United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the...

17-2991

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States,

Defendant-Appellant.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 17-cv-05720

The Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge Presiding

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE STATES OF NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, VERMONT, AND WASHINGTON,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE

BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Solicitor General ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General CAROLINE A. OLSEN Assistant Solicitor General ERIC R. HAREN Special Counsel & Senior Advisor of Counsel

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General State of New York 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 (212) 416-8921 Dated: January 4, 2018

Case: 17-2991 Document: 76 Filed: 01/04/2018 Pages: 86

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ ii

INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE .......................................................................1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................................3

A. The Byrne-JAG Program ....................................................................3

B. The New Immigration-Related Conditions .......................................7

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 10

POINT I

The New Conditions Are Unlawful .............................................................. 10

A. The text, structure, and history of Byrne-JAG confirm that Congress did not authorize DOJ to add new generally applicable substantive conditions. .................................................. 11

B. The new conditions are inconsistent with 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a). ....................................................................... 15

C. The new conditions are not authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a). ........................................................................................ 18

POINT II

The District Court Properly Enjoined DOJ From Imposing the Notice and Access Conditions on Any Byrne-JAG Recipient. .................... 21

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 25


ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,

552 U.S. 214 (2008) ....................................................................................... 15

Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1987) ....................................................................... 23

City of Chicago v. Sessions, 264 F. Supp. 3d 933, 2017 WL 4081821 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2017) ....... 18, 24

City of Los Angeles v. McLaughlin, 865 F.2d 1084 (9th Cir. 1989) ....................................................................... 11

City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-3894, 2017 WL 5489476 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2017) ................ 19, 20

County of Suffolk v. Sebelius, 605 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 23

Decker v. O’Donnell, 661 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1980) ......................................................................... 21

Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913 (2015) ..................................................................................... 12

Ely v. Velde, 451 F.2d 1130 (4th Cir. 1971) ................................................................... 3, 16

Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 21

Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) ....................................................................................... 14

Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 21

In re EPA, 803 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 24


iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) Cases Page(s) International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump,

857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 21

Kennedy v. Allera, 612 F.3d 261 (4th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................... 18

Koo v. McBride, 124 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 1997) ......................................................................... 22

Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986) ....................................................................................... 11

Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994) ....................................................................................... 21

McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) ....................................................................................... 19

Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) ....................................................................................... 24

National Mining Ass’n v. U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers, 145 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................... 21

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) ....................................................................................... 17

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) ................................................................................. 17, 18

Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 22

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) ..........................................................................................1

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U.S. 483 (2001) ....................................................................................... 23


iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) Cases Page(s) Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. E.P.A.,

134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) ................................................................................... 22

Virginian Ry. Co. v. Railway Employees, 300 U.S. 515 (1937) ....................................................................................... 23

Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001) ....................................................................................... 20

Laws

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181 ..................3

Justice Assistance Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837 ...................3

Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96-157, 93 Stat. 1167 .........................................................................................................3

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 .............................................................................. 3, 4, 15

Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-162, 119 Stat. 2960 (2006) ................................................................................................ 3, 13

8 U.S.C. § 1373 ......................................................................................................8

22 U.S.C. § 2272 ................................................................................................. 20

25 U.S.C. § 1652 ................................................................................................. 20

34 U.S.C. §§ 10151–58 ............................................................................................... 4, 12 § 10152 ..............................................................................................................5 § 10156 ................................................................................................. 5, 11, 22 § 10157 ........................................................................................................... 22 §§ 10171–10191 ............................................................................................. 12 § 10228 ....................................................................................................... 4, 15 § 20927 ........................................................................................................... 14 § 30307 ........................................................................................................... 14


v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) Laws Page(s) 42 U.S.C.

§ 3753 (2000) ................................................................................................. 13 § 3756 (2000) ................................................................................................. 14

2 C.F.R. § 200.207 .............................................................................................. 20

28 C.F.R. § 66.12 (2006) ..................................................................................... 19

79 Fed. Reg. 75870 (Dec. 19, 2014) ................................................................... 20

Legislative History

H.R. Rep. No. 103-694(1994) (Conf. Report) .................................................... 13

H.R. Rep. No. 109-233 (2005) ........................................................................ 5, 12

S. Rep. 90-1097 (1968) ................................................................................... 3, 16

Controlling Crime Through More Effective Law Enforcement: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedure of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong. (1967) ................................................ 16

Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 2004: Hearings Before a Subcomm. of the H. Comm. on Appropriations, 108th Cong. (2003) ...................................... 13

Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3009, 114th Cong. (2015) ..... 13

H.R. 3355, 103d Cong. (version dated Nov. 19, 1993) ..................................... 13

Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3002, 114th Cong. (2015) ........ 13

Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 5654, 114th Cong. (2016) .......... 13

Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, S. 3100, 114th Cong. (2016) .............. 13

Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, S. 1814 (2015) ........................................................ 13

Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, S. 2146, 114th Cong. (2015) ........................................................................................ 13


vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) Miscellaneous Authorities Page(s) About Officer Byrne, https://goo.gl/pLm8JM .......................................................4

Commonwealth of Mass. Exec. Office of Pub. Safety & Sec. Office of Grants and Research, Edward J. Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Federal Fiscal Year 2017 (2017), at https://goo.gl/5mnUZT .....................................................................................6

Department of Justice, Backgrounder on Grant Requirements (July 25, 2017), at https://goo.gl/wf7L3n ........................................................7

Hawaii Dep’t of the Attorney Gen., Creating Safer Communities—Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Strategic Plan 2015-2018 (2017), at https://goo.gl/cuJeMi .....................................................6

John K. Hudzik et al., Federal Aid to Criminal Justice: Rhetoric, Results, Lessons (1984) ................................................................................. 16

Letter from Alan Hanson, Acting Assistant Attorney Gen., to Elizabeth Glazer, Director, New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (Oct. 11, 2017), at https://goo.gl/aTDF9i ......................... 10

New York State’s Application for Byrne-JAG Program Funds—FFY 2016 (June 30, 2016), at https://goo.gl/3WsuWr. ...................................6

Paul G. Dembling & Malcom S. Mason, Essentials of Grant Law Practice (1991) ......................................................................................... 11, 19

Press Release, Attorney General Sessions Announces Immigration Compliance Requirements for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Programs (July 25, 2017), at https://goo.gl/txMfU1 .....................7

Press Release, Dep’t of Justice, Justice Department Provides Last Chance for Cities to Show 1373 Compliance (Oct. 12, 2017), at https://goo.gl/W9dM7n .....................................................................................9

Request for Public Comment, FY 2017 Justice Assistance Grant Program (2017), at https://goo.gl/hEfLnd .......................................................7


INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE

In our federal system, States and localities have primary responsibility for

the design of law-enforcement policies to keep their residents safe. See, e.g.,

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618 (2000). The Edward Byrne

Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne-JAG) is a mandatory formula

grant that Congress created to provide States and localities with a reliable

source of funding in accordance with state and local law-enforcement and

criminal justice policies. Like Chicago, the amici States—New York,

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—and the

District of Columbia are entitled to receive Byrne-JAG grants. And also like

Chicago, the amici States have been using those grants and their

predecessors for almost fifty years to support a broad array of critical law-

enforcement programs tailored to local needs.

