No. The collection does not exclude deaths based on a lack of establishing physical custody. For example, it includes officer-involved shootings, of which virtually none involved subjects who were in the physical custody of the arresting agency at the time of death. Some arrest-related suicides occurred in police lockups and booking facilities, and most occurred before law enforcement personnel apprehended arrest subjects and established physical custody.
In 2018, about 61.5 million U.S. residents age 16 or older had one or more contacts with police during the prior 12 months. An estimated 28.9 million residents experienced contact initiated by police, about 35.5 million initiated contact with police, and nearly 9 million reported a police contact as the result of a traffic accident. About 18.7 million persons reported being pulled over as a driver during a traffic stop, compared to about 19.1 million persons reporting a crime, disturbance, or suspicious activity to police.
Yes. The ARD collection includes all deaths that result from any use of force by law enforcement officers, regardless of whether the officer intended the use of force to be lethal. To resolve an incident, law enforcement officers are authorized to use force in an escalating series of actions. The amount of force used ranges from the mere presence of an officer to the use of lethal force.
Most law enforcement agencies have policies that guide the appropriate level of force for a given situation. Law enforcement personnel are trained to only use lethal force when an arrest subject poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual and an arrest would be imminent. The threshold of criminal behavior to prompt an arrest is far lower than the threshold to prompt the use of lethal force.
Probation refers to adult offenders whom courts place on supervision in the community through a probation agency, generally in lieu of incarceration. However, some jurisdictions do sentence probationers to a combined short-term incarceration sentence immediately followed by probation, which is referred to as a split sentence. Probations can have a number of different supervision statuses including active supervision, which means they are required to regularly report to a probation authority in person, by mail, or by telephone. Some probationers may be on an inactive status which means they are excluded from regularly reporting, and that could be due to a number of reasons. For instance, some probationers may be placed on inactive status immediately because the severity of the offense was minimal or some may receive a reduction in supervision and therefore may be moved from an active to inactive status. Other supervision statuses include probationers who only have financial conditions remaining, have absconded, or who have active warrants. In many instances, while on probation, offenders are required to fulfill certain conditions of their supervision (e.g., payment of fines, fees or court costs, participation in treatment programs) and adhere to specific rules of conduct while in the community. Failure to comply with any conditions can result in incarceration.
Parole refers to criminal offenders who are conditionally released from prison to serve the remaining portion of their sentence in the community. Prisoners may be released to parole either by a parole board decision (discretionary release/discretionary parole) or according to provisions of a statute (mandatory release/mandatory parole). This definition of parole is not restricted to only prisoners who are released through a parole board decision, but also includes prisoners who are released based on provisions of a statute. Parolees can have a number of different supervision statuses including active supervision, which means they are required to regularly report to a parole authority in person, by mail, or by telephone. Some parolees may be on an inactive status which means they are excluded from regularly reporting, and that could be due to a number of reasons. For instance, some may receive a reduction in supervision, possibly due to compliance or meeting all required conditions before the parole sentence terminates, and therefore may be moved from an active to inactive status. Other supervision statues include parolees who only have financial conditions remaining, have absconded, or who have active warrants. Parolees are also typically required to fulfill certain conditions and adhere to specific rules of conduct while in the community. Failure to comply with any of the conditions can result in a return to incarceration.
Find a report on the most recent probation and parole counts at Probation and Parole in the United States.
Domestic relationships include intimate partners, immediate family members, and other relatives.
Intimate relationships are defined as current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends, including same sex relationships. Intimates are distinguished from
- other relatives, such as a parent, child, sibling, grandparent, in-law, cousin
- acquaintances, such as a friend, coworker, neighbor, schoolmate, someone known
- strangers who are anyone not previously known by the victim.
Violence between intimates is difficult to measure because it often occurs in private, and victims are often reluctant to report incidents to anyone because of shame or fear of reprisal.
The types of contact in the PPCS include those initiated by residents, those initiated by police, and resulting from a traffic accident. Resident-initiated contacts include reporting a crime, disturbance, or suspicious activity; reporting a non-crime emergency, such as a medical emergency; reporting a non-emergency, such as asking for directions, custody enforcement, and court orders; participating in a block watch or other anti-crime programs; or approaching or seeking help from police for another reason. Police-initiated contacts include being stopped by police while in a public place or a parked vehicle (i.e., street stop), being stopped by police while driving a motor vehicle (i.e., traffic stop), riding as a passenger in a car that was stopped by police, being arrested, or being stopped or approached by police for some other reason. The PPCS also collected data on contacts resulting from a traffic accident.
