Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

benefits of the Bail Reform Act. We have, therefore, made an alternative legislative proposal in Title V of the District of Columbia Crime Reduction Act, H.R. 7327.

TITLE V

When read in connection with the District of Columbia indeterminate sentence law 24 D.C. Code 203(b), this Title creates a two year mandatory miniumm sentence for all persons who are convicted of armed robbery and who were previously convicted of a crime of violence as redefined to include robbery. Because it creates a mandatory minimum sentence, we oppose this Title.

The position of the Department of Justice on mandatory minimums has previously been articulated for your committee. At this time, we would only add that studies of sentences imposed in the District of Columbia show no inordinate lenience on the part of local judges in their sentencing practices. Available data shows no need for a law designed to compel minimum sentences.

TITLE VI

Sections 601, 602, 603, 605, and 607 of H.R. 826 establish mandatory sentences for assault with intent to kill, rob, rape, or poison (2 year minimum), for burglary (5 year minimum, 1st degree; 2 year minimum, 2nd degree), for robbery (4 year minimum), for certain weapon offenses (no suspension or probation) and for use of explosives with intent to injury (4 year minimum). We oppose this extension of mandatory sentences for the reasons already set forth.

With respect to Section 606, the Department of Justice is appreciative of its objective in dealing with indecent publications. We believe that the restatement of the offenses set forth in subparts (a) and (b) is proper but that the other subparts suffer from serious defects. They constitute a prior restraint of freedom of expression and exceed the limits of Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 (1957) and Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965). Further, while we recognize that instruments of wrong doing may be forfeited in some instances, we doubt that this principle is applicable to seizure and forfeiture of printing presses as provided in subpart (e), lines 23 through 25.

Finally, we are not aware of a pressing need for Section 608 relating to false reports or those portions of Section 602 which redefine burglary. However, they pose no legal problems.

We are anxious to work constructively with your Committee. The President is deeply concerned about crime in the District of Columbia and determined to do all within his power to cause its reduction. We urge you to give prompt and full consideration to the many meritorious proposals submitted in his message on the District of Columbia which can provide better police protection, fairer and more efficient judicial administration and more effective corrections.

Their early enactment is urgently needed.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely,

RAMSEY CLARK,

Attorney General. Mr. WHITENER. We will now recess until 10 o'clock Wednesday morning, in this room.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., a recess was taken until 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 12, 1967.)

ANTICRIME LEGISLATION

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 4 OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Basil L. Whitener Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Whitener (presiding), Sisk, Dowdy, and Adams.

Also present: James T. Clark, clerk; Hayden S. Garber, counsel; Sara Watson, assistant counsel; Donald Tubridy, minority clerk; and Leonard O. Hilder, investigator.

Mr. WHITENER. The subcommittee will come to order.

Since our last hearing, some additional bills on the subject of crime in the District of Columbia have been referred to the subcommittee. They include H.R. 7808 by Mr. Taft of Ohio, a bill to provide comprehensive rules for the District of Columbia dealing with interrogation of persons accused of crime.

Also, H.R. 7344 by Mr. Nelsen, which is a companion bill to our omnibus bill.

Finally, H.R. 7568 by Mr. Scheuer, H.R. 8022 by Mr. Multer, and H.R. 8067 by Mr. O'Hara of Michigan, all of which are companion bills to the so-called crime reduction bills before us.

We are today pleased to have with us as a witness Hon. Robert Taft, Jr., of the First District of Ohio, who has asked to be permitted to testify in connection with his bill, H.R. 7808, which we will insert into the record at this point. [H.R. 7808, 90th Cong., 1st sess., by Mr. Taft, on Mar. 23, 1967] · A BILL To provide comprehensive rules for the District of Columbia dealing with interrogation which will fully protect the rights and interest of society and the criminally accused Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the “District of Columbia Interrogation Act of 1967".

· Subsequently, on April 20, 1967. an identical bill, H.R. 8789, was introduced by Mr. Quillen and referred to the committee.

DEFINITIONS

[ocr errors]

Sec. 2. When used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires

(1) the term “District law enforcement officer” means any citizen officer of the District of Columbia who is authorized to make arrests for violations of the criminal laws in effect in the District of Columbia.

(2) the term “master of examination" means a special master appointed by and solely responsible to a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or a judge of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions.

INVESTIGATION OF CRIME
SEC. 3. (a) VOLUNTARY COOPERATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.—

(1) AUTHORITY TO REQUEST COOPERATION.--District law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties are invested with authority to request information or cooperation from any person in connection with the investigation or prevention of a violation of a criminal law in effect in the District of Columbia. Such authority includes the right to request that any such person respond to questions, appear at an office or other installation of the District of Columbia government, or comply with any other reasonable request. No such officer shall indicate to any person that such person is legally obliged to furnish information or otherwise cooperate if no such legal obligation exists. Compliance with a request for information or other cooperation shall not be deemed involuntary or coerced solely on the ground

(A) that such request was made by one known to be a District law enforcement officer; or

(B) that such request was made to a person ordered to remain in

the officer's presence under subsection 3(b) of this section. That refusal to give information as requested hereunder shall not be admissible evidence in any later proceeding against the person requested to give such evidence.

