Warrants Summons Final

UCJIS WARRANTS AND SUMMONSES WHITE
PAPER
Unified Criminal Justice Information System
Strategic Alliance Services Request
For the Commonwealth of Kentucky
Prepared for:
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Governor’s Office for Technology
100 Fair Oaks Lane
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-1108
Prepared by:
SAIC Project Team
8301 Greensboro Drive
Mail Stop E-6-3
McLean, Virginia 22102-3600
T A BL E OF C ON T EN T S
1.0 Executive Summary...................................................................................................1
2.0 SAIC Project Team Approach..................................................................................1
2.1 Personnel Interviews.......................................................................................1
2.2 Internal Validation: Commonwealth of Kentucky...........................................2
2.3 External Validation: Other States....................................................................2
3.0 The As-Is Process.......................................................................................................1
3.1 The As-Is Process: Kentucky..........................................................................1
3.1.1 Process Overview............................................................................1
3.1.2 Bench Warrant................................................................................1
3.1.3 Arrest Warrant................................................................................3
3.1.4 Supporting Technology...................................................................5
3.1.5 As-Is Process in Four Commonwealth Counties.............................7
3.2 The As-Is Process: Other States....................................................................12
3.2.1 Colorado........................................................................................12
3.2.2 Michigan.......................................................................................14
3.2.3 Virginia.........................................................................................15
3.2.4 Washington...................................................................................16
3.2.5 New York City..............................................................................18
4.0 Issues 1
4.1 Timeliness of Serving Warrants......................................................................1
4.2 Labor-Intensive Process..................................................................................1
4.3 Inefficiencies of a Paper-Based System..........................................................1
4.4 Business Rules and Policy Guidance...............................................................2
4.5 Information Sharing........................................................................................2
4.6 Responsibility and Accountability...................................................................2
4.7 Lack of Statutory or Regulatory Guidance......................................................2
4.8 Distinguishing Between Users and Providers of Information..........................2
4.9 Lack of Information Technology Resources and Training in their Use...........3
4.10 Lack of Statewide Data.................................................................................3
4.11 Inconsistent Standards for Initiating and Serving a Warrant.........................3
4.12 KSP Staffing.................................................................................................4
5.0 Alternatives.................................................................................................................1
6.0 Recommendation........................................................................................................1
6.1 Formalize and Standardize the Warrants Process............................................3
6.1.1 Develop a Standard Format for Arrest and Bench Warrants...........3
6.1.2 Consider Adopting a Person-Based Warrants System.....................4
6.1.3 Establish a Timeliness Standard......................................................4
6.1.4 Strengthen the Warrants Review Process........................................4
6.1.5 Provide Law Enforcement Agencies Access to Employment
Information..............................................................................5
6.1.6 Publicize Active Warrants in Local Newspapers............................5
i UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

6.1.7 Notify Individuals by Mail When a Warrant is Issued....................5
6.2 Implement a Pilot Project................................................................................6
6.3 Automate the Warrants Process.....................................................................10
6.3.1 Develop an Electronic Warrant.....................................................10
6.3.2 Provide an Interface between LINK and KY Courts.....................11
6.3.3 Facilitate Information Sharing with Kentucky Prisons and Jails...12
6.4 Commit to Staffing, Training, Funding, and Ongoing Technical Support.....12
7.0 Conclusion..................................................................................................................1
ii UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

LIST OF E X H I B I TS
Exhibit 3-1: Typical Bench Warrant Process................................................................2
Exhibit 3-2: Typical Arrest Warrant Process................................................................4
Exhibit 6-3: Implementation Timeline...........................................................................1
Exhibit 6-4: Working Group Tasks and Membership..................................................2
Exhibit 6-5: Formalize and Standardize the Warrants Process Timeline...................3
Exhibit 6-6: Recommended Warrants Validation Schedule.........................................5
Exhibit 6-7: Implement a Pilot Project Timeline...........................................................7
Exhibit 6-8: Pilot Project Activities................................................................................8
Exhibit 6-9: Proposed Timeline for Pilot Project..........................................................9
Exhibit 6-10: Automate the Warrants Process Timeline............................................10
Exhibit 7-11: Stakeholder Benefits from an Improved Warrants Process..................1
iii UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

L I ST OF A PP E N D I CE S
Appendix APersonnel Interviewed.................................................................................1
Appendix BPrincipal Types of Warrants and Summonses...........................................1
Appendix CKentucky County Warrants Processes.......................................................1
Appendix DProposed Warrant Format..........................................................................1
Appendix EColorado’s Electronic Warrants.................................................................1
E.1.0CICJIS Electronic Warrant – Misdemeanor/Traffic –
Confirmation Not Required.........................................................1
E.2.0CICJIS Electronic Warrant – Felony –
Confirmation Not Required.........................................................2
E.3.0Felony Warrant After Holding Agency Takes Ownership –
Confirmation Required................................................................3
Appendix FAcronyms and Abbreviations......................................................................1
iv UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A key component of success for the Commonwealth of Kentucky Unified Criminal Justice
Information System (UCJIS) will be an effective, streamlined process for the issuance, tracking, and
clearance of warrants, summonses, and related documents. To date there is no standardization of
policies and procedures across the Commonwealth, and there is limited use of available technology to
modernize the process and relieve the Commonwealth of the burdens of a paper-based system.
In commissioning this white paper, the Commonwealth recognized that although the current
processes may appear to work in certain jurisdictions, in many cases the current system(s)/methods of
operation do not work for the Commonwealth as a whole. A number of outstanding issues exist and
vital law enforcement information cannot be accessed or shared across and within all law
enforcement agencies in the Commonwealth or across state lines nationally. Consequently, the people
of Kentucky have not been and cannot be well served.
The UCJIS Project Team, consisting of consultants and technical experts from Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) was hired to conduct a study of current processes, identify problem
areas, and recommend a solution that is practical, feasible, and can be implemented across the
Commonwealth. This white paper documents the results of the UCJIS Project Team’s work.
• The “As Is” Process: Because a comprehensive analysis of all jurisdictions in the
Commonwealth would have been beyond the scope of this effort, the Project Team analyzed the
processes in use in a sample of jurisdictions in the Commonwealth, as well as in several other
states and one large city. Within Kentucky, the Project Team’s key findings were that little to no
standardization exists among jurisdictions; written policy or guidance is often incomplete or
nonexistent; and that the paper-based system as being used today can be cumbersome, inefficient,
untimely, and often ineffective. Backlogs of un-served warrants can develop, warrants can be lost
or misplaced, and the current status of a given warrant or summons can be difficult to determine.
The Project Team found that many users were “comfortable” with the system, not so much
because the system is “working,” but because they understand it and know how to work within it
to overcome its deficiencies.
• Issues: The Project Team identified a number of issues/concerns that are typical of paper-based
systems: the potential lack of the timeliness of various activities, business rules and policies that
foster inefficiencies, difficulty getting timely and accurate information on the status of warrants
and summonses, multiple arrests on a particular warrant, and un-served warrants among others. A
number of these issues taken individually may seem minor, but when taken together, can bog
down the current system within a jurisdiction in particular and across the state as a whole to the
overall detriment of the Commonwealth.
• The Recommendation: The Project Team’s recommendation incorporates both process and
automation improvements that can be accomplished in a 3-year period. Its four key components
are:
» Formalize and standardize the warrants process – The Project Team recommends that
Kentucky adopt standard formats for Arrest and Bench Warrants for use throughout the state,
that the state consider adopting a “person-based” warrant versus an “incident-based” warrant,
and that it establish a timeliness standard for entry of warrants information into the Law
Enforcement Network of Kentucky (LINK). It further recommends that the warrants review
process be strengthened, that law enforcement officers have ready access to employment
information to assist them in serving warrants, that warrants information be publicized in
1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

local newspapers, and that individuals named in a warrant be notified by mail when the
warrant is issued.
» Initiate a pilot project – The pilot project would involve Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC), Kentucky State Police (KSP), prosecutors, the courts and law enforcement agencies
in up to three counties. Its primary purpose would be to validate the Project Team’s
recommendation that AOC provide Bench Warrants information to KSP by means of an
automated data push that would be available to prosecutors and law enforcement officers
through LINK.
» Automate the warrants process – This is the logical next step following the incorporation of
the Project Team’s recommended process improvements and the completion of the pilot
project. This would entail developing and implementing an electronic warrant (e-warrant),
providing an online interface between LINK and KY Courts so prosecutors and law
enforcement officers can have timely access to Bench and Arrest Warrant data, and provide
for information sharing among Kentucky prisons and jails, the courts, and law enforcement
agencies.
» Commit to long-term support – Implementing the Project Team’s recommendation will
represent a significant long-term commitment on the part of the Commonwealth in terms of
funding, training, and ongoing technical support.
The Project Team’s recommendation is discussed fully in Section 6.

2.0 SAIC PROJECT TEAM APPROACH
The approach used by the Project Team to review and make recommendations about the warrants
process was one of research, analysis, development of alternatives, and selection of an alternative to
recommend to Kentucky. Our research included numerous personal interviews, either in person or by
telephone. The purpose of the interviews was more than just fact finding; we wanted to obtain the
individuals’ personal assessments of the warrants and summonses process. These personal
assessments weighed heavily in our selection of an alternative to recommend to the Commonwealth.
We supplemented our research efforts with a review of some of the supporting technologies in use
today in Kentucky and identified some effective practices that can be adopted for wider use. Finally,
we looked outside the Commonwealth to understand what processes and technologies are in use
elsewhere that might be employed as part of an overall solution for Kentucky.
In addition to interviews with law enforcement and court personnel, the Project Team expanded its
research efforts to include government Internet web sites. In some cases the web sites provided links
to copies of actual statutes and/or rules of criminal procedure, and in others they gave general
information regarding government organization and functions, and pointed the way for the team to
make contact with knowledgeable and helpful people. We also made several visits to the State Law
Library at the Capitol in Frankfort as part of the research effort.1
The analysis phase of the study effort overlapped all other phases. Ultimately, our analysis validated
the anecdotal evidence we accumulated through personal interviews: that the warrants and
summonses processes were sometimes ill defined and not universally applied. Thus, the day-to-day
practices are often cumbersome and they result in problems such as a backlog of unserved warrants,
delays in determining the status of a particular warrant or summons, loss of a warrant or summons,
and the general inefficiencies that go hand-in-hand with manual, paper-based processes.
Based upon our analysis, the Project Team developed four alternative courses of action for Kentucky.
These alternatives are discussed in Section 5. The Project Team’s recommendation is discussed in
Section 6.
2.1 Personnel Interviews

The Project Team interviewed numerous individuals in state and local governments in Kentucky and
other states to understand the current warrants and summonses processes. A shows the names, roles,
and agencies of those we interviewed.
In each interview session the Project Team sought to define the specifics of the warrant and
summonses processes that fell within the responsibility of the respective agency, group, or individual.
We were interested in the roles of each individual, how the individual fit within the overall process,
and what processes and technology were in use. Discussions centered on the activities the individuals
performed within the processes, tools used to perform and follow the processes and issues relevant to
the processes.
The Project Team found these interviews to be very informative and, without exception, the
individuals we interviewed were helpful and generous with their time. A number of individuals asked
that their comments not be attributed to them by name and the Project Team has respected that
request.
1
The Project Team would like to recognize the help of Robin Mattingly, a librarian at the State Law Library.

2.2 Internal Validation: Commonwealth of Kentucky
As shown in A, the Project Team interviewed a diverse group of people in the Commonwealth. These
people represented all the major agencies that have a role in the warrants process:
• Commonwealth’s attorneys •Jefferson County Crime Commission
• County attorneys •Kentucky State Police
• Judicial circuit court clerks •Sheriff’s offices
• County court clerks •City and county police departments
• Justice Cabinet •University of Kentucky Police Department
• Administrative Office of the Courts
The Project Team focused its internal research on four counties: Carroll, Fayette, Franklin, and
Oldham. We chose these counties for two reasons. First, they are geographically in close proximity to
our base of operations in Frankfort; thus, we were able to interview many of their people in person.
Second, these counties vary in size from small to large in terms of population.2 Carroll County, with a
population of approximately 9,300, is the smallest of the four we researched. Franklin County
(44,000) and Oldham County (33,000) are two medium-sized counties, and Fayette County, with a
population of over 225,000, is the second largest in the Commonwealth.
The Project Team’s findings are described in Section 3.
2.3 External Validation: Other States

The Project Team also studied the warrants process in four other states and one large city to
understand what others are doing in this regard. The four states are Colorado, Michigan, Virginia, and
Washington. We selected Michigan and Washington because we are doing criminal justice projects in
these states and have some first-hand knowledge of how they do business. A member of the Kentucky
UCJIS Committee suggested the team study Colorado, and the team selected Virginia because, like
Kentucky, Virginia is a commonwealth.
The Project Team’s research in these states consisted of interviews, both in person and by telephone,
review of existing project documentation, and in studying their Internet web sites.
In addition to the four states, we include information on the automated warrants system implemented
in New York City. Though New York City encompasses a relatively small geographic area, with over
8 million residents, some aspects of its automated warrants system might be appropriate for a future
Kentucky implementation.
The Project Team’s findings are described in Section 3.
2
Source of population statistics: University of Kentucky, www.uky.edu/KentuckyAtlas/Kentucky-counties

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

3.1.1 Process Overview
There are a number of legal mechanisms by which an individual can be apprehended, placed under
arrest, and brought before a court or placed in jail. These can result in issuance of various types of
warrants and summonses, as shown in B.
The process for serving and closing a Summons is similar to that of an Arrest Warrant. The main
difference is that when a Summons is issued, the individual named in the summons is ordered to
appear before the court, but is not taken into custody by the serving officer, as is the case with an
Arrest Warrant. Both the Arrest Warrant and Bench Warrant lead to the arrest of the individual
named in the warrant and, consequently, they have a significant impact on the public safety of the
Commonwealth. Therefore, the Project Team focused on these two documents and their associated
processes.
3.1.2 Bench Warrant
The Bench Warrant process is initiated by the failure of a person to appear at a hearing or to
otherwise comply with an order previously given by the court. Upon such a failure, the Court Clerk
will produce a Bench Warrant document for review and signature by the judge. In those courts having
the KY Courts System implemented, the data is entered into that system and the paper warrant is
produced from it for presentation to the judge for signature. Once the warrant has been signed, the
Court Clerk notifies one or more serving agencies that the warrant is available to be picked up and
served. The serving agent then picks up the warrant from the Court Clerk’s office.
When the law enforcement officer apprehends the person named in the Bench Warrant, he or she
takes the subject to the issuing court, and signs the warrant as having been served. The court then
issues a decision regarding the subject case and the warrant is returned to the Court Clerk for
filing/archival. The Court Clerk also updates the status of the warrant in the KY Courts System, if
available, to indicate that the warrant is “closed.”
The current Bench Warrant process is shown in Exhibit 3-1.

