- 
ments in large urban States without obtaining the necessary information in its 
most usable form. 

The Commission recommends that each State create an organizational struc- 
ture for coordinating the development of criminal justice information systems. 

Such a structure would: (1) prepare a master plan for the development of 
an integrated network of criminal justice information systems; (2) provide 
technical assistance and training to all jurisdictions in data collection meth- 
ods, system concept development, and related areas; and (3) arrange for audit 
and inspection of State and local information systems. 

Proper jurisdictional responsibilities in an integrated network of criminal 
justice information systems are set forth in the Commission's Report on the 
Criminal Justice System. Standards define State, local, and component system 
roles based on several principles of system integration. 

The most important principle of system integration is that identical records 
should not be contained within two separate repositories unless there are 
strongly overriding considerations of total system efficiency to be gained 
thereby. In practice, this means that there should not be, for example, criminal 
histories kept at the local level unless the State is temporarily unable to pro- 
vide this service. In a time of rapid automated information technology, dupli- 
cative systems are usually unnecessary and wasteful. 

In 1971, the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) began operat- 
ing a nationwide .system for the exchange of criminal histories between States. 
This system is the result of an LEAA-funded program of intergovernmental 
cooperation on information systems among Federal, State, and local govern- 
ments called Project SEARCH. Since the Commission's work is confined to 
State and local governments, it set no standards for the FBI, LEAA, or any 
other Federal agency. However, because State and local governments are pri- 
mary data sources for the NCIC, implementing the Commission's report would 
affect the national level as well. 

Various other operational and management needs of criminal justice agen- 
cies are discussed in the Commission's Report on the Criminal Justice System. 
Standards, for example, are .set for improving the collection and processing of 
local police crime statistics. In addition, the Commission identified two infor- 
mation needs that merit the highest priority attention-criminal histories and 
offender-based transaction statistics (OBTS). 



188 

CRIMINAL HISTORIES AND OBTS 

The criminal history record is a major thread in tying the criminal justice 
system together. It shows, as no other docimient or record does, the actions of 
the total system on individuals. It describes the official actions of police agen- 
cies, judicial and supportive agencies, and all correctional components. 

The uses of criminal histories are varied. A police detective may use a crim- 
inal history to indicate vphether a suspect is likely to have committed the 
crime under investigation and also the suspect's possible whereabouts. A dis- 
trict attorney may find an arrestee's criminal history invaluable in making rec- 
ommendations on the question of bail and its amount. Most judges who face 
the choice of placing a convicted defendant on probation or sending him to 
prison realize that a criminal history is vital to intelligent sentencing. 

Closely allied to the need for criminal history data on a given offender is 
the need for aggregate data on offenders processed through the system, 
namely, offender-based transaction statistics (OBTS). OBTS data have come to 
be thought of as "derivative" from individual criminal histories since many 
data elements are the same. Statistics on what happens to offenders at each 
significant step in the criminal justice process can provide answers to ques- 
tions such as these : 

What percentage of those arrested are prosecuted? 

What percentage of those prosecuted are acquitted or dismissed? 

What is the average length of time between arrest and final disposition? 

What percentage of arrestees wait more than 1 year before the final disposi- 
tion of their cases? 

What percentage of offenders in institutions and community-based correc- 
tions programs are rearrested and reconvicted upon release? 

The evaluation of whether a part of the system is meeting its basic 
objectives must have its roots in the statistics describing the passage of of- 
fenders through the system. Without OBTS data, planners and legislators fre- 
quently find themselves relying on the uncertain grounds of good intentions 
and the often ill-founded assumptions of conventional wisdom. 

In spite of the need for particular and statistical data derived from individ- 
ual criminal histories, most criminal justice systems find it difficult to produce, 
rapidly and easily, complete criminal history information. Local police depart- 
ment files are still the most important sources of criminal history information. 
Known as "rap sheets," summary criminal history records are kept by police 
and commonly shared witli other criminal justice agencies. In most jurisdic- 
tions there is no immediately available substitute for rap sheets ; indeed they 
are vital to the functioning of urban criminal justice systems. 

Nevertheless, there are major difficulties in relying totally on local informa- 
tion. Rap sheets often are not complete ; followup on the disposition of the of- 
fender after he has been arrested frequently is spotty. Offenders may be ar- 
rested for offenses in other cities and counties without the" arrests ever 
showing up on the records of the original jurisdiction. Some offenders are 
highly mobile. For instance, a New York study of 869 persons arrested in a 2- 
month period revealed that one in five had been arrested at least once before 
in another jurisdiction. (6) 

In most localities criminal history information is in manual files, impeding 
fast retrieval. Yet, police conducting investigations and judges setting bail can- 
not tolerate long delays. Retention of criminal history data in many files 
makes the compilation of offender-based transaction statistics on a continual 
basis all but impossible. 

The need for States to become repositories for criminal history information 
is clear ; this need coincides with other needs requiring statewide attention, 
such as on-line files on wanted persons, stolen autos, and other identifiable 
stolen items. 

The Commission recommends that all State criminal justice information sys- 
tems provide com,puterized criminal history files and collection and storage of 
additional data elements to permit collection of offender-based transaction sta- 
tistics. 

Advisory committees representing information users from all parts of the 
criminal justice system should be established to assure compatibility of sys- 
tems designs. National requirements such as tlie FBI's National Crime Infor- 
mation Center (NCIC) specifications must be considered in the design of infor- 
mation systems. 



189 

PRIVACY 

The permanent storage, rapid retrieval, and national coverage of a 
computer-based criminal justice information system can deprive a citizen of 
his "right to privacy" — his right to be free from unwarranted intrusion in his 
affairs. 

The problem in establishing a criminal justice information system is to de- 
termine who should have access to the files or computer terminals, who should 
be eligible to receive information from these files, and under what circum- 
stances. 

For these reasons, the collection and dissemination of criminal history infor- 
mation and other criminal justice information should be carefully supervised. 

The Commission recommends that each State adopt legislation to establish a 
Security and Privacy Council which is vested with sufficient authority to adopt 
and administer security mid privacy standards far crim,inal justice information 
systems. 

Fifty percent of each Council's members should be private citizens. 

In its Report on the Criminal Justice System the Commission establishes a 
number of standards that it recommends should be enacted into legislation and 
enforced by Privacy and Security Councils. Among those adopted were key 
standards on the purging, access, and dissemination of criminal history infor- 
mation and the individual's right to review oflBcial records. 

Criminal justice files contain information that may be useful to a wide 
range of agencies outside the criminal justice system, for background investi- 
gations of potential employees of public agencies and private firms, for deter- 
mining eligibility for occupational licenses,, for credit evaluation, and for gen- 
eral public information supplied by news media. 

The potential damage to privacy is increased when the information in 
criminal justice files is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, and unnecessarily 
disseminated to persons outside the criminal justice system. 

In view of the sensitivity and content of criminal history files, the Commis- 
sion recommends that strict security and privacy procedures be established to 
insure that there be no dissemination outside the government. 

Credit bureaus, news media, employers, employment agencies, and other seek- 
ers of information should be denied access to criminal histories. Although 
items in a criminal history file are for the most part matters of public record, 
the government should not compile the items and turn the composite over to 
persons outside of government. 

This recommendation may appear to be an exception in freedom of informa- 
tion laws and practices, but the Commission believes the protection of individ- 
ual privacy to be of paramount concern in this instance. 

Files should be reviewed periodically to eliminate inaccurate, incomplete, 
misleading, unverified, and unverifiable information. Individuals should be ac- 
corded the right to inspect criminal history files pertaining to them and to 
challenge the validity of inaccurate or misleading entries. In addition, informa- 
tion that, because of its age, is no longer a reliable guide to the subject's pres- 
ent attitudes or behavior should be purged from the files. 

Information concerning individuals convicted of serious crimes should be 
purged from active files 10 years after the date of release from supervision by 
the criminal justice system. For less serious crimes, the period should be 5 
years. Exceptions to this purging rule should be made in the case of wanted 
persons, persons under indictment, and multiple offenders. 

The principle of purging should also apply to simple arrest records. The eco- 
nomic and personal damage resulting from an arrest that does not lead to con- 
viction is unnecessary yet often substantial. Although the existence of an ar- 
rest record is neither an indication of guilt nor a reliable guide to a person's 
character, it may become an automatic disqualification for employment. 

The Commission recommends that all copies of information filed as a result 
of an arrest that is legally terminated in favor of the individual should be re- 
turned to that individual within 60 days of final disposition, upon order of a 
court or if requested by the agency that disposed of the case. Exceptions 
should be made in the case of persons against whom a criminal action or pro- 
ceeding is pending or who have previously been convicted of a crime. 

In its Report on the Criminal Justice System, the Commission acknowledges 
that purged information may be removed from active files and still retained 
for internal recordkeeping and bona fide research purposes. Information that is 



190 

purged, but not returned or destroyed, should be held in confidence, in separate 
flies, and not disseminated except under several narrowly defined cases speci- 
fied in the Commission's report. 

Legislation should be enacted that limits questions about arrests on applica- 
tions for public and private employment, licenses, and other civil rights and 
privileges to those arrests for which records have not been returned or purged. 
(See the chapter in this report on CJommunity Crime Prevention for a further 
discussion of removing employment barriers resulting from arrests and convic- 
tions. ) 

Few persons doubt the necessity for the criminal justice system to be aware 
of community conditions and potential criminal activity. Controversy occurs, 
however, on what information should be gathered, how it should be obtained, 
and who should have access to it. The threat to individual rights from unre- 
stricted intelligence operations is direct. Leaks occur. Details that should be 
strictly private become public news. Reputations may be destroyed and careers 
ruined. The Commission wishes to discourage the retention of demonstrably in- 
accurate and unnecessary intelligence information and to prevent its dissemi- 
nation. 

In no instance should criminal history files be linked with intelligence files. 
To minimize the threat to privacy, criminal history files must contain only in- 
formation concerning formal contacts with the criminal justice system such as 
arrest, charge, and release information. Unproven allegations, rumors of illicit 
associations, and subjective opinions have no place in criminal history files 
which of necessity will be used by the entire criminal justice system and possi- 
bly by other government agencies. 

All of the privacy standards discussed above and others specified in the 
Commission report would be promulgated and enforced by the State Privacy 
and Security Councils in the absence of controlling national legislation. 

Developing adequate information systems that safeguard basic rights is not a 
police problem or a courts problem or a corrections problem. It is a criminal 
justice problem. Issues surrounding such areas as criminal history exchanges, 
offender-based transaction statistics, and privacy and security requirements 
must be decided on a multiagency basis. The Commission information systems 
standards present a suggested course of action that will unify the criminal 
justice community in this critical area. 



State-by-State Surveys Conducted by the Law Enforcement 

Assistance Administration 

EXCERPTS from "SECURITY & PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS IN COMPUTERIZED CRIMINAL 
JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS" MAY 10, 1971 

NEEDS AND BALANCES 

Information and intelligence files have always been maintained by police de- 
partments and other law enforcement agencies. 

Until recent years, these files for the most part were manual systems ; that 
is, each card, each piece of paper, had to be put into the file or taken from it 
by hand ; as a result, tracking down a specific case or compiling overall statis- 
tics was nearly always slow and ineflScient. 

In recent years, a major change in such record-keeping has occurred in 
many parts of the country, with the use of computers in which vast amounts 
of information can be stored and from which information can be extracted 
quickly. 

The basic purposes of the two kinds of files — manual and computer — are the 
same. First, the files are designed to improve the effectiveness of police, courts, 
and corrections agencies on a case-by-case basis as they deal with persons who 
have come into contact with the criminal justice system. Second, they are de- 
signed to also provide detailed statistical material on patterns of crime, 
amounts of crime, disposition of cases, and similar material from which an ac- 
curate picture can be obtained on how well the criminal justice system is func- 
tioning. 

The shortcomings of manual systems have long been apparent. Computerized 
files already have shown that they can be a vital factor in the improvement of 
the criminal justice system — in making the nation safer, in making that sys- 
tem fairer. 



191 

The considerations of privacy and security, as they relate to improper 
disclosure of material in law enforcement files, are not new. The adverse effect 
upon an individual about who information has been improperly or illegally uti- 
lized is the same regardless of whether the material came from a manual file 
or a computer. 

But with the advent of computerized criminal justice information systems, a 
number of new factors have been brought into play. 

With manual systems, police departments often are compartmentalized ; that 
is, they may be willing or even eager to share information with other cities or 
states, but tracking down material may be so ditficult that sharing is pre- 
cluded in many instances, or at least it is very slow. With a computer and a 
computer format for data, the collection is greatly simplified. A city may put 
information into its own computer, or into one which is the centralized collec- 
tion point for an entire state. The state then could send its material along to 
a computer serving as the central storage point for a nationwide system. 

What flows in one direction can also flow back. Thus, a city could query the 
central computer in its state for information that has been compiled by other 
cities ; a state could obtain information from the national computer center that 
has been gathered by other states. 

A computerized system might not, by itself, add appreciably to the total 
number of bits and pieces of information existing throughout the country ; but 
such a system would put all of that information into one or more central repos- 
itories in usable form ; and it would enable that information to be fashioned 
into usable statistics. 

The considerations of security and privacy also take on new dimensions with 
the development of computerized information systems. Under a manual system, 
information on an individual might be obtained from a police department by a 
person who had no legal right to receive such data. At present, there are some 
manual systems in existence which collect arrest data on a national basis. But 
it would be an impossible task to directly query every police department in the 
country to find one with information on that individual. 

However, putting all available information about that individual into a na- 
tional computerized system at least solves the collection problem for the per- 
son improperly seeking information. If he can find a way to obtain access to 
the computerized files, then he can obtain everything he wants. 

The first question, then, is how to safeguard material in intelligence and in- 
formation files of law enforcement agencies. Even if there were no computers, 
security and privacy controls would have to be stringent. With the existence of 
computers, the controls have to be even more strict. 

Two basic views have been expressed on how best to satisfy the security and 
privacy considerations. One view holds that it can best be done by administra- 
tive regulations — that is, each law enforcement or government agency making 
its own program watertight against information leakage. The second view is 
that federal legislation is needed — that is, no matter how well such regulations 
might work, there will be failures. 

Those two points of view are not mutually exclusive. Even under the best 
administrative procedures, and the best of circumstances, precautions against 
improper disclosure of information may fail. In the interests of fairness and 
justice, every possible safeguard must be taken in advance ; thus, a statute is 
needed to bring legal sanctions and penalties. On the other hand, even the 
most artfully drawn law will fail if it is not buttressed by excellence in ad- 
ministrative regulations; thus, those with day-in, day-out responsibilities for 
operation of information systems must not only abide by the letter of security 
and privacy laws, but by the spirit of a broader concept of fairness and legal- 
ity as well. 

The criminal justice system has an urgent need for computerized informa- 
tion and intelligence systems ; there is ar equally urgent need for security and 
privacy for such systems to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. The 
rights of the general public and the rights of the individual must be pro- 
tected ; and there must be a balance between the two. That is the purpose of 
the draft legislation that will be discussed later in this report. 

SUPPORT FOR SYSTEMS 

The needs for computerized information and intelligence systems are diverse, 
and support for their creation has come from many quarters. 



192 

The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Jus- 
tice said : 

"An integrated national information system is needed to serve the combined 
needs at the national, state, regional and metropolitan or county levels of the 
police, courts and corrections agencies, and of the public and research commu- 
nity. Each of these agencies has information needed by others ; an information 
system provides a means for collecting it, analyzing it, and disseminating it to 
those who need it. Each can be kept in close communication with the others, 
and information transferred by voice, teletype, or computer to computer." 

The District of Columbia's Comprehensive Criminal Justice Plan said : 

"Effective action to overcome the challenge of crime depends on the immedi- 
ate availability of accurate information about the nature and extent of the 
problem on the one hand, and the resources required to meet the problem on 
the other hand. This kind of information is too often not available. Decisions, 
therefore, must be made on the basis of less precise information, too little in- 
formation, or old information ; or else decisions must be postponed until such 
time as a laborious special information and data acquisition and analysis task 
has been performed. ... It is essential that agency heads and program direc- 
tors communicate clearly their information needs to those who manage infor- 
mation systems, record systems, and computer systems so that the technicians 
can begin to collect and produce the information the decision-makers want and 
need for their management, planning and budgeting purposes." 

In addition, the Kerner Commission, as part of its study of riots and civil 
disorders, looked at this matter carefully, and recommended that the police de- 
velop adequate intelligence for tension-detecting as well as on-the-scene infor- 
mation for tactical units. Many of the systems LEAA supports in the civil dis- 
orders area arose out of the recommendations of the Kerner Commission and 
similar commissions established by the states. 

The uses for material from computerized intelligence systems can be varied, 
and immediate availability of accurate and complete data on people and prop- 
erty can be of extreme value to officials in the criminal justice system. A pa- 
trolman can use summary information to check out persons under immediate 
suspicion of committing a crime. He can use this data when observing a vehi- 
cle ; license check gives him the owner's name and dat« of birth in situations 
where he suspects the driver has, is now, or is about to commit a crime. Of 
equal importance, the process can, with other evidence at hand, clear the inno- 
cent quickly. A detective can use the summary data to help narrow down a 
list of suspects. The data would serve to speed up the investigative process. In 
eliminating or reducing suspects, the process also clears the innocent. 

Detailed information can assist a prosecutor in determining whether a com- 
plaint should be issued, the degree of penalty he will seek, and in the cross ex- 
amination of defense witnesses. The data can help to determine defense strat- 
egy. The defense counsel can use it to determine whether his client is truthful, 
whether he should place him on the stand, and how to use and select possible 
defense witnesses. 

A judge can use the detailed data in considering sentence and probation fol- 
lowing a verdict, to help determine how best to sentence the subject for his 
best interest, and, in the case where the history shows the subject to be a dan- 
ger to others, to remove the potential danger to others. 

Corrections officials can use the data to determine whether parole should 
occur, what institution is best suited to the subject's emotional, educational 
and vocational needs. Prison officials can be assisted in analyzing the subject,, 
determining the nature of assignment, degree of security, privileges and how 
to handle special problems should they arise. A probation officer can use the 
data to determine probation, type and degree of supervision and the best guess 
as to length of probation. It can be a guide to behavior patterns, prior work 
experience and discipline and to point out areas of special concern. The parole 
officials can use the data in evaluation and in determining release and proce- 
dures. 

EABLY SYSTEMS 

Prior to the National Crime Commission, there was some development of 
computerized criminal justice systems. Since then, there has been a substantial 
increase in the development of such information and intelligence systems. 

Under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965, major federal, regional, 
state, and local criminal justice systems were funded. 

The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) was implemented by the 



193 

Federal Bureau of Investigation with funds from the Office of Law Enforce- 
ment Assistance (OLEA). The initial interagency agreement for $97,000 in Fis- 
cal 1966 was for the feasibility and design work on a computerized national 
crime information system. Successive contributions of $406,197, $295,000, and 
$250,000 enabled the program to be expanded to sixty-four state and local law 
enforcement agencies. The NCIC will serve as an index for the eventual devel- 
opment of fifty statewide computerized law enforcement information systems. 

Under a $350,000 OLEA grant, the California Department of Justice, pro- 
ceeding from previous feasibility studies, undertook the development of an in- 
tegrated, statewide criminal justice information system covering all 
components of law enforcement, courts, and corrections. 

The District of Columbia Police Department received a $257,500 grant for 
developmental work for computer-based information systems to serve police de- 
partments in the metropolitan area. 

Cincinnati received grants of $123,710 and $124,545 to develop and implement 
a computer-based regional law enforcement system to integrate and serve in- 
formation handling requirements of police, prosecution and court agencies in 
Hamilton County and surrounding communities. 

EFFORTS BY LEAA 

Under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Law 
Enforcement Assistance Administration surveyed the information system field, 
reviewed the recommendations of the President's Crime Commission, and 
sought formal advice of the FBI. It was decided that a central need of the 
states was for the development of a machine readable format for criminal his- 
tory records that could be used by all elements of the criminal justice system. 
LEAA allocated $600,000 to bring into a consortium the most experienced 
states to work with LEAA and the FBI. In June of 1969, the states of Califor- 
nia, Arizona, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and New York began the devel- 
opment of a criminal justice information system capable of interstate transfer- 
ence of criminal histories as well as the capability to automate state collected 
criminal statistics. The project became known as SEARCH (System for Elec- 
tronic Analysis and Retrieval of Criminal Histories) was expanded to fifteen 
states. 

An increasing number of projects has been established in recent years, both 
with and without LEAA support. In order to assess the impact of these devel- 
opments, LEAA's National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service 
conducted a survey in the Spring of 1970 to determine the status of criminal 
justice information systems in the states and large cities. 

It was discovered that in 1968 only three states had made substantial prog- 
ress in the implementation of automated systems — New York, Michigan, and 
California. Another five states had made limited progress. By 1970, about ten 
states could be said to have made substantial progress and another 16 had 
made limited progress. Thus, more than half of the states had made some 
progress. Their plans suggest that all but three or four states will have some 
computerized system by 1972. 

Most of the state systems are police systems, and do not involve courts and 
corrections. Many were similar to the FBI's National Crime Information Cen- 
ter in that they provide only information on wanted persons and stolen prop- 
erty. 

The survey also looked into the existence and characteristics of the central 
record and identification functions of the states, because without effective rec- 
ord and identification services, it is impossible for them to develop effective in- 
formation systems. (See Appendix E.) 

FUNDING 

A number of the early state systems had their initial fiscal support from 
state funds. The New York State Information and Intelligence System (NY 
SIIS) program is a prime example. Whereas most of the early criminal jus- 
tice information system programs were primarily supported by Federal cate- 
gorical grants under the Act of 1965 or by Federal discretionary grants under 
the Act of 1968, the most recent trend would indicate that the primary support 
is now coming from Federal block grants and state allocations. 

In OLEA's three years— 1966, 1967, and 1968— it gave more than $1 million 
a year for information and data systems, out of budgets that averaged $7.5 



194 

million a year. LEA A was created by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968. Amounts of money awarded for information and data sys- 
tems increased but those funds comprised a smaller percentage of LEAA's an- 
nual budgets. For instance, in Fiscal 1969, when the budget totaled $63 million, 
about $1.5 million was awarded for data and information systems from discre- 
tionary action funds. In Fiscal 1970, when the budget totaled $268 million, 
some $9 million was awarded for such systems from discretionary funds and 
from the National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service. In Fis- 
cal 1971 when the budget totaled $480 million, projections showed that states 
planned to spend $16 million of block grant funds on such systems. (See Ap- 
pendices A and B.) 

SECURITY AND PRIVACY 

National systems 

Systems operating either as Federal or interstate systems have long been 
conscious of problems of system security and privacy. Two examples are the 
NCIC and Project SEARCH. 

1. The National Crime Information System (NCIC). — The following para- 
graphs are from the NCIC Manual : 

"System Security.— A resolution adopted May 15, 1967, by the Committee on 
Uniform Crime Records International Association of Chiefs of Police (lACP), 
as recommended by the NCIC Advisory Group, provided that the controls gov- 
erning access to police information must remain, as they have been historically 
placed, with law enforcement agencies. It was further resolved that the forego- 
ing will not preclude the continued dissemination of appropriate information 
to other governmental bodies on a need-to-know basis or the furnishing of ad- 
ditional data as may be derived from law enforcement computerized systems. 
This resolution was adopted by the full conference of the lACP in Kansas 
City, Missouri, in September 1967." 

"The data stored in the NCIC is documented police information and access 
to that data must be restricted to duly authorized law enforcement agencies. 
It is incumbent upon agencies operating an NCIC terminal to afford the neces- 
sary measures to make that terminal secure from unauthorized use. Any de- 
parture from this responsibility logically warrants the removal of the offend- 
ing terminal from further system participation in order to protect all other 
users. 

"Agencies participating in the NCIC as a control terminal must assume re- 
sponsibility for and enforce system security with regard to all other agencies 
which it in turn services. The FBI will utilize various hardware and software 
devices as necessary to assure that the above responsibilities are carried out ; 
however, final responsibility rests with the individual agency and the tradi- 
tional acceptance of the confidentiality of law enforcement information. 

"System discipline. — To assure the proper operation of the system, the stand- 
ards, procedures, formats and criteria as set forth herein must be strictly ad- 
hered to. In this respect, as in system security, the NCIC control terminals 
must not only follow the rules set forth but must also insure that agencies 
they are servicing do the same. 

"Accuracy is essential as is promptness in entering, modifying, locating or 
clearing records in the system. Each record in file is identified with the agency 
originating that record and that agency alone is responsible for the accuracy 
and correct status of that record at all times. The FBI cannot assume responsi- 
bility for the accuracy of any record other than those entered by the FBI. 

"The NCIC provides information for a decision-making by investigator's and 
patrolmen. The information furnished through NCIC must be evaluated with 
other facts known to the officer and investigator at the scene. NCIC is an in- 
formation tool. It is no substitute for professional police judgment. 

"When an agency receives a positive response from NCIC, an immediate fol- 
lowup with the agency that originated the record in the system is necessary 
for effective operation. Likewise, the originating agency has an obligation to 
reply promptly to the inquiring agency with confirmation and other pertinent 
details requested." 

2. System for Electronic Analysis and Retrieval of Criminal Histories (Proj- 
ect SEARCH) 

Since its inception, Project SEARCH has been concerned with problems of 
individual privacy and system security. A Committee on Security and Privacy 



195 

published a landmark work on the subject.^ Prior to that, however, the Proj- 
ect Group limited the file to persons who had at least two arrests for serious 
crimes with at least one disposition of the charges.^ After the demonstration, 
an evaluation committee recommended that the threshold criteria should be in- 
creased to ona conviction for a serious crime or three arrests and one 
disposition.^ 

SEARCH has successfully completed the demonstration phase of the inter- 
state exchange of criminal history records. Its system functions have been ab- 
sorbed into the NCIC system. The characteristics of the ultimate system of 
criminal history exchange are now being developed by the FBI with their ad- 
visors in the states. The NCIC Advisory Board recently approved a policy on 
security and confidentiality of information in FBI/NCIC Interstate Criminal 
History Exchange System. (See Appendix H) 

The Project Group, however, is still quite active. Recently it approved a 
model state statute governing the security and privacy of systems in state 
criminal history systems (Appendix F). This legislation has already been in- 
troduced in the California legislature. 

State systems 

In recent years, many states have been very aware of the requirements of 
integrity, security, and privacy of automated information systems. The New 
York State Identification and Intelligence System (NYSIIS), established in 
1967, has pioneered in the area of system security. Much of the work which 
has been published in the area has related to the NYSIIS system. For exam- 
ple, LEAA has been sending a NYSIIS document on organized crime intelli- 
gence to all applicants for funds to develop similar systems. LEAA has not 
made the NYSIIS rules a requirement of its grantees; however, it has sug- 
gested that these procedures should be examined for relevance within the 
grantees' own area. 

New York is not alone. Connecticut, in its 1971 comprehensive plan, states 
that "A committee will be established in charge of the responsibility for defin- 
ing acceptable uses of the system as well as abuses." Massachusetts similarly 
in its 1971 comprehensive plan indicated that the Governor's Committee will 
review procedures to "guarantee confidentiality of the information and the pri- 
vacy rights of individuals." 

Arkansas recently passed legislation requiring that all criminal justice agen- 
cies report on their activities to a central source. In the bill, however, which 
set up information systems, corrective measures were specified to purge the 
files of records for persons who had been arrested but not convicted of a 
crime. Severe penalties were established for the willful misuse of any of the 
data included in the statewide system. 

Project SEARCH has had some impact on various states on problems of se- 
curity and privacy. For example, Minnesota's 1971 plan indicated that its data 
file will be in conformity with the SEARCH statements regarding the all-im- 
portant considerations of security and privacy of the individuals involved. 

Other measures 

LEAA has taken positive steps to be sure that state and local jurisdictions 
utilizing LEAA money are aware of the problems of integrity, security and 
privacy and that they are taking positive steps to regulate their systems in 
recognition of these problems. On January 8, 1971, a notice was sent to State 
Planning Agency Directors, the subject of which was "Security and Privacy 
Considerations in Organized Crime Intelligence Units." Signed by the Associate 
Administrators of the Agency, it said : 

"There is, however, o sensitive issue that must be considered. This is that 
matter of the individual's right of privacy. 

"In the context of information systems, privacy is the interest by individuals 
or groups in determining when, how, and to what extent information about 
them is communicated to others. While the right of privacy is fundamental in 
a democratic society, it is not absolute ; it must be weighed against the needs 
of society. No one can deny law enforcement agencies the right to collect and 



> Technical Report No. 2 : Security and Privacy Considerations in Criminal History 
Information Systems — Project SEARCH Corumlttee on Security and Privacy, July 1970. 

' Technical Report No. 1 : Standardized Data Elements for Criminal History Files — 
Project SEARCH, January 1970. 

' Technical Memorandum No. 2 : Technical Evaluation of Project SEARCH — Project 
SEARCH, January 1971. 



196 

employ information. Nevertheless, decisions and actions affecting the right to 
privacy are a heavy responsibility and should he the result of careful consider- 
ation and unquestionable need. The collection of information about individuals, 
for whatever purpose must be done judiciously. This is particularly true of in- 
telligence systems because the data is highly sensitive, subjective and often un- 
verifiable. Such data must be carefully controlled since misuse could injure 
seriously the reputations and opportunities of quite innocent people. 

"The privacy considerations in an organized crime intelligence operation in- 
volve several basic questions ; about vs^hom vpill data be collected, vphat kind 'of 
data will be collected, to whom will the data be disseminated, how will the 
quality of the data be assured, how will the data be used, and how will the in- 
tegrity and security of the system be protected. Decisions on each of these 
questions must be made and are best made in the initial planning stages. The 
goals of an intelligence program should be designed to impact the problem of 
organized crime and all subsequent actions should clearly serve to further the 
attainment of those goals. 

"As the Director of a State Planning Agency, you may be asked to fund an 
intelligence unit or units. You will also be required to evaluate and monitor 
such efforts. These responsibilities make it essential that you be aware of and 
concerned about these issues. LEAA is planning a monograp.h on privacy issues 
that may be of value to you. We would ask that you take all measures neces- 
sary to minimize detrimental effects on privacy and to insure that adequate se- 
curity is maintained." 

LEAA also has taken steps to provide that states and localities take into con- 
sideration the questions of security and privacy in using LEAA funds for 
information and intelligence systems. The following special condition has been 
added to all 1971 comprehensive state plans for those states contemplating in- 
formation systems : "The grantee agrees to insure that adequate provisions are 
made for system security, the protection of individual privacy and the insur- 
ance of the integrity and accuracy of data collection." 

Discretionary grantees must submit plans detailing their procedures for in- 
suring the security of information maintained in criminal justice information 
systems funded by LEAA. 



197 






Q. 

< 



.o 
o ot^ 

= Q.ra 



o 

30 



o 

O) 






s ■=■<=" 



OS O*" 



o c 

<T» O c 

den d' 



^00 



TO— TO 



Q-^Q a>— '-^QQQ_ 



2° 

.>-2S 



m 


£ trt 


3 


1 = 


C= 


C 


£1 nj 


< 


00 CO 









.S 




c 


^_ 







ra-w 


h_ 


c-o 



IU3 ™ O. -g TO TO 



o'o_;r 

225;' 

"^ >,! 

5 Q.TO 



. OcT> O 

Q-<Q 



,<ss 



'^ *-J T^ —J 

^-t r^ ^-t r^ . 
^a> _a> o 
-c: .— » .c t-H Q 

CO ra (Q (Q 



00000000 



a* o • 

™ c/i '^ •-* 0> 

E 3 ? — '^ 

a> ^ a> Q. re 



ooooooooooooaJojooooo 



coc^i<>JCN4^^cn^^(:Nj<fcoro.-HooCNjfocvj^^cocNj.--«c\j^HCsi.--co<;fOc 



t^Si 



i -i 



E 


T3 




T3 




>^ 


< 


(D 


^ 


00 


, 


•0 




X} 


0) 


TO 




«) 

w 


x: 




a> 


^ 



o m 
Of 



OQ30oa)OQ>(uajajQ>ooa)Oa>Q3tua>a30tt)<i>a)Oomm 

oooojo^Ln^ir)i«oor^estoorocDo^<>j<rcMc\jOOrootDfO 
fo^^^o^r^^^^^^ --^ in (Ni ^ ^ tx) ^ r^ Kj <^ CNi F^ i-1 

CO ■— t CNJ 3 ^^CNJ 



oo^^^'-jo r^ o fo C3 to r^ ._ cz) o r^ o o CM ir> t£) o t;^ m CO C3 10 r^ 






" ^-^ * ^ *— ' I -* H_^ ^» ^.f \ ■ / v» J I 



COLOfO^^-fO*— "O^COOf^^CNJ 



t^t£>t£>LnocNjoo^coa2oocoooor-.<X)CMfor-CNjTrtDCT>^otD^ 



c/j c/) 00 qJ t5 c> aJ qJ Q lu c/5 Q o.' lu qJ CO ci a.' a.' q_' q_* 00 o-' oo c/j oJ cJ qJ 
qJ Q- aJ CO < < c/j c/3 CL -J aJ cL c/3 _i CO cu <V> CO 00 c/j £1^ c/5 ^' al i < c^ 

!2^!£S2:^^^^^^*^-^<^<^f*ic^f^'='"cvjc\jcofOfocM^r.^«3-eNj 



0<i>0(i>00«i!00000000000 
^^CMCNJf— «COCNJ»-HCni-«CNJCOCOCMeO(OCNjCJCM 



'v)(0(0'«OtOtO{/></>co'(0(0 '(AVltO 

Oa)iua>Oaia>a>a>a>(i>Oa)a>Oma}>u 

z>->->-2:>->->->->->-z>->-2v>->- 

or^t3^r»..rT*to^j"0^m^^<Oir>ooOCT» 



intDooocoooro<toocomoir)OocNJii-» 
csji — r^^^-^oi2»^^co<^mco^irj^3"o^ 
.—<•—' ir> ,— < r^ *- r*- o t—i cm csj <c ^r •— < 



00 ^^ ^^ 



oogcNj^tooor^o^^coirnDvoooocsJm 

or^oooir>^oo^^eo<dnir>ir>in^'CT> 
lO^ p*. t—i in m 00 ^ w~i CM CM f^ ^*" •-* 



OOCMCMOCM— iCOCMOCM^HCO^in^rmtOCM 



al al Q_" ^,.^0* cJ t3 a.* cu ^ al g o co' co to co aJ 
CO CO CO C'*! <<coco'^coO<oJaI'^'a-*co 

cofT?<I<X)-F^co^cgco,CM_,-^coa^cocM^-tD 
tT>o>^yg)^-o^^-g>giOT^'^-qiq^g>OTg>g) 



't ' '■ 1 ' 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 ! ', 1 I 1 ; I — I J-^ ' I I ' I I J I "*' ■' I ! I I I «»' ; I I ! I I ' I ' 

ii?fl?S^mmJ^i^i^if^Sf^S'iP*fSr''^'^'"*^*^tOWtO«OtOCOtOtO(oJcOt«OTWtO«tOtOCOCOcOtO 'trttrt 

a>^«a>«a)«aj«a)ajojajQ3Q>QjajQ>Q)<ututtj<i>a)Qja)03a>OQ3a)S«a>«a)a)a)Q)ttj«S<Da>a>Q>a>omS 

>->->->-=^>->-=^>-^>->->->->->->->->->.>->->->-5->->>-3>->>->-5->.>->.>->->->.>>->->.>.>-z>:>- 






COCJ< 

CO CTl CO 
fOtO<£ 

01 a>o> 



Jg.2 o'.y a> o 
2 S S-d-Cto 



Eto' 
-S1S°TO^5 

TO TO.^JC^-H 



- - w ^^ *J TO -r; re '^ .— tn ™ 

|p|£iitllfi°i.iJ 



O «3 



E to >< 

— *- m 



iSi2-:r-i TOO g-S.!2 o g SS = -° * 



totoS- 



jSSS;esss 



= X1 
O 0} 



3T3X— >S 

5SS5 

a> a> a> a» 



t- TO TO 
OOQ 

J *; -j; o ^ 

zz zoo 



TO "o C TO 

TO ™ "-a: ' 

> to TO TO ; 

_^-OQ i 

— OJ C= O 3 3 I 
»- Q) JC o O ' 

OO-tSbOCOh 



- _ (- ^ f . ■ O g 

; Sss- ™ "J >< 



198 



O 



■z. 
o 



< 
o 



O 



t/5 
O 

oe. 
O 
o 



oe. 



o E 
S. 5 
S.5 



O 

< 



oo o 



o S = 



<< 

E "^ 
= £f S 

" 2 
to o 



= g = 



EC 2 



•-EH 



I — r^ 



3 1 — ^^ 



^ <sir 



^':^Ii':-r-.r:^ _--2 _.r^ _:^ ^r^ _-°r^S> 






3 Ol «) CT> 2 <'^ CT) ^'^ O OOJO oo^oPm^oo 



ooojoajdoooXiooooooooooooooooo 
zz>-2>-zzzz>-zzzzzzz:zzzzzzz2:zz 



Z>-ZZ>-Z>->->->-ZZZ>-ZZZZ>->->-3Z>:>.z>. 



ooopJa)Ootr)''>ooi'>^'i2S"2"2SD:<<loooo — CM 
— ■•«rooroor-tT)oooCT>!5'^22ir.S2r?55cninrCSo<»? 

•^ CSJ ^H O CM ^H^^^^-* O ^r CM CM ^^ r-^ ^- Z 4^ ^o (v) 



ooSooooooS;o°o°o°°°°°oSooooo 
ZZ>-ZZZZZZ>-ZZZZZZZZZZ3>.ZZZZZ 

— r~cog>5o555 ^!5"^,'^z'^Zz55cMa5CM-iCO 



3r^cMU3co»-ir)<:OLr>o<r^,o2oo5SS**°'=><oo<0'''C5 
J cMcoo^coJi" — "^z f^S S Z<=— '^CM t^cn 



^ ^a>C3 ltj^hZ 4^CO^-ZZc>cr)^ ^ZZ u^^*'^'^ ^ CO 



OiDOOOir>rfir)Oo*^2c3000*^C30C3000C3m^CM 

ir> ^ooc3 Z ,-H ■«* t£, 't- li-j ^^ o CD .^ U-) ^ ^ j;^ ir> C3 CM r^ r^ co 



to 



: a> o 



.i 5 = o 2 " S " 

^ - ^ — — 5 — , V) o 



™ .^ „ »,.^ 5 g S5:g-o I S S 

<<<<oooQQu.ox — = — — acae. 



c 

5 



to 
to 

c 


0. 
to 

CO 
(O 


3 
CO 


c 
n 

c 






c 


CO 


CO 



199 






f-H r-* ^H I — _-. r 



>,x; >^p 



- - -: — Q — _ — f:o — o 



* x: 1— < o =j *" 3 
ra ra ro ro -S ^"S 

SS2S i^<i2: 






000(i}00000000000000 



•-H«— • <CM^fncorocNJCN4co^csi^^ro--«c«j 



</> CO 



<M^ CO ^co zi: ^^S 






OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOm 
f— t O CM to ^^ -— ^ CSJ ^ iO CNJ ^M .— 1 CSi O CNJ CM 



^rOOOOOOOOOO^^^Ol/)000^*— •CSIID 

csjCNJCsjp^ »-* if> ^- r^ If) ^^ -^ en CO ^ ir> 



oesjooooa>cMooooii^ooo^r*.CNjm 
irs^rooo^^-i— "OcooiocsjcNjps(^r>.^-CT> 






i ooc 
a> o < 



B Sc , 



TO 

fl] "O C TO 

_> (rt TO TO tt> 

*0 caO0CX3^^ C m r- p.— -C*- 7^ c 

:oooQ-Q£c/o<oi— I— :3>>sSS5 



a> o o 






O) t-Oi <" 



O) 



T3 CO O • 

2 ~ Q. CO . 

, TO • ■ 

r ooa.bO. 
O 



C fQ 0} 

c c t;- 
V <u n 
■>0 a. 

= >-^ 
S E « 
*l| 

I I. I. 



E 



= -S "- 



■— <u 



o -s 



E ^ 
C QQ 
o 

« i 

a. '.^ 

Eu 
<l> 
o ^ 

" o 
E o 



- .1 

to C i 
c o >- 
O ■ — TO 

™ Ni a> 

£ °T-, 

Q.£ « 

o tD *— 

CZ ^^ f^ 

o ^.o . 

EiS:: =-. 

E ""^o 
o o >- ^r 
OZZ c 



O) c s 

e-2 o 






34-788 O - 74 - 14 



200 



APPENDIX D: SYSTEM FUNCTION INDEX - EXCERPTED FROM "1972 DIRECTORY 
OF AUTOMATED CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS," DECEMBER 
1972 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



ACTIVITY REP0RTIN3 
ALABAKA 
ALABAMA 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
CALI FORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALI FORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
COLORADO 
CONNECTICUT 
CONNECTICUT 
CONN ECTICUT 
CONNECTICUT 
DELAWARE 
DIST. OF COL. 
DIST. OF COL. 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 

Florida 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

HAWAII 

IDAHO 

ILLI NOIS 

INDIANA 

IOWA 

KANSAS 

KANSAS 

KENTUCKY 

LOUISIANA 

MARYLAND 

.MARYLAND 

HARYLAND 

MARYLAND 

MARYLAND 

MARYLAND 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MICHIGAN 

MINNESOTA 

MINNESOTA 

MINNESOTA 

MISSOURI 

MISSOURI 

MISSOURI 

MONTANA 

NEBRASKA 

NEBRASKA 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW MEXICO 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NORTH CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

OHIO 

OHIO 

OHIO 

OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 

OKLAHOMA 



ALABAMA 

BIRMINnHAM 

ARIZONA 

ARIZONA 

PHOENIX 

TUCSON 

L. A. COUNTY 

L. A. COUNTY 

LONG BEACH 

ORANGE COUNTY 

SACRAMENTO 

SAN DIEGO 

SAN FRANCISCO 

SANTA CLARA C 

COLORADO SPBI 

CONNECTICUT 

BRIDGEPORT 

HARTFORD 

NEW HAVEN 

DELAWARE 

WASHINGTON 

WASHINGTON 

FLORIDA 

DADE COUNTY 

HILLSBOROUGH 

JACKSONVILLE 

MIAMI 

TAMPA 

HONOLULU 

IDAHO 

I LLINOIS 

INDIANA 

POLK COUNTY 

KANSAS 

WICHITA 

KENTUCKY 

LAFAYETTE 

MARYLAND 

MARYLAND 

MARYLAND 

BALTIMORE 

BALTIMORE 

MONTGOMERY CO 

BOSTON 

MIDDLESEX COU 

DETROIT 

MINNESOTA 

MINNEAPOLIS 

ST. PAUL 

MISSOURI 

JACKSON COUNT 

ST. LOUIS 

BILLINGS 

NEBRASKA 

OMAHA 

NEWARK 

PASSIAC COUNT 

NEW MEXICO 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK CITY 

NEW YORK CITY 

ROCHESTER 

CHARLOTTE 

CHARLOrrE 

CINCINNATI 

CLEVELAND 

COLUMBUS 

DAYTON 

OKLAHOMA 

OKLAHOMA CITY 



ACTIVITY SUMMARY, P. B- 3 
BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENF 
TIME 6 ACTIVITY, P. B-2 
MANAGEMENT REPORTING, P 
DISPATCH, D. 8. ARREST 
COMMAND AND CONTROL, P. 
OPTIMUM REC. AUTO. FOR 
STATISTICAL SYSTEM, P. 
PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATI 
ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE I 
SACRAMENTO CRIME AND A8 
CURRENT LAW ENFORCEMENT 
COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY A 
COUNTY PATHOL ACTIVITY 
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LA 
STATE POLICE DATA PROCE 
BRIDGEPORT CRIME INFORM 
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION 
CASE INCIDENT REPORTING 
CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM EN 
RADIO RUNS SYSTEM, P. B 
OFFENSES REPORTING SYST 
FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATI 
DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JU 
HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA P 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
COMPLAINT REPORT CARD S 
TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATI 
STATE POLICE ACTIVITY, 
TRAFFIC INFORMATION PLA 
INDIANA DATA AND COMMUN 
LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK 
HIGHWAY PATROL ADMINIST 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMAT 
LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK 
AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEME 
MARYLAND AUTOMATED ACCI 
MARYLAND INTEh-AGENCY L 
VARIOUS BATCH ORIENTED 
OFFENSE REPORTING SYSTE 
DISPATCH REPORTING SYST 
POLICE MANAGEMENT INFOR 
BOSTON POLICE SYSTEM, P 
POLICE INFORMATION SYST 
DETROIT ELECTRNC COMPTR 
MINNESOTA CRIME INFORHA 
MINNEAPOLIS DP 5 POLICE 
ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMA 
MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCE 
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI P 
S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, 
LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-U 
COST ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, 
OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CH 
NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE 
PATERSON POLICE COMPUTE 
STATE POLICE ADMINISTRA 
TIME AND ACTIVITY, P. B 
SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. 
SPRINT BACKUP, P. S-5b2 
CALLS FOR SERVICE, P. B 
POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-5<la 
PUBLIC SAFETY - INTEGRA 
REGIONAL CRIME INF3RMAT 
CLEVELAND POLICE COHPUT 
CITY OF COLUMBUS COMPUT 
DAYTON POLICE, P. B-529 
OKLA. CRIMINAL f, TRAFFI 
OKLAHOMA CITY SYSTEM, P 



STEM, P. B-5 



T S 

RCE 

U 
. P 

STE 
EM, 
NT, 
P. 
. S 
113 
B-1 



15 

P. 
25 
B-2 



YSTEM, P. B-J1 
SENT, P. B-6 1 



. B-88 

M, P. B-92 

P. B-95 

P. B-100 

B-1 12 
YS., P. B-125 



57 



B-168 



B-219 
33 



272 



OBCEMENT INFO. SY 


B-23 
6 TRAFFIC ACCIDEN 

B-«2 
COURTS 6 LAW ENFO 
B-72 

ON SYSTEM, P. B-7 
NFORMATION SYSTEM 
REST REPORTING SY 

INFORMATION SYST 
REA LAW ENFORCEME 
NETWORK ANALYSIS, 
W ENFORCEMENT INF 
SSING UNIT, P. B- 
ATION CENTER, P. 
SYSTEM, P. B-160 

SYSTEM, P. B-163 
F3RCEMENT SYSTEM, 
-178 

EM, P. B-180 
ON CENTER, P. B-2 
STICE INFO. SYST, 
ROCESSING, P. B-2 
ATION SYSTEM, P. 
YSTFM, P. B-2U0 
SYSTEM*, P. B-2«6 
ON SYSTEMS, P. B- 
P. B-276 

NNING SYSTEM, P. 
ICATIONS SYSTEM, 

CENTRAL, P. B-31 
RATIVE INFO. SYST 
ED DATA ENTRY 6 R 

OF KENTUCKY, P. 
NT COMH. 6REP0RTI 
DENT REPORTING SY 
AW ENFORCEMENT SY 
SYSTEMS, P. B-367 
M, P. fl-370 
EM, P. B-3714 
MATION SYSTEM, P. 

B-381t 
EM, P. B-386 

6 TELEPBOCESS. S 
TION SYSTEM, P. 

RECORDS SYSTEMS, 
TION SYSTEM, P. B 
MENT SYSTEM (CENT 
OLICE, P. B-lt3<t 

P. B-UH2 
57 

P. B-1159 
IMINAL JUSTICE SY 

INFORMATION SYST 
R, P. B-513 
TIVE SYSTEM, P. B 
-5UU 
B-558 

575 



TEDMUNICIPALINFOSYST, P. B-596 
ION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 
ER FILES, P. B-615 
ERS SYSTEM, P. B-626 

C LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. 8-615 
B-650 



B-2814 




p. B-302 




4 




EMS, P. B 


-326 


ETRVL, P. 


B-329 


B-3314 




NG SYS, P 


. B-3U7 


STEM, P. 


B-361 


STEM, P. 


B-363 



B-378 



YST., P. B-411 
-tlU 

P. B-U18 
-422 
6AL) , P. B-'t28 



STE 
EM 



M, P. B-llb6 
P. B-501 



518 



201 



S Y S T E n 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



ACirVITY BEP0RTIN3 
OKLAHONA 
oaEGON 
OREGON 
oaEGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 
PENNSYLVANIA 
SOUTH DAKOTA 
SOUTH DAKOTA 
TENN ESSEE 
TENNESSEE 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
UTAH 

VIRGINIA 
VIRGINIA 
VIRGINIA 
WASHINGTON 



TULSA 

LANE CO.JNTY 
LANE COUNTY 
PORTLAND 
PENNSYLVANIA 
PHILADELPHIA 
SOUTH DAKOTA 
SIOUX FALLS 
TENNESSEE 
.1 En PHIS 
TEXAS 
AUSTIN 
DALLAS 

DALLAS rOUNTY 
SAN ANTONIO 
SAN ANTONIO 
WICHITA FALLS 
SALT LAKE 
ALEXANnsIA 
FAIRFAX COUNT 
NORFOLK 
SPOKANE COUNT 
WEST VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA 



TULSA REG. AUTOHATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

COMMONWEALTH LAW ENFORCEM'T ASSIST'CE NETBOHK, P. B-691* 

POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 

HIGHWAY PATROL, P. B-735 

REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-71t2 

MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT TAB SYSTEM!, P. B-74d 

DEPT OF PUB SAFETY SYS, P. B-792 

AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTIONS*, P. B-796 

POLICE DATA BASE, P. B-802 

DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS 

POLICE CALLS INOdRY SYSTEM, P. B-827 

OFFICER ACTIVITY REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-8J2 

EVENT PROCESSING, P. B-RU1 

DEPARTMENTAL MGT. INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-860 

POLICE INFO SYSTEM-COMPLAINT SUBSYSTEM, P. B-872 

POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

LAW ENFORCEMENT MANPOWER RESOURCE ALLOCATION, P. 

THE INLAND EMPIRE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. 



P. B-806 



B-885 
B-903 



W. 



VA. DEPT. OF PUB. SAFETY-POL. BATCH PROCESSING, P. B-906 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



9 3 



STATES INCLODSD 



ALA3A;1A, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICOT, 
DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, HAWAII, IDAHO, 
ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, 

LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, 
MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, * 
NEW Y3RK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, 
PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, 
VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA 



ADMINISTRATION/FINANCE 


AMERICAN SA10A 


AMES. SAMOA 


ARIZONA 


ARIZONA 


ARIZONA 


ARIZONA 


ARIZONA 


PHOENIX 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNT Y 


COLOaADO 


COLORADO 


COLORADO 


COLORADO 


COLORADO 


COLORADO spm 


CONN ECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


HARTFORD 


CONNECTICUT 


NEW HAVEN 


DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


DADE CO'JNTY 


FLORIDA 


HILLSBOROUGH 


FLORIDA 


TAMPA 


GKORGIA 


GEORGIA 


HAWAII 


HAWAII 


HAWAII 


HONOLULU 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


COOK COUNTY 


nwA 


POLK COUNTY 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


KENTUCKY 


KENTUCKY 


LOUISIANA 


LOUISIANA 


LOUISIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


LOUISIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MAHYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 



GOVT. AM. SAMOA ACCOUNTING SYSTEMI, P. B-17 

ACCOUNTING, P. B-21 

OTHER, P. B-22 

DISPATCH, D. R. ARREST S TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SYSTEM, P. B-31 

STATISTICAL SYSTEM, P. B-72 

JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-117 

COMPATIBLE REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-121 

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B-125 

IMPROVEMNT IN CRIM. COURT MANGMT 6 OPERATIONS, P. B-1U1 

MANAiSEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-160 

CASE INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-163 

PAYROLL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-191 

REPORT COOJ<DINATIDN 6 AUDIT SYSTEM, P. B-192 

ATTORNEY ESCROW, P. B-208 

FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. B-2U6 

CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-253 

CORRECTIONS f. PAROLE, P. B-270 

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. B-272 

CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-298 

LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPT. GEN. ECONOMIC BEPORT. SYS., P. B-290 

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT*, P. B-298 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK CENTRAL, P. B-31U 

HIGHWAY PATROL ADMINISTRATIVE INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-326 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. B-33a 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-315 

NEW ORLEANS COURTS A DM IN/FINA NCE» , P. B-356 

OFFENSES, P. B-357 

MARYLAND AUTOMATED ACCIDENT HEPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-361 

MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-363 

VARIOUS BATCH ORIENTED SYSTEMS, P. B-367 



D-3 



202 



STSTEM FUNCTION INDEX 



ADNINISTBATION/FINANCE 

MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON BOSTON POLICE SYSTEd, P. B-38U 

r^ICHIGAN MICHIGAI MICHIGAN STATE CORBECTIONS SYSTEdl, P. B-397 

MINNESOTA MINNEAPOLIS MINNEAPOLIS DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM, P. B-lt20 

MlSSOUai JACKSON COUNT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-a34 

MISSOUSI ST. LOUIS S. L. 8. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-'4ll2 

MISSOURI ST. LOUIS CITY OF ST. LOUIS SYSTEM, P. B-a46 

NEBRASKA NEBRASKA COST ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, P. B-«59 

NEBRASKA OMAHA 0(1 AH A/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-U66 

NEVADA NEVADA SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRPN POR PROTCTN 6 ENPCMT, P. 8-471 

NEW JERSEY NEWARK NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-501 

NEW JERSEY PASSIAC COUNT PATERSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. 8-513 

NEW MEXICO NEW MEXICO DEPT. OP FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, P. B-521 

NEW MEXICO ALDUiJDEIiQUE AIMS, P. B-52"* 

NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-558 

NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-562 

NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-592 

OHIO CINCINNATI REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

OHIO COLUMBUS CITY OF COLUMBUS COMPUTERS SYSTEM, P. B-626 

OHIO TOLEDO BUDGET AND ENCUMBRANCE REPORTING, P. B-637 

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA COURT CLERKS SYSTEM, P. B-6143 

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6Q5 

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA CITY OKLAHOMA CITY SYSTEM, P. B-650 

OKLAHOMA TULSA TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

OREGON LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-665 

OREGON LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

OREGON LANE COUNTY COURTS, P. B-679 

PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH LAW ENFORCEM'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. B-69U 

PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES, BUR. OF CORRECTION, P. B-b97 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-705 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS MGMT. INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-726 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM, P. 3-729 

TENNESSEE MEMPHIS MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT TAB SYSTEM!, P. B-748 

TENNESSEE NASHVILLE FI NANCE- BUDGET (DOUBLE ENTRY), P. B-751 

TENNESSEE NASHVILLE AFSIOO, P. B-7b2 

TENNESSEE NASHVILLE AFSIOO, P. B-756 

TEXAS TEXAS INMATE TRACKING SYSTEM, P. B-790 

TEXAS TEXAS DEPT OF PUB SAFETY SYS, P. B-792 

TEXAS HOUSTON COURTS, P. B-820 

TEXAS WICHITA FALLS FINANCE, P. B-851 

UTAH UTAH CORRECTIONS INFORMATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-856 

UTAH UTAH JUVENILE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-858 

UTAH SALT LAKE DEPARTMENTAL MGT. INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-860 

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS, P. B-893 

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON DIVISION OF RESEA RCH- 1 N FORM ATI ON SYSTEM, P. B-895 

WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE COU CASH REPORTING, P. B-930 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 80 

STATES INCLUDED AMERICAN SAMOA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, 

DISI. OF COL., FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, 
IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, 

MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, 
NEVADA, NEii JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, 
TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN 

ALIMONY CONTROL 

DISI. OF COL. WASHINGTON DOMESTIC REL. ALIMONY S CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM, P. B-210 

NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY PROBATION SUPPORT PAYMENTS, P. B-570 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 2 

STATES INCLUDED DIST. OF COL., NEW YORK 

ALPHABETIC INDEX 

ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 



^-^ 



203 



S Y S T E (1 



ru NCTIOS 



INDEX 



ALPHABETIC INDEX 
ALASKA 
ARIZONA 
AHKANSAS 
CALX FORIllA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFOBNIA 
CALIFOSNTA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
C^LI FOHNIA 
CALI FORNIA 
COLOHADO 

CONN Ecricur 

CONN ECTTCUr 

CONNECTICUT 

COf'NECTICUT 

CONNECrlCUI 

DELAWARE 

DIST. OF COL. 

DIST. OF COL. 

DIST. OF COL. 

DIST. OF COL. 

DIST. OF COL. 

DIST. OF COL. 

DIST. OF COL. 

DIST. OF COL. 

FLORIDA 

FLOHIOA 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

HAWAII 

HAWAII 

ILLINOIS 

ILLINOIS 

ILLINOIS 

INDIANA 

TOWA 

KANSAS 

KANSAS 

KENTUCKY 

KENTUCKY 

LOni SI ANA 

lARYLAND 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MASSACHUSETTS 

flTNNESOTA 

MINNESOTA 

MISSOURI 

MISSOURI 

MONTANA 

NEBRASKA 

NEVADA 

NSW JERSEY 

NEW YORK 

NORTH CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

OHIO 

OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 

OKLAHOMA 

OREGON 

OREGON 

ORE'JON 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PENNSYLVANIA 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

TENNESSF.E 



ALASKA 

MAhlCnCA COU 

ARKANSAS 

CALI FOHNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

L. A. COUNTY 

LONG BEACH 

LDS ANGELES 

ORANGE COUNTY 

SACRAMENTO 

SAN FSANCISCO 

SANTA CLARA C 

SANTA CLARA C 

COLOHADJ 

CONNECTICUT 

CONNECTICUT 

CONNECilCUT 

BHIDGEP3PT 

HARTFORD 

DELAWARE 

HASHINGrON 

WASHINGTON 

WASHINGTON 

WASHINGTON 

WASHINGTON 

WASHINGTON 

WASHINGTON 

WASHINGTON 

FLORIDA 

DADE COUNTY 

HILLSBOROUGH 

JACKSONVILLE 

HAWAII 

HONOLULU 

ILLINOIS 

CHICAGO 

CHICAGO 

INDIANAPOLIS 

POLK COUNTY 

KANSAS 

WICHITA 

KENTUCKY 

LOUISVILLE 

NEW ORLEANS 

MAKYLANU 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MIDDLESEX COU 

MINNESOTA 

ST. PAUL 

MISSOURI 

JACKSON COUNT 

MONTANA 

OMAHA 

NEVADA 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW YORK CITY 

NORTH CAROLINA 

CHARLOTTE 

CINCINNATI 

CLEVELAND 

OKLAHOMA 

TULSA 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

PORTLAND 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PHILADELPHIA 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

SIOUX FALLS 

TENNESSEE 



ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMAT 
LAW ENFORCEMENT-JUDICIA 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
CALIF. JUSTICE INFORMAT 
AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT IN 
AUTOMATED INDEX, P. B-6 
PUBLIC SAFETY INFOEMATI 
AUTOMATED WORTHLESS DOC 
ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE I 
SACRAMENTO CHIME AND A? 
COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY A 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
COURTS INDEXES, P. B- 1 1 
COLORADO CRIME INFORMAT 
COMPUTERIZED CRIMINAL H 
LICENSE SYSTEM, P. B-IS 
ACCIDENT RECORDS SYSTEM 
BRIDGEPORT CRIME INFORM 
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION 
CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM EN 
INTRA-FAHILY INDEXING 5 
LANDLORD 6 TENANT, P. B 
CIVIL ACTIONS, P. B-200 
NEGLECT INDEXING, P. B- 
SMALL CLAIMS, P. B-203 
JUVENILE INDEXING, P 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS INDE 
CRIMINAL SYSTEM, P. B-2 
FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATI 
DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JU 
HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA P 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
INDEX CONTROL, P. B-269 
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATI 
COMPUTERIZED CRIMINAL H 
GENERAL INDEXES, P. B-2 
ARRESTS, P. B-295 
POLICE AUTOMATED CASE E 
■LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK 
KANSAS LAW ENFORCEMENT 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMAT 
LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INF 
MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY L 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
POLICE INFORMATION SYST 
MINNESOTA CRIME INFOBMA 
ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMA 
HO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCE 
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI P 
OFFENDER TRANSACTION AR 
OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CR 
SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRI 
N. J. STATEWIDE C3MMUNI 
SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-562 
NORTH CAROLINA POLICE I 
PUBLIC SAFETY - INTEGRA 
REGIONAL CRIME INFORMAT 
JUDICIAL INFORMATION SY 
OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFPI 
TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CR 
AREA INFORMATION RECORD 
AREA INFORMATION RECORD 
COLUMBIA REGION INFO. S 
COMMONWEALTH LAW ENFORC 
POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 
TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE S 



ION 
L IN 
AT 10 
ION 
FORM 
3 

JN S 
UMEN 
NFOR 
REST 
REA 
ATIO 
1 

ION 
ISTO 


, P. 
ATIO 
SYST 
PORC 
STA 
-199 

20 1 



SYSTEM, P. B-11 

FORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-25 

N SYSTEM, P. B-U5 

SYSTEM, P. R-SO 

ATION SYSTEM, P. B-55 

YSTEH, P. B-7lt 
T INDEX, P. B-SH 
MATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-92 
LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-lOO 
N CONTROL, P. B-107 

CENTER, P. B-115 
RY , P. B-139 

B-1S2 
N CENTER, P. B-157 
EH, P. B-160 
EMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 
TISTICS, P. B-198 



-20« 

XING 6 STATISTICS, P. B-207 

13 

ON CENTER, P. B-215 

STICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

ROCESSING, P. B-225 

ATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

ON SYSTEMS, P. B-272 
ISTORY, P. B-282 
93 

NTHY 6 BETBEIVAL SYS., P. B-305 

CENTRAL, P. B-3U 
TELETYPE SYSTEM, P. B-319 
ED DATA ENTRY S RETRVL, P. B-329 

OF KENTUCKY, P. B-334 
ATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 
ON-LINE NETWORK, P. B-351 
AW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-363 
ATION SYSTEM, P. B-379 
EM, P. B-386 
TION SYSTEM, P. B-tlU 
TION SYSTEM, P. 8-422 
MENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL) , P. B-U28 
OLICE, P. 8-434 
REST SYSTEM, P. B-453 
IMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-466 
N FOR PROTCTN 6 ENFCMT, P. B-471 
CATIONS INFO. SYS. -PH. II, P. 8-478 

NFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-588 
TEDMUNICIPALINFOSYST, P. B-595 
ION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 
STEM, P. B-618 

C LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-645 
IM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-6S2 

SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-656 

SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 
HARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-589 
EMT ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. B-694 

ATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

YSTEM PHASE I, P. B-742 



D-5 



204 



S Y S T E n 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



ALPHABETIC INDEX 
TENNESSEE 
TEX\S 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
UTAH 
UTAH 

VIRGINIA 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 



MEMPHIS 
DALLAS COUNTY 
HODSTON 
WICHITA FALLS 
SALT LAKE 
SALT LAKE 
ALEXANDRIA 
SEATTLE 
SPOKANE COUNT 



HEHPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT TAB SYSTEM!, P. B-7U8 

DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

INFORMATION r, COMMUNICATION PLAN AREA-WIDE, P. B-817 

PERSON PROCESSING, P. B-838 

DEPARTMENTAL MGT. INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-850 

OFFENSE NAME INDEX SYSTEM, P. B-862 

POLICE INFO SYSTEM-EVENT SUBSYSTEM, P. B-87J 

SEA-KING ALERT, P. B-898 

THE INLAND EMPIRE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-903 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



STATES INCLUDED 



80 

ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, 
COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, 
HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, 

KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MINNESOTA, 
MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, 
NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, 
PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, 
UTAH, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON 



ARRESTS 

ALABAMA 

ARIZONA 

ARIZONA 

ARIZONA 

ARIZONA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALI FORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

COLORADO 

COLORADO 

CONNECTICUT 

CONNECTICUT 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

DIST. OF COL. 

DIST. OP COL. 

niST. OF COL. 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

FLOR IDA 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

HAWAII 

ILLINOIS 

ILLINOIS 

INDIANA 

IOWA 

IOWA 

KANSAS 

KANSAS 

KENTUCKY 

KEtlTUCKY 

LOUISIANA 

LOUISIANA 

MARYLAND 

MARYLAND 

HARYLANT 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN 



BIRMINGHAM 
ARIZONA 
MARICOPA COU 
PHOENIX 
TUCSON 
CALI FOHNIA 
L. A. COUNTY 
L. A. COUNTY 
LONG BEACH 
LOS ANGELES 
ORANGE COUNTY 
SACRAMENTO 
SAN FRANCISCO 
SANTA CLARA C 
COLORADO SPRI 
DENVER 

bridgeport 

hartford 

new haven 

delaware 

washin;ton 

washington 

washington 

FLORIDA 

DADE COUNTY 

HI LLSBOROfiGH 

JACKSONVILLE 

MIAMI 

TAMPA 

HONOLULU 

ILLINOIS 

CHICAGO 

I NDIANAPOLIS 

IOWA 

POLK COUNTY 

KANSAS 

WICHITA 

KENTUCKY 

LOUISVILLE 

LAFAYETTE 

NEK ORLEANS 

MARYLAND 

MARYLAND 

BALTIMORE 

MIDDLESEX COU 

MICHIGAN 

DETROIT 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

ARIZONA CHIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-18 

LAW ENFORCEMENT-JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-25 

DISPATCH, D. R. ARREST E TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SYSTEM, P. B-31 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMSt, P. B-U3 

CALIF. JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-50 

OPTIMUM REC. AUTO. FOR COURTS 6 LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-61 

AUTOMATED INDEX, P. B-53 

PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-7« 

PATTERN RECOGNITION 6 INFORMATION CORRELATION, P. B-78 

ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

SACRAMENTO CRIME AND ARREST REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-92 

COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-100 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B-125 

POLICE SYSTEM 3, P. B-133 

BRIDGEPORT CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-157 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-160 

CASE INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-163 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

OFFENSES REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-180 

CIVIL DISTURBANCE PRISONER CONTROL SYSTEM, P. B-183 

ARRESTS STATISTICAL REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-ISU 

FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

ARREST SYSTEM, P. B-237 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. B-2t6 

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. B-272 

TRAFFIC INFORMATION PLANNING SYSTEM, P. B-2814 

ARRESTS, P. B-295 

POLICE AUTOMATED CASE ENTRY 6 RETREIVAL SYS. 

