1. "Options and Consequences: Decisionmaking in Tough Economic Times" conference sponsored by National Governors Association and National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice, September 7-9, 2003, San Diego
UMJC

2. Thomas Kooy Deputy Director CriMNet Development Team
State of Minnesota

3. Kathlyn ("Katie") Poirier
Donald Pince (aka Blom)
Take a look at the history of one exceptional and beautiful young girl, Katie Poirier - - An archetype of everything we hold precious as parents, as brothers and sisters…as a citizen in this free land of ours…
(Wait for the Blom photo to appear)
And then there’s the Predator - - Again as parents, he is our worst fear.
As Cops, our classic enemy. In one brief moment a beautiful innocent life was snuffed, a tremendous future erased…and a family and small community destroyed.
Kathlyn ("Katie") Poirier

4. Blom has six prior felony convictions: five of them
sex-related or kidnapping
Blom's first conviction came in 1975 for aggravated assault on a 15-year-old West St Paul girl
Later that same year he was convicted of kidnapping and raping a 14-year-old girl from the same city
In 1981, Blom was convicted of attempting to sexually assault a 13-year-old girl in Rosemount
Convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old Burnsville girl a year later
His last conviction was in 1983 for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 16-year-old Stillwater girl
Blom served a total of nine years in prison and 2 1/2 years in a state mental hospital between 1975 and 1990.
Donald NMN Pince
Donald Albin Pince
Timothy Edward Whitmore
Dennis Alan Franklin
Donald Albin Michael Pince
Dennis Allen Franklin
John Koppels
John Fitzgerald Koppels
John F. Kipple
Travis Micheal Danzl
Don Alan Blom
Dennis Franklin
Donald Micheal Alan
John Fitzgerald Kipples
Donald Micheal Pince
Donald Aubin Hutchinson
Donald Blom took his wife's surname when they married, which made it more difficult for employers and law enforcement to connect him with past criminal records.
But who was our enemy?
Did we not, in the job of Law Enforcement, “know him”?
Had we not tried to stop him before?
In the MANY years before this man stole the life and future of Katie Poirier, he had damaged the lives of MANY other young girls…In retrospect, he had a long history of similar behaviors, arrest, and convictions: Most often involving the kidnapping and sexual assault of young girls.
Why couldn’t we stop him?
If he had never done this before, there’s little we COULD have done. But we, instead, look at this history and ask ourselves WHY?
(Wait for the next text box – showing all his names in CCH)
Tracing thru, after the fact, all our criminal records - - we discover that Mr. Blom had not one long extensive Criminal history record, but instead many fragmented ones, with different names and DOB’s - - these were not always connected to each other (many crimes and convictions, often without good fingerprints) arising from many different jurisdictions who didn’t share critical information.
And these predators KNOW IT.
(Wait for last text box - explaining how he changed his legal name)
In fact, Mr Blom ISN”T Mr. BLOM at ALL!! He legally changed his name, taking the name of his second wife INTENTIONALLY to throw
The CJ system off his track…an attempt to wipe his slate clean…

5. Kerry Dean Stevenson Date of Birth: 04/29/58
AKA
Kerry Dean Geller
Keith Allen Brummer
Bob Stevenson
Robert Mark Geller
James Heidelberg
Richard Lee Olson
Bob Geller
Robert James Stevenson
Eric Allen Johnson
Another example: (There’s a face I’m not sure even his own mother could love)
(Click) Look at all the different names and (click) dates of birth Mr Stevenson had accrued with our LE agencies.
Let me show you what happens in the CJ system that today is fundamentally based on Name and DOB - -Where fingerprints are not strictly taken in conjunction with each case and the process predicated on true identities…
Alias Dates of Birth:
03/29/55, 05/11/58, 01/24/61,
05/05/55, 04/29/55, 03/27/48, 04/24/54