Key:
Clerk opens case Decision Point Document(s) Event
Process Computer System data storage
Clerk searches
for open warrants
on subject KY Courts
Judge
Defendant fails to
orders warrant
appear or pay fine
be issued
Clerk Produces
processes Enters into hard copy
warrant for signature
KY Courts
Judge
signs
warrant
* Retains a copy of warrant
* Sends copies to LEAs in
surrounding counties if
applicable Clerk notifies primary
LEA to pick up original
warrant
LEA picks up original

LEA warrant from clerk, LEA conducts LEA Arrests
Process gives copies to team search for subject Subject
LEA ID's warrant as

Court Judge issues served LEA accompanies
Process court decision subject to court
Signed warrant is
returned to clerk
Clerk changes
status to "Closed"
in KY Courts
Exhibit 3-1: Typical Bench Warrant Process

3.1.3 Arrest Warrant
The Arrest Warrant process starts with the submission of a complaint by a citizen, a law enforcement
official, or a Probation and Parole official. The complaint is filed with a County Attorney or
Commonwealth’s Attorney who is responsible for gathering the necessary information relevant to the
offense, then determining if the offense merits the issuance of a summons or an Arrest Warrant. The
County or Commonwealth’s Attorney then makes a recommendation and forwards it to a judge for
signature. A judge reviews the complaint and determines if the information provided supports the
requirements of an Arrest Warrant.3 If so, the judge signs the warrant.4 In the case of lesser offenses
and/or insufficient evidence for an Arrest Warrant, a summons may be issued instead. The process for
the summons is identical to that of the Arrest Warrant except that the person named on the summons
will be directed to appear in court or at a law enforcement agency rather than being taken into
custody.
The County Attorney or Commonwealth’s Attorney notifies the primary serving agent that the
warrant is available to be picked up. Serving agencies include law enforcement officers such as
county sheriff’s offices, local police departments, and the KSP. Typically, the original warrant is
given to the police officer that originally filed the complaint and/or faxed to the dispatch center that
supports that officer. The primary serving agency may then distribute copies to other potential serving
agencies. The primary serving agency is responsible for ensuring that the warrant is entered into the
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Wanted Persons Hot File and/or the LINK Wanted
Persons Hot File as appropriate. The primary serving agency of an Arrest Warrant record in the Hot
File(s) is responsible for responding to inquiries from other serving agencies both in-state and out-of-
state regarding the status and terms of the warrant.
Upon location and apprehension of the person named in the Arrest Warrant, the warrant is considered
served. The arrested individual is taken to a jail, fingerprinted, and held for court processing. The
jailer generally receives a copy of the Arrest Warrant and includes it in the arraignment file, which
goes through pre-trial services and eventually to the Commonwealth’s Attorney or County Attorney
as part of the case trial package. When the case has been adjudicated the warrant, along with other
court documents, is given to the Court Clerk for filing/archival.
The current Arrest Warrant process is shown in Exhibit 3-2.
3
Under the Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) sections 2.04-2.06 a warrant must be issued by a judge who,
through examination of a complaint filed pursuant to RCr 2.02, determines that probable cause exists that an offense has
been committed.
4
A county clerk can issue a warrant: “In the event of the absence from the county of all District Judges and all Circuit
Judges and all trial commissioners, the circuit clerk in each county may issue ‘criminal warrants’ prepared by the
Commonwealth’s attorney or county attorney, who shall certify that there is no District Judge, Circuit Judge, or trial
commissioner within the county.” Kentucky Revised Statute 15.725(5).

Key:
LEA Citizen
Decision Point Document(s) Event
Complaint filed with
County Attorney Process Computer System data storage
County Attorney
requests warrant
authorization
Judge
approves,
signs
warrant
Warrant distributed
to LEA for serving
LEA picks up or
receives original LEA conducts
LEA warrant and gives LEA enters LEA Arrests
search for
Process copies to team into LINK if subject Subject
applicable
Jailer processes subject
Jailer requests LEA ID's

Jail original warrant for Subject is original warrant LEA delivers
Process arraignment file entered in JMS as served subject to jail
Fingerprints are
taken
Pre-Trial Process Subject goes to Judge issues

trial court decision
Signed warrant is
given to Court
Clerk
Exhibit 3-2: Typical Arrest Warrant Process

3.1.4 Supporting Technology
The Commonwealth provides two systems that are widely used in support of the warrants process:
LINK, and KY Courts.5 These two systems form the backbone of the warrants information systems in
Kentucky.
Beyond LINK and KY Courts, there is an array of computer software in use locally throughout the
Commonwealth. Some of this is commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software and some is locally
developed. In most cases, use of this software is limited to only a few individuals; in at least one case,
its use is restricted to a single individual on a single desktop PC. This is discussed more fully in
Section 3.2.
3.1.4.1 LINK
The LINK portal provides a facility for the input and tracking of Arrest Warrants. LINK can be
accessed for search purposes by all law enforcement officers across the Commonwealth, including:
city and county police, county sheriffs, state police, probation and parole officers, fisheries and
wildlife officers, the public housing authority, and military installations. Dispatch personnel are the
only individuals authorized in these agencies to enter and maintain warrant data within LINK.
The LINK system is hosted on a mainframe computer at the Governor’s Office of Technology (GOT)
but is administered by KSP. LINK is due to be moved to KSP and hosted on a server running
Windows 2000. This would bring the LINK system fully under the control of KSP. The system now
supports about 100,000 queries a month with each query generating one or more responses. KSP
reports that LINK has ample capacity for growth and that it could support more than the 30 million
transactions per year it currently supports, but once it is moved to KSP, there will be increased
pressure on KSP’s limited personnel resources to administer the system.6
As Kentucky’s NCIC Control Terminal Agency, the Kentucky State Police are bound by NCIC rules
and guidelines in the operation and administration of LINK, the system through which law
enforcement agencies within the Commonwealth access NCIC, interstate, and state-level
information.7 As a result, only those law enforcement agencies that are continuously staffed have
authorization to enter and modify information through LINK. These are referred to as “terminal
agencies.” Those agencies not meeting these criteria, known as “satellite agencies,” rely upon
terminal agencies for the entry and modification of their records. When a satellite agency is the
primary serving agency for a warrant, the terminal agency that provides the service becomes
responsible for entry of the warrant into the LINK and/or NCIC Wanted Persons Hot File(s) and for
the validation of this information (within NCIC-specified timeframes) upon receipt of a valid request
from another law enforcement agency.
The primary criterion for entry of a Wanted Persons record into NCIC is that the originating agency
of the record is willing to extradite the individual named in the warrant across state boundaries.
Similarly, one of the primary criteria for entry of a warrant into the LINK Wanted Persons Hot File is
the willingness of the originating agency to extradite across jurisdictional boundaries within the
5
In addition to KY Courts, the Commonwealth provides CourtNet, which is a statewide system that consolidates the
county-by-county data from KY Courts. CourtNet also includes some pretrial information that is not available on KY
Courts.
6
KSP is budgeted to receive another seven funded civilian personnel positions when they take control of LINK.
7
In March 2002, the KSP will begin to upgrade the software for all LINK clients to make them NCIC 2000 compliant.
This upgrade will take two to four weeks to complete.

Commonwealth.8 As such, LINK Wanted Persons records must include the subject’s name and
sufficient demographic data to make identification and arrest possible.9
While LINK is a valuable law enforcement tool, there are some systemic problems. For instance,
availability can be a problem because LINK terminals are not readily accessible to all agencies
requiring access to the warrants information. In some part, this is due to cost. A standard LINK
installation costs about $10,000, which covers the cost of the computer, the software license, system
routers, and the like. The software vendor also charges $250 per year for software maintenance.
Training costs are additional.
In addition, the entry of warrants into the system is frequently dependent upon dispatch personnel at
the serving agency, and not upon the originating agent who officially initiates the warrant. In many
cases, this means that an individual who does not have responsibility for the warrant is responsible for
its input into LINK, and, because the serving agency has many other responsibilities, entering the
warrant into LINK is not necessarily a priority. This results in a number of warrants not being entered
in a timely manner.
Another problem arises because LINK models its input requirements after the stringent NCIC input
requirements; thus, many warrants are not entered into LINK because the warrant does not contain
sufficient information. Warrants that are not entered into LINK have no statewide (or interstate)
visibility; thus, information on the warrants is limited to the local jurisdiction that issued the warrant,
and it increases the likelihood that the individual named in the warrant will remain at large if he flees
the county.
3.1.4.2 KY Courts
The KY Courts system provides case management software at the circuit or district court level. This
software is accessible by the court clerks, judges, and pretrial services personnel for the court. The
system provides visibility and access only to data within each specific court’s jurisdiction. As part of
its case management capabilities, the KY Courts software provides the ability for court personnel to
enter, query, and modify Bench Warrant data. Currently, it is used to capture the data electronically,
produce a hardcopy document for a judge’s signature, and is then used to update the status of the
warrant.
A limitation of KY Courts is that its use is limited to the jurisdiction of each specific court. Using KY
Courts, court clerks can search only their county for outstanding warrants on an individual. Because
of this, clerks do not have insight into Bench Warrants issued in other jurisdictions. In addition, KY
Courts only maintains information on Bench Warrants in its case management module; no Arrest
Warrant information is available.
An ongoing modification to KY Courts will allow court clerks to request a statewide search of
outstanding Bench Warrants for an individual. However, due to the limited computing power of the
KY Courts system, AOC will provide only “on demand” searches of the entire KY Courts warrants
database. AOC is concerned that opening this functionality to every warrant search would
considerably degrade the performance and response time of the system.
8
Some agencies are reluctant to extradite for “low value” warrants such as bad checks, failure to pay a fine, etc., because
the costs of extradition outweigh the benefit of having the individual extradited.
9
Mandatory “Person Data” for a LINK entry include: name, sex, race, height, weight, and hair color. Mandatory
“Agency/Case Data” include: originating agency code, date of warrant, agency case number, offense code, and
destination.

3.1.5 As-Is Process in Four Commonwealth Counties
As mentioned above, the Project Team focused much of its research effort in four counties: Carroll,
Fayette, Franklin, and Oldham. However, in our early research in other counties we found some
interesting initiatives that merit mention here.
In Jessamine County, the Jailer has taken a leading role in the control of warrants and the distribution
of data. By allowing the jail’s computer server to be the repository of the data, Mr. Frank Hubbard
has joined forces with the local officials, including the local dispatch, county sheriff’s office, and
county courts. By running high-speed fiber connections, each agency has search capability on the Jail
Management System (JMS). Dispatchers enter new warrants into the warrant function within the
JMS, allowing for future search for outstanding and un-served warrants. Although the information is
limited only to those warrants established within the county, it has served to streamline the local
process. The expanded database is also a resource to the jail, which now has the ability to search for
all local outstanding warrants as part of the detention center’s booking process.
In Jefferson County, the City of Louisville joined with the county to establish a Warrant Process
Committee under the auspices of the Louisville-Jefferson County Crime Commission. The Louisville-
Jefferson County jurisdiction had issued over 80,000 warrants in a one-year period and had
accumulated a backlog of almost 70,000 outstanding warrants.10 The committee developed 16
recommendations, several of which we incorporate in our recommendation. These are:
• Establish a centralized database of warrants information that would be available to all courts
and law enforcement agencies in Kentucky
• Strengthen the warrant review process
• Publicize warrants information in local newspapers
• Provide all law enforcement officers with access to an individual’s employment information
to assist them in serving warrants
• Enable search of the prison and jail population lists for names of individuals with outstanding
warrants
Differences in local ways of doing business are to be expected in a state as diverse as Kentucky, with
120 counties that range in size from 2,100 residents (Robertson County) to 665,000 residents
(Jefferson County). Each jurisdiction has adopted business rules and uses available technology in
accordance with its needs and resources. These differences can be seen in the four counties profiled
below.
3.1.5.1 Carroll County
Carroll County is within the jurisdiction of the Kentucky 15th Judicial Circuit Court, which also serves
Grant and Owen counties. In addition to KSP, the major law enforcement agencies in the county are
the Sheriff’s Office and the Carrollton City Police Department. The Commonwealth’s Attorney issues
Arrest Warrants upon indictment or other county court action; the Carroll County Attorney issues the
balance of felony Arrest Warrants.
The Carroll County Sheriff’s Office is the repository of all warrants in the county, receiving them
directly from the circuit and county courts. The sheriff, in turn, provides warrants to the Carrollton
City Police Department for service. Warrants on out-of-county individuals are mailed to the
appropriate jurisdictions. The sheriff’s office estimates that they serve up to 50 warrants in a week,
10
Louisville-Jefferson County Crime Commission, Warrant Process Committee Report of Recommendations, February 17,
2000

with 15 to 25 being typical. The majority of their warrants are complaint Arrest Warrants. The
backlog of outstanding, un-served warrants can run to 2,200.
The sheriff’s office and police departments use preprinted paper warrants that they fill out by hand,
using different formats for misdemeanor and felony Arrest Warrants. The courts use standard Bench
Warrant formats provided by AOC that they download from the Sustain system. 11 The
Commonwealth’s Attorney uses a warrant template in WordPerfect that is based upon a standard
AOC warrant format.
The Carrollton City Police Department hosts the county LINK terminal, and its police officers are the
entering agents for all LINK data. The police department shares a dispatch center with the sheriff’s
office, and both agencies submit and respond to queries regarding outstanding warrants. Other than
sharing information via the LINK system, most information regarding warrants is done via phone,
fax, or the mobile radio. The courts provide the dispatch center with regular updates on recalled
Bench Warrants. To track warrant status the sheriff’s office also updates a COTS database application
that is installed on a single desktop computer.
Regarding supporting technology, the circuit court uses the Sustain case management system, but is
due to upgrade to KY Courts II in the near future. The Carrollton Police Department maintains the
LINK terminal at the consolidated dispatch center that it shares with the sheriff’s office. Both the
police department and the sheriff’s office have standard office software on desktop computers, but
none of them is networked to the other’s offices. The sheriff’s office and the police department also
share mobile radio frequencies.
Law enforcement officers noted that the potential for multiple arrests of an individual on a single
warrant is a problem. They also noted that many warrants do not have enough information to enter
them into LINK or NCIC, and that Bench Warrants frequently do not have sufficient information on
them to properly identify an individual and make an arrest. The inability of dispatch center personnel
to validate a Bench Warrant during non-duty hours for the court is also a problem.
Law enforcement officers indicated it would be helpful if the Commonwealth were to provide a
mechanism for real-time information sharing to eliminate the potential for multiple arrests. They
suggest that a statewide database containing up-to-date information on all warrants – bench and arrest
– would be welcome. Law enforcement officers also indicated the desire for an electronic warrant that
could be downloaded from, or transmitted to, another jurisdiction. This would eliminate some of the
inefficiencies of the current paper-based system.
Regarding tracking of warrants, the Commonwealth’s Attorney does not track warrants but indicated
that some form of automated system for the express purpose of tracking warrants would be very
helpful.
3.1.5.2 Fayette County
Fayette County is within the jurisdiction of the Kentucky 22nd Judicial Circuit Court. The county and
the City of Lexington have merged their governments into the Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Government. The Lexington Division of Police is a combined police force made up of the former
Lexington City Police Department and the Fayette County Police Department. UK has its own police
force with sworn officers. These two police departments, the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office, and
KSP comprise the major law enforcement agencies in the county.
11
There are several AOC warrant formats in use in the four counties profiled here. Form AOC-S-035 is used for both the
Bench Warrant and the Warrant of Arrest on Indictment. Form AOC-315.1 is used for a Summons and AOC-315.2 is
used for an Arrest Warrant (Complaint). Other, non-AOC forms are also used for Arrest Warrants (Complaint).

