Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525526
label
Ford Press Releases - Crime, 1966-1967 (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525526
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Crime, 1966-1967 (1)
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Civil disobedience
Crime
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525526
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-12-31
month
12
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-10-01
month
10
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
586e455bcf905391
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D6, folder "Ford Press Releases - Crime, 1966-
1967 (1)" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald
R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D6 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
REpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 3, 1966
Statement Approved by the Republican Coordinating Committee at its
Meeting of October 3, 1966.
CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
The American people are profoundly concerned with the widespread
disrespect for law and order in our country today.
They have witnessed increasing disregard for the rights of others,
creeping cynicism toward corruption, and mounting outbreaks of crime, violence
and mob madness.
The facts of the rising waves of crime and violence sweeping America
are also beyond dispute. Since the close of the Eisenhower Administration the
population of the United States has increased eight percent but the number of
crimes, as recorded in F.B.I. reports, has gon up 46 per cent.
A forceable rape occurs every 26 minutes: a robbery every five minutes;
an aggravated assault every three minutes; a car theft every minute; a burglary
every 28 seconds. The cost of crime is estimated at almost 2.5 billion per month.
Unfortunately, the Johnson Humphrey Administration has accomplished nothing
of substance to date to promote public safety. Indeed, high officials of this
Administration have condoned and encouraged disregard for law and order.
The overwhelming majority of Americans are honest, hard-working, law-
abiding citizens. They are dismayed when ghastly crimes go unsolved and
calloused criminals go unpunished. They are concerned by the growing conviction
that influence can be purchased, that elections can be swayed by public spending
leading to betrayal of public trust.
of GERAL LIMBIR FORD
-MORE-
-2-
In this moral crisis, Americans are looking for leadership, inspiration
and example. Example is more than exhortation. Inspiration is more than
another law enforcement conference. Leadership must stand above the slightest
suspicion.
The position of the Republican Party is clear: The record demonstrates
we have stood always for vigorous and impartial law enforcement and for fair
but adequate criminal laws at all levels of government. We accept the challenge
and will provide the leadership necessary to bring genuine protection to the
individual as well as to society in general.
-30-
REpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
FRIDAY AM'S
October 7, 1966
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT WAS APPROVED OCTOBER 3, 1966
BY THE REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE AND WAS RELEASED
TODAY BY REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RAY C. BLISS
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT THE ADMINISTRATION TO TELL THE TRUTH
Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated by the refusal of the
Johnson-Humphrey Administration to tell the full truth to the people. Whether
it be called "news management" or the "credibility gap," the fact remains that
in many areas of public policy, the Democratic Administration fails to tell
the whole truth.
In Vietnam the Administration has issued a multitude of conflicting
statements about the extent of U.S. involvement, the degree to which American
troops are participating, the goals of the war, the reasons for American
presence and, most importantly, the prospects for success. On October 1, 1963,
for example, Secretary McNamara claimed that "the major part of the U.S.
military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be con-
tinuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. " When
the Secretary painted that rosy picture, there were about 15,000 U.S. military
personnel in Vietnam; by the end of 1965 that number had grown to 180, 000;
and today our presence is in the magnitude of 300, 000.
-more-
-2-
One of Secretary McNamara's chief deputies has stated:
"Look, if you think any American official is
going to tell you the truth, then you're stupid.
Did you hear that? - - Stupid. 11
On the domestic front, too, a credibility gap has been growing
steadily- - and rapidly- - ever since the Eisenhower Administration left office.
The Secretary of Agriculture has said to Democratic candidates:
"Slip, slide, and duck any question of higher
consumer prices if you possibly can. 11
There needs to be enacted "truth in budgeting" legislation, so that
the American people can see for themselves how much of the people's money
the Democratic Administration is spending. Suppression of thenames of
summer postal employees affords another example.
As a leading news commentator has noted, "the political lie has become
a way of bureaucratic life. "
In an era in which the United States seeks, and needs, friends, how
can we expect the peoples of other lands to trust our Administration's
statements when our own people are becoming increasingly suspicious of its
motives and actions?
The Republican Coordinating Committee respectfully urges the
Administration to be frank with the American people. The people need the
whole truth.
Since the Democratic Party cannot be frank with the American people,
the Republicans will tell them the truth.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEB. 6, 1967
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
Many actions can be taken to reduce the crime rate in this country and again
make our streets safe for our citizens. The most basic and most urgent action is
to expand our local police departments and to improve the quality as well as the
quantity of local law enforcement.
President Johnson's crime message focuses on a number of important problem
areas but neglects some key points. While law enforcement is primarily a local
problem, the federal government can help by making law enforcement a more professional
and a more attractive career for capable young people.
The basic ingredients for a concerted nationwide attack on crime at the state
and local levels of government are money and desire. I believe all of our citizens
have the desire to launch a war against crime.
Money is the other ingredient in a nationwide crime war, and the best way to
provide funds for that attack would be through federal tax-sharing A portion of
federal revenue rebated to the states could be used in combination with state and
local funds to greatly expand and improve local law enforcement and sharply reduce
crime rates across the Nation.
At the federal level, we should establish a national law enforcement institute
to carry out research work, training and the development and dissemination of the
latest police science techniques. There should be state participation in the
operation of such an institute if it is to be effective.
Within the federal correctional system, we must expand the work release
program and other enlightened prisoner rehabilitation projects to reduce as much as
possible the number of second-time offenders, "criminal repeaters."
We should heavily circumscribe but not entirely outlaw the use of electronic
eavesdropping and wiretapping. Such devices are an essential tool in law enforcement,
They are especially useful in attacking organized crime and could be safely used in
such cases when authorized by a federal judge by court order and for probable cause.
To restrict the use of such devices to national security cases would be to throw
away an important weapon against organized crime. We must legislate against the
indiscriminate use of these devices. We must protect the privacy of our citizens.
But we must not throw out the baby with the bath water.
GERAL
LISNARY
(MORE)
-2-
We need state and federal action to tighten up on the sale of firearms. But
we must find a legislative solution which does not violate the constitutional rights
of responsible citizens. We must seek to produce legislation which will deter
violence but will not interfere unduly with the rights of those who use guns for
sport or pleasure.
We now are faced with a situation in which legitimate social protest sometimes
is marked by flagrant violation of laws designed to protect persons and property.
To deal with such violations of the law, we propose a Citizens Rights Act of 1967.
This Act would punish those who travel from one state to another with intent to
incite riots. It also would provide protection for individuals exercising their
constitutional rights.
We agree with the President that efforts should be made to reduce crime by
attacking some of its basic causes, poverty among others. But we must remember that
crime rates are high even in welfare states like England. The ultimate answer,
therefore, lies in the spiritual Life of a Nation and in the family, the bulwark
of all sound societies.
As I noted in my State of the Union Address, fear of punishment remains an
important deterrent to crime.
I urge therefore that the courts uphold the rights of the law-abiding citizen
with the same fervor as it upholds the rights of the accused. In that connection,
it might be well to adopt a sense-of-Congress resolution indicating to the present
and all future U.S. Presidents that U.S. Supreme Court appointees should be selected
from among federal or state judges who have evidenced by their decisions a balanced
viewpoint in the area of public protection and individual rights.
We can and must preserve individual rights and civil liberties. But we should
not impose so many restrictions on law enforcement agencies that they are made
ineffectual in their attempts to prevent crime or remove criminals from society. To
turn obviously guilty persons free is to damage law enforcement both in terms of
public and police attitudes.
We need a new spirit in this country--a marked change in public attitude
toward the police officer. We must realize and respect the great responsibility he
bears and seek to help him in carrying out that responsibility. He, in turn, must
constantly strive to do a better job.
We can reduce crime rates in this country. But we must all work together to
do it.
# # #
Crime
FOR RELEASE
Monday AM's
JOINT STATEMENT BY
HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD and
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES E. GOODELL, CHAIRMAN
HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
March 27, 1967
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD H. POFF TO CHAIR REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON CRIME
We announce the formation by the House Republican Conference Research
and Planning Committee of a Task Force on Crime, and the appointment of
Representative Richard H. Poff of Virginia as its Chairman. The full
membership of the Task Force will be announced at a later date.
Republican Task Forces are created in the House of Representatives
to offer information and analysis and recommendations for action on
questions of substantial national importance. Because of present concern
with the increase of crime, this Task Force has a vital function to
perform.
Representative Poff, who will direct its activities, is particularly
well qualified to chair this most important Task Force. He has been
named to the Commission on Revision and Reform of Federal Criminal
Statutes, an agency created as a direct result of legislation which he
sponsored in the 89th Congress. In addition, Mr. Poff is second-ranking
Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee and secretary of the
House Republican Conference.
A thoughtful analysis of recommendations of the President and the
recent report of the Presidential Commission in this field, prepared by
Mr. Poff, is attached. It deserves the attention of the Task Force which
he will head and of the general public.
#
#
#
FORD 3 LIBRARY GERALD
FOR RELEASE
MONDAY AM's
March 27, 1967
Representative Richard H. Poff (R-Va.) today released a detailed critical
appraisal of the report of the President's Crime Commission and the legislative
proposals on the subject which President Johnson has made to the Congress.
Mr. Poff took issue with President Johnson and sided with the majority of
the Commission by advocating that the use of wiretapping and eavesdropping
devices be permitted under court order in the fight against organized crime.
The President favors limiting the use of such devices to national security cases.
Mr. Poff favors outlawing all wiretapping and eavesdropping by unauthorized
citizens.
He urged that priorities be set among proposed actions by the federal govern-
ment with major emphasis on training of law enforcement and criminal justice
personnel and on research. He underlined the need for more effective rehabilita-
tion and better trained and paid probation officers.
Mr. Poff noted nine important recommendations of the President's Crime
Commission which President Johnson did not see fit to urge upon the Congress,
including changes in trial procedure which the Congressman said unreasonably
hamper prosecution in criminal cases.
Mr. Poff suggested that Congress might ease the effect of the 5-4 Supreme
Court decisions in the Miranda and Escobedo cases, widely criticized as obstacles
to criminal investigation. To this end he proposed that Congress make a statutory
distinction between the investigatory and the accusatory stages of the pre-trial
process.
Among other proposals which were not included in either the President's
message or the report of his Crime Commission, Mr. Poff advocated amendment of
the Bail Reform Act, new legislation to prevent obstruction of criminal investiga-
tions, compensation to law enforcement officers killed or disabled in apprehend-
ing those who violate federal criminal law, passage of the Cramer anti-riot bill,
and revision of the federal criminal penalty structure.
Paper preparedty Rep Richard Poff (R-Va.)
approx Feb. 10,67
Immediately following release of the report of the President's Crime
Commission, I spoke on the Floor of the House to pay tribute to the Commission,
its staff, its advisers and consultants. I want to reaffirm that tribute and to
renew the compliment I paid the contribution the report made to the cause of law
enforcement. It illuminated many dark corners in our system of criminal jus-
tice and laid the predicate for wholesome, productive dialogue.
However, the Commission members themselves did not always agree. Criminolo-
gists, like legislators, often agree on ultimate goals but disagree on metho-
dology. The President, who named the Commissioners, agreed with them in part
and disagreed with them in part. I must assume the same posture. Yet, when
I disagree, I am concerned not with goals but with methodology.
For purposes of this discussion, I am dividing the subject ter into
three categories. The first includes those proposals made by the Commission and
adopted by the President which I feel should be modified. The second includes
those proposals made by the Commission which the President has not yet adopted.
The third includes proposals michinetther the Commission nor the President ad-
vanced but which I think should bei considered by the Congress.
CATEGORY I: COMMISSION PROPOSALS ADOPTED BY THE PRESIDENT WHICH
SHOULD BE MODIFIED
A. Wiretapping and invendroppoing
The Commission's proposals on wiretapping and emesdropping were not
unanimous. All members agreed that all surreptitious electronic surveillance by
private citizens should be outlawed. The President adopted this proposal.
I concur.
A majority of the members of the Commission supported wiretapping by law
enforcement officers acting under court order and supervision, both in national
security cases and in criminal investigations. The President rejected the pro-
posal so far as criminal investigations are concerned. I disagree with the
President. Said differently, I agree with a majority of the Commission on this
issue.
In order fully to appreciate this issue, it is necessary to know something
about its history, Since the telephone is of relatively recent origin, the his-
-2-
tory is brief. In 1928, the Supreme Court was first confronted with the question:
"Is evidence obtained by law enforcement authorities by tapping the telephone of
the accused from a point outside his premises admissible in a federal criminal
prosecution?" The accused contended that it was inadmissible and his argument
was that the wiretap constituted an "unlawful search and seizure" as that clause
is defined in the 4th Amendment. The Court decided against the accused.
Six years later in 1934, the Congress adopted section 605 of the Federal
Communications Act. That section outlaws interception and disclosure of wire
communications. In the years that followed, the Department of Justice interpreted
the language of section 605 in such a manner as to permit wiretapping by law
enforcement officers so long as the information acquired thereby was not disclosed
outside the law enforcement agency.
