Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems Technology and Policy Issues

8/12/2019 Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems Technology and Policy Issues

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/automated-fingerprint-identification-systems-technology-and-policy-issues 1/31

U.S. Department of Justice

ureau of Justice Statistics

l o 4 3 4 ~1) :;



I t _

of Justice Statistics reports

toIHree800-732-3277 (local

ElJS mailing lists. or to speakat the

MD 20850. Single

1 10 titles are

P.O. Box 1248, Ann

Crime Surveyl victimizat ion In the U.S.:(final report). NCJ-l 00435. 5/86

10/8511/84

9/834/83

g domes tic violence against women.8/86

NCJ-l 00438.3/86use of weapons in committing crimes.

city, suburban, and rural crime. NCJ·

5185to victims, NCJ-

4 84

10/ l5of rape, NCJ-96777. 3/85

1/856/84

by strangers, NCJ·80829. 4/82

Ihe elderly, NCJ-79614. 1/822/61ge victims, NCJ·I03138. 12/86

to screening questions in the NalianalNCJ-

of crime: World1 85

me Survey: Working papers.I: Current and historical perspectives

II: Methological studies. NCJ-90307, 12/84In the measurement of victimization,

10/8101 nagllgence: LoSses from preventable

12ngIn 26 American cities,

5878, 8/79In Urban schools"

8n9the National Crime Survey,

4 7 ~IssueS,

n terms, NCJ-76218. 8/83

In the U.S., 1980 and 1981, NCJ-87387

5/83of tho parole population, 1978

CorrectionsBJS bulletins and special reports;

Probation and parole 1985. NCJ-l03683. 1/87Population density n State prisons. NCJ-l 03204,

12/86Capital punishment. 1965, NCJ·l02742. 11166State and Federal prisoners. 1925'85,

NCJ-l02494, 11/86Prisoners in 1985, NGJ-101384, 6186Prison admission and releases, 1963,NCJ· W0582. 3/86

Capital punishment 1964, NCJ·98399. 8/85

Examining recidivism. NCJ-96501. 2/85Retuming to prison. NCJ·95700. 11/84Time served In prison. NCJ·93924, 6/84

Historical corrections statistics n the U.S . 1850·1964, NCJ·l 02529, 3 8 ~

Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions onDec. 31,1984, NCJ·l03768, 3/87

Capital punish ment 1964 (final). NCJ·99562.5/88Capital punishment 1963 fInal). NCJ·99561 .4/66

1979 surveyol nmates of Statecorrect/onal ac/litlesand 1979 census of Slale correcltonal facilities

BJS speCial reports:The prevalence of imprisonment. NCJ.93657.

7/85Career patterns in crime, NCJ·88672. 6/83

BJS bulle/lOS:Prisoners and drugs, NCJ·87575 3/83

PrisonerS and alcohol. NCJ·86223. 1 83Prisons and prisoners, NCJ-80697. 2 82

Veterans In prison. NCJ·79232. 11181

Census 1 fails and survey o/Iail inmates:Jail Inmates. 1964. NCJ·l01094. '5/86Jail inmates, 1983 BJS bulletm). NCJ·99175.

11/85The 1963 jail census (BJS bulletin). NCJ·95536

11/84Census of jailS, 1976: Data for indiVidual )alls.

vols HV, Northeast. North Cenlral South Wesl.NCJ-72279·72282. 12/81

Profile of jail inmates. 1978. NCJ·65.11,1. 21S1

Children in custody:Public juvenile facihhes. 1985 (bultet'n)NCJ· 102457. 10/86

1962·63 cenSUS of juvenile detention andcorrectional facilities, NCJ·101686. 9/86

Expenditure and employmentBJS Bullotms

Jusllce expenditure and employment:1983, NCJ-101776. 7186

1962, NCJ·9832T 8185

Justice expenditure and employment In the U. S.:1980 and 1961 extracts. NCJ·96007 6/851971-79, NCJ·92596, 11/84

Courts/3JS bU/letms

The growth of appeals: 1 973·63 trends.NCJ·96381. 2/85

Case filings in State courts 1963, NCJ·9511110/84

rus speCial reporls.Felonycase-processina time, NCJ·101985.8/86Felony sentencing In 18 local

jurisdictions. NCJ·97681. 6185The prevalence of guilty pleas. NCJ·960 18.

12/84Sentencln9 practices in 13 States. NCJ-95399.

10 84

Criminal defense systems: A nationalsurvey, NCJ·94630. 8/84

Habeas corpus, NCJ·92948. 3/84

Stale court case oad statistics. 1977 and1961, NCJ·87587, 2/83

NatiOnal CrimInal Defense Systems Study. NCJ·94702. 10/86

The prosecution of felony arrests:1981. NCJ-l01380, 9/861980, NCJ·97684. 10/851919, NCJ·86482. 5/84

State court model statistical dlcllonary.Supplement, NCJ·98326. 9/851st edition, NCJ·62320. 9/80

State court or ganlta tion 1960, NCJ· 76711. 7/82A cross-city comparison 1 felony case

processln9, NCJ'55171. 7179

Federal offenses and offendersBJS special reports;

Pretrial (eleaso and misconduct, NCJ·9S132.lI85

BJ bulla ins.Bank robbery, NCJ·94463. 8/84

Federal drug law violatots, NCJ-92692. 2/84Federal justice statistics, NCJ·80814. 3/82

Privacll and security

Computer crime:

B.lS spec/al reports;Electronic fund transfer frraud. NCJ·96666. J/85Electronic fund Iral1-'(:1r and crime.

NCJ·92650. 2/84

Electronic fund transfer fraUd. NC.J·I00461 ,4/86

Computer security techniques.NCJ·84049. 9 82

Electronic fund transfer sy stems and crime.

NCJ·83736. 9/82Expert wilness ",anual. NCJ·77927. 9 81

Criminal jusllce reSource manual. NCJ'6155012/79

Privacy and security of criminal historYInformation:

Compendium of State legislation. 1984overview. NCJ·98077. 9/85

Criminal justice information policy:Criminal justice hot flies, NCJ-l01850. 12/86Data quality policies and procedures;

Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference.NCJ·l01849.12/86

Crime control and criminal records IBJS speCialreportl. NCJ·99176. 10/85

State criminal records repositories (BJStechOical reporl . NCJ·99017. 10185

Data quality of criminal history records. NCJ·98079, 10/85

Intelligence and investigative records.NCJ·95787. 4/85

Victlin/witness legislation: An overview,NCJ'94365. 12 84

Information policY and crime control strate gies(SEARCH/BJS con/erencel NCJ·93926.10/84

Research access to criminal justice data.NCJ·84154. 2/83

Privacy and juvenile justice records.NCJ·84152 1/83

Survey of State laws (BJS bullelin)NCJ·80836. 6 82

Privacy and the private employer.NCH9651. tl/81

GeneralBJS bulletms and speCial reports

BJS telephone contacts '87. NCJ·102909. 12.'86Tracking offenders: White-collar crime.

NCJ·t02867. 11/86Police employment and expenditure.

NCJ·100117. 2186

T r a ~ k i n g offenders: The child victim, NCJ'

95785, 12/84The severity of crime, NCJ·92326. 1 84

The American response 10 crime: An o ~ e r v i e wof criminal justice s ystems. NCJ·91936.12/83

Tracking offenders. NCJ·91572. 11/83Victim and witness assistance: New State

laws and Ihe system's response. NCJ·879345/83

1986 directory of automated criminal justiceInformation systems. NCJ-l02260 1/87. S20domestic

Crime and justice facts, 1985, NCJ·l00757. 5188National survey of crime severity. NCJ·96017.

10 85

Criminal ~ l c l l m i n t j o n of District of Columbiaresidents and Capitol Hill emplcyees. 1982-63 .NCJ-97982;Summary, NCJ·98567: 9/85

TheDCcrlmevlctimizationst\ldyimplementation,NCJ·98595,9/85. S7 60 domestlc/S9 20 Canadl'an/S12 80 lorelgn

TheDC household victimization survey data base:Documentation. NCJ'98596, S6 40/S8 40/S11

User manual, NCJ·98597. S8 201$9 80/S12 80How 10 gain access to BJS data (brochure).

BC·000022. 9/84Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on law and

justice stalis'.Ics, 1964. NCJ·93310. 8 84

Report to the nallon on crime and justice:The data, NCJ·87068 10/83

Dictionary of criminal justice dala terminology:2nd ed . NCH6939. 2 82

1 echnlcal standardS for machine-readable dalasuppl ied to BJS. NCJ'75318 6/81

See order formon last page



;A

U.S. Department ofJustice .

Bureau of Justice Statistics

utomatedingerprint

Identification

Systems:

TechnologyandPolicyIssues

April 1987NCJ-I04342

y

THOMAS F. WILSON

DirectorInformation Law Policy ProgramsSE RCH Group Inc.

and

PAULL WOODARD

Senior CounselInformation Law Policy ProgramsSE RCH Group Inc.



u. S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEBUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS

STEVEN R. SCHLESINGERDirector

JOSEPH M BESSETTEDeputy Directorfor Data Analysis

BENJAMIN H. RENSHAW i l l

Deputy Directorfor Managementand Intergovernmental Affairs

CAROL G. KAPLANChief

Federal Statistics and

Information Policy Branch

PREPARED BY

SEARCH GROUP INC.

GARY D MeAL VEYChairman

GARY R COOPERExecutive Director

U.S. Department of JUst/ceNat/anal Institute at Justice

104342

This document has been re roduc

pers?n or organizationo r i g i n ~ t i n g

It: o ~ ~ a c t f / Y .as

received from theIn thIs document are those of th In s 0 v ew or opinions stated

~ ~ p r t ~ s e n t the official position or P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ :hndNdOt not n e c ~ s s a r i l ys Ice. e a lonal Inshtute of

PermiSSion to reprodu th .granted by ce S ~ h t e material has been

Public Dornain/BStatistics b ureau of Justice

. S. DeOarbnent of .zust·

to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS).

