89
UCJIS W ARRANTS AND SUMMONSES WHITE PAPER Unified Criminal Justice Information System Strategic Alliance Services Request For the Commonwealth of Kentucky Prepared for: Commonwealth of Kentucky Governor’s Office for Technology 100 Fair Oaks Lane Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-1108 Prepared by: SAIC Project Team 8301 Greensboro Drive Mail Stop E-6-3 McLean, Virginia 22102-3600

Warrants Summons Final

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Warrants Summons Final

UCJIS WARRANTS AND SUMMONSES WHITE PAPER

Unified Criminal Justice Information SystemStrategic Alliance Services RequestFor the Commonwealth of Kentucky

Prepared for:

Commonwealth of KentuckyGovernor’s Office for Technology

100 Fair Oaks LaneFrankfort, Kentucky 40601-1108

Prepared by:

SAIC Project Team8301 Greensboro Drive

Mail Stop E-6-3McLean, Virginia 22102-3600

Page 2: Warrants Summons Final

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Executive Summary...........................................................................................1-1

2.0 SAIC Project Team Approach.........................................................................2-12.1 Personnel Interviews..............................................................................2-12.2 Internal Validation: Commonwealth of Kentucky.................................2-22.3 External Validation: Other States...........................................................2-2

3.0 The As-Is Process...............................................................................................3-13.1 The As-Is Process: Kentucky.................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Process Overview...................................................................3-13.1.2 Bench Warrant.......................................................................3-13.1.3 Arrest Warrant........................................................................3-33.1.4 Supporting Technology..........................................................3-53.1.4.1 LINK......................................................................................3-53.1.4.2 KY Courts..............................................................................3-63.1.5 As-Is Process in Four Commonwealth Counties...................3-73.1.5.1 Carroll County........................................................................3-83.1.5.2 Fayette County.......................................................................3-93.1.5.3 Franklin County...................................................................3-103.1.5.4 Oldham County....................................................................3-11

3.2 The As-Is Process: Other States...........................................................3-123.2.1 Colorado...............................................................................3-133.2.2 Michigan..............................................................................3-153.2.3 Virginia................................................................................3-163.2.4 Washington..........................................................................3-173.2.5 New York City.....................................................................3-20

4.0 Issues...................................................................................................................4-14.1 Timeliness of Serving Warrants.............................................................4-14.2 Labor-Intensive Process.........................................................................4-14.3 Inefficiencies of a Paper-Based System.................................................4-24.4 Business Rules and Policy Guidance.....................................................4-24.5 Information Sharing...............................................................................4-24.6 Responsibility and Accountability.........................................................4-24.7 Lack of Statutory or Regulatory Guidance.............................................4-24.8 Distinguishing Between Users and Providers of Information................4-34.9 Lack of Information Technology Resources and Training in their Use.4-34.10 Lack of Statewide Data..........................................................................4-34.11 Inconsistent Standards for Initiating and Serving a Warrant.................4-44.12 KSP Staffing...........................................................................................4-4

5.0 Alternatives........................................................................................................5-1

6.0 Recommendation...............................................................................................6-16.1 Formalize and Standardize the Warrants Process..................................6-3

6.1.1 Develop a Standard Format for Arrest and Bench Warrants. 6-4

i UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 3: Warrants Summons Final

6.1.2 Consider Adopting a Person-Based Warrants System...........6-56.1.3 Establish a Timeliness Standard............................................6-56.1.4 Strengthen the Warrants Review Process..............................6-56.1.5 Provide Law Enforcement Agencies Access to Employment

Information.............................................................................6-66.1.6 Publicize Active Warrants in Local Newspapers...................6-66.1.7 Notify Individuals by Mail When a Warrant is Issued..........6-6

6.2 Implement a Pilot Project.......................................................................6-76.3 Automate the Warrants Process...........................................................6-11

6.3.1 Develop an Electronic Warrant............................................6-126.3.2 Provide an Interface between LINK and KY Courts...........6-136.3.3 Facilitate Information Sharing with Kentucky Prisons and Jails6-14

6.4 Commit to Staffing, Training, Funding, and Ongoing Technical Support6-14

7.0 Conclusion...........................................................................................................7-1

ii UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 4: Warrants Summons Final

L IST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 3-1: Typical Bench Warrant Process................................................................3-2Exhibit 3-2: Typical Arrest Warrant Process................................................................3-4Exhibit 6-1: Implementation Timeline..........................................................................6-1Exhibit 6-2: Working Group Tasks and Membership...................................................6-3Exhibit 6-3: Formalize and Standardize the Warrants Process Timeline......................6-4Exhibit 6-4: Recommended Warrants Validation Schedule.........................................6-6Exhibit 6-5: Implement a Pilot Project Timeline..........................................................6-9Exhibit 6-6: Pilot Project Activities..............................................................................6-9Exhibit 6-7: Proposed Timeline for Pilot Project........................................................6-11Exhibit 6-8: Automate the Warrants Process Timeline...............................................6-12Exhibit 7-1: Stakeholder Benefits from an Improved Warrants Process......................7-1

iii UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 5: Warrants Summons Final

L IST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Personnel Interviewed.........................................................................A-1

Appendix B Principal Types of Warrants and Summonses..................................B-1

Appendix C Kentucky County Warrants Processes..............................................C-1

Appendix D Proposed Warrant Format.................................................................D-1

Appendix E Colorado’s Electronic Warrants........................................................E-1E.1.0 CICJIS Electronic Warrant – Misdemeanor/Traffic –

Confirmation Not Required......................................................E-1E.2.0 CICJIS Electronic Warrant – Felony – Confirmation Not

Required....................................................................................E-2E.3.0 Felony Warrant After Holding Agency Takes Ownership –

Confirmation Required.............................................................E-3

Appendix F Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................F-1

iv UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 6: Warrants Summons Final

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A key component of success for the Commonwealth of Kentucky Unified Criminal Justice Information System (UCJIS) will be an effective, streamlined process for the issuance, tracking, and clearance of warrants, summonses, and related documents. To date there is no standardization of policies and procedures across the Commonwealth, and there is limited use of available technology to modernize the process and relieve the Commonwealth of the burdens of a paper-based system.

In commissioning this white paper, the Commonwealth recognized that although the current processes may appear to work in certain jurisdictions, in many cases the current system(s)/methods of operation do not work for the Commonwealth as a whole. A number of outstanding issues exist and vital law enforcement information cannot be accessed or shared across and within all law enforcement agencies in the Commonwealth or across state lines nationally. Consequently, the people of Kentucky have not been and cannot be well served.

The UCJIS Project Team, consisting of consultants and technical experts from Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) was hired to conduct a study of current processes, identify problem areas, and recommend a solution that is practical, feasible, and can be implemented across the Commonwealth. This white paper documents the results of the UCJIS Project Team’s work.

The “As Is” Process: Because a comprehensive analysis of all jurisdictions in the Commonwealth would have been beyond the scope of this effort, the Project Team analyzed the processes in use in a sample of jurisdictions in the Commonwealth, as well as in several other states and one large city. Within Kentucky, the Project Team’s key findings were that little to no standardization exists among jurisdictions; written policy or guidance is often incomplete or nonexistent; and that the paper-based system as being used today can be cumbersome, inefficient, untimely, and often ineffective. Backlogs of un-served warrants can develop, warrants can be lost or misplaced, and the current status of a given warrant or summons can be difficult to determine. The Project Team found that many users were “comfortable” with the system, not so much because the system is “working,” but because they understand it and know how to work within it to overcome its deficiencies.

Issues: The Project Team identified a number of issues/concerns that are typical of paper-based systems: the potential lack of the timeliness of various activities, business rules and policies that foster inefficiencies, difficulty getting timely and accurate information on the status of warrants and summonses, multiple arrests on a particular warrant, and un-served warrants among others. A number of these issues taken individually may seem minor, but when taken together, can bog down the current system within a jurisdiction in particular and across the state as a whole to the overall detriment of the Commonwealth.

The Recommendation: The Project Team’s recommendation incorporates both process and automation improvements that can be accomplished in a 3-year period. Its four key components are:

» Formalize and standardize the warrants process – The Project Team recommends that Kentucky adopt standard formats for Arrest and Bench Warrants for use throughout the state, that the state consider adopting a “person-based” warrant versus an “incident-based” warrant, and that it establish a timeliness standard for entry of warrants information into the Law Enforcement Network of Kentucky (LINK). It further recommends that the warrants review process be strengthened, that law enforcement officers have ready access to employment information to assist them in serving warrants, that warrants information be publicized in

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 7: Warrants Summons Final

local newspapers, and that individuals named in a warrant be notified by mail when the warrant is issued.

» Initiate a pilot project – The pilot project would involve Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Kentucky State Police (KSP), prosecutors, the courts and law enforcement agencies in up to three counties. Its primary purpose would be to validate the Project Team’s recommendation that AOC provide Bench Warrants information to KSP by means of an automated data push that would be available to prosecutors and law enforcement officers through LINK.

» Automate the warrants process – This is the logical next step following the incorporation of the Project Team’s recommended process improvements and the completion of the pilot project. This would entail developing and implementing an electronic warrant (e-warrant), providing an online interface between LINK and KY Courts so prosecutors and law enforcement officers can have timely access to Bench and Arrest Warrant data, and provide for information sharing among Kentucky prisons and jails, the courts, and law enforcement agencies.

» Commit to long-term support – Implementing the Project Team’s recommendation will represent a significant long-term commitment on the part of the Commonwealth in terms of funding, training, and ongoing technical support.

The Project Team’s recommendation is discussed fully in Section 6.0.

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 8: Warrants Summons Final

2.0 SAIC PROJECT TEAM APPROACH

The approach used by the Project Team to review and make recommendations about the warrants process was one of research, analysis, development of alternatives, and selection of an alternative to recommend to Kentucky. Our research included numerous personal interviews, either in person or by telephone. The purpose of the interviews was more than just fact finding; we wanted to obtain the individuals’ personal assessments of the warrants and summonses process. These personal assessments weighed heavily in our selection of an alternative to recommend to the Commonwealth. We supplemented our research efforts with a review of some of the supporting technologies in use today in Kentucky and identified some effective practices that can be adopted for wider use. Finally, we looked outside the Commonwealth to understand what processes and technologies are in use elsewhere that might be employed as part of an overall solution for Kentucky.

In addition to interviews with law enforcement and court personnel, the Project Team expanded its research efforts to include government Internet web sites. In some cases the web sites provided links to copies of actual statutes and/or rules of criminal procedure, and in others they gave general information regarding government organization and functions, and pointed the way for the team to make contact with knowledgeable and helpful people. We also made several visits to the State Law Library at the Capitol in Frankfort as part of the research effort.1

The analysis phase of the study effort overlapped all other phases. Ultimately, our analysis validated the anecdotal evidence we accumulated through personal interviews: that the warrants and summonses processes were sometimes ill defined and not universally applied. Thus, the day-to-day practices are often cumbersome and they result in problems such as a backlog of unserved warrants, delays in determining the status of a particular warrant or summons, loss of a warrant or summons, and the general inefficiencies that go hand-in-hand with manual, paper-based processes.

Based upon our analysis, the Project Team developed four alternative courses of action for Kentucky. These alternatives are discussed in Section 5.0. The Project Team’s recommendation is discussed in Section 6.0.

2.1 Personnel Interviews

The Project Team interviewed numerous individuals in state and local governments in Kentucky and other states to understand the current warrants and summonses processes. Appendix A shows the names, roles, and agencies of those we interviewed.

In each interview session the Project Team sought to define the specifics of the warrant and summonses processes that fell within the responsibility of the respective agency, group, or individual. We were interested in the roles of each individual, how the individual fit within the overall process, and what processes and technology were in use. Discussions centered on the activities the individuals performed within the processes, tools used to perform and follow the processes and issues relevant to the processes.

The Project Team found these interviews to be very informative and, without exception, the individuals we interviewed were helpful and generous with their time. A number of individuals asked that their comments not be attributed to them by name and the Project Team has respected that request.

1 The Project Team would like to recognize the help of Robin Mattingly, a librarian at the State Law Library.

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 9: Warrants Summons Final

2.2 Internal Validation: Commonwealth of Kentucky

As shown in Appendix A, the Project Team interviewed a diverse group of people in the Commonwealth. These people represented all the major agencies that have a role in the warrants process:

Commonwealth’s attorneys County attorneys Judicial circuit court clerks County court clerks Justice Cabinet Administrative Office of the Courts

Jefferson County Crime Commission Kentucky State Police Sheriff’s offices City and county police departments University of Kentucky Police Department

The Project Team focused its internal research on four counties: Carroll, Fayette, Franklin, and Oldham. We chose these counties for two reasons. First, they are geographically in close proximity to our base of operations in Frankfort; thus, we were able to interview many of their people in person. Second, these counties vary in size from small to large in terms of population.2 Carroll County, with a population of approximately 9,300, is the smallest of the four we researched. Franklin County (44,000) and Oldham County (33,000) are two medium-sized counties, and Fayette County, with a population of over 225,000, is the second largest in the Commonwealth.

The Project Team’s findings are described in Section 3.0.

2.3 External Validation: Other States

The Project Team also studied the warrants process in four other states and one large city to understand what others are doing in this regard. The four states are Colorado, Michigan, Virginia, and Washington. We selected Michigan and Washington because we are doing criminal justice projects in these states and have some first-hand knowledge of how they do business. A member of the Kentucky UCJIS Committee suggested the team study Colorado, and the team selected Virginia because, like Kentucky, Virginia is a commonwealth.

The Project Team’s research in these states consisted of interviews, both in person and by telephone, review of existing project documentation, and in studying their Internet web sites.

In addition to the four states, we include information on the automated warrants system implemented in New York City. Though New York City encompasses a relatively small geographic area, with over 8 million residents, some aspects of its automated warrants system might be appropriate for a future Kentucky implementation.

The Project Team’s findings are described in Section 3.0.

2 Source of population statistics: University of Kentucky, www.uky.edu/KentuckyAtlas/Kentucky-counties

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 10: Warrants Summons Final

3.0 THE AS-IS PROCESS

This section describes the results of the Project Team’s research as they relate to the current way of doing business. Section 3.1 describes the As-Is process in Kentucky; Section 3.2 describes the As-Is process in the other states and New York City.

3.1 The As-Is Process: Kentucky

3.1.1 Process Overview

There are a number of legal mechanisms by which an individual can be apprehended, placed under arrest, and brought before a court or placed in jail. These can result in issuance of various types of warrants and summonses, as shown in Appendix B.

The process for serving and closing a Summons is similar to that of an Arrest Warrant. The main difference is that when a Summons is issued, the individual named in the summons is ordered to appear before the court, but is not taken into custody by the serving officer, as is the case with an Arrest Warrant. Both the Arrest Warrant and Bench Warrant lead to the arrest of the individual named in the warrant and, consequently, they have a significant impact on the public safety of the Commonwealth. Therefore, the Project Team focused on these two documents and their associated processes.

3.1.2 Bench Warrant

The Bench Warrant process is initiated by the failure of a person to appear at a hearing or to otherwise comply with an order previously given by the court. Upon such a failure, the Court Clerk will produce a Bench Warrant document for review and signature by the judge. In those courts having the KY Courts System implemented, the data is entered into that system and the paper warrant is produced from it for presentation to the judge for signature. Once the warrant has been signed, the Court Clerk notifies one or more serving agencies that the warrant is available to be picked up and served. The serving agent then picks up the warrant from the Court Clerk’s office.

When the law enforcement officer apprehends the person named in the Bench Warrant, he or she takes the subject to the issuing court, and signs the warrant as having been served. The court then issues a decision regarding the subject case and the warrant is returned to the Court Clerk for filing/archival. The Court Clerk also updates the status of the warrant in the KY Courts System, if available, to indicate that the warrant is “closed.”

The current Bench Warrant process is shown in Exhibit 3-1.

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 11: Warrants Summons Final

CourtProcess

LEA accompaniessubject to court

LEA ID's warrant asservedJudge issues

court decision

Judgeorders warrant

be issued

Judgesigns

warrant

Clerk notifies primaryLEA to pick up original

warrant

* Retains a copy of warrant* Sends copies to LEAs in

surrounding counties ifapplicable

Signed warrant isreturned to clerk

Clerk changesstatus to "Closed"

in KY Courts

Clerk opens case

Defendant fails toappear or pay fine

Enters intoKY Courts

Produceshard copy

for signature

Clerkprocesses

warrant

Clerk searchesfor open warrants

on subject KY Courts

Key:

Process Computer System data storage

Decision Point Document(s) Event

LEA conductssearch for subject

LEA ArrestsSubject

LEA picks up originalwarrant from clerk,

gives copies to teamLEA

Process

Exhibit 3-1: Typical Bench Warrant Process

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 12: Warrants Summons Final

3.1.3 Arrest Warrant

The Arrest Warrant process starts with the submission of a complaint by a citizen, a law enforcement official, or a Probation and Parole official. The complaint is filed with a County Attorney or Commonwealth’s Attorney who is responsible for gathering the necessary information relevant to the offense, then determining if the offense merits the issuance of a summons or an Arrest Warrant. The County or Commonwealth’s Attorney then makes a recommendation and forwards it to a judge for signature. A judge reviews the complaint and determines if the information provided supports the requirements of an Arrest Warrant.3 If so, the judge signs the warrant.4 In the case of lesser offenses and/or insufficient evidence for an Arrest Warrant, a summons may be issued instead. The process for the summons is identical to that of the Arrest Warrant except that the person named on the summons will be directed to appear in court or at a law enforcement agency rather than being taken into custody.