TRAFFIC RECORDS f, CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK CENTRAL, P. B-31« 

HIGHWAY PATROL ADMINISTRATIVE INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. B-33lt 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMM. 6REP0RTING SYS, P. 8-347 

METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P. B-351 

MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-363 

VARIOUS BATCH ORIENTED SYSTEMS, P. B-367 

ARREST REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-376 

POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-386 

ARRESTS, P. B-'402 

DETROIT ELECTKNC COMPTR 6 TELEPROCESS. SYST., P. B-tU 



P. B-305 
P. B-309 



-326 

B-329 



D-6 



205 



SYSTEM FUNCTION INDEX 



ARRESTS 

MINNESOTA l1INNESt5TA MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-UII 

MINNESOTA MINNEAPOLIS MINNEAPOLIS DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM, P. B-U20 

MINNESOTA ST. PAUL ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U22 

MISSOURI MISSOURI MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL), P. B-t28 

MISSOURI JACKSON COUNT XANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-lOU 

MISSOURI ST. LOUIS S. L. B. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-UU2 

MONTANA MONTANA OFFENDER TRANSACTION ARREST SYSTEM, P. B-U53 

NEBRASKA OMAHA OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-1466 

NEVADA NEVADA SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PROTCTN 6 ENFCMT, P. B-«71 

NEW JERSEY NEW JERSEY N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS. -PH. II, P. B-478 

NEW JERSEY CAMDEN COUNTY COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-UBO 

NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPT., P. B-U91 

NEB JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY HUDSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, P. 6-198 

NEW JERSEY NEWARK NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-501 

NEW JERSEY PASSAIC COUNT PLANNED PASSAIC COUNTY SYSTEMt, P. B-510 

NEW JERSEY PASSIAC COUNT PATERSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. B-513 

NEW YORK NEW YORK N. Y. STATE IDENTIFICATION S INTELLIGENCE SYS., P. B-532 

NEW YORK BUFFALO ERIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MGT. INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5U8 

NEW YORK NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DATA SYSTEMS, P. B-555 

NEW YORK NEW YOKK CITY SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-558 

NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY SPRINT BACKUP, P. 8-562 

NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY IIOI SYSTEM, P. B-556 

NEW YORK ROCHESTER ARREST REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-577 

NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. 8-588 

NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE PUBLIC SAFETY - INTEGRATEDM UNIC IPA LI NFOSYST, P. B-596 

OHIO OHIO LAW ENFORCEHENT AUTOMATIC DATA SYSTEM, P. B-605 

OHIO CINCINNATI REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

OHIO CLEVELAND CLEVELAND POLICE COMPUTER FILES, P. B-615 

OHIO COLUMBUS CITY OF COLUMBUS COMPUTERS SYSTEM, P. B-626 

OHIO DAYTON DAYTON POLICE, P. B-629 

OHIO TOLEDO POLICE RECORDS, P. B-6U0 

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6145 

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA CITY OKLAHOMA CITY SYSTEM, P. B-650 

OKLAHOMA TDLSA TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

08EG0N LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

OREGON LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-572 

OREGON PORTLAND COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH LAW ENFORCEM'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. B-69lt 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA COMBINED JUSTICE INFO. NETWORK OVER TERMINALS, P. B-710 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

SOUTH DAKOTA SIOUX PALLS REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 

TENNESSEE TENNESSEE TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7U2 

TENNESSEE MEMPHIS MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT TAB SYSTEM*, P. B-7U8 

TEXAS AUSTIN AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTIONS*, P. B-796 

TEXAS DALLAS POLICE DATA BASE, P. B-802 

TEXAS DALLAS COUNTY DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

TEXAS EL PASO COUKI EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM., P. B-8 1 1 

TEXAS FORT WORTH FORT WORTH SYSTEMt, P. B-816 

TEXAS HOUSTON .INFORMATION F, COMMUNICATION PLAN AREA-WIDE, P. B-817 

TEXAS • SAN ANTONIO ARRESTS REPORT SYSTEM, P. B-830 

TEXAS WICHITA FALLS PERSON PROCESSING, P. B-838 

"TAH UTAH LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-852 

VIRGINIA FAIRFAX COUNT POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

VIRGINIA NORFOLK TIDEWATER ELECTRONIC NETWORK POLICE INFO, P. B-881 

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS, P. B-893 

HASHINGTON SEATTLE SEA-KING ALERT PLANNED, P. B-900 

WASHINGTON SPOKANE COUNT THE INLAND EMPIRE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK. P. B-903 

WEST VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA W. VA. DEPT. OF PUB. SAFETY-POL. BATCH PROCESSING, P. B-906 

WISCONSIN MADISON MADISON AREA POLICE DEPARTMENT (PHASE I), P. B-925 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 107 



D-7 



206 



s r S T E « 



FUNCTIO'i 



INDEX 



ARRESTS 

STAIRS IIJCI.UDBD 



ALABAMA, ASIZONA, CALIFOBNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICDT, 
DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLOSIOA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, 
INDIANA, lOHA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, 
MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHI.JAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, 
MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, 
NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, 
SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, 
VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN 



ASSIGNMENT- ATTORNEYS 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
CALIFORNIA 
DELAWARE 
OIST. OF COL. 
DIST. OF COL. 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
ILLINOIS 
MICHIGAN 
NEBRASKA 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW YORK 
OHIO 
OHIO 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 

SOUTH CAROLINA 
TENNESSEE 



MARICOPA COU 
PIMA COUNTY 
SANTA CLARA C 
DELAWARE 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
DADE COUNTY 
HILLSBOROUGH 
COOK COJNTY 
MICHIGAN 
OMAHA 
NEHARK 

PASSAIC COUNT 
NEW YORK CITY 
CINCINNATI 
FRANKLIN COUN 
LANE COUNTY 
LANE COUNTY 
LANE COUNTY 
PORTLAND 
SOUTH CAROLINA 
TENNESSEE 



8-193 



B-219 



LAW ENFORCEMENT-JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-25 

CRIMINAL COURTS AUTOMATION PROJECT, P. B-35 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

PROSECUTOR MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

ATTORNEY APPOINTMENTS, P. B-2l)9 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT*, P. B-298 

BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-392 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, 

NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

AUTOMATED CRIMINAL CASE PROCESSING SYSTEM, P. 

DA/SUPREME COURT RECORDS MANAGEMENT, P. B-572 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. B-632 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-665 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COURTS, P. B-679 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO-SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE II, P. 8-584 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7U2 



P. 8-1466 

B-501 
B-505 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



22 



STATES INCLUDED ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, 
ILLINOIS, MICHIGAN, NEBRASKA, NEK JERSEY, NEW YORK, 
OHIO, OREGON, SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE 



ASSlr.NMENT-COUPTRlOM 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
CALIFORNIA 
COLORADO 
DELAWARE 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
ILLINOIS 
KENTUCKY 
MICHIGAN 
NEBRASKA 
NEW JERSEY 
OHIO 
OHIO 
OREGON 
TENNESSEE 
TENNESSEE 



PHOENIX 

PIMA COUNTY 

SANTA CLARA C 

DENVER 

DELAWARE 

DADE COUNTY 

HILLSBOROUGH 

COOK COUNTY 

LOUISVILLE 

MICHIGAN 

OMAHA 

NEWARK 

CINCINNATI 

FRANKLIN COUN 

PORTLAND 

TENNESSEE 

NASHVILLE 



AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-28 

CRIMINAL COURTS AUTOMATION PROJECT, P. B-35 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

UNIFORM SUMMONS SYSTEM, P. B- 1 3 1 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-158 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT*, P. B-298 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-392 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. 8-1466 

NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-50 1 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. 8-632 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO-SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE II, P. 8-684 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. 8-742 

FACILITY ASSIGNMENT, P. B-782 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



1 7 



STATES INCLUDED 



ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, 
ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, MICHIGAN, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, 
OHIO, OREGON, TENNESSEE 



ASSIGNMENT-JUDGES 
ALABAMA 
ARIZONA 



BIRMINGHAM 
PIMA COUNTY 



BIRMINGHAM, &L. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. 
CRIMINAL COURTS AUIOMATION PROJECT, P. B-35 



B-5 



D-8 



207 



S Y 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



assignhent-judges 
delaware 
dist. of col. 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

GEORGIA 

GEORGIA 

ILLINOIS 

MICHIGAN 

MISSOURI 

NEBRASKA 

NEU JERSEY 

NEU JERSEY 

OHIO 

OHIO 

OREGON 

OREGON 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

TENNESSEE 



DELAKARE 
WASHINGTON 
DADE COUNTY 
HILLSBOROUGH 
ATLANTA SPISA 
ATLANTA SUSA 
COOK COUNTY 
MICHIGAN 
JACKSON COUNT 
0>1AHA 
NEWARK 

PASSAIC COUNT 
CINCINNATI 
FRANKLIN COUN 
LANE COUNTY 
PORTLAND 
SOUTH CAiiOLINA 
TENNESSEE 



CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM F.N FOHC EM ENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 
PROSECUTOR MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-19J 
DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 
HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 
JUVENILE COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-257 
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM, P. B-259 
COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COORT*, P. B-29B 
BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-392 
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-a3« 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-lt66 
NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-50 1 
AUTOMATED CRIMINAL CASE PROCESSING SYSTEM, P. B-505 
REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 
FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. B-6J2 
AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 
COLUMBIA REGION INFO-SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE II, P. B-681* 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 
TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7l<2 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



20 



STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, ARIZONA, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, 
GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, MICHIGAN, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, 
NEW JERSEY, OHIO, OREGON, SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE 



AUTO REGISTRATION 
ALABAMA 
ALASKA 
ARKANSAS 
CALI FORNIA 
COLORADO 
COLORADO 
COLORADO 
CONNECTICUT 
CONNECriClIT 
DELAWARE 
FLOR IDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLOH IDA 
FLORIDA 
GEORGIA 
HAWAII 
ILLI NOIS 
INDIANA 
IOWA 
KANSAS 
KANSAS 
KENTUCKY 
KENTUCKY 
LOUISIANA 
LOUISIANA 
LOUISIANA 
MARV LAND 
MI NNESOTA 
MISSISSlrPI 
MISSOURI 
1ISS0URI 
MONTANA 
NEBRASKA 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW MEXICO 
Nt:u YORK 
NORTH DAKOTA 
OHIO 
OHIO 
OHIO 
OREGON 
PENNSYLVANIA 



B-157 
P. B-168 



B-219 



BIRMINGHAM BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

ALASKA MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION SYSTEM, P. B-1b 

ARKANSAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U5 

CALIFORNIA AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-55 

COLORADO MOTOR VEHICLE, P. B-123 

COLORADO SPRI MULTI- JU HISDICT ION AL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B-125 

DENVER MOTOR VEHICLE, P. R-130 

CONNECTICUT REGISTRATION SYSTEM, P. B- 1 5H 

BRIDGEPORT BRIDGEPORT CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. 

DELAWARE CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, 

FLORIDA FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

DADE COUNTY UADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. 

HILLSBOROUGH HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

JACKSONVILLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-23J 

TAMPA TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMI, P. B-2l*b 

GEORGIA STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-250 

HONOLULU DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. B-272 

ILLINOIS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DATA SYSTEM, P. B-279 

INDIANA INDIANA DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-302 

IOWA TRAFFIC RECORDS f. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. B-309 

KANSAS HGWY COMM/HGWY PATROL TELETYPE NETWORK, P. B-317 

WICHITA LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 

KENTUCKY LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. B-33« 

LOUISVILLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

LOUISIANA STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-3I4U 

LAFAYETTE AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMM. SBEPORTING SYS, P. B-3U7 

NEW ORLEANS METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P. B-351 

MARYLAND MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-363 

MINNESOTA MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-HIU 

MISSISSIPPI ON-LINE INQUIRY - AUTO REGISTRATION, P. B-U27 

JACKSON COUNT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-«3« 

ST. LOUIS MISSOURI DEPT. OF REVENUE SYSTEM (VIA SLMPD), P. B-U50 

MONTANA TRAFFIC RECORDS, P. B-1456 

OMAHA OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-466 

NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION, P. B-UBl 

NEW MEXICO DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES, P. B-520 

NEW YORK DRIVER BEG FILES, P. B-535 

NORTH DAKOTA TRAFFIC RECORDS, P. B-601 

OHIO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATIC DATA SYSTEM, P. B-505 

CINCINNATI REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

TOLEDO POLICE RECORDS, P. B-640 

OREGON MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION, P. B-665 

PENNSYLVANIA PENN. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, P. B-699 



D-9 



208 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



AUTO ilEGISTRATION 

'■lOUTH CASOLISA 

SOUTH BAKOTA 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

TFVNESSF.E 

TEXA-S 

TEXAS 

TFXAS 

UTAH 

VIHCINIA 

-ASHINGTUN 

WASHINGTON 

WEST VI3JINIA 

WISCONSIN 

MK01ING 



SOUTH CAROLINA 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

SIOUX FALLS 

TENNESSEE 

TEXAS 

FOi(T WORTH 

WICHITA FALLS 

UTAH 

VIRGIN! A 

WASHINGTON 

WASHINGTON 

WEST VIRGINIA 

WISCONSIN 

WYOMING 



CKIfllNAL JUSTICE INFOBMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

MOTOR VEHICLE, P. D-713 

TRAFFIC CONTKOL, P. 8-740 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7li2 

DEPT OF PUB SAFETY SYS, P. B-792 

POLICE DEPARTMENT STOLEN IMPO'JNDED REPOSSESS, P. B-fllU 

ARTICLE PROCESSING, P. B-8U6 

LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-852 

VIRGINIA PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-870 

A CENTRAL COMPUTERIZED ENFORCEMENT SER. SYS., P. B-891 

ADMINISTRATIVE fiECORDS, P. 0-^93 

TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-908 

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, P. B-910 

TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-936 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



57 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, 
CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII, 
ILLINOIS, INDIANA, TOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, 
LOUISIANA, MARYIAND, MINNESOTA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, 
MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, 
NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, 
SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, VIRGINIA, 
WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN, WYOMING 



BOOK ING 

ALASKA 
ARIZONA 
OHIO 
TEXAS 



ALASKA ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B- 1 1 

MARICOPA CUU LAW EN FORC EM ENT- JUDICI AL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-25 

CLEVELAND SHERIFF INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-621 

SAN ANTONIO BEXAR COUNTY CRIM. JUST. INFO. SYS-PHASE I, P. B-82U 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS U 

STATES INCLUDED ALASKA, ARIZONA, OHIO, TEXAS 



CALENDARING/SCHEDULING 


ALABAMA 


BIRMINGHAM 


ALASKA 


ALASKA 


ARIZONA 


PHOENIX 


ARIZONA 


PIMA COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


ORANGE COUNTY 


CALI FORNIA 


SANTA CLARA C 


DELAWARE 


DELAWARE 


DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


FLORIDA 


DADE COUNTY 


FLORIDA 


HILLSBOROUGH 


FLORIDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


GEORGIA 


ATLANTA SMSA 


GEORGIA 


ATLANTA SMSA 


ILLINOIS 


COOK COUNTY 


INDIANA 


INDIANAPOLIS 


KENTUCKY 


LOUISVILLE 


LOUISIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


M ICHIGAN 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


NEBRASKA 


OMAHA 


NEW JERSEY 


CAMDEN COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


NEW ARK 


NEk JERSEY 


PASSAIC COUNT 


NEW MEXICO 


ALBUQUERQUE 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


BUFFALO 


NEW YORK 


BUFFALO 



BIRMINGHAM, 
ALASKA JUSTI 
AUTOMATED TR 
CRIMINAL COU 
ORANGE COUNT 
CRIMINAL JUS 
CRIMINAL LAW 
PROSECUTOR M 
CRIMINAL SYS 
DADE COUNTY 
HILLSBOROUGH 
COURTS MANAG 
JUVENILE COU 
JUDICIAL ADM 
COOK COUNTY 
POLICE AUTOM 
CRIMINAL JUS 
TRAFFIC COUR 

SUPERIOR con 

TRAFFIC AND 
BASIC MICHIG 
KANSAS CITY, 
CITY OF ST. 
OMAHA/DO UGLA 
COURT MANAGE! 
NEWARK CRIMI 
AUTOMATED CR 
COURTS HISDE 
AOMINISTRATI 
ERIE COUNTY 
CITY COURT I 



AL. LAW EN 
CE INFORMA 
AFFIC COUR 
RTS AUTOHA 
Y JUSTICE 
TICE INFOR 

UNIFORM E 
ANAGEMENT 
TEM, P. B 
CRIMINAL J 

CO. DATA 
EMENT INFO 
RT INFORMA 
INISTRATIO 
CIRCUIT CO 
ATED CASE 
nCE INFOR 
T, P. B-15 
RT CASE MA 
ORDINANCE 
AN COURT S 

MISSOURI 
LOUIS SYST 
S COUNTY C 
MENT INPOH 
NAL JUSTIC 
IMINAL CAS 
MEANORS, P 
VE ADJUDIC 
DISTRICT A 
NF03MATI0N 



FORCEMEN 
TION SYS 
T SYSTEM 
TION PRO 
INFORMAT 
MATION C 
NFORCEME 
INFORMAT 
213 

USTICE I 
PHOCESSI 
RMATION 
TION SYS 
N SYSTEM 
URT», P. 
ENTRY 6 
MATION S 

N AGEMENT 
SYSTEM, 
YSTEH, P 
POLICE, 
EH, P. B 
RIMINAL 
MATION C 
E INFORM 
F PROCES 

B-528 
ATION, P 
TTORNEY 
SYSTEM 



T INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

TEM, P. B-11 

, P. B-28 

JECT, P. B-35 

ION SYSTEM, P. B-8S 

ONTROL, P. B-107 

NT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

ION SYSTEM, P. B-193 

NPO. SYST, P. B-219 
NG, P. B-225 
SYSTEM, P. B-231 
TEM, P. B-257 
, P. B-259 

B-298 
RETREIVAL SYS., P. B-305 
ISTEM, P. B-338 

SYSTEM, P. B-382 
P. B-390 

B-392 
P. B-I43U 
-4116 

JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-466 
ENTER, P. B-484 
ATION SYSTEM, P. B-501 
SING SYSTEM, P. B-505 



B-537 

MGT. INFO. SYSTEM, P. 
P. B-550 



B-548 



D-10 



209 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



CALEND*RI NG/SCHEDtlLING 



NEU YOflK 

NEU YORK 

OHIO 

OHin 

OHIO 

OHIO 

OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 

OREGON 

OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PUERTO SICO 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

TENNESSEE 

TENNESSEE 

TEXAS 

UTAH 

BISCONSIN 



NASSAU COUNTY 

NEW YORK CITY 

CINCINNATI 

CLEVELAND 

CLEVELAND 

CLEVELAND 

FRANKLIN COUN 

rULSA 

LANE COUNTY 

PORTLAND 

PHILADELPHIA 

PITTSBURG 

PUERTO HICO 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

TENNESSEE 

NASHVILLE 

SAN A NT J N 10 

UTAH 

MILWAUKEE COU 



BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-553 

DA/SUPREME COURT RECORDS MANAGEMENT, P. B-572 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-509 

JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-618 

SHERIFF INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-621 

CALENDAR MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-623 

FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. B-632 

TRAFFIC COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-659 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO-SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE II, P. B-68U 

COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-705 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, P. B-715 

COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-713 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7142 

COURT CALENDAR AND SCHEDULING, P. B-783 

DEXAR COUNTY CRIM. JUST. INFO. SYS-PHASE I, P. B-82« 

JUVENILE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-858 

INTEGRATED COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-931* 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



50 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, DELAWARE, 
DISI. OF COL., FLORIDA, GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, 
KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MISSOUBI, 
NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEH YORK, OHIO, 
OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, PUERTO RICO, SOUTH CAROLINA, 
TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, WISCONSIN 



CASE CONTROL 
ALABAMA 
ALASKA 
ARIZONA 

ARIZONA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

COLORADO 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

DIST. OF COL. 

PIST. OF COL. 

DIST. OF COL. 

DIST. OF COL. 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

GEORGIA 

GEORGIA 

HAWAII 

ILLINOIS 

KANSAS 

KENTUCKY 

MASSACHUSETTS 

.IICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN 

MISSOURI 

MISSOURI 

NEBRASKA 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY 

SEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 



B-88 
P. B-92 



B-Ht1 



BIRMINGHAM BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

ALASKA ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B- 1 1 

PHOENIX AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-28 

PIMA COUNTY CRIMINAL COURTS AUTOMATION PROJECT, P. B-35 

ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO CRIME AND ARREST REPORTING SYSTEM, 

SAN FRANCISCO BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-103 

COLORADO COURTS AND PROBATION CONTROL, P. B-120 

CONNECTICUT IMPROVEMNT IN CRIM. COURT MANGMT 6 OPERATIONS, P. 

DELAWARE CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

WASHIN;T0N prosecutor management INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-193 

WASHINGTON INTRA-FAMILY INDEXING 6 STATISTICS, P. B-198 

WASHINGTON CIVIL ACTIONS, P. B-200 

WASHINGTON CRIMINAL SYSTEM, P. B-213 

DADE COUNTY DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

HILLSBOROUGH HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

JACKSONVILLE COURTS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-231 

GEORGIA STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. 8-250 

ATLANTA SMSA JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM, P. B-259 

HAWAII INDEX CONTROL, P. B-269 

COOK COUNTY COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT GOUST«, P. B-298 

KANSAS CASE STATISTICS SYSTEM (DISTRICT COURTS), P. B-32U 

LOUISVILLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

1ASSAC1IJSETTS SUPERIOR COURT CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-332 

MICHIGAN TRAFFIC AND ORDINANCE SYSTEM, P. B-390 

MICHIGAN BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-392 

MICHIGAN CASE INFORMATION CONTROL SYSTEM, P. B-395 

JACKSON COUNT COURT COMPUTER SYSTEM, P. B-U32 

JACKSON COUNT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-«3U 

OMAHA OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. 

CAMDEN COUNTY COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-U8(4 

HUDSON COUNTY JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL JAIL, P. B-U89 

HUDSON COUNTY JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL COURT, P. B-l»91l 

HUDSON COUNTY SUP. CT. OF NJ-AUTOH'D CRIM. CASE PROCESSING SYS, P. 

PASSAIC COUNT AUTOMATED CRIMINAL CASE PROCESSING SYSTEM, P. R-505 

BUFFALO ERIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MGT. INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5U8 

BUFFALO CITY COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-550 

NASSAU COUNTY BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-553 

NEW YORK CITY UA/SUPREME COURT RECORDS MANAGEMENT, P. 8-572 



B-K66 



8-1(96 



D-11 



210 



S Y 3 T E tl 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



CASE CONTROL 
OHIO 
OHIO 
OHIO 

OKLAHOn* 
OKLAHOm 
OREGON 
OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 
PENNSYLVANIA 
PENNSYLVANIA 
PUERTO RICO 
SOUTH CAROLINA 
TENN ESSEE 
TENNESSEE 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
UTAH 

WISCONSIN 
WISCONSIN 



CINCIMNATI 
CLEVELAND 

FRANKLIN COUN 

OKLAHOMA 

TULSA 

LANE COONTY 

PORTLAND 

PHILADELPHIA 

PHILADELPHIA 

PITTSBU3G 

PUERTO RICO 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

TENNESSEE 

NASHVILLE 

HOUSTON 

SAN ANTONIO 

UTAH 

niLKAUKEE COU 

HILWAUKEE COU 



REGIONAL CRIHE INFORflATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

JUDICIAL INFORHATION SYSTEH, P. B-618 

FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PBOJCT, P. B-632 

COURT CLERKS SYSTEM, P. B-614J 

TRAFFIC COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-659 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO-SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE II, P. B-68U 

PHILADELPHIA JUSTICE INFOBMATION MODEL, P. B-703 

COURT SYSTEMS, P. 8-70") 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, P. B-715 

COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-718 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7112 

JUD800, P. B-781* 

COURTS, P. R-820 

BEXAR COUNTY CBIM. JUST. INFO. SYS-PHASE I, P. B-82U 

JUVENILE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-858 

INVENTORY 6 STATISTICAL REPORTING, P. B-931 

TRAFFIC CASE PROCESSING, P. B-93J 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



S8 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, 
CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, GEORGIA, 
HAWAII, ILLINOIS, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, MASSACHUSETTS, 
MICHIGAN, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, PUERTO RICO, 
SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, WISCONSIN 



CASE DISPOSITION RE 
ALABAMA 
ALASKA 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALI FORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALI FORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
COLORADO 
COLORADO 
CONNECTICUT 
DELAWARE 
DIST. OF COL. 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
GEORGIA 
GEORGIA 
GEORGIA 
ILLINOIS 
INDIANA 
IOWA 
KANSAS 
KANSAS 
KENTUCKY 
LOUISIANA 
LOUISIANA 
MASSACHUSETTS 
MICHIGAN 
MICHIGAN 
MICHIGAN 
MINNESOTA 
MISSOURI 
MISSOURI 
MISSOURI 



PORTS 
BIRMINGHAM 
ALASKA 

MARICOPA COO 
PHOENIX 
PIMA COUNTY 
CALIFORNIA 
ORANGE COUNTY 
SACRAMENTO 
SAN FRANCISCO 
SANTA CLARA C 
COLORADO 
DENVER 
CONNECTICUT 
DELAWARE 
WASHINGTON 
FLORIDA 
DADE COUNTY 
HI LLSBOHOIIGH 
JACKSONVILLE 
TAMPA 
GEORGIA 
ATLANTA SMSA 
ATLANTA SMSA 
COOK COUNTY 
INDIANAPOLIS 
IOWA 
KANSAS 
WICHITA 
LOUISVILLE 
LAFAYETTE 
NEW ORLEANS 
MASSACHUSETTS 
M ICHIGAN 
MICHIGAN 
MICHIGAN 
MINNESOTA 
JACKSON COUNT 
JACKSON COUNT 
ST. LOUIS 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-11 

LAW ENFORCEMENT-JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-25 

AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-28 

CRIMINAL COURTS AUTOMATION PROJECT, P. B-35 

CALIF. JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-50 

ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

SACRAMENTO CRIME AND ARREST REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-92 

BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-103 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

COURTS AND PROBATION CONTROL, P. B-120 

UNIFORM SUMMONS SYSTEM, P. B- 1 3 1 

IMPROVEHNT IN CRIM. COURT MANGMT 6 OPERATIONS, P. 8-141 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

PROSECUTOR MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-193 

FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. D-219 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

COURTS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-231 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. B-2U6 

STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-250 

JUVENILE COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-257 

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM, P. B-259 

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT», P. B-298 

POLICE AUTOMATED CASE ENTRY S RETREIVAL SYS., P. B-305 

TRAFFIC RECORDS 6 CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. B- 309 

CASE STATISTICS SYSTEM (DISTRICT COURTS) , P. B-32« 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-338 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMM. 6REP0RTING SYS, P. 8-317 

TRAFFIC COURT, P. B-35« 

SUPERIOR COURT CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-382 

TRAFFIC AND ORDINANCE SYSTEM, P. B-390 

BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. 8-392 

CASE INFORMATION CONTROL SYSTEM, P. 8-395 

MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-Ull 

COURT COMPUTER SYSTEM, P. B-1432 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-Uilt 

CITY OF ST. LOUIS SYSTEM, P. B-tUb 



D-12 



211 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



CUSE DISPOSITION REPORTS 



NEBSASK* 
NEK JERSEY 
NF« JERSEY 
V'.V JERSEY 
VF.U JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
SFH JERSEY 
NEW YORK 
YORK 
YORK 
YORK 
YORK 
YORK 



NEK 

NEW 

NEU 

NEW 

NEW 

OHIO 

OMTO 

OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 

OKLAHOIA 

OKLAHOMA 

0RE3ON 

OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PEN>iSYLVANIA 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

TENNESSEE 

TENN ES3EE 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

UTAH 

WISCONSIN 



OUAHA 

NEW JERSEY 

CAMDEN COUNTY 

HUDSON COUNTY 

HUDSON COUNTY 

HUDSON COUNTY 

PASSAIC COUNT 

NEW YOSK 

BUFFALO 

BUFFALO 

NASSAU COUNTY 

NEW YORK CITY 

NEJ YORK CITY 

CINCINNATI 

CLEVELAND 

FRANKLIN COUN 

OKLAHOMA 

TULSA 

TULSA 

LANE COUNTY 

PORTLAN J 

PHILADELPHIA 

PITTSBURG 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

TENNESSEE 

NASHVILLE 

AUSTIN 

DALLAS 

HOUSTON 

SAN ANTONIO 

SAN ANTONIO 

SAN ANTONIO 

UTAH 

MILWAUKEE COU 



B-532 
8-518 



B-632 



OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. 6-166 

N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS. -PH. II, P. B-17B 

COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-181 

JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL JAIL, P. B-ISq 

JEFSEY CITY MUNICIPAL COURT, P. B-191 

SUP. CT. OF NJ-AUTOH'O CRIM. CASE PROCESSING SYS, P. B-196 

AUTOMATED CRIMINAL CASE PROCESSING SYSTEM, P. B-505 

N. Y. STATE IDENTIFICATION 6 INTELLIGENCE SYS., P. 

ERIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY BGT. INFO. SYSTEM, P. 

CITY COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-550 

BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-553 

SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-562 

DA/SUPREME COURT RECORDS MANAJEMENT, P. B-S72 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-618 

FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. 

COURT CLERKS SYSTEM, P. B-613 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CHIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

TRAFFIC COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-559 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO-SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE II, P. 

COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-705 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, P. B-715 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-712 

JUDBOO, P. B-781 

AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTIONSt, P. B-796 

POLICE DATA BASE, P. B-802 

COURTS, P. B-820 

BEXAR COUNTY CRIM. JUST. INFO. SYS-PHASE I, P. B-821 

ISSUE DISPOSITION REPORTING SYSTEM (TRAFFIC) , P. B-833 

DISPOSITIONS REPORTING SYSTEM (ARRESTS), P. B-831 

COURTS INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-855 

INVENTORY 6 STATISTICAL REPORTING, P. B-931 



B-681 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



73 



STATES INCLUOED 



ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, 

CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DIST. OP COL., FLORIDA, GEORGIA, 

ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, 

LOUISIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, 

NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, 

OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, 

UTAH, WISCONSIN 



CITATION CONTROL 
ALABAMA 
ARIZONA 
CALTFOBNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
COLORADO 
COLORADO 
CONNECTICUT 
DELAWARE 
DISr. OF COL. 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
ILLI NOIS 
INDIANA 
KANSAS 
KENTUCKY 
LOUISIANA 
MICHIGAN 
MISSOURI 
MISSOURI 
MONTANA 



BIRMINGHAM 

PHOENIX 

ORANGE COUNTY 

SACRAMENTO 

SAN FRANCISCO 

COLORADO SPRI 

DENVER 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

WASHINGTON 

DADE CO-JNTY 

HILLSBOROUGH 

JACKSONVILLE 

TAMPA 

COOK COUNTY 

INDIANAPOLIS 

WICHITA 

LOUISVILLE 

NEW ORLEANS 

MICHIGAN 

JACKSON COUNT 

ST. LOUIS 

BILLINGS 



BIRraNGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-3 

AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-28 

ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

SACRAMENTO CRIME AND ARREST REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-92 

BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-103 

nULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B-12S 

UNIFORM SUMMONS SYSTEM, P. B- 1 3 1 

I^PROVEMNT IN CRIM. COURT HAN3MT 6 OPERATIONS, P. B- 1 1 1 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

CENTRAL VIOLATION PARKING SYSTEM, P. B-211 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

COURTS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-231 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM!, P. B-216 

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT«, P. B-298 

POLICE AUTOMATED CASE ENTRY 6 RETREIVAL SYS., P. B-305 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

TRAFFIC COURT, P. B-351 

TRAFFIC AND ORDINANCE SYSTEM, P. H-390 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-13U 

CITY OF ST. LOUIS SYSTEM, P. B-116 

TRAFFIC CONTROL, P. B-158 



D-13 



212 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



CITSTION CONTROL 
NEBRASKA 
NEK JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW flEXICO 
NEW YORK 
NEW YORK 
OHIO 
OHIO 
OHIO 

OKLAHOHA 
OKLAHOMA 
OKLAHOMA 
OREGON 
OREGON 
ORE^-JON 
OREGON 

SOUTH CAROLINA 
SOUTH DAKOTA 
TENNESSEE 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
WASHINGTON 
WISCONSIN 
WISCONSIN 



OMAHA 

NEW JERSEY 

HUDSON COUNTY 

HUDSON COUNTY 

PASSAIC COUNT 

ALBUQUERQUE 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK CITY 

CLEVELAND 

FRANKLIN COUN 

TOLEDO 

OKLAHOMA CITY 

TULSA 

TULSA 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

P0RTLAN9 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

SIOUX FALLS 

NASHVILLE 

AUSTIN 

DALLAS 

SAN ANTONIO 

WICHITA FALLS 

SEATTLE 

WISCONSIN 

NILHAUKEE COD 



OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-466 

N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS. -PH. II, P. B-U78 

JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL JAIL, P. B-US") 

JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL COURT, P. B-U9U 

AUTOMATET CRIMINAL CASE PROCESSING SYSTEM, P. B-50S 

AIMS, P. B-52« 

ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION, P. B-S37 

UNIVERSAL SUMMONS SYSTEM, P. B-571 

CLEVELAND POLICE COMPUTER FILES, P. B-615 

FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PBOJCT, P. B-632 

POLICE RECORDS, P. B-640 

OKLAHOMA CITY SYSTEM, P. B-650 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

TRAFFIC COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-659 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-6b6 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COURTS, P. B-679 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-687 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

TRAFFIC CONTROL, P. B-7U0 

CITATION CONTROL, P. B-786 

AUSTIN AUTOMATED PUNCTIONSt, P. B-796 

POLICE DATA BASE, P. B-802 

MUNICIPAL COURT MOVING VIOLATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-822 

MUNICIPAL COURT SYSTEM, P. B-8«14 

SEA-KING ALERT PLANNED, P. B-900 

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, P. B-910 

TB&FFIC CASE PROCESSING, P. B-9i3 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



51 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, 
DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, 
KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MICHIGAN, MISSOURI, 
MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, 
TENNESSEE, TEXAS, WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN 



COHM-MESSAGE SWITCHING 



ALABAMA 

ALASKA 

ARIZONA 

ARIZONA 

ARIZONA 

ARKANSAS 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALI FORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

COLORADO 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

GEORGIA 

HAWAII 

ILLINOIS 

ILLINOIS 

INDIANA 

IOWA 

IOWA 

KANSAS 



con 



ALABAMA 

ALASKA 

ARIZONA 

MARICOPA 

PHOENIX 

ARKANSAS 

CALIFORNIA 

ALAMEDA 

L. A. COUNTY 

LONG BEACH 

LOS ANGELES 

ORANGE COUNTY 

SAN FRANCISCO 

SANTA CLARA C 

COLORADO 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

FLORIDA 

DADE COUNTY 

HILLSBOROUGH 

JACKSONVILLE 

TAMPA 

GEORGIA 

HONOLULU 

ILLINOIS 

CHICAGO 

INDIANA 

IOWA 

POLK COUNTY 

KANSAS 



MONTGOMERY POLICE SYSTEM!, P. B-H 

ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-11 

ARIZONA LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM, P. 



B-2H 



LAW ENFORCEMENT- JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-25 

COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND 5 CONTROL, P. B-33 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-1*5 

CALIF. LAW ENFORCEMENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYS., P. 8-49 

POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-59 

JUSTICE DATA INTERFACE COMPUTER, P. B-65 

PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-714 

AUTOMATED WANT/WARRANTS SYSTEM, P. B-81 

ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-100 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

COLORADO CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-115 

STATEWIDE INFORMATION ACCESS SYSTEM, P. 8-133 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. 8-158 

FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-233 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. 8-216 

STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-250 

DEPARTMENT OP INFOFMATIIN SYSTEMS, P. B-272 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DATA SYSTEM, P. 8-279 

HOT DESK, P. B-296 

INDIANA DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, P. 8-302 

TRAFFIC RECORDS 6 CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. B-309 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK CENTRAL, P. B-31H 

HGWY COMM/HGWY PATROL TELETYPE NETWORK, P. 8-317 



D-W 



213 



SYSTEM FUNCTION INDEX 



COdM-IESS AGE SWITCHING 

KANSAS LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEH, P. ')-319 

LAW ENFOHCEPIENT AUTOHATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWOBK OF KENTUCKY, P. B-3314 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. D-33tJ 

LAHENFORCEMENTCOMPUTERIZEDCOMMUNICATIONSSYS, P. B-3U2 

METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P. B-351 

COMPLAINT, P. B-359 

MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P, B-363 

BOSTON POLICE SYSTEM, P. B- 38<t 

LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-399 

MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-ltlU 

ON-LINE INQUIRY - DRIVER'S LICENSE, P. B-lt2b 

ON-LINE INQUIRY - AUTO REGISTRATION, P. 6-127 

MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL), P. B-1128 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-t3U 

S. L. n. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-UU2 

COMBINED LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-H63 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-"t66 

SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PROTCTN S ENFCMT, P. B-U71 

TELEPROCESSIN-; OF RECORDS S COMM. FOR ENFCMT, P. 8-175 

N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS-PHASE 1, P. B-U76 

STATE POLICE COMMUNICATIONS, P. B-522 

NEW YORK STATEWIDE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-510 

SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-5S8 

NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-588 

PUBLIC SAFETY - INT EGR ATEDM UNICI PA L I NPOS YST , P. B-59S 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATIC DATA SYSTEM, P. B-605 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

CLEVELAND POLICE COMPUTER FILES, P. B-615 

OKLA. CRIMINAL 5 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-615 

TULSA COMPUTER ASSISTED DISPATCH, P. B-657 

LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA SYSTEM, P. B-b61 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-572 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PRASE 1, P. B-687 

COMMONWEALTH LAW ENFORCEM'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. B-691 

POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

COMMUNICATIONS, P. B-736 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-712 

MESSAGE SWITCHING, P. B-765 

DEPT OF PUB SAFETY SYS, P. B-792 

POLICE DATA BASE, P. B-802 

DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. STS., P. B-806 

FORT WORTH SYSTEM!, P. B-81b 

INFORMATION S COMMUNICATION PLAN AREA-WIDE, P. B-817 

LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-852 

VIRGINIA CRIMINAL INFORMATION NETWOBK, P. B-855 

POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

TIDEWATER ELECTRONIC NETWORK POLICE INFO, P. B-8S1 

WACIC MESSAGE SWITCHING SYSTEMI, P. B-B90 

SEA-KING ALERT, P. B-898 

COMMUNICATIONS PROCESSING MESS. SWITCHING, P. B-919 

MADISON AREA POLICE DEPARTMENT (PHASE II), P. B-927 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 81 

STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, 

COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, 

HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, 

KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, 

MINNESOTA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, 

NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, 

OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, 

SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, VIRGINIA, 

WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN 

COMM-ON-LINE INQUIRY 

ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 



KANSAS 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


WICHITA 


KENTUCKY 


KENTUCKY 


KENTUCKY 


LOUISVILLE 


LOUISIANA 


LOUISIANA 


LOUISIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


LOUI SIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MASSACHUSETTS 


BOSTON 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MINNESOTA 


MINNESOTA 


MISSISSIPPI 


MISSISSIPPI 


MISSISSIPPI 


MISSISSIPPI 


MISSOURI 


MISSOURI 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


NEBRASKA 


NEBRASKA 


NEBRASKA 


OMAHA 


NFVADA 


NEVADA 


NEW HAMPSHIRE 


SEW HAMPSHIRE 


NEW JERSEY 


NEW JERSEY 


NEW MEXICO 


NEW MEXICO 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


CHARLOTTE 


OHIO 


OHIO 


OHIO 


CINCINNATI 


OHIO 


CLEVELAND 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


OREGON 


OREGON 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


PORTLAND 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH DAKOTA 


SOUTH DAKOTA 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


TEXAS 


TEXAS 


TEXAS 


DALLAS 


TEXAS 


DALLAS COUNTY 


TEXAS 


FORT WORTH 


TEXAS 


HOUSTON 


UTAH 


UTAH 


VIRGINIA 


VIRGINIA 


VIRGINIA 


FAIRFAX COUNT 


VIRGINIA 


NORFOLK 


WASHINGTON 


WASHINGTON 


WASHINGTON 


SEATTLE 


WISCONSIN 


WISCONSIN 


WISCONSIN 


MADISON 



D-15 



214 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



COMH-ON-L INE INVUIR 
ALASKA 
ARI'.ONA 
ARIZONA 
AKI7.0NA 
ARIZONA 
ARKANSAS 
CAtI FOSNIA 
CALI FOSNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALt FOBNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALI FOSNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
COLORADO 
CONN ECTICUT 
CONNECTICOT 
CONNECTICUT 
CONNECTICUT 
CONNECTICUT 
CONNECTICUT 
CONNECTICUT 
CONN ECTICUT 
DELAWARE 
DIST. OF COL. 
FLOR IDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
iJEORCI A 
HAWAII 
ILLI NOIS 
ILLINOIS 
INDIANA 
INDIANA 
IOWA 
lOHA 
KANSAS 
KANSAS 
KANSAS 
KENTUCKY 
KENTUCKY 
LOUISIANA 
LOUISIANA 
1AINE 
MARYLAND 
1ASSACHUSETTS 
MICHIGAN 
MINNESOTA 
.IINNESOTA 
1ISSISSIPPI 
HISS ISSIPPI 
mSSOURI 
.11 S3 OUR I 
MISSOURI 
NEBRASKA 
NEBRASKA 
NEVADA 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 
1F.A JERSEY 
NEW JFRSFY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW MEXICO 
NEW MEXICO 
NEW MEXICO 



ALASKA ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B- 

ARIZONA ARIZONA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-1 

ARIZONA ARIZONA LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM, 

MARICOPA COU LAW ENFO RCEM ENT- JU DICI AL INFORMATION SYS 

PHOENIX COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND & CONTROL, P. B-3 

ARKANSAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

CALIFORNIA CALIF. LAW ENFORCEMENT TELECOMMUNICATION 

CALIFORNIA AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, 

ALAMEDA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-59 

L. A. COUNTY JUSTICE DATA INTERFACE COMPUTER, P. B-65 

LONG BEACH PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-7 

LOS ANGELES AUTOMATED FIELD INTERVIEW SYSTEM, P. B-8 

LOS ANGELES AUTOMATED WORTHLESS DOCUMENT INDEX, P. 8 

ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM 

SAN DIEGO CURRENT LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYST 

SAN FRANCISCO COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY AREA LAW ENFORCEME 

SANTA CLARA C CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. 

COLORADO COLORADO CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B- 

CONNECTICUT STATEWIDE INFORMATION ACCESS SYSTEM, P. 

CONNECTICUT COMPUTERIZED CRIMINAL HISTORY, P. B-139 

CONNECTICUT MOTOR VEHICLE/JUDICIAL SYSTEM, P. B-IHB 

CONNECTICUT LICENSE SYSTEM, P. B-150 

CONNECTICUT ACCIDENT RECORDS SYSTEM, P. D-152 

CONNECTICUT REGISTRATION SYSTEM, P. B-15M 

BRIDGEPORT BRIDGEPORT CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. 

NEW HAVEN CASE INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-163 

DELAWARE CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, 

WASHINGTON RADIO RUNS SYSTEM, P. fl-178 

FLORIDA FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-2 

DADE COUNTY DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, 

HILLSBOROUGH HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-2 

JACKSONVILLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

TAMPA TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. B-216 

GEORGIA STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-250 

HONOLULU DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATI IN SYSTEMS, P. B- 

ILLINOIS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DATA SYSTEM, P. 

CHICAGO POLICE OPERATIONS, P. B-291 

INDIANA INDIANA DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, 

INDIANAPOLIS POLICE AUTOMATED CASE ENTRY 6 RETREIVAL 

IOWA TRAFFIC RECORDS f, CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO 

POLK COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK CENTRAL, P. B-31 

KANSAS HGWY COMM/HGWY PATROL TELETYPE NETWORK, 

KANSAS KANSAS LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM. 

WICHITA LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 B 

KENTUCKY LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OP KENTUCKY, P. 

LOUISVILLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

LOUISIANA LAWENFORCEMENTCOMPUTERIZEDCOMMUNICATIONS 

LAFAYETTE AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMM. 6KEP0RTI 

MAINE COMPREHENSIVE DATA SYSTEM, P. B-360 

MARYLAND MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SY 

BOSTON BOSTON POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-38U 

MICHIGAN LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NETWORK, P. 

MINNESOTA MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B 

ST. PAUL ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B 

MISSISSIPPI ON-LINE INQUIRY - DRIVER'S LICENSE, P. B 

MISSISSIPPI ON-LINE INQUIRY - AUTO REGISTRATION, P 

MISSOURI MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENT 

JACKSON COUNT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-U3U 

ST. LOUIS S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-'*li2 

NEBRASKA COMBINED LAW ENFORCEMENT INFOHMATION NET 

OMAHA OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SY 

NEVADA SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PROTCTN S E 

NEW HAMPSHIRE TELEPROCESSING OF RECORDS 6 COMM. FOR EN 

NEW JERSEY N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS 

CAMDEN COUNTY COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER, P. 

NEWARK NEWAHK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYST 

PASSAIC COUNT PLANNED PASSAIC COUNTY SYSTEM*, P. B-510 

NEW MEXICO STATE POLICE COMMUNICATIONS, P. B-522 

ALBUQUERQUE ACTION, P. D-S2t> 

ALBUQUERQUE COMPUTER ASSISTED DISPATCH. P. B-529 



P. B- 


2« 






TEM, P 


. B 


-25 




3 








B-U5 








S SYS. 


. P 


. B- 


■U9 


P. B- 


55 






1 








2 








-8U 








, P. B 


-88 






EM, P. 


B- 


95 




NT, P. 


B- 


100 




B-107 








115 








8-138 









B-157 

P. B-168 

15 

P. 8-2 19 
25 
B-2J3 



272 
B-279 

P. B-30 2 

SYS., P. B-305 

SYST, P. 8-309 

U 

P. B-317 

P. B-319 

ETRVL, P. B-329 

B-33U 

B-338 

SYS, P. 8-31*2 

NG SYS, P. B-3H7 



STEM, 

B-399 

-41i» 

U22 

1126 
B-a27 
RAL) , 



B-363 



B-U28 



WORK, P. B-l*63 

STEM, P. 8-466 

NFCMT, P. 8-U71 

FCMT, P. B-U75 

-PHASE 1, P. B-U76 

8-481* 

EM, ?. B-50 1 



D-16 



215 



SYSTEH FUNCTION INDEX 



COHH-ON-LINE INQUIRY 

NEW YORK NEW YOHK NEW YORK STATEWIDE POLICE INFOBHATION NETWORK, P. B-5U0 

NEW YORK DOFFALO CITY OF BUFFALO LAW ENFORCEriENT COMPUTER OPNS, P. B-5a6 

NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-558 

NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-562 

NEW YORK ROCHESTER ON-LINE INFORMATION SYSTEM (OPERATIONAL), P. B-578 

NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-S88 

NORTH CAROLINA CHABLOTPE POLICE SYSTEH, P. B-59a 

NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE PUBLIC SAFETY - INT EGR ATEDM UN IC IPALIN FOS Y3T , P. B-596 

OHIO OHIO LAW ENFORCEMENT AOTOMAIIC DATA SYSTEM, P. B-605 

OHIO Cincinnati regional crime information center (clear), p. b-609 

OHIO CLEVELAND CLEVELAND POLICE COMPUTER FILES, P. B-615 

OHIO COLUMBUS CITY OF COLUMBUS COMPUTERS SYSTEM, P. B-62b 

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLA. CRIMINAL E TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6<15 

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA CITY OKLAHOMA CITY SYSTEM, P. B-650 

OKLAHOMA TULSA TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT, SYSTEM, P. B-652 

OKLAHOMA TULSA TULSA COMPUTER ASSISTED DISPATCH, P. B-657 

OREGON OREGON LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA SYSTEM, P. B-66 1 

OREGON LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEH OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

OREGON LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

OREGON PORTLAND COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH LAW ENFORCEM'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. B-69« 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA COMBINED JUSTICE INFO. NETWORK OVER TERMINALS, P. B-710 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

TENNESSEE TENNESSEE TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7U2 

TENNESSEE NASHVILLE ON-LINE ENQUIRY, P. B-766 

TEXAS TEXAS DEPT OF PDB SAFETY SYS, P. B-792 

TEXAS DALLAS POLICE DATA BASE, P. B-802 

TEXAS DALLAS rOUNTY DALLAS COUNTY RES. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. STS., P. B-806 

TEXAS EL PASO COUNT EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM., P. B-8 1 1 

TEXAS FORT WORTH POLICE DEPARTMENT STOLEN IMPOUNDED REPOSSESS, P. B-81H 

TEXAS HOUSTON INFORMATION 5 COMMUNICATION PLAN AREA-WIDE, P. 8-817 

TEXAS SAN ANTONIO BEXAR COUNTY CRIM. JUST. INFO. SYS-PHASE I, P. B-82lt 

TEXAS WICHITA FALLS SYSTEMS SOFTWARE, P. B-8U3 

UTAH UTAH LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEH, P. B-852 

VIRGINIA VIRGINIA VIRGINIA CRIMINAL INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-865 

VIRGINIA FAIRFAX COUNT POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

VIRGINIA NORFOLK TIDEWATER ELECTRONIC NETWORK POLICE INFO, P. B-881 

WASHINGTON SEATTLE SEA-KING ALERT, P. 8-898 

WASHINGTON SPOKANE COUNT THE INLAND EMPIRE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-903 

WISCONSIN WISCONSIN COMMUNICATIONS PROCESSING MESS. SWITCHING, P. 3-919 

WISCONSIN MADISON MADISON AREA POLICE DEPARTMENT (PHASE I) , P. B-925 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 112 

STATES INCLUDSP ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, 

COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, 
GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, 
KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MAINE, MARYLAND, 

MASSACHUSETTS, HICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, HISSISSIPPI, HISSOURI, 
NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW HAHPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW HEXICO, 
NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, 
PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, 
VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN 

COMMAND AND CONTROL 

ARIZONA PHOENIX COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND G CONTROL, P. B-33 

ARIZONA TUCSON COMMAND AND CONTROL, P. 8-1*2 

CALIFORNIA L. A. COUNTY COMPUTER ASSISTED DISPATCH SYSTEM, P. 8-66 

FLORIDA HILLSBOROUGH HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. 8-225 

FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

FLORIDA TAHPA TAHPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM!, P. B-2U6 

ILLINOIS ILLINOIS TRAFFIC INFORMATION PLANNING SYSTEM, P. 8-2814 

ILLINOIS CHICAGO POLICE OPERATIONS, P. B-291 

fOWA POLK COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK CENTRAL, P. 3-314 

'<*'*SAS WICHITA LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOHATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. 8-329 

MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON BOSTON POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-38« 

MINNESOTA ST. PAUL ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-422 

MISSOURI JACKSON COUNT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-U3U 

MISSOURI ST. LOUIS S. L. H. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-UU2 



D-17 



490-522 O - 73 - 63 



34-788 O - 74 - 15 



216 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



rOIMAND AND CONTBOL 
NEVADA 
NEV JERSEY 
NE^ YORK 
NEli YORK 
NEW YORK 
NORTH CAROLINA 
OHIO 
OHIO 
OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 
OKLAHOMA 
OK»:30N 
OREGON 

SO'JTH DAKOTA 
TENNESSEE 
TEXAS 
UTAH 
WASHINGTON 



NEVADA 

NEWARK 

NEW YOKK CITY 

NEW YORK CITY 

ROCHESTER 

NORTH CAROLINA 

CINCINNATI 

CLEVELAND 

TOLEDO 

OKLAHOMA 

TULSA 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

SIOUX PALLS 

TENNESSEE 

DALLAS COUNTY 

SALT LAKE 

SEATTLE 



SHERIFF 

NEWARK 

SPRINT 

SPRINT 

CALLS F 

NORTH C 

REGIONA 

CLEVELA 

POLICE 

OKLA. C 

TOLSA R 

AREA IN 

AREA IN 

BEGIONA 

TENS CH 

DALLAS 

DEPARTM 

COMMAND 



•S COMPUTE 
CRIMINAL J 
DISPATCHIN 
BACKUP, P. 
OR SESVICE 
AROLINA PO 
L CRIME IN 
ND POLICE 
RECORDS, P 
RIMINAL 
EGi AUIOMA 
FORMATION 
FORMATION 
L CJIS, P 
IMINAL JUS 
COUNTY REG 
ENTAL HGT. 
AND CONTB 



R OPST 
US T ICE 
G, P. 
B-562 

P 
LICE I 
FORMAT 
COMPUT 

B-6K 
TRAFFI 

TED cn 

RECORD 
RECORD 

B-737 

TICE S 

CRIM 

INFOR 
OL, P. 



N FOR PROTCTN 6 ENFCHT, P. 8-171 

INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-501 
B-558 



-575 

NPORMATION NETWORK, P. B-588 

ION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

ER FILES, P. B-b15 



C LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. 8-515 

IM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 
SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. .^-656 
SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-6J2 



YSTEM PHASE I, P. B-712 
INAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., 
MATION SYSTEM, P. B-860 
B-902 



P. B-B06 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



32 



STATES INCLUDED 



ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, ILLINOIS, IOWA, 
KANSAS, MASSACHUSETTS, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEVADA, 
NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, 
OREGON, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, 
WASHINGTON 



COMMUNICATIONS-OTHEI 


R 


ARIZONA 


PHOENIX 


CALIFORNIA 


CALIFORNIA 


CALIFORNIA 


ALAMEDA 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


LONG BEACH 


CALIFORNIA 


LOS ANGELES 


CALIFORNIA 


OAKLAND 


CALIFORNIA 


ORANGE COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


SAN FRANCISCO 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


HARTFORD 


CONN ECTICUT 


NEW HAVEN 


DELAWARE 


DELAWARE 


DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


DADE COUNTY 


GEORGIA 


GEORGIA 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


CHICAGO 


INDIANA 


INDIANAPOLIS 


IOWA 


IOWA 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


W ICHITA 


LOUISIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


MAINE 


MAINE 


MARYLAND 


M ARYLANO 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MINNESOTA 


ST. PAUL 


MISSOURI 


MISSOURI 


NEHR ASKA 


NEBRASKA 


NEBRASKA 


OMAHA 


NEB JERSEY 


NEWARK 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSAIC COUNT 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


KFW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NEK YORK 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


OHIO 


CINCINNATI 



COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND 6 CONTROL, P. B-3 
CALIF. LAW ENFORCEMENT TELECOMMUNICATION 
POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-59 
JUSTICE DATA INTERFACE COMPUTER, P. B-65 
COMPOTES ASSISTED DISPATCH SYSTEM, P 
PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATIJN SYSTEM, P. B-7 
AUTOMATED FIELD INTERVIEW SYSTEM, P. B-8 
SEMI AUTOMATIC CAR LOCATOR SYSTEM, P. B- 
ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM 
COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY AREA LAW ENFORCEME 
COMPUTERIZED CRIMINAL HISTORY, P. B-139 
MOTOR VEHICLE/JUDICIAL SYSTEM, P. B-IUS 
ACCIDENT RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-152 
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-160 
CASi INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-163 
CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, 
RADIO RUNS SYSTEM, P. B-178 

FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-2 
DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, 
STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-250 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DATA SYSTEM, P. 
POLICE OPERATIONS, P. B-291 
POLICE AUTOMATED CASE ENTRY S RETREIVAL 
TRAFFIC RECORDS 6 CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO 
HGWY COMM/HGWY PATROL TELETYPE NETWORK, 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 R 
COMPLAINT, P. B-359 

COMPREHENSIVE DATA SYSTEM, P. 8-360 
MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SY 
LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NETWORK, P. 
ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B 
MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENT 
COMBINED LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NET 
OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SY 
NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYST 
PLANNED PASSAIC COUNTY SYSTEMt, p. B-510 
N. Y. STATE IDENTIFICATION 6 INTELLIGENC 
NEW YORK STATEWIDE POLICE INFORMATION NE 
MOBILE DIGITAL TERMINALS, P. B-515 
NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWOR 
REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR 



S SYS., P. B-U9 



66 

1 

2 

87 

, P. 8-88 

NT, P. B-100 



P. B-168 

15 

P. B-219 

B-279 

SYS., P. B-305 
SYST, P. B-309 
P. B-317 
ETSVL, P. B-329 



STEM, P. B-363 

B-399 

-122 

RAL) , P. B-128 

WORK, P. B-163 

STEM, P. B-166 

EM, P. B-501 

E SYS., P. B-5i2 
TWORK, P. B-510 

K, P. B-588 
) , P. B-609 



D-18 



217 



S T S T E M 



FDNCTION 



INDEX 



COflMUNICftTIONS-OTHER 




OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOHA 


OKLA. 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


TULSA 


ORESON 


PORTLAND 


COLUM 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


COMMO 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


COMBI 


SOOTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


CRIMI 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


TENN 1 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


ON-LI 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


COMPU 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


MOBIL 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


SUBSY 


TEXAS 


DALLAS COUNIY 


DALLA: 


TEXAS 


EL PASO COUNT 


EL pa: 


TEXAS 


WICHITA FALLS 


SYSTE 


UTAH 


UTAH 


LAW E 


VIRGINIA 


FAIRFAX COUNT 


POLIC 


VIRGINIA 


NORFOLK 


TIDEW 


WISCONSIN 


WISCONSIN 


COMMU 


WISCONSIN 


riADISON 


MADISI 


WISCONSIN 


MADISON 


MADISi 



CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-645 
REH. automated CPIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 
BIA REGION INFO. SHARINS SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-687 
NWEALTH law ENFORCEM'I ASSIST'CE network, p. B-6911 
NED JUSTICE INFO. NETWORK OVER TERMINALS, P. B-710 
NAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-7 2 1 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. 8-712 
NE ENTRY/UPDATE, P. B-767 
TER TO COMPUTER INTERFACES, P. B-768 
E VIDEO/PRINTER TERMINAL COMPLEX, P. B-769 
STEM INPUT CONTROL, P. B-77a 

S COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 
SO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM., P. B-9 1 1 
MS SOFTWARE, P. B-8tt3 

NFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-B52 
E MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 
ATER ELECTRONIC NETWORK POLICE INFO, P. B-881 
NICATIONS PROCESSING MESS. SWITCHING, P. B-919 
ON AREA POLICE DEPARTMENT (PHASE I), P. B-925 
ON AREA POLICE DEPARTMENT (PHASE II), P. B-927 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



61 



STATES INCLUDED 



ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL. 
FLORIDA, GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, 
KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MAINE, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, 
MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, 
NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, 
SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, VIRGINIA, 
WISCONSIN 



COMPUTER INST3UCTIDN 

ILLINOIS ILLINOIS 
OREGON PORTLAND 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA 
TENNESSEE NASHVILLE 



LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DATA SYSTEM, P. B-279 
COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 
COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-705 
COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION, P. B-773 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS t 

STATES INCLUDED ILLINOIS, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, TENNESSEE 



COMPUTER- ASSISTED D 
ALA3AMA 
ARI70NA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CONNECTICUT 
FLOR IDA 
FLORIDA 
ILLINOIS 
IOWA 
KANSAS 

MASSACHUSETTS 
MICHIGAN 
MISSOURI 
NEVADA 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW MEXICO 
NEW YORK 
NEW YORK 
NORTH CAROLINA 
NORTH DAKOTA 
OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 



ISPAT 
BIRMINGHAM 
PHOENIX 
L. A. COUNTY 
LONG BEACH 
NEW HAVEN 
HILLSBOROUGH 
JACKSONVILLE 
ILLINOIS 
POLK COUNTY 
KANSAS 
BOSTON 
DETROIT 
JACKSON COUNT 
NEVADA 
NEWARK 
ALBUQUERQUE 
NEW YORK CITY 
SEW YORK CITY 
NORTH CAROLINA 
FARGO 

CINCINNATI 
TULSA 
DALLAS 

DALLAS COUNTY 
HOUSTON 



alRMIN 

COMMUN 

COMPUT 

PUBLIC 

CASE I 

HILLSB 

CRIMIN 

TRAFFI 

LAW EN 

HIGHWA 

BOSTON 

DETROI 

KANSAS 

SHEHIF 

NEWARK 

COMPUT 

SPRINT 

SPRINT 

NORTH 

LAW EN 

REGION 

TULSA 

COMPUT 

DALLAS 

INFORM 



SHAM, AL. LAW 
ICATIONS COMMA 
ER ASSISTED DI 

SAFETY INFORM 
NCIDENT REPORT 
OROUGH CO. DAT 
AL JUSTICE INF 
C INFORMATION 
FOBCEMENT NETW 
Y PATROL ADMIN 

POLICE .SYSTEM 
T ELECTBNC COM 

CITY, MISSOUR 
F'S COMPUTER 

CRIMINAL JUST 
EP ASSISTED DI 

DISPATCHING, 

BACKUP, P. B 
CAROLINA POLIC 
FORCEMENT, P 
AL CRIME INF3R 
COMPUTER ASSIS 
ER ASSISTED DI 

COUNTY REG. C 
ATION 6 COMMUN 



ENFORCE 
ND t, CO 
SPATCH 
ATION S 
ING SYS 
A PROCE 
OPMATIO 
PLANNIN 
OHK CEN 
ISTRATI 
, P. B- 
PTR 6 T 
I POLIC 
PRTN FO 
ICE INF 
SPATCH, 
P. 3-55 
562 

E INFOR 
B-bOU 
MATION 
TED DIS 
SPATCH, 
RIM INAL 
ICATION 



MENT 
NT 30 
SYST 
YSTE 
TEM, 
SSIN 
N 3Y 
G SY 
TRAL 
VE I 
381) 
ELEP 
E, P 
R PR 
ORMA 
P 



INFO. SYSTEM, P 
L, P. B-33 
EM, P. B-66 
M, P. B-711 

P. B-163 
G, P. B-225 
STEM, P. B-233 
STEM, P. 8-284 
, P. B-31U 
NFO. SYSTEMS, P. 



B-5 



B-326 

B-un 



ROCESS. SYST., 

. B-434 

OTCTN 6 ENFCMT, P. 8-171 

TION SYSTEM, P. B-50 1 

B-529 



NATION NETWORK, 



B-5a 



CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

PATCH, P. B-657 
P. B-799 

JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 
PLAN AREA-WIDE, P. B-817 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



25 



D-19 



218 



S Y 3 T E .1 



!■• U N C T I I) N 



INDEX 



COIPiJTEP- ASSISTED DISPAT 

STATES INCLUDED ALABA.IA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, FLORIDA, 
ILLINOIS, rOKA, KANSAS, 1 ASS ACHUS ETTS , .IICHIGAN, 
fllSSOUST, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW KEXICO, NEW YORK, 
NOSTM CAROLINA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOPIA, TEXAS 



COBRECrUNS PERSONNEL 




COLORADO 


COLORADO 


COMPATIFLS REPO 


UELAWA5E 


DELAWARE 


CRI.1INAL LAW UN 


niST. Of CUL. 


WASHINGTON 


WASH. D. C. COR 


GEOPGI A 


GEORGIA 


CORRECTIONS SYS 


HAWAII 


HAWAII 


CORRECTIONS 6 P 


ILLINOIS 


I LLINOIS 


CORRECTIONS SYS' 


KANSAS 


WICHITA 


LAW RNFORCErlENT 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA ( 


0I1I3 


TOLEDO 


PERSONNEL RECOR 


0KLAH01A 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLA. CRI1INAL 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


AREA INFORMATIO' 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


AREA INFORPIATIO: 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


CORRECTIONAL IN 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


COURT SYSTEMS, 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


DEPT. OF CORREC 


SOUTH CAaOLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


YOUTH SERVICES 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


TENN CRIMINAL J 


TEXAS 


TEXAS 


INMATE TRACKING 


TEXAS 


WICHITA FALLS 


PERSONNEL, P. D 


WASHIN'JTON 


WASHINGTON 


DIVISION OP RES 


WISCONSIN 


WISCONSIN 


PERSONNEL INFORI 



RTING SYSTEM, P. B-121 

IFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

RECTIONS RECORD INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-195 

TFM, P. 3-253 

AROLE, P. B-270 

TEM, P. B-289 

AI)T0MAT.-;D data entry 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 
COHHECnONS SYSTEM, P. B-592 
OS, P. B-638 

6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS. 
N RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P 
N RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 
DUSTRIES, BUR. OF CORRECTION, P. B-697 
P. B-705 

TIONS 1GMT. INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-726 
PROGRAM, P. B-729 
USTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7«2 

SYSTEM, P. B-790 
-819 

EAHCH-INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-895 
MATION SYSTEM, P. B-912 



P. B-SHS 
B-666 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



21 



STATES INCLUDED 



COLORADO, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., GEORGIA, HAWAII, 
ILLINOIS, KANSAS, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, 
OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, 
WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN 



COURTS PERSONNEL 
ALABAMA 
DIST. OF COL. 
ILLINOIS 
KANSAS 
MISSOURI 
NEBRASKA 
NEW JERSEY 
OREGON 
0R2.;0N 
OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 
TENNESSEE 
TEXAS 



BIRMINGHAM BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

WASHINGTON COURT PERSONNEL, P. B-205 

COOK COUNTY COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT!, P. B-298 

WICHITA LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 

ST. LOUIS CITY OF ST. LOUIS SYSTEM, P. R-Ua6 

OMAHA OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-lt65 

NEWARK NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-50 1 

LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

LANE COUNTY COURTS, P. B-679 

PHILADELPHIA COURT SYSTEMS, P. R-705 

NASHVILLE COURTS PERSONNEL RECORDS, P. B-785 

WICHITA FALLS PERSONNEL, P. B-8149 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



1 J 



STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, DIST. OF COL., ILLINOIS, KANSAS, MISSOURI, 

NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, TENNESSEE, 
TEXAS 



CRIME CASES (VICTIM) 

CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO 



CURRENT LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. S-95 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 1 
STATES INCLUDED CALIFORNIA 



CRIME LAB 

CALIFORNIA 
CALI FORN lA 



SAN DIEjO 
SANTA CLARA C 



PROPOSED LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-97 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 



D-20 



219 



SYSTEJ1 FUNCTION INDEX 



CRr>1=; HB 

DtLAJARE DELAaARE CHININAL LAW UNIFORH ENPOHCENENT SYSTEd, P. B-168 

FLORIDA FLORIDA FLORIDA CRIME INFORHATnN CENTER, P. B-215 

FLORIDA TAHPA TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM!, P. B-2146 

KANSAS KANSAS KANSAS LAU ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM, P. B-319 

MISSOURI JACKSON COUNT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-USU 

NEK YORK NEU YORK N. Y. STATE IDENTIFICATION 6 INTELLIGENCE SYS., P. B-532 

TEXAS DALLAS COUNTY DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 9 

STATES INCLUDED CALIFORNIA, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, KANSAS, MISSOURI, 
NEW YORK, TEXAS 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

DISPATCH, D. R. ARREST S TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SYSTEM, P. B-31 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-145 

STATISTICAL SYSTEM, P. B-72 

PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-71* 

PATTERN RECOGNITION 6 INFORMATION CORRELATION, P. B-78 

0RAN;E COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LAW ENFOHCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B-125 

MANA'iEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-160 

CASE INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-163 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

OFFENSES REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-180 

FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

OFFENSE SYSTEM, P. B-239 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. B-2U6 

GENERAL INDEXES, P. B-293 

TRAFFIC RECORDS ', CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. B-309 

MONTHLY REPORT OF KANSAS POLICE AG ENCI ES (UC R) , P. B-322 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. B-33U 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCtMENT C0M.1. 6RFP0BTING SYS, P. B-3U7 

OFFENSES, P. B-357 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-379 

POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-386 

DETROIT ELECTRNC COMPTR 6 TELEPROCESS. SYST., P. B-U11 

ST, PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-lt22 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-«3U 

S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. 8-ltM2 

SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PROTCTN 6 ENFCMT, P. 8-171 

N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS. -PH. II, P. B-U78 

COMPUTERIZED CRIME ANALYSIS, P. B-U82 

PATERSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. B-513 

CITY OF BUFFALO LAW ENFOHCEMENT COMPUTER OPNS, P. B-516 

POLICE DATA SYSTEMS, P. B-5b5 

SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-55« 

SPRINT BACKUP, P. D-562 

OFFENSES REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-582 

NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-588 

POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-59t 

PUBLIC SAFETY - IN T EGR ATEDHUN IC IPALIN FOS YST , P. B-596 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATIC DATA SYSTEM, P. B-605 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR) , P. B-609 

CLEVELAND POLICE COMPUTER FILES, P. B-615 

DAYTON POLICE, P. B-529 

POLICE RECORDS, P. B-6U0 

OKLA. CRIMINAL i TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6n5 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. D-652 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-589 



E TREND ANALYSIS 


ALABAMA 


BIRMINGHAM 


ARIZONA 


PHOENIX 


ARKANSAS 


ARKANSAS 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALI FORNiA 


LONG BEACH 


CALIFORNIA 


LOS ANGELES 


CALI FORNIA 


ORANGE COUNTY 


CALI FORNIA 


SANTA CLARA C 


COLORADO 


COLORADO SPRI 


CONNECTICUT 


HARTFORD 


CONNECTICUT 


NEW HAVEN 


DELAWARE 


DELAWARE 


DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


DADE COUNTY 


FLORIDA 


HILLSBOROUGH 


FLORIDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


FLORIDA 


MIAMI 


FLORIDA 


TAMPA 


ILLINOIS 


CHICAGO 


IOWA 


IOWA 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


WICHITA 


KENTUCKY 


KENTUCKY 


KENTUCKY 


LOUISVILLE 


LOUISIANA 


LAFAYETTE 


LOUISIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MIDDLESEX COU 


MICHIGAN 


DETROIT 


MINNESOTA 


ST. PAUL 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


NEVADA 


NEVADA 


NEW JERSEY 


NEW JERSEY 


NEW JERSEY 


CAMDEN 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSIAC COUNT 


NEW YORK 


BUFFALO 


NEW YORK 


NASSAU COUNTY 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


ROCHESTER 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


CHARLOTTE 


NORTH CAROLINA 


CHARLOTTE 


OHIO 


OHIO 


OHIO 


CINCINNATI 


OHIO 


CLEVELAND 


OHIO 


DAYTON 


OHIO 


TOLEDO 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


PORTLAND 



D-21 



220 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



CCIflE TREND ANALYSIS 
PENNSYLVANIA 
SOUTH CAROLINA 
SOUTH DAKOTA 
TENNESSEE 
TENN ESSEE 
TENNESSEE 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
UTAH 

VIRGINIA 
VIRGINIA 
WEST VIRGINIA 
WISCONSIN 



PENNSYLVANIA 
SOUTH CAROLINA 
SIOUX FALLS 
TENNESSEE 
(1 EH PHIS 
NASHVILLE 
AUSTIN 

DALLAS COUNTY 
HICHITA FALLS 
SALT LAKE 
ALEXANDRIA 
FAIRFAX COUNT 
WEST VIRGINIA 
WISCONSIN 



COMflONUEALTH LAW ENPORCEN'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. B-69U 



CRI.1INAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. 

MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT TAB SYSTEM!, P 

CRIME TREND ANALYSIS, P. B-759 

AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTI)NSI, P. B-796 

DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO 

EVENT PROCESSING, P. B-BUl 

DEPARTMENTAL HGT. INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

POLICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-875 

POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

W. VA. DEPT. OF PUB. SAFETY-POL. BATCH 

CRIME 6 ARREST STATISTICS SYSTEM, P. B 



B-721 



-7U2 
8-748 



B-860 

B-877 
PROCESSING, 
922 



B-806 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



69 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, 
CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, ILLINOIS, 
IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, 
MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, 
NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, 
PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, 
UTAH, VIRGINIA, WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN 



CRIMINAL ASSOCIATES 




ARIZONA 


MARICOPA COU 


ARIZONA 


TUCSON 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


SAN FRANCISCO 


CALIFORNIA 


SANTA CLARA C 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


MIAMI 


FLORIDA 


MIAMI 


KANSAS 


HICHITA 


LOUISIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


MINNESOTA 


ST. PAUL 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


NEVADA 


NEVADA 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSAIC COUNT 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NORTH CAROLINA 


CHARLOTTE 


OHIO 


CINCINNATI 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


PORTLAND 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUP" DAKOTA 


SIOUX FALLS 


TEXAS 


DALLAS COUNTY 


TEXAS 


WICHITA FALLS 


VIRGINIA 


FAIRFAX COUNT 


WASHINGTON 


SEATTLE 


WASHINGTON 


SPOKANE COUNT 



LAW ENFORCEMENT-JUDICIA 
AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEME 
STATISTICAL SYSTEM, P. 
COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY A 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATI 
SYS FOR ORGANIZED CRIME 
GENERAL APPEA R ANCEO FCR I 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMAT 
OFFENSES, P. B-357 
ST. PAUL POLICE INFORM* 
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI P 
S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, 
SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRT 
JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPT 
HUDSON COUNTY PHOSECUTO 
PLANNED PASSAIC COUNTY 
N. Y. STATE IDENTIFICAT 
SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. 
SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-562 
PUBLIC SAFETY - INTEGRA 
REGIONAL CRIME INF3RMAT 
TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CR 
AREA INFORMATION RECORD 
AREA INFORMATION RECORD 
COLUMBIA REGION INFO. S 
COMBINED JUSTICE INFO. 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 
DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIM 
PERSON PROCESSING, P. B 
POLICE MANAGEMENT INFOR 
SEA-KING ALERT, P. B-89 
THE INLAND EMPIRE POLIC 



L INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-25 

NT RESPONSE TEAM SYS., P. B-UO 

B-72 

REA LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-100 

ATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

ON CENTER, P. B-215 

INTELLIGENCE IN MIAMI, P. B-2«3 
MINAL»HABITS ANALYZED, P. B-2144 
ED DATA ENTRY 6 KETRVL, P. B-329 

TION SYSTEM, P. B-«22 
OLICE, P. B-U31t 

P. B-lllt2 
N FOR PROTCTN 6 ENFCMT, P. B-l*71 
., P. B-U91 
R'S OFFICE, P. B-1498 
SYSTEM*, P. B-510 

ION 6 INTELLIGENCE SYS., P. B-532 
B-558 

TEDMUNICIPALINFOSYST, P. B-596 
ION CENTER (CLEAR) , P. B-609 
IM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 
SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 
SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 
HARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 
NETWORK OVER TERMINALS, P. B-710 
ATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

INAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

-838 

MATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 



E INFORMATION NETWORK, 



B-903 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



31 



STATES INCLUDED 



ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, 
MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, 
NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, 
SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON 



D-22 



221 



SYSTEM FUNCTION INDEX 



ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEH, P. B- 1 1 
ARIZONA CRIME INFOhMAnON CENTER, P. B-18 
CRiaiNAL COURTS AUTOMATION PROJECT, P. B-35 
AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TEAM SYS., P. B-HO 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-K5 
CALIF. JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-50 
AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEH, P. B-55 
OPTIMUM REC. AUTO. FOR COURTS 5 LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-61 
AUTOMATED INDE)t, P. B- 6 3 

PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-714 
PATTERN RECOGNITION 6 INFORMATION CORRELATION, P. B-78 
ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B- 88 
PROPOSED LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-97 
COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY AREft LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-100 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 
COLORADO CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-115 
COMPUTERIZED CRIMINAL HISTOHY, P. 8-139 

IMPROVEMNT IN CRIM. COURT MANGMT 6 OPERATIONS, P. B-1U1 
BRIDGEPORT CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-157 
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-160 
CASE INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-163 
CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 
OFFENSES REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-180 

PROSECUTOR MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-193 
FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 
DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 
COURTS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-231 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 
TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. B-2U6 
STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-250 
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM, P. B-259 
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. B-272 
COMPUTERIZED CRIMINAL HISTORY, P. B-282 
ARRESTS, P. B-295 

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT», P. B-298 
INDIANA DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-302 
TRAFFIC RECORDS £ CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. B-309 
KANSAS LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM, P. B-319 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 
AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMM. 6REP0RTING SYS, P. B-3«7 
METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P. B-351 
MARYLAND INTER-AGENCT LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-363 
AUTOMATED CRIMINAL RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-372 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-379 
POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-386 
TRAFFIC AND ORDINANCE SYSTEM, P. B-390 
BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-392 
COMPUTERIZED CRIMINAL HISTORIES, P. B-U01 . 
MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEH, P. B-KIU 
MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL) , P. B-t28 
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-U3U 
S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-'4U2 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-<t66 
SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PROTCTN 6 ENFCMT, P. B-'471 
N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS. -PH. II, P. 8-178 
COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-U8U 
JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL JAIL, P. B-a89 
JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPT., P. 8-191 
JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL COURT, P. B-191 

SUP. CT. OF NJ-AUTOM'D CRIM. CASE PROCESSING SYS, P. B-196 
HUDSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, P. B-198 
NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-501 
AUTOMATED CRIMINAL CASE PROCESSING SYSTEM, P. B-505 
PLANNED PASSAIC COUNTY SYSTEM*, P. B-510 
PATERSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. B-513 

N. Y. STATE IDENTIFICATION 6 INTELLIGENCE SYS., P. B-532 
CITY OF BUFFALO LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPUTER OPNS, P. B-516 
ERIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MGT. INFO. SYSTEH, P. B-518 
NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-588 
NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE PUBLIC SAFETY - INT EGR A TEDM UN ICI PALINFOS YST, P. B-596 



CRIMINAL HISTORY 




ALASKA 


ALASKA 


ARIZONA 


ARIZONA 


ASTZONA 


PIMA COUNTY 


ARIZONA 


TUCSON 


ARKANSAS 


ARKANSAS 


CALIFORNIA 


CALIFORNIA 


CHLIFORNIA 


CALIFORNIA 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


LONG BEACH 


CALIFORNIA 


LOS ANGELES 


CALIFORNIA 


ORANGE COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


SAN DIEGO 


CALIFORNIA 


SAN FRANCISCO 


CALI FORNIA 


SANT,A CLARA C 


COLORADO 


COLORADl 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


BRIDGEPORT 


CONNECTICUT 


HARTFORD 


CONNECTICUT 


NEK HAVEN 


DELAWARE 


DELAWARE 


DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


DADE COUNTY 


FLORIDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


FLORIDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


FLORIDA 


TAMPA 


GEORGIA 


GEORGIA 


GEORGIA 


ATLANTA SMSA 


HAWAII 


HONOLULU 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


CHICAGO 


ILLINOIS 


COOK COUNTY 


INDIANA 


INDIANA 


IOWA 


IOWA 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


KENTUCKY 


LOUISVILLE 


LOUISIANA 


LAFAYETTE 


LOUISIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


BALTIMORE 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MIDDLESEX COU 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MINNESOTA 


MINNESOTA 


MISSOURI 


MISSOURI 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


NEBRASKA 


OMAHA 


NEVADA 


NEVADA 


NEW JERSEY 


NEW JERSEY 


NEW JERSEY 


CAMDEN COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEK JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


NEWARK 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSAIC COUNT 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSAIC COUNT 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSIAC COUNT 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


BUFFALO 


NEW YORK 


BUFFALO 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 



D-23 



222 



S Y S T E H 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



CRIMINAL HISTORY 
OHIO 
OHIO 
OHIO 
OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 
OKLAHOBA 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 
PENNSYLVANIA 
PENNSYLVANIA 
PENNSYLVANIA 
PUERTO RICO 
SOUTH CAROLINA 
TENNESSEE 
TENNESSEE 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TRXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
UTAH 
UTAH 

VIRGINIA 
VIRGINIA 
VIRGINIA 
WASHINGTON 



CINCINNATI 

COLUMBUS 

DAYTON 

FRANKLIN COUN 

OKLAHOMA 

TULSA 

OREGON 

OREGON 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

PORTLAND 

PORTLAND 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PHILADELPHIA 

PHILADELPHIA 

PHILADELPHIA 

PUERTO RICO 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

TENNESSEE 

NASHVILLE 

TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

DALLAS COUNTY 

EL PASO COUNT 

HOUSTON 

HOUSTON 

wichita falls 
uta:! 

UTAH 

VIRGINI A 
ALEXANDRIA 
FAIRFAX COUNT 
SPOKANE COUNT 



REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAB), P. 8-609 

CITY OF COLUMBUS COMPUTERS SYSTEM, P. B-526 

DAYTON POLICE, P. B-629 

FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PBOJCT, P. B-632 

OKLA. CRIMINAL S TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6«5 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA SYSTEM, P. B-663 

MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION, P. B-66S 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-572 

COURTS, P. B-679 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO-SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE II, P. B-68U 

COLOMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

COMMONWEALTH LAW ENFORCEM'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. 8-691* 

COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-70S 

COMBINED JUSTICE INFO. NETWORK OVER TERMINALS, P. B-710 

POLICE SYSTEM, P. D-712 

COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-718 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7U2 

CRIMINAL HISTORY, P. B-760 

DEPT OF PUB SAFETY SYS, P. B-792 

AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTIONS!, P. B-796 

DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM., P. B-811 

INFORMATION S COMMUNICATION PLAN AREA-WIDE, P. B-817 

COURTS, P. 8-820 

PERSON PROCESSING, P. B-838 

LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-a52 

COURTS INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-855 

VIRGINIA CRIMINAL INFORMATION NETWORK, P. 8-865 

POLICE INFO SYSTEM-EVENT SUBSYSTEM, P. B-87 3 

POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

THE INLAND EMPIRE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-903 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



104 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, 
CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, GEORGIA, 
HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, 

KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, 
MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, 
NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, 
PENNSYLVANIA, PUERTO RICO, SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, 
UTAH, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON 



CRIMINAL STATUTES 
NORTH DAKOTA 
WYOMING 



NORTH DAKOTA 
WYOMING 



STATUTE RETRIEVAL AND BILL STATUS SYSTEM, P. B-602 
AUTOMATED LEGAL TEXT ENTRY AND RETRIEVAL, P. B-938 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 2 

STATES INCLUDED NORTH DAKOTA, WYOMING 



DEFENDANT CONTROL 
ALABAMA 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
DELAWARE 
DIST. OF COL. 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
GEORGIA 
ILLINOIS 
KENTUCKY 



BIRMINGHAM 
MARICOPA COU 
PHOENIX 
PIMA COUNTY 
ORANGE COUNTY 
SANTA CLARA C 
DELAWARE 
WASHINGTON 
DADE COUNTY 
HILLSBOROUGH 
GEORGIA 
COOK COUNTY 
LOUISVILLE 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 
LAW ENFORCEMENT-JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-25 
AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-28 
CRIMINAL COURTS AUTOMATION PROJECT, P. B-35 
ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 
CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 
PROSECUTOR MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-193 
DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 
HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 
STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-250 
COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT!, P. B-298 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 



D-24 



223 



3 Y S T E rt 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



DEFENDANT CONTROL 
lASSACHU.iETTS 
•"ICHIGAN 
niCIIIGAN 
MICHIGAN 
MFP.^ASKA 
^FM .lERSEr 
NKW JPaSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW YORK 
■JEW YORK 
OHIO 
OHIO 
OHIO 
OKLAHONA 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 
PENNSYLVANIA 
TENNESSEE 
TEXAS 
UTAH 
WISCONSIN 



rlASSACHUSETTS 

1 ICHIGAN 

n ICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN 

OMAHA 

CAilDEN COUNTY 

HUDSON COUNTY 

HUDSON COUNTY 

HUDSON COUNTY 

PASSAIC COUNT 

NASSAU COUNTY 

NEW YORK CITY 

CINCINNATI 

CLEVELAND 

FRANKLIN COUN 

TULSA 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

PORTLAND 

PHILADELPHIA 

PITTSBURG 

NASHVILLE 

EL PASO COUNT 

UTAH 

KILWAUKEE COU 



SUPERIOR COURT CASE NANAGEMENT SYSTEd, P. B-382 

TRAFFIC AND ORDINANCE SYSTEM, P. B-390 

BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-J92 

CASE INFORMATION CONTROL SYSTEM, P. B-395 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-466 

COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-tSn 

JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL JAIL, P. B-<489 

JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL COURT, P. B-ll9<l 

SUP. CT. OF NJ-AUTOM'D CRIM. CASE PROCESSING SYS, P. B-U96 

AUTOMATED CRIMINAL CASE PROCESSING SYSTEM, P. B-505 

BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-553 

DA/SUPREME COURT RECORDS MANAGEMENT, P. B-572 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-618 

FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. B-632 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COURTS, P. B-679 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO-SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE II, P. B-bSU 

COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-705 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, P. B-715 

UEFENDANT TRACKING, P. B-787 

EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM., P. B-SII 

JUVENILE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-858 

INTEGRATED COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-93U 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



39 



STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL. 
FLORIDA, GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, MASSACHUSETTS, 
MICHIGAN, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, 
OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, 
UTAH, WISCONSIN 



DOCKETING 




ALABAMA 


BIRMINGHAM 


ALASKA 


ALASKA 


ARIZONA 


PHOENIX 


CALIFORNIA 


ORANGE COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


SAN FRANCISCO 


COLORADO 


DENVER 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


DELAWARE 


DELAWARE 


DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


FLORIDA 


DADE COUNTY 


FLORIDA 


HILLSBOROUGH 


FLOR IDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


GEORGIA 


ATLANTA SMSA 


ILLINOIS 


COOK COUNTY 


KENTUCKY 


LOUISVILLE 


LOUISIANA 


LAFAYETTE 


LOUISIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


1ICMIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


NEBRASKA 


OMAHA 


NEW JERSEY 


CAMDEN COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSAIC COUNT 


NEW MEXICO 


ALBUQUERQUE 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


BUFFALO 


NEW YORK 


NASSAU COUNTY 



B-5 



B-1«1 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INPO. SYSTEM, P. 
•ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B- 1 1 
AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-28 
ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 
BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. 0-103 
UNIFORM SUMMONS SYSTEM, P. B- 1 3 1 

IMPROVEMNT IN CRIM. COURT MANGMT 6 OPERATIONS, P. 
CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 
CRIMINAL SYSTEM, P. 8-213 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 
HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 
COURTS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-231 
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM, P. B-259 
COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT*, P. B-298 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 
AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMH. CREPORTING SYS, P. B-3U7 
TRAFFIC COURT, P. B-3Slt 

SUPERIOR COURT CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-382 
TRAFFIC AND ORDINANCE SYSTEM, P. B-390 
BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-392 
CASE INFORMATION CONTROL SYSTEM, P. B-395 
COURT COMPUTER SYSTEM, P. B-t32 
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-a3« 
CITY OF ST. LOUIS SYSTEM, P. B-(tU6 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-1466 
COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-l(8« 
JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL JAIL, P. 8-489 
JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL COURT, P. B-«91t 

AUTOMATED CRIMINAL CASE PROCESSING SYSTEM, P. B-505 
COURTS MISDEMEANORS, P. B-528 
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION, P. B-537 

ERIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MGT. INFO. SYSTEM, P. 8-518 
BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-553 



D-25 



224 



S f S T E « 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



DOCKETING 




NEK YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


ROCHESTER 


OHIO 


CINCINNATI 


OHIO 


CLEVELAND 


OHIO 


CLEVELAND 


OHIO 


FRANKLIN COUN 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


OKLAHOHA 


TULSA 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


PORTLAND 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


TEXAS 


AUSTIN 


TEXAS 


EL PASO COUNT 


TEXAS 


SAN ANTONIO 


UTAH 


UTAH 


WISCONSIN 


MILWAUKEE COD 



DA/SUPREME COURT RECORD 
ON-LINE INFORMATION SYS 
REGIONAL CRIME INFORMAT 
CLEVELAND POLICE COMPUT 
JUDICIAL INFORMATION SY 
FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, 
TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CR 
TRAFFIC COURT INF3RHATI 
AREA INFORMATION RECORD 
COLUMBIA REGION INFO-SH 
COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-705 
CRIMINAL .JUSTICE INFORM 
TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 3 
COURT DOCKETS - CRIMINA 
COURT DOCKETS - TRAFFIC 
AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTI 
EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL 
MUNICIPAL COURT MOVING 
JUVENILE INFORMATION SY 
INTEGRATED COURT INFORM 



S MANAGEMENT, P. B-572 

TEM (PLANNED) , P. B-580 

ION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

ER FILES, P. B-615 

STEM, P. B-618 

CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. B-632 
IM, IDENT. SYSTEM, P, B-652 
ON SYSTEM, P. B-659 

SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 
ARING SYSTEM-PHASE II, P. B-68U 

ATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 
YSTEH PHASE I, P. B-7142 
L, P. B-780 

P. B-781 
ONSt, P. B-796 

JUSTICE SYSTEM., P. B-8 1 1 
VIOLATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-822 
STEM, P. B-858 
ATION SYSTEM, P. B-931* 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



53 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, 
CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, GEORGIA, 
ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, 
MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, 
TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, WISCONSIN 



DRIVER REGISTRATION 
ALABAMA 
ALASKA 
ARKANSAS 
CALIFORNIA 
COLORADO 
CONNECTICUT 
CONNECTICUT 
CONN ECTICUT 
DELAWARE 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
GEORGIA 
HAWAII 
IDAHO 
ILLINOIS 
INDIANA 
INDIANA 
IOWA 
KANSAS 
KENTUCKY 
KENTUCKY 
LOrilSIANA 
MARYLAND 
MINNESOTA 
MISSISSIPPI 
MlSSOUrtl 
MONTANA 
NEBRASKA 
NEBRASKA 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW MEXICO 
NEW YORK 
NEW YORK 
NEW YORK 
NORTH CAROLINA 
NORTH DAKOTA 
OHIO 



BIRMINGHAM 

ALASKA 

ARKANSAS 

CALIFORNIA 

COLORADO 

CONNECTICUT 

CONNECTICUT 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

FLORIDA 

HILLSBOROUGH 

JACKSONVILLE 

GEORGIA 

HONOLULU 

IDAHO 

ILLINOIS 

INDIANA 

I NDIANAPOLIS 

IOWA 

KANSAS 

KENTUCKY 

LOUISVILLE 

LOUISIANA 

MARYLAND 

MINNESOTA 

MISSISSIPPI 

ST. LOUIS 

MONTANA 

NEBRASKA 

OMAHA 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW MEXICO 

NEW YORK 

NEW YOHK 

BUFFALO 

NORTH CAROLINA 

NORTH DAKOTA 

OHIO 



P. 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO 
DRIVER RECORD SYSTEM, P. B- 1 5 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 
AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, 
MOTOR VEHICLE, P. B-1211 

COMPUTERIZED CRIMINAL HISTORY, P. B-139 
MOTOR VEHICLE/JUDICIAL SYSTEM, P. B-Ht8 
LICENSE SYSTEM, P. B-150 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, 
FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-2 
HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-2 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, 
STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-2S0 
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P 
DRIVER LICENSING, P. B-278 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DATA SYSTEM 
INDIANA DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, 
POLICE AUTOMATED CASE ENTRY 5 RETBEIVAL 
TRAFFIC RECORDS 6 CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INFO 
HGHY COMM/HGWY PATROL TELETYPE NETWORK, 
LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 
LAWENFORCEMENTCOHPUTEi<IZEDCOMMUNICATIONS 
MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAB ENFORCEMENT SY 
MINHESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM,- P. D 
ON-LINE INQUIRY - DRIVER'S LICENSE, P. B 
MISSOURI DEPT. OF REVENUE SYSTEM (VIA SL 
TRAFFIC RECORDS, P. B-a55 

NEBRASKA CRIME INFORMATION SERVICE, P. B 
OM AHA/D0U>3LAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SY 
MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION, P. B-U81 
DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES, P. B-S20 
DRIVER REG FILES, P. 3-5J5 
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION, P. B-537 
CITY OF BUFFALO LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPUTER 
NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWOR 
TRAFFIC RECORDS, P. B-600 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATIC DATA SYSTEM, P 



SYSTEM, P. 8-5 



B-«5 
P. B-5 5 



P. B-168 
15 
25 
B-2J3 



B-272 



B-279 
P. B-302 
SYS., P. B-305 
SYST, P. B-309 
P. B-317 
B-33K 
B-338 

SYS, P. 8-342 
STEM, P. B-363 
-Ullt 
-U26 
MPD) , P. B-a50 

-Ub 1 

STEM, P. B-Hbf> 



OPNS, P. B-5U6 
K, P. B-588 



B-605 



D-26 



225 



S Y S T E (1 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



DRIVES REGISTRATION 
OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 
OREGON 
PENNSYLVANIA 
SOUTH CAROLINA 
SOUTH DAKOTA 
TENNESSEE 
TEKAS 
UTAH 

VIRGINIA 
WASHINGTON 
WEST VIRGINIA 
WISCONSIN 
WYOMING 



CINCINNATI 

OKLAHOMA 

OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

TENNESSEE 

WICHITA FALLS 

UTAH 

VIRGINIA 

WASHINGTON 

WEST VIRGINIA 

WISCONSIN 

WYOMING 



REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

OKLA. CRIMINAL i TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6115 

MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION, P. B-665 

PENN. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, P. B-699 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

MOTOR VEHICLE, P. 8-734 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. 8-742 

PERSON PROCESSING, P. B-838 

LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-852 

VIRGINIA PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-870 

A CENTRAL COMPUTERIZED ENFORCEMENT SEH. SYS., P. B-891 

TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-908 

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, P. B-910 

TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-936 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



52 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABA1A, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, 

CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII, 

IDAHO, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, 

KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MINNESOTA, MISSISSIPPI, 

MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEK JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, 

NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, 

OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, 

TEXAS, UTAH, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, 

WISCONSIN, WYOMING 



EgUIP INVENT08Y/MAINT 



COLORADO 
DIST. OF COL. 
NEW YORK 
TENNESSEE 
WASHINGTON 



COLORADO 
WASHINGTON 
NEW YORK 
NASHVILLE 
WASHINGTON 



COMPATIBLE REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-121 

RADIO EQUIPMENT INVENTORY E MAINTENANCE SYST. 

FLEET ACCOUNTING, P. B-543 

FLEET INVENTORY AND ACCOUNTING, P. B-754 

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS, P. B-893 



P. B-188 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 5 

STATES INCLUDED COLORADO, DIST. OF COL,, NEW YORK, TENNESSEE, WASHINGTON 



EVIDENCE CONTROL 
ALABAMA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALI FORNIA 
FLORIDA 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW YORK 



BIRMINGHAM 

ORANGE COUNTY 

SAN DIEGO 

TAMPA 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW YORK CITY 



NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE 



OREGON 

OREGON 

OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 

TENNESSEE 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 



LANE COUNTY 
LANE COUNTY 
PORTLAND 
PHILADELPHIA 
NASHVILLE 
DALLAS COUNTY 
WICHITA FALLS 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

PROPOSED LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-97 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMt, P. B-24b 

N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS. -PH. II, P. 8-478 

SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-558 

PUBLIC SAFETY - INTEGR ATEDMUN ICI PALINFOS YST , P. B-596 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 

EVIDENCE CONTROL, P. B-771 

DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

ARTICLE PROCESSING, P. B-8U5 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



14 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, 
NORTH CAROLINA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS 



FIELD CONTACT REP3RTING 



ALABAMA 

ARIZONA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 



BIRMINGHAM 
TUCSON 
LONG BEACH 
LOS ANGELES 
ORANGE COUNTY 
SACRAMENTO 
SAN DIEGO 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, 
AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TEAM SYS., 
PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-74 
AUTOMATED FIELD INTERVIEW SYSTEM, P. B-82 
ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. I 
SACRAMENTO CRIME AND ARREST REPORTING SYSTEM, 
PROPOSED LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-97 



8-5 
B-40 



B-92 



D-27 



226 



S Y 3 T E n 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



FIELD CONTACT KEP3RTING 



CALIFORNIA 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAHARE 

DIST. OP COL. 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

HAUAII 

ILLINOIS 

ILLINOIS 

KANSAS 

LOUISIANA 

MASSACHUSETTS 

nissoasi 

MISSOURI 

NEVADA 

NFW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NORTH CAROLINA 

OHIO 

OKLAHOHA 

OKLAHOHA 

OREGON 

OREGON 

OREGON 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

VIRGINIA 

VIRGINIA 

VIRGINIA 

UASHINGTON 



SAN FRANCISCO 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

WASHINGTON 

HILLSBOMOBGH 

TAMPA 

HONOLULU 

ILLINOIS 

CHICAGO 

KANSAS 

NEW ORLEANS 

MIDDLESEX COU 

MISSOURI 

ST. LOUIS 

NEVADA 

NASSAU COUNTY 

NE« YORK CITY 

NORTH CAROLINA 

CINCINNATI 

OKLAHOMA 

TULSA 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

PORTLAND 

AUSTIN 

DALLAS COUNTY 

WICHITA FALLS 

ALEXANDRIA 

FAIRFAX COUNT 

NORFOLK 

SEATTLE 



COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY AREA LAB ENFORCEMENT, 

STATE POLICE DATA PROCESSING UNIT, P. B-l«3 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. 

INCIDENTALS STATISTICAL REPORTING SYSTEM, P 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. B-2U6 

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. B-272 

TRAFFIC INFORMATION PLANNING SYSTEM, P. B-28U 

POLICE OPERATIONS, P. B-291 

HIGHWAY PATROL ADMINISTRATIVE INFO. SYSTEMS, 

METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P. 

POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-386 

MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL), 

S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-«42 

SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PHOTCTN 6 ENFCMT, 

POLICE DATA SYSTEMS, P. B-555 

SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-558 

NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. 

REGIONAL CHIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. 

OKLA. CRIMINAL S TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIH. IDENT. SYSTEM, P 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, 



B-100 



B-168 
B-185 



P. B-326 
B-351 



B-a28 



P. 8-1471 



B-588 

B-609 
, P. B-6«5 
B-652 
P. 8-6b6 



AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTIONS*, P. B-796 

DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

ARTICLE PROCESSING, P. B-8U6 

POLICE INFO SYSTEM-EVENT SUBSYSTEM, P. B-873 

POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-877 

TIDEWATER ELECTRONIC NETWORK POLICE INFO, P. B-881 

SEA-KING ALERT PLANNED, P. B-900 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



38 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABA1A, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, 
DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, KANSAS, 
LOUISIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, MISSOURI, NEVADA, NEW YORK, 
NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, TEXAS, 
VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON 



FIN£S,C0LLATERAL,3AIL 



ALABAMA 

ARIZONA 

CALIFORNIA 

COLORADO 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

DIST. OF COL. 

DIST. OF COL. 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

ILLINOIS 

KANSAS 

LOUISIANA 

MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN 

NEBRASKA 

SEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

OHIO 

OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 

OKLAHOMA 

OREGON 

OREGON 

OREGON 



BIRMINGHAM 

PHOENIX 

ORANGE COUNTY 

DENVER 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

WASHINGTON 

WASHINGTON 

FLORIDA 

DADE COUNTY 

HILLSBOROUGH 

COOK COUNTY 

WICHITA 

LAFAYETTE 

MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN 

OMAHA 

CAMDEN COUNTY 

NEWARK 

NEW YORK 

BUFFALO 

CLEVELAND 

FRANKLIN COUN 

TULSA 

TULSA 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-28 

ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

UNIFORM SUMMONS SYSTEM, P. B- 1 3 1 

IMPROVEMNT IN CRIM. COURT MANGMT & OPERATIONS, P. B- 1 U 1 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

COLLATERAL REFUND, P. B-197 

CRIMINAL SYSTEM, P. B-213 

FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT*, P. B-298 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY £ RETRVL, P. 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMM. 6REP0RTING SYS, P. 

TRAFFIC AND ORDINANCE SYSTEM, P. B-390 

BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-392 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, 

COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-48H 

NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-50 1 

ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION, P. B-537 

CITY COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-550 

JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-618 

FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. B-632 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

TRAFFIC COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-659 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COURTS, P. B-679 



B-329 
B-3U7 



B-H65 



D-28 



227 



s y S T E H 



FUNCTION 



I N D R X 



FINES, COLLATERAL, BAIL 



OREGON 
PENNSYLVANIA 



PORTLAND 
PHILADELPHIA 



SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA 



TENNESSEE 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

mSCONSIN 



NASHVILLE 
AUSTIN 
DALLAS 
HOUSTON 
WICHITA FALLS 
niLWAUKEE COD 



COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHABING SXSTEH-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

COURT SYSTEHS, P. B-705 

CRIHINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

FINE, COLLATERAL S BAIL CONTROL, P. B-7BS 

AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTIONSt, P. B-796 

POLICE DATA BASE, P. B-802 

COURTS, P. B-820 

MUNICIPAL COURT SYSTEM, P. B-aHU 

CASH REPORTING, P. B-930 



NURBER OF SYSTEMS 



37 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, 
DELAWARE, DISI. OF COL., FLORIDA, ILLINOIS, KANSAS, 
LOUISIANA, MICHIGAN, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CABOLINA, 
TENNESSEE, TEXAS, WISCONSIN 



FINGERPRINT PROCESSING 



ALASKA 


ALASKA 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


OAKLAND 


CALIFORNIA 


SAN DIEGO 


CONNECTICUT 


BRIDGEPORT 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


DADE COUNTY 


FLORIDA 


MIAMI 


GEORGIA 


GEORGIA 


HAWAII 


HONOLULU 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


LOUISIANA 


LAFAYETTE 


LOUISIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MIDDLESEX COU 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


NEW JERSEY 


NEW JERSEY 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSAIC COUNT 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSIAC COUNT 


NRW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


ROCHESTER 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLIN 


OHIO 


DAYTON 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


TEXAS 


WICHITA PALLS 


UTAH 


UTAH 


VIRGINIA 


NORFOLK 



ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-11 

OPTIMUM REC. AUTO. FOR COURTS 6 LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-61 

AUTOMATED INDEX, P. B-b3 

STATISTICAL SYSTEM, P. B-72 

COMPUTER RETRIEVAL OF IDENTITY C B. 0. ELEMENT, P. B-86 

PROPOSED LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-97 

BRIDGEPORT CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-157 

FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

GENERAL APPEA RANCEO FCHI MI N AL»HAB ITS ANALYZED, P. 8-214 

STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-250 

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. B-272 

COMPUTERIZED CRIMINAL HISTORY, P. B-282 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMM. 5REP0RTING SYS, P. B-3U7 

METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P. 8-351 

POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-386 

FINGERPRINT PROCESSING, P. B-U03 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-I»3tt 

N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS. -PH. II, P. 8-1478 

JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPT., P. B-U91 

PLANNED PASSAIC COUNTY SYSTEM*. P. B-510 

PATERSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. 8-513 

N. Y. STATE IDENTIFICATION 6 INTELLIGENCE SYS., P. B-532 

SPRINT BACKUP, P. 8-562 

1U01 SYSTEM, P. 8-566 

MIRACODE, P. B-587 

NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-588 

DAYTON POLICE, P. B-629 

OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENPOBCEBENT SYS., P. B-6K5 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

CPA300, P. 8-761 

PERSON PROCESSING, P. B-838 

LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEB, P. B-852 

TIDEWATER ELECTRONIC NETWORK POLICE INFO, P. 8-881 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



36 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, 
HAWAII, ILLINOIS, LOUISIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, 
MISSOURI, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH CABOLINA, OHIO, 
OKLAHOMA, OREGON, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, 
VIRGINIA 



FIRE/CIVIL DEFENSE 
CALIFORNIA 



LONG BEACH 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEB, P. B-7H 



D-29 



228 



S Y S T F M 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



FIRE/CIVIL DEFliNSE 

STATES INCLnOED 



CALIFORNIA 



REO.LOCAT ION INDEX 

TENNESSEE NASHVILLE 



BUSINESS AND ALARM LOCATOR, P. B-76« 



Ntmafn of svsteis i 

STATES INCLUDED TENNESSEE 



GRANT ThACKINd 
ALABAMA 

AMERICAN SAMn^ 
ARKANSAS 
nE LA WARS 
ILLINOIS 
ILLINOIS 
TOW A 

MICHIGAN 
NEW M F X r cn 
NEW KORK 
OKLAHOMA 
PENNSYLVAM A 
SOUTH CAROLINA 
SOUTH CAROLINA 
SOUTH DAKOTA 
TENNESSEE 
TEXAS 
VIRnlNIA 
WYOMING 



BIRHINTHAM 

AMER. SAMOA 

ARKANSAS 

DELAWARE 

I LLINOIS 

ILLINOIS 

IOWA 

M ICHIGAN 

NEW MEXICO 

BUFFALO 

OKLAHOMA 

PHILADELPHIA 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

TENNESSEE 

TEXAS 

VIRGINIA 

WYOMING 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. E 

GOVT. AM. SAMOA ACCOUNTING SYSTEMI, P. 3-17 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U5 

CRIMINAL LAW fINIFOPM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. D- 1 68 

SUBGRANT ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, P. B-286 

LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPT. GEN. ECONOMIC REPORT. SYS., 

TRAFFIC RECORDS 6 CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. 

GRANT TRACKING, P. B-lt09 

STATE PLANNING AGENCY, P. D-523 

CITY OF BUFFALO LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPUTER OPNS, P 

OKLA. CRIMINAL S TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P 

PHILADELPHIA JUSTICE INFORMATION MODEL, P. B-703 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

AUTOMATED DATA SERVICES, P. B-728 

GRANT ACCOUNTING, P. B- 7 ! 1 

TFNN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7a2 

TX. CBIM. JUST. CNCL. MANA. INFOR. 6FINA. REPORT 

GRANTS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-871 

GRANT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P B-939 



P. B-290 
B-309 



B-5Ub 
B-6U5 



STS, P. B-795 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



19 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, AMERICAN SAMOA, ARKANSAS, DELAWARE, ILLINOIS, 
IOWA, MICHIGAN, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, OKLAHOMA, 

PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, 
VIRGINIA, WYOMING 



INMATE ACCOUNTING 
ALABAMA 
ALASKA 
ARIZONA 
ARKANSAS 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CONNECTICUT 
DELAWARE 
DIST. OF COL. 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
GEORGIA 
GEORGIA 
HAWAII 
ILLINOIS 
INDIANA 
IOWA 

LOUI SIANA 
LOUI SIANA 
MARYLAND 
MICHIGAN 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 



BIRMINGHAM 
ALASKA 

MARICOPA COU 
ARKANSAS 
CALIFORN lA 
L. A. COUNTY 
ORANGE COUNTY 
SANTA CLARA C 
CONNECTICUT 
DELAWARE 
WASHINGTON 
DADE COUNTY 
HILLSBOROUGH 
GEORGIA 
ATLANTA SMSA 
HAWAII 
ILLINOIS 
INDIANA 
IOWA 

LOUISIANA 
NEW ORLEANS 
M ARYLAND 
MICHIGAN 
CAMDEN COUNTY 
HUDSON COUNTY 
HUDSON COUNTY 
HUDSON COUNTY 
PASSAIC COUNT 
PASSIAC COUNT 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B- 1 1 

LAW ENFORCEMENT-JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-25 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U5 

YOUTH AUTHORITY DATA PROCESSING OFFICE, P. B-57 

AUTOMATED JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-68 

ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

CONN. ON-LINE REC. f.RESEARCH FOR EFF. CRIB. TRTMT, P. B-155 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

WASH. D. C. CORRECTIONS RECORD INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-195 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-253 

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM, P. B-259 

CORRECTIONS S PAROLE, P. B-270 

CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-288 

INDIANA DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, P. a-302 

TRAFFIC RECORDS 5 CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. B-309 

STATE COMP CENTER (CORRECTIONS), P. 8-315 

METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P. B-351 

VARIOUS BATCH ORIENTED SYSTEMS, P. B-367 

MICHIGAN STATE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM!, P. B-397 

COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-Ufll 

JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL JAIL, P. B-«89 

JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL COURT, P. B-U9U 

SUP. CT. OF NJ-AUTOM'D CSIM. CASE PROCESSING SYS, P. B-495 

INMATE HISTORY AND CONTROL SYSTEM, P. B-508 

JAIL INVENTORY SYSTEM, P. B-512 



D-30 



229 



SVSIEd FUNCTION INDEK 



IN!1ftTE ACCOUNTINS 

NEJ YORK NEa JORK SOC lO-PSTCHOLOGICAL INFORHATION SKSTEN, P. B-530 

MRH YORK NASSAU COUNTY BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-5S3 

NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY INNATE INfORHATION SYSTEM, P. B-557 

NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-592 

OHIO CINCINNATI REGIONAL CRIME INF3R(1ATI0N CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

OHIO CLEVELAND SHERIFF INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-621 

OHIO FRANKLIN COUN FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. d-632 

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6U5 

OKLAHOMA TULSA TULSA REG. AUTOMATED C8 IM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

OREGON LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

OREGON PORTLAND COLUMBIA REGION INFO. S HA R ING-SYSTEM- PHASE III, P. B-693 

PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES, BUR. OF CORRECTION, P. B-697 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-70S 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA COMBINED JUSTICE INFO. NETWORK OVER TERMINALS, P. B-708 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS MGMT. INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-726 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM, P. B-729 

TENNESSEE TENNESSEE TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7112 

TEXAS TEXAS INMATE TRACKING SYSTEM, P. B-790 

TEXAS EL PASO COUNT EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM., P. B-8 1 1 

TEXAS HOUSTON COURTS, P. B-820 

TEXAS SAN ANT3NI0 BEXAR COUNTY CRIM. JUST. INFO. SYS-PHASE I, P. B-flia 

TEXAS WICHITA FALLS PERSON PROCESSING, P. B-8Jfl 

VIRGINIA VIRGINIA INMATE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-868 

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON DIVISION OF RES EARCH- IN FORM ATION SYSTEM, P. B-895 

WASHINGTON SPOKANE COUNT THE INLAND EMPIRE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-903 

WISCONSIN WISCONSIN INSTITUTION POPULATION INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-913 

WISCONSIN WISCONSIN FOSTER HOME SYSTEM, P. B-917 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 56 

STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, 

CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, GEORGIA, 
HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, LOUISIANA, 

MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, 
TENNESSEE, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN 

INMATE RECORDS 

ALASKA ALASKA ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B- 1 1 

ARKANSAS ARKANSAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-«5 

CALIFORNIA L. A. COUNTY OPTIMUM REC. AUTO. FOR COURTS 6 LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-&1 

CALIFORNIA L. A. COUNTY AUTOMATED JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-58 

CALIFORNIA ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-100 

CONNECTICUT CONNECTICUT CONN. ON-LINE REC. CRESEABCH FOB EFF. CRIM. TRTMT, P. B-155 

DELAWARE DELAWA.-<E CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-163 

DIST. OF COL. WASHINGTON WASH. 0. C. CORRECTIONS RECORD INFO. SYSTEM, P. fl-195 

FLORIDA FLORIDA FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

FLORIDA HILLSBOROUGH HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

GEORGIA GEORGIA CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-253 

GEORGIA ATLANTA SMSA JUVENILE COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-257 

GEOKGIA ATLANTA SMSA JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM, P. B-259 

HAWAII HAWAII CORRECTIONS 6 PAROLE, P. B-270 

ILLINOIS ILLINOIS CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-288 

IOWA IOWA TRAFFIC RECORDS CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. B-309 

LOUISIANA LOUISIANA STATE COMP CENTER (CORRECTIONS), P. B-315 

LOUISIANA NEW ORLEANS METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P. B-351 

lARYLAND MARYLAND MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-363 

MARYLAND MARYLAND VARIOUS BATCH ORIENTED SYSTEMS, P. B-3b7 

MASSACHUSETTS MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P'. B-379 

MICHIGAN MICfllGAN MICHIGAN STATE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM*. P. B-397 

NEW JERSEY NEW JERSEY N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS. -PH. II, P. B-U78 

NEW JERSEY PASSAIC COUNT INMATE HISTORY AND CONTROL SYSTEM, P. B-508 

NEW YORK NEW YORK SOC lO-PSYCHOLOGIC AL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-530 

NEW YORK NEi. YORK CITY INMATE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-557 

NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. R-592 

OHIO CLEVELAND SHERIFF INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-621 

OHIO FRANKLIN COUN FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. B-b32 



D-31 



230 



S » S T E (1 



FUNCTION 



I H Q E X 



INBATE RECORDS 
OKLAHOMA 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 
"ENNSKLVANI A 
SODTH CAROLINA 
SOUTH CAROLINA 
TEXAS 
UTAH 

VIRGINIA 
WASHINGTON 



OKLAHONA 

OREGON 

LANE COUNTY 

PORTLAND 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PHILADELPHIA 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

SAN ANTONIO 

UTAH 

VIRGINIA 

HASHINGTON 



OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6U5 

LAS ENFOBCEHENT DATA SYSTEH, P. B-663 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. S HA RI NG-SYSTEM-PHAS E III, P. B-693 

CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES, BUR. OF CORRECTION, P. B-597 

COMBINED JUSTICE INFO. NETWORK OVER TERMINALS, P. B-708 

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS MGMT. INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-726 

YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM, P. B-729 

BEXAR COUNTY CBIH. JUST. INFO. SYS-PHASE I, P. B-82U 

CORRECTIONS INFORMATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-856 

INMATE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-868 

DIVISION OF RESEARCH-INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-895 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



U3 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALASKA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, 
DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, 
IOWA, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, 
NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, 
OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS, UTAH, 
VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON 



INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM 

ALASKA ALASKA 

ARIZONA MARICOPA COU 



ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-11 

LAW ENFORCEHENT-JODICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-25 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 2 

STATES INCLUDED ALASKA, ARIZONA 



JUNK LIST 

VIRGINIA 



NORFOLK 
NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 1 
STATES INCLUDED VIRGINIA 



JUNK LIST, P. B-886 



JURY MANAGEMENT 
ALASKA 
ARIZONA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALI FORNIA 
COLORADO 
DELAWARE 
DIST. OF COL. 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
HAWAII 
ILLINOIS 
KENTUCKY 
MARYLAND 
MICHIGAN 
MISSOURI 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW YORK 
OHIO 
OMIO 
OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 
OREGON 
naFGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 
PENNSYLVANIA 
PUERTO RICO 



ALASKA 

PIMA COUNTY 

SAN FRANCISCO 

SANTA CLARA C 

C0L0RAD3 

DELAWARE 

WASHINGTON 

HILLSBOROUGH 

JACKSONVILLE 

HAWAII 

COOK COUNTY 

LOUISVILLE 

BALTIMORE 

MICHIGAN 

JACKSON COUNT 

CAMDEN COUNTY 

PASSAIC COUNT 

NEW YORK CITY 

CLEVELAND 

CLEVELAND 

FRANKLIN COUN 

OKLAHOMA 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

PORTLAND 

PHILADELPHIA 

PITTSBURG 

PUERTO RICO 



P. B-168 



3-225 
P. B-231 



B-338 



ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-11 

CRIMINAL COURTS AUTOMATION PROJECT, P. B-35 

BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-103 

JURY SELECTION, P. B- 1 1 4 

COURT AND PROBATION CONTROL, P. B-119 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, 

JURY SELECTION, P. B-212 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. 

COURTS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, 

JURY SELECTION f, MANAGEMENT, P. B-268 

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT", P. B-298 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

PROBATION, P. B-377 

BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-392 

COURT COMPUTER SYSTEM, P. B-H32 

JURY SELECTION, P. H-U87 

AUTOMATED CRIMINAL CASE PROCESSING SYSTEM, P. B-505 

JURY SELECTION, P. B-568 

JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-618 

CALENDAR MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-623 

FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. B-632 

COURT CLEPKS SYSTEM, P. 8-613 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COURTS, P. B-679 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-687 

COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-705 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, P. B-715 

COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-718 



D-32 



231 



s r S T E H 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



JURY HANAGEKENT 

SOOTH CAROLINA SOUTH CABOLINA 

TEXAS AUSTIN 

TEXAS EL PASO COUNT 



NUflDER OF SYSTEftS 



32 



CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORHATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

AUSTIN ADT01ATED FUNCTIONS*. P. B-796 

EL PASO COUNTY CRIIUNAL JUSTICE SYSTEH., P. B-811 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALASKA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, DELAWARE, 
DIST. OF COL. , FLORIDA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, 
MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, MISSOURI, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, P3ERT0 RICO, 
SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS 



JUVENILE INDEX 
ALABAMA 
ARIZONA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
COLORADO 
niST. OF COL. 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
HAWAII 
KANSAS 
KANSAS 
KENTUCKY 
LOUISIANA 
LOUISIANA 
lARYLAND 
MARYLAND 
MINNESOTA 
MINNESOTA 
MISSOURI 
MISSOURI 
MISSOURI 
NEVADA 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW YORK 
NEW YORK 
NEW YORK 



BIRMINGHAM 

TUCSON 

L. A. COUNTY 

LONG BEACH 

ORANGE COUNTY 

SACRAMENTO 

SAN FRANCISCO 

SANTA CLARA C 

COLORADO SPRI 

WASHINGTON 

HILLSBOROUGH 

MIAMI 

TAMPA 

HONOLULU 

KANSAS 

WICHITA 

LOUISVILLE 

LAFAYETTE 

NEW ORLEANS 

MARYLAND 

BALTIMORE 

MINNESOTA 

ST. PAUL 

MISSOURI 

JACKSON COUNT 

ST. LOUIS 

NEVADA 

NEWARK 

NASSAU :OUNTY 

NEW YORK CITY 

NEW YORK CITY 



NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE 
OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA 



OKLAHOMA 

OREGON 

OREGON 

OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PENNSYLVANIA 

TEXAS 

UTAH 

VIRGINIA 

WASHINGTON 



TULSA 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PHILADELPHIA 

DALLAS 

UTAH 

NORFOLK 

WASHINGTON 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEH, P. B-5 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMSI, P. B-«3 

OPTIMUM REC. AUTO. FOR COURTS 6 LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-61 

PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-7« 

ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

SACRAMENTO CRIME AND ARREST REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-92 

COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-100 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS. 

YOUTH DIVISION INFORMATION SYSTEH, P. B-187 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

ARREST SYSTEM, P. B-237 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. B-2U6 

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. B-272 

KANSAS LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM, P. B-319 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETBVL, P. 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMM. 5BEP0RTING SYS, P. 

METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P. B-351 

VARIOUS BATCH ORIENTED SYSTEMS, P. B-367 

AUTOMATED CRIMINAL RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-372 

MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-I41U 

ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U22 

MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL) , 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-I431t 

S. L. H. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-l»«2 

SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PROTCTN & ENFCHT, 

NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

POLICE DATA SYSTEMS, P. B-555 

SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-562 

1401 SYSTEM, P. B-566 

PUBLIC SAFETY - INTEGR ATEDMUN IC IPALINFOS YST, P. 

OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

JUVENILE DEPT, P. B-682 

COMMONWEALTH LAW ENFORCEM'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. B-69« 

POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 

POLICE DATA BASE, P. B-8J2 

LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-852 

TIDEWATER ELECTRONIC NETWORK POLICE INFO, P. B-891 

WASHINGTON CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-888 



P. B-125 



B-329 



B-3a7 



B-U28 



P. B-t71 
B-50 1 



B-595 
P. B-6IJ5 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



Hi 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, DIST. OF COL., 

FLORIDA, HAWAII, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, 

MARYLAND, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, 

NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OKLAHOHA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, 

TEXAS, UTAH, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON 



JUVENILE RECORDS 
ARIZONA 
CALIFORNIA 



PIMA COUNTY 
ORANGE COUNTY 



CRIMINAL COURTS AUTOMATION PROJECT, P. B-35 
ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFOHHATION SYSTEH, P. 



B-88 



D-33 



490-522 O - 73 - 64 



34-78 



O - 74 - 16 



232 



S » S T E n 



PONCTION 



INDEX 



JUVENILE RECOfiDS 
DELAWARE 
DIST. OP COL. 
GEORGIA 
ILLINOIS 
KANSAS 
KENTUCKY 
BARYLAND 
HISSOURI 
nlSSOURI 
NEBRASKA 
NEW JERSEY 
NEB YORK 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 
PENNSYLVANIA 
PENNSYLVANIA 
-PUERTO RICO 
SOUTH CAROLINA 
SOUTH DAKOTA 
TENNESSEE 
TEXAS 
UTAH 



DELAWARE 

WASHINGTON 

ATLANTA SHSA 

COOK COUNTY 

WICHITA 

LOUISVILLE 

NARYLAND 

JACKSON COUNT 

ST. LOUIS 

NEBRASKA 

NEWARK 

NASSAU COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PHILADELPHIA 

PITTSBURG 

PUERTO RICO 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

NASHVILLE 

EL PASO COUNT 

UTAH 



CRIMINAL LAW UNIFOBH ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. 8-168 

JUVENILE INDEXING, P. 8-201 

JUVENILE COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-257 

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT*, P. 8-298 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY f. RETBVL, P. 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

VARIOUS BATCH ORIENTED SYSTEMS, P. B-367 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. 8-431 

S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. 8-112 

UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING, P. B-165 

NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-t 

BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-553 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. 

COURTS, P. B-679 

JUVENILE DEPT, P. 8-682 

PA. CRIM. JUST. INFO. SYS. -BUR. OF CfilM. JUST 

COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-705 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, P. B-715 

COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-7 18 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

JUVENILE STATISTICS, P. 8-732 

JUVENILE RECORDS MANAGEMENT, P. B-789 

EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM., P. B-8 1 1 

JUVENILE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-858 



B-329 



P. 8-666 
8-672 



STATS, P. B-700 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



27 



STATES INCLUDED 



ABIZ3NA, CALIFORNIA, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., GEORGIA, 

ILLINOIS, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, MARYLAND, MISSOURI, 

NEBRASKA, NEB JERSEY, NEW YORK, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, 

PUERTO RICO, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, 

UTAH 



LICENSING/REGISTRATION 



ARIZONA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

COLORADO 

CONNECTICUT 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

HAWAII 

ILLINOIS 

KENTUCKY 

LOUISIANA 

MARYLAND 

MASSACHUSETTS 

NEBRASKA 

NEVADA 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

OHIO 

OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 

OREGON 

OREGON 

TENNESSEE 

TENNESSEE 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

VIRGINIA 

WEST VIRGINIA 

WISCONSIN 



PHOENIX 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

COLORADO SPHI 

BRIDGEPORT 

HARTFORD 

DELAWARE 

HILLSBOROUGH 

TAMPA 

HONOLULU 

ILLINOIS 

KENTUCKY 

NEW ORLEANS 

MARYLAND 

MIDDLESEX COU 

OMAHA 

NEVADA 

PASSAIC COUNT 

NEW YORK 

BUFFALO 

NEW YORK CITY 

OHIO 

CINCINNAT I 

TULSA 

LANE COUNTY 

PORTLAND 

TENNESSEE 

NASHVILLE 

DALLAS 

EL PASO COUNT 

WICHITA FALLS 

FAIRFAX COUNT 

WEST VIRGINIA 

WISCONSIN 



B-351 
P. 8-363 



DISPATCH, D. R. ARREST 6 TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SYSTEM, P. 8-31 

CALIF. JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-50 

AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-55 

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B-125 

BRIDGEPORT CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-157 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-160 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. 8-168 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. B-21b 

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. B-272 

FIREARM OWNERS IDENTIFICATION DIVISION, P. B-287 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. B-331 

METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P. 

MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, 

POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-386 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, 

SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOB PROTCTN 6 ENFCNT 

PLANNED PASSAIC COUNTY SYSTEM*, P. B-510 

N. Y. STATE IDENTIFICATION 6 INTELLIGENCE SYS 

CITY OF BUFFALO LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPUTER OPNS 

SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-5o2 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATIC DATA SYSTEM, P. 8-605 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR)/ P. B-609 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEH-PHASE 1, P. 8-689 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-712 

FIREARMS REGISTRATION, P. B-772 

POLICE DATA BASE, P. B-802 

EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM., P. B-8 1 1 

PERSON PROCESSING, P. B-838 

POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-377 

W. VA. DEPT. OF PUB. SAFETY-POL. BATCH PROCESSING, P. B-906 

FOSTER HOME SYSTEM, P. B- 9 1 7 



8-166 
. B-171 



, P. B-532 
P. 8-516 



D-34 



233 



S Y S T E B 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



Lie EN SING/PEG I ST RATION 

WISCONSIN !1ADIS0N 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



35 



MADISON AREA POLICE DEPARTMENT, P. B-925 



STATES INCLUDED 



ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, 
FLORIDA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, 
MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, 
NEW YORK, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, TENNESSEE, 
TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN 



MEDICAL REPORTS 
COLORADO 
MICHIGAN 



COLORADO 
DETROIT 



COMPATIBLE REPORTING SYSTEM, P. 8-121 
DETROIT ELECTRNC COMPTR 6 TELEPROCESS. 



SYST., 



B-«11 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 2 

STATES INCLUDED COLORADO, MICHIGAN 



MENU PLANNING 
GEORGIA 
OHIO 



GEORGIA 
CINCINNATI 



SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA 



WISCONSIN 



WISCONSIN 



CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. 8-253 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), 

YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM, P. B-729 

MEAL PATTERN SYSTEM, P. B-91U 



P. B-609 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS « 

STATES INCLUDED GEORGIA, OHIO, SOUTH CAROLINA, WISCONSIN 



MISSING PERSONS 
ALABAMA 
ALASKA 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
ARKANSAS 
CALIFORNIA 
COLORADO 
COLORADO 
COLORADO 
CONNECTICUT 
CONNECTICUT 
DELAWARE 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLOR IDA 
FLOHIDA 
HAWAII 
ILLINOIS 
ILLINOIS 
INDIANA 
INDIANA 
IOWA 
TOWA 
KANSAS 
KANSAS 
KENTUCKY 
LOUISIANA 
MARYLAND 
MASSACHUSETTS 
MASSACHUSETTS 
MINNESOTA 
HINNi-?SOTA 

Hissouai 

NEBRASKA 
NEBRASKA 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW YORK 
NEW YORK 



BIRMINGHAM 

ALASKA 

ARIZONA 

TUCSON 

ARKANSAS 

SAN FRANCISCO 

COLORADO 

COLORADO SPHI 

DENVER 

HARTFORD 

NEW HAVEN 

DELAWARE 

FLORIDA 

DADE COUNTY 

JACKSONVILLE 

TAMPA 

HONOLULU 

ILLINOIS 

CHICAGO 

INDIANA 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IOWA 

POLK COUNTY 

KANSAS 

WICHITA 

KENTUCKY 

NEW ORLEANS 

MARYLAND 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MIDDLESEX COU 

MINNESOTA 

ST. PAUL 

JACKSON COUNT 

NEBRASKA 

OMAHA 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK CITY 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAS ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B- 1 1 

ARIZONA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. 8-18 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TEAM SYS., P. 8-10 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U5 

COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. 8-100 

COLORADO CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B- 1 1 5 

MULTI-JURISDICTIDNAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B-125 

DENVER CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-128 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-160 

CASE INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-163 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. 8-219 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMI, P. B-2U6 

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. 8-272 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DATA SYSTEM, P. 8-279 

HOT DESK, P. B-296 

INDIANA DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-302 

POLICE AUTOMATED CASE ENTRY 6 RETREIVAL SYS., P. 

TRAFFIC RECORDS 6 CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK CENTRAL, P. 8-311 

KANSAS LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM, P. B-319 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. B-33U 

METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P. 8-351 

MARYLAND INTEH-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. 8-363 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-379 

POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-386 

MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-mt 

ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U22 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-H3U 

NEBRASKA CRIME INFORMATION SERVICE, P. B-U6 1 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. 6-166 

N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS-PHASE 1, P. 8-176 

N. Y. STATE IDENTIFICATION S INTELLIGENCE SYS., P. 8-532 

SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. 8-558 



8-305 
8-309 



B-329 



D-35 



234 



STSTEH FUHCTIOII INDEX 



MISSING PERSONS 

NEW YORK HEU YORK CITY SPRINT B&CKOP, P. B-562 

NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETNORK, P. B-588 

NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE PUBLIC SAFETY - INTEGRA TEDB ONICI PA LI NFOSYST, P. B-596 

OHIO OHIO LAW ENFORCEMENT 40TOMATIC DATA SYSTEM, P. B-605 

OHIO CINCINNATI REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-509 

OKLAHOMA TULSA TOLSA REG. AUTOMATED GRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

OREGON OREGON LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA SYSTEM, P. B-661 

OREGON LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-656 

OREGON LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

OREGON PORTLAND COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

SOUTH DAKOTA SIOUX FALLS REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 

TENNESSEE NASHVILLE MISSING PERSONS, P. B-770 

TEXAS TEXAS DEPT OF PUB SAFETY SYS, P. B-792 

TEXAS WICHITA FALLS PERSON PROCESSING, P. B-838 

VIRGINIA VIRGINIA VIRGINIA CRIMINAL INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-866 

VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA POLICE INFO SYSTEM-EVENT SUBSYSTEM, P. B-873 

VIRGINIA FAIRFAX COUNT POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON CHIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-888 

WASHINGTON SEATTLE SEA-KING ALERT, P. B-898 

WASHINGTON SPOKANE COUNT THE INLAND EMPIRE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-903 

WISCONSIN MADISON MADISON AREA POLICE DEPARTMENT, P. B-925- 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 61 

STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, 

COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, HAWAII, 

ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, 

LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, 

NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, 

OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SODTH DAKOTA, 

TENNESSEE, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN 

MOBILIZATION DATA 

MICHIGAN DETROIT DETROIT ELECTRNC COMPTR 6 TELEPHOCESS. SYST., P. B-U11 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 1 

STATES INCLUDED MICHIGAN 

MODUS OPERANDI 

ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA MODUS OPERANDI, P. B-5U 

CALIFORNIA LONG BEACH PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-714 

CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES PATTERN RECOGNITION 6 INFORMATION CORRELATION, P. 8-78 

CALIFORNIA OAKLAND COMPUTER RETRIEVAL OF IDENTITY 6 M. 0. ELEMENT, P. B-86 

CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO PROPOSED LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-97 

COLORADO COLORADO SPRI HULT I- J U RI SDICT ION AL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B-125 

DELAWARE DELAWARE CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

FLORIDA DADE CO'JNTY DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-2 19 

FLORIDA HILLSBOROUGH HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

FLORIDA MIAMI GENERAL APPEA BANCEOFCR IMI N AL»H ABITS ANALYZED, P. 8-2144 

LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COHM. 6REP0BTING SYS, P. B-3l*7 

MARYLAND DALTIMORE AUTOMATED CRIMINAL RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-372 

MICHIGAN MICHIGAN MODUS OPERANDI, P. 8-108 

:iICHIGAN DETROIT DETROIT ELECTRNC COMPTR S TELEPROCESS. SYST., P. B-411 

MINNESOTA ST. PAUL ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-122 

MISSOURI MISSOURI MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL), P. B-128 

MISSOURI JACKSON COUNT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-131 

NEVADA NEVADA SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PBOTCTN 6 ENFCMT, P. 8-171 

NEW JERSEY CAMDEN COMPUTERIZED CRIME ANALYSIS, P. B-182 

NRW JSHSFY HUDSON COUNTY JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPT., P. B-191 

NEW JERSEY NEWARK NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-501 

NEW JERSEY PASSAIC COUNT PLANNED PASSAIC COUNTY SYSTEM!, P. 8-510 

NEW JERSEY PASSIAC COUNT PATERSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. 8-513 

NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-558 

NRW YORK NEW YORK CITY SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-562 



D-36 



235 



s Y s T e a 



POHCTION 



INDEX 



nODUS nPERiNOI 
OKLAHOMA 
OKLAHOfIA 
OREfiON 
OREGON 
OREGON 

SOUTH DAKOTA 
TENNESSEE 
TENNESSEE 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
VIRGINIA 
WASHINGTON 



OKLAHOBA 
TULSA 

LANE COUNT! 
LANE COUNTY 
PORTLAND 
SIOUX FALLS 
NASHVILLE 
NASHVILLE 
DALLAS COUNTY 
WICHITA FALLS 
WICHITA FALLS 
FAIRFAX COUNT 
SPOKANE COUNT 



OKLA. CBIHINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. 8-615 

TULSA REG. AUTOflATEO CSId. IDENT. SYSTEH, P. B-652 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 

CPAJOO, P. B-761 

MODUS OPERANDI PROCESSING 6 PROFILE SEARCH, P. B-762 

DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

PERSON PROCESSING, P. B-838 

EVENT PROCESSING, P. B-Stl 

POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

THE INLAND EMPIRE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-903 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



39 



STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, 

LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, 
NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, 
SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON 



NARCOTICS CONTROL 
ALABAMA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CONNECTICUT 
DELAWARE 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
LOUISIANA 
NEVADA 
NEW YORK 
NEW YORK 
OKLAHOMA 
OREGON 
TENNESSEE 
TENNESSEE 
TEXAS 



BIRHINGBAM 

CALIFORNIA 

SANTA CLARA C 

NEW HAVEN 

DELAWARE 

HILLSBOROUGH 

TAMPA 

NEW ORLEANS 

NEVADA 

NEW YORK CITY 

ROCHESTER 

OKLAHOMA 

PORTLAND 

TENNESSEE 

NASHVILLE 

SAN ANTONIO 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW EHFOBCEHENT INFO 

NARCOTICS CONTROL, P. B-53 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

CASE INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-163 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. 8-225 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM!, P. 8-216 

METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P 

SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PROTCTN 6 ENFCMT, 

SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-558 

OFFENSES REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-582 

OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6a5 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. 6-742 

NARCOTICS CONTROL, P. B-763 

POLICE-DA NARCOTICS REFERRAL LIST, P. B-837 



SYSTEM, P. B-5 



B-351 

P. B-U71 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



16 



STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, 
LOUISIANA, NEVADA, NEW YORK, OKLAHOBA, OREGON, 
TERNESSEE, TEXAS 



ORGANIZED CRIME 
ALABAMA 
CALIFORNIA 
DELAWARE 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
IOWA 
KANSAS 

Kansas 
michigan 
missouri 
missouri 
new jersey 
new jersey 

NEW YORK 
NEW YORK 
OKLAHOMA 
TENNESSEE 



BIRSIMGBAS BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO CRIME AND ARREST REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-92 

DELAWARE CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

FLORIDA FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

DADE COUNTY DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

HILLSBOROUGH HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

MIAMI SYS FOR ORGANIZED CRIME INTELLIGENCE IN MIAMI, P. B-2U3 

TAMPA TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMt, P. B-2«6 

POLK COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK CENTRAL, P. B-31U 

KANSAS KANSAS LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM, P. B-319 

WICHITA LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 BETRVL, P. B-329 

MICHIGAN INTERSTATE ORGANIZED CRIME INDEX, P. B-«10 

MISSOURI MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL), P. B-l)28 

JACKSON COUNT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-43'4 

HUDSON COUNTY JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPT., P. 8-491 

HUDSON COUNTY HUDSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, P. 8-198 

NEW YORK N. Y. STATE IDENTIFICATION 6 INTELLIGENCE SYS., P. B-532 

NEW YORK CITY SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-558 

TULSA TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIH. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

TENNESSEE TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-742 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



20 



D-37 



236 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



ORGANIZED CRIflE 

STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, CALIFORNIA, DELAHAHE, FLORIDA, lOHA, 
KANSAS, MICHIGAN, MISSOURI, NEW JERSEY, NEW lOBK, 
OKLAHOMA, TENNESSEE 



PAROLE/PROBATION RECORDS 



CALIFORNIA 

ILLINOIS 

IOWA 

OKLAHOMA 

WISCONSIN 



CALIFORNIA 

ILLINOIS 

IOWA 

OKLAHOMA 

WISCONSIN 



YOUTH AUTHORITY DATA PROCESSING OFFICE, P. B-57 
CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-288 

TKAFFIC RECORDS 5 CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. B-309 
OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. 3-615 
PROBATION 6 PAROLE CASELOAD ACCODNTING, P. B-915 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 5 

STATES INCLUDED CALIFORNIA, ILLINOIS, IOWA, OKLAHOMA, WISCONSIN 



PAWNED PROPERTY 
CALIFORNIA 
VIRGINIA 



SAN DIEGO 
NORFOLK 



CURRENT LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-95 
TIDEWATER ELECTRONIC STOLEN ARTICLES CONTROL, P. B-883 



NUMBER OP SYSTEMS 2 

STATES INCLUDED CALIFORNIA, VIRGINIA 



PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 


ALABAMA 


BIRMINGHAM 


CALI FORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


SACRAMENTO 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


DELAWARE 


DELAWARE 


FLORIDA 


HILLSBOROUGH 


FLORIDA 


TAMPA 


GEORGIA 


GEORGIA 


HAWAII 


HAWAII 


HAWAII 


HONOLULU 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


INDIANA 


I NDIANAPOLIS 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


WICHITA 


LOUISIANA 


LAFAYETTE 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MIDDLESEX COU 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


ROCHESTER 


OHIO 


CLEVELAND 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


UNE COUNTY 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH DAKOTA 


SIOUX FALLS 


TENN ESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


MEMPHIS 


TEXAS 


TEXAS 


TEXAS 


DALLAS COUNTY 


UTAH 


UTAH 


UTAH 


SALT LAKE 


VIRGINIA 


VIRGINIA 


VIRGINIA 


ALEXANDHI A 


VIRGINIA 


FAIRFAX COUNT 


WASHINGTON 


WASHINGTON 


WASHINGTON 


SPOKANE COUNT 


WEST VIRGINIA 


WEST VIRGINIA 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENF 
AUTOMATED PERSONNELL IN 
SACRAMENTO CRIME AND AR 
STATE POLICE DATA PROCE 
CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM EN 
HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA P 
TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE 
INTERAGENCY MANPOWER R6 
CORRECTIONS 6 PAROLE, P 
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATI 
CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. 
POLICE AUTOMATED CASE E 
HIGHWAY PATROL ADMINIST 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMAT 
AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEME 
VARIOUS BATCH ORIENTED 
POLICE INFORMATION SYST 
S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, 
SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. 
SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-562 
CALLS FOR SERVICE, P. 
CLEVELAND POLICE COMPUT 
OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFI 
AREA INFORMATION RECORD 
AREA INFORMATION RECORD 
DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS MG 
YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM, 
REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 
TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE S 
MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTME 
TNM^TE TRACKING SYSTEM, 
DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIM 
CORRECTIONS INFORMATION 
DEPARTMENTAL MGT. INFOR 
INMATE INFORMATION SYST 
POLICE INFO SYSTEM-COMP 
POLICE MANAGEMENT INFOR 
DIVISION OF RESEARCH-IN 
THE INLAND EMPIRE FOLIC 
W. VA. DEPT. OF PUB. SA 



ORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

FORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-70 

REST REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-92 

SSING UNIT, P. B-1143 

FORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

ROCESSING, P. B-225 

SYSTEM*, P. 6-246 

D SYSTEHt, P. B-255 

. B-270 

ON SYSTEMS, P. B-272 

B-288 

NTRY 6 RETREIVAL SYS., P. B-305 

HATIVE INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-326 

ED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 

NT COMM. 5REP0RTING SYS, P. 8-347 

SYSTEMS, P. B-367 

EM, P. B-386 

P. B-I»ll2 
B-558 

-575 

ER FILES, P. B-615 

C LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6U5 
SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-566 
SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

MT. INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-726 
P. B-729 



YSTEM PHASE I, P. 8-742 
NT TAB SYSTEM*. P. B-748 

P. B-790 
INAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 
S SYSTEM, P. B-856 
MATION SYSTEM, P. B-850 
EM, P. 8-868 

LAINT SUBSYSTEM, P. 8-872 
MATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 
FORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-895 
E INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-903 
FETY-POL. BATCH PROCESSING, P. B-906 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



40 



D-38 



237 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



PEBFORflANCr EVALUATION 
STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, FLORIDAj" 
GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KANSAS, ■' 

LOUISIANA, HARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MISSOURI, NEB YORK, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, 
TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, 
WEST VIRGINIA 



PHYSICAL GOODS INVENTORY 



ALABAMA 

CALIFORNIA 

COLORADO 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

DIST. OF COL. 