6. Year
Convictions
County
1984
DWI
Hennepin
1986
Indecent Conduct
1988
Indecent Exposure
1989
1991
Gross Misdemeanor DWI
1997
Theft, 4th degree
Statewide:
30% to 90% of all convictions fail to be matched to Criminal History Records
Year
Convictions
County
1983
Indecent Conduct
Hennepin
1985
Anoka
1986
Ramsey
DWI
1987
Indecent conduct
1989
Gross Misdemeanor DWI
Pine
1992
1993
Indecent Exposure
Escape from Custody
1994
Theft by Check
1997
Criminal Sex Conduct, 5th degree
1998
Criminal Sex Conduct, 4th degree
2000
Screen opens the Top graph of Criminal Rap Sheet
Here you see the criminal history for Mr Stevenson (or at least what the Statewide view of his CCH was as we faced a charge of molesting grade school children).
Click – to get The REST of the Criminal History
And here’s what we didn’t see - - These are the other convictions that were lost in “suspense” because they lacked fingerprints or had mis-matched names and identities against the convictions the courts had sent to us at the State Police CCH system.
This is an EXPLICIT example of how our decisions and our support for public safety breaks down.
This is our Criminal History system. We use this information as the primary basis for all those decisions I mentioned earlier (arrest, release, sentencing, supervision). But we also use this information in other ways to protect our citizens: Background checks for DayCare Workers, Nursing home aides, Soccer coaches, Boy Scout leaders…Even for determining Handgun Permits…But you can see for yourselves, it’s what it DOESN”T tell us, that’s tragic.
Mr. Stevenson, not only had molested grade school children - - He was their Bus DRIVER!!! And don’t you suppose a background check was done to approve him for that job???
(click for sidebar statistics)
Before we began CriMNet, Statewide, our BEST jurisdiction FAILED to match their arrests to a conviction 30 % of the time. Our best jurisdiction failed 1 out of three times! Our worst? 90%!!!
90% of all the convictions, the dispositions delivered by judge or jury did NOT end up on that defendants Criminal Rap sheet!!!
And this is not a MN-unique problem. This is the case in most states.

7. Demonstration
I’d like to take couple minutes of my time now to give you a “glimpse” of the CriMNet system, and what it offers TODAY to the CJ official in MN.
(bear in mind that much of the data in this system is NOT public data: Therefore I cannot bring it up On-Line for a general audience to see. Instead I have “screen shots”…Which I realize are not as exciting…and which have had the data “sanitized” for public consumption…
But at least you’ll get the idea…

8. Basic Login Screen – On the main CriMNet page, users log into the system using one of over 30 domain-specific profiles to be authenticated for access to the data authorized for their clearance and specialty in criminal justice.

9. Searches

10. Basic Search
Using the Basic Search screen, users statewide can search for persons known to any aspect of the criminal justice system using even “partial” known information
Notes:
Highlighted Partial, Exact and Soundex as “types” of name searches
Might want to talk about extra “grayed out” fields that will be opened in the future (Court Case number or by Filing County, etc.)
Functionality depends upon ability of connected systems to respond to queries

11. Advanced Search
Using the Advanced Search screen, users can also search by case and identifier information
Users can also limit or expand their searches to the various statewide systems available thru CriMNet

12. Here, the results of a search are returned as hotlinks to records, like in a traditional search engine
Note: Search results on Einstein Barlau (fake data)
The user can also see if all the requested statewide data systems are responding to the request for information
Note: Shows results from all systems being OK, but only MJNO had records

13. An example of a record returned from the statewide LE system
MJNO Drill-down
An example of a record returned from the statewide LE system (called MJNO)
An example of a record returned from the statewide LE system

14. Alias Records

15. In the retuned links, the user finds a likely suspect, but the icon indicates that this is an ALIAS name…
Clicking on the alias record, the user will be re-directed to the correct criminal history file…
Notes:
Highlights that some systems had too many records and require a search refinement. Limit is generally 500
Going to be drilling down on highlighted record

16. S3 drilldown: This highlights the fact that the hit was on an “Alias” and not the real name. Previous screen had an “alias” icon next to record as well.
Note: Alias icon indicates that your search matched an Alias. It does not indicate that the record has aliases (you may have matched the main name…in which case there would not be an icon).

