Jeffrey A. Rose, MEd, Captain, San Bernardino County, California, Sheriff’s Department

The warrant check run by the deputy does not bring up any records; however, because of the driver’s suspicious behaviors, the deputy calls upon a new tool–a mobile identification device. The device captures a thumbprint from the subject, and, within a minute, the deputy has the driver’s real name and his record—including three no-bail warrants and a notation that he is considered “armed and dangerous.” After being taken safely into custody, the driver informs the officer that he has evaded arrest in four previous traffic stops simply by lying about his name. Without the new technology employed by the deputy, this would have been escape number five.

In this real-life example, mobile biometric technology assisted the deputy in the apprehension of a dangerous criminal, but what else can this new innovative technology do to help law enforcement officers in the field or in a jail facility? Could mobile biometric technology help with prison overcrowding and efficiency, or perhaps save law enforcement agencies thousands of dollars each year in false arrest lawsuits? More importantly, could mobile biometric technology help protect law enforcement officers on the street? Law enforcement has scratched only the surface on the many uses for mobile biometric technology.

The Benefits of New Technology

Technology in criminal justice is advancing at a tremendously rapid pace. Old technology has been integrated into advanced and evolving technology. For example, fingerprints are one of the oldest and most proven methods of suspect identification, and, in years past, officers used ink to capture fingerprints during the booking process. Currently, officers use computer live scan devices to electronically capture and send the fingerprints to regional or national databases for identification. Increased computing power and carefully crafted algorithms have made it possible to automate the quick and accurate identification of various biometrics.

Additionally, as technology and hardware become smaller and more portable, technology companies that specialize in biometric identification have brought a powerful breed of tools to law enforcement and expanded the use of mobile fingerprint devices to include facial recognition and iris identification. The new multimodal technology is further revolutionizing law enforcement because it can also be used in a patrol setting.¹ Technologies that integrate biometrics and forensic science are continuing to change how law enforcement officers do their job effectively and efficiently, which will can have a significant effect on the entire criminal justice system.

Mobile Biometric Identification—What It Is

According to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, the term “biometrics” refers to anatomical, physiological, or behavioral characteristics that can be used for automated recognition.² Signatures and voice fall into the behavioral category, while blood and DNA are physiological characteristics. Anatomical characteristics such as fingerprints, irises, and faces are the most frequently used biometrics because they can be measured quickly and easily at a reasonable cost.

Mobile identification devices utilize specialized hardware and software that integrate various biometric characteristics to identify a subject. The devices are handheld and portable, which makes them a useful tool for law enforcement. The device is basically a smaller version of the fixed live scan fingerprint systems used in correctional facilities. Mobile identification devices are equipped to capture fingerprints and photographs, which are electronically sent to computer databases for comparison. The computer search takes only a few seconds and provides the officer with various demographic information about the subject, including name, date of birth, driver’s license number, photograph, and physical description. Some devices are also configured to search county databases for outstanding warrants.³ As mobile biometrics moves from the research lab to the field, some law enforcement agencies have already tested, and are now using, mobile identification devices to positively identify subjects in patrol settings.

The San Bernardino County, California, Sheriff’s Department has one of the largest deployments of mobile identification devices in the United States. San Bernardino County is the largest geographical U.S. county with approximately 20,056 square miles, much of it encompassing rural communities.⁴ Due to the size of the county, it may take a deputy several hours to travel to a local jail to verify somebody’s identity; instead, deputies on patrol utilize mobile identification when possible, which saves thousands of dollars each year in staff and travel time alone. For example, a deputy assigned to the Barstow station recently used mobile identification technology to identify a subject traveling through the county to Las Vegas, Nevada. The subject was stopped for speeding and had no driver’s license or form of identification. The deputy quickly identified the subject using mobile identification and arrested him for outstanding warrants. A vehicle search was conducted and a large amount of narcotics were found.⁵ Without mobile identification capabilities, the deputy would have had to drive 1.5 hours to the closest jail to fingerprint and hopefully identify the subject.

Several other law enforcement agencies have already purchased mobile identification devices, including the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Police Department (all in California). The software can be customized based on the needs of a specific agency, and the devices cost $1,500–$3,000 each. Some departments that cannot afford the cost of the devices on their own have formed regional partnerships with larger departments to save money.

