Follow Up Report - Publications and Resources
Transcription
Follow Up Report - Publications and Resources
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON, D.C Repor t and Recommendations Of The American Un iversity Study Team On the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Criminal Justice System FOLLOW-UP REPORT March 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION A. Background of this Study II. 1 1. Focus of the 1982 Study 1 2. Focus of this Follow-up Study 2 B. Organization of the Follow-up Report 3 FINDINGS 5 A. 5 Problems That Have Emerged Since the 1982 Report 1. B. District Attorney's Office Staffing 5 Chart I: 9 Felony and Misdemeanor Cases Per District Attorney, 1979 - 1988 Chart II: Felony and Misdemeanor Cases Per Superior Court Judge, 1979 - 1988 10 2. Drugs and Drug-Related Offenses 11 3. Jail Crowding 12 Assessment of Criminal Justice System Issues Addressed in the 1982 Report 12 1. Overview of Crime Statistics and the Criminal Justice System in Charlotte-Mecklenburg 12 2. System Coordination 14 3. Identification and Intake 15 a. 17 b. c. d. Time Required of Arresting Officers at Intake Presentment Early Prosecutorial Screening and Defense Involvement Pretrial Services The Initial Release Hearing 17 18 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 4. III. Caseflow Management 20 a. District Court 20 b. Superior Court 21 5. Information Systems 21 6. Criminal Justice System Relations With the Community 25 AGENDA FOR FURTHER ACTION 27 A. Prosecutor and Judicial Resources 27 B. Anti-Drug Abuse Efforts 27 C. Information System Improvements 28 D. Jail Capacity Management 28 E. Criminal Justice System Coordination 28 APPENDICES: A. Individuals Interviewed By the Study Team B. Mecklenburg County Population Trends C. Charlotte Arrest Data: 1981 - 1987 1. 2. D. Arrests by Charlotte Police by Calendar Years Arrests by Mecklenburg County Police by Calendar Years Description of Live Finger Scan Technology I. INTRODUCTION A. Background of this Study 1. Focus of the 1982 Study During the Spring of 1982, The American University conducted a study of the criminal justice process in Charlotte-Mecklenburg at the request of the CharlotteMecklenburg City and County Governments. The study was undertaken in response to citizen concern over an increase in residential burglary and several incidents of recent crime specifically and the apparent fragmentation of local criminal justice agencies in The focus of the study was upon inter- dealing with crime problems generally. organizational relations and the interaction of the various agencies constituting the criminal justice system. Recommendations were made in four areas: (I) improvement in system operation and defendant flow, from arrest to sentencing; (2) improvement in information flow; (3) improvement in public education and information; and (4) improvement in mechanisms for ongoing system analysis and coordination. In June 1982, the study team presented a report containing its analysis and recommendations and organized in the following seven sections: Section I A brief overview of crime statistics justice system in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Section II Discussion of the need for a coordinating mechanism in the criminal justice system and proposal for an Office of Criminal Justice System Coordinator Section III Recommendation for a major restructuring of current criminal intake procedures and institution of a model intake process Section IV Description of current misdemeanor and felony case processing and proposal for a caseflow management policy to improve case processing Section V Description of the criminal justice information systems and suggestions on areas where improvements could be made, including a procedure to upgrade the Defendant-in-Process System (DIPS) Section VI Description of citizens' perceptions of the criminal justice system and proposals for various means to improve system responsiveness to public concerns and public understanding of the system Section VII Outline of short recommendations. term action steps and to the criminal implement study 2. Focus of this Follow-up Study Among the immediate actions which the study team recommended to initiate implementation of the report was the creation of a five-member, high-level Citizen Criminal Justice Commission, to be appointed jointly by the Mayor of Charlotte, the Chairman of the County Commission and the Chairman of the State Legislative delegation. The purpose of the Commission was to provide public oversight for the implementation of the criminal justice improvement program outlined in the report and to serve as a supporting force to help the system achieve its goals. The Commission was appointed in 1983 and consisted of: Dr. Jay Robinson, Rev. Leon Riddick, Sis Kaplan, Rolfe Neill and John A. Tate, who served as chairman. In 1985, Dr. Robinson resigned when he moved out the area and was replaced by David Burkhalter. Shortly after appointment, the Commission reviewed the American University Report and developed an implementation plan which served as its agenda for the next five years. In the Fall of 1988, City and County Government officials asked the American University to reassemble the 1982 study team to review the actions taken to implement the 1982 report, assess the degree to which the improvement program outlined at that time had been achieved and to outline the direction which future crimina l justice system improvement efforts should take. In this regard, it was requested that special attention be given to any continued role which the Citizens Criminal Justice Commission should play. In response to this request, the American University reassembled the following members of the 1982 study team: Bruce Beaudin, former Director of the Pretrial Services Agency of the District of Columbia and now a judge on the District of Columbia Superior Court; Larry P. Polansky, Executive Officer for the District of Columbia Courts and an authority on court automation; Jerry V. Wilson, former Chief of the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia; Joseph A. Trotter, Jr., Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Adjudication Technical Assistance Project, which has been providing technical assistance in the jail crowding area to Mecklenburg County, and Caroline S. Cooper, Director of Court Services for that project. In addition, two new team members were appointed: David J. Saari, professor of judicial administration at the American University and a specialist in caseflow management; and, under the auspices of the Adjudication Technical Assistance Project, Andrew Sonner, State's Attorney for Montgomery County, Maryland. The team conducted a total of twenty person days of site work during December 1988 - February 1989, focussing primarily upon interviews with city and county government officials, criminal justice system representatives and Commission members; 2 review of relevant statistics and other information provided by the District Attorney, the Trial Court Administrator, City and County Police officials, and the state Administrative Office of the Courts; and observation of proceedings and procedures relevant to the criminal caseflow process. A list of the individuals with whom the study team met is provided in Appendix A. B. Organization of the Follow-up Report During the course of the site work, it became evident that several significant issues have developed since the 1982 study was conducted, which require not only immediate action but also contribute to the context within which progress in achieving the 1982 report recommendations must be assessed. two sections. For this reason, the report is organized in The first provides an overview of developments which have occurred since the 1982 report relevant to the criminal justice process in Charlotte-Mecklenburg which require immediate attention and which must be taken into account in any efforts undertaken to implement the 1982 report. The second addresses, section by section, the implementation efforts made to date and the recommended focus for any further actions needed. In presenting this follow-up report, the team wishes to acknowledge the contribution of certain entities and individuals who played a special part in working toward the goals of the criminal justice improvement program outlined in the 1982 report. The Citizens Criminal Justice Commission (CCJC) has played an extraordinary role during the past five years as both overseer and catalyst for justice system improvement. Both the quality and intensity of effort and accomplishment which that body has brought about demonstrate a remarkable degree of public service -- not only because its members were thrust into controversial areas involving the expenditure of public funds but also because their work required them to throw themselves thoroughly into an area of government and activity with which they had no significant prior experience or expertise. Their untiring commitment to the concept of better justice has served as a milestone for the entire community and their continued existence and role as public oversees of the quality of criminal justice in Charlotte-Mecklenburg is essential. Once the Commission was established and in place, the day to day responsibilities of bringing into reality the justice system improvement goals outlined in the 1982 report fell largely upon Tom Cameron, who took over the newly expanded role of trial court administrator. It is always difficult to be the "first" in a newly established position which requires not only performance of specified functions but, in addition, the forging 3 of a facilitating role within the local and state community. Mr. Cameron took on this challenge and has performed it well. The accomplishments of the CCJC and the trial court administrator are, of course, also testimony to the extraordinary cooperation of state, county and city governments which has characterized the Charlotte-Mecklenburg criminal justice system and which holds the promise for continued system improvement. Implementation of the 1982 Report recommendations has required a joint, intergovernmental effort the response to which far exceeded the expectations of the study team. Particular note is made of the dedication, commitment and cooperation of the Superior Court Clerk, City and County Police Chiefs, the Sheriff, District Attorney, City and County Managers, Superior and District Court Judges, the Administrative Director of the North Carolina staff and his staff toward accomplishment of the study objectives. The creation of the CCJC and trial court administrator positions alone, as outlined in the 1982 Report, required joint action, authorization and compromise on the part of city, county and state governmental bodies. In addition, these entities implementation process. have provided substantial financial support to the The County, alone, has expended over $20 million solely for construction of the new intake center, a new Criminal Courts Building, renovation of the current court facility, and development of the information system. The City has also made substantial financial outlay, including the enhancement of police personnel by 18%. The state has already enhanced certain justice system functions it supports which the study team hopes is a precursor for more systematic review of local resource needs. All of these accomplishments in a large sense reflect the community's support of and response to the untiring efforts of Judge Frank Snepp who is at the heart of this criminal justice system improvement effort and, as senior resident judge in CharlotteMecklenburg, has spearheaded efforts to maintain the quality of the local criminal justice process and assure its responsiveness to changing needs. It should be noted that the requirements of the system. 