Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

False Information A-Okay in Primary FBI Database

Posted by michael on from the hanging-judge dept.

blamanj writes "The FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which compiles a huge database on criminals, arrest warrants, missing persons, etc., no longer has to put up with the pesky problem of ensuring the data is accurate. I guess the Justice Department isn't particularly concerned with justice anymore." The full text of the provision which the main FBI criminal database will no longer have to adhere to is: "Each agency that maintains a system of records shall ... maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any determination about any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination."

3 of 431 comments (clear)

  1. Here's the actual document by adenied · · Score: 4, Informative

    68 FR 14140. Direct link to the Federal Register. PDF format. Enjoy.

    PS: Request your FBI file regularly. It's really easy.

    1. Re:Here's the actual document by adenied · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pretty easy to request your own file. Check out the DOJ's FOIA Guide. It will tell you where to send the request and what forms to fill out (Form DOJ-361 for instance, the Certification of Identify).

  2. This isn't anything new... by secondstringhero · · Score: 3, Informative

    For the last few years, the FBI has had the Supreme Court's stamp of approval for "mistakes" like this. Arizona v. Evans (514 US 1) pretty much castrated the exclusionary rule regarding computer databases. Basically, guy gets stopped for a traffic violation, guy had a then-expired misdemeanor warrant in the computer, guy gets arrested for drug possession (not what the warrant was for, by the way). Despite the fact that the warrant was invalid, the evidence was still admissible, so the guy was convicted.

    Their reasoning behind this? It's more of a clerical error than a police error, and since the exclusionary rule (forbidding illegally obtained evidence in court) is only supposed to deter police misconduct, everything's perfectly alright. Yeah, Rehnquist wrote it, so it's not like it's supposed to make sense. Before anyone turns this into a convervative-liberal argument, the vote was 7-2, so everyone's at fault.

    Anyway, before they were overruled, the Arizona Supreme Court was actually on the right track. From the majority opinion: "As automation increasingly invades modern life, the potential for Orwellian mischief grows. Under such circumstances, the exclusionary rule is a 'cost' we cannot afford to be without."

    Anyone hoping for a constitutional review of this, don't hold your breath.