~ u r t h e r reproduction outside of hSlon of the CQl3yfigRt owner. t e NCJRS system reqUires perm s-

Report ofwork performed under JS Grant No. 82-BJ-CX-0010 awarded to SEARCH Group Inc. 925 Secret RiverDrive Sacramento California 95831. Contents of his document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of heBureau ofJustice Statistics or the U S Department ofJustice.

Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems



reface

Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems AFIS) technology hasprovided law enforcement with an invaluable tool for positiveification. AFIS allows law enforcement agencies to conduct com-parisons of applicant and suspect prints with literally thousands ormillions of file prints in a matter of minutes. This increased productivity is attended by increased accuracy rates and increased detection ofalias usage. n latent fIngerprint identification, where a crime sceneyields no evidence other than the suspect s fmgerprints, AFIS now canmake computerized comparisons with fIle prints in minutes, providinga capability that would have taken hundreds o hours o manual searching and would have had little hope of success.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics believes that AFIS technology adds asignifIcant capability to operational criminal justice information systemsto generate the accurate and reliable data essential to the development ofcriminal justice research and statistics. This report describes therevolution AFIS technology is creating in both ten-print and latentfmgerprint processing, the impact it is having on law enforcementcapability, and its potential impact on information law and policy.

~ RSTEVEN R S HLESINGER

Directorureau o Justice Statistics

utomated Fingerprint Identification ystems



ontents

Introduction 1

Traditional fingerprint methodology 2Manual classification systems 2Manual fingerprinting processing 3

How AFIS technology works SDigital image processing 5Fingerprint scanning 5Computer searching 5Image retrieval 6Sharing of AFIS data 6

Impact on law enforcement capability 12Ten-print processing 12Latent print processing 13

Fingerprint lifting techniques 13

AFIS implementation 15The FBI system 15State-level systems 15City and county systems 16Operational system features 16

Policy and l e ~ l issues 18

Orgamzational impact 18Impact on identification bureau

workloads 18Fingerprinting of juveniles 18

Retention and subsequent use ofapplicant fingerprints 19

Exhibits

1: Fingerprint Card With Classifications 42: Minutiae Detection 93: Enhanced Ridge Tracing 1

4:Minutiae Patterns 115: Latent Fingerprint Comparison 12

iv utomated ingerprint Identification Systems



Introduction

Automated Fingerprint Identi-fication Systems (AFIS) technology

is creating a revolutionary impact onlaw enforcement capability to apprehend offenders and solve crime. Itsaccuracy in searching and matchingfingerprints is as high as 98 to 100percent. In jurisdictions that haveimplemented AFIS, identificationrates have increased dramatically.The sensational California NightStalker case was broken by a latentprint lifted from a stolen car. At theCalifornia Department of Justice, theprint was entered into the state's new

AFIS, and the hit on alleged serialkiller Richard Ramirez was made in amatter of minutes. The first latentptint run against San FranciscoPollee Department's AFIS data basehad been the subject of thousands ofhours of manual search methods overan eight-year period. The print belonged to the killer of Miriam Slamavich, a World War II concentrationcamp survivor, who was shot pointblank in the face by an intruder in herhome in 1978. Her assailant left a

full, perfect print at the scene, butwith no suspect and no other clues,there was little chance of making amatch on existing flle prints byconventional manual searchingmethods. Police detectives doggedlypursued the case, however, and whenthe AFIS system was implementedin 1985, it matched the print in sixminutes. Slamovich's alleged killerwas in custody the same day.

With the new generation ofAFIS technology, law enforcement

agencies around the country arebreaking cases that previously wouldhave gone unsolved. Law enforce-ment officials are saying that AFIStechnology fmally has brought theuse of fingerprint evidence into thetwentieth century and promises tospur clearance rates more than any

other single law enforcement tool.AFIS may well have the greatest

impact of any technological development on law enforcement effectiveness since the introduction of computers to widespread use in the crim

inal justice system in the 1960's.The heart of AFIS technology is

the ability of new computer equipment to scan and digitize fmgerprints, to automatically create aspatial geometry or map of theunique ridge patterns of the prints,and to translate this spatial relationship into a binary code for the com

puter's searching algorithm. Makingincredibly fine distinctions amongliterally thousands or millicns ofprints, an AFIS computer can com

pare a new fingerprint with massivecollections of flle prints in a matterof minutes and can make identifications that previously were possibleonly through a time-consuming and

er):'Or-prone process of manual comparison. This report is intended toprovide a brief introductory look atthis new technology. It will explain

in non-technical terms how AFIStechnology works. the present statusof AFIS implementation in theUnited States, and the impact thetechilology s having on law enforcement processes and other componentsof the criminal justice system. Italso will identify a number of policyand legal issues related to the implementation and operation of thisrevolutionary new technology.

utomated ingerprint Identification Systems



raditional fingerprint methodology

To fully appreciate how the

AFIS technology works and the im-

pact it is having on fmgerprint processing it is necessary to understandhow fingerprints are processed in themanual classification systems now in

use in most law enforcement agencies and the role of fingerprint identification in the criminal justice pro

cess.

anual classification systems

Based upon the unique and un-

changing patterns of ridge detail on

each individual's fmgers law enforcement agencies throughout the worldhave established fmgerprint comparison as the universal method of veri

fying identification and ensuring theintegrity of criminal record systems.

To support the investigation andidentification functions, criminalrecord repositories and identificationbureaus in the United States haveestablished fIles of fingerprints thatare often massive. Generally, thesefIles are of two types. The most

extensive fIles are rolled inked impressions maintained on ten-printcards fIled according to some classification system. Typically, thesefingerprint cards are prepared at thetime of an individual's arrest and are

used to verify his identity and todetermine whether he has a prior

criminal record. Ten-print cards alsoare often submitted in connectionwith certain employment or licensing

applications to determine whether theapplicant has a criminal record that

would legally bar him from beinghired or obtaining the license.

The other general typ of fin-

gerprint records are so-called latentfmgerprints developed as a result ofcriminal investigations. These printsgenerally are obtained at crime scenesor from documents or material related

to the crimes. Latent fmgerprints de-veloped in this manner usually occuras isolated single fmger impressions

or as fragmentary parts of two orthree adjacent fingers. They are often

of poor qUality.It was apparent from the begin

ning of fingerprint retention that itwould be necessary to devise a sys

tem that would not require incomingsearch prints to be compared withevery fmgerprint card already on ftle.

Manual comparison and eliminationof prints is a time-consuming and

expensive process. s ftle sizes increase, such searches become moredifficult until, at some point, a suc

cesstul match becomes improbable,

if not humanly impossible. Fromits inception until recent years, therefore fmgerprint identification methodology has been predicated upon the

necessity of dividing fIle prints intoclassification categories based upon

distinctive ridge patterns to eliminatethe necessity of searching the entirefIle. (Exhibit 1 page 4, shows astandard FBI fmgerprintcard withboth Henry and NCIC classifications.)

The first successful fingerprint

classification system was developedat the turn of the century by SirEdward Henry an Englishman who

served as Inspector General of Policein India and as Commissioner of

London's Metropolitan Police. TheHenry System, which with improvements, remains the predominantclassification system in use today,classified fmgerprints by assigningeach fmger to one of two primary

fmgerprint pattern types-whorl ornon-whorl. The fmgerprints were

represented as a unit rather than asindividual fmgers by assigning toeach ten-print set an alphanumericdesignation reflecting the patterncharacteristics of all ten fingers.Thus two pattern types times tenfmgers yielded 210 or 1 024 classification categories into which to sub

divide fingerprints.

Automated Fingerprint Identification ystems

This was a manageable and work-able system for fIle sizes then in use

despite the fact that the most com-mon classification category wasfound to contain about 25 percent ofall fmgerprint records. However,

considering that the FBI now main-tains approximately 23 million crim-

inal fmgerprints and the state of

California maintains approximately

7.5 million fmgerprint cards in itsstate repository, it is obvious thatthe basic Henry System would notwork for today's fue sizes. As aresult, the history of fmgerprint tech-

nology development until very recently has been one of devising ex-tended classification subcategories toenable the Henry System to accom

modate increased numbers of prints.In recent years, the portion of fin-

gerprints in the most common classification category has decreased from25 percent to 6 percent Nevertheless, 6 percent of the FBI's fIles is

still a very large number to search.In addition, as increasing file sizeshave necessitated more complex rules

for suhnlassification, human judgment has come more into play, withthe result that particular techniciansmight classify fmgerprints differently. Misclassification, of course,results in the risk of missed identifications.

For latent print searching, theHenry System's inherent limitationis that it classifies the ten fmgers asa unit rather ~ h n as separate fmger-

prints. A s i n g ~ e latent print cannotbe fIled or searched as a unit n man-

ual classification systems, therefore,if the results of comparing latentprints with the prints of known suspects are negative, the latent im-pressions usually are ftled for futurereference in an unsolved latent file.