The Fayette County Sheriff’s Office has primary responsibility for warrants service in the county, and
they handle approximately 50 to 60 per week. The other law enforcement agencies also serve
warrants, but do so generally in the course of other business, such as in conjunction with an accident
or other investigation. When it is necessary to serve a warrant on UK property, the law enforcement
agency serving the warrant contacts the UK police first. This is not just a courtesy; often the UK
police need to escort other law enforcement officers into dormitories or classrooms where they would
generally not have unescorted access. The Fayette County District Court reported a backlog of 18,000
active warrants, both Bench and Arrest Warrants, but could not readily determine the breakdown of
numbers between the two types, or between felony and misdemeanor warrants.
Law enforcement agencies use a common, standard Arrest Warrant that is filled out by hand. The
courts use an AOC format for the Bench Warrants that can be downloaded from the Sustain system.
Most of the information on the Bench Warrant can be filled out on the computer and then printed, but
some of the descriptive information on the warrant must be filled out by hand. The Fayette County
Attorney’s Office uses an automated tool, FileMaker Pro, for preparing warrants and tracking
complaints; however, they do not track the warrants themselves. After the Arrest Warrant is signed by
a judge, it is distributed to the sheriff’s office for execution.
The courts provide all warrants to the sheriff’s office for service. The sheriff’s office is the primary
warrants serving agency, but they do get some assistance from the police departments in this regard.
In addition to using Sustain and LINK to record and share information on warrants, the Lexington-
Fayette Urban County Government uses a locally developed application called “CRT” for recording
and tracking the status of all warrants. All law enforcement agencies have online access to CRT. The
Lexington Division of Police has a local Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, but it is not shared
with others and is not used for recording or sharing warrants information.
The courts will upgrade from Sustain to KY Courts II in summer 2002. The Lexington Division of
Police, the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office, and the UK Police Department all have their own LINK
terminals. Office automation to support information consists of access to Sustain, LINK, and CRT,
plus some individuals have Internet access.
Circuit court clerks are reluctant to respond to inquiries about warrants over the phone because of past
abuses by unauthorized individuals. They now refer all telephone queries to the sheriff’s office for
resolution. There is a problem with double-data entry because all the Bench Warrants information
that the courts enter into Sustain must be separately entered by law enforcement into CRT, thus
increasing the workload and the likelihood of error. This is also true of Arrest Warrants information
entered into LINK and CRT; it must be entered twice because there is no connectivity between the
two.
County personnel expressed a desire for a single, comprehensive source of all Commonwealth
warrants information. This could be a single database accessible by all courts and law enforcement
personnel, or separate databases as currently exist with middleware to allow a single query to access
all the databases and return a response that would include information on all warrants in the
Commonwealth that are active for the individual.
Regarding the format of the warrants themselves, the County Attorney would like the warrants to
have a more “reader friendly” layout.
Another improvement suggested by county personnel would be for the Commonwealth to require the
courts to review all misdemeanor complaint warrants after a given period of time (e.g., 24 months).
The court clerks would contact the complainant to determine if the complainant would agree to
withdraw the warrant. Alternatively, if the complainant did not respond to the query within 30 to 60

days, the clerks would be able to consider the warrant “dead” and withdraw it. As explained to the
Project Team, the key benefit of this process is it would allow the court clerks to withdraw the
warrants without having to involve a judge, resulting in a significant decrease in the backlog of un-
served misdemeanor warrants. This would require a statutory change.
3.1.5.3 Franklin County
Franklin County is within the jurisdiction of the Kentucky 48th Judicial Circuit Court. Major law
enforcement agencies include the Frankfort Police Department, the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office,
and KSP. In 2001, the sheriff’s office handled over 1,600 warrants, of which 1,200 were served. The
police department estimated that it handled 3,200 to 3,500 warrants in 2001 and served approximately
75 percent of those. The backlog of un-served warrants was not quantified, but was deemed to be
“minimal.” The Franklin County Attorney issues virtually all the Arrest Warrants, with the exception
of those issued upon indictment, which are issued by the Commonwealth’s Attorney. Depending
upon jurisdiction, warrants are distributed to the local police department, sheriff’s office, or KSP for
service.
The circuit court uses a standard AOC format for the Bench Warrant that is downloaded from KY
Courts. The law enforcement agencies use similar, but different, formats for their paper Arrest
Warrants. The County Attorney uses an automated tool, Bounceback, for preparing Arrest Warrants
for bad checks only, and attempts to track warrants that are issued from its office.
The sheriff’s office provides a daily list of warrants to the Frankfort Police Department and KSP. The
sheriff’s office keeps the original warrant and either provides a copy or faxes a copy to other law
enforcement agencies. When a warrant is served the law enforcement officer who served the warrant
reports this via telephone or radio to the central dispatch center and, if appropriate, enters the
information into LINK. The circuit court provides warrants to law enforcement agencies via a
distribution box in the clerk’s office. Bench Warrants for out-of-county individuals are mailed to the
appropriate county for service.
LINK access is provided by the Frankfort Police Department and is housed in the consolidated
dispatch center. Information sharing for Arrest Warrants is via the shared LINK terminal or by
telephone or mobile radio. Locally, the sheriff’s office also tracks warrants using a Microsoft Access
database application hosted on a desktop computer. This database is not networked to others outside
the sheriff’s office. The Circuit Court uses the KY Courts I system to track Bench Warrants as part of
its case management feature. The court will upgrade to KY Courts II in the future.
Currently, the police department and the sheriff’s office do not have a written standard for when an
Arrest Warrant will be entered into the LINK system. This is often left to the discretion of the
individual officer; however, both the sheriff and the deputy police chief recognized this as a problem
and resolved to develop a local standard in the near future. The sheriff’s office has no online
communication capability with other law enforcement agencies across the Commonwealth. When the
sheriff needs to send an “all hands” message to the other sheriffs, he does so via a fax broadcast
message.
Other problems cited was the difficulty serving warrants if only the named individual’s home address
was available. Officers could get the individual’s work address from the Attorney General’s office if
they provide a social security number, but this is a time consuming activity. There is often a delay of
up to a week in getting an Arrest Warrant signed by a judge, and up to one-third of all warrants do not
have sufficient information on them to be input to LINK.
Regarding potential improvements, law enforcement officers indicated they would welcome some
form of online access by which they could communicate with others by e-mail or by posting notices

to an electronic bulletin board. They would support a common format for Arrest Warrants across the
Commonwealth, and would like the warrant to be available to be transmitted electronically, via
document imaging, or filled out on the computer and then printed, thus eliminating the problem of
having to interpret another person’s handwriting. Finally, they requested that if the Commonwealth
were to take steps to standardize the warrants process that there be no mandates from the state
without funding.
The Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office indicated it would be helpful if there were a database to
track all warrants, but that it could only be effective if all the parties that issue warrants were to use
the database and help keep it current.
3.1.5.4 Oldham County
Oldham County is within the jurisdiction of the Kentucky 12th Judicial Circuit Court, which also
serves Henry and Trimble counties. The chief law enforcement agencies in the county are the Oldham
County Sheriff’s Office, the LaGrange Police Department, the Oldham County Police Department,
and KSP. The sheriff’s office is the repository for warrants in the county and they serve the vast
majority of the warrants, with the police department serving warrants only in conjunction with some
other police activity or upon request of the sheriff. The sheriff’s office serves approximately 10 to 20
warrants a week, most of which are Bench Warrants. The backlog of un-served warrants can total
1,500 to 2,000.
All county law enforcement agencies use the same paper Arrest Warrant and fill them out by hand.
The circuit court uses a standard AOC format Bench Warrant downloaded from the Sustain system,
and the County Attorney uses a standard AOC format Arrest Warrant, and fills them out by hand.
In Oldham County, the County Court Clerk is not involved in the early steps of the warrants process.
The County Attorney prepares the warrant and he or a member of his staff takes the warrant to the
court for the judge to sign. After the judge signs the warrant, it is returned to the County Attorney’s
office and then given to the sheriff’s office for execution. This is different than in many county courts
where the clerk often gives the warrants to the judge for signature and then distributes the warrants to
the appropriate law enforcement agencies.
County law enforcement agencies share a consolidated dispatch center, the Oldham County Dispatch
(OCD), which provides shared mobile radio frequencies for the law enforcement agencies. OCD
hosts the county LINK terminal as well as a shared CAD application. The sheriff’s office enters data
on local warrants into the CAD, and OCD personnel update LINK. Local law enforcement agencies
deliver or fax a copy of a served warrant to the sheriff’s office so they can update the CAD. Sharing
of Arrest Warrant information with other jurisdictions is generally via telephone, fax, or LINK. The
courts use the Sustain case management feature to post Bench Warrant information. It expects to
upgrade to KY Courts II in 2002.
Other than LINK and the local CAD, county law enforcement agencies have little office automation
to help them track the warrants and share warrants information with others. The OCD has limited
Internet access to two desktop computers, but these computers are not networked with any others for
data security reasons. The sheriff’s office uses typical desktop office software and is linked to the
OCD for access to warrants information. There will be more automated information sharing
capability when the county installs a new Records Management System (RMS) in 2002.
Law enforcement officers report that reading handwritten warrants is a common problem, and that
many warrants do not have sufficient information on them to enable the officers to enter the warrants
into LINK. They also note that the potential for multiple arrests on a single warrant is a problem.

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

In addition to evaluating the technology and practices in use in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the
Project Team surveyed information regarding warrants processes in other states. The Project Team’s
primary focus in this regard was to what extent the other states are automating their warrants
processes.
In Pennsylvania, also a commonwealth, the state police play a bigger role in law enforcement at the
local level than do the Kentucky State Police. Pennsylvania has many small boroughs and townships
that have no indigenous law enforcement; thus, the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) take on many
local law enforcement functions and play a significant role in the warrants process at the local level.
To help them in this regard, the PSP is about to enter into a large, multiyear contract to procure a
statewide law enforcement Records Management System, a Computer Aided Dispatch function, and
enhanced Mobile Office Environment for its police cruisers. Warrant tracking will be just one of
many functions of the system PSP will procure. Michigan and Alaska are pursuing procurements to
computerize their criminal history systems, as is Kentucky. Oregon and Washington have already
done so. The common thread the Project Team uncovered is the move to centralize some law
enforcement functions and automate them, as appropriate.
The Project Team has also learned that other states are moving to accept the use of electronic
signatures for public and private actions, and promote the use of electronic documents in lieu of paper
documents. Electronic signatures are an essential element of a fully automated warrants process.
Regarding the use of electronic signatures, the practices in other states are similar to those in
Kentucky. Common provisions are that both parties must agree to the use of electronic signatures,
and that if electronic signatures are used they will have the same force and effect in law as traditional
handwritten signatures.
3.2.1 Colorado
The State of Colorado has deployed the Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System
(CICJIS), the first statewide, integrated criminal justice information system in the country. The
system went live in May 1998. The CICJIS functions as an integrated computer information system
that links five state-level criminal justice agencies: the Colorado Judicial Branch, the Department of
Corrections, The Department of Human Services-Division of Youth Corrections, the Department of
Public Safety-Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Colorado District Attorneys Council. The
“virtual” system is achieved using middleware components to link the five agency’s computers.
The CICJIS core function is facilitating data transfers among the five criminal justice agencies. These
data transfers enable CICJIS agencies to maintain data consistency between their information systems
and reduce the necessity for redundant data entry.12 Although CICJIS operates continuously, it is only
staffed during normal business hours. Colorado recognizes that as increased demands are placed on
the system that its reliability during non-business hours will have to be improved so that it is
equivalent to the reliability achieved during business hours.
12
Colorado anticipated that reduction of redundant data entry would result in significant labor savings. However, this was
not the case. The state found that the labor savings for data entry were offset by the labor required to resolve
discrepancies or correct errors in the transferred data.

One of CICJIS’ main components is the Integrated Colorado On-Line Network (ICON). ICON is the
State of Colorado’s case management system. This system represents a significant improvement in
case tracking and financial capabilities for the Judicial Department. In addition, ICON positions the
Judicial Department for full participation in CICJIS by establishing an infrastructure that will
facilitate the electronic exchange of data with other state agencies and departments. ICON is installed
in all state funded general and limited jurisdiction courts and the Court of Appeals.
When a warrant is created, modified or cancelled in the ICON case processing system, the
information is sent electronically to the Colorado Crime Information Center (CCIC), the Colorado
Bureau of Investigation’s database for warrants and criminal history information. The CICJIS rule for
entry of arrest warrants and warrants upon affidavit is the same business day. All other warrants must
be entered within 48 hours after the warrant is ordered. When entering or canceling warrants in the
ICON, those transactions are immediately transmitted to law enforcement.
The State requires certain information to be entered for a successful warrant transfer from ICON to
CCIC. Local law enforcement agencies and district attorneys are committed to providing this
information at the time of initial filing of the case so courts can enter it into the ICON system. There
are six fields in the Work with Parties screen that must be completed before a warrant will be
accepted into ICON. These fields are Name, Date of Birth, Race, Sex, Height, and Weight. The
system automatically notifies the person entering the warrant information if certain required fields are
missing, and the individual can override these required fields and submit the warrant only in
emergency cases affecting public safety.
The CCIC network connects to all law enforcement in Colorado, through supporting national
systems, with every other law enforcement and criminal justice agency in the United States, its
territories, and Canada. The CCIC system also provides status concerning warrants and other
information to criminal justice agencies. The application searches requests from Colorado entities
through internal databases. National requests are processed through this system to the NCIC and
National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS). The current database has over 25
million records.
One of the highlights of CICJIS is its use of electronic warrants. The electronic warrants feature was
implemented in the state in a phased approach, with a 90-day period of parallel processing during
which both paper warrants and electronic warrants were used.13 The system supports five types of
warrants to be entered in CCIC:
• Pre-CICJIS felony/misdemeanor/traffic warrants
• Municipal court warrants
• Denver County Court warrants
• CICJIS felony and domestic violence warrants
• CICJIS misdemeanor/traffic warrants
Most electronic warrants have automatic expiration dates. For misdemeanor warrants, the judge
will typically specify when a warrant is to be purged from the system. For felony warrants, the
system automatically withdraws a warrant when the statute of limitations for the charged offense
expires. When this occurs the system sends an automatic notification to all appropriate agencies.
13
Implementation of the electronic warrants began in February 1999. Colorado spent 18 months on the first county to fix
the problems that developed, and have since brought all but 3 of the state’s 64 counties on line. The remaining three
counties will be on line in March 2002.

Felonies for which there is no statute of limitations can only be withdrawn by manual
intervention.
CICJIS fully supports the five state agencies named above, but to reach its full potential it must allow
for inclusion of many local systems as well. The state recognizes this and is expanding the system so
that a wider range of users can take advantage of its many capabilities.
3.2.2 Michigan
The State of Michigan has various types of automated systems to support the courts and law
enforcement agencies in the management, recording and transmitting of criminal related information
such as warrant information. All the counties have access to the Michigan Law Enforcement
Information Network (LEIN), a statewide computerized information system, which was established
July 1, 1967 as a service to Michigan’s criminal justice agencies. The goal of LEIN is to assist the
criminal justice community in the performance of its duties by providing and maintaining a
computerized filing system of accurate and timely documented criminal justice information readily
available to all criminal justice agencies. While, the Michigan State Police (MSP), Administrative
Services Bureau, Criminal Justice Information Center has overall responsibility for LEIN, the local
law enforcement agency that originates the warrant is responsible for the accuracy of its data.
The LEIN system is available in every county in Michigan. It may be hosted in the prosecutor’s
office, the sheriff’s office, the city or county police offices, or in all of them. It is purely a matter of
cost. Access is via a fat client to the UNISYS mainframe computer over secured leased
communications lines. Some law enforcement agencies access LEIN from cars via mobile data
terminals (MDT), while others call a central dispatch center via radio and the dispatcher accesses
LEIN and relays the information to the car. Other state agencies, such as the Department of Motor
Vehicles and the Medical Examiners Office, have access to LEIN and use it regularly. When applying
for a new driver’s license or vehicle license plates, individual’s names are checked again LEIN and
their address is updated. The Medical Examiners check death certificates against open warrants and
update LEIN to report the death of that person so the warrant can be withdrawn.
Legislation created LEIN and mandated its use; however, it has been so popular that there has been
no problem in achieving compliance. In addition to warrants, agencies have expanded LEIN to
contain data on missing persons, protection orders, and mental health orders. LEIN is also accessed
while processing a firearm check and for a concealed weapons permit. The MSP have administrative
regulations that outline the functions of LEIN.
The State Police operate the LEIN Office and the infrastructure to support the law enforcement
agencies. Local jurisdictions purchase the hardware and vendor software to run LEIN, and pay for the
connections and monthly communications costs. This cost sharing arrangement is necessary because
the enabling legislation requires that the LEIN Office partially fund its UNISYS maintenance cost
through users’ fees.
Regarding the warrants process itself, when a person goes to a law enforcement office to initiate a
complaint, he helps the officer fill out a complaint form, which the officer will later use to open an
investigation. Once the law enforcement officer is satisfied the complaint has merit, he fills out a
warrant request form and forwards it to the prosecutor, who processes it and issues the warrant after it
is signed by a judge. Then the warrant is returned to the law enforcement agency, either manually or
electronically, depending on the court’s automation capabilities, for entry into LEIN. The warrant is
then ready for service. Michigan does not provide a fee for serving warrants.
Michigan requires a standard warrant format for entry into LEIN. Warrants, both felony and
misdemeanor, entered into LEIN are NCIC 2000 compliant.