The County Attorney or Commonwealth’s Attorney notifies the primary serving agent that the warrant is available to be picked up. Serving agencies include law enforcement officers such as county sheriff’s offices, local police departments, and the KSP. Typically, the original warrant is given to the police officer that originally filed the complaint and/or faxed to the dispatch center that supports that officer. The primary serving agency may then distribute copies to other potential serving agencies. The primary serving agency is responsible for ensuring that the warrant is entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Wanted Persons Hot File and/or the LINK Wanted Persons Hot File as appropriate. The primary serving agency of an Arrest Warrant record in the Hot File(s) is responsible for responding to inquiries from other serving agencies both in-state and out-of-state regarding the status and terms of the warrant.

Upon location and apprehension of the person named in the Arrest Warrant, the warrant is considered served. The arrested individual is taken to a jail, fingerprinted, and held for court processing. The jailer generally receives a copy of the Arrest Warrant and includes it in the arraignment file, which goes through pre-trial services and eventually to the Commonwealth’s Attorney or County Attorney as part of the case trial package. When the case has been adjudicated the warrant, along with other court documents, is given to the Court Clerk for filing/archival.

The current Arrest Warrant process is shown in Exhibit 3-2.

3 Under the Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) sections 2.04-2.06 a warrant must be issued by a judge who, through examination of a complaint filed pursuant to RCr 2.02, determines that probable cause exists that an offense has been committed.

4 A county clerk can issue a warrant: “In the event of the absence from the county of all District Judges and all Circuit Judges and all trial commissioners, the circuit clerk in each county may issue ‘criminal warrants’ prepared by the Commonwealth’s attorney or county attorney, who shall certify that there is no District Judge, Circuit Judge, or trial commissioner within the county.” Kentucky Revised Statute 15.725(5).

3 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 13: Warrants Summons Final

LEA conductssearch for

subject

LEA ArrestsSubject

LEA picks up orreceives original

warrant and givescopies to team

LEAProcess

LEA entersinto LINK ifapplicable

LEA deliverssubject to jail

Jailer requestsoriginal warrant for

arraignment file

LEA ID'soriginal warrant

as servedJail

Process

Jailer processes subject

Subject isentered in JMS

Fingerprints aretaken

Judgeapproves,

signswarrant

Warrant distributedto LEA for serving

Judge issuescourt decision

Signed warrant isgiven to Court

Clerk

County Attorneyrequests warrant

authorization

Key:

Process Computer System data storage

Decision Point Document(s) Event

Complaint filed withCounty Attorney

LEA Citizen

Pre-Trial Process Subject goes totrial

Exhibit 3-2: Typical Arrest Warrant Process

4 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 14: Warrants Summons Final

3.1.4 Supporting Technology

The Commonwealth provides two systems that are widely used in support of the warrants process: LINK, and KY Courts.5 These two systems form the backbone of the warrants information systems in Kentucky.

Beyond LINK and KY Courts, there is an array of computer software in use locally throughout the Commonwealth. Some of this is commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software and some is locally developed. In most cases, use of this software is limited to only a few individuals; in at least one case, its use is restricted to a single individual on a single desktop PC. This is discussed more fully in Section 3.2.

3.1.4.1 LINK

The LINK portal provides a facility for the input and tracking of Arrest Warrants. LINK can be accessed for search purposes by all law enforcement officers across the Commonwealth, including: city and county police, county sheriffs, state police, probation and parole officers, fisheries and wildlife officers, the public housing authority, and military installations. Dispatch personnel are the only individuals authorized in these agencies to enter and maintain warrant data within LINK.

The LINK system is hosted on a mainframe computer at the Governor’s Office of Technology (GOT) but is administered by KSP. LINK is due to be moved to KSP and hosted on a server running Windows 2000. This would bring the LINK system fully under the control of KSP. The system now supports about 100,000 queries a month with each query generating one or more responses. KSP reports that LINK has ample capacity for growth and that it could support more than the 30 million transactions per year it currently supports, but once it is moved to KSP, there will be increased pressure on KSP’s limited personnel resources to administer the system.6

As Kentucky’s NCIC Control Terminal Agency, the Kentucky State Police are bound by NCIC rules and guidelines in the operation and administration of LINK, the system through which law enforcement agencies within the Commonwealth access NCIC, interstate, and state-level information.7 As a result, only those law enforcement agencies that are continuously staffed have authorization to enter and modify information through LINK. These are referred to as “terminal agencies.” Those agencies not meeting these criteria, known as “satellite agencies,” rely upon terminal agencies for the entry and modification of their records. When a satellite agency is the primary serving agency for a warrant, the terminal agency that provides the service becomes responsible for entry of the warrant into the LINK and/or NCIC Wanted Persons Hot File(s) and for the validation of this information (within NCIC-specified timeframes) upon receipt of a valid request from another law enforcement agency.

The primary criterion for entry of a Wanted Persons record into NCIC is that the originating agency of the record is willing to extradite the individual named in the warrant across state boundaries. Similarly, one of the primary criteria for entry of a warrant into the LINK Wanted Persons Hot File is the willingness of the originating agency to extradite across jurisdictional boundaries within the

5 In addition to KY Courts, the Commonwealth provides CourtNet, which is a statewide system that consolidates the county-by-county data from KY Courts. CourtNet also includes some pretrial information that is not available on KY Courts.

6 KSP is budgeted to receive another seven funded civilian personnel positions when they take control of LINK.7 In March 2002, the KSP will begin to upgrade the software for all LINK clients to make them NCIC 2000 compliant.

This upgrade will take two to four weeks to complete.

5 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 15: Warrants Summons Final

Commonwealth.8 As such, LINK Wanted Persons records must include the subject’s name and sufficient demographic data to make identification and arrest possible.9

While LINK is a valuable law enforcement tool, there are some systemic problems. For instance, availability can be a problem because LINK terminals are not readily accessible to all agencies requiring access to the warrants information. In some part, this is due to cost. A standard LINK installation costs about $10,000, which covers the cost of the computer, the software license, system routers, and the like. The software vendor also charges $250 per year for software maintenance. Training costs are additional.

In addition, the entry of warrants into the system is frequently dependent upon dispatch personnel at the serving agency, and not upon the originating agent who officially initiates the warrant. In many cases, this means that an individual who does not have responsibility for the warrant is responsible for its input into LINK, and, because the serving agency has many other responsibilities, entering the warrant into LINK is not necessarily a priority. This results in a number of warrants not being entered in a timely manner.

Another problem arises because LINK models its input requirements after the stringent NCIC input requirements; thus, many warrants are not entered into LINK because the warrant does not contain sufficient information. Warrants that are not entered into LINK have no statewide (or interstate) visibility; thus, information on the warrants is limited to the local jurisdiction that issued the warrant, and it increases the likelihood that the individual named in the warrant will remain at large if he flees the county.

3.1.4.2 KY Courts

The KY Courts system provides case management software at the circuit or district court level. This software is accessible by the court clerks, judges, and pretrial services personnel for the court. The system provides visibility and access only to data within each specific court’s jurisdiction. As part of its case management capabilities, the KY Courts software provides the ability for court personnel to enter, query, and modify Bench Warrant data. Currently, it is used to capture the data electronically, produce a hardcopy document for a judge’s signature, and is then used to update the status of the warrant.

A limitation of KY Courts is that its use is limited to the jurisdiction of each specific court. Using KY Courts, court clerks can search only their county for outstanding warrants on an individual. Because of this, clerks do not have insight into Bench Warrants issued in other jurisdictions. In addition, KY Courts only maintains information on Bench Warrants in its case management module; no Arrest Warrant information is available.

An ongoing modification to KY Courts will allow court clerks to request a statewide search of outstanding Bench Warrants for an individual. However, due to the limited computing power of the KY Courts system, AOC will provide only “on demand” searches of the entire KY Courts warrants database. AOC is concerned that opening this functionality to every warrant search would considerably degrade the performance and response time of the system.

8 Some agencies are reluctant to extradite for “low value” warrants such as bad checks, failure to pay a fine, etc., because the costs of extradition outweigh the benefit of having the individual extradited.

9 Mandatory “Person Data” for a LINK entry include: name, sex, race, height, weight, and hair color. Mandatory “Agency/Case Data” include: originating agency code, date of warrant, agency case number, offense code, and destination.

6 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 16: Warrants Summons Final

3.1.5 As-Is Process in Four Commonwealth Counties

As mentioned above, the Project Team focused much of its research effort in four counties: Carroll, Fayette, Franklin, and Oldham. However, in our early research in other counties we found some interesting initiatives that merit mention here.

In Jessamine County, the Jailer has taken a leading role in the control of warrants and the distribution of data. By allowing the jail’s computer server to be the repository of the data, Mr. Frank Hubbard has joined forces with the local officials, including the local dispatch, county sheriff’s office, and county courts. By running high-speed fiber connections, each agency has search capability on the Jail Management System (JMS). Dispatchers enter new warrants into the warrant function within the JMS, allowing for future search for outstanding and un-served warrants. Although the information is limited only to those warrants established within the county, it has served to streamline the local process. The expanded database is also a resource to the jail, which now has the ability to search for all local outstanding warrants as part of the detention center’s booking process.

In Jefferson County, the City of Louisville joined with the county to establish a Warrant Process Committee under the auspices of the Louisville-Jefferson County Crime Commission. The Louisville-Jefferson County jurisdiction had issued over 80,000 warrants in a one-year period and had accumulated a backlog of almost 70,000 outstanding warrants.10 The committee developed 16 recommendations, several of which we incorporate in our recommendation. These are:

Establish a centralized database of warrants information that would be available to all courts and law enforcement agencies in Kentucky

Strengthen the warrant review process

Publicize warrants information in local newspapers

Provide all law enforcement officers with access to an individual’s employment information to assist them in serving warrants

Enable search of the prison and jail population lists for names of individuals with outstanding warrants

Differences in local ways of doing business are to be expected in a state as diverse as Kentucky, with 120 counties that range in size from 2,100 residents (Robertson County) to 665,000 residents (Jefferson County). Each jurisdiction has adopted business rules and uses available technology in accordance with its needs and resources. These differences can be seen in the four counties profiled below.

3.1.5.1 Carroll County

Carroll County is within the jurisdiction of the Kentucky 15th Judicial Circuit Court, which also serves Grant and Owen counties. In addition to KSP, the major law enforcement agencies in the county are the Sheriff’s Office and the Carrollton City Police Department. The Commonwealth’s Attorney issues Arrest Warrants upon indictment or other county court action; the Carroll County Attorney issues the balance of felony Arrest Warrants.

The Carroll County Sheriff’s Office is the repository of all warrants in the county, receiving them directly from the circuit and county courts. The sheriff, in turn, provides warrants to the Carrollton City Police Department for service. Warrants on out-of-county individuals are mailed to the appropriate jurisdictions. The sheriff’s office estimates that they serve up to 50 warrants in a week,

10 Louisville-Jefferson County Crime Commission, Warrant Process Committee Report of Recommendations, February 17, 2000

7 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 17: Warrants Summons Final

with 15 to 25 being typical. The majority of their warrants are complaint Arrest Warrants. The backlog of outstanding, un-served warrants can run to 2,200.

The sheriff’s office and police departments use preprinted paper warrants that they fill out by hand, using different formats for misdemeanor and felony Arrest Warrants. The courts use standard Bench Warrant formats provided by AOC that they download from the Sustain system.11 The Commonwealth’s Attorney uses a warrant template in WordPerfect that is based upon a standard AOC warrant format.

The Carrollton City Police Department hosts the county LINK terminal, and its police officers are the entering agents for all LINK data. The police department shares a dispatch center with the sheriff’s office, and both agencies submit and respond to queries regarding outstanding warrants. Other than sharing information via the LINK system, most information regarding warrants is done via phone, fax, or the mobile radio. The courts provide the dispatch center with regular updates on recalled Bench Warrants. To track warrant status the sheriff’s office also updates a COTS database application that is installed on a single desktop computer.

Regarding supporting technology, the circuit court uses the Sustain case management system, but is due to upgrade to KY Courts II in the near future. The Carrollton Police Department maintains the LINK terminal at the consolidated dispatch center that it shares with the sheriff’s office. Both the police department and the sheriff’s office have standard office software on desktop computers, but none of them is networked to the other’s offices. The sheriff’s office and the police department also share mobile radio frequencies.

Law enforcement officers noted that the potential for multiple arrests of an individual on a single warrant is a problem. They also noted that many warrants do not have enough information to enter them into LINK or NCIC, and that Bench Warrants frequently do not have sufficient information on them to properly identify an individual and make an arrest. The inability of dispatch center personnel to validate a Bench Warrant during non-duty hours for the court is also a problem.

Law enforcement officers indicated it would be helpful if the Commonwealth were to provide a mechanism for real-time information sharing to eliminate the potential for multiple arrests. They suggest that a statewide database containing up-to-date information on all warrants – bench and arrest – would be welcome. Law enforcement officers also indicated the desire for an electronic warrant that could be downloaded from, or transmitted to, another jurisdiction. This would eliminate some of the inefficiencies of the current paper-based system.

Regarding tracking of warrants, the Commonwealth’s Attorney does not track warrants but indicated that some form of automated system for the express purpose of tracking warrants would be very helpful.

3.1.5.2 Fayette County

Fayette County is within the jurisdiction of the Kentucky 22nd Judicial Circuit Court. The county and the City of Lexington have merged their governments into the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. The Lexington Division of Police is a combined police force made up of the former Lexington City Police Department and the Fayette County Police Department. UK has its own police force with sworn officers. These two police departments, the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office, and KSP comprise the major law enforcement agencies in the county.

11 There are several AOC warrant formats in use in the four counties profiled here. Form AOC-S-035 is used for both the Bench Warrant and the Warrant of Arrest on Indictment. Form AOC-315.1 is used for a Summons and AOC-315.2 is used for an Arrest Warrant (Complaint). Other, non-AOC forms are also used for Arrest Warrants (Complaint).

8 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 18: Warrants Summons Final

The Fayette County Sheriff’s Office has primary responsibility for warrants service in the county, and they handle approximately 50 to 60 per week. The other law enforcement agencies also serve warrants, but do so generally in the course of other business, such as in conjunction with an accident or other investigation. When it is necessary to serve a warrant on UK property, the law enforcement agency serving the warrant contacts the UK police first. This is not just a courtesy; often the UK police need to escort other law enforcement officers into dormitories or classrooms where they would generally not have unescorted access. The Fayette County District Court reported a backlog of 18,000 active warrants, both Bench and Arrest Warrants, but could not readily determine the breakdown of numbers between the two types, or between felony and misdemeanor warrants.

Law enforcement agencies use a common, standard Arrest Warrant that is filled out by hand. The courts use an AOC format for the Bench Warrants that can be downloaded from the Sustain system. Most of the information on the Bench Warrant can be filled out on the computer and then printed, but some of the descriptive information on the warrant must be filled out by hand. The Fayette County Attorney’s Office uses an automated tool, FileMaker Pro, for preparing warrants and tracking complaints; however, they do not track the warrants themselves. After the Arrest Warrant is signed by a judge, it is distributed to the sheriff’s office for execution.

The courts provide all warrants to the sheriff’s office for service. The sheriff’s office is the primary warrants serving agency, but they do get some assistance from the police departments in this regard. In addition to using Sustain and LINK to record and share information on warrants, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government uses a locally developed application called “CRT” for recording and tracking the status of all warrants. All law enforcement agencies have online access to CRT. The Lexington Division of Police has a local Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, but it is not shared with others and is not used for recording or sharing warrants information.

The courts will upgrade from Sustain to KY Courts II in summer 2002. The Lexington Division of Police, the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office, and the UK Police Department all have their own LINK terminals. Office automation to support information consists of access to Sustain, LINK, and CRT, plus some individuals have Internet access.

Circuit court clerks are reluctant to respond to inquiries about warrants over the phone because of past abuses by unauthorized individuals. They now refer all telephone queries to the sheriff’s office for resolution. There is a problem with double-data entry because all the Bench Warrants information that the courts enter into Sustain must be separately entered by law enforcement into CRT, thus increasing the workload and the likelihood of error. This is also true of Arrest Warrants information entered into LINK and CRT; it must be entered twice because there is no connectivity between the two.

County personnel expressed a desire for a single, comprehensive source of all Commonwealth warrants information. This could be a single database accessible by all courts and law enforcement personnel, or separate databases as currently exist with middleware to allow a single query to access all the databases and return a response that would include information on all warrants in the Commonwealth that are active for the individual.

Regarding the format of the warrants themselves, the County Attorney would like the warrants to have a more “reader friendly” layout.