Pursuing the same interpretation of section 605 language, individual states
have enacted laws legalizing wiretapping by law enforcement authorities under orders
of state courts. However, federal authorities have not had access to evidence
accumulated under these state laws; state authorities are afraid to disclose that
evidence for fear of polluting it in their own investigation.
I applaud and share the President's concern for the cause of personal privacy.
So far as possible, private citizens must be free from fear that their conversa-
tions, intended to be private, might be monitored by unknown, unauthorized strangers.
This right of personal privacy surely incorporates the right of free speech. So
long as the fear is plausible, a person's willingness to voice candid, critical or
constructive ideas is inhibited. Whatever discourages dissent from the popular
view slows the intellectual dialogue from which new ideas and new concepts spring.
Accordingly, and counting personal privacy among the dearest ingredients of personal
liberty, I enthusiastically support the President's recommendation to outlaw wire-
tapping by unauthorized personnel.
Yes, society should protect the individual citizen against an invasion of his
personal privacy. However, when the citizen engages in anti-social behavior, that
is, conduct forbidden by the laws of society, then the citizen should be treated
as if he has surrendered his right of privacy Otherwise, he can hide forever
behind the veil of privacy, and of society is not permitted to look behind the curtain,
then society is forever at his mercy.
For this reason, I believe that police officers, aceing under court orders, should
-3-
be permitted to protect society by use of wiretap and eavesdropping devices in
investigations of major crimes. To accomplish that purpose, I am preparing legisla-
tion. In the case of People VS. Berger, however, the Supreme Court is currently
considering the constitutional questions involved. How those questions are
resolved will affect the bill I am writing and I shall defer its introduction pend-
ing a final decision, which I understand is imminent.
B. Federal Grants-in-Aid
The Commission proposed a variety of federal grants-in-aid to State, local and
regional law enforcement agencies. Many of these the President incorporated in the
draft bill he calls "The Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1967. By way of
shorthand terminology, it might also be called "The 90-60-100 Aid Bill."
Title I of the President's proposal would authorize the Attorney General to
make grants to state and local governments for the preparation of plans for the
improvement and coordination of law enforcement and criminal justice. For planning
purposes, the federal grant could be up to 90% of the total cost. Said differently,
the grantee would have a 10% investment in the plans.
Title II authorizes federal grants of up to 60% to finance the development of
new methods of crime fighting, the development and acquisition of equipment, the
promotion of better community relations (including public education relating to
crime prevention), facilities for the processing and rehabilitation of offenders,
and more and more effective manpower, including recruitment, education and training
of law enforcement and criminal justice personnel. The latter embraces the payment
of regular salaries, with the limitation that no more than one-third of the federal
grant can be used for that purpose. There is no such limitation with regard to
salaries of personnel undergoing training and education.
Title II also envisions construction grants to finance physical facilities for
local police forces, provided that no more than half the federal grant shall be
used for such purposes.
Title III authorizes grants up to 100% of the cost of functions similar to
those presently authorized under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965.
The President's Safe Streets and Crime Control proposal, like most grant-in-
aid programs currently administered by the federal government, undertakes to write
a distribution formula. Like most such formulae, this one is too broad and too
-4-
flexible; it is imprecise and inexact. Indeed, except for limitations heretofore
noted and a stipulation that not more than 15% of the total appropriation shall be
used in any one state, there is little in the President's draft fixing the share
the several states may receive. Indeed, section 411 largely shuns the question
by giving the Attorney General authority to "establish criteria to achieve an
equitable distribution among the states of assistance under this Act."
This imprecision would not perhaps be quite so consequential but for the
fact that Section 407 empowers the Attorney General to withhold grants previously
authorized and allocated when he determines that the grantee has somehow failed
to comply with some provision of the Act or regulations promulgated by the Attorney
General. Since nothing requires that any regulation once promulgated remain cons-
tant, the Attorney General is free to make and unmake, change and rechange regula-
tions as the mood might strike him. Even if he makes no changes, the very threat
to make a change is sufficient to compel the very closest compliance. I am not sure
that what we seek is utter and abject compliance on the part of local law enforce-
ment officers with regulations written by central law enforcement officials.
I do not criticize the Commission's catalogue of needs. I do not fault its
goals. I find it difficult to quarrel with some of the methods it proposed. I
think the federal government does have a proper role to play in assisting local law
enforcement agencies. In the last Congress, I supported, and I am glad that I
did, enactment of the Law Enforcement Assistance Act.
However, I have two fears. The first, I think, is shared by every thoughtful
person. That is the fear of a mammoth policy pyramid with its apex centered in
Washington and its base spread into every precinct and hamlet in America. I do not
for one moment contend that the apparatus the President proposes resembles such a
pyramid. Rather, he intends that law enforcement remain a local responsibility.
In his crime message, he said, "Our system of law enforcement is essentially local;
based on local initiative, generated by local energies and controlled by local
officials."
Yet, what is intended today can sometimes become tomorrow the foundation for what
never was intended. Federal grants made today with an irreducible minimum of
administrative stipulations tomorrow can be hedged about by all manner of conditions
precedent and subsequent. For that reason, it is incumbent upon us as lawmakers to
give the most careful scrutiny to every new pocketbook adventure the federal govern-
-5-
ment takes into the realm of state and local government.
My second fear is that the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act undertakes too
much, with too little, too soon. There is not enough money in the federal
treasury to do immediately all that needs to be done eventually. Our enthusiasm
for the whole cause must be tempered with emphasis upon its most important parts
first. Among all the desirable goals we must forge a chain of priorities.
The first link in that chain, it seems to me, is education and training of law
enforcement officials and criminal justice personnel. Ask any police chief and he
will tell you that what he needs most is better trained men. The Commission agrees.
The President agrees. The Justice Department, acting under the Law Enforcement
Assistance Act, already has basic statutory authority to proceed. Rather than
launch a new experiment with some untried program, we should invest whatever
education and training money we can afford in prudent expansions of the Law
Enforcement Assistance Act.
Another link in the chain of top priorities is the urgent need for more scien-
tific and technological research. As the Crime Commission reports, in terms
of economy of effort and of feasibility, there are important needs that individual
jurisdictions cannot or should not meet alone. Research is a most important instance."
The President recognizes this need. His draft legislation proposes a most
ambitious attack on the problem. The difficulty is that it may be too ambitious,
too fragmented. His proposal, I am afraid, splinters the effort and scatters the
resources. A far more realistic and effective approach would be that suggested by
the distinguished Minority Leader. The gentleman from Michigan suggests the
establishment of a National Institute of Law Enforcement and Crime. Patterned
after the National Institutes of Health, this new institute would assemble the
nation's best talent to conduct the research and test the techniques our local law
enforcement and criminal justice personnel must have to improve the total system
of justice. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Cramer), one of the most knowledgeable
Members of this body in this field, has already drafted and introduced appropriate
legislation. It deserves the preferred attention of the Committee on the Judiciary.
C. United States Corrections Service
Although there would seem to be no specific predicate in the report of the
President's Crime Commission, the President proposes the establishment of a "United
-6-
States Corrections Service" within the Department of Justice. The President's
proposal serves to underscore the importance of criminal rehabilitation. No area of
the American system of Justice is more vital. In the last Congress, I enthusiastically
supported the legislation which became Public Law 89-176. That law authorizes the
Attorney General to employ three prisoner rehabilitation techniques with which some
of our states have had a most rewarding experience. First, it establishes the sys-
tem of residential community treatment centers. Second, it permits prisoners to
take emergency leave under appropriate safeguards. Third, it permits selected
prisoners to work for pay in the community or participate in community training
programs during regulated hours and under strict supervision.
These techniques help to cushion the shock of sudden transition from insti-
tutional life to free civilian life. The risk to the community is carefully cir-
cumscribed and minimal. Every dollar spent in these and other prisoner rehabilita-
tion programs saves money and reduces the likelihood of recidivism by the convicted
criminal.
For these reasons, I applaud that part of the President's proposal which
enlarges the stature and expands the function of the Advisory Corrections Council.
However, the rest of the proposal is likely to provoke intense resistance by the
judges of the Federal district courts and members of the Probation Service.
In 1940, the Probation Service was transferred from the Department of Justice
to the Judiciary. Last year, the Department of Justice urged legislation to return
the Service to its own jurisdiction. The legislation never progressed further
than the committee hearing state. Now the Department offers a new bill which it
hopes will be regarded as a compromise. It would preserve the identity of the
Probation Service but little more than identity. It would transfer its functions to
the Department of Justice, leaving only the privilege of preparing pre-sentence
reports for the judge.
Today, the Probation Officer, appointed by the District Judge, is the functional
right arm of the judge. He prepares pre-sentence reports on which the judge makes
his decision as to the advisability of granting the convicted defendant probation.
He supervises the probationer during his probation. He has similar responsibilities
with respect to prisoners on parole. He guides the course of rehabilitation in the
work-release program. From the beginning of every case which falls within his
jurisdiction, he intimately involves himself with the accused. He knows his person-
-7-
ality, his talents, his frailities, his environment, his family. Perhaps better than
any o ther person, he is equipped to guide the delicate course of human rehabilitation.
I seriously question the wisdom of stripping the Probation Officer of all
prisoner rehabilitation functions except that of preparing pre-sentence reports.
Among other things, I am afraid that the judge may be reluctant to use the rehabilita-
tion technique of probation if he knows that supervision during the probationary
period will be transferred from his court to a "community correctional officer" who
will be an employee of the Executive branch of the government. A community correc-
tional officer would not be responsible to him but to the Department of Justice.
Whatever discourages the use of probation harms the cause of rehabilitation.
I also doubt the validity of the Justice Department's claim that once an
accused is convicted he belongs under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Executive
Branch of government. Indeed, I support the converse of that proposition. It is
the Executive Branch which investigates the citizen. It is the Executive Branch which
arrests and arraigns the citizen. It is the Executive Branch which indicts and
prosecutes the accused. It is the Executive Branch which incarcerates the convict.
It would seem only fair that the Executive Branch, having assumed such an adversary
posture against the citizen for so long, should gracefully yield the role of proba-
tional rehabilitation to the Judicial Branch of government.
This criticism of the President's proposal is not intended to deny the need
for reform and improvement. I simply suggest that there is a better solution. What
is needed is more probation officers, better trained probation officers and better
paid probation officers.
CATEGORY II: COMMISSION PROPOSALS WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT ADOPTED
The President's Commission chaired by former Attorney General Katzenbach was
truly a Presidential Commission. It was constituted by Presidential order; its mem-
bers were appointed by the President; it served under the President, at the pleasure
of the President; and it reported its findings to the President. Yet, the President
has not so far seen fit to adopt many of the proposals made by the President's
Commission. Without attempting to make a complete inventory, here are a few of the
more important:
(1) The FCC should develop plans for allocating portions of the TV spectrum for
police use.
-8-
(2) To improve instant communication techniques, enhance crime prevention and
hasten the investigatory process, the federal government should assume leadership
in initiating portable two-way radio development programs, perhaps by underwriting
the sale of first production lots.
(3) A technical assistance program should be launched under which local juris-
dictions can request the help of experienced federal prosecutors in the prosecution
of organized crime, and the Department of Justice should conduct organized crime
training sessions in those states and localities where the syndicate functions.
(4) The staff of the Organized Crime Section of the Department of Justice should
be enlarged and its decision-making authority broadened when working with local
U.S. Attorneys in the prosecution of organized crime.
(5) A permanent Joint Congressional Committee on Organized Crime should be
created. For that purpose, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cramer, is offering
legislation.
(6) U. S. Attorneys should be authorized to appeal court orders granting pretrial
motions to suppress evidence or confessions. Frequently, as the Commission report
documents, the most careful investigations and the most elaborate prosecutions have
been frustrated at the last moment before trial by court orders suppressing the very
evidence without which conviction is impossible.
(7) While maintaining the requirement of proving an intentional false statement,
the two-witness requirement and the direct evidence rules in perjury prosecutions
should be abolished. If uniform state statutes can be coordinated with a federal
statute, there should be a general federal witness immunity statute replacing the
host of conflicting, awkward, almost inoperable specific witness immunity laws on the
federal statute books. The immunity granted should be broad enough to insure com-
pulsion of testimony but should be restricted to those cases approved by the chief
prosecuting officer of the jurisdiction. Statutes at both Federal and state levels
should be careful to leave no opportunity for interference with concurrent investi-
gations in other jurisdictions. The President's recommendation on immunity is inadequate.
(8) Federal judges should be authorized to lengthen the prison sentence for a
felony when it appears that it was committed as a part of a continuing illegal busin-
ess in which the defendant occupied a supervisory or other management position. The
Commission feels that extended sentences are vital as a deterrent in the fight against
organized crime.