How Mobile Identification Can Improve the Arrest and Booking Process

Historically, law enforcement officers are trained to make an arrest and then transport the suspect to a local jail for booking. This is great in theory, but what happens when the jail is already at capacity? For example, in 2011, California Governor Edmund Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 109, which reduces the amount of low-level inmates that are incarcerated into California state prisons.⁶ If an inmate is convicted of a qualifying low-level offense, he or she is sent to a county jail facility for the entire term. AB 109 has placed a significant burden on local jail facilities because they will now need to process and house additional inmates within their county jail facilities.⁷

When a jail reaches capacity, inmates are often released early. Some inmates are now being released on the same day they were booked because their booking offense was considered low level or nonviolent. In California, local jails have established high bail restrictions for warrant arrests to help mitigate prison overcrowding. The use of mobile biometric technology would not only enhance an officer’s ability to identify a suspect in the field, but it could also enhance the overall arrest process because the suspect is positively identified at the beginning of the entire process.

Once the suspect is identified, the officer can decide if he or she needs to be transported to a jail for processing. By expanding the mobile identification platform, officers could actually arrest and properly book a suspect in a patrol setting. Mobile identification software can be configured to accept fingerprints, photographs, and the necessary demographic information to complete a “mobile booking” process, which would eliminate the need to transport a subject to a local jail and help reduce prison overcrowding.⁸

The police arrest thousands of suspects each year for misdemeanor offenses like petty theft or vandalism in the United States. In many cases, those suspects are never fingerprinted or photographed due to jail overcrowding; suspects are sometimes released from the scene with a citation. This precludes the collection of key biometric data (fingerprints and photographs) that are often used to help solve previous or future crimes.

If more law enforcement agencies had the ability to arrest, book, and release the subject in the field, there would be fewer inmates incarcerated in local jails and thousands of dollars each year in staff and transportation costs might be saved. For example, the average cost of incarceration for an inmate in California is $47,102 per year or $129 per day. This includes housing, health care, food, and transportation. The average daily inmate population in California is 167,276, which equates to approximately $7.9 billion annually dedicated to the care of prisoners.⁹ If law enforcement agencies reduced the numbers of nonviolent bookings by 10,000 per year, the annual net savings would be over $2 million. Since the police arrest almost 1 million persons each year for misdemeanor offenses, the actual savings could be significantly higher.¹⁰

Improving Efficiency within Correctional Facilities

The standard booking process at a local jail requires the suspect to submit his or her fingerprints, which are captured by a computer or live scan device and then electronically submitted to the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) to positively confirm the suspect’s identity. Some law enforcement agencies also use additional biometric or forensic measures to help identify a subject such as facial recognition software, iris identification systems, and DNA testing.¹¹

A common point of complaint from patrol officers is the amount of time it takes to book a prisoner into a local jail. Officers must wait for the booking officer to locate the suspect in a jail information management system (JIMS), verify the booking application information (name, address, etc.), and enter any new changes into the system. This process can keep an officer off the streets for hours depending on the jail. If, however, more law enforcement agencies used biometric technology, the booking process time could be significantly reduced. If officers’ use of mobile identification can positively identify a suspect in the field, it saves time at the jail because the suspect has already been identified. The booking officer can quickly locate the suspect by his or her statewide identification number, with the net result being that officers can return to the field more quickly, thus spending their time where they are best used instead of waiting for administrative processes to be completed.

In addition to mobile biometric identification devices, fixed biometric fingerprint scanners can also be installed in the intake areas of the jail to simplify the booking process.

Incoming officers can simply have the suspect place his or her finger on the scanner for immediate identification. And the suspect’s prior demographic information can be electronically transmitted to the jail information management system. This saves time because the booking officer does not have to re-type the suspect’s information—he or she adds the new charges and inventories the suspect’s property, and the suspect is booked.

Single-finger fingerprint scanners can be installed at the infirmary, housing units, and release window of a corrections facility. The single-finger scanners allow jail personnel to quickly identify inmates as they move around the facility and are eventually released from custody. This is important because inmates will sometimes try to conceal their identities by switching identification cards or wristbands in hopes of being released from custody prematurely.¹² Biometric scanners can also be utilized at local courts to quickly identify subjects that are in custody and those who are out of custody. Biometric technology will allow court personnel to positively link the specific charge or conviction to a specific person. This is very important considering many suspects that appear in court are “long formed” and have never been formally booked into a local jail facility.