The United States Attorney General now claims authority to withhold

Byrne-JAG funding from States and localities that have made law-

enforcement policy judgments that federal law permits, but with which he

disagrees. Specifically, he contends that he may deny grants to States and

localities that limit their voluntary involvement with enforcing federal

immigration policy because they have concluded that fostering a relationship

of trust between their law-enforcement officials and their immigrant


2

communities will promote public safety for all of their residents. The Byrne-

JAG statute does not authorize the U.S. Attorney General’s position, which is

also contrary to the federalism principles that Congress enshrined in the

Byrne-JAG program.

The amici States have adopted different approaches to cooperating with

the federal government in immigration matters based on their own

determinations about the measures that will promote public safety for their

citizens. They join this brief whether or not they believe that Chicago’s

approach would be optimal for them, because they believe that the Byrne-

JAG statute permits Chicago to choose that approach without financial

penalty.

Moreover, if this Court vacates or narrows the preliminary injunction, the

amici States will face the same impermissible choice as Chicago: accept

invalid conditions that diminish their ability to set their own law-

enforcement priorities, or lose Byrne-JAG funding and the vital programs

those grants support. The amici States therefore also have a strong interest

in ensuring that the protection provided by the district court’s nationwide

injunction remains in place throughout the course of this litigation.


3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. The Byrne-JAG Program

The Byrne-JAG program has its origins in the Omnibus Crime Control

and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-351, Title I, 82 Stat. 197,1 which

created the first block grants for States and localities to use for law-

enforcement and criminal justice programs.2 Recognizing that “crime is

essentially a local problem that must be dealt with by State and local

governments,” 82 Stat. at 197, Congress designed the grant program to

provide a reliable funding stream that States and localities could use in

accordance with state and local law-enforcement policies.3

1 Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg197.pdf. All websites cited herein were last visited on January 3, 2018.

2 See Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96-157, 93 Stat. 1167, 1179 (amending Title I of the 1968 Act and reauthorizing law-enforcement block grants to States and local governments); Justice Assistance Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837, 2077-85 (same); Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, pt. E, 102 Stat. 4181, 4329 (amending Title I of the 1968 Act and creating a formula law-enforcement grant); Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-162, § 1111, 119 Stat. 2960, 3094 (2006) (amending Title I of the 1968 Act and creating the modern Byrne-JAG program).

3 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 90-1097, at 2 (1968) (stating that Congress sought to encourage States and localities to adopt programs “based upon their evaluation of State and local problems of law enforcement”) (Excerpt available in Addendum (Add.) to this brief at 2); see also Ely v. Velde, 451 F.2d 1130, 1136 (4th Cir. 1971) (reviewing the legislative history of the 1968


4

Consistent with its deference to local priorities, Congress at the same time

prohibited federal agencies and executive-branch officials from using law-

enforcement grants such as Byrne-JAG to “exercise any direction,

supervision, or control over any police force or any other law enforcement

agency of any State or any political subdivision thereof.” Id. § 518(a), 82 Stat.

at 208. Although Congress has repeatedly modified the structure and terms

of the law-enforcement grants authorized under Title I of the 1968 Act, the

prohibition originally set forth in § 518 of the 1968 Act remains in effect with

virtually no modification, and is now codified in the same chapter of the

United States Code as Byrne-JAG. See 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a).4

Congress codified the modern Byrne-JAG program in 2006.5 See supra

n.2; 34 U.S.C. §§ 10151–58. Like its predecessors, Byrne-JAG aims to “give

state and local governments more flexibility to spend money for programs

Act and concluding that “[t]he dominant concern of Congress apparently was to guard against any tendency towards federalization of local police and law enforcement agencies”).

4 The full text of § 10228(a) provides as follows:

Nothing in this chapter or any other Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over any police force or any other criminal justice agency of any State or any political subdivision thereof.

5 The program is named after a former New York City police officer who was killed in the line of duty. See About Officer Byrne, https://goo.gl/pLm8JM.


5

that work for them rather than to impose a ‘one size fits all’ solution.” H.R.

Rep. No. 109-233, at 89 (2005). To that end, the Byrne-JAG statute creates a

formula grant and gives recipients substantial discretion to use funds for

eight “broad purposes,” id., including law enforcement, crime prevention and

education, and drug treatment, 34 U.S.C. § 10152(a)(1).

The Byrne-JAG program is administered by the United States

Department of Justice (DOJ) through its Office of Justice Programs (OJP).

DOJ is required by law to issue grants “in accordance with the formula” set

forth in the Byrne-JAG statute. Id. Specifically, “[o]f the total amount

appropriated” by Congress, the U.S. Attorney General “shall, except as

provided in paragraph (2), allocate” fifty percent of the funds based on each

State’s population and fifty percent based on each State’s crime rate. Id.

§ 10156(a)(1). The exception in paragraph (2) provides that each State must

receive at least one-quarter of one percent of the funds appropriated by

Congress for a given year, regardless of what the formula would otherwise

dictate. Id. § 10156(a)(2). Between a State and its localities, sixty percent of

funding “shall be for direct grants to States,” id. § 10156(b)(1), and forty

percent “shall be for grants” directly to localities (compared within a State

based on crime rate), id. § 10156(b)(2), (d).

The amici States have each received Byrne-JAG funding from DOJ since

2006, as well as funding from Byrne-JAG’s predecessor grant programs.


6

Amici have used the funds to support a diverse array of critical law-

enforcement programs tailored to local needs. For example, New York has

used Byrne-JAG funding to support a multi-county program to combat gun

violence, improve criminal records systems, enhance forensic laboratories,

and support prosecution and defense services.6 For fiscal year 2017, New

York will use Byrne funds to fight the opioid epidemic. California has used

Byrne-JAG funds for education, employment, and substance abuse services;

prevention and intervention initiatives for high-risk students; and diversion

and re-entry programs.7 Hawaii has used Byrne-JAG funds to combat sexual

assault, eliminate elder abuse, and to reduce recidivism.8 Massachusetts

plans to use its 2017 Byrne-JAG funds to reduce gun violence, combat the

opioid crisis, and promote community-based policing programs.9 And

Connecticut plans to use 2017 Byrne-JAG funds to reduce recidivism, prevent

6 See New York State’s Application for Byrne-JAG Program Funds—FFY 2016, at 4-9 (June 30, 2016), at https://goo.gl/3WsuWr.

7 See Br. for States of California and Illinois as Amici Curiae at 11-12, City of Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-2991 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2017), ECF No. 25.

8 See Hawaii Dep’t of the Attorney Gen., Creating Safer Communities—Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Strategic Plan 2015-2018, at 36-59 (2017), at https://goo.gl/cuJeMi.

9 See Commonwealth of Mass. Exec. Office of Pub. Safety & Sec. Office of Grants and Research, Edward J. Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Federal Fiscal Year 2017, at 4-43 (2017), at https://goo.gl/5mnUZT.


7

gun violence, provide training to mentally ill offenders, and provide

treatment for offenders addicted to opioids and heroin.10 Without Byrne-JAG,

the amici States may be forced to cut funding to these and other vital

programs.