Another improvement suggested by county personnel would be for the Commonwealth to require the courts to review all misdemeanor complaint warrants after a given period of time (e.g., 24 months). The court clerks would contact the complainant to determine if the complainant would agree to withdraw the warrant. Alternatively, if the complainant did not respond to the query within 30 to 60

9 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 19: Warrants Summons Final

days, the clerks would be able to consider the warrant “dead” and withdraw it. As explained to the Project Team, the key benefit of this process is it would allow the court clerks to withdraw the warrants without having to involve a judge, resulting in a significant decrease in the backlog of un-served misdemeanor warrants. This would require a statutory change.

3.1.5.3 Franklin County

Franklin County is within the jurisdiction of the Kentucky 48 th Judicial Circuit Court. Major law enforcement agencies include the Frankfort Police Department, the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, and KSP. In 2001, the sheriff’s office handled over 1,600 warrants, of which 1,200 were served. The police department estimated that it handled 3,200 to 3,500 warrants in 2001 and served approximately 75 percent of those. The backlog of un-served warrants was not quantified, but was deemed to be “minimal.” The Franklin County Attorney issues virtually all the Arrest Warrants, with the exception of those issued upon indictment, which are issued by the Commonwealth’s Attorney. Depending upon jurisdiction, warrants are distributed to the local police department, sheriff’s office, or KSP for service.

The circuit court uses a standard AOC format for the Bench Warrant that is downloaded from KY Courts. The law enforcement agencies use similar, but different, formats for their paper Arrest Warrants. The County Attorney uses an automated tool, Bounceback, for preparing Arrest Warrants for bad checks only, and attempts to track warrants that are issued from its office.

The sheriff’s office provides a daily list of warrants to the Frankfort Police Department and KSP. The sheriff’s office keeps the original warrant and either provides a copy or faxes a copy to other law enforcement agencies. When a warrant is served the law enforcement officer who served the warrant reports this via telephone or radio to the central dispatch center and, if appropriate, enters the information into LINK. The circuit court provides warrants to law enforcement agencies via a distribution box in the clerk’s office. Bench Warrants for out-of-county individuals are mailed to the appropriate county for service.

LINK access is provided by the Frankfort Police Department and is housed in the consolidated dispatch center. Information sharing for Arrest Warrants is via the shared LINK terminal or by telephone or mobile radio. Locally, the sheriff’s office also tracks warrants using a Microsoft Access database application hosted on a desktop computer. This database is not networked to others outside the sheriff’s office. The Circuit Court uses the KY Courts I system to track Bench Warrants as part of its case management feature. The court will upgrade to KY Courts II in the future.

Currently, the police department and the sheriff’s office do not have a written standard for when an Arrest Warrant will be entered into the LINK system. This is often left to the discretion of the individual officer; however, both the sheriff and the deputy police chief recognized this as a problem and resolved to develop a local standard in the near future. The sheriff’s office has no online communication capability with other law enforcement agencies across the Commonwealth. When the sheriff needs to send an “all hands” message to the other sheriffs, he does so via a fax broadcast message.

Other problems cited was the difficulty serving warrants if only the named individual’s home address was available. Officers could get the individual’s work address from the Attorney General’s office if they provide a social security number, but this is a time consuming activity. There is often a delay of up to a week in getting an Arrest Warrant signed by a judge, and up to one-third of all warrants do not have sufficient information on them to be input to LINK.

Regarding potential improvements, law enforcement officers indicated they would welcome some form of online access by which they could communicate with others by e-mail or by posting notices

10 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 20: Warrants Summons Final

to an electronic bulletin board. They would support a common format for Arrest Warrants across the Commonwealth, and would like the warrant to be available to be transmitted electronically, via document imaging, or filled out on the computer and then printed, thus eliminating the problem of having to interpret another person’s handwriting. Finally, they requested that if the Commonwealth were to take steps to standardize the warrants process that there be no mandates from the state without funding.

The Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office indicated it would be helpful if there were a database to track all warrants, but that it could only be effective if all the parties that issue warrants were to use the database and help keep it current.

3.1.5.4 Oldham County

Oldham County is within the jurisdiction of the Kentucky 12 th Judicial Circuit Court, which also serves Henry and Trimble counties. The chief law enforcement agencies in the county are the Oldham County Sheriff’s Office, the LaGrange Police Department, the Oldham County Police Department, and KSP. The sheriff’s office is the repository for warrants in the county and they serve the vast majority of the warrants, with the police department serving warrants only in conjunction with some other police activity or upon request of the sheriff. The sheriff’s office serves approximately 10 to 20 warrants a week, most of which are Bench Warrants. The backlog of un-served warrants can total 1,500 to 2,000.

All county law enforcement agencies use the same paper Arrest Warrant and fill them out by hand. The circuit court uses a standard AOC format Bench Warrant downloaded from the Sustain system, and the County Attorney uses a standard AOC format Arrest Warrant, and fills them out by hand.

In Oldham County, the County Court Clerk is not involved in the early steps of the warrants process. The County Attorney prepares the warrant and he or a member of his staff takes the warrant to the court for the judge to sign. After the judge signs the warrant, it is returned to the County Attorney’s office and then given to the sheriff’s office for execution. This is different than in many county courts where the clerk often gives the warrants to the judge for signature and then distributes the warrants to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

County law enforcement agencies share a consolidated dispatch center, the Oldham County Dispatch (OCD), which provides shared mobile radio frequencies for the law enforcement agencies. OCD hosts the county LINK terminal as well as a shared CAD application. The sheriff’s office enters data on local warrants into the CAD, and OCD personnel update LINK. Local law enforcement agencies deliver or fax a copy of a served warrant to the sheriff’s office so they can update the CAD. Sharing of Arrest Warrant information with other jurisdictions is generally via telephone, fax, or LINK. The courts use the Sustain case management feature to post Bench Warrant information. It expects to upgrade to KY Courts II in 2002.

Other than LINK and the local CAD, county law enforcement agencies have little office automation to help them track the warrants and share warrants information with others. The OCD has limited Internet access to two desktop computers, but these computers are not networked with any others for data security reasons. The sheriff’s office uses typical desktop office software and is linked to the OCD for access to warrants information. There will be more automated information sharing capability when the county installs a new Records Management System (RMS) in 2002.

Law enforcement officers report that reading handwritten warrants is a common problem, and that many warrants do not have sufficient information on them to enable the officers to enter the warrants into LINK. They also note that the potential for multiple arrests on a single warrant is a problem.

11 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 21: Warrants Summons Final

Desired improvements include adoption of a statewide standard format for warrants. These should be electronic to the maximum extent possible. Officers also indicated that a statewide policy requiring that a minimum amount of descriptive information be entered on the warrant at the point of origination, generally the Commonwealth’s or County Attorney’s Office, would be welcomed.

3.2 The As-Is Process: Other States

In addition to evaluating the technology and practices in use in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Project Team surveyed information regarding warrants processes in other states. The Project Team’s primary focus in this regard was to what extent the other states are automating their warrants processes.

In Pennsylvania, also a commonwealth, the state police play a bigger role in law enforcement at the local level than do the Kentucky State Police. Pennsylvania has many small boroughs and townships that have no indigenous law enforcement; thus, the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) take on many local law enforcement functions and play a significant role in the warrants process at the local level. To help them in this regard, the PSP is about to enter into a large, multiyear contract to procure a statewide law enforcement Records Management System, a Computer Aided Dispatch function, and enhanced Mobile Office Environment for its police cruisers. Warrant tracking will be just one of many functions of the system PSP will procure. Michigan and Alaska are pursuing procurements to computerize their criminal history systems, as is Kentucky. Oregon and Washington have already done so. The common thread the Project Team uncovered is the move to centralize some law enforcement functions and automate them, as appropriate.

The Project Team has also learned that other states are moving to accept the use of electronic signatures for public and private actions, and promote the use of electronic documents in lieu of paper documents. Electronic signatures are an essential element of a fully automated warrants process.

Regarding the use of electronic signatures, the practices in other states are similar to those in Kentucky. Common provisions are that both parties must agree to the use of electronic signatures, and that if electronic signatures are used they will have the same force and effect in law as traditional handwritten signatures.

3.2.1 Colorado

The State of Colorado has deployed the Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (CICJIS), the first statewide, integrated criminal justice information system in the country. The system went live in May 1998. The CICJIS functions as an integrated computer information system that links five state-level criminal justice agencies: the Colorado Judicial Branch, the Department of Corrections, The Department of Human Services-Division of Youth Corrections, the Department of Public Safety-Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Colorado District Attorneys Council. The “virtual” system is achieved using middleware components to link the five agency’s computers.

The CICJIS core function is facilitating data transfers among the five criminal justice agencies. These data transfers enable CICJIS agencies to maintain data consistency between their information systems and reduce the necessity for redundant data entry.12 Although CICJIS operates continuously, it is only staffed during normal business hours. Colorado recognizes that as increased demands are placed on the system that its reliability during non-business hours will have to be improved so that it is equivalent to the reliability achieved during business hours.

12 Colorado anticipated that reduction of redundant data entry would result in significant labor savings. However, this was not the case. The state found that the labor savings for data entry were offset by the labor required to resolve discrepancies or correct errors in the transferred data.

12 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 22: Warrants Summons Final

One of CICJIS’ main components is the Integrated Colorado On-Line Network (ICON). ICON is the State of Colorado’s case management system. This system represents a significant improvement in case tracking and financial capabilities for the Judicial Department. In addition, ICON positions the Judicial Department for full participation in CICJIS by establishing an infrastructure that will facilitate the electronic exchange of data with other state agencies and departments. ICON is installed in all state funded general and limited jurisdiction courts and the Court of Appeals.

When a warrant is created, modified or cancelled in the ICON case processing system, the information is sent electronically to the Colorado Crime Information Center (CCIC), the Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s database for warrants and criminal history information. The CICJIS rule for entry of arrest warrants and warrants upon affidavit is the same business day. All other warrants must be entered within 48 hours after the warrant is ordered. When entering or canceling warrants in the ICON, those transactions are immediately transmitted to law enforcement.

The State requires certain information to be entered for a successful warrant transfer from ICON to CCIC. Local law enforcement agencies and district attorneys are committed to providing this information at the time of initial filing of the case so courts can enter it into the ICON system. There are six fields in the Work with Parties screen that must be completed before a warrant will be accepted into ICON. These fields are Name, Date of Birth, Race, Sex, Height, and Weight. The system automatically notifies the person entering the warrant information if certain required fields are missing, and the individual can override these required fields and submit the warrant only in emergency cases affecting public safety.

The CCIC network connects to all law enforcement in Colorado, through supporting national systems, with every other law enforcement and criminal justice agency in the United States, its territories, and Canada. The CCIC system also provides status concerning warrants and other information to criminal justice agencies. The application searches requests from Colorado entities through internal databases. National requests are processed through this system to the NCIC and National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS). The current database has over 25 million records.

One of the highlights of CICJIS is its use of electronic warrants. The electronic warrants feature was implemented in the state in a phased approach, with a 90-day period of parallel processing during which both paper warrants and electronic warrants were used.13 The system supports five types of warrants to be entered in CCIC:

Pre-CICJIS felony/misdemeanor/traffic warrants

Municipal court warrants

Denver County Court warrants

CICJIS felony and domestic violence warrants

CICJIS misdemeanor/traffic warrants

Most electronic warrants have automatic expiration dates. For misdemeanor warrants, the judge will typically specify when a warrant is to be purged from the system. For felony warrants, the system automatically withdraws a warrant when the statute of limitations for the charged offense expires. When this occurs the system sends an automatic notification to all appropriate agencies. Felonies for which there is no statute of limitations can only be withdrawn by manual intervention.

13 Implementation of the electronic warrants began in February 1999. Colorado spent 18 months on the first county to fix the problems that developed, and have since brought all but 3 of the state’s 64 counties on line. The remaining three counties will be on line in March 2002.

13 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 23: Warrants Summons Final

CICJIS fully supports the five state agencies named above, but to reach its full potential it must allow for inclusion of many local systems as well. The state recognizes this and is expanding the system so that a wider range of users can take advantage of its many capabilities.

3.2.2 Michigan

The State of Michigan has various types of automated systems to support the courts and law enforcement agencies in the management, recording and transmitting of criminal related information such as warrant information. All the counties have access to the Michigan Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN), a statewide computerized information system, which was established July 1, 1967 as a service to Michigan’s criminal justice agencies. The goal of LEIN is to assist the criminal justice community in the performance of its duties by providing and maintaining a computerized filing system of accurate and timely documented criminal justice information readily available to all criminal justice agencies. While, the Michigan State Police (MSP), Administrative Services Bureau, Criminal Justice Information Center has overall responsibility for LEIN, the local law enforcement agency that originates the warrant is responsible for the accuracy of its data.

The LEIN system is available in every county in Michigan. It may be hosted in the prosecutor’s office, the sheriff’s office, the city or county police offices, or in all of them. It is purely a matter of cost. Access is via a fat client to the UNISYS mainframe computer over secured leased communications lines. Some law enforcement agencies access LEIN from cars via mobile data terminals (MDT), while others call a central dispatch center via radio and the dispatcher accesses LEIN and relays the information to the car. Other state agencies, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Medical Examiners Office, have access to LEIN and use it regularly. When applying for a new driver’s license or vehicle license plates, individual’s names are checked again LEIN and their address is updated. The Medical Examiners check death certificates against open warrants and update LEIN to report the death of that person so the warrant can be withdrawn.

Legislation created LEIN and mandated its use; however, it has been so popular that there has been no problem in achieving compliance. In addition to warrants, agencies have expanded LEIN to contain data on missing persons, protection orders, and mental health orders. LEIN is also accessed while processing a firearm check and for a concealed weapons permit. The MSP have administrative regulations that outline the functions of LEIN.

The State Police operate the LEIN Office and the infrastructure to support the law enforcement agencies. Local jurisdictions purchase the hardware and vendor software to run LEIN, and pay for the connections and monthly communications costs. This cost sharing arrangement is necessary because the enabling legislation requires that the LEIN Office partially fund its UNISYS maintenance cost through users’ fees.

Regarding the warrants process itself, when a person goes to a law enforcement office to initiate a complaint, he helps the officer fill out a complaint form, which the officer will later use to open an investigation. Once the law enforcement officer is satisfied the complaint has merit, he fills out a warrant request form and forwards it to the prosecutor, who processes it and issues the warrant after it is signed by a judge. Then the warrant is returned to the law enforcement agency, either manually or electronically, depending on the court’s automation capabilities, for entry into LEIN. The warrant is then ready for service. Michigan does not provide a fee for serving warrants.

Michigan requires a standard warrant format for entry into LEIN. Warrants, both felony and misdemeanor, entered into LEIN are NCIC 2000 compliant.

Because the data is always available in LEIN, Michigan does require that the entering agency be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to verify the warrant information. General instructions

14 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 24: Warrants Summons Final

are contained in the LEIN entry, such as, statewide pick up or advise and release if outside of stated pick-up range. This visibility into warrants information also eliminates the problem of multiple arrests of a single individual on one warrant.

Currently, over 50 percent of the Michigan Courts with records management systems or case management systems can electronically pass formatted warrants data to LEIN. This is a one-way push of information that can be accessed and read by many state agencies. The ownership of the warrant data stays with the law enforcement agencies that entered the warrant, and they ultimately will be responsible for removing it from LEIN. No central program exists for reviewing warrants, and no purge action is taken without the local law enforcement agency making that decision. The LEIN Office provides central quality control of data entered.

Interestingly, Michigan does not initially issue a warrant for bad checks. The offender is notified by letter to settle the check and pay an administrative fee by a certain date, else a warrant will be issued. The law enforcement officers the Project Team contacted assert that Arrest Warrants are usually served in a timely manner, but that backlogs of Bench Warrants tend to build up.

Michigan has created an environment where state agencies have access to law enforcement information and willingly seek to use that information in their daily operations. The state hopes to expand the connectivity to every law enforcement agency in the state. The state also plans to take advantage of technologies such as the Internet to further empower its users.

3.2.3 Virginia

The Commonwealth of Virginia uses the Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN) for many of its information management needs. The VCIN functions as a service facility under the management control of the Virginia Department of State Police, providing operational support to the entire criminal justice community. The primary mission of VCIN is to provide a means of rapid communications for criminal justice agencies throughout the Commonwealth.

Information is made available through a network. The VCIN allows users access to data files, and databases maintained by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the NCIC. In addition, VCIN accesses the NLETS. The law of the Commonwealth of Virginia regulates membership to the VCIN system. The system is available to any department or division of state government meeting the definition of a criminal justice agency. Use of the VCIN system does not require an access fee. The system currently serves as the criminal justice message switch and serves almost 4,200 workstations throughout the Commonwealth.

The current magistrate system is hosted on a personal computer operating in a standalone environment where charges are entered and warrants and orders are printed. Charges are saved on a floppy disk and imported into the Case Management System (CMS) of the Courts Automated Information System (CAIS) to reduce data entry errors and save time when a defendant is arraigned.