17. Multiple Systems

18. An example Result Record
from the state
courts system (page 1)
Court Web Services drilldown results page (one of a scrolling screen)

19. An example Result Record
from the state
courts system (page 2)
Court Web Services drilldown results page (bottom of a scrolling screen)

20. An example Result Record Offender Registry (page 1)
from the MN Predatory
Offender Registry (page 1)
POR – (Top half)
Note: known AKA’s, history of residences

21. An example Result Record Offender Registry (page 2)
from the MN Predatory
Offender Registry (page 2)
POR Bottom half
Notes: DETAILED offense narrative describing MO…Victim ,etc…for each offense

22. When a result includes a records photo from the MRAP, the camera icon is present.
Results indicating an MRAP photo
Note: Camera icon for that record

23. An example Result Record of Arrest Photos (MRAP)
from the MN Repository
of Arrest Photos (MRAP)
An example Result Record from the MN Repository
of Arrest Photos (MRAP)

24. Subscriptions

25. Screen to add, edit and delete subscriptions
Each CriMNet user, within their log-in profile, can keep a list of
Person or event-based “subscriptions”. The concept of Subscriptions is to allow criminal justice professionals to be
Notified of future events and activities in the justice systems or With specific cases and persons of interest. For example, an
Investigator may wish to subscribe to future criminal activity events involving a specific address, or a
Probation Officer might want to be notified whenever one of his clients has been re-arrested or incarcerated.

26. To create a “subscription”, a CriMNet user logs in specific event and subscription criteria,
and the means of being notified, such as an address
Note: Viewing a subscription on a person - - Einstein Barlau. Any documents passed into backbone involving this individual will result in a “hit”.

27. When that subscription event occurs, CriMNet sends an
to the user, notifying them of the event, and a hyperlink
to the new record in CriMNet that met the subscription criteria

28. By Clicking on the subscription email hyperlink, the CriMNet user
Is automatically launched into CriMNet, is authenticated and
Then presented the new criminal record.
Example here is a new courts Disposition on Mr. Barlau

29. So CriMNet, after many years of planning and seeking funding, is up and running…And you can see the results it has generated only in the few months it’s been operational…
(note: first four articles spin up automatically – The last, and best one – You click to bring it up LAST)
You can talk about the details of this case (Chaska) if there’s time…

30. National and Regional Efforts
CISAnet
On the National and Regional Scene, there are a great many efforts and successes being seen.
In additional to CriMNet, in MN:
(Click) ARJIS – 50 agencies in and around the San Diego area of So Cal…
(Click) JNet – The Pennsylvania Integrated Justice network
(Click) JUSTIS – The Washington DC integrated web portal
(Click) CCHRS – La County Sheriff system that links Consolidated Criminal History Record Systems throught the county
(Click) CISAnet- Criminal Info Sharing Alliance (CA, AZ, NM, TX and newly added, GA and ID)
(Click) MAJIC- The Mid-Atlantic Justice Information consortium (New York, MD, PA, DE, Washington DC, OHIO, NJ)
(Click) UMJC – Upper Midwest Justice Consortium (MN, WI, IA, SD, ND, IL, IN and MI)
UMJC
MAJIC

31. Architectural Principles
for
Regional Information
Sharing
For the Upper Midwest Justice Consortium (UMJC), the integration and sharing of criminal justice information has been a forefront issue for both state and local justice agencies for several years. UMJC looks to clearly demonstrate the ability for multiple states to share and access critical criminal justice information.
Query Systems in Multiple States: Criminal justice personnel in all participating states will be able to find records on individuals, incidents, or cases regardless of which Criminal Justice county, office, or system in which they are stored;
Automatic Notification of Justice Events: With the sharing of criminal justice “event” data, users in any state can be pro-actively notified when information about an incident, individual or case in which they are interested changes;
Data Sharing Between Agencies: The UMJC integration architecture, through a shared Workflow Engine, will provide attached agencies the ability to share data and criminal justice documents when they deem this necessary