B. The New Immigration-Related Conditions

On July 25, 2017, DOJ announced it was imposing three immigration-

related conditions on Byrne-JAG funding for fiscal year 2017.11 DOJ

subsequently published the proposed conditions’ text in two awards issued to

the County of Greenville, South Carolina and the City of Binghamton, New

York. (DOJ’s Appendix (App.) (ECF No. 32-1) 44-85.) DOJ stated that

substantively identical conditions will be imposed on States.12

10 Request for Public Comment, FY 2017 Justice Assistance Grant Program, at 5-6 (2017), at https://goo.gl/hEfLnd.

11 See Press Release, Attorney General Sessions Announces Immigration Compliance Requirements for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Programs (July 25, 2017), at https://goo.gl/txMfU1; Dep’t of Justice, Backgrounder on Grant Requirements (July 25, 2017), at https://goo.gl/wf7L3n.

12 See Decl. of Alan R. Hanson, Opp’n to Pl.’s Amended Mot. for Prelim. Inj. ¶ 8, California ex rel. Becerra v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-4701 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2017), ECF No. 42-1 (statement of Acting Assistant Attorney General for OJP that, absent an injunction, state awards will contain “substantively identical language” to the conditions in the Greenville and Binghamton award documents).


8

First, DOJ’s new “access condition” requires States to have a rule, policy,

or practice designed to ensure that, upon request, federal agents may access a

state or state-contracted correctional facility to question suspected aliens

about their right to remain in the United States. Second, the “notice

condition” requires States to have a rule, policy, or practice designed to

ensure that state officers will respond as quickly as possible to any formal

written request from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to a

correctional facility seeking advance notice of a particular alien’s scheduled

release date. States must require subgrantees to comply with the notice and

access conditions and monitor subgrantee compliance. (App. 83.)

DOJ has also stated it will require all grantees to accept various

conditions related to 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which prohibits States and localities

from restricting their officials from communicating with federal immigration

authorities “regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or

unlawful, of any individual.” 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a). The “Section 1373

conditions” will require each State to:

Certify the State’s compliance with § 1373;

Comply with § 1373 throughout the duration of the award;

Monitor the compliance of all of subgrantees with § 1373;

Notify DOJ if the State becomes aware that any subgrantee

has violated § 1373. (App. 80-82.)


9

After the district court in this case enjoined the notice and access

conditions but not the Section 1373 conditions, DOJ has taken an

increasingly broad view of § 1373’s requirements, suggesting that it covers

information beyond that relating to citizenship and immigration status, and

that it imposes affirmative obligations. For example, in October 2017, DOJ

issued letters to seven cities, including Chicago and New York City,

challenging their “so-called ‘sanctuary policies.’”13 The letter to New York

City argued that § 1373 requires the city to share “information regarding an

alien’s incarceration status and release date and time.” The letter also

purported to require New York City to “communicate[] this interpretation to

its officers and employees.”14

Like Chicago, the amici States have not received final Byrne-JAG awards

for fiscal year 2017. DOJ has stated that it will not issue awards while this

appeal is pending but that, if the preliminary injunction is vacated or limited,

13 Press Release, Dep’t of Justice, Justice Department Provides Last Chance for Cities to Show 1373 Compliance (Oct. 12, 2017), at https://goo.gl/W9dM7n.

14 Letter from Alan Hanson, Acting Assistant Attorney Gen., to Elizabeth Glazer, Director, New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (Oct. 11, 2017), at https://goo.gl/aTDF9i.


10

it will impose the notice, access, and Section 1373 conditions on other Byrne-

JAG grantees.15

ARGUMENT

POINT I

The New Conditions Are Unlawful

The district court correctly enjoined the notice and access conditions on

Byrne-JAG funding. The text of the Byrne-JAG statute creates a mandatory

formula grant, leaving no room for DOJ to deviate from the legislative

formula by imposing new generally applicable substantive conditions. The

structure and legislative history of the statute confirm DOJ’s lack of

authority to prescribe new general conditions, especially of the type it has

proposed here. And the limits on DOJ’s authority are further underscored by

34 U.S.C. § 10228(a), a statutory provision that applies to the Byrne-JAG

program and prohibits DOJ from construing any grant as authorizing it to

exercise “direction, supervision, or control” over any state or local police force

or criminal justice agency.

15 See Decl. of Alan R. Hanson in Opp. to Pl.’s Amended Mot. for Prelim. Inj. ¶¶ 9-10, California ex rel. Becerra v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-4701-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2017), ECF No. 42-1.


11

A. The text, structure, and history of Byrne-JAG confirm that Congress did not authorize DOJ to add new generally applicable substantive conditions.

Under basic separation-of-powers principles, an executive “agency literally

has no power to act . . . unless and until Congress confers power upon it.”

Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986).

Here, the Byrne-JAG statute contains no express provision authorizing

DOJ to impose new generally applicable substantive conditions like the

notice and access conditions. The statute instead provides that “the Attorney

General shall … allocate” grant money based on the statutory formula.

34 U.S.C. § 10156(a)(1). Formula grants leave no discretion to the

administering agency: if a grantee satisfies the statutory requirements, it is

entitled to what the formula dictates. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v.

McLaughlin, 865 F.2d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989).16

Other provisions of Byrne-JAG confirm Congress’s intent to minimize the

ability of DOJ to deviate from Congress’s statutory formula. For example,

§ 10157(b) permits DOJ to reserve up to five percent of appropriated funds

and reallocate them to a State or locality if the U.S. Attorney General

determines that reallocation is necessary to combat “extraordinary increases

16 See also Paul G. Dembling & Malcom S. Mason, Essentials of Grant Law Practice § 5.03, at 33-34 (1991). (Add. 12-13.)


12

in crime” or to “mitigate significant programmatic harm resulting from” the

formula. By expressly restricting DOJ’s authority to redirect Byrne-JAG

funds, Congress clearly signaled that DOJ must otherwise abide by the

statutory formula. See, e.g., Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 135

S. Ct. 913, 919 (2015) (provision of express authority in one section of statute

implies intent to exclude elsewhere).17

The Byrne-JAG statute’s legislative history leads to the same conclusion.

From the time it first created a law-enforcement block grant program in

1968, Congress has sought to ensure that such grants do not become a means

for federal agencies to control, direct, or supervise state and local law

enforcement. See supra at 3-4; infra 15-16. In enacting Byrne-JAG—the

latest version of the 1968 program (supra at 3)—Congress reaffirmed this

priority, stating that the grant was designed to “give State and local

governments more flexibility to spend money for programs that work for

17 The structure of title 34, chapter 101 of the U.S. Code also confirms DOJ’s limited authority. Byrne-JAG is located in part A of Chapter 101, which is entitled “Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.” See 34 U.S.C. §§ 10151–58. Part B, entitled “Discretionary Grants,” authorizes DOJ to issue grants to support projects similar to those supported by Byrne-JAG but at DOJ’s discretion. See id. §§ 10171–10191.