The warrant system in Virginia is standard across all jurisdictions. Warrants can be sworn by a Prosecutor or law enforcement officer and taken to a judge for signature. Warrants can be signed either by a magistrate, judge or court clerk. In order to make an arrest on a warrant, law enforcement officers are not required to have a copy of an arrest warrant in their possession. Officers can detain a suspect until the warrant can be served if they verify through the VCIN/NCIC there is an active warrant for the individual they have in custody. Once the warrant has been confirmed by the entering agency the warrant can be faxed to the jail or detention facility where the subject can be booked.

There is a standard warrant process, which includes: one for bench warrants, one for felony arrest, and one for misdemeanor arrest. Although warrants are standard throughout the Commonwealth, each

15 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 25: Warrants Summons Final

jurisdiction has the discretion to change the format. These are paper warrants that can be filled out by hand or type written. Warrants information can be teletyped to other jurisdictions. All warrants are NCIC 2000 compliant.

Courts have access to case and warrant information via the Virginia Judicial System Home Page on the Internet. Clerks have the ability to query by name, county, court, etc., to get information on a particular case. Information pertaining to warrants is only available on the web site if a case has been established.

One of the drawbacks to the current system is the lack of shared information. An example is that some law enforcement agencies use databases designed in-house for tracking of warrants information. This information is not shared with other law enforcement agencies. Other drawbacks include lack of automation; most Information Technology (IT) equipment and services are funded locally, thus, there is considerable disparity in what is available from one jurisdiction to another. In addition, while the magistrates like the warrant formats used they feel there is too much information required on a warrant. In addition, magistrates note that the various information systems are not networked so there is no single source for warrants information available to all court and law enforcement personnel.

The current Magistrate system, which was developed in 1995, has a planned upgrade in the future. Once the current Magistrate system is reengineered, it will generate an Offense Tracking Number (OTN) and will utilize a uniform charging table. The new system will include a central database and communications will be upgraded to electronically transfer charges to the CMS without the manual floppy transfer. In addition, new data structures will be based on standards approved for a statewide criminal justice data dictionary. The graphical user interfaces will be replaced or enhanced to reflect the OTN and other data structures. Charges will then be transmitted from Magistrates to a central database in real time.

3.2.4 Washington

The State of Washington has several software applications for the courts and law enforcement agencies to use for case management and the recording and transmitting of warrants information. 14

All courts and law enforcement agencies have online access via a statewide intranet to the hot files (called WACIC [Washington Crime Information Center]) through the message switch (called ACCESS [A Central Computerized Enforcement Support System]).15 All users pay a transaction-based fee to use ACCESS. The Washington State Patrol (WSP) has overall responsibility for WACIC, but the originating agency is responsible for its data.

ACCESS includes a standard format (teletype warrant) for bench and arrest warrants that users can fill out through use of a template and send as an administrative message. The warrant (template) can then be printed out or transmitted electronically via ACCESS to others, who can then print it out if desired. In order to make an arrest on a warrant, law enforcement officers are not required to have a copy of the warrant in their possession if they:

1. Verify through descriptors in the record received from WACIC/NCIC that they have the correct person detained

2. Contact the entering agency to verify extradition, if applicable, and that the warrant is still outstanding.

14 Washington has an Intra-Government Network (IGN) that is used by virtually all state government agencies to conduct business. Although not a criminal justice network, the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) is accessed through IGN. Users pay a fee for access to IGN.

15 WACIC is a subsystem of WASIS, the Washington State Identification System, its criminal history system.

16 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 26: Warrants Summons Final

Once the warrant has been confirmed, the teletype warrant can be sent via ACCESS from the entering agency to the facility where the arrested subject will be booked. The entering agency will retain a copy of the original signed warrant.

The state does not require a standard warrant format but does require that a minimum amount of information be included on the warrant. Warrants, both felony and misdemeanor, in the wanted persons hot files, contained in WACIC, are NCIC compliant. Washington also follows NCIC rules regarding periodic validation of warrants.

The state does require that the entering agency be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to verify the warrant information. In addition, only the entering agency can update or close out a warrant.

The courts have several software applications for case management and warrants tracking at their disposal. The Administrative Office of the Courts, Information Services Division, manages the Judicial Information System (JIS) that

…provides case management automation to courts in Washington State. It includes systems for appellate, superior, limited jurisdiction and juvenile courts. Its two-fold purpose is: (1) to automate and support the daily operations of the courts and (2) to maintain a statewide network connecting the courts and partner criminal justice agencies to the JIS database. The benefits of this approach are the reduction of the overall cost of automation and access to accurate statewide history information for criminal, domestic violence, and protection order history.

The principal JIS clients are judicial officers, court managers, and other court staff. Other clients include users from the state’s Departments of Corrections and Licensing, the Washington State Patrol and other law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, public defenders, the media, and law firms.16

Over 10,000 users access data on the JIS, including judges, court staff, attorneys, law enforcement, and private sector businesses. JIS is the prevalent case management system in Washington and it is available to all the 200-plus courts in the state, and all but a few use it for their case management function.17 Bench warrant data is also available on JIS.

Individual court systems have their own standalone information management systems. At the appellate level, the Washington Court of Appeals uses the Appellate Court Record and Data System (ACORDS). The County Superior Courts use the Superior Court Management Information System (SCOMIS) and the District and Municipal Courts use the District Court Information System (DISCIS). These systems are used for general court administration and some warrant information is maintained on them. One of the chief benefits of these systems is that prosecutors can query the systems and see if an individual is wanted elsewhere in the state, although this would require several queries because the systems are not connected. This visibility into warrants information also helps minimize the problem of multiple arrests of a single individual on one warrant.

Regarding the warrants process itself, Washington’s practice is typical of other states. Warrants can be sworn to by citizens or law enforcement officials, drawn up by prosecutors, and signed by a judge or court commissioner. All warrants are turned over to law enforcement agencies for service. 18 Some

16 Source: Washington Courts website; http://www.courts.wa.gov/jis/home17 The Seattle Municipal Court and the Pierce County Superior Court use their own case management systems, as do

several “limited jurisdiction” courts throughout the state.18 Superior Court Criminal Rules (CrR) 2.2 and Criminal Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CrRLJ) 2.2

17 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 27: Warrants Summons Final

police departments and sheriffs’ offices form special teams whose only function is warrant service. These teams are typically formed only as required to keep large backlogs from developing.

One of the drawbacks to the system in use in Washington today is that there is no electronic interface between the courts’ systems and WACIC, the law enforcement hot files. Currently, when the courts pass the warrants to the law enforcement agencies, the law enforcement officers must enter the warrants information into WACIC, even though the data was previously entered into one of the courts’ systems. This double entry of data is time consuming and prone to error. Thus, the state is in the process of procuring a system that will provide an electronic interface among these various systems.

Another drawback to the current system is the reluctance of law enforcement officers to enter warrants data into WACIC if they intend to serve the warrant right away. The problem arises if the officer is not able to serve the warrant and forgets to enter the warrant into the system. Law enforcement officers in other jurisdictions thus have no insight into the status of that warrant.

One initiative Washington is pursuing is full use of electronic warrants through document imaging. The document imaging under consideration can take two forms:

1. A paper warrant is scanned into the database and its picture is electronically stored and transmitted, as required

2. The warrant exists in electronic form only, with the judge’s signature being digitally encoded

In this version, the judge signs the warrant electronically, and his or her electronic signature would have the same force and effect as the handwritten signature on a paper warrant.

Finally, Washington State has embraced electronic government, and government agencies are encouraged to take full advantage of information technology to better serve the public.19 Because of this, the Project Team found that users are optimistic about future initiatives to further automate their warrants system.

3.2.5 New York City

New York City, with a population of over 8 million, is larger than some states. Though its population is compressed into a relatively small geographical area, the city has many of the same problems states have in terms of the efficiency of its law enforcement and judicial functions. The New York City Police Department (NYCPD) alone has 45,000 sworn officers distributed at over 90 sites in 76 precincts. The NYCPD officers make over 1,000 arrests a day.

The city’s warrants system was overburdened, and it could take days for a warrant to be processed and weeks for it to be served. A large backlog of active, un-served warrants developed. The city’s response to this problem was to implement an automated warrants system, formally called the Automated DB2 Warrant System (ADW). The ADW system replaced the legacy booking, warrants, and investigation management systems. Key features of the ADW system include:

Rapid Issuance and Distribution of Warrants – The system is able to generate and issue a warrant in minutes, rather than days. Warrant data is electronically submitted from the courts, instead of being entered manually at the police department, so the risk of false arrest due to outdated data is greatly reduced. Business rules coded into the system allow ADW to automatically generate and electronically distribute the warrants to the appropriate precinct or borough. In addition, before issuing the warrant, the system verifies the last-known address of the individual named in the warrant.20

19 For more information of the use of electronic government initiatives in Washington, see www.wa.gov/dis

18 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 28: Warrants Summons Final

Automated Notification – The ADW automatically provides an electronic notification of new or modified warrants to the responsible precinct or borough.

Phonetic Name Search – ADW incorporates a phonetic name search capability with less than two-second response time. The phonetic name search algorithm, which includes many of the features currently used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) fingerprint identification systems, provides the capability to retrieve a list of candidates without regard to the order of first and last name, with multiple surnames, with a wild card for first name, with partial last names, and with sound-alike equivalents. A benefit of this phonetic name search algorithm is a reduction in false identifications and arrests.

Sealing and Unsealing of Warrants, Photos, and Investigation Records – ADW has the capability of supporting the National Fingerprint File (NFF) requirements for restricting the dissemination of arrest information via rap sheets and system responses for those arrests that had been sealed at the state level. The system also supports the unsealing of records.

Electronic Interfaces – The system incorporates an electronic interface to the state Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). DCJS, in turn, interfaces with the FBI’s Interstate Identification Index (III), NCIC, and NLETS. Likewise, ADW includes electronic interfaces to state and federal court systems. This feature eliminates the requirement for double entry of data by court and law enforcement agencies to support their separate systems.

Photo Imaging System – One of the most useful capabilities of ADW that goes beyond typical warrants systems is its incorporation of a digitized photo imaging system for electronic transfer of mugshots with the warrant. The digitized photo, which replaces standard Polaroid or 35mm photographs, is maintained in a centralized database. In addition to allowing the simple transfer of the digitized photo, the system allows the photo to be imbedded into the warrant itself, so that when the warrant is viewed on a computer, or printed from the computer, the photo is an integral part of the warrant. This feature provides for an increased accuracy in identification of the person named in the warrant at time of arrest.

The photo imaging system supports a variety of printer options ranging from economical black and white printers utilizing standard copier paper for the production of internal jail cards, warrants, and other agency defined forms, to large format color printers used for suspect prints and photo lineups used in court cases. Joint Photography Experts Group (JPEG) compression standards are used to reduce the image storage and transmission needs of the digitized photos.

Strict Access Control – The ADW system administrators determine what functions are available to different personnel and workstations. Through a single designated system console, the system administrators can assign and identify specific functions each operator or terminal is authorized to perform. Hierarchical security levels controlled by the system administrators are provided in the system, ranging from the lowest level that allows read-only access to data to the highest level that permits a complete reorganization of data.

Audit Trail Functions – The system includes audit trail features that ensure adequate documentation of database records review and changes. As such, it maintains all the information collected by a police officer while investigating a warrant. It provides an automated checklist to assist the officer in conducting the investigation, and it allows an investigation to be assigned to another officer, or even precinct, without losing any of the history of the investigation.

20 The system verifies the address by checking it against a database to ensure that the address physically exists, not that the named individual lives there. For example, ADW can verify that there is a residence at 123 Main Street, but it cannot verify that John Doe actually lives there.

19 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 29: Warrants Summons Final

The Automated DB2 Warrant System has greatly streamlined the warrants process for the New York City Police Department. Some documented benefits of the system include:

Reduction in the time for issuance of a felony warrant from up to 10 days to less than 1 day

Reduction in the time for issuance of a misdemeanor warrant from several weeks to less than 1 day

Reduction of the time to distribute the physical warrant from up to 5 days to less than 1 day

Reduction in the risk of false arrest due to outdated or erroneous data

The most significant benefit of the ADW system is its overall efficiency, especially as measured by a police officer’s time. Police officers now have more time to devote to patrol and investigative duties, and when they need access to warrants data, it is available.

20 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 30: Warrants Summons Final

4.0 ISSUES

The Project Team identified 12 factors that bear upon the efficiency of the warrants and summonses processes used in Kentucky. Clearly, there are more than a dozen factors, or issues, that can be identified. In developing the 12 issues described in this section, the Project Team focused on those that have the most widespread acceptance. In other words, there is general agreement among those involved in the warrants process that these are the major issues, and that resolving these will go a long way toward improving the system.

Some of the issues identified could be viewed as “facts-of-life” that do not merit mention because there is little that can be done about them under the current system. However, the Project Team believes that if its recommendation for process improvements and better use of automation is implemented that all of these issues will be addressed and their adverse effects on the warrants and summonses processes will be mitigated.

The 12 issues are summarized below.

4.1 Timeliness of Serving Warrants

No consistent time standard for serving warrants across jurisdictions exists; therefore, it is impossible to objectively measure the timeliness of serving warrants. Yet, most agree that timeliness is a problem. Some individuals point to the existence of backlogs of warrants to be served as evidence that they are not served in a timely manner. However, this is not a good measure either. For instance, the often-cited backlog of 70,000 warrants in Louisville and Jefferson County was more a function of how warrants were issued than of the timeliness of their being served.21

The lack of timeliness is, in part, a function of incomplete or inaccurate reporting of the status of a given warrant, the inability of interested parties to get current information regarding a warrant’s status, the priority the serving agent placed on serving the warrant, and the like. The factors that impact timeliness are recurring themes that are addressed in the Project Team’s recommendation.

4.2 Labor-Intensive Process

The warrants process is labor intensive and time consuming. For example, for a typical Arrest Warrant a citizen files a complaint with a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor who presents it to a judge for signature, a judge reviews and signs the complaint, the warrant is turned over to the serving agency, and the serving agent serves the warrant. The serving agent might make several attempts to serve the warrant before being able to do so. Meanwhile, the status of the warrant is tracked and recorded and interested parties can make inquiries of the Commonwealth’s or County Attorneys, the judge or court clerk, or the serving agent who, in turn, will endeavor to determine the status of the warrant to respond to the person making the inquiry. All of this takes time and for a busy court or a large sheriff’s office the burden this places on their employee’s time can be significant.

4.3 Inefficiencies of a Paper-Based System

In the Commonwealth the warrants processes are largely paper based. The warrant itself is a paper document that is, in most cases, completed by hand using a preprinted form. In many jurisdictions, especially the smaller or more rural jurisdictions, status of the warrants is maintained in paper

21 Louisville and Jefferson County used an “incident-based” system rather than a “person-based” system. In an incident-based system multiple warrants can be issued against a single individual, whereas in a person-based system a single warrant is issued against an individual and the warrant might have multiple counts or specifications for multiple offenses.

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 31: Warrants Summons Final

ledgers. Paper-based systems are inherently inefficient, so this is not peculiar to the Kentucky warrants process. Kentucky jurisdictions process thousands of paper warrants that are physically moved from office to court to automobile, changing hands at each step. The potential for loss or mishandling is ever present, and with a paper-based system, no backups exist.

4.4 Business Rules and Policy Guidance

The business rules and/or policy guidance for the warrants process is inconsistent across the Commonwealth. In some cases, no rules or guidance exist; in others the rules or guidance have never been formalized into a written document. Several individuals noted that the lack of formal, written policy or guidance was a problem because there was no consistent process in the jurisdiction.

4.5 Information Sharing

The inability of interested parties to get timely, accurate information regarding the status of outstanding warrants is a widespread concern. This is frequently a problem within a jurisdiction, and the problem is magnified when information is to be shared among jurisdictions. The problem is not the unwillingness to share information; rather, it is that there is no easy way for information that is maintained in one jurisdiction to be readily available to another. This is another drawback to a paper-based system.

4.6 Responsibility and Accountability

A strong, recurring theme is the absence of centralized responsibility and accountability for the warrants process itself. At the local level, the problem arises when warrants are lost or misplaced, when their status cannot be determined, and when large backlogs of un-served warrants develop. Determining how the system broke down as the warrants move through the warrants process lifecycle can be difficult. Responsibility tends to follow the warrant itself, with no individual or agency assuming overall responsibility for the process. Formalizing business rules or policy guidance at the local level, with requirements for each individual in the process to log his actions and report the status of warrants, would go a long way toward solving this problem

At the state level, the problem is institutional, and it has been reinforced in the two statewide warrants information systems – KY Courts and LINK. Information on Bench Warrants is maintained in KY Courts and information on Arrest Warrants is maintained in LINK, and there is little support within the Commonwealth to modifying the existing systems to facilitate assigning responsibility for warrants to a single agency.

4.7 Lack of Statutory or Regulatory Guidance

Currently, in Kentucky no law requires that warrants be served. The vast majority of warrants issued is served by law enforcement personnel because they recognize their duty to do so. Likewise, local jurisdictions and the courts implement tracking systems and make an effort to maintain information regarding the status of the warrants. Law enforcement officers and courts personnel generally agree that statutory or regulatory guidance would be helpful in standardizing the practices across the Commonwealth and minimizing the problems associated with backlogs and information sharing.