Sworn officers have full arrest powers granted by a state or local government. Nonsworn officers do not have the ability to arrest and serve in the capacity of a security officer.
- DOJ Tribal Justice and Safety
- DOJ Office of Tribal Justice
- OJP American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs
- National Institute of Justice: Tribal Crime and Justice
- Bureau of Justice Assistance: BJA Tribal Justice Programs
- Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP): Tribal Youth Program
- Census brief: The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010
- Press release of Census brief
- BIA: 2005 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report
Go to Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Leaders Directory
During 2018, an estimated 61.5 million U.S. residents age 16 or older, or 24% of the population, had one or more contacts with police. This includes calling to report a crime, being stopped in a moving vehicle, or being approached by an officer in a public place (street stop).
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) 2003 survey, state and local law enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn personnel, employing 59% of officers nationwide, received nearly 27,000 citizen complaints about police use of force during 2002. About 8% of these force complaints were sustained; that is, there was sufficient evidence to justify disciplinary action against the officer or officers. See Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force
CBP officers are tasked with stopping terrorists, terrorist weapons, illegal drugs, aliens, and materials harmful to agriculture from entering the United States. These officers perform patrol and response functions along, and in the vicinity of, the 8,000 miles of U.S. boundaries.
ICE is an acronym for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE is the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security. The agency is responsible for identifying and eliminating vulnerabilities in the nation’s border, economic, transportation, and infrastructure security. ICE is organized into four major offices: Investigations, Intelligence, Detention and Removal Operations, and Federal Protective Service (FPS). The primary mission of ICE is to prevent acts of terrorism by targeting the people, money, and materials that support terrorist and criminal activities.
In addition to felony criminal matters, prosecutors’ offices handled a variety of other case types. A greater number of prosecutors’ offices reported computer-based offenses and taking on homeland security responsibilities. In 2005, 60% of all state court prosecutors reported prosecuting crimes under the state’s computer crime statute, compared to 42% in 2001. About 80% of all offices reported handling credit card fraud, bankcard fraud (71%), identity theft (70%), and transmitting child pornography in 2005.
Full-time prosecutors’ offices were more likely to report prosecuting cases related to terrorism or participating in terrorism related investigations, compared to small full-time offices or part-time offices. In 2005, 2% of all prosecutor offices reported prosecuting cases related to terrorism; 7% actively participated in terrorism related investigations; and a third had members of the staff attend training on homeland security issues. Nearly a quarter of all offices participated in state or local task forces for homeland security.
Staffing and budget increases experienced by state court prosecutors' offices in the 1990s generally leveled off by 2001. Resources available to state court prosecutors' offices in 2005 were similar to those in 2001. In 2005 state court prosecutors' offices employed approximately 78,000 attorneys, investigators and support staff, had a median annual budget of $355,000, and closed about 250 or more felony cases.
In 2005, 24% of prosecutors’ offices reported problems recruiting new staff, and 35% had problems retaining staff attorneys. Thirty-seven percent of full-time medium offices and 27% of full-time large offices reported problems recruiting new staff attorneys, compared to 11% of part-time offices. Among offices identifying staff retention and recruitment problems, salary was the number one concern.
The Prosecutors in State Courts statistical series began in 1990. The series focuses on the nation's 2,300 state court prosecutors' offices that handle felony cases in state courts of general jurisdiction. The National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), prosecutors across the nation, and individuals interested in acquiring a better understanding of state prosecutor operations extensively use the data on the number of staff, annual budget, criminal caseloads, and other office characteristics. The 2007 National Census of State Court Prosecutors (NCSP), currently underway, will provide more recent estimates. See Prosecutors in State Courts, 2005, to read more about prosecutors in state courts in 2005.
