Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems: Technology ...simson.net/ref/1987/NCJ-104342_AFIS.pdf · Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems: Technology and ... Automated Fingerprint

U.S. Department of JusticeBureau of Justice Statistics

Automated FingerprintIdentification Systems:Technology andPolicy Issues

Bureau of Justice Statistics reports(revised February 1987)

Call tolHree 800-732-3277 (local251-5500) to order BJS reports, to be addedto one of the BJS mailing lists, or to speakto a reference specialist in statistics at theJustice Statistics Clearinghouse, NationalCriminal Justice Reference Service,Box 6000, Rockville. MD 20850. Singlecopies of reports are free; use NCJ numberto order. Postage and handling are chargedfor bulk orders of single reports. For singlecopies of multiple titles, up to 10 titles arefree; 11-40 titles $10; more than 40, $20;libraries call for special rates.

Public-use tapes of BJS data sets andother criminal justice data are availablefrom the Criminal Justice Archive andInformation Network, P.O. Box 1248. AnnArbor, Ml 48106 (313-763-5010).

National Crime SurveyCriminal victimization in the U.S.:

1984 (final report). NCJ-100435, 5/861983 (final report). NCJ-96459. 10/851982 (final report). NCJ-92820, 11/841973-82 trends, NCJ-90541. 9/831980 (final report). NCJ-84015. 4/831979 (final report). NCJ-76710. 12/81

BJS special reports:Violent crime by strangers and nonstrangers,

NCJ-103702. 1/87Preventing domestic violence against women,

NCJ-102037. 8/86Crime prevention measures, NCJ-100438.3/86The use of weapons in committing crimes,

NCJ-99643. 1/86Reporting crimes to the police, NCJ-99432.

12/85Locating city, suburban, and rural crime, NCJ-

99535. 12/85The risk of violent crime, NCJ-97119. 5/85The economic cost of crime to victims, NCJ-

93450. 4/84Family violence, NCJ-93449, 4/84

BJS bulletins:Households touched by crime. 1985,

NCJ-101685. 6/86Criminal victimization, 1984, NCJ-98904.10/85The crime of rape, NCJ-96777. 3/85Household burglary, NCJ-96021. 1/85Criminal victimization, 1983, NCJ-93869. 6/84Violent crime by strangers, NCJ-80829. 4/82Crime and the elderly, NCJ-79614. 1/82Measuring crime, NCJ-75710, 2/81Teenage victims, NCJ-103138. 12/86

Response to screening questions in the NationalCrime Survey (BJS technical report). NCJ-97624, 7/85

Victimization and fear of crime: Worldperspectives, NCJ-93872, 1/85

The National Crime Survey: Working papers.vol. I: Current and historical perspectives.NCJ-75374. 8/82vol. II: Methological studies, NCJ-90307. 12/84

Issues in the measurement of victimization,NCJ-74682. 10/81

The cost of negligence: Losses from preventablehousehold burglaries, NCJ-53527. 12/79

Rape victimization in 26 American cities,NCJ-55878, 8/79

Criminal victimization in urban schools,NCJ-56396, 8/79

An introduction to the National Crime Survey,NCJ-43732, 4/78

Local victim surveys: A review of the issues,NCJ-39973. 8/77

Parole and probationBJS bulletins:

Probation and parole 1984, NCJ-1001812/86

Setting prison terms, NCJ-76218. 8/83

Parole in the U.S., 1980 and 1981, NCJ-873873/86

Characteristics of persons entering paroleduring 1978 and 1979, NCJ-87243. 5/83

Characteristics of the parole population, 1978,NO66479. 4/81

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

CorrectionsBJS bulletins and special reports:

Probation and parole 1985. NCJ-103683. 1/87Population density in State prisons, NCJ-103204.

12/86Capital punishment, 1985, NCJ-102742. 11/86State and Federal prisoners. 1925-85,

NCJ-102494. 11/86Prisoners in 1985, NCJ-101384, 6/86Prison admission and releases. 1983.

NCJ-100582. 3/86Capital punishment 1984. NCJ-98399. 8/85Examining recidivism, NCJ-96501. 2/85Returning to prison, NCJ-95700. 11/84Time served in prison, NCJ-93924. 6/84

Historical corrections statistics in the U. S . 1850-1984, NCJ-102529. 3/87

Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions onDec. 31 , 1984, NCJ-103768. 3/87

Capital punishment 1984 (final). NCJ-99562. 5/86Capital punishment 1983 (final). NCJ-99561.4/86

1979 surveyol inmatesot Slatecorrectional facilitiesand 1979 census ot State correctional facilities:

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 ot /ails and survey ot /ail inmates.Jail inmates, 1984. NCJ-101094 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 iails.

vols I-IV. Northeast. North Cential South West.NCJ-72279-72282 12/81

Profile ol jail inmates, 1978, NCJ-65412. 2/81

Children in custody:Public juvenile facilities. 1985 (bulletin}

NCJ-102457 10/861982-83 census of juvenile detention and

correctional facilities. NCJ-101686 9/86

Expenditure and employmentBJS Bulletins:

Justice expenditure and employment:1983, NCJ-101776 7/861982, 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

CourtsBJS bulletins:

The growth ol appeals: 1973-83 trends.NCJ-96381. 2/85

Case filings in State courts 1983. NCJ-9511110/84

BJS special reports:Felony case-processing time, NCJ-101985.8/86Felony 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

survey, NCJ-94630. 8/84Habeas corpus, NCJ-92948. 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-98326. 9/851 st edition, NCJ-62320. 9/80

State court organization 1980, NCJ-76711. 7/82A cross-city comparison of felony case

processing, NCJ-55171, 7/79

Federal offenses and offenders8JS special reports:

Pretrial release and misconduct, NCJ-961321/85

BJS bulletins:Bank robbery. NCJ-94463. 8/84Federal drug law violators, NCJ-92692. 2/84Federal justice statistics, NCJ-80814. 3/82

Privacy and securityComputer crime:BJS special reports:

Electronic fund transfer frraud, NCJ-96666 3/85Electronic fund transfer and crime,

NCJ-92650. 2/84Electronic fund transfer fraud, NCJ-100461

4/86Computer security techniques.

NCJ-84049. 9/82Electronic fund transfer systems and crime,

NCJ-83736. 9/82Expert witness manual. NCJ-77927 9/81Criminal justice resource manual. NCJ-61550

12/79Privacy and security of criminal historyinformation:

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

Criminal justice information policy:Criminal justice "hot" files, NCJ-101850 12/86Data quality policies and procedures:

Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference.NCJ-101849. 12/86

Crime control and criminal records IBJS 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

Victim/witness legislation: An overview.NCJ-94365 12/84

Information policy and crime control strategies(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 bulletin)NCJ-80836 6/82

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

GeneralBJS bulletins and special reports

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

NCJ-102867 11/86Police employment and expendituie.

NCJ-100117. 2/86Tracking offenders: The child victim. NCJ-

95785. 12/84The severity of crime. NCJ-92326 1/84The American response to crime: An overview

of criminal justice systems. NCJ-91936.12/83Tracking offenders, NCJ-91572. 11/83Victim and witness assistance: New State

laws and the system's response, NCJ-879345/83

1986 directory of automated criminal justiceinformation systems, NCJ-102260 1/87 S20domestic

Crime and justice facts, 1985. NCJ-100757. 5/86National survey of crime severity. NCJ-96017.