Manual fmgerprint processing

s noted, fingerprint cards aresubmitted to identification bureaus orcriminal record repci'itories primarilyas a result of an arrest or a criminalinvestigation or in connection withapplications for employment or li-censing. These ten-print cards aresearched against existing criminalfingerprint files to determine whetherthe individual has a prior criminalrecord. Whether the search is forcriminal justice or noncriminal justice purposes, the process begins

with a so-called name search. Theindividual's name, date of birth, sexand other identifying information aretaken from the incoming fmgerprintcard and searched against a mastername index. n most of the states,this part of the search process is fullyor at least partially automated. f amatch or a close match is found inthe name index, the file fingerprintcards associated with the match can-didates (usually only one or two cardsper search) are retrieved and are man-

ually compared with the incomingsearch card by a fingerprint technicianto verify positive identification. Inthe processing of criminal fingerprintcards, the great majority of successfulmatches, or hits, are made in this

relatively quick and inexpensiveway name search verified by man-ual fmgerprint comparison. Statistical information developed recentlyby the state of California1 indicatedthat approximately 47 percent of

arrested persons are found to have

ITracking Juvenile Recidivists: Three

Options for Creating Statewide. Long-

itudinal Records o Juvenile OffendersCalifornia Department of Justice, Bur-

eau of Criminal Statistics and SpecialServices, August 1985, pp. 36-37.

prior criminal records through the

process of identification by the name

search and verification by fmgerprintcompa.>ison.

f the results of the name searchon an arrest fmgerprint card are negative, the fmgerprints are classified bya trained technician and a technicalsearch is performed to ensure thatthe individual has not escaped identification by using an alias or as a resultof clerical error in conducting thename search. Manual technicalsearches are extremely time-consuming and expensive. Although the

classification of the fingerprintslimits the search to a portion of theentire file, it is still necessary to

compare the search card with all ofthe file cards within that classification, plus additionai cards on eitherside of the classification to compen-sate for possible c1assitication errorsin the search print or file prints, orboth. In large files, this can entail areview of hundreds of ftle cards. But,for cruninal prints, these searchesmay e quite productive. According

to the California statistics notedabove, 47 percent of arrestees areidentified by name search. By conducting a technical search of the entire file, an additional eight percent ofthose arrested will e discovered to

have criminal records, bringing thetotal to 55 percent2

Noncriminal ( applicant ) fin-gerprints submitted for employmentand licensing purposes yield much

different results. Statistics developedby the FBI3 indicate that only about

2ibid, pp. 36;37.

3A Study to Identify Criminal Justice

Information Law Policy a. Ul Man-

agement Practices Needed to Accom-modate ccess to and Use o III for

Noncriminal Justice Purposes pre-pared for the Fai by SEARCH Group,Inc., September 1984, p. 58.

five percent of employment and

licensing applicants are identified as

having previous criminal records.n additional 1.5 percent of the ap-

plicants are identified t.lrrough tech-nical searches, bringing the total to

6.5 percent. This means that 95percent of all applicant fmgerprintcards must be classified and manually

searched (i.e., those not identified byname search), and that the hit rate on

them will only be one or two percent It is hardly surprising, there-fore, that most state record reposi-tories process noncriminal justice

cards by name search only, regardingtechnical searches as unjustifiablebecause of their high cost and lowproductivity.

s noted earlier, latent fmger-prints cannot be classified andsearched under the Henry System.Thus, latent prints usually aresearched only against the me printsof known s u s p e l ~ and, if there is nomatch, the prints are placed in an

unsolved latent me. If there is anextremely high priority on the case,

the latent print may undergo a filesearch with little or nothing to limitthe search. Such efforts are knownas cold searches and the rare resultant hits are referred to as coldmakes.

utomated Fingerprint Identification Systems 3



Exhibit 1Fingerprint Card With Classifications

LE VE B L H ~ TYPf Oft PRINr LL INFORM TION III aL CK U ~ V BL NK

TECHNIC L SECTIONL UT II ..... tt "lttr'WJol WOOLf N Me

5

Drugs Adulterated 55 1

A typical fingerprint card with rolled inked impressions along with an extended Henry

Classification and NCIC Classification.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation




How "FIS technology works

Digital image processing

What has revolutionized f m g e r ~print identification technology in the1980's is the ability of e w l y ~developed computer equipment to

scan fmgerprint impressions and automatically extract identifying c h r c t e r ~istics in sufficient detail to enable thecomputer's searching and matchingalgorithms to distinguish a singlefingerprint from thousands or evenmillions of me prints that have beensimilarly scanned and stored in digital

form ill the computer's memory.This concept of computerized digitalimage processing has eliminated thenecessity for t i m e ~ c o n s u m i n g and

e r r o r ~ p r o n e manual classification andcomparison of fingerprints. It hasgreatly increased the speed and accur-

acy of ten-print processing and hasmade it possible to conduct coldsearches on latent prints against verylarge fingerprint meso Thus, it hassignificantly improved the efficiencyof the criminal identification process

and has added an important newc r i m e ~

solving capability to the law enforce

ment arsenal.

Fingerprint scanning

What is ~ r h p s most extraordinary about these new systems isthe sophistication and intricacy of thescanning and mapping algorithms,which convert the unique svatial relationship of a fingerprint's ridge e n d ~ings and ridge bi.furc.ations, called

minutiae points, and additionalridge direction and ridge contour information into a digitized representation of the fmgerprint. In a ten-printto ten-print search on good qualityrolled impressions, the computerplots the spatial relationship of 90 ormore minutiae points for each finger,a number high enough to distinguish

the uniqueness of that print from all

others and to make it virtually certainthat the computer will be successfulin matching the candidate prints withthe prints in the fIle. (Exhibit 2,page 8, shows the detection ofminutiae data on a rolled print.)

Latent prints have less minutiaedata for the scanners to map, but theSystemfi are able to work with only aportion of the minutiae map and canscore matches with an average ofonly 15 to 20 minutiae points. Onelaw enforcement agency reported a hit

on a fragmentary print which yieldedonly eight minutiae points.In preparing fingerprints to be

searched, the system allows the technician to enhance the prints, correcting for breaks in the skeletal pattern,cuts or breaks in the ridges caused byscars or burns. The system can evenprovide an eva1uation of the qualityof the print, disqualifying inferiorprints. This print enhancement capability is especially important insearching latent prints, since it en

ables an experienced technician toill

in missing or blurred portions ofprint fragments to produce moreuseful images for the computer to

work with. (Exhibit 3, page 9,

shows the computer enhanced ridgetracing on a latent print)

Computer searching

Equally sophisticated are thil

search algorithms used in the newAFIS systems to convert the

minutiae data and ridge direction andcontour data extracted by the scannerinto a unique binary code that thecomputer can use in searching itsflIes. The search algorithm determines the degree of correlationamong the location, angle and relationship of the minutiae of the searchprint and the minutiae patterns of fileprints. (Exhibit 4, page 10, showsthe plotting or mapping of the relationship of minutiae.) The computer

=

is not actually comparing fingerprint

images in its search; it is conductinga mathematical search that will provide a candidate list of those binarycodes in the fIle most similar to thebinary code used in the search.

The mathematical search iscarried out by an AFIS system component called a matcher, which cansearch a candidate print against thefile prints at a rate of 500 to 600prints per second. Matchers operatein parallel, each taking a portion ofthe data base. s flIe size increases,

matchers may be added so that thereneed be no diminution of searchingspeed.. Average searching time is,however, relative to a number offactors including the number ofmatchers employed, time spent inpreparing and enhancing the prints,entering demographic data to limitthe number of prints to be searched,and the time the candidate prints waitin the system's queue (temporarymemory storage) prior to the searchprocess. Search time'for a ten-print

search (rolled print to rolled printcomparison) in a file of wlder

500,000 is amatter of minutes. Fora latent search, the search time aver

ages about one-half hour.During the search for a mathe

matical match, the computer uses ascoring system that assigns points toeach of the criteria used in the match,The technician sets a threshold scoreabove which he has assurance that amat.ch has produced a hit. At theconclusion of the search, the system

reads out the candidate list, the number of which is defined by the technician as a search parameter. Basedon parameters set in the scoringsystem, the score of the candidate inthe number one position, i highenough, indicates that the match is

probably a hit. f the score is low, itmeans that the system has chosen theselected number of candidates mostsimilar to the search print, but there




is little probability of a hit. The optimal functioning of an AFIS wouldproduce a hit on the candidate in thenumber one position every time andthe score would be high enough toleave no doubt. (Exhibit 5, page 11,

shows a computerized comparison ofthe minutiae of a latent search printwith the me print, along with -gerprint classification and search candidate scores.) For the lO-printsearch, fingerprint experts are re-porting that in approximately 98percent of the prints that are matched,the candidate's score met the threshold and was in the large number oneposition. This level of accuracy,which is made possible by the number of minutiae available from rolledprints, eliminates the necessity of

comparing the search prints with theme prints of the other candidates onthe list. f all of the candidates falibelow the threshold score, then thereis a high probability that the candi-date's prints are not in the system.Nevertheless, some AFIS systemshave policies calling for review ofsome of the candidate prints in suchcases as an added precaution againstmissed identifications. For example,California Department of Justice sCalifornia Identification System (CalID) policy requires comparison of the

search prints with the me prints of

the candidate in the number one posi-tion i f there is a sizable differentialbetween the scores of the number oneand two positions. For latent

4Proceedings of a SEARCH National

Conference on Automated Identification Systems. Sacramento: SEARCH

Group. Inc. (forthcoming). The confcrcnce was conducted in Kansas City,Missouri, Februa.-y 26-28, 1986, and

included managers of operational Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems, who wcre in general agreementon performance capabilities of newAFIS technology.

searches, where there are fewer minutiae to work with, comparisons maybe made on as many as three to fivecandidates. Again, as a policy matter, Cal-ID checks only the numberone candidate for verification in prop-erty crimes, but checks up to threecandidates for person crimes. CalID's policies governing the verifica-tion process are the result of carefulstudy and testing of its AFIS per-formance relative to candidate posi-tion and hit frequency. Such policydeterminations, in general, factortechnical performance, cost, time,and the priority given to particularkinds of Climes.

