Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Now, as a little bit of background I might state a number of us have been interested in this. This is basically patterned on the New York "stop and frisk" law, is it not?

Mr. TAFT. We didn't particularly pattern it on any particular bill.
Mr. ADAMS. Are you aware of the Supreme Court in New York-
Mr. TAFT. Yes, I am.

Mr. ADAMS. We were thinking of adding sections like this to the original bill that was introduced but have been worrying about the fact that it is before the Supreme Court now and thought perhaps we should have a finding by the Court which I believe is supposed to occur this fall, and not take the danger of passing such a statute and then having it, or portions of it, declared invalid and the individuals convicted released.

Now, would you agree that that is a problem, or do you think we should go ahead and take a chance with the "Stop and Frisk" law, and hope that it would be upheld?

Mr. TAFT. Let me say this, the New York case, as I understand it, relates only to what I would call

Mr. ADAMS. Section I.

Mr. TAFT. Section I, or phase I of the interrogation process, as covered by my bill. Also, the New York case of course goes on into the area of search. The frisk provisions of the bill go on into this area. I have not attempted-we intentionally left such a provision out of this particular measure because we felt that this is something that should be determined separately perhaps, with a separate rule, separate statutory rules as to the rights of frisk, or whatever technical language might be used in this connection, should be handled separately and not confused with the rights to interrogate at the scene of the crime, or on the street, if you like, when a crime has been committed.

Mr. ADAMS. Have you discussed this with any of the men in the Department of Justice who have been working on legislation in this field?

Mr. TAFT. No; this has not as yet been discussed with anybody at the Department of Justice.

Mr. ADAMS. You have no feeling from them whether or not they believe, as you do, that Miranda provides that this is a constitutional provision under Miranda?

Mr. TAFT. No; I have not attempted to get their opinion. I have attempted to get some prominent legal opinions. I have consulted with deans of law schools on this subject. I have consulted with law enforcement officers, and I have also consulted with some on the bench with regard to it. In general, of course, on a technical legal point, you can't expect complete agreement of the bar, or of any group.

But by and large I have gotten a favorable reaction to this falling within the language and within the purview of the Miranda case. Mr. ADAMS. All right. You are in agreement-are you familiar that-well strike that. Let me put it this way: Do you agree that the present Federal law enforcement techniques as used by the FBI and the IRS, for example, rely on prearrest question and thereby avoid all the problems that have been found by the police department? Mr. TAFT. Not all of them. I wouldn't say all of the problems, but I would say some of the problems; yes. But I think you have to also recognize that the FBI of course, and the quality of its personnel, and

the training and other standing of its personnel is probably going to be superior in training and effectiveness to even a District of Columbia Police force, particularly to a local police agency throughout the Nation. I think you have to take that into consideration.

Mr. ADAMS. I agree wtih you. The question is whether we want to take a chance on it before it was passed on by the Supreme Court. The only reason against it, is suppose you have-as you would have under this type-we are moving now into your basis day-to-day law enforcement which involves of course in 6 months to a year and hundreds of arrests, and if these techniques were used in say 500 or 600 arrests and were declared to be invalid, we have turned back on to the streets a major portion of what we are trying to get rid of.

Now, I would ask this: Are you familiar with the terms of H.R. 1436, and I think 826, which is the proposed omnibus crime bill, introduced by the chairman of the committee, and the chairman of this subcommittee?

Mr. TAFT. Only in a very general way.

Mr. ADAMS. The reason I asked that, I assume from your entering the bill, you believe that this bill for questioning is superior to what was proposed in the omnibus crime bill before?

Mr. TAFT. Yes.

Mr. ADAMS. And would therefore support this kind of a proposal rather than that?

Mr. TAFT. Yes.

Mr. ADAMS. All right.

I would ask you, are you familiar at all with H.R. 7327, which is the proposed "crime reduction" act in the area which is the so-called administration bill that I introduced. Are you familiar with the provisions of that?

Mr. TAFT. No; I am not.

Mr. ADAMS. Well, I wanted to ask you whether or not you would agree that in addition to your questioning area that we should have some type of short-arm gun control legislation in the District. By short-arm I am referring to pistols and concealed weapons. Do you think this will be helpful?