1982 report deliberately did not address resource However, in conducting this five year "assessment", the study team could not help but be alarmed by a roughly 50% increase in criminal caseload with only a 10% increase in resources overa 11 and virtually no increase in resources for prosecution. While the assessment is aimed at fine tuning system efforts to maximize resource effectiveness, we have made some comment on pressing resource needs. 4 II. FINDINGS A. Problems That Have Emerged Since the 1982 Report 1. District Attorney's Office Staffing The District Attorney last received an increase in staff in 1979. time, crime has risen 72% in Charlotte: Since that a 1410/o increase in violent crimes which require significant prosecutorial resources, and a 64% increase in property crimes, detailed as follows: rape aggrav. asst. robberies larcenies burglaries 1979 1987 115 1,617 703 12,559 6,676 308 4,146 1,486 21,723 10,117 % increase +168% +156% +113% +73% +52% Misdemeanor and felony filings have also risen at an escalating rate as the chart below demonstrates: Y£uu:. 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 Misdm. Filings % Increase over 1978 69,441 79,072 79,342 78,897 81,379 102,029 96,140 104,926 120,663 126,712 14% 14% 14% 17% 47% 38% 5 1% 74% 82% Felony Filings 1,585 1,867 2,198 2,796 2,753 2,873 2,926 3,332 3, 114 3,241 % Increa se Over 1978 18% 39% 76% 74% 81% 85% 110% 96% 104% During the same period, the population has grown at an average rate of 18%, from 404,270 in 1980 to a projected 478,000 in 1990. 1 The City has responded to this activity by increasing police personnel by 18%, adding 93 additional uniformed officers (710 to 807) and 85 additional support staff (128 to 233). 1 The state increased its support for indigent defense services, augmenting the See Appendix B for population data. 5 number of public defender attorneys from 8 in 1978 to 19 in 1987, with a current annual budget for the office of approximately $1 million which is supplemented with assigned counsel resources which increased from $100,000 to $800,000 during the period. The substantial support of indigent defense services over the period has made it possible for the public defender to call upon private counsel as a relief valve when the public def ender's caseload is too heavy. Charlotte-Mecklenburg is the only jurisdiction we know of where public spending for indigent defense exceeds that for the prosecution. From 1979 until now, the District Attorney's staff of nineteen assistants has remained constant, with a current budget of $1.2 million with which to handle a caseload represented by an indigent defense complement with 33% more resources as well as additional representation provided by the private bar. Despite the failure to receive additional resources commensurate with the increased pattern of criminal activity, the District Attorney has managed to prosecute the caseload significantly more expeditiously than either of the other two largest counties in North Carolina as indicated by the following statistics on pending caseloads and pending case ages as of December 31, 1988: County Population (l 988 est.) Mecklenburg Wake County (Raleigh) Guilford County (Greensboro) 475,000 374,000 333,000 Felony Cases Pending: December 31. 1988: County Mecklenburg Wake Guilford Misdeme!,lnQr Total Pending 919 1,141 1,438 ~ases 90 Days or less 470 628 664 Pending: County Total Pending Mecklenburg Wake Guilford 512 1,725 160 91-120 days 121-180 days 191-365 days 1-2 Yrs. over 117 91 214 169 159 220 108 191 189 37 68 126 18 4 25 121-180 days 191-365 days 1-2 Yrs. D~cember ~I. 90 Days Qr less 280 987 75 ~ 1288: 91-120 days 44 1,249 29 65 224 30 6 66 225 19 28 85 2 0 v ~ 29 5 5 e r As would be expected, the caseload of each District Attorney has increased dramatically during the period, particularly for misdemeanors, as indicated in the following chart: D.A.s Filings Dispositions Felony Filings Per D.A. Misd. Filings Per D.A. 19 19 74,000 70,000 164/DA 5,285/DA 12,6000 12,2000 173/DA 6,631/DA The percent increase in misdemeanor and felony case filings in comparison to the percent increase in district attorneys and judges during the period is depicted on Charts I and II on pages 9 and 10. While the felony caseload of each district attorney has increased only minimally, from 164 to 173, or 6% over the period, the misdemeanor caseload per district attorney has increased by 25%, more than 1,346 cases each. The impact that the increased criminal activity has placed upon the District Attorney and citizens of Charlotte-Mecklenburg is far greater than the caseload statistics alone suggest. The office is modern and well managed and has developed a number of innovative screening and diversion programs to process its caseload expeditiously. Nevertheless, the burden that the felony and misdemeanor caseload has placed 2 on the District Attorney's Office has been extraordinary, with staff required to work evenings and weekends constantly just to keep up and the District Attorney, himself, required to carry a significant trial workload. The various measures that the District Attorney has instituted have not been adequate to accommodate the rise of criminal activity and the District Attorney has been forced into a position of having to dismiss or reduce cases that are not on their face "winnable" as charged, and to select for prosecution only those cases that make the best public use of the limited prosecutorial resources available. Prosecutors must target cases for prosecution where witnesses appear and where all of the factors favoring prosecution are positive at the time the case is to be heard. If a case falters for any reason-- poor testimony, absent witnesses, incomplete investigation, etc., it is a prime candidate for dismissal. 2 The District Attorney must also handle juvenile and support enforcement matters arising out of domestic relations proceedings. Caseloads in each of these areas has also increased. 7 Furthermore, both an active and responsible public def ender office and supplemental private attorneys offering further criminal defense services continually confront these 19 prosecutors to assure due process and compliance with statutorily prescribed criminal case processing time standards. for example. Administrative Office of the During the last six months of 1988, Courts statistics indicate that felony dispositions in Mecklenburg County totalled 1,663 of which 483 (29%) were dismissed. These dismissals included by original charge 4 murder cases. 13 rape or lst degree sex offenses, 24 robberies; 14 assaults; 73 burglaries; 79 larcenies; 24 forgeries; 51 fraud activity; 109 controlled substance offenses plus 92 other felonies. These figures do not reflect additional felony charges reduced to misdemeanors. Misdemeanor dismissal rates follow a similar pattern. The de facto result of the dismissal rate, coupled with the additional cases which the District Attorney declines to prosecute, has been the decriminalization of certain offenses -- not for policy reasons, but simply because of the failure to provide adequate prosecutorial resources. The wrong message is being given to the community. What was noted as a "definite possibility for imbalance in the system" arising out of the state and local ratio of criminal justice system expenditures in 1982, 3 has now become an acute crisis. Concerned that prosecutorial resources had not increased commensurate with the rising criminal activity and the increased law enforcement and indigent defense support afforded during the period, the study Administrative Office of the Courts staff. team discussed the problem with AOC staff noted that prosecutorial and other court resources were allocated to each county according to a complex formula designed to spread limited resources equitably among the state's 100 counties and that comparative caseloads across the states had not changed. was under study. The staff also indicated that the formula While the study team docs not intend to begin to assess the merits of the state formula for allocating judicial system resources within the state, the formula does not work for Mecklenburg County if it produces the result which it has. 3. Report and Recommendations of The American University Study Team on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Criminal Justice System. 1982. page 18. 8 CHARLOTTE I MECKLENBURG COUNTY CHART I: CASES & D.A.'S - % INCREASE FY 79 - 88 1.2 110% 1. 1 1 0.9 w 0.8 er: ~ 0.7 -z 0.6 8 % (/} () I- z w 47% 0.5 () er: w CL 0.4 27% 0.3 0.2 27% 27% 27% 27% '82 '83 '84 '85 27% 27% 2 % '87 '88 14% 0.1 0 0 '79 0 MISD. FILINGS '80 '81 + FELONY FILINGS 9 1 86 D.A.'S CHARLOTTE CHART II: I MECKLENBURG COUNTY CASES & SUP. JUD. % INCREASE FY 79 - 88 1.2 110% 1. 