Introduction

Integrated Criminal Justice Technologies: An Introduction
  1. Janet Reno, Justice and Public Safety in the Twenty-First Century, 30 MCGEOROE L. REV. 5 (1998).
  2. Paul F. Kendall & Anne Gardner. Legislation: A New Design for Justice Integration, 30 MCGEORGE L. REV.9 (1998).

Speech

Justice and Public Safety in the Twenty-First Century
  1. Office of the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW. Washington, D.C. 20530.

Article

Legislation: A New Design for Justice Integration
  1. S. REP. No.91-1253 (1970) reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C,A.N. 5804.5807.
  2. Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of1968, Pub. L. No.90-351, 1968 U,S.C.C.A.N. (82 Stat.197) 237.
  3. Id.; S. REP. No.91-1253 (1970). Reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5804.5805.
  4. In 1979, the LEAA was restructured as the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics (OJARS) with three "Bureaus": the LIEAA, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the Bureau of justice Statistics (BJS). Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, Pub. L. No, 96-157, 4§ 101-03,201-04, 301-05,801. 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. (93 Stat.) 1167. In 1984, OJARS was reorganized as today's Office of Justice Program’s and its five component Bureaus. Crime Control Act of1984, Pub. i. No.98473, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. (98 Stat.) 1837, 2077-2125,2170-75.
  5. Crime Control Actor 1984, Pub. L. No.98473, 98 Stat. 1837,2102(1984). The Office for Victims of Crime was established by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, title II, chapter XIV, Pub. L. No.98437, 98 Stat. 2170,2178(1994) (codified at42 U.S.C. 410,605 (1994fl.
  6. OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1996 PROGRAM PLANS. preface (1996) (copy on file with McGeorge Law Review).
  7. Historically, the purpose of the independent grant making authority of the LEAA "as to prevent federal initiatives, through the Attorney General, from overtaking state and local law enforcement efforts. JUSTICE MANAGEMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, A MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF THE OFFICE or JUSTICE PROGRAMS 1(1990) (copy on file with McGeorge Law Review). The independence of NIJ and NIS "as to foster research and statistical integrity through maintaining independent research and statistical arms within the federal criminal justice system. S. REP. No.96-142 (i979).reprinted in 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2471,2521,2524.
  8. S. REP. No. 1097(1968) reprinted in 968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2112,2120-21.
  9. See Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No.90-531,1968 US.C.C.A.N. (82 Stat. 197) 240, 24243 (stating, "in making grants under this part the Administration and each State planning agency, as the case may be, snail give special emphasis, where appropriate or feasible, to programs and projects dealing 'with the prevention, detection, and control of organized crime and of riots and other violent civil disorders.").
  10. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act ofi974, Pub, L. No.93415, 1974 U.S.C,C,A.N. (88 Stat. 1109) 1267.
  11. The juvenile justice Act of 1974 created the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention within the LEAA to specifically aid state and local governments in conducting effective juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs. See id, at 1268 (creating the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention with the LEAA for the purpose or "increasing the capacity of state and local governments ... to conduct juvenile justice and delinquency prevention and rehabilitation programs, and to provide research, evaluation, and training services in the field of juvenile delinquency prevention").
  12. See S. REP. No.96-142, at 6(1979), reprinted in 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2471,2477 (stating that "[[the current authorization for the LEAA expires on September30,: 1979")
  13. Justice System improvement Act of 1979, Pub. L. No.96-157, 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. (93 Stat.) 1167.
  14. Justice System Improvement Act of1979, Pub. L. No, 96-157.1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. (93 Stat.) 1167. In the 1979 Act Congress sought to separate the research, evaluation, and programmatic functions of the LEAA from the direct control of the Attorney General by giving the Administrator final authority overall grants and contracts awarded by LEAA, which was then dubbed, "Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics" (OJARS). Id. § :01,1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. (93 Stat.) i70. The purpose behind creating independent grant authority for the head of OJARS was to increase efficiency and to reduce red tape and delay. S. REP, No.96-142, at 6(1979), reprinted in 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2471,2477. In addition, the focus or the NIJ and BJS was specifically directed toward state and local government initiatives, rather than federal criminal justice problems. Id. at 2, reprinted in 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2471,2473.
  15. See H.R. REP. No.98-1030, at 275(1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182,3456 (noting that the LFAA received no appropriations in 1981 and was terminated on April 15,1982).
  16. Id. at 276, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182,3457.
  17. Pub. t. No.98473, 2077, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. (98 Stat. 1837) 2027.
  18. Id at 279,1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182,3457,3460.
    19.
  19. See Id. at 280, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182,3461 (noting that. while resources to detect apprehend and prosecute criminals were expanding [in the 1970's], expenditures for convicted and pretrial prisoners continued to decline in real terms. The capacity and efficiency of all criminal justice agencies increased, except corrections, leaving the Nation's last line of defense against crime with too many prisoners in too little space.).
  20. Comprehensive Crime control Act of 1984, Pub, L. No.98473, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. (98 Slat. 1837) 2125,2170. Chapter XIV of the Comprehensive Crime Control Actor 1984 is cited as the Victims of Crime Act of 1984. Id at 2170, 1934 U.S.C.C.A.N. (98 Stat.) 2170.
    21.
  21. See Anti-drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No, 100-690,102 Stat. 4181,4328,4339,4450-51, 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. (102 Stat.) 4181.
  22. Anti-drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No.100-690, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N, (102 Stat. 41St) 4328,4339,4450-SI.
    23.
  23. See id 4419-20,1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. (102 Stat.) 4419-20 (reauthorizing the Victims of Crime Act and establishing the Office for Victims of Crime within OJP).
  24. Pub. L. No.101-647, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. (102 Stat 4789)4792-93,
  25. HR. REP. No. 101681(1), at 69(1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6472,6473.
  26. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Amendments, Pub. L. No. 102-586, 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. (106 Stat.) 4982; Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. (108 Stat) 1796.
  27. See juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Amendments. Pub. L. No. 102-586, 106 Stat. 4982. 1992 U.S.C.C,A.N. (106 Stat.) 4982 (noting the upsurge in arrests of juveniles for murder, assault. and weapon use, and that the small number of youth committing serious offenses is becoming more violent); violent Crime Control and Law £nforcementActofl994, Pub. L. No. 103-322,1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. (108 Stat) 1796.1807-15, 1902-55; 11.R. REP. No. 103-324, at 1(1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C,A.N. 1802-05 (asserting the desire to return to the traditional method of community policing).
  28. Chris Googans. A Message from the Other Side, Gov'r Trcn.. March 1996, at 66. (reprinted with permission from Computer Crime. (O'Reilly & Assoc. 1995)).
  29. See Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 0f 1968, Pub. L. No.90-531 - 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. (82 Stat. 197) 239 (staling that state plans should include "developing systems for collecting. Storing, and disseminating information relating to the control of organized crime"); see also Anti-Drug Abuse Act or 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690. 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. (102 Stat. 4181) 4340 (adding specific statutory authorization for automated criminal intelligence systems grants under the Regional Information Sharing System, helping law enforcement address multi-jurisdictional criminal offenses and conspiracies).
  30. S, REP. No.1097 (1968), reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2112,2119-20.
  31. See Marco. Goodman. Why the Police Don't Core Aborts Computer Crime, 10 HRV. J.L. & TECH. 465, 467 (explaining:
    32.