Mr. TAFT. I'm inclined to think it would be helpful. I don't think it would be helpful to confuse that with this type of legislation. I think it is important that this type of legislation stand on its own feet and be considered apart from the matter of safety involved.

This is why we left out the frisk provisions out of this bill, for

instance.

Mr. ADAMS. What about such things as allowing the officers to arrest on probable cause, but in misdemeanors, without a warrant? In other words to extend the felony type arrest procedures to misdemeanors in the District. Do you think this should be done?

Mr. TAFT. This again is another problem. It isn't just a problem in the District, it is a problem in the State of Ohio, I know. Mr. ADAMS. Nationwide.

Mr. TAFT. And a good many other States, and if not, all other States. Again we didn't attempt to tackle this particular problem in this bill.

I am inclined to think that legislation is needed in this area. don't consider myself an expert on this particular phase, and I hesitate

to give you a specific language or specific suggestion, but in general I do approve of taking a good look at this, and in particular, as to certain misdemeanors.

Now, you may limit the type of misdemeanor involved.

Mr. ADAMS. Yes; I am talking about what is set forth in the bill, a set of specified misdemeanors which includes attempts and such things as assault on others.

Mr. TAFT. Yes; on that basis I am in agreement with the principle involved.

Mr. ADAMS. Another thing I would like to know if you are in agreement, that we should probably have an improvement in the material witness, the ability of the police to hold material witnesses.

Mr. TAFT. Well, of course, the stop provisions of this bill that I have proposed do relate to material witnesses. I don't think there is any question about that.

Mr. ADAMS. That's what I was going to ask you. You didn't discuss that in your statement but I gather your bill would apply to material witnesses as well as to possible suspects.

Mr. TAFT. As to phase 1, yes. Very definitely.
Mr. ADAMS. As to phase 1. All right.

Now, can you tell me why in phase 2 that you went so far as to state that questioning could be continued even though the individual says, "I don't want to be questioned any further. I would like to have an attorney before you question me any further." Did you have a particular reason for wanting to take on that additional burden?

Mr. TAFT. We felt that this was justified and desirable. Justified because it is all under the supervision of the master of examination. There is a transcript being taken, of course, a recording being taken of the investigation. This, plus the presence of a master who can discontinue the interrogation anytime he desires. I think it provides adequate safeguards under the fifth amendment, and I think from the

Mr. ADAMS. And the sixth?

Mr. TAFT. And the sixth; yes.

Because I don't feel the sixth really has come into play. Apparently in the Miranda case

Mr. ADAMS. In Miranda it did not, but in Escobedo it did, and several others. You are taking on Escobedo as well as Miranda by doing it.

Mr. TAFT. It should be understood under this bill, if an attorney is asked for, if an attorney is available, he comes in, he isn't barred from coming into the interrogation. You understand that. It is just that the interrogation may continue if he is not available. If the master thinks it is proper under the circumstances, and the attorney has been requested but is not available, hasn't shown up yet, the interrogation doesn't have to be held up pending the arrival of the attorney. We think this is desirable, many times, as I am sure you recognize, Mr. Adams, the time element in these things is extremely important. Mr. ADAMS. Absolutely.

Mr. TAFT. We felt the interests of the public was such it was desirable to continue the interrogation even though an attorney might not be available, if the master in his discretion felt the man's rights were not being interferred with.

Mr. ADAMS. All right. Now, one final question.

You believe that when you have your stop-in other words, your detention, under the first part of the bill, in the stop and frisk law, is there not an arrest at that point even though we do not call it an arrest, and he is not formally booked? Doesn't that bring you within the custodial portions of the Miranda?

Mr. TAFT. I don't believe so. You asked me whether it is an arrest. This I guess is rather a matter of semantics. But as to bringing him within the custodial provisions of Miranda, I do not think so and I do not think so because of the language which I quoted

Mr. ADAMS. Yes. That's why I asked you

Mr. TAFT (continuing). Earlier in the testimony.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Taft.