DIST. OF COL. 

GEORGIA 

HAWAII 

KANSAS 

MICHIGAN 

NORTH CAROLINA 

OREGON 

OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 

SOUTH CAROLINA 



BIRMINGHAM 

CALIFORNIA 

COLORADO 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWAR E 

WASHINGTON 

WASHINGTON 

GEORGIA 

HAWAII 

KANSAS 

MICHIGAN 

NORTH CAROLINA 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

PENNSYLVANIA 

SOUTH CAROLINA 



SOOTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA 
TEXAS TEXAS 

TEXAS HOUSTON 

TEXAS SAN ANTONIO 

TEXAS WICHITA FALLS 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

YOUTH AUTHORITY DATA PROCESSING OFFICE, P. B-57 

COMPATIBLE REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-121 

ASSET CONTROL-CORRECTION, P. 8-145 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM. P. B- 1 68 

RADIO EQUIPMENT INVENTORY £ MAINTENANCE SYST.. P. B-188 

COURT INVENTORY, P. B-202 

CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-253 

CORRECTIONS 6 PAROLE, P. B-270 

HIGHWAY PATROL ADMINISTRATIVE INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-J26 

MICHIGAN STATE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM!, P. B-397 

NORTH CAROLINA CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. 8-592 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES, BUB. OF CORRECTION, P. B-597 

DEPT. OF' CORRECTIONS NGMT. INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-726 

YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM, P. B-729 

INMATE TRACKING SYSTEM, P. B-790 

COURTS, P. B-820 

BEXAR COUNTY CRIM. JUST. INFO. SYS-PHASE I, P. B-821t 

ARTICLE PROCESSING, P. B-8<46 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



21 



STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, 
DIST. OF COL., GEORGIA, HAWAII, KANSAS, MICHIGAN, 
NORTH CAROLINA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS 



PLANNING 




ALABAMA 


BIRMINGHAM 


ARIZONA 


ARIZONA 


ARKANSAS 


ARKANSAS 


CALIFORNIA 


CALIFORNIA 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


SANTA CLARA C 


CALIFORNIA 


SANTA CLARA C 


COLORADO 


COLORADO SPRI 


CONNECTICUT 


NEW HAVEN 


DELAWARE 


DELAWARE 


FLORIDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


GEORGIA 


GEORGIA 


HAWAII 


HAWAII 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


IOWA 


IOWA 


KANSAS 


KANSAS ,'»• 


LOUISIANA 


NSW ORLEANS 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MASSACHUSETTS 


BOSTON 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MIDDLESEX COU 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MINNESOTA 


MINNESOTA 


MINNESOTA 


ST. PAUL 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

ACCOUNTING, P. B-21 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-a5 

YOUTH AUTHORITY DATA PROCESSING OFFICE, P. B-57 

AUTOMATED PERSONNELL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-70 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

COUNTY PATROL ACTIVITY NETWORK ANALYSIS, P. 8-112 

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B- 1 2 5 

CASE INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-163 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

INTERAGENCY MANPOWER R5D SYSTEMi, P. B-255 

CORRECTIONS 6 PAROLE, P. B-270 

CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-288 

TRAFFIC RECORDS C CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. B-309 

HIGHWAY PATROL ADMINISTRATIVE INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-326 

OFFENSES, P. B-357 

MARYLAND AUTOMATED ACCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-361 

MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-363 

VARIOUS BATCH ORIENTED SYSTEMS, P. B-367 

BOSTON POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-38a 

POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-386 

MICHIGAN STATE CORRECTIONS SYSTEMt, 

MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, 

ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-U3U 

S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-"t«2 

JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPT., P. B-a91 

SUP. CT. OF NJ-AUTOH'D CRIM. CASE PROCESSING SYS, P. B-U96 

HUDSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, P. B-U98 

SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-530 



P. 


B- 


-397 


P. 


B- 


-|^■\^ 


P. 


B- 


-U22 



D-39 



238 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



PLANNINf; 






NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


SPRINT 


OHIO 


CINCINNATI 


REGIONA. 


OKLAH0.1A 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLA. C 


OKLAHOHA 


TULSA 


TULSA R 


nREr;oN 


LANE COUNTY 


AREA IN 


ODERON 


LANE COUNTY 


AREA IN 


OPE'JON 


PORTLAND 


COLUMBI 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


COMMONW 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


philade: 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


COMBINE 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


DEPT. 


SOrlTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


YOUTH S 


SOUTH DAKOTA 


SIOUX FALLS 


REGIONA 


TENNESSEE 


MEMPHIS 


MEMPHIS 


TEXAS 


TEXAS 


INMATE ■ 


TEXAS 


DALLAS COUNTY 


DALLAS 1 


TEXAS 


HOUSTON 


COURTS, 


VIRGINIA 


ALEXANDRIA 


POLICE 1 


VIRGINIA 


FAIRFAX COUNT 


POLICE 


WASHINGTON 


WASHINGTON 


DIVISIO 



DISPATCHING, P. 
L CRIME INPOHMAT 
RIMINAL 6 TRAFFI 
EG. AUTOMATED CR 
FORMATION RECORD 
FORMATION RECORD 
A REGION INFO. S 
EALTH LAM ENFOHC 
LPHIA JUSTICE IN 
D JUSTICE INFO. 
F CORRECTIONS HG 
ERVICES PROGRAM, 
L CJIS, P. B-7J7 

POLICE DEPARTME 
TRACKING SYSTEM, 
COUNTY REG. CRIM 

P. B-R20 
MANAGEMENT SYSTE 
MANAGEMENT INPOR 
N OF RESEABCH-IN 



B-55 8 

ION CENTER (CLEAR) , P. B-609 
C LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS,, P. D-6U5 
in. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. 8-652 
SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 
SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 
HARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 
EM'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. B-69U 
FORMATION MODEL, P. B-703 
NETWOBK OVER TERMINALS, P. B-710 
MT. INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-726 
P. 8-729 

NT TAB SYSTEM*, P. 8-748 

P. B-790 
INAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

M, P. B-875 

MATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

FORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-895 



NUMBER OP SYSTEMS 



51 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, 

CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII, 

ILLINOIS, IOWA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, 

MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW JERSEY, 

NEW YORK, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, 

SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, 

WASHINGTON 



POLICE PERSONNEL 




ALABAMA 


BIRMINGHAM 


ARIZONA 


ARIZONA 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


SAN DIEGO 


CONNECTICUT 


BRIDGEPORT 


CONNECTICUT 


HARTFORD 


DISr. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


DADE COUNTY 


FLORIDA 


MIAMI 


FLORIDA 


TAMPA 


HAWA II 


HONOLULU 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


INDIANA 


INDIANAPOLIS 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


WICHITA 


KENTUCKY 


KENTUCKY 


KENTUCKY 


LOUISVILLE 


LOUISIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MASSACHUSETTS 


BOSTON 


MICHIGAN 


DETROIT 


MINNESOTA 


MINNESOTA 


MINNESOTA 


MINNEAPOLIS 


MINNESOTA 


ST. PAUL 


MISSOURI 


MISSOURI 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


NEBRASKA 


NEBRASKA 


NEBRASKA 


OMAHA 


NEW JERSEY 


NEWARK 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSIAC COUNT 


NEW MEXICO 


NEW MEXICO 


NEW MEXICO 


ALBUQUERQUE 


NEW YORK 


BUFFALO 


NEW YORK 


NASSAU COUNTY 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENPOBCEHENT IN 
OTHER, P. B-22 

OPTIMUM BEC. AUTO. FOR COURTS 6 LA 
AUTOMATED PERSONNELL INFORMATION S 
PROPOSED LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P 
BRIDGEPORT CRIME INFORMATION CENTE 
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 
AUTOMATED PERSONNEL SYSTEM, P. B- 1 
FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, 
DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. 
PERSONNEL SYSTEM, P. B-21t2 
TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. 
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 
TRAFFIC INFORMATION PLANNING SYSTE 
POLICE AUTOMATED CASE ENTRY 6 BETR 
HIGHWAY PATROL ADMINISTRATIVE INFO 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENT 
LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCK 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTE 
METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE N 
VARIOUS BATCH ORIENTED SYSTEMS, P. 
BOSTON POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-JBt 
DETROIT ELECTRNC COMPTR 6 TELEPBOC 
MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM 
MINNEAPOLIS DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM 
ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM 
MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM 
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B 
S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-aK2 
COST ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, P. B-a59 
OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUST 
NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INPOBHATIO 
PATERSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. B-513 
STATE POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 
AIMS, P. B-52U 

CITY OF BUFFALO LAW ENFORCEMENT CO 
POLICE DATA SYSTEMS, P. B-555 



FO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

W ENFORCEMENT, P. B-6 1 
YSTEM, P. B-70 

B-97 
R, P. B-157 
B-160 
77 

P. B-215 
SYST, P. B-219 

B-2a6 

P. B-272 
M, P. B-28a 
EIVAL SYS., P. B-305 
. SYSTEMS, P. B-326 
RY 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 
Y, P. B-334 
M, P. B-338 
ETWORK, P. a-351 

B-367 

ESS. SYST., P. B-lll 

P. B-114 

P. B-U20 

P. B-«22 
(CENTRAL), P. B-12B 
-«3« 



ICE SYSTEM, P. B-a66 
N SYSTEM, P. B-501 

P. B-518 

MPUTER OPNS, P. B-5U6 



^-^o 



239 



S Y 3 T E n 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



POLICE PERSONNEL 






NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


SPRINT 


NEH YOEK 


NEW YORK CITY 


SPRINT 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


11*01 SY 


NEW YORK 


ROCHESTER 


POLICE 


OHIO 


CINCINNATI 


BEGIONA 


OHIO 


CLEVELAND 


CLEVELA 


OHIO 


TOLEDO 


PEPSONN 


OKLAHOn* 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLA. C 


OKLUHOMA 


TULSA 


TULSA R 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


AREA IN 


0RE30N 


LANE COUNTY 


AREA IN 


OREGON 


PORTLAND 


COLUHBI 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


COMMONW 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


POLICE : 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


TENN CR 


TENNESSEE 


(lEHPHIS 


MEMPHIS 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


POLICE 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


AFS100, 


TEXAS 


DALLAS COUNTY 


DALLAS 


TEXAS 


HOUSTON 


INFORMA' 


TEXAS 


SAN ANTONIO 


POLICE 


TEXAS 


WICHITA FALLS 


PERSONN 


UTAH 


UTAH 


LAW ENFi 


WASHINGTON 


WASHINGTON 


ADNINIS 


WASHINGTON 


SEATTLE 


SEA-KIN 


WISCONSIN 


MADISON 


MADISON 



DISPATCHING, P. 
BACKUP, P. B-562 
STEM, P. B-566 
PERSONNEL RECORD 
L CRIME INFORMAT 
ND POLICE COHPUT 
EL RECORDS, P. B 
RIMINAL E TRAFPI 
EG. AUTOMATED CR 
FORMATION RECORD 
FORMATION RECORD 
A REGION INFO. S 
EALTH LAW ENFORC 
SYSTEM, P. B-712 
IMINAL JUSTICE S 

POLICE DEPARTME 
PERSONNEL RECORD 

P. B-756 
COUNTY REG. CRIM 
TION e COMMUNICA 
DISASTER REPORTS 
EL, P. B-8a9 
ORCEMENT INFORMA 
TRATIVE RECORDS, 
G ALERT PLANNED, 

AREA POLICE DEP 



B-558 



S, P 
ION 
ER F 
638 
C LA 

la. 

SYS 

SYS 

HARI 

EM'T 



B-586 
CENTER (CLEAR), P. 
ILES, P. B-615 



B-609 



W ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. 8-615 
IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 
TEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 
TEM PLANNED, P. B-672 
NG SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 
ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. 8-591 



YSTEM PHASE I, 
NT TAB SYSTEMI 
S, P. B-755 



P. B-712 
P. B-718 



INAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 
TION PLAN AREA-WIDE, P. B-817 
SYSTEM, P. B-836 

TION SYSTEM, P. B-852 

P. B-893 

P. B-900 
ABTBENT (PHASE II), P. B-927 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



63 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DIST. OF COL., 
FLORIDA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KANSAS, 
KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, 
MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, 
NEW Y3RK, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, 
TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, BASHINGTON, WISCONSIN 



PRISON INDUSTRIES 
CALIFORNIA 
CONNECTICUT 
GEORGIA 
MICHIGAN 



SANTA CLARA C 
CONN ECTICUT 
GEORGIA 
MICHIGAN 



NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA 
PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA 



TENNESSEE 



TENNESSEE 



CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 
PRISON INDUSTRIES, P. B-117 
CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-253 

MICHIGAN STATE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM!, P. B-397 
NORTH CAROLINA CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-592 
CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES, BUR. OF CORRECTION, P. B-697 
DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS MGHT. INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-726 
TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-712 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 8 

STATES INCLUDED CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, GEORGIA, MICHIGAN, NORTH CAROLINA, 
PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE 



PRISONER BEHAVIOR MODELS 



CONNECTICUT 
DELAWARE 
GFORGIA 
ILLI NOIS 
OKLAHOMA 



CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

GEORGIA 

ILLINOIS 

OKLAHOMA 



SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA 



UTAH 



UTAH 



CONN. ON-LINE REC. 6RESEARCH FOR EFF. CRIM. TRTMT, P. B-155 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

INTERAGENCY MANPOWER R5D SYSTEMI, P. B-255 

CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-288 

OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-615 

YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM, P. B-729 

CORRECTIONS INFORMATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-855 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



STATES INCLUDED 



CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, 
SOUTH CAROLINA, UTAH 



OKLAHOMA, 



PROBATION CONTROL 
ALABAMA 



BIRMINGHAM 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 



D-iJl 



4'10-522 O - 73 - 65 



240 



STSTEH FUNCTION INDEX 



PROBATION CONTROL 

ALASKA ALASKA ALASKA JUSTICE INFORnATION SYSTEN, P. B- 1 1 

AEKANSAS ARKANSAS CBIdlNAL JUSTICE INFORtlATION SYSTEI1, P. B-t5 

CALIFORNIA ORANGE COONTY ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORflATIDN SYSTE>1, P. B-88 

CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. 8-103 

CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA C CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

COLORADO COLORADO COURTS AND PROBATION CONTROL, P. B-120 

DELAUARE DELAWARE CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

DIST. OF COL. WASHINGPON WASHINGTON AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. 3-175 

FLORIDA FLORIDA FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

FLORIDA DADE COUNTY DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

FLORIDA HILLSBOROUGH HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE COURTS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-231 

GEORGIA ATLANTA SMSA JUVENILE COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-257 

GEORGIA ATLANTA SMSA JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM, P. B-259 

ILLINOIS COOK COUNTY COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT*, P. B-298 

KANSAS WICHITA LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 

MARYLAND BALTIMORE PROBATION, P. B-377 

MICHIGAN MICHIGAN BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-392 

NEW JERSEY NEW JERSEY N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS. -PH. II, P. B-a78 

NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY JFRSEY CITY MUNICIPAL JAIL, P. B-U89 

NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL COURT, P. B-«9lt 

NEW YORK BUFFALO C TY COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-550 

OHIO CINCINNATI REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

OHIO CLEVELAND JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-618 

OHIO FRANKLIN COUN FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. B-632 

OKLAHOMA TULSA TRAFFIC COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-659 

OREGON LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

OREGON PORTLAND COLUMBIA REGION INFO-SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE II, P. B-t>84 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-705 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

TENNESSEE TENNESSEE TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7U2 

TEXAS EL PASO COUNT EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM., P. B-R 1 1 

TEXAS SAN ANTONIO MUNICIPAL COURT MOVING VIOLATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-822 

TEXAS SAN ANTONIO BEXAB COUNTY CRIH. JUST. INFO. SYS-PHASE I, P. B-82U 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 35 

STATES INCLUDED ALABA1A, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, 

DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, 
KANSAS, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, 
TENNESSEE, TEXAS 

PROCESS SERVICE CONTROL 

ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

ILLINOIS COOK COUNTY COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURTt, P. B-298 

LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMM. SREPORTING SYS, P. B-31t7 

MICHIGAN MICHIGAN BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-392 

MISSOURI ST. LOUIS CITY OF ST. LOUIS SYSTEM, P. B-au6 

OHIO CLEVELAND JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-618 

OHIO FRANKLIN COUN FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. B-632 

OREGON LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

OREGON PORTLAND COLUMBIA REGION INFO-SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE II, P. 8-684 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

TEXAS AUSTIN AUSTIN. AUTOMATED FUNCTIONSI, P. B-796 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 1 1 

STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, ILLINOIS, LOUISIANA, MICHIGAN, MISSOURI, 

OHIO, OREGON, SOOTH CAROLINA, TEXAS 

REHABILITATION 

ALASKA ALASKA ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B- 1 1 

DELAWARE DELAWARE CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

FLORIDA HILLSBOROUGH HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

GEORGIA GEORGIA CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-253 

GEORGIA GEORGIA INTERAGENCY MANPOWER R&D SYSTEM*, P. B-255 

ILLINOIS ILLINOIS CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. 8-288 



d-H2 



241 



S I S T E M 



FONCTION 



INDEX 



REHIVBILITATION 
niCllIGAJI 
NEU YORK 
NORTH CAROLINA 
OKLAtlOIA 
PENNSYLVANIA 
SOUTH CAROLINA 



MICHIGAN 
NEW YORK 
KOBTH CAROLINA 
OKLAHOBA 
PENNSYLVANIA 
SOUTH CAROLINA 



SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA 

TENNESSEE TENNESSEE 

TEXAS TEXAS 

UTAH UTAH 

WAShHINGTON WASHINGTON 

WISCONSIN WISCONSIN 



MICHIGAN STATE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM*, P. B-397 

SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-530 

NORTH CAROLINA CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-592 

OKLA. CRIMINAL f, TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6a5 

CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES, BUR. OF CORRECTION, P. B-697 

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS MGMT. INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-726 

YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM, P. B-729 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7H2 

INMATE TRACKING SYSTEM, P. B-790 

CORRECTIONS INFORMATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-856 

DIVISION OF RESEARCH-INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-895 

WORK RELEASE-STUDY RELEASE SYSTEM, P. B-916 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



18 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALASKA, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, 

MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, 

SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, WASHINGTON, 

WISCONSIN 



RESEARCH/STATISTICS 




ALABAMA 




SIRMINTHA1 


ALASKA 




ALASKA 


ARIZONA 




PHOENIX 


ARIZONA 




PHOENIX 


ARIZONA 




TUCSON 


ARIZONA 




TUCSON 


ARKANSAS 




ARKANSAS 


CALIFORNIA 


CALIFORNIA 


CALIFORNIA 


CALIFORNIA 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CALIFORNIA 


LONG BFACH 


CALIFORNIA 


LOS ANGELES 


CALIFORNIA 


LOS ANGELES 


CALIFORNIA 


SANTA CLARA C 


CALIFORNIA 


SANTA CLARA C 


COLORADO 




COLORADO 


COLORADO 




COLORADO 


COLORADO 




COLORADO SPai 


COLORADO 




DENVER 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONN ECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


HARTFORD 


DELAWARE 




DELAWARE 


DIST, OF 


COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DI3T. OF 


COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. OF 


COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. OP 


COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. OF 


COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. Of 


COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. OF 


COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. OF 


COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. OF 


COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. OF 


COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. OF 


COL. 


WASHINGTON 


DIST. OF 


COL. 


WASHINGTON 


FLORIDA 




FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 




DADE COUNTY 


FLORIDA 




HILLSBOROUGH 


FLORIDA 




JACKSONVILLE 


FLORIDA 




JACKSONVILLE 



B-107 

P. B-112 



SYS. 



B-78 



B-12 5 



B-lUl 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B- 1 1 

AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-28 

DISPATCH, D. P. ARREST TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SYSTEM, P. B-31 

COMMAND AND CONTROL, P. B-U2 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS!, P. B-U3 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U5 

CALIF. LAW ENFORCEMENT STATISTICAL SYSTEM, P. B-52 

YOUTH AUTHORITY DATA PROCESSING' OFFICE, P. B-57 

AUTOMATED JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-58 

AUTOMATED PERSONNELL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-70 

STATISTICAL SYSTEM, P. B-72 

PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-7U 

PATTERN RECOGNITION 6 INFORMATION CORRELATION, P 

TRAFFIC INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-85 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. 

COUNTY PATROL ACTIVITY NETWORK ANALYSIS, 

JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT, P. B-118 

COMPATIBLE REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-121 

HULTI-JDRISDICTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF 

UNIFORM SUMMONS SYSTEM, P. B- 1 3 1 

STATEWIDE INFORMATION ACCESS SYSTEM, P. B-138 

IMPROVEMNT IN CRIM. COURT MANGST S OPERATIONS, P. 

STATE POLICE DATA PROCESSING UNIT, P. B-1U3 

MOTOR VEHICLE/JUDICIAL SYSTEM, P. B-U8 

LICENSE SYSTEM, P. B-150 

ACCIDENT RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-152 

REGISTRATION SYSTEM, P. 8-151 

CONN. ON-LINE REC. SRESEARCH FOR EFF. CRIM. TRTHT, 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-laO 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B- 1 68 

OFFENSES REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-180 

TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-182 

ARRESTS STATISTICAL REPORTING SYSTEM, P. 8-184 

CULPRIT, P. B-189 

PROSECUTOR MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-193 

WASH. D. C. CORRECTIONS RECORD INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-195 

INTHA-FAPIILY INDEXING S STATISTICS, P. B-198 

LANDLORD 6 TENANT, P. B-199 

SMALL CLAIMS, P. B-203 

JUVENILE INDEXING, P. B-20U 

DOMESTIC RELATIONS INDEXING £ STATISTICS, P. B-207 

CRIMINAL SYSTEM, P. B-213 

FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. 8-225 

COURTS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-231 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 



B-155 



0-43 



242 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



BESEARCH/STHTISTICS 
FLOhlDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
nF.ORdIA 
GEORGIA 
GEORGIA 
GEORGIA 
HAWAII 
ILLINOIS 
ILLINOIS 
ILLINOIS 
ILLINOIS 

inwA 

KANSAS 

KANSAS 

KANSAS 

KANSAS 

KENTUCKY 

KENTUCKY 

LOUISIANA 

LOUISIANA 

LOUISIANA 

LOUISIANA 

MARYLAND 

HARYLAND 

MARYLAND 

MARYLAND 

MARYLAND 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN 

MINNESOTA 

MINNESOTA 

MINNESOTA 

MISSOURI 

MISSOURI 

MONTANA 

MONTANA 

NEBRASKA 

NEBRASKA 

NEVADA 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NFW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NORTH CAROLINA 

OHIO 

OHIO 

OHIO 



MIAMI 

MIAMI 

MIAMI 

TAMPA 

GEORGIA 

GEORGIA 

GEORGIA 

ATLANTA SMSA 

HAWAII 

ILLINOIS 

ILLINOIS 

CHICAGO 

COOK COUNTY 

IOWA 

KANSAS 

KANSAS 

KANSAS 

WICHITA 

KENTUCKY 

LOUISVILLE 

LOUISIANA 

LAFAYETTE 

NEW ORLEANS 

NEW ORLEANS 

MARYLAND 

HARYLAND 

MARYLAND 

BALTIMORE 

BALTIMORE 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MASSACHUSETTS 

BOSTON 

MIDDLESEX COU 

MICHIGAN 

M ICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN 

DETROIT 

MINNESOTA 

MINNEAPOLIS 

ST. PAUL 

JACKSON COUNT 

ST. LOUIS 

MONTANA 

MONTANA 

NEBRASKA 

OMAHA 

NEVADA 

NEW JERSEY 

CAMDEN COUNTY 

HUDSON COUNTY 

HUDSON COUNTY 

HUDSON COUNTY 

PASSAIC COUNT 

PASSAIC COUNT 

PASSIAC COUNT 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

BUFFALO 

BUFFALO 

NASSAU COUNTY 

NASSAU COUNTY 

NEB YORK CITY 

NEW YORK CITY 

NEW YORK CITY 

ROCHESTER 

NORTH CAROLINA 

OHIO 

CINCINNATI 

CLEVELAND 



B-255 
B-257 



P. B-279 



P. B-361 
P. B-363 



ARREST SYSTEM, P. B-237 

OFFENSE SYSTEM, P. B-239 

COMPLAINT REPORT CARD SYSTEM, P. B-2U0 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEHt, P. B-2l*b 

STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-2S0 

CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-253 

INTERAGENCY MANPOWER ROD SYSTEMt, P. 

JUVENILE COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

CORRECTIONS 6 PAROLE, P. B-270 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DATA SYSTEM, 

CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-2B8 

GENERAL INDEXES, P. B-293 

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURTf, P. B-298 

TRAFFIC RECORDS 6 CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. B-309 

MONTHLY REPORT OF KANSAS POLICE AG ENCIES (UCR) , P. B-322 

CASE STATISTICS SYSTEM (DISTRICT COURTS) , P. B-32« 

HIGHWAY PATROL ADMINISTRATIVE INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-326 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 

LAB ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. B-33U 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

STATE COMP CENTER (CORRECTIONS), P. B-3U5 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMM. 6REP0RTING SYS, P. B-3IJ7 

METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P. B-351 

OFFENSES, P. B-357 

MARYLAND AUTOMATED ACCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, 

MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, 

VARIOUS BATCH ORIENTED SYSTEMS, P. B-367 

OFFENSE REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-370 

DISPATCH REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-37U 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-379 

SUPERIOR COURT CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-382 

BOSTON POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-38li 

POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-386 

TRAFFIC AND ORDINANCE SYSTEM, P. B-390 

BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-392 

CASE INFORMATION CONTROL SYSTEM, P. B-395 

MICHIGAN STATE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM!, P. B-397 

DETROIT ELECTBNC COMPTR 6 TELEPROCESS. SYST., P. 

MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-11U 

MINNEAPOLIS POLICE RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-t18 

ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U22 

COURT COMPUTER SYSTEM, P. B-l)32 

S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-11U2 

OFFENDER TRANSACTION ARREST SYSTEM, P. B-lt53 

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION 6 CONTROL PLN, 

COMBINED LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NETWORK, 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-U66 

SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PBOTCTN 5 ENFCMT, P. B-1171 

N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS. -PH. II, P. B-UVS 

COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-ISU 

JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPT., P. B-«91 

SUP. CT. OF NJ-AUTOM'D CRIM. CASE PROCESSING SYS, P. 

HUDSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, P. B-U98 

AUTOMATED CRIMINAL CASE PROCESSING SYSTEM, P. B-505 

INMATE HISTORY AND CONTROL SYSTEM, P. B-508 

JAIL INVENTORY SYSTEM, P. B-512 

SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-530 

N. Y. STATE IDENTIFICATION 6 INTELLIGENCE SYS., P. B 

ERIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MGT. INFO. SYSTEM, P. 

CITY COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-550 

BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-553 

POLICE DATA SYSTEMS, P. B-555 

INMATE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-557 

SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-562 

CRIMINAL COURT STATISTICS, P. B-569 

GENERAL RETRIEVAL SYSTEM., P. B-585 

NORTH CAROLINA CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-592 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATIC DATA SYSTEM, P. B-605 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-509 

CLEVELAND POLICE COMPUTER FILES, P. B-615 



B-UII 



P. B-tSIJ 
P. B-1463 



B-149« 



3-532 

B-5U8 



D-44 



243 



TEM FUNCTION INDEX 



BESEAPCH/STATISTICS 

OHIO CLEVELAND JUDICIAL INFORrlATION SYSTEPI, P. B-518 

0"I0 CLEVELAND CALENDAR flANAGEHENT INFOSMATION SYSTEI1, P. B-623 

OHIO COLUIBUS CITY OF COLUflBUS COMPUTEHS STSTEM, P. D-626 

OHIO DAYTON DAYTON POLICE, P. B-629 

OHIO FRANKLIN COUN FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. B-632 

OKLAHOHA OKLAHONA COUHT clerks SYSTEM, P. 8-643 

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLA. CRIMINAL S TRAFFIC LAM ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6K5 

OKLAHOMA TULSA TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

OKLAHOMA TULSA TULSA COMPUTES ASSISTED DISPATCH, P. B-bS7 

OREGON LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

OREGON LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-b72 

OREGON PORTLAND COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH LAM ENFORCEM'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. B-69H 

PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA PA. CRIM. JUST. INFO. SYS. -BUR. OF CRIM. JUST. STATS, P. B-700 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA JUSTICE INFORMATION MODEL, P. B-703 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-705 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA COMBINED JUSTICE INFO. NETWORK OVER TERMINALS, P. B-708 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA COMBINED JUSTICE INFO. NETWORK OVER TEBtllNALS, P. B-710 

PENNSYLVANIA PITTSBURG COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, P. B-715 

PUERTO RICO PUERTO RICO COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-718 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA CKIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS MGMT. INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-726 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM, P. B-729 

SOUTH DAKOTA SIOUX FALLS REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 

TENNESSEE TENNESSEE TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-71»2 

TENNESSEE MEMPHIS MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT TAB SYSTEM*, P. B-7U8 

TEXAS TEXAS INMATE TRACKING SYSTEM, P. B-790 

TEXAS AUSTIN AUSTIN AUTOMATED FONCTIONSi, P. B-796 

TEXAS DALLAS COUNTY DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

TEXAS FORT WORTH FORT WORTH SYSTEM!, P. B-815 

TEXAS HOUSTON COURTS, P. B-320 

TEXAS SAN ANTONIO BEXAR COUNTY CBIM. JUST. INFO. SYS-PHASB I, P. B-82U 

TEXAS WICHITA FALLS EVENT PROCESSING, P. B-8K1 

UTAH UTAH LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-852 

UTAH UTAH CORRECTIONS INFORMATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-855 

UTAH UTAH JUVENILE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-858 

VIRGINIA VIRGINIA INMATE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-868 

VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA POLICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-875 

VIRGINIA FAIRFAX COUNT POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON DIVISION OF RES EABCH-I N FORM ATION SYSTEM, P. B-895 

WASHINGTON SPOKANE COUNT THE INLAND EMPIRE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-903 

WEST VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA W. VA. DEPT. OF POB. SAFETY-POL. BATCH PROCESSING, P. 8-906 

WISCONSIN WISCONSIN CRIME 6 ARREST STATISTICS SYSTEM, P. B-922 

WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE COU INVENTORY 6 STATISTICAL REPORTING, P. B-931 

WYOMING WYOMING CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYS. DATA BOOK, P. B-9«0 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 163 

STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, 

COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, 

GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, IOWA, KANSAS, 

KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, 

MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, 

NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, 

OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, PUERTO RICO, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, 

TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, 

WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN, WYOMING 

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 

ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

ARIZONA PHOENIX DISPATCH, D. R. ARREST 6 TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SYSTEM, P. B-31 

CALIFORNIA LONG BEACH PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-714 

CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES ALLOCATION SYSTEM, P. B-80 

CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO CRIME AND ARREST REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-92 

CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-100 

CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA C COUNTY PATROL ACTIVITY NETWORK ANALYSIS, P. B-112 

CONNECTICUT NEW HAVEN CASE INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM. P. B-163 

DELAWARE DELAWARE CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

DIST. OF COL. WASHINGTON PATROLLABILIT Y EFFECTIVENESS PROJECTION, P. B-190 



0-45 



244 



SYSTEM FUNCTION INDEX 



PROSECUTOR MANAGEHENT INFORHATION SYSTEN, P. B-193 

DADE COUNTY CRIdlNAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

COMPLAINT REPORT CARD SYSTEM (FUTURE), P. B-241 

TAMPA CRiniNSL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. B-2U6 

TRAFFIC INFORMATION PLANNING SYSTEM, P. B-28U 

GENERAL INDEXES, P. B-293 

LAH ENFORCEMENT NETWORK CENTRAL, P. B-Jl* 

HIGHWAY PATROL ADMINISTRATIVE INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-326 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMM. 6REP0RT1NG SYS, P. 8-317 

COMPLAINT, P. B-359 

OFFENSE REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-370 

DISPATCH REPORTING SYSTEM, P. 6-374 

BOSTON POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-3814 

POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-386 

DETROIT ELECTRNC COMPTR 6 TELEPROCESS. SYST., P. B-U11 

MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-KIlt 

MINNEAPOLIS POLICE RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-H18 

ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-l»22 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. 8-431 

S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-112 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-166 

COMPUTERIZED CRIME ANALYSIS, P. B-182 

JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPT., P. B-191 

NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-501 

PATERSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. B- 5 1 3 

SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-S58 

SPBINT BACKUP, P. B-562 

CALLS FOR SERVICE, P. B-575 

NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-588 

PUBLIC SAFETY - INTEG R ATEDM UN IC IPALI NFOS YST, P. B-596 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

CLEVELAND POLICE COMPUTER FILES, P. B-615 

JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-618 

DAYTON POLICE, P. B-629 

OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAH ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-515 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIH. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

TULSA COMPUTER. ASSISTED DISPATCH, P. B-657 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-572 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-6B9 

REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 

MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT TAB SYSTEM*, P. B-718 

AFS100, P. B-752 

OPN200, P. B-757 

DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-852 

POLICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-875 

POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

LAW ENFORCEMENT MANPOWER RESOURCE ALLOCATION, P. B-885 

THE INLAND EMPIRE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-903 

NUMBER OF JYSTEMS 61 

STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, 
DIST. OF COL. , FLORIDA, ILLINOIS, IOWA, KANSAS, 
LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, 
MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, 
TEXAS, UTAH, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON 

SECUalTY/CONFIDENTIALITY 

PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH LAW ENFORCEM'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. B-691 

TENNESSEE NASHVILLE SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY, P. B-758 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 2 

STATES INCLUDED PENNSYLVANIA, TENNESSEE 



RESOURCE ALLOCATION 




DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


FLORIDA 


DADE COUNTY 


FLORIDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


FLORIDA 


MIAMI 


FLORIDA 


TAMPA 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


CHICAGO 


IOWA 


POLK COUNTY 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


LOUISIANA 


LAFAYETTE 


LOUISIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


MARYLAND 


BALTIMORE 


MARYLAND 


BALTIMORE 


MASSACHUSETTS 


BOSTON 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MIDDLESEX COU 


MICHIGAN 


DETROIT 


MINNESOTA 


MINNESOTA 


MINNESOTA 


MINNEAPOLIS 


MINNESOTA 


ST. PAUL 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


MISSOURI 


SI. LOUIS 


NEBRASKA 


OMAHA 


NEW JERSEY 


CAMDEN 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


NEWARK 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSIAC COUNT 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


ROCHESTER 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


CHARLOTTE 


OHIO 


CINCINNATI 


OHIO 


CLEVELAND 


OHIO 


CLEVELAND 


OHIO 


DAYTON 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


PORTLAND 


SOUTH DAKOTA 


SIOUX FALLS 


TENNESSEE 


MEMPHIS 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


TEXAS 


DALLAS COUNTY 


UTAH 


UTAH 


VIRGINIA 


ALEXANDRIA 


VIRGINIA 


FAIRFAX COUNT 


VIRGINIA 


NORFOLK 


WASHINGTON 


SPOKANE COUNT 



D-46 



245 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



SlnULATION/HOOELING 




ALASKA 


ALASKA 


CALIFORNIA 


SANTA CLARA C 


nELAWARE 


DELAWARE 


DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


FLORIDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


ILLINOIS 


COOK COUNTY 


KANSAS 


WICHITA 


nASSACHUSETTS 


BOSTON 


NEiJ JERSEY 


cahoen county 


NEU JERSEY 


HUDSON county 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NE« YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


OHIO 


CINCINNATI 


OHIO 


CLEVELAND 


OKLAHOBA 


TULSA 


ORECON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


TEXAS 


DALLAS COUNTY 


TEXAS 


HOUSTON 



ALASKA JUSTICE INFOHHATION SYSTEH, P. B- 1 1 

CRinlNAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-163 

PROSECUTOR MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-193 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT», P. B-298 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 

BOSTON POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-384 

COURT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-a8« 

JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL JAIL, P. B-1489 

JERSEY CITY MUNICIPAL COURT, P. B-U9a 

SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-553 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

CALENDAR MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEH, P. 8-523 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

PHILADELPHIA JUSTICE INFORMATION MODEL, P. B-703 

COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-70S 

DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

COURTS, P. B-820 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



21 



STATES INCLUDED ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, 
ILLINOIS, KANSAS, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, TEXAS 



STOLEN LICENSES 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
ARKANSAS 
COLORADO 
DELAWARE 
DIST. OF COL. 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
GEORGIA 
HAWAII 
ILLINOIS 
ILLINOIS 
INDIANA 
INDIANA 
IOWA 
IOWA 
KANSAS 
KANSAS 
KENTUCKY 
KENTUCKY 
LOUISIANA 
MARYLAND 
MASSACHUSETTS 
MICHIGAN 
MICHIGAN 
MINNESOTA 
MINNESOTA 
MISSOURI 
MISSOURI 
MISSOURI 
NEBRASKA 
NEBRASKA 
NEVADA 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW MEXICO 



ARIZONA 

MARICOPA COU 

TUCSON 

TUCSON 

ARKANSAS 

COLORADO 

DELAWARE 

WASHINGTON • 

FLORIDA 

DADE COUNTY 

JACKSONVILLE 

TAMPA 

GEORGIA 

HONOLULU 

ILLINOIS 

CHICAGO 

INDIANA 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IOWA 

POLK COUNTY 

KANSAS 

WICHITA 

KENTUCKY 

LOUISVILLE 

NEW ORLEANS 

MARYLAND 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MICHIGAN 

DETROIT 

MINNESOTA 

ST. PAUL 

MISSOURI 

JACKSON COUNT 

ST. LOUIS 

NEBRASKA 

OMAHA 

NEVADA 

NEW JERSEY 

PASSIAC COUNT 

ALBUQUERQUE 



ARIZONA CRIME INFORMATI 
LAW ENFORCEMENT-JUDICIA 
VEHICLE SYSTEM, P. B-38 
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
COLORADO CRIME INFORMAT 
CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM EN 
WASHINGTON AREA LAW ENF 
FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATI 
DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JU 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE 
STATE COMPUTER CENTER, 
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATI 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIE 
HOT DESK, P. B-296 
INDIANA DATA AND COMMUN 
POLICE AUTOMATED CASE E 
TRAFFIC RECORDS S CRIMI 
LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK 
KANSAS LAW ENFORCEMENT 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMAT 
LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INF 
MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY L 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMA 
DETROIT ELECTRNC COMPTR 
MINNESOTA CRIME INFOBMA 
ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMA 
HO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCE 
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI P 
S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEH, 
NEBRASKA CRIME INFORMAT 
OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CH 
SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRT 
N. J. STATEWIDE COHHUNI 
PATERSON POLICE COMPOTE 
ACTION, P. B-526 



ON CENTER, P. B-18 

INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 



B-25 



SYSTEMS!, P. B-a3 

ATION SYSTEM, P. B-US 

ION CENTER, P. B-115 

FOBCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

ORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-175 

ON CENTER, P. B-215 

STICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

ATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 » 

SYSTEM*, P. B-2U6 

P. B-250 

ON SYSTEMS, P. B-272 

S DATA SYSTEM, P. B-279 

ICATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-302 
NTRY 6 RETREIVAL SYS., P. 
NAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. 

CENTRAL, P. B-31U 
TELETYPE SYSTEM, P. B-319 
ED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P 

OF KENTUCKY, P. B-331* 
ATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 
ON-LINE NETWORK, P. 
AW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, 
ATION SYSTEM, P. B-379 
TION NETWORK, P. B-399 

& TELEPROCESS. SYST., P. 
TION SYSTEM, P. B-«1l» 
TION SYSTEH, P. B-«22 
MENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL) , P. 
OLICE, P. B-K311 

P. B-Ult2 
ION SERVICE, P. B-a61 
IMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. 
N FOR PROTCTN 6 ENFCHT, P 



B-30C 
B-309 



B-329 



-351 

P. B-363 



B-UII 



B-'*28 



3-1166 
B-U71 



CATIONS INFO. 
R, P. B-513 



SIS-PHASE 1, P. B-U76 



^-^7 



246 



S Y S T E H 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



STOLEN LICENSES 




NEW TORK 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


BUFFALO 


NEW tOSK 


NEW TORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


ROCHESTER 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


OHIO 


OHIO 


OHIO 


CINCINNATI 


OHIO 


COLUHBOS 


OHIO 


DAYTON 


0KLAH0!1A 


OKLAHOHA 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA CITY 


OKLAHOMA 


TOLSA 


0RE30N 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


PORTLAND 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH DAKOTA 


SIOUX FALLS 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


TEXAS 


TEXAS 


TEXAS 


AUSTIN 


TEXAS 


DALLAS 


TEXAS 


FORT WORTH 


TEXAS 


HOUSTON 


TEXAS 


WICHITA FALLS 


VIRGINIA 


VIRGINIA 


VIRGINIA 


ALEXANDRIA 


VIRGINIA 


FAIRFAX COUNT 


VIRGINIA 


NORFOLK 


WASHINGTON 


WASHINCrOS 


WASHINGTON 


SEATTLE 


WISCONSIN 


WISCONSIN 


WISCONSIN 


MADISON 



NEW YORK STATEWIDE POLI 
CITY OF BUFFALO LAW ENP 
SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-562 
ON-LINE INFORMATION SYS 
NORTH CAROLINA POLICE I 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMAT 
REGIONAL CRIME INFORMAT 
CITY OF COLUMBUS COMPUT 
DAYTON POLICE, P. B-629 
OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFI 
OKLAHOMA CITY SYSTEM, P 
TULSA COMPUTER ASSISTED 
AREA INFORMATION RECORD 
AREA INFORMATION RECORD 
COLUMBIA REGION INFO. S 
COMMONWEALTH LAW ENFOHC 
POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORM 
REGIONAL CJIS, P. 3-737 
TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE S 
PHT600, P. B-775 
DEPT OF PUB SAFETY SYS, 
AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTI 
NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS CRI 
POLICE DEPARTMENT STOLE 
INFORMATION B COMMUNICA 
ARTICLE PROCESSING, P. 
VIRGINIA CRIMINAL INFOR 
POLICE INFO SYSTEM-EVEN 
POLICE MANAGEMENT INFOR 
TIDEWATER ELECTRONIC NE 
WASHINGTON CHIME INFORM 
SEA-KING ALERT PLANNED, 
WISCONSIN CIB FILES, P. 
MADISON AREA POLICE DEP 



CE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-5«0 
ORCEHENT COMPUTER OPNS, P. B-546 

TEM (OPERATIONAL) , P. 8-578 
NFORMATIOH NETWORK, P. B-588 
IC DATA SYSTEM, P. 8-505 
ION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 
ERS SYSTEM, P. B-626 



P. B-6U5 



C LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS. 
B-650 

DISPATCH, P. B-657 

SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, 

SYSTEM PLANNED, P. 
HARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 
EH'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. B-69U 



P. B-666 
B-672 



ATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 
YSTEB PHASE I, P. B-7IJ2 

P. 8-792 
ONSI, P. B-796 

HE INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-300 
N IMPOUNDED REPOSSESS, P. B-SIU 
TION PLAN AREA-WIDE, P. B-817 
B-8U6 

MATION NETWORK, P. B-866 
T SUBSYSTEM, P. B-873 
MATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 
TWORK POLICE INFO, P. B-881 
ATION CENTER, P. B-888 

P. B-900 

B-9 20 
ARTMENT, P. B-925 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



75 



STATES INCLUDED 



ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., 
FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, 
IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, 
MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, 
NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, 
SOOTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, 
WISCONSIN 



STOLEN PROPERTY-( 


jUNS 




ARIZONA 


ARIZONA 


APIZON 


ARIZONA 


PHOENIX 


STOLEN 


ARIZONA 


TUCSON 


AUTOMA 


ARIZONA 


TUCSON 


MANAGE 


ARKANSAS 


ARKANSAS 


C8II1IN 


CALIFORNIA 


CALIFORNIA 


CALIF. 


CALIFORNIA 


SACRAMENTO 


SACRAM 


COLORADO 


COLORADO 


COLORA 


COLORADO 


COLORADO SPRI 


MULTI- 


COLORADO 


DENVER 


DENVER 


CONNECTICUT 


BRIDGEPORT 


BRIDGE 


CONNECTICUT 


HARTFORD 


MANAGE 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


FLORID 


FLORIDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


CRIMIN 


GEORGIA 


GEORGIA 


STATE 


HAWAII 


HONOLULU 


DEPART 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


LAW EN 


ILLINOIS 


CHICAGO 


HOT DE 


INDIANA 


INDIANA 


INDIAN 


INDIANA 


INDIANAPOLIS 


POLICE 


IOWA 


inwA 


TRAFFI 



A CRIME INFORMAT 

PROPERTY SYSTEM 
TED LAW ENFOPCEM 
MENT INFORMATION 
AL JUSTICE INFOR 

JUSTICE INFORMA 
ENTO CRIME AND A 
DO CRIME INFORMA 
JURISDICTIONAL L 

CRIME INFORMATI 
PORT CRIME ISFOR 
MENT INFORMATION 
A CRIME INFORMAT 
AL JUSTICE INFOR 
COMPUTER CENTER 
MENT OF INFORMAT 
FORCEMENT AGENCI 
SK, P. B-296 
A DATA AND COMMU 

AUTOMATED CASE 
C RECORDS 6 CRIM 



ION CENTER, P. B-18 

P. B-30 
ENT RESPONSE TEAM STS. , P. B-UO 

SYSTEMSt, P. B-U3 
MATION SYSTEM, P. B-45 
TION SYSTEM, P. B-50 
iRREST REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-92 
TION CENTER, P. B-115 
AW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B-125 
ON CENTER, P. B-128 
MATION CENTER, P. B-157 

SYSTEM, P. B-160 
ION CENTER, P. B-215 
MATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

P. B-250 
ION SYSTEMS, P. B-272 
ES DATA SYSTEM, P. B-279 

NICATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-302 

ENTRY £ RETREIVAL SYS., P. B-305 

INAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. B-309 



D-i)8 



247 



S Y S T E n 



FONCTIQN 



I M D E )C 



STOLEN PROPERTY-GUNS 
lOHA 
KANSAS 
KENTUCKY 
KENTUCKY 
MARYLAND 
MASSACHUSETTS 
niCHIfJAN 
HINNESOTA 
MINNESOTA 
NISSOURI 
MISSOURI 
MISSOURI 
MISSOURI 
NEBRASKA 
NEBR ASKA 
NEVADA 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEN JERSEY 
NEW MEXICO 
NEW YORK 
NOHTII CAROLINA 
NORTH CAROLINA 
OHIO 
OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 
OKLAHOMA 
OKLAHOMA 
OKLAHOMA 
OSESON 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 
OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 
PENNSYLVANIA 
SOUTH CAROLINA 
SOUTH DAKOTA 
TENNESSEE 
TENNESSEE 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
TEXAS 
VIRGINIA 
VIRGINIA 
VIRGINIA 
WASHINGTON 
WISCONSIN 



POLK COUNTY 

KANSAS 

KENTUCKY 

LOUISVILLE 

MARYLAND 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MICHIGAN 

MINNESOTA 

ST. PAUL 

Missooai 

JACKSON COUNT 

ST. LOUIS 

ST. LOUIS 

NEBRASKA 

OMAHA 

NEVADA 

NEW JERSEY 

NEWARK 

PASSIAC COUNT 

ALBUQUERQUE 

NEW YOHK 

NORTH CAROLINA 

CHARLOTTE 

OHIO 

CINCINNATI 

OKLAHOMA 

OKLAHOMA CITY 

TULSA 

TULSA 

OREGON 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

PORTLAND 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PHILADELPHIA 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

SIOUX FALLS 

TENNESSEE 

NASHVILLE 

TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

DALLAS 

HOUSTON 

SAN ANTONIO 

WICHITA FALLS 

V IRGINI A 

ALEXANDRIA 

NORFOLK 

WASHINGTON 

MADISON 



LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK CENTRAL, P. B-31« 

KANSAS LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM, P. B-319 

LAM ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. B-33t 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-363 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-379 

LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-399 

MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-«1it 

ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U22 

MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL), P. B-U28 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-^SU 

S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. 8-1442 

N. C. I. C. SYSTEM (VIA SLMPD), P. B-UU8 

NEBRASKA CRIME INFORMATION SERVICE, P. B-U61 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-U66 

SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PBOTCTN 6 ENFCHT, P. B-U71 

N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS-PHASE 1, P. B-«76 

NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-501 

PATERSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. B-513 

ACTION, P. B-526 

NEB YORK STATEWIDE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-540 

NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-588 

PUBLIC SAFETY - INTEGR ATEDM UNICI PA LI N FOSYST, P. B-596 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATIC DATA SYSTEM, P. B-605 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6U5 

OKLAHOMA CITY SYSTEM, P. B-650 

TULSA KEG. AUTOMATED CBIH. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

TULSA COMPUTER ASSISTED DISPATCH, P. B-657 

LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA SYSTEM, P. B-663 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COURTS, P. B-579 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

COMMONWEALTH LAM ENFORCEM'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. B-69H 

POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7142 

PRY600, P. B-775 

DEPT OF PUB SAFETY SYS, P. B-792 

AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTIONS*, P. B-796 

NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-800 

INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION PLAN AREA-WIDE, P. B-817 

STOLEN PROPERTY INQUIRY SYSTEM, P. B-829 

ARTICLE PROCESSING, P. B-SUb 

VIRGINIA CRIMINAL INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-866 

POLICE INFO SYSTEM-EVENT SUBSYSTEM, P. B-873 

TIDEWATER ELECTRONIC STOLEN ARTICLES CONTROL, P. B-883 

WASHINGTON CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-888 

MADISON AREA POLICE DEPARTMENT, P. B-925 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



72 



STATES INCLUDED 



ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, 

FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, 

IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, 

MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, 

NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, 

OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, 

TENNESSEE, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN 



STOLEN PROPERTY-OTHER 

ARIZONA PHOENIX 

ARI20NA TUCSON 

ARIZONA TUCSON 

ARIZONA TUCSON 

ARKANSAS ARKANSAS 

CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA 



STOLEN PROPERTY SYSTEM, P. B-30 

VEHICLE SYSTEM, P. B-38 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TEAM SYS., 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS!, P. B-a3 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U5 

CALIF. JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-50 



B-UO 



D-19 



34-788 O - 74 - 17 



248 



SYSTEM 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



STOLEN PPOPERTY-nrMRB 


CALIFORNIA 


LONG BEACH 


CALI FORNIA 


SACRAMENTO 


CALIFORNIA 


SAN DIEGO 


COLORADO 


COLORADO 


COLORADO 


COLORADO 3PRI 


COLORADO 


DENVER 


CONNECTICUT 


BRIDGEPORT 


DELAWARE 


DELAWAiiE 


UIST. OF COL. 


WASHINSrON 


FLOHIDA 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


HILLSBOROUGH 


FLOHIDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


FLORIDA 


TAMPA 


'-.EOR'JIA 


GEORGIA 


HAWAII 


HONOLULU 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


CHICAGO 


INDI ANA 


INDIANA 


INDIANA 


INDIANAPOLIS 


lOHH 


IOWA 


10 MA 


POLK COUNTY 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


KENTUCKY 


KENTUCKY 


KENTUCKY 


LOUISVILLE 


LOUISIANA 


LAFAYETTE 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


mCHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MINNESOTA 


MINNESOTA 


1INNES0TA 


ST. PAUL 


?1IS30URI 


MISSOURI 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


NEBRASKA 


NEBRASKA 


NEBRASKA 


OMAHA 


NEVADA 


NEVADA 


NEW .lERSliY 


NEW JERSEY 


NEW JERSEY 


NEWARK 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSIAC COUNT 


NEW MEXICO 


ALBUQUEziQUE 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


CHARLOTTE 


OHIO 


CINCINNATI 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA CITY 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


ORErtON 


OREGON 


OSEION 


PORTLAND 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH DAKOTA 


SIOUX FALLS 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


TEXAS 


TEXAf 


TEXAS 


DALLAS 


TEXAS 


HOUSTON 


TEXAS 


SAN ANTONIO 


TEXAS 


WICHITA FALLS 


VIRGINIA 


VIRGINIA 


VIRGINIA 


ALEXANDRI A 


VIRGINIA 


NORFOLK 


WASHINGTON 


WASHINGTON 


WISCONSIN 


WISCONSIN 


WISCONSIN 


MADISON 



PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-7U 

SACRAMENTO CRIME OND ARREST REPORTING SYSTEM, P 

CURRENT LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P, 

COLORADO CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-115 

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., 

DENVER CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P, B-128 

BRIDGEPORT CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-157 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B- 1 

OFFENSES REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-180 

FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. B-2U6 

STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-250 

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. B-272 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DATA SYSTEM, P. B-279 

HOT DESK, P. B-296 

INDIANA DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-30 

POLICE AUTOMATED CASE ENTRY 5 RETREIVAL SYS., P 

TRAFFIC RECORDS S CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK CENTRAL, P. B- 3 lU 

KANSAS LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM, P. B-31 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. B-331* 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMM. SREPORTING SYS, 

MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-379 

LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-399 

MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-IIU 

ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-l(22 

HO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL), P 

S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-Utt2 

N. C. I. C. SYSTEM (VIA SLMPD) , P. B-WaB 

NEBRASKA CRIME INFORMATION SERVICE, P. 8-461 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P 

SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PROTCTN 6 ENFCHT, 

N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS-PHASE 

NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

PATERSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. B-513 

ACTION, P. B-526 

NEW YORK STATEWIDE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, 

NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B 

PUBLIC SAFETY - INTEGR A TEDM UN IC I PA LI NFOS YST , P. 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B 

OKLA. CRIMINAL 5 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS 

OKLAHOMA CITY SYSTEM, P. B-6^0 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. 

TULSA COMPUTER ASSISTED DISPATCH, P. B-657 

LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA SYSTEM, P. B-o63 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P 

COMMONWEALTH LAW ENFORCBM'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, 

POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7U2 

PRY600, P. B-775 

DEPT OF PUB SAFETY SYS, P. B-792 

NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P 

INFORMATION S COMMUNICATION PLAN AREA-WIDE, P. 

STOLEN PROPERTY INQUIRY SYSTEM, P. B-B29 

ARTICLE PROCESSING, P. B-8U6 

VIRGINIA CRIMINAL INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-rt56 

POLICE INFO SYSTEM-EVENT SUBSYSTEM, P. B-873 

TIDEWATER ELECTRONIC STOLEN ARTICLES CONTROL, P 

WASHINGTON CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-888 

WISCONSIN CIB PILES, P. B-920 

MADISON AREA POLICE DEPARTMENT, P. B-925 



B-92 
B-95 



P. 8-125 



B-305 
B-309 



P. 8-317 
B-363 



3-128 



. B-166 
P. 8-171 
1, P. B-176 
B-501 



P. B-j10 
-588 

B-596 
-609 
P. B-615 



B-652 



. B-689 
P. B-b91 



. B-900 
B-817 



B-883 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



73 



D-50 



249 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



STOLEN PHOPERTY-OTHER 
STATES INCLUDED 



ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICDT, 
DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII, 
ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, KENTDCKY, 

LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, HINNESOTA, 
MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, 
NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, 
PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, 
VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN 



STOLEN PR0PE3TY-VEH 

ALABAMA 

ALASKA 

ARIZONA 

AiilZONA 

ARIZONA 

ARIZONA 

ARKANSAS 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

COLORADO 

COLORADO 

COLORADO 

CONNECTICUT 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

DIST. OF COL. 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

FLORIDA 

GEORGIA 

HAWAII 

ILLINOIS 

ILLINOIS 

INDIANA 

INDIANA 

IOWA 

IOWA 

KANSAS 

KANSAS 

KENTUCKY 

KENTUCKY 

LOUISIANA 

LOUISIANA 

LOUISIANA 

MARYLAND 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MICHIGAN 

MINNESOTA 

MINNESOTA 

MINNESOTA 

MISSOURI 

MISSOURI 

MISSOURI 

NEBRASKA 

NEBRASKA 

NEVADA 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY 

SEW JERSEY 

NEW MEXICO 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK 

NORTH CAROLINA 

OHIO 



B-168 
B-175 



ICLES 

ALABAMA STOLEN VEHICLES, P. B- 1 

ALASKA ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B- 1 1 

ARIZONA ARIZONA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-18 

PHOENIX STOLEN PROPERTY SYSTEM, P. B- iO 

TUCSON VEHICLE SYSTEM, P. B-38 

TUCSON MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS!, P. 8-13 

ARKANSAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-H5 

CALIFORNIA CALIF. JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-50 

CALIFORNIA AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-55 

SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO CRIME AND ARREST REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-92 

COLORADO COLORADO CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-115 

COLORADO SPRI MULTI- JU HI SDICTION A L LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B-125 

DENVER DENVER CHIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-128 

BRIDGEPORT BRIDGEPORT CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-157 

NEW HAVEN CASE INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-163 

DELAWARE CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P 

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. 

FLORIDA FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

DADE COUNTY DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

JACKSONVILLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

TAMPA TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMf, P. B-2lt6 

GEORGIA STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-250 

HONOLULU ■ DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. B-272 

ILLINOIS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DATA SYSTEM, P. B-279 

CHICAGO HOT DESK, P. B-296 

INDIANA INDIANA DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, P. B-302 

INDIANAPOLIS POLICE AUTOMATED CASE ENTRY 6 RETREIVAL SYS., P. 

IOWA TRAFFIC RECORDS f. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO SYST, P. 

POLK COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK CENTRAL, P. B-JIU 

KANSAS KANSAS LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM, P. B-319 

WICHITA LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 5 HETRVL, P, 

KENTUCKY LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. B-33« 

LOUISVILLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

LOUISIANA LAWENFORCEMENTCOMPUTER IZEDCOMMUNICATIONSSYS, P 

LAFAYETTE AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COMM. ShEPORTING SYS 

NEW ORLEANS METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK, P. B- 35 1 

MARYLAND MARYLAND INTEH-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-363 

MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-37^ 

MIDDLESEX COU POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-386 

MICHIGAN LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-399 

HINNESOTA MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-UIU 

MINNEAPOLIS MINNEAPOLIS POLICE RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-HIB 

ST. PAUL ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U22 

MISSOURI MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL), P. 

JACKSON COUNT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-lt3t 

ST. LOUIS S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-<»l»2 

NEBRASKA NEBRASKA CRIME INFORMATION SERVICE, P. B-l*61 

OMAHA OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. 

NEVADA SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PROTCTN B ENFCMT, P 

NEW JERSEY N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS-PHASE 1 

NEWARK NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-501 

PASSIAC COUNT PATERSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. B-513 

ALEUyUERQUE ACTION, P. B-526 

NEW YORK DRIVER REG FILES, P. B-535 

NEW YORK NEW YORK STATEWIDE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-5I10 

NEW YORK CITY SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-5b2 

ROCHESTER ON-LINE INFORMATION SYSTEM (OPERATIONAL) , P. B-578 

NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. D-588 

OHIO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATIC DATA SYSTEM, P. B-605" 



B-305 
B-309 



B-329 



B-3U2 

P. B-3H7 



B-lt28 



-1466 

B-1471 

P. B-U76 



D-51 



250 



S T S I E H 



FDNCTIOV 



INDEX 



STOLEN PROPERTY-VEHICLES 



OHIO 
OHIO 
OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 

OKLAH01A 

0KLAH01A 

OKLAHOHA 

ORESON 

OREGON 

OREGON 

OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PENNSYLVANIA 

SOOTH CAROLINA 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

TENNESSEE 

TENNESSEE 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

VIRGINIA 

VIRGINIA 

VIRGINIA 

VIRGINIA 

WASHINGTON 

WASHINGTON 

WISCONSIN 

WISCONSIN 



CINCINNATI 

COLOnBOS 

DAYTON 

OKLAHOBA 

OKLAHOHA CITY 

TULSA 

TOLSA 

OREGON 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

PORTLAND 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PHILADELPHIA 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

SIOOX FALLS 

TENNESSEE 

NASHVILLE 

TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

DALLAS 

FORT WORTH 

HOUSTON 

WICHITA FALLS 

VIRGINIA 

ALEXANDRIA 

FAIRFAX COUNT 

NORFOLK 

WASHINGTON 

SEATTLE 

WISCONSIN 

HADISOS 



REGIONAL CRIHE INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAg), P. B-609 

CITY OF COLUMBUS COMPUTERS SYSTEM, P. B-626 

DAYTON POLICE, P. 8-629 

OKLA. CRIMINAL K TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6«5 

OKLAHOMA CITY SYSTEM, P. B-650 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CBIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

TULSA COMPUTER ASSISTED DISPATCH, P. B-657 

LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA SYSTEM, P. B-661 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-656 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

COMMONWEALTH LAW ENFORCEM'T ASSIST'CE NETWORK, P. B-69II 

POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-7«2 

PRY600, P. B-775 

DEPT OF PUB SAFETY SYS, P. B-792 

AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTIONSt, P. B-796 

NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. 

POLICE DEPARTMENT STOLEN IMPOUNDED REPOSSESS, P. 

INFORMATION 5 COMMUNICATION PLAN AREA-WIDE, P. B- 

ARTICLE PROCESSING, P. B-8U6 

VIRGINIA CRIMINAL INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-856 

POLICE INFO SYSTEM-EVENT SUBSYSTEM, P. B-873 

POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

TIDEWATER ELECTRONIC STOLEN ARTICLES CONTROL, P. 

WASHINGTON CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-888 

SEA-KING ALERT PLANNED, P. B-900 

WISCONSIN CIB FILES, P. B-920 

MADISON AREA POLICE DEPARTMENT, P. B-925 



B-800 
B-81U 
-817 



B-883 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



90 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, 

COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, 

GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, 

KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, 

MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, 

NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, 

OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, 

TENNESSEE, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN 



SUBJECTS- IN- PROCESS 
ALABAMA 
ALASKA 
ARIZONA 
ARKANSAS 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
DELAWARE 
DIST. OF COL. 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
ILLINOIS 
KANSAS 
LOUISIANA 
MARYLAND 
MASSACHUSETTS 
MICHIGAN 
MINNESOTA 
MISSOURI 
MISSOURI 
NEBRASKA 
NEVADA 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 



BIRMINGHAM 

ALASKA 

MARICOPA COU 

ARKANSAS 

L. A. COUNTY 

LONG BEACH 

ORANGE COUNTY 

SANTA CLARA C 

DELAWARE 

WASHINGTON 

DADE COUNTY 

JACKSONVILLE 

ILLINOIS 

KANSAS 

LAFAYETTE 

MARYLAND 

MASSACHUSETTS 

DETROIT 

MINNESOTA 

MISSOURI 

ST. LOUIS 

OMAHA 

NEVADA 

NEW JERSEY 

HUDSON COUNTY 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B- 11 

LAW ENFORCEMENT-JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-25 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U5 

AUTOMATED JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-68 

PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-7lt 

ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

CIVIL DISTURBANCE PRISONER CONTROL SYSTEM, P. B-183 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P. B-219 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

COMPUTERIZED CRIMINAL HISTORY, P. B-282 

KANSAS LAM ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM, P. B-319 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFOPCEMENT COMM. 6REP0RTING SYS, P 

MARYLAND INTER-AGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-379 

DETROIT ELECTRNC COMPTR 6 TELEPROCESS. SYST., 

MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-UlU 

MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL) , 

S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-tU2 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-H66 

SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PROTCTN 6 ENFCMT 

N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. 

JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPT., P. 8-191 



B-3«7 
363 



P. B-aii 



B-«28 



B-U71 
SYS. -PH. II, P. B-U78 



D-52 



251 



SYSTEM FUNCTION INDEX 



SUBJECTS-IN-PROCESS 

NEW JERSEY PftSSAIC COUNT PLANNED PASSAIC COUNTY SYSTEM*, P. B-510 

NEW MEXICO ALBUiJUERQUE COURTS MISDEMEANORS, P. B-528 

NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-5S8 

NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-58B 

OHIO CINCINNATI REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

Onn COLUMBUS CITY OF COLOMBOS COMPUTERS SYSTEM, P. B-b26 

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-6U5 

OKLAHOMA TULSA TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

OREGON PORTLAND COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-589 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA COMBINED JUSTICE INFO. NETWORK OVER TERMINALS, P. B-710 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-7 2 1 

TEXAS TEXAS INMATE TRACKING SYSTEM, P. B-790 

TEXAS DALLAS rOUNTY DALLAS COUNTY REG, CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

TEXAS EL PASO COUNT EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM., P. B-8 1 1 

TEXAS SAN ANTONIO BEXAR COUNTY CRIM. JUST. INFO. SYS-PHASE I, P. B-82U 

TEXAS WICHITA FALLS PERSON PROCESSING, P. B-838 

UTAH UTAH LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-8S2 

VIRGINIA FAIRFAX COUNT POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

WASHINGTON SEATTLE SEA-KING ALERT PLANNED, P. B-900 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 14 

STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA. ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, 

DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, ILLINOIS, KANSAS, 
LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, 
MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, 
NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, 
PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS, UTAH, VIRGINIA, 
WASHINGTON 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-S 

AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-28 

CRIMINAL COURTS AUTOMATION PROJECT, P. B-35 

UNIFORM SUMMONS SYSTEM, P. B- 1 3 1 

laPROVEMNT IN CRIM. COURT MANGMT 6 OPERATIONS, P. B-1U1 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B- 1 68 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

COURTS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-231 

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURTt, P. B-298 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

SUPERIOR COURT CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-382 

TRAFFIC AND ORDINANCE SYSTEM, P. B-390 

BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-392 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-U3U 

CITY OF ST. LOUIS SYSTEM, P. B-UUb 

TRAFFIC CONTROL, P. B-USS 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-U65 

NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-501 

PATEHSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. B-513 

ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION, P. B-537 

ERIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MGT. INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-SUS 

JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-618 

FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. B-632 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. 3-652 

TRAFFIC COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-659 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-566 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLAINED, P. B-672 

COURTS, P. B-679 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO-SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE II, P. B-684 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

TRAFFIC CONTROL, P. B-7U0 

AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTIONS*, P. B-796 

POLICE DATA BASE, P. B-802 

EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM., P. B-811 

MUNICIPAL COURT SYSTEM, P. B-8tU 

JUVENILE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-858 



SUMMONS CONTROL 




ALABAMA 


BIRMINGHAM 


A1IZ0NA 


PHOENIX 


ARIZONA 


PIMA COUNTY 


COLORADO 


DENVER 


CONNECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


DELAWARE 


DELAWARE 


FLORIDA 


HILLSBOROUGH 


FLORIDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


ILLINOIS 


COOK COUNTY 


KANSAS 


WICHITA 


KENTUCKY 


LOUISVILLE 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


MONTANA 


BILLINGS 


NEBRASKA 


OMAHA 


NEW JERSEY 


NEWARK 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSIAC COUNT 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NEB YORK 


BUFFALO 


OHIO 


CLEVELAND 


OHIO 


FRANKLIN COUN 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


PORTLAND 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH DAKOTA 


SIOUX FALLS 


TEXAS 


AUSTIN 


TEXAS 


DALLAS 


TEXAS 


EL PASO COUNT 


TEXAS 


WICHITA FALLS 


UTAH 


UTAH 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 37 



D-53 



252 



SYSTEN FUNCTION INDEX 



SUMMONS CONTROL 

STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, ARIZONA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, 
FLORIDA, ILLINOIS, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, B ASSA CHUSETTS , 
BICHISAN, MISSOUKI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, 
NEU YORK, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, SOUTH CAROLINA, 

SOOTH DAKOTA, TEXAS, UTAH 

TEST SCORING 

CONNECTICUT CONNECTICUT MMPI TEST PROGRAM-CORRECTIONS, P. B-1U6 

MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TRAINING, P. B-40« 

NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA CORRECTIONS SYSTEM*. P. B-592 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 3 

STATES INCLUDED CONNECTICUT, MICHIGAN, NORTH CAROLINA 

TRAFFIC CITATIONS 

IDAHO IDAHO STATE POLICE ACTIVITY, P. B-276 

NEW YORK NEW YORK UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKET, P. B-539 

NEW YORK NEW YORK UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKETS, P. B-5U2 

NEW YORK NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DATA SYSTEMS, P. B-555 

NEW YORK ROCHESTER ON-LINE INFORMATION SYSTEM (PLANNED), P. B-580 

NORTH DAKOTA FARGO TRAFFIC RECORDS, P. B-603 

PENNSYLVANIA PITTSBURGH CITY INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. B-717 

TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DW I REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-835 

WYOMING WYOMING TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-936 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 9 

STATES INCLUDED IDAHO, NEW YORK, NORTH DAKOTA, PENNSYLVANIA, TEXAS, 
WYOMING 

TRAINING 

CALIFORNIA L. A. COUNTY AUTOMATED PERSONNELL INFOBMATIOK SYSTEM, P. B-70 

CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COMPUTER- ASSISTED TRAINING PROJECT, P. B-77 

MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TRAINING, P. B-UOU 

NEW JERSEY NEWARK NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-501 

NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-5b2 

NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-588 

OHIO CINCINNATI REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

0KLAH3MA OKLAHOMA OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-61t5 

OREGON PORTLAND COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

TEXAS DALLAS COUNTY DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 10 

STATES INCLUDED CALIFORNIA, MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, TEXAS 

TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING 

HAWAII HAWAII CORRECTIONS 6 PAROLE, P. B-270 

NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, P. B-592 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS MGMT. INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-726 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM, P. B-729 

TEXAS TEXAS INMATE TRACKING SYSTEM, P. B-790 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 5 

STATES INCLUDED HAWAII, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS 

UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING 

ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

ARIZONA PHOENIX DISPATCH, D. R. ARREST 6 TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SYSTEM, P. B-31 

ARIZONA TUCSON MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS*, P. B-tS 

ARKANSAS ARKANSAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-US 

CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIF. LAW ENFORCEMENT STATISTICAL SYSTEM, P. B-52 



D-54 



253 



S » 3 r E M 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



NIFOR.I CalflE REPORTING 


CMI FO:iNIA 


L. A. COUNTY 


CULI FOHNIA 


LONG BEACH 


CALIFORNIA 


L.)S ANGELES 


CILIFORNIA 


SACRAMENTO 


CALI FOPNIA 


SAN FRANCISCO 


CALIFORNIA 


SANTA CLARA C 


COLORADO 


COLORADO SPRI 


COLORADO 


DENVER 


CONN ECTICUT 


CONNECTICUT 


CONN ECTICUT 


HARTFORD 


CONN ECTICUr 


NEW HAVEN 


DELAWARE 


DELAWARE 


DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


FLOB IDA 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


DADE COUNTY 


FLORIDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


FLOaiDA 


MIAMI 


FLORIDA 


MIAMI 


FLORIDA 


TAMPA 


GFORGIA 


GEORGIA 


HAKA II 


HONOLULU 


ILLINOIS 


CHICAGO 


INDIANA 


INDIANA 


INDIANA 


INDIANAPOLIS 


IOWA 


IOWA 


IOWA 


POLK COUNTY 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


WICHITA 


KENTUCKY 


KENTUCKY 


KENTUCKY 


LOUISVILLE 


LOUISIANA 


LAFAYETTE 


LOUI SIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


1ARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


BALTIMORE 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MIDDLESEX COU 


lICillGAN 


(1 ICHIGAN 


!1ICHIGAN 


DETROIT 


MINNESOTA 


MINNESOTA 


niNNESOTA 


« INNEAP1LIS 


niNNESOTA 


ST. PAUL 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


NEBRASKA 


NEBRASKA 


NEBRASKA 


OMAHA 


NEU JERSEY 


NEW JERSEY 


HEW JERSEY 


NEWARK 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSIAC COUNT 


NEW YORK 


BUFFALO 


NEW YORK 


NASSAU COUNTY 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


NEW YOriK CITY 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


ROCHESTER 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


CHARLOTTE 


NORTH CAROLINA 


CHARLOTTE 


OHIO 


CINCINNATI 


OHIO 


CLEVELAND 


OHIO 


COLUMbUS 


OHIO 


DAYTON 


0HI3 


TOLEDO 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


o;;LAHonA 


TULSA 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


PORTLAND 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANI A 


PHILADELPHIA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH DAKOTA 


SIOUX FALLS 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 



P. B-272 



STATISTICAL SYSTEM, P. B-72 

PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 8-7 

PATTERN RECOGNITION 6 INFORMATION CORREL 

SACRAMENTO CRIME AND ARREST REPORTING SY 

COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY AREA LAW ENFOHCEME 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. 

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF 

POLICE SYSTEM 3, P. D-133 

STATE POLICE DATA PROCESSING UNIT, P. B- 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-160 

CASE INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-163 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, 

OFFENSES REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-180 

FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-2 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

ARREST SYSTEM, P. B-237 

OFFENSE SYSTEM, P. B-239 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*, P. B-2«6 

STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-2S0 

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 

GENERAL INDEXES, P. B-293 

INDIANA DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, 

POLICE AUTOMATED CASE ENTRY 6 RETREIVAL 

TRAFFIC RECORDS U CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK CENTRAL, P. B-31 

MONTHLY REPORT OF KANSAS POLICE AGENCIES 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 R 

LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COHN. SHEPORTI 

OFFENSES, P. B-357 

VARIOUS BATCH ORIENTED SYSTEMS, P. B-367 

OFFENSE REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-370 

POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-386 

UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING, P. B-405 

DETROIT ELECTRNC COMPTR 6 TELEPROCESS. S 

MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B 

MINNEAPOLIS POLICE RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B- 

ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-U3H 

S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. D-lJlt2 

UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING, P. B-465 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SY 

N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS 

NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYST 

PATEBSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. B-513 

CITY OF BUFFALO LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPUTER 

POLICE DATA SYSTEMS, P. B-555 

SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-558 

SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-562 

1401 SYSTEM, P. B-565 

OFFENSES REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-582 

NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORMATION NETWOR 

POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-59U 

PUBLIC SAFETY - INTEGR ATEDMUN IC I PALIN FOS 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR 

CLEVELAND POLICE COMPUTER FILES, P. B-61 

CITY OF COLUMBUS COMPUTERS SYSTEM, P. B- 

DAYTON POLICE, P. B-629 

POLICE RECORDS, P. 8-610 

OKLA. CRIMINAL 5 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHA 

PA. CRIM. JUST. INFO. SYS. -BUR. OF CRIM 

POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 

REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. 



ATION, P. B-78 
STEM, P. B-92 
NT, P. B-100 

B-107 
. SYS., P. B-125 



P. 


B- 


■168 


15 






P. 


B- 


•219 


8-233 





P. B-302 

SYS., P. B-305 

SYST, P. B-309 

U 

(UCR), P. B-322 

ETRVL, P. B-329 

B-33U 

B-338 

NG SYS, P. B-31t7 



YST., P. B-«11 

-ltl« 

1418 



STEM, P. B-U66 

PH. II, P. B-1478 
EN, P. B-501 

OPNS, P, B-5U6 



B-588 



YST, P. B-596 
) , P. B-609 
5 
626 



SYS., P. 3-61(5 
, P. B-652 
P. B-572 
SE 1, P. B-689 

JUST. STATS, P. B-700 



B-721 
B-7"t2 



D-55 



254 



SYSTEB FUNCTION INDEX 



UNIFOSN CHIME REPORTING 

TENNESSEE HENPHIS HEHPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT TAB SKSTEMt, P. B-7U8 

TENNESSEE NASHVILLE UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING, P. 8-75J 

TEXAS AUSTIN AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTIONS!, P. 8-796 

TEXAS DALLAS POLICE DATA BASE, P. B-fl02 

TEXAS DALLAS COUNTY DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

TEXAS SAN ANTONIO FBI REPORTS SYSTEM, P. P-8J1 

TEXAS WICHITA FALLS EVENT PROCESSING, P. B-8«l 

UTAH UTAH LAH ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-852 

VIRrllNIA FAIRFAX COUNT POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

WASHINGTON SPOKANE COUNT THE INLAND EMPIRE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-903 

WEST VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA W. VA. DEPT. OF PUB. SAFETY-POL. BATCH PROCESSING, P. B-906 

WISCONSIN WISCONSIN CRIME 6 ARREST STATISTICS SYSTEM, P. B-922 

WISCONSIN MADISON MADISON AREA POLICE DEPARTMENT, P. B-92S 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 88 

STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, 

CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, GEORGIA, 
HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, 

KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, 
MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, 
NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, 
SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, 
VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN 

VEHICLE ACCIDENTS 

ARIZONA TUCSON MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS!, P. B-«3 

CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO CURRENT LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-95 

COLORADO COLORADO MOTOR VEHICLE, P. B-12i 

COLORADO COLORADO SPBI MULT I- J URI SDICT ION A L LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B-125 

COLORADO DENVER POLICE SYSTEM 3, P. B- 1 33 

nrST. OF COL. WASHINGTON TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. 8-182 

MICHIGAN MICHIGAN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS, P. 8-U06 

MONTANA MONTANA TRAFFIC RECORDS, P. 8-1*55 

NEW YORK ROCHESTER ACCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. 8-58U 

NORTH DAKOTA NORTH DAKOTA TRAFFIC RECORDS, P. 8-600 

NORTH DAKOTA FARGO TRAFFIC RECORDS, P. B-603 

SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA HIGHWAY PATROL, P. 8-735 

TEXAS SAN ANTJNIO POLICE ACCIDENT REPORTS SYSTEM, P. B-828 

VIRGINIA FAIRFAX COUNT POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON ACCIDENT RECORDS, P. 8-892 

WEST VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-908 

NOHBEB OF SYSTEMS 15 

STATES INCLUDED ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, DIST. OF COL., MICHIGAN, 
MONTANA, NEW YORK, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TEXAS, 
VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA 

VEHICLE INSPECTION 

ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. 8-5 

HAWAII HONOLULU DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. 8-272 

IDAHO IDAHO VEHICLE INSPECTION, P. B-277 

KANSAS KANSAS HIGHWAY PATROL ADMINISTRATIVE INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-326 

KENTUCKY KENTUCKY LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. 8-331* 

MICHIGAN MICHIGAN VEHICLE INSPECTION, P. B-407 

MINNESOTA MINNESOTA MINNESOTA CHIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U11* 

OHIO OHIO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATIC DATA SYSTEM, P. 8-605 

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLA. CRIMINAL 5 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. 8-645 

SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA HIGHWAY PATROL, P. B-735 

WEST VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-908 

WISCONSIN WISCONSIN WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF THA NSPORTATION , P. 8-910 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 12 



D-56 



255 



SYSTEM 



FONCTIOS 



INDEX 



VEHICLE INSPECTION 

STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, HARAII, IDAHO, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, 
MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH DAKOTA, 
HEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN 



VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 
ALABAMA 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
CALIFORNIA 
CONNECTICUT 
DIST. OF COL. 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
KANSAS 
KANSAS 
KENTUCKY 
LOUISIANA 
MARYLAND 
MINNESO-^A 
MISSOURI 
MISSOURI 
MISSOURI 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW MEXICO 
NEW MEXICO 
NEW YORK 
NEW YORK 



BIRMINGHAM 

ARIZONA 

PHOEXIX 

SAN DIEGO 

HARTFORD 

WASHINGTON 

FLORIDA 

HILLSD0800GH 

KANSAS 

WICHITA 

LOUISVILLE 

LAFAYETTE 

MARYLAND 

MINNEAPOLIS 

MISSOURI 

JACKSON COUNT 

ST. LOUIS 

NEWARK 

NEW MEXICO 

ALBUQUERQUE 

NASSAU COUNTY 

NEW YORK CITY 



LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 



NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE 



OHIO 

OHIO 

OREGON 

OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 

TENNESSEE 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

WEST VIRGINIA 



CLEVELAND 

TOLEDO 

LANE COUNTY 

PORTLAND 

PHILADELPHIA 

MEMPHIS 

DALLAS COUNTY 

HOUSTON 

WICHITA FALLS 

WEST VIRGINIA 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. 

OTHER, P. B-22 

DISPATCH, D. R. ARPEST 6 TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SYSTEM, P. B-31 

PROPOSED LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-97 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-160 

GAS, OIL 6 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, P. B- 1 86 

FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-215 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

HIGHWAY PATROL ADMINISTRATIVE INFO. SYSTEMS, P. B-326 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY S RETRVL, P. B-329 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-J39 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COHM. SBEPOBIING SYS, P. 8-3U7 

VARIOUS BATCH ORIENTED SYSTEMS, P. B-3b7 

MINNEAPOLIS DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM, P. B-U20 

HO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENTRAL), P. B-U28 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-«3« 

S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-UU2 

NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-501 

STATE POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, P. B-518 

AIMS, P. B-52U 

POLICE DATA SYSTEMS, P. B-555 

SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-55a 

PUBLIC SAFETY - INTEGRA TEDM UN IC IPALI NFOSYST , P. B-596 

CLEVELAND POLICE COMPUTER PILES, P. B-615 

MUNICIPAL GARAGE HAINT. BILLING SYSTEM, P. B-639 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 

MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT TAB SYSTEM*, P. B-7a8 

DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

INFORMATION 6 COMMUNICATION PLAN AREA-WIDE, P. B-817 

VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, P. B-8tt8 

W. VA. DEPT. OF PUB. SAFETY-POL. BATCH PROCESSING, P. B-906 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



33 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DIST. OF COL., 
FLORIDA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, 
MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, 
NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, TENNESSEE, 
TEXAS, WEST VIRGINIA 



VEHICLE TITLES 
ARIZONA 
COLORADO 
WYOMING 



TUCSON 
DENVER 
WYOMING 



VEHICLE SYSTEM, P. B-38 
MOTOR VEHICLE, P. B-130 
TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM, P. 



B-936 



NTMBER OF SYSTEMS 3 

STATES INCLUDED ARIZONA, COLORADO, WYOMING 



WARRANT CONTROL 
ALABAMA 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
ARIZONA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
COLORADO 
DELAWARE 
DIST. OF COL. 
FLORIDA 



BIRMINGHAM BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

MARICOPA COU LAW EN FORCEMBNT- JU DICI A L INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-25 

PHOENIX AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-28 

PIMA COUNTY CRIMINAL COURTS AUTOMATION PROJECT, P. B-35 

ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

SAN FRANCISCO BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-103 

DENVER UNIFORM SUMMONS SYSTEM, P. B- 1 3 1 

DELAWARE CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

WASHINGTON CRIMINAL SYSTEM, P. B- 2 1 3 

DADE COUNTY DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INPO. SYST, P. B-219 



D-57 



4'>0-522 O - 73 - 66 



256 



S Y 3 T E a 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



WARRSNT CONTROL 




FLORIDA 


HILLSBOROUGH 


FLORIDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


ILLINOIS 


COOK COUNTY 


INDI ANA 


I NDIANAPOLIS 


KANSAS 


WICHITA 


KENTUCKY 


LOUISVILLE 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


IICHICSAN 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MINN ESOTA 


MINNESOTA 


(1ISS0U5I 


JACKSON COUNT 


;iISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


MONTANA 


BILLINGS 


NEBRASKA 


OMAHA 


NEW JERSEY 


NEWARK 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSAIC COUNT 


NEW YORK 


BUFFALO 


NEW YORK 


NASSAU COUNTY 


NEW YORK 


ROCHESTER 


OHIO 


CINCINNAT I 


OHIO 


FRANKLIN COUN 


OKLAHOMA ■ 


OKLAHOMA CITY 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


OREjON 


LANE COUNTY 


ORERON 


LANE COUNTY 


0RE30N 


LANE COUNTY 


OREJON 


PORTLAND 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH DAKOTA 


SIOUX FALLS 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


TEXAS 


AUSTIN 


TEXAS 


DALLAS 


TEXAS 


EL PASO COUNT 


TEXAS 


HOUSTON 


TEXAS 


SAN ANTONIO 


TEXAS 


SAN ANTONIO 


TEXAS 


WICHITA FALLS 


UTAH 


UTAH 


WISCONSIN 


MILWAUKEE COU 



HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B 
COURTS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, 
COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT*, P. B-298 
POLICE AUTOMATED CASE ENTRY' 6 RETREIVA 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P 
SUPERIOR COURT CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, 
TRAFFIC AND ORDINANCE SYSTEM, P. B-390 
BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B- 392 
MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. B-HiU 
CITY OF ST. LOUIS SYSTEM, P. B-I(l*6 
TRAFFIC CONTROL, P. B-U58 
OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE 
NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SY 
AUTOMATED CRIMINAL CASE PROCESSING SYS 
ERIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY HGT. INF 
BASIC COURT SYSTEM, P. B-553 
ON-LINE INFORMATION SYSTEM (PLANNED), 
REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLE 
FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULIN 
OKLAHOMA CITY SYSTEM, P. B-b50 
TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYST 
TRAFFIC COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B 
AREA INF08M4TI0N RECORD SYSTEM OPERATI 
AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED 
COURTS, P. B-679 
COLUMBIA RLGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-P 
COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-705 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P 
TRAFFIC CONTROL, P. B-TKO 
TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, 
AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTIONS*, P. B-796 
POLICE DATA BASE, P. B-802 
".L PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 
COURTS, P. B-820 

MUNICIPAL COURT MOVING VIOLATIONS SYST 
BEX»R COUNTY CRIM. JUST. INFO. SYS-PHA 
MUNICIPAL COURT SYSTEM, P. B-8l»U 
COURTS INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-855 
TRAFFIC CASE PROCESSING, P. B-933 



225 
P. B-231 

L SYS., P. B-305 
RETRVL, P. B-329 

B-338 
P. B-382 



SYSTEM, P. B-U66 
STEM, P. B-501 
TEM, P. B-505 
O. SYSTEM, P. B-5a8 

P. B-580 

AR) , P. B-609 

G PROJCT, P. B-632 

EM, P. B-652 

659 
ONAL, P. B-666 
, P. B-67 2 

HASE 1, P. B-689 

. B-721 

P. B-7U2 

., P. B-8 11 

EM, P. B-822 
SE I, P. B-821* 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



51 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, DELAWARE, 

DIST. OF COL. , FLORIDA, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KANSAS, 

KENTUCKY, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, 

MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, 

OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, 

TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, WISCONSIN 



WARRANTS/ 
ALAB 
ALAS 
API 
ARIZ 
ARIZ 
ARKA 
C\ll 
CALI 
CALI 
CALI 
CALI 
CALI 
COLO 
COLO 
CONN 
CONN 
CONN 



WANTED 

AMA 

KA 

ONA 

ONA 

ONA 

NSAS 

FORNIA 

FORNIA 

FORNIA 

FORN lA 

FORNIA 

FORNIA 

RADO 

HA DO 

ECriCUT 

SCTICUT 

ECTICUT 



PERSONS 
ALA 
ALA 
AKI 
PHO 
TUC 
ARK 
CAL 
LOS 
ORA 
SAC 
SAN 
SAN 
COL 
COL 
BRI 
HAR 
NEW 



BAMA 

SKA 

ZONA 

ENIX 

SON 

ANSAS 

I FORNIA 

ANGELES 
NGE COUNTY 
RAMENTO 

FRANCISCO 
TA CLARA C 
ORADO 

ORADO SPRI 
DGEPORI 
IFORD 

HAVEN 



PERSONS SUBSYSTEM, P. B-2 

ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B- 1 1 

ARIZONA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-18 

DISPATCH, D. R. ARREST S TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SYSTEM, P. B-31 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TEAM SYS., P. B-<40 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-U5 

CALIF. JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-50 

AUTOMATED WANT/WARRANTS SYSTEM, P. B-8 1 

ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

SACRAMENTO CHIME AND ARREST REPOBTING SYSTEM, P. B-92 

COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-lOO 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

COLORADO CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-115 

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B-125 

BRIDGEPORT CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-157 

MANAGEMEKTj. information system, p. B-160 

CASE INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-153 



D-58 



257 



S I S T E M 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



HftRHANTS/WANTED PERSONS 


DELAWARE 


DELAWARE 


DIST. OF COL. 


WASHINGTON 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


FLORIDA 


DADE COUNTY 


FLORIDA 


JACKSONVILLE 


FLORIDA 


TAMPA 


GEORGIA 


GEORGIA 


HAWAII 


HONOLULU 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS 


CHICAGO 


INDIANA 


INDIANS 


INDIANA 


INDIANAPOLIS 


IOWA 


IOWA 


IOWA 


POLK COUNTY 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


KANSAS 


WICHITA 


KENTUCKY 


KENTUCKY 


KENTUCKY 


LOUISVILLE 


LOUISIANA 


NEW ORLEANS 


1ARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


MARYLAND 


BALTIMORE 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MASSACHUSETTS 


MICHIGAN 


MICHIGAN 


MINNESOTA 


MINNESOTA 


MINNESOTA 


ST. PAUL 


MISSOURI 


MISSOURI 


MISSOURI 


JACKSON COUNT 


MISSOURI 


ST. LOUIS 


NEBRASKA 


NEBRASKA 


NEBRASKA 


OMAHA 


NEVADA 


NEVADA 


NEW JERSEY 


NEW JERSEY 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


HUDSON COUNTY 


NEW JERSEY 


NEWARK 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSAIC COUNT 


NEW JERSEY 


PASSIAC COUNT 


NEW MEXICO 


ALBUQUERQUE 


NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 


NEK YORK 


BUFFALO 


NSW YORK 


BUFFALO 


NEK YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEK YORK 


NEW YORK CITY 


NEW YORK 


ROCHESTER 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


NORTH CAROLINA 


CHARLOTTE 


NORTH CAROLINA 


CHARLOTTE 


OHIO 


OHIO 


OHIO 


CINCINNATI 


OHIO 


CLEVELAND 


OHIO 


COLUMBUS 


OHIO 


DAYTON 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA 


OKLAHOMA CITY 


OKLAHOMA 


TULSA 


OREGON 


OREGON 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


LANE COUNTY 


OREGON 


PORTLANH 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


SOUTH DAKOTA 


SIOUX FALLS 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


TENNESSEE 


NASHVILLE 


TEXAS 


TEXAS 


TEXAS 


AUSTIN 



CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, 
WASHINGTON AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, 
FLORIDA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-2 
DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEH, P. 
TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM!, P. B-2U6 
STATE COMPUTER CENTER, P. B-250 
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. B- 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DATA SYSTEM, P. 
HOT DESK, P. 8-296 

INDIANA DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, 
POLICE AUTOMATED CASE ENTRY 6 RETREIVAL 
TRAFFIC RECORDS 6 CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO 
LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK CENTRAL, P. B-31 
KANSAS LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM, 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 R 
LAW ENFORCEMENT NETWORK OF KENTUCKY, P. 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 
METRO ORLEANS TOTAL INFO ON-LINE NETWORK 
MARYLAND INTER-AOENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SY 
AUTOMATED CRIMINAL RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B- 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 
LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NETWORK, P. 
MINNESOTA CRIME INFORBATION SYSTEM, P. B 
ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B 
MO. UNIFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (CENT 
AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TEAM, 
S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-4U2 
NEBRASKA CRIME INFORMATION SERVICE, P. B 
OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SY 
SHERIFF'S COMPUTER OPRTN FOR PROTCTN 6 E 
N. J. STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INFO. SYS 
JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPT., P. B-H91 
HUDSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, P. B- 
NEWARK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYST 
PLANNED PASSAIC COUNTY SYSTEM*, P. B-510 
PATEBSON POLICE COMPUTER, P. 8-513 
ACTION, P. B-526 

N. Y. STATE IDENTIFICATION 6 INTELLIGENC 
CITY OF BUFFALO LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPUTER 
ERIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MGT. INFO. 
SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-558 
SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-'j62 

ON-LINE INFORMATION SYSTEM (PLANNED), P. 
NORTH CAROLINA POLICE INFORBATION NETWOB 
POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-59U 
PUBLIC SAFETY - INT EGRA TEDM UN ICIPALI N FOS 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATIC DATA SYSTEM, P 
REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR 
CLEVELAND POLICE COMPUTER FILES, P. B-bl 
CITY OF COLUMBUS COMPUTERS SYSTEM, P. B- 
DAYTON POLICE, P. B-629 

OKLA. CRIMINAL 6 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT 
OKLAHOMA CITY SYSTEM, P. B-650 
TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CEIM. IDENT. SYSTEM 
LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA SYSTEM, P. B-661 
AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATION 
AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, 
COLUMBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHA 
COMMONWEALTH LAW ENFORCEM'T ASSIST'CE NE 
COMBINED JUSTICE INFO. NETWORK OVER TERM 
POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-712 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. 
REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. 
CRIMINAL WARRANTS, P. B-777 
TRAFFIC WARRANTS, P. B-778 
PARKING WARRANTS, P. B-779 
DEPT OP PUB SAFETY SYS, P, B-792 
AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTIONS*, P. B-796 



P. B-168 




P. B-175 




15 




P. S-219 




B-233 




272 




B-279 




P. B-30 2 




SYS., P. 


B-305 


SYST, P. 


B-309 


U 




P. B-319 




ETBVL, P. 


B-329 


B-3311 




B-338 




, P. B-351 


STEM, P. 


B-353 


372 




B-379 




B-399 




-all* 




-a22 




RAL) , p. 


B-U28 


p. B-U3H 




-U61 




STEM, P. 


B-U66 


:nfcmt, p. 


B-U71 


1-PHASE 1, 


P. B-II76 


198 




'EM, P. B- 


501 



E SYS., P. B-532 
OPNS, P. B-5U6 
SYSTEM, P. B-5148 



B-580 
K, P. B-588 

YST, P. B-596 

B-605 
) , P. B-609 
5 
6 26 

SYS., P. B-6U5 

, P. B-652 

AL, P. B-666 
P. B-672 
SE 1, P. B-689 
TWORK, P. B-691t 
INALS, P. B-710 

B-7 21 

B-7it2 



D-59 



258 



SYSTEM FUNCTION INDEX 



KABRANTS/aANTEU PFRSONS 

7EXAS DALLAS NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-800 

TEXAS DALLAS COUNTY DALLAS COUNTY RRC. CRI.1INAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-806 

TEXAS HOUSTON INFORMATION f, C01 MU N ICA TION PLAN AREA-HIDE, P. B-817 

TEXAS SAN ANTONIO BEXAR COUNTY CRIM. JUST. INFO. SYS-PHASF I, P. B-fl2U 

TEXAS WICHITA FALLS PERSON PROCESSING, P. B-838 

VIPGINIA VIRGINIA VIRGINIA CRIMINAL INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-866 

VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA POLICE INFO SYSTEM-EVENT SUBSYSTEM, P. B-873 

VIRGINIA FAIRFAX COUNT POLICE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-877 

VIRGINIA NORFOLK TIDEWATER ELECTRONIC NETWORK POLICE INFO, P. 8-881 

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, P. B-888 

WASHINGTON SEATTLE SEA-KING ALERT, P. B-898 

WASHINGTON SPOKANE COUNT THE INLAND EMPIRE POLICE INFORMATION NETWORK, P. B-903 

WISCONSIN WISCONSIN WISCONSIN CIB FILES, P. B-920 

HISrONSIN MADISON MADISON AREA POLICE DEPARTMENT, P. B-925 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 10 1 

STATES INCLUDED ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, 

COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, OIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, 

GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, 

KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, 

MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, 

NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, 

OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, 

TENNESSEE, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN 

WHITE COLLAR CRIME 

OKLAHOMA TULSA TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. D-652 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 1 

STATES INCLUDED OKLAHOMA 

WITNESS CONTROL 

ARIZONA PIMA COUNTY CRIMINAL COURTS AUTOMATION PROJECT, P. B-35 

CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA C CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

DELAWARE DELAWARE CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-168 

DIST. OF COL. WASHINGTON PROSECUTOR MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-193 

FLORIDA HILLSBOROUGH HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

ILLINOIS COOK CO'JNTY COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT!, P. B-298 

KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-338 

MASSACHUSETTS MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, P. B-382 

MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TRAFFIC AND ORDINANCE SYSTEM, P. B-390 

MICHIGAN MICHIGAN BASIC MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, P. B-392 

NEBRASKA OMAHA OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, P. B-1466 

NFW YORK BUFFALO ERIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MGT. INFO. SYSTEM, P. 8-518 

NEW YORK BUFFALO CITY COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-550 

NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY UNIVERSAL SUMMONS SYSTEM, P. B-571 

OHIO CINCINNATI REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

OHIO FRANKLIN COUN FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTS, CASE SCHEDULING PROJCT, P. B-632 

OKLAHOMA TULSA TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CRIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

OREGON LANE COUNTY AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

OREGON PORTLAND COLUMBIA REGION INFO-SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE II, P. 8-681 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA COURT SYSTEMS, P. B-705 

PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA COMBINED JUSTICE INFO. NETWORK OVER TERMINALS, P. B-708 

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-721 

TENNESSEE TENNESSEE TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-712 

TEXAS EL PASO COUNT EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM., P. B-8 1 1 

WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE COU INTEGRATED COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-931 

NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 25 

STATES INCLUDED ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, 
ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, NEBRASKA, 
NEW YORK, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, 
SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, WISCONSIN 



D-60 



259 



S Y S T E .1 



FUNCTION 



INDEX 



UOBK LOAD ANALYSIS 
ALA3ANA 
ARIZONA 
AKIZONA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALI FORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
CALIFORNIA 
COLORADO 
COLORADO 
CONN ECTICUT 
CONNECTICUT 
CONN ECTICUT 
DELAUARE 
DIST. OP COL. 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
FLORIDA 
HAWAII 
ILLINOIS 
KANSAS 
LOUISIANA 
MAKYLAND 
MARYLAND 
MICHIGAN 
MINNESOTA 
MINNESOTA 
MISSOURI 
MISSOURI 
NEBRASKA 
NFBli ASKA 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW JERSEY 
NEW YORK 
NEW YORK 
NEW YORK 
NEW YORK 



BIRMINGHAM 

ARIZONA 

AKIZONA 

L.A. COUNTY 

LONG BEACH 

ORANGE COUNTY 

SACRAMENTO 

SAN FRANCISCO 

SANTA CLARA C 

SANTA CLARA C 

COLORADO SPRI 

DENVER 

CONNECTICUT 

HARTFORD 

NEW HAVEN 

DELAWARE 

WASHINGTON 

DADE COUNTY 

HILLSBOROUGH 

JACKSONVILLE 

TAMPA 

HONOLULU 

CHICAGO 

W ICHITA 

LAFAYETTE 

BALTIMORE 

BALTIMORE 

DETROIT 

MINNEAPOLIS 

ST. PAUL 

JACKSON COUNT 

ST. LOUIS 

NEBRASKA 

OMAHA 

CAMDEN 

HUDSON COUNTY 

BUFFALO 

NEW YORK CITY 

NEW YORK CITY 

ROCHESTER 



NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE 
NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE 



OHIO 

OHIO 

OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 

OKLAHOMA 

OREGON 

OREGON 

OREGON 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

TFNN ESSEE 

TENNESSEE 

TENN ESSEE 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

TEXAS 

UTAH 

WEST VIRGINIA 



CINCINNATI 

CLEVELAND 

DAYTON 

OKLAHOMA 

TULSA 

LANE COUNTY 

LANE COUNTY 

PORTLAND 

SIOUX FALLS 

TENNESSEE 

MEMPHIS 

NASHVILLE 

AUSTIN 

DALLAS COUNTY 

WICHITA FALLS 

SALT LAKE 

WEST VIRGINIA 



B-168 



B-219 



BIRMINGHAM, AL. LAW ENFORCEMENT INFO. SYSTEM, P. B-5 

TIME 6 ACTIVITY, P. B-20 

MANAGEMENT REPORTING, P. B-23 

STATISTICAL SYSTEM, P. B-72 

PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-7lt 

ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-88 

SACRAMENTO CRIME AND ARREST REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-92 

COMPUTER ASSISTED BAY AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT, P. B-100 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTROL, P. B-107 

COUNTY PATROL ACTIVITY NETWORK ANALYSIS, P. B-tl2 

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INF. SYS., P. B-125 

POLICE SYSTEM 3, P. B-133 

STATE POLICE DATA PROCESSING UNIT, P. B-1lt3 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-160 

CASE INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-163 

CRIMINAL LAW UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, P 

COURT REPORTERS, P. B-206 

DADE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFO. SYST, P 

HILLSBOROUGH CO. DATA PROCESSING, P. B-225 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-233 

TAMPA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM!, P. B-2146 

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, P. B-272 

GENERAL INDEXES, P. B-293 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED DATA ENTRY 6 RETRVL, P. B-329 

AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COHM. tREPORTING SYS, P. B-3ll7 

OFFENSE REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-370 

DISPATCH REPORTING SYSTEM, P. B-371t 

DETROIT ELECTRNC COMPTR 6 TELEPROCESS. SYST., 

MINNEAPOLIS POLICE RECORDS SYSTEM, P. B-H18 

ST. PAUL POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, P. B-t22 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE, P. 8-431 

S. L. M. POLICE SYSTEM, P. 6-112 

COST ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, P. B-159 

OMAHA/DOUGLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, 

COMPUTERIZED CRIME ANALYSIS, P. B-182 

JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPT., P. B-191 

CITY OP BUFFALO LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPUTER OPNS, P. B-S16 

SPRINT DISPATCHING, P. B-558 

SPRINT BACKUP, P. B-562 

CALLS FOR SERVICE, P. B-575 

POLICE SYSTEM, P. B-591 

PUBLIC SAFETY - INT EGR ATEDM UN ICI PALIN FOS YST, P. 8-596 

REGIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (CLEAR), P. B-609 

CLEVELAND POLICE COMPUTER FILES, P. B-615 

DAYTON POLICE, P. B-629 

OKLA. CRIMINAL F, TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYS., P. B-615 

TULSA REG. AUTOMATED CSIM. IDENT. SYSTEM, P. B-652 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM OPERATIONAL, P. B-666 

AREA INFORMATION RECORD SYSTEM PLANNED, P. B-672 

rOLUHBIA REGION INFO. SHARING SYSTEM-PHASE 1, P. B-689 

REGIONAL CJIS, P. B-737 

TENN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PHASE I, P. B-712 

MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT TAB SYSTEM*, P. B-718 

OPN200, P. P-757 

AUSTIN AUTOMATED FUNCTIJNS", P. B-796 

DALLAS COUNTY REG. CRI1INAL JUSTICE INFO. SYS., P. B-805 

EVENT PROCESSING, P. B-811 

DEPARTMENTAL MGT. INFOSMATION SYSTEM, P. B-860 

W. VA. DEPT. OF PUB. SAFETY-POL. BATCH PROCESSING, P. B--) 



B-111 



B-166 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 



59 



STATES INCLUDED 



ALABAMA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, 
DELAWARE, DIST. OF COL., FLORIDA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, 
KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, 
MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, 
OHIO, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, 
TEXAS, UTAH, WEST VIRGINIA 



D-61 



260 



SYSTEM 



FBNCTION 



INDEX 



WORK RELEASE 

NORTH CABOLINA NORTH CAROLINA 
WISCONSIN WISCONSIN 



NORTH CAROLINA CORRECTIONS SYSTEMI, P. B-592 
WORK RELEASE-STODI RELEASE SYSTEM, P. B-91b 



NUMBER OF SYSTEMS 2 

STATES INCLODED NORTH CAROLINA, WISCONSIN 



D-62 



261 



MATERIALS RELATING TO THE CASE OF MENARD V. MITCHELL 

Judicial Opinions 



Dale B. MENARD, Appellant, 

V. 

John N. MITCHELL and Jolin Edgar 
Hoover. 

No. 22530. 

United States Court of Appeals, 
District of Columbia Circuit. 

Argued Oct. 21, 1969. 

Decided June 19, 1970. 



Suit to compel Attorney General 
and FBI Director to remove from FBI 
criminal identification files plaintiff's 
fingerprints and accompanying notation 
regarding his arrest and detention, 
without further prosecution, by Califor- 
nia police. The United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia, 
Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., J. denied 
plaintiff's motion for summary judg- 
ment and granted defendants' motion, 
and plaintiff appealed. The Court of 
Appeals, Bazelon, Chief Judge, held that 
in view of possible adverse effect on 
plaintiff of maintenance of records and 
of possibility of dissemination of rec- 
ords, mere fact that plaintiff had 
been arrested did not justify mainte- 
nance of his fingerprints and record, but 
that record was insufficient to warrant 
summary judgment for either party. 

Judgment reversed and case re- 
manded. 



1. Courts ©=528 

Action to compel removal of plain- 
tiff's fingerprints and accompanying no- 
tation of California arrest from FBI 
criminal identification files was not ap- 
propriate for transfer to California, al- 
though arresting officers were presuma- 
bly still in California, where plaintiff 
resided in Maryland and might be un- 
able to prosecute suit in California and 
other information and witnesses were 
presumably more accessible in District 
of Columbia than in California. 28 U. 
S.C.A. § 1404(a). 



2. United States ©=41 

That defendant had been detained 
for two days by California police and re- 
leased without judicial hearing, that 
FBI maintained record of his detention 
indicating date of arrest, charge, dispo- 
sition, etc., and that federal officers had 
no knowledge of any crime committed by 
plaintiff or incident to his detention did 
not establish that records were outside 
fair reading of term "criminal records" 
in statute authorizing FBI to maintain 
criminal records. 28 U. S.C.A. § 534(a) 
(1). 

See publication Words and Phrases 

for other ju(heial constructions and 

definitions. 

3. Federal Civil Procedure ©=2481 

Record in action to compel Attorney 
General and FBI Director to remove 
plaintiff's fingerprints and accompany- 
ing notation regarding his detention by 
California police from FBI's criminal 
identification files was insufficient to 
warrant summary judgment for plain- 
tiff. West's Ann.Cal.Pen.Code §§ 849 
(b), 11115; 28 U.S.C.A. § 534(a) (1). 

4. Criminal Law <i^l222 

In view of possible adverse effect 
on plaintiff of FBI's maintenance of 
record of his California arrest and de- 
tention, without further prosecution, and 
of possibility o^ dissemination of record, 
mere fact that plaintiff had been arrest- 
ed did not justify maintenance of his 
fingerprints and record of his detention 
in criminal identification files. West's 
Ann.Cal.Pen.Code §§ 849(b), 11115; 
28 U.S.C.A. § 534(a) (1). 

5. Libel and Slander ©=7(3) 

Accusation that individual has been 
arrested for crime is actionable per se at 
common law. 

6. Arrest ©=63(4) 

Even if no probable cause existed at 
time of arrest, one is not generally enti- 
tled to relief if probable cause has sub- 
sequently been developed. 

7. False Imprisonment ©=7(5) 

Suit for false arrest may not nor- 
mally be maintained if arrest was fol- 



262 



Cite as 430 F.2d 4S« ( 1»70) 

lowed by conviction, regardless of validi- 
ty of arrest at time it was made. 



8. Constitutional Law ©=208(1) 

Government may not, wittingly or 
unwittingly, engage in wanton defama- 
tion of individuals and groups, and there 
is limit beyond which government may 
not tread in devising classifications that 
lump innocent with guilty. 

9. United States <&=47 

Government agency may not escape 
responsibility for improper use of mate- 
rials disseminated by it simply because 
improper use is not mandatory and is in 
fact made by third party. 

10. United States <S=125(24) 

Action against government officers 
is not suit against United States if ac- 
tion complained of is not within officers' 
statutory powers or, if within those 
powers, only if powers, or their exercise 
in particular case, are constitutionally 
void. 

11. United States ®=»125(28) 

Action against Attorney General 
and FBI Director to compel removal of 
plaintiff's fingerprints and accompany- 
ing notation from criminal identification 
records was not unconsented suit against 
United States where plaintiff alleged 
that action complained of was not within 
statutory powers or that exercise of any 
statutory power was constitutionally 
void. 

12. Arrest ®=63(4) 

Arrest may be made if there is 
probable cause to believe that offense 
has been committed and that person to 
be arrested committed it. 

13. Arrest ©^SS 

Use of power to arrest in order to 
'nflict summary punishment is unconsti- 
tutional. 

M. Constitutional Law <S=73 

Those responsible for investigating 
and prosecuting criminal activity should 
have primary responsibility for deter- 
mining what information will be most 



helpful in carrying out their task and so 
long as they do not infringe rights of 
individuals, courts may not interfere. 



15. Federal Civil Procedure <&=2481 

Record in action to compel Attorney 
General and FBI Director to remove 
plaintiff's fingerprints and record of his 
California arrest and detention from 
criminal identification files was insuffi- 
cient, for lack of information on such 
questions as use and dissemination of 
information in files, to warrant summa- 
ry judgment for defendants. 28 U.S.C. 
A. § 534(a) (2). 



Mr. Noah Menard, Washington, D.C., 
for appellant. 

Mr. Thomas C. Green, Asst. U.S. 
Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. 
Bress, U.S. Atty., at the time the brief 
was filed, and Joseph M. Hannon, Asst. 
U.S. Atty., were on the brief, for ap- 
pellees. Messrs. John A. Terry and Ju- 
lius A. Johnson, Asst. U.S. Attys., also 
entered appearances for appellees. 

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and 
McGOWAN and ROBINSON, Circuit 
Judges. 

BAZELON, Chief Judge: 

This is a suit to compel the Attorney 
General and the Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation to remove ap- 
pellant's fingerprints and an accompany- 
ing notation regarding his detention by 
California police from the FBI's crimi- 
nal identification files. According to 
his complaint, appellant was picked up 
without probable cause and held for two 
days by the Los Angeles police. Never 
accorded a judicial hearing on the legali- 
ty of his detention, he was finally re- 
leased when the police were "fully satis- 
fied" that no basis existed for charging 
him with crime. Subsequently, the FBI 
obtained appellant's fingerprints and the 
additional information at issue, which it 
maintains in its criminal identification 



263 



488 



430 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES 



files.' According to the complaint, the 
information retained is misleading and 
incomplete; and it will become available, 
to appellant's detriment, to law enforce- 
ment officers, potential employers, and 
other persons. Accordingly, appellant 
seeks to have it purged from the files.- 

[1] Both sides moved in the District 
Court for summary judgment; appel- 
lant's motion was denied, and appellees' 
was granted. On this appeal, the par- 
ties agree that the case was ripe for de- 
cision on the cross-motions for summary 
judgment ; they differ only as to the 
proper outcome. For the reasons here- 
after set forth, however, we believe that 
final decision should have awaited a 
more complete factual development. 

1. Accoriling to .T|)pollops' answers to inter- 
rogatories propoundt'd by appellant, the 
files originally contained a card bearing 
appellant's name and fingerprints and the 
following notation : 

Date Arrested or Received — 8-ltV-65 
Charge or Offense — 4.59 I'C Bvirglary 
I)isi)osition or Sentence — 8-12-G.5 — Ke- 
lensed — I'nable to connect with any 
felony or misdemeanor at this time. 
Occupation — Student 

Residence of I'erson Fingerprinted — 
Saticoy & Canoga Canoga Park 
After the present complaint was filed, the 
entry under "nisposition or Sentence" 
was change<l to read 
S-12-65 — Released — I'nable to connect 
with any felony or misdemeanor — in 
accordance with 849b(l) — not deemed 
an arrest but detention only. 
Surprisingly, according to appellees' an- 
swers the card appears to contain no in- 
dication of the source of the information 
or the .state in which the incident took 
place. 

2. Appellees have a<lmitted that their files 
contain a record of appellant's detention ; 
the contents of the file, as set forth in 
note 1 supra ; and that they know of no 
crime committed by ajipellant or im-iilent 
to his detention. The remaining allega- 
tions of appellant's complaint were denied, 
and have not been the subject of affidavits 
filed by either side in the case. 

3. Language in appellees' brief could be read 
to suggest that, since the incident under- 
lying the present suit took place in Cali- 
fornia, transfer of this litigation to a fed- 



Consequently, we remand the case for 
trial.3 



I. 

In support of his motion for summaiv 
judgment, appellant did not rely upoj. 
the full breadth of his complaint, i,,. 
stead, he reasoned as follows. Appelifi^ 
admit that their files contain a cani 
bearing appellant's fingerprints and a 
notation indicating that he had been 
picked up by the California police aiiii 
released without formal charges bein^r 
lodged against him. A California .'Stat- 
ute provides that, with exceptions not 
here relevant, such a procedure is proper 
only if the police are satisfied "tha; 
there is no ground for making a crimi- 
nal complaint against the person ar- 
rested." * Subsequently, the incident 

eral district court in that state might he 
appropriate. See 28 I'.S.C. § 1404(.ii 
(19G4). Whatever might be the situ:i 
tion in other circumstances, the present 
record does not indicate that transfer 
would be appropriate. It appears tli.ii 
the only witnesses present when appellant 
was taken into custody were appelhint 
and the two arresting officers. AlthoiiKli 
the officers are presumably still in Culi- 
fornia, appellant, who has the burden 
of proof, presently resides in Silver 
Spring, Maryland. Furthermore, also rel- 
evant at trial will be information regard 
ing the practices of the FBI in dissem- 
inating its criminal identification records. 
Are notes 33-30 infra and accompanying 
text, and witnesses regarding these ni;il- 
ters would presumably be more accessihli' 
in the District of Columbia than in ("nli 
fornia. Appellant's choice of forum is 
itself entitled to some weight. And fi 
nally, it might well be thaat appellant, wlm 
appeared pro se in the District Court, 
would be unable to prosecute his suit were 
it transferred to the West Coast. >^cv 
generally Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 I'.S. 
612, 643-646, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 
945 (1964) ; Gulf Oil Cori.. v. Gilbert, 
330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.E.I. 
1055 (1947) (prior law; doctrine of 
forum non conreniens) ; 1 J. Moore, Fed- 
eral Practice § 0.145(6) (2d ed. 1904). 

4. Any peace officer may release from ens 
tody, instead of taking such person before 
a magistrate, any person arrested without 
a warrant whenever: 

(1) He is satisfied that there is no 
ground for making a criminal complaint 



34-788 O - 74 - 18 



264 



MENARD V 

Cite as 430 F 

"shall not be deemed an arrest but a de- 
tention only." 5 Appellant strenuously 
argues that the FBI has statutory au- 
ihority to maintain in its criminal iden- 
tification files only "criminal" records; 
that the material at issue cannot, in 
iijfht of the California statute referred 
to. fairly be characterized as a "crimi- 
nal" record ; * and that therefore it 
must be removed from the FBI's files.' 

12,3] Assuming that the FBI's stat- 
utory authority is limited as appellant 
suKpests,* we do not believe that the 
facts established on the motion for sum- 
inaiy judgment^ are such as to bring 
!hi' records of appellant's detention out- 
.«uio of a fair reading of the term "crim- 
inal records." For we cannot say that 
lalif. Penal Code, § 849(b) (1), the pro- 
M.sion relied upon, was intended to limit 
Uu' substantial element of discretion 



MITCHELL 489 

.2d 486 (1970) 

normally exercised at the intake stages 
of the criminal process in deciding who, 
of the many persons who may be guilty 
of criminal activity, shall be formally 
charged and prosecuted. ••• Release under 
§ 849(b) (1) does not necessarily imply 
that investigation has exonerated the 
one arrested ; it is proper if 

(1) further Investigation exonerated 
the arrested party, (2) the complain- 
ant withdrew the complaint, (3) 
further investigation appeared neces- 
sary before prosecution could be 
initiated, (4) the ascertainable evi- 
dence was insufficient to proceed fur- 
ther, (5) the admissible or adducible 
evidence was insufficient to proceed 
further, or (6) other appropriate 
[reasons] .^^ 

Despite the statutory difference in 
denomination, '2 therefore, nothing estab- 



agaiiist till' person arrested. Any record 

iif siieli arrest shall include a record of 

111!' release hereunder and thereafter 

.vliall not be deemed an arrest but a 

detention only. 

liilif.r.nal Code, § fS-19(b) (1) (West 

>-ii|iii. 1970). A like i)rocedure is proper 

if tlie arrest was only for intoxication, 

T if IJM' arrest was for a misdemeanor 

111(1 ilic person arrested has signed an 

■ u;reeinent to ai)i)ear in court nt a desig- 

iiiied time. Id. § .S49(b) (2), (3). 

'•dif.l'enal Code, § 849(b) (1) (West. 

■-^hImUOTO). 

' ' Wlieeler v. (Joodman, 3()(J F.Su|)i>. 
"■^. t;,-) (\V.1).N.(M9(J9). 

Mil"llarit does not question the authority 
■I the FHI to maintain a record of liis 
I'liiilion for other [)uri)()ses — for example, 
"lOi an eye towards investigation of the 
"■resting .>ffi,-,.rs under 1,S r..S.('. § '.ML' 
'""'H. The FHI does not, however, 

^ 'o justify retention of the record on 

'-lis cnuind. 

When tlie FHI was first explicitly auth- 
"'■'■Kil to maintain a system of criminal 
'"'Tds in ]9:{(). the Divi.sion of Id.iilifi- 
' "ion .Tiid Information was spei'ifically 
•'"iitod to the ac(|uisition and preservation 
'■riniinal iileiitifii.ilion and other crime 
■■■..rds," -) T-..S.C. S 340 (]9(!4). rcpcal- 
' ; I'ub.L. No. 89-.'J.".4, § !S(a), SO .Stat. 
'-'- tils (19(J()). Present authority is 
''■;''Uuled upon 2S V.S.d S ,'-)34(a) (1) 
'•^"I'l'. IV, 1<)09), which simply directs 
' "■ -Attorney Gener.il to "acquire, collect, 



classify, and [ireserve identification, crim- 
inal iflentification, crime, and other rec- 
ords." That section, however, was enact- 
ed by I'ub. L. Xo. S9-554, § 4(c), 80 
Stat. 611, 616 (196G). Section 7(a) of 
the Act, SO Stat. 631, states that "The 
legislative iiurpose in enacting sections 
1-6 of this .Vet is to restate, without sub- 
st.'intive change, the laws replaced by those 
.sections on the effective date of this Act." 

9. .\ll that was established for that [lurpose 
was that apiiellant had been detained 
for two days by the California jiolice and 
released without a judicial liearing ; that 
the FHI maintained a record of his de- 
tention ; the contents of the record, see 
note 1, siiina ; and that apiiellees had no 
knowledge of any crime committed by ap- 
pellant or incident to his detention. 

10. See, <: </., W. L;iFave, Arrest (hJ-164, 
.30O-31N (]9(i.".l; .1. Skolnik, ,Tusticc 
Without Trial 71-90 (I960); Coldstein, 
Police Discretion not to Invoke the f'rim- 
inal Process: Low-Visibility Decisions in 
the Administration of .Tustice, 69 Yale 
L..T. .143 (19(«)) ; .Note, Pro.secutor's Dis- 
cretion, 103 r.Pa.r,.Kev. 1057 (19.'').'>) ; 
rf. l>ixon v. District of Columbia, 129 
F.S.App.D.C. :M1, .394 F.2.1 96(! (196(3). 

11. Calif.Penal C'ode, § llll.'j (West Supp. 
1970). 

12. ICxcept perhaps for consequences under 
(".■ilifornia law, it is (iuesti{>nable whether 
the st.'itute's command that snch incidents 



265 



490 



430 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES 



lishcd on the motion for summary judg- 
ment would differentiate the incident in- 
volving ai)iH'llant from any other arrest 
and release without charge. Appellant 
does not suggest that Congress intended 
to deny the FBI power, in some circum- 
stances at least, to maintain records of 
an arrest not followed by the filing of 
formal charges. "On summary judg- 
ment the inferences to be drawn from 
the underlying facts contained in [the 
supporting! materials must be viewed in 
the light most favorable to the party op- 
posing the motion." '^ Accordingly, ap- 
pellant's motion for summary judgment 
was properly denied.'* 

II. 

[4] Appellees, on the other hand, 
would have us uphold the award of sum- 
mary judgment in their favor on the 



theory that, once it be admitted that ap. 
pellant was arrested by the California 
police, they ai-e justified in maintaining 
his fingerprints and a record of hi.s de- 
tention in the criminal identification 
files of the FBI.'"' We do not find the 
question so simple. 

[5] Information denominated a rec- 
ord of arrest, if it becomes known, may 
subject an individual to serious difficul- 
ties. Even if no direct economic loss i> 
involved, the injury to an individuals 
reputation may be substantial.*" Eco- 
nomic losses themselves may be both di 
rect and serious. Opportunities for 
schooling, employment, or professional Ij. 
censes may be restricted or nonexistent. 
as a consequence of the mere fact of an 
arrest, even if followed by acquittal or 
complete exoneration of the chargo> 
involved." An arrest record mav b. 



shall bo ilooniod "dotention.s" onl.v has a 
significant I'ffort in practice. Appcll.'int's 
FBI file iliil not originally differontiato 
what had happened to him from an ordi- 
nary arrest, lee note 1 supra. A letter 
from the California Department of Jus- 
tice, attached as an exhibit to appellant's 
motion for summary judgment, refers in 
the first i)aragr.'ipli to "your arrest'' be- 
fore stating, in the second i)aragrapli, that 
"you were ♦ * * not ileemed to liave 
been arrested." Finally, appellees' brief 
refers to .Tppellant's "local arrest record" 
(p. 1) and "his arrest" (p. IC n. 24), 
and justifies retention of the material at 
issue becau.se of the "need to permit re- 
tention of arrest and identification ilata." 
(p. 17). 

13. I'nited .><tates v. Diebold. Inc., 369 U.S. 
(i.54. 0.')r>, 82 S.Ct. 993. 994. S L.Ed.2d 
17(; (1902)': see Adickes v. S. II. Kress 
& Co.. 398 U.S. 144, 153, 90 S.Ct. 1598. 
lGOG-1610, 25 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). 

14. Appellant also argues that Calif. Penal 
Code. § 849(b) (1) (West Supp.1970) 
was" intended to prohibit the sending of 
"iletention" records by the California 
authorities to the FBI, and that the state 
policy expressed thereby should be en- 
forced by a federal court against federal 
officials. Even if California law could 
control the FBI's authority to maintain 
arrest records, compare United States v. 
Ceorgia Public Service Commission, 371 
U.S. 285, 292-293, 83 S.Ct. 397. 9 L.Ed. 
2d 317 (1963). this argument overlooks 
Calif.Penal Code. § 11115 (West Supp. 



1970). which clearly contempl.ites tli.it 
such records may he .sent to the I'll! 
for § 11115 requires that, if such a rcr 
ord has been sent, certain followuji in 
formation must be transmitted as well 

15. -Vppellees al.so argue tli.it the inst.ini 
suit must be dismissed as iin unconseiitiil 
suit against the United .States. Sec nnti 
36 infra. 

16. .\t common law. the accusation tli.it iiii 
individual has been arrested for ciiiiH 
is actionable per sc. Hanson v. Kreliliii 1 
68 Kan. 070. 75 P. 1041 (1904) : lircw 
er V. Chase, 121 -Mich. .526, 80 N.W. ",:< 
(1899). And scr, r. </., N. Y. Times. .luU 
17. 1906. at 54. col. 7, referring geiier.ilU 
to persons whose fingeriirints are sem t" 
the FBI after arrest as "criminals." 

17. A survey by the New York Civil I.il' 
erties Union indicated that 75% of Ni « 
York area employment agencies would ii"' 
.iccept for referr.al an applicant with n" 
arrest record. .Sjiarer. Knudoyahility iiiii 
the Juvenile Arrest ISecord 5 (CiMiter f"' 
the Study of Unemployed Youth, .^'" 
York University) (pamphlet). Aniitln r 
survey of 7.5 employers indicated tli.'it •''' 
of them would not consider employiiit; ■' 
man who had been arrested for asisMiilt 
and acquitted. Schwartz & Skolnik, T»" 
Studies of Legal Stigma. 10 Social I'r"' 
133 (1962). At the very least, an .irn-i 
record is likely to lead to further iii>'- 
tigation ; and if it is convenient to "' 
the job before the invcstigi>tion is <■*"" 
plete. the applicant is effectively dfiii'"'' 



266 



MENARD V. 

Cite as 430 F 

used by the police in determining wheth- 
er subsequently to arrest the individual 
concerned.'* or whether to exercise their 
discretion to bring formal charges 
acainst an individual already arrested.** 
Arrest records have been used in decid- 
ir.f whether to allow a defendant to 
■, resent his story without impeachment 
^. prior convictions,^** and as a basis for 
,itn>inp release prior to trial or an 
a, peal; "' or they may be considered by a 
Ldee in determining the sentence to be 
f:\en a convicted offender.^^ 

6.7] Adverse action taken against 
L^. individual because of his arrest 
ncord is premised upon certain assump- 
:.;ir.> regarding the meaning of an 
:-.;rest.*^ Insofar as these assumptions 
offer from reality, the adverse actions 



MITCHELL 49X 

2d 486 (1970) 

will have an erroneous basis.^* We do 
not understand appellees to be asserting, 
for example, that they would be entitled 
to maintain, use, or disseminate the 
records at issue if no arrest had ever 
taken place. Yet it is not obvious to us 
why a different rule should obtain if the 
arrest was made without probable cause. 
There is, to say the least, serious ques- 
tion whether the Constitution can toler- 
ate any adverse use of information or 
tangible objects obtained as the result of 
an unconstitutional arrest of the individ- 
ual concerned.23 Even if an unlawful ar- 
rest may, for some purposes, subse- 
quently be legitimized by the later devel- 
opment of incriminating information,^^ it 
is hard to see how an arrest not based 
on probable cause, followed by complete 



• :ii;i!o.vment because of his record. .S'ee 
H.-s & Le Poole, Abuse of tlic Record 

■ •■■ .Arrest Not Lending to Conviction, 13 
rriiiie & Delinquency 494, 496 (1967). 

■i I.:iFav(>, supra note 10, at 287-289. 

9 /■/. at 141-142. 

:•:' '■'. Suggs V. United States, 132 U.S. 
.\;!i.D.C. 337, 340, 407 F.2d 1272, 1275 

■ :;t«j9). 

: H;is.sell V. United States. 131 U.S..\l.l). 
"■. 44, 45, 402 F.2d 185, 186 (1968); 
iilio.lis V. I'nited States, 275 F.2d 78, 
M-^2 (4th Cir. 1960) (Sobeloff, C. J.). 

>J >' e. <: f/., the sentencing transcript in 
' ii:t..l .States v. Isaac, 299 F.Supp. 380 
ili.I».(M969). 

2' TIcis may be so more often than we 
«|")ld like to think. The American Uar 
\k<iji iation's Advisory Committee on Sen- 
■•ni'ing and Ueview strongly recommended 
■li'- i.vilusion from presentence reports of 
•I'ly tmntion of charges not leading to 
"■nviction ; 
•Vrri'sts, juvi'nile dispositions short of 
■Hi adju<licati(in, and the like, can be 
'■Jitreniely misleading and damaging if 
prc-sented to the court as part of a sec- 
tion of the report whicli deals with past 
.^ 'otivictions. If such items should be 
i'l'lu'led iit all — and the Advisory Com- 
"litti-c would not provi(h' for their in- 
clusion — at tlie very least a detailed ef- 
fort should be undertaken to assure that 
till- reader of the report cannot )>ossibIy 
'iiislake an arrest for a conviction. 
\ii)<:ri(aii Ifar .\ssociation Troject on 
''iiJiunwn Standards for Criminal Justice, 



Standarils Relating to Probation § 2.3, 
at 37 (Tent, draft 1970). 

24. Even if the assumptions are accurate, an 
arrest record may be used in ways that 
should be difficult if not impossible to tol- 
erate. Presumably the fact of arrest in- 
dicates some possibility that the individual 
concerned engaged in the criminal activity 
with which he was charged. Investigation 
may disclose whether he has or not. 
Vet so long as there exists an employable 
pool of r)ersons who have not been arrest- 
ed, emidoyers will find it cheaper to make 
an arrest an automatic disqualification for 
employment. See Hess & Le Poole, supra 
note 17, at 496. 

25. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 
S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969) : Sil- 
vorthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 
251 U.S. 385. 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 
(1920). Needless to say, federal officials 
may not escape this principle by reliance 
on the fact that the unlawful arrest was 
made by state officials. Elkins v. Unit- 
ed States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437. 4 
L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960). 

26. For example, even if no probable cause 
existed at the time of arrest, one is not 
generally entitled to release if probable 
cause has subsequently been developed. 
Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, 
.%-6, 47 S.Ct. 250, 71 L.Ed. M'> (1927) 
(lirandeis. J.). Similarly, a suit for false 
arrest may not normally be maintained 
if the arrest was followed by con\iction, 
regardless of the validity of the arrest at 
the time it was made. See Restatement 
(Second). Torts §§ 119, 121; Restate- 
ment, Torts §§ 6.">3, 6.">8. 



267 



492 



430 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES 



exoneration of the jierson arrested,''' 
could be used to support any adverse in- 
ferences whatsoever regarding him. We 
do not understand appellees to be sug- 
gesting that the uses made of appellant's 
arrest record will be benign; in conse- 
quence, if appellant can show that his 
arrest was not based on probable cause "* 
it is difficult to find constitutional jus- 
tification for its memorialization in the 
FBI's criminal files. 

[8-11] Even if the arrest was made 
with probable cause, it does not neces- 
sarily follow that no relief may be war- 
ranted. Particularly if the FBI has ac- 
tual knowledge that further investiga- 
tion exonerated appellant,^* it may be un- 
der a duty at the very least to supple- 
ment its files to indicate that fact.^" Of 
course no system of records may reason- 
ably be expected to contain every scrap 

27. Apix'lltint cl.iiins tliat lie w;is orixinall.v 
picked up .siini)l.v for proximity to evi- 
ileneo iniliratin^' tlint a crime mifilit have 
been eoiniiiitteil. The invositiRatioii wliicli 
followed, he .sa.v.s, did not merely e.xoiier- 
ate him from commission of a crime that 
had actually occurred, but in fact showed 
that the crime for wliich lie was arrested 
had never taken place. 

28. And that iirobablo cause was not later 
developed. This qualification may not be 
neressnry to obtain ih-letion of appellant's 
fingerprinls. D.ivis v. Mississippi, -supra 
note 25. 

29. UndiT Calif.Penal Code. § 11115 (West 
Supli.l!)70), if appidlant's record was .sent 
to the FI'.I by California authorities, 
those same authorities are responsible for 
informini; tlie FI'.I of the reason for aji- 
pellaut's diseharce. However, .ilthough 
appellees apiie;ir in their brief to rejire- 
sent tliiit the information came to them 
from the California police, they denied 
this .■illegation in appellant's compl.iint, 
and a letter to .•ii)pellant from the Cali- 
fornia department of Justice, attaclied 
as an exhibit to his motion for summary 
judgment, denies that California officials 
forwarded his fingerprints to the FIJI. 

30. That is, although the FBI may be un- 
der no duty in the first instance to go 
beyond the information sent them by local 
Iiolice departments, if they have done so 
it may be incumbent upon them to make 
>ise of the information so acquired. Cf. 



of information about a particular inci- 
dent, and presumably the FBI is vested 
with substantial discretion in determin- 
ing how detailed their criminal identifj. 
cation files shall be. Yet it is clear that 
the government may not, wittingly or 
unwittingly, engage in wanton defama- 
tion of individuals and groups,^' and 
there is limit beyond which the govern- 
ment may not tread in devising classifi- 
cations that lump the innocent with the 
guilty. ■'' Of course the point at which 
that limit has been passed may van 
with the extent to which the information 
may be dis.seminated ; that is, a record 
may be sufficiently complete for some 
purposes but woefully inadequate for 
others. The present record gives no in- 
dication of the extent to which appel- 
lant's record may be disseminated, with- 
in or without the government,^^ or of the 
uses to which it may be put.^^ Even ii 

Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers Tnion. 
etc. V. McElroy, .'{(i" C.S. SSO, .SilS. .si 
S.Ct. 1743, L.Ed.2d 1230 (1901). Tin' 
extent of the FBI's knowledge of the in 
cident should be examined on remand. 

