If Predators Can Share Their Prey – Crime fighting Systems Can Share Their Data

Background

The Ngorongoro Crater is a massive volcanic caldera in Tanzania, known for its stunning scenery and abundant wildlife. There, spotted hyenas and lions often compete for the same prey, with hyenas hunting most of their food. Contrary to popular belief, lions steal more kills from hyenas than the other way around, especially adult male lions who dominate any kill regardless of hyena numbers. Lions, particularly males, are also the main cause of death for hyenas, often ambushing or attacking them and their cubs. However, hyenas can take over kills from lionesses and sometimes share large kills with them.[1]

Introduction

People remain the cornerstone of any successful crime reduction strategy. Technology serves as a powerful people enabler, enhancing the speed, efficiency, and effectiveness of investigative efforts. For technology to be truly effective, it must be networkable, allowing for remote control, monitoring, and data exchange across all relevant “need-to-know” jurisdictions, which may span cities, states, provinces, or even countries. Furthermore, sufficient levels of interoperability and data exchange between technologies are essential to enable the seamless sharing of comprehensive information, the generation of actionable intelligence, and the full maximization of investigative value. When obstacles arise within and between technologies, it takes people to overcome them.

Key Principles for Effective Crime-Fighting Technologies:

• People First
  Human expertise remains the foundation of any successful crime reduction effort. People create the technology tools that dedicated and skillful people use in their crime-fighting work.

• Technology as a Force Multiplier
  Modern tools help people to increase the speed, efficiency, and effectiveness of their investigations, enabling faster breakthroughs and better outcomes.

• Adopt Technology and Adapt to it

  When users adopt new technology and adapt their processes to fully leverage its power and benefits, they can achieve greater and more sustained levels of efficiency and effectiveness.

• Networkability is Essential
  Technologies must be capable of secure remote access, monitoring, and data sharing across all jurisdictions impacted by the case, including cities, states, provinces, and countries.

• Data Integration Drives Intelligence
  Systems must communicate and integrate to allow for the seamless exchange of information and the creation of actionable intelligence for maximum investigative benefit.

Forensic Ballistics in the Investigation of Firearm-Related Crimes

Firearm examination—often referred to as forensic ballistics—has long been a cornerstone of firearm-related crime investigations. The discipline centers on exploiting the microscopic markings left on fired bullets and cartridge cases by the internal mechanisms of a gun. For more than a century, investigators have relied on these markings to link ammunition components from crime scenes to each other and suspected crime guns recovered by police.

The underlying principle is that every firearm leaves unique, microscopic toolmarks on the ammunition it fires. Using comparison microscopes, trained experts examine these markings to identify matches that link fired components to the same weapon.

Until about 25 years ago, the examination of ballistic evidence was a labor-intensive and time-consuming process. Only certified firearm examiners could perform these analyses, which were often reactive, typically involving a gunshot victim, a suspect, and a recovered firearm. The examiner’s role in such cases was to determine whether the bullet retrieved from the victim had been fired from the suspect’s weapon and to be prepared to testify in court.

The proactive use of forensic ballistics was limited by the human capacity to recall intricate microscopic markings. Occasionally, an examiner might recognize a particularly distinctive mark from a prior case; however, these instances were rare. More often, proactive comparisons were driven by investigative hunches. For example, if a detective recovered a firearm from a suspect and suspected it might have been used in an unsolved murder, they would ask the examiner to compare test-fired samples with evidence from that crime scene.

For many years, this was the prevailing approach. But for labs with large and growing inventories of ballistic evidence, it was practically impossible to manually compare every new item of fired evidence with the ever-increasing inventory of prior evidence. The process was resource and time-intensive, and extremely difficult to sustain through manual methods.

The key to success in gun-related criminal investigations lies in the ability to sustain and scale these complex comparison processes. Technology plays a central role in helping forensic experts and law enforcement speed up and expand their investigative capabilities.

The Emergence of Automated Ballistic Identification Systems (ABIS)

In the early 1990s, the labor-intensive process of forensic ballistics analysis was significantly accelerated and made more sustainable with the advent of automated ballistic identification technology. These early Automated Ballistic Identification Systems (ABIS) harnessed the power of computers to digitally capture the unique microscopic markings left on fired bullets and cartridge cases by the internal components of a firearm during discharge. These images were stored in a searchable database.