1 10 % 1 0.9 w 0.8 GS O:'.: 0.7 -z 0.6 8 % ((} 0 f- z w 47% 0.5 0 O:'.: w a.. 0.4 0.3 0.2 14% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 0.1 0 '79 0 MISD. FILE '80 + FEL. FILE 10 SUP .CT. JUD. '88 Solutions to the current state of affairs can come from two approaches. On the one hand, the local county government can supplement the District Attorney's budget by local appropriations for additional prosecutors. Such an approach has local precedent. The local roads are maintained and built with county funds even where the State has the primary obligation. The same approach is used for school programs. If the County wishes a level of services higher than the State provides, the county pays for it locally. The County might take the same approach for prosecutive services by simply creating additional prosecutor positions. There is, however, some legal question about whether This question must be locally-funded District Attorneys can represent the State. resolved. In the event that state law prohibits locally funded district attorneys, consideration should be given to using paralegals to a much greater extent. This has been the approach of private law firms to cut costs and / or increase profits. The Mecklenburg County District Attorney could use locally-funded paralegals who could do a major portion of behind-the-scenes processing, diversion, as well as case preparation. This would avoid the core legal question, but it would more than likely require a partial retreat from the vertical case processing system the District Attorney's Office currently uses. 4 The other "solution" to the underfunding problem is to somehow obtain more State funding. This solution would avoid the political "cost" and precedential danger of the taking County's disadvantages. over a state fiscal function which could have long-range However, the likelihood of obtaining significant additional state funding within the near future appears unlikely. The prospects for changing the system, the dynamics and the procedure are equally bleak. But these roads should be constantly explored and the channels continuously used. 2. Drugs and Drug-Related Offenses Almost everyone with whom the study team spoke noted drugs as a real or potential problem. While the extent of the drug problem has yet to be documented, a number of issues were raised by the various individuals interviewed which bear on the drug problem and include: the presence of a Jamaican population known to be associated 4 The vertical assignment of cases is a controversial question in Mecklenburg County. Some judges believe that the District Attorneys should be assigned courtrooms with stacks of cases rather than stay with cases from beginning to end. Some adjustment might be made in this organization but would require further study. 11 with drugs; the relationship between drug activity and professional sports in Charlotte; and the use of drugs in the workplace, particularly among white collar employees. Police officials also noted the problem of prosecutor dismissals of misdemeanor drug cases which are undoubtedly a response to resource limitations rather than policy. The basic question needs to be answered, however: What is the nature of the drug problem in Charlotte- Mecklenburg? Is it mostly marijuana, pill popping and occasional use of cocaine, perhaps with very few addiction related robberies, burglaries, and thefts? Or is there a great deal of serious addiction to substances such as cocaine, heroin and crack, with a major impact on property crimes by addicts supporting habits, and with the potential for an influx of dealers from other cities with the possibility for turf battles? 3. Jail Crowding A significant problem facing the jurisdiction at this time appears to be jail- overcrowding. While the problem is beyond the focus of this study, it has already been addressed by several independent studies 5 that have presented a number of remedial suggestions. Those that appear to have the greatest potential impact are: the expansion of Pretrial screening to address all defendants going through the intake process; the inclusion of a District Attorney screening process at Intake; on-line availability of criminal history records; and the replacement of the magisterial operation with an adversarial hearing before a law trained judge. We believe that such a hearing would not require a 24-hour operation but could be easily and professionally handled with a 1216 hour process. In addition, consideration might also be given to entering into inter- county compacts with adjacent counties to alleviate that portion of the jail crowding problem attributed to the non-release of citizens of adjacent counties. B. Assessment of Criminal Justice System Issues Addressed in the 1982 Reoort I. Overview of Crime Statistics and the Criminal Justice System in CharlotteMecklenburg A comparison of Uniform Crime Report data for Charlotte and Mecklenburg County with that for cities of comparable size and with state and national trends demonstrates that Charlotte has become a typical urban area with crime problems similar to those which other urban areas face. 5 See Mecklenburg County. North Carolina Technical Assistance on Jail Crowding and Incarceration Alternatives. July - August 1988. NIC - Jail Center TA 88-Jl257 and review of the Operation of the Mecklenburg County. North Carolina Pretrial Services Department. December 1988. Adjudication Technical Assistance Project, T.A. No. 176. 12 • Reported serious offenses in Charlotte have increased steadily since 1983 and have significantly surpassed national averages in each category and, except for rape and motor vehicle theft, have surpassed North Carolina averages also. Discussion with police officials indicated that they perceive that much of the increased crime, beyond that attributed to population growth, results from drug offenders stealing in order to support their habits. A comparison of the statistics on "offenses reported" with actual Charlotte arrest data for the last two years, indicates a 36% increase in arrests for the 1981 - 1987 period. These figures include arrest increases for rape (up 16%); robbery (up 36%); aggravated assault (up 29%); arson (up 160%); drug offenses (up 161%) embezzlement (up 178%); stolen property (up 80%); and weapons violations (up 94%). 6 This arrest data reflects the number of persons arrested and will therefore vary from prosecutorial statistics which reflect the number of charges booked. The predominant issue regarding crime in Charlotte-Mecklenburg at this time appears to center on whether the police are making unnecessary prosecutor is dropping too many charges that should go to court. arrests or the Although the issue centers ostensibly around misdemeanor arrests, its impact goes far beyond the specific offenses involved. Prosecution of misdemeanor arrests are important to law enforcement generally for a number of reasons. misdemeanors because those are First, serious offenders, sometimes are arrested for the only crimes that can be proved. Second, enforcement of traffic regulations, which apparently is one of the areas at issue, is highly important to public safety. Third, the police, at least, believe that the community of Charlotte does not want a permissive attitude towards public use of drugs. Finally, research has demonstrated that the diminished policing of misdemeanors can lead to the diminished quality of life in communities. Several fundamental questions arise. For example, if cases are being dismissed principally because of inadequate resources in the prosecutor's office, and not for philosophical reasons, is it not possible to obtain more prosecutorial resources? And, recognizing that there always will be a need for the establishment of priorities as to what cases are presented for trial, is it not feasible for the criminal justice community to develop some type of first offender treatment programs such as diversion, civil restitution or performance of community service, instead of outright dismissal of valid charges? 6 See Appendix C. 13 2. System Coordination The 1982 Study team noted a number of coordination problems arising from the diffused governmental responsibility for case processing and the corresponding diffusion in funding responsibility which exist in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Coordination among these criminal justice system components has improved markedly since that time. As noted earlier in the Introduction to this report, to overcome these problems, the study team recommended the creation of a Criminal Justice System Coordinator position to be selected by and answer to the collective body of major officials in the case processing segment of the system and to be responsible for case processing, including serving as a liaison with all criminal justice agencies; development of the DIPS system; public information; and other functions relating to the formulation and implementation of case processing goals and objectives. The study team also recommended that the Criminal Justice System Coordinator report to a Citizens Criminal Justice Commission, also described in the Introduction, which should be composed of five persons appointed jointly by the Mayor, Chairman of the County Commission and Chairman of the County Legislative Delegation. The Commission was designed to provide public oversight of the system and support in the achievement of the case processing goals developed. The Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission, which was established, and the work that this body has accomplished outpaces the most optimistic expectations that the study team had when it submitted its 1982 report. The courage, independence and vigor which mark the CJCC's work over the past five years and its faithful adherence to the 1982 report agenda has had a major impact on the justice system in CharlotteMecklenburg. We recognize the great individual efforts which each of the members has made individually as well as the collective accomplishments of the Commission. believe that this body must continue to assure the presence of the We leadership, coordination, accountability and balance which the system requires. Mr. Cameron, whose position and responsibilities were not intended to be the embodiment of the CJS Coordinator position recommended, has, nonetheless, done an excellent job in facilitating improved communication and coordination among the various components of the system as well as overseeing implementation of the Justice System Master Plan, including the construction of the Intake Center and the new Criminal Courts Building, and has been an influential participant in the development of the recommended information system. 