-9-
(9) While most Commission recommendations concerning juvenile delinquency were
addressed essentially to the states and localities, the Federal government has the
responsibility, similar to that of States, to attack the juvenile delinquency problem
in the District of Columbia. The President's February 27 Message on the Nation's
Capital proposed the establishment of a District Youth Services Office and discussed
enlargement of a variety of existing District youth programs. However, the President
did not embrace a number of the more specific recommendations the Crime Commission
made. Adequate and appropriate separate detention facilities for juveniles should
be provided. Juveniles should enjoy the right to notice, right to counsel and other
constitutional rights vouchsafed to the adult offender. Juvenile courts should
increase the number of preliminary conferences to dispose of cases short of adjudica-
tion. Wherever possible, in order to avoid the stigma and enhance the prospects of
rehabilitation, consent decrees should be employed in lieu of adjudication. There
should be more and better trained probation officers specializing in juvenile
rehabilitation.
CATEGORY III: PROPOSALS WHICH NEITHER THE COMMISSION NOR THE PRESIDENT ADVANCED
A. Miranda and Escobedo Decisions
The most conspicuous omission of the Commission's report was its failure to
come to grips with the problems of law enforcement raised by recent Supreme Court
decisions. I have reference to those decisions which affect interrogation, confes-
sions, right to counsel and Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
There is a respectable body of legal opinion which holds that these decisions
have retarded if not defeated the process of law enforcement. The nucleus of that
body of opinion is to be found in the dissenting views of four Justices of the
Supreme Court. Seven of the 19 members of the President's Commission buttress that
nucleus and, indeed, somewhat enlarge upon it. Even now , special Subcommitteesiin
the other body, chaired by the Senator from Indiana, the Honorable Birch Bayh, and
the Senator from Arkansas, the Honorable John McClellan, are conducting a study of
the pragmatic effects of these decisions. Perhaps it would be wise to defer legisla-
tive action until those Subcommittees have made their reports. However, it is not
too early to begin to formulate possible alternative solutions.
There are those who feel that the problems first raised by Mallory and McNabb
have now been rendered largely moot by the five-to-four Supreme Court decisions in
-10-
Miranda and Escobedo. Assuming, but not conceding, that this is true, action must first
be addressed to the latter decisions.
Miranda and Escobedo, based upon the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, require that
the accused be advised of his right to counsel, either private or appointed, his right
to remain silent and the fact that anything he says may be used against him. I do not
condemn the substance of the Court's decisions. When a man is accused of a criminal
act, he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself and he is entitled to have
the assistance of counsel for his defense. The Constitution says SO.
The problem these decisions have caused law enforcement officials has not been
rooted so much in substance as in procedure. And lower court interpretations and applica-
tions of the substance of the Supreme Court's decisions have compounded the procedural
problem. As a result, the state of the law is such today that police officers do not
know precisely at what point in the pre-trial phase of prosecution and to what degree
the substance of the Miranda-Escobedo mandate must be applied.
Some legal scholars believe that only a constitutional amendment can clarify the
confusion. I am inclined to feel that a statute might suffice to bring some order
out of the chaos. The self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment confines its
reach to "any criminal case." The Counsel clause in the Sixth Amendment applies "in
all criminal prosecutions." It would seem that the constitutional intent was that
these guarantees be the property of one charged with a crime.
I am fully familiar with the view that they were intended to apply as well to
the suspect as to the accused. Yet, I submit that in the present state of conflicting
and contradictory views, both lay and judicial, it would be only fitting that the
Congress at least explore and test the possibility of drawing a statutory line between
the investigatory and accusatory stages of the pre-trial process. It would be a
difficult, but not insurmountable, undertaking. Reasonable men should be able to
agree at what point the suspect becomes an accused and is placed in jeopardy of life
or liberty.
The Congress has the power to legislate on the subject and bring some precision
and uniformity and stability and constancy to bear. If, after careful study, the
Congress fixes such a point in the pre-trial process and the courts later disagree,
then at least the present uncertainty will have been resolved and law enforcement
officers will have been given some precise guidance.
-11-
B. McNabb and Mallory Decisions
If Congress should take this first vital step, then Congress should address it-
self to the problem raised by McNabb and Mallory. These decisions nullified con-
fessions, otherwise voluntary and free from coercion or promise of reward, because of
delay in bringing the citizen before a magistrate. The rationale adopted by the
Court was that the delay was "unnecessary" under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
5(a) and provided police officers with too much opportunity for the extraction of
a confession." Apparently, the delay and the environment of the police station was
regarded as an insipid form of coercion. However, it must be understood that in
McNabb, Mr. Justice Frankfurter did not bottom his decision on a constitutional
question but upon the power of the Supreme Court to supervise the conduct of lower
federal courts and to establish and maintain "civilized standards of procedure and
evidence." The Mallory decision was pitched on the same foundation.
Accordingly, if Congress should first draw the line between investigation and
accusation, Congress could then write appropriate guidelines and define in precise
terms what delay preceding arraignment will be counted reasonable.
C: MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS TO STRENGTHEN CRIMINAL STATUTES
Aside from the Miranda and Mallory questions, I suggest Congress consider
several other proposals which, while not within the framework of the Commission's
report or advanced by the President, could do much to immediately strengthen and
improve our system of criminal justice.
(1) In the last Congress, the House adopted as an amendment to the Civil Rights
bill the legislation authored by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cramer. The Cramer
amendment made it a federal crime to travel or use any facility in interstate or
foreign commerce with intent to incite a riot or other violent civil disturbance.
That legislation failed of passage in the other body. It has been introduced in this
Congress, and as an amendment to Title 18 of the Code, it is pending before the
Committee on the Judiciary. Patterned after the language of the Fugitive Felon
Statute, it falls clearly within the Constitutional domain of the Congress. It should
be enacted. It would do something positive to make our streets safer and control
interstate crime.
(2) The Bail Reform Act passed by the Congress last year has enhanced the cause
of justice in our criminal justice system. It helps to remove discrimination between
-12-
the affluent suspect and the penurious suspect. However, experience under the Act
establishes the validity of the amendment which was urged unsuccessfully in the House
last year. The amendment was intended to grant the court more discretion and
flexibility in applying the several alternatives to money bail. Judges have public-
ly complained that the rigidity of the statute leaves little or no opportunity to
consider danger to the community as an element of release. Our streets would be
safer if this amendment is adopted this year.
(3) The cause of enforcement would be greatly facilitated by enactment of a fair
and effective law against obstruction of criminal investigations. The present
Obstruction of Justice statute, Chapter 73 of the Code, outlaws resistance to and
interference with process servers, extradition agents, officers of the court, jurors
and witnesses before the court, executive agencies and the Congress. It does not go
far enough. It fails utterly to protect the citizen informer in his efforts to
communicate information about violations of federal criminal statutes to criminal
investigators. It is at the citizen-informer level that the most effective crime
control begins. The same is true of crime prevention.
(4) Mental incompetence as a defense against charges of criminal conduct is basic
to our concept of justice. The subject is treated in Chapter 313 of Title 18 of the
Code. Many learned physicians and criminologists feel that the present statute is
obsolete in part, imprecise in general and inadequate to protect fully the consti-
tutional rights of the accused to notice, confrontation, counsel and protection against
self-incrimination. Corrective legislation has been offered by the gentleman from
Missouri, Dr. Hall, It deserves the prompt attention of the Congress.
(5) The President and the Commission recommended a variety of federal grants-in-
aid to State and local police forces. I was disappointed that neither the President
nor the Commission commented upon a bill which I offered in the last Congress and
reintroduced in this Congress. My bill is not accurately called a "grant-in-aid
program.' Rather, it is a compensation program. It would authorize the Attorney
General to pay specified compensation to the survivors and dependents of local law
enforcement officers killed or disabled while attempting to apprehend persons com-
mitting federal crimes. I suggest that here is an opportunity for the Federal govern-
ment to contribute substantial, tangible assistance to the cause of local law enforce-
ment in an area where the federal government has both an indisputable jurisdiction and
a clear responsibility.
-13-
(6) Congress simply must give its preferred attention to the federal criminal
penalty structure. It is a hodge-podge, make-shift mess of conflict and contra-
diction. It mystifies the layman, confounds the lawyer, intimidates the prosecutor,
frustrates the judge and confuses the juror. Mandatory penalties and split-sentence
statutes sometimes defeat their own purpose, leading to acquittal as the only alter-
native to excessive punishment. Too often, there is no reasonable or constant
equation between penalty and offense. Two examples will serve to illustrate. The
maiming offense is a felony. It draws a penalty of up to seven years in prison or
a fine of up to $1000 or both. On the other hand, an assault with intent to maim
draws a penalty of up to 10 years or a fine up to $3000. The lesser offense draws
the greater penalty. Again, the penalty for armed bank robbery is imprisonment from
one day up to 25 years; the penalty for armed robbery of a postage stamp is 25 years
and the only alternatives are probation or acquittal.
D: NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW
Reform and revision of the penalty structure is one of the specific missions
assigned to the National Commission on Reform of the Federal Criminal Law, signed
into law by the President on November 8, 1966. The National Commission on Reform
was conceived as a follow-on to the President's Crime Commission. The function of
this second commission is a logical progression of the function of the first. That
function is to review all federal criminal law, both case and statutory, and recom-
mend legislative proposals, including revisions and recodifications, to improve the
federal system of criminal justice.
The new Commission is to be composed of 12 members, three each to be appointed
by the House, the Senate, the Judicial Branch of government and the Executive Branch
of government. Nine of the 12 have been appointed. Although some four months of the
Commission's three-year life have expired, the President has not yet made the three
appointments available to him. I know that the President is anxious to select the
best possible talent in the field, and I realize that the choice is difficult and
delicate. Yet, in light of the urgency of the problem and the complexity of its solu-
tion, I earnestly hope that he can make his appointments in the near future and ex-
pedite the supplemental appropriation necessary to organize and staff the Commission.
As the author of the legislation and one of the members of the Commission, I am anxious
to cooperate in every possible way to see that the investment pays the nation
proper dividends.
3 May 1967
11111
U.S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE POLICY COMMITTEE URGES LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT THE DESECRATION
OF THE FLAG
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the prompt enactment of
legislation that would prohibit the deliberate and defiant desecration of
the American Flag.
It is strange indeed to see on the same day in the same newspapers,
pictures of American young men facing danger and death in Vietnam and
pictures of other American young men burning their na tion' flag in the
safety of an American park. Certainly. the B111 of Rights never was in-
tended to protect those who would contemptuously set fire to the American
Flag.
One of the greatest strengths of this nation is the right of dissent.
This right was established by our Founding Fathers and must remain inviolate.
However, the right of dissent from particular policies on with particular
individuals never was intended to sanction the desecration of the American
Flag which is the symbol of our national heritage and unites all Americans
in their allegiance "to the Republic for which it stands."
3 May 1967
all IIIIIII
U. S. HOUSE
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE POLICY COMMITTEE URGES LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT THE DESECRATION
OF THE FLAG
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the prompt enactment of
legislation that would prohibit the deliberate and defiant desecration of
the American Flag.
It is strange indeed to see on the same day in the same newspapers,
pictures of American young men facing danger and death in Vietnam and
pictures of other American young men burning their nation's flag in the
safety of an American park. Certainly. the Bill of Rights never was in-
tended to protect those who would contemptuously set fire to the American
Flag.
One of the greatest strengths of this nation is the right of dissent.
This right was established by our Founding Fathers and must remain inviolate.
However, the right of dissent from particular policies or with particular
individuals never was intended to sanction the desecration of the American
Flag which is the symbol of our national heritage and unites all Americans
in their allegiance "to the Republic for which it stands."
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 16, 1967
House Republicans today introduced a comprehensive bill to protect law-
abiding citizens from improper wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping by
strictly defining permissible surveillance under court orders, House Minority
Leader Gerald R. Ford (R. Mich.) announced.
The proposed legislation was introduced by Congressman William M.
McCulloch (R. Ohio), senior Republican Member of the House Judiciary Committee
and co-sponsored by Minority Leader Ford, Congressman Richard H. Poff (R. Va.),
Chairman of the House Republican Task Force on Crime, and 20 other Republican
Members of the House of Representatives.
The Republican bill would implement the recommendations of the majority
of the President's Crime Commission and the Commission's Task Force on Organized
Crime.
Contrary to the recommendations of this distinguished panel, President
Johnson recently asked Congress to enact legislation prohibiting virtually all
electronic evidence-gathering by law enforcement officers which is primarily used
against organized crime.
Commenting on the bill, Minority Leader Ford stated:
"This important legislative initiative carries out the constructive
Republican commitment in our State of the Union appraisal of last January 19.
"On that occasion I warned that 'wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping
worry all Americans who prize their privacy,' but also noted that within well-
defined limits with proper safeguards, 'these are essential weapons to those who
guard our nation's security and wage ceaseless war against organized crime."
