Biometrics and Integration

1
Biometrics and Integration

• In the State of Minnesota

2
Panelists

• Judge Thomas McCarthyMinnesota 1st Judicial
  District
• Thomas Merkel, InspectorHennepin County
  (Minneapolis) Minnesota Sheriffs Office
• Jerry Olson, Project ManagerMN Bureau of
  Criminal Apprehension
• Carol Renn, AdministratorCarver County Minnesota
  Courts

3
Overview

• Minnesota has done a lot of work that we believe
  is improving public safety.
• We will show you the process we are going
  through, where we are, where we are heading, and
  what our issues are.

4
Introduction

• Minnesota, like most states, has been using
  biometrics for identification purposes for many
  years.
• Minnesotas Goals for criminal justice subjects
• Who are they
• What have they done
• Where are they in the process
• We are continuing to improve our processes and we
  are far from finished.

5
The Case for Biometrics

• Kerry Dean Stevenson
• Date of Birth 04/29/58

AKA Kerry Dean Geller Keith Allen Brummer Bob
Stevenson Robert Mark Geller James
Heidelberg Richard Lee Olson Bob Geller Robert
James Stevenson Eric Allen Johnson   Alias Dates
of Birth 03/29/55, 05/11/58, 01/24/61, 05/05/55,
04/29/55, 03/27/48, 04/24/54
6
Total Offenses 21 On State Criminal History Data
Base 6
7
Where We Started

• Paper based system in 1980s
• Audit of MN Conducted by Arthur Anderson
• Objectives Evaluated CCH for completeness,
  accuracy and timeliness
• Audit of 1990 data showed

8
We started automating 1990s

• Upgraded CCH
• Upgraded AFIS
• Created MNet data network and CJDN
• Began looking at statewide criminal justice
  information sharing (later called CriMNet)
• Added electronic pass from courts(Nightly batch
  of current dispositions)

9
Consequences of Changes

• Electronic pass from Courts
• Nightly pass that updates criminal history within
  3 days of court action
• Minnesota only updates criminal history if name,
  DOB, controlling ORI, and case number all match a
  fingerprint based arrest record(compare to other
  states in Brady study)
• Unmatched dispositions stay in Suspense file

10
CriMNet

• CriMNet is a program which is developing a
  statewide integration plan that includes and
  incorporates local planning and implementation
  efforts, paying particular attention to the
  collaborative reengineering of business
  practices.
• CriMNet sponsors a number of state and local
  projects to accomplish this, some executed within
  the CriMNet office.

11
CriMNet Building Blocks

• Define state standards for interoperability
  including
• Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
• XML (Extensible Markup Language)
• W3C Standards (World Wide Web Consortium)
• WSDL files (Web Services Description Language)
• Justice XML
• JXDD (Justice XML Data Dictionary)
• Legal XML
• J2EE (Java 2 Enterprise Edition)

12
CriMNet Initiatives

• A sample of CriMNet projects include
• Suspense File
• Livescan Rollout
• Card Handler
• Minnesota Repository of Arrest Photographs (MRAP)
• Minnesota Court Information System (MNCIS)
• Electronic Linking

13
Dimensions to CriMNet Initiatives

• Policy Governance
• Policy Group
• Cooperation of Stakeholders
• Task Forces
• Business Practices
• Consulting
• Technology Collaboration
• Grants to Local Agencies

14
Suspended Court Actions

• Suspense was identified shortly after electronic
  pass from Courts began
• Suspense grew but was not managed
• 1999 Legislature mandated team to resolve
  Suspense and reduce flow

15
Suspense Volume
1999

• Legislation took effect June 2000
• Legislation targeted the backlog and the new
  additions to Suspense
• We refer to it as the tub and flow

38
451,335
2004
11
117,661
16
LiveScan Rollout

• Intended to update CCH faster and prevent
  Suspense
• Currently 167 Livescans placed in all 87 counties
• All but 16 Livescans transmitting electronic
  bookings to state AFIS/CCH
• Livescan rollout had consequences