13

them rather than to impose a ‘one size fits all’ solution.” H.R. Rep. No. 109-

233, at 89 (2005).18

What is more, since the 1990s, Congress has repeatedly considered and

rejected legislation that would withhold grant funding as a penalty for

noncooperation with federal immigration law.19 When Congress enacted the

modern Byrne-JAG program in 2006, it repealed the only immigration-

related condition imposed on grants under Byrne-JAG’s predecessor program.

See 42 U.S.C. § 3753(a)(11) (2000) (requiring grantees to inform federal

immigration authorities of an alien’s criminal conviction); Pub. L. No. 109-

162, § 1111(a)(1), 119 Stat. at 3094 (repeal). And more recently, Congress has

considered and rejected legislative proposals to impose funding conditions on

so-called “sanctuary cities,” including under Byrne-JAG.20

18 The Bush Administration proposed the modern Byrne-JAG program in its 2003 budget, stating that the “paramount goal” was to “provide fund recipients maximum flexibility and control over funding.” Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 2004: Hearings Before a Subcomm. of the H. Comm. on Appropriations, 108th Cong. 1338-39 (2003). (Add. 17-18.)

19 The Senate version of the 1994 Crime Bill, for example, included such a provision, but it was eliminated in conference. See H.R. 3355, § 5119, 103d Cong. (version dated Nov. 19, 1993); H.R. Rep. No. 103-694, at 424 (1994) (Conf. Report).

20 See, e.g., Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 5654, 114th Cong. § 4 (2016); Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, S. 3100, 114th Cong. § 4 (2016); Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3009, 114th Cong.


14

Where Congress considers and rejects legislative action, an agency’s

attempt to adopt the same policy is suspect. See Food & Drug Admin. v.

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 159-60 (2000). Here,

Congress’s repeated failure to enact legislation imposing similar,

immigration-related conditions on grants renders DOJ’s current exercise of

authority suspect.

When Congress has wanted to authorize deviations from the Byrne-JAG

formula, it has done so explicitly and authorized only modest withholdings.

For example, a State that fails to “substantially implement” relevant

provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

“shall not receive 10 percent of the funds” it would otherwise receive under

Byrne-JAG. See 34 U.S.C. § 20927(a).21 The amici States are unaware of

Congress ever imposing a condition on Byrne-JAG that would withhold all

funding as DOJ now seeks to do.

§ 3 (2015); Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3002, 114th Cong. § 2 (2015); Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, S. 2146, 114th Cong. § 3(a) (2015); Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, S. 1814, § 2 (2015). The full text of the bills and their legislative histories are available at https://www.congress.gov.

21 See also 34 U.S.C. § 30307(e)(2) (providing a five-percent penalty for non-compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act); 42 U.S.C. § 3756(f) (2000) (providing a ten-percent penalty for not testing sex offenders for HIV at victim’s request).


15

B. The new conditions are inconsistent with 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a).

Since 1968, Congress has prohibited executive officials from using law-

enforcement grants to exert “any direction, supervision, or control” over any

state or local police force or criminal justice agency. Pub. L. No. 90-351,

§ 518(a), 82 Stat. 208 (codified as amended at 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a)). The

current version of that prohibition, which is codified in the same chapter of

the U.S. Code as the Byrne-JAG statute, provides that “[n]othing in this

chapter or any other Act shall be construed to authorize any department,

agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction,

supervision, or control over any police force or any other criminal justice

agency of any State or any political subdivision thereof.” 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a)

(emphasis added). The repeated use of “any” signals Congress’s intent to

speak broadly, see Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 218-19

(2008)—and in this context, to prohibit all agency action that could interfere

with state and local authority over law enforcement. The notice and access

conditions violate this statutory prohibition by seeking to control, direct, and

supervise state and local law enforcement.

The legislative history of § 10228(a) confirms this understanding.

Opponents of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 had

expressed concerns that the U.S. Attorney General would use law-

enforcement grants to coerce States and localities into adopting federal law-


16

enforcement priorities.22 Supporters of the Act responded that § 10228, which

was pending before Congress as part of the 1968 Act, would prohibit such

control. U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark testified it would violate both

“the mandate and spirit” of § 10228(a) to withhold funds because police

departments were not run “the way the Attorney General says they must,”

and that § 10228(a) prevented DOJ from imposing extra-statutory conditions

on grants.23 Reviewing this history, the only appellate decision to construe

§ 10228 observed that § 10228(a)’s purpose was “to shield the routine

operations of local police forces from ongoing control by [DOJ]—a control

which conceivably could turn the local police into an arm of the federal

government.” Ely, 451 F.2d at 1136.

Although arising in a different context, the Supreme Court’s anti-

commandeering jurisprudence sheds further light on what it means to

prohibit federal “direction” and “control” of state and local law-enforcement

entities. As the Court’s cases make clear, anti-commandeering prohibitions

22 See, e.g., S. Rep. 90-1097, at 230 (1968) (views of Senators Dirksen, Hruska, Scott, and Thurmond) (expressing concern that the Act would enable the U.S. Attorney General to “become the director of state and local law enforcement”). (Add. 9.) See generally John K. Hudzik et al., Federal Aid to Criminal Justice: Rhetoric, Results, Lessons 15, 23-26 (1984) (discussing opposition to the grant). (Add. 21-24.)

23 Controlling Crime Through More Effective Law Enforcement: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedure of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong. 100, 384, 497 (1967). (Add. 42, 45, 48.)


17

prevent the federal government from compelling States to enact federal

programs, see New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 188 (1992), or

compelling state officers to enforce such programs, see Printz v. United States,

521 U.S. 898, 930, 935 (1997). Printz suggests at least two actions constitute

impermissible “direction” or “control”: requiring state law-enforcement

officers to assist in “the administration of a federally enacted regulatory

scheme,” and requiring those officers to receive information as part of their

administrative responsibilities. Id. at 904.24

Here, the U.S. Attorney General’s proposed notice and access conditions

conscript States into administering a federal program in violation of

§ 10228(a) by requiring them to continuously monitor whether subgrantees

are complying with those new program conditions. (App. 83.) In addition, the

notice condition requires state officials to administer federal immigration

policy by requiring them to respond to DHS requests for information. And the

access condition violates anti-commandeering principles by requiring state

officials to devote staff, resources, and real property to facilitate federal

agents’ access to aliens in correctional facilities. If requiring state official to

24 The legislation at issue in Printz, the Brady Act, violated these prohibitions by requiring local officers to run background checks on handgun purchasers, and requiring state officers “to accept” forms from gun dealers. 521 U.S. at 904, 905, 934.


18

“accept” a form is impermissible direction, see Printz, 521 U.S. at 904, then

surely requiring them to accept and assist federal officials at state facilities is

too. See also Kennedy v. Allera, 612 F.3d 261, 269 (4th Cir. 2010) (SORNA

does not violate Tenth Amendment because it does not require States to

accept sex offender registrations).

C. The new conditions are not authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a).

The district court correctly rejected the U.S. Attorney General’s argument

that the notice and access conditions are authorized by 34 U.S.C.

§ 10102(a)(6), which establishes the position of the Assistant U.S. Attorney

General for OJP and authorizes that official to “plac[e] special conditions on

all grants” and “determin[e] priority purposes for formula grants.” See Br. for

Appellant (Br.) at 17-21.