10/85Criminal victimization of District of Columbia

residents and Capitol Hill employees. 1982-83.NCJ-97982.Summary, NCJ-98567: 9/85

The DC crime victimization study implementation.NCJ-98595.9/85.S7 60 domestic/S9 20 Canadi-an/51280 foreign

The DC household victimization survey data base:Documentation, NCJ-98596. S6 40/S8 40/S11User manual, NCJ-98597. S8 20/S9 80/S1 2 80

How to gain access to BJS data (brochure)BC-000022. 9/84

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

Report to the nation on crime and justice:The data. NCJ-87068. 10/83

Dictionary of criminal justice data terminology:2nd ed . NCJ-76939. 2/82

Technical standards for machine-readable datasupplied to BJS, NCJ-75318. 6/81

See order formon last page

U.S. Department of JusticeBureau of Justice Statistics

AutomatedFingerprintIdentificationSystems:TechnologyandPolicyIssuesApril 1987NCJ-104342

By

THOMAS F. WILSONDirectorInformation Law & Policy ProgramsSEARCH Group, Inc.

and

PAUL L. WOODARDSenior CounselInformation Law & Policy ProgramsSEARCH Group, Inc.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEBUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS

STEVEN R. SCHLESINGERDirector

JOSEPH M. BESSETTEDeputy Director for Data Analysis

BENJAMIN H. RENSHAW, IHDeputy Director for Managementand Intergovernmental Affairs

CAROL G. KAPLANChiefFederal Statistics andInformation Policy Branch

PREPARED BYSEARCH GROUP, INC.

GARY D. McALVEYChairman

GARY R. COOPERExecutive Director

Report of work performed under BJS Grant No. 82-BJ-CX-0010 awarded to SEARCH Group, Inc., 925 Secret RiverDrive, Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this docu-ment do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of theBureau of Justice Statistics or the U. S. Department of Justice.

ii Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems

Preface

Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) technology hasprovided law enforcement with an invaluable tool for positive ident-ification. 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 productiv-ity is attended by increased accuracy rates and increased detection ofalias usage. Injaientfingej^rint identification, where a crime sceneyields no evidence~other than the suspect's fingerprints, AFIS now canmake computerizedjmiparisons with file prints in minutes, providinga capability that would have takenJiundre3s_Qf hours of manual search-ing 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 latentfingerprint processing, the impact it is having on law enforcementcapability, and its potential impact on information law and policy.

(R.

STEVEN R. SCHLESINGERDirector

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems Hi

Contents

Introduction, 1

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

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

Impact on law enforcement capability, 12Ten-print processing, 12Latent print processing, 13Fingerprint lifting techniques, 13

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

Policy and legal issues, 18Organizational impact, 18Impact on identification bureau

workloads, 18Fingerprinting of juveniles, 18Retention and subsequent use of

applicant fingerprints, 19

Exhibits

1: Fingerprint Card With Classifications, 42: Minutiae Detection, 93: Enhanced Ridge Tracing, 104: Minutiae Patterns, 115: Latent Fingerprint Comparison, 12

IV Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems

Introduction

^

Automated Fingerprint Identi-fication Systems (AFIS) technologyis creating a revolutionary impact onlaw enforcement capability to appre-hend 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 "Night_Stalker" case was broken by a latentprintjifted from I stoleh~car7~ATThe"

^California Department of Justice, theprint was entered into the state's newAFIS, and the hit on alleged serialkiller Richard Ramirez was made in amatter of minutes. The first latentprint run against San FranciscoPolice Department's AFIS data basehad been the subject of thousands ofhours of manual search methods overan eight-year period. The print be-longed to the killer of Miriam Slamo-vich, a World War Ifconcentrationcamp survivor, who was shot pointblank in the face by an intruder in herhome in 1978. Her assailant left afull, perfect print at the scene, butwith no suspect and no other clues,there was little chance of making amatch on existing file prints byconventional manual searchingmethods. Police detectives doggedlypursued the case, however, and whenthe AFIS system was implementedin 1985, it matched the print in six

'TSnutesi_51anioidch!sjlleged_killerwas in custody the same day.

With the new generation ofAFIS technology, law enforcementagencies around the country arebreaking cases that previously wouldhave gone unsolved. Law enforce-ment officials are saying that AFIStechnology finally 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 greatestimpact of any technological develop-ment on law enforcement effective-ness since the introduction of com-puters to widespread use in the crim-inal justice system in the 1960's.

The heart of AFIS technology isthe ability of new computer equip-ment to scan and digitize finger-prints, to automatically create aspatial geometry or map of theunique ridge patterns of the prints,and to translate this spatial relation-ship into a binary code for the com-puter's searching algorithm. Makingincredibly fine distinctions amongliterally thousands or millions ofprints, an AFIS computer can com-pare a new fingerprint with massivecollections of file prints in a matterof minutes and can make identifi-cations that previously were possibleonly through a time-consuming anderror-prone process of manual com-parison. This report is intended toprovide a brief introductory look atthis new technology. It will explainin non-technical terms how AFIStechnology works, the present statusof AFIS implementation in theUnited States, and the impact thetechnology is having on law enforce-ment processes pr.d other componentsof the criminal justice system. Italso will identify a number of policyand legal issues related to the imple-mentation and operation of thisrevolutionary new technology.

Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems

Traditional fingerprint methodology

To fully appreciate how theAFIS technology works and the im-pact it is having on fingerprint pro-cessing, it is necessary to understandhow fingerprints are processed in themanual classification systems now inuse in most law enforcement agen-cies and the role of fingerprint identi-fication in the criminal justice pro-cess.

Manual classification systems

Based upon the unique and un-changing patterns of ridge detail oneach individual's fingers, law enforce-ment agencies throughout the worldhave established fingerprint compar-ison 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 mostextensive files are rolled inked im-pressions maintained on ten-printcards filed according to some classi-fication system. Typically, thesefingerprint cards are prepared at thetime of an individual's arrest and areused to verify his identity and todetermine whether he has a priorcriminal record. Tenjprjrit_cardsalsoare often submittecfln connection ~NvjgêliairremploymenToTTIcensingappBcations^determine whether theapplicant hl»sTarilruTiaTrec^raThatwouftHegaMy bai liiiirfrom" beinghired or obtaining the license.

The other general type of fin-gerprint records are so-called "latent"fingerprints developed as a result ofcriminal investigations. These printsgenerally are obtained at crime scenesor from documents or material relatedto the crimes. Latent fingerprints de-veloped in this manner usually occuras isolated single finger impressions

or as fragmentary parts of two orthree adjacent fingers. They are oftenof 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 fingerprint card already on file.Manual comparison and eliminationof prints is a time-consuming andexpensive process. As file sizes in-crease, such searches become moredifficult until, at some point, a suc-cessful match becomes improbable,if not humanly impossible. Fromits inception until recent years, there-fore, fingerprint identification metho-dology has been predicated upon thenecessity of dividing file prints intoclassification categories based upondistinctive ridge patterns to eliminatethe necessity of searching the entirefile. (Exhibit 1, page 4, shows astandard FBI fingerprint card withboth Henry and NCIC classifica-tions.)

The first successful fingerprintclassification system was developedat the turn of the century by SirEdward Henry, an Englishman whoserved as Inspector General of Policein India and as Commissioner ofLondon's Metropolitan Police. TheHenry System, which, with improve-ments, remains the predominantclassification system in use today,classified fingerprints by assigningeach finger to one of two primaryfingerprint pattern types—whorl ornon-whorl. The fingerprints wererepresented as a unit rather than asindividual fingers by assigning toeach ten-print set an alphanumericdesignation reflecting the patterncharacteristics of all ten fingers.Thus, two pattern types times tenfingers yielded 210 or 1,024 classifi-cation categories into which to sub-divide fingerprints.

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 fingerprint records. However,considering that the FBI now main-tains approximately 23 million crim-inal fingerprints and the state ofCalifornia maintains approximately7.5 million fingerprint cards in itsstate repository, it is obvious thatthe basic Henry System would notwork for today's file sizes. As aresult, the history of fingerprint tech-nology development until very re-cently 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 class-ification category has decreased from25 percent to 6 percent Neverthe-less, 6 percent of the FBI's files isstill a very large number to search.In addition, as increasing file sizeshave necessitated more complex rulesfor subclassification, human judg-ment has come more into play, withthe result that particular techniciansmight classify fingerprints differ-ently. Misclassification, of course,results in the risk of missed identi-fications.