Congressman McCulloch pointed out that the President's proposal does not
ban all electronic surveillance. Rather it would permit the President to make
unilateral, unchecked and unreviewable determinations of when it should be used
in "national security" cases. Congressman McCulloch stated that if wiretapping
is effective against subversives, its effectiveness should not be denied to law
enforcement in dealing with the equally subversive activities of organized crime.
Congressman McCulloch added: "I am certain that this proposed legislation
(more)
-2-
minimizes actual or potential threats to individual privacy and strikes a true
balance between the needs of society and the rights of individuals."
Congressman Poff emphasized that the Republican measure provides extra
protection against wiretapping or electronic surveillance of conversations between
husband and wife, lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, clergy and
communicants and users of public telephones. Poff said:
"This bill for the first time gives the citizen protection and legal
recourse against unauthorized or improper invasions of private communications.
It advances both the traditional American concept of individual liberty and the
equally important rule of law and order."
Joining with Minority Leader Ford, Congressman McCulloch and Congressman
Poff, were the following Republican co-sponsors: Arch A. Moore of W. Va.,
William T. Cahill of N.J., Clark MacGregor of Minn., Edward Hutchinson of Mich.,
Robert McClory of I11., Henry P. Smith of N.Y., William V. Roth of Dela., Thomas
J. Meskill of Conn., Tom Railsback of Ill., Edward Biester of Penna., Charles E.
Wiggins of Calif., Carleton King of N.Y., Jack Betts of Ohio, Barber Conable of
N.Y., William Cramer of Fla., Robert Price of Texas, Garner Shriver of Kansas,
Louis Wyman of N.H., and Chalmers Wylie of Ohio.
###
REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON CRIME
142 Cannon Bldg., 225-5107 House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Chairman
Richard H. Poff
PRESS RELEASE
Virginia
Deputy Chairman
For Release: May 22, 1967
Robert Taft, Jr.
Ohio
Contact: Agnes Waldron
225-5107
Barber B. Conable, Jr.
New York
Congressman Richard H. Poff, Chairman of the House
William C. Cramer
Florida
Republican Task Force on Crime, deplored the attempt to create
Samuel L. Devine
Ohio
a conflict between the FBI and the President's Crime Commission
John N. Erlenborn
Illinois
Carleton J. King
on the proper treatment of criminals.
New York
Clark MacGregor
Congressman Poff told the House of Representatives today,
Minnesota
Robert B. Mathias
"Those trying to conjure up a conflict between the FBI and
California
Robert Price
the President's Crime Commission ill serve the cause of law
Texas
Thomas F. Railsback
and order. The FBI says that the right way to fight crime is
Illinois
Henry P. Smith, III
to strengthen deterrence. The Commission says that the right
New York
Chalmers P. Wylie
way to fight crime is to strengthen rehabilitation. Neither
Ohio
Louis C. Wyman
disputes the other. Both are right.
New Hampshire
"Recidivism statistics reported by the FBI illuminates a
tragic truth. Most of the crime in this country is committed
by repeaters. Some 57% of those released from Federal
custody in 1963 had been arrested again before June 1966.
For those paroled, the figure was 82%.
"These statistics do not prove that rehabilitation is un-
workable. Nor do they prove that deterrence is obsolete. All
they prove is that both are inadequate in their present form.
"While we must not 'coddle criminals,' we must not be
afraid to experiment with new techniques of criminal re-
habilitation. While we must not impose cruel or unusual
punishment, we must not be timid in fixing penalties
commensurate with the offense. Successful rehabilitation
saves society the burden of a second offense and serves a
humane function as well. Proper punishment not only attacks
the problem of recidivism; if it is swift and certain, it
helps to spare society the burden of the first offense by
others."
- 30 -
REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON CRIME
142 Cannon Bldg., 225-5107 House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Chairman
PRESS RELEASE
Richard H. Poff
Virginia
For Release: May 31, 1967
Deputy Chairman
Robert Taft, Jr.
Ohio
Contact: Agnes Waldron
225-5107
Barber B. Conable, Jr.
New York
William C. Cramer
Congressman Richard H. Poff, Chairman of the House Republican
Florida
Samuel L. Devine
Task Force on Crime, took issue today with Attorney General Clark's
Ohio
John N. Erlenborn
effort to minimize the national crime problem.
Illinois
Carleton J. King
"The Attorney General says 'there is no wave of crime in the
New York
Clark MacGregor
country, Mr. Poff reported. He went on to say, "That he should
Minnesota
Robert B. Mathias
California
say so is part of the crime problem in this country. The Attorney
Robert Price
General of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer of
Texas
Thomas F. Railsback
Illinois
the nation. If he thinks, as he is quoted as saying, that 'the level
Henry P. Smith, III
New York
of crime has risen a little bit', then he is either misinformed about
Chalmers P. Wylie
Ohio
the statistics or badly mistaken about the size of a 'bit.''
Louis C. Wyman
New Hampshire
Mr. Poff pointed out, "Webster says that a 'bit' is a 'mite' or
a 'whit.' Those who contend that the level of crime has risen only
a mite are more than a little bit wrong. In the decade of the sixties,
the growth rate of crime has outpaced the growth rate of the population
by more than 6 times. To me, that sounds more like a wave than a whit."
Congressman Poff said, "The Attorney General was also quoted as
saying that organized crime is only a 'tiny part' of the picture.
President Johnson last year, following a meeting with former Attorney
General Katzenbach, said that organized crime 'constitutes nothing less
than a guerrilla war against society.' The Katzenbach Crime Commission
said that the estimates of illegal gambling profits alone, not counting
profits from narcotics, prostitution and racketeering, run as high as
$50 billion a year. Thay may sound tiny to some; it sounds titanic to me."
Congressman Poff concluded: "The crime problem in America will
never be solved by miniaturizing it with timid little words. The chief
law enforcement officer must acknowledge it in its full dimensions and
thereby set the atmosphere of urgency essential to its solution."
- 30 -
BERALD FORD VIBRARY
REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON CRIME
142 Cannon Bldg., 225-5107 House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Chairman
PRESS RELEASE
Richard H. Poff
Virginia
For Release: AM' S Monday
Deputy Chairman
June 5, 1967
Robert Taft, Jr.
Ohio
Contact: 225-5107
Barber B. Conable, Jr.
New York
TASK FORCE URGES JOINT COMMITTEE ON ORGANIZED CRIME
William C. Cramer
Florida
The House Republican Task Force on Crime today called on
Samuel L. Devine
Ohio
Congress to establish a Joint Committee on Organized Crime as
John N. Erlenborn
Illinois
outlined in a bill introduced by Congressman William C. Cramer
Carleton J. King
New York
(R.-Fla.).
Clark MacGregor
Minnesota
Task Force Chairman Richard H. Poff (R.-Va.) noted that "The
Robert B. Mathias
California
effects of organized criminal activity are well known, but the
Robert Price
Texas
structure of organized crime is barely understood. The President's
Thomas F. Railsback
Illinois
Crime Commission stated that In many ways organized crime is the
Henry P. Smith, III
New York
most sinister kind of crime in America. ... In a very real sense
Chalmers P. Wylie
Ohio
Louis C. Wyman
it is dedicated to subverting not only American institutions, but
New Hampshire
the very decency and integrity that are the most cherished attributes
of a free society."
In calling for establishment of a Joint Committee on Organized
Crime, the Task Force cited the "enormous economic power of
organized crime" which is used "in manipulating many levels of
government through the corruption of police and elected officials.
While there are no firm figures on the money available to organized
crime, the Fresident's Special Commission Report estimates the
annual income from gambling alone ranges from $7 billion to $50
billion."
"It is time Congress recognized that organized crime is a
national problem demanding the highest priority of attention from
a Committee devoting full time to the development of information
and legislative proposals to control organized crime, its effects
and impact. A Joint Committee of the Congress on Organized Crime
would alert the American people to the dangers to our institutions
and political traditions presented by the vile infection of
organized crime in America," concluded Poff.
- 30 -
REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON CRIME
142 Cannon Bldg., 225-5107 House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Chairman
PRESS RELEASE
Richard H. Poff
Virginia
PM's Wed.
For Release:
Deputy Chairman
June 7, '67
Robert Taft, Jr.
Ohio
Contact: 225-5107
Barber B. Conable, Jr.
TASK FORCE CALLS FOR APPEALS AUTHORITY
New York
William C. Cramer
Florida
The House Republican Task on Crime today called for early passage
Samuel L. Devine
Ohio
of a bill granting Government prosecutors general authority to appeal a
John N. Erlenborn
Illinois
court ruling to suppress evidence.
Carleton J. King
New York
Task Force Chairman Richard H. Poff (R-Va.) urged positive action on
Clark MacGregor
Minnesota
the bill introduced by Rep. Tom Railsback (R-I11.) which would permit
Robert B. Mathias
California
Federal prosecutors to appeal an adverse ruling on a defendant's motion
Robert Price
Texas
to suppress evidence collected by law enforcement officials. "When some
Thomas F. Railsback
Illinois
traditional methods of police work are restricted by court decisions, new
Henry P. Smith, III
New York
tools must be developed to ensure that violations of the law are met
Chalmers P. Wylie
Ohio
with swift and sure punishment," commented Poff. "But, to remain consis-
Louis C. Wyman
New Hampshire
tent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, and to
assure fairness to all defendants, any action to provide additional
grounds for appeal by the Government in criminal trials must be carefully
drawn."
The Task Force notes that "while no one condones unreasonable and
illegal searches, there is confusion as to what is unreasonable and
illegal. Recent court rulings emphasize the right of the accused to
raise this issue but the prosecution has no such privilege. The President's
Crime Commission called for legislation in this area. Its Committee on
Organized Crime argued that the right of the prosecution to appeal is
particularly important. The Department of Justice and the Judicial
Conference of the United States had recommended legislation of this
nature.
"Assistant Attorney General Fred M. Vinson, Jr., sums up the
argument for this legislation by stating that it 'would be most helpful
to the Government since an adverse ruling at the preliminary stage of
the proceedings may effectively halt the Government's ability to go
forward with the prosecution when materials suppressed are a substantial
portion of the Government's case," concluded Representative Poff.
- 30 -
REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON CRIME
142 Cannon Bldg., 225-5107 House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Chairman
PRESS RELEASE
Richard H. Poff
Virginia
For Release:
Deputy Chairman
Sunday
Robert Taft, Jr.
June 11, 1967
Ohio
Contact: 225-5107
Barber B. Conable, Jr.
New York
SOME COURT AUTHORIZED 'BUGGING' NEEDED SAYS TASK FORCE
William C. Cramer
Florida
The House Republican Task Force on Crime today urged passage of
Samuel L. Devine
Ohio
legislation to prohibit wiretapping and electronic bugging except by
John N. Erlenborn
Illinois
court authorized Federal, State and local law enforcement officers
Carleton J. King
New York
Clark MacGregor
engaged in the investigation and prevention of organized and certain
Minnesota
Robert B. Mathias
specified crimes.
California
Robert Price
The proposal is contained in a bill introduced by Rep. William
Texas
Thomas F. Railsback
McCulloch (R.-Ohio), House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford (R.-Mich.),
Illinois
Henry P. Smith, III
Task Force Chairman Richard Poff (R.-Va.) and some 20 other Republicans.
New York
Chalmers P. Wylie
"A free society must have powers to identify, arrest, search,
Ohio
Louis C. Wyman
indict, prosecute, and punish the criminal," stated Rep. Poff. "When
New Hampshire
these powers are properly and wisely exercised, they serve in themselves
to maintain and to protect the freedoms we cherish. The measure
represents a realistic balancing of the protection of individual privacy
with the needs of law enforcement to combat organized crime.
"The President's Crime Commission noted that law enforcement
officials consider electronic surveillance 'necessary' in attacking the
nation's spiraling crime rate," Poff continued. "The Task Force finds
the Administration's proposal, which bans all wiretapping and electronic
bugging except in an undefined area of 'national security', a dangerous
threat to individual privacy, and an unwise limitation on law enforcement.
It is illogical to claim that electronic bugging equipment is effective
for national security cases but ineffective in cases involving serious and
organized crimes, which threaten our local, State and Federal Governments."
Today's Task Force Report follows Monday's call for a Joint
Congressional Committee on Organized Crime and Wednesday's Crime Task
Force statement supporting early passage of legislation granting
Government prosecutors general authority to appeal a court ruling to
suppress evidence.
- 30 -
REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON CRIME
142 Cannon Bldg., 225-5107 House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Chairman
PRESS RELEASE
Richard H. Poff
Virginia
For Release: Sunday
Deputy Chairman
June 11, 1967
Robert Taft, Jr.
Contact: 225-5107
Ohio
Barber B. Conable, Jr.