Because the data is always available in LEIN, Michigan does require that the entering agency be
available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to verify the warrant information. General instructions
are contained in the LEIN entry, such as, statewide pick up or advise and release if outside of stated
pick-up range. This visibility into warrants information also eliminates the problem of multiple arrests
of a single individual on one warrant.
Currently, over 50 percent of the Michigan Courts with records management systems or case
management systems can electronically pass formatted warrants data to LEIN. This is a one-way push
of information that can be accessed and read by many state agencies. The ownership of the warrant
data stays with the law enforcement agencies that entered the warrant, and they ultimately will be
responsible for removing it from LEIN. No central program exists for reviewing warrants, and no
purge action is taken without the local law enforcement agency making that decision. The LEIN
Office provides central quality control of data entered.
Interestingly, Michigan does not initially issue a warrant for bad checks. The offender is notified by
letter to settle the check and pay an administrative fee by a certain date, else a warrant will be issued.
The law enforcement officers the Project Team contacted assert that Arrest Warrants are usually
served in a timely manner, but that backlogs of Bench Warrants tend to build up.
Michigan has created an environment where state agencies have access to law enforcement
information and willingly seek to use that information in their daily operations. The state hopes to
expand the connectivity to every law enforcement agency in the state. The state also plans to take
advantage of technologies such as the Internet to further empower its users.
3.2.3 Virginia
The Commonwealth of Virginia uses the Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN) for many of
its information management needs. The VCIN functions as a service facility under the management
control of the Virginia Department of State Police, providing operational support to the entire
criminal justice community. The primary mission of VCIN is to provide a means of rapid
communications for criminal justice agencies throughout the Commonwealth.
Information is made available through a network. The VCIN allows users access to data files, and
databases maintained by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the NCIC. In
addition, VCIN accesses the NLETS. The law of the Commonwealth of Virginia regulates
membership to the VCIN system. The system is available to any department or division of state
government meeting the definition of a criminal justice agency. Use of the VCIN system does not
require an access fee. The system currently serves as the criminal justice message switch and serves
almost 4,200 workstations throughout the Commonwealth.
The current magistrate system is hosted on a personal computer operating in a standalone
environment where charges are entered and warrants and orders are printed. Charges are saved on a
floppy disk and imported into the Case Management System (CMS) of the Courts Automated
Information System (CAIS) to reduce data entry errors and save time when a defendant is arraigned.
The warrant system in Virginia is standard across all jurisdictions. Warrants can be sworn by a
Prosecutor or law enforcement officer and taken to a judge for signature. Warrants can be signed
either by a magistrate, judge or court clerk. In order to make an arrest on a warrant, law enforcement
officers are not required to have a copy of an arrest warrant in their possession. Officers can detain a
suspect until the warrant can be served if they verify through the VCIN/NCIC there is an active
warrant for the individual they have in custody. Once the warrant has been confirmed by the entering
agency the warrant can be faxed to the jail or detention facility where the subject can be booked.

There is a standard warrant process, which includes: one for bench warrants, one for felony arrest,
and one for misdemeanor arrest. Although warrants are standard throughout the Commonwealth, each
jurisdiction has the discretion to change the format. These are paper warrants that can be filled out by
hand or type written. Warrants information can be teletyped to other jurisdictions. All warrants are
NCIC 2000 compliant.
Courts have access to case and warrant information via the Virginia Judicial System Home Page on
the Internet. Clerks have the ability to query by name, county, court, etc., to get information on a
particular case. Information pertaining to warrants is only available on the web site if a case has been
established.
One of the drawbacks to the current system is the lack of shared information. An example is that
some law enforcement agencies use databases designed in-house for tracking of warrants information.
This information is not shared with other law enforcement agencies. Other drawbacks include lack of
automation; most Information Technology (IT) equipment and services are funded locally, thus, there
is considerable disparity in what is available from one jurisdiction to another. In addition, while the
magistrates like the warrant formats used they feel there is too much information required on a
warrant. In addition, magistrates note that the various information systems are not networked so there
is no single source for warrants information available to all court and law enforcement personnel.
The current Magistrate system, which was developed in 1995, has a planned upgrade in the future.
Once the current Magistrate system is reengineered, it will generate an Offense Tracking Number
(OTN) and will utilize a uniform charging table. The new system will include a central database and
communications will be upgraded to electronically transfer charges to the CMS without the manual
floppy transfer. In addition, new data structures will be based on standards approved for a statewide
criminal justice data dictionary. The graphical user interfaces will be replaced or enhanced to reflect
the OTN and other data structures. Charges will then be transmitted from Magistrates to a central
database in real time.
3.2.4 Washington
The State of Washington has several software applications for the courts and law enforcement
agencies to use for case management and the recording and transmitting of warrants information. 14
All courts and law enforcement agencies have online access via a statewide intranet to the hot files
(called WACIC [Washington Crime Information Center]) through the message switch (called
ACCESS [A Central Computerized Enforcement Support System]).15 All users pay a transaction-
based fee to use ACCESS. The Washington State Patrol (WSP) has overall responsibility for
WACIC, but the originating agency is responsible for its data.
ACCESS includes a standard format (teletype warrant) for bench and arrest warrants that users can
fill out through use of a template and send as an administrative message. The warrant (template) can
then be printed out or transmitted electronically via ACCESS to others, who can then print it out if
desired. In order to make an arrest on a warrant, law enforcement officers are not required to have a
copy of the warrant in their possession if they:
1. Verify through descriptors in the record received from WACIC/NCIC that they have the
correct person detained
14
Washington has an Intra-Government Network (IGN) that is used by virtually all state government agencies to conduct
business. Although not a criminal justice network, the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) is accessed
through IGN. Users pay a fee for access to IGN.
15
WACIC is a subsystem of WASIS, the Washington State Identification System, its criminal history system.

2. Contact the entering agency to verify extradition, if applicable, and that the warrant is still
outstanding.
Once the warrant has been confirmed, the teletype warrant can be sent via ACCESS from the entering
agency to the facility where the arrested subject will be booked. The entering agency will retain a
copy of the original signed warrant.
The state does not require a standard warrant format but does require that a minimum amount of
information be included on the warrant. Warrants, both felony and misdemeanor, in the wanted
persons hot files, contained in WACIC, are NCIC compliant. Washington also follows NCIC rules
regarding periodic validation of warrants.
The state does require that the entering agency be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to
verify the warrant information. In addition, only the entering agency can update or close out a
warrant.
The courts have several software applications for case management and warrants tracking at their
disposal. The Administrative Office of the Courts, Information Services Division, manages the
Judicial Information System (JIS) that
…provides case management automation to courts in Washington State. It includes
systems for appellate, superior, limited jurisdiction and juvenile courts. Its two-fold
purpose is: (1) to automate and support the daily operations of the courts and (2) to
maintain a statewide network connecting the courts and partner criminal justice
agencies to the JIS database. The benefits of this approach are the reduction of the
overall cost of automation and access to accurate statewide history information for
criminal, domestic violence, and protection order history.
The principal JIS clients are judicial officers, court managers, and other court staff.
Other clients include users from the state’s Departments of Corrections and
Licensing, the Washington State Patrol and other law enforcement agencies,
prosecutors, public defenders, the media, and law firms.16
Over 10,000 users access data on the JIS, including judges, court staff, attorneys, law enforcement,
and private sector businesses. JIS is the prevalent case management system in Washington and it is
available to all the 200-plus courts in the state, and all but a few use it for their case management
function.17 Bench warrant data is also available on JIS.
Individual court systems have their own standalone information management systems. At the
appellate level, the Washington Court of Appeals uses the Appellate Court Record and Data System
(ACORDS). The County Superior Courts use the Superior Court Management Information System
(SCOMIS) and the District and Municipal Courts use the District Court Information System
(DISCIS). These systems are used for general court administration and some warrant information is
maintained on them. One of the chief benefits of these systems is that prosecutors can query the
systems and see if an individual is wanted elsewhere in the state, although this would require several
queries because the systems are not connected. This visibility into warrants information also helps
minimize the problem of multiple arrests of a single individual on one warrant.
Regarding the warrants process itself, Washington’s practice is typical of other states. Warrants can
be sworn to by citizens or law enforcement officials, drawn up by prosecutors, and signed by a judge
16
Source: Washington Courts website; http://www.courts.wa.gov/jis/home
17
The Seattle Municipal Court and the Pierce County Superior Court use their own case management systems, as do
several “limited jurisdiction” courts throughout the state.

or court commissioner. All warrants are turned over to law enforcement agencies for service. 18 Some
police departments and sheriffs’ offices form special teams whose only function is warrant service.
These teams are typically formed only as required to keep large backlogs from developing.
One of the drawbacks to the system in use in Washington today is that there is no electronic interface
between the courts’ systems and WACIC, the law enforcement hot files. Currently, when the courts
pass the warrants to the law enforcement agencies, the law enforcement officers must enter the
warrants information into WACIC, even though the data was previously entered into one of the
courts’ systems. This double entry of data is time consuming and prone to error. Thus, the state is in
the process of procuring a system that will provide an electronic interface among these various
systems.
Another drawback to the current system is the reluctance of law enforcement officers to enter
warrants data into WACIC if they intend to serve the warrant right away. The problem arises if the
officer is not able to serve the warrant and forgets to enter the warrant into the system. Law
enforcement officers in other jurisdictions thus have no insight into the status of that warrant.
One initiative Washington is pursuing is full use of electronic warrants through document imaging.
The document imaging under consideration can take two forms:
1. A paper warrant is scanned into the database and its picture is electronically stored and
transmitted, as required
2. The warrant exists in electronic form only, with the judge’s signature being digitally encoded
In this version, the judge signs the warrant electronically, and his or her electronic signature would
have the same force and effect as the handwritten signature on a paper warrant.
Finally, Washington State has embraced electronic government, and government agencies are
encouraged to take full advantage of information technology to better serve the public.19 Because of
this, the Project Team found that users are optimistic about future initiatives to further automate their
warrants system.
3.2.5 New York City
New York City, with a population of over 8 million, is larger than some states. Though its population
is compressed into a relatively small geographical area, the city has many of the same problems states
have in terms of the efficiency of its law enforcement and judicial functions. The New York City
Police Department (NYCPD) alone has 45,000 sworn officers distributed at over 90 sites in 76
precincts. The NYCPD officers make over 1,000 arrests a day.
The city’s warrants system was overburdened, and it could take days for a warrant to be processed
and weeks for it to be served. A large backlog of active, un-served warrants developed. The city’s
response to this problem was to implement an automated warrants system, formally called the
Automated DB2 Warrant System (ADW). The ADW system replaced the legacy booking, warrants,
and investigation management systems. Key features of the ADW system include:
• Rapid Issuance and Distribution of Warrants – The system is able to generate and issue a
warrant in minutes, rather than days. Warrant data is electronically submitted from the courts,
instead of being entered manually at the police department, so the risk of false arrest due to
outdated data is greatly reduced. Business rules coded into the system allow ADW to
automatically generate and electronically distribute the warrants to the appropriate precinct or
18
Superior Court Criminal Rules (CrR) 2.2 and Criminal Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CrRLJ) 2.2
19
For more information of the use of electronic government initiatives in Washington, see www.wa.gov/dis

borough. In addition, before issuing the warrant, the system verifies the last-known address of
the individual named in the warrant.20
• Automated Notification – The ADW automatically provides an electronic notification of
new or modified warrants to the responsible precinct or borough.
• Phonetic Name Search – ADW incorporates a phonetic name search capability with less
than two-second response time. The phonetic name search algorithm, which includes many of
the features currently used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) fingerprint
identification systems, provides the capability to retrieve a list of candidates without regard to
the order of first and last name, with multiple surnames, with a wild card for first name, with
partial last names, and with sound-alike equivalents. A benefit of this phonetic name search
algorithm is a reduction in false identifications and arrests.
• Sealing and Unsealing of Warrants, Photos, and Investigation Records – ADW has the
capability of supporting the National Fingerprint File (NFF) requirements for restricting the
dissemination of arrest information via rap sheets and system responses for those arrests that
had been sealed at the state level. The system also supports the unsealing of records.
• Electronic Interfaces – The system incorporates an electronic interface to the state Division
of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). DCJS, in turn, interfaces with the FBI’s Interstate
Identification Index (III), NCIC, and NLETS. Likewise, ADW includes electronic interfaces
to state and federal court systems. This feature eliminates the requirement for double entry of
data by court and law enforcement agencies to support their separate systems.
• Photo Imaging System – One of the most useful capabilities of ADW that goes beyond
typical warrants systems is its incorporation of a digitized photo imaging system for
electronic transfer of mugshots with the warrant. The digitized photo, which replaces
standard Polaroid or 35mm photographs, is maintained in a centralized database. In addition
to allowing the simple transfer of the digitized photo, the system allows the photo to be
imbedded into the warrant itself, so that when the warrant is viewed on a computer, or printed
from the computer, the photo is an integral part of the warrant. This feature provides for an
increased accuracy in identification of the person named in the warrant at time of arrest.
The photo imaging system supports a variety of printer options ranging from economical black and
white printers utilizing standard copier paper for the production of internal jail cards, warrants, and
other agency defined forms, to large format color printers used for suspect prints and photo lineups
used in court cases. Joint Photography Experts Group (JPEG) compression standards are used to
reduce the image storage and transmission needs of the digitized photos.
• Strict Access Control – The ADW system administrators determine what functions are
available to different personnel and workstations. Through a single designated system
console, the system administrators can assign and identify specific functions each operator or
terminal is authorized to perform. Hierarchical security levels controlled by the system
administrators are provided in the system, ranging from the lowest level that allows read-only
access to data to the highest level that permits a complete reorganization of data.
• Audit Trail Functions – The system includes audit trail features that ensure adequate
documentation of database records review and changes. As such, it maintains all the
information collected by a police officer while investigating a warrant. It provides an
20
The system verifies the address by checking it against a database to ensure that the address physically exists, not that
the named individual lives there. For example, ADW can verify that there is a residence at 123 Main Street, but it
cannot verify that John Doe actually lives there.

automated checklist to assist the officer in conducting the investigation, and it allows an
investigation to be assigned to another officer, or even precinct, without losing any of the
history of the investigation.
The Automated DB2 Warrant System has greatly streamlined the warrants process for the New York
City Police Department. Some documented benefits of the system include:
• Reduction in the time for issuance of a felony warrant from up to 10 days to less than 1 day
• Reduction in the time for issuance of a misdemeanor warrant from several weeks to less than
1 day
• Reduction of the time to distribute the physical warrant from up to 5 days to less than 1 day
• Reduction in the risk of false arrest due to outdated or erroneous data
The most significant benefit of the ADW system is its overall efficiency, especially as measured by a
police officer’s time. Police officers now have more time to devote to patrol and investigative duties,
and when they need access to warrants data, it is available.

4.0 ISSUES
The Project Team identified 12 factors that bear upon the efficiency of the warrants and summonses
processes used in Kentucky. Clearly, there are more than a dozen factors, or issues, that can be
identified. In developing the 12 issues described in this section, the Project Team focused on those
that have the most widespread acceptance. In other words, there is general agreement among those
involved in the warrants process that these are the major issues, and that resolving these will go a
long way toward improving the system.
Some of the issues identified could be viewed as “facts-of-life” that do not merit mention because
there is little that can be done about them under the current system. However, the Project Team
believes that if its recommendation for process improvements and better use of automation is
implemented that all of these issues will be addressed and their adverse effects on the warrants and
summonses processes will be mitigated.
The 12 issues are summarized below.
4.1 Timeliness of Serving Warrants

No consistent time standard for serving warrants across jurisdictions exists; therefore, it is impossible
to objectively measure the timeliness of serving warrants. Yet, most agree that timeliness is a
problem. Some individuals point to the existence of backlogs of warrants to be served as evidence
that they are not served in a timely manner. However, this is not a good measure either. For instance,
the often-cited backlog of 70,000 warrants in Louisville and Jefferson County was more a function of
how warrants were issued than of the timeliness of their being served.21
The lack of timeliness is, in part, a function of incomplete or inaccurate reporting of the status of a
given warrant, the inability of interested parties to get current information regarding a warrant’s
status, the priority the serving agent placed on serving the warrant, and the like. The factors that
impact timeliness are recurring themes that are addressed in the Project Team’s recommendation.
4.2 Labor-Intensive Process

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

In the Commonwealth the warrants processes are largely paper based. The warrant itself is a paper
document that is, in most cases, completed by hand using a preprinted form. In many jurisdictions,
especially the smaller or more rural jurisdictions, status of the warrants is maintained in paper
21
Louisville and Jefferson County used an “incident-based” system rather than a “person-based” system. In an incident-
based system multiple warrants can be issued against a single individual, whereas in a person-based system a single
warrant is issued against an individual and the warrant might have multiple counts or specifications for multiple
offenses.