4.8 Distinguishing Between Users and Providers of Information

With the paper-based system in use today, there is a certain informality associated with the maintenance and dissemination of information about warrants at the local level. This is not true for the users of KY Courts and LINK systems, which are largely automated and have clear rules regarding who can input information and who can have access to it. At the local level, however, many

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 32: Warrants Summons Final

jurisdictions maintain status of warrants in paper ledgers or in custom-designed electronic files that reside on a single desktop computer. Information regarding warrants is often requested and provided over the telephone.

As the Commonwealth moves to automate some functions of the warrants process it will become necessary to develop formal business rules regarding which individuals will have the authority and responsibility to input information into the system, who can disseminate the information, and who will have access to it.

4.9 Lack of Information Technology Resources and Training in their Use

There is a wide disparity in the availability of IT resources – computers, network interfaces, software, document scanners, and Internet access – to the various judicial and law enforcement agencies in the Commonwealth. The larger agencies such as the KSP, the courts, the AOC, and some of the larger municipal police departments and sheriffs’ departments have adequate IT infrastructure to take advantage of the benefits of office automation. Some have dedicated IT staff to help in this regard. However, many of the smaller agencies have very limited IT resources, and the staff trained in their use is limited to a few clerks or administrative support staff. Although the Project Team did not observe this, it was told that some of the smaller, rural police departments and sheriffs’ offices do not have computers and/or Internet access. Reportedly, they cannot afford to purchase them and train their people in their use; nor could they afford the modest fees to secure access to the Internet.

It is understood that LINK will play a key role in any future statewide enhancement to the warrants process. Currently, however, access to LINK is limited. Only 63 police departments, municipal and county, have direct LINK access. Twenty-five KSP sites and 25 dispatch centers, and 12 (of 120) sheriffs’ offices have direct LINK access. In addition, there are 14 LINK terminals available to AOC (Probation and Parole).22

4.10 Lack of Statewide Data

The Commonwealth does not collect statistics on warrants for Kentucky as a whole. This is because no established mechanism exists for doing so, and local jurisdictions are not required to report statistics to the Commonwealth.

This is an issue because it is difficult to gauge the health of the warrants process statewide without some meaningful metrics being established and tracked. The success of any Commonwealth initiative to improve the warrants process will depend to some extent upon the ability to collect statistics to measure progress.

4.11 Inconsistent Standards for Initiating and Serving a Warrant

A number of individuals told the Project Team that the standards for issuing a warrant were inconsistent among jurisdictions, and that this was a concern. For example, one jurisdiction might issue warrants for writing bad checks while another would not. This could be attributed to the fact that each jurisdiction has its own set of local ordinances, and violation of a local ordinance could result in a warrant being issued. Thus, because ordinances differ from one jurisdiction to another, the offenses that can result in a warrant being issued will differ as well.

In addition, the warrant forms in some jurisdictions varied and/or the information supplied on the warrants were different or not as complete. Some warrants were issued with the bare minimum of information on the warrant while others had all required fields completed. The Project Team found that this difference in standards exists both within and among jurisdictions.

22 Source: Commander of Computer Technologies, Kentucky State Police.

3 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 33: Warrants Summons Final

Finally, during the interviews with law enforcement officers, the Project Team learned that some jurisdictions are more aggressive in serving warrants than others, and that even though all operated under the laws of the Commonwealth, local politics may have an impact on how the process was administered and assessed.

4.12 KSP Staffing

The Kentucky State Police Computer Technologies Section is trying to expand its service to its customers but has a staffing shortfall. Currently, there are ten authorized, but unfilled, civilian staff positions (Chapter 18A) in this section. These unfilled positions are due to funding shortfalls in the personnel accounts and negatively impact the KSP’s ability to do warrants administration. When KSP assumes responsibility for LINK from GOT they will receive an additional seven funded civilian positions, but there is no indication that the existing ten unfilled positions will be funded and filled.

4 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 34: Warrants Summons Final

5.0 ALTERNATIVES

The UCJIS Project Team performed a review in a number of counties throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky of the current warrants and summons processes and the technology that currently supports them. Under the existing processes, warrants and summonses are issued, delivered to serving agents, tracked, served, and closed. Most of the processes are paper based, while some are automated. No standard exists statewide and the information and processes are not integrated for statewide access to information. Therefore, various agencies and their personnel are unable to share vital law enforcement data across the Commonwealth. This has jeopardized the timely, accurate, and up-to-date distribution of information and serving of warrants and summonses.

Based on this study and the findings of the Project Team, a number of possible alternative courses of action were developed. They are:

Do nothing and keep the existing processes/systems

Keep the existing system but implement process improvements

Keep the existing system and implement process improvements with the addition of some minimal technology improvements

Implement a fully integrated and automated e-documents solution

Below is a summary description of the alternatives with their advantages and disadvantages for the Commonwealth.

Alternative 1 – Do nothing and keep the existing processes/systems

The current system for issuing warrants and summonses is paper-based with automated processes in certain counties. Warrants and summonses are issued, delivered to serving agents, tracked, served, and closed. This current process is labor intensive, paper intensive, partially automated, and not standardized across the Commonwealth. Individuals are not able to share electronically vital law enforcement data across and within all law enforcement agencies in the Commonwealth.

Advantages to this alternative are that the status quo is maintained, users will not have to adjust to new processes or technology, and the Commonwealth will not face significant capital outlays.

Disadvantages are that improvements to current processes will be incremental and localized. Backlogs of un-served warrants will continue to develop, costly inefficiencies will remain, and access to timely information about the status of warrants will be limited. There will be no standardization across the Commonwealth and the goals of the UCJIS Program will not be achieved. Most importantly, a number of wanted persons will remain at large.

Alternative 2 – Keep the existing system but implement process improvements

This alternative would entail maintaining the current paper-based system but implementing some process improvements. Process improvements would include standardizing procedures, designating persons or agencies that are responsible for the process, and developing mechanisms by which information sharing could be improved. Some statutory and/or regulatory changes might be required. As with all significant process improvement, there would be a requirement for personnel training and formal organizational change management.

If there are no technology improvements implemented, advantages to this alternative are limited to those that would accrue due to the implementation of process improvements alone. Some improvements, such as adopting a standard warrant format, strengthening the warrants review process, and publicizing warrants information in local newspapers could result in savings in time

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 35: Warrants Summons Final

and money. Standardizing procedures would minimize uncertainty among users, reduce training requirements, and build accountability into the system.

Disadvantages of the current paper-based system would remain, but would be mitigated by incorporation of process improvements similar to those listed above.

Alternative 3 – Keep the existing system and implement process improvements with the addition of some minimal technology improvements

This alternative would be an improvement over Alternative 2 in that some additional technology would be implemented. Technology improvements could include increased use of networked databases or the Internet/intranet for timely status reporting and information sharing.

Advantages of this alternative over the second alternative are that still more efficiencies could be achieved. Process improvements are important, but the addition of targeted technology improvements would leverage the advantages of technology and automation to the benefit of the Commonwealth. Kentucky could make better use of its existing systems – LINK and KY Courts – to allow better information sharing among law enforcement agencies and courts personnel. Providing greater access to LINK across the Commonwealth would be an excellent initiative, as would allowing law enforcement officers to have online access to employment information on individuals named in warrants.

One disadvantage to this alternative is that it would entail a significant investment on the part of the Commonwealth to make the technology more widely available and train people in its use. Staffing in local jurisdictions would have to be increased if additional LINK terminals were to be provided. Again, this alternative would retain the paper-based system in use today, and some of its inefficiencies would remain.

Alternative 4 – Implement a fully integrated and automated e-documents solution

This alternative is the natural progression from the current paper-based system that is managed locally to an integrated, automated system that is in keeping with the goal of the UCJIS Program. Implementation of this alternative would move Kentucky to an e-documents system in which warrants and summonses would be originated, processed, authenticated, transferred, and filed electronically, with actual paper documents being created only at that point in the process required by statute or regulation.

Advantages of this alternative would include minimizing the origination, transfer, and storage requirements of warrants. It would leverage the many benefits of an automated, e-documents system, such as added system and data security, reduction in errors due to manual intervention, full sharing of information, real-time access to the status of documents, timeliness of actions, and process and cost efficiencies. In addition, this alternative would easily facilitate the integration of the Commonwealth’s data with other states in tracking and serving warrants.

The primary disadvantage of this alternative would be the significant increases in IT resources required. This, in turn, would entail more training for all affected personnel. It would also disrupt local ways of doing business, which could lead to discontent among the users.

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 36: Warrants Summons Final

6.0 RECOMMENDATION

After careful consideration, the Project Team recommends Kentucky implement process improvements and migrate to an integrated, automated e-documents solution, as briefly described in Alternative 4 above. Key features of the recommendation are:

Formalize and standardize the warrants process across the Commonwealth (may need to reorder these)

» Develop a standard format for Arrest and Bench Warrants

» Consider adopting a person-based warrants system versus an incident-based warrants system

» Establish a timeliness standard for entry of warrants into LINK

» Strengthen the warrants review process

» Provide law enforcement agencies access to employment information on individuals named in warrants

» Publicize active warrants in local newspapers

» Notify individuals by mail when a warrant is issued

Implement a pilot project to validate key features of the automated warrants process

Automate the warrants process

» Investigate future uses of digitized signatures

» Develop middleware or a web interface to make LINK and KY Courts warrant information available to all authorized users

» Facilitate information sharing with Kentucky prisons and jails

Commit to the long-term requirements in terms of staffing, training, funding, and ongoing technical support

The Project Team believes this recommendation can be implemented over a three-year time period, as shown in Exhibit 6-3.

Formalize & Standardize the Warrants Process

Implement a Pilot Project

Automate the Warrants Process

Commit to Long-Term Support

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Formalize & Standardize the Warrants Process

Implement a Pilot Project

Automate the Warrants Process

Commit to Long-Term Support

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Exhibit 6-3: Implementation Timeline

As shown in Exhibit 6-3, the recommendation would be implemented sequentially, with some overlap of key activities. This will allow Kentucky to lay the groundwork for implementing the automated system by bringing stakeholders into the process in its early stages, working through the various steps

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 37: Warrants Summons Final

together and building institutional buy-in among the parties as the program progresses. Involvement of stakeholders throughout the process will be necessary if implementing the recommendation is to be successful.

In making its recommendation, the Project Team is aware that it cannot be implemented absent strong leadership from a Commonwealth. Since the recommendation involves the courts and law enforcement agencies, the Project Team recommends that the UCJIS Committee take the lead in implementing the recommendation. To help the UCJIS Committee do this, two working groups should be established: the Standards Working Group and the Processes Working Group. The two working groups would report directly to the UCJIS Committee and would draw their membership from the various stakeholders in the Commonwealth.

The functions of the working groups would be to flesh out the details necessary to implement the Project Team’s recommendation. For instance, the Project Team has included a sample warrant format in Appendix D. Whether the Commonwealth decides to adopt the format provided herein or develop formats on its own would be an issue the Standards Working Group would address. The Standards Working Group would make a recommendation to the UCJIS Committee that, in turn, would approve the recommendation or return it to the working group for further study. Actual implementation of the recommendation would be the responsibility of the UCJIS Committee.

The individual components of the Project Team’s overall recommendation would be assigned to one of the two working groups as shown in Exhibit 6-4. The pilot project would not be assigned to a working group; it would be assigned to a specially chartered UCJIS Subcommittee as described in Section 6.2.

Exhibit 6-4: Working Group Tasks and Membership

Working GroupComponent of Recommendation to be

AddressedProposed Membership of Working Group

Standards Working Group

Develop a standard format for Arrest and Bench Warrants

Adopt a person-based warrants system versus an incident-based warrants system

Establish a timeliness standard for entry of warrants into LINK

Develop an e-warrant that accommodates digitized signatures

KY UCJIS Program Manager Justice Cabinet CIO Representatives from:

» KSP (Computer Technologies)» AOC» Kentucky Sheriff’s Association» Kentucky Association of Chief’s of Police» Commonwealth’s and County Attorneys Offices» Circuit and County Courts Clerks Offices» Governor’s Office for Technology

Processes Working Group

Strengthen the warrants review process Provide law enforcement agencies

access to employment information on individuals named in warrants

Publicize active warrants in local newspapers

Notify individuals by mail when a warrant is issued

Develop middleware or a web interface to make LINK and KY Courts warrant information available to all authorized users

Facilitate the sharing of information among law enforcement agencies, the courts, and Kentucky prisons and jails

KY UCJIS Program Manager Justice Cabinet CIO Representatives from:

» KSP (Computer Technologies)» AOC» Kentucky Sheriff’s Association» Kentucky Association of Chief’s of Police» Commonwealth’s and County Attorneys Offices» Circuit and County Courts Clerks Offices» Governor’s Office for Technology» Kentucky Department of Corrections» Jails» Kentucky Department for Employment Services

6.1 Formalize and Standardize the Warrants Process

The general consensus of those interviewed by the Project Team was that a standardized process and standard warrant formats would be welcomed at the local level. Thus, warrants from one jurisdiction

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 38: Warrants Summons Final

would look the same and have the same information as warrants from another jurisdiction. This level of standardization would still allow local jurisdictions to implement local rules to meet their needs.

It was also agreed that the standards would have to be established at the state level and presented to local jurisdictions for adoption. The agency developing the standards should invite participation from local courts and law enforcement agencies to ensure that their needs are taken into account. This would facilitate the required buy-in on the part of local agencies to ensure the standardization program succeeds.

The Project Team identified seven key steps that should be taken to formalize and standardize the warrants process, as discussed below. We estimate these could take up to one year to complete, as shown in Exhibit 6-5.

Develop Standard Warrant Formats

Consider Adopting a Person-Based Warrants System

Establish a Timeliness Standard

Strengthen the Warrants Review Process

Publicize Warrants Information in Local Newspapers

Provide LE Access to Employment Information

Mail Notices to Individuals Named in Warrants

Formalize & Standardize the Warrants Process

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Develop Standard Warrant Formats

Consider Adopting a Person-Based Warrants System

Establish a Timeliness Standard

Strengthen the Warrants Review Process

Publicize Warrants Information in Local Newspapers

Provide LE Access to Employment Information

Mail Notices to Individuals Named in Warrants

Formalize & Standardize the Warrants Process

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Exhibit 6-5: Formalize and Standardize the Warrants Process Timeline

6.1.1 Develop a Standard Format for Arrest and Bench Warrants

The Project Team found that within and among jurisdictions, various formats requiring different data for warrants were being used. One standard format for each type of warrant should be developed for use throughout the Commonwealth. The warrant formats should meet the requirements of the Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure and NCIC 2000.

It was suggested to the Project Team that the Kentucky Supreme Court should adopt a rule that specifies standard warrant formats. Another individual expressed an alternative view, that the Prosecutors Advisory Council (PAC) should take the lead in doing this. The attorney general chairs the PAC, and the governor appoints its members. As the Commonwealth body charged with the responsibility for administering the Unified Prosecutorial System, the PAC has the stature to do this. Whichever state agency takes the lead, it would be advantageous to involve the Kentucky Sheriffs’ Association and the Kentucky Association of Chiefs of Police in the effort.

An example of a Warrant of Arrest on Indictment is included in Appendix D. This warrant format is developed in Microsoft Word as a template, such that the user can fill out the warrant in the computer and print it or transmit the completed warrant electronically to be printed out at another location. The warrant template can also be printed and filled out by hand. Whatever format the Commonwealth selects, the Project Team recommends that it be adopted as the standard AOC format and be available

3 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 39: Warrants Summons Final

for download through KY Courts. The warrants should also be given a formal form number (e.g., AOC-S-123.1). Users would then have three ways to obtain the Commonwealth standard warrant:

1. Download it from KY Courts

2. Print the warrant from the Microsoft Word template

3. Order a supply of paper warrants by reference to the form number assigned to it

6.1.2 Consider Adopting a Person-Based Warrants System

An incident-based warrants system is one in which a separate warrant is issued for each incident involving a single individual, whereas a person-based system is one in which a single warrant is issued and it has multiple counts or specifications for each incident. The latter system results in fewer warrants being issued, fewer warrants being tracked, and fewer warrants being served. Large backlogs of un-served warrants are less likely to accrue with a person-based system.

Both systems are in use in the Commonwealth today. The Project Team recommends that Kentucky consider adopting a person-based warrants system for use throughout the Commonwealth. This could be phased in over time, with some grace period given for conversion of existing warrants to the person-based system. However, if adopted, at some specified date, all new warrants should comply with the requirements of a person-based system.

6.1.3 Establish a Timeliness Standard

A critical element of any statewide, standardized warrants process will be the development of a timeliness standard for law enforcement agencies to enter warrants information in LINK. No standard currently exists, and it is left to the discretion of the warrants entering agency when to enter a warrant into the system, if at all. This will be unacceptable for a statewide system because it will complicate the effort to accumulate statistical information, and it will taint any decisions that are made based upon those statistics.