New York
REPORT OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON CRIME
William C. Cramer
ON H.R. 10037
Florida
THE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE CONTROL ACT OF 1967
Samuel L. Devine
Ohio
The House Republican Task Force on Crime endorses and urges
John N. Erlenborn
Illinois
enactment of H.R. 10037, a bill introduced by Mr. William McCulloch,
Carleton J. King
New York
Mr. Gerald R. Ford, Mr. Richard Poff, and 20 other Republicans This
Clark MacGregor
Minnesota
proposed legislation would prohibit all wiretapping and electronic
Robert B. Mathias
California
bugging except by court authorized Federal, State and local law
Robert Price
Texas
enforcement officers engaged in the investigation and prevention of
Thomas F. Railsback
Illinois
organized and certain other specified crimes. The Task Force finds
Henry P. Smith, III
New York
the Administration's proposal (H.R. 5386), which bans all wiretapping
Chalmers P. Wylie
Ohio
and electronic bugging except in an undefined and unreviewable area of
Louis C. Wyman
New Hampshire
"national security" cases, to be both a dangerous threat to individual
privacy and an unwise limitation on law enforcement officials who need
such equipment to combat the growing problem of crime in the nation.
The Task Force believes that the Congress must act -- and act
quickly -- to preserve the privacy of all Americans. New and sophisticated
electronic bugging devices are used today with few restrictions and little
restraint. The Federal statutory law is silent on electronic bugging.
All who have examined the existing law on wiretapping agree that it is
inadequate, confused and often self-defeating. The Federal wiretapping
statute -- enacted in 1934 -- neither protects privacy nor promotes
effective law enforcement.
Privacy, appropriately described by Justice Brandeis as "the
most comprehensive of the rights and the right most valued by civilized
men", is nothing less than the foundation of freedom. Freedom is less
than complete, however, when society is victimized by the criminal.
1/ The co-sponsors of H.R. 10037 are Mr. McCulloch, Mr. Gerald R. Ford,
Mr. Poff, Mr. Moore, Mr. Cahill, Mr. MacGregor, Mr. Hutchinson,
Mr. McClory, Mr. Smith of New York, Mr. Roth, Mr. Meskill, Mr.
Railsback, Mr. Biester, Mr. Wiggins, Mr. Betts, Mr. Cramer, Mr.
Conable, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Price of Texas, Mr. Wyman,
Mr. Shriver, Mr. Wylie, and Mr. Mathias of California.
- 2 -
A free society must protect its freedom. It must have powers to identify, arrest,
search, indict, prosecute and punish the criminal, and when these powers are
properly and wisely exercised they serve in themselves to maintain freedom. As
Judge Learned Hand once reminded us:
The protection of the individual from oppression and abuse
by the police and other enforcing officers is indeed a major
interest in a free society; but so is the effective prose-
cution of crime, an interest which at times seems to be
forgotten
The Attorney General, when presenting his formal testimony to the House
Judiciary Committee on March 16, 1967, in support of the Administration's proposal
to ban all electronic surveillance except in cases of "national security" declared,
as the predicate for his position, that --
The legitimate needs of law enforcement can be met with-
out the use of such abhorrent devices (i.e., electronic
surveillance devices)
and concluded:
All of my experience indicates that it (electronic
surveillance) is not necessary for the public safety.
It is not a desirable (or effective police investi-
gative technique, and that it should only be used in
the national security field, where there is a direct
threat to the welfare of the country.4/
The President's Crime Commission, after an intensive study of the existing
uses of electronic surveillanceequipment by law enforcement in combating organized
crime reported:
The great majority of law enforcement officials believe
that the evidence necessary to bring criminal sanctions
to bear consistently on the higher echelons of organized
crime will not be obtained without the aid of electronic
surveillance techniques. They maintain these techniques
are indispensable to develop adequate strategic intelli-
gence concerning organized crime, to set up specific
investigations, to develop witnesses, to corroborate their
testimony, and to serve as substitutes for them -- each
a necessary step in the evidence-gathering process in
organized crime investigations and prosecutions.
The Task Force believes that the Attorney General's position is untenable
and inconsistent. It is untenable to contend that electronic surveillance equipment
would be effective for national security cases but ineffective in cases involving
serious and organized crimes. It is inconsistent to hold that the use of these
extraordinary devices is justified in national security cases but not justified
In re Fried, 161 F. 2d 453 at 465 (1947).
Hearing before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Judiciary on H.R. 5386,
90th Congress, 1st Session. (1967) at 209.
4/ Ibid. at 319.
The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, a Report by the President's Commission
on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967) at 201.
- 3 -
when used in major criminal cases. Surely, the Attorney General does not believe
our nation is endangered only by enemies whose crimes undermine the Federal govern-
ment by sabotage, espionage, treason, or the like, when -- in fact -- our local,
State and national governments are seriously threatened by the ravages of organized
criminal activity. The President's Crime Commission has thoroughly and irrefutably
documented the dangers to our society, government and economy from the activities
of organized crime. A few examples from the Commission's report are illustrative
of this documentation:
Organized crime affects the lives of millions of Americans,
but because it desperately preserves its invisibility many,
perhaps most, Americans are not aware how they are affected,
or even that they are affected at all. The price of a loaf
of bread may go up one cent as the result of an organized
crime conspiracy, but a housewife has no way of knowing why
she is paying more. If organized criminals paid income tax
on every cent of their vast earnings everybody's tax bill
would go down, but no one knows how much.
The purpose of organized crime is not competition with
visible, legal government but nullification of it. When
organized crime places an official in public office, it
nullifies the political process. When it bribes a police
official, it nullifies law enforcement. 11
It is organized crime's accumulation of money, not the
individual transactions by which the money is accumulated,
that has a great and threatening impact on America
The millions of dollars it can throw into the legitimate
economic system give it power to manipulate the price of
shares on the stock market, to raise or lower the price
of retail merchandise, to determine whether entire indus-
tries are union or nonunion, to make it easier or harder
for businessmen to continue in business.8/
The Task Force concurs with the majority of the President's Crime Commission
in urging that "legislation should be enacted granting carefully circumscribed
authority for electronic surveillance to law enforcement officers." H.R. 10037
would implement this recommendation and is patterned after the statutory scheme
suggested by the Commission and discussed in detail in the Report of the Commission'
Organized Crime Task Force.9/
Those who have studied or experienced the needs of law enforcement in
combating organized criminal activity are convinced of the necessity of electronic
surveillance. The Chairman of the Michigan Commission on Crime, Delinquency and
Criminal Administration -- Mr. John B. Martin -- reports that the Michigan Crime
Ibid. at 187.
7/ Ibid. at 188.
8/ Ibid. at 187.
Task Force Report: Organized Crime, Task Force on Organized Crime, The Presi-
dent's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice at 80-113.
- 4 -
Commission has concluded "that organized crime presents such overriding public
consideration, the use of electronic surveillance should be permitted 10/
The Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts -- Mr. Elliot Richardson -- told
the House Judiciary Committee that it seems clear to me, as it has to virtu-
ally every law enforcement authority concerned with the problem, that electronic
surveillance is a key weapon if we really are effectively to be able to do anything
about this very far-reaching and very serious problem (of organized crime) 11/
Mr. Elliot Lumbard -- Special Counsel to Governor Rockefeller and former counsel
to the Special Commission on Crime in New York -- has said that "wiretaps strike
right at the heart of the relationship between organized crime and political
corruption. "12/
Professor G. Robert Blakey of Notre Dame Law School, Special Consultant to
the President's Crime Commission, who is responsible for developing the statutory
scheme contained in the appendix of the Commission's Report on Organized Crime and
the statutory scheme adopted by H.R. 10037, presents a compelling case for the
propriety and wisdom of this proposal.
The principal sponsor of H.R. 10037 - William McCulloch -- has received a
strong letter of endorsement for this proposal from one of the country's foremost
authorities on organized crime -- Mr. Frank Hogan, District Attorney of New York
County. Mr. Hogan's letter notes that:
The bill, introduced by you, the Minority Leader and 21 other
Congressmen, provides for most stringent restrictions on the
use of wiretapping and oral communication. But that fact
should be no barrier to its passage! Law enforcement knows
that telephonic interception is the most valuable weapon
in its fight against organized crime. It appreciates that,
where it is legally authorized, it must be used fairly,
sparingly and with highly selective discrimination. It asks
for and welcomes judicial examination of the need for wire-
tapping in every proposed investigation, and judicial authori-
zation, supervision and review of its use. These factors and
considerations are faithfully reflected in your bill. I
endorse and support it enthusiastically.
Mr. William Cahn, District Attorney of Nassau County of New York State,
similarly endorses such legislation. Mr. Cahn strongly urges "that the Congress
enact legislation banning wiretapping by private persons and permitting wiretapping
by officials pursuant to court approval and control. "14/
10/ Hearings, op. cit, note 3, at 916.
11/ Ibid. at 930.
12/ Ibid. at 940.
13/ Ibid. at 1023-1393.
14/ Ibid.
- 5 -
The Task Force believes that H.R. 10037 represents a realistic balancing
of the protection of individual privacy with the needs of law enforcement to
combat organized crime. The Electronic Surveillance Control Act of 1967 as
proposed in H.R. 10037 contains the following important features:
-- Private use of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping devices would
be absolutely prohibited.
The Task Force believes that wiretapping and electronic bugging by private
citizens is repugnant to a free society. Private uses of these techniques
cannot be justified. H.R. 10037 would prohibit all such uses and impose
meaningful criminal sanctions.
-- Federal law enforcement authorities would be permitted to seek court
authority to use electronic surveillance devices in the investigation of crimes
involving national security, criminal offenses involving organized crime, and
certain other specified crimes (e.g., murder and kidnapping).
The Task Force believes that the use of this extraordinary tool is
justified by the extraordinary activities of the underworld and the dangers that
exist to our national security from would-be conquerors. H.R. 10037 minimizes
potential intrusion of privacy by employing case by case judicial judgment as to
whether such investigative devices should be used at all, even for investigation
of the offenses specified under the statute. H.R. 10037 adopts the well
tested approach of the search warrant which, like electronic surveillance,
represents a potential threat to individual privacy but under proper judicial
controls has served society in protecting its freedom by bringing the criminal
offender to justice.
-- State law enforcement authorities could similarly seek court authority
to use electronic surveillance devices, but only if the State has enacted
legislation specifically establishing such procedures.
The Task Force believes that each State should make an independent
determination regarding its needs for electronic surveillance techniques.
H.R. 10037 reposes the determination of the need for these investigative
techniques with each State, and would prevent any State from abusing this option
by setting forth the categories of crimes and general procedures that are to be
included in a statutory scheme.
The Task Force notes that the Administration's proposal would repeal the
laws of all States which authorize court approved electronic surveillance by
law enforcement (e.g., New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Nevada and Oregon).
- 6 -
-- A comprehensive system of checks and safeguards would be established to
minimize threats to the privacy of innocent citizens, prevent abuses of such
investigative techniques and assure that the rights and liberties of the suspects
are not infringed. For example -- under H.R. 10037 --
Information obtained from an authorized surveillance
could be disclosed and used only by law enforcement and
criminal justice officials in discharging official duties
when investigating or prosecuting a crime. Any other use
must be authorized by the court.
No information obtained from an authorized surveillance
could be used in any Federal or State criminal court
proceeding unless the defendant had been furnished a copy
of the authorization not less than 10 days before the trial.
Information disclosed in violation of the statute
could not be used as evidence in any Federal, State or
local court, grand jury or other proceeding.
No court authorization for the use of such devices
could exceed 45 days. Renewals could not exceed 20 days
and would be issued only if the requirement for the
original authorization remains. Thus the court must
continually review the need and wisdom of the electronic
surveillance,
All information obtained by electronic surveillance
would have to be recorded by the law enforcement officer
and then sealed by the authorizing judge. This would
serve to verify the continuing accuracy of the information
so obtained.
All persons subject to electronic surveillance would
have to be notified of that fact within a year of the
termination of the authorization.
Any aggrieved person who had been the direct or
indirect object of an authorized surveillance could
make a "motion to suppress" the use of such information
in any proceeding on the ground that it was unlawful
or obtained contrary to the court authorization.
Any person whose communications were intercepted,
disclosed or used in violation of the statute could
bring a civil suit and recover actual damages (minimum
of $1000), punitive damages, attorney's fees and court costs.
-- Additional safeguards would be erected to protect the privacy of
privileged communications between husband and wife, doctor and patient and
clergyman and confidant and communications employing public telephones, even
when interceptions are attempted by law enforcement authorities.
The Task Force believes that electronic surveillance authority, even
when granted by court order to law enforcement personnel, should not be used to
violate unnecessarily the sanctity of those relationships to which the law has
always given special privilege. H.R. 10037 imposes additional limitations in
such cases. The same is true in cases involving public telephones.
-- Congress would receive complete statistics from different sources
regarding all authorized uses of electronic surveillance equipment by Federal
and State officials.