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

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

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

A strong, recurring theme is the absence of centralized responsibility and accountability for the
warrants process itself. At the local level, the problem arises when warrants are lost or misplaced,
when their status cannot be determined, and when large backlogs of un-served warrants develop.
Determining how the system broke down as the warrants move through the warrants process lifecycle
can be difficult. Responsibility tends to follow the warrant itself, with no individual or agency
assuming overall responsibility for the process. Formalizing business rules or policy guidance at the
local level, with requirements for each individual in the process to log his actions and report the status
of warrants, would go a long way toward solving this problem
At the state level, the problem is institutional, and it has been reinforced in the two statewide warrants
information systems – KY Courts and LINK. Information on Bench Warrants is maintained in KY
Courts and information on Arrest Warrants is maintained in LINK, and there is little support within
the Commonwealth to modifying the existing systems to facilitate assigning responsibility for
warrants to a single agency.
4.7 Lack of Statutory or Regulatory Guidance

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

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

jurisdictions maintain status of warrants in paper ledgers or in custom-designed electronic files that
reside on a single desktop computer. Information regarding warrants is often requested and provided
over the telephone.
As the Commonwealth moves to automate some functions of the warrants process it will become
necessary to develop formal business rules regarding which individuals will have the authority and
responsibility to input information into the system, who can disseminate the information, and who
will have access to it.
4.9 Lack of Information Technology Resources and Training in their Use

There is a wide disparity in the availability of IT resources – computers, network interfaces, software,
document scanners, and Internet access – to the various judicial and law enforcement agencies in the
Commonwealth. The larger agencies such as the KSP, the courts, the AOC, and some of the larger
municipal police departments and sheriffs’ departments have adequate IT infrastructure to take
advantage of the benefits of office automation. Some have dedicated IT staff to help in this regard.
However, many of the smaller agencies have very limited IT resources, and the staff trained in their
use is limited to a few clerks or administrative support staff. Although the Project Team did not
observe this, it was told that some of the smaller, rural police departments and sheriffs’ offices do not
have computers and/or Internet access. Reportedly, they cannot afford to purchase them and train
their people in their use; nor could they afford the modest fees to secure access to the Internet.
It is understood that LINK will play a key role in any future statewide enhancement to the warrants
process. Currently, however, access to LINK is limited. Only 63 police departments, municipal and
county, have direct LINK access. Twenty-five KSP sites and 25 dispatch centers, and 12 (of 120)
sheriffs’ offices have direct LINK access. In addition, there are 14 LINK terminals available to AOC
(Probation and Parole).22
4.10 Lack of Statewide Data

The Commonwealth does not collect statistics on warrants for Kentucky as a whole. This is because
no established mechanism exists for doing so, and local jurisdictions are not required to report
statistics to the Commonwealth.
This is an issue because it is difficult to gauge the health of the warrants process statewide without
some meaningful metrics being established and tracked. The success of any Commonwealth initiative
to improve the warrants process will depend to some extent upon the ability to collect statistics to
measure progress.
4.11 Inconsistent Standards for Initiating and Serving a Warrant

A number of individuals told the Project Team that the standards for issuing a warrant were
inconsistent among jurisdictions, and that this was a concern. For example, one jurisdiction might
issue warrants for writing bad checks while another would not. This could be attributed to the fact
that each jurisdiction has its own set of local ordinances, and violation of a local ordinance could
result in a warrant being issued. Thus, because ordinances differ from one jurisdiction to another, the
offenses that can result in a warrant being issued will differ as well.
In addition, the warrant forms in some jurisdictions varied and/or the information supplied on the
warrants were different or not as complete. Some warrants were issued with the bare minimum of
information on the warrant while others had all required fields completed. The Project Team found
that this difference in standards exists both within and among jurisdictions.
22
Source: Commander of Computer Technologies, Kentucky State Police.

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

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

5.0 ALTERNATIVES
The UCJIS Project Team performed a review in a number of counties throughout the Commonwealth
of Kentucky of the current warrants and summons processes and the technology that currently
supports them. Under the existing processes, warrants and summonses are issued, delivered to serving
agents, tracked, served, and closed. Most of the processes are paper based, while some are automated.
No standard exists statewide and the information and processes are not integrated for statewide access
to information. Therefore, various agencies and their personnel are unable to share vital law
enforcement data across the Commonwealth. This has jeopardized the timely, accurate, and up-to-
date distribution of information and serving of warrants and summonses.
Based on this study and the findings of the Project Team, a number of possible alternative courses of
action were developed. They are:
• Do nothing and keep the existing processes/systems
• Keep the existing system but implement process improvements
• Keep the existing system and implement process improvements with the addition of some
minimal technology improvements
• Implement a fully integrated and automated e-documents solution
Below is a summary description of the alternatives with their advantages and disadvantages for the
Commonwealth.
• Alternative 1 – Do nothing and keep the existing processes/systems
The current system for issuing warrants and summonses is paper-based with automated processes
in certain counties. Warrants and summonses are issued, delivered to serving agents, tracked,
served, and closed. This current process is labor intensive, paper intensive, partially automated,
and not standardized across the Commonwealth. Individuals are not able to share electronically
vital law enforcement data across and within all law enforcement agencies in the Commonwealth.
Advantages to this alternative are that the status quo is maintained, users will not have to adjust to
new processes or technology, and the Commonwealth will not face significant capital outlays.
Disadvantages are that improvements to current processes will be incremental and localized.
Backlogs of un-served warrants will continue to develop, costly inefficiencies will remain, and
access to timely information about the status of warrants will be limited. There will be no
standardization across the Commonwealth and the goals of the UCJIS Program will not be
achieved. Most importantly, a number of wanted persons will remain at large.
• Alternative 2 – Keep the existing system but implement process improvements
This alternative would entail maintaining the current paper-based system but implementing some
process improvements. Process improvements would include standardizing procedures,
designating persons or agencies that are responsible for the process, and developing mechanisms
by which information sharing could be improved. Some statutory and/or regulatory changes
might be required. As with all significant process improvement, there would be a requirement for
personnel training and formal organizational change management.
If there are no technology improvements implemented, advantages to this alternative are limited
to those that would accrue due to the implementation of process improvements alone. Some
improvements, such as adopting a standard warrant format, strengthening the warrants review

process, and publicizing warrants information in local newspapers could result in savings in time
and money. Standardizing procedures would minimize uncertainty among users, reduce training
requirements, and build accountability into the system.
Disadvantages of the current paper-based system would remain, but would be mitigated by
incorporation of process improvements similar to those listed above.
• Alternative 3 – Keep the existing system and implement process improvements with the
addition of some minimal technology improvements
This alternative would be an improvement over Alternative 2 in that some additional technology
would be implemented. Technology improvements could include increased use of networked
databases or the Internet/intranet for timely status reporting and information sharing.
Advantages of this alternative over the second alternative are that still more efficiencies could be
achieved. Process improvements are important, but the addition of targeted technology
improvements would leverage the advantages of technology and automation to the benefit of the
Commonwealth. Kentucky could make better use of its existing systems – LINK and KY Courts
– to allow better information sharing among law enforcement agencies and courts personnel.
Providing greater access to LINK across the Commonwealth would be an excellent initiative, as
would allowing law enforcement officers to have online access to employment information on
individuals named in warrants.
One disadvantage to this alternative is that it would entail a significant investment on the part of
the Commonwealth to make the technology more widely available and train people in its use.
Staffing in local jurisdictions would have to be increased if additional LINK terminals were to be
provided. Again, this alternative would retain the paper-based system in use today, and some of
its inefficiencies would remain.
• Alternative 4 – Implement a fully integrated and automated e-documents solution
This alternative is the natural progression from the current paper-based system that is managed
locally to an integrated, automated system that is in keeping with the goal of the UCJIS Program.
Implementation of this alternative would move Kentucky to an e-documents system in which
warrants and summonses would be originated, processed, authenticated, transferred, and filed
electronically, with actual paper documents being created only at that point in the process
required by statute or regulation.
Advantages of this alternative would include minimizing the origination, transfer, and storage
requirements of warrants. It would leverage the many benefits of an automated, e-documents
system, such as added system and data security, reduction in errors due to manual intervention,
full sharing of information, real-time access to the status of documents, timeliness of actions, and
process and cost efficiencies. In addition, this alternative would easily facilitate the integration of
the Commonwealth’s data with other states in tracking and serving warrants.
The primary disadvantage of this alternative would be the significant increases in IT resources
required. This, in turn, would entail more training for all affected personnel. It would also disrupt
local ways of doing business, which could lead to discontent among the users.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION
After careful consideration, the Project Team recommends Kentucky implement process
improvements and migrate to an integrated, automated e-documents solution, as briefly described in
Alternative 4 above. Key features of the recommendation are:
• Formalize and standardize the warrants process across the Commonwealth (may need to
reorder these)
» Develop a standard format for Arrest and Bench Warrants
» Consider adopting a person-based warrants system versus an incident-based warrants
system
» Establish a timeliness standard for entry of warrants into LINK
» Strengthen the warrants review process
» Provide law enforcement agencies access to employment information on individuals
named in warrants
» Publicize active warrants in local newspapers
» Notify individuals by mail when a warrant is issued
• Implement a pilot project to validate key features of the automated warrants process
• Automate the warrants process
» Investigate future uses of digitized signatures
» Develop middleware or a web interface to make LINK and KY Courts warrant
information available to all authorized users
» Facilitate information sharing with Kentucky prisons and jails
• Commit to the long-term requirements in terms of staffing, training, funding, and ongoing
technical support
The Project Team believes this recommendation can be implemented over a three-year time period, as
shown in Exhibit 6-3.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Formalize & Standardize the Warrants Process
Implement a Pilot Project
Automate the Warrants Process
Commit to Long-Term Support
Exhibit 6-3: Implementation Timeline

As shown in Exhibit 6-3, the recommendation would be implemented sequentially, with some overlap
of key activities. This will allow Kentucky to lay the groundwork for implementing the automated

system by bringing stakeholders into the process in its early stages, working through the various steps
together and building institutional buy-in among the parties as the program progresses. Involvement
of stakeholders throughout the process will be necessary if implementing the recommendation is to be
successful.
In making its recommendation, the Project Team is aware that it cannot be implemented absent strong
leadership from a Commonwealth. Since the recommendation involves the courts and law
enforcement agencies, the Project Team recommends that the UCJIS Committee take the lead in
implementing the recommendation. To help the UCJIS Committee do this, two working groups
should be established: the Standards Working Group and the Processes Working Group. The two
working groups would report directly to the UCJIS Committee and would draw their membership
from the various stakeholders in the Commonwealth.
The functions of the working groups would be to flesh out the details necessary to implement the
Project Team’s recommendation. For instance, the Project Team has included a sample warrant
format in D. Whether the Commonwealth decides to adopt the format provided herein or develop
formats on its own would be an issue the Standards Working Group would address. The Standards
Working Group would make a recommendation to the UCJIS Committee that, in turn, would approve
the recommendation or return it to the working group for further study. Actual implementation of the
recommendation would be the responsibility of the UCJIS Committee.
The individual components of the Project Team’s overall recommendation would be assigned to one
of the two working groups as shown in Exhibit 6-4. The pilot project would not be assigned to a
working group; it would be assigned to a specially chartered UCJIS Subcommittee as described in
Section 6.2.
Exhibit 6-4: Working Group Tasks and Membership
Component of Recommendation to be
Working Group Proposed Membership of Working Group
Addressed
• KY UCJIS Program Manager
• Develop a standard format for Arrest and • Justice Cabinet CIO
Bench Warrants • Representatives from:
• Adopt a person-based warrants system » KSP (Computer Technologies)
Standards versus an incident-based warrants system » AOC
Working Group • Establish a timeliness standard for entry » Kentucky Sheriff’s Association
of warrants into LINK » Kentucky Association of Chief’s of Police
• Develop an e-warrant that » Commonwealth’s and County Attorneys Offices
accommodates digitized signatures » Circuit and County Courts Clerks Offices
» Governor’s Office for Technology
• Strengthen the warrants review process • KY UCJIS Program Manager
• Provide law enforcement agencies • Justice Cabinet CIO
access to employment information on • Representatives from:
individuals named in warrants
» KSP (Computer Technologies)
• Publicize active warrants in local
» AOC
newspapers
» Kentucky Sheriff’s Association
Processes • Notify individuals by mail when a warrant
Working Group » Kentucky Association of Chief’s of Police
is issued
» Commonwealth’s and County Attorneys Offices
• Develop middleware or a web interface to
» Circuit and County Courts Clerks Offices
make LINK and KY Courts warrant
information available to all authorized users » Governor’s Office for Technology
» Kentucky Department of Corrections
• Facilitate the sharing of information
among law enforcement agencies, the » Jails
courts, and Kentucky prisons and jails » Kentucky Department for Employment Services

6.1 Formalize and Standardize the Warrants Process
The general consensus of those interviewed by the Project Team was that a standardized process and
standard warrant formats would be welcomed at the local level. Thus, warrants from one jurisdiction
would look the same and have the same information as warrants from another jurisdiction. This level
of standardization would still allow local jurisdictions to implement local rules to meet their needs.
It was also agreed that the standards would have to be established at the state level and presented to
local jurisdictions for adoption. The agency developing the standards should invite participation from
local courts and law enforcement agencies to ensure that their needs are taken into account. This
would facilitate the required buy-in on the part of local agencies to ensure the standardization
program succeeds.
The Project Team identified seven key steps that should be taken to formalize and standardize the
warrants process, as discussed below. We estimate these could take up to one year to complete, as
shown in Exhibit 6-5.
Formalize & Standardize the Warrants Process
Develop Standard Warrant Formats
Consider Adopting a Person-Based Warrants System
Establish a Timeliness Standard
Strengthen the Warrants Review Process
Provide LE Access to Employment Information
Publicize Warrants Information in Local Newspapers
Mail Notices to Individuals Named in Warrants
Exhibit 6-5: Formalize and Standardize the Warrants Process Timeline
6.1.1 Develop a Standard Format for Arrest and Bench Warrants

The Project Team found that within and among jurisdictions, various formats requiring different data
for warrants were being used. One standard format for each type of warrant should be developed for
use throughout the Commonwealth. The warrant formats should meet the requirements of the
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure and NCIC 2000.
It was suggested to the Project Team that the Kentucky Supreme Court should adopt a rule that
specifies standard warrant formats. Another individual expressed an alternative view, that the
Prosecutors Advisory Council (PAC) should take the lead in doing this. The attorney general chairs
the PAC, and the governor appoints its members. As the Commonwealth body charged with the
responsibility for administering the Unified Prosecutorial System, the PAC has the stature to do this.
Whichever state agency takes the lead, it would be advantageous to involve the Kentucky Sheriffs’
Association and the Kentucky Association of Chiefs of Police in the effort.
An example of a Warrant of Arrest on Indictment is included in D. This warrant format is developed
in Microsoft Word as a template, such that the user can fill out the warrant in the computer and print

it or transmit the completed warrant electronically to be printed out at another location. The warrant
template can also be printed and filled out by hand. Whatever format the Commonwealth selects, the
Project Team recommends that it be adopted as the standard AOC format and be available for
download through KY Courts. The warrants should also be given a formal form number (e.g., AOC-
S-123.1). Users would then have three ways to obtain the Commonwealth standard warrant:
1. Download it from KY Courts
2. Print the warrant from the Microsoft Word template
3. Order a supply of paper warrants by reference to the form number assigned to it
6.1.2 Consider Adopting a Person-Based Warrants System
An incident-based warrants system is one in which a separate warrant is issued for each incident
involving a single individual, whereas a person-based system is one in which a single warrant is
issued and it has multiple counts or specifications for each incident. The latter system results in fewer
warrants being issued, fewer warrants being tracked, and fewer warrants being served. Large
backlogs of un-served warrants are less likely to accrue with a person-based system.
Both systems are in use in the Commonwealth today. The Project Team recommends that Kentucky
consider adopting a person-based warrants system for use throughout the Commonwealth. This could
be phased in over time, with some grace period given for conversion of existing warrants to the
person-based system. However, if adopted, at some specified date, all new warrants should comply
with the requirements of a person-based system.
6.1.3 Establish a Timeliness Standard
A critical element of any statewide, standardized warrants process will be the development of a
timeliness standard for law enforcement agencies to enter warrants information in LINK. No standard
currently exists, and it is left to the discretion of the warrants entering agency when to enter a warrant
into the system, if at all. This will be unacceptable for a statewide system because it will complicate
the effort to accumulate statistical information, and it will taint any decisions that are made based
upon those statistics.
The Project Team recommends that a statewide standard be established and adopted by all law
enforcement agencies in the Commonwealth. For example, the standard could be:
• All felony warrants that have not been served within 7 days of issue will be entered into
LINK
• All misdemeanor warrants that have not been served within 30 days of issue will be entered
into LINK
The important point is not that the Commonwealth adopt the 7- and 30-day standards cited here, but
that it establish a uniform standard and encourage law enforcement agencies to adhere to it.
6.1.4 Strengthen the Warrants Review Process
Unserved warrants can linger for years, and the Project Team found a wide variance in the size of the
warrants backlog among jurisdictions. The apparent standard for initiating a review of the active
warrants file is when the backlog of un-served warrants exceeds a certain comfort level or when there
is a change of leadership.
This ad hoc approach to reviewing warrants will not support the Commonwealth’s effort to determine
the size of the warrants backlog and draw reasonable inferences based upon that backlog. The

warrants that are loaded into NCIC must meet NCIC 2000 standards for validation, which state that
all warrants will be validated 90 days after they are input into NCIC and every 12 months thereafter.
The Project Team recommends that Kentucky adopt this validation schedule for all its warrants. This
will ensure that every warrant is reviewed annually, and that those that remain active for years are
valid warrants that cannot be withdrawn. Exhibit 6-6 shows the recommend warrants validation
schedule.
Exhibit 6-6: Recommended Warrants Validation Schedule
Month Warrant is Issued Month Warrant is First Validated Month of Subsequent Warrant Validations
January April, same year April, every year thereafter
February May, same year May, every year thereafter
March June, same year June, every year thereafter
April July, same year July, every year thereafter
May August, same year August, every year thereafter
June September, same year September, every year thereafter
July October, same year October, every year thereafter
August November, same year November, every year thereafter
September December, same year December, every year thereafter
October January, next year January, every year thereafter
November February, next year February, every year thereafter
December March, next year March, every year thereafter
6.1.5 Provide Law Enforcement Agencies Access to Employment Information