As the district court explained, § 10102 and the Byrne-JAG program are

located in different subchapters of the U.S. Code, and no language suggests

Congress intended § 10102(a)(6) to apply to Byrne-JAG. See City of Chicago

v. Sessions, 264 F. Supp. 3d 933, 2017 WL 4081821, at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15,

2017). The district court also rightly observed that even if § 10102(a)(6)

applies to Byrne-JAG, that provision “implies that any authority of the

Assistant Attorney General to place special conditions on grants must flow

either from the [Byrne-JAG] statute itself or from a delegation of power


19

independently possessed by the Attorney General.” Id. at *6-7. See also City

of Philadelphia v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-3894, 2017 WL 5489476, at *26 (E.D.

Pa. Nov. 15, 2017) (adopting the same rationale).

In this case, the U.S. Attorney General has identified no statute

authorizing him to impose immigration-related grant conditions. Moreover,

his reliance on § 10102(a)(6) is inconsistent with the text of that provision,

which refers to the authority to impose “special conditions”: a term of art

describing conditions that are “tailored to problems perceived in a particular

grant project” rather than “generally applicable to all grants under a

particular grant program,” Dembling & Mason, supra, § 11.01, at 107.

(Excerpts available in Addendum (Add.) to this brief at 14.)

Indeed, when Congress amended § 10102(a)(6) in 2006 to add a reference

to “special conditions,” a DOJ regulation defined that term to mean a

condition that is imposed for a limited time to address financial or

performance concerns specific to a particular applicant, 28 C.F.R. § 66.12(a)

(2006)—for example, a requirement that a financially unstable grantee

provide a more detailed financial report, id. § 66.12(b). Under established

approaches to statutory construction, this history and context offers strong

support for reading § 10102(a)(6) to incorporate that regulatory definition.

See McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 342 (1991) (“[W]e assume

that when a statute uses [a term of art], Congress intended it to have its


20

established meaning.”); see also City of Philadelphia, 2017 WL 5489476, at

*27 (concluding that “special condition” is a term of art that does not

authorize the new conditions).25

Had Congress intended to grant DOJ broader authority, it would have

done so explicitly, as it has in other statutes.26 This is particularly true given

the significance of such a change for a mandatory formula program like

Byrne-JAG. See Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457,

468 (2001).27

25 In 2014, DOJ repealed § 66.12 but adopted a virtually identical substitute promulgated by the federal Office of Management and Budget. See Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation, 79 Fed. Reg. 75870, 76081 (Dec. 19, 2014). That regulation uses the phrase “specific condition” instead of “special condition,” but the regulations are otherwise parallel. See 2 C.F.R. § 200.207.

26 See, e.g., 22 U.S.C. § 2272 (declaring that “[t]he President shall ensure that assistance authorized by this chapter and the Arms Export Control Act … is furnished in a manner which fosters demonstrated progress toward and commitment to the objectives set forth in 2271 of this title” and providing that “[w]here necessary to achieve this purpose, the President shall impose conditions on the furnishing of such assistance”); 25 U.S.C. § 1652(b) (declaring that “[s]ubject to section 1656 of this title, the Secretary [of the Interior] … shall include such conditions as the Secretary considers necessary to effect the purpose of this subchapter … in any grant the Secretary makes to, any urban Indian organization pursuant to this subchapter.”).

27 Following the district court’s order enjoining the notice and access conditions but not the Section 1373 conditions, DOJ has argued outside this litigation that the Section 1373 conditions provide an independent basis for the notice condition. See supra at 9. Although amici States believe DOJ’s position is incorrect, we do not address the issue here because DOJ has not raised that argument in this appeal.


21

POINT II

The District Court Properly Enjoined DOJ From Imposing the Notice and Access Conditions on Any Byrne-JAG Recipient.

When a plaintiff mounts a successful facial challenge to an executive

policy, that policy is invalid in all its applications, and should be struck down

on its face. See Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 698 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[A]

successful facial attack means the statute is wholly invalid and cannot be

applied to anyone.”).

Here, because DOJ possesses neither constitutional nor statutory

authority to impose the notice and access conditions, the district court

properly enjoined DOJ from imposing those conditions on Chicago and other

grantees. See Decker v. O’Donnell, 661 F.2d 598, 617-18 (7th Cir. 1980);

(upholding nationwide injunction based on facial challenge); see also National

Mining Ass’n v. U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers, 145 F.3d 1399, 1409 (D.C. Cir.

1998) (noting that “the ordinary result” when agency regulations are found

unlawful “is that the rules are vacated—not that their application to the

individual petitioners is proscribed” (quotation marks omitted)).28

28 See also, e.g., Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741, 787-88 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming nationwide injunction), vacated and remanded, 2017 WL 4782860 (Oct. 24, 2017); International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554, 588-606 (4th Cir.) (same), cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 2080, vacated and


22

The U.S. Attorney General is incorrect in contending (Br. at 21-25) that

Article III of the Constitution required an injunction covering Chicago only.

“In fashioning a remedy for any constitutional violation,” the “touchstone” is

the “nature and the scope of the constitutional violation.” Koo v. McBride,

124 F.3d 869, 873 (7th Cir. 1997). Here, the U.S. Attorney General’s attempt

to impose the notice and access conditions violates bedrock separation-of-

powers principles. See supra 10-14. The violation would be present whether

the conditions were imposed on Chicago or any other Byrne-JAG recipient.

Thus, the injunction was appropriately tailored to the constitutional

violation.29

The injunction’s nationwide scope was also necessary to ensure Chicago

can obtain “complete relief” in light of the formula structure of the grant.

Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 778 (1994). The Byrne-

JAG statute authorizes DOJ to reallocate funding in certain circumstances if

a jurisdiction does not qualify for its allocated funds. See, e.g., 34 U.S.C.

§ 10156(f); id. § 10157(b). Accordingly, if the preliminary injunction is lifted

remanded, 2017 WL 4518553 (Oct. 10, 2017); Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187-88 (5th Cir. 2015) (same).

29 The scope of the injunction is appropriate even if, as the U.S. Attorney General contends (Br. at 24), the violation was statutory rather than constitutional. See, e.g., Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. E.P.A., 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2449 (2014) (invalidating EPA regulation when agency exceeded its statutory authority).


23

or narrowed, DOJ could disburse funding to other grantees during the course

of this litigation, depriving Chicago of funds even if Chicago ultimately

prevails. See, e.g., County of Suffolk v. Sebelius, 605 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010)

(affirming, on mootness grounds, dismissal of challenge to denial of grant

funds because government distributed funds to others during the pendency of

the litigation).30

Finally, the equities strongly favor the injunction. District courts enjoy

“sound discretion to consider the necessities of the public interest when

fashioning injunctive relief.” United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’

Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 496 (2001) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, “courts of

equity may, and frequently do, go much farther both to give and withhold

relief in furtherance of the public interest than . . . when only private

interests are involved.” Virginian Ry. Co. v. Railway Employees, 300 U.S.

515, 552 (1937).

