LVMPD does it again...

[netentity]

I was just informed that an acquaintance of mine had her fingerprints for her NV CFP were lost. She applied about a week before my renewal. I'll be calling the CCW detail tomorrow to see if this is an isolated incident or if others are affected. I will be posting a follow up to this.

This is not the first time LVMPD has lost fingerprints.

[tattedupboy]

Will she have to pay to be fingerprinted again, or will LVMPD take this one?

[netentity]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

Will she have to pay to be fingerprinted again, or will LVMPD take this one?

No. It's standard practice with all law enforcement agencies that if there's a fingerprinting issue, they eat the cost doing them again. Doesn't matter if it's for a CCW or to have cards printed for some other purpose.

The issue is whether or not she'll get her CFP within the 120 day statutory period for it to be issued or denied under NRS 202.366.3. Last time this issue happened, LVMPD was issuing well past the statutory 120 days. Since I applied for my renewal about a week after her's it may affect me if a block of fingerprints were lost. It took several State legislators to make inquiries to LVMPD to get the issue fixed the last time. If this turns out to be a common issue that is happening I will be making a stink to have everything moved to NV DPS and cut out the sheriffs completely since they obviously cannot handle it. There's no reason why NV DPS can't do it to begin with which is the practice in AZ and UT.

[Glock Fan]

They should adopt some type of electronic system like FL. Got my prints done electonically, cut the processing time in half. It's a lot more difficult to explain the loss of that kind of records that should be backed up at a remote location.



gf

[netentity]

Originally Posted by Glock Fan

They should adopt some type of electronic system like FL. Got my prints done electonically, cut the processing time in half. It's a lot more difficult to explain the loss of that kind of records that should be backed up at a remote location.

We have such a system in place. Fingerprints are scanned by the sheriff (or sheriff's designee) and transmitted to NV DPS Records and Technology. NV DPS Records and Technology checks the prints against the NV criminal repository which is a state mirror of NCIC a copy of the scan is then sent to the FBI.

Last time we had the issue, LVMPD had a data communications issue with NV DPS. NV DPS Records and Technology and LVMPD Fingerprinting Bureau were pointing fingers at each other until some State legislators stepped in. I never did get a straight answer as to where the problem was.

[Glock Fan]

Originally Posted by netentity

We have such a system in place. Fingerprints are scanned by the sheriff (or sheriff's designee) and transmitted to NV DPS Records and Technology. NV DPS Records and Technology checks the prints against the NV criminal repository which is a state mirror of NCIC a copy of the scan is then sent to the FBI.

Last time we had the issue, LVMPD had a data communications issue with NV DPS. NV DPS Records and Technology and LVMPD Fingerprinting Bureau were pointing fingers at each other until some State legislators stepped in. I never did get a straight answer as to where the problem was.

Sounds like there are too many steps in the system. Excess steps = potential for error. When I got my fingerprints done in FL, they were scanned directly into an electronic scanner. A finger print tech verified that they were acceptable, I signed a couple of places and was on my way. From what the fingerprint tech told me, the database was accessible by all agencies involved in the CWL issue process. He told me that the worse case scenario, I may have to get hard copies done if a particular agency has computer problems when reviewing my application. This was within the first few months of the electronic fingerprinting system. There was no "blue card" to be lost on the way to the scanner, or to become smudged or otherwise damaged before being scanned. All agencies had access to the same fingerprints. Seemed like a very efficient system. I did hear of one problem with one of my friends who applied for his permit in FL. He was told to get a hard copy done. In his case, he was given the option to do the hard copy or wait a couple of extra weeks for one of the agencies to get their computers back online. It seemed lilke it was more of a physical hardware problem rather than a database issue. Two days after submitting the hard copies of the fingerprint cards, he gets his permit in the mail. Don't know how to explain that situation, but it seemed to work out fine.

I wish that all states would be able to come up with some efficient system so they can comply with applicable laws (like the 120 NV law). There's no excuse for a LE agency to "lose" such documents. ALL of our personal infomation should be properly handled and secured. I'll bet if a citizen "lost" some of the LE agency sensitive info, they wouldn't be as "understanding".



gf

[netentity]

Originally Posted by Glock Fan

Sounds like there are too many steps in the system. Excess steps = potential for error.

I agree. NICS also works the same where here and in UT. States that do not defer to the FBI for NICS checks maintain something similar to Nevada. They consult their local mirror first then check with the FBI.

Actually what should be done here is if the background check is inconclusive at the end of 120 days then the sheriff must issue a temporary permit. I don't know if that's what LVMPD is doing now to avoid legislative and judicial hot water.

[mp301]

I appled for my Nevada CCW early Oct. and got it in 21 days flat! I was surprised and I live in CA!

[netentity]

Originally Posted by mp301

I appled for my Nevada CCW early Oct. and got it in 21 days flat! I was surprised and I live in CA!

The county you apply in makes all the difference. If it was Washoe County, they are known for much better service than Clark County.

[tattedupboy]

Is the process for each issuing authority, (ie., county, municipality, or whatever it is in Nevada) standardized, or does each have their own process?