14 The Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission, which was established, and the work that this body has accomplished outpaces the most optimistic expectations that the study team had when it submitted its 1982 report. The courage, independence and vigor which mark the CJCC's work over the past five years and its faithful adherence to the 1982 report agenda Mecklenburg. has had a major impact on the justice system in Charlotte- We recognize the great individual efforts which each of the members has made individually as well as the collective accomplishments of the Commission. believe that this body must continue to assure the presence of the We leadership, coordination, accountability and balance which the system requires. 3. Identification and Intake In its 1982 report, the study team identified the need for the collection of accurate information, in a speedy manner, so that ill decision-makers -- police, magistrates, defense and, of course, judges -- could make quicker, more informed decisions with regard to the appropriate processing of recently arrested people. Among the concerns highlighted included: - better 1 iden tifica ti on of arrestees; better assessment of background of arrestees for pretrial release; better release decisions by magistrates; better screening of cases by the prosecutor; better initial preparation of cases by police; better investigation and assessment of cases by the public def ender; better perceptions by all concerned with the notion of even-handed justice It was, and continues to be, our belief that the appearance of justice and its administration, as well as the actual results of the decisions made, indicate the level of commitment of any jurisdiction to seeing that its citizens are treated equally and justly. The vision which the study team had of the Intake Center was more like the Philadelphia "First Appearance" process in which a law trained judge in a robe would decide whether to incarcerate an arrestee after a hearing where there was a Public Defender and an Assistant District Attorney providing an adversarial review of the need for pre-trial incarceration. Further, the hearing would be held in a location in which, although the arrestees were clearly in custody, there would be an opportunity for the public to view the decision-making process -- a process which all could agree was 1 Better, as used here, connotes in many instances earlier attention to matters as well as to an upgrade of the quality of that work. 15 providing a fair and just result as well as showing the public a system of justice that has the appearance of doing justice. There is no doubt that the opening of the newly constructed Intake Center will play an important role in community perceptions of justice. We are very much impressed with both its physical design and intentions expressed by various participants as to how the new facility is to be u sed. It seems that the design of people flow and paper flow recommended in 1982 will be effected -- and that is good. In our discussions with system participants, we have noted a real interest and willingness to follow the suggestions of the 1982 report and these commitments are reflected in the stone and mortar soon to be put to use. While it is obvious that we have not seen the "new" system in operation, we arc concerned with four potential trouble spots: There is some question as to the amount of time arresting officers will be required to spend at intake presentment; It does not appear that early involvement will occur at intake; prosecutorial screening does not appear that Pretrial services will be in a interview and prepare reports for all arrestees; and It and defense position to It does not appear that the initial bail hearing as we envisioned it 8 will be implemented. 8 " . . The process described . . . should produce an initial hearing that comports with our notions of justice. Some of the benefits include: the setting will be more formal -- unlike the helter-skelter approach to hearings that now exists; security will be more certain since the processing "stations" will separate the def end ants from the public and each other -- unlike the present crowded and, many times, unsupervised conditions; information (initial data entry) will be consistent and reliable since it will be entered by Magistrates' clerks trained and responsible- unlike the present system where each of the several Magistrates enters data inconsistently; the prosecutor will have screened out many cases and will begin preparation of his own file to be used later at presentment, preliminary hearing or trial -- unlike the present situation in which many cases are dumped into the system and later screened out by the prosecutor and in which the misdemeanor presentment courts, 61a and b, cannot proceed until the prosecutor receives the court file which contains a copy of the warrant, the sine ffiill. non of prosecutorial decision making; the defender has met with the defendant and is able to assist at the initial bail hearing; the defenda nt may participate in a process which is more understandable than the present process, which is disjointed, dysfunctional, and a t times, dyspeptic; and the public will be exposed to a process that right at the beginning has the appearance of justice as distinct from that which they now see. . . " Report and Recommendations of The American University Study Team on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Criminal Justice System. July 1982. pp. 39 - 40. 16 Each of these concerns is discussed briefly below. a. Time Required of Arresting Officers at Intake Presentment Officials in both police agencies expressed concern over the time required of arresting officers at the intake presentment and appeared skeptical that police delivering arrestees to the new intake center will be in and out in only a few minutes. One police official estimated that pre-trial service activities will need thirty minutes to obtain requisite information before the prisoner is presented to the magistrate. officials do not anticipate such a problem. Court They estimate that 45% of the arrestees will have been arrested on warrants previously issued so that the arresting officer can merely turn the prisoner over to the Intake Center duty officer who will present him or her to the magistrate and the arresting officer can promptly return to patrol. It is estimated that another 40% of the arrestees will have been arrested on straight-forward charges which also can be presented by the duty officer without presence of the arresting officer. b. Early Prosecutorial Screening and Defense Involvement The facility has been constructed to accommodate a prosecutorial and defense presence in furtherance of the concepts we suggested. Conversations with local officials lead us to conclude that prosecutors will not be available 24 hours a day nor will defense attorneys. For all the reasons cited in our original report 9 we think a reexamination of any such decision is in order. 9 " In addition to the compelling reasons of justice, there are practical reasons for appointing counsel at this early stage even if only for purposes of presentment. Such reasons include: representation at bail setting; ability to commence early investigation; ability to begin early plea bargaining on cases which will clearly be retained by the Defender and not assigned to other counsel; and early determination of indigency and the need for counsel . . . Additional practical reasons for prosecutorial presence at the Magistrate level include: appearance a the bail setting stage to protect the general interests of the County; ability to interact with police at an early stage and provide guidance for additional investigation or explain reasons for a decision not to prosecute; ability to "create" the file to be used in other courts early, completely, and with appropriate directions for other prosecutors ultimately responsible for handling the case; ability to commence the process of plea negotiation at the earliest possible time; and ability to participate in a general upgrading of the perception of justice administered at the magistrate level . . . " Report and Recommendations of the American University Study Team on the CharlotteMecklcnburg Criminal Justice System, July 1982, pp. 42-44. 17 c. Pretrial Services We note that the Intake Center has been designed to accommodate "prisoner flow" to permit pretrial services personnel to interview and conduct background information checks of all people arrested. We have been told that 16-18 additional people will be needed for this function and, as yet, are not available. We have also been told that no plans are underway to test arrestees for drug usage although the facilities exist to permit such tests. In December of 1988, because of a jail crowding problem, the Pretrial Services Resource Center, under the aegis of the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Adjudication Technical Assistance Project, and at the request of Mecklenburg County, conducted a study of the Pretrial Services Department and suggested that while it had accomplished much, it still was able to interview Q.!lly 46% of those arrested. When that number is reduced to the number actually released -- about 30% -- the effect is that 70% of those arrested -- all of whom must have release conditions determined -- do not have reports available to those who make the release decisions, be they magistrates, District Court Judges or Circuit Court Judges. Earlier, in August of 1988, the National Institute of Corrections, again at the request of Mecklenburg County because of jail overcrowding, had conducted a study and concluded that the Pretrial Services Agency should "expand its already excellent program." 10 Because conditions of release must be set by someone in nearly every case, a report containing background information that includes social, demographic, criminal, medical (including alcohol and drug abuse) and employment histories should be available. In many cases, District and even Circuit Court Judges must reevaluate conditions imposed by the Magistrate with little or no information available. We are also concerned that no apparent effort is underway to assess the extent of drug use in the arrestee population. routinely assess such use and at a modest cost. There exist several programs that Considering the economic growth of Mecklenburg County, together with its location near one of the main "crack" (cocaine) pipelines between New York and Miami, we believe that it is only a matter of time until drugs will be a major force to contend with here. We think the system participants should take a second look at this very complex and very imminent problem. 