    As the number of computers expands globally there will be a concomitant rise in both the good and bad purposes for which they are put to use. Greater numbers of cheap, networked computers available to the general public also means greater numbers of cheap, networked computers available to the criminal elements of society); Id, at 480 (noting that historically. police have been slow to adopt new technology, which is not true of criminals); see also Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa, High Tech Crimes Task Force, 5DC'T NEV. LAW, IC (describing Nevada law enforcement's need to develop a response to high tech computer criminals).

  32. Goodman, supra note 31, at470-71 (citing Richards. Groover, Overcoming Obstacles Preparing for Computer-Related Crime, FBI L. ENFORCEMENT BULL. Aug. 1996, at 8). It has been noted that society is about to feel the impact of the first generation of children that has grown up in the computer age. Id. at 470. In addition to computer savvy youth, ever-increasing numbers of adults have the opportunity and ability to learn computer skills and to use them to criminal ends. lad. at 470-71.
  33. See, e.g.. Goodman, supra note 31, at 472; Stephen P. Heymann, Legislating Compiler Crime. 34 HARV. J. on LEGIS. 373,380-Si (1997); FBI Investigators Want OK to Decode Computer Transmissions, Dow Jones News Serv. July 9, 1997, available in Westlaw. DJNS Fife. Computers not only facilitate traditional crimes, but elevate small crimes not meriting criminal liability into substantial criminal offenses. See Heymann, supra at 382-83 (explaining that once insignificant copyright violations take on new criminal proportions when copyrighted material is made available to thousands of people over the internet). The clement of danger has also increased as, in many cases, financial crimes are getting more sophisticated, and the criminals committing these high-tech crimes are arming themselves unlike previous financial criminals. Joe Hughes. Fraud Task Force Makes Major Arrest. SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Mar. 19,1997, at 83:7,: 8,82:6.
  34. See Goodman, supra note 31, at 474 (noting that Colombian drug dealers monitored national telephone service using IBM mainframes in an effort to determine which Colombian citizens were cooperating with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration).
  35. See Justine Kavanaugh, To Track and Prosecute, GOV'T TECH.. Oct. 1997, at 42 (quoting Neil Baron of Sybase: "Criminals change their name, date of birth, appearance, dc. It takes a state of-the-art criminal justice system to track and prosecute the modem criminal.").
    36.
  36. See Ray Dussault, L.A. Cops Get Wired, GOV'T Tern., Dec. 1997, at 40 (explaining that in Los Angeles, until two years ago, over 4 million incident reports were filed by hand each year, keeping officers off the streets); Blake Harrris,Goin' Mobile, GOV'T TECH., Aug.1997, at 1,42 (explaining that while the Lakewood, Colorado police have been described as one of the best urban forces in the country, the communication manager for the department acknowledges that one-half an officer's time is spent printing reports by hand).
  37. See Milford Sprecher, Fulton County and Atlanta Integrate Criminal Justice Information, GOV’T TECH.. Aug.1997, at 38 (describing Fulton County's overcrowding problem, Stephen Kinnard, chief circuit mediator for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, states that "the county can't build its way out of the jail overcrowding problem. Jail overcrowding is a symptom of other problems [within the criminal justice system]."); Meghan Cotter, Technology Eases Corrections Crowding, GOV'T TECH., June 1997, at 56 (noting that, even though crime rates are down, "three strikes" laws and mandatory sentencing mandates are contributing 10 a nearly unmanageable prison population which is between 14 and 25 percent above capacity).
  38. See Dennis Patterson, The Associated Press, Improving Court System Costly, Michell Tells Pond, THE NEWS & observer (Raleigh, North Carolina), Dec. 13,1997, at A3 (reporting state Supreme Count Chief Justice Burley Mitchell's statement to the North Carolina Courts Commission that "just to return the court ease loads to their level ofl3 or 14 years ago would require hundreds of additional judges, clerks and prosecutors... We are functioning about as well as we can with our lack of personnel and outdated technology."'); but see M2 Presswire, Unisys Wins S22M Contract from Broward County for Integrated Justice Information System', M2 COMMUNICATIONS, Lro., May 4, 1998 (describing Broward County's plans to implement an integrated court technology system that will improve communications with law enforcement and corrections, as well as improve civil case management).
  39. See Woman's Death was Preventable, TUE INDEPENDENT-London, May 30, 1997 (citing an example of the communication failure between British probation officers and social service agencies in the death of a woman at the hands of her estranged husband); Julie Sullivan, City of Second Chances: Overburdened Community Corrections Officers Wrestling Large Case Loads and a Balky' Computer System are at a Distinct Disadvantage in Trying to Supervise Offenders who are on the Street, SPOKESMAN REV., June 9, 1998 (noting that in Spokane County, Washington, about 50 parole officers supervise 12,000 offenders. In addition, their jobs are hampered by a lack of equipment and an outdated computer tracking system): The Associated Press, Court Counselors Seek Resources the System for Tracking Troubled Young People is not Working. Juvenile Probation Officers Say', GREENSBORO NEWS & REC., Aug. 2, 1998 (stating that probation officers in Greensboro, North Carolina are frustrated over "gargantuan case loads," as court counselors average 43 cases each at any one lime, while the state prefers limiting case loads to no more than 30).
    40.