31. Watkins v. I'nited States, 354 I'.S. ITS. 
187, 77 S.Ct. 1173, 1 L.Ed.2d 127:! 
(1907) ; .Joint Anti-Fascist Uefugei' Cum 
mittee v. McGrath, :{41 I'.S. 123, 1.5.'!. 71 
S.Ct. 024, 95 L.Kd. .S17 (1951). 

32. Compare Boorda v. Svibversivi' .\etivi 
ties Control Board, i;!7 U.S.App.D.C. (m:;. 
421 F.2d 1142 (19(!9), cert, denied. :!M7 
r.S. 1042, 90 S.Ct. 136!i. 25 L.Ed.2d O.'.-i 
(1970). 

33. By statute, appellant's record is sulijcd 
to dissemination to "authorized offiiiid- 
of the Federal Covernment, the Slatr.-, 
cities, and penal and other instituti(nis 
2S r.S.C. S 534(a) (2) (Siipp. IV, 1!h;!Ii 
The Attorney (ieneral has i.ssued .i ie;;ii 
lation making clear that, in his view, ili^ 
semination is not limited even to ^-ovnti 
ment officials of one kind or another; th. 
list of authorized recipients includes p'* 
ernment agencies in general; most banks; 
insurance comiianies ; and railroad puln-r 
2XC.F.U. § (>.S5(b) (1970). 

34. A government agency may not cscapf f 
sponsibility for improper u.se of niateri.i. 
disseminated by it simply because the nn 
proper use is not mandatory and is in 
f.act made by a third party. NatienM 
Student Ass'n v. Hershey, 134 I'.S.AlM' 
D.C. 50, 412 F.2<1 1103 (1909). 



268 



MENARD V. 
Cite as 430 F 

ue assume that the cryptic reference on 
appellant's fingerprint card to release 
•■in accordance with 849(b) (1)" would 
be understood by police, it is questiona- 
ble whether it would be understood by 
potential employers or the general pub- 
lic. If appellant can show that his 
record may, as he alleges, be widely 
disseminated,^' it may well be that he has 
a right to limit its dissemination or to 
require its amplification.^® 

III. 

[12 J We do not underestimate the 
magnitude of the problems suggested by 
the present record. It is certain that, 
ivery year, a multitude of persons guilty 
III no criminal activity are arrested and 



MITCHELL 493 

2(1 486 ( 1970) 

charged with crime. An arrest may be 
made if there is "probable cause" to be- 
lieve that an offense has been committed 
and that the person to be arrested com- 
mitted it. Since "probable cause" neces- 
sarily implies substantially less than ab- 
solute certainty,^' it follows that a signif- 
icant number of those arrested will not 
in fact have committed the offense for 
which they have been detained.^" 

[13] But this by no means exhausts 
the scope of the problem. Many individ- 
uals have unjustly acquired arrest 
records without even the excuse of an 
honest and unavoidable mistake by the 
police. In the District of Columbia 
alone, literally thousands of persons 
were once arrested "for investigation" 
and then released ; ^^ but their records 
often remain.*" Dragnet arrests are at 
best matters of recent memory.*' Even 



15 1 1 iii.i.v even be that tliis information 
would be reb^aspd to tlic press were appel- 
lant snbse(iuentl.v to be obarKed witli 
.■rime. IJ.S (\F.R. § Z>0:2{h) (3) (i) spe- 
lifienlly authorizes release of age, em- 
ploynn'nt. marital status, and "similar 
li:M-kj,'round' information" resurdins de- 
I'.nil.mt.s. and § .5().2(b) (4) explicitly 
autliorizes release of federal criminal con- 
viction records. Arrest records are no- 
wliire mentioned; their rclea.se is neither 
"'xplicitly anthorized nor banned. 

36. .\ppellces' final contention is that the 
lire.sent suit must be dismissed as an un- 
lonsented suit against the United States. 
I'nt'an v. Hank, 372 U.S. (!00, S3 S.Ct. 
'•l!l!», 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (19(«); Malone v. 
Ilowdoin, SCO I'.S. (543, ^2 S.Ct. Jt.SO, S 
l..Kd.2d KiS (l!l(;2) ; Larson v. Domestic 
A: Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. (JS2, 
lifl S.Ct. 14.')7, 93 L.Ed. ]()2S (1!I4!)). 
These cases, however, make clear that an 
.'K'lion Jigainst a government officer is not 
11 .suit against the I'nitcd St.ites if tlie 
notion complained of is "not within the 
officer's statutory powers or, if within 
those powers, only if the i)owers, or their 
'■xcrcise in the particular case, .are con- 
J^'itutionally void." Maloiic, xiipra, 309 
I'.S. at (J47, H2 S.Ct. at OS!!, ijuotin;) hur- 
"on, su/ira, ;}37 U.S. at 702, C!) S.Ct. at 
14(i7. Such is precisely the claim made 
in the present case. 

^^- i'ce, e. ;/., Hinton v. United States, 137 
L-S.App.D.C. 388, 390-391, 424 F.2d 
^^(i, 878-879 (19C9J and cases cited. 



38. Presumably, the guilty are more likely 
to be pro.secuted than the innoci'Ut. In 
consecpience, one would expect that tlie 
cla.ss of inilividuals arrested but not [irose- 
cuted wouhl contain a substantially lower 
I)roportion of guilty persons th.iii the class 
of all persons arrested. 

39. During the years lOCl and ]!)(i2, more 
than G'SOO pers<)ns in thi' District of Co- 
lumbia were arrested "for investigation." 
About (iOOO of those arrested were re- 
leased without being charged with any 
offense whatsoever. Report and Recom- 
mendations of the Commissioners' Com- 
mittee on Poli<-e Arri'sts for Investigation 
97-102 (1902). 

40. /(/. at 07-08. We have no inform;ition 
with respect to the e.\tent to which rec- 
ords of such arrests were transmitted to, 
and retained by, the Federal IJureau of 
Investigation. 

4L As recently ;is 19."iS, pcdice seeking three 
"stocky" young blacks wlai liad robbed a 
rest.iur.-int rounih'd up .some ninety sus- 
pects ; sixty-seven of these were held 
overnight before being ndeased. The one 
man finally <'harged with the (iirense was 
not among those originally rounded up. 
•Sic Trilling v. United Stat.'s. 101 U.S. 
App.D.C. ].-)9. 172 n. 11, 200 F.2d (;77, 
t)90 n. 11 (19.")8) (opinion of li.i/elon, 
.1.). 



269 



494 



430 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES 



worse are those occasions, far more com- 
mon than we would like to think, where 
invocation of the criminal process is 
used — often with no hope of ultimate 
conviction — as punitive sanction.*" Hip- 
pies *^ and civil rights workers ** have 
been harassed and literally driven from 
their homes '••'^ by repeated and unlawful 
arrests, often made under statutes un- 
constitutional on their face.'** Innocent 
bystanders may be swept up in mass ar- 
rests made to clear the streets either 
during a riot or during lawful political 
demonstrations.*' Use of the power to 
arrest in order to inflict summary pun- 
ishment is, of course, unconstitutional; ■•* 
but even if the arrest was made lawfully 



and with the best of intentions,** if the 
person arrested has been exonerated it 
is difficult to see why he should be sub- 
ject to continuing punishment by ad- 
verse use of his "criminal" record. 

[14, 15] The very seriousness of the 
problem underscores the necessity for a 
clear and complete factual record as a 
basis for adjudication.^ We are not un- 
aware of many considerations which 
might lead to the conclusion that the 
maintenance of arrest records is a mat- 
ter properly committed to the discretion 
of the Department of Justice, subject of 
course to such rules as Congress and the 
President may see fit to impose." But 



42. .S'ee, p. g., LaFave, xiipra note 10, at 
146-147. 149-150, 471-482. 

43. Wheeler v. Goodman, 29S F.Supp. 935 
(\V.D.X.C.1969) ; Ilnglie.s v. Rizzo, 282 
F.Supp. 881 (E.D.Pa.l9G8). 

44. E. !)■■ Dombrow.ski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 
479, SO S.Ct. IIIG, 14 L.Ed.2<l 22 (1905) ; 
United States v. McLeod, 385 F.2d 734 
(5th Cir. 19<)7) ; McSurely v. Ratliff. 282 
F.Supp. 848 (E.D.Ky.l9r)7) (three-judge 
court). 

45. Wheeler v. Goodman, supra note 43. 

46. E. (/., Donibrowski v. Pfister, supra note 
44; Wheeler v. Goodman, 306 F.Supp. 
58 (W.D.N'.C.1969) (tliree-judge court). 

47. »SVc, c. g.. Report of the National Ad- 
visory Commission on Civil Disorders 72 
(19(58) ; Report of the Chicago Riot 
Study Committee 43 (1968) ; D. Walker, 
Rights in Conflict (1908) ; Comment, 
The Administration of .Justice in the 
Wake of the Detroit Civil Disorder of 
July 1967. 06 Mich.L.Rev. 1542, 1628- 
1629 n. 411 (1968) ; Comment. Criminal 
Justice in Extremis : Administration of 
Justice During the April 1968 Chicago 
Disorder, 36 U.Chi.L.Rev. 455. 479-483 
(1969). Hee also the fact situations dis- 
closed by, e. <j.. Brown v. Louisiana, 383 
U.S. 131, 86 S.Ct. 719, 15 L.Ed.2d 637 
(1966) ; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 
85 S.Ct. 453, 13 L.Ed.2d 471 (1965) ; 
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 
.S3 S.Ct. 680, 9 L.Ed.2d 697 (1963). 

Recently, a protest march on the Water- 
gate Apartments in the District of Colum- 
bia resulted in the arrest of over 140 per- 



sons. On subsequently ri'viewing the evi- 
dence. Assistant Cori)oration Counsel 
Robert H. Campbell concluded that many 
of the persons arrested were guilty of 
nothin;; and in fact were "trying to move 
on" when they were arrested. Assistant 
Corporation Counsel Thomas Johnson 
noted that in several cases, tlic persons 
arrested were students on the campus of 
George Washington University who were 
"doing nothing and got arrested." Wash- 
ington Post, February 20. 1970. at Al. 
col. 7; Feb. 21, 1970, at B4, col. 1; 
Feb. 28. 1970. at A7. cols. 1, 2. 

48. United States v. Price. 383 U.S. 787. 
799. 86 S.Ct. 1152. 16 L.Ed.2d 267 
(1966). 

49. Cf. Hill V. United States. 135 U.S.App. 
D.C. 233, 418 F.2d 449 (1968) ; Hutchcr- 
son V. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 
274, 281. 345 F.2d 964, 971 (Razelon, C. 
J., concurring), cert, denied, 382 U.S. 894, 
86 S.Ct. 188, 15 L.Ed.2d 151 (1965). 

50. United Public Workers of America 
(CIO) V. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 86-91, 
67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754 (1947). 

51. Obviously, those responsible for investi- 
gating and prosecuting criminal activity 
should have the primary responsibility for 
determining what information will be 
most helpful in carrying out their task ; 
and so long as they do not infringe the 
rights of individuals, the courts may not 
interfere. Similarly, those responsible for 
maintaining a system of information must 
bear the responsibility in the first in- 
stance for assuring that inaccurate or 



270 



such discretion, assuming it exists, may 
not be without limit. Particularly trou- 
blesome is the possibility, by no means 
eliminated on the present record, that 
information in the FBI's files may be 
used for many other than the law en- 
forcement purposes for which its reten- 
tion may be justified.^^ -phe short of the 
matter is that the facts established on 
the cross-motions for summary judg- 
ment were simply inadequate for proper 
resolution of the complex questions 
presented. Accordingly, the judgment 
of the District Court granting appellees' 
motion for summary judgment is re- 
versed and the case remanded for trial. 

So ordered. 



misleading information is not used to an 
inilivi<luars detriment. Appellant here al- 
leged that prior to filing the instant suit 
he had sought relief from appellees but 
had been told that they had "no autlior- 
itj" to do as he requested. We wouUI 
urge the Department of Justice to clarify 
and make public it.s views regarding its 
own authority to correct or delete infor- 
mation in its files ; and should it find 
that it has such authority, to devise pro- 
cedures whereby complaints such as the 
present one may be handled at an ad- 
ministrative level. 

Any such procedure would be a sub- 
stantial improvement over a remedy that 
required any individual anticipating ad- 
verse consequences from an inaccurate 
record to bring a lawsuit in order to pro- 
tect himself. But we must recognize that, 
without more, even a full system of ad- 
ministrative remedies cannot be the final 
answer. Realistically, the FBI cannot be 
expected to investigate the facts under- 
lying every arrest or detention reported 
to it ; the most it can do is examine the 
report on its face and, perhaps, investi- 
gate further if a complaint is received 
from the individual concerned. For most 
of those arrested — too poor, too ignorant, 
and often too disheartened to complain- — 
the only adequate remedy may lie either 
in severely curtailing any use of records 
of arrest, or in eliminating altogether 
their maintenance in a file associated with 
the individual's name. 

52. For example. New York State recently 
passed a statute requiring all employees 



of securities firms to be fingerprinted, and 
providing that the fingerprints so obtained 
be transmitted to the state's Attorney 
General "for appropriate processing." 
New York State Laws 1969, ch. 1071. cod- 
ified as N.Y.General Business Law, § 
359-c(12) (McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 
20, Supp.1969). As a result of this stat- 
ute, several hundred employees have been 
found to have "criminal records" and dis- 
missed from their employment : half of 
those fired had no record of convictions, 
but only of arrests. New York Times, 
February 5, 1970. at 1, col. 2; Wall 
Street Journal, February 5, 1970, at 17. 

It appears that the "appropriate proc- 
essing" is carried out by the New York 
State Identification and Intelligence Sys- 
tem, which is apparently one of those 
state agencies authorized to receive in- 
formation from the FBI's files. 2S U.S.C. 
§ 534(a) (2) (Supp. IV, 1909). Since no 
New Y^ork statute provides for automatic 
dismissal of a securities employee with a 
past arrest record, presum.Tbly the infor- 
mation must be pa.ssed on to the employer 
before an individual may be fired. Al- 
though 2.S r.S.C. § 534(b) (Supp. IV. 
19(!9), provides that tlie exchange of 
records autliorize<l by 8 (a) (2) is "sub- 
ject to cancellation if dissemination is 
made outside the receiving departments 
or related agencies," we have no indica- 
tion that this provision is regarded as 
mandatory or whether it is in fact ever 
enforced. 



271 



(o I «* KUMOtR STJTIM> 



Dale B. MENARD, Plaintiff, 

V. 

John MITCHELL ct al., Defendants. 
Civ. A. No. 39-68. 

United States District Court, 
District of Columbia. 

June 15, 1971. 



Suit to compel Attorney General aid 
FBI director to remove from FBI crimi- 
nal identification files plaintiff's finger- 
prints and an accontipanying notation i o- 
garding his arrest and detention, with- 
out further prosecution, by California 
police. A motion by defendants for 

Cnlifornin . . } . All Indian country 

within tho State. 

3. Titlo 28, Unitcir I. States Code, Section 
■ 1331 provides in its pertinent part: 

"1331. Fedcralj question ; amount in 
controversy ; ros^s. 

(a) The district courts shall have 
original jurisdiction of all civil Jictinnfl 
wherein the inntler in confrovemy ex- 
ceeds tho sum ot| value of $10,(KX), ex- 
clusive of interest and costs, and arises 
under tho Constitution, laws, or treaties 
^ of the United Sti^tea." 



272 



e-niinary judfrmcnt was jrranteti by the 
"-•nitcd States District Court for the Dis- 
..;Vt of Columbia, Aubrey E. Robinson, 
f,' J., but juflj^ment was reversed and 
iho cas" remanded. 1?.0 U.S.App.D.C. 11?., 
.Id F2d tHt). On remand, the District 
Court, Gescll, J., bold that where there 
was probable cause for tho su-^i>ec;'s ar- 
,st tho court n-ould not order oxpunjre- 
n-^n't of the arrest record but disclo- 
. ,rp to anyone other than omoloyeos 
of the Ffil, officials of any a^rency of 
•he T-'nited States fjovernment in the 
'vcnt the plaintiff applied to such 
T',''ncv for employment ai'.d officials of 
aiiv jrovernmcnta! law enforcement apen- 
cv' would be en.ioined. 

Prayer for expungement denied; 
ctjrtain injunctive relief granted; order 
in accordance with opinion. 



1. Arrest C=63(4) 

Wh'Ti' i)olire received prowler com- 
plaint and found suspect, fitting descrip- 
!ion. who lay on park bench and nearby 
.las wallet belonging to someone else and 
cont.ii'iing ■''10 and officers had reason 
M Mi<ne that wallet had been discarded 
!iy susppct as he saw officers approach- 
■n? him. rfficers had probable cause to 
Tjst -U'^jiect. 

I rriminal Law 0=1222 

Conduft of government, such as 
•*idi' dis'cminatinn of arrest records, 
•rit clearly invades individual privacy 
i: revealing episodes in person's life of 

' *• ibtful and certainly not determined 
'.^fvt cannot be pei-mitted unless com- 
■ "inij piiMir mvrssily has brou clearly 

. •.-..un. .-> U.S.C. A. S 7:^11; 28 U.S.C.A. 
':<^: r.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4. 

J. Constitutional Law '^^'Od) 

, Congre^'*. and not courts nor execu- 

1 "^0, nhf^ent v^ry s^orial considerations, 

^ ♦'^uld determine ah initio tho question 

'■ ':i'ihlic nocossity for go\crnment;d con- 

i •■■ t. Mich as wide dissemination of ar- 

i ' ^'' rcrords. which clearly invades indi- 

J-M privacy by revealing episodes in 

'■""I's life of doubtful and certainly 

• d.lcrmined import; only congrcs- 



MENARD V. MITCHELL 

Citciis .'ills I'..Smii|., TIs (|;»T1) 



719 



sional action taken on basis of explicit 
legislative findings demonstrating such 
public necessity will suffice. 5 U.S.C.A. 
§ 7.311; 28 U.S.C.A. § 534; U.S.C.A. h 
Const. Amend. 4. 

4. Criminal Law 01222 

.Statute under which fingerprint 
identification functions were delegated 
to FBI was designed to facilitate co- 
ordination of law enforcement activities 
of federal and local governments and 
was not intended or effective to author- 
ize dis.somination of arrest records to 
any state or local agency for purposes 
of employment or licensing checks. 5 
U.S.C.A. "§ 7.311; 28 U.S.C.A. § 534; 
U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4. 

.5. Criminal Law C^1222 

FBI is without authority to di.ssemi- 
natc arrest records outside federal gov- 
ernment for cmidoyment, licensing or 
related jiurposes, whether or not the rec- 
ord reflects a later conviction. 5 U.S. 
C.A. § 7311; 28 U.S.C.A. § 534; U.S. 
C.A. Const. Amend. 4. 

6. Criminal Law 0=1222 

Where there had been probable cause 
for plaintiff's arrest, court would not 
order expungement of his arrest record 
in fingerprint division of FBI, but dis- 
clo.sure to anyone other than employees 
of FBI, officials of any agency of the 
United States government in event plain- 
tiff applied to such agency for employ- 
ment and officials of any governmental 
law enforcement agency would be en- 
joined. 5 U.S.C.A. § 7311; 28 U.S.C.A. 
§ 531; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4. 

7. Criminal Law C=1222 

United States executive order lim- 
ited by judicial decisions was, in i)ermit- 
ting use of F'BI fingerprint records for 
purposes of governmental employment, 
proper exercise of President's responsi- 
bilities in name of national security, in 
view of many civil ser\'ice and other 
built-in safeguards protecting misuse of 
such information, and government's dis» 
crcet use of such information was not 
infringement upon any constitutional 
right asserted by person whose finger- 



273 



720 



328 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 



luinting resulted from arrest on probable 
cause. 5 U.S.C.A. § 7311; 28 U.S.C.A. 
§ 534; TI.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4. 



R. Raymond Twohig, Jr., Georgetown 
Legal Intern Program, Washington, D. 
C, for plaintiff. 

Joseph Ilannon, Asst. U. S. Atty., for 
defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

(iKSMLJ,, Di.strict Judge. 

Plaintiff has brought this action to 
expunge his arrest record contained in 
the I''ingeri)rint Idontififation files of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 
That record reads as follows: 

Date arrested or received: 8/10/65 

Charge or offense: 459 PC Burglary 

Disi)osition or sentence: 8/12/C5 
T'nablo to connect with any felony 
or misdemeanor — in accordance with 
849b(l) — not deemed an arrest but 
detention only. 

Occupation: student 

Originally the matter was presented 
to another Judge of this Court on cross- 
motions for summary judgment and de- 
fendants prevailed. The Court of Ap- 
peals reversed and remanded for the tak- 
ing of testimony after expre.ssing inter- 
est and concern with issues suggested 
by the pleadings which the Court ap- 
parently felt had not been fully developed 
in the record. Menard v. Mitchell, 139 
•U.S.App.D.C. 113, 430 F.2d 486 (1970). 
Accordingly, further evidence was taken 
at a full hearing and the issues have 
been briefed and argued. 

Menard, age 19 at time of arrest and 
subsequently an officer in the Marine 
Corps, contends that his arrest in Los 
Angeles was without i)robabIe cause and 
that future dis.semination of the above 
arre.st record, now in the files of the 
FBI, may impede his employment op- 



portunities and .subject him to an in- 
creased risk of being suspected and ar- 
rested for crimes on other occasionB. He 
seeks expungement of the record or, In 
the alternative, strict limitations on its 
dissemination by the FBI. 

Before considering the merits of the 
expungement issue raised, it is appropri- 
ate to set forth complete findings on two 
subjects indicated by the Court of Ap- 
peals as matters for particular inquiry 
on remand: the procedures and practices 
of the FBI with respect to maintaining 
arre.st records and the circumstances of 
Mcnard'.s arrest. 

/. Thr. Procedures of the FBI 
Identification Division 

Fingerprint and arrest records such 
as Mcnard'.s arc under the jurisdiction 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's 
Identification Division. ' This Division, 
which has been in existence since 1924, 
Junctions under the Attorney General, 
and proceeds by authority of 28 U.S.C. 
§ 534, which reads as follows: 

§ 534. Acquisition, preservation, 
and exchange of identification rec- 
ords ; appointment of officials 

(a) The Attorney General shall — 

(1) acquire, collect, classify, and 
preserve identification, criminal iden- 
tification, crime and other record.s; 

and I 

(2) exchaiige these records with, 
and for the official use of, authorized 
officials of jthe Federal Government, 
the States, cities, and penal and other 
institutions. 

(b) The exchange of records author- 
ized by sub.spction (a) (2) of this sec- 
tion is subject to cancellation if dis- 
.semination iH made outside the receiv- 
ing departments or related agencies. 

(c) The Attorney General may ap- 
point officia|is to perform the functions 
authorized by this section. Added. 
Pub.L. 89-354, § 4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 
80 Stat. 61G. 

The Attorney General has made a 
series of rulijigs interpreting the stat- 



274 



MENARD V. MITCHELL 

I'll.- -IS .'IL'S l''.Hiii.|i. TIK ( IT, I 1 



721 



tl(i'. Tlif:;<' •■••(■ Infjr<"lv mdifii'd in IIH 
G.F.R- § 0.«5(b) which provides that the 
Oirtctor of the FBI shall: 

Conduct the acquisition, collection, 
exchange, cladsification, and jn'oserva- 
(jnn of itientification records, includ- 
ing pcnsoiial fingerprints voluntarilv 
siibinittec], on a mutually beneficial 
basis, from law enforcement and other 
jjnvernmontal agencies, insurance com- 
pniiic. vailro.-id police, national hanks, 
mcnihor b'lnk.^ of the Federal Reserve 
System, FDIC-Reserve-Insured Banks, 
and banking institutions insured by 
the F'^dcral Savin/rs and Loan Insur- 
-iiicc Corporation ; provide expert 
testimony in Federal or local courts 
as to fingerprint examinations; and 
provide identification assistance in 
disasters and in missinrr persons type 
cn'5'"^ including thosi- irdin iniMirance 
fonipanics. 

. The FBI Identification Division has 

some two hundred million sets of finper- 
I rints on file. These records are main- 
t.iincd in separate criminal and ajiplicant 
files. Fincrerprints are submitted to the 
n-ircTj by federal, state, and local apen- 
iUS on a reciprocal basis. Law enforc- 
inif arcncii-s. jiriniarily local police and 
jhrriff's ofCi'x's, submit prints of ar- 
ri'.-.ted persons in order to receive in- 
formation on the person's prior criminal 
involvement. The Bureau reports its 
fin-iinrrs and maintains the fingerprint 
•:n.\ CO submitted, along with the oc- 
rompnnyintr arrest data, in its criminal 
f>. Information on the subsequent dis- 
fosition of each arrest is posted if re- 
>'ivcd from the suhmiltinK' aircuty. The 
'■■.f-MT' Uioii so recorded is cryjitic and 
'•'■nvil, without explanation or elabora- 
■:in. .Tiivnnile an-osts and enmictions, 
■^■'■n submitted by local a^'cncies, are 
i^'-'-ilcu the .<;ame as similar adult data. 
I ••' n-iniinal file currently contains in- 
'•'^iniatinii on some sixty million arrests 
•''''i'Proximatcly nineteen million people. 

^ Finjrcrprint cards are also received 
■•^^ni iirencios of (he stat<< .and federal 
'■■•^iTii-Tients and others who. seek in- 

3J8 F Supp, — ,)(, 



l.inn.ition mi .in individual's record of 
crimirial involvement in connection with 
permits, licen.ses, and em))loyment clear- 
ance. After check apainst the criminal 
file, these cards are maintained in the 
api)licant file for future reference. The 
Division also receives hundreds of "name 
check" requests from contributing and 
non-contributing sources, including an 
occasional Congressman, asking for the 
criminal record of an individual l>y name 
without submitting any fingerprints for 
comparison. Many of these cannot be 
processed bccau.=^c of inadequate identifi- 
cation of the person named, particularly 
where common names are involved. 
Where possilile, however, and where the 
inquiring agency gives what the FBI con- 
siders a legitimate reason for the re- 
quest, the.-e inquiries are processed. 

The vohmie of work of the Division 
is enormous, requiring about 3,:i00 em- 
ployees. The Division receives an aver- 
age of 29,000 fingerprints a day for 
processing, of which about l.'^.OOO are . 
received from law enforcing agencies in 
connection with arrests. 

The Division, broadly speaking, con- 
siders any state, city or county official 
to be authorized to receive inform.-ition 
if the agency has something to do Avith 
law enforcement or if it is authorized 
by statute, ordinance, or rule to finger- 
Iirint applicants for employment or for 
a permit or license. The laws and ordi- 
nances of various local areas vary wide- 
ly. Some areas do not require finger- 
printing for practically any purpose 
while others have highly detailed finger- 
l^rinting rofpiircments for varied .-ind 
often (juite minor occupations. Exam- 
ples are listed in Appendix A. The rec- 
ord coiit.ains a long li.'l of st.ate and local 
governments and a large number of dif- 
ferent licensing anthorities who by law 
or regulation are recjuired to take finger- 
prints as part of their licensing duties. 
The Division maintains a current list 
of contributing or participating state «nd 
federal agencies which now numbers be- 
tween 7,000 and 8,000. Of these, ap- 
proximately 3,750 are local police depart- 



275 



722 



328 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 



ments and sheriff offices. Criminal rec- 
ord data is not senl directly to private 
employers, except in a few instances such 
as 390 banks insured by the F.D.I.C. and 
rcrlain hospitals.' 

As far as the Federal agencies arc 
concerned, Executive Order 10450 of 

April 1o^).^, :? r.F.n. o.^r, rift/io r..T 

("onip.), T) U.S.C. S 7;U1, requires a check 
of the FBI fingerprint files on practical- 
ly all applicants for employment in the 
Federal Government whether or not en- 
paped in law enforcement. The Civil 
Service Commission and the Military ac- 
count for the highest volume of finger- 
prints submitted to the Bureau. 

Given the very general nature of its 
purported authority the Bureau has pro- 
ceeded cautiously. It investigates the 
authority of local agencies to require 
fingerprints and insists that detailed 
forms bo filled out by contributors show- 
ing the purpose for which fingerprints 
arc to be submitted. The Attorney Gen- 
eral advises in doubtful situations. The 
Division has carried out its work in a 
responsible, meticulous manner. None- 
Ihclc.'^s, I he end result is most nns.'ilis- 
factory. While the Division has vigor- 
ously sought to develop comnlete records 
and particularly to learn of disjiositions 
resulting from each arrest, this effort 
has not been successful due to t^e failure 
of arresting agencies to send in follow-up 
^daTa on forn' iia Uiovided. Suiue police de- 
partments do much better than others in 
this regard, but the Division has no 
sanctions and must be satisfied with 
what it can get by persuasion since the 
whole system functions on a voluntary 
basis. Even more troublesome is the 
fact that the Division has little oppor- 
tunity to supervise what is actually done 
with the arrest records it disseminates. 
It requires that a proper purpose be 
stated by the agency requesting informa- 
tion but what is in fact done with the 
infi>rm.ition as a i^ac tical matter cinnot 
be constantly checked. It is apparent that 
local agencies may on occasion pass on ar- 



rest information to private emjiloyers. 
The Division makes no regular inspection 
to prevent this, for it has neither funds 
nor sanctions, and accordingly respond.s 
only to complaints. In a few instances 
police datiartments have been restricted, 
and in other instances when complaints 
were received personnel or administra- 
tive ( hangcs were demanded by lh<> FBI 
and put into effect. 

The FBI does not supply an individual 
with his arrest record except under rare 
special circumstances. The rea.sons are 
ajiparently two: the difficulty of obtain- 
ing definite identification of the person 
requesting the record, and fiscal con- 
siderations. There is no su)e procedure 
for finding an arrest record by n^ime 
only. A clear set of fingei7)rints is re- 
quired for matching purposes. Thus as 
a practical matter an individual must 
submit his prints to get a check made 
of his record. This is cumbensome. 
Moreover, the Division is already so 
hard-pressed that it cannot now meet 
the demands on it from all local agencies. 
A regular system of sen-icing individu- 
als requesting their pei"sonal arrest rec- 
oi'ds would recpiire an estimated .$110,000 
per antnim, plus appropriations for at 
least six additional employees. 

Any agency that forward fingerprint 
arrest data to (he Division may request 
the Bureau to i^emove the data from the 
file and return lit. This the Bureau does 
automatically, retaining no copies and 
without inquiring as to the reasons un- 
derlying the request. Thus control of 
what arrest or criminal data remain in 
the files rests in every case (except 
where an arrest on Federal charges is 
involved) with the local arresting author- 
ity. In 1970 <)ver 8,000 arrest records 
were returned by the FBI to local author- 
ities. Some thirteen states, including-. 
California, h.nVe laws or procedures for 
authorizing thi^ form of expungem(^nt in 
varying circumstances. In addition some 
states have laws limiting the type of 



I. lusurniicc rontpnnicH arc uidcil in noce8.snry iiloiitifioation work but arc not fm-nislicd crim- 
innl record dntn bv tlio FBI. I 



276 



MENARD V. MITCHELL 

niciih.!-j,s i\.sii|i|i. -iM (i:i7i) 



723 



,.p,t d.'tn that ran l>o fonvanlod rou^. 
;''|,.Ij. to th.- Hiirrau. 
^.jiinst th'.'4 bnrkpround, which was 
,>ro <""">' ']''^'''"I><'«1 •" "'»' riToni in an 
,ffort to sniiiily ihv (ypc of data reque.st- 
A in tho ficrision of the Court of Ap- 
nc^h- '* '•'' P"^'''l''<^ *" turn to tho issues 
nrrsonteil by this particular lawsuit. 

// The. CircvmManr-.p.H of the ArreM 
Ml i\|fn;ii(l \\;i:i aiicslrd on MUKpit'ion 

f ()iirKl'iry l)y (wo ol'ficcrM of the I.o.s 
\?it,'<I(.'M I'olio" Department. Tho arrest 
iiri-nvied aroMtul 1:00 a. m. on Anrnsl 
in. lOW. 



Tho police had earlier that 
niornin? received a complaint of a prowl- 
•T at <T sa"atoviuni lo'.ated in ;i hi)rh 
lime .irea. Tlie pionler was reported 
!?<ikiiiK ill windows and at the back park- 
Mi;,' let i>! ""■ iiistituti'iu. (IJHcldnjr on 
;lii^ (omplaint. the poli<'(> oldained .a de- 
ii-ription of the man and proceeded to 

• i!rol the area. A .short distance away 

• hi-y saw an unkemjit, unshaven man fit- 
\\vtf (lie lie".' ripl ion, dre.;:'.e<l in dark 

li'tliinp lyinjr on a park bench. That 
tr.!!! was Menard. Near hirn on the 
rround was a wallet belonging to .some- 
-:io else containing $10. The officers 
hnd reason to believe the wallet might 
hnve been discarded by Menard as ho 

I'srrvcd the officers approaching him 
•'Tii'ich the park. The arrest was made 
•vithoiit knowledge of any specific bur- 
,:l,iry' hut on the basis of the prowler 
»■":'l'''■lin^ ^hc suspicious presence of tho 
•.t-iilit. ;uul the cenor.-il circumstances 
.■^•linod above. Menard's arrest v/a.s 
•■»'!i jirnbable cause. Kor v. California, 
H7t U.S. 2X 34-3r), 83 S.Ct. 1G2.1, 10 L. 
K.I 2(1 72f) (190:{); Jackson v. TTnited 
Stat-s, 112 TJ.S.App.D.C. 2G0, .'^02 F. 
'i IDl, I'^G n0«2); People v. Fischer, 

;'' r.ii.jd 442. 'Ml v.?A O'iv. 070 (inr.7). 

M"ii,ird >v;i.s h(iol;ed .'it the precinct 

»:!•'! il'.c \\';itch Commander reviewed the 

*»>ts and circunstantes reported by the 

'•'■'Tsf. Ho was fingerjuinted and his 

i tints with a notation of his arrest were 

• liiir.liir.v is fIr.fiiKil iindfr llio (Vilifiirni;! 
'■•• '1 l''>.li' S K;-t."!» :is follows: 

Kmtv ii»ison who Piitnr^ .nii.v lioiiso, 
''■""I. .M'^rtiiH'tit, ti-'li'^nient. shoji, wnro- 



sent to the Bureau in accordance with 
r<!gular jirocodurea. After further in- 
vestigation, Mon.'ird was rolo;ised in ;ic- 
cordanco with tho provisions of the Cali- 
fornia Penal Code, the police being "un- 
able to connect with any felony or mis- 
demeanor at this time." Plaintiff and, 
his family tjien .sou^lit by lengthy cor- 
rosjjondenco with the Los A ngele.s Police 
Den;\itm<'nl. to h;ivc the record exi>iinK<'d 
by thi' l'olic(> Uejia'lmonl but wore 
fTn;iilv ;idviHed on M.iy :U, l',M"»«>, that re- 
moval of the record would be po-'uslbFo 
"only upon order of a court of ciinipetent 
.juri.sdiHion." This was confirmed by 
correspondence with the Bureau which 
took the iiosition th.nt the ]]ureau li.id no 
.•inthority to determine what fingerprints 
should ho in the FBI files. 

///. Expungrment 

The Government argues persuasively 
that a district court is without authority 
to ni.'iK'o :i dcleriiiin:il ion of prol):dile 
f .iiiMo wliore a statG arrest is concerned, 
and that in any event the Court should 
in such ca.^es exerci.'^.e its discretion and 
not intervene, leaving Menard to pursue 
his expungement remedies in the Cali- 
fornia stito courts. There is substantial 
authority and much common sense sup- 
porting this position. 

The FBI simply records in its files 
information supplied by other agencies, 
and is in no position to make an inde- 
pf^ndent investigation of the circum- 
stances of an individual's arrest by state 
authorities or later developments in his 
case. Nor is a Federal District Court 
in a position to litigate the merits of 
arrests made by state authorities far 
away from its jurisdiction, as the 
problems of [iroof in this case denion- 
s(i;»((\ The Buie;iu uniformly honors 
ref|U''sts by contributing agencies that 
a record bo removed from the FBI files 
and roturn(^d to the agency. Whatever 
the issue as to the legality of an arrest 
record, an action for its expungement 

lioiiso, stoi'i\ mill, li.'irn, Ntalilo, uutlinuNO 
or otlior htiililiiiu' • • • with intent 
to ronimit Rrnnd or petit liircony or 
nny folony in Builty of biirRlnry. 



277 



724 



328 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 



c.iiuiol l>o mniiitaiiKMl imiIi'.sh jnlmiiiistni- 
(ivi- n'riirdic:) i\v first, cxh.'in.stc'd ; and 
wJkto thcsc! effoilH are imHUCcL'SMful, 
jis were Menard's, resort .should be had 
ill the first instance to the Htatc courts. 
This iirocediiro is sJi'oiijrly sujrinrcsted if 
iiiil coiniu'lltMl hy reel lit cases which 
liold thai federal <'oiirtH should refrain 
li'iiui ii|l> ilVi iiii; willi /t .'iIiiIi'm iidniin 
i;iti;iliiiii nf il:i own criminal laws, and 

liliolllil mIi.I.IIII Ii'iHII ili'l'llljllH ImIIIM'II lit 

local concern until they are first |»re- 
acnl.ed to the ill ale <iiiiil:i. ,V' c, c. //.. 
YouuKer v. Harris, 401 H.S. .S7, 'lH-44, ;tl 
S.CI. 'MC, 27 L.Kd.LM <;c.;t (I'.)7I); l-'ay 
v. Noia, :i72 U.S. 3!t], 417-420. 8.'J S.Ct. 
R22. 'J L.Kd.2d 8;'.7 (I'.HiM); Hueehold 
V. Ortiz, 401 F.2d .".71, :{7:{ (9th Cir. 
J 968); GauKcr v. Peyton. :579 F.2d 709. 
710 (4th fir. 190,7'). The fact that the 
Cuiirl lia;: m.'ide the f.'i<lit;il dtliTiniti.a ■ 
tion of probable cause in this case arises 
solely from the specific directions priven 
on the remand and should be no prece- 
dent for the future. 

• 

The Tourt of Appeals apjiarently felt 
that a findinp of probable cause was 
relevant to a determination of the ques- 
tion whether Menard's arrest record is 
a "i'rimin:d rrcord" of the typi' which 
the Rurenii is authorized to maintain 
under 28 U..S.C. § sr?-!. Analysis denion- 
.''trate.G, however, that the question of 
probable cause has little to do with the 
merits of the underlying controversy. 
An arrest whetlier made with or with- 
out probable cau.'5o is to be sure a fact, 
but .one that proves nothing so far as 
the actual conduct of the person arrest- 
ed is concerned. An arrest without 
probabli' '■■■iiisi' may still lead to con\'ic- 
tion and one with probable cause may 
still result in acquittal. Under our sys- 
tem of criminal justice, only .a conviction 
carries le^al significance as to a per- 
.son's involvement in criminal behavior. 
As ttic .Sinircmc' Court statc<l in Scliwan- 
v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U..S. 
232, 241, 77 S.Ct. 752. 757, 1 L.Ed.2d 
790 (1957): 

The m(!re fact that a man has been 
arrested has very little, if any, proba-» 
tive value in showing that he has en- 



k«k:«iI ill miy iiiiMrondiict. An arroHt 
shows nothing more than that .some- 
one probably suaiiected llu; peiiion ap- 
prehended of an offense. When forma! 
charges are not filed against the ar- 
rested i)eraon and he is relea.sed with- 
out trial, whatever probative force 
th(! ane.st may have liad is normally 
di'isipatcd, f Footnote omitted.] 

Other cases liave held that arrests with- 
iiiil I'onvirl iiiiiM iiiiiy not Irxiitly l><- niuwl 
as the basis for adverse action ugalnat 
nn individual. In (ircKniW V. I.itton' 
Sy.stems. Inc., 31(> F.Supi). 401 (CD. 
( ;.il.r.»'/0), I In- practice of an cmphiyer 
in denying employment to persons with 
arrest records was found to violate Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 
court made factual findings that such a 
pi-.actice disqualified a higher propor- 
lion itf liI.icK:; I ban whiles, and th.at "in- 
formation concerning a prosiiccfive em- 
ployee's record of arrests without con- 
victions, is irrelevant to his suitability 
or qualification for employment." 31G 
F.Supp. 401, 403. See also United States 
V. Kalish. 271 F.Supp. 968. 970 (D. 
Puerto Rico 1967). 

Relying on these general principles, 
Mi-nard argues that in the absence of 
a conviction, the maintenance and u.se of 
his arrest record for any purpose what- 
.soever violates several constitutional 
guarantees — the presumption of inno- 
cence, due pj"Qcess, the right to privacy, 
and the freedom from unreasonable 
.search under the Foui'th Amendment. 
THei-e are few precedents which deal di- 
rectly with these issues. Those that do 
exist usually involve aju^cial circum- 
sl.'inccs such as dr.-ignet in'rrsts or ar- 
rests under patently unconstitutional 
statutes. See, e. g., Wheeler v. Good- 
man, 306 F.Supp. 58 (W.D.N.C.1969); 
Hughes V, Rizzo, 282 F.Supp. 881 (E.D. 
Pa. 1968), Others have granted relief 
on motion ancillary to a pending criminal 
proceeding, calling upon general equity 
principles or local rules rather than con- 
stitutional considerations. See, e. g., 
Jslorrow V. I^slrict of Columbia, 135 U.S.- 
App.D.C. 160, 417 F.2d 728 (1969); 
United States v. Kalish, 271 F.Supp. 968 , 



278 



MENARD V. MITCHELL 

Citcjisa^H r.Siipp, TIS ()!l71) 



725 



ict 
App. 



_ Puerto Rico 1067) ; Irani v. Distr 
/Columbia, 272 A.2d 849 (D.C.A 

rn. 27. 1971). 

faih of Menard's constitutional argu- 
-^g ni.ikes certain asaumiitiona about 
" u^(,3 to wliich his arrent record will 
put. As the Court of Appeal.s noted, 
,, j9 a fact subject to ready judicial no- 
.• , that di.ssemination of an arrest rec- 
' J j„;iy ])lace .substantial obstacles in 

J. ^vay of a person's opportunity for 
. miloyment or advancement, and may 

].,, affect aspects of law enforcement 
"■d judicial action. No court has yet 
/iainiiied the legality of FBI practices 
ftith resjioct to the dissemination of ar- 
,,.st records. It is appropriate, there- 
'orc, to deal fully with those i.ssues be- 
fore reaching any expungement claims. 
The Coui-t is required to determine under 
tth.nt circumstances, if any, arrest rec- 
ords not reflecting a later conviction 
ff.iy be disseminated by the Bureau 
fither within or outside the Federal 
«kivcrnmont. 

;r. Disaeminntinn of Arrest Records 

Tliroughout the years Courts have 
vpupht to preserve a citizen's right to 
privacy against changes in our culture 
nnii developing modes of governmental 
rcjii'ation. As early as 1886 the Su- 
j.nmc Court stated in Boyd v. United 
.«tntc!(. IIG U.S. 616, 630. 6 S.Ct. 524, 
:^r:. 20 L.Ed. 746 (1886), that privacy 
i« inherent in our constitutional form 
of ffovernment. Referring to earlier 
British precedent the Court noted that 
rrivacy was a sacred right, stating: 

The principles laid down in this opin- 
ion affect the very essence of consti- 
liitioiial liberty and security. They 



reach further than the concrete form 
• of the case then before the court, with 
its adventitious circumstances ; they 
apply to all invasions on the part Of 
the government and its employes of 
the sanctity of a man'.s home and the ^• 
l)rivacios of life. It is not the break- 
ing of his doors, and the rummaging 
of his drawers, that constitutes the 
essence of the offense; but it is the 
invasion of his indefeasible right of 
personal .security, personal liberty and 
private property, where that right has 
never been forfeited by hi.s conviction 
of some public offence, — it is the in- 
vasion of (his sacred right which un- 
derlies and constitutes the essence of 
Lord Camden's judgment. * * * 

A moment's thought demonstrates the 
wisdom of this precept, as of course 
many subsequent decisions and com- 
mentators have noted.-' While conduct 
against the state may properly subject 
an individual to limitations upon his 
future freedom within tolerant limits, 
accusations not proven, charges made 
without adequate supporting evidence 
when tested by the judicial process, 
ancient or juvenile transgressions long 
since expiated by responsible conduct, 
should not be indiscriminately broadcast 
under governmental auspices. The in- 
creasing complexity ,of our society and 
technological advances which facilitate 
massive accumulation and ready regurgi- 
tation of far-flung data have presented 
more jiroblems in this area, certainly 
problems not contemplated by the 
framers of the Constitution.* These de- 
velopments emphasize a pressing need to 
preserve and to redefine aspects of the 
right of privacy to insure the basic free- 
doms guaranteed by this democracy. 



y .«iv f^iivcinlh/ A. .Afiller, The Assault 
«in Privnry (1071), nml liis voluminous 
imlcs lind rit.'itioDH. 

*• !>!•<• F'ri'sidiMit's Commission on Lnw En- 
f'n'omi-nt nti'l tlio Ailministrntion of .7us- 
'iif. Tiisk I'orrc Krimrt : Scirnrn .nml 
TMinnlnt;)-. rit 74-77 (1007). Penling 
•pfiificiiUy with nrrcst rccorils, the Com- 
" I'^-'ion notoil three Rorious iirohlems *in 
'li'lr use; 



Tlie ri-conl inny contain inTOmplctc or 
incorrect information. 

Tli(> informntion mny f.^11 into the 
wronc hnnds nn<l be uscil to intimidnte 
or oinbnrrnss. 

The informntion may be retained long 
.•iftrr it hns lost its u.sefulnoss nn<l 
serves only to harass ex-offcn<le|H,*or 
its mere existence may diminish nn 
offender's belief in the possibility of 
redemption. 



279 



726 



•328 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 



/\ heavy burden is placed on all 
branches of Government to maintain a 
proper equilibrium between the acquisi- 
tion of information and the necessity to 
safejruiud luivacy. Systematic recorda- 
tion and dissemination of information 
about individual citizona is a form of sur- 
veillance and control which may easily 
inhibit freedom tq speak, to work, and 
to move about in this land. If informa- 
tion available to Government is misused 
to publicize past incidents in the lives 
of its citizens the pressures for con- 
formity will be irresistible. Initiative 
and individuality can be suffocated and 
a resulting dullness of mind and conduct 
will become the norm. We are far from 
having reached this condition today, but 
surely hi.story teaches that inrdads arc 
most likely to occur during unsettled 
tinges like the.se where fear or the pas- 
sions of the moment can lead to excess- 
es. The present controversy, limited as 
it i.s, must be viewed in this broadest 
context. In short, the overwhelming 
power of the Federal Government to ex- 
pose must be held in proper check. 

[2, 3] Menard, formerly a respon- 
sible officer in the Marine Corps, will 
in all likelihood not be hui't by his ar- 
rest record as it now stands, but as a 
citizen he has the ripht to question thd 
largely uninhibited distribution of in- 
formation about thJT episode in his past. 
Where the Government engapcs in con- 
duct, such as the wide dissemination of 
arrest records, that clearly invades in- 
dividual privacy by revealing episodes 
in a person's life of doubtful and certain- 
ly not determined import, its action can- 
not be permitted unless a compelling 
public nece.ssity has been clearly shown. 
Neither the courts nor the Executive, 
ab.sont very special considerations, should 
determine the question of public ne- 
cessity fib initio. The matter is for the 
Congress to resolve in the first instance 
and only congressional action taken on 
Ihe basis of explicit legislative findings 

5. Tlic Ipcial.itivo liistor.v is rxrocilingly 
spare. The (liscu.ssion whirli did tiikc 
l))acc in Consrcs.s only emphasizes the 
limitation of tlie Identification Division 



demonstrating public necessity will suf- 
fice. 

[4] This brings under pointed analy- 
sis the import of the legislation under 
which the Attorney General has delegated 
fingerprint identifi(;ation functions to 
the bureau. A The statute previously 
quoted, 28 U.S.C. § 534, m„U3.t^be^narrow-_ 
ly interpreted to avoid the serious con- 
stTEutTonal Tssues raised by Menard and 
noted by the^ Court of Appeals. Viewed 
in this light, it is abundantly clear that 
Congress never intended to or in fact 
did authorize di.s.semination of arrest 
records to any state or local agency for 
purposes of employment or licensing 
checks. 

The statute read as a whole is obvious- 
ly designed only to facilitate coordinated 
law enforcement activities between the 
federal and local government, that is, to 
assist arresting agencies, courts and cor- 
rectional institutions in the apprehen- 
sion, conviction and pi'opcr disposition 
of criminal offenders. Neither the .stat- 
ute nor the debates " so much as men- 
tion emjiloyment, and it is beyond rea- 
son to assume that Congi'ess intended 
that this confidential quasi-investigative 
data should be handed to anyone who 
under authority of local ordinance or 
statute was authorized to take a finger- 
print' from an applicant for a position 
in ]>ublic or private employment. At 
the time the statute was pass'-d and 
since, there is no rational or uniform 
system among the .states and local govern- 
ments for obtaining fingerprints from 
applicants, and the compelling necessity 
of federal action to Isupply criminal in- 
formation cannot be established by the 
whim or intolerance: of any local board 
of selectmen. 

The principal faults in the present 
system may be briefly indicated: 

(1) State and local agencies receive 
criminal record data for employment 
purposes whenever authorized by local 

to criininnl low criforoomcnt purposes. 
72 Cone.Rec. 1989 (|71st Cong., 2d Scss.. 
Jan. 20, 1930). 



34-78 



O - 74 - 19 



280 



MENARD V 

Cilc !i» .'US F.s 

enactment. These enactments dilfer 
^(ote-by-state and even locality-by-local- 
,tv within a particnlar state. See Ap- 
p^iuliN A. Thus there is no pattern that 
finds .ui-^tifi'"!>tioii either in tei-ins of 
ovei'iill l'"^^^' enforcement objectives or by 
catofroO' of employment. 

,'2> The Bureau cannot prevent im- 
proper dissemination and use of the ma- 
(prial it supplies to hundreds of local 
ircncics. Thero are no criminal or civil 
' apnctions. Control of the data will be 
■v.adc more difficult and c/pportunities 
fur imjiroper use will increase with the 
(lewlopment of centralized state infor- 
mation centers to be linked by computer 
toihe niireau. 

(:f) The arrest record mater'ial is in- 
romi'lcte and heii(i> often inaccurate, yet 
n,) jirofodure exists to enai)le iridividuals 
to obtain, to correct or to supplant the 
criminal record information used agrainst 
them, nor indeed is thei-e any assurance 
;hi\t the individual even knows his (>m- 
;.loyment application is affected by an 
KHl finecrprint check. 

■ 1^ The demands made of the Division 
for employment data have so increased 
;hal the Bureau now lacks adequate fa- 
cilities to service new applicants who fall 
■.^I'hin its own vac:ue standards of eli- 
.■i''ility. 

j."i| In short, with the increasing 

.■•.\;iilability of finperpiints, technolog;i- 

..1 fiovtloiiments. and the enormous in- 

nasu in impulation. the .system is out, of 

.•■Vrtjve control. The Bureau needs 

I'k'i^lative ;Tuidance and there must be 

■ I •;,iM'onal policy developed in this area 

■*'.i'h will have built into it adequate 

"(tions and administrative safeguards." 

'. s 'lot the function of the courts to 

"i'-.i< thc^e judtrmf^nts, but the courts 

2"'in rail a halt until the legislature acts. 

1'mU the Court finds that the Bureau is 

^ 'Hotit authority to disseminate arrest 

■•• ^njs outside the Federal Government 

< '." (employment, licensing or related 

\n i\ti'nilpil rlispu'Jsi'in nf tlio jtrohloin 

" ' ^■'"\<i i(>;isonaM(' rpfnTiimpii<lntion.s for 

S'^'iilidii '^•n^f> ni;)>l" in tlio Task I'orrr 

• ■ ■""! oil S<'I(>ni'f> iiTnl T('olinol(i);y.. I'rrs- 



MITCHELL 1727 

111.)'. Tls (I'lTll ^ 4.' 

purposes whether or not the record re- 
flects a later conviction. 

r^, 71 When the statute is thus con- 
.stnifid there is no difficulty in uphold- 
ijfig'jit for the limited purpo.se that was 
intended, fhere is- a -cmnpelling'' neces- 
sity to furnish arrest data to other law 
enforcing agencies for strictly law en- 
forcement purposes. Arrest records are 
available "in~lincoVering criminal con- 
duct, they play a significant role in the 
pro.sccutor's exercise of discretion, they 
greatly aid in setting bond,, determining 
sentences an facilitating the work of 
penal and other institutions of correc- 
tion. When arrest records are used for 
such purposes, they are subject to due 
process limitations within the criminal 
])roress, ;ind misuse may be checked by 
judicial action. The same safeguards 
are not present when an arrest record 
is used for employment purposes, often 
v/ithout the knowledge of the person in- 
volved. Menard's arrest record will not 
be exiiunged where its dissemination out- 
side the Federal Government is limited 
to law enforcement purposes. 

This leaves open for consideration the 
Federal Government's use of these rec- 
ords for purposes of governmental em- 
ployment only. Executive Order 10450, 
sufirV; limited as it has been by previous 
Court decisions, must be recognized as 
a projier exerciee of the President's re- 
sponsibilities in the name of national 
security. There are many Civil Service 
and other built-in safeguards which pro- 
tect misuse of this information. It can- 
not be passed on to private employers, 
including Government contractors. The 
Government's di.screet use of this infor- 
mation already in its possession for its 
own limited employment purposes in aid 
of national .security cannot be said to 
infringe any constitutional right asserted 
by Menard. While the point is of no 
consequence in his particular ca.se, the 
Court ventures to suggest that the Ex- 
ecutive Order should be re-examined in 

iilont's Commission on Lnw Enforcement 
iiml Aihninistrntion of Justice, pjj. 74-77 



281 



728 



328 FEDERAL 

J ■ 



the light of preBont conditions and can in 
several respects be made more consonant 
with fair play, particularly if all appli- 
cant'A for federal .service receive a por- 
Miinal copy of their n-cord in liino 1o coi-- 
rect or explain any data therein con- 
tained. 

Menard'.s prayer for expungement is 
denied. His arrest record may not be re- 
vealed to pro.spectjve emp'oyer.s except 
in the case of any agency of the Federal 
Government if ho seeks employment with 
such agency. His arrest record may be 
disseminated to law enforcement agencies 
for law enforcement purposes. An ap- 
projtriatc order to this effect is attached. 

The foregoing shall constitute the 
Court's finding.s of fact and conclusions 
of law. , 

APPENDIX A 

SAMPLE OF PERSONS REQUIRED 
TO BE FINGERPRINTED BY 
RTATH OK T-OCAL STATUTE, 
ORDINANCE OR RULE 

Glrndale, Arizona: 

Taxicab drivers and operators; tran- 
sient, itinerant or traveling merchants, 
peddlers, private detectives, .solicitors or 
canvassers, massage parlor operators, 
and employees. 

Denver, Colorado: 
Any applicant for a driver's lic^n.se. 
District of Columbia: 
Auctioners, fortune tellers, hackers, junk 
dcalen, mediums, parking lot attendants, 
pawnbrokers, second hand dealers, solici- 
tors, vendors; operators of billiard par- 
lors, bowling alleys, detective agencies, 

• massage establishments, pool rooms, 

• shooting galleries ; ABC licensees. 

Toini of Mnvnlapnn, Florida: 
Every person employed in any club, any 
place handling lirpior. beer or wine in any 
form. moU'l.s, hotels, apartment hou.ses, 
health spas, hospitals, and all newspaper 
carriers over the age of sixteen years, 
service station employees, special police 
officers, nurses, boat captains and crew 
members, town employees, estate mainte- 



supplemeiJt 

nance employees, including lawn men, 
gardeners, and caretakers, and all do- 
mestic servants in the town. 

St.nfr of Idaho: 

All real eMlalc Halcmncii and broki-rs. 

State of Maryland : 

Pari-mutiicl employees and .stable em- 
ployees, including but not limited to fore- 
men, exercise boys and grooms. 

Springfield, Missouri: 
Female entertainers performing in estab- 
lishments serving intoxicating beverages. 

State of Nevada: 

Every applicant for n license to practice 

medicine. 

Sfntr of North Carolina: 

Applicants for admission to the Bar. 

Provincetotvn, Massachusetts: 

All non-residents seeking employment. 



282 



NOTE: The Synopsis prepared by the Repoi'ter is printed herewith, 
preceding the opinion, as a convenience for readers, and is not part of 
the opinion. 



Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in 
the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to 
notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be 
made before the bound volumes go to press. 



l^xxxUh BtdUB (Eiutrt of A\spmiB 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 



No. 71-1768 



Dale B. Menard, appellant 

V. 

William B. Saxbe, 

Attorney General of the United States and 
Clarence M. Kelley 



Decided April 23, 1974 

Suit to compel Attorney General and Federal Bureau 
of Investigation Director to remove from FBI criminal 
identification files plaintiff's fingerprints and an accom- 
panying notation regarding his arrest and detention, 
without further prosecution, by California police. After 
remand, 139 U.S.App.D.C. 113. 430 F.2d 486, the United 
States District Court for the District of Columbia, 328 
F.Supp. 718, declined to order expungement, but limited 
distribution of the record. The plaintiff appealed. The 
Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff alleged a cog- 



283 



nizable legal injury, that the courts have power to ex- 
punge arrest and criminal records, that, in general, ac- 
tions to expunge such records should be maintained 
against the local law enforcement agencies involved, that 
plaintiff's suit against the FBI was proper insofar as it 
attacked alleged abuses unique to the FBI role as record 
keeper, that the FBI had no authority to retain plaintiff's 
arrest warrant once it was informed by the Califoraia 
police that the police encounter was not deemed an arrest 
but only a detention, that the FBI is statutorily precluded 
from maintaining in its criminal files as an arrest record 
an encounter with the police that has been established 
not to constitute an arrest but that the FBI is not pro- 
hibited from maintaining neutral identification records. 

Remanded with instructions. 



284 



Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication 
in the Federal Reporter or U.S. App. D.C. Reports. Usei*s are requested 
to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be 
made before the bound volumes go to press. 



luiti^xi §^t<xUB (ttnurt ai A}Jiu>alB 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 



No. 71-1768 



Dale B. Menard, appellant 

V. 

William B. Saxbe, 

Attorney General of the United States and 

Clarence M. Kelley 



Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia 



Decided April 23, 1974 

Ralph J. Temple, with whom Hoivard Adler, Jr., Bruce 
P. Saypol, R. Raymond Tzvohig, Noah Menard, Robert A. 
W. Boraks, Thomas C. Arthur, Warren C. Nighswander 
and Keith S. Watson were on the brief, for appellant. 

James F. McMullin, Assistant United States Attorney 
with whom Harold H. Titv^, Jr., United States Attorney, 
John A. Terry, Assistant United States Attorney and 
Joseph M. Hannon, Assistant United States Attorney at 
the time the brief was filed, were on the brief, for ap- 
pellees. 



285 



Before: Lrventhal and Rohb, Circuit JiuUfcs and 
Gasch,* United States District Judge of the United 
States District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Jtidf/e Leventhal. 

Leventhal, Circuit Judge : A])i)ellant Dale B. Menard 
broug'ht this action jn-aying that the files of the l^'ederal 
Bureau of Investigation by purged of all information 
relating to his detention by the Los Angeles police on 
August 10, 19G5. In prior proceedings before this court, 
we reversed summary judgment in favor of ap])ellees 
because of the "necessity for a clear and complete factual 
record as a basis for adjudication." Menard v. Mitchell, 
139 U.S.App.D.C. 113, 430 F.2d 48G (1970). On remand, 
the District Court, after a full trial, declined to order ex- 
pungement, but limited distribution of Menard's record 
to Federal and state law enforcement agencies and 
agencies of the Federal Government for the purposes of 
employment' Menard v. Mitchell, 328 F. Supp. 718 
(D.D.C. 1971). We hold that Menard is entitled to an 
order directing the FBI to remove his record from its 
criminal files, and therefore remand. 

I. The Arrest 

At the time of his arrest. Dale Menard was a 19-year- 
old college student spending the summer working in Los 
Angeles. On the evening of August 9, 19G5, he visited 
with friends in the vicinity of Sunland Park, a recrea- 



* Sitting by dcsij^natioii pursuant to 28 TJ.S.C. § 202(a). 

'However, in P.L. 92-18/1, 85 Stat. CA2 §902, pjis.sod De- 
cember, 1971, Congress effectively overruled a portion of the 
District Court's decree by expressly authorizing dissemination 
to: "ofTicinls of federally chartered or insured bankin^i: institu- 
tions to i)romote or maintain the security of those institutions, 
and, if autliorizcd by the Attorney General, to ofnciais of Slate 
and local ^governments for purposes of employment and li- 
censing . . . ." 



286 



tional area in Los Angeles. At approximately 11:30 p.m., 
Menard walked to the park to wait for a friend who had 
arranged to pick Menard up and drive him to his room 
in a Los Angeles suburb (JA 165-69). The friend failed 
to arrive at the agreed time, and in the early hours of 
August 10th, after dozing on a park bench and then walk- 
ing across the street to look through the window of a 
rest home in search of a clock, Menard returned to the 
bench to wait once more. See Joint Appendix (JA) 169- 
71. 

At approximately 3:00 a.m., Menard was approached 
by two Los Angeles police officers (JA 171-73), who 
questioned him about a prowler report from the rest 
home. They also confronted him with a wallet they 
evidently had found on the ground near the park bench. 
(JA 179, 308). The wallet contained $10 and bore the 
name and address of an individual who lived about three 
miles from Sunland Park. (JA 175, 219-220). Despite 
Menard's insistence that he knew nothing of the wallet, 
and despite the subsequent arrival of Menard's friend, 
who corroborated his account, Menard was placed under 
arrest, booked and fingerprinted at the stationhouse, and 
held in police custody for over two days. No criminal 
complaint was ever filed; no evidence was found indicat- 
ing that the wallet had been stolen; and no information 
was adduced that tied Menard to any crime. Neverthe- 
less, the Los Angeles police routinely forwarded to the 
FBI a fingerprint card, containing Menard's fingerprints 
and the notation that he had been arrested for burglary 
and two days later "Released — unable to connect with any 
felony or misdemeanor at this time." The FBI has re- 
tained a record of Menard's arrest.^ 



^ Originally the record read as follows: 
Date Arrested or Received — 8-10-65 
Charge or Offense — 459 PC Burglary 
Disposition or Sentence — 8-12-65 — Released — Unable to 
connect with any felony or misdemeanor at this time. 



287 



A few months later, Menard's mother wrote the FBI 
to inquire whether any record had been kept of the en- 
counter; the Bureau referred her to the California au- 
thorities. Cori'espondence continued for over a year, with 
the FBI, the Los Angeles police, and the California De- 
partment of Justice each taking the position that it was 
powerless to effect the removal of the record from the 
FBI's files. 

However, on January 16, 1968, after the complaint in 
this action had been filed earlier in the month, the FBI 
had a special agent review the Los Angeles police file.^ 
By April 196^ the FBI record was changed, "upon deci- 
sion of Federal Bureau of Investigation and United 
States Attorney's Office." * The entry for "Disposition or 
sentence" oi'iginally read: "Released — unable to connect 
with any felony or misdemeanor at this time." As 
changed, the FBI record shows that two days after Menard 
was arrested, he was "Released — Unable to connect with 
any felony or misdemeanor — in accordance with 849b(l) 
— not deemed an arrest but a detention only." Although 



Occupation — Student 

Residence of Person Fing-erprinted — Saticoy & Canoga 

Canoga Park 

The record was amended so that the entry "Disposition or 
Sentence" now reads: 

8-12-65 — Released — Unable to connect with any felony or 
misdemeanor — in accordance with 849b (1) — not deemed 
an arrest but detention only. 

^ "On January 16, 1968, the arrest record of Dale Bruce 
Menard, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Number 
760 111-M, was reviewed by a Special Agent of the FBI." 
Defendants' Answers to Plaintiff's Second Interrogatories, 
Item 6, filed November 30, 1970. 

* Defendant's Answer filed April 12, 1968, to Plaintiff's 
Interrogatory #3, served March 26, 1968. 



288 



the change entry does not say so specifically, it presum- 
ably referred to California Penal Code § 849(b) (1).^ 

Unable to obtain relief expunging his arrest record 
through the administrative processes, Menard turned to 
the courts. 

II. Operations of the Identification 
Division of the FBI 

The record developed in the trial court subsequent to 
our order of remand presents information concerning the 
Identification Division of the FBI, which has maintained 
fingerprint and arrest records since 1924. The Attorney 
General is authorized to maintain identification files by 
28 U.S.C. §534, which provides: 

§ 534. Acquisition, preservation, and exchange of 
identification records; appointment of officials 

(a) The Attorney General shall — 

(1) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve identifica- 
tion, criminal identification, crime and other 
records; and 

(2) exchange these records with, and for the official 
use of, authorized officials of the Federal Gov- 
ernment, the States, cities, and penal and other 
institutions. 

(b) The exchange of records authorized by subsec- 
tion (a) (2) of this section is subject to cancel- 



» Calif. Penal Code § 849(b)(1) (West Supp. 1970) pro- 
vides: 

Any peace officer may release from custody, instead of 
taking such person before a magistrate, any person ar- 
rested without a warrant whenever: 
(1) He is satisfied that there is no ground for making a 
criminal complaint against the person arrested. Any 
record of such arrest shall include a record of the 
release hereunder and thereafter shall not be deemed 
an arrest but a detention only. 



289 



lation if dissemination is made outside the re- 
ceiving departments or related agencies. 

(c) The Attorney General may appoint officials to 
perform the functions authorized by this section. 

The practice of the P'BI in implementing the statute 
reflects a series of positions taken by the Attorney Gen- 
eral over the years. These have been codified in 28 C.F.R. 
§ 0.85(b), which provides that the Director of the FBI 
shall : 

Conduct the acquisition, collection, exchange, clas- 
sification, and preservation of identification records, 
including personal fingerprints voluntarily submitted, 
on a mutually beneficial basis, from law enforcement 
and other governmental agencies, insurance com- 
panies, railroad police, national banks, member banks 
of the Federal Reserve System, FDIC-Reserve-In- 
sured Banks, and banking institutions insured by the 
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation; 
provide expert testimony in Federal or local courts 
as to fingerprint examinations; and provide identi- 
fication assistance in missing persons type cases, in- 
cluding those from insurance companies. 

The Chief of the Technical Section of the FBI's Iden- 
tification Division described the Division as a "central 
depository for fingerprints submitted to us on a volunteer 
basis." (JA 482). These records are maintained in sep- 
arate criminal files and "applicant" files. The FBI's 
criminal files consist of those prints submitted in connec- 
tion with an arrest or conviction. The FBI's applicant 
files consist of prints submitted in conjunction with 
induction into the armed services, applications for govern- 
ment employment, or other activity pursuant to which 
local authorities deem it appropriate to require finger- 
printing to determine whether the applicant has a crim- 
inal record. The records are not sorted or cross-refer- 
enced in any way, nor is there special treatment of rec- 
ords of juveniles. (JA 88-9). 



290 



The Bureau also maintains a file containing only the 
name of the individual and his prints.® Primary con- 
tributors to this file, which is used for identification 
purposes only, are tourists, who submit their prints as 
they tour FBI facilities. (JA 656-57). This information 
may be made available to private groups, such as in- 
surance companies, for the sole purpose of establishing 
identity, often in the case of missing or deceased individ- 
uals. (JA 629-630). 