10 See Mecklenburg County. North Carolina Technical Assistance on Jail Crowding and Incarceration Alternatives. July - August 1988. NIC Jail Center TA 88-Jl257, p. 11. 18 The inclusion of a drug testing operation for arrestees could also have a significant effect on jail over-crowding. The decision to release or continue in custody would be far easier to make if the judicial officer knew the extent of any drug involvement of the arrestee. This could further ease the pressure on the jail if the jurisdiction would provide drug treatment alternatives to pretrial incarceration in the jail. d. The Initial Release Hearing In 1982, we were concerned that the initial pretrial release hearing gave the appearance that the magistrates had abdicated their exercise of judicial discretion to the police. It was our view that the pretrial release decision is a judicial function and that the magistrate should appear to act as an independent, neutral and detached decision-maker. While it is true that the Intake Center has addressed this concern by providing a little privacy, the basic problem remains: there will be no adversarial hearing at a stage of criminal justice processing when one should be afforded. The comments we made in 1982 are no less true today. 11 We recommend that the system of appointment and qualifications of magistrates become an agenda item for the continuing work of the Citizens Criminal Justice Commission. It is unseemly that a functionary held in such low esteem be called upon to make decisions that affect the liberty (or confinement with its attendant costs) of the citizens of Mecklenburg County. 11 " • . Our model would include a formal hearing much like that which presently occurs in 6la, and would be the logical conclusion to complete implementation of the central intake concept. . . Even if every component of the proposal as we have outlined it cannot be implemented, at least a more formal process than currently exists would improve both the reality and perception of justice. At present, three Magistrates operate simultaneously in close quarters. The are dressed in suits (sometimes); rolled-up sleeves (sometimes); ties (sometimes); and don't look very much like judges. Officers congregate in lines at adjacent counter areas to plead their cases. The public, waiting in a dingy room, talks to Magistrates through a bank-teller-like window and are often told, "Sounds like you have a complaint. Fill out this form." A formal setting, courtroom-like in structure, with attendant security and dignity, constructed through renovation of the present facility, would be a vast improvement ... " Report and Recommendations of The American University Study Team on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Criminal Justice System. July 1982. pp. 45 - 46. 19 4. Caseflow Management The study team has focussed its assessment of caseflow matters upon the organizational and policy issues addressed in the 1982 Report. We assume that the Court will evaluate on its own the degree to which it has achieved the time and operational objectives suggested. a. District Court The District Court now has three trial tracks for misdemeanors and an administrative court to handle its caseload which has increased 30% since 1982. Assuming available prosecutors and other resources, it could expand to four or five courts to prevent the growing misdemeanor filings, 30% higher in the last three years, from becoming excessively concentrated in the three courtrooms. were screened by the misdemeanor caseload. prosecutor and diverted Some 17,000 - 19,000 cases or dismissed from the 1988 total Screening reduced cases by about 1,500 cases per month. That still left 9,000 cases per month -- 108,000 cases a year -- for disposition out of the 126,000 filed in 1988. This rapid case increase may justify a fourth regular track. Scheduling appears to be very effective in the District Court considering the volume of cases involved, though the pace of case processing creates extreme pressures on the District Court judges, particularly Courtroom 61. A blind system of judge rotation as exists in the Superior Court could a void the difficulties of judge shopping by defense counsel in District Court. Courtroom 61, however, has an extremely heavy load and there is no doubt that it is an extraordinary imposition on the District judge assigned there. If the system averages 20 court days a month then 9,000 cases a month must be determined at 450 a day, or 56 in an 8 hour day, or 1 case each 8 minutes, divided by 3 tracks it means about 19 cases an hour must be decided hour after hour in these three courtrooms devoted exclusively to misdemeanor cases. Coordination is very difficult and complex in these courtrooms as well because so many people are involved. Furthermore, any action taken on the criminal side will impact on the civil side and it must be studied carefully before changes are made. We resubmit the recommendation which we made in 1982 that the magistrates be upgraded in training and position and begin to take on some functions which would relieve the District judges' workload. This recommendation also supports our observations regarding the initial release hearing. Solomon made a similar recommendation in her 1985 report. 20 We note that Ms. Maureen b. Superior Court The Superior Court maintains a fairly current criminal docket through the six resident judges assigned, supplemented by 15 visiting judges and a 30% dismissal rate. The six resident Superior Court judges are heavily loaded with resident judge work such as arraignment pleas, court trials and other motion work in felony cases. There were 15 non-resident Superior Court judges who also come into Mecklenburg County to sit in criminal trials during 1988 -- some in a significant number of cases. The fact that Mecklenburg County must borrow large numbers of judges from the rest of the state to keep current is symptomatic of the shortage of judicial resources afforded the County. It should be noted that the 100% increase in felony cases during the past decade has resulted in only 1 additional Superior Court judge. During the course of our site work, we heard frequent comments that judge time was not scheduled efficiently. We have observed the Court's operations and judicial scheduling in particular and do not note any problem in this regard. We do, however, recommend that the Court make additional efforts to improve its communication with the public so that the public will understand what judges do and that a dark courtroom does not signify a non-working judge. 5. Information Systems The major efforts toward integrated information for the justice system of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area have been through the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts' (AOC) statewide information support systems and the Mecklenburg County Criminal Justice Information System (MCCJIS). These two systems provide the computerized support for the judicial system of the county but, do not communicate with each other. The AOC systems provide automated support to the Child Support Enforcement program and indexing only for the Ci vii system at this time. (It is possible that a full civil case tracking system will not be available on the AOC system for several years.) A decision has been made to transfer all work on infractions to the state computer from the county system and it is our understanding that the transfer has now been accomplished. The developing MCCJIS system promises to provide an integrated criminal justice information system which should, eventually, serve the needs of ill parts of the city and county criminal justice system and provide necessary data to the AOC. The opening of the new Intake Center appears to herald the implementation of several parts of the developing system. The first new segment scheduled to be operational, ref erred to 21 as the Central Repository, will provide a complete Wants and Warrants system for law enforcement. This part of the MCCJIS effort was demonstrated during the team's visit and was reported to be fully programmed and into a "user familiarization" cycle. The next steps will incorporate on-line arrest processing and the magistrate subsystem, followed by modification and integration of the criminal case tracking system. It appears that present plans do not include early integration of the Jail Information System into MCCJISS. The key to a successful criminal justice information system is the inclusion of all phases of the justice process into the system. Failure to fully integrate the Jail Information System into MCCJIS as soon as possible would be a serious mistake. We were surprised to find that the Criminal History file continues to be maintained in microfiche form. For true operational use by all parts of the criminal justice system, there must be an automated on-line criminal history file. The data is available in tape form to feed the information to the county computer where disk space for this critically important file would be relatively inexpensive if not now available. In conjunction with the advance already made in positive identification, the additional effort necessary to make summary criminal history information available on-line should be minimal and must be seriously considered at the earliest moment. It is our understanding that full case data has been saved on magnetic tape for a number of years which should provide a significant starting file. The number of terminals and terminal locations planned for in the MCCJIS network, at present, is inadequate. The true value of the system cannot be realized until broad access, including law enforcement access through mobile data terminals, is achieved. At the very least, terminal access should be provided to every police department in the county. We note that there is no full-time staff person responsible for monitoring MCCJIS progress and for long and short range planning on behalf of fill participants. We strongly suggest the hiring of a full-time MCCJIS manager who would report to a committee made up of the top justice system managers and would be independent of the County data processing operation. It is imperative that this committee's membership include the top policy maker of each justice unit and a high level representative of each funding unit. Unfortunately, the MCCJIS Committee presently does not have broad enough representation of the