Again, not in Wisconsin. Misdemeanor case files are purged from the Wisconsin criminal justice system indexes after 20 years. Felony case files are purged from the indexes after 50 or 75 years, depending on the class of felony.
Back to Musicat’s worries, above. This is from the Wisconsin Crime Information Bureau:
But are they also purged from the FBI files? 
:dubious:
Besides- I am in CA, not WI, and even so- *20 years * for a misdemeanor arrest with no conviction? :mad:
The fingerprint files were organized according to certain physical characteristics of the prints.
Then when they were looking for a match, they checked those same physical characteristics on the target prints, then pulled out the section of files containing prints with the matching chacteristics.
Next they would use other factors to try to reduce the number of prints to be compared to a reasonable number. They would try to decide which filed prints to compare first. For example, if it’s a rape case, they might eliminate prints from females and from males under 12 or over 65 from the group to be compared first. Also, they could eliminate prints from people known to be incarcerated, overseas military, etc. from the early comparisons.
Then the manual process: a fingerprint expert sits down and visually compares the target prints with each one of the filed prints, one by one, looking for a match. (Sometimes, to speed this up, they had junior techs doing this first check, eliminating the definate no’s, and saving the maybe’s for an experienced expert to compare.)
If they didn’t find a match, they might then go back and look at prints from the groups that they skipped this first time.
But this could indeed take a long time (and cost a lot, too). How extensive a search they would do depended on the importance of the crime, compared to all the others that were waiting to be done.
The current computerized searches work like an automated version of the old junior technician comparisons: the computer searches the whole computerized file for prints which are a close possible match, then that much smaller group of prints is manually compared by a human fingerprint expert for an actual match.
Also, the whole system is digitized; the expert sits in front of a computer terminal, and compares the target prints on one side with the filed prints on the other side of the screen, and hits a button to go on to the next possibility. Nobody has to physically go thru the file room, pulling the actual fingerprint cards, put them in a viewer to compare, etc., and then refile in the correct place when done. All that physical effort is eliminated, saving much time.
The policy at the county jail at which I worked at one time was this: every person who was committed for incarceration, on whatever grounds, was printed each time committed (files for some persistent Public Intoxication offenders, the local equivalents of Otis from Mayberry, were quite thick). Copies kept on file locally, sent to the state database in Albany, and to the FBI. If an acquitted person’s lawyer contacted the jail office and so requested, copies were not sent but all copies pulled and returned to the lawyer. Otherwise they were submitted.
I think there is some confusion here. Once the DNA analysis has been done (see Crescend’s post), the results are put into a database which is searchable. What gabriela is saying is that they don’t necessarily analyze every sample which they collect. A blood or cheek cell sample which has not been analyzed yet won’t be in the DNA database: presumably it’s listed in some sort of evidence database, but there’s no DNA profile yet. A properly stored sample is usable for years (even decades); if the investigators later decide that the person is a possible suspect or that their profile is needed for elimination, they can run the analysis at that time, and then the DNA profile will be put into the database. It’s also standard to use only part of the sample for analysis, just in case something goes wrong and the test has to be run again. So to be completely expunged from the records of the law, you’d need to get them to both delete your DNA profile (if any) and destroy the sample itself.
Michigan (which seems to be a pretty together place on the DNA front) has an explicit policy of destroying the sample once a person is no longer a suspect:
http://www.mdch.state.mi.us/mcgpp/final/forensic.htm
Minor hijack (I just read a mystery novel that got this wrong, so it’s fresh on the annoyance meter):
Hair that has been cut off, or which has fallen out naturally, is almost useless for DNA testing. The hair itself has essentially no DNA left (the hair cells actually expel their DNA as they become part of the hair shaft); it’s the cells in the hair root that are used. Therefore, hair for a DNA test has to be pulled out so that the roots are still attached. Cut hair is nearly 100% DNA-free; naturally shed hair sometimes has a few (dead) root cells attached.
End hijack.
JRB