Finally, it is important to notethat an AFIS makes no final decisions on identity. While the scoremay virtually guarantee a hit, onlythe trained eye of the fmgerprint technician will make the final verifica-tion. The use of the fingerprint as

evidence in court requires the finger-print technician to prove, by a o m ~parison of measurements and pointsof i n u ~ e on the latent and meprints, that the prints match. Forverification, an AFIS assists but doesnot replace the fmgerprint expert.

Image retrieval

The latest technological development in AFIS is image storage andretrieval. t is essentially a byproduct of the initial conversionprocess by which the search print is

read into the system in digital form.

New image storage and retrievalt e h ~

nology allows the digitized fmgerprint images used to plot the minutiae to be stored on an optical diskand retrieved at a later time for comparing candidate lists with the searchprints. t allows the digitized searchprints and the retrieved image of thecandidate file prints to appear side byside on the operator's screen for c o m ~parison. This gives the technician

Automated ingerprint Identification Systems

the distinct advantage of not havingto leave the terminal to retrieve theprints. Without image storage andretrieval, t h ~ process entails going to

the hard-copy file of rolled prints to

collect the prints of candidates to becompared with the search prints. s

a less costly alternative to image re-trieval, some law enforcement agencies use microfilm and microfichereaders to speed the verification pro-cess.

Sharing of M1S d t

A question frequently asked is

whether AFIS computers can communicate with AFIS computers in

other jurisdictions. The answer is

that i f they are from the same vendor,that vendor has the technical capability to allow the two systems toshare data. f the AFIS computersare not from the same vendor, thenthe answer is no, the computerscannot talk to each other directlybecause the algorithms and communications protocols are different. Thetechnology is incompatible simplybecause the computers of the variousvendors were designed differently.Thus, one AFIS computer cannotsearch the files of another AFIS

computer of a different manufacturer.Rather than seeking compati-

bility among AFIS computers of

different vendors, AFIS technology is

moving toward the development of anational standard for the interchangeof fmgerprint data and images. Since

an AFIS computer works by havingan input device read and digitize arolled fingerprint image, what thecomputer needs from another u r i s ~diction is digitized fmgerprint imagedata and personal identification information, or demographics, to limitthe search. Simply stated, an AFIScomputer just needs good fmgerprintimages that it can read on its ownterms. On August 25, 1986, theAmerican National Standards Insti-tute accepted the standard entitled



Data Format for the Interchange of

Fingerprint Information (NBS/ICST1 ~ 1 9 8 6 , which was developed by the

Institute for Compurer Sciences andTechnology of the National Bureauof Standards (NBS). Most observersbelieve that this NBS standard forelectronically transferring fmgerprintimages will pave the way for the

sharing of fingerprint data among law

enforcement agencies in a form thatcan be utilized by ll AFIS systems.

Another method for sharing datais facsimile technology. F a c s i m i l e ~reproduced fingerprints represent alow cost method of transmittingfmgerprint images from remote sitesto the AFIS computer. The cdticalquestions are whether the facsimileprints are of sufficient quality to useas substitutes for the inked impres-

sions in the AFIS, and whether therewill be a degradation in the scoresproduced in the search. Thus far, thetesting of facsimile image transferand use in AFIS systems has shownthat good quality facsimile copies of

good quality inked prints can meetsearch accuracy requirements.

The future for sharing fmgerprint

data among law enforcement agencieslooks very good. Capabilities at pre-sent are limited, but the experimentsin image transmission standards andfacsimile transmission of printspromise that the technology is notfar from becoming an operationalreality.

utomated Fingerprint Identification ystems 7



Exhibit

Minutiae etection

Minutiae detection shown by white markings shown in olor on omputer screen)at ridge endings and bifurcations.

Source: North American MORPHO Systems, Inc.

Automated inGerprint Identification Systems



I

Exhibit 3

nhanced Ridge Tracing

P . ~

Computerized enhancement of ridges shown as black line tracings shown in olor oncomputer screen).

Source: Identification Security Systems, Inc.

utomated Fingerprint Identification Systems



Exhibit

Minutiae Patterns

Minutiae positions, directions, and relationships shown as unique patternshown in color on computer screen).

Source: N G Information Systems, Inc.

1 utomated Fingerprint Identification ystems



Exhibit

Latent Fingerprint Comparison

omputerized comparison of the minutiae of a digitized latent fingerprint left) with adigitized file print right). Lower portion of screen shows candidate list, classificationand scoring system.

Source: De La Rue Printrak Inc.

utomated ingerprint Identification Systems 11



Impact o law enforcement capability

What kind of impact will thenew AFIS technology have on the

functions of law enforcement? Firstand foremost, it seems certain thatthe technology will significantly increase the efficiency of the ten-printsearch and the effectiveness of thelatent search, with attendant cost andmanpower savings and greatly in

creased crime-solving potential.

Ten-print processing

The ten-print to ten-printsearch-the comparison of newlyrolled prints with rolled fIle prints-

is the bread and butter of both criminal and noncriminal identification.s noted earlier, virtually all identi

fication bureaus and criminal recordrepositories begin the processing offingerprint cards by conducting asearch of their master name indexes.This will continue to be the prevailing practice in agencies with AFISsystems. Nationally, some 50 to 55percent of name searches result in

identifications. With manual systems, some agencies stop here; i nohit is produced, they do not conduct atechnical fmgerprint search becausesuch searches consume too muchmanpower. The majority of agencies, however, conduct a manual technical fmgerprint search when there is

no hit on the name search. Manuallyclassifying and comparing fingerprints requires a significant investment of time and people. With an

AFIS, those remaining 45 to 50percent of incoming fmgerprint cards

that do not produce a hit on the namesearch can undergo a fast, efficientand accurate technical fmgerprintsearch.

Available infonnation suggeststhat manual fingerprint searches on anational basis achieve an accuracy

rate ranging from 60 to 74 percent.5

Accuracy in fmgerprint terminology

is a measure of the ability of the system to locate a print that is in thedata base. Failure to locate a print inthe fIle can be attributable to a variety of factors, including errors in dataentry, classification, filing, and comparison, as well as errors in thesearch algorithm and scoring system.Accuracy rate is different than hitrate, which measures the percentageof candidate prints that are matchedwith fIle prints.) At the upper boundary, a 74 percent manual accuracy

rate is an impressive figure in onesense, given the vast numbers of fm

gerprint records in criminal historyfIles; but it still means that one infour potential fmgerprint identifications is missed. The AFIS technology has changed these numbers dramatically. n agencies that have implemented AFIS systems, the accuracy rate of ten-print fmgerprintsearches has improved to an esti

mated 98 percent, and 99 percent insystems with a million records or

5See Terry Lindh and Stephen Ferris.Fingerprint IdentifICation Systems(paper prepared for presentation at the

Automated Fingerprint IdentificationSeminar, University of TennesseeSpace Institute, Apri115-17, 1985),p. 28. In a national survey Lindh and

Ferris found a 60-65 percent manualaccuracy rate. Inspector Ken Moses,

Crime Scene Investigation Unit, San

Francisco Police Department, conducted a national survey in 1979 and

found a 74 percent manual accuracyrate. Experts agree that the range in

percentage is largely attributable to

the degree of thoroughness of the ac

tual comparisons of the suspect printwith the file prints.

2 AUiomated Fingerprint Identification Systems

Iess.6 In the first few months ofoperation, the AFIS system in Baltimore, Maryland identified 525 arrestees using aliases. The San Francisco Police Department estimates thatas many as 17 percent of arrestees lieabout their names and other identifying infonnation, but still are identified by the Department's AFIS system.

It is not surprising that the increased speed and accuracy of AFISequipment produces greatly increasedefficiency in state-level ten-printfunctions that must accommodatelarge volumes of searches againstmassive flIes. California officialshave reported that the California e-

partment of Justice's CAL-ID statewide AFIS system in its early stages

of operation has achieved a productivity increase of 300 to 400 percentin the processing of ten-print cards.The system is now processing 1,000to 1,400 fmgerprint cards a day using12 people. In a manual mode, thatlevel of production would require anestimated 46 to 50 people. CAL-ID

officials project an eventual savingsof 50 percent reduction in the costsof ten-print processing, which is onthe order of 2 million annually,7

6Proceedings of a SEARCH NationalConference on Automated FingerprintIdentifICation Systems op. cit. Forexample, Peggy A. James, LatentPrint Examiner, Houston Police Department, reported that in its six

years of operation, Houston's AFIS

has missed 750 10-print recordsknown to be in a data base, a figurerepresenting one-half of one percentof the 151,237 records in the database.

7California Identification System CAL-1 Project, Project No. 2100-23,Feasibility Study Report Update, Octo

ber 15, 1984, California Departmentof Justice; page 4.



Latent print processing

The latent to ten-print search,which runs a crime scene printagainst mes of criminal and noncriminal ten-print cards, is the crimesolving function of identificationbureaus. As stated earlier, manualsearches of latent prints are exceedingly time-consuming and costly andyield little results even when thereare suspects and other infonnation tolimit the number of comparisons thatmust be made. Although an estimated 35 percent of crime scenesyield usable latent prints, w ~ r y fewidentifications have resulted frommanual searching methods. A studyof four major metropolitan policedepartments conducted by the RandCorporation found that the hit ratefor manual latent searches rangedfrom four to nine percent.8 Moreover, most agencies will only conduct manual latent searching whenthere are suspects or other information to limit the search. Coldmakes," which are based on the latentprint alone, are rarely undertaken.

The speed and accuracy of theAFIS technology, however, makes itpossible to search a single latentprint against the individual fmgers ofthousands or even millions of meprints in a matter of m i n u t ~ s Notsurprisingly, the impact of the technology on latent print processing hasbeen phenomenal. In its first two

8p. Greenwood, I.M. Chaiken, J.