participating justice agencies nor does it have a full complement of policy making managers. At a minimum, the committee membership must include: the Sheriff; the Clerk of Court; the District Attorney; the Public Defender; the 22 Chiefs of the larger Police Departments; the Chief Judge of the District Court; the Senior Resident Judge of the Superior Court; the Trial Court Administrator; the Director of the Pretrial Services Unit and appropriate representatives of the County Manager, the City Manager, the County Data Processing Department and the Administrative Office of the North Carolina Courts. There is a need for full-time staff to support the information system effort as well as the coordination of the criminal justice system of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. This coordination duty must be performed by a unit independent from the individual actors yet responsible to each of the justice agencies and to the funding bodies for representing them fairly and equitably. A small unit of, perhaps, two or three people could perform the task. It would take an accomplished administrator, an information system analyst and some secretarial support. Conceivably, an accomplished administrator with information system expertise could do the job along with an administrative assistant. The unit should be under the direct supervision of the combined group of top level justice system and funding body officials described in our recommendation for the composition of the MCCJIS Committee. In addition, it could serve as the liaison to the Citizens Criminal Justice Commission by providing staff services to that group. It should not, however, have any daily operational responsibilities. The demonstration for the team's visit revealed a well thought out and programmed system. The ability to move freely through the parts of the system with the use of function keys, as well as the "hot keying" which permits switching between the State and County systems, indicates a professionally planned and programmed effort. We recommend further consultation with the data entry user level personnel in order to simplify the initial case data entry required by the system. For example, new case data entry seems to require the use of three screens, yet it appears that typical case data could be accommodated on a single screen in many, if not most, cases. Perhaps "express screens", specifically designed to accommodate the data in the sequence it is found on incoming documents, could be provided to make the initial data entry less labor intensive. The phonetic search scheme utilized by the system will return the sought after name along with a number of sound-alikes. systems for searching by name. Further research could provide improved More importantly, we would suggest the inclusion of more sophisticated searching systems for searches based on sex, race, age, height, 23 weight, etc. Several search algorithms are available which will return the possibles along with a probability factor for each. Another suggestion is that programming be undertaken to provide a formatted printing of the Pretrial Services report data instead of the "screen dump" currently contemplated. Although the "screen dump" contains all the data shown on the screen, it is very difficult to read and would be much more informative if presented in logical and uncluttered format. In passing, we should also note that the use of CICS and DLl for communications and file organization is not "state-of-the-art" and would suggest that planning begin very soon for conversion to a modern relational data base which provides a Structured Query Language capability. Positive identification is an integral part of the Intake Center operation scheduled for implementation this summer. We have been informed that an automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) is part of the proposed operation. We would also suggest serious consideration of the latest AFIS system advances, like the "Contextual Enhancement Processor" and "live finger scan imaging technology' described in the materials attached as Appendix D. It was reported to the study team that, in order to address the MCCJIS improvements with the highest priority, it has only been possible to make the simplest maintenance adjustments to the criminal case tracking system. It is imperative that additional programming support be provided in order to be able to address the important modifications requested and required by today's users of the case tracking system. The organization and operation of the Clerk's Office automation efforts has shown significant improvement since our 1982 Report. Mr. Blackburn and his staff, as well as Mrs. Beeman, deserve recognition for their efforts. unconscionable to jeopardize these hard Most importantly, it would be won advances by not providing adequate maintenance for the existing system. MCCJIS can impact significantly on local police operations if and when good information on "Wants and Warrants' and Criminal Histories becomes available over Mobile Data Terminals in police cars and terminals in all police stations. We also strongly suggest early consideration of providing remote access, to the public of record data in the MCCJIS files, to attorneys and other private sector data users who have a right to view that data. 24 While much attention has been given to the development and enhancement of the automated information system slated to be implemented almost concurrently with the opening of the Intake Center, we are concerned about the creation of the initial "case/person" informational data base. underestimated. We believe that the true initial costs have been Further, we believe that once everyone begins to use the information in ways not as yet even imagined, there will be a demand for use of the system that will outdistance its capacity to respond. The MCCJIS will be of significant benefit to many involved in the local criminal justice process. Consideration must also ultimately be given to the fair and just division of costs to maintain a system that will be of inestimable value to City, County and State officials. 6. Criminal Justice System Relations with the Community The broad community concern about the criminal justice system and crime, particularly residential burglaries, which was evident in 1982 is no longer apparent. There appears to be very little community concern with levels of crime, other than drugs. This lack of interest is particularly noteworthy because the original American University study was generated by high levels of community concern with crime at a time when criminal activity in Charlotte was much lower than it is today. It should be noted that these perceived attitudes seem to reflect the data in national polls, which indicate that less than five percent of Americans see crime as the most important issue in their lives, although some two-thirds say that not enough is spent on crime prevention. There is, however, substantial concern about victim needs and, particularly, spouse abuse. In this regard, the victim assistance program has been very responsive to community needs. Despite the general lack of focus on crime activity, allusions were frequently made to the apparent non-functioning of the judicial system -- e.g., the apparent reappearance on the street of arrestees moments after arrest, the failure to vigorously prosecute certain practices. particular incidents, and confusion over sentencing policies and While these concerns are common in most communities, they are symptomatic of the need to constantly seek opportunities to increase communication between the judicial system and the public. The Trial Court Administrator has made an notable beginning in this regard with the publication of the Mecklenburg County Criminal Justice System pamphlet and the Justice System Newsletter, but additional mechanisms and outreach efforts need to be established to encourage the opportunity for regular citizen 25 dialogue with criminal justice system officials. This dialogue should yield increased understanding of and confidence in the judicial process. 26 III. AGENDA FOR FURTHER ACTION The study team believes that the Citizens Criminal Justice Commission has proven its value as an effective policy guidance mechanism in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg criminal justice system. It also is apparent to the outsider that the special characteristics of the broader community environment in which the CCJC exists have been a major factor in its success: a genuine sense of civic pride among all segments of the community; a tradition of public service by business and citizen group leaders; an infrastructure of competent City and County government administrative officials; and elected officials who project a sense of accountability to the community. The confluence of these community attributes and an effective mechanism for promoting cohesion in what is, essentially, a fragmented criminal justice system may be impossible to replicate at some future period in Charlotte-Mecklenburg's inexorable growth and development. For this reason, we strongly recommend that the Citizens Criminal Justice Commission remain in existence beyond the point of realization of the Judicial System Master Plan and focus on several still unresolved or nascent issues affecting the performance of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg criminal justice system. The following five issue areas are suggested as an agenda for the Commission for the immediate future (3 - 5 years) of its continued operation: A. Prosecutor and Judicial Resources It is impossible for the criminal justice system to keep pace with (and manage the system dysfunctions caused by) the present volume and rate of increase in its caseload unless prosecutorial and judicial capacity is enhanced beyond the present level available to Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The team has suggested several avenues to explore in this regard, and there may be others. Almost certainly, any improvement in this area is going to require a very complex set of inter-branch and state-local policy and legal decisions to realize, and it is likely that only a body of the stature and influence of the CCJC can effectively bring them about. B. Anti-Drug Abuse Efforts There is no reason to believe that Charlotte-Mecklenburg will be spared the painful experience of having to acknowledge the existence of a serious drug abuse problem in the community. The