32. Architectural Principles
Principle 1: Respect Existing System/Network Governance Structures
Principle 2: Leverage Existing Trust Relationships
Principle 3: Maximize Reuse of Existing Infrastructures
Principle 4: Employ a Delegated Trust Model
For the Upper Midwest Justice Consortium (UMJC), the integration and sharing of criminal justice information has been a forefront issue for both state and local justice agencies for several years. UMJC looks to clearly demonstrate the ability for multiple states to share and access critical criminal justice information.
Query Systems in Multiple States: Criminal justice personnel in all participating states will be able to find records on individuals, incidents, or cases regardless of which Criminal Justice county, office, or system in which they are stored;
Automatic Notification of Justice Events: With the sharing of criminal justice “event” data, users in any state can be pro-actively notified when information about an incident, individual or case in which they are interested changes;
Data Sharing Between Agencies: The UMJC integration architecture, through a shared Workflow Engine, will provide attached agencies the ability to share data and criminal justice documents when they deem this necessary

33. Architectural Principles
Principle 5: Implement an Appropriate Level of Security Services
Principle 6: Adopt only Standards-based Solutions that are consistent with Industry Direction
Principle 7: The Prescribed Solution must be Cost effective
Principle 8: All Tactical Solutions Must be a Step in the Strategic Direction
For the Upper Midwest Justice Consortium (UMJC), the integration and sharing of criminal justice information has been a forefront issue for both state and local justice agencies for several years. UMJC looks to clearly demonstrate the ability for multiple states to share and access critical criminal justice information.
Query Systems in Multiple States: Criminal justice personnel in all participating states will be able to find records on individuals, incidents, or cases regardless of which Criminal Justice county, office, or system in which they are stored;
Automatic Notification of Justice Events: With the sharing of criminal justice “event” data, users in any state can be pro-actively notified when information about an incident, individual or case in which they are interested changes;
Data Sharing Between Agencies: The UMJC integration architecture, through a shared Workflow Engine, will provide attached agencies the ability to share data and criminal justice documents when they deem this necessary

34. UMJC Upper Midwest Justice Consortium
For the Upper Midwest Justice Consortium (UMJC), the integration and sharing of criminal justice information has been a forefront issue for both state and local justice agencies for several years. UMJC looks to clearly demonstrate the ability for multiple states to share and access critical criminal justice information.
Query Systems in Multiple States: Criminal justice personnel in all participating states will be able to find records on individuals, incidents, or cases regardless of which Criminal Justice county, office, or system in which they are stored;
Automatic Notification of Justice Events: With the sharing of criminal justice “event” data, users in any state can be pro-actively notified when information about an incident, individual or case in which they are interested changes;
Data Sharing Between Agencies: The UMJC integration architecture, through a shared Workflow Engine, will provide attached agencies the ability to share data and criminal justice documents when they deem this necessary

35. Justice Data Dictionary
One of the most monumental products to come from these workgroups thus far, is the National Justice Data Model and Data Dictionary.
Under the auspices of Global, the Justice Dept has sponsored work that has included task forces made up of State and local CJ subject matter experts from all aspects of the CJ spectrum (including a CriMNet representative), along with technical experts from both Industry and the academia (Georgia Tech Research Institute).
What has been rendered is the single and definitive language for CJ Information sharing. This is useful as a plain English dictionary defining the common terms and definitions in Criminal justice, but it’s also (and more importantly) been rendered and “modeled” in a universally usable, and open source computer language called XML
eXtensible Markup Language – It’s the language for data on the Internet, which allows computers every where to process data the same way.
The first version of this is available thru Global and OJP, or can be downloaded at it.ojp.gov