Law enforcement officers typically try to serve warrants at the individual’s address of record.
However, many wanted persons move frequently or have no fixed address. In those cases, the law
enforcement officer will try to get the individual’s work address and serve the warrant there. Work
addresses can be obtained from several sources, but the most appropriate source for this information
is the Kentucky Department for Employment Services.23
Access to this information should be online, and access would be limited to law enforcement dispatch
centers, or to selected people in the law enforcement agency having primary responsibility for serving
warrants in the county. The officer would query the Department of Employment Services database on
a case-by-case basis, only for those hard-to-serve warrants after several unsuccessful attempts to
serve the warrant at the individual’s address of record.
6.1.6 Publicize Active Warrants in Local Newspapers
Publicizing certain hard-to-serve felony warrants in local newspapers could make them easier to serve
by getting the local citizenry involved. Local jurisdictions could request free space in the newspaper
for this. However, it would be important for the courts to indemnify the newspaper from liability
resulting from publishing the warrant information. Otherwise, it is unlikely the newspaper would be
willing to participate in this practice.
6.1.7 Notify Individuals by Mail When a Warrant is Issued
The Project Team recommends that the Commonwealth notify people by mail when a warrant is
issued, informing the individual of the nature of the offense that caused the warrant to be issued and
23
This was a recommendation of the Louisville-Jefferson County Crime Commission’s Warrant Process Committee. The
Project Team finds this preferable to calling the Attorney General’s Office and asking for an individual’s work address,
which is how one sheriff’s office gets this information.

the actions the individual must take to clear the warrant. In many cases, a simple post card will
suffice. Many people will respond to the notice and take action to clear the warrant on their own
volition, thus relieving law enforcement officers from having to serve the warrant and take the
individual into custody.24
6.2 Implement a Pilot Project

As an interim step toward implementing a streamlined, standardized warrants system throughout the
Commonwealth, the Project Team recommends that a pilot project be undertaken. The pilot project
would be limited in scope and objective, and would serve to validate the proposed information
sharing mechanism and the use of standardized warrant formats.
The pilot project would require participation from the following agencies:
• Kentucky UCJIS Committee (provide executive-level oversight to the pilot project; charter a
subcommittee to lead the pilot project effort)
• Administrative Office of the Courts (collect Bench Warrant data from participating counties
and transmit it to KSP)
• Kentucky State Police (receive county Bench Warrant data from AOC and post it to LINK)
• Commonwealth’s and County Attorneys
• Prosecutors Advisory Council (for prototyping the prosecutors’ support application)
• Courts (circuit and county) and law enforcement agencies in participating counties (courts to
provide Bench Warrant data to AOC through Sustain or KY Courts, and law enforcement
agencies to gain access to Bench Warrant data from LINK and act upon it. Law enforcement
agencies would also use the standard Arrest Warrant and upload the Arrest Warrant into
LINK)
The pilot project would be limited to a maximum of three counties. The UCJIS Committee would
determine the selection criteria for the participating counties (e.g., rural or urban, large [by
population] or small, etc.). The participating counties would agree to have their Bench Warrant
information transmitted periodically to KSP for loading into LINK. The KSP and the law
enforcement agencies in the participating counties would then have online access to Bench Warrant
data through their LINK connections. The law enforcement agencies would also enter Arrest Warrant
data into LINK and use the standard Arrest Warrant format.
The AOC would consolidate the Bench Warrant data from CourtNet and transmit this data to KSP
twice a day.25 KSP would receive this data transfer and post it to LINK. Law enforcement officers
would have access to this Bench Warrant data and would be authorized to act upon it. In order for this
to work, two conditions must be met, and these would apply to the pilot project and any subsequent
statewide implementation. First, KSP would have to accept the Bench Warrant data as transmitted
from AOC as being valid, without taking any independent steps to validate it.26 Second, law
enforcement officers would not have access to actual copies of the Bench Warrants from the other
24
For some, the mail notice is the first indication that a warrant has been issued. The Project Team learned of one
individual who received a notice in the mail from another state regarding an unpaid traffic violation. Knowing that a
Bench Warrant had been issued the individual promptly contacted the clerk of the court and resolved the matter.
25
The frequency of data transmissions might be different in statewide implementation, but twice a day is a reasonable
target for the pilot project, and can be supported by AOC. In addition, AOC indicates it could transmit all case file
information or limit its data transfer to just warrants information. The Project Team recommends that for the pilot
project only warrants information be transmitted.
26
AOC recognizes that this places an extra burden on court clerks to ensure that the data they report through Sustain or
KY Courts is valid and up to date.

jurisdictions. Thus, in the unlikely event that the Bench Warrant data transmitted by AOC and entered
into LINK by KSP contained invalid warrants, the law enforcement officers would need to be
indemnified against any legal action that could result from them serving an invalid warrant.
The pilot project would also prototype a support application for Commonwealth’s and County
Attorneys.27 The prototype would not be a full case management system as described in the UCJIS
Implementation Plan, but it would automate creation of the warrant and tracking of its status. The
Project Team recommends that for the prototype the prosecutors use the standard warrant as
described in Section 6.1.1. Select an application for the prototype (e.g., Microsoft Word,
WordPerfect, etc.) and provide it to the prosecutors’ offices that participate in the pilot project. Once
the prosecutor fills out the warrant template on the computer, the warrant could be e-mailed to the
judge or court clerk for printing and signature, or it could be saved to a secure folder on a shared
network for retrieval by the judge or clerk. For jurisdictions where e-mail and/or an intranet are not
available, the warrants could be saved to a floppy disk and provided to the courts for signature on a
daily basis. One of the goals of the pilot project would be to determine the best way to do this.
Another goal of the pilot project would be to determine the most effective way for the prosecutors to
gain access to warrants information. One way to do this would be to allow prosecutors access to
LINK so they could get information on Arrest and Bench Warrants for the counties participating in
the pilot. Depending on the counties selected to participate in the pilot project, this might require that
additional LINK terminals be installed to facilitate this prototype effort.
Rules would have to be promulgated for the pilot project, and this would be done through a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would include all the participating agencies as
signatories. For instance, a standard time period (e.g., 30 days) for entering Arrest Warrant
information into LINK would have to be adopted.
Over the course of the pilot project, the KSP would gather relevant statistics and report them to the
UCJIS subcommittee leading the pilot project effort. At the conclusion of the pilot project, the
subcommittee would develop a final report with lessons learned and recommendations, and submit it
to the full Kentucky UCJIS Committee.
The 15-month pilot project would fall within the overall 3-year period to implement this
recommendation as shown in Exhibit 6-7.
Implement a Pilot Project
Exhibit 6-7: Implement a Pilot Project Timeline

The Project Team has identified the major activities necessary to implement the pilot project. These
activities, along with a short description of what they entail and the agency responsible for
accomplishing the activity, are shown in the Exhibit 6-8.
27
This is a planned future project in the UCJIS Implementation Plan. Prototyping it as part of this pilot project will give
the Commonwealth a head start should it decide to deploy such an application. See UCJIS Implementation Plan,
Revision 1, August 10, 2001.

Exhibit 6-8: Pilot Project Activities
Responsible Supporting
Activity Description
Agency Agencies
Select counties to It will be necessary to determine which counties will KY UCJIS AOC, KSP
participate participate in the pilot project. Committee
Charter a UCJIS While the full UCJIS Committee will provide executive- KY UCJIS AOC, KSP, circuit
subcommittee level oversight, it will be necessary to charter a Committee and county courts,
subcommittee to manage the pilot project. The Commonwealth’s
subcommittee should have members from all and County
participating agencies. Attorneys, county
law enforcement
agencies
Develop a MOU This pilot project will require the willing cooperation of KY UCJIS AOC, KSP, circuit
all participants. An MOU will have to be written and Subcommittee and county courts,
adopted by all participating agencies. The MOU should Commonwealth’s
address: and County
• Authority for the project Attorneys, county
law enforcement
• Project period of performance
agencies
• Project objectives
• Participating agencies/counties
• Roles and responsibilities
• Project funding28
• Requirements
» Warrants formats29
» Data content and format
» Frequency of data transmissions
» Personnel authorizations
» 30-day rule for data entry to LINK
» Reporting
Specify data content The MOU will state the need for the data content and AOC and KSP N/A
and format format to be agreed to before the start of the pilot
project.
Conduct trial data Before commencing the pilot project, it will be AOC and KSP N/A
transfers and receipts necessary to ensure that the necessary Bench
Warrants data can be transmitted, received, and input
to LINK.
Prototype a support Provide a software application for creating the Commonwealth’s PAC, AOC, and
application for standard warrant and a means for prosecutors to track and County KSP, circuit and
prosecutors the status of warrants Attorneys county courts
Provide training Training will have to be provided to the various KY UCJIS All
participants in the pilot project. Statistics on the type Subcommittee
and amount of training provided during the pilot will
help Kentucky estimate training needs when statewide
implementation takes place
Develop performance It will be necessary to develop statistics so the KY UCJIS AOC, KSP, circuit
statistics and assign performance of the pilot system can be assessed. As Subcommittee and county courts,
responsible agency the project progresses it might be necessary to revise Commonwealth’s
the list of statistics. Once it is determined what and County
statistics are appropriate, it will be necessary to Attorneys, county
determine which agency is best able to collect them law enforcement
and report on them. agencies
Hold pilot project One week before the pilot project is to commence, it KY UCJIS N/A
kickoff meeting will be necessary to hold a kickoff meeting to ensure Subcommittee
that all participants are aware of their responsibilities
and are ready to begin
Pilot project start Self explanatory All
28
There may be a requirement for participating agencies to receive funding support for this pilot project. This should be
addressed in the MOU.
29
The Project Team recommends that the pilot project use the standard warrant formats developed in Section 6.1.1.

Exhibit 6-8: Pilot Project Activities
Responsible Supporting
Activity Description
Agency Agencies
Collect and report Self explanatory As determined by As required
performance statistics the KY UCJIS
Subcommittee
Midterm review Halfway through the pilot project implementation it KY UCJIS N/A
would be helpful to hold a review to discuss progress, Subcommittee
review statistics, and implement any midterm
corrections necessary.
Develop lessons At project completion it will be necessary for all All
learned participating agencies to develop a list of lessons
learned for inclusion in a final report
Prepare and deliver It will be necessary to prepare a final report that KY UCJIS As required
pilot project final report documents the successes and failures, if any, of the Subcommittee
pilot project. The final report will include a
recommendation as to whether Kentucky should
proceed with a statewide implementation.
Post pilot project Following the pilot project the KY UCJIS Committee KY UCJIS AOC, KSP, circuit
actions will have to determine whether a statewide Committee and county courts,
implementation is appropriate. If so, a plan will have to Commonwealth’s
be developed. If not, remedial actions will have to be and County
identified. Attorneys, county
law enforcement
agencies
The Project Team estimates that the pilot project would take 15 months: 3 months to get the pilot up
and running and a 12-month run time with a mid-term review. A proposed timeline for the pilot
project is shown in Exhibit 6-9.
Months 1 – 5 Months 6 – 10 Months 11 – 15
Select Participating Counties
Charter UCJIS Subcommittee
Develop MOU
Specify Data Content & Format
Develop Performance Statistics
Conduct Trial Data Transfers
Hold Kickoff Meeting
Implement Pilot Project
Collect & Report Statistics
Hold Midterm Review
Develop Lessons Learned
Prepare and Deliver Final Report
Post Pilot Project Actions
Exhibit 6-9: Proposed Timeline for Pilot Project

6.3 Automate the Warrants Process
The process recommendations described above will go a long way toward improving Kentucky’s
overall warrants process. The next logical step would be to automate the process to the extent
possible, taking advantage of the automation infrastructure already in place, and augmenting it as
necessary.
The Project Team estimates development and implementation of the automated process described
here would be accomplished in 2 years. Exhibit 6-10 depicts how this fits within the 3-year time
period for the overall recommendation. These activities overlap the pilot project because many of
them can be done concurrent with, but independent of, the pilot project. Waiting until the pilot project
is complete would unnecessarily delay implementation.
Automate the Warrants Process
Develop the E-Warrant
Provide LINK – KY Courts Interface
Information Sharing with Prisons and Jails
Exhibit 6-10: Automate the Warrants Process Timeline

The three key activities that comprise this part of the recommendation are discussed in the following
sections.
6.3.1 Develop an Electronic Warrant
To fully automate the warrants process in Kentucky it will be necessary to develop and use an
electronic warrant, or e-warrant. The e-warrant would not completely replace the standard warrant
formats described in Section 6.1.1; rather, it would supplement them. The standard formats would
still be available to those jurisdictions that would not be able to fully implement the automated
process with the e-warrant in the short term. However, as the UCJIS Program matures and all
jurisdictions in the Commonwealth have access to the information technology equipment and training
necessary for full implementation, the standard formats would be phased out.
The State of Colorado uses five e-warrants in its CICJIS system. Examples of three of these warrants
are shown in E.
In addition to the basic features of the e-warrant, the Project Team recommends that Kentucky take
two additional steps to take full advantage of the e-warrant. First, Kentucky should investigate the use
of digital signature encryption. This would allow the originating agency to notify the judge by any
means necessary that an electronic warrant has been created. Rather that printing the warrant and
asking the judge to sign it, the judge would log on to the e-warrants application and electronically
approve it by inserting his or her digital signature on the warrant. The judge’s digital signature would
have the same force and effect as his handwritten signature on a paper warrant.30
30
Colorado does not use digital signatures on its electronic warrants. The judge authorizes the court clerk to enter the
warrant into the system and it becomes official when entered.

Second, Kentucky should adopt business rules to clearly establish ownership of the e-warrant, and
those rules should be hard-coded into the e-warrants system. Ownership might change as the warrant
works its way through the system, but the e-warrants software would automatically track this and
update the warrant’s status as its ownership changed. The reason for this is that unlike with paper
warrants, multiple people at dispersed locations can access an e-warrant simultaneously. This could
allow various people to amend or close a warrant. Definitive business rules built into the system will
ensure that only the proper agency can amend, close, or withdraw a warrant. 31 Likewise, the system
would automatically notify all appropriate agencies whenever a warrant’s status had changed.
6.3.2 Provide an Interface between LINK and KY Courts
This element of the recommendation has two key features:
1. Access to LINK must be expanded throughout the Commonwealth so that more law
enforcement agencies have ready access to it
2. There must be an interface between LINK and KY Courts such that a law enforcement officer
can have access to Bench Warrant information via the LINK terminal
The most frequent concern raised by local law enforcement officers is the inability to readily share
information on active warrants – both bench and arrest – from one jurisdiction to the next. For most
local law enforcement agencies, information sharing is done by telephone or mobile radio. Those
jurisdictions that have direct access to LINK have an advantage in that they have access to
information in other jurisdictions that are connected to LINK. However, they must share information
with non-LINK-connected jurisdictions over the phone or by radio. This is a time-consuming
practice, and in the case of Bench Warrants, it is limited to normal duty hours when court staff is
available to do the research required to respond to queries.
Providing greater access to LINK across the Commonwealth is key. LINK is the mechanism by
which Arrest Warrant information can be shared, both intrastate and interstate. It is the Project
Team’s strong recommendation that Kentucky aggressively expand LINK access. As described
above, at approximately $10,000 per installation, plus ongoing training and software maintenance
costs, this will be costly, but essential. Increased access to LINK together with the Project Team’s
other recommendations – use of standard warrant formats and e-warrants, rigorous timeliness
standards and stricter validation requirements, etc. – will go a long way toward standardizing and
streamlining the process for Arrest Warrants.
The other side of the coin is Bench Warrants. Currently, law enforcement officers do not have the
capability to get up-to-date, online access to Bench Warrant information. That information is
maintained by the courts and entered into the KY Courts system. To make this information available
to law enforcement officers, the Project Team recommends that AOC provide Bench Warrant
information to KSP via regular data pushes to LINK. This is the methodology we recommend be
tested in the pilot project. The pilot project will validate the data formats and transfer protocols and
prove the efficacy of the proposed system. Frequency of the AOC data pushes, recommended at twice
daily for the pilot project, can be revised based upon the results of the pilot project. Statewide
implementation could be phased in consistent with the ability of AOC and KSP to support it.
The mechanics of the AOC data push to KSP for incorporation into LINK will be worked out during
the pilot project. The desired functionality will be that law enforcement officers will be able to get
current information on Arrest and Bench Warrants through a single query through LINK.
31
Colorado has adopted this practice to good effect. When a user attempts to take some action on a warrant the system will
only allow certain actions to be taken depending on who “owns” the warrant. All actions taken generate an automatic
notification to the appropriate agencies.