(2) WARNING TO PERSONS REQUESTED TO APPEAR AT AN OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT.—Whenever a District law enforcement officer requests any person to come to or remain at any office or installation of the District of Columbia government, such officer shall advise such person

as to whether an obligation to comply with such request exists at that time. (b) STOPPING OF PERSONS.

(1) STOPPING OF PERSONS HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF CRIME.--A District law enforcement officer lawfully present in any place may, if he has reasonable cause to believe that there has been a violation of a criminal law in effect in the District of Columbia and that any person has knowledge which may be of material aid to the investigation thereof, order such person to remain in or near such place in the officer's presence for a period of not more than twenty minutes.

(2) STOPPING OF PERSONS IN SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.-A District law enforcement officer lawfully present in any place may, if a person is observed in circumstances which suggest that he has committed or is about to commit an act made criminal by a law in effect in the District of Columbia, and such action is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to determine the lawfulness of that person's conduct, order that person to remain in or near such place in the officer's presence for a period of not more than twenty minutes.

(3) ACTION TO BE TAKEN DURING PERIOD OF STOP.-A District law enforcement officer may require a person to remain in his presence pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection only insofar as such action is reasonably necessary to

(A) obtain the identification of such person;

(B) verify by readily available information on identification of such person;

(C) request cooperation pursuant to and subject to the limitations of subsection (a) of this section; or

(D) verify by readily available information any account of his presence or conduct or other information given by such person. (4) USE OF FORCE.-In order to exercise the authority conferred in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a District law enforcement officer may

use such force as is reasonably necessary to stop any person or vehicle or to cause any person to remain in the officer's presence.

(5) ACTION TO BE TAKEN AFTER PERIOD OF STOP.—Unless a District law enforcement officer acting hereunder arrests a person during the time he is authorized by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection to require such person to remain in his presence, he shall, at the end of such time, inform such person that he is free to go.

(6) ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS.- Voluntary statements, including incriminating statements, made by a person subject to an order to stop as provided in this section shall not be excluded from evidence in a trial involving such person so long as the provisions of this section are complied with. District law enforcement officers are not obligated to give the warning specified in subsection (a) of section 4 of this Act or any other warning during the period of time prescribed in this subsection, and the failure to give such a warning shall not render any statement made hereunder involuntary

or excludable from evidence for any other reason. (C) CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING SECTION 4 WARNING.–

(1) IMPLIED RESTRICTION ON LIBERTY.-If a District law enforcement officer by a specific order or by his conduct indicates that a person is obliged to remain in the officer's presence at any time when no such obligation exists under subsection (b) of this section, or fails to inform a person who has been stopped that he is free to go when required to do so by paragraph (5) of such subsection, such person shall be accorded all the rights and protections afforded by section 4 of this Act.

(2) REQUESTS TO APPEAR AT AN OFFICE OR INSTALLATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.-If a District law enforcement officer, pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, requests any person to come to or remain at an office or installation of the District of Columbia government, and does not advise such person that no legal obligation exists to comply with such request, such person shall be accorded all the rights and protections afforded by section 4 of this Act.

WARNINGS TO BE GIVEN UPON ARREST

SEC. 4. (a) PROCEDURES ON ARREST: WARNING.–Upon making any arrest, a District law enforcement officer shall as promptly as is reasonable under the circumstances

(1) identify himself unless his identity is otherwise apparent ;

(2) inform the arrested person that he is under arrest and the cause of the arrest, unless the cause appears to be evident;

(3) warn such person that he is not obliged to say anything or answer any questions, that anything he says may be used as evidence against him; that he has a right to be represented by counsel, and if he cannot afford one, one will be appointed for him ; that he will be appearing without unnecessary delay before an officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws in effect in the District of Columbia (hereafter in this section referred to as a "committing officer"); and that upon arrival at the office or installation of the District of Columbia government he will be permitted to communicate by telephone with counsel, relatives, or friends. (b) APPEARANCE BEFORE COMMITTING OFFICER.--An arrested person shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest available committing officer. (C) INTERROGATION PENDING HEARING BY COMMITTING OFFICER.–

(1) RENEWAL OF WARNING.-- Any person arrested, if not released, shall be brought promptly by the most direct route to an office or other installation of the District of Columbia government. The arrested person may be interrogated while being transported to such office or other installation. Upon arrival at the office or installation of the District of Columbia government, any arrested person who is to be interrogated shall immediately be brought before a master of examination who shall supervise any subsequent interrogation. The master of examination shall repeat the warning required by paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of this section, shall inform the arrested person that he or his representative will supervise any further interrogation to insure that it is fair and proper, and shall contact and arrange for the presence of retained or appointed counsel, if either has been requested.

(2) TELEPHONING RIGHTS.--An arrested person shall be given a reasonable opportunity upon arrival at the office or installation of the District of Columbia government to use the telephone to consult in private wih counsel or any friend or relative.

« AnteriorContinuar »