Petersilia. The Criminal Investigative

Process New York D.C. Heath and

Company, 1977; pp. 162-165. f

the four cities examined lli the study,three had approximately the same

percentage rate of identifications from

latent prints: Miami, Florida had 9.0

percent; Richmond, California had 9.9

percent; and Los Angeles, Californiahad 9 1 percent. Washington, D.C.

had 4.3 percent.

phases of development, CAL-IDentered 420,000 fmgerprint cards intothe me that is used for latent searching. The me includes persons bornin 1950 or later who have been convicted of a felony, a group that is es

timated to represent only 34 percentof the AFIS data base but 47 percentof daily AFIS activity.9 When theme is fully implemented, the latentme will contain 1.5 million recordsof individuals with felony convictions born 1940 and after. CAL-IDis now experiencing a hit rate of 15

percent on latent searches and officials project an increase in the hitrate to 18 percent. In its first year of

operation, the San Francisco PoliceDepartment's AFIS system conducted5,514 latent print searches and made1,001 identifications, a hit rate of 18

percent. San Francisco cleared 816of those cases, including 52 homicides, compared to 58 cases clearedthe previous year on the basis oflatent print identifications.

In Houston, 4,645 latent searches have resulted in a hit rate of 13 percent, clearing over 600 cases that officials say could not have been solvedany other way. One hit cleared 30

cases in five counties. In PrinceGeorge's County, Maryland, an AFIScomputer shared by six city andcounty police departments made 150hits in its first nine months of operation, including one hit that clearedsome 40 burglaries.

Law enforcement officials believe that the AFIS systems not onlyare helping to solve crimes that otherwise would not have been solved, butare putting chronic offenders in j il

and halting repeat offenses. By the

end of fiscal year 1985, San Francisco had convicted and sentencedover 900 burglars identified by itsAFIS, which has been credited as acontributing factor in the city's 26percent drop in burglaries.

9ibid, pp. 5-6.

Fingerprint lifting techniques

The identification of latent printsby an AFIS begins at the crime scenewhere the fingerprints must be detected and developed. When a fmgertouches an object, it leaves a residueof water, oils, salt, amino acids, andother chemicals. When detected, thecrlme scene print will show the ridgepatterns and minutiae needed to makecomparisons with me prints. Historically, however, finding and raising crime scene prints have met withlimited success. Too often the printswere not immediately visible, orwere of poor quality, or could not bemade visible on certain surfaces. Thetraditional method of carbon dustingpowder required relatively fresh printson certain surfaces and with ampleamounts of residue. Powder workswell on glass and hard surfaces, butnot on paper, fabric or other poroussurfaces that absorb the moisture andsalts left by the fmgers. Before theadvent of today's AFIS technology,those hard to fmd and develop crimescene prints met with little successin manual identification.

Today, a revolution is takingplace in the technology of detectingand lifting crime scene prints. Theprincipal new techniques involve theuse of chemicals and lasers. One ofthe frrst chemicals that was enlistedto assist the dusting method was -hydrin, an oxidizing agent that colorsor stains the amino acids and makes

visible the ridge patterns. Ninhydrinworks effectively on surfaces such as

paper. Research is being conductedto use chemicals that will restoreamino acids tofaint prints that have

lost their moisture, thereby makingthem visible and usable.




One of the most recent and e f ~fective chemicals enlisted in fmgerprint detection is cyanoacrylate,which is cOlrunon household superglue. In its gaseous state, superglue's vapor attaches itself to fmgerprint chemicals, turns them white,and hardens them. t works well onfabric and plastic, which are materialsthat render dusting powder ineffective. Until recently, cyanoacrylaetook too long to harden, sometimesup to thirty days. Now there are hardening catalysts, such as sodium hydroxide, that reduce the developingprocess to 15 to 20 minutes. Superglue can be used at the crime scene ithe evidence can be enclosed in achamber filled with the glue's vapor.The Orange County Sheriffs and

Coroner's Office uses common PCVpipe and and plastic sheeting to erectenclosures around large items such as

automobiles, as it did in the case ofthe alleged California NightStalker. When the plastic is sealed,the super glue vapor is injected andprints develop on the outside of the

automobile. Super glue was alsoinstrumental in developing a print ona pillow case in a rape case.

Lasers are detecting fingerprintson surfaces on which dusting orchemicals have proven ineffective.n intense flood of green laser light

can detect florescence in the chemicals found in fmgerprint residue,even in very small quantities. Riboflavin, along with other chemicals in

fmgerprint residue, emits electromagnetic radiation that glows in laser

light n object flooded with thegreen light from argonion lasers willallow technicians wearing orangegoggles to see fmgerprints not v i s i ~ble to the naked eye. When printsare faint or blurred by other background materials, florescence can beinduced by florescent powders andstains, thereby restoring the florescence needed to develop the printThe FBI employed a laser to detect afmgerprint of a Nazi war criminal ona postcard; the print was 40 years

old. Lasers are used mostly ill thelaboratory because of their size, although smaller, more portable unitscurrently are being tested at crimescenes.

The fmgerprint lifting techniquesof dusting powders, chemicals aridlasers are complimentary, and are routinely used in combinations, sinceone will detect prints where anothercannot. They are used in sequence,as well. For example, traditional carbon dusting would be ineffective

once an object had been subjected tosuper glue. In the case of the a l i ~fornia Night Stalker, success wasachieved using both traditionalmethods and newer methods utilizingchemicals and lasers.

4 Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems

Photographic and telecommunications technologies are also being

used to lift and transmit prints to theAFIS. The Orange County Sheriffsand Coroner's Office is experimenting with a remote television cameralinked to telecommunications linesthat could allow an electronicallycaptured print to e transmitted di

rectly from the crime scene to CalID. Orange County's director of for

ensic sciences foresees the day in thenear future when a crime scene printsent to Cal-ID for instant processingwill allow an all-points-bulletin to

be issued on a suspect in a matter ofminutes.

The advent of AFIS technologyand improved fmgerprint detectionand developing techniques havebrought new life to crime sceneunits. As mentioned earlier, a latentprint with no other identifying information had very little chance ofbeing matched by manual comparison. One crime scene investigatorin the San Francisco Police Department estimated that a manual search

of the 300,000 fmgerprint cardswould take 33 years working eighthours a day, seven days a week. Sim

ilarly, a recent hit made in minuteson Cal-ID's AFIS would have taken67 years of manual searching. The

crime scene units llOW know that ithey can get the print, they have avery good chance of identification.The new technologies for liftingprints enhance that identificationpotential.



FIS implementation

Considering the demonstrated

effectiveness of the AFIS technol-ogy, it is not surprising that implementation of AFIS systems in lawenforcement agencies throughout thecountry is progressing rapidly. Dueto the high cost of the systems, however, it is also not surprising thatimplementation has been confmed to

the federal level (the FBI), state identificatton bureaus and large cities andmetropolitan areas. At the federaland state levels, acquisition and operation of AFIS equipment can be jus

tified primarily by increased efficiency in processing the large numbersof ten·.print cards, criminal and noncriminal, that are submitted by lawenforcement agencies throughout thestate. At the city and county level,on the other hand, AFIS systems are

justified primarily because of thecrime-solving potential of the latentprint processing capability.

The FBI system

The FBI's AFIS system was developed as part of a long-term pro

gram begun in the early 1970's to

automate the functions of the Identification Division, which houses the

FBI's criminal and noncriminal fm

gerprint mes and criminal history

records for federal and state offenders.The Identification Division conductscriminal history record searches forfederal and non-federal law enforcement agencies throughout the country and for federal and state noncrim

inal justice agencies that are authorized by federal or state law to requestcriminal history searches in connection with employment, licensing orother official functions. Currently,the Identification Division conductsapproximately 14,000 searches forcriminal justice purposes and 13,000searches for noncriminal justice pur

poses each day.

The automated me used for ten

print searching contains approximately 18 million fingerprint records ofoffenders born in 1929 or later. Currently, the Identification Divisionprocesses about 264,000 automatedtechnical fingerprint searches permonth and is experiencing a hit rateon criminal fingerprint cards of 8.6percent FBI officials have statedt.ltat the accuracy level of the systemis better than 99 percent.

The FBI is currently in the process of developing and testing an

automated system for searching latentfingerprints. n automated imageretrieval system is also under development These systems are expectedto be operational by the end of thisdecade.

State-level systems

At the time this report was prepared, 18 states had installed or werein the process of acquiring or installing AFIS systems in their state ident

ification bureaus. f these, the systems in Alaska, California and Minnesota are operational and Colorado,Indiana, Illinois and Massachusetts

have purchased systems and are in the

process of installing them. Virginiaand Tennessee have selected vendorsand expect system installation to be

gin very soon. Six other states, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,North Carolina and Washington,have begun the procurement processand Arizona, Pennsylvania and New

York plan to begin the procurementprocess within the next few months.All of these states expect to havetheir systems in operation by the endof 1987. In addition, three states,Maryland, Michigan and Wisconsin,are considering the implementation

of AFIS systems within the next fewyears. State officials in Idaho, Mon

tana, Utah and Wyoming are exploring the possibility of implementinga regional system to be shared by

those four states. Massachusetts

officials are discussing ali lgementsfor sharing the system now beinginstalled with surrounding NewEngland states.

The California system, knownas CAL-ID, which is operational butnot yet fully implemented statewide,deserves special mention, since,when it is fully implemented in mid-1987, it will be among the most ad

vanced fmgerprint identification systems. n addition to the central siteat the Califomia Department of Jus

tice's facility in Sacramento, CAL-IDwill feature a statewide automatedidentification network that will provide law enforcement agenciesthroughout California with remoteterminal access for performing computerized fingerprint searches and forretrieving fingerprint images forscreen display or hard-copy printout.