Finally, this recommendation is consistent with the strategic architecture as described in the UCJIS
Strategic Plan.32 The Strategic Plan envisions a shared data warehouse with courts, law enforcement,
and prosecutors all having access via an intranet or web interface. This recommendation constitutes
an intermediate step toward the architecture in the Strategic Plan.
6.3.3 Facilitate Information Sharing with Kentucky Prisons and Jails
Law enforcement agencies should have insight into prison and jail populations to determine if an
individual named in a warrant is incarcerated. Officers could access this information as soon as the
warrant is received and before any attempt is made to serve it, or only after several unsuccessful
attempts to serve the warrant and the individual’s whereabouts cannot be determined. The
recommended way to accomplish this would be for the prison and jail databases (e.g., the jail
management systems) to push their inmate lists to a UCJIS data warehouse that could be queried by
law enforcement officers.
Likewise, jailers should be able to submit queries to the courts and law enforcement agencies to
determine if an inmate has any outstanding warrants. This should be done when an inmate is booked
and again just prior to release. Ideally, this could be done through an interface between their computer
systems and the UCJIS data warehouse that would have up-to-date warrants information. In the short
term, jailers could submit these queries through local law enforcement agencies and courts for a
search of LINK and KY Courts. This could be done through a telephone, fax, or e-mail request
depending on the local protocols that would be worked out between the jailers and the local law
enforcement agencies and courts.
Law enforcement officers already have the ability to search Kentucky prison inmate lists through the
Kentucky Offender Online Lookup (KOOL) system that is maintained by the Department of
Corrections.33 Providing an interface to this system directly through LINK would allow officers to
determine if the subject of a warrant is already in prison when the officer submits a warrant query in
LINK.
6.4 Commit to Staffing, Training, Funding, and Ongoing Technical Support

The essence of the non-directive approach discussed above is incentives. Incentives are necessary to
foster the level of cooperation that will be needed to ensure success. These incentives take the form of
staffing support, training, funding, and ongoing technical support.
As discussed above, KSP staffing is a concern in that the Computer Technologies Section is
understaffed now due to insufficient funding in the Chapter 18A personnel account. This adversely
affects it ability to administer the warrants system current in place. KSP would be unable to support
the Project Team’s recommendation if its funded staffing levels were not increased commensurate
with the increased workload. Other jurisdictions might require additional staffing but the heaviest
burden would be on KSP.
Training is essential whenever significant organizational change is implemented. The requirement for
training is increased when the change involves moving from a manual, paper-based system to one that
makes greater use of automation. Many of the smaller, rural jurisdictions have virtually no IT
infrastructure available to them. They can be expected to have a natural reluctance to migrating to an
unfamiliar system that involves automation with which they are unfamiliar. It will be incumbent upon
the Commonwealth to explain the benefits of the new system and to provide the local training
necessary for successful implementation.
32
UCJIS Strategic Plan, Section 5, Strategic Architecture
33
See: http://www.cor.state.ky.us/~KOOL

It is imperative that the Commonwealth secure the funding necessary to implement the
recommendation, especially in terms of providing funding to smaller jurisdictions whose operating
budgets are too small to accommodate even minimal improvements in office automation and
information technology. Funding in terms of outright grants or donation of IT equipment will be
required for many of these jurisdictions. Greater access to LINK will be necessary, and the costs of
providing LINK access may have to be borne by the Commonwealth, as would the costs of personnel
training.
This part of the recommendation would commence at the start of the 3-year implementation period
and continue indefinitely. This recognizes the Commonwealth’s long-term commitment to support
whatever new system it adopts. The commitment will entail ongoing training, supplemental funding,
providing of equipment upgrades, and even Help Desk support. This support is not trivial and it must
be provided if success is to be achieved over the long term.

7.0 CONCLUSION
The SAIC Project Team believes its recommendation will result in significant benefits accruing to
people of Kentucky. These benefits will not come without a significant commitment on the part of the
Commonwealth, but they will be well worth the costs. Exhibit 7-11 lists some of the major benefits
that will be realized.
Exhibit 7-11: Stakeholder Benefits from an Improved Warrants Process
Stakeholder Benefits Derived from an Improved Warrants Process
Administrative Office • More Bench Warrants served and cleared faster and at lower cost
of the Courts (AOC) • Less effort required to maintain case files due to increased sharing of electronic documents
• Ability to create standard warrants electronically using a template
Commonwealth’s and
• Ability to transmit electronic warrants to judges or court clerks for signature
County Attorneys
• Access to information on all warrants
• More Bench Warrants served and cleared faster and at lower cost
Courts
• Less staff time devoted to responding to inquiries on the status of Bench Warrants
• Ability to contact local law enforcement agency for disposition of the individual and possibly
clearance of other warrants
Jailers
• Opportunity to know if an individual has outstanding warrants in any Kentucky jurisdiction
prior to release
• Minimize the problem of double arrests
Kentucky Citizens • Improved public safety due to streamlined, standardized warrants process
• More efficient use of tax dollars
• Access to employment information for individuals named in warrants
• Real-time availability of information regarding active warrants
KSP/ • Awareness of other outstanding warrants for the individual
Arresting Officers • Minimized backlogs – more warrants will be cleared
• Better informed officers
• Better information sharing, minimizing the problem of double arrests
• Will aid in achieving the UCJIS Vision in terms of:
» Electronic Data Sharing
» Reduction of Multiple Data Entry Points
KY UCJIS
» Data Accuracy and Integrity
Community
» Effective Enterprise-Wide Criminal Justice Business Process
» Data Access at Point of Need
» Appropriate Data Stewardship
• Enhanced information sharing
• Greater access to IT equipment and training in its use
Sheriffs’ Offices
• Access to employment information for individuals named in warrants
• Awareness of other outstanding warrants for the individual

Appendix APersonnel Interviewed
Name Role Agency
Armstrong, Robert Agent in Charge, Program Support Unit Colorado Bureau of Investigation
Backus, Brian IT Staff Member Washington State AOC
Ballard, Sharon Administrative Assistant Falls Church City, Virginia, Police Department
Barnes, Lt. Brenda Commander of Computer Technologies Kentucky State Police
Boggs, Sgt. David Information Services Director Lexington Division of Police
Brown, Wanda Administrative Assistant Fayette County Attorney’s Office
Browning, Mike Principal Assistant Department of Criminal Justice Training
Burris, Lt. Tommy Commander of AFIS Kentucky State Police
Carey, Gina Deputy UCJIS Project Manager UCJIS
Carter, Lt. Jeff Supervisor LaGrange Police Department
Clark, Maj. Scott Deputy Chief Frankfort Police Department
Clark, Tom IT Director Washington State AOC
Cleveland, Larry Commonwealth’s Attorney Commonwealth Attorney’s Office, 48th Judicial
Circuit
Cockrell, Kevin Assistant County Attorney Montgomery County
Collier, Charles Supervisor, Technical Analysis Support Falls Church City, Virginia, Police Department
Collins, Ted Sheriff Franklin County Sheriff’s Office
Cowden, Paul County Attorney Montgomery County
Crockett, Ed Assistant Director, Pre-Trial and Court Security Administrative Office of the Courts
Services
Curtis, Connie Circuit Clerk Montgomery County
Dolan-Keaton, Marilyn Chief Deputy Sheriff Falls Church City, Virginia, Sheriff’s Office
Donnelly, Mike Chief Information Officer Administrative Office of the Courts
Duggan, Martha Administrative Assistant Falls Church City, Virginia, Sheriff’s Office
Dwyer, William J. President, Michigan Association of Police Chiefs Farmington Hills, Michigan, Police
Embley, Paul Kentucky UCJIS Project Manager Commonwealth of Kentucky, Justice Cabinet
Fay, Kathleen Manager of Michigan’s Law Enforcement Michigan State Police, Administrative Services
Information Network (LEIN) Bureau, Criminal Justice Information Center
Fegenbush, Nikolas Law Clerk Commonwealth of Kentucky, Justice Cabinet
Fendley, John County Attorney Oldham County
Gatewood, Lt. Ron Deputy Sheriff Franklin County Sheriff’s Office
Goad, Pat Circuit Clerk Warren County
Guice, Lee General Manager, Administrative Services & Administrative Office of the Courts
Operations
Hairston, Sgt. Keith Supervisor Virginia State Police
Hall, Kathleen S. Court Clerk Falls Church, Virginia, District Court – Combined
Hardison, Keith Attorney Kentucky Parole Board
Hubbard, Frank Jailer Jessamine County Detention Center
Jenkins, Buddy Supervisor of Warrants Fayette County District Court
Jones, Barbara General Counsel Commonwealth of Kentucky, Justice Cabinet
Jones, Ron Chief Deputy Sheriff Oldham County Sheriff’s Office
Jones, Tina Attorney’s Assistant Franklin County Attorney’s Office
Kirk, Stacey CICJIS Analyst Colorado Judicial Department
Lane, Albert Systems Administrator, Records Management Washington State Patrol

Name Role Agency
Division
Langston, Col. Chief University of Kentucky Police Department
Rebecca
Loginsky, Pam Staff Attorney Washington Association of Prosecuting
Attorneys
Lynch, Wilma Court Clerk 22nd Judicial Circuit Court (Fayette County)
Mason, Lynn Court Clerk 12th Judicial Circuit Court (Oldham County)
Maiden, Drusilla Deputy Sheriff Carroll County Sheriff’s Office
Maiden, Jr., Charles S. Sheriff Carroll County Sheriff’s Office
Marshall, Janice Circuit Court Clerk 48th Judicial Circuit Court (Franklin County)
Maze, Beth Circuit Judge Montgomery County
McDaniel, Georgia Assistant Director Kentucky Probation and Parole
McMichael, Bruce Criminal Justice Specialist Jefferson County Crime Commission
Mitchell, Angie Administrative Specialist Kentucky Parole Board
Moberly, Lt. John Strategic Planning Kentucky State Police
Moore, George W. Commonwealth’s Attorney 21st Judicial Circuit Court (Montgomery County)
Morse, Jim Director Oldham County Dispatch Center
Parsons, Dan Program Manager Washington State Patrol
Payolella, Gary Detective Sergeant Macomb County, Michigan, Sheriff’s Office
Potter, Brandt Circuit Court Judge Warren County
Rice, Vickie Circuit Clerk Johnson County
Slattery, Judy Chief Deputy Clerk 48th Judicial Circuit Court (Franklin County)
Smith, Audrey Warrants Coordinator Fayette County Sheriff’s Office
Smith, Louis Chief Information Officer Commonwealth of Kentucky, Justice Cabinet
Sparrow, Steven W. Sheriff Oldham County Sheriff’s Office
Stark, Layman Court Clerk 15th Judicial Circuit Court (Carroll County)
Story, Kentrena Office Manager Oldham County Sheriff’s Office
Stuer, Bonnie Administrative Assistant Marquette County, Michigan, Sheriff’s Office
Tennil, Travis Sergeant, Post 12 Kentucky State Police, Post # 12
Thomas, Nancy Attorney’s Assistant Franklin County Attorney’s Office
Wilson, Steve Commonwealth’s Attorney 8th Judicial Circuit Court
Wingate, Thomas Circuit Judge Franklin County Court
Witt, Kathy Sheriff Fayette County Sheriff’s Office

Appendix BPrincipal Types of Warrants and Summonses
Distributed to/
Precipitating Cause Document(s) Primary Stakeholders Signed by
Served by
Criminal Offense Arrest Warrant or • Law Enforcement Judge (or Circuit Court Law Enforcement
(probable cause) Summons • Prosecutor Clerk or Trial
• Judge Commissioner if no
Judge is available)
• Jailer
• Pre-trial Services
Court Order due to Bench Warrant • Court Clerk Judge Law Enforcement
non-compliance • Judge
• Law Enforcement
• Jailer
• Pre-trial Services
• Prosecutor
Fugitive Fugitive Warrant for • Jailer/Warden Chairman of the Parole Law Enforcement or
Absconding (or other • Law Enforcement Board Probation & Parole
cited offense) • Probation & Parole Officer
Probation Violation Arrest Warrant • Probation & Parole Judge Law Enforcement
• Law Enforcement
• Prosecutor
• Judge
• Jailer
• Pre-Trial Services
Parole Violation Detainer • Probation & Parole Parole Officer and Parole Officer or Law
person executing the Enforcement Officer
detainer
Juvenile to be Juvenile Custody • Juvenile Justice Judge Law Enforcement
Apprehended Order • Law Enforcement
Apprehension Arrest Warrant • Governor Governor Law Enforcement
Needed for • Law Enforcement
Extradition to Another • Attorney General
State
Search Needed for Search Warrant • Law Enforcement Judge Law Enforcement
Criminal Investigation • Prosecutor
• Judge

Appendix CKentucky County Warrants Processes
Process Franklin County Oldham County Carroll County Fayette County
Warrants Issued, • In 2001, sheriff’s • Sheriff’s office • Sheriff’s office • Sheriff’s office
Served, and office handled 1,640 serves 10 to 20 serves up to 50 handles approximately
Backlogs warrants; 1,203 were warrants a week, warrants a week (15 50 – 60 warrants per
served most of which (75 – to 25 on average), week
• Frankfort Police 80%) are Bench with the majority • University of KY
Department handled Warrants; generally being Arrest Police Department
approximately 3,200 warrants are served Warrants; backlog of assists sheriff and
to 3,500 warrants in quickly; backlog of active warrants can other LE agencies in
2001, and served active warrants can run to 2,200 serving warrants on
approximately 75% of run to 1,500 to 2,000 • Sheriff’s office is UK property, if
those Backlogs are • Sheriff’s office is repository for all necessary, but doing
“minimal” repository for all warrants in the so is generally the
• 48th Judicial Circuit county warrants; they county; the Carrollton sheriff’s responsibility
Court Clerk’s office enter warrant Police Department • Sheriff’s office
places warrants in information into the picks up its warrants; sends copies of
distribution boxes for shared CAD the sheriff’s office warrants on out-of-
pick up by LE officers; application in the mails warrants to out- county individuals via
warrants for out-of- OCD center of-county jurisdictions certified mail to other
county individuals are • LaGrange Police sheriffs’ offices
mailed to the Department serves • Fayette County
appropriate county few warrants; most District Court had a
• County Court holds are served by sheriff’s backlog of
warrants for pick up office approximately 18,000
by local law • County Attorney active warrants (bench
enforcement draws up the warrant, and arrest)
agencies; mails presents it to judge for » Includes some
warrants to other signature, and then warrants entered
county sheriffs gives it to the sheriff’s into CRT on out-of-
office for execution county individuals
Warrant Formats • Sheriff’s office and • All county LE • Sheriff’s office uses • The Lexington
Frankfort Police agencies (Sheriff’s preprinted paper Division of Police (the
Department (PD) use office, LaGrange PD, warrants that they fill combined police force
similar, but different and Oldham County out by hand for the Lexington-
warrant formats PD) use the same • Several Arrest Fayette Urban County
• 48th Judicial Circuit paper Arrest Warrant Warrant formats used Government) uses a
Court uses standard and fill them out by • 15th Judicial Circuit standard arrest format
AOC format for Bench hand Court uses standard • 22nd Judicial Circuit
Warrants available in • 12th Judicial Circuit AOC format for Bench Court uses standard
KY Courts system Court uses standard Warrants available in AOC format for Bench
• County Attorney AOC format for Bench the Sustain system Warrants available in
uses automated Warrants available in • Commonwealth’s the Sustain system;
Bounceback system the Sustain system Attorney uses AOC most information can
for bad check • County Attorney warrant format be filled out on the
warrants only uses standard AOC template created in computer and then
warrant formats; WordPerfect printed, but some
completes them by descriptive information
hand on the warrant must
be entered by hand
Information • Sheriff’s office • All county LE • Information sharing • 22nd Judicial Circuit
Sharing and provides daily list of agencies have access among jurisdictions Court and the Fayette
Warrant Status warrants to Frankfort to warrants outside the county is County District Court
Tracking PD and KSP information via the mostly by phone provide all warrants to
• Within the county CAD • Carrollton PD the Sheriff’s Office for
they fax or provide • Most information enters and updates service
paper copies of sharing outside the warrant information in • The Lexington-
warrants county is via phone, LINK Fayette Urban County
• When a warrant is fax, or LINK • Most information Government share
served, the sheriff’s • LE agencies deliver sharing regarding warrants information
office and Frankfort or fax a copy of any warrants status is via a “CRT” program
PD report the status warrant served during done by radio or that all can access
via telephone or radio non-duty hours so phone; both sheriff’s online; they use the
“check warrants” utility