Like Chicago, the amici States are longtime recipients of federal law-

enforcement block grants. Since 1968, the amici States have used these funds

30 For these reasons, the U.S. Attorney General (Br. at 22) is also wrong to contend that a class-action was required. “[A]n injunction is not necessarily made over-broad by extending the benefit or protection to persons other than prevailing parties in the lawsuit—even if it is not a class action—if such breadth is necessary to give prevailing parties the relief to which they are entitled.” Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 1987).


24

to support a variety of important law-enforcement projects, such as programs

to reduce gun violence and to combat drug addiction. If the preliminary

injunction is vacated or narrowed, the amici States will face the same

impermissible choice as Chicago. That is, they will be compelled to accept

invalid grant conditions that limit their ability to set their own law-

enforcement policy, or else forego the Byrne-JAG funds that support

important law-enforcement programs in their communities.31

In contrast to these wide-ranging harms, the U.S. Attorney General has

identified no irreparable harms that would result from maintaining the

status quo during the duration of these proceedings. DOJ has never imposed

the notice and access conditions before. And the U.S. Attorney General has

not identified—before the district court or on appeal—any change in

background circumstances that would warrant the new conditions, nor has he

articulated how a delay in imposing the new conditions would undermine

law-enforcement or any other interests. See also City of Chicago, 2017 WL

4081821, at *13.

31 See, e.g., Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 381 (1992) (forced choice between acquiescing to law that plaintiff believed to be unconstitutional or facing liability was an irreparable injury); In re EPA, 803 F.3d 804, 808-09 (6th Cir. 2015) (staying agency regulation on nationwide basis to protect federalism).


25

CONCLUSION

This Court should affirm the preliminary injunction.

Dated: New York, NY January 4, 2018

BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Solicitor General ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General CAROLINE A. OLSEN Assistant Solicitor General ERIC R. HAREN Special Counsel & Senior Advisor of Counsel

Respectfully submitted, ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General State of New York

By:. /s Anisha S. Dasgupta . ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General

120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 (212) 416-8921

(Counsel list continues on next page.)


26

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General State of California 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814

THOMAS J. MILLER Attorney General State of Iowa 1305 E. Walnut Street Des Moines, IA 50319

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM Attorney General State of Oregon 1162 Court Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97301

GEORGE JEPSEN Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106

JANET T. MILLS Attorney General State of Maine 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333

THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR. Attorney General State of Vermont 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609

MATTHEW P. DENN Attorney General State of Delaware Carvel State Bldg., 6th Fl. 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801

BRIAN E. FROSH Attorney General State of Maryland 200 Saint Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202

BOB FERGUSON Attorney General State of Washington 800 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98104

DOUGLAS S. CHIN Attorney General State of Hawaii 425 Queen St. Honolulu, HI 96813

MAURA HEALEY Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108

KARL A. RACINE Attorney General District of Columbia One Judiciary Square 441 4th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001

LISA MADIGAN Attorney General State of Illinois 100 W. Randolph Street 12th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601

HECTOR BALDERAS Attorney General State of New Mexico 408 Galisteo Street Santa Fe, NM 87501


CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Rules 29 and 32(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Anisha S. Dasgupta, counsel for amici curiae States of New York et al., hereby certifies that according to the word count feature of the word processing program used to prepare this brief, the brief contains 5,546 words and complies with the typeface requirements and length limits of Rules 29 and 32(a)(5)-(7) and the Local Rules of the Seventh Circuit.

. /s/ Anisha S. Dasgupta .


ADDENDUM


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

i

Senate Report No. 90-1097 (1968) .......................................................................1

Paul G. Dembling & Malcolm S. Mason, Essentials of Grant Law

Practice (1991) ................................................................................................ 11

Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and

Related Agencies Appropriations for 2004: Hearings Before a

Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, 108th Cong.

(2003) ................................................................................................................. 15

John K. Hudzik et al., Federal Aid to Criminal Justice: Rhetoric,

Results, Lessons (1984) ..................................................................................... 20

Controlling Crime Through More Effective Law Enforcement: Hearings

Before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedure of the

Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Cong. (1967) .................................. 26


U0'1'H CoNORESB 2d Session } SENATE

Calendar No. I 080 { REPORT

No. 1097

OMNIBUS CRIME CONTllOJ.J AND SAFE S'l'REETS ACT OF 1967

APRIL 20, 1968.-0rdered to be printed

---·------

~fr. ~IcCrJELLAN, from t.ho Committee on the Judiciary,

REPORT Submitted the following

together with

MINORITY, INDIVIDUAL, AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS

(To accompany S. 917]

'l'he Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (8. 917) to assist State and local governments in reducing the incidence of crime, to incruaso the eff ecti venesB, fairness, and coordination of law enforcement and criminal justice systems at all levels of government, and for other purposos, having considered f;he same, reports favorably thereon, with an amendment in the nat.ure of a substitute" nnd recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

AMENDMENT

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof tho following: That this Act may be cited as the "Omnibus_ Crime Control and Safe Streets Aot of 1967".

TITLE I-LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

DECLARATIONS Alm PURPOSE

Congress flnqs that the high inoi~ence ·of cri~e .in tho l;J~it~~ States threatens tho peace security, and general wolfare of the Nation and its 01tizons. To prevent crime and to t.nsure the greater safety of the people, law enforcement efforts must be better ooordina.ted, int,ensified, and made more effective at all levels of government.

Congress finds further that crime is essentially a local problem that must be dealt with by State and local governments if it is to be controlled effectively.

93-198-68-1

1


2

It iH J IH•reforn tho dt•elnrod poll<!)' of t.h.e .G9.ngr_oss. to nssli;t St ntc nnd locill govor'npfonln Jn Htrengt he11ll1K nn<l iml>roying lil\v cHforccment at cvory lnyclJ>y nntionnl RHHIHtnnce. H ls the p11rpmm o this title to (l) enco\irage Stnt.cE\ nnd'Hilits of gc11ernl locnl governrn<mt to prepnrc nnd adopt comprchensi\'e pluns bnHP<l upoll th<ilr ovnhtntfon of Stnti' nnd locnl prohten1s of low onforccment; (2) nuthorlzo grunts to 8tiltcH nnd unit8 of locnl government ill orcfor to irnpro\'c nnd Btrn11gt lw11 law enforcement.; nnd (a) encourngc rcHenrch und development directed townrrl the impro\'erne11t, of lnw enforcmncnt nnd t.Jw development of new methods for t.he prnvm1t.lon nnd rc<l11ction of crime nnd the detection nnd npprehe11sio11 of crlml1111ls.

P.rn1• A-LAW Etn-onct~MnN·r ARsisTANCE AnmN1sTn.\'l'ION

81-;c. 101. (n) 'l'ltPre is lwrnhy es(nhllshed '-':ithln the Dcpnrtrne11t of J11stiee, und<!r thn gc11ernl nutlio1·1ty oft.he Attorrw~' Gc!llCrtll, n Lnw EnforcPnHiiit Ar-:sis(1111<.·e Adrnl11ii-ltrnl101f (hc~m1fter rcfCrrc•<l t.o Ip_ t.his title ns "A<linlniHtrntioh").