At speeds far beyond human capability, ABIS could compare a given bullet or cartridge case image against the database and return a ranked list of potential matches. Experts would then review the highest-likelihood candidates to confirm actual matches.

Around 1993, two different federal programs utilizing new ABIS technologies were initiated. One, developed under the FBI’s forensic lab program, called DRUGFIRE focused solely on cartridge case evidence comparisons. DRUGFIRE was also the name of the ABIS technology the program deployed.

The other program, developed under the ATF’s firearm crime enforcement initiative, was called CEASEFIRE and focused solely on fired bullet evidence comparisons. CEASEFIRE deployed a commercial ABIS technology called “BulletProof”.

In 1995, amid concerns from various stakeholders about perceived redundancy and lack of compatibility between the FBI and ATF programs and the ABIS technologies deployed, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) commissioned a benchmark study through its Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center.[2] The study concluded that the two ABIS systems were not redundant but complementary, as each addressed different types of ballistic evidence. Most importantly, it recommended that the greatest benefit to law enforcement would come from integrating the systems into a single, versatile platform.

As a result of the ONDCP study recommendation, the developers of both ABIS technologies began working to enhance and improve their systems, ultimately enabling them to process both cartridge cases and bullets within a unified platform.

The National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN)

In 1997, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) combined their respective ballistics data programs into a single federal program, the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN). By that time, both ABIS platforms, DRUGFIRE and IBIS® (formerly BulletProof), had evolved to process both fired bullets and cartridge cases and had been deployed to state and local law enforcement agencies to support ballistic data sharing.

However, a major challenge emerged: the two ABIS systems were technologically incompatible. They could not reliably interpret or process each other’s image data, effectively preventing seamless communication and data exchange across the network.

One of NIBIN's earliest actions was to engage the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to assess whether the image processing capabilities of the two ABIS systems could be made interoperable. Following a two-year study, NIST concluded that significant technical barriers prevented full compatibility between the two systems.[3]

Moreover, because the two ABIS systems in NIBIN contained different firearms records, some federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies used both, which was duplicative and inefficient. [3]

Between 1993 and 1997, Congress appropriated funds to the Departments of Justice and the Treasury to support just over 200 law enforcement agencies with one of the two ABIS platforms.

In 1999, the ATF and the FBI agreed to establish a unified ABIS system for use across NIBIN, relying upon: 1) IBIS® based ABIS equipment used by the ATF; and 2) a secure, high-speed telecommunications network used by the FBI. A new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for joint agency implementation of the NIBIN program was executed.[3]

In 2000, Congress appropriated funding for FY2001 to support the newly agreed to joint ATF/FBI NIBIN Program and the deployment of the newly adopted ABIS technology standard. It was called the Remote Data Acquisition Station [RDAS], a new version of IBIS® technology, incorporating several features that users of the FBI’s DRUGFIRE technology had found most useful.[4]

In October 2003, after realizing that having two agencies responsible for different aspects of the same national program was an ineffective management arrangement, the FBI relinquished its network responsibilities and authority to the ATF.[3]

Now in its 27th year, NIBIN has consistently demonstrated its value as a vital crime-solving and prevention tool. Its effectiveness has been confirmed both through rigorous academic and scientific evaluations and, more importantly, through its impact in real-world investigations where critical leads are developed, suspects are identified, and cases are solved.

ATF has made NIBIN available to U.S. law enforcement agencies in every major metropolitan area of the country. During the period 2017 - 2021, 9,542 law enforcement agencies submitted 2,104,607 individual pieces of ballistic evidence (casings and test fires) to NIBIN, which were associated with 1,506,971 criminal cases.[5]

Currently, there are approximately 400 NIBIN data acquisition sites spread across the fifty states. ATF administers the high-speed network over which the units communicate.

