Fargo expands loan program for forensic ID scanners to curb fake‑ID use and underage drinking

FARGO, N.D. — Fargo public health officials, city legal staff and area police on Oct. 12 briefed liquor retailers and the public on a forensic ID scanner loan program aimed at detecting realistic fake IDs and reducing underage drinking.

The session, led by Robin Lickiselle, prevention coordinator at Fargo CAS Public Health, explained how the scanners work, how they fit into criminal and administrative enforcement, and where Fargo-area retailers can borrow devices for free. Presenters included a Fargo city prosecutor, the city commissioner who sits on the liquor control board, a North Dakota Behavioral Health Division prevention administrator who manages the state scanner program, and a sergeant from the Grand Forks Police Department who described local results.

Officials said the forensic scanners are an added tool for retail staff that read dozens of security features on a license, compare barcode data to front‑of‑card fields, and produce challenge questions for a patron. Tom Volk, prevention administrator for the North Dakota Health and Human Services Behavioral Health Division, said the machines perform a “40 to 50 forensic inspection” of an ID and typically return a pass/caution/fail readout. “If this gives you an alert … that is enough for a retailer to actually hold on to this ID and confiscate it and provide it to their law enforcement,” Volk said.

The city contract attorney who handles prosecution in municipal court outlined how criminal charges and administrative sanctions differ. William Wisher, an attorney who contracts with the city, said offenses the city prosecutes fall into three categories: Class B misdemeanors (the most serious discussed), infractions and noncriminal ordinance violations. He said several alcohol‑related offenses commonly encountered in municipal court include possession of alcohol by a minor, presence of a person under 21 in a liquor establishment, possession of a fake ID and use of a fake ID in a liquor establishment. Wisher noted that recent state changes have reclassified some offenses, and: “The city can always go lower, but the city can never go higher.”

Wisher described the municipal criminal process (arraignment, pretrial, status conference, trial) and the separate administrative process applied to licensees. He said liquor control staff first send a notice of violation, the liquor control board hears the matter, and the city commission makes the final administrative determination on licensing penalties, which can include fines and, for repeated offenses, suspension. Wisher emphasized that when an establishment simply keeps or destroys an ID without documenting or reporting it, prosecution and administrative follow‑up are often impractical because investigators lack the identifying information needed to pursue charges.

Grand Forks’ experience has been a frequent example in the presentations. Sergeant Chris Brown, Education and Outreach Bureau, described a loan program and partnerships with bars that began through a local Substance Abuse Prevention Coalition. Brown said scanners at a handful of downtown bars reduced the number of fake IDs seen on a typical weekend from an estimated 15 to “0 to 3” in many cases and that the devices helped stop larger incidents at other high‑volume locations. Brown said the Grand Forks program had eight scanners deployed and that the department had forwarded batches of seized IDs to be analyzed; he reported an example bag of “364” IDs that had been collected and shared with police for follow‑up.

Program logistics and capabilities were discussed in detail. Volk said forensic machines cost about $5,300 and include five years of software support and updates; Fargo public health said it currently has about 20 scanners in its loan pool, 14 of which are deployed (two in rural county towns, two in West Fargo, the remainder in Fargo), and that the department can rotate units so retailers can trial a device before purchasing. Volk and others noted the scanners are 90–98% accurate in detecting many fake IDs, substantially better than simple barcode readers or phone apps, which the presenters said tested in the single‑digit accuracy range.

Retailers asked about practical steps when encountering a suspected fake. Presenters recommended that establishments contact police when feasible and hold the patron while officers verify the license number with the DMV database; if a patron leaves immediately, enforcement becomes difficult. The machines can be networked (with a subscription service) so participating establishments can share tagged problem IDs, and they can also generate challenge questions to test a patron’s knowledge of data printed on the card. Volk cautioned that the scanner is a tool and not foolproof: retailers remain responsible for using judgment about a patron’s age and conduct.

The session concluded with instructions for retailers on how to borrow a scanner. Lickiselle and colleagues said they would demonstrate devices in the lobby after the presentation and take loan requests. Officials urged owners of busy establishments to consider access control (a single checked entrance) so a scanner can be effective, and to treat the program as a cooperative public‑safety measure rather than a punitive enforcement regime.

Robin Lickiselle of Fargo CAS Public Health, Tom Volk of the North Dakota Behavioral Health Division, William Wisher (city contracted prosecutor) and Sergeant Chris Brown of the Grand Forks Police Department all said the scanners are one tool among several — including staff training and compliance checks — to deter underage drinking and reduce alcohol‑related harms.