Leveraging the Mugshot Database

This issue is fundamental and is the reason for the existence of WINPHO. In fact, it is axiomatic:

1. Mugshots help solve crimes;
2. A mugshot is worthless if it cannot be located and put into the hands of the criminal justice professional who needs it;
3. Criminals move from place to place, irrespective of political boundaries;

The theorem seems clear: if you want to help criminal justice professionals do their jobs, give them access to the largest, most geographically broad collection of mugshots possible. This is what WIN means by "leveraging the database." It has never been enough for an agency to rely solely upon its own database for mugshots. And with the advent of high quality, low cost networking solutions like WINPHO, there is no longer any excuse for doing so.

Affording the Standard
Standardization, in the field of mugshots, is a requirement. To populate a database with photographs that are carelessly captured is to risk the exclusion of a witness identification at trial. This is a high price to pay for poor quality control, but due process demands it. Typically, this issue will arise when a mugshot is acquired from another agency and inserted into a local photo array. If the imported mugshot is not similar to the other photos making up the array, the prosecution runs the risk of an “impermissibly suggestive” identification and suppression of the lineup identification itself. While in the majority of cases a photo lineup is not found to be impermissibly suggestive, the credit for that record of success should primarily be given to the police department staff members who often invest hours of work into developing photo arrays that will pass constitutional muster. In other words, the fact that photo arrays are, more often than not, appropriately constructed is not due to the fact that the photos are drawn from standardized databases. Rather, it is due to the fact that valuable resources have been expended in the careful creation of lineups that will survive a motion to suppress. These resources could be better used in support of "real" police work, and could be used that way if a standard approach to mugshots were applied.

It is important to note that law enforcement finds photo lineups preferable to in-person or "corporeal" lineups for a number of reasons. Some of the reasons are practical. For instance, it is almost always easier to find five photographs that bear a resemblance to a suspect than it is to find five people who bear a resemblance to the suspect and are available to participate in a lineup. Even when the corporeal lineup can be put together, it is a time and other resource-consuming exercise, requiring the movement of prisoners and assignment of additional personnel. What’s more, the corporeal lineup may, depending upon the circumstances, bring with it a suspect’s right to counsel—a right which does not attend a photo lineup. Finally, when photo lineups are employed, an individual need not be present at the police station, nor even aware that he or she is being considered by the police as a suspect. Although corporeal lineups are generally seen as more reliable than photo arrays, police officers and prosecutors generally find that the factors described above weigh heavily in favor of photo lineups.

The affordability question should be approached from two directions: first, an agency must consider the issues raised above and ask whether it can afford not to standardize. However, this analysis might be considered esoteric when the first question an administrator asks is, "How much will I have to spend to standardize?" The answer to that question is, of course, "it depends."

Literal Costs
Fundamental standardization of the mugshot capture process is not costly. In fact, an agency that carefully conforms with the NIST Best Practice Recommendation will produce standard mugshots. Administrators will be relived to learn that the Best Practice Recommendation is more about the process of capturing the mugshots than it is about the equipment used in the capture. The bottom line is that an agency with a well lighted room, a reasonably modern camera, and a gallon or so of the appropriate shade of gray paint can be NIST-compliant. However, this approach only means that the mugshots in the filing cabinet of that agency will be standard captures. It does not address any of the issues related to digitizing, storage, retrieval, or sharing. So, the next question is, "What’s it cost to share these pictures electronically?" Again, it depends.

WINPHO is scalable. When we say this, we mean not only that the system can grow with the needs of the user, but also that the benefits of WINPHO can be appreciated even with only marginal participation. This is clear in our commitment to making mugshots available to all law enforcement agencies, regardless of whether they capture mugs or not. However, scalability is also evident in the basic WINPHO services that are available a nominal cost.

All participants in WINPHO can expect to pay a monthly support fee. Currently, the amount of that fee is $35.00 per month per workstation for capture stations (regardless of manufacturer), and $8.50 per month per workstation for workstations that are only capable of receiving. Because WIN/NLETS dues are paid by WIN members at the state or federal level, and those dues keep the network up and running, no additional network connection fee is charged to WINPHO users. When WIN contracted for the WINPHO application, the license we received was perpetual and for use within any WIN member, whether state or federal. As noted elsewhere in this document, infrastructure, server environmental, and application support are financed through the WIN general fund and are not billed directly to users. Retrieval of images through WINPHO is by use of a standard Internet browser and carries no additional license or other fees.

What all of this means is that an agency that wants only to retrieve mugshots from WINPHO and has a relatively modern desktop computer and connection to their state law enforcement backbone can do so for $8.50 per month. This amount is not dependent upon the amount of traffic the user generates on the network. Simply put, if a user has one retrieve station, he or she pays $8.50 per month. Two workstations cost a total of $17.00 per month, etc.

The same approach applies to mugshot capture. There is, however, an obvious requirement for additional equipment such as a camera. Still, the concept remains the same: if an agency has a suitable digital camera capable of appropriately with an existing, relatively modern desktop computer, and that computer is connected to the user’s state law enforcement backbone, the total WINPHO charge per month for that workstation will be $35.00.

The costs associated with equipment procurement and contracting for new interfaces, where they are required, obviously make up the largest expenditure an agency can look forward to when implementing a networked digital mugshot solution. Cost of a WINPHO-native capture station largely depends upon the additional features a particular user desires. For instance, a basic system is priced at approximately $12,500 and includes computer, dual monitors, camera, color ink jet printer, and connection to the WIN/NLETS backbone. No software license fees are recovered from the user. Because system components are largely off-the-shelf, hardware is supported through warranty service at a very reasonable cost. Users that opt for more features may consider things such as a color laser printer or larger monitors. In all configurations, WINPHO-native capture stations are considerably less costly than commercial systems. However, commercial systems offer an improved feature set. Yet, a commercial system may require substantial sums be expended on a custom interface. Users must individually evaluate the benefits of each approach.

Of course, these examples illustrate the most rudimentary involvement with this program, and most users will opt for a more full-featured approach. Still, there is an important point to be made: WINPHO runs on:

1. Off-the-shelf hardware;
2. Software already purchased by WIN for the use of WIN members;
3. A network built and supported by WIN through dues;
4. Servers and applications supported by the WIN general fund.

Anything beyond the basics will be provided to the user at cost. A faster computer, a better camera, an interface to a Jail Management System—what our user needs is what that user negotiates directly with his or her vendor for. Scalable and affordable, an agency cannot afford not to participate.