NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PRIVACY, TECHNOLOGY AND CRIMINAL

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.