For latent print searching, theHenry System's inherent limitationis that it classifies the ten fingers asa unit rather than as separate finger-prints. A single latent print cannotbe filed or searched as a unit In man-ual classification systems, therefore,if the results of comparing latentprints with the prints of known sus-pects are negative, the latent im-pressions usually are filed for futurereference in an "unsolved latent" file.

Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems

Manual Fingerprint processing

As noted, fingerprint cards aresubmitted to identification bureaus orcriminal record repositories 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 jus-tice purposes, the process beginswith a so-called "name search." Theindividual's name, date of birth, sexand other identifying information aretaken from the incoming fingerprintcard and searched against a mastername index. In most of the states,this part of the search process is fullyor at least partially automated. If 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 thisrelatively quick and inexpensiveway—name search verified by man-ual fingerprint comparison. Statis-tical information developed recentlyby the state of California1 indicatedthat approximately 47 percent ofarrested persons are found to have

prior criminal records through theprocess of identification by the namesearch and verification by fingerprintcomparison.

If the results of the name searchon an arrest fingerprint card are nega-tive, the fingerprints are classified bya trained technician and a "technicalsearch" is performed to ensure thatthe individual has not escaped identifi-cation by using an alias or as a resultof clerical error in conducting thename search. Manual technicalsearches are extremely time-consum-ing and expensive. Although theclassification of the fingerprintslimits the search to a portion of theentire file, it is still necessary tocompare the search card with all ofthe file cards within that classifica-tion, plus additional cards on eitherside of the classification to compen-sate for possible classification errorsin the search print or file prints, orboth. In large files, this can entail areview of hundreds of file cards. But,for criminal prints, these searchesmay be quite productive. Accordingto the California statistics notedabove, 47 percent of arrestees areidentified by name search. By con-ducting a technical search of the en-tire file, an additional eight percent ofthose arrested will be discovered tohave criminal records, bringing thetotal to 55 percent2

* JNoncnmuial ("applicant") fin-gerprints submitted for employmentand licensing purposes yield muchdifferent results. Statistics developedby the FBI3 indicate that only about

_fiyepercent of employment andlicensing applicants are identified ashaving previous criminal records.An additional U percent of the ap-plicants are identified through tech-nical searches, bringing the total to6.5 percent This means that 95percent of all applicant fingerprintcards must be classified and manuallysearched (i.e., those not identified byname search), and that the hit rate onthem will only be one or two per-cent It is hardly surprising, there-fore, that most state record reposi-tories process noncriminal justicecards by name search only, regardingtechnical searches as unjustifiablebecause of their high cost and lowproductivity.

As noted earlier, latent finger-prints cannot be classified andsearched under the Henry System.Thus, latent prints usually aresearched only against the file printsof known suspects and, if there is nomatch, the prints are placed in anunsolved latent file. 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 re-sultant hits are referred to as "coldmakes."

^Tracking Juvenile Recidivists: ThreeOptions for Creating Statewide, Long-itudinal Records of Juvenile Offenders,California Department of Justice, Bur-eau of Criminal Statistics and SpecialServices, August 1985, pp. 36-37.

2ibid, pp. 36-37.

->A Study to Identify Criminal JusticeInformation Law, Policy and Man-agement Practices Needed to Accom-modate Access to and Use of III forNoncriminal Justice Purposes, pre-pared for the FBI by SEARCH Group,Inc., September 1984, p. 58.

Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems 3

Exhibit 1Fingerprint Card With Classifications

TECHNICAL SECTIONTRAILING MATERIAL

fTATI USAOf

Rev. Oct. 1977)

urt AMBMATMNU ' I L B

9-13-

Drugs-Adulterated 5501

Vi9t OR PRINT ALL INFORMATION IN BLACKkAIT »*Mt NAM '"MT »**« WMLI «

9-13-77

T75

938-5849WC' IL -.tcutiry MO. ioC

-Chief

£31 LEAVE BLANK

B-15

Police Departmentocum. TexasJi

iifi

dm las.' SLMl 5'11" 145 Brn Blk Fleet. La.

X 47

99 UOOO

Irlrl7 STdTlPlil / \t*\ i^ClC CLASS - FPC

1311 I J I lOl I U.

A typical fingerprint card with rolled inked impressions, along with an extended HenryClassification and NCIC Classification.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

4 Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems

How AFIS technology works

Digital image processing

What has revolutionized finger-print identification technology in the1980's is the ability of newly-developed computer equipment toscan fingerprint impressions and auto-matically extract identifying character-istics in sufficient detail to enable thecomputer's searching and matchingalgorithms to distinguish a singlefingerprint from thousands or evenmillions of file prints that have beensimilarly scanned and stored in digitalform in the computer's memory.This concept of computerized digitalimage processing has eliminated thenecessity for time-consuming anderror-prone 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 files. Thus, it hassignificantly improved the efficiencyof the criminal identification processand has added an important new crime-solving capability to the law enforce-ment arsenal.

Fingerprint scanning

What is perhaps most extra-ordinary about these new systems isthe sophistication and intricacy of thescanning and mapping algorithms,which convert the unique spatial re-lationship of a fingerprint's ridge end-ings and ridge bifurcations, called"InuiuHae points," and additionalridge direction and ridge_contour in-formation into a digitized representa-tion of the fingerprint 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 allothers 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 thesystem.', are able to work with only aportion of the minutiae map and_£anscore matches with an average ofor^l^jo2Qjninutiae-points. Onelaw enforcement agency reported a hiton a fragmentary print which yieldedonly eight minutiae points.

In preparing fingerprints to besearched, the system allows the tech-nician to enhance the prints, correct-ing for breaks in the skeletal pattern,cuts or breaks in the ridges caused byscars or burns. The system can evenprovide an evaluation of the qualityof the print, disqualifying inferiorprints. This print enhancement capa-bility is especially important insearching latent prints, since it en-ables an experienced technician to fillin missing or blurred portions ofprint fragments to produce moreuseful images for the computer towork with. (Exhibit 3, page 9,shows the computer enhanced ridgetracing on a latent print)

Computer searching

Equally sophisticated are thesearch algorithms used in the newAFIS systems to convert theminutiae data and ridge direction andcontour data extracted by the scannerinto a unique binary code that thecomputer can use in searching itsfiles. The search algorithm deter-mines the degree of correlationamong the location, angle and rela-tionship of the minutiae of the searchprint and the minutiae patterns of fileprints. (Exhibit 4, page 10, showsthe plotting or mapping of the rela-tionship of minutiae.) The computer

is not actually comparing fingerprintimages in its search; it is conductinga mathematical search that will pro-vide 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 com-ponent 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. As file 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-printsearch (rolled print to rolled printcomparison) in a file of under500,000 is a matter 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 amatch has produced a hit At theconclusion of the search, the systemreads out the candidate list, the num-ber of which is defined by the tech-nician as a search parameter. Basedon parameters set in the scoringsystem, the score of the candidate inthe number one position, if highenough, indicates that the match isprobably a hit. If 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 op-timal 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 file print, along with fin-gerprint classification and search can-didate scores.) For the 10-printsearch, fingerprint experts are re-portingjhatjnjpproximately 98percent of the prints that are matched,the candidate's score met the thres-hold and wasln the large number_oneposition.4 This level of accuracy,whichlTmade possible by the num-ber of minutiae available from rolledprints, eliminates the necessity ofcomparing the search prints with thefile prints of the other candidates onthe list. If all of the candidates fallbelow 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 (Cal-ID) policy requires comparison of thesearch prints with the file prints ofthe candidate in the number one posi-tion if there is a sizable differentialbetween the scores of the number oneand two positions. For latent

4Proceedings of a SEARCH NationalConference on Automated Identifi-cation Systems. Sacramento: SEARCHGroup, Inc. (forthcoming). The con-ference was conducted in Kansas City,Missouri, February 26-28, 1986, andincluded managers of operational Auto-mated Fingerprint Identification Sys-tems, who were in general agreementon performance capabilities of newAFIS technology.

searches, where there are fewer minu-tiae to work with, comparisons maybe made on as many as three to fivecandidates. Again, as a policy mat-ter, Cal-ID checks only die numberone candidate for verification in prop-erty crimes, but checks up to threecandidates for person crimes. Cal-ID'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 crimes.