Two hundred million fingerprint cards are curi'ently on 
file with the FBI, of which 19 million relate to criminal 
activity. (JA 511). Fingerprints are submitted to the 
Bureau by Federal, state and local agencies, on standard 
cards issued by the FBI (JA 10, 12, 201). The Bureau 
checks its records when it receives a fingerprint card and 
reports back to the contributing agency any prior arrests 
or convictions contained in its files. 

The FBI disseminates records to contributing agencies 
throughout the country. For each "applicant" fingerprint 
card submitted to it by an "authorized agency" ^ the Iden- 
tification Division runs an automatic identification check 
(JA 46-7). If there is no prior arrest or conviction rec- 
ord, the FBI returns the fingerprint card with the nota- 
tion, "No arrest record F.B.I." (JA 471). If "criminal" 
fingerprint cards have previously been submitted, the con- 
tributing agency receives a copy of the records of the 
individual's prior arrests. (JA 46-7, 54-5, 74, 95-6). 
Where "criminal" cards are submitted, the Bureau notes 



^ The record does not tell us what name is g'iven to these 
files, and we shall for convenience refer to them as general 
identification files. 

' "Authorized ag-encies" include all agencies of the federal 
g-overnmeJit, all state and local law enforcement agencies, and 
all state and local agencies authorized by statute or regula- 
tion to submit fingerprints to the FBI. JA 489, 631. 641-42. 



291 



\ 



the infoi'mation and sends the law enforcement agency 
such information as the FBI has. 

The Division also receives hundreds of "name check" 
requests from "legitimate sources," including congress- 
men and contributing agencies, asking for criminal rec- 
ords with only the subject's name given as identification. 
Whenever possible, the Division honors these requests. 
The number of such "naine checks" was estimated to be 
"in the hundreds" per day (JA 464). 

During Fiscal 1970, the Identification Division proc- 
essed 29,000 fingerprint cards daily, of which 13,000 
were arrest submissions and another 16,000 non-criminal 
submissions from the approximately 8,000 contributing 
agencies (JA 457-58; 11, 466). "The workload in the Di- 
vision has reached the point," testified Beverly E. Ponder, 
Chief of the Technical Section, in the spring of 1972, 
that "we cannot handle any more work." (JA 645) How- 
ever, some relief was expected when the Bureau occupies 
new quarters (JA 646). 

Fingerprint arrest records are removed by the FBI 
from the files of the Identification Division when the con- 
tributing agency so requests. No inquiry is made as to 
the reasons supporting the request of the local agency for 
the return of the record. (JA 649). During fiscal 1970 
over 6,000 records were returned in this manner, and 
that "is a growing statistic" (JA 650). The FBI retains 
its arrest records even where the record indicates that 
the arrestee was released without being charged,^ since 
it is the FBI's firm policy that "The FBI does not have 
the authority to decide which fingerprints submitted by 
law enforcement agencies should be returned. Such a 
decision rests solely with the original contributor of finger- 



\ 



•See JA 21. 



292 



prints." * If the FBI makes the arrest, it will remove the 
arrest cards from its files "on a court order only" (JA 
22). 

With the apparent exception of the Bureau's action in 
altering plaintiff's record in the instant case/° the FBI 
has never returned a fingerprint record on its own mo- 
tion. Moreover, the Bureau will not amend, alter, or 
even reveal a record at the instance of a private individ- 
ual, (JA 22-28), taking the position not only that the de- 
cision to expunge must be made at the local level, but 
also that disclosure to an individual of the contents of 
his record will not be permitted, "inasmuch as data con- 
tained in our files is confidential and cannot be furnished 
to private individuals." ^' 

If a person inquires whether the FBI has fingerprints 
on file, no search is made except in what is considered a 
"justified cause" — the case of a missing person, or a prob- 
lem of someone trying to settle an estate (JA 23). Other 
persons — e.g., those concerned about job prospects or pos- 
sible Government employment — are not told whether a 
card exists, but are simply referred to the agency which 
supplied the fingerprints. (JA 26). This policy is ad- 
hered to even if the inquiry is made by someone who 
does not remember the circumstances of his being finger- 
printed, or even whether he was fingerprinted (perhaps 
because he was inebriated, see JA 28, or conceivably a 
victim of amnesia). Under its practices, the FBI is not 
concerned about an inaccuracy, beyond suggesting that 



^Plaintiff's Exhibit #2: Letter of July 15, 1966, from 
John Edgar Hoover to Mrs. Anita B. Menard. 

^" See note 2, supra, and accompanying text. 

" Plaintiff's Exhibit #12; Letter of March 18, 1966, from 
John Edgar Hoover to Mrs. Anita B. Menard. 



293 



the individual contact the local agency (JA 27-30)." 
These practices of the FBI have evolved over time. They 
are not reflected in any memorandum of procedures or 
regulation (JA 33). 

III. Propriety of Action Against the FBI 

Menard seeks the elimination of his arrest record from 
the FBI's files and rests his claim on a broad base of legal 
doctrine. It is claimed that retention of his record violates 
the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution, 
subjects him to harsh penalties without being accorded 
due process of law, denies him the equal protection of the 
laws, and violates his rights to privacy. 

Appellant is naturally concerned that the incident in 
which he was, by happenstance, subject to police deten- 
tion has led to his becoming the subject of a criminal file. 
The first legal issue that arises is whether he has merely 
suffered personal distress, or whether there is legal injury. 

Although Menard cannot point with mathematical cer- 
tainty to the exact consequences of his criminal file, we 
think it clear that he has alleged a "cognizable legal in- 
jury." Finley v. Hampton, 154 U.S.App.D.C. 50, 54, 
473 F.2d 180, 184 (1972). See also Laird v. Tatum, 408 
U.S. 1 (1972). In Sullivan v. Murphy, - — U.S.App. 

D.C. , 478 F.2d 938, cert, denied, 414 U.S. 880 

(1973), this court held that an action for expungement 



'2 Mr. Ponder also testified ( JA 27) : If there is some prob- 
lem involved and he is challenging the accuracy of the record, 
then wc are certainly going to assist in getting- this inquiry 
answered and answered promptly and properly." In the in- 
stant case, the Bureau did not assist Mrs, Menard in contact- 
ing the California authorities, but merely suggested that she 
do so. With the California authorities insisting that they were 
powerless to act, the result was a bureaucratic standoff. 



294 



of arrest records is justiciable. On a careful review of the 
jurisprudence we concluded, see 478 F.2d at 968: "The 
principle is well established that a court may order the 
expungement of records, including arrest records, when 
that remedy is necessary and appropriate in order to 
preserve basic legal rights." This court, like other courts,'' 
held that unlawful maintenance of records of arrest re- 
sults in "injuries and dangers" that are "plain enough," 
478 F.2d at 790, and that "this threat is not dissipated, 
or rendered insubstantial or illusory, by the fact that the 
ari'est was not followed by a prosecution." 478 F.2d at 
962 (footnote omitted). 



'^ For illustrations of the doctrine that courts may, in ap- 
propriate circumstances, order the expung-ement of criminal 

records see, e.g., Sullivan v. Murphy, U.S.App.D.C. , 

478 F.2d 938 (1973) (mass arrests where procedures ren- 
dei-ed judicial determination of probable cause impossible); 
United States v. McLeod, 385 F.2d 734 (5th Cir. 1967) (ex- 
pungement of arrest records ordered when court determined 
that arrests were for sole purpose of harrassing civil rights 
workers); Bilick v. Dudley, 356 F. Supp. 945 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 
(expungement of arrest record ordered when court found 
that arrests were without probable cause and had overtones 
of harrassment of group because of political beliefs); Hughes 
V. Rizzo, 282 F. Supp. 881 (E.D.Pa. 1968) (expungement or- 
dered where arrests were for purpose of harrassing "hip- 
pies"). Discussion of the disabilities flowing from a record 
of arrest as an appropriate ground for judicial relief appear 
not only in the Menard case previously before this court, as 
Menard v. Mitchell, 139 U.S.App.D.C. at 117-18, 430 F.2d 
at 490-91; but also in Sullivan v. Murphy, supra, Morrow v. 
District of Columbia, 135 U.S.App.D.C." 160, 417 F.2d 728 
(1969); Kowall v. United States, 53 F.R.D. 211, 215 (W.D. 
Mich. 1971); Bilick v. Dudley, 356 F. Supp. 945, 951 (S.D. 
N.Y. 1973); Wilson v. Webster, 467 F.2d 1282, 1283-84 (9th 
Cir. 1972); Davidson v. Dill, 503 P.2d 157, 159 (Colo. 1972); 
Eddy V. Moore, 5 Wash. App. 334, 487 P.2d 211, 216 (1971). 

We are not here concerned with the issue of "applicant" 
files, which present separate and different considerations. 



295 



The judicial remedy of expungement is inherent and 
is not dependent on express statutory provision, and it 
exists to vindicate substantial rights provided by statute 
as well as by organic law, United States v. McLeod, 385 
F.2d 734 (5th Cir. 1967). Thus, for example, both this 
court and the District Court for the District of Columbia 
have ordered the expungement of records of police action 
taken in flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment. 
In Sullivan v. Murphy, supra, we required expungement 
of records of mass arrests where established procedures 
broke down so that there was no showing of probable 
cause. And in Gomez v. Wilson, 323 F. Supp. 87 (D.D.C. 
1971), the District Court, Chief Judge Curran, required 
the return of "any and all such Police forms, indexes, 
and cross-indexes connected with the [plaintiff] and this 
case" where it found that the police had twice stopped 
plaintiff, questioned him as to his activities, and filled out 
a vagrancy observation form when they had no articulable 
suspicion that he was engaged in any illegal activity.** 

The disabilities flowing from a record of arrest have 
been well documented: There is an undoubted ''social 
stigma" involved in an arrest record. '' "[I]t is common 
knowledge that a man with an arrest record is much 
moi'e apt to be subject to police scrutiny — the first to be 



^* Although plaintiff appealed, that portion of the District 
Court's order that required expungement was not appealed by 
the Government and so became final. See Gomez v. Wilson, 
U.S.App.D.C. , 477 F.2d 411, 414 n.lO (1973). 

''' That a record of arrest is a "record involving social 
stigma," see United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 10 (1973), 
quoting from Judge Friendly's opinion in United States v. Doe 
(Schwartz), 457 F.2d at 488 (2d Cir.). 

See also Thompson v. Washington, F.2d . in which 

this court pointed out (slip opin. at 17): "And Wisconsin 
V. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 (1971), establishes that 
a person's interest in his own reputation merits procedural 
due process protection." No. 71-2049 (December 10, 1973). 



34-788 O - 74 - 20 



296 



auestioned and the last to be eliminated as a subject in 
Iny investigation." " Existence of a record may burden 
a decision whether to testify at trial." And records of 
arres are used by judges in making decisions as to sen- 
te"ctg whether to grant bail, or whether to release pend- 
ing appeal." 

The arrest record is used outside the field of jmnnal 
iustice Most significant is its use in connection with sub- 
: ue"; inquirifs on applications for ^^''Z'Je^ 
licenses to engage in certain fields of work. An arrest 
Zd oftn prfves to be a substantial barner U> em- 
ployment." It appears, inter aha, that Menard s a HI 

.. Davidson v. Dill, 503 P.2d 157, 159 (Colo. 1972). 

>• Menard v. Mitchell, 430 F.2d at 491. 

..See eg Russell v. United States, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 44, 
A09 F2d 185 (1968) (record of arrests may be used to dc- 
teiTne uiShir appellant may be released Pendmyppea) 

y""1 iS'vs\?S) ( n mpfs1nfsent*en'ce,*^Wal'3ud.e 

was not convicted); Jones v. United .S*^*^^' "^s^g^i^P-Veg) 
ort-i am P9d 190 (1962), cert, denied. 372 U.b. aia u=oo; 

"past conduct, . . . record of convictions, and any 

appearance at court proceedings ). 

" See e.g., Menard v. Mitchell, 430 F.2d at 488, n.l7: 
At the ^ery least, an arrest record is likely to lead to 
^rtherln/estigation; and if it is ^^f"";™ t*: 

job before the investigation 'f '^o™?'^*^'/^? ^P^ord 

effectively denied employment because of his record. 

eneciiveiy Tommittee to Investigate the 

See also, e.g.. Report of the C°"™twe ro q rtunities 

Effect of Police Arrest R^.'°f « °" ^'^i7r The Cteed Door: 

^\f^ffr:f :Snt R^in «yment With State 



297 



record was supplied, subsequent to the filing of the com- 
plaint in this case, to the Marine Corps and the National 
Agency Check Center.'"' 

The jurisprudence on expungement of arrest records 
has developed, thus far at least, in actions brought against 
appropriate officials of the government whose officers had 
responsibility for making the arrest, initiating the arrest 
record, maintaining the arrest record, and determining 
the consequences, as in maintaining prosecutions. There 
arises for consideration the significance of the circum- 
stance that in the action before us it is the Los Angeles 
police who made the arrest for a violation of state law, 
and who initiated the arrest record, while the defendants 
are officials of a federal agency whose involvement and 
responsibility turn on the receipt, maintenance and dis- 
semination of the allegedly invalid arrest record. 

Ultimate disposition of an action against a records 
agency based on maintenance and dissemination of un- 
lawful arrest records would require decisions on a num- 
ber of issues, and the interlacing of multiple stands of 
law. There would be issues such as whether the preserva- 
tion of constitutional rights embraces, as a corollary, a 
strict liability like that which pervades the related field 
of responsibility of publication of libels," a responsibility 
based on the extent of knowledge in hand or imputable, 
or on a duty to make inquiry. 



and Local Public Agencies (Georgetown University Criminal 
Law Institute, 1972). 

2" Defendants' Answer, filed Nov. 30, 1970, to Item 3 of 
Plaintiff's Second Interrogatories. 

-' See, e.g., Prosser, Torts, § 113, p. 766 if. The author re- 
fers, inter alia, to rulings "that there may be an affirmative 
duty to remove a publication made by another, where for ex- 
ample the defendant's bulletin board is used for the purpose." 



298 



We think sound principles of justice and judicial ad- 
ministration dictate that in general actions to vindicate 
constitutional rights, by expungement of arrest records 
maintained notwithstanding release of the person and ab- 
sence of probable cause for arrest, be maintained against 
the local law enforcement agencies involved." The pri- 
mary duty of executive inquiry into the facts of distant 
arrests is a burden assigned more appropriately to the 
local agency whose officials made the arrest than to the 
FBI. Further, an official finding that an arrest is tainted 
by illegality stigmatizes the local enforcement agency to 
some extent — apart from the possibility of damage ac- 
tions — and should be avoided where an alternate course 
is available. If the local law enforcement agency is a 
party to the action, it will have opportunity, in instances 
where it considers the claim improper, to present effec- 
tively its version of events and support its denial of 
relief. 

In general, the role played by the FBI's Identification 
Division is derivative, and relief granted solely against 
the FBI in this context may be incomplete. The offend- 
ing "arrest record" remains in the files of the local law 
enforcement agency, and a question arises whether the 
person involved would be obligated to advise future em- 
ployers and others that he had been arrested. With the 
local enforcement agency as defendant, complete relief 
can be granted, both to obtain such action on local records 
as may be needed, and to have local authorities request 



" This includes the agencies and officials with responsibility 
for making the arrest, initiating an arrest record, maintaining 
an arrest record, determining appropriate disposition, wheth- 
er, e.g., there has been exoneration. If more than one agency is 
involved there may be multiple defendants; indeed, it may be 
that a single action may be maintainable against state and 
federal officials as well as the initiating local agency. 



299 



the return of records." Such requests are always honored 
by the FBI." 

We are also reluctant, in the absence of a need greater 
than that established by this record, to concentrate in 
the Department of Justice the burden of overall litiga- 
tion over maintenance of arrest records. Of the 19 million 
criminal prints on file with the Identification Division, 
it is impossible to predict how many would be the subject 
of dispute. We are concerned with the possible effects 
of a concentration of burden not only on the FBI " and 
the Department of Justice, but also on this court and the 
District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Our conclusion should not be taken to reflect a judg- 
ment of the insubstantiality of Menard's claims. On the 
contrary, the gravity of those claims underscores the need 



23 Provision of local venue will also interrelate with evolving- 
state and local procedures to cope with this problem. For 
example, California's statutes provide for determination in 
some instances that an arrest is deemed solely a detention, 
(See fn. 5). An action against the local police could at least 
raise the question whether in such case they are not obligated, 
by fair implication of the state law, to withdraw whatever 
"arrest" record was sent to the FBI. 

New York has recently adopted a procedure which does not 
formally quaJify the arrest but inhibits the generation of the 
record that leads to legal injury. Under this procedure, if 
an arrested person brought to the stationhouse makes satis- 
factory explanation to the arresting officer, the latter must or- 
der a release without any stationhouse booking, N.Y. Crim. 
Proc. Law §140.20(4) (McKinney 1971). Presumably this 
also gives room to the supervising police office to exercise dis- 
cretion to modify the initial decision to arrest. 

" See J A 649: Testimony of Special Agent Beverly Ponder, 
Chief of the Technical Section of the Identification Division: 
Q: If a police department asks it [the fingerprint rec- 
ord] back, you send it back, no questions, is that 
correct? 
A: That is correct. 

" See JA 645. 



300 



for their adjudication between the appropriate parties. 
Conventional doctrines of venue may operate to locahze 
the forum, but will not interfere with a call on cognizant 
Federal courts in the venue when administrative remedy 
is unavailing. 

IV. Duties Unique to the FBI 

Insofar as Menard's action attacks abuses of the Iden- 
tification Division in its unique role in the information 
network, suit against the Bureau is proper. What began 
modestly in 1924 is now, in the words of the District 
Judge "out of effective control." - Due primarily to the 
Bureau's limited resources, there is no followup to assure 
that records of arrest frequently are amended to show 
an ultimate non-criminal disposition. There are no con- 
trols on the accuracy of information submitted by the 
contributing agencies.- The Bureau exercises little super- 
vision and control over contributing agency uses of the 
records the FBI disseminates. ''^ We are not now called 



2«328 F. Supp. at 727. 

"The Bureau does not check assertions of purpose, for 
example, that appear on the face of the submitted card. 
(JA 668). 

2«The FBI does not inquire into the uses made of arrest 
records it sends to contributing agencies (JA 55) AH r^- 
ords, however, are stamped with the notation that on^J au- 
thorized use is permitted; but "authorized use" is not defined 
on the stamp. Contributing agencies may disseminate records 
?o other con'lributing agencies, but dissemination to agencies 
hat are not authorized by the FBI to -^eive records is no 
nn "authorized use." (JA 82). However, the FBI does not 
send a list of authorized agencies to its contributing agencies. 
/^ Despite newspaper reports and other external indication 
of misuse of arrest records, the Bureau will not investigate 
aheged misuses of records unless presented with a direct com- 
plaint (jA 499-500, 507) of which there are about four or five 
yearly. (JA 120). 



301 



upon to evaluate these practices of the FBI. However, 
this case does call upon us to take into account that the 
FBI's function of maintaining and disseminating criminal 
identification records and files carries with it as a corol- 
lary the responsibility to discharge this function reliably 
and responsibly and without unnecessary harm to in- 
dividuals whose rights have been invaded. The FBI can- 
not take the position that it is a mere passive recipient 
of records received from others, when it in fact ener- 
gizes those records by maintaining a system of criminal 
files and disseminating the criminal records widely, acting 
in effect as a step-up transformer that puts into the 
system a capacity for both good and harm.** 

The process of the Identification Division for sifting 
out submissions to determine what it retains in its crim- 
inal files "" is one that requires more attention. If the 
form is correct, ^^ the FBI will place in its criminal files 
virtually any information from local agencies arguably 
related to criminal activity. " The FBI returns to the 



^^ Although the record before us does not contain data con- 
cerning the computerization of the FBI's records, it does re- 
veal that a computerization program is proceeding apace, in- 
creasing the Division's effectiveness, and enhancing its ca- 
pacity for both good and harm. 

^° Special Agent Ponder testified that "we have a large 
screening process." (JA 690). The first operation upon re- 
ceipt of a card is to check that it contains all relevant in- 
formation, including "person to be notified in case of emer- 
gency." (JA 658). 

^1 The Identification Division is quite strict in demanding 
adherence to the requirements that the fingerprint card be 
completed as indicated. For example, the card requires that 
the contributing agency indicate the reason for which the 
record is requested. If that information is not included, the 
card is returned without an accompanying record. (JA 667). 

" If the card indicated an arrest with the disposition "dis- 
missed," the FBI would nonetheless retain the card for its 
files. (JA 21). 



302 



local agencies 10 percent of the criminal cards submitted 
when there are illegible fingerprints or incomplete data 
on the fingerprint form." But if the form is satisfactory 
and purports to record an arrest, the FBI makes no fur- 
ther inquiry and forthwith makes an entry in a criminal 
file. 

In Menard's case, after his complaint was filed, the 
FBI had a Special Agent review his Los Angeles arrest 
record,-'' and it then amended the FBI record ''upon de- 
cision of Federal Bureau of Investigation and United 
State's Attorney's office." '■"• The change was a significant 
one. The FBI record continues the reference to an "ar- 
rest" on August 10, 1965. But it amends the "disposi- 
tion" on August 12, 1965. A statement was added: "in 
accordance vnth [Calif. Penal Code] § 849b(l) — not 
deemed an arrest but detention only." " Even more sig- 



" See JA 18. 

'* See note 3, supra. 

'5 Defendant's Answer filed April 12, 1968, to Plaintiff's 
Interrogatory #3, served March 26, 1968. 

'* Section 849(b) (1) authorizes a peace officer to release an 
arrested person from custody if "[h]e is satisfied that there 
are insufficient grounds for making a criminal complaint 
against the person arrested." Section 849(c) provides that 
after such release "such arrest shall not be deemed an arrest, 
but detention only." 

Section 11115 provides : 

In any case in which a sheriff, police department or 
other law enforcement agency makes an arrest and trans- 
mits a report of the arrest to the Bureau of Criminal 
Identification and Investigation or to the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation, it shall be the duty of such law enforce- 
ment agency to furnish a disposition report to such bu- 
reaus whenever the arrested person is transferred to the 
custody of another agency or is released \vithout having 
a complaint or accusation filed with a court. 

[Continued] 



303 



nificant, the original notation that the Los Angeles police 
"were unable to connect with any felony or misdemeanor 
at this time" was amended to drop "at this time." 

This was done after Menard filed his complaint assert- 
ing that no crime at all had been committed. And in the 
lawsuit the Government expressly adopted the plaintiff's 
Statement of Material Facts as to Which There Is No 
Material Issue (filed, June 18, 1968) that "defendants 
know of no crime committed by anyone incident to plain- 
tiff's detention" (adopted by defendants on July 2, 1968). 
Nevertheless, Menard's record remained in the FBI's crim- 
inal files, along with the mass of arrest records, subject 
to dissemination in the same way as all arrest records.'' 

Having been informed that Menard's encounter with 
the Los Angeles police authorities was purely fortuitous, 
the FBI had no authority to retain this record in its crim- 
inal files along with the mass of arrest records. This 



If either of the following dispositions is made, the dis- 
position report shall so state: 

* * * ♦ 

(b) "Detention only," when the detained party is re- 
leased pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of 
Section 849. In such cases the report shall state the 
specific reason for such release, indicating that there was 
no ground for making a criminal complaint because (1) 
further investigation exonerated the arrested party, (2) 
the complainant withdrew the complaint, (3) further in- 
vestigation appeared necessary before prosecution could 
be initiated, (4) the ascertainable evidence was insuffi- 
cient to proceed further, (5) the admissible or adducible 
evidence was insufficient to proceed further, or (6) other 
appropriate explanation for release. 

" Wlien the FBI is asked by an appropriate agency whether 
a person has a criminal record, it focuses on whether or not 
the person has an "arrest record." The inquiry card will be 
returned to the agency without any information only if the 
FBI certifies "no arrest record" (JA 471). 



304 



is simply not consistent with the FBI's duty, corollary 
to its function of keeping identification records, to take 
appropriate measures to assure that this function is dis- 
charged responsibility and that the records are reliably 
informative. 

We note that we are focusing here on the FBI's "arrest 
records" and "criminal files," and we do not prohibit the 
maintenance of neutral identification records. When the 
FBI is apprised that a person has been exonerated after 
initial arrest, ^^ released without charge and a change of 
record to "detention only," the FBI has the responsibility 
to expunge the incident from its criminal identification 
files. The change of the FBI record to record the lack 
of connection of Menard with any crime and the char- 
acterization of the apprehension of Menard by the Los 
Angeles police as "in accordance with [California Penal 
Code] § 849(b)(1)" "deemed [not] an arrest but a de- 
tention only" indicates a local determination to that ef- 
fect,^^ responsive to the FBI's own inquiry of the local 
authorities."*' 

The FBI cannot turn aside its responsibility by claim- 
ing that it is powerless to act absent a specific and formal 
request from the Los Angeles police for withdrawal of the 
record. Dependence on other agencies may be sound 
enough for a practice born of expedience, but it may not 
be made rigid, like a rule of law, in neglect or defiance 
of basic rights. While the Congressional progi'am con- 



^' In the circumstances at bar, the FBI's investigations 
gave it information equivalent to a formal notation by Cali- 
foiTiia police pursuant to § 1115 of the California Penal Code, 
that "further investigation exonerated the arrested party." 

'^ This is a fair implication, taking into account g-eneral 
FBI practice, although the record does not specifically state 
on what basis the FBI amended the record. 

*" See footnote 36. 



305 



templates a major role for the local authorities, it does 
not contemplate Bureau abdication to the local authorities. 
The statute itself confirms the principle of FBI respon- 
sibility in section 534(h), providing for cancellation of 
exchange privileges if local agencies make records avail- 
able to unauthorized users, and the Bureau recognizes its 
obligation to review this participation by local author- 
ities." 

The Identification Division has the responsibility for 
maintaining an appropriate separation of the various files 
it is authorized to establish, and for preventing the crim- 
inal identification files, subject as they are to dissemina- 
tion, from containing inappropriate material. This ap- 
pears from the legislative history.*^ Congress intended 



" While this is the stated policy of the Bureau, it has not 
aggressively policed use of its records, see note 28 supra, and 
has in fact, since 1924, suspended the privileges only of six 
local law enforcement agencies, none of them major depart- 
ments. (JA507). 

*2 In the limited debate attendant to the statute's original 
enactment, Congressman Cochran of Missouri questioned the 
broad authority being given the FBI to collect fingerprints. 
Congressman Graham of Pennsylvania, Chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee, which had reported the bill favorably, 
replied: 

I would like to say that what the gentleman from Mis- 
souri has been saying has no application whatever to the 
matter of fingerprints. This has nothing to do with 
the bureau of the Department of Justice where criminal 
records are kept so as to be available anywhere in the 
United States. 

There are two classes of information that is gathered. 
One is criminal records, and another is the information 
that is gathered about criminals that is not a matter of 
record. That they do not give out, but the criminal rec- 
ords they do give out. That information is gathered for 
the department itself and its agents, in order that they 
more effectually do their work. 

[Continued] 



306 



tx) differentiate "criminal identification" from other in- 
formation that the FBI is authonzed to gather. We think 
it equally clear that the distinction intended by Congress 
should be drawn with regard to record of an encounter 
with law enforcement agencies that did not result in 
arrest." Although it is information that may aid FBI 
personnel to "more effectively do their work," it is not 
information that the FBI may maintain in its criminal 
files "so as to be available anywhere in the United States." 
The FBI has an obligation, enforced by our ruling, to 
take account of responsible information, even though not 
cast in the form of an express request from the local 
agency for return of the record, that the "arrest" record 
previously submitted did not communicate an informa- 
tion properly retained by the Bureau in its criminal files 
as an arrest record. Our ruling is in no way onerous, 
for the Identification Division has a sizeable screening 



72 Cong. Rec. 1989 (71st Cong., 2d Sess., Jan. 20, 1930). 

Initial statutory authorization was limited to the acquisi- 
tion and preservation of "criminal identification and other 
crime records." 5 U.S.C. §340 (1964), repealed, Pub. L. No. 
89-554, §8(a), 80 Stat. 632, 648 (1966). Under the present 
statute, the Attorney General is directed to "acquire, col- 
lect, classify, and preserve identification, criminal identifica- 
tion, crime, and other records." 28 U.S.C. §534 (a). That 
section, however, was enacted by Pub. L. No. 89-554, §4(c), 
80 Stat. 611, 616 (1966). Section 7(a) of the Act, 80 Stat. 
631, states that "The legislative purpose in enacting sections 
1-6 of this Act is to restate, without substantive change, the 
laws replaced by those sections on the effective date of this 
Act." 

*^ A similar claim was raised by appellant when this case 
was first before us, but was rejected on the grounds that it 
was not established by "the facts established on the motion 
for summary judgn^ent." For this and other reasons, the case 
was remanded in order to develop "a clear and complete fact- 
ual record as a basis for adjudication." Menard v. Mitchell, 
supra, 430 F.2d at 489, 494. 



307 



staff," and substantial detriment to the individual is at 
stake." 

An arrest is distinct from other interactions between 
citizen and police. An arrest "is the initial stage of a 
criminal prosecution." "'' When coupled, as here, with 
custody, it renders permissible a complete search of the 
person, assuming probable cause for the arrest, although 
such a search absent an arrest runs afoul of the Fourth 
Amendment.*' In contrast stand many other encounters 
between police and citizen, even in the course of criminal 
investigation, that do not have the quality of an arrest 
and its characteristic as the opening of a criminal chapter. 
"The police talk to too many people in the course of a day 
. . . [in] routine police investigation" to insert either a 
requirement of foiTnality binding on the police,*® or to 
permit the encounter to be memorialized as an arrest. It 
would be monstrous to suppose that all persons questioned 
by the police, many of them "cooperative and law abiding 
citizens" *' could properly be enshrined, for reasons of 
bureaucratic practice, in the FBI's criminal records. The 
same principle applies when a person is subject by the 
police to detention short of an arrest, for as the stop-and- 
frisk cases make clear, a police detention may be justified 



** See note 30, supra. 

""^ See notes 15 to 20, supra, and accompanying text. 

« Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25-26 (1968). See also United 
States V. Robinson, 42 U.S.L.W. 4055 (U.S. December 11, 
1973). 

*^ United States v. Robinson, 42 U.S.L.W. 4055 (U.S. De- 
cember 11, 1973). 

*" [Vance] Allen v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 61, 64, 
390 F.2d 476, 479 (1968). 



49 



Id. 



308 



by a mere "suspicion" that falls short of the probable 
cause required by the Constitution for an arrest." 

We need not decide whether or to what extent the Con- 
stitution forbids the Government from contributing to the 
harm to the individual that may attend maintenance of a 
criminal file showing, as an arrest, what was only a 
chance encounter." We need not reach this question, for 
we place our decision on statutory grounds. There is a 
settled rule for statutory interpretation to avoid serious 
constitutional issues ^^ and this properly has some appli- 
cation in the case at bar. But even without the support of 
this doctrine, we think it plain that 28 U.S.C. § 534 pre- 
cludes the Identification Division from maintaining in its 
criminal files as an arrest record an encounter with the 
police that has been established not to constitute an 
arrest." 



50 Terry v. Ohio, supra, note 46. 

" Compare Constantineau v. Wisconsin, supra note 15. 

'^See, e.g., Richmond Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331, 
346 (1928); Thompson v. Washington, cited supra note 15, 
slip opin. at 13. 

^^ We are concerned with the judicial role of determining 
what is required by the statute (and Constitution). While 
in this case we are required to disapprove the action of the 
Department of Justice, we think it appropriate to take note 
that subsequent proposals of that department are congruent 
with the premises of this opinion. We refer to the regula- 
tions concerning the dissemination of criminal record data 
recently proposed by the Department of Justice, 39 Fed. Reg. 
5636 (Feb. 14, 1974). These reflect tlie Department's judg- 
ment that records subject to dissemination should be limited 
to those arising out of serious interaction between the indi- 
vidual and law enforcement authorities. They further note 
that only "serious and/or significant violations" are includi- 
ble in criminal record information systems (§20.32). The 
term "criminal offender record information" is defined in 
§ 20.2(c) to include "only , . . identifying data and notations 
of arrests." This excludes mere detentions. This meaning 
does not depend on negative implication, for the regulations 



309 



We are not in this case enjoining the FBI from main- 
taining Menard's fingerprints in its neutral non-criminal 
files, provided there is no reference of any kind to indi- 
cate that the prints originated in a source for criminal 
files. We do not discern any reasonable claim of legal 
injury from being included in such general identification 
files, which also include, e.g., the prints voluntarily sub- 
mitted by tourists,^* and which are not translated into 
the FBI's centralized **rap sheets" reporting to all par- 
ticipating agencies on a person's criminal record. How- 
ever, our order does protect Menard from the injury 
poi'tended by inclusion of his record and prints in the 
FBI's centi-alized criminal files, for their continued in- 
clusion in those files is, in our view, inconsistent with the 
intent of Congress. 

Indeed, as we pointed out in Sullivan v. Murphy, supra, 

U.S.App.D.C. at , 478 F.2d at 973: "the chief 

threat to the individual who has been unlawfully ar- 
rested arises from the inclusion of his records in the 
police department's central criminal files" (emphasis 
added), as contrasted vTith a mere stationhouse record, 
which is needed to avoid secret police arrests (and harass- 
ments and shakedowns) and to protect police against un- 



go on to provide a specific exclusion of arrests for loitering" 
and "suspicion." This insures that those who are arrested but 
as to whom the police are "unable to connect with any felony 
or misdemeanor" (the words of Menard's record) to not find 
themselves with a criminal record subject to full dissemin- 
ation. . 

^* The FBI's practice of maintaining fingerprint files for 
purposes other than preservation of criminal records, is re- 
lated in the record before us, JA 629-30, 656-57. The statute 
provides separately, for authority to preserve "identification" 
and "criminal identification" records, see 28 U.S.C. § 534(a) 
(1). The regulation refers, inter alia, to "personal finger- 
prints voluntarily submitted" by banks, insurance companies, 
etc. and to a FBI mission to "provide identification assistance 
in missing persons type cases." 28 C.F.R. § 0.85(b). 



310 



founded lawsuits. Absent clear expression of legislative 
intent, we cannot conclude that Congress intended the 
individual to be threatened by inclusion in the central 
criminal files, which are kept to facilitate indexing and 
future reference." 

The case is remanded to the District Court with in- 
structions to enter an order directing appellees to re- 
move appellant's record from their criminal files. 

So ordered. 



'^ While, as already noted, this order would not prohibit 
inclusion of Menard's record in the general identification files 
{s2ipra note 6), we do not purport to decide whether such 
inclusion is appropriate under the FBI's regulations pertinent 
to establishment of those files. That question is not before us. 



311 

The Bible Rider, Public Law 92-544 

Public Law 92-544 — 92nd Congress, H.R. 14989, October 25, 1972 

AN ACT Making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, 
the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and for 
other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums are appro- 
priated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the 
Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Judiciary, and related agen- 
cies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and for other purposes, namely : 
******* 

TITLE II— DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

******* 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 

salaries and expenses 

******* 

The funds provided for Salaries and Expenses, Federal Bureau of Investiga- 
tion, may be used hereafter, in addition to those uses authorized thereunder, 
for the exchange of identification records with oflScials or federally chartered 
or insured banking institutions to promote or maintain the security of those 
institutions, and, if authorized by State Statute and approved by the Attorney 
General, to oflicials of State and local governments for purposes of employment 
and licensing, any such exchange to be made only for the official use of any 
such official and subject to the same restriction with respect to dissemination 
as that provided for under the aforementioned appropriation. 



Statement of Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., "The Conference Report on H.R. 
8916: Legislative Legerdemain" November 14, 1973 

Mr. Ervin. Mr. President, for the second year in a row the Senate has suf- 
fered a serious defeat at the hands of House conferees on the appropriations 
bill for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the judiciary and 
related agencies. For the second year in a row the House has imposed its will 
upon the Senate in regard to two provisions which the Senate adopted unani- 
mously — a ban on Justice Department dissemination of raw arrest records to 
nonlaw enforcement agencies and full year funding for the appointed counsel 
program in the District of Columbia. 

In dropping completely Senate amendment No. 21 to H.R. 8916, the Bible-Er- 
vin rider on arrest records, the conference report has trampled upon the con- 
stitutional rights of innocent individuals. The House conferees' insistence upon 
dropping the Senate amendment is only the latest chapter in over 2 years of 
legislative legerdemain by the House Appropriations Committee. 

For the past 2 years the Justice Department, with the help of the House 
committee, has been attempting to reverse by an appropriations rider a deci- 
sion by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. That court found 
that Congress had never authorized the Justice Department to collect from all 
over the country arrest records on citizens who have never been convicted of a 
crime and to send that information to nonlaw enforcement agencies and pri- 
vate employers. 

On June 15, 1971, the district court for the District of Columbia handed 
down the decision in the case of Menard v. Mitchell, 328 F. Supp. 718. The rul- 
ing prohibited the FBI's dissemination of arrest and fingerprinting records to 
nonlaw enforcement agencies. The court based its decision upon an interpreta- 
tion of section 534 of title 28 of the United States Code, the provision which 
the Justice Department has relied upon as authority for its collection of fin- 
gerprint and arrest record information. 

The petitioner, Menard, had argued that inasmuch as he was never con- 
victed, the maintenance and use of his arrest record violated the presumption 
of innocence, due process, the right of privacy, and freedom from unreasonable 



34-788 O - 74 - 21 



312 

search and seizure. Although the court refused to expunge the record on Men- 
ard on these constitutional grounds, it recognized tliat section 534 liad to be 
interpreted narrowly to avoid constitutional infirmities. In the court's words — 

"Viewed in this light, it is abundantly clear that Congress never intended to 
or in fact did authorize dissemination of arrest records to any state or local 
agency for purposes of employment or licensing cliecks." 

The court is merely pointing out to the Justice Department and to the Con- 
gress what should have been obvious. When Congress passed section 534 al- 
most 30 years ago it was only attempting to facilitate coordinated law enforce- 
ment activities between the Federal and local governments. In the court's 
words. Congress was only trying — 

"To assist arresting agencies, courts and correctional institutions in the ap- 
prehension, conviction, and proper disposition of criminal offenders." 

There is absolutely nothing in the statute or in the debate that even suggests 
that confidential or harmful information, such as the arrest record of a person 
whom the Government does not even bother to prosecute, should be collected 
by the Justice Department and disseminated to private employers to help them 
in job screening. 

Obviously, the Federal Government has no business distributing arrest rec- 
ords to help private enterprise in its hiring practices. Private industry has its 
own means of checking on applicants, and whom they hire is none of the Gov- 
ernment's business. The distribution by the Justice Department of arrest rec- 
ords is like a national "enemies list." It places an unbearable stigma on citi- 
zens who may be innocent of wrongdoing. The distribution of an applicant's 
arrest record almost invariably means that he will not get the job he seeks. 
The FBI Identification Division receives over 11,000 requests for record 
searches each day. We cannot know how many times Americans have been de- 
nied jobs even though they were found innocent of charges, or the case was 
dropped, or the original arrest was a mistake, or illegal, or even unconstitu- 
tional. Simple justice means that a man should not be denied employment be- 
cause of an arrest record unless a complete trial record shows he was found 
guilty by a court of law. 

The Menard decision had the effect of bringing the FBI's fingerprint opera- 
tion to a standstill. However, within a few months Senator Bible succeeded in 
attaching a rider to a supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 11955) suspend- 
ing the order in the Menard case. Since this legislation w'as part of an appro- 
priations bill, it could only be temporary in nature and when the fiscal year 
1973 appropriations bill for the FBI was introduced in 1972, it also contained 
the Bible rider. When it came time to vote on the 1973 appropriations bill in 
the House, Congressman Don Edwards was sustained on a point of order strik- 
ing the rider as violative of a House rule prohibiting substantive legislation in 
an appropriations bill. 

Although the House bill came to the Senate containing no language authoriz- 
ing the fingerprint distribution, the Senate Appropriations Committee reinserted 
the Bible language. When the appropriations bill came to a vote in the Senate, 
I suggested to the proponents that I planned to make the same point of order 
as Mr. Edwards had made on the House side since the Senate has a similar 
rule prohibiting substantive legislation in an appropriations bill. 

In lieu of making that point of order Senator Bible and I agreed to addi- 
tional language in the Bible rider. I proposed a proviso at the end of the Bible 
rider which allowed continued dissemination outside the Federal Government 
but limited such dissemination to arrest records which also indicated that the 
defendant had pleaded guilty or was convicted of the crime for which he was 
arrested. The Senate adopted unanimously the Blble-Ervin language. 

There is a great deal of confusion as to what happened to the Bible-Ervin 
amendment in the House-Senate conference last year. According to Senator 
Hruska, who did serve on the conference, the only change in the Bible-Ervin 
amendment was to be the addition of the word "hereafter" so that it would be 
clear that my proviso would only apply from the point of enactment of the ap- 
propriations bill to the end of the fiscal year when the appropriation expires. 
This was designed to protect the FBI from any civil liability for distribution 
of arrest records without convictions which had been taking place since the 
Bible rider was enacted in the fall of 1971. 

However, the conference report suggested that the conference committee 
dropped the Ervin proviso leaving the Bible language. This of course left the 



313 

FBI in the same position as it had been after the first Bible rider was enacted 
in the fall of 1971. The Menard order was again temix>rarily suspended and 
there was nothing that Congressman Edwards or I could do to strike the lan- 
guage because a point of order did not appear available on the conference re- 
port. 

At the time the Senate considered the conference report, I expressed my dis- 
may at what the conference had done but pointed out that the language was 
only temporary and promised next year to make the point of order I had been 
dissuaded from making in 1972. Congressman Edwards said essentially the 
same thing when the conference report was considered on the House side. 
Therefore, the only legislative history on the provision suggests that it has the 
effect of suspending the Menard order but only temporarily, that is, until the 
appropriations legislation expires at the end of the 1973 fiscal year. 

However, when the administration presented its fiscal year 1974 budget it 
took the position that the word "hereafter" in the Bible amendment makes the 
amendment permanent legislation and that the Menard order has been perma- 
nently repealed by the conference's action. Of course, this is contrary to the 
legislative history. The case law interpreting appropriations riders suggests 
that the fingerprint operation would rest upon the infirm foundation at the end 
of the fiscal year if the Bible rider, or the Bible-Ervin rider is not again 
added to the FBI appropriation for fiscal year 1974. 

As soon as I found out about the administration's position on this matter I 
wrote to the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee (Mr. Mc- 
Clellan). The letter sets out my concern on this matter and reflected my re- 
search on the effect of the addition of the word "hereafter." That research 
confirmed my conclusion that the conference committee's action last year did 
not permanently enact the Bible rider and that additional authority would be 
necessary this year if the fingerprint dissemination and national crime infor- 
mation system were to continue to operate this year. I ask unanimous consent 
that my letter to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee be printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. 

The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(See exhibit 1.) 

Mr. Ervin. The Senate committee agreed with the position set out in my let- 
ter to Senator McClellan. It placed the Bible-Ervin language in H.R. 8916 and 
no objection was raised on the floor. When the bill got to conference, the 
House adamantly refused to admit that it had made a mistake in not again 
proposing legislation similar to the Bible-Ervin rider. The House conferees in- 
sisted that the problem had been finally settled last year. They were confident 
that by simply slipping in the word "hereafter" without any explanation in the 
conference report or any legislative history, the Bible portion of the rider 
would be permanently enacted into law. Of course, this was contrary to the 
conclusion which the Senate committee had reached when it adopted the Bi- 
ble-Ervin rider, and it was contrary to the understanding of last year's Senate 
conferees. 

The result is not only an affront to the Senate's position and to the rights 
of innocent citizens. The House's obstinancy on this matter may have placed 
the whole FBI fingerprint operation in jeopardy again. I would not be sur- 
prised if a court case is brought in the near future in which a petitioner like 
Menard attempts to get a court to prohibit the dissemination of arrest records 
to nonnlaw enforcement agencies. The petitioner could succeed by simply pre- 
senting the judge with a copy of the Menard order. I doubt that a judge 
would be willing to hold that order null and void simply because the confer- 
ence committee had slipped the word "hereafter" into a conference report on a 
piece of temporary legislation without any explanation and without any sup- 
portive language on the floor of either House of Congress which approved it. 
It would be especially difficult for a court to rule for the Justice Department 
in such a case in the face of the Senate committee's and the Senate's conclu- 
sion that the Menard order would go back into effect if the Bible rider was 
not again added to the Justice Department's appropriation bill. 

This year's conference report states that — 

"The Conferees understand that this matter is before the Judiciary Commit- 
tees of the House and the Senate and urge expeditious consideration thereof." 
In other words, the conference committee is asking the Judiciary Committees 



314 

of both Houses to move quickly to resolve this legal ambiguity so that the fin- 
gerprint operation is not again brought to a halt by a court order. 

Therefore, I am today proposing legislation which will temporarily resolve 
the controversy raised by the Conference Committee's action. This legislation 
would in effect enact the Bible-Ervin rider into substantive law, but only for a 
temporary period, until the end of Congress. The legislation only gives tempo- 
rary authority because I believe that much more comprehensive legislation is 
needed to deal with the question of law enforcement data banks and informa- 
tion systems. Indeed, the Justice Department is drafting such a comprehensive 
bill which I understand it will propose in the next four weeks. I am also plan- 
ning to introduce a more complete bill in the near future. However, an effec- 
tive temporary stopgap measure should be enacted as a prophylactic measure 
to make the fingerprint service less vulnerable to an adverse court decision 
and at the same time protect innocent individuals until such time as Congress 
enacts comprehensive legislation. 

I ask unanimous consent that the bill, together with a memorandum be 
printed in the Record following my remarks. 

The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(See exhibit 2.) 

"Exhibit 1 

"May 15, 1973. 
"Hon. John L. McClellan, 
Chairman, Appropriations Committee, 
U.8. Senate. 

"Deak Mb. Chairman : In recent years, the Administration has requested in 
its budget certain language regarding the distribution of criminal records by 
the Justice Department. This so-called 'Bible rider' is language which has been 
added to the FBI's appropriation for the past few years as a temporary au- 
thorization for the Bureau to continue operation of the National Crime Infor- 
mation Center and the collection and dissemination of fingerprint records and 
'Rap sheets', by the Identification Division of the Bureau. The language is ne- 
cessitated by the outstanding order in the case of Menard v. Mitchell, 328 F. 
Supp. 718 (1971). That order prohibits distribution by the FBI of such crimi- 
nal records outside the Federal government until the Congress enacts legisla- 
tive standards designed to protect the security and confidentiality of the infor- 
mation and to protect innocent people from being harmed by its collection and 
dissemination. 

"It has been generally recognized that, as Senator Bible described it, the 
rider is a 'stopgap' measure which allowed the FBI to continue its dissemina- 
tion on a temporary basis until the Congress had enacted the legislative stand- 
ards required by the Menard case. Last year the Senate agreed to a modifica- 
tion I proposed which limited dissemination to records which indicated a 
conviction. Under the modification, the FBI could continue the dissemination 
of this information without harming innocent individuals while Congress pre- 
pared more precise legislative guidelines. 

"When H.R. 14989 came from conference the modified rider was dropped, 
and the original language was retained. When the conference report was be- 
fore the Senate I announced my determination to object to such improper leg- 
islative provisions in any future appropriation bill. My determination has been 
strengthened by learning from Senator Hruska that the conference had indeed 
agreed to retain my modification but that this was somehow not reflected in 
the formal report. Senator Hruska has confirmed his recollection of this unfor- 
tunate discrepancy. If the Bible rider or any similar language is proposed 
again this year, I plan once again to raise a point of order to it as "legislating 
in an appropriations bill" and, therefore, violative of Senate Rule 16. 

"In its proposed budget for the coming year, the Administration has not re- 
newed its request for the Bible rider. As a consequence, the temporary author- 
ity in P.L. 92-544 to distribute arrest records will expire at the end of the 
fiscal year since it is settled precedent that provisions such as this do not be- 
come general authority unless the clearest intent is expressed at the time. 

"The Justice Department takes the position that the conference committee's 
addition of the word "hereafter" makes the Bible language a permanent part 
of substantive law and that the rider is no longer necessary. However, the leg- 
islative history of the Bible rider does not suggest such an intent and the 
courts have required that Congress be explicit when it intends to amend sub- 



315 

stantive law with a rider to an appropriations bill. The debate surrounding the 
bill in committee or on the floor must clearly reflect an intent to permanently 
change existing substantive law. United States v. Bickersom, 310 U.S. 554 
(1940), National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, 141 F. 2d 794 
(9th Cir. 1944). Aside from the acutal debates the court will look to the legis- 
lative language itself which must manifest a clear intent to change statutory 
law and to the location of the rider — whether it appears in a separate provi- 
sion, labeled in such a manner as to denote a change in substantive law — or 
whether it is simply a proviso of an appropriations item in which case the lan- 
guage is generally not given permanent effect. Roccaforte v. Mulcahey, 169 F. 
Supp. 360 (D. Mass. 1958), aff'd. 262 F. 2d 957 (1st Cir. 1958), United States 
V. Vulte, 233 U.S. 509 (1914), National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson 
Products, supra. 

"For the following reasons I believe that the simple addition of the word 
"hereafter" by the conference committee would not meet the above require- 
ments for permanently amending statutory law via an appropriations rider : 

"First, the conference was never, in all the Congressional discussion of the 
appropriation bill (H.R. 14989), entrusted with the duty of considering the du- 
ration of the Bible rider ; on the contrary, all that was ordered for the confer- 
ence to study were the amendments as they stood, [118 Con. Rec. S9477-9531 
June 15, 1972)]. 

"Second, the inclusion of language which may indicate permanence is not 
suflSeient to establish the Menard rider as permanent legislation. The word 
"hereafter" is not clear on its face as to whether it denotes the rider's effect 
as extending until the end of the life of the appropriation bill or permanently. 
'Hereafter' is a minor terminology change and cannot be seen as indicating 
any change in the duration of the rider absent Congressional debate. 

"Third, Congressional discussion seems to lead one in the other direction as 
Senator Bible indicated that the Menard rider was 'In the nature of a stop- 
gap'. 118 Cong. Rec. S 9522 (June 15, 1972). Indeed, Senator Bible noted that 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation was granted its power to disseminate rec- 
ords each year in Department of Justice appropriation bills and that the 1973 
Menard rider would have to be approved as the 1972 rider reversing Menard 
would soon expire, 118 Cong. Rec. S 9522 (June 15, 1972). 

"Fourth, the location of the Menard rider in the provision for "Salaries and 
Expenses" of the FBI indicates the desire to have the rider's effect last only 
until the termination of the appropriation bill. 

"Fifth, the Conference reported no debate, no discussion of the added word 
"hereafter" or the permanency of the rider. Conference Report, House Report 
No. 92-1567, 92nd Cong. 2nd Sess. (October 10, 1972). In light of the Senate 
rules, it would appear that 'hereafter' if it constituted a major change in the 
rider would have to be noted in the report and would have subjected the re- 
port to a point of order. 

"Since the Bible rider must be viewed as temporary authority, it is there- 
fore necessary for the Congress to move swiftly on arrest record legislation be- 
cause the FBI's authority to operate the National Crime Information Center 
and the collection and dissemination of 'RAP sheets' will end on June 30. I am 
preparing legislation on this question and I understand that the Justice De- 
partment is doing the same. Last year similar legislation was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights and this year such legislation has been 
jointly referred to the Subcommittee and to your Subcommittee on Criminal 
Laws and Procedures. Since we chair these two Subcommittees, I suggest that 
the staffs of those two Subcommittees begin arrangements for swift joint ac- 
tion on this question so that the FBI does not have to shut down this valuable 
law enforcement service. 

"I respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the State, Justice 
and Commerce Subcommittee's record on the FBI appropriation. 

"With kindest wishes. 

"Sincerely yours, 

"Sam J. Bbvin, Jr., 

"Chairm.an." 
"Exhibit 2 

"A bill to protect the constitutional rights of the subjects of arrest records 
and to authorize the Federal Bureau of Investigation to disseminate convic- 



316 

tion records to State and local government agencies, and for other purposes 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of Atnerica in Congress assembled, 

"Section 1. Section 534 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read 
as follows : 

" '§ 534. Acquisition, perservation, and exchange of identification records ; ap- 
pointment of officials 

" '(a) The Attorney General, shall — 

"'(1) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve identification, criminal identifi- 
cation, crime, and other records ; and 

"'(2) exchange these records with, and for the oflScial use of, the Federal 
Government, the States, cities, and penal and other institutions for law en- 
forcement purposes. 

" '(b) (1) The Attorney General may exchange such records with the officials 
of federally chartered or insured banking institutions to promote or maintain 
the security of these institutions ; and if authorized by State statute, with 
ofl5cials of State and local governments for purposes of employment and licens- 
ing. 

"'(2) Any such exchange under this subsection shall be made only for the 
oflScial use of any such oflScial. The exchange of any identification or other rec- 
ord indicating that any person has been arrested on any criminal charge or 
charged with any criminal offense is hereby forbidden unless such record dis- 
closes that such person pleaded guilty or nolle contendere to or was convicted 
of|)SUch charge or offense in a court of justice. 

"'(c)(1) All copies of records of information filed as a result of an arrest 
that is legally terminated in favor of the arrested individual shall be returned 
to that individual within 60 days of final disposition and shall not be main- 
tained in the files of any Federal agency, if a copy of the formal court order 
disposing of the case is presented, or upon formal notice from one criminal 
justice agency to another. Records of information include fingerprints, photo- 
graphs or any records or files, except investigative files, relating to that arrest. 

"'(2) Records of such information may be retained if another criminal ac- 
tion or proceeding is pending against the arrested individual, or if he has pre- 
viously been convicted in any jurisdiction in the United States of an offense. 

"'(d) The exchange of records authorized by this section is subject to 
cancellation if dissemination is made outside the receiving departments or re- 
lated agencies. 

"'(e) The Attorney General may appoint oflScials to perform the functions 
authorized by this section. 

"'(f) The Attorney General's authority to disseminate records indicating 
that an individual has been arrested or charged with any criminal offense to 
non-criminal justice agencies, pursuant to subsection (b), shall expire on De- 
cember 31, 1974. After that date the Attorney General shall be forbidden from 
disseminating such information to non-criminal justice agencies.' " 

"Memorandum 
"(November 12, 1973) 

"Re : Arrest Records Legislation 

"The attached draft legislation is designed as a temporary stopgap measure 
to resolve the controversy raised by the Conference Report on H.R. 8916, the 
State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations bill for Fiscal 1974. In essence, 
that controversy concerns the viability of the outstanding court order against 
the FBI by the District Court for the District of Columbia in the case of Men- 
ard V. Mitchell 328 F. Supp. 718 (1971). In that ca.se the District court so con- 
strued section 534 of title 28 as to prohibit the FBI from disseminating raw 
arrest records to non-law enforcement agencies. The House takes the position 
that it has permanently resolved this question ; the Senate, of course, disa- 
grees. 

"The attached legislation would amend § 534 so as to reestablish that au- 
thority in the following manner : 

"Subsection (a) simply restates the existing general language of § 534; 

"Subsection (b) addresses the issue raised by the Menard decision. It is al- 
most identical to the language which Senators Bible and Ervin proposed to 
H.R. 8916 limiting non-law enforcement dissemination to conviction records. 



317 

"Subsection (c) also addresses the question of dissemination of non-convic- 
tion records to both law enforcement and non-law enforcement agencies. It is 
almost identical to the recommendations of a recent Justice Department re- 
port. 

"Subsections (d) and (e) are identical to existing language in section 534. 

"Subsection (f ) provides that the Attorney General's authority to disseminate 
information to non-law enforcement agencies expires at the end of this Con- 
gress. This assures that this legislation is only a temporary measure and that 
the Justice Department will have to return to the Congress for additional au- 
thority, hopefully in the form of a comprehensive arrest records bill." 



MATERIALS RELATING TO PROJECT SEARCH 
Computerized Criminal History Demonstration 

Technical Memorandum No. 2, January 1971 

Chapter I 
introduction 

The Technical Evaluation Team 

The Technical Evaluation Team is one of the working committees estab- 
lished by the Project Group of Project SEARCH. Membership on the Technical 
Evaluation Team included representatives of each of the ten states which par- 
ticipated in the initial demonstration of the project concept, as well as 
representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Law Enforce- 
ment Assistance Administration. The membership of the Technical Evaluation 
Team is presented in Exhibit 1-1. 

The Technical Evaluation Team was charged by the Project Group with the 
responsibility of making recommendations to the Project Group concerning 
changes in system concept, file contents, or procedures, based on the experience 
gained during the initial phase of the project. This report contains those rec- 
ommendations called for in the charge to the team. 

The Technical Evaluation Team met as a group five times to develop the 
recommendations which constitute the backbone of this report. In addition, 
work was carried out within the participating states to collect and analyze 
data necessary to document the results of the preliminary phase, and to sup- 
port the recommendations contained here. 

The initial demonstration 

The original plan of Project SEARCH called for initiation of a technical 
feasibility demonstration period during the period 1 July-31 August, 1970. At 
the time this schedule was established, the system concept for Project 
SEARCH had not yet been developed, but there was an underlying assumption 
that the system would consist of a relatively straightforward central reposi- 
tory computer serving terminals in the participating states. Subsequent to that 
time, a system concept was developed which called for a computer-to-computer 
operation with substantial hardware and software modifications being required 
in each of the participating states. Nevertheless, the deadline for initiation of 
the demonstration operation was met, and on-line operation of the central 
index computer and computers in several of the participating states began on 
time and continued throughout the demonstration period. Subsequent to the 
scheduled end of the demonstration period, operations of the project have con- 
tinued. Three of the original participating states discontinued oi>erations at 
the conclusion of the scheduled demonstration; four states are still maintain- 
ing Project SEARCH capabilities on an operational basis, and several addi- 
tional states have participated in the project to varying degrees. These states 
which have participated to some degree in the project and a brief description 
of their participation is provided in Exhibit 1-2. 

Demonstration system, configuration and goals 

It should be emphasized that the major goal of the initial phase of Project 
SEARCH was not to develop an operational criminal history exchange system. 
Rather, the demonstration was designed to test the technical and operational 



318 

feasibility of developing such a system, and to prepare for the development of 
an operational system. Early in the project, it was determined that the major 
unanswered questions concerning system feasibility which should be addressed 
were three-fold : 

(a) Could telecommunication procedures and conventions be developed which 
would ease implementation within each of the participating states without un- 
duly affecting system eflSciency ? 

(&) Could definitions of terms and data coding structures be developed or 
adopted which would allow maximum flexibility for intra-state criminal justice 
information system development while providing the necessary uniformity for 
inter-state criminal history exchange? 

(c) Can a decision-making structure composed of operational managers from 
each of the participating states succeed in carrying out tasks and making deci- 
sions? 

The focus of effort on these potential problem areas necessarily diverted at- 
tention and resources from other areas not considered critical. For example, 
there was little doubt that file maintenance and update procedures could be de- 
veloped if the file contents could be agreed upon ; therefore, final update capa- 
bility was not developed during the demonstration period. Similarly, decisions 
concerning the exact criteria for entry of a criminal into the system were de- 
ferred, in order to free up resources to address the question of what data ele- 
ments would be collected concerning an individual placed into the system. 

Each of the states participating in the demonstration evolved its own meth- 
ods of adapting existing computer facilities for use in Project SEARCH. Some 
states integrated the Project SEARCH data base with other data bases within 
the state computer system, while others kept the Project SEARCH data 
segregated. Some states adapted existing telecommunication processing soft- 
ware for Project SEARCH uses, while other states built entirely new teleproc- 
essing systems. 

Organization of this report 

The Technical Evaluation Team feels strongly that the purpose of evaluation 
is to look forward to future activities in criminal history exchange. There is 
no point in studying our past experiences except to learn from them in order 
to make our future activities more successful than they would otherwise be. 
For this reason, the main body of this report is directed toward a statement 
of the recommendation for changes in the second phase of Project SEARCH. 
Documentation of the arguments which were developed for and against each of 
the recommendations are presented in subsidiary sections of the report, and in 
the appendices. 

EXHIBIT 1-1 
TECHNICAL EVALUATION TEAM 

State or agency Name Title 

Arizona Joseph Ryan Department of Public Safety. 

California Seth Thomas Program planning officer, Department 

of Justice. 

Connecticut Val Punga Chairman, Computer Science, Rens- 
selaer Polytechnic Institute of 
Connecticut. 

Florida GeneSlade Department of Law Enforcement. 

Maryland James R. Donovan Director, Systems Development, Gov- 
ernor's Commission on Law En- 
forcement. 

Michigan... David R. Fergason Chief, Data Processing, Michigan 

State Police. 

Minnesota Lawrence W. Hedin MINCIS-SEARCH Director, Bureau 

of Criminal Apprehension. 

New York Jack R. McGuinness Director of Computer Systems Design, 

NYSIIS. 

Texas Charles Friel, Ph. D Director of Research, Institute of 

Contemporary Corrections. 

Washington James H. Shaw. Law Enforcement Coordinator. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Dennis G. Lofgren Special Agent, FBI. 

Beverly E. Ponder Section Chief, Identification Division, 

FBI. 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administra- Paul Sylvestre Statistics Center, NCJISS. 

tion. Lewis Arnold... Systems Analysis Center, NCJISS. 

California Robert L. Marx (Chairman) Project SEARCH Technical Coordina- 
tor. 



319 

Recommendation 3. Subject to the limitations specified above, states should 
move rapidly toward preparation of index load and supporting state file records 
for all offenders under their jurisdiction. Until this action has been taken, a 
"no bit" response from the central index cannot be interpreted as meaning that 
the person under consideration has no significant criminal history. {Discussion 
on Page 3-3 ) — Accepted. 

Recommendation 4. Entry in the central index and interstate information 
transfer is to be limited to legally adjudged adults and to those offenses which 
occurred while the offender was an adult. (Discussion on Page 3-3) — Accepted. 

Recommendations concerning data content of index records 

Recommendation 5. The data elements specified for index records during 
the demonstration period should be retained except as altered by the follow- 
ing recommendations. {Discussion on Page 3-4) — Accepted. 

Recommendation 6. The index record should contain offender status (on parole, 
on probation, on pre-release). (Discussion on Page 3-5) — Accepted 

Recommendation 7. Central index records should provide for alias names, and 
for multiple OLN, SOC, and MNU identification numbers. These identification 
elements should be capable of search in the name search routine. (Discussion on 
Page 3-6) — Accepted. 

Recommendation 8. The identification portion of the central index record should 
contain "as of" date indicating the latest time that identification descriptors were 
updated. (Discussion on Page 3-7 ) — Accepted. 

Recommendation 9. Fingerprint classification (FPC) in NCIC form should 
be made a required data element at the central index beginning 1 January 1971. 
During the demonstration period, this data element was optional. (Discussion 
on Page 3-8) — Accepted. 

Recommendation 10. Address and occupation data elements in state files for 
inter-state transmission should be deleted. The data elements were optional dur- 
ing the demonstration period. (Discussion on Page 3-9) — ^Accepted. 

Recommendation 11. Offenses which are entered in the state files as 5405 and 
5406 (moving and non-moving traffic offenses) should not be entered in the 
index (Discussion on Page 3-10) — Accepted. 

Recommendation 12. Offenses coded 4200 (drunk) should not be included in 
the index. (Discussion on Page 3-10) — Accepted. 

Recommendations concerning data coding 

Recommendation 13. Offense codes should be provided for parole violation and 
for probation violation. These events are presently provided for in disposition 
coding, but are often classified as separate offenses and charges within states. 
(Discussion on Page 3-11) — Accepted. 

Recommendation 14. New offense codes in the narcotics and assault categories 
should be provided. The present coding structure does not provide for "ag- 
gravated assault", nor for general categories of manufacture, distribution, sell- 
ing and possession of dangerous drugs. (Discussion on Page 3-11) — Accepted. 

Recommendation 15. The literal equivalents of offense codes should be re- 
worked for readability and clarity, with less emphasis on brevity (Discussion on 
Page 3-12) — Accepted. 

Appendix C 

questionnaiee results 

The questionnaire shown here was administered by Technical Evaluation 
Team members to selected persons in an attempt to gauge user reaction to the 
demonstration system and its outputs. No attempt at statistical validity was 
made in the design or administrationn of the questionnaire. 

Tables 1 through 9 were developed from the responses from questionnaires 
administered in four states. The 35 responses reflected opinions of 25 persons 
who actually made SEARCH inquiries and 10 who only saw demonstrations. 
Included were 22 law enforcement, four from corrections and three each from 
courts and prosecution, and one each from an Attorney General's Office, Com- 
puter Science Specialist, and State Planning Agency (Table 1). While 25 re- 
spondents (including 16 law enforcement) indicated the index response was 
"just about enough", nine others (six in law enforcement) reported "less than 
needed". Only one indicated that the responses were more than needed (Table 



820 

2). Those reporting a need for additional information asked for fingerprint clas- 
sification and visible marks and scars in the I.D. section and a caution indica- 
tor wliere applicable. One person asked for aliases. 

Twenty-five of the respondents indicated that they wanted profile informa- 
tion by offense category while ten indicated this was not necessary. Of the 25 
who wanted the offense category, 11 reported they would approve of collapsing 
the number of categories to fewer codes (Table 3 and 4). 

Only nine reported that it would be suflBcient to know that an individual 
merely had a criminal record. Twenty-six, including 14 in law enforcement in- 
dicated this would not be suflScient. (Table 5). 

The same proportion of responses were made to the question of sufficiency of 
arrest information without conviction information. (Table 6). 

Tables 7 and 8 are developed from an interesting combination of questions. 

Asked if they would prefer a maximum limit on allowable inquiries in order 
to insure turn-around time of ten minutes, the majority of respondents indi- 
cated a preference to lengthen turn-around time so the number of inquiries 
could be unlimited. (Presumably, some were unaware that copious inquiries 
would tend to lengthen turn-around time). Only potentially minimal users of 
the system (Attorney General indicated preference for limited use (Table 7). 

In contrast, Table 8 indicates that most prefer index responses to occur in 
0-5 minutes, while AOR response time preference shows that the majority 
consider more than one hour acceptable. 

Table 9 indicates that the preference is to know about all of the states in 
which criminals have previously been criminally active. 

TABLE 1.— NUMBER OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES MAKING SEARCH INQUIRIES, JULY 1970 

[By type of agency, by number of inquiries] 









Number of 


inquiries 








Made no 


Type of agency 


0-99 


100-199 


2C0-299 


300-399 


400-499 


500 pi 


us 


inquiries, 

only saw 

demonstration 


Total... 


7 


7 


3 










8 


10 


Law enforcement 


4 


5 
1 
1 






2 



C 
1 























7 





1 


4 


Courts 

Corrections 

Prosecutor 

Attorney General 




2 

1 




2 
1 
2 
1 


Computer science 








SPA 









TABLE 2.-ADEQUACY OF INDEX INFORMATION 
[By type of agency] 



Adequacy 



Type of agency 



Less than 
needed 



Total 

Law enforcement.. 

Courts 

Corrections 

Prosecutor 

Attorney General.. 
Computer science. 
SPA 



Just about 
enough 



25 



16 
1 
2 
3 
1 
1 
1 



More than 
needed 



1 









321 

TABLE 3.— IS DETAIL ON OFFENSE CATEGORIES NECESSARY? 
(By type of agency) 



Detail necessary? 



Type of agency Yes No 

Total 25 10 

Law enforcement 

Courts 

Corrections 

Prosecutor... 

Attorney General 

Computer science. .._ 

SPA... 



TABLE 4.— WOULD COLLAPSING CATEGORIES CAUSE DIFFICULTY? (ONLY ASKED IF YES TO Q. 40) 

I By type of agency] 

Cause difficulty? 



13 


9 


3 





3 


1 


3 





1 





1 





1 






Type of agency Yes No 

Total 14 11 

Law enforcement 

Courts 

Corrections 

Prosecutor 

Attorney General 

Computer science 

SPA.. 



TABLE 5.— IS IT SUFFICIENT ON INDEX ONLY TO KNOW A PERSON HAS A RECORD? 

[By type of agency] 

Is record sufficient? 



6 


7 


3 





2 


1 


1 


2 





1 


1 





1 






Type of agency Yes No 

Total 9 26 

Law enforcement 

Courts 

Corrections 

Prosecutor 

Attorney General ^ 

Computer science 

SPA... 



TABLE 6.-IS SUMMARY OF ARRESTS BUT NOT CONVICTIONS SUFFICIENT? 

(By type of agency] 

Arrest summary sufficient? 



8 



14 
3 


1 


3 





3 





1 






I 

1 



Type of agency Yes No 

Total 7 26 



Law enforcement 6 14 

Courts 3 

Corrections 4 

Prosecutor 1 2 

Attorney General 1 

Computer science... 1 

SPA 1 



322 

TABLE 7.— IN ORDER TO HAVE TURN-AROUND TIME ON INDEX 10 MINUTES OR LESS. WOULD YOU PREFER LIMITING 
INQUIRIES OR LENGTHENING TIME TO INCREASE NUMBER OF INQUIRIES? 

(By type of agency] 

Response 



Lengthen 
Limit turn-around 



Type of agency inquiries time 

Total 6 13 



Law enforcement - 5 10 

Courts 

Corrections 1 

Prosecutor 2 

Attorney General .-- 1 

Computer science 



TABLE 8.— MAXIMUM TURNAROUND TIME FOR INDEX AND AGENCY OF RECORD RESPONSE 

IBy type of agency] 







Index 










AOR 






Type of agency 


0-5 
minutes 


6-10 11-20 
minutes minutes 


20 plus 
minutes 


G-20 
minutes 


21-60 
minutes 


1 plus 
hours 


Total 


17 


6 




6 


7 


10 




9 


16 


Law enforcement 


12 


4 
1 


G 
1 




4 
1 

1 




3 
1 
3 





8 


1 
1 






6 

1 

1 


1 


9 


Courts 

Corrections 

Attorney General 




1 

2 


2 
3 

1 


Computer science 


1 


1 


SPA - 









TABLE9.— WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW ALL STATES IN WHICH A PERSON HAS BEEN CRIMINALLY ACTIVE? 

[By type of agency] 

Type of agency Like to know all States 



Yes No 



Total.... 21 15 



Law enforcement.. 

Courts 

Corrections 

Prosecutor 

Attorney General.. 
Computer science. 
SPA 



14 


9 


1 


2 


3 


1 


1 


2 





1 


1 





1 






"Comparative Analysis of Peoject SEARCH," October 23, 1970, by 

Data. Dynamics Inc. 

California Crime Technological Research Foundation, 

January 7, 1971. 
Mr. George Hall, 

Director, Statistical Research Center, 
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Hall: As requested in Mr. Velde's letter of December 11, 1970 
(copy enclosed), I am submitting two copies of the contractor supplied evalua- 
tion report, "Project SEARCH Evaluation". 



323 

As a preface to the submission of this report I feel it appropriate to outline 
a brief history of events and actions leading up to this submission (copies of 
all documents referred to Lolow are maintained in our tile and will be made 
available to yoii upon request). 

On July 10, 1970 Request for Proposal CCTRF No. 1 was sent out to 40 pro- 
spective bidders. Proposals were received from 13 bidders. One of these propos- 
als was received from Data Dyanmics, Inc. (DDI) with their transmittal let- 
ter dated July 22, 1970. 

As required in the RFP, DDI submitted two documents — pricing submittal 
and a technical and management submittal. 

Following an appropriate contractor selection and approval process, DDI 
was selected and a contract drafted and properly negotiated. 

DDI prepared a project plan and timetable, began work, and submitted all 
contract-required progress reports (dated September 14, 1970, October 9, 1970 
and November 6, 1970). 

At the September 2-3, 1970 SEARCH Project Group meeting, DDI reported 
on the progress of their work and distributed copies of their "Evaluation 
Guide" for review. 

At the October 20-21, 1970 SEARCH Project Group meeting, DDI again re- 
ported on their progress and activities. 

On October 19 a rough draft (working copy) of the evaluation report was 
submitted to Mr. Douglas Roudabush, Executive OflScer, California Crime 
Technological Research Foundation, for his review and comment. This was re- 
viewed and subsequently discussed with Mr. Alfred Sansone of LEA A on Octo- 
ber 22, 1970. Comments thus obtained were then presented to DDI for re-draft- 
ing of the report. 

With these considerations, DDI then prepared their final evaluation report, 
"Comparative Analysis of Project SEARCH", which is enclosed with this letter. 

Copies of the DDI final evaluation report were provided to the SEARCH 
Project Group members on November 9, 1970 at a meeting just to the 
SEARCH Symposium. The members, by transmittal letter, were asked to re- 
view the document and provide comments to Mr. Roudabush. A synopsis of 
comments offered by the various states follows : 

Arizona — Some comments in the report on system usage seem too critical. No 
mention in the report was made of the Arizona Crime Information Center nor 
of the Arizona Department of Public Safety being the NLETS Switching Cen- 
ter. 

California — (a) Reference to unsuccessful program. 

(b) DDI not part of SEARCH. 

(c) On page 52, the report states that 190 people ". . . were involved in the 
selection, updating analysis and transcribing of the records." This simply is 
not true. I would question whether there were ever more than 50 people en- 
gaged in SEARCH at any one time. The 190-man figure probably came from 
the anticipated maximum staflSng of the Record Analysis and Coding Section 
sometime in FY 1971-72. This paragraph goes on to state that 40 people con- 
verted the data to machine readable form ; this is probably correct in rough 
terms. What, then, were the other 150 people doing? 

(d) $9 cost figure seems in error. 
Colorado— "So comment. 
Connecticut — No comment. 

Florida — The number of records submitted to the Central Index was mis- 
leading in that no mention was made of the records subsequently submitted 
after the DDI interviews in Florida. 

Illinois — No comment. 

Maryland — The errors are not too serious but we do insist that these correc- 
tions be made so that our part in the project is accurately portrayed. Inciden- 
tally, this information appears on Page 53 of the Draft. 

The data collection in Maryland took place in correctional institutions, the 
State Penitentiary, Patuxent Institute, and the House of Corrections by corre- 
lating the Institutional information with that from FBI "Rap" sheets. Only 
felonies and dispositions of a minimum of six months sentencing were selected 
for conversion. For demonstration purposes, 150 dummy records were created, 
30 of which were criminal histories. 

The data was coded on specially designed data collection forms and then 
typed in OCR format for input. The 11,529 criminal histories were collected 



324 

and verified in ten weeks by 4 teams totaling 50 people specifically hired for 
the task. As a result of 4 experiments run simultaneously, the cost per record 
for conversion was $2.22. The error rate was approximately 2.0 percent and 
the total technique, including the use of Optical Character Recognition equip- 
ment, produced a 50 percent savings over keypunching. 

Michigan — The data content of the report is poorly organized and loaded 
with unsubstantiated personal opinions. The title of the report is misleading in 
that we do not know what is being "compared" to what. Some of the key is- 
sues are missing or only lightly touched upon. There are contradictory state- 
ments having to do with "the operational system" and "courts and corrections" 
which result in little definitive information from which judgments for the fu- 
ture can be made. 

Minnesota — On Page 47, Minnesota is listed as having sent 5,852 records to 
Michigan by August 15, 1970. Apparently this is correct, however, it leaves the 
impression that Minnesota did not convert the necessary 10,000 records, which 
is incorrect. Minnesota suggested an asterisk after the number 5,852, with a 
footnote as follows : "a total of 10,000 records were completely coded and 
placed on tape prior to July 1, 1970, however, computer programming problems 
delayed delivery of the balance of the records". 

New Jersey — No comment. 

New York — 1. Page 44 — The statement is made that "state files will be de- 
signed to contain all arrest charges while the Central Index will contain only 
the number of arrest convictions". We believe this is inaccurate since the cri- 
teria established for entering a record in the Central Index provided that at 
least one disposition — not conviction — had to be included, regardless of the 
number of arrests. 

2. Page 60 — Response time — there is no definition of "response time". If it is 
meant to reflect what the physical aspects of the system could produce we 
would accept the figures given. If it intends to reflect the response time of the 
operating system then we would take exception since many of our inquiries to 
the Central Index took several hours and more to obtain responses. 

3. Page 70 — the statement is made that "No logs were kept of visitors". NY 
SIIS "logs in" all visitors to the agency as a regular operating practice. 

4. Page 49-55 — Describes the conversion of criminal history records in the 
various states. This description would have been much more helpful if the con- 
version procedure components in each state were detailed so that a more 
meaningful comparison could be made in terms of record content, validity and 
costs. 

Ohio — No comment. 

Pennsylvania — No comment. 

Texas — No comment. 

Washington — No comment. 

Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department — Information in the report 
is essentially correct, however, the WALES system has recently been up-graded 
to include 50 terminals and a 360/50 CPU with 384K. 

If you so desire, I will see that the DDI evaluation report be re-written to 
reflect any of the inaccuracies or misconceptions outlined above. 

As you can see, DDI has met all contract obligations with respect to the 
phases of their work relating to the evaluation report. It should be noted that 
DDI even surveyed more states and systems than required. I think that upon 
reviewing their report, you will agree that they have in general endorsed the 
efforts of and general direction taken in Proj'ect SEARCH. 

Subject to submission of the DDI final report relating to their recommended 
design of an operational system and our comments relating to same, and sub- 
ject to any requirements you may have to the contrary, I would like to con- 
sider the foregoing our final project report on this grant SG-70-006. 

I have received a rough draft (working copy) of the DDI final report (sys- 
tem design). We are taking the necessary steps to conform with Mr. Velde's 
wishes as outlined in his December 11, 1970 letter regarding the final report. 
Following this process, and following preparation of required financial report- 
ing, I will consider that all work under this grant have been completed. 

If you require any further information please let me know. 
Sincerely, 

Obville J. Hawkins, 

Chairman. 

Enclosures. 



325 

U.S. Department of Justice, 
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 

WashiniitOH, D.C., Decctnlxr 77, 1970. 
Mr. O.J. Hawkins, 

Chairman, California Crime Technological Research Foundation, 
P.O. Box 60S, 
Sacramento, Calif. 

Dear Mr. Hawkins : In response to your request for instructions as to the 
distribution of reports and documentation supplied to your Foundation by the 
contractor under LEAA Grant No. SG-70-006 (Independent SEARCH Evalua- 
tion Study), we would prefer that you use two different forms of distribution. 
It is my understanding that your contractor is supplying two separate docu- 
ments : one dealing with its evaluation of the SEARCH concept and prototype, 
and one related to its recommendations regarding the design of an operational 
system. 

LEAA is primarily interested in the evaluation report, as it may provide 
data in support of cost-benefit analyses for planning purposes in the future. 
We request that your report and the contractor-supplied material related to 
this part of the effort be supplied to LEAA for its internal use. 

With respect to the second part, dealing with long-range system design, it is 
our intention to make this material available to the SEARCH Project as data 
which may assist the Project Group and its staff in developing the operational 
system design. Under our recently announced grant to extend the project to 
December 1971, and in view of the decisions that have been made regarding 
the roles of the various state and federal agencies, we have concluded that all 
system design work should remain the responsibility of the grantee states 
through their representation on the SEARCH Project Group until the FBI is 
in a position to take over management control of the design effort. I therefore 
request that all documentation developed under this grant that applies to the 
system design activity be transmitted to the SEARCH Project Group, with an 
information copy for LEAA files. 
Sincerely, 

Richard W. Velde, 
Associate Administrator. 



Comparative Analysis of Project Search 

(By Data Dynamics, Inc., Arlington, Va.) 

I. Introduction 

Project SEARCH is an 18 month (June 30, 1969-December 31, 1970) multi- 
state effort designed to develop a prototype computerized criminal justice in- 
formation system. The Project is financed ($2.5 million) by the Law Enforce- 
ment Assistance Administration (LEAA) and ten participating states. 
Coordination for the Project is provided by the California Council on Criminal 
Justice (CCCJ) through the California Crime Technological Research Founda- 
tion (CCTRF). A ten man Project Group, consisting of one representative 
from each participating state, is responsible for the conduct of the Project and 
all final decisions relating to the Project. A Project plan was developed by the 
Project Group establishing tasks and responsibilities. 

Two of the tasks established in the plan called for a Project evaluation and 
a system redesign. LEAA, through the California Crime Technological Re- 
search Foundation, established a grant to hire an independent data processing 
consulting company to conduct the evaluation and develop the system redesign. 
As a result of competitive bid, Data Dynamics, Inc. of Arlington, Virginia was 
selected to review the accomplishments of Project SEARCH and submit a sys- 
tems proposal on the Operational SEARCH. 

This report presents a comparative analysis of one of the two basic tasks of 
Project SEARCH (System for Electronic Analysis and Retrieval of Criminal 
Histories ) . The one basic task covered by this report is "The development of a 
system for the interstate exchange of criminal history data". The analysis will 
compare the SEARCH concept, the prototype offender data system, the opera- 
tional systems of the participating states, selected local systems and some 



326 

non-automated systems. The report highlights the achievement of the project 
task and identifies actual successes and problems. The prototype data system 
is conceived to support all facets of law enforcement administration. The man- 
agement structure, organizational placement, organizational or functional inter- 
relationship, system policy and control, all of these facets are interface topics 
which are reviewed as a part of the analysis. This report does not address it- 
self to the solution of problems since this will come in the final report, the 
proposal for the Operational SEARCH. 

This report is submitted to the California Crime Technological Research 
Foundation as a deliverable product for Project SEARCH. The report repre- 
sents the effort of Data Dynamics, Incorporated and of the International Asso- 
ciation of Chiefs of Police. The research for the SEARCH prototype and dem- 
onstration was completed in August and the data gathering for other 
comparable systems was completed during September. The participants in this 
report are as follows : 

Data Dynamics, Inc. 

David Dale, Vice President 
William Nelson, Project Director 
Michael Sutin 
Samuel Fife 
David Asch 

International Association of Chiefs of Police 

Roy Hollady, Assistant Director 
Peter Silvain 
John Quinn 
Bjorn Pederson 
Loren Goldman 

In addition to the introducfiim, the report includes an Executive Summary, 
a review and analysis of the SEARCH concept, a review and analysis of the 
SEARCH prototype, and a review and description of comparable criminal jus- 
tice information systems at the national, state and local levels, all as present 
or potential SEARCH interface systems. Finally, the report contains the obser- 
vations and findings drawn from comparative analysis and some recommenda- 
tions pertinent to both project management and the forthcoming design pro- 
posal. 

II. Executive Summary 

The comparative analysis and review of the SEARCH prototype was started 
by the DATA DYNAMICS, INC. team traveling to each participating state 
during the final two weeks of the scheduled demonstration. When it was 
learned that the SEARCH prototype was being used mostly for planned dem- 
onstrations of capability and "not of sample operations, the DDI analysts con- 
centrated on gathering comparative data on the systems of the participating 
states and their SEARCH preparation activity. Members of the lACP provided 
consulting service and gathered data from six cities. 

This report reviews Project SEARCH as it was conceived and planned. It 
describes the Project Group and all of the subordinate Project organizations. 
It describes the responsibilities of the states, the tasks, and the special proj- 
ects. The report contains a complete review of the SEARCH prototype system 
and a description of a number of systems at the local, state and national level, 
including some systems that were not automated. 

In reviewing the concept and objectives of SEARCH, there were only minor 
questions or reservations expressed. The requirement for a national system for 
the exchange of criminal history information is self-evident. State and local 
law enforcement activities have been querying the FBI for many years for in- 
formation not contained in their files. No person interviewed, including those 
with reservations on SEARCH, could suggest an alternative approach to com- 
puter assisted information handling and. communications. The legal and ethical 
aspects of maintaining criminal history data in state files and not in a na- 
tional bank have lead to the concept of a central index to criminal history rec- 
ords held by individual states. 

The SEARCH Project Group was established to develop the concept into a 
prototype system. In an organization subordinate to the Project Group, com- 



327 

mittees, task forces and working groups were formed to develop the prototype. 
Although committees do not always take the most logical approach in develop- 
ing systems, the prototype system was designed and installed for the demon- 
stration period. Dedication to the common cause by individual participants 
overcame the problems of a group approach. Two very significant achievements 
of the Project Group organization are the establishment of the high degree of 
cooperation needed from all of the states if this is to be a responsive system 
and the standardization required if this is to be a national system. The Proj- 
ect Group is to be commended for putting a system on-the-air that has met the 
objectives of the SEARCH plan. 

Although the prototype system was a success in meeting the Project objec- 
tives, it did not achieve much operational success. Most of the participants did 
not use the system in an operational mode. A large number of demonstrations 
were held to acquaint potential users with the capabilities and benefits of such 
a system. In many cases, the demonstrations were the first introduction of 
staff personnel from courts or corrections to the potential service available 
from a computer system. The capability demonstrated by the prototype 
SEARCH was well received by these personnel who expressed firm require- 
ments for timely and accurate criminal history data. Beyond the planned dem- 
onstrations, the system was used in an operational test mode very sparingly. 
Only one state exercised the system well enough to generate any use data. 
From this state over 360 potential hits were made on the limited data base 
(10,000 records per participating state) with 70 of these hits being classified as 
actual and more than half of the actual hits from outside of the state. 

The technical analysis of the SEARCH prototype revealed many characteris- 
tics of the committee approach to system design. The system software was a 
modification of existing capabilities to meet the processing requirements of 
Project SEARCH without overtasking the already burdened staffs of the state 
systems. The result was a prototype system that was a matter of compromise 
rather than a deliberate design. Although these compromises made it possible 
to put a system together, they limited the usefulness of the system for opera- 
tional testing purposes. Lack of an updating capability for the Index and tech- 
nical problems were cited as some of the observed reasons that the system was 
not tested operationally. 

The problems encountered in developing the Central Index and the use of 
the state "RAP" sheets emphasized the requirement for the work of the Stand- 
ardization Task Force. Some of the "RAP" sheets were praised but in general 
they were an expediency that would not be acceptable to many of the potential 
users. Additional requirements for data in the areas of courts and corrections 
need to be identified and satisfied in the operational 'SEARCH'. A most signif- 
icant accomplishment of Project SEARCH was establishing the cooperative at- 
titude of the states in resolving minor differences in individual state systems 
so that standard data elements can' be identified and classified. 

The report describes the systems of each participating state and the effort of 
the state in making their information available to SEARCH. The system of 
the National Crime Information Center is described as an example national 
system and as a system with which SEARCH must ultimately interface. A 
number of local systems are described to ensure that the national system will 
meet the requirement of a local law enforcement system. 

Acknowledging the achievements of the Project SEARCH, the report recom- 
mends a SEARCH Policy Control Council, Regional Councils and the establish- 
ment of a staff directly responsible for administration and operation of the 
Operational SEARCH. The report proposes the staflBng of the councils in such 
a way as to ensure that the Operational SEARCH is responsive to the require- 
ments of the states. The following tabular listing of achievements and prob- 
lems, both present and projected, are the major considerations deemed neces- 
sary for the development of a operational system. 

PBOJECT SEARCH ANALYSIS 

Achievements 

Development of prototype 

Substantiation of feasibility 

High number of record accesses during operational testing 

Criminal justice information automatically available to courts 

Criminal justice information automatically available to corections 



34-788 O - 74 - 22 



328 

standardization of data elements (criminal justice) 
States participation and cooperation 
Development of security and privacy i>olicy 
Isolation of present and potential problems 

Problem areas (prototype) 

Resources to convert past records 

Missing case disposition data 

Correlation of disposition data 

Lack of unique machine readable fingerprint data 

Lack of operational usage data during demonstration period 

Backlog on low speed communications 

Technical failures in communications 

Subordinate priority of Central Index 

Lack of update capability 

Lack of EDP capability in law enforcement 

Shortage of EDP resources in law enforcement 

Adequacy of data elements 

Inexperience of law enforcement personnel in systems 

High cost of prototype 

Technical deficiencies in prototype system 

Lack of courts and corrections participation in prototype development 

Projected proMems (operational SEARCH) 

System policy control 

System administration and operation 

Development of reliable and eflScient system 

Financing of system 

System implementation 

Site selection and preparation 

Participation of all state and territories in system 

Development of reliable and accurate indexing 

Development of file maintenance and record control procedures for index 

Establishing technical control for communications 

Definition and classification of criminal history data elements 

Standardization of criminal history data elements 

Conversion of manual files to automated system 

Correlation of police, courts} land corrections information 

Acquisition of new criminal data 

Establishment of 'Agency of Record' policy for a criminal history record 

Development of standai'd communications record format 

Development of state transmission conversion programs 

Development of state querie and retrieval programs 

Development of an administrative message switching capability 

Interface with the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) System 

Establishment of technical security for system 

Data processing training for law enforcement personnel 

III. SEARCH Concept 

The means to obtain information about an Individual's past criminal activity 
as well as the means to collect criminal statistics has been desired by the 
police, judicial, correctional and public safety institutions for some time. In- 
trastate criminal information is usually obtainable, but a mobile individual is 
usually processed with a lack of information. 

The SEARCH prototype is an effort to determine whether an automated in- 
terstate exchange of criminal histories and criminal statistics is a realistic and 
a workable concept. Problems in both technical and oi^erational areas will be 
illustrated by the SEARCH prototype demonstration. In providing the inter- 
state exchange of criminal history information, specific objectives must be met. 
Some standardization of data elements is required in the areas of offender 
identification, offenses and dispositions. A central index must be established 
which can inform any participating state of an offender's identifying character- 
istics and locate the state which maintains the individual's complete criminal 
history. The ability to retrieve information from both a central index and 
from the state maintaining the complete criminal history will be demonstrated 



329 

aud evaluated through Project SEARCH. The security and privacy of criminal 
history information must also be established and defined. 

The exchange of criminal statistics necessitates an evaluation of their uses 
and the requirements of the various departments involved in criminal justice. 
An enumeration of transaction based statistics which can be computerized and 
are compatible among the participating states is required. An automated analy- 
sis of criminal justice statistics will be developed and demonstrated through 
Project SEARCH. Recommendations for a standardized set of criminal justice 
statistics will also be developed. 

When a participating state desires information on an individual, it queries 
the Central Index by using a QH message code. The Central Index file, main- 
tained by the Michigan State Police, will return either a "No Record Found" 
message or identifying and summary information about the individual as well 
as the name of the state which maintains the individual's criminal history record. 

In order to obtain the criminal history record from another participating 
state, a QR message is entered specifying which state is being queried. The 
message is transmitted to the message switching computer in Michigan where 
it is routed to the appropriate state's computer. The state holding the criminal 
history record (Agency of Record) then transmits a copy of the history in- 
formation to the requesting state through the message switching computer. 

Each participating state has direct access to both the message switching com- 
puter and to the Central Index. Each state must service inquiries of their crimi- 
nal history records from the other participating states. 

Figure 1 and 2, following, depicts the entire communications structure of 
SEARCH showing the computer of the Central Index, message switching com- 
puter, the state computer systems and the State terminals and files. 



330 



INF0R^AAT10N FLOW 



. . U^-i^.'r-J Inquiry Stote 

Inquiry { *^ /- . 

Termlnol L-'^UT 




Informofton Flow inquiry to Centrol Index (QH) and 
response from Central Index 



Infonnotlon Flow inquiry to Agency of Record File (QR) 
and response from Agency of Record 



X" 



Transmi;sion line 



Figure \. Information Flow 



331 



14 





5 it 



















-^D 



<3 > Q^ 

OH 



Figure 2. SEARCH G)mmunlcaHon Netwoife -~ 



332 

Tbe following narrative describes the complete organization of Project 
SEARCH. The organizational flow chart which follows the narrative names the 
SEARCH organization, shows its iwsition in relation to the other SEARCH orga- 
nizations and also names those individuals responsible for the direction of each 
group. The narrative defines the responsibilities delegated to each organization 
under Project SEARCH. 

PROJECT GROUP 

The SEARCH Project Group, under the chairmanship of O. J. Hawkins of 
California and assisted by Thomas Trimbach of Michigan, is designated as the 
governing board and overseer of Project SEARCH. Its membership includes 
representatives from all the participating states in Project SEARCH. The 
prime responsibility of the Project Group is to 

Accept, review and approve project plan, program reports, and final re- 
ports. 

Organize and staff project work groups and task forces. 
Prepare, approve and submit to LEAA comprehensive plan and work 
schedule. 

Ensure the fulfillment of Project SEARCH objectives and further states 
involvement. 

STATISTICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

Headed by Vincent O'Leary of New York, the Statistical Advisory Commit- 
tee is organized to accomplish those tasks associated with the statistical com- 
ponents of the SEARCH prototype demonstration. Its members include repre- 
sentatives from the participating states as well as members from LEAA and 
the FBI. Its designated functions are to 

Prepare the statement of work for the prototype statistics center. 

Select the organization to conduct the work of the statistics center. 

Provide off-line statistical analysis. 

Monitor the work of the statistics center, and 

Prepare a statistical requirements final report 

DEMONSTRATION PLANNING COMMITTEE 

With Thomas Trimbach at its head, the four man Demonstration Planning 
Committee is the determining board for the 

Direction and organization of the project demonstration. 
Detailed requirements and content of the demonstrations, and 
Dissemination of brochures, films, press releases, etc. to present Project 
SEARCH to the other states 

SECURITY AND PRIVACY COMMITTEE 

Under the direction of Robert Gallati of New York, the Security and Pri- 
vacy Committee is organized to 

Aid in selection of security and privacy consultants. 

Work with consultants to study the security and privacy areas in Proj- 
ect SEARCH, 

Draft a code of ethics. 

Recommend system restrictions, limitations and policy guidelines, and 

Prepare an encompassing final report considering Security and privacy 
implications. Recommendations for project demonstration, and Recommen- 
dations for future expansion of SEARCH 

PROJECT COORDINATOR 

Working directly with the Project Group, the Project Coordinator executes 
the functions of the Executive Director for the project. Led by Paul K. Wor- 
meli as Project Coordinator and aided by Robert L. Marx as Technical Coordi- 
nator, Steven E. Kolodney as Statistical Coordinator and George A. Buck as 
Administrative Coordinator, the group is responsible for 

Scheduling and conductingi Meetings, 

Presenting project plans and reports as scheduled, 

Working with state coordinators, and 

Providing support services to the task forces. 



333 

STATISTICAL METHODS TASK FORCE 

Under the direction of Glenn Dafoe of Michigan, the Statistical Methods 
Task Force is responsible for 

Selecting the specific statistics included in the computerized file, 
Formatting statistical data output, 

Providing assistance for the selection of offender records placed in the 
computerized file, and 

Assisting in any statistical data file tasks. 

STATISTICAL METHODS TASK FORCE SUBCOMMITTEES 

Statistics requirements 

Ralph Gutekunst of Maryland is Chairman and is responsible for the statis- 
tical information selection which is needed by police, courts, corrections and 
state planners. 

Demonstration design 

Don King of Florida heads this subcommittee which 
Determines statistical data base scope and 

Recommends areas of coverage, rules for access, routine reports, 
input/output formats, and types of requests. 

Data availability 

Under John Yeager of LBAA, this subcommittee. 

Determines information feasible for inclusion, and 

Recommends future statistical data for inclusion in a nationwide sys- 
tem. 

Standardized task force 

Chairman Edward Mattson of Minnesota directs this task force which is re- 
sponsible for establishing standards for data on individual offenders including 
interstate terminology, record formats, data elements/, etc. 

STANDARDIZED TASK FORCE SUBCOMMITTEES 

Standardized offense data 

Wes Barrett of California directs this subcommittee which is primarily re- 
sponsible for data to be included in the computer file such as : 
Uniform offense terminology. 
Record formats, and 
Offense data elements. 

Identification 

With Paul McCann of New York as chairman, this subcommittee is the de- 
termining force for 

Uniform identification of data elements and 
Description of data elements. 

Security of records 

H. W. McFarling of Texas is director of this subcommittee which is in 
charge of 

Criminal record privacy. 

Procedures for access to information, and 

Penalties for misuse of records. 

Dispositions 

In charge of this subcommittee is Mark Levine of Maryland. Court and 
correctional disposition data elements are its prime responsibility. 

STATE PROJECT COORDINATORS 

With one representative from each of the participating states, the State 
Project Coordinators shall 

Assure the execution of his state's approved project plan, 
Provide state plans and reports to the Project Coordinator on project 
status, problems and coordination needs. 
Assume responsibility for his state's technical direction, and 



334 

Ensure the project interface of his state with the work of the other par- 
ticipating states. 

WORKING GROUPS 

Working with the State Project Coordinator are two working groups, Tele- 
communications and Data Base, with specified project responsibilities. These 
are: 

Telecommunications 

Robert L. Marx of California is the Staff Coordinator in charge of 
Computer-related hardware specifications and 
Required communications lines 

Data base 

Robert L. Marx is also in charge of the group which is responsible for coordi- 
nating criminal records and statistical data files for 

Preparation of computer files 

Loading of computer files 

INDIVIDUAL STATE OPERATIONAL PERSONNEL 

Within each state are project working groups directing the organizational 
structure of its state and determining how each working group will be staffed. 

Each participating state in Project SEARCH was assigned a specialized area 
of criminal justice information processing for evaluation. These tasks are con- 
cerned with anticipated critical problems in the development of the final SEARCH 
system. The broad areas of investigation include data element requirements, 
records development, processing techniques and equipment feasibility. The 
specific state assignments are outlined below. 



a: 
O 

Q 1- 
< t 

7 ^ 
O u 

I— 

< 

z 



335 





,_ 


.c 






() 




6 


o 

n 






F 


a. 


r 




C) 


.V 


bn 


Cdl 


i- 


c 



o 

I— 



£ 



o 


o 


r; 

F 








fi. 








c 


u 




n 






h 


















P 


o 




U 


> 



:^ 




>- 


u 




z 


5 


UJ 
LU 




fv* 


h- 


-»— 


a. 


H- 




/All 


S 
5 


go 


Ci: 


o 


B j- 


Z5 


( ) 


•- lU 


U 

UJ 








u 

I— 

02 



<r 
Z 
o 

o 
o 
(J 



z 
UO 

Ou 

o 

u 



I- 



.. o 
.2 E 

-2 g 

.8^ 



C OQ 
-D 



O 
O 

o 

q 

O 

n 



-o U 

O o 
o > 






o 



< 



>- 
z 



o 






< 



U 



■s .E 

1/0 <. 



L-/ 



X 



o 

•'o 



C 

o 



c 

o 

O) 

6 



o 

D> 



336 



u 



a: 


r 


o 




U- 


-; 


v; 




Wi 




< 




V- 


^ 


2 

1 O 






"ii 


1— 






> 

"O 


c^ 




^ 


5! 


z 


>- 


^ 


•J 


l/^ 


U 












lU 


-o 




HJ 


^ 


/. 


h— 




O 


-<c 


c 


1— 


2 


s'^ 


o 


O 


.^.■;^ 


o^ 


u 


i/^ 


CO 




Q 


-J 
1/1 



25 





.•w.^^^^ 




X 






'^ ,.. 


CT) 


Cm 


c 


u [- 


-^ 




Jf 




155 


t^.^ 


■r,^ 




tj:^ 


u 




UJ 




uo 






u 




Di 




o 




U- 




V 


_r; 


I/) 




<r 


> 


t— 




tn 


0) 


Q 


,V 


<) 


p 


X 


LJ 



S 




_J 


t') 


6 




t- 


o 


oo 


E 


t— 




^ 


o 

-i; 


l<0 


*J 






UJ 


■"""■"^ 




UJ 






h- 






(— 




o 


1 






o 

u 

CO 


5~ 


i/i 


■■) 


c o) ; 


/ 


tri 


?■■- 


o 


7- 


E^ i 


> 


(1 


5 S ! 


UJ 




-^ R 


n 


oo 


<o'^ 




Q 










337 



26 



'€>- 



to ■ 

a: 

o 

I— 

< 

z 

Q 

Di 

o 

o 
(J 

(— 
U 

ID 
— ) 

o 

Di 

a. 




c 
o 
CI o 



§ .£ >- -o s 

N i/s > fc- cT 

'c J u o .- 
II: o < 5 Z 5 5 
i I I I I I I 



J^ o 





D 






O 


^ 










o 


D 


? 


c 


JZ 


c 


V 


0) 

1 


c 
U 


5 

1 



-o 
c 
o 






IT) 



«S 



8 -6 

"5 «^ 



O 



> S 

O 0> _y CO ^ 

E iG o 



■o 

"D — 

X D — 1 ai „ ^ 
.-jo:(Ja.-<— >Xq.llj— 1 



if §-g 



G- 






:d 






o 






c^ 






o 






o 




c- 


z 




D 






u 


V 






or: 
O 




1 


^ 




IT) 




, 


Z 




-J 


o 




1- 


>— 






5 


1. 
o 


^ 


Z 


o 

c 




5 


T) 




5 


O 




O 
u 


O 

U 




UJ 
LU 


D 




h- 


u-1 





Z 

z 

o 

lU 

a. 
< 

z 
o 

tu 

CI. 

o 



< 



> 

z 



338 

Integrated Record Development (California). — An offender based criminal 
information system such as SEARCH must have the capability of providing in- 
formation to and from all parts of the justice process. This special project will 
determine the feasibility of formatting the data which will produce meaningful 
statistics on the criminal justice system. 

Specialized Consideration of Court and Prosecution Needs (Maryland). — In 
this study, the requirements of courts and prosecuting attorneys will be inves- 
tigated. The data elements for an individual offense, offender records and sta- 
tistical data will be determined. Elements within the court and prosecution 
area that are of interest to the other users will be identified. 

Specialized Probation and Parole Requirements (New York). — The statistical 
information and data elements necessary for the probation and parole area of 
the criminal justice process will be determined by this task. The study will 
lead to a statement of the data required for effective planning, management 
and program evaluation. 

Simultaneous Statistics/History Generation (Connecticut) . — The purpose of 
this special project is to establish an offender-based data collection system and 
to design a file which will permit nearly automatic and simultaneous genera- 
tion of both statistical data and criminal history files. 

Transaction Utility in Status File Maintenance (Texas). — The "subject-in- 
progress" approach will be evaluated in this special project. This type of sys- 
tem consists of a record of each arrest which is updated as an offender moves 
through the criminal justice process to maintain the record of his current sta- 
tus. When an exit point is reached, a summary of his record will be created 
that will update the offender's criminal history. 

Feasibility of Intrastate Indexing of Regional Files (Washington). — This 
study will center on the feasibility of regional criminal history files within the 
region with a combined index to these files maintained at the state crime in- 
formation center. All regional centers will have the capability of inquiry to all 
other regions through the combined index. Also, an inquiry from another state 
will automatically query the regional center. 

Facsimile Equipment Demonstration (Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota and 
New York). — The feasibility of interstate exchange of hard-copy fingerprint 
transmissions will be determined by this study. Techniques, as well as equip- 
ment capability, will be investigated. 

In addition to the special projects mentioned above, each participating state 
will trace 250 adult felons through their criminal justice system for its input 
to the statistical evaluation. The data to be collected consists of offender char- 
acteristics and information from four levels in the criminal justice process 
Police, pretrial (felony), felony trial, and corrections. 
Some of the information to be compiled within each of the categories is as 
follows 

Age, sex, race, prior record, status, dates, offenses charged, actions 

taken, lengths of sentences, supervision, and dispositions. 

Overall, the demonstration will provide an example of a means to describe 

the administration of criminal justice by bringing together information from 

the separate criminal justice agencies. More specifically, the demonstration 

will: 

Locate the "problem areas" associated with tracing offenders through 
the state criminal justice system. 
Acquaint state and local personnel with these "problem areas", 
Determine the feasibility of conducting the operation on a larger scale, 
Gain knowledge and experience that will aid in developing a satisfac- 
tory mechanism for the collection of the desired data on a continuing 
basis, and 

Produce summary statistics describing each level and stage in the crimi- 
nal justice process. 

IV. Search Prototype 

Under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 83 statute 
197, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) was created to 
administer federal funds for the improvement of the Nation's entire criminal 
justice system. The act gave LEAA the authority to fund an 18 month multi- 
state prototype system known as Project SEARCH. SEARCH, in its entirety, 
involved LEAA, ten grantee states and the California Crime Technological and 



339 

Research Foundation (CCTRF). Funds for SEARCH involved commitments of 
$2,528,058. These funds were allocated to accomplish two primary goals 
through the demonstration of Project SEARCH. These goals are grouped as 
immediate and long-term goals 

The immediate goal of the project is to establish and demonstrate a 
multistate prototype system and capability which will (a) establish and 
demonstrate utilization of offender files in the applicant status based on a 
compatible "criminal justice offender record." These will seek to integrate 
police, prosecution, court and correctional offender data; (b) automate 
transaction-based criminal ju.stice statistics (e.g., offense and arrest statis- 
tics, jail sentence, probation and parole statistics, etc.) to permit retrieval 
of data by LEAA and by selected police, court and correctional agencies 
for users to be specified by the Project Group. 

The long-term goal of SEARCH is to expand the usefulness and scope of 
computerized law enforcement information systems composed of state enti- 
ties which enjoy a capability of interstate inquiry and inventory of avail- 
able criminal justice statistics, joined in a fully netted, fully operational 
mode. 
Of the $2,520,058 which has been allocated to Project SEARCH, LEAA has 
provided $1,432,000 or 57 percent of the total amount while the ten grantees 
have contributed $1,087,858 or 43 percent of the SEARCH funds. The total in- 
cludes the budget estimates for an additional $87,000 for coordination ex- 
penses. 

Figure 3 shows the detailed distribution of funds by LEAA and the match- 
ing funds contributed by each of the participating states. These funds are 
itemized under the categories of 

Personnel, professional services, travel, equipment, supplies, and other 
operating expenses. 



340 



CO 

0) CO 

:= c 

T3 X 

c <u 
a — 
coS 

.£ o 



0) 
CQ 

to 



< 
< 



1^^* o CJ o en 

■ CD IT) C3 uD tn csi 



comoocr)00ooooCT>o 

r^OOU3CNiC5COe\JCVIC3l^<i>crt 

^oooot£)u^ooocr)ir^r-.C)00 



t/) 



< 



< 

<: 



incsoooooooooo 

I — c3ir>cz>tDOOCDoocrs*a-^^ 

co'oOf-^^^oco'r^ CO c^J to o 



< 
< 



o 
a. 



o . <o 
*» 1 in 



CO 

so 



a. 
■a 



< 



^u^<»^cr)00C300f^OO 

O^^a^a^iTi^ O.-^ CM ^to 
»-i CSJ ^< CNi CT) ci?cO'-«cn 



enocoor- 
00*9- r^** CO 

ID ^^ GO ^^00 


or-.<-ooirs 


cncomcvJoo 


o'corCoo'co" 

OOOcO""^ 



< 



csj^C30ir>cr>c5 0CMcsj^ 

CiDfr>cr)O^^OC3CD--^c£)U2 
CNJ^'tDr-H^01CT>C>C0lDC3 

if>to^-cj3^^^r^»-t«'r^'*< 



c/5 



•° c-K^ 



CO 

a> 



C3 ^ C 

= O = 

■a ° 

S o ca o 

M" 5 I- 



<OUu. 






341 

Once funds were allocated and goals were set for Project SEARCH, a sclied- 
ule of dates and tasks was established. July 1, 1969 marks the start-up date 
for Project SEARCH. The Project was to be an eighteen month demonstration 
which is due for completion December 31, 1970. Currently, Data Dynamics, In- 
corporated and the International Association of Chiefs of Police are involved 
in the Project Analysis and System Redesign phase of the project schedule 
from August 10, 1970 to October 10, 1970. Then the system redesign proposal 
shall be submitted. 

Project SEARCH is subdivided into 17 major tasks centered around the three 
major activities of 

Preparation of data base. 
Preparation of SEARCH system software, and 
Preparation of computer and telecommunication facilities 
The task identification number and title, the groups responsible for conducting 
the tasks and the results expected upon completion of the task are shown in 
Figure 4. 

Task and title Responsibility Output 

1. Project plan preparation Project group Project plan: 

Project coordinator Time schedule. 

Expenditure schedule. 
Procedures. 
Control techniques. 

2. State plans preparation State project coordinator... Task documentation. 

Program report plan. 

3. Offender record output format Standardization task force Requirements for offender data file 

inquiry module. 

4. Statistical output format Statistical methods task force Requirements for: 

Statistical inquiry module. 
Report generation module. 

5. Data selection do Sources of data. 

Data collection methods. 
Data use approval. 

6. Raw data collection Data base preparation working Assembled data. 

group/State project coordinator. 

7. Data reduction do Files input data cards or tape. 

8. Data conversion do _ Usable computer file. 

9. Inquiry program flowcharts Programing and analysis group/ State Flowcharts. 

project coordinator. 

10. Batch program flowcharts do Do. 

11. Programing... ..do Production program. 

12. System selection Computer and telecommunications System configuration design. 

working group/State project co- 
ordinator. 

13. System acquisition Computer and telecommunications Installed equipment. 

working group. 

14. System demonstration Project group. Actual systems use. 

Project coordinator 

15. Project debrief do Meeting minutes summary. 

16. Project evaluation and system redesign. LCAA Written report. 

Data Dynamics, Inc. 

17. Dissemination Not designated Written and verbal reports. 

Figure 4. Task, Title, Responsibility and Output Summary 



342 




Figure 5. Gant Chart of Project SEARCH Schedule 



343 

Figure 5 is a Gant Chart which illustrates the entire project schedules with 
the time of the month each task was to begin and the time of the month each 
task was to be completed. Adherence to the project schedule was essential since 
later tasks relied heavily upon the timely completion of earlier tasks. 

Conceptually, the Project SEARCH data base was built around the supposi- 
tion that a central index could be constructed with the capability for any 
state to obtain the criminal history of an individual from any other state's 
files. This concept was designed to prove that the information gaps which exist 
throughout the entire criminal justice system could be bridged by providing 
for a nationwide electronic exchange of criminal histories. Response time had 
to be fast, all the elements of the criminal justice system would be served and 
the information was to be more complete than that which is solely police ori- 
ented. SEARCH was established to prove that the technological problems could 
be overcome so that a real-time interchange of criminal information could be 
achieved. SEARCH was to prove that states could, in fact, operate and main- 
tain a state SEARCH data base, contribute the required data for the Central 
Index and respond to another state's request with its complete criminal his- 
tory file. Thus, SEARCH, by leaving control with the states, overcame the 
"Big Brother Computer Concept" and fostered a scope of state cooperation in 
the nation's criminal justice system heretofore never accomplished. 

Project SEARCH organized the Standardization Task Force under Edward 
Mattson of Minnesota to develop the data elements for Project SEARCH. To 
meet this requirement, the Standardization Task Force created three subcom- 
mittees responsible for developing identification data elements, offense classifi- 
cation data elements and descriptions data elements. Each subcommittee was 
directly responsible to the Standardization Task Force. 

The Identification Subcommittee under Paul McCann of New York developed 
two sets of data elements based on existing NCIC data elements to achieve 
greatest compatibility. The two sets of data elements for the SEARCH files in- 
clude elements for the state files and elements for the Central Index. They are 
identical except for the address and occupation elements which are included 
only in the state files. The following is the list of the required data elements 
for each file and asterisks (*) those elements which are the required minimum 
for the Central Index 

Name, sex, race, place of birth, date of birth, height, weight, hair color, 
visible scars, marks, tattoos, amputations or deformities, miscellaneous 
identity number, state identification number, FBI number, social security 
number, operator's license number, fingerprint classification, skin tone, ad- 
dress (state file only), and occupation (state file only). 

The Offense Data Subcommittee, chaired by Wesley Barrett of California, 
developed a uniform offense terminology to be included and used in the com- 
puter files. These elements are based directly upon Draft VII of the NCIC 
Uniform Offense Classification Definitions. Basically, this includes the abbrevi- 
ations and codes of the offense, the number of arrests and the number of con- 
victions. These classifications are used whenever a record indicates an offense. 

The Disposition Subcommittee, under Mark Levine of Maryland, developed 
the standardized terminology for courts and corrections disposition data ele- 
ments for Project SEARCH. The disposition data elements were developed on 
the assumption that the following data is recorded 

Date of Arrest, arrest agency, and charge. 
Also, it is assumed that state files will be designed to contain all arrest 
charges while the Central Index will contain only the number of arrest convic- 
tions. The Subcommittee allowed for some flexibility by providing optional 
data elements which states may wish to include in their files. Also, the sub- 
committee established required minimum data elements which should be re- 
corded and filed for offense transactions. Some rules were suggested regarding 
minimum data elements such as 

It is recommended that the final disposition, regardless of where it oc- 
curs in the process, be shown for each offense. 

The date for each transaction included in the record should be given. 
The offense code should be given along with each transaction when the 
offense code has changed from the code existing at the prior transaction. 

As a further recommendation for the files, minimum information on major 
transactions are recorded as the person moves through the system. These files 
should indicate 



34-788 O - 74 - 23 



344 

Police disposition of the cliarge (released on charge in court), 
The major court outcome, 

The terms of any higher court sentences, if one is given, and 
The start and stop dates of any institutionalization, parole, or probation 
as well as the nature of the outcome of each. 
The Dispositions Subcommittee encountered some problems in developing 
their data elements. Some of these were 

It is difficult to develop a list of disposition identifiers to describe the 
outcome of every criminal justice transaction, 

Present state "Rap" sheets fail to reflect the state policy in regards to 
how offenders may be released, thus making it diflScult for other states to 
interpret their dispositions. 

Pre-trial data (bail granted, arraignments, etc.) will be very meaningful 
and useful in a complete criminal justice system, and 

Courts and corrections do not have agency identification numbers in 
most states. 
The codes for Project SEARCH are derived from the NCIC codes. These in- 
clude identification codes ; state and political unit codes ; codes for visible 
scars, marks, tattoos, amputations, or deformities ; fingerpi-int classification 
codes ; offense codes ; and disposition codes. For a detailed report on what 
these codes and data elements are, see Technical Report No. 1, January 1J>70, 
"Standardized Data Elements for Criminal History Files." 

The Central Index for SEARCH was constructed when the participating 
states submitted their index records on tape to Michigan. These tapes were 
then recreated on disk files by means of a load program. There was no provi- 
sion to update or delete these records. All totaled, as of August 15, 1970, the 
following numbers of records were received by Michigan for the Central Index. 

Michigan 8, 570 

New York 11, 093 

Arizona 5, 663 

Connecticut 3, 152 

Ohio 8, 221 

California 10, 370 

Minnesota 5, 852 

Maryland 11, 537 

Florida 3, 016 

Texas 3, 922 

This gives a total Central Index record count of 71,396. For further information 
statistics on the Central Index, the following facts provide some pertinent data 
concerning the SEARCH Central Index 

The SEARCH Central Index and record hookup is a modification of the 
Michigan Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) program, 

The Index is written in ALGOL and requires approximately 2(X)0 words 
of core, 

All files are random in organization and are interconnected as shown on 
the following diagram (Figure 6) , 

The input/output queues of the SEARCH system are 240 characters in 
length (one disk segment) and usually occupy 55,000 disk segments 
(SEARCH and LEIN combined) 

There was never more than one module present for SEARCH because of 
Michigan core limitations (single message processing), and 
Michigan kept a log of all SEARCH inquiries made 
Records included in the SEARCH Central Index met the following criteria : 
Final disposition on a least one charge, and 
FBI number assigned. 
The collection of criminal history data afforded participating and observing 
states practical experience in data consolidation from the various areas of the 
criminal justice system. The basic identification data, offense and disposition 
information was collected from "Rap" sheets and/or fingerprint cards. The 
specific procedures and techniques followed by the individual states are described 
below : 

ARIZONA 

Arizona does not complete a "Rap" sheet at the time of arrest however, they 
do receive "Rap" sheets from the FBI, when applicable. The major source of 
data was the fingerprint cards filled out at the time of an arrest. 



345 





Figure 6. Organization and Interconnection of SEARCH Central 

Index 



346 

Conversion to machine readable format was done by filling out "Rap" sheets 
specifically designed for SEARCH with information from fingerprint cards and 
individual files. The data was then transcribed to card format sheets, key- 
punched and edited into tape. 

Arizona assigned two keypunching and two conversion clerks on a full-time 
basis, however, we were not able to ascertain the average cost per record for 
this conversion. 

CALIFORNIA 

"Rap" sheets were the source of data from the state of California. Sheets 
that were currently being processed were used, although those in excess of 
three pages in length (more than 18 offenses) were omitted. 

The "Rap" sheet information was put on coding sheets and sent to (Optical 
Character Recognition) typists to be transferred to 8i/^ by 11 inch paper in 
free format. 

A total of 190 people, including supervisors, were involved in the selection, 
updating analysis and transcribing of the records. With supervisors, 40 people, 
that is one supervisor for each six clerks, converted the data to machine read- 
able form. 

Record selection and coding of approximately 10,370 records required 18,800 
man hours or an average cost per record of $9.00 at an average cost of $5.00 
perl Iman hour. 

CONNECTICUT 

SEARCH records for Connecticut were compiled from existing files in the 
manual system. This system now contains over 250,000 fingerprint, police rec- 
ord and court disposition files. 

For data collection and conversion, eight people worked for approximately 
15 hours a week for eight weeks. A total of 3,181 records were formatted. The 
criminal data collection techniques used resulted in an average cost per 
SEARCH record of $1.50. 

FLORIDA 

SEARCH records for Florida were compiled from records maintained at the 
Florida Crime Information Center. The Center had all information except for 
the disposition information. No cost data was available. 

MARYLAND 

The data collection in Maryland took place in correctional institutions, the 
state penitentiary, Patuxent Institute and the House of Corrections by corre- 
lating the institutional information with that from FBI "Rap" sheets. Only 
felonies and dispositions of a minimum of six months sentencing were selected 
for conversion. For security reasons, the names of criminals, 150 in all, were 
changed on the records which were to be used on SEARCH demonstrations. 

The data was coded on specially designed data collection forms and then 
typed in OCR format for input. The 11,529 criminal histories were collected 
and verified in ten weeks by 50 people specifically hired for the task. Using 
OCR input, the cost per record for conversion was $1.96. The error rate was 
2.0 per cent and the OCR technique produced a 60 per cent savings over key- 
punching. 

MICHIGAN 

The criminal histories in Michigan were obtained directly from the Records 
and Identification Division of the Department of State Police. The records 
were keypunched for addition to the file. No specific manpower figures were 
obtained; however, the cost per history conversion to machine readable form 
was estimated to be $5.00. 

MINNESOTA 

Police and courts must report to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, a di- 
vision of the Department of Public Safety. Because of this centralized record, 
14 people working full time for five months were able to collect the required 
10,000 records. The clerks were paid $1.97 per hour and the cost of record con- 
version was approximately $2.20 each. 



347 



NEW YOEK 

The SEARCH criminal histories and index records were extracted from the 
New York State Identification and Intelligence System (NYSIIS) history files. 
Programs were written for retrieval and reformatting. No concrete figure for 
record conversion could be ascertained. 

PROTOTYPE OPERATIONS 

The complete system set-up, including communications lines, is shown on 
Figure 7. The system used hardware from the Burroughs Corporation (3500 
and 5500), International Business Machines Corporation (360/40), Radio Corp- 
oration of America (Spectra 70/46) and Univac Corporation (418 II). Software 
ranged from minor modifications of an existing system to complete new software 
programs. An outline summary of what was done in the individual states and 
the Central Index follows : 

The Central Index was established on a B-5500 in Michigan. Minor 
modifications were made to the existing LEIN software to accommodate 
additional fields for the SEARCH records. The SEARCH Central Index 
function was added as a module to the LEIN system. Each state's computer 
which was on-line to SEARCH was considered a terminal on the LEIN 
system. 



348 



56 




34-788 ■ 416 



Figure 7. 



349 

Arizona implemented SEARCH on an IBM 360/40 computer. The state 
system was designed around SEARCH criteria and integrated into the Ari- 
zona Criminal Information Center (ACIC) and NCIC sjstem. The soft- 
ware for SEARCH was designed and written from the beginning by Ari- 
zona state personnel. 

The State of California used a Spectra 70/45 for its support of 
SEARCH. The software was written by state programmers with some mod- 
ifications to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System 
(CLETS). Although Florida was not able to come on-line during the dem- 
onstration period, the state SEARCH support system was in its final im- 
plementation stages. A B-3500/EMR 6130 was used for hardware support 
and the software was written by a contractor. Few modifications were 
made to Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC) system to accommo- 
date SEARCH. 

Maryland also used a contractor to write the SEARCH software with 
some modifications to Maryland Inter-Agency Law Enforcement System 
(MILES). The system was run on an IBM 360/40 with MILES and inter- 
faced to Michigan with a high speed, 2400 baud, transmission line. 

The state of Minnesota implemented SEARCH on a UNIVAC 418 II. 
Software was written under contract to the manufacturer and interfaced 
directly with the existing Minnesota Crime Information System (MINCIS). 
New York implemented SEARCH on the existing B-5500 system. Some 
software changes were made to NYSIIS and a series of new programs 
were written by state personnel. 
The method of demonstrating Project SEARCH was left to the discretion of 
the individual states. The demonstrations varied from formal, planned presen- 
tations to a random, periodic usage of Project SEARCH. Some states incorpo- 
rated Project SEARCH into their existing automated state system, and there- 
fore, actually had no demonstration, but rather its regular daily use. Other 
states did not want to use Project SEARCH when the specified demonstration 
period ended. 

The network of terminals provided by the states differed greatly during the 
demonstration period. Some states provided only one terminal connected on-line 
to Project SEARCH although many other terminals could provide off-line 
input to be entered through the on-line terminal. Other states had many termi- 
nals available for on-line processing through Project SEARCH. 

USERS 

Four of the states participating in the Project SEARCH demonstration can 
be classified as users. This means, essentially, that Project SEARCH was used 
in the normal flow of their criminal history procedures. 
Police 

All participants in Project SEARCH provided terminals for police usage. 
However, the terminals were not necessarily on-line. The largest over-all user 
of Project SEARCH was the police. 

Cmirts 

One state had court participation consisting of a terminal for inquiry pur- 
poses. In other states, the courts were observers or not involved at all. 

Parole and probation 

Parole and probation Boards were not involved in the Project SEARCH 
demonstration. 

CoTTections 

One state provided a terminal for Corrections to perform SEARCH inquiries. 
Corrections was not involved in the demonstration in the other states. 

OPEBATIONAX RESULTS 

Hits 

One state kept records of the hits obtained through the use of Project 
SEARCH. Their results showed 305 answers from SEARCH on their inquries. 
Of these 305 answers, 74 were the actual criminal history information of the 
individuals for whom the queries were initiated. The same state also noted 



350 

that the criminal history information provided by SEARCH for one individual 
could not be found in their own manual state files. 

Another state believed they received no legitimate hits from SEARCH in- 
quiries. This state, however, kept no records of the results of their inquiries. 

Response time 

On retrieval of Index records (QH inquiries), the average response times 
vary from one and one-half minutes to two minutes on low speed gear and five 
seconds to fifteen seconds on high speed equipment. The average response 
times on History Record (QR inquiry) retrievals ranged from five to 45 min- 
utes to low speed transmission and was four minutes on high speed lines. 

It must be noted that in some cases, times of two-to-four hours were re- 
quired for complete transmission of history information, 

PROBLEMS 

Down-time 

Reported down-time ranged from zero to under ten hours from July 1 to 
September 1. Some of the down-time reported was attributed to external 
events, e.g. electrical storms. 

Communication lines and interface 

Line problems occurred with the high-speed equipment. It took approxi- 
mately four weeks to rectify this problem. 

Some states complained of interface problems with the Central Index. Once 
these problems were solved, they did not reoccur. 

Formatting 

Two major problems found in the formatting were first, some states sent 
blanks in their output format which increased transmission time. The second 
item was the use of codes without necessary indexes in the output record which 
meant little or nothing to the state requesting the criminal history. 

Software 

All known software problems were corrected by the state in time to partici- 
pate in Project SEARCH during (the demonstration period. 

FACSIMILE DEMONSTRATION 

The states of Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota and New York participated in 
the SEARCH facsimile demonstration. The facsimile transmit and receive ter- 
minals were made by Litton Industries and are the same as those used by 
New York in their NYSIIS system. 

Mock-up fingerprint cards with photographs were made to coincide with 
dummy records in the Central Index. Many transmissions were made and re- 
sults ranged from completely unusable prints to excellent prints. The results of 
a facsimile transmission were greatly dependent upon the lines used and the 
proficiency of the operators at both ends. 

SECURITY AND PRIVACY 

The Committee on Security and Privacy recommended procedures in several 
areas of the criminal justice network to guarantee the integrity of the data pro- 
vided in Project SEARCH. The areas ranged from system access to waste dis- 
posal. In regards to some of the aspects of security and privacy in Project 
SEARCH, Data Dynamics presents, in the following statements, some of the 
most important aspects considered in the plan for security and privacy. 

Access to the SEARCH system is restricted to those public agencies which 
are concerned with criminal justice and the "need to know" to perform their 
functions. SEARCH terminal access is restricted to those agencies maintaining 
the SEARCH files or any agency that received permission from the SEARCH 
Project Group. To access the SEARCH Central Index, one of the following 
must he known 

The offender's FBI Number, 

The offender's Social Security Number, 

The offender's operators license number, and 

The offender's name, sex, and date of birth. 



351 

Information passed through the SEARCH system is restricted to the catego- 
ries of data elements defined in the SEARCH Operating Manual and/or Tech- 
nical Report No. 1, unless categories are expressly provided by the Project 
Group. If fingerprints were not used to support state criminal history records, 
this must be noted. These records, unsubstantiated by fingerprints, should be 
treated with caution. 

On-line logs shall be maintained. The Central Index must log all transac- 
tions to the Index. The participating states will log internal transactions. 

Central Index record deletions will be permitted by the state that provided 
the record initially or the Agency of Record. This deletion will be performed 
by the Central Index. 

All personnel associated with the operation of Project SEARCH shall be in- 
formed of security and privacy operating procedures in writing. Nondisclosure 
agreements shall be required, where applicable. Stringent employee hiring prac- 
tices will be observed concerning the individual's character and qualifications 
including the taking of fingerprints and clearing the individuals through the 
state and/or FBI. The individual will be reviewed annually to assure his con- 
tinued clearance qualifications. Identification badges and cards will be issued 
to cleared individuals. 

Participating state agencies will implement the security recommendations 
and be prepared for review by the Security and Privacy Committee at all 
times. Any security and privacy violations pertaining to individuals will cause 
disciplinary actions which are left to the individual states. The senior person 
on each shift shall be responsible for observing security precautions. 

For research purposes and public demonstrations, the identity of the individ- 
ual should be disguised. The association of an individual with his records 
should be divorced as soon and completely as possible. During visits by non- 
SEARCH personnel, care must be taken to safeguard sensitive material. 

The physical SEARCH system must be protected from unauthorized access 
to SEARCH information. Means shall be taken to assure the security of core 
and file storage by the use of degaussing techniques. Memory protection fea- 
tures must be used. If possible, on-line files used for SEARCH should be dis- 
connected when not in use. These devices shall not be accessible to non- 
SEARCH and non-justice users. 

The deletion, modifications and additions to SEARCH programs and records 
shall be limited to authorized personnel only. Accesses to the operating system 
should be limited to the fewest number of people| possible. 

SEARCH data transmission shall be done only over dedicated or private 
communication lines. All terminal connections must be approved by a responsi- 
ble state SEARCH oflBcial. Any new terminals or carriers added in the system 
must result in automatic notification to all other state SEARCH participants. 
All SEARCH terminal devices and their locations shall be given a unique iden- 
tification for control purposes. 

Any security break concerning data communications shall be reported to the 
other SEARCH participants as soon as possible. This shall include all relevant 
information concerning what happened, how it was corrected and what is 
being done to prevent a similar break in the future. 

Access to the SEARCH facility shall be controlled by logs. Unauthorized 
people working on the system in a maintenance capacity shall enter his name 
on a log and shall be supervised by an authorized SEARCH personnel. Sensi- 
tive documents shall be logged. Program changes, system changes and test re- 
sults shall be logged. 

SEARCH documentation shall be treated with appropriate security precau- 
tions which will be the responsibility for each state. Any loss, compromise, or 
destruction of SEARCH information shall be reported promptly to a SEARCH 
official. 

Safe disposal of SEARCH waste products shall be established by each 
SEARCH organization. This should include obsolete documentation, computer 
listings, punched cards, etc. Any library activities shall be established to avoid 
compromise. This applies to tape or disk storage as well as computer output. A 
log shall be maintained to assure proper security. 

DDI had the opportunity to observe how the plan for security and privacy 
was carried out in Project SEARCH. The methods which DDI observed for 
the carrying out of security and privacy measures can be noted in the follow- 
ing 



352 

The participating SEARCH states did little in changing the security and 
privacy procedures already being used. The SEARCH computers and ter- 
minals were in secure areas and, therefore, access was limited to author- 
ized personnel. No logs were kept of visitors. 

Dummy records with phoney names were submitted by the states. These 
were used in public demonstrations. 

The transmission procedure for SEARCH information was the same as 
that of regular traffic. Some states, however, did require specific identify- 
ing information before a SEARCH message could be entered. 

No personnel associated with the Project SEARCH demonstration had 
any special character screening other than the qualifications set by the 
state for its usual functions. 

V. Comparable Systems 

WASHINGTON AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM ( WALES) 

WALES was implemented to serve the law enforcement agencies in the 
Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area. The following police departments partici- 
pated in the design, development and implementation of WALES 

Alexandria Police Department (Va.) 

Arlington County Police Department (Va.) 

Fairfax County Police Department (Va.) 

Maryland State Police (Md.) 

Metropolitan Police Department (D.C.) 

Montgomery County Police Department (Md.) 

National Capital Park Police (D.C.) 

Prince Georges County Police Department (Md.) 
The System used a total of 42 IBM 2740 and 2260 terminals in addition to a 
direct NCIC interface. The system hardware used was an IBM 360/40 and 
the following files comprised the WALES data base 

Name record file, vehicle file, vehicle status file, and wanted persons file. 

WALES allows for one data entry to check both the WALES and NCIC 

data bases automatically through message switching. This concept allows an 

officer to query only once and receive all available data from both WALES 

and NCIC. 

WALES represents the first criminal information system to be implemented 
involving eight Regional Enforcement Agencies in two states and the District 
of Columbia in cooperating with five other organizations including IBM, 
SHARE, Council of Governments, Systems Science Corporation, and the C&P 
Telephone Company. 

MARYLAND INTERAGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM ( MILES) 

The MILES system has been oiierational in Maryland for three years and 
now supports around-the-clock 43 terminals. The system is implemented on two 
IBM 360/40S, one of which is a complete back-up. The following files are in- 
cluded in MILES : 

Records 

Stolen boats 75 

Stolen vehicles 8, 000 

Stolen tags 8, 000 

Stolen articles 9, 000 

Stolen guns 5, 000 

Name ID 6. 000 

Warrants 7, 500 

Drivers license and vehicle registration information may also be obtained 
through the MILES/DMV high speed interface. Message switching is provided in 
addition to inquiry processing. 

MILES is an interagency system, in that, it provides service to the Depart- 
ment of State Police, Correctional Services, Parole, Probation, and Juvenile 
Services. It is also tied to NCIC and WALES. 

Maryland Law permits any law enforcement agency of the state or any state 
agency to connect with the data communications and message switching system. 
Response time from MILES searches ranges from eight to ten seconds and re- 
sponses from DMV averaged 20 seconds. Hits on the system averaged 150 a month. 



353 

FI-ORIUA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (FCIC) 

FCIC is a service facility under the management of the Florida Department 
of Law Enforcement (FDLE) providing support to Florida's law enforcement 
and criminal justice community. FCIC exists on a statewide communications 
network and computerized system for storage and retrieval of information re- 
lating to crime, criminals and criminal activity. The components of the system 
are 

Communications terminals (IBM-2740 Mod 2), 

Burroughs B-3500, 

Two EMR 6130 communications processors, and 

Data files (320 million characters) 
Three basic types of on-line information are maintained. Their contents are 

VeJiicles 

Stolen, recovered, abandoned, impounded, operated by surveillance sub- 
jects, wanted in connection with crimes, stolen plates, lost plates, re- 
covered plates, be-on-the-look-out-for, stolen boats, stolen aircraft, and 
stolen trailers. 

Persons 

Wanted persons, wanted for questioning, surveillance subjects, missing 
persons, revoked suspended drivers licenses, and criminal histories. 

Property {non-vehicular) 

Stolen articles and stolen/lost/recovered guns. 

The system is directly interfaced to the FBI's NCIC computers through a 
high speed (2400 baud) voice grade line. The system will also interface with 
the Departments of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. 

The system provides message switching and inquiry in addition to auxiliary 
functions. It is modeled after NCIC and all transmissions, messages, etc. are 
in NCIC format. 

NEW YORK STATE IDENTIFICATION AND INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM (NYSIIS) 

The services of NYSIIS are available to police, prosecutors, courts, proba- 
tion, parole and correctional agencies throughout the State of New York. 
Though not completely computerized, NYSIIS does provide a comprehensive 
list of services which can be summarized as follows 

FingeriJrint processing, 

Name searching, 

Wanted system with the NCIC interface, 

Personal appearance/Arrestee file ("Rap" sheet), and 

Latent print file 
Communications within the NYSIIS System is by facsimile equipment. No juris- 
diction in New York State is more than one hour travel time from a facsimile 
device. At the present time, there are 41 facsimile installations around the state. 
The computerized services of NYSIIS are now implemented on a Burroughs 
B-5500 with a B-6500 being installed at the present time. Below are some 
statistics collected on the NYSIIS System during 1969. 

Criminal fingerprints received 196, 760 

Applicant/license fingerprints received 254, 002 

Fingerprints on file (December 31) 6,759,951 

Percentage of fingerprints identified 45 

Fugitives identified by fingerprints 1, 754 

Fingerprints received via facsimile 57, 847 

Name searches conducted 710, 321 

Name cards on file (December 31) 5,418,308 

MINNESOTA CRIME INFORMATION SYSTEM (MINCIS) 

A UNIVAC 418 II is used for the hardware support of MINCIS. The system 
is run by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension which is under the Depart- 
ment of Public Safety. Presently, there are 161 terminals of the ASR 28 and 
KSR 28 variety operating over 40 baud lines. The 418 II has a direct connec- 
tion to the Department of Motor Vehicle System (IBM 360/40). 

The following files are part of the MINCIS System 



354 

stolen vehicles, 

Stolen license plates, 

Feloniously used vehicles, 

Stolen, missing, and recovered guns, and 

Stolen articles 
MINCIS provides message switching services as well as direct inquiry into 
any of the files listed above. If the response is not stored on the MINCIS com- 
puter, a query is automatically sent to NCIC for a search. 

LAW ENFOKCEMENT INFORMATION NETWORK (LEIN) 

The LEIN system was created to serve the 768 law enforcement agencies in 
the State of Michigan. It is implemented on Burroughs B-5500 hardware and 
is run around-the-clock. High speed connections are made to the Detroit com- 
puter system (DETECTS), the Michigan Department of State, the FBI System 
(NCIC) and the Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS) at Co- 
lumbus, Ohio. LEIN's primary mission is to serve the ofiicer on patrol. 

Files are maintained for warrants, drivers license information, and vehicles. 
They are cross-indexed on all of the following 

Name, 

System generated ID number, 

Drivers license number, 

Social Security Number, 

Vehicle registration number. 

Vehicle identification number, and 

System generated reference number. 
LEIN provides on-line, real-time file maintenance; in