[Source: June 2025 Fact Sheet - National Integrated Ballistic Information Network Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives]

New ABIS Technologies – Old Interoperability Challenges

Over time, new Automated Ballistic Identification System (ABIS) technologies have gradually entered both North American and global forensic and law enforcement markets. However, despite advancements, the same fundamental interoperability challenges that plagued ABIS systems in the 1990s persist today.

Since the formation of NIBIN in 1997, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has performed work in the forensic ballistics and ABIS technology domains.

In December 2024, NIST published a comprehensive report titled Feasibility Study on Measurement System Interoperability of the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN), presenting key findings and expert insights.[6]

Among the report's conclusions:

1. Interoperability standards in crime-solving systems help ensure that all relevant crime gun intelligence is accessible to all law enforcement agencies that need it. Such standards also promote innovation and healthy market competition.

2. Instrument manufacturers and standards development organizations are actively working on methods to characterize and improve the accuracy of 3D imaging technologies. Coupled with ongoing advancements in comparison algorithms, these developments are expected to enhance inter-system search performance.

3. The fastest and most practical path to enabling data exchange is through a client application or web-based interface. Such a tool would allow technicians to input standardized metadata through guided data entry screens and dialog boxes, ensuring consistency and compatibility across systems.

Metadata is the critical information that enables case tracking and evidence referencing of the ballistic image inputs, comparisons, measurements, and correlation results.

When an ABIS image correlation result indicates a potential match among pieces of evidence, the metadata identifies the specific firearms recovered in individual criminal cases, including the associated case numbers, recovery dates, and investigating agencies. It also indicates the types of crimes in which those firearms were discharged, along with the corresponding case identifiers, dates, and agencies involved.

In essence, the metadata reveals guns linked to crimes, crimes connected to crimes in which the same gun was used, the dates of occurrence, and the agencies to engage with for further investigation, thereby forming the basis of one type of crime gun intelligence. It’s the data that detectives need to know.

The exchange of key metadata between otherwise incompatible ABIS technologies should prevent an unfortunate and unacceptable scenario, like this hypothetical one: County A has 20 law enforcement agencies (LEAs). Ten LEAs use the red type of ABIS system; the other ten use the green one. The red and green systems are incompatible and cannot exchange ballistic image data.

What’s so unfortunate about this scenario is that red system users have no visibility into the ballistic intelligence generated by green system users, and vice versa. Each group is effectively blind to half the picture, undermining investigations, delaying justice, and allowing critical links between crimes to go undetected.

What’s so unacceptable about this scenario is that it fragments the crime picture in County A, causing vital crime gun intelligence to be overlooked and allowing key investigative leads to slip through the cracks. This disconnect delays action, enables armed criminals to remain at large, and undermines the very goal of stopping violence before it escalates.

Studies have shown that 31% of NIBIN leads connect evidence from crimes that occurred in two different LEA jurisdictions. [5]

While ABIS technologies continue to evolve, achieving interoperability remains a central challenge—and also an opportunity—for maximizing the impact of ballistic data in criminal investigations.

If Lionesses and Hyenas Can Sometimes Share — So Can Technology

While this discussion has focused on the emergence and evolution of Automated Ballistic Identification Systems (ABIS), the broader issue of technological compatibility is just as important. Seamless information sharing is critical across law enforcement technologies, particularly when multiple agencies require access to time-sensitive, cross-jurisdictional data essential to solving crimes.

This need for interoperability applies not only to ABIS technology, but also to systems such as:

• Firearm records and tracing systems

• Fingerprint identification systems

• DNA indexing systems

• Gunfire detection/location technologies

• Closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems

• Cellphone locator tools

• Automatic license plate readers

• Facial recognition platforms

• Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS)

• Intelligence and case management software

As with any data system, you must put data in to get data out. It is reasonable to assume that every ABIS platform allows users to input non-image metadata—the critical information that enables tracking and referencing of image inputs, comparisons, measurements, and results.

This metadata typically includes:

• Input metadata: Captured at the time of case creation, such as administrative and case information, firearm specifications, and details about cartridge cases or bullets.

• Output metadata: Generated from the ballistic image search and comparison process, including search results, links between cases, and associations between specific guns and specific crimes.

• This metadata can be exported in standardized formats to APIs, commercial intelligence platforms, proprietary databases, or even spreadsheets, enabling broader integration and analysis.