Finally, it is important to notethat an AFIS makes no final deci-sions on identity. While the scoremay virtually guarantee a hit, onlythe trained eye of the fingerprint tech-nician will make the final verifica-tion. The use of the fingerprint asevidence in court requires the finger-print technician to prove, by a com-parison of measurements and pointsof minutiae on the latent and fileprints, that the prints match. Forverification, an AFIS assists but doesnot replace the fingerprint expert.

Image retrieval

The latest technological devel-opment in AFIS is image storage andretrieval. It is essentially a by-product of the initial conversionprocess by which the search print isread into the system in digital form.New image storage and retrieval tech-nology allows the digitized finger-print images used to plot the minu-tiae to be stored on an optical diskand retrieved at a later time for com-paring candidate lists with the searchprints. It allows the digitized searchprints and the retrieved image of thecandidate file prints to appear side byside on the operator's screen for com-parison. This gives the technician

the distinct advantage of not havingto leave the terminal to retrieve theprints. Without image storage andretrieval, the process entails going tothe hard-copy file of rolled prints tocollect the prints of candidates to becompared with the search prints. Asa less costly alternative to image re-trieval, some law enforcement agen-cies use microfilm and microfichereaders to speed the verification pro-cess.

Sharing of AFIS data

A question frequently asked iswhether AFIS computers can com-municate with AFIS computers inother jurisdictions. The answer isthat if they are from the same vendor,that vendor has the technical capa-bility to allow the two systems toshare data. If the AFIS computersare not from the same vendor, thenthe answer is no, the computerscannot "talk" to each other directlybecause the algorithms and commun-ications protocols are different Thetechnology is incompatible simplybecause the computers of the variousvendors were designed differently.Thus, one AFIS computer cannotsearch the files of another AFIScomputer of a different manufacturer.

Rather than seeking compati-bility among AFIS computers ofdifferent vendors, AFIS technology ismoving toward the development of anational standard for the interchangeof fingerprint data and images. Sincean AFIS computer works by havingan input device read and digitize arolled fingerprint image, what thecomputer needs from another juris-diction is digitized fingerprint imagedata and personal identification in-formation, or demographics, to limitthe search. Simply stated, an AFIScomputer just needs good fingerprintimages 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 ofFingerprint Information" (NBS/ICST-1-1986), which was developed by theInstitute for Computer Sciences andTechnology of the National Bureauof Standards (NBS). Most observersbelieve that this NBS standard forelectronically transferring fingerprintimages will pave the way for thesharing of fingerprint data among lawenforcement agencies in a form thatcan be utilized by all AFIS systems.

Another method for sharing datais facsimile technology. Facsimile-reproduced fingerprints represent alow-cost method of transmittingfingerprint images from remote sitesto the AFIS computer. The criticalquestions 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 ofgood quality inked prints can meetsearch accuracy requirements.

The future for sharing fingerprintdata 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.


Exhibit 2Minutiae Detection

Minutiae detection shown by white markings (shown in color on computer screen)at ridge endings and bifurcations.

Source: North American MORPHO Systems, Inc.


Exhibit 3Enhanced Ridge Tracing

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

Source: Identification Security Systems, Inc.


Exhibit 4Minutiae Patterns

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

Source: NEC Information Systems, Inc.


Exhibit 5Latent Fingerprint Comparison

LftTENT CASE VERIFICATION

Case:

Rank1234567

913000116109

File IS712000001161701000001061701000001050811000051962123123123000111000000239011000051391

:X

ClassificationUUUyuaw

RRWuwuw

uuuuuuu

uuuuuuw

uuyyyuu

uyuywuu~

uuuuwRR

yuyuuRw

. -uu14UU

w

y - 22 -i I €S-£13?

U iSSU «2*U 802

T "-:- -' l *$$§<&

F#33ij

i

*

Computerized 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.


Impact on law enforcement capability

What kind of impact will thenew AFIS technology have on thefunctions of law enforcement? Firstand foremost, it seems certain thatthe technology will significantly in-crease 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 newly-rolled prints with rolled file prints—is the bread and butter of both crim-inal and noncriminal identification.As 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 prevail-ing practice in agencies with AFISsystems. Nationally, some 50 to 55percent of name searches result inidentifications. With manual sys-tems, some agencies stop here; if nohit is produced, they do not conduct atechnical fingerprint search becausesuch searches consume too muchmanpower. The majority of agen-cies, however, conduct a manual tech-nical fingerprint search when there isno hit on the name search. Manuallyclassifying and comparing finger-prints requires a significant invest-ment of time and people. With anAFIS, those remaining 45 to 50percent of incoming fingerprint cardsthat do not produce a hit on the namesearch can undergo a fast, efficientand accurate technical fingerprintsearch.

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

rate ranging from 60 to 74 percent.5

(Accuracy in fingerprint terminologyis a measure of the ability of the sys-tem to locate a print that is in thedata base. Failure to locate a print inthe file can be attributable to a vari-ety of factors, including errors in dataentry, classification, filing, and com-parison, 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 bound-ary, a 74 percent manual accuracyrate is an impressive figure in onesense, given the vast numbers of fin-gerprint records in criminal historyfiles; but it still means that one infour potential fingerprint identifica-tions is missed. The AFIS technol-ogy has changed these numbers dra-matically. In agencies that have im-plemented AFIS systems, the accur-acy rate of ten-print fingerprintsearches 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 theAutomated Fingerprint IdentificationSeminar, University of TennesseeSpace Institute, April 15-17, 1985),p. 28. In a national survey Lindh andFerris found a 60-65 percent manualaccuracy rate. Inspector Ken Moses,Crime Scene Investigation Unit, SanFrancisco Police Department, con-ducted a national survey in 1979 andfound a 74 percent manual accuracyrate. Experts agree that the range inpercentage is largely attributable tothe degree of thoroughness of the ac-tual comparisons of the suspect printwith the file prints.

less .În the first few months ofoperation, the AFIS system inBalti-rnore^Maryland identified 525 arres-tegsjis ^ J ^ ^co~Poiice Department estimates tKata^jnanyjsJIê jmi tofar res tees lieahoiit their names anjljHher identify-ingjnfnrmarion, hnf still are identi-fied by the Departmen?s~AFiS~sys-~tem.

ifis not surprising that the in-creased speed and accuracy of AFISequipment produces greatly increasedefficiency in state-level ten-printfunctions that must accommodatelarge volumes of searches againstmassive files. California officialshave reported that the California De-partment of Justice's CAL-ID state-wide AFIS system in its early stagesof operation has achieved a produc-tivity increase of 300 to 400 percentin the processing of ten-print cards.The system is now processing 1,000to 1,400 fingerprint cards a day using12 people. In a manual mode, thatlevel of production would require anestimated 46 to 50 people. CAL-IDofficials project an eventual savingsof 50 percent reduction in the costsof ten-print processing, which is onthe order of $2 million annually.7

Proceedings of a SEARCH NationalConference on Automated FingerprintIdentification Systems, op. cit. Forexample, Peggy A. James, LatentPrint Examiner, Houston Police De-partment, reported that in its sixyears of operation, Houston's AFIShas 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.

