Senator FONG. I have no questions except to thank Mr. Zagri for coming here and enlightening us on some of the problems which we have had uppermost in our mind. Thank you, sir; you have made a very fine statement. Senator ZAGRI. Thank you. Senator HART. Thank you very much, Mr. Zagri. The second scheduled witness for today was Mr. John C. Cheasty. By letter he has transmitted a statement reflecting the testimony he would give if he were present. This statement will be printed at this point in the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:) THE SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS APRIL 6, 1962. Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Society of Professional Investigators is a group organized to set standards of conduct for the profession of investigator and to encourage schools and other institutions to provide courses in investigative subjects specifically directed to the education of a person who wishes to acquire a competency in the investigative fields. Further, we have attempted to properly influence legislation to provide these schools to raise the standards of police officers and investigators and to provide inservice training for investigators now on the public payrolls. The reason we wish to be heard by this committee is to add our small voice to those who would ask the committee to pass legislation which would permit Federal and State law enforcement officers to obtain court permission to install wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping equipment in the detection of serious felonies and in the apprehension of major offenders. We do not consider that a wiretap is fundamentally something evil or improper. We take the view that modern crime requires conspiratorial organization and that this organization can only function if there is an effective quick means of communication among its members. Obviously the telephone is their most often used communication device. In fact, the telephone offers them as wide a scope for criminal activities as it does the legitimate businessmen, lawyers, and other professional people who now have a far wider scope in their business, personal, and social relations than they had before the invention of the telephone. We respectfully point out that interception of the communications of criminal conspiracies is an effective instrument in nipping these groups in the bud, stopping them before they get going, and preventing them from inflicting damage upon the community. To It must be clear to anyone who has given thought to the subject that the present methods of investigation consist mostly in following behind the criminals as they cut a wide swath through society far out ahead of the law enforcement officers. These organized hoodlums are in the position of looking back over their shoulders to see whether or not the struggling officers are able to keep up with them. these hoodlums these police officers have a kind of "Keystone Comedy Cop" appearance; someone who is ridiculous, futile, ineffective, and awkward. The police officer or investigator very seldom is able to get out ahead of the criminal and to lay in waiting for him until such time he can catch a criminal in the midst of committing some offense. We point out that communication is an essential part of many offenses and that it would be easy for this Congress to protect the community against many offenses by giving the police officers charged with enforcement in these areas an effective instrument of intelligence. To illustrate, in kidnaping it is necessary for the kidnaper to communicate with the victim's family in order to get money as ransom. Under the present law interception of such telephone communications might be considered a violation of section 605 of the Communications Act. Narcotics is another example of a conspiratorial offense which requires telephone communications. With adequate tapping and surveillance of known narcotic violators this dreadful traffic could be brought under control. Bribery is another offense which requires communication in order to set up times, places, arrange ments to get money, and other such incidents of the offense. Adequate telephone surveillance in the event of such offenses would assist greatly in the enforcement of the laws. In the Hoffa case tried here in Washington the then Attorney General prohibited the use of any electronic surveillance. Much of the offense centered on conversations between Hoffa and the agent of the U.S. Senate, both over the telephone and vis-a-vis. The result was that on the trial these critical conversations were for the most part uncorroborated, particularly as to what Hoffa said. An electronic recording of these conversations would have settled the questions truthfully and conclusively. Whether Hoffa had a true defense or the Senate agent had the right story would have been settled conclusively. The electronic memory would have convicted a guilty person or it would have exonerated an innocent man. In respect to the national security we point out that subversion and infiltration of the Government for the purpose of obtaining information could not long survive if these people were denied the use of the telephone. Fear of interception of their communications would force them to use roundabout means of communication and greatly slow them up, thus permitting the agents to have an inside track on these conspirators against the national safety. The Society of Professional Investigators is familiar with the bills offered by the Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy, and in general supports these proposals. We are however, also more concerned with States rights than most Federal law enforcement officers are, for the reason that many of our members are also members of State law enforcement bodies. We want to preserve the status of the local law enforcement officer as being fully and equally as competent and worthy an enforcer of the law as any Federal officer. It is our opinion that these people, on the very threshold of the fight against crime, should have equal access to all of the tools for law enforcement that our Federal officers enjoy. It is important to this Nation that the law enforcement at the local level be of high quality and conducted under the same high standards as is Federal law enforcement. But we think that any legislation that assumes that the local law enforcement officer is unworthy to have the same power as the Federal officer or which assumes that the local law enforcement officer will abuse the power if it is given to him, would be undesirable legislation. The fight against crime must be conducted at the local level. It is not a Federal problem now, although our Federal law enforcement agencies reflect the highest standards of law enforcement, still the local officer must be given the same dignity as a Federal officer under the law and he must be given the same opportunities by law to do his work effectively, as is the Federal officer. We think that local crime should be solved on the