The Project Team recommends that a statewide standard be established and adopted by all law enforcement agencies in the Commonwealth. For example, the standard could be:

All felony warrants that have not been served within 7 days of issue will be entered into LINK

All misdemeanor warrants that have not been served within 30 days of issue will be entered into LINK

The important point is not that the Commonwealth adopt the 7- and 30-day standards cited here, but that it establish a uniform standard and encourage law enforcement agencies to adhere to it.

6.1.4 Strengthen the Warrants Review Process

Unserved warrants can linger for years, and the Project Team found a wide variance in the size of the warrants backlog among jurisdictions. The apparent standard for initiating a review of the active warrants file is when the backlog of un-served warrants exceeds a certain comfort level or when there is a change of leadership.

This ad hoc approach to reviewing warrants will not support the Commonwealth’s effort to determine the size of the warrants backlog and draw reasonable inferences based upon that backlog. The warrants that are loaded into NCIC must meet NCIC 2000 standards for validation, which state that all warrants will be validated 90 days after they are input into NCIC and every 12 months thereafter.

The Project Team recommends that Kentucky adopt this validation schedule for all its warrants. This will ensure that every warrant is reviewed annually, and that those that remain active for years are

4 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 40: Warrants Summons Final

valid warrants that cannot be withdrawn. Exhibit 6-6 shows the recommend warrants validation schedule.

Exhibit 6-6: Recommended Warrants Validation Schedule

Month Warrant is Issued Month Warrant is First Validated Month of Subsequent Warrant Validations

January April, same year April, every year thereafter

February May, same year May, every year thereafter

March June, same year June, every year thereafter

April July, same year July, every year thereafter

May August, same year August, every year thereafter

June September, same year September, every year thereafter

July October, same year October, every year thereafter

August November, same year November, every year thereafter

September December, same year December, every year thereafter

October January, next year January, every year thereafter

November February, next year February, every year thereafter

December March, next year March, every year thereafter

6.1.5 Provide Law Enforcement Agencies Access to Employment Information

Law enforcement officers typically try to serve warrants at the individual’s address of record. However, many wanted persons move frequently or have no fixed address. In those cases, the law enforcement officer will try to get the individual’s work address and serve the warrant there. Work addresses can be obtained from several sources, but the most appropriate source for this information is the Kentucky Department for Employment Services.23

Access to this information should be online, and access would be limited to law enforcement dispatch centers, or to selected people in the law enforcement agency having primary responsibility for serving warrants in the county. The officer would query the Department of Employment Services database on a case-by-case basis, only for those hard-to-serve warrants after several unsuccessful attempts to serve the warrant at the individual’s address of record.

6.1.6 Publicize Active Warrants in Local Newspapers

Publicizing certain hard-to-serve felony warrants in local newspapers could make them easier to serve by getting the local citizenry involved. Local jurisdictions could request free space in the newspaper for this. However, it would be important for the courts to indemnify the newspaper from liability resulting from publishing the warrant information. Otherwise, it is unlikely the newspaper would be willing to participate in this practice.

6.1.7 Notify Individuals by Mail When a Warrant is Issued

The Project Team recommends that the Commonwealth notify people by mail when a warrant is issued, informing the individual of the nature of the offense that caused the warrant to be issued and the actions the individual must take to clear the warrant. In many cases, a simple post card will suffice. Many people will respond to the notice and take action to clear the warrant on their own

23 This was a recommendation of the Louisville-Jefferson County Crime Commission’s Warrant Process Committee. The Project Team finds this preferable to calling the Attorney General’s Office and asking for an individual’s work address, which is how one sheriff’s office gets this information.

5 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 41: Warrants Summons Final

volition, thus relieving law enforcement officers from having to serve the warrant and take the individual into custody.24

6.2 Implement a Pilot Project

As an interim step toward implementing a streamlined, standardized warrants system throughout the Commonwealth, the Project Team recommends that a pilot project be undertaken. The pilot project would be limited in scope and objective, and would serve to validate the proposed information sharing mechanism and the use of standardized warrant formats.

The pilot project would require participation from the following agencies:

Kentucky UCJIS Committee (provide executive-level oversight to the pilot project; charter a subcommittee to lead the pilot project effort)

Administrative Office of the Courts (collect Bench Warrant data from participating counties and transmit it to KSP)

Kentucky State Police (receive county Bench Warrant data from AOC and post it to LINK)

Commonwealth’s and County Attorneys

Prosecutors Advisory Council (for prototyping the prosecutors’ support application)

Courts (circuit and county) and law enforcement agencies in participating counties (courts to provide Bench Warrant data to AOC through Sustain or KY Courts, and law enforcement agencies to gain access to Bench Warrant data from LINK and act upon it. Law enforcement agencies would also use the standard Arrest Warrant and upload the Arrest Warrant into LINK)

The pilot project would be limited to a maximum of three counties. The UCJIS Committee would determine the selection criteria for the participating counties (e.g., rural or urban, large [by population] or small, etc.). The participating counties would agree to have their Bench Warrant information transmitted periodically to KSP for loading into LINK. The KSP and the law enforcement agencies in the participating counties would then have online access to Bench Warrant data through their LINK connections. The law enforcement agencies would also enter Arrest Warrant data into LINK and use the standard Arrest Warrant format.

The AOC would consolidate the Bench Warrant data from CourtNet and transmit this data to KSP twice a day.25 KSP would receive this data transfer and post it to LINK. Law enforcement officers would have access to this Bench Warrant data and would be authorized to act upon it. In order for this to work, two conditions must be met, and these would apply to the pilot project and any subsequent statewide implementation. First, KSP would have to accept the Bench Warrant data as transmitted from AOC as being valid, without taking any independent steps to validate it.26 Second, law enforcement officers would not have access to actual copies of the Bench Warrants from the other jurisdictions. Thus, in the unlikely event that the Bench Warrant data transmitted by AOC and entered

24 For some, the mail notice is the first indication that a warrant has been issued. The Project Team learned of one individual who received a notice in the mail from another state regarding an unpaid traffic violation. Knowing that a Bench Warrant had been issued the individual promptly contacted the clerk of the court and resolved the matter.

25 The frequency of data transmissions might be different in statewide implementation, but twice a day is a reasonable target for the pilot project, and can be supported by AOC. In addition, AOC indicates it could transmit all case file information or limit its data transfer to just warrants information. The Project Team recommends that for the pilot project only warrants information be transmitted.

26 AOC recognizes that this places an extra burden on court clerks to ensure that the data they report through Sustain or KY Courts is valid and up to date.

6 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 42: Warrants Summons Final

into LINK by KSP contained invalid warrants, the law enforcement officers would need to be indemnified against any legal action that could result from them serving an invalid warrant.

The pilot project would also prototype a support application for Commonwealth’s and County Attorneys.27 The prototype would not be a full case management system as described in the UCJIS Implementation Plan, but it would automate creation of the warrant and tracking of its status. The Project Team recommends that for the prototype the prosecutors use the standard warrant as described in Section 6.1.1. Select an application for the prototype (e.g., Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, etc.) and provide it to the prosecutors’ offices that participate in the pilot project. Once the prosecutor fills out the warrant template on the computer, the warrant could be e-mailed to the judge or court clerk for printing and signature, or it could be saved to a secure folder on a shared network for retrieval by the judge or clerk. For jurisdictions where e-mail and/or an intranet are not available, the warrants could be saved to a floppy disk and provided to the courts for signature on a daily basis. One of the goals of the pilot project would be to determine the best way to do this.

Another goal of the pilot project would be to determine the most effective way for the prosecutors to gain access to warrants information. One way to do this would be to allow prosecutors access to LINK so they could get information on Arrest and Bench Warrants for the counties participating in the pilot. Depending on the counties selected to participate in the pilot project, this might require that additional LINK terminals be installed to facilitate this prototype effort.

Rules would have to be promulgated for the pilot project, and this would be done through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would include all the participating agencies as signatories. For instance, a standard time period (e.g., 30 days) for entering Arrest Warrant information into LINK would have to be adopted.

Over the course of the pilot project, the KSP would gather relevant statistics and report them to the UCJIS subcommittee leading the pilot project effort. At the conclusion of the pilot project, the subcommittee would develop a final report with lessons learned and recommendations, and submit it to the full Kentucky UCJIS Committee.

The 15-month pilot project would fall within the overall 3-year period to implement this recommendation as shown in Exhibit 6-7.

Implement a Pilot Project

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Implement a Pilot Project

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Exhibit 6-7: Implement a Pilot Project Timeline

The Project Team has identified the major activities necessary to implement the pilot project. These activities, along with a short description of what they entail and the agency responsible for accomplishing the activity, are shown in the Exhibit 6-8.

Exhibit 6-8: Pilot Project Activities

Activity DescriptionResponsible

AgencySupporting Agencies

Select counties to It will be necessary to determine which counties will KY UCJIS AOC, KSP

27 This is a planned future project in the UCJIS Implementation Plan. Prototyping it as part of this pilot project will give the Commonwealth a head start should it decide to deploy such an application. See UCJIS Implementation Plan, Revision 1, August 10, 2001.

7 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 43: Warrants Summons Final

Exhibit 6-8: Pilot Project Activities

Activity DescriptionResponsible

AgencySupporting Agencies

participate participate in the pilot project. Committee

Charter a UCJIS subcommittee

While the full UCJIS Committee will provide executive-level oversight, it will be necessary to charter a subcommittee to manage the pilot project. The subcommittee should have members from all participating agencies.

KY UCJIS Committee

AOC, KSP, circuit and county courts, Commonwealth’s and County Attorneys, county law enforcement agencies

Develop a MOU This pilot project will require the willing cooperation of all participants. An MOU will have to be written and adopted by all participating agencies. The MOU should address:

Authority for the project Project period of performance Project objectives Participating agencies/counties Roles and responsibilities Project funding28

Requirements» Warrants formats29

» Data content and format» Frequency of data transmissions» Personnel authorizations» 30-day rule for data entry to LINK» Reporting

KY UCJIS Subcommittee

AOC, KSP, circuit and county courts, Commonwealth’s and County Attorneys, county law enforcement agencies

Specify data content and format

The MOU will state the need for the data content and format to be agreed to before the start of the pilot project.

AOC and KSP N/A

Conduct trial data transfers and receipts

Before commencing the pilot project, it will be necessary to ensure that the necessary Bench Warrants data can be transmitted, received, and input to LINK.

AOC and KSP N/A

Prototype a support application for prosecutors

Provide a software application for creating the standard warrant and a means for prosecutors to track the status of warrants

Commonwealth’s and County Attorneys

PAC, AOC, and KSP, circuit and county courts

Provide training Training will have to be provided to the various participants in the pilot project. Statistics on the type and amount of training provided during the pilot will help Kentucky estimate training needs when statewide implementation takes place

KY UCJIS Subcommittee

All

Develop performance statistics and assign responsible agency

It will be necessary to develop statistics so the performance of the pilot system can be assessed. As the project progresses it might be necessary to revise the list of statistics. Once it is determined what statistics are appropriate, it will be necessary to determine which agency is best able to collect them and report on them.

KY UCJIS Subcommittee

AOC, KSP, circuit and county courts, Commonwealth’s and County Attorneys, county law enforcement agencies

Hold pilot project kickoff meeting

One week before the pilot project is to commence, it will be necessary to hold a kickoff meeting to ensure that all participants are aware of their responsibilities and are ready to begin

KY UCJIS Subcommittee

N/A

Pilot project start Self explanatory All

Collect and report Self explanatory As determined by As required

28 There may be a requirement for participating agencies to receive funding support for this pilot project. This should be addressed in the MOU.

29 The Project Team recommends that the pilot project use the standard warrant formats developed in Section 6.1.1.

8 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 44: Warrants Summons Final

Exhibit 6-8: Pilot Project Activities

Activity DescriptionResponsible

AgencySupporting Agencies

performance statistics the KY UCJIS Subcommittee

Midterm review Halfway through the pilot project implementation it would be helpful to hold a review to discuss progress, review statistics, and implement any midterm corrections necessary.

KY UCJIS Subcommittee

N/A

Develop lessons learned

At project completion it will be necessary for all participating agencies to develop a list of lessons learned for inclusion in a final report

All

Prepare and deliver pilot project final report

It will be necessary to prepare a final report that documents the successes and failures, if any, of the pilot project. The final report will include a recommendation as to whether Kentucky should proceed with a statewide implementation.

KY UCJIS Subcommittee

As required

Post pilot project actions

Following the pilot project the KY UCJIS Committee will have to determine whether a statewide implementation is appropriate. If so, a plan will have to be developed. If not, remedial actions will have to be identified.

KY UCJIS Committee

AOC, KSP, circuit and county courts, Commonwealth’s and County Attorneys, county law enforcement agencies

The Project Team estimates that the pilot project would take 15 months: 3 months to get the pilot up and running and a 12-month run time with a mid-term review. A proposed timeline for the pilot project is shown in Exhibit 6-9.

Months 1 – 5 Months 6 – 10 Months 11 – 15

Select Participating Counties

Charter UCJIS Subcommittee

Develop MOU

Specify Data Content & Format

Conduct Trial Data Transfers

Develop Performance Statistics

Hold Kickoff Meeting

Implement Pilot Project

Hold Midterm Review

Develop Lessons Learned

Prepare and Deliver Final Report

Post Pilot Project Actions

Collect & Report Statistics

Months 1 – 5 Months 6 – 10 Months 11 – 15

Select Participating Counties

Charter UCJIS Subcommittee

Develop MOU

Specify Data Content & Format

Conduct Trial Data Transfers

Develop Performance Statistics

Hold Kickoff Meeting

Implement Pilot Project

Hold Midterm Review

Develop Lessons Learned

Prepare and Deliver Final Report

Post Pilot Project Actions

Collect & Report Statistics

Months 1 – 5 Months 6 – 10 Months 11 – 15

Select Participating CountiesSelect Participating Counties

Charter UCJIS SubcommitteeCharter UCJIS Subcommittee

Develop MOUDevelop MOU

Specify Data Content & FormatSpecify Data Content & Format

Conduct Trial Data Transfers

Develop Performance StatisticsDevelop Performance Statistics

Hold Kickoff MeetingHold Kickoff Meeting

Implement Pilot ProjectImplement Pilot Project

Hold Midterm ReviewHold Midterm Review

Develop Lessons LearnedDevelop Lessons Learned

Prepare and Deliver Final ReportPrepare and Deliver Final Report

Post Pilot Project ActionsPost Pilot Project Actions

Collect & Report StatisticsCollect & Report Statistics

Exhibit 6-9: Proposed Timeline for Pilot Project

9 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 45: Warrants Summons Final

6.3 Automate the Warrants Process

The process recommendations described above will go a long way toward improving Kentucky’s overall warrants process. The next logical step would be to automate the process to the extent possible, taking advantage of the automation infrastructure already in place, and augmenting it as necessary.

The Project Team estimates development and implementation of the automated process described here would be accomplished in 2 years. Exhibit 6-10 depicts how this fits within the 3-year time period for the overall recommendation. These activities overlap the pilot project because many of them can be done concurrent with, but independent of, the pilot project. Waiting until the pilot project is complete would unnecessarily delay implementation.

Develop the E-Warrant

Provide LINK – KY Courts Interface

Information Sharing with Prisons and Jails

Automate the Warrants Process

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Develop the E-Warrant

Provide LINK – KY Courts Interface

Information Sharing with Prisons and Jails

Automate the Warrants Process

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Exhibit 6-10: Automate the Warrants Process Timeline

The three key activities that comprise this part of the recommendation are discussed in the following sections.

6.3.1 Develop an Electronic Warrant

To fully automate the warrants process in Kentucky it will be necessary to develop and use an electronic warrant, or e-warrant. The e-warrant would not completely replace the standard warrant formats described in Section 6.1.1; rather, it would supplement them. The standard formats would still be available to those jurisdictions that would not be able to fully implement the automated process with the e-warrant in the short term. However, as the UCJIS Program matures and all jurisdictions in the Commonwealth have access to the information technology equipment and training necessary for full implementation, the standard formats would be phased out.

The State of Colorado uses five e-warrants in its CICJIS system. Examples of three of these warrants are shown in Appendix E.

In addition to the basic features of the e-warrant, the Project Team recommends that Kentucky take two additional steps to take full advantage of the e-warrant. First, Kentucky should investigate the use of digital signature encryption. This would allow the originating agency to notify the judge by any means necessary that an electronic warrant has been created. Rather that printing the warrant and asking the judge to sign it, the judge would log on to the e-warrants application and electronically approve it by inserting his or her digital signature on the warrant. The judge’s digital signature would have the same force and effect as his handwritten signature on a paper warrant.30

30 Colorado does not use digital signatures on its electronic warrants. The judge authorizes the court clerk to enter the warrant into the system and it becomes official when entered.