^California Identification System CAL-ID 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 files of criminal and noncrim-inal ten-print cards, is the crime-solving function of identificationbureaus. As stated earlier, manualsearches of latent prints are exceed-ingly time-consuming and costly andyield little results even when thereare suspects and other information tolimit the number of comparisons thatmust be made. Althoughai esti-mated 35 percent of crime scenesyield_usabT£latenFpnhts7very 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 More-over, most agencies will only con-duct manual latent searching whenthere are suspects or other informa-tion 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 fingers ofthousands or even millions of fileprints in a matter of minutes. Notsurprisingly, the impact of the tech-nology on latent print processing hasbeen phenomenal. In its first two

8P. Greenwood, J.M. Chaiken, J.Petersilia. The Criminal InvestigativeProcess. New York: D.C. Heath andCompany, 1977; pp. 162-165. Ofthe four cities examined in the study,three had approximately the samepercentage rate of identifications fromlatent prints: Miami, Florida had 9.0percent; Richmond, California had 9.9percent; and Los Angeles, Californiahad 9.1 percent. Washington, D.C.had 4.3 percent.

phases of development, CAL-IDentered 420,000 fingerprint cards intothe file that is used for latent search-ing. The file includes persons bornin 1950 or later who have been con-victed 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 thefile is fully implemented, the latentfile will contain 1.5 million recordsof individuals with felony convic-tions born 1940 and after. CAL-IDis now experiencing a hit rate of 15percent on latent searches and offi-cials project an increase in the hitrate to 18 percent. In its first year ofoperatiorvdie_San Francisco PoliceDepartment's AFJS system conducted5,514Jatent print searches and made1,001

P ^ r c e n ^ j ^ j j gOtthosfe-Cases, including_52 homi-cides, compared to 58 cases clearedthe^revious year on the basis oflatent_print identifications.

In Houston, 4,645 latent search-es have resulted in a hit rate of 13 percent, clearing over 600 cases that of-ficials say could not have been solvedany other way. One hit cleared 30cases 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 oper-ation, including one hit that clearedsome 40 burglaries.

Law enforcement officials be-lieve that the AFIS systems not onlyare helping to solve crimes that other-wise would not have been solved, butare putting chronic offenders in jailand halting repeat offenses^ By theend of fiscal year 1985. San Fran-cisco had convicted and sentencedover 900 burglars identified"by itsAFIS, which haTbeen jgedited as"aconributing_factor in the city's 26percent drop inTfurglariesT"

Fingerprint lifting techniques

The identification of latent printsby an AFIS begins at the crime scenewhere the fingerprints must be de-tected and developed. When a fingertouches an object, it leaves a residueof water, oils, salt, amino acids, andother chemicals. When detected, thecrime scene print will show the ridgepatterns and minutiae needed to makecomparisons with file prints. His-torically, however, finding and rais-ing 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 fingers. Before theadvent of today's AFIS technology,those hard to find 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 first chemicals that was enlistedto assist the dusting method was nin-hydrin, an oxidizing agent that colorsor stains the amino acids and makesvisible the ridge patterns. Ninhydrinworks effectively on surfaces such aspaper. Research is being conductedto use chemicals that will restoreamino acids to faint prints that havelost their moisture, thereby makingthem visible and usable.

9ibid, pp. 5-6.


One of the most recent and ef-fective chemicals enlisted in finger-print detection is cyanoacrylate,which is common household superglue. In its gaseous state, superglue's vapor attaches itself to finger-print chemicals, turns them white,and hardens them. It works well onfabric and plastic, which are materialsthat render dusting powder ineffec-tive. Until recently, cyanoacrylatetook too long to harden, sometimesup to thirty days. Now there are hard-ening catalysts, such as sodium hy-droxide, that reduce the developingprocess to 15 to 20 minutes. Superglue can be used at the crime scene ifthe 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 asautomobiles, 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 theautomobile. 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.An intense flood of green laser lightcan detect florescence in the chem-icals found in fingerprint residue,even in very small quantities. Ribo-flavin, along with other chemicals in

fingerprint residue, emits electromag-netic radiation that glows in laserlight An object flooded with thegreen light from argonion lasers willallow technicians wearing orangegoggles to see fingerprints not visi-ble to the naked eye. When printsare faint or blurred by other back-ground materials, florescence can beinduced by fiorescent powders andstains, thereby restoring the flores-cence needed to develop the print.The FBI employed a laser to detect afingerprint of a Nazi war criminal ona postcard; the print was 40 yearsold. Lasers are used mostly in thelaboratory because of their size, al-though smaller, more portable unitscurrently are being tested at crimescenes.

The fingerprint lifting techniquesof dusting powders, chemicals andlasers are complimentary, and are rou-tinely used in combinations, sinceone will detect prints where anothercannot. They are used in sequence,as well. For example, traditional car-bon dusting would be ineffectiveonce an object had been subjected tosuper glue. In the case of the Cali-fornia "Night Stalker," success wasachieved using both traditionalmethods and newer methods utilizingchemicals and lasers.

Photographic and telecommun-ications technologies are also beingused to lift and transmit prints to theAFIS. The Orange County Sheriff sand Coroner's Office is experiment-ing with a remote television cameralinked to telecommunications linesthat could allow an electronicallycaptured print to be transmitted di-rectly from the crime scene to Cal-ID. 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 tobe issued on a suspect in a matter ofminutes.

The advent of AFIS technologyand improved fingerprint detectionand developing techniques havebrought new life to crime sceneunits. As mentioned earlier, a latentprint with no other identifying in-formation had very little chance ofbeing matched by manual compar-ison. One crime scene investigatorin the San Francisco Police Depart-ment estimated that a manual searchof the 300,000 fingerprint cardswould take 33 years working eighthours a day, seven days a week. Sinvjilarly, a recent hit made in minuteson Cal-ID's AFIS would have taken67 years of manual searching. Thecrime scene units now know that ifthey can get the print, they have avery good chance of identification.The new technologies for liftingprints enhance that identificationpotential.


AFIS implementation

Considering the demonstratedeffectiveness of the AFIS technol-ogy, it is not surprising that imple-mentation of AFIS systems in lawenforcement agencies throughout thecountry is progressing rapidly. Dueto the high cost of the systems, how-ever, it is also not surprising thatimplementation has been confined tothe federal level (the FBI), state identi-fication bureaus and large cities andmetropolitan areas. At the federaland state levels, acquisition and oper-ation of AFIS equipment can be jus-tified primarily by increased effici-ency in processing the large numbersof ten-print cards, criminal and non-criminal, that are submitted by lawenforcement agencies throughout thestate. At the city and county level,on the other hand, AFIS systems arejustified primarily because of thecrime-solving potential of the latentprint processing capability.

The FBI system

The FBI's AFIS system was de-veloped as part of a long-term pro-gram begun in the early 1970's toautomate the functions of the Identi-fication Division, which houses theFBI's criminal and noncriminal fin-gerprint files and criminal historyrecords for federal and state offenders.The Identification Division conductscriminal history record searches forfederal and non-federal law enforce-ment agencies throughout the coun-try and for federal and state noncrim-inal justice agencies that are author-ized by federal or state law to requestcriminal history searches in connec-tion 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 file used for ten-print searching contains approximate-ly 18 million fingerprint records ofoffenders born in 1929 or later. Cur-rently, 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 statedthat the accuracy level of the systemis better than 99 percent.

The FBI is currently in the pro-cess of developing and testing anautomated system for searching latentfingerprints. An automated imageretrieval system is also under devel-opment These systems are expectedto be operational by the end of thisdecade.

State-level systems

At the time this report was pre-pared, 18 states had installed or werein the process of acquiring or install-ing AFIS systems in their state ident-ification bureaus. Of these, the sys-tems in Alaska, California and Minn-esota are operational and Colorado,Indiana, Illinois and Massachusettshave purchased systems and are in theprocess of installing them. Virginiaand Tennessee have selected vendorsand expect system installation to be-gin very soon. Six other states, Dela-ware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,North Carolina and Washington,have begun the procurement processand Arizona, Pennsylvania and NewYork 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 implementationof AFIS systems within the next fewyears. State officials in Idaho, Mon-tana, Utah and Wyoming are explor-ing the possibility of implementinga regional system to be shared by

those four states. Massachusettsofficials are discussing arrangementsfor 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 fingerprint identification sys-tems. In addition to the central siteat the California Department of Jus-tice's facility in Sacramento, CAL-BDwill feature a statewide automatedidentification network that will pro-vide law enforcement agenciesthroughout California with remoteterminal access for performing com-puterized fingerprint searches and forretrieving fingerprint images forscreen display or hard-copy printout.