- 7 -
The Task Force believes that the mandatory reporting requirements are
essential for continued review of the operation of this statute. The reporting
requirement would not only prevent abuses but would also indicate the usefulness
of the statute itself in that the reports must include the number of arrests,
trials and convictions resulting from the authorized interception.
The Task Force also believes that the provisions of the statute providing
for independent study of its effectiveness by a "Council of Advisers" appointed
by the Attorney General are very commendable. Such information today is
unavailable.
-- The statute would be self-terminating eight years after its enactment
into law.
The Task Force believes that this would allow an opportunity to test
in the crucible of time and application the wisdom and efficacy of the statute.
The Task Force has concluded that this comprehensive -- and necessarily
complex -- proposal merits serious and immediate consideration. H.R. 10037 in
balancing the rights of privacy with the needs of law enforcement would increase
the protection of privacy and enhance the effectiveness of law enforcement.
(Attached to this report is a detailed analysis of this important
legislative proposal.)
ANALYSIS
of
THE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE CONTROL ACT OF 1967
(H.R. 10037)
SECTION 1 Title.
SECTION 2 Findings.
SECTION 3 Contains the following amendments to Title 18 of the United States
Code:
PROHIBITIONS
Sec. 2511 Interception and disclosure of wire or oral communications
prohibited.
(a) Prohibits all interceptions (wiretapping and bugging)
and uses or disclosures of information so obtained, unless
specifically permitted by the provisions of this bill.
Penalty for violation $10,000 or 5 years, or both.
(b) (1) Exempts telephone company employees when servicing
or protecting lines.
(2) Exempts Federal Communications Commission employees
when monitoring pursuant to their regulatory duties.
(c) Exempts the powers of the President to obtain necessary
information in protecting the United States from interna-
tional threats. Such information may be used as evidence.
(Note: Internal security threats from espionage, sabotage,
treason and other similar offenses specified in Federal
criminal statutes are treated under Sec. 2516 of the bill.)
Sec. 2512 Distribution, manufacture, and advertising of wire or oral
communication intercepting devices prohibited.
(a) Prohibits the --
(1) mailing or sending through interstate commerce of
electronic surveillance equipment,
(2) manufacture of the electronic surveillance equip-
ment, or
(3) advertising of electronic surveillance equipment.
Penalty for violation $10,000 or 5 years, or both.
(b) Exempted from the above prohibitions (with the ex-
ception of advertising) are --
(1) common carriers in the normal course of business
or persons under contract to common carriers,
(2) Federal, State and local governments or persons
under contract with such units of government.
Sec. 2513 Confiscation of wire or oral communication intercepting
devices. Authorizes the Federal government to confiscate
any electronic surveillance equipment used, mailed, sent
or manufactured in violation of the above provisions.
Sec. 2514 Immunity of witnesses. Provides that United States
Attorneys -- with the approval of the Attorney General --
may seek and the Federal Court may authorize the granting
of immunity from prosecution to witnesses in cases in-
volving violations of the provisions of this bill.
-2-
Sec. 2515 Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral
communications. Prohibits the use of information as evidence
in any proceeding before any Federal, State or local court
grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body,
or legislative committee, if the disclosure of that infor-
mation would be in violation of the provisions of the bill.
AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 2516 Authorizations for interception of wire or oral communications.
Federal
(a) The Attorney General of the United States (or his
designee) may authorize the making of an application to
the Chief Judge of a United States District Court (or his
designee), the Chief Judge of a United States Court of
Appeals (or his designee) or the Chief Justice of the
United States (or his designee), and such judge may under
certain circumstances authorize the FBI or the Federal
agency having responsibility for the investigation of the
offense for which the application was made, to intercept
communications when such interception may provide evidence
of --
(1) offenses relating to enforcement of the Atomic
Energy Act (misuses of restricted data), espionage,
sabotage, or treason, where the offense is punishable
by death or imprisonment for more than one year;
(2) Federal offenses involving murder, kidnapping,
or extortion;
(3) Federal offenses relating to bribery, sports
bribery, transmission of gambling information, obstruc-
tion of justice, injury to the President, racketeering,
or welfare fund bribery;
(4) Federal offenses involving counterfeiting;
(5) Federal offenses involving bankruptcy fraud or
the manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment,
buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in narcotic drugs
or marihuana; or
(6) any conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing
offenses.
State
(b) When specifically authorized by a State statute to
make application to specified State court judges, the
attorney general of any State or the principal prosecuting
attorney of any political subdivision of a State, may
make application and the judge may authorize under cer-
tain circumstances the use of electronic surveillance
devices for the purpose of gathering evidence of the
commission of the State offenses of murder, kidnapping,
gambling (if punishable as a felony), bribery, extortion
or dealing in narcotic drugs or marihuana, or any con-
spiracy involving the foregoing offenses.
Sec. 2517 Authorization for disclosure and use of intercepted wire
or oral communications.
(a) and (b) Law enforcement officers who obtain informa-
tion by means of interceptions authorized under the bill
may disclose such information to another law enforcement
officer or use the information, if necessary and proper
in performing and discharging of official duties.
(c) Any person who has obtained information by means
of an interception authorized under the bill may dis-
close such information while testifying under oath in
- 3 -
any Federal or State criminal court proceeding or grand
Jury proceeding.
(d) Intercepted information otherwise may be disclosed
only upon a showing of good cause before a judge with
authority to authorize such an interception.
Sec. 2518 Procedure for interception of wire or oral communications.
Contents of Application
(a) Applications fo authorizations to intercept must be
in writing, sworn, state the applicants authority (e.g.,
State statute) and include --
(1) Identity of person authorizing the application;
(2) A full statement of the facts relied upon by the
applicant;
(3) The nature and location of the interception;
(4) A statement of the facts concerning all previous
applications to intercept the same facilities, place or
person and the action taken by the judge on each such
application; and
(5) If the application seeks authorization on the
grounds set forth in paragraph 1 of subsection (c)
below (strategic intelligence gathering) the applicant
must state the number of outstanding authorizations based
on such grounds.
Additional Support for Application
(b) The judge may require additional material to sup-
port the application.
Grounds for Issuance
(c) Ex parte orders authorizing interceptions may be
made by a judge in his sole discretion on a showing that --
Strategic intelligence gathering re organized crime
(1) (A) An individual has been convicted of an offense
involving moral turpitude which is punishable as a felony;
and
(B) There is reliable information to believe that
this individual is presently engaged in one of the offenses
enumerated in Sec. 2516 (above); and
(C) This individual presently has two or more
close associates who meet the requirements of paragraphs
(a) and (b) above; and
(D) The facilities or places to be intercepted
are being used or about to be used by this individual;
OR
Tactical evidence re specific crimes
(2) (A) One of the offenses enumerated in Sec. 2516
is being, has been, or is about to be committed; and
(B) Facts concerning that offense may be obtained
through an interception; and
(C) Normal investigative procedures have been
tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely
to succeed as tried; and
(D) The facilities or place to be intercepted are
being used or about to be used by a person who has com-
mitted, is committing or is about to commit such an
offense.
- 4 -
Sec. 2518
LIMITATIONS
(Continued)
Number Orders for Strategic Intelligence
(d) (1) Judges issuing orders on the grounds set forth
in paragraph (1) above are limited by the following
table:
Federal officers -- 2 per 1 million national
population
State officers --
5 per 1 million State
population
Local officers --
10 per 1 million local
population
(Note: This limitation as to number of orders applies
only to applications filed under paragraph (1) above --
strategic intelligence re organized crime.)
Public Telephone
(2) No public telephone may be intercepted, unless
in addition to satisfying all the foregoing requirements
the judge also determines that --
(A) The interception will be conducted in a way
that minimizes or eliminates intercepting communications
of other users of the facility, and
(B) There is a "special need" to authorize such
an interception.
Privileged Communications
(3) Conversations between a husband and wife,
doctor and patient, lawyer and client or clergyman
and confidant may not be intercepted unless in addition
to satisfying all the foregoing requirements, the
judge also determines that --
(A) The interception will be conducted in a way
that minimizes or eliminates intercepting "privileged
communications, and
(B) There is a "special need" to authorize such
an interception.
Contents of Order
(e) Orders authorizing or approving an interception
must specify --
(1) The nature and location of the authorized
interception,
(2) Offense (s) for which information is being
sought,
(3) The name of the agency authorized to inter-
cept, and
(4) The period of time during which such intercep-
tion is authorized.
Time Limit and Extensions of Order
(f) No order may authorize an interception for a
period exceeding 45 days. Extensions of the order may
be granted for periods of not more than 20 days, but
all extensions must satisfy the requirements of Sec.
2518(a) and (c), i.e., a complete application and the
same grounds as originally justified the authorization
continue to justify the authorization.
- 5 -
Sec. 2518
(Continued)
Emergency Interception
(g) In emergency situations law enforcement officers
may temporarily waive the formal requirements for
authorization so long as --
(1) The emergency situation requires such a waiver,
and
(2) Such an authorization would be available absent
the waiver.
Formal application must be made within 48 hours after
the emergency interception. If the application for
approval is denied, no information obtained by the
interception may be used or disclosed and the person
whose conversation was intercepted must be notified
of the interception.
Precautions for Accuracy
(h) Information obtained by interception shall be
recorded, sealed by the authorizing judge and be re-
tained for a period of 10 years. Unless under seal
(or no satisfactory explanation of its absence) the
information contained in such a recording may not be
used in any court or other proceeding. Applications
for interceptions must also be sealed by the judge and
shall be retained for a period of not less than 10 years.
Inventory Disclosure
(1) Not later than one year after the termination of
an authorized interception, the authorizing judge shall
notify the person subject to the interception of --
(1) the fact of the order authorizing the inter-
ception,
(2) The date and period of the authorization, and
(3) Whether information was or was not obtained
and recorded during the period of the interception.
The issuance of this inventory may be postponed by
the judge on a showing of good cause to delay or
temporarily withhold such notice.
(j) Information obtained by an interception may not
be used in any Federal or State criminal court pro-
ceeding unless each defendant has been furnished a
copy of the court order authorization not less than
10 days before the trial. This 10 day period may be
waived only if the judge finds it was not possible
to furnish the defendant with the information 10 days
before trial and the defendant will not be prejudiced
in the delay of receiving such information.
Motion to Suppress
(k) (1) Any "aggrieved person" (a person who is the
direct or indirect object of the interception) in a
proceeding may move to suppress the contents of the
interception, or evidence derived therefrom, on the
grounds that --
(A) The interception was unlawful,
(B) The order authorizing the interception is
insufficient on its face, or
(C) The interception was not made in conformity
with the order of authorization.
If the motion is granted, the contents of the intercep-
tion or the evidence derived therefrom may not be used.
- 6 -
(2) The United States is given the right to appeal
from an unfavorable ruling on a motion to suppress under
paragraph (1) above so long as such appeal is not taken
for purposes of delay.
Sec.
2519 Reports concerning intercepted wire or oral communications.
(a) Within 30 days after the expiration of an authoriza-
tion order (or any extensions thereof), the issuing judge
must report the following information to the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts --
(1) The fact that the order was applied for,
(2) The kind of order applied for,
(3) Whether the order was granted as applied for or
as modified,
(4) The period of time, including the extensions,
of the authorization,
(5) The offense specified in the order, and
(6) The identity of the applicant and who authorized
the application.
(b) Within 30 days after the termination of an inves-
tigation or trial using authorized interceptions, the
Attorney General of the United States (or his designee)
or the attorney general of the State or the principal
prosecuting attorney of a political subdivision thereof,
as the case may be, shall also report the above infor-
mation to the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts and the number of arrests, trials, and motions
to suppress and convictions resulting from authorized
interceptions.
(c) In March of each year the Administrative Office
shall report the aforementioned information to the
Congress.
Sec. 2520
Recovery of civil damages authorized. An individual
whose communication is intercepted, disclosed or used
in violation of this bill, is given (1) a civil cause
of action against the person making the interception,
disclosure or use and (2) is entitled to recover --
(A) Actual damages (but not less than liquidated
damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day
of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher;
(B) Punitive damages, and
(c) Reasonable attorneys fees and litigation costs.
STUDY AND REVIEW
SECTION 3 (a) One year prior to termination of this bill, the Attorney General
shall have a study of its operations conducted by competent "social
scientists." Upon completion of this study the Attorney General shall
appoint a Council of Advisers to be composed of 15 members representing
various interests and professions to review the study. Following this
review the Attorney General shall report to the President and the
Congress the results of the study and review, together with his recom-
mendations and the recommendations of the Council of Advisers.
(b), (c) and (d) contain technical provisions regarding the staff,
compensation, and appointments to the Council of Advisers.
SECTION 4 Amendments to Section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 to
bring it in conformance with the provisions of this bill.
EXPIRATION
SECTION 5 This bill shall expire and have no force and effect on the 8th
year following its enactment (except some provisions are necessarily
extended for a period of 18 months to enable the phasing out of
cases affected by the termination).
SECTION 6 Severability clause.
REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON CRIME
142 Cannon Bldg., 225-5107 House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Chairman
PRESS RELEASE
Richard H. Poff
Virginia
For Release: IMMEDIATE
Deputy Chairman
June 19,1967
Robert Taft, Jr.
Ohio
Contact: 225-5107
Barber B. Conable, Jr.
New York
Congressman Richard H. Poff (R.-Va.) Chairman of the House Republican
William C. Cramer
Florida
Task Force on Crime, said in a speech on the floor of the House today that
Samuel L. Devine
Ohio
the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report "presents a disgraceful picture.
John N. Erlenborn
Illinois
and calls for new laws, better laws, stronger laws, laws which make crime
Carleton J. King
New York
unattractive and unprofitable."
Clark MacGregor
Minnesota
Poff also said that those who shrug off the increase in major crime
Robert B. Mathias
California
by saying that the crime rate is not higher but crime reporting is better
Robert Price
Texas
are not facing the facts. "Perhaps crime reporting is better today than
Thomas F. Railsback
Illinois
it was a generation ago," said Poff, 'but surely crime reporting is not
Henry P. Smith, III
New York
measurably better today than it was a year ago. Accordingly, a comparison
Chalmers P. Wylie
Ohio
of crime statistics within that time frame is a reasonably reliable
Louis C. Wyman
New Hampshire
indicator of the growth in crime."
Poff in his floor speech said, "The latest FBI Uniform Crime Reports
compare crime in the first three months of 1966 with that in the first
three months of 1967. That comparison shows an increase of 20% in the
7 major crimes. These 7 include 4 crimes of violence against the person
and 3 property crimes. Personal crimes increased more than property
crimes. The largest increase, 42%, was in the crime of robbery as
reported in cities with populations ranging between 250,000 and 500,000.
"With respect to all 7 crimes, cities with a population of 100,000
or more registered a total increase of 20%. However, it is a mistake to
assume that crime growth is only a city problem. Rural areas reported an
increase of only 4 percentage points less, and the crime growth rate of
22% in suburban communities was even higher than that in cities.
"Neither is there any remarkable difference in the reports by
geographical region. The Northeast, North Central, Southern and Western
regions ranged between 18% and 21%. But the District of Columbia sustained
its inglorious record. Crime in the Nation's Capitol jumped nearly 42%, or
more than twice the national rate. In the first three months of this year
8,957 major crimes were committed here. That amounts to more than 99
crimes per day, 4 each hour, one every 15 minutes."
Congressman Poff said that these figures and the facts they dramatize
"are disgraceful" and that "society needs new laws, better laws, stronger
laws, laws which make crime unattractive and unprofitable. Congress
must act."
- 30 -
REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON CRIME
142 Cannon Bldg., 225-5107 House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Chairman
PRESS RELEASE
Richard H. Poff
Virginia
For Release: 1:30 p.m.
Deputy Chairman
Fri., 6/23/67
Robert Taft, Jr.
Ohio
Contact: 225-5107
Barber B. Conable, Jr.
New York
William C. Cramer
Florida
Samuel L. Devine
Ohio
TASK FORCE WELCOMES "MOVING FORCE" ROLE
John N. Erlenborn
Illinois
Carleton J. King
The House Republican Task Force on Crime today welcomed
New York
Clark MacGregor
bi-partisan support for its June 5, 1967, Task Force Report urging
Minnesota
Robert B. Mathias
immediate establishment of a Joint Committee on Crime.
California
Robert Price
Rep. Richard H. Poff (R-Va.), Task Force Chairman, offered
Texas
Thomas F. Railsback
Illinois
support for a Resolution introduced Friday by Senators Frank Moss
Henry P. Smith, III
New York
(D-Utah) and Joseph Tydings (D-Md.). Their proposal calls for
Chalmers P. Wylie
establishment of a Joint Committee on Crime to attack the problems
Ohio
Louis C. Wyman
New Hampshire
of the nation's spiraling crime rate. It is similar to a Resolution
introduced in February by Rep. William C. Cramer (R-Fla.).
"We're not concerned with whose name appears on a particular
Resolution," Poff stated. "Crime slashes through party lines. It
is obviously a bi-partisan problem requiring immediate action. The
June 5 Task Force Report called for establishment of a Joint Committee
on Organized Crime to devote 'full time to the development of
information and legislative proposals to control organized crime,
its effects and impact.' If our House Republican Task Force on
Crime can serve as the moving force behind Administration proposals,
we welcome that role," Raps Poff concluded.
. 30 -
affece Capy
REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON CRIME
142 Cannon Bldg., 225-5107 House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Chairman
Richard H. Poff
PRESS RELEASE
Virginia
For Release: Fri. AM's
Deputy Chairman
6/30/67
Robert Taft, Jr.
Ohio
Contact: Ext. 5107
Barber B. Conable, Jr.
New York
POFF AND HRUSKA JOIN IN FIGHT ON CRIME
William C. Cramer
Florida
U.S. Representative Richard H. Poff (R-Va.), Chairman of the House
Samuel L. Devine
Ohio
Republican Task Force on Crime, and Senator Roman Hruska (R-Neb.)
John N. Erlenborn
Illinois
Carleton J. King
Wednesday proposed to combat the nation's spiraling crime rate through
New York
Clark MacGregor
new anti-trust legislation and an omnibus "Criminal Procedure" Act.
Minnesota
Robert B. Mathias
Several House Republicans joined them in introducing a three-bill
California
Robert Price
legislative package.
Texas
Thomas F. Railsback
The two anti-trust measures would prohibit the use of illegally
Illinois
Henry P. Smith, III
acquired funds or those deliberately unreported for income tax purposes
New York
Chalmers P. Wylie
in legitimate concerns. "Trafficking in vice and greed, organized crime
Ohio
Louis C. Wyman
has a gigantic earning power," Poff stated. "This earning power has
New Hampshire
created a reservoir of wealth unmatched by any legitimate financial
institution in the nation. Receipts from illegal gambling alone have
been estimated at up to $50 billion a year," Poff noted.
"The Omnibus Bill embraces a number of important criminal procedure
improvements," continued Poff. "By defining the limits of police investigative
powers, the bill makes it plain that a police officer, while making a lawful arrest,
can search both the person and the immediate presence of the suspect for the purpose
of preventing escape; protecting the officer from attack; capturing stolenproperty;
or seizing property used in commission of the crime. The omnibus bill contains a
new law enforcement tool called the bbstruction of investigation' law. It would
make it a Federal crime for a person to obstruct a Federal criminal investigator
engaged in the lawful investigation of a Federal offense. The measure attempts to
better define witness immunity laws, perjury laws, and several other procedural
areas."
BothPoff and Hruska noted that the "package of bills is intended to give law
enforcement authorities new and sharper tools" for their tasks "without sacrificing
any of the cherished rights which mark us as free men. The people expect the
Congress to act," Poff concluded.
- 30 -
REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON CRIME
142 Cannon Bldg., 225-5107 House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Chairman
PRESS RELEASE
Richard H. Poff
Virginia
For Release:
Deputy Chairman
Friday AM' S
Robert Taft, Jr.
June 30,1967
Ohio
Contact:
225-5107
Barber B. Conable, Jr.
New York
NEW AND SHARPER TOOLS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
William C. Cramer
Florida
(Editors Note: The following is a speech prepared for delivery on
Samuel L. Devine
Ohio
the floor of the House by Congressman Richard H. Poff, Chairman of
the Republican Task Force on Crime. The same day, Senator Roman
John N. Erlenborn
Illinois
Hruska will introduce the legislative package and deliver a Senate
speech on the subject.)
Carleton J. King
New York
Mr. Speaker, the war on crime to be successful must be planned
Clark MacGregor
Minnesota
Robert B. Mathias
both long-range and short-range. My concern is that action begin now.
California
Robert Price
To that end, the able Senator from Nebraska and I are introducing
Texas
Thomas F. Railsback
today in our respective Houses a package of bills designed to modernize
Illinois
Henry P. Smith, III
old criminal statutes and adapt them to the new challenge which crime
New York
Chalmers P. Wylie
poses. The package will not only sharpen old tools but forge new tools
Ohio
Louis C. Wyman
of law enforcement.
New Hampshire
My package contains three bills:
(1) A bill prohibiting the investment of funds illegally acquired
from specified criminal activities in a legitimate business concern;
(2) A bill prohibiting the investment in such concerns of funds
legally acquired but deliberately unreported for Federal income tax
purposes; and
(3) An omnibus bill to improve criminal procedures in such areas
as searches and seizures, gathering of evidence, no-knock entries for
capture of perishable evidence, appeals for suppression orders, witness
immunity, perjury definition, and obstruction of investigations.
ORGANIZED CRIME
The first two bills in the package are aimed at organized crime.
Organized crime, which crosses state lines and employs the resources,
vehicles and paraphernalia of interstate commerce, is a national problem.
As such, Federal jurisdiction is unchallenged and Federal responsibility
is undisputed.
Organized crime is a threat to the American free enterprise system.
Trafficking in vice and greed and all the ignoble human frailties,
syndicated crime has a gigantic earning power. Receipts from illegal
- 2 -
gambling alone have been estimated at up to 50 billion dollars a year. This
earning power has created a reservoir of wealth unmatched by any legitimate
financial institution in the nation. As the President's Crime Commission elaborately
documented, organized crime's overlords have tapped this reservoir and invested its
funds in wholly legitimate business activity. Because resources are practically
unlimited, the crime syndicate has the power not only to acquire and control an
individual business establishment, but, by massive purchases and sales on the stock
market, to manipulate capital values and influence price structures. By careful,
methodical, clandestine infiltration of several segments of a particular industry,
organized crime can use its vast concentration of dollars to create monopolies and,
by coercive methods, to restrain commerce among the states and with foreign nations.
Clearly, the investment in a legitimate business of funds illegally acquired
or funds legally acquired but unreported for tax purposes constitutes an act of
unfair competition and an unconscionable trade practice against others engaged
in that business.
The first two bills in my package are new. They are intended to activate the
antitrust laws in a more vital way and focus their application upon the problem
of organized crime.
As indicated earlier, the first bill would outlaw the investment of income
derived from specified criminal activities in legitimate business. The activities
specified are those typical of syndicate conduct. They include gambling, bribery,
extortion, counterfeiting, narcotics traffic, and white-slavery. This bill would
bring to bear upon organized crime the criminal penalties and civil sanctions
currently defined in the Sherman Act. Equally as important, if not more so, this
bill would give Federal investigators broader and more certain jurisdiction to
investigate the activities of syndicated crime and identify its illegal revenue
sources.
The second bill would outlaw the investment in legitimate business concerns
of income derived by organized crime from other legitimate enterprises if such
income has not been reported for Federal income tax purposes. This bill would
furnish the predicate for investigation of the myriad ramifications of organized
crime's infiltration into the many compartments and echelons of American business.
Moreover, in addition to requiring payment of the tax on the unreported earnings,
the crime syndicate would be subjected to payment of multiple damages authorized
under the Sherman Act.
In addition to the other wholesome aspects these two bills would have, jointly
they would allow organized criminal activities to be attacked before their
anti-competitive impact can destroy legitimate business. They would siphon off
- 3 -
a large part of organized crime's dollar reservoir, and this could do as much to
control this problem as sending a few crime chiefs to the penitentiary for a
temporary season.
I have said these two bills are new. They are; however, there is some
precedent in practice. The existing antitrust laws have been used by law
enforcement authorities in the criminal field. The Sherman Act makes every
combination or trust and every conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce an
illegal enterprise. The penalty structure permits fines up to $50,000 and
confinement up to one year, or both. The existing antitrust laws also make
provision for pretrial discovery and investigation by grand juries for criminal
prosecutions. In addition to criminal penalties, the Act permits an injured
party to bring a civil suit for injunction or recovery of civil damages and
attorney's fees.
In the case of United States V. Bitz, 282 F. 2d 465 (2d Cir. 1960),
racketeers had been indicted under the criminal provisions of the antitrust
laws for conspiring and threatening to strike against the distributors of
newspapers to coerce money from them. The Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
indictment as an appropriate use of the antitrust laws, and convictions were
subsequently obtained.
In the case of United States V. Pennsylvania Refuse Removal Ass'n., 357
F.2d 806 (3d Cir. 1966), Cert. Denied, 384 U. S. 96L (1966), the defendant was
charged under the antitrust laws with a conspiracy to restrain trade by coercive
methods in the garbage collection business. He was convicted and the courts
sustained the conviction.
The civil injunction provisions of the antitrust laws were used to enjoin
a conspiracy to sell yellow grease by coercive methods, and the use of the law
for this purpose was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Los Angeles Meat
& Provision Driver's Union V. United States, 371 U. S. 94 (1962).
Only last March the Department of Justice filed a civil antitrust action
against the National Farmers Organization alleging violence and coercion in
attempting to monopolize the interstate sale of milk. Clearly, if the present
antitrust statutes can be used for such a purpose, they can be used against
criminal combinations by organized crime in restraint of trade.