10 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 46: Warrants Summons Final

Second, Kentucky should adopt business rules to clearly establish ownership of the e-warrant, and those rules should be hard-coded into the e-warrants system. Ownership might change as the warrant works its way through the system, but the e-warrants software would automatically track this and update the warrant’s status as its ownership changed. The reason for this is that unlike with paper warrants, multiple people at dispersed locations can access an e-warrant simultaneously. This could allow various people to amend or close a warrant. Definitive business rules built into the system will ensure that only the proper agency can amend, close, or withdraw a warrant. 31 Likewise, the system would automatically notify all appropriate agencies whenever a warrant’s status had changed.

6.3.2 Provide an Interface between LINK and KY Courts

This element of the recommendation has two key features:

1. Access to LINK must be expanded throughout the Commonwealth so that more law enforcement agencies have ready access to it

2. There must be an interface between LINK and KY Courts such that a law enforcement officer can have access to Bench Warrant information via the LINK terminal

The most frequent concern raised by local law enforcement officers is the inability to readily share information on active warrants – both bench and arrest – from one jurisdiction to the next. For most local law enforcement agencies, information sharing is done by telephone or mobile radio. Those jurisdictions that have direct access to LINK have an advantage in that they have access to information in other jurisdictions that are connected to LINK. However, they must share information with non-LINK-connected jurisdictions over the phone or by radio. This is a time-consuming practice, and in the case of Bench Warrants, it is limited to normal duty hours when court staff is available to do the research required to respond to queries.

Providing greater access to LINK across the Commonwealth is key. LINK is the mechanism by which Arrest Warrant information can be shared, both intrastate and interstate. It is the Project Team’s strong recommendation that Kentucky aggressively expand LINK access. As described above, at approximately $10,000 per installation, plus ongoing training and software maintenance costs, this will be costly, but essential. Increased access to LINK together with the Project Team’s other recommendations – use of standard warrant formats and e-warrants, rigorous timeliness standards and stricter validation requirements, etc. – will go a long way toward standardizing and streamlining the process for Arrest Warrants.

The other side of the coin is Bench Warrants. Currently, law enforcement officers do not have the capability to get up-to-date, online access to Bench Warrant information. That information is maintained by the courts and entered into the KY Courts system. To make this information available to law enforcement officers, the Project Team recommends that AOC provide Bench Warrant information to KSP via regular data pushes to LINK. This is the methodology we recommend be tested in the pilot project. The pilot project will validate the data formats and transfer protocols and prove the efficacy of the proposed system. Frequency of the AOC data pushes, recommended at twice daily for the pilot project, can be revised based upon the results of the pilot project. Statewide implementation could be phased in consistent with the ability of AOC and KSP to support it.

The mechanics of the AOC data push to KSP for incorporation into LINK will be worked out during the pilot project. The desired functionality will be that law enforcement officers will be able to get current information on Arrest and Bench Warrants through a single query through LINK.

31 Colorado has adopted this practice to good effect. When a user attempts to take some action on a warrant the system will only allow certain actions to be taken depending on who “owns” the warrant. All actions taken generate an automatic notification to the appropriate agencies.

11 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 47: Warrants Summons Final

Finally, this recommendation is consistent with the strategic architecture as described in the UCJIS Strategic Plan.32 The Strategic Plan envisions a shared data warehouse with courts, law enforcement, and prosecutors all having access via an intranet or web interface. This recommendation constitutes an intermediate step toward the architecture in the Strategic Plan.

6.3.3 Facilitate Information Sharing with Kentucky Prisons and Jails

Law enforcement agencies should have insight into prison and jail populations to determine if an individual named in a warrant is incarcerated. Officers could access this information as soon as the warrant is received and before any attempt is made to serve it, or only after several unsuccessful attempts to serve the warrant and the individual’s whereabouts cannot be determined. The recommended way to accomplish this would be for the prison and jail databases (e.g., the jail management systems) to push their inmate lists to a UCJIS data warehouse that could be queried by law enforcement officers.

Likewise, jailers should be able to submit queries to the courts and law enforcement agencies to determine if an inmate has any outstanding warrants. This should be done when an inmate is booked and again just prior to release. Ideally, this could be done through an interface between their computer systems and the UCJIS data warehouse that would have up-to-date warrants information. In the short term, jailers could submit these queries through local law enforcement agencies and courts for a search of LINK and KY Courts. This could be done through a telephone, fax, or e-mail request depending on the local protocols that would be worked out between the jailers and the local law enforcement agencies and courts.

Law enforcement officers already have the ability to search Kentucky prison inmate lists through the Kentucky Offender Online Lookup (KOOL) system that is maintained by the Department of Corrections.33 Providing an interface to this system directly through LINK would allow officers to determine if the subject of a warrant is already in prison when the officer submits a warrant query in LINK.

6.4 Commit to Staffing, Training, Funding, and Ongoing Technical Support

The essence of the non-directive approach discussed above is incentives. Incentives are necessary to foster the level of cooperation that will be needed to ensure success. These incentives take the form of staffing support, training, funding, and ongoing technical support.

As discussed above, KSP staffing is a concern in that the Computer Technologies Section is understaffed now due to insufficient funding in the Chapter 18A personnel account. This adversely affects it ability to administer the warrants system current in place. KSP would be unable to support the Project Team’s recommendation if its funded staffing levels were not increased commensurate with the increased workload. Other jurisdictions might require additional staffing but the heaviest burden would be on KSP.

Training is essential whenever significant organizational change is implemented. The requirement for training is increased when the change involves moving from a manual, paper-based system to one that makes greater use of automation. Many of the smaller, rural jurisdictions have virtually no IT infrastructure available to them. They can be expected to have a natural reluctance to migrating to an unfamiliar system that involves automation with which they are unfamiliar. It will be incumbent upon the Commonwealth to explain the benefits of the new system and to provide the local training necessary for successful implementation.

32 UCJIS Strategic Plan, Section 5, Strategic Architecture33 See: http://www.cor.state.ky.us/~KOOL

12 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 48: Warrants Summons Final

It is imperative that the Commonwealth secure the funding necessary to implement the recommendation, especially in terms of providing funding to smaller jurisdictions whose operating budgets are too small to accommodate even minimal improvements in office automation and information technology. Funding in terms of outright grants or donation of IT equipment will be required for many of these jurisdictions. Greater access to LINK will be necessary, and the costs of providing LINK access may have to be borne by the Commonwealth, as would the costs of personnel training.

This part of the recommendation would commence at the start of the 3-year implementation period and continue indefinitely. This recognizes the Commonwealth’s long-term commitment to support whatever new system it adopts. The commitment will entail ongoing training, supplemental funding, providing of equipment upgrades, and even Help Desk support. This support is not trivial and it must be provided if success is to be achieved over the long term.

13 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 49: Warrants Summons Final

7.0 CONCLUSION

The SAIC Project Team believes its recommendation will result in significant benefits accruing to people of Kentucky. These benefits will not come without a significant commitment on the part of the Commonwealth, but they will be well worth the costs. Exhibit 7-11 lists some of the major benefits that will be realized.

Exhibit 7-11: Stakeholder Benefits from an Improved Warrants Process

Stakeholder Benefits Derived from an Improved Warrants Process

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

More Bench Warrants served and cleared faster and at lower cost Less effort required to maintain case files due to increased sharing of electronic documents

Commonwealth’s and County Attorneys

Ability to create standard warrants electronically using a template Ability to transmit electronic warrants to judges or court clerks for signature Access to information on all warrants

Courts More Bench Warrants served and cleared faster and at lower cost Less staff time devoted to responding to inquiries on the status of Bench Warrants

Jailers

Ability to contact local law enforcement agency for disposition of the individual and possibly clearance of other warrants

Opportunity to know if an individual has outstanding warrants in any Kentucky jurisdiction prior to release

Kentucky Citizens Minimize the problem of double arrests Improved public safety due to streamlined, standardized warrants process More efficient use of tax dollars

KSP/Arresting Officers

Access to employment information for individuals named in warrants Real-time availability of information regarding active warrants Awareness of other outstanding warrants for the individual Minimized backlogs – more warrants will be cleared Better informed officers Better information sharing, minimizing the problem of double arrests

KY UCJIS Community

Will aid in achieving the UCJIS Vision in terms of:» Electronic Data Sharing» Reduction of Multiple Data Entry Points» Data Accuracy and Integrity» Effective Enterprise-Wide Criminal Justice Business Process» Data Access at Point of Need» Appropriate Data Stewardship

Sheriffs’ Offices

Enhanced information sharing Greater access to IT equipment and training in its use Access to employment information for individuals named in warrants Awareness of other outstanding warrants for the individual

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 50: Warrants Summons Final

Appendix APersonnel Interviewed

Name Role Agency

Armstrong, Robert Agent in Charge, Program Support Unit Colorado Bureau of Investigation

Backus, Brian IT Staff Member Washington State AOC

Ballard, Sharon Administrative Assistant Falls Church City, Virginia, Police Department

Barnes, Lt. Brenda Commander of Computer Technologies Kentucky State Police

Boggs, Sgt. David Information Services Director Lexington Division of Police

Brown, Wanda Administrative Assistant Fayette County Attorney’s Office

Browning, Mike Principal Assistant Department of Criminal Justice Training

Burris, Lt. Tommy Commander of AFIS Kentucky State Police

Carey, Gina Deputy UCJIS Project Manager UCJIS

Carter, Lt. Jeff Supervisor LaGrange Police Department

Clark, Maj. Scott Deputy Chief Frankfort Police Department

Clark, Tom IT Director Washington State AOC

Cleveland, Larry Commonwealth’s Attorney Commonwealth Attorney’s Office, 48th Judicial Circuit

Cockrell, Kevin Assistant County Attorney Montgomery County

Collier, Charles Supervisor, Technical Analysis Support Falls Church City, Virginia, Police Department

Collins, Ted Sheriff Franklin County Sheriff’s Office

Cowden, Paul County Attorney Montgomery County

Crockett, Ed Assistant Director, Pre-Trial and Court Security Services

Administrative Office of the Courts

Curtis, Connie Circuit Clerk Montgomery County

Dolan-Keaton, Marilyn Chief Deputy Sheriff Falls Church City, Virginia, Sheriff’s Office

Donnelly, Mike Chief Information Officer Administrative Office of the Courts

Duggan, Martha Administrative Assistant Falls Church City, Virginia, Sheriff’s Office

Dwyer, William J. President, Michigan Association of Police Chiefs Farmington Hills, Michigan, Police

Embley, Paul Kentucky UCJIS Project Manager Commonwealth of Kentucky, Justice Cabinet

Fay, Kathleen Manager of Michigan’s Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN)

Michigan State Police, Administrative Services Bureau, Criminal Justice Information Center

Fegenbush, Nikolas Law Clerk Commonwealth of Kentucky, Justice Cabinet

Fendley, John County Attorney Oldham County

Gatewood, Lt. Ron Deputy Sheriff Franklin County Sheriff’s Office

Goad, Pat Circuit Clerk Warren County

Guice, Lee General Manager, Administrative Services & Operations

Administrative Office of the Courts

Hairston, Sgt. Keith Supervisor Virginia State Police

Hall, Kathleen S. Court Clerk Falls Church, Virginia, District Court – Combined

Hardison, Keith Attorney Kentucky Parole Board

Hubbard, Frank Jailer Jessamine County Detention Center

Jenkins, Buddy Supervisor of Warrants Fayette County District Court

Jones, Barbara General Counsel Commonwealth of Kentucky, Justice Cabinet

Jones, Ron Chief Deputy Sheriff Oldham County Sheriff’s Office

Jones, Tina Attorney’s Assistant Franklin County Attorney’s Office

Kirk, Stacey CICJIS Analyst Colorado Judicial Department

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 51: Warrants Summons Final

Name Role Agency

Lane, Albert Systems Administrator, Records Management Division

Washington State Patrol

Langston, Col. Rebecca

Chief University of Kentucky Police Department

Loginsky, Pam Staff Attorney Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys

Lynch, Wilma Court Clerk 22nd Judicial Circuit Court (Fayette County)

Mason, Lynn Court Clerk 12th Judicial Circuit Court (Oldham County)

Maiden, Drusilla Deputy Sheriff Carroll County Sheriff’s Office

Maiden, Jr., Charles S. Sheriff Carroll County Sheriff’s Office

Marshall, Janice Circuit Court Clerk 48th Judicial Circuit Court (Franklin County)

Maze, Beth Circuit Judge Montgomery County

McDaniel, Georgia Assistant Director Kentucky Probation and Parole

McMichael, Bruce Criminal Justice Specialist Jefferson County Crime Commission

Mitchell, Angie Administrative Specialist Kentucky Parole Board

Moberly, Lt. John Strategic Planning Kentucky State Police

Moore, George W. Commonwealth’s Attorney 21st Judicial Circuit Court (Montgomery County)

Morse, Jim Director Oldham County Dispatch Center

Parsons, Dan Program Manager Washington State Patrol

Payolella, Gary Detective Sergeant Macomb County, Michigan, Sheriff’s Office

Potter, Brandt Circuit Court Judge Warren County

Rice, Vickie Circuit Clerk Johnson County

Slattery, Judy Chief Deputy Clerk 48th Judicial Circuit Court (Franklin County)

Smith, Audrey Warrants Coordinator Fayette County Sheriff’s Office

Smith, Louis Chief Information Officer Commonwealth of Kentucky, Justice Cabinet

Sparrow, Steven W. Sheriff Oldham County Sheriff’s Office

Stark, Layman Court Clerk 15th Judicial Circuit Court (Carroll County)

Story, Kentrena Office Manager Oldham County Sheriff’s Office

Stuer, Bonnie Administrative Assistant Marquette County, Michigan, Sheriff’s Office

Tennil, Travis Sergeant, Post 12 Kentucky State Police, Post # 12

Thomas, Nancy Attorney’s Assistant Franklin County Attorney’s Office

Wilson, Steve Commonwealth’s Attorney 8th Judicial Circuit Court

Wingate, Thomas Circuit Judge Franklin County Court

Witt, Kathy Sheriff Fayette County Sheriff’s Office

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 52: Warrants Summons Final

Appendix BPrincipal Types of Warrants and Summonses

Precipitating Cause Document(s) Primary Stakeholders Signed byDistributed to/

Served by

Criminal Offense (probable cause)

Arrest Warrant or Summons

Law Enforcement Prosecutor Judge Jailer Pre-trial Services

Judge (or Circuit Court Clerk or Trial Commissioner if no Judge is available)

Law Enforcement

Court Order due to non-compliance

Bench Warrant Court Clerk Judge Law Enforcement Jailer Pre-trial Services Prosecutor

Judge Law Enforcement

Fugitive Fugitive Warrant for Absconding (or other cited offense)

Jailer/Warden Law Enforcement Probation & Parole

Chairman of the Parole Board

Law Enforcement or Probation & Parole Officer

Probation Violation Arrest Warrant Probation & Parole Law Enforcement Prosecutor Judge Jailer Pre-Trial Services

Judge Law Enforcement

Parole Violation Detainer Probation & Parole Parole Officer and person executing the detainer

Parole Officer or Law Enforcement Officer

Juvenile to be Apprehended

Juvenile Custody Order

Juvenile Justice Law Enforcement

Judge Law Enforcement

Apprehension Needed for Extradition to Another State

Arrest Warrant Governor Law Enforcement Attorney General

Governor Law Enforcement

Search Needed for Criminal Investigation

Search Warrant Law Enforcement Prosecutor Judge

Judge Law Enforcement

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 53: Warrants Summons Final

Appendix CKentucky County Warrants Processes

Process Franklin County Oldham County Carroll County Fayette County

Warrants Issued, Served, and

Backlogs

In 2001, sheriff’s office handled 1,640 warrants; 1,203 were served

Frankfort Police Department handled approximately 3,200 to 3,500 warrants in 2001, and served approximately 75% of those Backlogs are “minimal”

48th Judicial Circuit Court Clerk’s office places warrants in distribution boxes for pick up by LE officers; warrants for out-of-county individuals are mailed to the appropriate county

County Court holds warrants for pick up by local law enforcement agencies; mails warrants to other county sheriffs

Sheriff’s office serves 10 to 20 warrants a week, most of which (75 – 80%) are Bench Warrants; generally warrants are served quickly; backlog of active warrants can run to 1,500 to 2,000

Sheriff’s office is repository for all county warrants; they enter warrant information into the shared CAD application in the OCD center

LaGrange Police Department serves few warrants; most are served by sheriff’s office

County Attorney draws up the warrant, presents it to judge for signature, and then gives it to the sheriff’s office for execution

Sheriff’s office serves up to 50 warrants a week (15 to 25 on average), with the majority being Arrest Warrants; backlog of active warrants can run to 2,200

Sheriff’s office is repository for all warrants in the county; the Carrollton Police Department picks up its warrants; the sheriff’s office mails warrants to out-of-county jurisdictions

Sheriff’s office handles approximately 50 – 60 warrants per week

University of KY Police Department assists sheriff and other LE agencies in serving warrants on UK property, if necessary, but doing so is generally the sheriff’s responsibility

Sheriff’s office sends copies of warrants on out-of-county individuals via certified mail to other sheriffs’ offices