  40. For example, in 1996, BJS awarded the Arizona Criminal justice Commission funds in excess of $500,000 for prosecutor automation, court disposition backlog reduction, live scan fingerprint units, and the automated storage and retrieval of protection and stalking orders. Bureau of Justice Statistics grant no, 95RuRXK043 (copy on file with Office of Justice Program). The Bureau of Justice Assistance awarded the San Francisco City and County Police Department $500,000 in 1996 for a communication and identification enhancement project to provide an electronic identification system to police. Bureau of Justice Assistance grant no. 96IAVX0002 (copy on file with Office of Justice Programs). In 1997, OJP's Violence Against Women Program Office awarded the Delmar, Delaware Police Department $80,000 to develop a computerized tracking system accessible by law enforcement, prosecutors, parole and probation agents and social services workers to combat domestic violence and sexual assault. Office of Justice Programs Violence against Women Program Office grant no. 97WEvx0055 (copy on file with Office of Justice Programs). Throughout the late 1980's, and especially since the Crime Control Ad of 1994, OJP and the Bureaus awarded many similar technology grants in response to specific criminal justice problems.
    41.
  41. "Criminal justice system components" or "the components" as used in this Article, refers to state, local, and federal law enforcement courts, corrections, probation and parole officers, prosecutors and public defenders.
  42. See, e.g., John Wescott, New Crime Suppression Team Goes Into Action Next Month, ORANGE County REQ., Jan. 2, 1997, at 3 (noting that state funds provided money to purchase patrol car laptop computers, a night-viewing scope, video cameras, and other equipment); Matt Lait, Parks Calls Cutting Crime Key Test of Success as Chief of law Enforcement, LA. TIMES, Aug. 7, 1997 at Al (stating that the new chiefs mission is to implement new technology to track and prosecute criminals and put an end to gang warfare); Bill Rams, Anaheim Police 1st in State to Use Speedy Fingerprint. ID Tool, ORANGE County REQ, Sept.19, 1997, at 1305 (announcing that the Anaheim police department is implementing automated fingerprinting which cuts the identification waiting period from hours or days to four minutes); Robin Mohr, Police Cars to Get Laptop Computers. CHI. TRIB., Sept. 5,1997, at 3 (discussing how laptop computers are being installed to relieve officers of the drudgery of endless paperwork); North Carolina Police Going Wireless, GOV'TTECII. Oct, 1997, at 14 (staling that the Charlotte, North Carolina police force is implementing laptop computer technology to alleviate paperwork and provide field officers with access to automated records Systems); Eric B, School, Photo Process for Crime-Solving Begins Journey to Courtroom, INDIANAPOLIS STAR, May 30,1997, at DCI (noting that the Institute for Forensic Imaging is installing forensic imaging equipment at the Indiana State Police lab and is working with the Indiana University School of Law to develop procedures that will make manipulated imagery acceptable as evidence); Andrew Buchanan, Return to Suspect Monitors Proposed, Waukegan Murder Ended System in '92, CHI. TRIO., Sept 21, 1997, at I (noting that Lake County Illinois officials are instituting a new electronic monitoring system consisting of voice-identification, bracelets, anklets, and computer technology to monitor non-violent offenders In an effort to relieve overcrowding at the county jail); Cotter, supra note 37, at 36 (noting that "a growing number of corrections officials are turning to information technology to provide the framework [for solutions to overcrowding]"); John D. Woodward, Biometric Scanning, Law & Policy: Identifying the Concerns-Drafting the Biometric Blueprint, 59 U. PITT. L. REV. 97(1997) (noting that the Cook County, Illinois Sheriff’s Department has implemented retinal scanning in the prison system to track and identify inmates, Retinal scanning saves resources by decreasing the time needed to identify a suspect to one minute per search.).
  43. See Harris, supra note 36, at 61 (stating that in some police departments, the installation access computers resulted in immediate and dramatic results. For example. the Jefferson Borough, Pennsylvania Police Department reported that during the first two weeks of operation, the computer system helped identify and capture several wanted persons and recover a number of stolen vehicles).
  44. See id. at 43,61 (explaining that the installation of mobile data computers, alone, is not going to produce the desired results. Rather, the information accessible by computers must be communicated to the officers on the street and shared throughout the public safety enterprise); Bill McGarigle, Crime Profilers Gain New Weapons, GOV'T TECH., Dec.1997, at 29 (noting that experts caution that computerized geographic profiling systems used to track serial killers do not hold all the answers: Rather, they are a way of managing information Experts agree that geographic profiling systems are most effective when used in conjunction with psychological profiling and linkage analysis systems that share information nationwide).
  45. See H.R. REP, No.103.324, at 6, reprinted in 1994 U.S..C,C.A.N. 1801,1803 (showing Congress' intent to return to the basics of law enforcement through the Cops on the Beat program, added as part Q to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 968 by the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994); Justin Kavanaugh, Community Oriented Policing and Technology, GOV'T TECH March 1996, at 14 (noting that community oriented policing is a rapidly growing trend in law enforcement); see also Martin Lind, Justice Integration Briefing, GOV'T TECH,, Apr. 1998, at 28 (showing that justice agencies recognize the benefits of integrating disparate information systems and no longer see other criminal and civil justice agencies as having entirely different information needs).
  46. H.R. REP. No.103-324, at 6, reprinted in 1994 U,S.C.C.A.N. 1801,1803.
  47. Accurate and accessible information from various sources is required for successful crime control because it enables police officers, prosecutors. court personnel, corrections and probation officers, and others to work efficiently and collaboratively within the criminal justice system. See Computers and the War on Crime, GOVERNING MAO., July 1.1997, at 53 (stating that:
    48.  [B]efore computers [were] utilized against crime, many criminals went unpunished because law enforcement officials were not able to collate the information. . . . There is a growing awareness that public safety may well depend on [the transmission of information]. Many states are now developing and testing data networks which integrate law enforcement and criminal justice information . . .
  48. Recidivism is an age-old criminal justice problem that remains at the forefront of criminal justice prevention efforts. New technology, however, may be helping law enforcement to reduce criminal recidivism through the use of tracking devices. See High Tech Check Could Help Keep Parolees in Line, GREENSBORO NEWS & REC. NC.), Apr. 1996 at B3 (discussing South Carolina's recidivism problem and new satellite tracking capabilities). Other new criminal justice approaches. such as restorative justice, are also being applied to this historical problem. See Wendy Costa, Another Alternative to Incarceration. SAN DIEGO UNZON & TRIB., Mar.1998 at B9, (discussing the Victim Offender Reconciliation Program. which is hoped to prevent recidivism and provide restitution to victims).
    49.
  49. See Stacy Downs, Police Plan to Improve Information Arsenal, KANSAS CITY STAR, Jan. 4,1997, at 3 (stating that the Olathe Police Department's 1997 New Year's resolution was to "arm its officers with information" by replacing manual criminal history checks with laptop computer checks and access to federal, state, and local databases); Cotter, supra note 37 (revealing that "the most far-reaching trend in today's corrections market is the move toward information systems which integrate department communications, security, and computerization" including information system that will integrate law enforcement and detention requirements); Kevin Jackson, JUSTNET, CORRECTIONS TODAY, at 108 (that "[practitioners from across the country …came together and realized that they all shared the same wish: They-wanted a real-time information network that would enable them to trade information with fellow correctional practitioners across the country.").
  50. See Harris, supra note 36, at I (stating that first generation mobile access systems of the 1970's were large and costly, often beyond the reach of small and medium-sized agencies. Today's technology, however. allows even small departments to arm officers with notebook computers, radio modems and off-the-shelf software rather inexpensively). See, e.g., Cotter, supra note 37 (stating that advanced technologies such as biometric Imaging, smart cards and video conferencing enable corrections departments to improve inmate tracking. case management and medical care); Justine Kavanaugh. Technology A Parolee's Worst Enemy?, GOV'T TECH., June 997, at 14-15 (explaining that California's 900-number hotline allows the public to check on sex offenders, and California's LEADS tracking system, which makes a wide variety of information on parolees available to law enforcement is helping to locate parolees who have committed subsequent crimes. These technologies help the public become aware of dangerous people around them and help law enforcement find the most dangerous offenders more quickly).
  51. See James Evans, Justice Agency "Berlin Wall" Pulled Down, GOV'T TECH June 1997, at 26 (describing the Ventura County integrated justice information System, a representative from the sheriffs office explains that the integrated county system linking the district attorney, sheriff public defender, corrections department probation officers, and the courts wilt cost less than each agency buying its own system, will save time and prevent errors by eliminating redundant data entry, and should eliminate scheduling conflicts between the jail. sheriff, and the courts); Rob Johnson, Mayors Tout Coordinated Campaign to Fight Crime. Signing Launches Formation of Memphis-Shelby Commission, COM. ARPEAL, at B1 (noting that the mayors of the City of Memphis and Shelby County setup a commission that they anticipate will search the country for the best crime fighting strategy and technology, thus enabling the city and county to work together in crime control); Ram's, supra note 42, (stating that Anaheim authorities hope other California departments will join them in purchasing the live-scan technology, so each could tap into the other's files for criminal history information). See generally Reginald A. Wilkinson & Peggy Richie-Matsumoto, Collaborations and Applications, CORRECTIONS TODAY, July I, 1997,at 64.
  52. Curt A. Canfield, Alternative Pricing: Wawe of the Future, PRACTICING L. INST,, COMMERCIAL LAW AND PRACTICE COURSE HANDBOOK, SERIES (Mar. 1995), available in Westlaw, 712 PLl/Cornm 29.
  53. See, e.g. Evans, supra note 51 (discussing the Ventura County Integrated Justice Information System); Johnson, supra notes! (describing the City of Memphis and Shelby County crime fighting commission); Illinois State and County Partner in New Dispatch System, GOV'T TECH., Nov. 1997, at 10 (examining the cooperation between the Illinois State Police and Cook County in implementing a new automated 911 system); Bruce Gavin, High Tech Law Enforcement Heads for the Hills, GOV'T TECH., Aug.1997, at 28 (noting that the regional intranet system connects over 25 Virginia law enforcement agencies and magistrates in several counties over more than 100 miles); Blake Harris, Building a seamless Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Network, GOVT TECH, Mar. 1997, at I, 4246 (examining Massachusetts' state-wide law enforcement and public safety integrated network).
  54. Id; see Jackson, supra note 49 (discussing the JUSTNET system for corrections departments).
  55. See Evans, supra note 51, at 26 (noting that getting the computers "talking" could not begin until staff and executives from competing and sometimes combative agencies, such as prosecutors and public defenders, could talk and come to an agreement. In addition, law enforcement agencies often resist sharing criminal information with non-law enforcement agencies).
    56.
  56. Kavanaugh, supra note 35. After years of disorganization and non-cooperation in the criminal justice system, the frustrated Colorado State Legislature passed a bill requiring its five public safety agencies, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Human Services, the Judicial Branch, and the District Attorneys' Council, to develop a plan for information sharing. Id. The Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (CICJIS) Task Force was formed to lead all the agencies into a mode of cooperation and information sharing. Id. The Task Force developed an information architectural plan to achieve several goals, including reduction in duplication of data improved quality of information, and improved access to and speed of information exchange between all criminal justice components. Id,

    57. The challenges faced by the Task Force involved the traditional reticence of the components to communicate and the existence of fairly new, isolated information systems used by each component. Id; see Joe Wilcox, Net Connects Five Law Agencies, GOV'T COMPUTER NEWS STATE & LOCAL, May 1997 (reprinted by Cahners Pub, Co. 1997) (noting that Colorado's crime information center's four Digital Electric Corp. VAXes were barely three years old, and that to get a reasonable return on this technological investment, the state needed to m;1ximize the life span of this technology and other new technology being used by the components). Rather than scrapping the existing systems and forcing the components to develop a common, integrated database, the Task Force developed a solution using "middleware" technology. Kavanaugh, supra note 35.

    Middleware technology allows employees of each component to continue to use the systems with which they are familiar, while simultaneously accessing information from other agencies' systems, Id. Middleware essentially translates information from "languages" used by other agencies' systems into the accessing agency's system language. Interview with Patrick Ahlstrom, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Public Safety, in Denver, Co. (Oct.23, 1997); see Kavanaugh, supra note 35 (quoting David Usery. Colorado's Chief Information Officer, explaining that "[middleware] translates data to what the other agency can accept and places in into their system"). Perhaps the greatest advantage of the middleware system is that it "pushes" data through the system, rather than depending upon components to enter and access the information on a central database, See Wilcox, supra; Kavanaugh, supra note 35 (noting that the middleware system "not only allows officials to query for information, it actually pushes data from one system to the next as an offender moves from one agency to another."). For example, as soon as someone at the court pushes "enter" to input a sentencing order into the court's database, the information is available to law enforcement, corrections, and probation on their systems. By creating an architecture that does not require components to change their existing systems, retrain employees, or access a single database, the CICJIS Task Force was able to achieve a level of cooperation, system integration, and information sharing not previously attainable in Colorado. Id; see Wilcox, supra (noting that because middleware allows employees to enter data as they always have done, middleware enhances existing functionality without requiring additional training).

  57. The State of Ohio began a comprehensive integration planning initiative in response to difficulties arising from many outdated and disparate criminal justice applications at state and local levels. See ECG Management Consultants, State of Ohio Criminal Justice Information System Improvement Plan at Executive Summary I (Dec. 16, 1996) (unpublished strategic planning document, copy on file with Office of Justice Programs). In 1992, Ohio's Governor Voinovich, Attorney General Montgomery, and Chief Justice Moyer created a CJIS governance structure to closely monitor the development of Ohio's criminal justice systems, to develop policy regarding automated criminal justice systems, and to provide advice on planning, implementation, and management of an automated criminal justice system network. Id. at 3.

    58. The CJOS governance structure is three-tiered. The first tier is an Executive Board consisting of the Governor, Chief Justice, Attorney General, and the presidents of state associations, such as the Chiefs of police, Sheriffs, and Prosecutors. Interview with Melissa J. Winesberg, Assistant Chief of information, CJIS Project Manager, Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services, in Columbus, Ohio (July 17, 1998). The second tier is a Policy Group consisting of state and local criminal justice leaders from a variety of critical areas, including law enforcement, court administration, the judiciary, probation, the Department of Youth Services, the Department off Public Safety, the Office of the Governor, the Department of Administrative Services, and the Office of Criminal Justice Services. Id; see ECG Management Consultants, STATE OF OHIO CRIMINAL JUSTOCE INFORMATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN A-2. The third tier consists of four Regional Working Groups of local criminal justice leaders from all components of he criminal justice system. Id. at C-1- C-6.

    In 1992, the CJIS Policy Group was tasked with developing policy and strategy for an integrated criminal justice system. See ECG Management Consultants, STATE OF Onto CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN at Executive Summary I. To develop this planning document, the CJIS Policy Group instituted a bottom up approach by lapping Regional Working Groups of local government criminal justice leaders from around the state to provide feedback to their strategic planning decisions, Id at Executive Summary 2. These community-wide efforts resulted in the 1995 Criminal Justice System Improvement Plan. Id at I. Throughout the development and implementation of the Plan, the Regional Working Groups have continued to provide feedback to the Policy Group through convening quarterly meetings at the local level to discuss policy decisions on projects, and through the participation of the four Regional Working Group chairpersons at bi-monthly CJIS Policy Group meetings. Interview with Melissa 1. Winesburg, Assistant Chief of Information, CJIS Project Manager, Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services, in Columbus, Ohio (July 17, 1998).

    The tiered governance structure has been successful in enticing local jurisdictions to coordinate with their state level counterparts. The State allowed counties to compete for start up grants in the amounts ofSlOO,00O. Id. Response was very favorable, due, in part, to local jurisdictions' input into the initial planning process. Additionally, requirements under the integration grants are general, allowing locals to develop systems meeting individual needs, as long as they meet the goals of the State CJIS plan. Id. At this time, nearly 20 agencies make up the integrated effort within Ohio, and I? counties have been funded to undertake integration projects. Id.

  58. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's justice Network (JNET) is the product of ten state agency committee (the "Steering Committee") dedicated to developing and maintaining an integrated information technology system for collecting and sharing criminal justice information. Interview with Lt. Cot. George P. March, Deputy Commissioner. Pennsylvania State Police, in Harrisburg, Pa. (Dec. 10,1997) (describing the JNET Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, JNET Project OFFICE (in partnership with KPMG) 1997), The Steering Committee consists of representatives from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, the Board of Pardons, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Public Welfare, the Juvenile Court Judges' Commission, the Office of the Attorney General, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and thc Pennsylvania State Police. Id

    59. JNST uses Internet/World Wide Web technology and standards to link diverse hardware and software platforms of the criminal justice components. Id JNET is designed to allow for voluntary participation, and each participating agency controls what information it shares and who can access this information. Id. The initial INET connections, scheduled to begin in 1998, will link (he ten agencies of the Steering Committee. Id

    The Steering Committee recognizes that county and local participation is necessary for a successful integrated information architecture. See JNET Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 'NET PROJECT OFFICE (in partnership with KPMG) (1997) (noting that "[b]ecause the criminal justice process begins and ends in our communities, county and local authorities ultimately must become the foundation as well as the beneficiaries of the Pennsylvania Justice Network"). Participation in INET is mandatory for all agencies under the jurisdiction of the Governor, and, therefore, eight of the ten participating Steering Committee agencies are required to participate in the INST system. Interview with Lt. Col. George P. March, Deputy Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Police, in Harrisburg, Pa. (Dec.10, 997) (describing the JNET Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 'NET PROIECTOFFICE (in partnership with KPMG) 1997). Although participation is voluntary for agencies at the local level, the breadth of information offered by integrating the varied agencies of the Steering Committee is hoped to encourage county and local criminal justice components to join the network. Id. In addition, the Steering Committee is actively working with counties to develop systems that are compatible with 'NET standards. Id Participation needed for full integration is strongly encouraged by the Steering Committee, and may also be encouraged through the Pennsylvania Commission On Crime and Delinquency's grants for information systems at the county and local levels. Id Dy placing technical and operating parameters on grants to build and maintain local information systems, county and local governments can be encouraged to develop systems that interface with 'NET and contribute information to the 'NET system. Id

  59. The State of Michigan has begun an integrated criminal justice initiative under the February 10,1998 Executive Order of Governor Engler. Exec. Order No. 1998-I (Mich, 1998) (copy on file with McGeorge Law Review). This Executive Order consolidated existing law enforcement advisory councils and expanded their advisory responsibilities to statewide integration initiatives, Id. The new council's membership includes the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Director of the State Police, Director of the Department of corrections, Chief of Detroit Police, Michigan Sherims Association, Prosecuting Attorney's Association, Michigan District Judges Association, State Court Administrator, an individual employed in private security, and an individual representing human services. Id This restructured Michigan Criminal Justice Information Systems Advisory Council has been charged with developing a comprehensive plan for integration in Michigan, including integrated criminal history records processing, automated booking, consolidated disposition reporting, interfaces between prosecutors and law enforcement, and integrated public safety systems between local and state agencies and with the Federal Government. Doug Zimmer, Center for Information Management Address at the Inter-governmental Information Sharing Meeting, Washington, D.C. (Mar. 5,1998).

    60. The State of California has embarked On a statewide integration initiative through the formation of an Intergovernmental Coordinating Council, which is part of the Governmental Affairs Program at the McGeorge School of Law. Letter from J, Clark Kelso, Director, Institute for Legislative Practice, McGeorge School of Law, to Janet Reno, United States Attorney General 2 (Dec.24, 1997) (copy on file with McGeorge Law Review). The intergovernmental Coordinating Council consists of representatives from major California state and local justice agencies who join in facilitating the integration of otherwise disbursed governmental powers. Id. The coordinating council's plans include facilitating discussion of integration issues between California's varying jurisdictions by hosting an integration conference in 1998.

    The State of Washington has been successful in creating an integrated governance structure and has achieved an exceptional level of interagency and intergovernmental coordination through a multi-jurisdictional partnering concept instituted in the 1980's. See Office of Financial Management Information Services, Forecasting, and Management Services Division, Justice Information Network Project Definition 59 04ov. 16, 1994) (unpublished report, copy on file with Office of Justice Programs). In 1992, the Justice Information Committee (JIC) was formed by the Washington Information Services Board, the state entity that has statutory authority overall state level information systems. Id at 7, The JIC is comprised of cabinet-level agency heads and local justice officials, and its policy determinations are supported by technical staff from the Office of Financial Management and by the staffs of each of the participating agencies. Id at 59.

    In 1994, plans were developed for the Justice Information Network (JIN), a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional criminal justice information project. Id. at 59, The plans included input from all components of the project, including the Washington State Patrol, Department of Licensing, the Office of Administrator for the Courts, Office of Financial Management, the Department of Corrections, and the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, Id. at 59. As designs were being undertaken for the JIN, internet technology was becoming a new and viable information sharing tool. Washington State began to harness this technology in the Intergovernmental Network (!GN), an intranet that connects local city and county governments 'with each other and county departments with corresponding state agencies. Brian Backus, Deputy Director, Information Services Division, Office of the Administrator for the Courts, Presentation at the Washington State Justice Information Network Conference, Sea-Tac, Washington (Aug. 4, 1998). To date, 38 of Washington's 39 counties are accessing IGN. Id The Washington State Department of Information Services has since worked to make IGN a network for use by other governmental agencies. Id. The JIC's goal is to utilize and expand the justice Information System (JIS) developed by the courts to act as the infrastructure for the JIN and the link to the IGN intranet. Id.

    Throughout the changes in planning and design necessary to respond to changing technologies, the project management remained committed 10 the partnerships established among justice agencies and jurisdictions. In 1998, the participating criminal justice agencies agreed to fund a full-time position within the Department of Information Services to facilitate the integration of all the criminal justice components. Interview with Dennis Hausman, JIN Project Coordinator, Washington State Department of Information Services, Olympia Washington (Aug.31, 1998). The JIN Project Coordinator position has enhanced the already cooperative atmosphere and is widely supported by state and local agencies. Each agency contributes to the JIN Project Coordinator's salary and, therefore, has a stake in the success of the position. Id

    In addition to exceptional partnering and communication within the justice system, Washington's citizenry is actively involved injustice policy through The Washington State Law and Justice Advisory Council, formed In 1994. Washington State Justice Information Network Conference, Sea-Tac, Washington (Aug. 4, 1998) (unpublished conference materials, copy on file with Office of Justice Programs). Of the 35 members on the Council, seven are citizens interested in promoting efficiency and effectiveness in the statewide law and justice system. Id,

    States have also been successful in the first steps toward integrated architectures by integrating individual pieces of the criminal justice system. For example, Indiana has created the Integrated Law Enforcement Council (ILEC) composed of the major law enforcement groups in Indiana. Melvin J. Carroway and Lester C. Miller, Integrated Law Enforcement. "You Mean They Are Not Doing it Now?, "2 IN-ROADS, J. SYCAMORE INST. II (1998). The members of ILEC include the Indiana Sheriff's Association, Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police, Indiana Fraternal Order of Police, Indiana State Police Alliance, Indiana Black Troopers Association, Indiana Troopers Association, Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, Indiana State Police, Law Enforcement Training Board, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Id, As often noted, the human barriers to integration are the hardest to overcome. See Evans, supra note SI (stating that "law enforcement agencies traditionally keep their cards close to the vest"). Through dedicated leadership and building personal relationships, this group has made great strides in fostering cooperation and erasing turf battles at all levels of law enforcement in Indiana. See Carroway & Miller, supra, at 13 (arguing that (law enforcement] egos must be put to one side" and that officers must recognize that "no one person or agency can handle the challenges of law enforcement alone"). With this type of personal cooperation underway, the State of Indiana, with assistance from an independent strategic planning company, has initiated state-wide planning for an integrated information architecture, Howard Goodman, CEO, The Warner Group. Address at the Governor's Summit on Integrated Law Enforcement (Dec. 9, 1997), The State of Indiana is working with The Warner Group, a strategic planning consultant that has designed architectures for a number of states, including Colorado and Utah, to design its state-wide information architecture, Id.

  60. To aid state and local governments in the efficient implementation of information sharing technologies, OJP has created an information Technology Executive Council 0 develop a program funding strategy. The Information Technology Executive Council is comprised of the presidentially appointed administrators and directors of each Oji, Bureau and the directors of OJP’s program offices.
  61. Compilation of Statutory Authority, Appendix A.
  62. For example, 42 U,S.C. § 3796cc (a) provides for grants 0 coordinate criminal interstate child support enforcement efforts. The statute specifically delineates the use of funds: (b) Uses of funds. Funds distributed under this subchapter shall be used to--

    63. In today's world, enforcement of "interstate" child support necessitates the use of information technology. Therefore, grants for information technology development and implementation would be allowed within the purpose of the Criminal Child Support statute, Funds awarded under this statute, however. may not be used for information technology which has no relation to the goals of this provision.

    Many of the information technology grants allowed by statute are similarly tied to specific programmatic purposes, e.g. juvenile justice, gangs, domestic violence, and drug control. Compilation of statutory Authority, Appendix A.

  63. OJP's grant coordination could not only promote integrated information architectures. but could also increase efficiency with which state and local law enforcement and criminal justice agencies spend federal grant dollars on these architectures. By guiding state and local governments in the more efficient use of federal grant funds to implement technology, there is an increased likelihood that in the long run, greater amounts of funds will be available for more technology or for other programmatic purposes.
  64. The Office of Justice Programs' development of an internal grant funding strategy and guidance to state and local grantees for the coordinated use of information technology funding is based on the results of two Inter-governmental Information Sharing Meetings. The first Meeting, held in March 1998. brought together teams of state and local criminal justice leaders from eight states, See United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Report of the Inter-governmental Information Sharing Focus Group, February 24, 1998 and conference of states, March 5-6, 1998, at 34-37 (Apr. 7, 1998) (copy on file with MGeorge Law Review). These state and local participants identified integration issues and barriers their jurisdictions face in planning. funding, and implementing integrated criminal justice Systems at the state and local level. Id. at 17-30. At the conclusion of the event, the participants offered recommendations to OJP as to what impediments need to be overcome to achieve integrated justice. Id. at 30-32.

    65. The second Meeting, held in July. brought together a representative from each of the participating March states, as well as teams of state and local criminal justice leaders from eight new slates. See United States Department of justice, Office of Justice Programs. Report Of the Inter-governmental Information Sharing Conference of States, July 30-31,1998, at Appendix, p. 1-6 (Sept.25, 1998) (copy on file with McGeorge Law Review). The July participants used the recommendations from the March conference to identify specific actions, solutions, and models for overcoming integration barriers. See Id. at 17-34. Specific actions included OJP's development of grant guidance language to encourage the coordinated use or information technology funding, the development of integration planning grants an increase in training and technical assistance for information technology and the creation of a national clearinghouse for integration resources. See Id at 14.

  65. See United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Report oft/re Inter-governmental Information Sharing Conference of States, July 30-31,1998, at 14 (Sept.25, 1998) (copy on file with McGeorge Law Review') (relating to development of training and technical assistance).
  66. Compilation of Statutory Authority, Appendix A.
    67.  
  67. Id
  68. Id
  69. 42 U.S.C. § 3751 (1994).
  70. 42 U.S.C. § 3751(b) (1994).
  71. 42 U.S.C. § 3751(b)(l5)(B) (1994).
  72. 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg(b) (1994).
  73. 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg(b)(4) (1994).
  74. 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(l0)(M)(ii) (1994). Additionally, although not appropriated, OJP's Community Based Justice Grants for Prosecutors requires the cooperation and coordination of prosecutors. police, probation officers, and social service professionals in an effort to reduce the incidence of young violent offenders. 42 U.S.C. § 13,862(I)(4)(1994).
  75. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3751(a), 3796gg(a), (b), 5631(a) (1994).
  76. 42 U.S.C. § 3753(a)(l)(G) (1994).
  77. 42 U.S.C. § 3796ff-I(d) (1994). Additionally, although never appropriated or implemented, coordination is encouraged in the language or the Model Intensive Grant Programs where priority is given to proposals that coordinate crime prevention programs with other existing federal programs to address the overall needs of communities benefiting from such grants. 42 U.S.C. * 13771(b)(3) (1994).
  78. 42 U.S.C. ~ 3789i (1994).
  79. 42 U.S.C. § 5614(a)(2)(A)(ii), (h) (1994).
  80. 42 U.S.C. § 3712(a)(5) (1994).
  81. See supra notes 53-59 (describing various state information architectures and individual projects).
  82. See Laura Yuen, Computers Keep Cops a Step Ahead, ORANGE County REG., Oct. 12, 1997. at AO I (noting that "(technology lends 0 outpace personnel. Implementing new systems in a traditional 'workplace often confounds employees . . . The turn toward technology has put a premium on training."); see also Dussault. supra note 36. at4i (explaining that the implementation of technology in the Los Angeles Police Department has not been easy, and that officers need more formal training on the system, rather than a "learn as you go" approach); Goodman, supra note 31, at 479-80 (discussing that inherent fear of technology. 'which occurs in 55% of the population. in conjunction with insufficient personnel training, compounds the problems of achieving successful implementation and maintenance of advanced technology within law enforcement).
  83. Compilation nf5tatutory Authority, Appendix A.
  84. 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg(b)(4) (1994).
  85. 42 U.S.C. § 13,003, 13,023(a) (1994).
  86. 42 U.S.C. § 3796ii (1994).
  87. To foster overall coordination under a strategic information technology funding plan, such grants should undertake technical assistance and training in support of all participants in the integrated criminal justice system, not just the primary recipients of the grant dollars. Without clear legislative direction on this issue. however, OJI, and the Bureaus are forced to find alternative means to justify training of "secondary" users, such as the "necessary expense doctrine" explained below. For example, if federal grant funds are used to build a law enforcement system that can interface with court systems, funds must be available to train law enforcement officers and court personnel in its integrated use.
  88. A1 GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, PRINCIPLES OF FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS LAW 4-15 (2d ed. 1991).
  89. Id. (citing 6 Comp. Sen. 619,621(1927)).
  90. See Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of1968, Pub. L. No, 90-351,1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. (82 Stat, 197)237, 237-38 (stating that "to prevent crime and to insure the greater safety of the people. Law. Furthermore. the 1968 Act required state planning agencies to "define, develop, and correlate programs and projects for the State and units of local government in the Stale or combinations of states or units Id., 1968 U.S.C.C,A.N. 237,238.
  91. Pub, L. No. 105-119,1997 U.S.C.C,A.N. (111 Stat.) 2440.92,
  92. See supra note 56 (describing the coordination initiatives of OJP and its Bureaus); CO\F, RSP. No, 105-405, Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of the Conference, at 114(1998) (stating: Since 1995, funding for grant programs administered by the Office of Justice Programs will have grown by 213%.,.. In order to ensure careful stewardship of these resources, …the Assistant Attorney General for [OJP is expected to] submit a report which outlines the steps OJP has taken and which recommends additional actions that will ensure coordination and reduce the possibility of duplication and overlap among the various OJP divisions,).
  93. See infra Part IV (describing the inclusion of information sharing systems and technology in the crime bills).
  94. See Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No.90-531,1968 U.S.C,C,A.N. (82 Stat. 197)237 (espousing the concept of coordinated law enforcement at all levels of government).
  95. Id I 301(b)(5), 1968 U,S.C.C.A.N. 239. Although the Act addresses "developing systems for collecting, storing, and disseminating information relating to the control of organized crime," no reference is made to automation. Although some basic automation was employed in setting up regional criminal intelligence databases, widespread development of automated Systems at the state and local government levels was implausible In 1968.
  96. S. Rep. No.96-142, at 12. reprinted in 1979 U.S,C,C.A.N. 2471,2483-84 (describing the Prosecutor's Management Information System, PROMIS, which "identified high priority cases, alerted officials to multiple offenders, developed statistical reports illustrating court and prosecutorial problems and needs, and aggregated data about court processes, crime trends, and social-legal problems.").
  97. Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub, L. No.98473, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. (98 Stat. 1873)2079-80,2082.
  98. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No, 100-690,1988 U.S.C.C.A,N, (102 Stat, 4181)434041, The first major federally funded automated criminal intelligence sharing system, the R,I.S,S, system, was established as an LEAA grant program in the early 1970's. R.l.S.S. continued to be funded and eventually received a Congressional line-item appropriation in the mid-1970's, The 1988 Act provided specific authorization for funding to this and similar criminal intelligence information Systems to track organized crime aeross jurisdictions. Id; see Office of justice Programs, Office of the Comptroller, Regional Information System Grant History (1975-1997) appropriation chan (Apr. 1998) (copy on file with Office ofJr4stice Programs),
  99. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Amendments, Pub. L. No. 102-586, 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. (106 Stat, 4982) 4995 (noting the inclusion of the Administrator's authority to provide technical assistance. including technology transfer, to states),
  100. See generally, violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. I~. No. 103-322,19)4 U.S.C,C,A.N. (108 Stat.) 1796,
  101. See supra note 4 (describing the agency reorganizations of 1979 and 1984).
  102. 42 U.S.C. §§ 13,861-68(1994).
  103. 42 U.S.C.. § 13,867(1994).
  104. United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Report of the Inter-governmental Information Sharing Focus Group, February 24,1998, and Conference of States, March 5-6,1998, at 6-7,31 (Apr. 7, 998) (copy on file with McGeorge taw Review),
  105. H.R. REP, No.98-1030, at 276(1984), reprinted in 1984 U.5.C.C,A.N. 3182,3457
  106. On October 8,1998, Congress passed the Crime identification and Technology Act of 1998. See 144 CONG. REC. H9987-H9993 (daily ed. Oct. 7, 1998). The bill was signed into law on October 9, 1998. Pub. L. No. 105-251, 112 Stat. 1870. Although it was not appropriated in 1999, the law incorporates many of the ideas suggested in this article. For example, the law allows for grants to state and local governments to be used for: programs to establish, develop, update. or upgrade-