Results from the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 2005, show that 61% of civil cases concluded by trial involved a tort claim in which plaintiffs alleged injury, loss, or damage from the negligent or intentional acts of defendants. Cases dealing with allegations of breach of contract (contract cases) accounted for 33% of trials, and real property cases accounted for about 6%. The most frequent kinds of civil cases disposed of by trial were motor vehicle accident (35%), seller plaintiff (11%), buyer plaintiff (10%), and medical malpractice (9%).
Overall, plaintiffs won in 56% of all tort and contract trials in 2005. The rate of plaintiff success varied according to the type of case litigated. Plaintiff win rates were not applicable to real property trials.
Plaintiffs were more likely to win in contract cases (66%) than in tort cases (52%). Mortgage foreclosure (89%), animal attack (75%), and seller plaintiff (75%) cases had the highest percentage of plaintiffs who prevailed. Plaintiffs won in over half of the trials for motor vehicle accidents (64%), employment discrimination (61%), and product liability (55%) cases, but prevailed in less than a third of medical malpractice (23%) cases.
The 2005 Civil Justice Survey of State Courts (CJSSC) shows that about 26,950 tort, contact, and real property cases were disposed of by bench or jury trial in state courts of general jurisdiction nationwide. This amounts to a trial rate of approximately 3% for all general civil cases filed in 2005. Of the almost 27,000 trials, 68% were jury trials while in the remaining 32%, litigants waived their rights to a jury trial and had their cases heard before a judge only. See Civil Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005.
In 2005 estimated $6 billion in compensatory and punitive damages was awarded to plaintiffs who won in civil trials. The median amount awarded to plaintiff winners in all trial cases was $28,000. Contract trials garnered higher median awards ($35,000), compared to tort trials ($24,000). About 10% of plaintiffs who won in general civil trials were awarded over $250,000 in total damages while about 4% were awarded $1 million or more.
The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA), Pub. L. 110-180, was signed into law by the President on January 8, 2008. The NIAA amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 ("the Brady Act") (Pub. L. 103-159), under which the Attorney General established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The Brady Act requires Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to contact the NICS before transferring a firearm to an unlicensed person for information on whether the proposed transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under state or federal law. The NIAA was a bipartisan effort to strengthen the NICS by increasing the quantity and quality of relevant records accessible to the system.
The NIAA was enacted in the wake of the April 2007 shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to purchase firearms from an FFL because information about his prohibiting mental health history was not available to the NICS and the system was therefore unable to deny the transfer of the firearms used in the shootings. The NICS is a critical tool in keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons, but it is only as effective as the information entered into the databases upon which it relies. The NIAA seeks to address the gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds. Filling these information gaps will better enable the system to operate as intended to keep guns out of the hands of persons prohibited by federal or state law from receiving or possessing firearms.
The NICS is a national system that checks available records in three databases to determine if prospective transferees are disqualified from receiving firearms. It is administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A NICS check includes a check of the following three databases that are maintained by the FBI:
- Interstate Identification Index (III), a database of criminal history record information,
- National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which includes information on persons subject to civil protection orders and arrest warrants
- NICS Indices, which includes the information contributed by federal and state agencies identifying persons prohibited from possessing firearms who are not included in the III or NCIC, such as persons with a prohibiting mental health history or who are illegal or unlawful aliens.
When the transferee is not a U.S. citizen, a separate query is run to confirm the transferee's immigration status. If a NICS check identifies a person as falling within a prohibited category, the FBI advises the FFL that the transfer is "denied." Individuals can appeal denials and seek correction of information in the FBI databases by either applying to the FBI or the federal or state agency that contributed the information to the FBI.
The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, 18 U.S.C. 921, et seq., establishes the following categories of persons who are prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm: Any person pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g) or (n) who—
- has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
- is a fugitive from justice
- is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
- has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution
- is an illegal or unlawful alien or a non-immigrant alien (with certain exceptions)
- has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
- having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship
- is subject to a domestic violence protection order that meets certain requirements
- has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
- is under indictment for or has been charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
Section 922(g)(4), Title 18, United States Code, prohibits the receipt or possession of firearms by an individual who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution." Regulations issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, define these terms as follows:
Adjudicated as a mental defective.
(1) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease—
- is a danger to himself or to others
- lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(2) The term shall include —
- a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case
- those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.
Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily and a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
No. The NICS does not maintain a database of medical records or information on mental health diagnoses or treatment plans. When a record of a person prohibited from possessing a firearm as a result of mental health issues (i.e., a person who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated a "mental defective" by a court, board, or other lawful authority) is entered in the NICS Indices, the entry contains only a name, other biographic identifiers (e.g., date of birth), and codes for the submitting entity and prohibited category. The NICS Indices does not contain medical records or medical information.
When information about such adjudications and commitments is provided to the NICS, the FBI can deny firearm transfers to persons with disqualifying mental health histories, both in the state where the record was created and in other states to which the individual may have subsequently moved.
The information in the NICS is subject to the Privacy Act and the privacy of the information is protected in a number of ways. The only responses provided by the NICS to a request for a NICS check is "Proceed," "Denied," or "Delayed." In cases of a "Denied" response, neither the general prohibiting category nor information about the specific event that places an individual in that prohibited category is provided to the FFL. The individual, however, is able to request information about the reason for the denial from the FBI and can appeal the denial and seek to correct incomplete or inaccurate information in the system upon which the denial is based.
In addition, as noted above, the information identifying mental health adjudications or commitments contributed by federal and state agencies is maintained in the NICS Indices. The regulations governing the NICS limits the use of the NICS Indices to (1) checks under the Brady Act by FFLs of proposed firearms transferees; (2) checks by federal, state, or local criminal justice agencies in connection with the issuance of a firearms-related or explosives-related license or permit; and (3) requests by ATF in connection with civil or criminal law enforcement relating to the federal Gun Control Act (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) or National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. Chapter 53). Checks of the NICS Indices for general law enforcement purposes are not permitted under the regulations. See 28 CFR. 25.6(j).
The NIAA seeks to improve the information available to the NICS, so that the system can more accurately identify prohibited persons, by—
- enhancing the Brady Act requirement that federal departments and agencies provide relevant information to the NICS
- providing incentives to states to submit complete information to the Attorney General on persons prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms through—
- authorizing new grant programs for state executive and judicial branch agencies to improve information available to the NICS
- providing for Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program penalties for states that do not comply with the Act's record completeness goals.
FOR STATES: The NIAA has provisions that encourage states to meet specified goals for completeness of the records submitted to the Attorney General on individuals prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. The records covered include automated information needed by the NICS to identify felony convictions, felony indictments, fugitives from justice, drug arrests and convictions, federally prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments, domestic violence protection orders, and misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. The Act provides for a number of incentives for states to meet the goals it sets for greater record completeness.
- First, the Act allows states to obtain a waiver, beginning in 2011, of the National Criminal History Improvement Program's (NCHIP) state matching requirement for NCHIP grants, if a state provides at least 90 percent of its records identifying the specified prohibited persons.
- Second, the Act authorizes a separate grant program to be administered consistent with NCHIP, for state executive and judicial agencies to establish and upgrade information automation and identification technologies for timely submission of final criminal record dispositions and other information relevant to NICS checks. Up to 5% of the grants may be reserved for Indian tribal governments and judicial systems.
- Finally, the Act provides for discretionary and mandatory Byrne grant penalties for non-compliance with record completeness requirements: During the 2-year period beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of the Act, up to 3% may be withheld in the case of less than 50% completeness; during the 5-year period beginning 5 years after the date of enactment of the Act, up to 4% may be withheld in the case of less than 70% completeness; thereafter, 5% must be withheld in the case of less than 90% completeness (although the mandatory reduction can be waived if there is substantial evidence of the state making a reasonable effort to comply).
IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM: The NIAA creates an independent statutory obligation for federal agencies to report records identifying prohibited persons to the Attorney General no less than quarterly. It also requires federal agencies that issue prohibiting mental health adjudications or commitments establish a program under which a person subject to such an adjudication or commitment can apply for relief from his or her firearms disability according to standards under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). Additionally, the Act provides that a prohibiting adjudication or commitment issued by a federal agency or department may be nullified in certain instances by a qualified set aside, expungement, release from mandatory treatment, or other specified means.