36. A Local Model of Justice Information
State Criminal Justice Agencies
Prosecutor
Law Enforcement/Jail
Public Defender
Probation
Court

37. Statewide Integration
CriMNet is not a single, centralized computer system but a set of loosely coupled systems and applications working together according to a common, predefined set of business rules, data definitions and technology standards. The data to be shared between agencies does not reside in a single location. It is distributed across many agencies, systems and locations. CriMNet provides the means of organizing and “indexing” the distributed data and maintains the references needed to access the data at its various locations.

38. UMJC Upper Midwest Justice Consortium Upper Midwest Justice Consortium
In the absence of complete national information-sharing standards, and with the most immediate needs for interstate information sharing being “border states”, the States of Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois began to seek, in 2001, methods of joint criminal justice participation and partnership. .
With the larger objective of sharing lessons learned and design deliverables that each State has achieved to date, these bordering states participated and supported Criminal Justice Project development processes, specifically in the specifications for a common computer language (XML) for justice information sharing.

39. Project A
Create a common Web Interface available to users in all UMJC states:
Minnesota – CriMNet :POR – CWS - S3 - Statewide Police Incident System (MJNO) - Statewide Arrest Photo Repository (MRAP) - County Attorney’s System (MCAPS) – DVS – State LEMS (warrants and NCIC)
Michigan: Statewide Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS)
Illinois: Statewide Prison/Parole Information system and the Chicago Police Department Record System (CLEAR)
North Dakota: State Predatory Offender Registry System
Iowa: Statewide Prison/Parole Information System
Wisconsin: Statewide District Attorney System (Protect)
Indiana: Expressed Significant interest (System TBD)
Project A: Create a common Web Interface available to all users in the UMJC states:
CriMNet is already deployed in Minnesota, integrating data from several systems: (across the bottom of diagram)
Predatory Offender Registry (POR) - Statewide Courts System (CWS) -Statewide Supervision System (S3) - Statewide Police Incident System (MJNO) - Statewide Arrest Photo Repository (MRAP) - County Attorney’s System (MCAPS)
In the near future, additional systems will be available for data sharing:
State Driver’s Record System and the State LE Message Switch including statewide warrants and NCIC
Many UMJC State agencies have already indicated a desire to further enrich this system. Currently, in meetings and discussions with our partner states, many have indicated a desire to access the existing architecture, and further have some web-enabled statewide systems that could also be leveraged thru the integrated web portal: Some candidate systems from these states, include:
Michigan: Statewide Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) Illinois: Statewide Prison/Parole Information system and the Chicago Police Department Record System (CLEAR) North Dakota: State Predatory Offender Registry System Iowa: Statewide Prison/Parole Information System Wisconsin: Statewide District Attorney System (Protect) Indiana: Expressed Significant interest (System TBD)

40. Project A
Project A: Create a common Web Interface available to all users in the UMJC states:
CriMNet is already deployed in Minnesota, integrating data from several systems: (across the bottom of diagram)
Predatory Offender Registry (POR) - Statewide Courts System (CWS) -Statewide Supervision System (S3) - Statewide Police Incident System (MJNO) - Statewide Arrest Photo Repository (MRAP) - County Attorney’s System (MCAPS)
In the near future, additional systems will be available for data sharing:
State Driver’s Record System and the State LE Message Switch including statewide warrants and NCIC
Many UMJC State agencies have already indicated a desire to further enrich this system. Currently, in meetings and discussions with our partner states, many have indicated a desire to access the existing architecture, and further have some web-enabled statewide systems that could also be leveraged thru the integrated web portal: Some candidate systems from these states, include:
Michigan: Statewide Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) Illinois: Statewide Prison/Parole Information system and the Chicago Police Department Record System (CLEAR) North Dakota: State Predatory Offender Registry System Iowa: Statewide Prison/Parole Information System Wisconsin: Statewide District Attorney System (Protect) Indiana: Expressed Significant interest (System TBD)