local level and the local legislatures should be permitted to decide what types of crime would warrant the issuance of a court order for wiretapping in the particular jurisdiction. We are against wiretapping by private agencies. We do believe, however, that the right of the individual to monitor his own telephone conversations and to keep records of them should not be abridged. Too often in delicate contract negotiations, or in the interview of witnesses who are Government witnesses, it is necessary for the attorney or businessman to establish exactly what he said to prevent misquotation. We believe that the individual should have the right to record his own conversations and he should have the right to use them as evidence at a later date should it become necessary. The Society of Professional Investigators respectfully thanks the chairman and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for the courtesies extended to the society permitting it an opportunity to present its views. Respectfully submitted. THE SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS, By JOHN C. CHEASTY. Senator HART. The United Automobile Workers were scheduled but will not be able to appear today but may file a statement which will be made a part of the record. (The committee was informed a report would not be submitted.) Senator HART. This completes the witness list scheduled for today. The committee will adjourn subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) WIRETAPPING-THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PROGRAM-1962 THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1962 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:40 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin presiding. Present: Senators Ervin, Hart, Keating, Fong, and Scott. Also present: Francis C. Rosenberger, professional staff member. Senator ERVIN. The meeting of the Committee on the Judiciary this morning is for the purpose of continuing to take testimony on the pending legislation in regard to wiretapping, S. 2813 and S. 1495. Today we will hear from a number of law enforcement representatives, including States attorneys general, local district attorneys, police commissioners and chiefs, and members of the State and local crime commissions, and others. These witnesses represent many different geographical areas of the United States. I would like to suggest at this point that we are delighted to have Judge Ferdinand Pecora of New York with us today. I hope he will give us the benefit of his views later on during the course of the hearing. I preside today at the request of the chairman, who is unable to be present. We have the following telegram from the attorney general of Rhode Island who we had hoped would be present on this occasion. We will make this a part of the record. (The telegram referred to follows:) U.S. Senator JAMES EASTLAND, PROVIDENCE, R.I., May 10, 1962. DEAR SENATOR: I was scheduled to testify before your Senate committee today concerning the Kennedy wiretapping bill and I am unable to be present in Washington today due to State court commitments here in Rhode Island. I am in favor of the Kennedy bill with certain amendments particularly in the area of gambling and narcotics. I would like to see the bill amended to include permission via court order to tap telephones to obtain evidence in the area of professional gambling operations and in the area of narcotic peddlers. Please make my position known to the members of your committee. Rhode Island is one of two States in the Union where the attorney general is the sole prosecuting officer of all criminal cases. We do not have one district attorney or county attorney system in Rhode Island. Very truly yours, J. JOSEPH NUGENT, Attorney General. 167 Senator ERVIN. The first witness is Mr. James H. DeWeese, president of the National District Attorneys Association, Miami, Ohio, prosecuting attorney. If you will come forward, Mr. DeWeese. The committee is delighted to have you with us. You may be seated there. STATEMENT OF JAMES H. DeWEESE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION, MIAMI, OHIO Mr. DEWEESE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee who are present, I want to express my happiness in being here today and being given the opportunity to speak on behalf of the National District Attorneys Association. Our association has over 1,600 members with representation in every State of the United States. Our association represents all those charged with prosecuting crimes at the local level in the United States. As president I wish to express to this committee the fact that ever since December of 1957 our association has repeatedly passed resolutions endorsing legalized wiretapping with court approval, and with the committee's permission I would like to read the latest resolution which was adopted at our meeting in March of this year. [Reads:] Whereas the Attorney General of the United States has indicated his support for Federal legislation permitting wiretaps by State law enforcement officers in certain enumerated criminal situations; and Whereas bookmaking and other forms of organized gambling are not included in the areas of permitted wiretapping for State officers under the Attorney General's proposal; and Whereas the National District Attorneys Association regards organized gambling as a serious and substantial problem against which local law enforcement agencies must bring to bear all legitimate and proper resources at their command; and Whereas wiretaps in proper cases and under controls such as those suggested by the Attorney General of the United States in other cases wherein he has recommended that State law enforcement officers be permitted to obtain court orders for wiretaps can be especially useful in the enforcement of State gambling laws; and Whereas any Federal legislation would be subject to appropriate State legislation containing standards at least as strict as those contained in the Federal legislation: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the National District Attorneys Association is recorded in favor of extending proposed Federal legislation to include the right of State officers under appropriate court orders to engage in wiretapping in bookmaking, in gambling investigation; and it is further Resolved, That the president of the National District Attorneys Association appoint a committee to call upon the Attorney General of the United States to present the views of this association with respect to legalized wiretaps in gambling enforcement. This is the end of the resolution. Although in my individual official capacity as a prosecuting attorney I represent a relatively small area and have never had the necessity of intercepting telephone conversations, I do know from my association over the past 10 years with district attorneys and prosecutors from the larger communities that there is a definite need for the legal interception of telephone conversations between persons engaged in criminal activities. |