(h) The Adrnlt1i8lrntio11 Rhnll be corr)j><>."ed of nn Administrnt.or of Lnw Enforcn-11w11t AHsi~tnr1ce n11d two Assocll\te Ad1iH1)ist.rntors of Lnw E11forcc11wnt. As~i~tniiet•, who ~hnll he nppolnt<!<l by the PrPside11t., by it11d wHh the advice nnd co11snnt. of the 8Pr111te. No 11101·0 thn11 two nwrnt1<•n; of Uiu Admlnis(rntion slmll IH! of t.hc i;nnw politfrnl party, n11d members shull he nppolntcd wit.h d11e reKnrd to t.hrir fit.11cs~, kno\\·ledK'!' nnd nxporlenco to perform the f1111ctio11R, powcn;, und <l11tiPs \'C'skd in the Admhlir;trntlo11 by tit is title. ·

(c) It f3h11ll he t.he dut.y of t.hn Admi11li;t1·ldion lo ex<'l'clse nil of the -f11nctio11s, powPl'H, 1111d d11t il's rr<•nted and <•f'tnhlislwd by this Utfo, l'Xccpt us otlH•rwise pro\'ided. ·

P.\HT B--PL.\N~INCI G1t.\NTS

H1-~c. ~01. It. is tl.ac purpose of Lhit; pnrt. to CJ1QOl\rtt'gc Htntc•s nnd 1111its of gP111~rnJ loenl govc~rn111e11t to prepnrn 1111<1 ndopt eomp1·c icnsive law e11forcc11wnt pi:rns hmwd 011 their ovnltlntion of 8latt~ nnd h>c1\I prohlenu; of lnw e11foreenwnt..

8Ev. 202. The Admi11istrntion iH 1111lhoriiwd to rnnlw grn11ts to ~tnte~, 1111its of ~<·1101·:\I loe11l go\·r.r,1111c~11t 1 :or eoruhiil:it.ip11s of t:illCh Stntr8 01· units of lornl go\'('rn-11w11t for pr<~p11rl11g, devc·!opi11g1 ·Or rnvli.;ing lnw e11force111rn1t 'plans to carry 0111. th<' JHll'JHJ!-{o i-;nt forth in .·a~ction ao~: l'rovidcd, hoi~1~11cr, Thnt 110 unit. of g1•m1ral local go\·ern111P11t. r>r co111bi1111tio11 of sueh units slinll lw eligible for n grnnt. 1111<lPr lids p:ll'l 11111Pss sud1 unit or eomhi11atio11 hns a pop11lntio11 of not lc.-:s lh1111 fifty l homm11d 1wrw11~. .

81-;c. 2oa. A grnnt nqlhori:t.ed tp_1drr i;relio11 202 tHmll not exceed 80 prr e<!ilt 11111 of the tothl co."'t of t.lfn prnpnrntfon, devdop111µnt., or·reviHi0t1 of n p{nil.

r;1.;c·. 204. Tho Admi11istl'tlt.lo11 may adv1111ce such gmnts nttt.horiicd ttndcr Sl!Ot.io11 :J02 u po11 applicnt ion for the pllt'po::;'?." d(!.'iC'ribcd. Such npplicat.ion shall:

(~) :-;l!t fo1·th progrnm:i nnd neti\'ili<•:-; dc~igncd to carry out the p11rposcs of 8r.<~t.io11 :302.

(2) Contain Hllch infornrnt.ion ns t.lw AdminiRtmtion rntty pr<'serilw in nceorda11c·e with sect.ion 501. -

f-'1-;c. ~OL It. is the purpo~c of thi!;l pnrt. to ~·ncourngc Stntes nnd u~1its of gcnrrnl locul go\'nrttriient to cnrry out progrnmH nnd projcctH to impro\'c and 8trcngthen law c11force11wnL

f-?1-:c. :rnf~ (il) '~'he A.dn1j11i8trnti.on isntitlwrizcd to mn~e grcrnt8 to Stntrs, units ot gene ml locnl goycrtir'ncht; nnd corn binfi tionA of such Stnt<.'R or unitR of gcne1·ul locnl governmont tq improve "nq sh'c\igUwn h1w cnfprcemcnt: Provided hbwever, 'I'hnt 110 unit of gcnehll lorn I governmcht or· combi11ntlon of such· units shnll he cllgihlo for n grn11t. un<lcr th,is p~,rt. unlc~s snoh u11i\ or combinutlon hns a population of not le~s tl11Hi'fift.y thousrind J>erHOllM.

(b) Under this J>l\ft grants may be mndo purH\tant to nn npplication which is npprovcd under scotion,308 for-

( 1) Public proteoUon,' Including tho deycfopmont, demonstration, c\'ulua~ tion, i11ipleufc11fotloh1 · iti1d ·purcluuw of methods, devices, facilities, and equipniellt deHiy,ll<!d to imi>ro\'e nnd strengthen lnw enforcement. und reduce crimo iu'public im<l private pJac<?S.

(~) Tho rccruithig ·of liLW enforcmncnt persom1cl o,nd the truining of perso1111d 111 Jnw e11forcc11w11t .•

(:3) 1'11blie educnt.ion reliltli1~ to crime }>rcvcntlon nt1d encouraging n•spcct for lu w n11d orclt~r, i11cltuli11g ed11c11 tion progrnrns in Bchools n11d progrums to

2


INDIVIDUAL VIEWS MESSRS. DIRKSEN, HRUSKA, SCOTT; AND THUR~10ND ON TITLES I, II, AND III

Since 1960, serious crime in the United States has increased an alarminp 88 percent. This fact is cause for the gravest national concern. \ This 1S not a partisan issue. It is an American tragedy.

In consideration of the omnibus crime bill, we have sou~ht to strengthen and improve the proposal sent to Congress. To a limited extent, these efforts have been successful. The committee hill, however, still needs further upgrading and refinement.

MINORITY CONTRIBUTIONS

The Omnibus Crime Control Act reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee bears an unmistakable imprint of constructive Republican contributions. These contributions range from new substantive provisions to perfecting technical changes. ·

ORGANIZED CRIME

The most significant Republican contributions to the bill are those which increase significantly the tools and financial resources to combat the scourge of organized crime. In this regard, two major provisions were added at our insistence.

First, the substance of Amendment 223, introduced on June 29~ 1967, by Senators Dirksen, Hruska, Scott, .Thurmond and several others1 has been approved. The amendment creates a category of special financial ass1Stance to state and local governments. Such assistance has two purposes:

(1) To assist in tlie establishment or expansion of special prosecuting groups on a local level ·to ferret out and prosecute the multifarious illegal activities of or(tanized crime.

(2) To provide special federal assistance in establishing a coordinated intelligence network among states including COIJ!puterized data banks of syndicate operations and activities. ·These efforts would be under the direction and control of State Organized Crime Councils. A seecial authorization up to $15 million for fiScal year 1969 would be available for this purpose.