The central facility includes thecapability of conducting automatedsearches of the master name index aswell as automated ten-print and latentprint searches. The remote networkwill enable sheriffs and police depart-ments anywhere in the state to per-form ten-print searches on persons incustody and will enable larger juris-dictions to input fingerprint minutiaedata to conduct remote cold searcheson latent prints from crime scenes.Smaller local jurisdictions will beable to receive fingerprint images toverify name search identifications andfor comparison with the fingerprintsof known criminal suspects, but theywill not be able to input fingerprintminutiae data to conduct cold search-es on latent prints. California alsowill 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 will havetheir own automated identificationdata bases containing fingerprints of


persons with criminal or applicantrecords in their geographical areas.They will also be able to supportlocal networks to permit other lawenforcement agencies in their areas toaccess their data bases as well as thestate data bases.

As mentioned earlier, Californiahas already realized significant pro-ductivity increases and cost savingsassociated with the processing of ten-print cards. In addition, officials es-timate that the remote access network

'; will make it possible for local agen-j cies to conduct over 50,000 latent- searches each year, resulting in the

identification of some 7,500 sus-pects. 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 ofAFIS systems to solve crimes andfacilitate the arrest and conviction 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 depart-ments have implemented systems andmany others plan to acquire AFIScapability either independently or aspart of the statewide systems nowbeing implemented. At the time thisreport was prepared, AFIS systemswere operational in Baltimore, Mary-land; the District of Columbia; Hous-ton; Kansas City, Missouri; Miami;San Jose and San Francisco. In addi-tion, regional or cooperative systemsshared by several law enforcementagencies in large metropolitan areas

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 previoussection, city and county law enforce-ment 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 auto-mated fingerprint 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 tohave AFIS systems or at least accessto a state system have delayed plan-ning and acquisition activities oftheir own until it is clear what theirstate identification bureaus intend todo.

Operational system features

Although, as mentioned above,state-level systems tend to emphasizethe ten-print function and local sys-tems tend to emphasize the latentprint processing capability, all of thesystems installed thus far and all ofthose now being implemented haveboth ten-print and latent print pro-cessing capability. All of the sitesroutinely search incoming ten-printcards against the stored files of ten-print cards—that is, standard arrest

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 willfind the matching fingerprints in ex-cess of 98 percent of the time. Sincefile storage space is expensive andfile conversion—entering the exist-ing file of ten-print cards into thesystem—is both time-consuming andexpensive, virtually all of the siteshave elected to enter only a finger orthumb from each hand into the file tobe used for ten-print searching. Vir-tually all sites also have elected toutilize a year-of-birth cutoff date forconverting existing fingerprint files.Commonly, only prints of personsborn in 1940 or later are entered.This results in considerable cost sav-ings while sacrificing little in theeffectiveness of the system, sincemany experts estimate that 90 per-cent or more of criminal activity iscommitted by persons 40 years old oryounger. Florida's AFIS system willutilize a "day one" approach, enteringrecords into the system based on newarrests, because its present fingerprintfiles are stored on microfilm and arenot suitable for conversion.

All of the sites also search in-coming latent prints against a file often-prints—conventional crime sceneprocessing. Here, again, some of thesites have elected to enter only se-lected parts of their existing ten-printfiles into the data base to be used forlatent searching. Caltfornia'.LPhased

jljentenn£.ojily_CDJWjciedjfieJoris hornin 1960 or later. Interestingly, if theaccused ' Night Stalker^ killer/rapisthadbeen born only a few monthsearik^hisfingerprints^ would not

Jwve_beejynjhÂFISLdata_basewhen his latent print was lifted from

10ibid, p. 14.


a stolen car. However, he wouldhave 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 fingerprints entered into the file tobe used for latent searching. Califor-niahas also elected to ..enter only"eightT^^frojtn_each fingerprintcardT omitting the_Utfle fingers be-cause hTts^n them are so rare.

Although most of the systemsnow in operation do not include im-age storage and retrieval capability,since the technology is very new andwas not available when some of thesystems were installed, virtually allof those now being implemented in-clude this capability as an integralpart of the system despite its highcost. As pointed out earlier, this cap-ability permits the images of thesearch print and candidate file 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. It also makes itpossible to provide remote access tothe system and remote transmissionof digital fingerprint information.

The technology makes it possi-ble to search new latent printsagainst the unsolved latent file, butfew of the sites are doing this. Al-though the capability of identifyingpatterns of related crimes can be use-ful occasionally, most agencies havenot been able to justify the costs ofthis capability with the limitedbenefits derived from it.


Policy and legal issues

As is the case with the introduc-tion of any new and revolutionarytechnology, the implementation ofAFIS technology will raise new pol-icy issues and force the re-examina-tion of 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 of AFIS tech-nology may cause a shift in relation-ships 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 identi-fication and further the trend awayfrom the maintenance of fingerprintfiles and criminal history files 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 organizational structure support-ing fingerprint processing, particu-larly at the state level. While ten-print processing and latent print pro-cessing may be performed by thesame agency at the city level, thesetwo functions traditionally have beenseparate at the state level. The ten-print function is usually performedby 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 mostof the states that have implementedAFIS systems the systems have beenhoused in the bureaus of identifica-tion. This trend is likely to continueand may result in the gradual absorp-tion of the latent print function bythe criminal identification bureaus.

Impact on identificationbureau workloads

AFIS technology undoubtedlywill have a significant impact on theability of the state criminal recordbureaus 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 tothe point that many states have be-come unable to perform technicalfingerprint searches in all criminalcases and only a few states are able todo fingerprint searches for noncrimi-nal applications for employment andlicensing purposes. The AFIS tech-nology should result in significantimprovements in the efficiency andaccuracy of the criminal fingerprintfunction, reducing or even elimina-ting the number of offenders whoavoid association with their past crim-inal records by using aliases. Withrespect to noncjjminal_applications,the increjsed efficiency of AFIS tech-

jshould permit state repositor-tes to adopt policies requiring finger-print searches and positive identifica-tion in all cases in which records arereleased for noncriminal justice pur-poses.

In the past, the inability of thestate repositories to perform finger-print searches for employment andlicensing applications and the riskassociated with releasing records forsuch purposes based solely on namesearches have caused many state crim-inal justice officials to resist pro-posed new laws and policies author-izing criminal record searches foradditional employment and licensing 3?purposes. With the implementation Sof AFIS systems, this resistance may ^lessen. Indeed, state policymakersmay even encourage the trend towardwide££âb^rx^jrijminafrecordsfor noncriminal justice purposes,vie^mgjhejncome from feescharged for processing such applica-tions as an important source of fundsto support the implementation andoperation of the AFIS systems. Cali-fonujjnticipates that funds derivedfrom_ajurcharge added, to the fee forprocessing employment and licensingapplicafi5Hs"Wffi cover the~costs of"operating GAL-ID.

Fingerprinting of juveniles

The implementation of AFIStechnology may trigger a re-exam-ination of state laws and local poli-cies concerning the fingerprinting ofjuveniles and the uses that may bemade of juvenile fingerprints. At <present many state laws prohibit orrestrict the fingerprinting of juvenilesand impose restrictions on the useand disposition of those prints thatare 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 if they were adults. Com-monly the laws provide that finger-prints of juveniles may not be co-mingled with adult fingerprint filesand may not be placed in state centralrepositories or sent to any federalfingerprint repository. Some statesrequire that juvenile fingerprintsmust be returned or destroyed if 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 least if hehas established a clean record periodbeforehand.11

As pointed out earlier in thisreport, it has been estimated that fin- igerprints are left at the scenes ofmore than a third of all crimes, par-ticularly property crimes. New fin-gerprint-lifting technology makes itpossible to obtain usable prints inmany of these cases and the newAFIS technology makes it possibleto search these latent prints againstexisting files of fingerprints andidentify offenders even when no otherevidence is available to compile a listof suspects. Since statistics indicatethat many, perhaps most, propertycrimes are committed by juveniles, it

1 ^Criminal Justice Information Pol-icy: Privacy and Juvenile Justice Rec-ords, U.S. Department of Justice, Bur-eau of Justice Statistics, Washington,D.C., 1982, pp. 32-34.