Fayette County District Court had a backlog of approximately 18,000 active warrants (bench and arrest)» Includes some

warrants entered into CRT on out-of-county individuals

Warrant Formats Sheriff’s office and Frankfort Police Department (PD) use similar, but different warrant formats

48th Judicial Circuit Court uses standard AOC format for Bench Warrants available in KY Courts system

County Attorney uses automated Bounceback system for bad check warrants only

All county LE agencies (Sheriff’s office, LaGrange PD, and Oldham County PD) use the same paper Arrest Warrant and fill them out by hand

12th Judicial Circuit Court uses standard AOC format for Bench Warrants available in the Sustain system

County Attorney uses standard AOC warrant formats; completes them by hand

Sheriff’s office uses preprinted paper warrants that they fill out by hand

Several Arrest Warrant formats used

15th Judicial Circuit Court uses standard AOC format for Bench Warrants available in the Sustain system

Commonwealth’s Attorney uses AOC warrant format template created in WordPerfect

The Lexington Division of Police (the combined police force for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government) uses a standard arrest format

22nd Judicial Circuit Court uses standard AOC format for Bench Warrants available in the Sustain system; most information can be filled out on the computer and then printed, but some descriptive information on the warrant must be entered by hand

Information Sharing and

Warrant Status Tracking

Sheriff’s office provides daily list of warrants to Frankfort PD and KSP

Within the county they fax or provide paper copies of warrants

When a warrant is served, the sheriff’s office and Frankfort PD report the status via telephone or radio

All county LE agencies have access to warrants information via the CAD

Most information sharing outside the county is via phone, fax, or LINK

LE agencies deliver or fax a copy of any warrant served during non-duty hours so

Information sharing among jurisdictions outside the county is mostly by phone

Carrollton PD enters and updates warrant information in LINK

Most information sharing regarding warrants status is done by radio or phone; both sheriff’s

22nd Judicial Circuit Court and the Fayette County District Court provide all warrants to the Sheriff’s Office for service

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government share warrants information via a “CRT” program that all can access online; they use the

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 54: Warrants Summons Final

Process Franklin County Oldham County Carroll County Fayette County

to a central dispatch center

County Attorney tries to track warrants manually but with little success

sheriff’s office can update the CAD information

office and the consolidated dispatch center handle queries on warrants

Consolidated dispatch center gets regular updates on recalled Bench Warrants from the circuit court

Sheriff’s office maintains a local database of warrants information using a COTS software application

“check warrants” utility to do so

Information sharing among jurisdictions outside the county is principally by phone, mail, or fax

County Attorney uses automated tool, FileMaker Pro, to track complaints, but does not track warrants

Supporting Technology in

Use

48th Judicial Circuit Court uses KY Courts and typical desktop software; will upgrade to KY Courts II in future

Sheriff’s office uses typical desktop software; maintains status of warrants using a Microsoft Access application

Frankfort PD has a LINK connection and uses typical desktop software

OCD has the county LINK terminal

OCD has Internet access but it is limited to 2 non-networked PCs for data security reasons

Sheriff’s office uses typical desktop software; is linked to OCD for entry and access of warrants information

Countywide RMS will be available through OCD in February 2002

12th Judicial Circuit Court uses Sustain and typical desktop software; will upgrade to KY Courts II later this year

Sheriff’s office has non-networked desktop PCs; one PC has Internet access

15th Judicial Circuit Court uses Sustain and typical desktop software; will upgrade to KY Courts II in near future

Carrollton PD has LINK connection

Sheriff’s office and Carrollton PD do not have any computer interface for information sharing other than the shared LINK terminal at the consolidated dispatch center

22nd Judicial Circuit Court and Fayette County District Court use Sustain and typical desktop software; will upgrade to KY Courts II in summer 2002; some individuals have Internet access

Sheriff’s office, the Lexington Division of Police, and the UK PD all have LINK access

Sheriff’s office personnel have desktop PCs with typical software; all have CRT access; some have Internet access

Shared Resources

Sheriff’s office and Frankfort PD share a consolidated dispatch center and use the same mobile radio frequencies

The sheriff’s office has access to Frankfort PD’s LINK terminal

The OCD maintains the LINK terminal and shares it with all county LE agencies

All county LE agencies use common radio frequencies

RMS (available February 2002)

Sheriff’s office and Carrollton PD share a consolidated dispatch center and radio frequencies

Sheriff’s office uses Carrollton PD’s LINK terminal that is located in the consolidated dispatch center

Law enforcement agencies share access to CRT which is maintained by the unified government

Problems Identified

No standard exists for whether or not to enter a warrant into LINK (Note: Sheriff’s office and Frankfort PD will develop a local standard)

Sheriff has no on-line capability to contact all other KY sheriffs; currently sends vital information via fax

LE officers have no easy access to people’s work

Handwriting on warrants can be difficult to read

Potential for “double arrest” exists because of the delay in getting information entered into the CAD by the sheriff’s office during non-duty hours

Many warrants do not have sufficient information to be entered into LINK

County Attorney notes finding people

Potential for “double arrests”

Many warrants do not have sufficient information to be entered into LINK; Bench Warrants often do not have sufficient information to make an arrest

Dispatch center unable to validate Bench Warrant information during night and weekend hours

22nd Judicial Circuit Court clerks are reluctant to give warrants information over the phone due to past queries by unauthorized persons; now refer all queries to sheriff’s office

Warrants information entered in Sustain by court personnel must be entered separately in CRT; this is time consuming and prone

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 55: Warrants Summons Final

Process Franklin County Oldham County Carroll County Fayette County

addresses to help them serve warrants

Approximately one-third of warrants do not have sufficient information to be entered into LINK

Arrest Warrants can take up to a week to be signed by a judge

to execute a warrant is a problem, often because they have incomplete descriptive information when preparing the warrant

to error Sheriff’s office must

enter warrants status information into CRT and LINK separately; this is time consuming and prone to error

Desired Improvements

All LE offices to have online access for communications (e.g., e-mail or Internet site for posting messages, etc.)

KY adopt a standard format for Arrest Warrants that could be either electronic or paper

Request there be no mandates without funding

Standard format for Arrest Warrants, electronic (i.e., document imaging) if possible

Statewide policy or procedure requiring a minimum amount of descriptive information to be entered on the warrant at point of origin – prosecutor’s office

County Attorney prefers preparing warrants by hand, would not use an automated system, but would use an automated system for tracking warrants if it were available

Provide real-time information sharing to eliminate the potential for “double arrests”

Statewide, online source of warrants information for all LE agencies and courts in the Commonwealth

Provide ability to download a warrant from another county versus having to get a copy via fax

Commonwealth’s Attorney indicated that an automated process to track warrants would be helpful

An automated system that would give all court and LE personnel insight into status of arrest and bench warrants; either a single database or linked databases that would respond to a single query

Regarding misdemeanor warrants, allow court clerks to contact the complainant after a period of time (e.g., 24 months) to determine if the warrant could be withdrawn

Include the ability to search prison and jail lists when doing warrant searches

County Attorney would like standard warrant format to be more “reader friendly”

3 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 56: Warrants Summons Final

Appendix DProposed Warrant Format

An example of a Warrant of Arrest on Indictment is included in this appendix. This warrant format is developed in Microsoft Word as a template, such that the user can fill out the warrant in the computer and print it or transmit the completed warrant electronically to be printed out at another location. This template can be tailored to be an Arrest Warrant (Complaint) or Bench Warrant. One of the features of the template is use of drop-down menus to facilitate data entry. The user tabs from field to field to ensure that all requisite information is included. A feature that can be included is a requirement that all mandatory fields be completed prior to closing the warrant. (What is displayed here is a screen capture of the warrant template because the actual warrant template could not be included in this document and maintain its full functionality.)

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 57: Warrants Summons Final

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 58: Warrants Summons Final

Appendix EColorado’s Electronic Warrants

E.1.0 CICJIS Electronic Warrant – Misdemeanor/Traffic –Confirmation Not Required

ATTN:JIS*** CICJIS COURT WARRANT -- NO CONFIRMATION REQUIRED-- CHECK TRANSPORT FIELD FOR EXTRADITION INFO ****** WANTED PERSON ***RTY/MIS. CMC/ .CIC/0027530530. CCIC ONLY .ORI/CO0070000.BOULDER COUNTY SHERIFF - BOULDERNAM/JONES, JONATHAN MICHAEL .SEX/M.RAC/W.DOB/19750425.HGT/600.WGT/145.EYE/BLU.HAI/BRO.SKN/ .POB/ .FBI/ .SID/XT010008.FPC/ .MNU/ .SOC/555552385.SMT/ .OLN/941991026 .OLS/CO.OLY/ .ADR/7793 W. 42ND AVE SOUTH .CIS/ARVADA, CO .DOW/20000302.WNO/ .BND/ 500.EXP/20010930.DOE/ .OFF/5005. CONTEMPT OF COURT-SEE MIS . OFD/ .OOC/5499. TRAFFIC OFFENSE . OCA/S9914879 .CRS/42-4-1301(1)(b) .DKT/C0872000T 001337.IDN/0006.CRD/Driving while Ability Impaired .CLS/M .CTI/CO007023J.LIC/5980JR .LIS/CO.LIY/ .LIT/ .VIN/JNAKA1219S5223959 .VYR/ .VMA/KIA . VMD/ .VMO/ .VST/2D.VCO/RED/ .LKI/ .LKA/ .

MIS/030200 FTC COMMUNITY SERVICES BSOIF DEFT POSTS BOND OUTSIDE OF COUNT Y BOND RETURNABLE 2 WEEKS FROM DATE OFPOSTING ON WEDNESDAY AT 930AM IN D IV 11 AT 505 4TH AVE LONGMONT CO /LEJ

TRANSPORT INFORMATION: VALID METRO AREA ONLY IF BOND = $100 & UNDER VALID STATEWIDE IF BOND = $101 & ABOVE

*** CCIC PERSON OF INTEREST SUPPLEMENTAL FOR BASE CIC/027530530CIC/0027530531

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 59: Warrants Summons Final

E.2.0 CICJIS Electronic Warrant – Felony –Confirmation Not Required

ATTN:JIS*** CICJIS COURT WARRANT -- NO CONFIRMATION REQUIRED-- CHECK TRANSPORT FIELD FOR EXTRADITION INFO ****** WANTED PERSON ***RTY/FEL. FELONY - STATEWIDE EXTRADITION CMC/ .CIC/0030108185. CCIC ONLY .ORI/CO0070000.BOULDER COUNTY SHERIFF - BOULDERNAM/BLUNT, JUSTIN MARSHALL .SEX/M.RAC/W.DOB/19750824.HGT/509.WGT/150.EYE/GRN.HAI/BRO.SKN/ .POB/CO.FBI/ .SID/1226756 .FPC/ .MNU/ .SOC/541883787.SMT/ .OLN/973400097 .OLS/CO.OLY/ .ADR/5755 E PACIFIC PLACE .CIS/BOULDER, CO .DOW/20001005.WNO/ .BND/ 4000.EXP/ .DOE/ .OFF/5015. FAILURE TO APPEAR-SEE MIS . OFD/FAILURE TO APPEAR .OOC/2399. LARCENY . OCA/S0011411 .CRS/18-4-402(1)(6) .DKT/D0072000CR002654.IDN/0003.CRD/Theft Rental Series-$500-$15000 .CLS/F5 .CTI/CO007015J.LIC/ .LIS/ .LIY/ .LIT/ .VIN/ .VYR/ .VMA/ . VMD/ .VMO/ .VST/ .VCO/ / .LKI/ .LKA/ .MIS/100500 DEFT FTA FOR STATUS CONFERENCEIF DEFT BONDS OUTSIDE OF BOULDE R COUNTY RETURNABLE 2 WKS FROM DATE OFPOSTING ON MON THRU FRI AT 200 PM BOULDER COUNTY JAIL 3200 AIRPORT RD /KSH

TRANSPORT INFORMATION: VALID METRO AREA ONLY IF BOND = $100 & UNDER VALID STATEWIDE IF BOND = $101 & ABOVE

*** CCIC PERSON OF INTEREST SUPPLEMENTAL FOR BASE CIC/030108185CIC/0030108186

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 60: Warrants Summons Final

E.3.0 Felony Warrant After Holding Agency Takes Ownership –Confirmation Required

ATTN:DP*** CCIC PERSON OF INTEREST ****** CONFIRM VALIDITY AT ONCE WITH ORI ****** WANTED PERSON ***RTY/FEL. FELONY - STATEWIDE EXTRADITION CMC/ .CIC/0030108185.NIC/W871068886.ORI/CO0070000.BOULDER COUNTY SHERIFF - BOULDERNAM/BLUNT, JUSTIN MARSHALL .SEX/M.RAC/W.DOB/19750824.HGT/509.WGT/150.EYE/GRN.HAI/BRO.SKN/ .POB/CO.FBI/522175MB7.SID/1226756 .FPC/ .MNU/ .SOC/541883787.SMT/ .OLN/ .OLS/ .OLY/ .ADR/5755 E PACIFIC PLACE .CIS/BOULDER, CO .DOW/20001005.WNO/ .BND/ 4000.EXP/ .DOE/ .OFF/5015. FAILURE TO APPEAR-SEE MIS . OFD/FAILURE TO APPEAR .OOC/2399. LARCENY . OCA/S0011411 .CRS/18-4-402(1)(6) .DKT/D0072000CR002654.IDN/0003.CRD/THEFT RENTAL SERIES-$500-$15000 .CLS/F5 .CTI/CO007015J.LIC/ .LIS/ .LIY/ .LIT/ .VIN/ .VYR/ .VMA/ . VMD/ .VMO/ .VST/ .VCO/ / .LKI/ .LKA/ .MIS/100500 DEFT FTA FOR STATUS CONFERENCEIF DEFT BONDS OUTSIDE OF BOULDE R COUNTY RETURNABLE 2 WKS FROM DATE OFPOSTING ON MON THRU FRI AT 200 PM BOULDER COUNTY JAIL 3200 AIRPORT RD /KSH

TRANSPORT INFORMATION: VALID METRO AREA ONLY IF BOND = $100 & UNDER VALID STATEWIDE IF BOND = $101 & ABOVE

*** CCIC PERSON OF INTEREST SUPPLEMENTAL FOR BASE CIC/030108185CIC/0030108186

TRANSPORT INFORMATION: ALIAS PLACE OF BIRTH/ OREGON

*** CCIC PERSON OF INTEREST SUPPLEMENTAL FOR BASE CIC/030108185.DOB/032475.SOC/540887787CIC/0030114342 _

3 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 61: Warrants Summons Final

Appendix F Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACCESS-------A Central Computerized Enforcement Support System

ACORDS-------Appellate Court Record and Data System

ADW------------Automated DB2 Warrant System

AFIS------------Automated Fingerprint Identification System

AOC-------------Administrative Office of the Courts

C##--------------Document change number

CAD-------------Computer Aided Dispatch

CAIS------------Courts Automated Information System

CCIC------------Colorado Crime Information Center

CICJIS---------Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System

CMS-------------Case Management System

COTS-----------Commercial-Off-The-Shelf

CourtNet-------System that provides court case tracking, consolidating local court information, including KY Courts, and provides a statewide system for accessing statistical data

CrR--------------Court Criminal Rules

CrRLJ----------Criminal Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

DB2--------------Database 2

DCJS------------Division of Criminal Justice Services

DISCIS---------District and Municipal Courts use the District Court Information System

DMV------------Department of Motor Vehicles

e-document----Electronic document

e-mail-----------Electronic mail

e-warrant------Electronic warrant

FBI--------------Federal Bureau of Investigation

GOT-------------Governor’s Office for Technology

ICON-----------Integrated Colorado On-Line Network

IGN--------------Intra-Government Network

III----------------Interstate Identification Index

IT----------------Information Technology

JIS---------------Judicial Information System

JMS-------------Jail Management System

JPEG------------Joint Photography Experts Group

KOOL----------Kentucky Offender Online Lookup

KSP-------------Kentucky State Police

KY---------------Commonwealth of Kentucky

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Page 62: Warrants Summons Final

KY Courts-----System that provides case management software at the circuit or district court level

LEIN------------Law Enforcement Information Network

LINK------------Law Enforcement Information Network of Kentucky

MDT------------Mobile Data Terminals

mm--------------Millimeter

MOU------------Memorandum of Understanding

MSP-------------Michigan State Police

NCIC------------National Crime Information Center

NFF-------------National Fingerprint File

NLETS---------National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System

NYCPD---------New York City Police Department

OCD-------------Oldham County Dispatch

OTN-------------Offense Tracking Number

PAC-------------Prosecutors Advisory Council

PD---------------Police Department

PSP--------------Pennsylvania State Police

R##--------------Document revision number

RCr--------------Rules of Criminal Procedure

RMS-------------Records Management System

SAIC------------Science Applications International Corporation

SAS--------------Strategic Alliance Services

SCOMIS-------Superior Court Management Information System

UCJIS-----------Unified Criminal Justice Information System

UK---------------University of Kentucky

VCIN------------Virginia Criminal Information Network

WACIC---------Washington Crime Information Center

WASIS----------Washington State Identification System

WSP-------------Washington State Patrol

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper