Limited "Voided Arrest" Data From Federal, State, and Local	 
Agencies (30-NOV-01, GAO-02-209R).				 
								 
A "voided arrest" is any arrest resulting in the release of a	 
person without the filing of formal charges, dismissal of	 
proceedings against the person arrested, or a determination that 
the arrest was without probable cause. Since Congress informed	 
GAO that the bill will not be pursued, at least in the		 
foreseeable future, because of the terrorist attacks on September
11, 2001, GAO's ongoing review of the number of "voided arrests,"
originally intended to support H.R. 1154, was closed out with	 
this report. Complete data on the number of "voided arrests," as 
defined by H.R. 1154, that occur at national and state levels are
not available. None of the federal, state, or local agencies GAO 
contacted use the term "voided arrest". They do not have data for
the category "voided arrests," and the data that they have do not
include all arrests in those jurisdictions that can be considered
"voided arrests" as defined by H.R. 1154. The Bureau of Justice  
Statistics and the state criminal history record repositories	 
generally have data for the arrest disposition categories of	 
prosecutor declinations and dismissals, and these dispositions	 
can be considered "voided arrests". However, prosecutor 	 
declinations and court dismissals occur for numerous reasons and 
obtaining and analyzing data on these would be extremely	 
difficult and time-consuming, if not impossible in many cases.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-209R					        
    ACCNO:   A02518						        
  TITLE:     Limited "Voided Arrest" Data From Federal, State, and    
Local Agencies							 
     DATE:   11/30/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Arrests						 
	     Data bases 					 
	     Law enforcement agencies				 
	     Law enforcement information systems		 
	     Proposed legislation				 
	     Statistical data					 
	     Terrorism						 
	     Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal		 
	     Justice Statistics Program 			 
								 
	     DOJ National Criminal History			 
	     Improvement Program				 
								 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-209R
     
GAO- 02- 209R Limited ?Voided Arrest? Data United States General Accounting
Office

Washington, DC 20548

November 30, 2001 The Honorable Jerrold Nadler Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on the Constitution Committee on the Judiciary House of
Representatives

Subject: Limited ?Voided Arrest? Data From Federal, State, and Local
Agencies Dear Mr. Nadler: In a letter dated March 21, 2001, you requested
that we investigate and report on the number of ?voided arrests? that occur
at national and state levels. You expressed interest in ?voided arrests?
defined as any arrest resulting in the release of the person without the
filing of formal charges; dismissal of proceedings against the person
arrested; or a determination that the arrest was without probable cause.
This definition is the same as that of the term ?voidable arrest,? contained
in H. R. 1154, a bill you introduced in the House of Representatives on
March 21, 2001. 1

To respond to your request, we contacted various federal, state, and local
agencies and collected information to design a methodology for this study.
On September 25, 2001, we discussed the preliminary results of our work with
your staff, who advised us that you would not be pursuing the passage of H.
R. 1154, at least in the foreseeable future, because of the attacks that
occurred in the United States on September 11, 2001. Since this study was
intended to support H. R. 1154, your staff requested that we close out our
work with this letter summarizing the information we collected to date and
the difficulties involved in obtaining data on ?voided arrests.?

Federal Agencies

 We contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) headquarters and
its Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS); Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) law enforcement statistics unit and its National Criminal
History Improvement Program; U. S. Marshals Service at Los Angeles; and Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) headquarters. 2

1 In this letter, we use the term ?voided arrests? instead of ?voidable
arrests.? The two terms are synonymous as defined in your March letter to
the Comptroller General and your bill, Clear Your Good Name Act, H. R. 1154,
107 th Cong. (2001). 2 We selected Department of Justice components
responsible for making arrests, maintaining criminal

history records, and collecting criminal justice statistics.

GAO- 02- 209R Limited ?Voided Arrest? Data 2

 None of the federal agencies we contacted uses the term ?voided arrest.?
In addition, none of them has complete and readily available nationwide data
on the total number of the different types of ?voided arrests,? as defined
by H. R. 1154, that occurred at either federal or state levels.

 FBI CJIS officials told us they do not have standardized categories for
the dispositions of arrests 3 reported by federal and state agencies. The
officials said this information is recorded as narrative, making it
impossible to conduct an automated search for arrest dispositions in the
FBI?s Interstate Identification Index (III). 4 In addition, they said much
of the disposition information in III is incomplete or inaccurate.

 Some nationwide data on certain types of federal ?voided arrests,? as
defined by H. R. 1154, may be available, but the data are limited, according
to BJS law enforcement statistics unit officials. The BJS officials said
that they have a Federal Justice Statistics Program database that can
compare federal arrests booked by the U. S. Marshals Service with data from
the Executive Office for U. S. Attorneys and the Administrative Office of
the U. S. Courts to identify the arrests that were not prosecuted and
determine the percentage that resulted in various dispositions, such as
prosecutor declinations and court dismissals. BJS does not routinely conduct
such a comparison, but it has the ability to do it upon request.

 According to BJS?s database, there were 109,857 arrests for federal
offenses booked by the Marshals Service; 31,004 declinations to prosecute by
U. S. Attorneys; and 8,552 cases dismissed in fiscal year 1999. 5

 However, not all arrests by federal agencies are turned over to the
Marshals Service and recorded in their database. For example, BJS reported
that DEA agents made 37,746 arrests in fiscal year 1999 and there were
11,718 DEA arrests for federal offenses booked by the Marshals Service that
same fiscal year. The DEA arrests not booked by the Marshals Service include
suspects referred for prosecution in state courts. A BJS official said the
FBI also has a significant number of arrests that are not turned over to the
Marshals Service.

 Prosecutor declinations and court dismissals can occur for numerous
reasons, including referrals to other authorities for prosecution, pretrial
diversion into a program of supervision and services tailored to the
offenders? needs, restitution fully or partially made, and civil or
administrative alternatives. In

3 Dispositions of arrests include release by a law enforcement agency
without charges filed, declination to prosecute, court dismissal,
conviction, and acquittal. Arrest dispositions can occur at different stages
of the criminal justice process and for a variety of different reasons. 4
The III is an ?index- pointer? system maintained by the FBI for the
interstate exchange of criminal

history records. The III includes names and personal identification
information relating to individuals who have been arrested or indicted for a
serious or significant criminal offense anywhere in the United States.
Search inquiries are made by criminal justice agencies nationwide, and data
are automatically retrieved from each state repository holding records on
the individual. As of September 30, 2000, 41 states participated in III. 5
See BJS? Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 1999 (April 2001, NCJ
186179).

GAO- 02- 209R Limited ?Voided Arrest? Data 3 such situations, the arrested
persons may not be considered innocent of the

crime for which they were arrested. For example, of the 31,004 U. S.
Attorney declinations in fiscal year 1999, BJS reported that the basis for
declining to prosecute 6,408 suspects was that the matter was referred or
handled in other prosecution; pretrial diversion was the basis for not
prosecuting 757 suspects; restitution was the basis for not prosecuting 102
suspects; and civil or administrative alternatives was the basis for not
prosecuting 665 suspects.

 BJS does not collect state arrest or arrest disposition information,
according to BJS officials.

 DEA provided us with data showing there were 39,793 DEA domestic arrests
and 4,128 prosecutor declination dispositions in fiscal year 2000 and 23,515
DEA domestic arrests and 2,647 prosecutor declination dispositions from
October 2000 through June 2001. DEA also has the ability to compile data on
the reasons for declinations (such as insufficient evidence and referred for
other prosecution), the number of dismissal dispositions, and the reasons
for dismissal dispositions. 6

 Neither the FBI nor the Marshals Service can compile statistics on the
various dispositions of arrests by the two agencies, including prosecutor
declinations, dismissals, and the number of arrests made without charges
filed. The arrest disposition report used by the two agencies (FBI Form R-
84, Final Disposition Report) does not have standard codes or categories for
recording the various types of dispositions, according to FBI and Marshals
Service officials. Dispositions are recorded on the form in narrative.

State Agencies

 We contacted eight state agencies (i. e., state criminal history record
repositories). We attempted to contact a ninth state repository, but agency
officials did not respond to our phone calls and letter. 7

6 DEA?s declination statistics, and other arrest disposition data, are
derived from Defendant Disposition Reports (Form DEA- 210) received in DEA
headquarters during the fiscal year indicated, and they are without regard
to when the arrest occurred. Consequently, given the time between each
arrest and its subsequent disposition, arrests and dispositions for the same
time periods do not necessarily refer to the same individuals. Also, DEA?s
arrest and disposition data are updated as additional information becomes
available; the data DEA provided us were as of August 8, 2001. 7 Using BJS?
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 (October 2000,
NCJ 184793),

we selected some states that required, and some that did not require,
notification to their state criminal history record repositories by (1) law
enforcement agencies when arrested persons are released without formal
charging after fingerprints are submitted and (2) prosecutors when they
decline to prosecute. Our selection of states was weighted toward those that
provided data on these dispositions to BJS. We contacted officials at the
Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information, California Department of
Justice; Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center, Department of Attorney
General; Division of Criminal Investigation, Iowa Department of Public
Safety; Criminal Records and Identification Division, Missouri State Highway
Patrol; Records Division, Nebraska State Patrol; Bureau of Identification,
New Jersey State Police; Identification and Criminal History Operations
(within the Office of Systems and Operations) and Office of Justice Systems
Analysis, New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services; and Crime
Information Center, Vermont Department of Public Safety.

GAO- 02- 209R Limited ?Voided Arrest? Data 4

 None of the eight state criminal history record repositories we contacted
use the term ?voided arrest.?

 Six state criminal history record repositories (California, Hawaii,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, and New York) compiled and provided data on
the number of arrests in those states resulting in prosecutor declinations
and court dismissals. The California and Hawaii repositories also provided
data on arrests resulting in release without charges filed. Enclosure I
presents data provided by the six state criminal history record
repositories.

 Officials at two other state repositories (Iowa and Vermont) said they do
not have any data on ?voided arrests,? including prosecutor declinations and
court dismissals.

Local Agencies

 We contacted seven local law enforcement agencies. We attempted to contact
another four local agencies, but they did not respond to our phone calls and
letters. 8

 None of the seven local law enforcement agencies we contacted use the term

?voided arrest.?

 The Westchester County Department of Public Safety (New York) provided us
with estimates of the number of arrests that resulted in release without
referral for prosecution for 1999 and 2000. Of 1,460 total arrests in 1999,
there were an estimated 5 arrests that resulted in release without referral
for prosecution; of 1,764 total arrests in 2000, there were an estimated 8
arrests that resulted in release without referral for prosecution. According
to the official we talked with, actual data on such releases is not readily
available.

 Officials at five other local law enforcement agencies said all arrests
are referred for prosecution (i. e., no law enforcement releases). These
agencies were the Des Moines Police Department (Iowa), Lincoln Police
Department (Nebraska), Millburn Township Police Department (New Jersey),
Little Falls City Police Department (New York), and Windham County Sheriff?s
Office (Vermont).

 The San Francisco Police Department does not have data on arrests
resulting in release without referral for prosecution. When this occurs, the
police department would notify the state criminal history record repository
of the release and would no longer consider this an arrest, according to the
official with whom we spoke.

8 At our request, officials at seven of the eight state criminal history
record repositories we contacted referred us to officials in local law
enforcement agencies in their respective states, including some large
agencies and some agencies considered to have good criminal history record
systems.

GAO- 02- 209R Limited ?Voided Arrest? Data 5

Difficulties in Obtaining ?Voided Arrest? Data

Complete data on the number of ?voided arrests,? as defined by H. R. 1154,
that occur at national and state levels are not available. None of the
federal, state, or local agencies we contacted use the term ?voided arrest.?
They do not have data for the category ?voided arrests,? and the data that
they have do not include all arrests in those jurisdictions that can be
considered ?voided arrests? as defined by H. R. 1154.