The central facility includes the

capability of conducting automatedsearches of the master name index as

well as automated ten-print and latent

print searches. The remote networkwill enable sheriffs and police depart

ments anywhere in the state to perform ten-print searches on persons in

custody and will enable larger jurisdictions to input fmgerprint minutiaedata to conduct remote cold searcheson latent prints from crime scenes.Smaller local jurisdictions will be

able to receive fingerprint images to

verify name search identifications and

for comparison with the fmgerprints

of known criminal suspects, but they

will not be able to input fmgerprintminutiae data to conduct cold searches on latent prints. California also

will establish a number of Full UseAccess Agencies in up to six largepopulation areas of the state. In ad

dition to access to the central statedata bases, these agencies wilt havetheir own automated identification

data bases containing fingerprints of




persons with criminal or applicant

records in their geographical areas.They will also be able to supportlocal networks to permit other lawenforcement agencies in their areas to

access their data bases as well as thestate data bases.

As menH.oned earlier, Californiahas already realized significant productivity increases and cost savingsassociated with the processing of tenprint cards. n addition, officials estimate that the remote access networkwill make it possible for local agen

cies to conduct over 50,000 latentsearches each year, resulting in theidentification of some 7,500 suspects. It is anticipated that thesesearches will save law enforcementagencies some 600,000 investigativehours now needed to develop suspectlists, resulting in manpower savingsof $9,000,000 annually.10

City and county systems

The demonstrated capability of

AFIS systems to solve crimes andfacilitate the arrest and .::onviction ofcriminals who probably would not beapprehended in any other way hasbeen a powerful incentive for city andcounty officials to implement thetechnology. Although the high costof the equipment puts it out of thereach of most small agencies, manylarge city and county police departments have implemented systems andmany others plan to acquire AFIScapability e ither independently or as

part of the statewide systems nowbeing implemented. At the time thisreport was prepared, AFIS systemswere operational. in Baltimore, Maryland; the District of Columbia; Houston; Kansas City, Missouri; Miami;San Jose and San Francisco. In addition, regional or cooperative systemsshared by several law enforcementagencies in large metropolitan areas

lOibid, p. 14.

were operational in Fairfax, Virginia;

Nassau County, New York; PrinceGeorge's and Montgomery Counties,Maryland; St. Louis (REGIS); andVirginia Beach Hampton Roads,Virginia. Systems are presentlybeing installed in Chicago, LasVegas, and Pierce County (Tacoma),Washington; and officials in Austin,Denver, Jacksonville (Florida) andKing County (Seattle), Washingtonare in some stage of the process ofacquiring AFIS systems.

As mentioned in the previous

section, city and county law enforcement agencies throughout Californiawill have remote terminal access tothe CAL-ID system and as many assix large cities or population centerswill be provided with their own automated fmgerprint data bases for bothten-print and latent print searches. Itis likely that other states will alsoprovide at least some local agencieswith remote terminal access. Indeed,many local agencies throughout thecountry that expect eventually to

have AFIS systems or at least accessto a state system have delayed planning and acquisition activities oftheir own until it is clear what theirstate identification bureaus intend to

do.

Operational system features

Although, as mentioned above,state-level systems tend to emphasizethe ten-print function and local systems tend to emphasize the latent

print processing capability, all of thesystems installed thus far and all ofthose now being implemented haveboth ten-print and latent print processing capability. All of the sitesroutinely search incoming ten-printcards against the stored fIles of tenprint cards that is, standard arrest

6 utomated Fingerprint Identification Systems

and applicant processing. Interest

ingly, the accuracy of the technologyis such that the ten-print to ten-printsearch can be conducted on only oneor two fingers and the system willfuid the matching fIngerprints in excess of 98 percent of the time. Sincefile storage space is expensive andfile conversion entering the existing me o ten-print cards into thesystem is both time-consuming andexpensive, virtually all of the siteshave elected to enter only a fmger orthumb from each hand into the fue to

be used for ten-print searching. Virtually all sites also have elected toutilize a year-of-birth cutoff date forconverting existing fmgerprint fIles.Commonly, only prints of personsborn in 1940 or later are entered.This results in considerable cost savings while sacrificing little in theeffectiveness of the system, sincemany experts estimate that 9 percent or more of criminal activity iscommitted by persons 40 years old oryounger. Florida's AFIS system will

utilize a day one approach, enteringrecords into the system based on newarrests, because its present fmgerprintfiles are stored on microfilm and arenot suitable for conversion.

All o the sites also search incoming latent prints against a file often prints conventional c;rime sceneprocessing. Here, again, some of thesites have elected to enter only selected parts of their existing ten-printfiles into the data base to be used forlatent searching. California's phased

system implementation began byentering only convicted felons bomin 1960 or later. Interestingly, if theaccused Night Stalker killer/rapisthad been bom only a few monthsearlier, his fingerprints would nothave been in the AFIS data basewhen his latent print was lifted from



a stolen car. However he would

have been identified in the next phaseof implementation which enteredpersons with felony convictions withbirthdates 1950 and after. Most ofthe state AFIS systems are utilizingsome combination of age and priorcriminal activity to limit the numberof fmgerprints entered into the me tobe used for latent searching. California has also elected to enter onlyeight frogers from each fingerprintcard, omitting the little fmgers be-cause hits on them are so rare.

Although most of the systemsnow in operation do not include im-

age storage and retrieval capabilitysince the technology is very new andwas not available when some of the

systems were installed. virtually allof those now being implemented in-

clude this capability as an integralpart of the system despite its highcost s pointed out earlier this cap-ability permits the images of thesearch print and candidate ftle printsto appear side by side on the oper-

ator s screen, making it unnecessary

for the technician to leave the term-

inal to retrieve candidate prints fromhard-copy fIles. t also makes itpossible to provide remote access to

the system and remote transmissionof digital fingerprint information.

The technology makes it possible to search new latent printsagainst the unsolved latent me butfew of the sites are doing this. Al-though the capability of identifyingpattems of related crimes can e useful occasionally most agencies havenot been able to justify the costs of

this capability with the limitedbenefits derived from it

utomated Fin gerprint Identification Systems 7



olicyand legal issues

As is the case with the introduc-

tion o any new and revolutionarytechnology, the imp'iementation o

AFIS technology will raise new pol-icy issues and force the re-examination o existing policy decisions.AFIS applications may also raiselegal issues. The following discus-sion identifies some of the policy andlegal issues that may arise and requirethe attention of policymakers in theplanning and operation of AFISsystems.

Organizational impact

Implementation o AFIS tech-nology may cause a shift in relationships between state and local lawenforcement agencies and even be-tween divisions of particular agen-cies. Implementation of statewideAFIS systems may tend to increasethe reliance by local agencies on theservices of the state bureaus of identification and further the trend away

from the maintenance of fingerprint

mes and criminal history mes at thelocal level. On the other hand, im-plementation of AFIS systems at thecity or county level may tend to re-

verse this trend, particularly wherethe state does not implement a state-level system. The advent of AFISmay also cause a re-examination ofthe orgar>Jzational structure support-ing fingerprint processing, particu-larly at the state level. While ten-print processing and latent print pro-cessing may be performed by the

same agency at the city level, thesetwo functions traditionally have beenseparate at the state level. The ten-

print function is usually performed

by a bureau of criminal identification(often attached to the criminal recordsrepository), while the latent printfunction usually is assigned to an

office associated with the crime labor-

atory. All AFIS systems installed sofar, and probably all that will be in-stalled, include both ten-print andlatent processing capability. In mosto the states that have implementedAFIS systems the systems have be.en

housed in the bureaus of identification. TItis trend is likely to continue

and may result in the gradual absorp-tion of the latent print function by

the criminal identification bureaus.

Impact on identification

bureau workloads

AFIS technology undoubtedlywill have a significant impact on theability of the state criminal recordbureau's to handle the increasing crim-inal and noncriminal workloads thatin recent years appeared to be becom-ing unmanageable in many states.These workloads have increased to

the point that many states have be-come unable to perform technical

fingerprint searches in all criminal

cases and only a few states are able todo fmgerprint searches for noncriminal applications for employment andlicensing purposes. The AFIS tech-nology should result in significantimprovements in the efficiency andaccuracy of the criminal fmgerprint

function, reducing or even eliminating the number of offenders whoavoid association with their past crim-inal records by using aliases. W ithrespect to noncriminal applications,the increased efficiency of AFIS tech-

nology should pemtit state repositories to adopt policies requiring finger-print searches and positive identification in all cac;es in which records are

released for noncriminal justice purposes.

8 Automated Fingerprint Identific ation Systems

In the past, the inability o the

state repositories to perform fmger-print searches for employment and

licensing applications and the riskassociated with releasing records forsuch purposes based. solely on name

searches have caused many state crim-inal justice officials to resist proposed new laws and policies author-izing criminal record searches foradditional employment and licensingpurpo \;s. With the implementationof AFIS systems, this resistance maylessen. Indeed, state policymakers

may even encourage the trend towardwider availability of criminal recordsfor noncriminal justice purposes,viewing the income from feescharged lor processing such applications as iID important source o fundsto SUPP li the implementation andoperation. Of the AFIS systems. Cali-

fornia anticipates that funds derivedfrom a surcharge added to the fee forprocessing employment and licensingapplications will cover the costs ofoperatingCAL ID.