When properly harnessed, this metadata information can become Crime Gun Intelligence (CGI)—the clues that link firearms, cases, suspects, and events. CGI helps investigators understand which crimes are connected by the same weapon and identify patterns that may not be immediately visible.

Ultimately, CGI provides investigators with the critical leads needed to move cases forward, seek justice for victims, bring resolution to their families, and restore peace to communities. Interoperability among technologies, just like collaboration among people, is not only possible—it is essential.

I’m Taking My Shot

Over the last 25 years, ATF has institutionalized NIBIN as a national law enforcement resource of crime gun intelligence. This was possible because ATF leveraged NIBIN with the full force of its firearm-related crime-fighting capabilities, including: eTrace, Crime Gun Intelligence Centers, the NIBIN National Correlation and Training Centers, firearms trafficking diversion programs, and explosives and gun-detecting canines.

The physical and mathematical sciences behind ABIS (Automated Ballistic Identification Systems) are complex—far more so than simply designing a screwdriver to fit a screw. When ABIS technologies first emerged in the early 1990s, they were the first of their kind. There were no blueprints or best practices to follow. The engineers were pioneers, inventing solutions on the fly and evolving the technology as they went.

The first systems—DRUGFIRE and BulletProof—each tackled a distinct challenge. DRUGFIRE processed cartridge cases, which required capturing impressed marks across two focal planes. BulletProof focused on bullets, which required imaging the striated markings encircling their surface. Because these systems analyzed entirely different objects, they didn’t need to communicate in terms of processing image data.

That changed when the ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy) recommended integrating both bullets and cartridge cases onto a single platform. This was the turning point where interoperability became essential. The conflict was resolved at that time by selecting a single technological standard.

I fully support the recommendations made by NIST regarding the path to achieving interoperability within the NIBIN network. Success will require a collaborative effort among all stakeholders, both from government agencies and private industry.

To bring this vision to life requires leadership—someone with the authority and credibility to convene the right people, initiate discussions, and drive action. Without a series of initial sit-downs to define needs and next steps, we risk getting stuck merely talking about the importance of standards and competition rather than building real solutions.

NIST and others clearly understand both the steps that need to be taken and the time required to complete them. That's why NIST has rightly emphasized this pragmatic near-term solution:

"The fastest and most practical path to enabling data exchange is through a client application or web-based interface. Such a tool would allow technicians to input standardized metadata through guided data entry screens and dialog boxes, ensuring consistency and compatibility across systems."

This is exactly why I've placed such emphasis on metadata—and why I’m now calling on the vendors themselves to come together and make this happen. The time for discussion is over. It's time to sit down and do the work.

The forensic ballistic intelligence metadata—data that reveals which guns were used in specific crimes and connects multiple shootings to the same firearm—is too critical to remain siloed. It must be shared through the one national program designed for this exact purpose: NIBIN, anything less risks missed connections, delayed justice, and preventable violence.

At the start of the day, detectives working to solve fatal shootings need fresh and actionable crime gun intelligence to drive their investigations – they need to know “what links to what and who links to what” – they don’t need to see 3D high definition pictures of scratches and dents on fired bullets and cartridge cases.

End Notes:

[1] Ngorongoro Hyena Project, https://hyena-project.com/

[2] Benchmark Evaluation Study of the BulletProof and DRUGFIRE Ballistic Imaging Systems (Unclassified), Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, Office of National Drug Control Policy, November 1994

[3] Audit Report 05-30, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ National Integrated Ballistic Information Network Program, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, June 2005, Appendix II.

[4] William C. Boesman and William J. Krouse, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) for Law Enforcement, Order Code RL31040, July 3, 2001, retrieved 6-23-2025 from https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31040.html

[5] National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment (NFCTA): Crime Guns - Volume Two, PART VI: NIBIN & Ballistic Evidence, retrieved from: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/nfcta-volume-ii-part-vi-nibin-ballistic-evidence/download

[6] Soons, J., Zheng, X. and Thompson, R. (2024), Feasibility Study on Measurement System Interoperability of the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN), NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, [online], https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8548