BJS and the state criminal history record repositories we contacted
generally have data for the arrest disposition categories of prosecutor
declinations and dismissals, and these dispositions can be considered
?voided arrests? as defined by H. R. 1154. However, prosecutor declinations
and court dismissals can occur for numerous reasons, including referrals to
other authorities for prosecution, diversion into programs involving
supervision and services tailored to the offenders? needs, restitution, and
civil or administrative alternatives. In such situations, the arrested
persons may not be considered innocent of the crime for which they were
arrested. Trying to obtain and analyze data on the reasons for prosecutor
declinations and court dismissals would be extremely difficult and time-
consuming, if not impossible in many cases. For example, officials at five
state criminal history record repositories told us they do not maintain
reliable data at this level of detail. In addition, several officials told
us that disposition information is often incomplete or inaccurate.

-- -- -- -- -- -- - We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman,
Subcommittee on the Constitution, House Committee on the Judiciary; the
Attorney General; and other interested parties. This letter will also be
available on our home page at http:// www. gao. gov.

If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 512- 8777 or Darryl W.
Dutton at (213) 830- 1000. Other key contributors to this letter were Ronald
G. Viereck, Gretchen E. Bornhop, and Cheryl M. Peterson.

Sincerely yours, Paul L. Jones Director, Justice Issues

Enclosure

GAO- 02- 209R Limited ?Voided Arrest? Data 6

Enclosure I Six States? Arrest Disposition Data Fitting H. R. 1154?s
Definition of ?Voided Arrests?

State Year Disposition Number

California 1999 Law enforcement releases 31,989 Prosecution rejects/
releases 80,010 Court dismissals 1,490 2000 Law enforcement releases 28,960

Prosecution rejects/ releases 99,531 Court dismissals 712

Hawaii 1999 Released, no charge 1,037 Released, prosecution declined at
arrest 263 Declined to prosecute 365 Nolle prosequi a 6,517 Dismissed 17,164
2000 Released, no charge 1,084

Released, prosecution declined at arrest 368 Declined to prosecute 363 Nolle
prosequi 7, 748 Dismissed 20,517 Indictment, no true bill returned b 1

Missouri 1999 Charges not filed c 36,331 Dismissed d 14,002 2000 Charges not
filed 26,118

Dismissed 5, 995 Nebraska 1999 Prosecution declined, court dismissed 593

2000 Prosecution declined, court dismissed 611 New Jersey 1999 Full
dismissal e 19,981

2000 Full dismissal 18,168 New York f 2000 Prosecution declined g 18,629

Dismissed 166,442 No true bill 1,158 a Nolle prosequi is a formal entry on
the record of the court indicating the prosecutor declares that he or she
will

no longer proceed in the action. It is a type of defendant disposition
occurring after the filing of a case in court and before judgment. b No true
bill is a disposition in which a grand jury fails to return a bill of
indictment.

c According to the Criminal Records and Identification Division, Missouri
State Highway Patrol, the charges not filed category consists primarily of
prosecutor declinations. d According to the Criminal Records and
Identification Division, Missouri State Highway Patrol, the dismissed

category consists primarily of court dismissals. e Full dismissal indicates
that all charges in the arrest were dismissed for various reasons, including
lack of

prosecution, plea bargains, incompetent, and appealed. f Data were not
provided for 1999.

g The Office of Justice Systems Analysis, New York State Division of
Criminal Justice Services, noted concern with the quality of the prosecution
declined disposition data because of previously detected inconsistencies in
reporting across jurisdictions in the state. The agency discontinued
presenting this data in its publications and noted that it is not in a
position to know whether the data quality has improved. The agency further
noted it is likely that errors in reporting this disposition are accounted
for in other ?not prosecuted? disposition categories, probably dismissals.
*** End of document. ***