Fingerprinting of juveniles

The implementation of AFIStechnology may trigger a re-examination of state laws and local policies concerning the fmgerprinting ofjuveniles and the uses that may bemade of juvenile fmgerprints. Atpresent many state laws prohibit orrestrict the fingerprinting of juvenilesand impose restrictions on the useand disposition of those prints that

are taken. Typically, these laws pro-vide that juveniles may not be finger-printed unless they are to be prose-cuted as adults or they have commit-ted designated offenses that would be



felonies i they were adults. Com

monly the laws provide that fingerprints of juveniles may not be comingled with adult fingerprint mesand may not be placed in state centralrepositories or sent to any federalfmgerprint repository. Some statesrequire th tjuvenile fmgerprintsmust be returned or destroyed i thejuvenile is not adjudicated delinquentand most states provide that juvenilerecords, including fingerprints, mustbe destroyed when the juvenilereaches adulthood or at some desig.

nated point thereafter, at leasti

hehas established a clean record periodbeforehand.11

s pointed out earlier in thisreport. it has been estimated that fmgerprints are left at the scenes ofmore than a third of all crimes, particularly property crimes. New fm

gerprint-lifting technology makes itpossible to obtain usable prints inmany of these cases and the newAFIS technology makes it possible

to search these latent pi.mts against

existing flIes of fmgerprints arididentify offenders even when no other

evidence is available to compile a listof suspects. Since statistics indicate

that many, perhaps most, property

crimes are committed by juveniles, t

llCriminal Justice InjorltUllion Pol-

icy: Privacy and Juvenile Justice Rec-ords U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington,D.C., 1932, pp. 32-34.

is apparent that the unavailability of

juvenile fingerprints or the inabilityto search crime scene latent printsagainst existing juvenile fmgerprintfiles will mean that the full crimesolving potential of the AFIS technology cannot be realized. This consideration may result in a re-evaluation of existing policies related to thefingerprinting of juveniles. Minnesota s system now includes juvenilepr.J1ts and a sampling of juvenileprints in St Paul, Minnesota's database indicated that although juvenile

prints constituted only about 3.5 percent of the AFIS data base, they ac

counted for 53 percent of all latenthits, most of which were related to

property crimes.12

Retention and subsequent useof applicant fingerprints

The FIS technology has alsomade it feasible and productive to

search noncriminal fmgerprints accompanying applications for employ

ment or licensing against flIes of unsolved latent prints and to search newlatent prints against existing files ofapplicant fingerprints. This practice

may raise legal issues in some jurisdictions, since courts may concludethat the fmgerprint subject's rights

are violated when fmgerprints submitted for a specific purpose a non

criminal search-are retained and used

12Source: Sergeant Joseph Corcoran,St Paul, Minnesota Police Department, Summary of the First Hundred

Latent Hils in the ajflll System St

Paul, Minnesota Police Department

subsequently for other purposes. In

deed, at least one court has reachedthat conclusion. In that case, decidedin 1978 by a New York statecourt,13 the court ruled that a statelaw requiring the fingerprinting ofpotential grand jurors is not constitutionally objectionable, but thatretaining the p r n t ~ once the initialqualifications decision is made wouldviolate the fmgerprint subject's pri

vacy rights. Other courts havereached contrary conclusions, however. A California state court and a

federal district court in Louisianahave upheld the constitutionality of

local ordinances requiring workers in

certain occupations to register withthe local police and be fmgerprintedfor the purpose of assisting the police in controlling crime problems

thought to be associated with transients employed in these occupations.n the California case,14 decided in

1970, the registrant was already asuspect in a rape case in which latentprints had been obtained from the

crime scene. The fingerprints obtained when he subsequently regis

tered in order to be employed locally

as a bartender were matched with thelatent prints and he was arrested andcharged with the rape and a relatedsexual offense. The court rejected his

challenge of the use of the fmgerprmts n his prosecution, concluding

13Qoodman v, Liebovitr 410 N Y S

2d 502, 96 Misc. 2d 1059 (S.Cl,N.Y. County 1978) affIrmed 423N.Y.S. 2d 488, 73 App. Div. 2d 855

(App. Div. 1980).

14feople v. S1YJ kr 10 Cal. App. 3d582; 89 Cal. Rptr. 158 (1970).




that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the municipality s policepower and that the fingerprints wereconstitutionally obtained. That being the case, the court held, therewere no legal restrictions concerningsubsequent use of the fingerprints.n the Louisiana case, decided in

1979. the federal district court upheldthe constitutionality of a similarworker registration ordinance, rejecting claims that it violated the privacyrights of the registrants.1 5

It may well be that this issuewill be the subject of additional courtscrutiny. As the implementation andoperation of AFIS systems continue,suits may be brought challenging theretention of applicant fingerprints andtheir use for any purpose other thanthe pre-employment backgroundsearches for which they were obtained. n the cases that have consideredthis issue and related issues, thecourts have been generally in agreement that retention and subsequentuse of applicant fingerprints for criminal justice purposes does not abridgeconstitutional protections againstcompelled self-incrimination or unreasonable searches and seizures.

15S ervi e Machine Shjpbuilding9orp. v, Edwardl. 466 F. Supp. 1200

(W.O. La 1979)•

However, as indicated by the casesdiscussed above, courts have disagreed on the issue o whether suchretention and use violate the constitutional protection against invasion of privacy. It may be that as

the usefulness of the AFIS technologyas a crime-solving tool is demonstrated, the courts will conclude thatthe public policy interest in realizingthe full potential of this new technology outweighs the privacy interestsof the fmgerprint subjects. For thepresent, however, it probably is pru-dent to regard the issue as not yetresolved. As a precaution, law enforcement agencies might considerrequiring licensing and employmentapplicants to sign a release consenting to the use of their fingerprints forAFIS searches against latent files andthe retention of the prints for subsequent criminal justice searches.




Announcing the new

Fact FindingStatistical tables a ~ t g r a P h Swith explanatory e

Specialized directories or

....... . . - - - - - - -. . tions

Service

Need a specialized

report one tailormade just for you?

The National Criminal Justice Ref

erence Service's new Fact Finding

Service is your solution. Get

answers to your hard-to-find crimi

naljustice questions in a report

tailored just for you.

We'll gather the facts and figures

using BJS resources, NCJRS re

sources, professional associations,

news articles, juvenile justice agen

cies, or whatever it takes to find the

answers. We then send yoll a full

report that matches your specific

needs.

Crime trend information

over a period of time

Examples of reports:

D

statistical tables and graphs withexplanatory text;

• State-by-State program or legis

lative information presented in

an easy-to-read format;

e specialized directories or listings

of justice agencies, organiza

tions, or instructions;

• crime trend information over a

specified period of time.

Prices:

Your cost for the Fact Finding

Service covers actual expenses

only. Prices are determined y the

time needed to respond to your re

quest. A request that requires up to

5 hours could cost between 75 and

250.

Call NCJRS with your request. An

information specialist will estimate

the cost. We can begin work as

soon s we have your approval.

Call toll free for more information:

National Criminal Justice Refer

ence Service sponsored y the Na

tional Institute of Justice

800-851-3420

Justice Statistics Clearinghouse

sponsored by the Bureau of JusticeStatistics

800-732-3277

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

sponsored by the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention

800-638-8736



Bureau o

Justice Statisticsnnounces the

Justice Statistics

ClearinghouseThe Bureau of Ju ->tice Stali:-tic:

(BJS), in conjunction with the Na

tional Criminal Ju:-tice Reference

Service (NCJRS) announce:- the

e:-tablbhment of the Ju:-tice Stati:-

tic:- C l e a r i n g h l u ~ e . The Clearing.

hou -,e toll-free number i: :

800-732-3277

PerS()lls from Maryland and the

Washington. D.C .. metropolitan

area should call ]() 1 251 5500.

Service '. offered by the Clearing

house include:

.. Responding to statistical requests. How many rapes arc re

ported to the police'? How many

burglaries occurred in the past yeur'?

Call the Clearinghouse. toll free.

• Providing information about

JS services. Interested in receiv

ing BJS documents and products ?

Register with the BJS mailing list

by calling the Clearinghouse. toll

free.

IJ) Suggesting referrals to other

sources for criminal justice statistics. If the Clearinghouse doesn t

have the answer. an information

speciali:-t will refer you to agencies

or individuals who do.

e Conducting custom literature

searches of the NCJRS document

data base. We can search the

NCJRS data base and provide topi

cal bibliographic citations arid

ahstracts to answer specific re

quests.

.. Collecting statistical reports.

The Clearinghouse collects statisti

cal reports from numerous sources.

Submit statistical documents to

share with criminal justice col

leagues to: NCJRS, Attention BJS

Acquisition,. Box 6000, Rockville,

MD 20850.

You have 24-hour access to the

Justice Statistics Clearinghouse.

From 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. EST,

weekdays, an information specialist

is available. After work hours, you

may record your orders or leave a

message for an information special

ist to return your call.



ureau ofJustice Statistics reports1987)

Call toll-free 800-732- 3277 (localto order BJS reports, to be added

one of the BJS mailing lists, or to speak

Service,MD 20850. Single

tage and handling are chargr-is of single reports. For single

f multiple titles, up to 10 titles are10; more than 40, $20;

Public-use tapes of BJS data sets and

andP.O. Box 1248, Ann

MI48106 (313-763-5010).

