(1) Outstanding warrants shall be red flagged on the individual's driver's license.  Since the majority of fugitives are picked up in traffic stops, this information would benefit law enforcement nationwide.  Currently, in many states individuals with outstanding traffic tickets cannot renew their licenses but felons with warrants can.

(2)  Outstanding warrants should be put on a fugitive's credit report.  Whether the fugitive applies for a job or a car, the information will be available to the business or person reading the report and the police can be called.

(3) Warrants should be public information, with rare exceptions.  The police should willingly run a check on a name called in by a concerned citizen in order to determine if there is an outstanding warrant on the individual.  The check should include the NCIC, the state wants and warrant list and local county and city municipal warrants.  Currently, the majority of police departments will not provide this information to a citizen without the permission of the fugitive.

    According to the attorney general of California, Bill Lockyer, the public is being unrealistic to expect police to track down fugitives.  He said the funding and the personnel are not available for this monumental task.  

   On August 2, 2002, he told Greta Van Susteren on her Fox TV interview program, "On the Record," that currently there are over 200,000 outstanding felony warrants in his state, 2,700 of which are for murder, and  this does not include misdemeanor warrants.  Attorney General Lockyer said that law enforcement is ill-equipped in personnel and funding to search for these fugitives who outnumber the police two to one. 

  The police want the public to help then find fugitives because they know they cannot do it alone.  Yet, if a citizen cannot call most police departments to find out if a person is wanted for a crime, then the police are also expecting something from the public that they cannot give.  This law or protocol, as it is described in many precincts, must be changed for the safety of both police and the public.

(6) Introduce Fraud Courts into county court systems.  Because prosecutors rarely prosecute fraud, embezzlement and theft where business partners or close associates are involved, these victims are forced to use the civil courts in order to obtain justice.  Since most fraud is perpetrated by people with few assets, the chances of the victims ever recovering these losses are small.  Consequently, the thieves suffer minimal discomfort for their crimes and frequently use what they learn to improve their fraud skills. 

   Like family courts, fraud courts should be a part of county court systems.   This court would be a merger of the civil and criminal courts because it would allow a plaintiff to present the details of his case for the purpose of collecting on his losses as well as presenting evidence that would normally be presented to the police in order to demonstrate criminal fraud by the defendant.  A fraud court judge would have the power to place a defendant under arrest if the case presented by the plaintiff clearly indicates criminal fraud. 

   Many fraud cases that are discounted by the police and prosecutors have evidence supporting the charges which is never examined.   This refusal to review evidence can even go as far up as the FBI.  One victim who lost over $100,000 to a con artist was asked by an investigating FBI agent if the victim wasn't "just mad at the man because you lost all your money."  

   Fraud courts would enable a judge to hear all the evidence supporting the plaintiff's charges.  It would enable to plaintiff to subpoena witnesses who otherwise may never be heard.  And it would require the defendant to appear or face a bench warrant .

   A fraud court would benefit the community as well as the plaintiff as it would provide a means for prosecuting con artists which currently does not exist.