💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › law › afis.law captured on 2022-04-28 at 22:09:55.
⬅️ Previous capture (2020-10-31)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
November 1990
POLICE PRACTICES
WIN: AFIS TECHNOLOGY FOR RURAL STATES
Large law enforcement agencies have experienced remarkable
success with the Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(AFIS) technology in recent years. In fact, AFIS is
revolutionizing the way fingerprints are processed and used in
the identification and apprehension of criminals. Currently,
over half of the States and about 50 city or county agencies
have operational automated fingerprinting systems. However, the
high cost of this incredible technology prevents many smaller
agencies, both State and local, from realizing its benefits.
This is changing, however, in a handful of western States
because of an innovative and cooperative effort among law
enforcement officers, administrators and planners to make the
implementation of AFIS a reality in their region. Their
accomplishments could well be replicated in other areas of the
country and among other jurisdictions that are looking for a
feasible means of keeping up with progressive technology.
PLANNING
Early in January 1988, representatives from law enforcement
agencies in six western States (Idaho, Montana, Utah, Nevada,
Wyoming, and Oregon) met in Boise, Idaho, to discuss their
individual and collective needs for an AFIS. Each
representative could demonstrate a documented need for such a
system. But they shared a common problem--lack of sufficient
capital to purchase the full complement of hardware needed to
maintain the system.
In search for a solution, the representatives considered a
network of leased "smart" terminals (remote input stations)
linked by dedicated telephone lines to a central, remotely
accessible processing center. Initial data indicated that a
combined shared database could produce a cost savings of up to
50 percent.
Such links already existed within California and Washington,
where remote terminals are connected by telephone lines to a
central process unit at a designated site. However, when trying
to ensure the compatibility of the identification systems, the
issue of individual State laws arose.
It was discovered that individual States would have a
problem with leasing laws, which could be solved by creating a
corporation among the States. By doing this, leasing laws would
no longer be a restraining factor. Once this was resolved,
interstate connections were solidified, and each State's system
could talk to the systems of the other States. However, without
this capability, no interchange of database access is possible.
FORMATION OF WIN
To protect individual members' rights and investments, the
States formed a nonprofit corporation. In May 1988, articles of
incorporation and bylaws were filed in Nevada to create the
Western Identification Network, Inc. (WIN). This nonprofit
corporation facilitated the creation of a multi-State network
designed to address the needs of the States, both collectively
and individually. A request for proposal (RFP) for the system
was released in June 1988, and by September, an information
systems company was selected to provide equipment and training.
The company would also serve as a consultant should any problems
arise.
During the RFP process, criminal justice executives
convinced State legislatures to fund participation in WIN. For
many, this required an extensive education program because, even
though the WIN concept is far cheaper than outright purchase or
lease on an individual basis, the project still involved a
considerable outlay of tax dollars. Through a multi-State,
combined effort, using departmental resources and talent, the
representatives produced a promotional video used to educate
officials and the public on the advantages of the system.
By June 1989, Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and the Portland Police Bureau had
obtained funding appropriations. Once the funds became
available, WIN quickly established an office and a staff of two
to administer billings, oversee the vendor operations, and
ensure that contractual requirements were met.
During October 1989, the WIN host computer was installed in
Sacramento, California, and 900,000 records from five States
were converted to AFIS data and loaded into the system. Remote
subsystems were installed in Boise, Idaho, Carson City, Nevada,
Cheyenne, Wyoming, Portland, Oregon, Salem, Oregon, and Salt
Lake City, Utah. In addition, booking terminals are slated to
be installed in numerous other locations throughout these
States. California was connected to the system during the first
6 months of 1990, and the Alaska and Washington AFIS systems
came online in August 1990.
PROGRAM SUCCESSES
As of June 1990, Idaho, which came online just 6 months
prior, has had over 37 hits, resulting in the identification of
suspects in a 25-year-old homicide case, 2 armed robberies, 1
auto theft, 2 rape cases, 4 drug cases, and 27 major burglaries.
The director of the Idaho Department of Law Enforcement praised
the system for bringing a predominantly rural State, such as
Idaho, to the "leading edge of effective crime control."
The WIN AFIS, now fully operational, is capable of
processing 24,240 arrest cards and 4,500 crime scene latent
prints per month against a database of 1.3 million criminal
fingerprint records. With the pooling of data, individual State
records can be searched as necessary, and since crime knows no
borders, the probability of hits increases greatly.
CONCLUSION
Results obtained during training and the first months of
implementation indicate that benefits derived from WIN will be
comparable to system successes in other States. With 10,000
records being added each month, and other States expected to
come online in the near future, the entire western United States
will soon share a common access to an automated fingerprint
identification system. The capability to search criminal data
in multiple States may, indeed, prove to be valuable beyond the
most optimistic expectations.
_______________
Information for this column was submitted by W.C. Overton,
Chief of the Office of Public Affairs, Idaho Department of Law Enforcement.