In January 2006, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) conducted an inmate tracking study at the U.S. Naval Consolidated Brig (hereinafter Brig) in Charleston, South Carolina. NIJ focused the study on inmate movement within the Brig and wanted to quantify the significance of biometrics in jails. The study concluded that the use of biometric technology improved the overall efficiency of the Brig.¹³ Beyond mere efficiency, however, biometric identification helps to prevent what can be one of the most serious issues of liability—the misidentification of individuals accused of crime.

Civil Liability Issues

So what happens if an officer comes into contact with someone with the same name and date of birth as someone else and places the subject under arrest for an arrest warrant? Without biometric proof, the officer may never know if they have the correct subject listed on the arrest warrant. Beyond the distress caused to the wrongly identified individual, this is important to agencies because the arrest of a misidentified person can result in a false arrest lawsuit.¹⁴ For instance, on August 9, 2006, Heather Williams was arrested by the Vanderburg Sheriff’s Department for an outstanding warrant. Williams spent the night in jail and was later released when officials realized that they had arrested the wrong person. Since the officers did not have mobile biometric technology available, they were unable to verify that they had the correct person in custody. Williams was “identified” and arrested based on her name and date of birth. The family sued for false arrest and settled for an undisclosed amount of money.¹⁵

In years past, the courts were often lenient with law enforcement agencies if they made a false arrest as long as they acted in good faith.¹⁶ However, with the advances in technology and biometrics, it is possible for magistrates to more closely scrutinize an officer who has the ability to use tools such as mobile identification devices.

In San Bernardino County, officers are trained to use mobile identification whenever there is some discrepancy over the true identity of a suspect listed on a warrant. Other agencies like the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department also use mobile identification to avoid false arrest lawsuits. Law enforcement agencies must adopt thorough and comprehensive policies and procedures to avoid costly mistakes; using biometric identification can be a cornerstone of such policies.¹⁷

Implications for Law Enforcement

The implications of mobile biometric technology on law enforcement are substantial. Some law enforcement agencies are already using mobile identification technology, but on a limited basis. Expanding the use of mobile biometric technology across the United States will improve the overall efficiency of the criminal justice system and save agencies and local governments thousands of dollars each year by eliminating the need to physically house petty offenders at a local jail.

Research has clearly shown that the use of fixed or mobile biometric technology can help improve the overall efficiency of the arrest and booking process. With proper use, correctional facilities can operate more efficiently and the amount of inmates incarcerated for low-level crimes will also decrease. Additionally, the use of mobile biometric technology can improve officer safety because officers will be able to identify suspects within seconds, which gives the officers accurate information and added protection. Another important implication of mobile biometric technology is the decrease in civil lawsuits and false arrest claims. The use of mobile biometric technology will eliminate common mistakes made by officers because they will use fingerprints as a way to positively identify subjects before taking them into custody.

Finally, as with any new technology, issues with privacy and the potential violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights could arise. The collection of biometric data has many privacy and civil liberty concerns attached to it including scalability, reliability, and the security of the data collected. Opponents to this type of technology argue that biometrics was designed for military use and not for domestic use. The potential for misconduct and misuse of this type of technology cannot be overlooked, and it has been argued that police officers should obtain a warrant before collecting any biometric data.¹⁸ Law enforcement agencies considering the use of
these tools, as with all new technologies, should adopt specific policies on when mobile identification devices are to be used and how the biometric data are kept and for how long.

This type of technology could also have an impact on the community. Generally, the community supports the mission of law enforcement and wants criminals to be kept away from society by housing them in local jails. However, mobile biometric technology will challenge that premise because more nonviolent criminals may be booked in the field and released while waiting for a complaint to be filed by the district attorney’s office. Law enforcement agencies should be prepared for objections to this new procedure, if applicable, because community members are used to most suspects being immediately taken to a jail facility. However, the community will receive the benefit of having more officers in the field handling calls for service because they will not be spending time processing an inmate inside of a local jail. By using mobile biometric technology, law enforcement agencies will become more professional in the eyes of the public and employee morale may improve.