    (1)State centralized, automated, adult and juvenile criminal history record information systems, including arrest and disposition reporting;
    (7)integrated criminal justice information systems to manage and communicate criminal justice information among law enforcement agencies, courts, prosecutors and corrections agencies;
    (9) court-based criminal justice information systems that promote

    (A) reporting of dispositions to central State repositories and the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
    (B) compatibility with and integration of court systems with other criminal justice information systems;

    (16)multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional communications systems among the States 10 share routine and emergency information among Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.

    Crime identification Technology Act of 1998, Pub. L. No.105-251, § 102,112 Stat. 1870,1871(1998).

    In addition, the law speaks to requiring grant recipients to ,work within their jurisdictions in plan for integration and 10 use federal funding in a coordinated manner to support integrated information sharing. For example, to be eligible for a grant under the law, a Stale must provide assurances to the Attorney General, including:

    a provision that ensures that a statewide strategy for information sharing systems is underway, or will be initialed, to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system. with an emphasis on integration of all criminal justice components, law enforcement, courts, prosecution, corrections, and probation and parole.
    §102,112 Stat at 1872.

    This requirement also addresses the need for State and local jurisdictions 10 work together in the planning process by stating:

    The strategy shall be prepared after consultation 'with Slate and local officials 'with emphasis on the recommendation of officials 'whose duly it is to oversee, plan, and implement integrated information technology systems:
    102,112 Stat at 1872-73.

    One of the most important and relevant sections or the law is the requirement that the assurances include: a plan for coordinating the programs funded under this title 'with other federally funded information technology programs. including directly funded local programs such [sic] the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program . . . and the [COPS M.O.R.E. program

    § 102, Ii2Slat at 1873

    The Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 is the first step toward the more coordinated and efficient use or federal funding to support slate and local integrated criminal justice. Some shortfalls remain, however. For example, the Act provides stales a loophole in which to avoid necessary coordination by allowing a state to assure only that a statewide strategy for information systems "will be initiated" rather than requiring a strategy to be underway. See §102, 112 Stat. at 1872, In addition, it appears that the focus of criminal justice integration is on the states' abilities to utilize federal information and identification systems. See 144 CONG. REC. at H9991 (daily ed. Oct.',, 1998) (statement of Rep. McCollum). Although increasing states' abilities to utilize the federal systems is an important aspect to achieving integrated criminal justice, there needs to be a recognition that improving integrated criminal justice at the local level and between localities and state government is at the heart of achieving integrated criminal justice. The language of the Act allows states and localities to use funds to support their intra-jurisdictional integrated systems. Hopefully, grant programs under the Act will fund state and local integration initiatives at the same level and frequency as state and federal information sharing improvements.

    Finally, general comments to the bill acknowledge that the intention of the Act is to consolidate currently existing grant programs that provide technology assistance to stales. Id. Although this statement provides some support for OJP's Executive Council's coordinated funding strategy, Congress has yet to specifically address the need for statutory authority that allows for coordination and creates an administrative mechanism to support the coordination of federal funding.