NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PRIVACY,
TECHNOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
INFORMATION
THE ROLE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
STATE CRIMINAL HISTORY REPOSITORIES
Washington, D. C.
June 1, 2000
Panel Question:
Should the states continue to impose
restrictions on access to criminal
history record information held in
state repositories?
Key Recommendations from Task Force
• To collapse the separate controls governing law
enforcement, courts, commercial providers into one global
set of procedures, rules, laws.
• To maintain the emphasis on fingerprint identification for
creation of the records and for inquiries into the databases.
What is a State Criminal History
Repository?




Repository of data submitted by originating agencies.
Not the original source of data.
Fingerprint-based data.
Primary purpose is public safety
 By serving law enforcement/criminal justice.
 By serving non-criminal justice licensing and employment as
directed by statute.
 Primary mode is matching persons to records.
 Governed by state legislatures.
There is a national strategy for the
Interstate exchange of criminal history
record information.
What are the Relevant National
Systems?
The Interstate Identification Index (III) and the National
Fingerprint File (NFF)
 III is the national index managed by the FBI of criminal history
records maintained in state repositories
 NFF is the concept under which states submit only first arrest
fingerprint card to FBI.
 Under NFF, subsequent arrests retained within the state
repositories.
 Non-criminal justice access is granted primarily through federal
laws and approved state statutes.
The Role of the National Crime
Prevention and Privacy Compact
Signatory State Legislatures Agree to:
 National strategy for management of Interstate CHRI access
and dissemination.
 Common procedures for responding to Interstate non-criminal
justice inquiries into III.
 Share criminal history data for non-criminal justice purposes
according to laws of receiving state.
 Require fingerprint submissions for Interstate non-criminal
justice background searches.
Compact Council has regulatory authority over noncriminal justice use of III.
Regarding the Data
Is the data ready to go public?
 Accuracy
 Timeliness
 Completeness
 Usability
 Standardized Rap Sheet
 Conviction vs. Arrest-only Data
 Untrained users interpreting rap sheet events
Regarding the Use of the Data
What is the purpose of lifting restrictions to state
repository CHRI?
 To provide information for suitability determinations outside those
already prescribed by statute?
 To answer the general call for greater access to government data?
 To provide source data for others to aggregate into personal profile
databases?
Should mission of repository remain that of serving public
safety through linking persons to data under statutory
guidelines, or is another mission emerging?
Positive Identification
Fingerprints vs. Name searches
 Name Check Efficacy Study
 Technology now can begin to deliver on need for efficient positive
identification
 The role of the Interstate Identification Index
 The role of the Interstate Compact
 States agreeing on fingerprint identification
 The need for emergency access by name
 Positive identification as a public safety responsibility
Do we release the restrictions on repository data or do we collapse the
smokestacks so that all components use and require fingerprint
identification?
Commercial Compilers
Access to State Repository CHRI Data by Commercial
Compilers






Responsibility for updating with new data
Responsibility for removing expunged data
Responsibility for error correction
Responsibility for linking to persons of inquiry
Responsibility for dispute resolution
Lack of positive identification
Conclusion
• Even under same umbrella of controls, law enforcement
records systems, courts records systems and
commercial provider records systems serve different
purposes.
• We must find how to collapse the smokestacks while
maintaining the respective purposes, including the
criminal history repositories’ primary public safety
purpose of matching persons to records. The nearuniversal use of fingerprints must be anticipated.
Conclusion
• New rules and laws must maintain a forward looking
point of view regarding the increasing availability of
fingerprint identification technology.
• We need to recognize and highlight the national impact
of respective state policy decisions, and the state
legislatures must be informed on these issues.
• States repositories must continue their ever-increasing
efforts regarding accuracy, completeness, timeliness
and usability of CHRI.