17
Livescan Issues

• Local business processes impacted by mandatory
  data requirements
• Multiple printing for same arrest when both local
  PD and Sheriffs Office have Livescan
• Locals have concerns about resources (cost
  human)
• Just because we have Livescans does not mean we
  are getting all the fingerprints (e.g. summons)
• Placing Livescans at courts
• Collaborating with prosecutors and Judges to
  verify prints
• System improvements can help flag missing prints
• Problem not always solved by technology

18
AFIS Card Handler

• Livescan alone does not establish identity
• Card Handler is the central site traffic cop
  for processing Livescan submissions
• Allows processing of bookings within 2 hours
  (typically 30 min.)

19
MRAP

• In 2000 the legislature funded enhancing
  biometric identification
• Established the Minnesota Repository of Arrest
  Photos (MRAP)
• Statewide database for electronic line-ups and
  investigation
• Includes facial recognition
• Initially 50 of Minnesotas 87 county jail
  facilities participate

20
MRAP Sample
21
MNCIS Court System Upgrade

• The Minnesota Court Information System will
  replace the current County based and case based
  system with one that is person based and
  statewide.
• At beginning of rollout now. Expected to be
  installed statewide by the end of 2007.
• Will add data validation at initial court filing
  to see if the disposition is heading for Suspense
  (interim solution until biometric based).

22
MNCIS Sample Screen
23
Flat Print ID

• A rapid ID process based on two index finger flat
  prints. All processing is lights out.
• Provides a biometric ID of suspect within 2
  minutes to an officer in the field.
• Not a substitute for 10-Prints

AFIS
IBIS Server
Wireless Comm.
Demographic Files (CCH)
Warrant Files
Gang Files
24
Flat Print ID

• Currently 70 wireless and one hard-wired devices
  are in use as part of the Hennepin County
  (Minneapolis) IBIS project.
• Want/Warrant databases are name based.
• Fingerprint is converted to SID,
• SID is converted to name and DOB for warrant
  search.
• Wireless coverage is an issue outside of Metro
  areas.

25
Electronic Linking
Current

• MN has a fingerprint supported CCH and a mugshot
  system (MRAP) but the databases are not linked.
• The Electronic Linking project will establish a
  mechanism to link the fingerprints and mugshots
  captured during a booking.

Concept
26
Electronic Linking

• The project is currently analyzing potential
  solutions.
• Considerations include
• Both the mugshot capture and Livescan devices
  create a unique event ID
• Local business process variations complicate the
  analysis. Some photo first, other fingerprint
  first.
• Having vendors make changes is very expensive.
• We are looking at cross referencing based upon
  multiple keys.

27
Future Projects Under Consideration

• Integrated Criminal History System
• Re-engineering of business processes and systems
  relating to criminal history and fingerprints.
• Flat Prints/Rapid ID at Courts
• 2-Finger rapid ID could be used to biometrically
  link arrest and court disposition.

28
Issues We See

• Data practices
• sharing data statewide)
• sharing nation wide
• Maintaining data link throughout process (avoid
  Suspense). Biometrics can help.
• Full prints once, verify ID after? For some
  crimes?
• Many states use unique event number but it does
  not solve all MN problems
• Strong vs. Weak Biometrics
• Biometric linked SID vs. Manually Entered SID

29
Business Practices Issues

• Collaboration - Who is ultimately responsible for
  assuring fingerprints are captured?
• Law Enforcement Budget, Jurisdictional Issues
• Prosecutor E-Complaint, Offender Tracking Form
• Court Administration Early identification of
  needed prints, Monitoring and distribution of
  information to other agencies.
• Judges Impartiality vs Ensuring correct
  defendant
• Court System investing in enhancements to MNCIS
  and integration technology to flag fingerprint
  status

30
Conclusion

• Biometrics are important for assuring criminal
  justice data integrity
• Technology does not solve all problems
• The more problems we solve, the more issues arise