TexasCHLforum.com

mr surveyor wrote:as long as prints are required, I do think the digital prints are far superior.

This is probably true, but digital prints are not a panacea. Last year, it took three tries to get a set that was acceptable for my security clearance.

G Wagner wrote:One of the reason for the fingerprint requirement is to "verify" the person does not have a disqualifying arrest or criminal charge. If the name and social security was the only identification needed to access the person's criminal record, this can be defeated easily. The applicant can apply for a name change and with this, a new social security number.

If I recall, a few years ago, a Texas judge was granting people a change of name to avoid government "of interest" lists.

That's not the reason for the fingerprint requirement. When SB60 passed in 1995, fingerprints were required in order to get a full background check. That's no longer the case since DPS can and does access NCIC, TCIC, and NICS from its Austin headquarters. Sending prints to the FBI is no longer necessary to conduct the "for a national criminal history check of the applicant" as required by Tex. Gov't Code §411.176(b).

The only thing that is gained by an FBI check is a search of AFIS. If a CHL applicant has committed a crime, left fingerprints behind at the crime scene and those prints have been lifted and entered into AFIS, then they could be identified as the person who committed the crime. At DPS meetings, it was acknowledged that this has never happened. Also, it costs DPS $23.50 for each set of fingerprints sent to the FBI.

Chas.

I say call your local LE office, whether city or county, and ask if they can do it.

There's an L1 office in Harlingen on the other side of town only open on weekends. The nearest one open on weekdays is 20 miles away. A little bit of a drive, but if it saves time, I think it's worth it.

I don't mind the requirement for L1 digital fingerprints, but if DPS is going to hand monopoly power over to a private vendor, the least they could do is require the vendor to supply the service.

To illustrate that example, there is an L1 location in Beaumont. However, they will NOT take fingerprints for the purpose of CHL at this location. It is for teachers and nurses only. The next closest place is almost 2 hours away in Houston.

If DPS would require all L1 locations to take fingerprints for the purpose of CHL, then I wouldn't have a complaint.

I failed to mention this in my earlier post. I'm not sure of the exact date (probably May, 2010), the FBI stopped taking ink or rolled prints. So DPS has to scan rolled prints to send to the FBI. Scanning a fingerprint card and getting a good digital image is not as easy as scanning the finger. Plus, when you are having digital prints done, the operator can repeat the process until the computer accepts them as classifiable. DPS doesn't have this option with a card.

So the workload on DPS personnel went up dramatically when the FBI stopped accepting ink prints. Just using the current figure of approx. 461,000 CHL's without any increase, if it were not for digital prints, DPS would have to scan 92,200 cards a year! That's 354 a day every day of the year. This is not a workload DPS could realistically absorb.

When the FBI gave notice that it was going to stop accepting ink prints, DPS was forced to look for a digital system. BTW, I may be mistaken, but I don't believe that DPS negotiated the sole source contract with L-1. As someone else mentioned, they have the contract for several State agencies so I suspect the contract was negotiated elsewhere within the government. Again, I may be mistaken on this point.

Chas.

I could be wrong on the date, but I believe DPS said they would no longer accept inked/rolled prints after March 1, 2011. Hopefully someone will correct me if that is not right.

this rant sounds like someone who is against technology or somthing.

Keith B wrote:I could be wrong on the date, but I believe DPS said they would no longer accept inked/rolled prints after March 1, 2011. Hopefully someone will correct me if that is not right.

Correct. The FBI stopped in 2010 and DPS is doing so March 1st.

Chas.

alvins wrote:this rant sounds like someone who is against technology or somthing.

Which rant? The one about DPS having to scan the cards, or the FBI not accepting real fingerprint cards?

I think it's a reasonable complaint that the Texas government gave a lucrative single-source contract to a company that's not equipped to provide local service to the entire state.

well i never though the process was easy to get your chl. are you surprised they dont have locations on every corner to get your finger prints?

I understand that the technology to do digital prints is available to the average person but DPS will accept only from L-1. I would like to see DPS accept digital prints from CHL instructors.

I'm there to teach the content - not help students put together their applications.

I disagree with this. The instructor should as part of the class insure their students not only understand the application process but answer any questions they have about it including helping them with their paperwork.

My wife's prints are very hard to take, and when her ink prints were refused because they were not well enough defined, they suggested she try L1. L1 ran her all over the place and then told her that her prints were too dim. She eventually was able to get ink prints that worked.

That was a couple of years ago, and now L1, having a virtual monopoly, will be able to play any games they want to with whomever.

Give your prints away? Does it seem like a modest requirement? What will they want next, your first born!

Sounds like a waste of money on both ends. Especially if the requirements for the state statute do not require prints to be sent to the FBI to satisfy the national check. So with 103,133 licenses issued last year, times $23.50 for each person, the state wasted over 2.4 million dollars with that one decision. You begin to wonder about things when the state cuts education to balance the budget, but it makes more sense when you see something like this.

I think I'm having deja-vu with my next question. Are finger prints required at each renewal? I'll be up for my second renewal next year. I'm in DFW, so I don't think there will be a problem finding an L1 site if I need to, but agree that it was nice getting everything done in the same place in the same visit.