is apparent that the unavailability ofjuvenile fingerprints or the inabilityto search crime scene latent printsagainst existing juvenile fingerprintfiles will mean that the full crime-solving potential of the AFIS tech-nology cannot be realized. This con-sideration may result in a re-evalua-tion of existing policies related to thefingerprinting of juveniles. Minne-sota's system now includes juvenilepHnTs. andXiSuîng of juvenileprints in St. Paul, Minnesota's database indicated that although juvenileprints constituted _only about 3.5 per-cent of the AFIS data base, they ac-couffted7or_53 percentjofall latenthitstmost-of_which_were related topropertyjaimfis. 12

Retention and subsequent useof applicant fingerprints

The AFIS technology has alsomade it feasible and productive tosearch noncriminal fingerprints ac-companying applications for employ-ment or licensing against files of un-solved latent prints and to search newlatent prints against existing files ofapplicant fingerprints. This practicemay raise legal issues in some juris-dictions, since courts may concludethat the fingerprint subject's rightsare violated when fingerprints sub-mitted for a specific purpose—a non-criminal search—are retained and used

12Source: Sergeant Joseph Corcoran,St. Paul, Minnesota Police Depart-ment, Summary of the First HundredLatent Hits in the Maffin System, StPaul, 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 consti-tutionally objectionable, but thatretaining the prints once the initialqualifications decision is made wouldviolate the fingerprint subject's pri-vacy rights. Other courts havereached contrary conclusions, how-ever. A California state court and afederal district court in Louisianahave upheld the constitutionality oflocal ordinances requiring workers incertain occupations to register withthe local police and be fingerprintedfor the purpose of assisting the po-lice in controlling crime problemsthought to be associated with transi-ents employed in these occupations.In the California case,14 decided in1970, the registrant was already asuspect in a rape case in which latentprints had been obtained from thecrime scene. The fingerprints ob-tained when he subsequently regis-tered in order to be employed locallyas a bartender were matched with thelatent prints and he was arrested andcharged with the rape and a relatedsexual offense. The court rejected hischallenge of the use of the finger-prints in his prosecution, concluding

13Goodman v. Liebovitz. 410 N.Y.S.2d 502, 96 Misc. 2d 1059 (S.Ct,N.Y. County 1978) affirmed 423N.Y.S. 2d 488, 73 App. Div. 2d 855(App. Div. 1980).

14People v. Stuller. 10 Cal. App. 3d582; 89 Cal. Rptr. 158 (1970).


that the ordinance was a valid exer-cise of the municipality's policepower and that the fingerprints wereconstitutionally obtained. That be-ing the case, the court held, therewere no legal restrictions concerningsubsequent use of the fingerprints.In the Louisiana case, decided in1979, the federal district court upheldthe constitutionality of a similarworker registration ordinance, reject-ing claims that it violated the privacyrights of the registrants.15

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 obtain-ed. In the cases that have consideredthis issue and related issues, thecourts have been generally in agree-ment that retention and subsequentuse of applicant fingerprints for crim-inal justice purposes does not abridgeconstitutional protections againstcompelled self-incrimination or un-reasonable searches and seizures.

However, as indicated by the casesdiscussed above, courts have dis-agreed on the issue of whether suchretention and use violate the con-stitutional protection against inva-sion of privacy. It may be that asthe usefulness of the AFIS technol-ogy as a crime-solving tool is demon-strated, the courts will conclude thatthe public policy interest in realizingthe full potential of this new technol-ogy outweighs the privacy interestsof the fingerprint subjects. For thepresent, however, it probably is pru-dent to regard the issue as not yetresolved. As a precaution, law en-forcement agencies might considerrequiring licensing and employmentapplicants to sign a release consent-ing to the use of their fingerprints forAFIS searches against latent files andthe retention of the prints for sub-sequent criminal justice searches.

^Service Machine & ShipbuildingCorp. v. Edwards. 466 F. Supp. 1200(W.D. La. 1979).


Announcing the newFact-FindingService

Specialized directories or

Crime trend informationover a period of time

Need a specializedreport—one tailor-made just for you?

The National Criminal Justice Ref-erence Service's new Fact-FindingService is your solution. Getanswers to your hard-to-find crimi-nal justice questions in a reporttailored just for you.

We'll gather the facts and figuresusing BJS resources, NCJRS re-sources, professional associations,news articles, juvenile justice agen-cies, or whatever it takes to find theanswers. We then send you a fullreport that matches your specificneeds.

Examples of reports:

• statistical tables and graphs withexplanatory text;

• State-by-State program or legis-lative information presented inan easy-to-read format;

• specialized directories or listingsof justice agencies, organiza-tions, or instructions;

• crime trend information over aspecified period of time.

Prices:Your cost for the Fact-FindingService covers actual expensesonly. Prices are determined by thetime needed to respond to your re-quest. A request that requires up to5 hours could cost between $75 and$250.

Call NCJRS with your request. Aninformation specialist will estimatethe cost. We can begin work assoon as we have your approval.

Call toll free for more information:

National Criminal Justice Refer-ence Service sponsored by the Na-tional Institute of Justice

800-851-3420

Justice Statistics Clearinghousesponsored by the Bureau of JusticeStatistics

800-732-3277Juvenile Justice Clearinghousesponsored by the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention

800-638-8736

Bureau ofJustice StatisticsAnnounces theJustice StatisticsClearinghouseThe Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS). in conjunction with the Na-tional Criminal Justice ReferenceService (NCJRS). announces theestablishment of the Justice Statis-tics Clearinghouse. The Clearing-house toll-free number is:

800-732-3277

Persons from Maryland and theWashington. D C . metropolitanarea should call 301-251-5500.

Services offered by the Clearing-house include:

• Responding to statistical re-quests. How many rapes are re-ported to the police? How manyburglaries occurred in the past year'.'Call the Clearinghouse, toll free.

• Providing information aboutBJS services. Interested in receiv-ing BJS documents and products?Register with the BJS mailing listby calling the Clearinghouse, tollfree.

• Suggesting referrals to othersources for criminal justice statis-tics. If the Clearinghouse doesn'thave the answer, an informationspecialist will refer you to agenciesor individuals who do.

• Conducting custom literaturesearches of the NCJRS documentdata base. We can search theNCJRS data base and provide topi-cal bibliographic citations andabstracts to answer specific re-quests.

• Collecting statistical reports.The Clearinghouse collects statisti-cal reports from numerous sources.Submit statistical documents toshare with criminal justice col-leagues to: NCJRS, Attention BJSAcquisition, Box 6000, Rockville,MD 20850.

You have 24-hour access to theJustice Statistics Clearinghouse.From 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. EST,weekdays, an information specialistis available. After work hours, youmay record your orders or leave amessage for an information special-ist to return your call.

Bureau of Justice Statistics reports(revised February 1987)

Call toll-free 80O-732-3277 (local251-5500) to order BJS reports, to be addedto one of the BJS mailing lists, or to speakto a reference specialist in statistics at theJustice Statistics Clearinghouse, NationalCriminal Justice Reference Service,Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850. Singlecopies of reports are free; use NCJ numberto order. Postage and handling are chargedfor bulk orders of single reports. For singlecopies of multiple titles, up to 10 titles arefree; 11-40 titles $10; more than 40, $20;libraries call for special rates.

Public-use tapes of BJS data sets andother criminal justice data are availablefrom the Criminal Justice Archive andInformation Network, P.O. Box 1248, AnnArbor, Ml 48106 (313-763-5010).