challenge for the Commission in this regard is not only to support enhancement of the ability of the criminal justice system to effectively deal 27 with such activity and category of offenders, but to attempt to influence the intake into the criminal justice system of drug abusing offenders by supporting non-CJS efforts designed to prompt public awareness of the problem and to increase prevention and treatment resources available in the community. C. Information System Improvements The body of this report describes several present and prospective problem areas related to development of the MCCJIS and the relationship of MCCJJS to both state Judicial Department and the general Mecklenburg County data processing activities. The team's recommended courses of action have substantial control, financial and capability implications, and the independent judgment and advice of the Commission can be instrumental in resolving these in the best interests of all of the agencies concerned. D. Jail Capacity Management Without constant attention to the integrity and quality of the criminal case initiation process, the pretrial release determination process, and pretrial and postconviction alternatives to incarceration available to the judiciary, Mecklenburg County will always have a jail crowding problem and a need to continuously expand its institutional physical plant. The Commission could play its most vital role in minimizing the financial, public safety and public image problems caused by criminal justice system dysfunction by devoting its energy and influence to this public policy area. E. Criminal Justice System Coordination The County public information pamphlet on the Mecklenburg Criminal Justice System describes it as "a loose coalition of 25 diverse and independent units, with no actual authority responsible for supervision of the entire system." It was in response to this fragmentation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg criminal justice system that our 1982 report recommended the creation of a position of criminal justice system coordinator, with system coordination (not supervisory) responsibilities. That so much by way of attainment of the adopted recommendations of the 1982 study was achieved in the ensuing six years without this resource in place is remarkable. Now, however, with the huge undertaking of implementing the Judicial System Master Plan essentially complete and significantly improved case processing procedures firmly in place in District Court, it is time to tackle the less dramatic but equally important aspects of justice system improvement: the politically sensitive resource augmentation issue; the case scheduling and processing issues related to the felony workload of the Superior Court; and the information system development and process monitoring issues that require much more 28 detailed interagency and inter-branch coordination than the Commission has had to deal with in the past. This will require more criminal justice management expertise, operational insight and analytical ability than can be expected to exist in a citizens commission. It's also going to require a greater willingness to make concessions for the "greater good" among the heads of those 25 independent units that comprise the criminal justice system than they have been called upon to make up to this point. For these reasons, the study team reaffirms its belief that an effective coordination mechanism is a necessary ingredient in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg criminal justice system improvement scheme. Effective coordination of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg criminal justice system, as envisoned by the study team, requires three things: (I) Leadership -- to be exercised by the judicial branch leaders (Senior Resident Superior Court Judge and Chief District Court Judge) by motivating and sustaining regular and meaningful review of criminal justice system functioning by the top officials in all CJS-related agencies and exerting their influence on the independent agency heads in this consortium to make needed changes for the common good; (2) Independent Professional Analysis and Recommendations - to be provided through a criminal justice coordinator responsible to the criminal justice system as a whole, but not an employee of any one agency, and who has both the skills necessary to analyse the interrelationships of judicial administration, law enforcement, corrections, prosecution and information system issues on the functioning of the system and the stature to effectively communicate recommendations for improvement to the heads of the independent criminal justice agencies; and (3) Public Accountability -- to be fostered by the Citizens Criminal Justice Commission through: monitoring criminal justice system operations and interrelationships; endorsing to the key CJS actors recommendations of the criminal justice coordinator on which it desires to take a position; bringing to the attention of the criminal justice system leadership and to the criminal justice coordinator community concerns a bout functioning of the criminal justice system; and exercising its considerable civic and political influence at the state and local levels to bring about needed improvements in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg criminal justice scheme. The Citizens Criminal Justice Commission should have as a priority item on its agenda the determination of the best means to achieve this multi-facetted coordination capability for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg criminal justice system as soon as possible. 29 APPENDIX A: Individuals Interviewed by the Study Team The following individuals were interviewed during the course of the study: Julie Beeman Resident Systems Analyst for North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts R. Max Blackburn Clerk of Superior Court Jerry Blackman Mecklenburg County Commissioner David Burkhalter Citizens Criminal Justice Commission Tom Cameron Trial Court Administrator Isabel S. Day Public Def ender Jerry Fox Mecklenburg County Manager Franklin Freeman Administrative Director of the North Carolina Courts Peter Gilchrist District Attorney Sis Kaplan Citizens Criminal Justice Commission C. W. Kidd Sheriff Sam Killman Chief of the Charlotte City Police Hon. James E. Lanning Chief District Court Judge Herbert L. Mann Pretrial Services Department Director John Murphy County Data Processing Manager for MCCJIS Hon. Sue Myrick Mayor of Charlotte Rolfe Neill Publisher of the Charlotte Observer and Citizens Criminal Justice Commission member Vic Orr Chief of the Mecklenburg County Police Kimberly Owens Study Coordinator, Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission Projects Dr. Leon R iddick Mount Carmel Baptist Church and Criminal Justice Commission member Citizens Hon. Frank W. Snepp Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Don Steger Assistant City Manager Fran Taillefer Director of Data Processing, Off ice of the Courts John A. Tate Chairman of Commission Ms. Jane Taylor Victim Assistance Agency (Misdemeanor Branch) Barry Wyatt County Budget Office John Wyatt Independent Contractor for MCCJIS Development the Citizens Administrative Criminal Justice APPENDIX B Mecklenburg County Population Trends The estimates and actual population counts for Mecklenburg County and related areas are: 1. Total Population Current; 472,639 (County estimate, Jan. 1988) 478,505 (Employment and Housing projections, 1990 done in 1985) 466,335 (state Budget and Management, 10/88) 2. Projected Total Population (Empl. and Hous. 1985) 1990 - 478,000 1995 - 513,000 2000 - 543,000 3. Growth Pattern by Decade of County Census (U.S. Census) 1850 19501960 1970 1980 4. 13,914 197 ,052 272,111 354,656 404,270 Settlement Pattern:(l980 Census) 87% urban 13% rural 5. Metropolitan Market Area: (State B & M - October 1988) Mecklenburg Union Gaston (Former SMSA) 466,000 81,000 172.000 719,000 Rowan Lincoln Cabarrus 104,000 47,000 93.000 Planning Area and York Co.,S. Car.) 963,000 APPENDIX C Charlotte Arrest Data: 1981 - 1987 1. Arrests by Charlotte Police By Calendar Years 1981 1986 1987 Percent Increase 1986-87 Homicide/manslghtr Rape Robbery Aggrvtd ass a ult Burglary Larceny Vehicle Theft Non-agrvtd asslt Arson Forgeryu/cntrftng Fraud/bd chcks Embezzlement Stolen Property Vandalism 55 55 208 828 1,046 2,793 157 2,634 10 109 2,603 103 161 623 44 78 249 1,132 880 3,146 176 3,899 43 122 3,892 2,332 287 832 54 64 282 1,067 874 3,575 204 4,168 26 116 2,649 286 290 753 23 -18 13 -6 -1 14 16 ·7 -40 -5 -32 23 1 -9 -2 16 36 29 -16 28 30 58 160 6 2 178 80 21 Weapons violns Prstutn/vice Sex Off renses Drug Offenses Gambling Ofnses agst fmly DWI Liquor viola ti on Dsordly cnduct Other non-trf c 326 183 133 723 91 269 1,943 79 760 2,644 591 382 191 1,688 129 66 1,749 232 1,645 4,613 632 292 213 1,890 136 61 1,648 979 1,384 4,452 7 -24 12 12 5 -8 -6 -58 -16 -3 94 60 60 161 49 -15 23 82 68 18,536 26,298 -4 36 Category Total 25,213 Percent Increase 1981-87 -77 APPENDIX C Charlotte Arrest Data: 1981 - 1987 (continued) 2. Arrests by Mecklenburg County Police By Calendar Years Category Homicide/mnslghtr Rape Robbery Aggrvtd Assault Burglary Larceny Vehicle theft Non-Agrvtd asslt Arson Forgery /cntrftng Fraud/bd chcks Embezzlement Stolen Property Vandalism Weapons violns Prstutn/vice Sex Offenses Drug Offenses Gambling Offenses Agst Famly DWI Liquor Violation Dsordly cnduct Other non-trf c Total 1986. 1987 10 9 24 104 112 140 16 259 2 10 9 22 64 Percent Increase 1986 - 1987 15 110 0 12 616 25 67 193 267 0 0 -8 -38 -36 -23 -13 24 0 25 11 -37 7 9 42 -8 -40 71 0 42 -25 -20 15 38 2,120 2,110 0 16 223 27 29 55 43 13 72 108 14 332 2 20 248 17 31 60 61 12 9 188 0 17 460 20 77 APPENDIX D Description of Live Finger Scan Technology APPLICATIONS APPENDIX D Description of Live Fi nger Scan Technology APPLICATIONS New Fingerprint ID Enhancement Crintefighters.Finger More Bad Guys A powerful new image processor known as the Contextual Enhancement Processor (CEP) is adding greater accuracy. to Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems A-"FSS') C 4'flGi!!a11T41 i-- ·. : .'.'.\'~· . l works. Trusl me. ll woru.