Indeed, it may be that the present antitrust laws are sufficient without
amendment as a tool in the war against organized crime. If so, the two bills
I have introduced aren't necessary. If not, they should be refined and passed.
In their present form, even if imperfect, they can serve as a vehicle for hearings
to enable the Judiciary Committee to make a determination on this point.
- 4 -
CHANGES IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The third bill in my package is an omnibus measure embracing a number of
important criminal procedure improvements. Court decisions defining the limits
of the powers of investigative officers in the field of searches and seizures
need to be clarified and codified. This bill makes it plain that a police officer,
while making a lawful arrest, can search both the person and the immediate
presence of the suspect for the purpose of preventing the suspect from escaping,
protecting the officer from attack, capturing property which is the fruit of the
crime or seizing property used in the commission of the crime. It would also
translate into statutory law the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the Hayden
case, which held that officers armed with an appropriate search warrant can seize
and impound personal property to be used as so-called "mere evidence" in the
prosecution's case. Heretofore, the law has permitted seizure only of fruits
of the crime and contraband. Mere evidence, no matter how probative, was exempt
from seizure.
The omnibus bill contains what has come to be known as the "no-knock"
proposal. Under present law the officer with a search warrant is required before
entering the premises to knock, request admission, and divulge his authority and
purpose under the warrant. The bill would permit forcible entry against the will
of the occupant if the magistrate has made a determination -- and has registered
that determination in the warrant -- that the property sought is perishable or
that danger to the life or limb of the officer might result without such authority.
Such an entry may be made even without express authority in the warrant if this
is necessary to his protection in executing the warrant or if it is virtually
certain that the occupant already knows the officer's authority and purpose.
Another part of the omnibus bill is the language of H. R. 8654 introduced
earlier by the Gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback, and recently endorsed by
the Republican Task Force on Crime. This language, following the precedent in
the Narcotics Control Act of 1956, permits the prosecutor to appeal orders
suppressing evidence or granting a motion for return of seized property before
the prosecution proceeds to trial. This proposal enjoys the support of the
President's Crime Commission, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and
the Department of Justice.
The omnibus bill creates a new law enforcement tool which has long been
needed. For the sake of brevity, it is called the "Obstruction of Investigation"
law. Patterned after the concept of the obstruction of justice statute which has
been on the books for many years, the new law would make it a new Federal crime
for a person to obstruct a Federal criminal investigator engaged in the lawful
- 5 -
investigation of a Federal offense.
The omnibus bill undertakes to write a better witness immunity law than the
nation now has, Indeed, the nation now has some 41 immunity laws. These are too
many, too imprecise and too awkward. The language of the new bill represents an
improvement without perfection. It is intended principally to be a working paper
rather than the final product. Refinements can be made and some effort must be
made to work out a system of coordination and liaison with state and local law
enforcement personnel. Until those who have special information necessary to
convict others can be assured that they will enjoy immunity from prosecution at
all levels of government, no federal immunity statute will function properly.
The omnibus bill comes to grips with a problem which has plagued law
enforcement people from the beginning. Our perjury laws retain today the old
common law requirements of direct evidence and corroborative testimony. The
omnibus bill, while preserving the requirement for proving falsity, eliminates
the direct evidence rule and the so-called two-witness rule. Such legislation
was warmly recommended by the President's Crime Commission, and most legal scholars
agree that there is no longer any justification for the cumbersome procedures
which the common law required.
In context with this package of bills, I consider it appropriate to identify
once again the electronic surveillance bill, H. R. 10037, introduced recently by
the ranking Minority Member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the Gentleman from
Ohio, Mr. McCulloch; the distinguished Minority Leader, the Gentleman from Michigan,
Mr. Gerald Ford; myself and a score of other Republican Members of the House.
The principle thrust of H. R. 10037 is to protect the right of privacy of
the individual citizen. For that purpose, it outlaws all wiretapping or bugging
by private citizens. At the same time, the individual's right of privacy is
carefully balanced against society's right of security. The bill authorizes
society to protect itself by discovering the criminal plans and practices of
those who have no proper regard for society's security. It authorizes law
enforcement authorities to acquire from a judge of competent jurisdiction a
warrant (in the nature of a search warrant), authorizing the officer under
carefully proscribed conditions to conduct electronic surveillance against named
individuals in identified locations.
H. R. 10037 implements the recommendation of and is patterned after the
statutory scheme discussed in the Organized Crime Task Force report published
by the President's Crime Commission.
The bill contains the following significant features:
Private use of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping devices would be
- 6 -
absolutely prohibited.
Federal law enforcement officials could obtain court authorized electronic
surveillance orders for investigation of certain specified offenses, including
national security and organized crime.
State authorities could engage in similar activities pursuant to proper
state statutory authorization. (The President's proposal would not only ban all
wiretapping and bugging but also repeal existing state laws.)
An elaborate and comprehensive system of checks and safeguards would be
established to protect individual privacy, curb abuses by law enforcement officers
and assure the rights and liberties of the criminal. Such safeguards include
provisions for the suppression of evidence when gathered improperly, advance
notice to the defendant of intent to use such evidence prior to trial, notice to
persons subject to such electronic surveillance within one year after the authori-
sation, limited periods for such authorization, civil remedies to aggrieved parties,
and strict limitation on certain privileged communications such as those between
lawyer-client, husband-wife and clergyman-confidant. Public telephones would
also be subject to similar stringent restrictions.
All officials, state and Federal, engaged in electronic surveillance would
be required to report annually through the Administrative Office of U. S. Courts
to the Congress on their activities to allow for continuing Congressional overview,
and the legislation itself would be self-terminating in eight years.
It is thus apparent that the most careful thought and consideration has gone
into the drafting of this bill in order to protect the privacy of the individual
against both trespass by his neighbor and unreasonable intrusion by the policeman.
And yet society's interest in investigating and controlling criminal activity is
incorporated as an essential element of the equation of law and order.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that I have been joined in the
sponsorship of this package of bills by the following Members of Congress:
John Rhodes, Melvin Laird, Bob Wilson, Leslie Arends, Barber Conable, Carleton King,
Clark MacGregor, Robert Price, Arch Moore, Edward Hutchinson, Robert McClory,
Robert Taft, Henry P. Smith III, and Chalmers Wylie.
I repeat, as I began, this package of bills is intended to give law enforcement
authorities new and sharper tools for this task. It is well and good to attack the
causes of crime at the environmental level. It is useful to treat with socio-
economic conditions which breed crime. We need to improve the methodology of
rehabilitation to help control recidivism. It is helpful to modernize and expand
physical equipment and facilities used by policemen.
Yet, we must understand that these are gradual, long-range techniques.
Something needs to be done now. Our old laws are not adequate to the new need.
They must be modernized. This is the province of the Congress. The people expect
the Congress to deal with this duty.
REPUBLICAN
REpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
INTERNAL COMMITTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
IMMEDIATE
JULY 24, 1967
The following statement was issued by the Republican Coordinating Committee
meeting in Washington, D.C.
RIOTS
The first duty of government is to maintain order.
Widespread rioting and violent civil disorder have grown to a national
crisis since the present Administration took office. Today no one is safe on the
streets, in his home or in his property.
The principal victims to date have been the Negroes of America whose cause
is betrayed by a few false leaders.
Riots have occurred progressively in one city after another in widely separ-
ated areas. Factories for the manufacture of Molotov cocktails have been uncovered
by the police. Weapons have been placed in the hands of rioters to murder police
and firemen in the performance of their duty to protect the community. Simultaneous
fires have been started in widely separated areas upon the occasion of the outbreak
of rioting.
Leader's of violence are publicly proclaiming and advocating future riots and
the total defiance of all Government. Hate mongers are traveling from community
to community inciting insurrection. Public and private meetings of riot organizers
from many sections of the country have been repeatedly reported in the press.
-more-
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
While the duty to protect its citizens devolves primarily upon the local
community, when city after city across the nation is overwhelmed by riots, looting,
arson and murder which mounting evidence indicates may be the result of organized
planning and execution on a national scale, the Federal Government must accept its
national responsibility.
The nation is in crisis and this Administration has failed even to make a
proposal to protect our people on the streets and in their homes from riots and
violence. The most basic of civil rights is being denied to the American people.
The Republican Party firmly believes in the cause of civil rights and condemns
those who betray it whether they be in high office or on the streets.
The root causes of discontent are of immediate and continuing concern to all
of us. The violence of the few must not be allowed to injure the cause of the
many. It is time that all government officials make it absolutely clear that
under no circumstances will violence and rioting be rewarded. Our nation seeks
to help all our people rise above poverty levels and as a nation we have achieved
unprecedented success in this regard. We will not by-pass those in need who reject
violence to reward those who riot.
We are rapidly approaching a state of anarchy and the President has totally
failed to recognize the problem. Worse he has vetoed legislation and opposed other
legislation designed to reestablish peace and order within the country.
We have today tragic proof of the national nature of the crisis in the act
of the President in sending in federal forces after one of our greatest cities
has suffered incredible damage to the entire fabric of the community.
How many millions of people must be made homeless--how many thousands wounded,
maimed or killed over the years before the President will support or approve leg-
islation to restore order and protect the people of this country?
-3-
We call upon the President to face the reality of the condition which in
three years has grown to crisis. Pleasant platitudes and statements of good
intentions can no longer conceal the critical state of the nation.
We call upon the President forthwith to announce his support of the proposal
of Republican Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts calling for a full-scale
investigation of civil disorders.
We call upon the President forthwith to withdraw his objection and lend his
full support to present pending Republican legislation designed to prevent rioting.
We strongly urge the Leadership of the House and Senate immediately to
establish a Joint Committee to investigate on an emergency basis the planning,
organization, method of operation and means to bring an end to rioting and civil
disorder.
7/24/67
REPUBLICAN
REpublicAN NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
IONAL COMMITTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
The following statement was Mergan issued by the Republican Coordinating Committee
FOR RELEASE
IMMEDIATE
JULY 24, 1967
meeting in Washington, D.C.
RIOTS
The first duty of government is to mainta. In order.
I
Widespread rioting and violent civil disorder have grown to a national
crisis since the present Administration tobk office. Today no one is safe on the
streets, in his home or in his property.
The principal victims to date have been the Negroes of America whose cause
is betrayed by a few false leaders.
Riots have occurred progressively in one city after another in widely separ-
ated areas. Factories for the manufacture of Molotov cocktails have been uncovered
by the police. Weapons have been placed in the hands of righers to murder police
and firemen in the performance of their duty to protect the community. Simultaneous
fires have been started in widely separated areas upon the occasion of the outbreak
of rioting.
Leaders of violence are publicly proclaiming and advocating future riots and
the total defiance of all Government. Hate hongers are traveling from community
to community inciting insurrection. Public and private meetings of riot organizers
from many sections of the country have been repeatedly reported in the press.
-more-
-2-
While the duty to protect its citizens devolves primarily upon the local
community, when city after city across the nation is overwhelmed by riots, looting,
arson and murder which mounting evidence indicates may be the result of organized
planning and execution on a national scale, the Federal Government must accept its
national responsibility.
The nation is in crisis and this Administration has failed even to make a
proposal to protect our people on the streets and in their homes from riots and
violence. The most basic of civil rights is being denied to the American people.
The Republican Party firmly believes in the cause of civil rights and condemns
those who betray it whether they be in high office or on the streets.
The root causes of discontent are of immediate and continuing concern to all
of us. The violence of the few must not be allowed to injure the cause of the
many. It is time that all government officials make it absolutely clear that
under no circumstances will violence and rioting be rewarded. Our nation seeks
to help all our people rise above poverty levels and as a nation we have achieved
unprecedented success in this regard. We will not by-pass those in need who reject
violence to reward those who riot.
We are rapidly approaching a state of anarchy and the President has totally
failed to recognize the problem. Worse he has vetoed legislation and opposed other
legislation designed to reestablish peace and order within the country.
We have today tragic proof of the national nature of the crisis in the act
of the President in sending in federal forces after one of our greatest cities
has suffered incredible damage to the entire fabric of the community.
How many millions of people must be made homeless--how many thousands wounded,
maimed or killed over the years before the President will support or approve leg-
islation to restore order and protect the people of this country?
-3-
We call upon the President to face the reality of the condition which in
three years has grown to crisis. Pleasant platitudes and statements of good
intentions can no longer conceal the critical state of the nation.
We call upon the President forthwith to announce his support of the proposal
of Republican Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts calling for a full-scale
investigation of civil disorders.
We call upon the President forthwith to withdraw his objection and lend his
full support to present pending Republican legislation designed to prevent rioting.
We strongly urge the Leadership of the House and Senate immediately to
establish a Joint Committee to investigate on an emergency basis the planning,
organization, method of operation and means to bring an end to rioting and civil
disorder.
7/24/67