Conclusion

To increase productivity and efficiency, law enforcement organizations must continue to search for new technology to assist them in fighting crime. Budgetary constraints and the needs from the community are always changing, and law enforcement organizations must adapt quickly. Advances in mobile biometric technology can easily revolutionize law enforcement agencies in the next 10–20 years. Ten years ago, nobody thought about capturing a fingerprint in a patrol setting and sending it electronically to a fingerprint database. Today, biometric technology is increasingly expanding and proving to be a great tool for law enforcement.

Law enforcement managers need to consistently look to the future and determine how technology can help keep the community safe by identifying criminals and arresting them when necessary, while protecting the constitutional rights of all subjects. The use of mobile biometric technology in law enforcement is becoming an essential and critical component of the criminal justice system. As time and technology advance, the role of officers may evolve to include new skills or responsibilities; as a noted futurist named Gene Stephens concluded “educated police officers with improved people skills and a stronger grasp on emerging technologies will be crucial to successful policing in the future.”¹⁹ ♦

Jeff Rose is a captain with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department and has been a member of the department for over 27 years. Captain Rose has worked a variety of assignments including patrol, investigations, watch commander, and management. He is currently the commander of the West Valley Detention Center, which is one of the largest jails in California. Captain Rose has extensive history in technology projects including biometrics. He also teaches information technology at several universities throughout the United States.

Notes:
¹Kristi Mayo, “Mobile Biometrics: The Potential for Real-Time Identification in the Field,” Evidence Magazine 8, no. 4 (July/August 2010), www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=325 (accessed June 17, 2013).
²National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, “Biometric Basics,” Tech Beat (Spring 2007), https://justnet.org/pdf/BiometricBasics.pdf (accessed December 8, 2015).
³Ibid.
⁴U.S. Census Bureau, “San Bernardino County, California,” State & County QuickFacts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06071.html (accessed November 7, 2014).
⁵San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, watch commanders log, 2005.
⁶California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, “The Cornerstone of California’s Solution to Reduce Overcrowding, Costs, and Recidivism,” www.cdcr.ca.gov/realignment (accessed November 7, 2014).
⁷Ibid.
⁸Jerry Harper (systems analyst, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department), personal communication, January 8, 2014.
⁹California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Frequently Asked Questions: How Much Does It Cost to Incarcerate an Inmate? (Sacramento, CA: Government Printing Office, 2009).
¹⁰Criminal Justice Statistic Center, Crime in California, 2005, 124, table 25, Misdemeanors Arrests 2000–2005, http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/candd/cd05/tabs/2005table25.pdf (accessed June 5, 2014).
¹¹Phillip Jones, “Using Biometric Technology to Advance Law Enforcement,” Forensic Magazine (August 2006): 55–59.
¹²National Institute of Justice, National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, “Biometrics in Corrections,” Tech Beat (Fall 2000), https://www.justnet.org/pdf/BiometricsFall2000.pdf (accessed November 10, 2014).
¹³Christopher A. Miles and Jeffrey P. Cohn, “Tracking Prisoners in Jail with Biometrics: An Experiment in a Navy Brig,” NIJ Journal, no. 253 (January 2006), http://nij.gov/journals/253/pages/tracking.aspx (accessed June 5, 2013).
¹⁴Steve Rothlein, “Mistaken Identity Warrant Arrests,” 2009 Legal Updates, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute, www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/mistaken_identity_arrests.shtml (accessed November 7, 2014).
¹⁵Kate Braser, “For the Second Time This Year, Wrong Person Arrested,” Courier Press, August 16, 2006, www.courierpress.com/news/local-news/for-second-time-this-year-wrong-person-arrested (accessed November 10, 2014).
¹⁶Brian Batterton, “11th Circuit Finds Arrest Reasonable Although Mistaken Identity,” 2007 Legal Updates, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute, www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/mistaken-identity.shtml (accessed November 10, 2014).
¹⁷Steve Rothlein, “Mistaken Identity Warrant Arrests.”
¹⁸Dorothy Parvaz, “Mobile Biometrics to Hit the U.S. Streets,” Al Jazeera, August 2, 2011, www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/07/20117258145965608.html (accessed November 7, 2014).
¹⁹Gale Stephens, “Policing the Future; Law Enforcement’s New Challenges,” The Futurist (March–April, 2005): 51–57.

Please cite as:

Jeffrey A. Rose, “The Future of Corrections: How Can Mobile Biometric Technology Revolutionize the Arrest and Booking Process?” The Police Chief 81 (December 2014): 68–72.

Top