41. Project B Expanding MJNO
MJNO is a data index that local law enforcement agencies in Minnesota use to share police contact information.
Currently, it has over 170 agencies actively contributing data and more than 4,500 law enforcement users from MN and WI.
The current index data contains 7.8 million law enforcement contact records.
MJNO is currently is undergoing a major enhancement that will bring into an even richer set of incident data and will be delivering LE incident data from nearly 500 agencies statewide in MN and WI by the end of 2004.
Project B: Expanding MJNO
MJNO is a data index that local law enforcement agencies in Minnesota use to share police contact information. Currently, it has over 170 agencies actively contributing data and more than 4,500 law enforcement users from MN and WI. The current index data contains 7.8 million law enforcement contact records. MJNO is currently is undergoing a major enhancement that will bring into an even richer set of incident data and will be delivering LE incident data from nearly 500 agencies statewide in MN and WI by the end of 2004.
MJNO can be expanded to other States by leveraging existing “adapters” and creating new State “sub-hubs”
Using the existing model developed in MN – identical models can be built in each state, allowing each state’s LE community to publish using pre-built adapters to their own MJNO sub-hub. As you see in the diagram, than, each of the sub-hubs of each state can be intrinsically “linked” together to create a common and virtual records system. Each independently owned and operated, but leveraged together for dynamic records sharing. Because the design exists and is working today…and because the model allows it to be owned and operated by the LE communities and agencies of each state…This plan can be “rolled-out” very quickly (6-18 months) and cheaply ($200,000 per state plus $300.00/agency).

42. Project B: Expanding MJNO
MJNO is a data index that local law enforcement agencies in Minnesota use to share police contact information. Currently, it has over 170 agencies actively contributing data and more than 4,500 law enforcement users from MN and WI. The current index data contains 7.8 million law enforcement contact records. MJNO is currently is undergoing a major enhancement that will bring into an even richer set of incident data and will be delivering LE incident data from nearly 500 agencies statewide in MN and WI by the end of 2004.
MJNO can be expanded to other States by leveraging existing “adapters” and creating new State “sub-hubs”
Using the existing model developed in MN – identical models can be built in each state, allowing each state’s LE community to publish using pre-built adapters to their own MJNO sub-hub. As you see in the diagram, than, each of the sub-hubs of each state can be intrinsically “linked” together to create a common and virtual records system. Each independently owned and operated, but leveraged together for dynamic records sharing. Because the design exists and is working today…and because the model allows it to be owned and operated by the LE communities and agencies of each state…This plan can be “rolled-out” very quickly (6-18 months) and cheaply ($200,000 per state plus $300.00/agency).

43. Project B Project B: Expanding MJNO
MJNO is a data index that local law enforcement agencies in Minnesota use to share police contact information. Currently, it has over 170 agencies actively contributing data and more than 4,500 law enforcement users from MN and WI. The current index data contains 7.8 million law enforcement contact records. MJNO is currently is undergoing a major enhancement that will bring into an even richer set of incident data and will be delivering LE incident data from nearly 500 agencies statewide in MN and WI by the end of 2004.
MJNO can be expanded to other States by leveraging existing “adapters” and creating new State “sub-hubs”
Using the existing model developed in MN – identical models can be built in each state, allowing each state’s LE community to publish using pre-built adapters to their own MJNO sub-hub. As you see in the diagram, than, each of the sub-hubs of each state can be intrinsically “linked” together to create a common and virtual records system. Each independently owned and operated, but leveraged together for dynamic records sharing. Because the design exists and is working today…and because the model allows it to be owned and operated by the LE communities and agencies of each state…This plan can be “rolled-out” very quickly (6-18 months) and cheaply ($200,000 per state plus $300.00/agency).

44. Thanks - - Wrap-Up