· Suf'(rintendenl Bruc:c King o( lhe Fingerprinl lden1if1C1· tion Division o( Carwb's Royol Mounlcd Police: wu talking about AFIS (Au1onutcd Fingerprint ldcntif.ca· tion Sys1em). The lcchnology, he said, wu responsible (or more than 900 aiminal iden1if1C11ions last ycv. . King said 1he~ technology provides a •tremendous preve!'Utive instrument in addition to being a dclc:c:tion instrumcnL• He said it will (rcqucn1ly enable aulhoritics to quidcly identify a latent print kft at the scene of a crime and arrest the suspc:c:t before he can commil a no1her crime. One of the bigges1 names in the fingerprint ma1ching technology - wi1h some 60 insullations from Canada lo SL Croix - is De La Rue Prinlrak Inc. of Anaheim, Calif.. which builds its systems around computers from Oigiu.l Equipment Corpomion. Depending on speed require· menLS and the daubasc s'2.c.. Printralc's se.11ch/nutch and image storage pr<>CCS50n an !>-: configured with one or more of Oigiurs VAX computcn. The Printrak/Oigiul systems SCNc 75 jurisdictions. induding 18 stales. The Mounties use a SS million Prinlrak/Digi· ul sys1em wi1h a daubase of 2.2 million ' 'I :·· ~ t';~~~-~-:-. . i..~rn•Nr.,..=:-- ~ This thinned image forms lhc basis or the automated das:sifoalion proccs and cxlraetion of minute details. Very poor quality arcas of the print image arc blocl:ed out by the image processor during the minutiiccxtraaion. The automated quali1y measure reOCClS the overall quality of the image. on a four. level sale. The final resuh is a high quali1y finger· p<inl database. with minu1iac recorded only in usable areas of each print. a silua· lion which results in shOrter candidale lists and highct score separations. A less obvious print~. bcnelil is the increased matching spc<:d The Florida Department of Law En· since lhe new processor produces far fewer forcemenl is insulting a S2 I. 7 million sys- false minutiae then previous systems. 1hu.s 1em ond the Vcnezucl3n Ministry of Inlet· reducing lhe average time per match. nal Affairs has contraaed for a system In New Orleans. a one-man airnc wave valued •t S2J.9 million. came to an end when l"'"O fingerprints were To u<c •n /\FISsyslem. a police workct lifted off the back window o( a car in in~ns •copy o( a fingcrprin1 obtained al a which a young woman was shol and lilkd crime 'l.Ccnc inlo ~scanner. The computer and her boyfricn<J was scrio...-ly in111rcJ coinp.H-..~ the print wi1h those stnrcd in iu Onc o( the prints. which W >\ ,.;.'rreJ. memory Jnd pcovtdcs investigators with 1hc 10 clu~t m11chcs. .. ····... tu :.dJ11mn J powfcfu! 1h;w im:.gc P'''" AFIS conl"'ued from p.19~· I C.:\.":\"'" L.11uwn :as the Conlcxtu:tl EuhJ.rn.:c· ~t t I~''"'"· or CEP. i, l':t" u( :1 new J'fmttal \)"'h.:1t1 tl1;H improv.._"S p<Jit.lf (.fU:.l1ty p1i1u fik. pull ou1 th\." \U'.\('.:l.I\ c.;.1,J :,w J frn1~.:rp1111h. Tio; new system. c:all(J CUnlfl.11(' ,, lo tl•c (ftfll( \(,;CUC 1ui11t. Or<ION. 011 worL:. in a fta:l."tiun of a If th('f(' .- h.: mt)U'\J)l.:'-'b, 1111.:cHtly ahct114 . M:CtrnJ "''11hou1 a her ins the uni4u.: ch:UJC.: · t iv\·" .. ··..:.. ,tJ :i.c:;,a11.:h.- SI> n .. m c..11-.:ctu-.c h:'""~ of the rein I through :i ><•t•hi~ttah."\J chc1c :.re nn urhc1 duC\, ooly 1l1c f.u1:c1 · 1c~l1111~uc cli;,t cmub1cs the hun••o u1tcr .. (Hittl' 111 J ··("olJ '>l:.au.:h.- c.u:h r.u1:cqui111 f'h.:Utum au,~-,...,. c:aut m the.· fik mu'\I lh.: pulk"\J :.oc.J the f loc C(I' lllAlCS thrcc ("4>S<:S through Cumc "-°Cn..: ('Uin1 O t 1111•... t('J lu C"d1 u( th<" 1f1c uu.ai;c. C.l.Ch time c1.1cnd1ng the gooJ t'ini;cr\ Ctvcn 1!.c \i1c uf the f;11~cqu 1ut f'3'1\ t•f the im.1i:,.: into rq:i~u·~ of luwct fil<,.~ th .. c C&l\I 111J.1y. \;.u1'_J \c.:4td1~ tfdy •1u.1l1l)'. au~rc:"iu~ th<: COt\lf.iL\.t :1rH_J cluni· ivcc:c\\ l 'hc Flil. foe C:l.1111pk , l1.J' .. ,.'-' ' 2 l n.111111: h1c.1i '· )11t11<lt;o amJ otllct ~111(••u.·u m;llmn liu1:c1J"l•;11r 01J,, the: \1 .. 1c: uf ('.al •• .....·l•1d1 ""'uul,t utltt;tw;•;c f(.~uh ;n 111;\.~tl ut (utui .. h.u 7.S n11lli•m 1..::u1h Lil"C 111 i1u11 tkl..t~h. The ph~\· i11c..:lutlo l',vcn \111..tlkt tile , ~ ,.-<: vutu ..lly t11\ut . r4d1:\' d111;ct11m c'.\t11m11;011. ~li1c~11no c11 · muu11t ..11lc; ,wJJ,. T~kc tht; c...i·.c: o( ll11· tw.1 h.1111 ·.;111,·111 .u11l1111..;o,i1r cnl1J1u.:c111cot .... 11 l.al\,"tlt 1u1111 (tho·...: (-.u11d •l \.fllllC.: "'-'Cth'') ul \,lt,· l11d1 "' 'C111u:t lly p•oduu; :. hio.uy tun :.1;.1;11,1 S..10 Fr<i1tt<.:1·4_,, l'uli1 .t: ll1;p .u1. 1!111111 •., J •• pn"~11Lttuu1 c.r tl1"' ori1:111 .1I fHmt mc111\ 1\I t\ d.11.J h..1·.c -.[ °\C 1 J.tJO~J 1111;:~ 1 · ----- ------- I. . -· .. ~red• -hit- when run lhrou&h the local rolice dqunment's A FIS and rirovided a lcn1a1ivc identification o( lhe SU.S(lCCt. Two d•ys a(1er lhe tirsl incident. a simil~r crime took place wi1h the same modus operandi No prinLS were found al lhis scene. Oul a photo of the suspect identi· tied from the tingcrprinl left at 1he first crime scene wu positively iden1iticd by one of the viairns o( the second a1uck. Police had the sus: peel in custody within 24 hours. Subsequent forensic analysis of a gun seir.cd from the suspect linked him lo two other murders and i lhrcc·month Crime thal indudcd Police. A short lime a(1er lhe Lu Vegas /I.FIS was insulled. il was used 10 idenli(y a suspect in a l 0-year-<ild homicide cue. And, in an unrcl•tcd case, i1 also idcn1iticd a casino work pcrmi1 applic.an1 u an individual who c.5C.1pcd from a Mis.souri pri.s on • decade earlier. The increasing use o( high lcch fingerprint iden1itication sys1cms is also giving rise 10 the creation of regional public safe1y nelworlu lhat slore and share c.ompuler· based fingerprin1 cards among di!Tcsenl jurisdictions.. For ex<1mplc. bolh 1he Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the Tenncs:sa: Bureau o( Investigation volunlocrcd .10 serve u cc:niral regional hubs for networks lhal would link l<igether lheir systems and sys· terns in neighboring Stales. An existing nelwork linlu Washington D.C. public safely agencies with c.ommunities in neigh· boring Virginia and Maryknd, and ano<hcr nc1work links the southern area o( Florida with selected siles in the Caribbean. • armed robbery. rape and a11ernp1cd rape, and a total of seven murders. -ooUar for dollar. I 1hink thi< is 1he b.!<I mon.:y I have ever seen srcn• in my c;;ucn.-S3idCapc. l'•ul K•y <•f the l..u Vq:,•.< Metro ----·-·--·-· ..... -- ··-----·-·---·--·-·---·· ·p11111 01<.h. Thac p1i111 l1:ul l'IC..:o lh«.: suhjc(..1 ,,( l•tc.:ull~· thou," 3mb u( hour~ .uf mAnu.al . Te.rn1 • U • od lu ·:..;'.:~ nuverprlnl l<.lonllll c .. tlon 0 -----·I \V:.altc.:r llt1c.:. h l...:lont;'-·J ttJ cit..: l1 lkr ,,( Miri;uu Sl:amovich. 1 \VorlJ V..' .It II \.'Un• (Clltfalioct Qcmp \UfYiY\lt ""''liq \4" 4) \~1Ul poull hl:.u\:. tu the f.,.a hy :.o 111t1uJ.;r 111 h\.'I home in 1'J7K. • •, tli1 - \l.'l'<n a la1cn1 iwtnc ;, ,..,,u,_...hcJ lo 1Nu1t vn file auJ the \t.nfO•.J ticknttft01. l..-c<ul 1•rio1 ..:...: A r.n,c1rcin1 (U\lrif.J • C1hc uf a ,crime.. : ' · · •.... • "' lf ~ : • • Minull...< .•-;-, .J'olnu uf • ·.pc•'W.Jlfl'\ 1·•11111 KCf"C .... here 1~c:s stop o< spl•l in twu • :: i , :.· •• f\1oJu, 01'<'t • 11di - MctJ~ ol OJ"°''11vn. 1 J,·11·pri11t <••d - A ftn;;op1in1 iJcmif.\ • · ,,,,,, c.·4 1J "'';th•.ai ll lcn f.11,:~n i111p1;nt.aJ •;n ;c_ • I fee ;l\.\..ul.uu kh • full. l'-: dt:\.l 1w•nt .U lh(' \CCUC. hul with fUJ \lil("-'' t ,,.,J ,,., ulflCt du(."'\. lhCtC W4) l1t1lc clt.1n\'.'c ur '""''"~ l ul.tlC:h ou cai\tiu,; rile pttnt·. hr C•Hl\(n· hoo:af fll.JUU ... 1 !aoe.JU,,h1111: fU ( lfu ~" t )\.'to.·· ,;v""~ f\.tu-.c~ •ucl ltti..: uc.:vcr f:.iYC' up 111 :!•\' c ..'-C. c:u111iourn;: th•:;, , ·u lJ "4.'.11 ~ 11101: u~ :II\.' f~I.-~ \Vhc.:n S.10 F1.t•H:1·..c:o\ /d ,. IS \~'o1!1:1 w.1\ trnpkmcnh:,_ 1111 19X.J, 11 111,,1d1'-."J !:.c t11411t in ,jA. 111;uoh"'".., :4n•I S l.,11111v1t,' h\ ~ 1'. : 1 \,lt,' J\ t.1l. cn rn11) c.;u,ll ~h'. \.1.:.u dun.- u vct ;m c•s:ht·)C;u 1•.:•••111.I "'"' '"'..: ·.. ..:uc 1n",·.:.tt,:.1tut\ Kcu ~.t.,.,,.~ It~ ,t1111 Al ..u . lJ~. t." tl.c t.J·•.; nf d1-; •.cw-.1 : ..."": ..:! ·. ....·~ ..:-: -- ! I I I I ~ ~t-t\ <"'· !~;f::: I i l I I \. . ~ ·~~---s .. :.~ - - - - - VER/DEX --------------- - - - - -·- --,~ Veridex actually reduces the t raining required to obtain legible ridge d etail. The operator can review on a large CRT screen each print before accepting it, and the highest quality prints can be consistently captured in only 4.5 seconds per finger. PROVEN IN THE FIELD: Installed in 1987 at the Santo Barbaro, CA County Sheriff's Deportment, Fingermotix equipment transmits live , latent or inked fingerprints to Sacramento's central AFIS facility. The Son Fran c isco, CA Police Oeportme n I will also be fingerprinting wi/11 Veridex equipment. BACKGROUND: Fingennatrix is introducing · a· significantly impro~ed l~ve finger scan imaging technology: implemented· in three new Veridex® fingerprint machines, the .miniaturized MINTTM 11 data access machine, the miniaturized MINT 21 physical access machine, and the unique Fingermatrix Latent Satellite®. The first Veridex type machine is the performance enhanced Z1050A *, which is externally identical in appearance to the Zl050 (see attached product sheet). The second Veridex type machine is the Z 1050R *, which incorporates the extra performance of the Z1050A together with a single port universal roll that captures extended "nail to nail" and "tip to crease" imagery independent of finger diameter, for both search mode and file generation. The third Veridex type machine, the miniaturized ZIOORP*, features combined universal roll prints and plain impression prints derived from a single scanner. This design enables an economically priced unit while utilizing the more traditional finger rolling technique. The new features implemented in hardware and firmware m all three models are: 1. 600 dots per inch fin~erprii:it _c ard· hardCOJ?Y which ·is precisely matched to the 600 dots per ·inch ..·electro~optical image· resolution of the internal ;scanner . . 2. Soft Touch™ processing with high scanner sensitivity for single scan high quality imagery and easy discrimination between subject i;:idges/valleys in severely degrad.e d live ridge structures. 3. 2.5 second scan time. 4. Automatic editing of fingerprint areas· of low quality ridge structure. 5. "Tip to Crease" ·and "Nail . to Nail" fingerprint roll image aperture .. 6. New state of the art image processing. Equipment Presentation: 1. All machines will directly, in sequence, output to the 600 dots per inch primer and print imagery on the fingerprint cards. This capability extends to both MINT machines. 2. All fingerprint images from the various machines will be · transferred to and be viewed, in sequence, on a large screen grey display with full 600 dots per inch capacity. * Patents pendin g.