Crime Survey

in the U.S.:1984 (finai report), NCJ-l00435, 5/861983 (finaireport), NCJ·96459, 10/85982 (final report), NCJ-92820, 11/84973-82 trends, NCJ-90541, 9/83980 (final report), NCJ-84015, 4/83

(finai report), NCH6710, 12/81

special reports:iolent crime by strangers and nonstrangers,NCJ-l03702, 1/87reventing dome stic violence against women,NCJ-l02037,8/86rime prevention measures, NCJ-l00438,3/86

of weapons In committing crimes,NCJ-99643, 1/86

to the police, NCJ-99432,12/85

NCJ-99535, 12/85

of violent crime, NCJ-97119, 5/85of crime to victims, NCJ-

93450,4/B4

bulletins:

NCJ-l01685,6/86

of rape, NCJ-96777,3/851/85

NCJ-9:3869, 6/84

by strangers, NCJ-80829, 4/821/82

12/86

e to screening questions in the NationalNCJ-

of crime: W,rld

I: Current and historical perspectives,B/82

II: Methological studies, NCJ-90307, 12/84measurement of Victimization,

of negligence: Losses Irom preventable

26 American cities,8 79

i 1troduction to the National Crime Survey,

4 78 A rli vlew of the Issues,8/77

probation

bulletIns:NCJ-l00181,

2/86

In the U,S., 1980 and 19 81, NCJ-S7387,

and 1979, NCJ.S7243, 5/6 3

In the U.S., 1979, NCJ-69562, 3/81

CorrectionsBJS bullatlns and specia/reports:

Probation and parole 1985, NCJ-l03683. 1/87Population density In Sta iii prisons, NCJ-l 03204,

12/86Capital punishment, 1985, NCJ-l02742, 11/86State and Federal prisoners, 1925-85.

NCJ-l02494,11/86Prisoners In 1985, NCJ-l01384, 6/86Prison admission and releases. 1983,

NCJ-l00582. 3/86

Capital punishment 1984, NCJ-98399, 8/85Examining recidivism, NCJ-96501, 2/85Returning to prison, NCJ'95700, 11184Time served In prison, NCJ-93924, 6/84

Historical corrections statist Ics in theU.S,' 1850-1984, NCJ-l02529, 3/87

Prisoners In State and Federal Institutions onDec. 31,1984, NCJ·l03768, 3/87

Capital punishment 198 4 (final), NCJ-99562, 5188Capital punishment 1983 (final), NCJ-99561,4/86

979 sllrveyolinmatesof State correctional lacllit iesand 979 census 1 State correctionallacilities:

BJS special reports:The prevalence of Imprisonment, NCJ-93657,

7/85Career patterns in crime, NCJ-88672, 6/83

BJS bulletIns:Prisoners and drugs, NCJ-87575, 3/83Prisoners and alcohol, NCJ-86223, 1/83Prisons and prisoners, NCJ-80697, 2/82Veterans in prison, NCJ-79232, 11/81

Census 1 jails and survey 1 jail inmates:Jail inmates, 1984, NCJ-l 0 1094, 5/86Jail Inmates, 1983 (BJS bulletin), NCJ·99175,

11/85The 1983 jail census BJS bulletin), NCJ-95536,

11/84Census of jails, 1978: Data for indiVidual jails,vols, HV, Northeast, North Central, South. West,NCJ-72279-72282, 12/81

Profile of jal/lnmates, 1978, NCJ·65412. 2/81

Children in custody:

Public juvenile facilities, 1985 (bulletin).NCJ-l02457, 10/86

1982-83 census of juvenile detention andcorrectionallacillties, NCJ-101686, 9/86

Expenditure and employment

BJS Bulletins:JusUce expenditure and employment:

1983, NCJ-l01776, 7/86

1982, NCJ-98327, 8/85

JUstice expenditure and employment In the U.S.:1980 and 1981 extracts, NCJ·96007, 6/851971-79, NCJ-92596, 11/84

Courts

BJS bulletins:The growth of appeals: 1973-83 trends,

NCJ-96381, 2/85Caee filings In State courts 1983, NCJ-95111,

10/84

BJS specIal reports:Felony case-processing time, NCJ-j 01985,8/86Felony sentencing In 18 local

jurisdictions, NCJ-97681, 6/85The prevalence of guilty pleas, NCJ-96018,

12/84Sentencing practices In 13 States, NCJ-95399,

10/84Criminal defense systems: A national

survoy, NCJ·94630, 8 84

Habeas corpus, N C J - 9 ~ 9 4 8 3/84State court caseload statistics, 1977 and

1981, NCJ-87587, 2/83

National Criminal Defense Systems Study, NCJ-94702, 10/86

The prosecution of felony arrests:1981, NCJ-101380, 9/861980, NCJ-97684, 10/851979, NCJ-86482, 5/84

State court model statistical dictionary,Supplement, NCJ.98:326, 9/851st edition, NCJ'62320, 9/80

State cou rt organization 19S0, NC,1-76711, 7/82A cross-clly comparison of felony case

processing, NOJ-55171, 7179

Federal offenses and offenders

BJS special rep oris:Pretrial release and misconduct, NCJ'96132

lfflS '

BJS bulletins:

Bank robbery, NCJ.94463, 8/84Federal drug law violators, NCJ-92692, 2/84Fedoraljusllce statist ics, NCJ-80814, 3/S2

Privacy and security

Computer crime:

BJS special reporls:Electronic fund transfer rraud, NCJ-96666.3/85Electronic fund transfer and crime,

NCJ-92650, 2/84

Electronic fund transfer fraud, NCJ-l00461,4/86

Computer security techniques,NCJ·84049. 9/82

Electronic fund transfer systems and crime,NCJ'83736, 9/82

Expert witness manuat, NCJ-77927,9/81Criminal just ice resource manual, NCJ-61550,

12/79

Privacy and security of criminal historyInformation:

Compendium of State legislation, 1984overview, NCJ-98077, 9/85

Criminal justice Information policy:Criminal justice hot tiles, NCJ-l01850, 12/86Data quality policies and procedures:

Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH confere nce,NCJ-l01849,12/86

Crime control and crim inal records (BJS specialreport), NCJ·99176, 10/85

State criminal records repositories (BJStechnical report), NCJ-99017, 10/85

Data quality of criminal history records, NCJ-98079, 10/85

Intelligence and Investigative records,NCJ'95787, 4/85

Vlctlmlwitness legislation: An overview,NCJ-9d365, 12/84

Informatio n policY and crime control strate gies(SEARCH/BJS conference), NCJ'93926,10/84

Research access to criminal justice data,NCJ-84154, 2/83

Privacy and juvenile justice records,NCJ-84152. 1/83

Survey of State laws (BJS bulletln),NCJ-80836, 6/82

Privacy and the private employer,NCJ-79651,11/81

General

BJS bulletins and speCial reports:BJS telephone contacts 87, NCJ.l02909, 12/86Tracking offenders: White-collar crime,

NCJ-l02867,11/86Police employment and expenditure,

NCJ-l00117,2/86

Tracking Offenders: The child victim, NCJ-95785, 12/84,The severity of crime, NCJ-92:326, 1/84The Amerlca,n response to crime: An overview

of criminal justice systems, NCJ-91936, 12 8:3Tracking offenders, NCJ·91572. 11/83Victim and witness assistance: New State

laws and the sy stem's response, NCJ-87934,5/83

1986 directory of automated criminal justiceInformation systems, NCJ-l02260, 1/87, $20domestic

Crime and justice facts, 1985, NCJ-l00757, 5/88National survey of crime severity, NCJ-96017,

10/85Criminal victimization of District 1 Columbia

residents and Capitol Hili employees, 1982-83,NGJ-97982;Summary, NCJ.98567; 9/85

TheDC crime victimization study Implementation,NCJ-98595, 9/85, $7.60 oomest/c/$9,20 Canadlan/$12,80 foreign

TheDC household Victimization survey data base:

DOCUmentation, NCJ-98598, 6.401 8.40/ 11User manual, NCJ-98597, 8,201 9.80/ 12,80

How to gain access to BJ$ data (brochure),BC-000022. 9/84

Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on law andjustice statistics, 1984, NCJ-93310, 8 84

Repon to the nation on crime and justice:The data, NCJ'87068, 10/83

Dictionary of criminal justice data terminology:2nd eo., NCJ.76939, 2/82

Technical standards for machine-readable datasupplied to BJS, NCJ-75:318, 6/81

See order formon last page



Please put me on the mailing list for:

Justice expenditure and employmentreports annual spending and staffing byFederal/Sta te/local governments and byfunction (police, courts, etc.)

o

oo

o

Computer crime reports electronic fundtransfer system crimes

Privacy and security of criminal historyinformation and information policy new

legislation; maintaining and releasingintelligence and investigative records; dataquality issues

Federal statistics data describing Federalcase processing, from investigation throughprosecution, adjudication, and corrections

BJS bulletins and l,)eCial reports timely

reports of the most current justice data

Courts reports Sta te court caseload surveys, model annual State reports, State

court organization surveys

Corrections reports results of sample surveys and censuses of jails, prisons, parole,probation, and other corrections data

Name:

Title:

Organization:

Stree t or box:

City, State, Zip:

Daytime telephone number: )

Interest in criminal justice:

u.s. Department of JusticeBureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DC 20531

oo

National Crime Survey reports the onlyregular national survey of crime victims

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics(annuaI)-broad-based data from 150+sources (400+ tables, 100+ figures, index)

The National Institute of Justice/NationalCriminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)abstracts documents published in the criminaljustice field. Persons registered with the Ref-erence Service receive NIJ Reports every other

month. t includes an order form for Bureau ofJustice Statis tics publications. If you want anNCJRS registration form please check here: 0

To rece ive copies of recent BJS reports, listtitles and NCJ numbers here or check them onthe reverse side of this sheet:

Placstamhere

Justice Statis tics Clearinghouse/NCJRSU.S. Department of JusticeUser Services Department 2Box 6000Rockville, MD 20850



u s Department of Justice

u r e ~ u of ustice Statistics

Washington D.C. 2 531

Official Business

Penalty for Priva te Use 300 BULK RATE

POSTAGE FEES

DOJ BJS

Permit No. G-9

Documents

Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems Technology and Policy Issues