to a central dispatch sheriff’s office can office and the to do so
center update the CAD consolidated dispatch • Information sharing
• County Attorney information center handle queries among jurisdictions
tries to track warrants on warrants outside the county is
manually but with little • Consolidated principally by phone,
success dispatch center gets mail, or fax
regular updates on • County Attorney
recalled Bench uses automated tool,
Warrants from the FileMaker Pro, to track
circuit court complaints, but does
• Sheriff’s office not track warrants
maintains a local
database of warrants
information using a
COTS software
application
Supporting • 48th Judicial Circuit • OCD has the • Sheriff’s office has • 22nd Judicial Circuit
Technology in Court uses KY Courts county LINK terminal non-networked Court and Fayette
Use and typical desktop • OCD has Internet desktop PCs; one PC County District Court
software; will upgrade access but it is limited has Internet access use Sustain and
to KY Courts II in to 2 non-networked • 15th Judicial Circuit typical desktop
future PCs for data security Court uses Sustain software; will upgrade
• Sheriff’s office uses reasons and typical desktop to KY Courts II in
typical desktop • Sheriff’s office uses software; will upgrade summer 2002; some
software; maintains typical desktop to KY Courts II in near individuals have
status of warrants software; is linked to future Internet access
using a Microsoft OCD for entry and • Carrollton PD has • Sheriff’s office, the
Access application access of warrants LINK connection Lexington Division of
• Frankfort PD has a information • Sheriff’s office and Police, and the UK PD
LINK connection and • Countywide RMS Carrollton PD do not all have LINK access
uses typical desktop will be available have any computer • Sheriff’s office
software through OCD in interface for personnel have
February 2002 information sharing desktop PCs with
• 12th Judicial Circuit other than the shared typical software; all
Court uses Sustain LINK terminal at the have CRT access;
and typical desktop consolidated dispatch some have Internet
software; will upgrade center access
to KY Courts II later
this year
Shared • Sheriff’s office and • The OCD maintains • Sheriff’s office and • Law enforcement
Resources Frankfort PD share a the LINK terminal and Carrollton PD share a agencies share
consolidated dispatch shares it with all consolidated dispatch access to CRT which
center and use the county LE agencies center and radio is maintained by the
same mobile radio • All county LE frequencies unified government
frequencies agencies use • Sheriff’s office uses
• The sheriff’s office common radio Carrollton PD’s LINK
has access to frequencies terminal that is
Frankfort PD’s LINK • RMS (available located in the
terminal February 2002) consolidated dispatch
center
Problems • No standard exists • Handwriting on • Potential for “double • 22nd Judicial Circuit
Identified for whether or not to warrants can be arrests” Court clerks are
enter a warrant into difficult to read • Many warrants do reluctant to give
LINK (Note: Sheriff’s • Potential for “double not have sufficient warrants information
office and Frankfort arrest” exists because information to be over the phone due to
PD will develop a of the delay in getting entered into LINK; past queries by
local standard) information entered Bench Warrants often unauthorized persons;
• Sheriff has no on- into the CAD by the do not have sufficient now refer all queries
line capability to sheriff’s office during information to make to sheriff’s office
contact all other KY non-duty hours an arrest • Warrants
sheriffs; currently • Many warrants do • Dispatch center information entered in
sends vital not have sufficient unable to validate Sustain by court
information via fax information to be Bench Warrant personnel must be
• LE officers have no entered into LINK information during entered separately in
easy access to • County Attorney night and weekend CRT; this is time
consuming and prone

people’s work notes finding people hours to error
addresses to help to execute a warrant • Sheriff’s office must
them serve warrants is a problem, often enter warrants status
• Approximately one- because they have information into CRT
third of warrants do incomplete descriptive and LINK separately;
not have sufficient information when this is time consuming
information to be preparing the warrant and prone to error
entered into LINK
• Arrest Warrants can
take up to a week to
be signed by a judge
Desired • All LE offices to • Standard format for • Provide real-time • An automated
Improvements have online access Arrest Warrants, information sharing to system that would
for communications electronic (i.e., eliminate the potential give all court and LE
(e.g., e-mail or document imaging) if for “double arrests” personnel insight into
Internet site for possible • Statewide, online status of arrest and
posting messages, • Statewide policy or source of warrants bench warrants; either
etc.) procedure requiring a information for all LE a single database or
• KY adopt a minimum amount of agencies and courts linked databases that
standard format for descriptive in the Commonwealth would respond to a
Arrest Warrants that information to be • Provide ability to single query
could be either entered on the download a warrant • Regarding
electronic or paper warrant at point of from another county misdemeanor
• Request there be origin – prosecutor’s versus having to get a warrants, allow court
no mandates without office copy via fax clerks to contact the
funding • County Attorney • Commonwealth’s complainant after a
prefers preparing Attorney indicated period of time (e.g., 24
warrants by hand, that an automated months) to determine
would not use an process to track if the warrant could be
automated system, warrants would be withdrawn
but would use an helpful • Include the ability to
automated system for search prison and jail
tracking warrants if it lists when doing
were available warrant searches
• County Attorney
would like standard
warrant format to be
more “reader friendly”

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

Appendix E Colorado’s Electronic Warrants
E.1.0 CICJIS Electronic Warrant – Misdemeanor/Traffic –
Confirmation Not Required
ATTN:JIS
*** CICJIS COURT WARRANT -- NO CONFIRMATION REQUIRED
-- CHECK TRANSPORT FIELD FOR EXTRADITION INFO ***
*** WANTED PERSON ***
RTY/MIS. CMC/ .
CIC/0027530530. CCIC ONLY .
ORI/CO0070000.BOULDER COUNTY SHERIFF - BOULDER
NAM/JONES, JONATHAN MICHAEL .SEX/M.RAC/W.
DOB/19750425.HGT/600.WGT/145.EYE/BLU.HAI/BRO.SKN/ .POB/ .
FBI/ .SID/XT010008.FPC/ .MNU/ .
SOC/555552385.SMT/ .OLN/941991026 .OLS/CO.OLY/ .
ADR/7793 W. 42ND AVE SOUTH .CIS/ARVADA, CO .
DOW/20000302.WNO/ .BND/ 500.EXP/20010930.DOE/ .
OFF/5005. CONTEMPT OF COURT-SEE MIS . OFD/ .
OOC/5499. TRAFFIC OFFENSE . OCA/S9914879 .
CRS/42-4-1301(1)(b) .DKT/C0872000T 001337.IDN/0006.
CRD/Driving while Ability Impaired .CLS/M .CTI/CO007023J.
LIC/5980JR .LIS/CO.LIY/ .LIT/ .VIN/JNAKA1219S5223959 .
VYR/ .VMA/KIA . VMD/ .VMO/ .VST/2D.VCO/RED/ .
LKI/ .LKA/ .
MIS/030200 FTC COMMUNITY SERVICES BSOIF DEFT POSTS BOND OUTSIDE OF COUNT
Y BOND RETURNABLE 2 WEEKS FROM DATE OFPOSTING ON WEDNESDAY AT 930AM IN D
IV 11 AT 505 4TH AVE LONGMONT CO /LEJ
TRANSPORT INFORMATION: VALID METRO AREA ONLY IF BOND = $100 & UNDER
VALID STATEWIDE IF BOND = $101 & ABOVE
*** CCIC PERSON OF INTEREST SUPPLEMENTAL FOR BASE CIC/027530530

CIC/0027530531

E.2.0 CICJIS Electronic Warrant – Felony –
Confirmation Not Required
ATTN:JIS
*** CICJIS COURT WARRANT -- NO CONFIRMATION REQUIRED
-- CHECK TRANSPORT FIELD FOR EXTRADITION INFO ***
RTY/FEL. FELONY - STATEWIDE EXTRADITION CMC/ .
CIC/0030108185. CCIC ONLY .
NAM/BLUNT, JUSTIN MARSHALL .SEX/M.RAC/W.
DOB/19750824.HGT/509.WGT/150.EYE/GRN.HAI/BRO.SKN/ .POB/CO.
FBI/ .SID/1226756 .FPC/ .MNU/ .
SOC/541883787.SMT/ .OLN/973400097 .OLS/CO.OLY/ .
ADR/5755 E PACIFIC PLACE .CIS/BOULDER, CO .
DOW/20001005.WNO/ .BND/ 4000.EXP/ .DOE/ .
OFF/5015. FAILURE TO APPEAR-SEE MIS . OFD/FAILURE TO APPEAR .
OOC/2399. LARCENY . OCA/S0011411 .
CRS/18-4-402(1)(6) .DKT/D0072000CR002654.IDN/0003.
CRD/Theft Rental Series-$500-$15000 .CLS/F5 .CTI/CO007015J.
LIC/ .LIS/ .LIY/ .LIT/ .VIN/ .
VYR/ .VMA/ . VMD/ .VMO/ .VST/ .VCO/ / .
LKI/ .LKA/ .
MIS/100500 DEFT FTA FOR STATUS CONFERENCEIF DEFT BONDS OUTSIDE OF BOULDE
R COUNTY RETURNABLE 2 WKS FROM DATE OFPOSTING ON MON THRU FRI AT 200 PM
BOULDER COUNTY JAIL 3200 AIRPORT RD /KSH

CIC/0030108186

E.3.0 Felony Warrant After Holding Agency Takes Ownership –
Confirmation Required
ATTN:DP
*** CCIC PERSON OF INTEREST ***
*** CONFIRM VALIDITY AT ONCE WITH ORI ***
RTY/FEL. FELONY - STATEWIDE EXTRADITION CMC/ .
CIC/0030108185.NIC/W871068886.
NAM/BLUNT, JUSTIN MARSHALL .SEX/M.RAC/W.
DOB/19750824.HGT/509.WGT/150.EYE/GRN.HAI/BRO.SKN/ .POB/CO.
FBI/522175MB7.SID/1226756 .FPC/ .MNU/ .
SOC/541883787.SMT/ .OLN/ .OLS/ .OLY/ .
ADR/5755 E PACIFIC PLACE .CIS/BOULDER, CO .
DOW/20001005.WNO/ .BND/ 4000.EXP/ .DOE/ .
OFF/5015. FAILURE TO APPEAR-SEE MIS . OFD/FAILURE TO APPEAR .
OOC/2399. LARCENY . OCA/S0011411 .
CRS/18-4-402(1)(6) .DKT/D0072000CR002654.IDN/0003.
CRD/THEFT RENTAL SERIES-$500-$15000 .CLS/F5 .CTI/CO007015J.
LIC/ .LIS/ .LIY/ .LIT/ .VIN/ .
VYR/ .VMA/ . VMD/ .VMO/ .VST/ .VCO/ / .
LKI/ .LKA/ .
MIS/100500 DEFT FTA FOR STATUS CONFERENCEIF DEFT BONDS OUTSIDE OF BOULDE
R COUNTY RETURNABLE 2 WKS FROM DATE OFPOSTING ON MON THRU FRI AT 200 PM
BOULDER COUNTY JAIL 3200 AIRPORT RD /KSH

CIC/0030108186
TRANSPORT INFORMATION: ALIAS PLACE OF BIRTH/ OREGON

.DOB/032475
.SOC/540887787
CIC/0030114342 _

Appendix F Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACCESS-------A Central Computerized Enforcement Support System
ACORDS------Appellate Court Record and Data System
ADW------------Automated DB2 Warrant System
AFIS------------Automated Fingerprint Identification System
AOC------------Administrative Office of the Courts
C##--------------Document change number
CAD-------------Computer Aided Dispatch
CAIS------------Courts Automated Information System
CCIC-----------Colorado Crime Information Center
CICJIS---------Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System
CMS------------Case Management System
COTS-----------Commercial-Off-The-Shelf
CourtNet-------System that provides court case tracking, consolidating local court information,
including KY Courts, and provides a statewide system for accessing statistical data
CrR-------------Court Criminal Rules
CrRLJ----------Criminal Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
DB2-------------Database 2
DCJS------------Division of Criminal Justice Services
DISCIS---------District and Municipal Courts use the District Court Information System
DMV------------Department of Motor Vehicles
e-document----Electronic document
e-mail-----------Electronic mail
e-warrant------Electronic warrant
FBI--------------Federal Bureau of Investigation
GOT------------Governor’s Office for Technology
ICON-----------Integrated Colorado On-Line Network
IGN-------------Intra-Government Network
III---------------Interstate Identification Index
IT----------------Information Technology
JIS---------------Judicial Information System
JMS-------------Jail Management System
JPEG-----------Joint Photography Experts Group
KOOL----------Kentucky Offender Online Lookup
KSP-------------Kentucky State Police
KY---------------Commonwealth of Kentucky

KY Courts-----System that provides case management software at the circuit or district court level
LEIN------------Law Enforcement Information Network
LINK-----------Law Enforcement Information Network of Kentucky
MDT------------Mobile Data Terminals
mm--------------Millimeter
MOU------------Memorandum of Understanding
MSP-------------Michigan State Police
NCIC-----------National Crime Information Center
NFF-------------National Fingerprint File
NLETS---------National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
NYCPD---------New York City Police Department
OCD------------Oldham County Dispatch
OTN-------------Offense Tracking Number
PAC-------------Prosecutors Advisory Council
PD---------------Police Department
PSP--------------Pennsylvania State Police
R##--------------Document revision number
RCr-------------Rules of Criminal Procedure
RMS------------Records Management System
SAIC------------Science Applications International Corporation
SAS--------------Strategic Alliance Services
SCOMIS-------Superior Court Management Information System
UCJIS----------Unified Criminal Justice Information System
UK---------------University of Kentucky
VCIN-----------Virginia Criminal Information Network
WACIC--------Washington Crime Information Center
WASIS---------Washington State Identification System
WSP-------------Washington State Patrol

Warrants Summons Final

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Warrants Summons Final

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

UCJIS WARRANTS AND SUMMONSES WHITE

i UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

ii UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

iii UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

iv UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

2.1 Personnel Interviews

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

2.3 External Validation: Other States

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

3.1 The As-Is Process: Kentucky

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Process Computer System data storage

LEA picks up original

LEA ID's warrant as

Exhibit 3-1: Typical Bench Warrant Process

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

3 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Jailer processes subject

Jailer requests LEA ID's

Pre-Trial Process Subject goes to Judge issues

Exhibit 3-2: Typical Arrest Warrant Process

4 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

5 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

6 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

7 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

8 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

9 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

10 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

11 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

3.2 The As-Is Process: Other States

12 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

13 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

14 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

15 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

16 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

17 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

18 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

19 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

20 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

4.1 Timeliness of Serving Warrants

4.2 Labor-Intensive Process

4.3 Inefficiencies of a Paper-Based System

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

4.4 Business Rules and Policy Guidance

4.5 Information Sharing

4.6 Responsibility and Accountability

4.7 Lack of Statutory or Regulatory Guidance

4.8 Distinguishing Between Users and Providers of Information

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

4.9 Lack of Information Technology Resources and Training in their Use

4.10 Lack of Statewide Data

4.11 Inconsistent Standards for Initiating and Serving a Warrant

3 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

4.12 KSP Staffing

4 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

1 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

2 UCJIS Warrants and Summonses White Paper

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Formalize & Standardize the Warrants Process

Implement a Pilot Project

Automate the Warrants Process