National Crime SurveyCriminal victimization in the U.S.:

1984 (final report), NCJ-100435, 5/861983 (final report), NCJ-96459, 10/851982 (final report), NCJ-92820, 11/841973-82 trends, NCJ-90541. 9/831980 (final report), NCJ-84015. 4/831979 (final report). NCJ-76710. 12/81

BJS special reports:Violent crime by strangers and nonstrangers,

NCJ-103702, 1/87Preventing domestic violence against women,

NCJ-102037, 8/86Crime prevention measures, NCJ-100438,3/86The use of weapons in committing crimes,

NCJ-99643, 1/86Reporting crimes to the police, NCJ-99432

12/85Locating city, suburban, and rural crime, NCJ-

99535, 12/85The risk of violent crime, NCJ-97119. 5/85The economic cost of crime to victims, NCJ-

93450, 4/84Family violence, NCJ-93449. 4/84

BJS bulletins:Households touched by crime, 1985,

NCJ-101685, 6/86Criminal victimization, 1984, NCJ-98904 10/85The crime of rape, NCJ-96777. 3/85Household burglary, NCJ-96021, 1/85Criminal victimization, 1983, NCJ-93869, 6/84Violent crime by strangers, NCJ-80829, 4/82Crime and the elderly, NCJ-79614, 1/82Measuring crime, NCJ-75710, 2/81Teenage victims, NCJ-103138, 12/86

Response to screening questions in the NationalCrime Survey (BJS technical report) NCJ-97624, 7/85

Victimization and fear of crime: Worldperspectives, NCJ-93872, 1/85

The National Crime Survey: Working papers.vol. I: Current and historical perspectivesNCJ-75374, 8/82vol. II: Methological studies, NCJ-90307, 12/84

Issues in the measurement of victimizationNCJ-74682, 10/81

The cost of negligence: Losses from preventablehousehold burglaries, NCJ-53527, 12/79

Rape victimization in 26 American cities,NCJ-55878, 8/79

Criminal victimization in urban schoolsNCJ-56396, 8/79

An introduction to the National Crime SurveyNCJ-43732, 4/78

Local victim surveys: A review of the issuesNCJ-39973, 8/77

Parole and probationBJS bulletins:

Probation and parole 1984, NCJ-1001812/86

Setting prison terms, NCJ-76218, 8/83Parole in the U.S., 1980and1981, NCJ-87387

3/86Characteristics of persons entering parole

during 1978 and 1979, NCJ-87243, 5/83Characteristics of the parole population, 1978

NCJ-66479, 4/81Parole in the U.S., 1979, NCJ-69562, 3/81

»U.S. G .P .0 . 1987-181-478:40026

CorrectionsBJS bulletins and special reports:

Probation and parole 1985, NCJ-103683, 1/87Population density in State prisons, NCJ-103204,

12/86Capital punishment, 1985, NCJ-102742. 11/86State and Federal prisoners, 1925-85,

NCJ-102494, 11/86Prisoners in 1985, NCJ-101384. 6/86Prison admission and releases, 1963,

NCJ-100582. 3/86Capital punishment 1984, NCJ-98399, 8/85Examining recidivism, NCJ-96501, 2/85Returning to prison, NCJ-95700. 11/84Time served in prison, NCJ-93924, 6/84

Historical corrections statistics in the U.S., 1850-1984, NCJ-102529. 3/87

Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions onDec. 31 , 1984, NCJ-103768. 3/87

Capital punishment 1984 (final). NCJ-99562,5/86Capital punishment 1983 (final), NCJ-99561,4/86

1979surveyolinmatesotStatecorrectionaltacilitiesand 1979 census ol State correctional tacilities:

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 of jails and survey of jail inmates:Jail inmates, 1984, NCJ-101094, 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 I-IV. Northeast. North Central. South WestNCJ-72279-72282. 12/81

Profile of jail inmates, 1978, NCJ-65412. 2/81

Children in custody:Public juvenile facilities, 1985 (bulletin)

NCJ-102457, 10/861982-83 census of juvenile detention and

correctional facilities, NCJ-101686, 9/86

Expenditure and employmentBJS Bulletins:

Justice expenditure and employment:1983, NCJ-101776, 7/861982, 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

CourtsBJS bulletins:

The growth of appeals: 1973-83 trends,NCJ-96381, 2/85

Case filings in State courts 1983, NCJ-9511110/84

BJS special reports:Felony case-processing time, NCJ-101985,8/86Felony 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

survey, NCJ-94630, 8/84Habeas corpus, NCJ-92948, 3/84State court caseload statistics, 1977 and

1981, NCJ-87587, 2/83National Criminal Defense Systems Study, NCJ-

94702, 10/86The prosecution of felony arrests:

1981, NCJ-101380, 9/861980, NCJ-97684, 10/851979, NCJ-86482, 5/84

State court model statistical dictionarySupplement, NCJ-98326, 9/851 st edition, NCJ-62320, 9/80

State court organization 1980, NCJ-76711, 7/82A cross-city comparison of felony case

processing, NCJ-55171. 7/79

Federal offenses and offendersBJS special reports:

Pretrial release and misconduct, NCJ-961321/85

BJS bulletins:Bank robbery, NCJ-94463. 8/84Federal drug law violators, NCJ-92692 2/84Federal justice statistics, NCJ-80814, 3/82

Privacy and securityComputer crime:BJS special reports:

Electronic fund transfer frraud, NCJ-96666.3/85Electronic fund transfer and crime,

NCJ-92650, 2/84Electronic fund transfer fraud, NCJ-100461,

4/86Computer security techniques,

NCJ-84049, 9/82Electronic fund transfer systems and crime,

NCJ-83736. 9/82Expert witness manual, NCJ-77927, 9/81Criminal justice 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" files, NCJ-101850.12/86Data quality policies and procedures:

Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference,NCJ-101849, 12/86

Crime control and criminal 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

Victim/witness legislation: An overview,NCJ-94365. 12/84

Information policy and crime control strategies(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 bulletin)NCJ-80836. 6/82

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

GeneralBJS bulletins and special reports:

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

NCJ-102867. 11/86Police employment and expenditure,

NCJ-100117, 2/86Tracking offenders: The child victim, NCJ-

95785, 12/84The severity of crime, NCJ-92326, 1/84The American response to crime: An overview

of criminal justice systems, NCJ-91936.12/83Tracking offenders, NCJ-91572, 11/83Victim and witness assistance: New State

laws and the system's response, NCJ-879345/83

1986 directory of automated criminal justiceinformation systems, NCJ-102260. 1/87, $20domestic

Crime and justice facts, 1985, NCJ-100757, 5/86National survey of crime severity, NCJ-96017

10/85Criminal victimization of District of Columbia

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

The DC crime victimization study implementation,NCJ-98595,9/85, $7.60 domestic/$9 20 Canadi-a n s 2.80 foreign

The DC household victimization survey data base*Documentation, NCJ-98596, $6.40/$8 40/$11User manual, NCJ-98597, $8.20/$9.80/$12.80

How to gain access to BJS data (brochure)BC-000022, 9/84

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

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

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

Technical standards for machine-readable datasupplied to BJS, NCJ-75318, 6/81

See order formon last page

[~]

| |

Please put me on the mailing list for:

Q Justice expenditure and employmentreports—annual spending and staffing byFederal/State/local governments and byfunction (police, courts, etc.)

Computer crime reports—electronic fundtransfer system crimes

Privacy and security of criminal historyinformation and information policy—newlegislation; maintaining and releasingintelligence and investigative records; dataquality issues

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

BJS bulletins and special reports—timelyreports of the most current justice data

Courts reports—State court caseload sur-veys, model annual State reports, Statecourt organization surveys

Q Corrections reports—results of sample sur-veys and censuses of jails, prisons, parole,probation, and other corrections data

Name:

Title:

Organization:

Street or box:

City, State, Zip:

Daytime telephone number: ( )

Interest in criminal justice:

1 j

National Crime Survey reports—the onlyregular national survey of crime victims

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics(annual)—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 othermonth. It includes an order form for Bureau ofJustice Statistics publications. If you want anNCJRS registration form please check here: [

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

U.S. Department of JusticeBureau of Justice StatisticsWashington, DC 20531

Placestamphere

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

U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300 BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAIDDOJ/BJS

Permit No. G-91

Washington, D.C. 20531

Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems: Technology ...simson.net/ref/1987/NCJ-104342_AFIS.pdf · Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems: Technology and ... Automated Fingerprint

Documents