Mr. WHITENER. We certainly thank you for your very fine statement. There may be other questions but we have other witnesses we would like to hear from. We certainly appreciate your being with

us.

Mr. TAFT. Thank you very much.

Mr. WHITENER. We have witnesses from the Police Association of the District of Columbia, Mr. John L. Sullivan, chairman, legislative committee, Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia; Lt. Samuel W. Stickley, president of the Policemen's Association; and Mr. Royce L. Givens, executive secretary.

Which of you gentlemen will speak?

STATEMENT OF INSPECTOR JOHN L. SULLIVAN (RETIRED), CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, POLICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY LT. SAMUEL W. STICKLEY, PRESIDENT; AND ROYCE L. GIVENS (RETIRED DETECTIVE), EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Mr. SULLIVAN. I will, Mr. Chairman.

For the record, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is John L. Sullivan, I am a retired police inspector of the Metropolitan Police Department with 26 years of service.

I was in command of the robbery squad for a number of years prior to retirement. I worked practically every squad in detective bureau. Mr. Chairman, I am appearing here today as chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Policemens' Association of the District of Columbia. The Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia endorses the omnibus crime bill that was introduced by Chairman McMillan, Mr. Whitener, and others, which is the same bill that was vetoed by President Johnson last year. We endorse the omnibus crime bill 100 percent.

Mr. Chairman, the really forgotten men and women are those innocent law-abiding citizens who, through no fault of their own, are robbed, raped, beaten, or murdered in cold blood on the streets, in their homes, and even in churches. They must get along as best they can. If financially able to do so they must pay their hospital expenses for treatment of these injuries. After brief notice in the press of what happened to them, they drop from public notice and are forgotten.

The confusion of the police under conflicting opinions as to what constitutes legal and illegal procedure is shared to a lesser if not to a more sophisticated extent by some of the trial judges and the prosecutors. If this is in doubt by anyone, all you have to do is ask them. The precise location of the line dividing legal and illegal investigation of crime seems not to depend, as it should, upon the circumstances of each particular case, but upon the identity of the judges assigned to survey it.

This confusion extends from broadened interpretations of the rule of evidence of criminal procedure in the Federal courts: namely, Rule 5 and 5-a of the Federal rules of criminal procedure.

Mr. Chairman, no extended discussion is required to highlight the devastating impact of crime in this community. Serious crime has risen at an alarming rate. There's no need to burden this committee with statistics, as I am sure that you have ample statistics and as a matter of fact you are no doubt overburdened with statistics.

Turning our attention to Title III of the omnibus bill, this provides that a member of the police force may detain any person whom he has probable cause to believe is committing or has committed a crime. and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad, and whither he is going; that any person so questioned who fails to identify himself or explain his action to the satisfaction of the police officer may be detianed and further interrogated: that the total period provided by this section shall not exceed 4 hours; that such detention shall not be regarded as an arrest in any official record, and that at the end of the detention the person so detained shall be released or arrested and charged with a crime.

This also provides, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, that the person picked up will not bear the title of being arrested, and each time he applies for a job or a position he has to note same on such record.

This permits an officer to demand that the person approached, identify himself by name, address, business abroad, and where he's going. Only if the person fails to respond satisfactorily may the officer, under the provisions of this proposed statute, conduct further interrogation and then only for a period of 4 hours.

The challenge of title III of the omnibus bill on constitutional grounds because no Miranda warning is required can be easily remedied by requiring police to give such a warning.

Whether arrested under title I, or merely detained under title III on probable cause, the individual involved has all the guarantees of Miranda-warning of constitutional rights, assistance of counsel, and a knowing waiver of right. These safeguards provide a valid basis for the required police interrogation in the solution of crimes.

Further, if this section has constitutional infirmities, the Department of Justice through the U.S. attorney, can direct that no use be made of the statute. Neither title I nor any provision of the bill has an illegal basis for a belief that they permit arrest for investigation or dragnet arrest, as the arrests are limited to those made on probable cause. I am informed that title III was taken from the Uniform Arrest Act, which has been adopted in several States; the Congress did not adopt it in its entirely but modified it to rule out investigative

arrests.

« ForrigeFortsett »