Fbi Rap Sheet Example: Fill & Download for Free

Prior to 1934, there were no gun laws restricting the purchase of any kind of Firearm.In the Highwayman, Costner walks into a gun store and buys firearms that would cost a major fortune, IF you could find them.Besides buying thousands of rounds, Costner’s character, based of the real Frank Hamer, buys full Auto rifles like the BAR/Colt Monitor, machine pistols including the Thompson and a truck load of pistols rifles and carbines.There was no background check.You could buy or modify guns to be “Short Barreled” like a sawed off shotgun.Serial numbers do NOT have to be recorded.There were no special Federal licenses required.Costner pays cash and walks out.So could Al Capone, Frank Nitti, Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, on and on.Or, you could just mail order them.It was that easy.So prior to 1934, I would be surprised if anything outside of guns stolen from a National Guard Armory would be tracked.In fact advertisements were common like the one below.Photo Credit City of GustavCity of Gustav - The History of Federal Gun Control - Can You Hear Me?Can You Hear Me? Episode 107 - "City of Gustav - The History of Federal Gun Control" - Gustav explains Federal gun control and answers listener questionshttps://canyouhearmepod.com/city-gustav-history-federal-gun-control/Nothing like having your own personal machine pistol to fight off a gang of cattle rustlers. Prior to 1934 of course!So I’m not sure how you could capture that data. Heck prior to 1924, there was no criminal history repository. From 1924 to at least about 1929, it was far from being complete. Then even after that it was a time of index cards, rolodex’s and row upon row of file cabinets. New convictions involved finding the right set of fingerprints, pulling the file, updating it with a typewriter and then refiling the criminals RAP sheet.When I started in Law Enforcement in 1973, it took at least 90 days to find out for sure just who you fingerprinted. Everything was done on paper, sent via snail mail, and manually classified. Only then would your card and arrest data be paired with the parent record. Then it was mailed back and the person’s real identity revealed.Heck I personally knew people who were hired and working as Correctional Officers that had FBI National warrants out on them. The FBI came into the prison and arrested them on duty. That was as late as 1973.

There are two aspects to this question:First, one can’t hold IP on bare facts. So to the extent a rap sheet simply recites pertinent, actual facts about a person, it can’t be protected.As a digression and word of caution, there are two important footnotes to this assertion. First, although you can’t copyright facts, you can certainly copyright specific descriptions of facts. Way back when newspaper articles were factual (cough cough) you still couldn’t copy them with impunity. Second, if you assemble enough facts, the collection could start to take on creative aspects. For example, if you wrote a biography of a notable person that focused on events sharing a common theme, then the narrative of your biography (as distinct from the mere words on the page) might acquire some copyright protection.Back to rap sheets…Second, the federal government does not hold rights in federal-government-created documents. (35 U.S. Code § 105). To the extent the rap sheet is a government document, there are no rights associated with it.

There is a semantic issue here. The concept of "arrest" is different, depending on whether you are talking about an arrest under the Fourth Amendment or one for the purpose of establishing a criminal record.Under the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizure), you or anything that belongs to you is "arrested" when you or it is restricted in usual freedom or movement. If a police officer tells you, "Stop where you are," you are arrested for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. This is also the case if you are pulled over for a traffic violation. The officer has to have, at minimum, reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing to do this. If he does not, his order and your detention is an unreasonable seizure under the protections of the Fourth Amendment.However, even if the officer does have grounds for the Fourth Amendment seizure, such as a traffic violation, his temporary seizure of you and your vehicle is not an arrest for the purpose of a criminal record or a reporting requirement. Most of us have been stopped by the police at one time or another, but we can lawfully and truthfully say we have not been arrested.An "arrest" for the purpose of a criminal record or a reporting requirement such as the one described in the question is one that is documented by citation or booking. Most formal arrests result in booking at a detention facility, meaning the arrestee is photographed, fingerprinted, and an arrest record created. This process is what causes the event to appear on your criminal history, also known as a "rap sheet." When the Criminal Justice Information Services Division at the FBI receives a fingerprint card documenting an arrest, intake into a prison, or deportation, the prints on that card are matched with any other prints already on file at the FBI. If the prints are new to the FBI, a record is created; if the prints match those already on file, the event listed on the card (arrest, booking, whatever, along with the relevant charges and in the case of a prison booking, the sentence) is added to the rap sheet. The agency that submitted the print card is then notified of the creation of the new record or the modification to the old one. Any law enforcement agency in the country, and some outside the country, can then access this rap sheet at any time. In the days of inked tenprint cards and manual classification of prints, the process took as much as six months between submission of the prints and updating of the record. Now that most fingerprints are taken and transmitted electronically, the process takes a few days at most.This notification process has occasionally resulted in some major "oops" moments. When the process ran on inked print cards and was a lot slower, it wasn't at all unusual for a law enforcement agency to receive the return on the print card data long after the person arrested had been released.From time to time, the notification would include the true name of the person they used to have in custody, along with the notice that the person was wanted for numerous and sundry crimes elsewhere. The name and other identifying information the person had used was added to the rap sheet as an "aka" (also known as), and the search for them resumed. It's considerably more difficult to pull off the "SODDI "defense (Some Other Dude Did It) now.Most states maintain their own criminal history files, and they may not require submission of a fingerprint card. For this reason, a state criminal history may include incidents not recorded on the FBI criminal history (sometimes called "triple eye" for its abbreviation of III, for Interstate Identification Index). For example, where most states used to make a formal arrest for possession of marijuana, the more common practice now is to issue a citation and require the cited person to appear in court. This type of citation may be recorded as an arrest on a state criminal history. Whether it does or not depends on the policy of that state. Also, some law enforcement agencies, jails and prisons are more diligent about submitting arrest and booking date to the FBI and their state records repositories than are others. Manor felonies are nearly always reported, but lesser charges may be overlooked.As for the arrest scenario described in the question, I think the author can safely disregard that as a formal arrest and not mention it on any forms. Even though an officer might have said, "You are under arrest," this was more of an investigative detention or "Terry stop" (named for the SCOTUS case of Terry v.. Ohio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio). It was almost certainly not documented as an arrest, no booking took place, and there was no fingerprint card to submit to the FBI. At most, the record may exist in the narrative report of the incident in the files of the law enforcement agency where the officer worked, but even that agency would have difficulty locating it if asked.