I work at a county crime lab in the state of California. We recently upgraded to the FBI's new Next Generation Identification system (the replacement for IAFIS). Along with the upgrade, we were told that we can now search the FBI's database of civilian records. Prior to this, we were searching only the criminal side of the California state database, the Western Identification Network database, and the FBI database.
This brought up a few questions in our unit about state/federal laws regarding civil rights and fingerprint searching. Does anyone have any links to articles or websites that discuss the legality of searching fingerprints against civilian records? Either on a federal level or our California state level? Both would be helpful. A coworker of mine believes a federal law was passed earlier this year to allow agencies to search civilian records, but he can not remember any specifics and I can not find anything in online searches.
Thanks for the help!
Searching civilian records
-
ER
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:23 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Searching civilian records
It probably depends on your jurisdiction.
I know that CA used to only search their criminal database but began allowing for the search of civilian records around 1989-1990. (Which allowed them to catch John Orr.) And then they have since switched back to only searching criminals.
AZ has always had one big database of arrestees and applicants. You end up with a lot of AFIS hits to cops and victims which is nice so you don't have to search the prints through more databases or keep reviewing them in the ULF for years.
I know that CA used to only search their criminal database but began allowing for the search of civilian records around 1989-1990. (Which allowed them to catch John Orr.) And then they have since switched back to only searching criminals.
AZ has always had one big database of arrestees and applicants. You end up with a lot of AFIS hits to cops and victims which is nice so you don't have to search the prints through more databases or keep reviewing them in the ULF for years.
-
josher89
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:32 pm
- Location: NE USA
Re: Searching civilian records
Some states will only keep civilian prints around for 30 days. The FBI (I would assume) keeps them around forever; thus, the ability to search the civil side for ULW searches.
As far as NE, we are like AZ in that we have one large database and everything that is submitted is kept (criminal and civil are given a distinct set of document control numbers so that we can readily distinguish between a criminal and civil card).
I don't know how keen I am on the NSA having the ability to read every one of my emails, but where's the civil rights violation on searching against civil prints? They know they were fingerprinted, right? So, they would have to believe that if they committed a crime (while never being fingerprinted as a criminal) there would still be the possibility that their prints could be identified...doesn't look like a civil rights violation to me. Like ER, I get hits on cops a fair amount, and to some extent, victims who's elimination prints weren't obtained at the time of the scene processing.
It's similar to a DMV photo database. You don't need to get a driver's license or ID card (although life is MUCH easier with one of those options). In most cases, those images are protected by state statute and can't be used for anything other than a law enforcement purpose. That means that insurance companies can't get them to deny coverage based on race or sex...or whatever else one could or couldn't get because of the way they looked. But, when we generate a photo line-up, we sometimes have to use a DMV photo for the candidate since a mugshot of them doesn't exist in our database. I had a trial on this very issue and we pointed out that because it was a law enforcement purpose, it was legal. The argument came up in court that this lineup now becomes public record and anyone that wanted to could access the DMV photo per a public records request. The prosecutor pointed out that the suspect have been videotaped several times entering and leaving the courtroom for this particular trial so his image was already out there in addition to him being a member of society (not so much of a productive one, however). So, just because your photo is taken for your DL, it doesn't mean that the only person that gets to see it is yourself and the bouncer at the bar or store clerk when trying to buy something that requires them to check who you are. Where's the civil rights violation in that? There is none.
My two cents.
As far as NE, we are like AZ in that we have one large database and everything that is submitted is kept (criminal and civil are given a distinct set of document control numbers so that we can readily distinguish between a criminal and civil card).
I don't know how keen I am on the NSA having the ability to read every one of my emails, but where's the civil rights violation on searching against civil prints? They know they were fingerprinted, right? So, they would have to believe that if they committed a crime (while never being fingerprinted as a criminal) there would still be the possibility that their prints could be identified...doesn't look like a civil rights violation to me. Like ER, I get hits on cops a fair amount, and to some extent, victims who's elimination prints weren't obtained at the time of the scene processing.
It's similar to a DMV photo database. You don't need to get a driver's license or ID card (although life is MUCH easier with one of those options). In most cases, those images are protected by state statute and can't be used for anything other than a law enforcement purpose. That means that insurance companies can't get them to deny coverage based on race or sex...or whatever else one could or couldn't get because of the way they looked. But, when we generate a photo line-up, we sometimes have to use a DMV photo for the candidate since a mugshot of them doesn't exist in our database. I had a trial on this very issue and we pointed out that because it was a law enforcement purpose, it was legal. The argument came up in court that this lineup now becomes public record and anyone that wanted to could access the DMV photo per a public records request. The prosecutor pointed out that the suspect have been videotaped several times entering and leaving the courtroom for this particular trial so his image was already out there in addition to him being a member of society (not so much of a productive one, however). So, just because your photo is taken for your DL, it doesn't mean that the only person that gets to see it is yourself and the bouncer at the bar or store clerk when trying to buy something that requires them to check who you are. Where's the civil rights violation in that? There is none.
My two cents.
"...he wrapped himself in quotations—as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of emperors." - R. Kipling, 1893
-
Alan C
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:50 pm
- Location: King County SO, Seattle
Re: Searching civilian records
Our (county) system includes both criminal and civil prints. Civil prints include criminal justice employees, concealed weapons permit applicants, taxi drivers, and a few other things. Our legal unit's opinion (based on state law) was that as long as the prints were legally obtained it was OK to keep them in our database. Our database does not segregate criminal and civil records.