CHANGE TO THE MENTAL HEALTH PROHIBITOR: Prior to the NIAA, section 922(g)(4) was effectively a lifetime prohibition on possessing firearms by any person "who had been adjudicated a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution." The Act, however, provides that when relief is granted under a federal or state relief from disabilities program that meets the requirements of the Act, or when certain automatic relief conditions are met with respect to persons federally adjudicated or committed, the event giving rise to the mental health disability is "deemed not to have occurred" for purposes of the federal firearm prohibition.
There are two conditions that each state must satisfy before being eligible to receive grants:
- First, a state must provide to the Attorney General a "reasonable estimate," based on a methodology established by the Attorney General, of records subject to the Act's completeness requirements.
- Second, a state must certify, to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, that the state has implemented a program permitting persons who have been adjudicated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution to obtain relief from the firearms disabilities imposed by law as a result of such adjudication or commitment. This relief must be granted, in accordance with principles of due process, by a state court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The relief must be based on a finding that the circumstances of the disability and the person's record and reputation are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and that the granting of relief would not be contrary to the public interest.
Before the enactment of the NICS Improvement Act, a person's adjudication as a mental defective or commitment to a mental institution was effectively a lifetime prohibition. Concerns were expressed to Congress about the permanence of this prohibitor and the life-long effect it would have on persons whose mental health adjudication or commitment records would be provided to the NICS under the Act's provisions. To address these concerns, the Act included not only provisions to require or promote the sharing of the existence of information about this disability for use by the NICS, but also provisions that require or authorize the establishment of federal and state programs that allow individuals to seek relief from the federal mental health firearms disability if circumstances warrant. As of December 2017, 31 states have enacted relief programs that have been certified by the state and approved by ATF.
ATF is available to answer questions about whether existing state laws meet the standards contemplated for the state relief from disability programs contemplated in the NICS Improvement Act. ATF is also available to provide technical assistance to states seeking to establish such programs under the Act. Also see State Relief from Disabilities Program Criteria.
The Act requires the Attorney General to establish for use by the states a methodology to calculate estimates of the total number of records in each of the subcategories of records subject to the grant program's reporting requirements. The Justice Department's Bureau of Justice of Statistics (BJS) developed a data collection instrument setting forth this methodology to send to each state's NCHIP point of contact agency. In doing so, BJS coordinated with representatives of the state criminal justice information repositories, state court administrators, the National Center for State Courts, the National Association of State Mental Health Directors, and others to obtain input on state record-keeping practices to help inform the development of a methodology. The previous data collection, State Estimates of Available Records Information Collection, approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was sent to each state for completion. To date, BJS has received estimates from 47 jurisdictions. A Frequently Asked Questions document was also available to assist respondents in completing the form. Three years of data have been collected to date. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act: State Records Estimates Development and Validation Project, Year Three Report provides information on the results of the third year of collection. BJS is continuing to work with state and federal partners to explore revised methodologies to assess record completeness and availability.
Recognizing the need to automate state record systems that contribute most of the relevant information to the FBI record systems that would be checked by the NICS, the Brady Act established NCHIP, a program of grants to be used by the states to create or improve computerized criminal history record systems, assist in the transmittal of criminal records for use by the NICS, and improve access to the NICS. NCHIP is administered by the Department's Office of Justice Programs through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. At the state level, NCHIP grants are administered by state agencies designated by the Governor for this purpose. Since 1995, NCHIP has provided over $699 million in grants to the states to improve the automation of their record systems that contribute to the FBI information used in NICS checks.
Notwithstanding these efforts under NCHIP and the tremendous progress the state and federal criminal justice information repositories have made in record automation since 1995, the databases checked by the FBI are still missing significant percentages of relevant data that originate in the states, including final dispositions of records of arrests for prohibiting offenses, records of convictions for domestic violence misdemeanor offenses, and information identifying persons with prohibiting domestic violence protection orders or with disqualifying mental health adjudications and commitments.
The NICS Improvement Act grant programs do not supplant NCHIP. Rather, the NICS Improvement Act grants are to be made in a manner "consistent with" and "in accordance with" NCHIP. The major difference from NCHIP is that the NICS Improvement Act grants may only be used for specified purposes that are related to achieving the completeness goals for the records directly related to NICS checks. In addition, the NICS Improvement Act authorizes a separate grant program for funding that is dedicated to be used by state courts systems, where most of the disposition information missing from the national repositories originates.