ELEcrRONIC SURVEILLANCE

Another major contribution to_ efforts to COIJ?.bat. organized crime is found in Title.I~! of the committee bW·._To a~great d~grEfo, th~s title reflects the proVIS.1~ms of S .. 2050, the proposed .EJJ_ectro.mc Survcillflnce Act of 1967, wh~~h -~vas mtroauced by_. Senat9rs Dirksen, Hruska Scott, Thurmond,:·Percy, Hansen and others in June .of 1967. Included in the committee bill liJ the formula for strict impartial court authorization and superrision of surveillance and a broad prohibition on private snooping. S. 2050 was introduced in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision of Berger v. New York. It was tailored to meet the constitutional requiremen~ imposed by that decision.

(22-&)

3


225:

Specificnlly; the sponsors of S. 2050 drew heavily upon the recommondntions of the Presldc11t's Crime Commission. Also, the services of the Comnlission's e.xpert consultants on organized crime were secured in preparin~ the bill.· Since S,i Q050 was inc.~orporated into the sllbcommittco bill, it hns boon further refined ~nd changed to reflect the clear 1-!llidunce of the §uJ~rcmc Court decision in J(atz v. U.S. nnd eon:-'t.ructive commef}tsfrhfo intere8ted parties.

'rho orighrnl biH whic.h provided the foundation for Title III was 8. 67 ?,' ll bill· introduce<l &y Senator l\1cClellan in January of 1967 for lumself and· Senator Hrn8ka,

The ('lectro11ic surteillance title will· provide an essential tool to law enforcement officials in waging ·all-out war against o~ganized crime·; Yet, the··:right of privacy of our citizens will be carefully safegtinrded by:' a scrupulous system of impartial court authorized super .. vision. Such court supervision will monitor and control use of these techniques by law enforcement officials. A broad prohibition is imposed on private use of electronic slll'Vflillance, particularly in domestic relntions and industrial espionage situations.

Special emphasis on organized crime was essentinl because of the trRgic lack of progress mnde in reccn t years in bringing the kingpins of organized crime before the_ bar of justice. Testimony by Professor Robert G. Blakey before the Crimmal Laws Subcommittee Inst, summer indicn ted.:

If you examine the work thnt wns done 1

a number of venrs ago,! I think you can say t.he existing progrnm is a success. But if you examine the existing progrum in reference to what could be done, I think you arc going to have to say it is a colossal failure. Let me ·give you a meusuring stick to test this judgment.

'fhe Department (of Justice)-has indentified an estimated 5,000 members.of La Cosa Nostra. Between 1961 and 1966, the Deptll'tment has succeeded in indicting approximawly 200 of them and convicting approximately 100. 1'ha t gives them against the hard core in organized crime about a 2-percerit batting average. With th~ best we ·have to offer, that is, the FBI, the Intert}al R~venue, the t<>1;> lawyers of of the Department of Justice, with an expenditure of $20 million a year over a 5-year period, we have not secured the conviction of more than 2 percent of the hard core of identified people. I think there is an indication of failure. And the reason vte haven't been able to get beyond that point is sini\>ly because we haven't given the best men the necessary legal 1~01.

As 'e~den~e ~f th~ Administratio~'s. superficial . and iridiBerent~ und~t~~,~f ·th~ tlu,'ef'~ of or~~~~~,cijm~, the A~tor.ner Gen.era! recontly.~~CrJ~ ~~e m~of ,org~e4,;cnme .~.a"t~y·~~t'.' of, the en ti~~ cnp).~ .. p,ro,~~.e1m ... .. 1.~ ~ .~~nef! .. tly. ~'~_p .. ed .. ·' h?. w. ev~r, that the new arset)"l,0,t .t-0QfS \ytµch ~~ J>ill.P!~Vl~.~ w~ b~: e.(f.e(}tively used; Senator Scott <:lo.~ :~o~ .~~~~Y..~\lPP,O.rt.\tµis .ame~dment,.. ~. . . . . . .

We .assoc1ate:olij"Selves ·fhlly with th~. com,mebts on orgaruzed rnme which are co'ntaineQ. in. the. committee report 'in Titles I and III. In doing so, we pay tribute to the long dedication and hard work of the

93-198 68 1G

4


226

chairnt'nn of the Criminal Laws Subcommittee, Senator John L. ~·I cClellttn .

.fi,urt her, we u~ge early hearing on 8. 2048, S. 2049, and S. 2051. These hilJs were mf,roduced l>y Senator Hruska and others to provide a<ldit iounl legal tools to combat organized crime.

I 11 the orlghrnl dmti s· of the omnibus biU nirculated to mcmber8 of 1 he ( ,l'iminu.f J Jtl\\'s Hu b<1on1initt ec, st.,\te nnd local correcti01ial systenis were eit.her prohibited from participtLt.ing in the various assistance prof.{rnms made n vniJnhle for this purpose or 1mch participat.ion was sever,~ly limited. At our insistence, this vital but tragically neglected nr~n of law e11lorc~emelit wns restored to an appropriate place within the s1 tthtlory frnmewo1·k.

Om· 11ntfoi1's prisons must he<~ome something more Urnn mere way st nt ionH iu <'ri nurml <·nreers.

CO~'l'J~tTA'rJo:\ OF ·r1rn lu\\\' 1-;~Jt"OHCl'rnENT ASSISTANCE PROOHA~I

On Senator Hruskn 's mot ion, lnnguuge was added to the crime cou t rol ·bill in committee to insure thut the activities and functions of t.hc Office of Lnw .fi~uforcemeut Assistance would be continued unt.il the nppropriutions become nvnilnblc to estnblish nnd operate the new progru tu. . .

'J'he Office M Law Ji~nforcmner1t Assh~tnuce wus established pursuant to the Lnw Ji;nforcemcnt Assistnnce Act of 1965. This act, which receh·ed suhstnntinl mir1ority support in hoth houses of the Congress, provided for f edernl support of reseurch nnd development into the problcinH ussociutcd with tho luw enforcement and criminal just.ice systems. Even t holtgh the existing prt~gram hos been grossly underfunded at. a third of it~ preseiit.$20 million authorization and is substnntially und(WnHdii1ed, we fee.I that it, is essential that it be continued t~nti~ U1e new prn~ri\tll. g~ts .u~1<lerwny. Otherwise, there would be a s1gmfieant. break. 1n contmmty. 'fhe staff of 25 would have to he discharged, t.rnnsforred to nt her posit ions or similar objectionable readjustments mnde.

'l'he umendment ttpprov·ed by the committee will insure an orderly trnnsition.

DEFICIENCIES OF 1"ITLE I

.Alt.hough \\1e are 'hr sub:-;tnntial agreemei1t with lmmy of. the. pro\'isions 'c>f Title I which 'u.u Lhorize fotlenl a.~istu1we to state and locnl luw enforcet11f~i~it Hgencies, we nre· hot snt.isfied wit.h t.l~e title as reported from t.lfe ·comlHittee. We offered three 1najor amendments to the mea~nre ih' ftill coo11uitt.ee \\thich \\·ere lltlff()\\rly defeated. 1'he first nrnendmet1.t. fochid~ the so..(!alJ~r bl<>ck gtar'1ts proyisioils similar to thc,>se of the Hdf1se-:p~oo' bill. The Secohd a1nendment Would reinstti~~. the . provisions of . ~pe /;enat.e S\l.~~01\m1~tt,~~P\P.r.oved bill in wluch the Law Enforcement Ass1sta11ce ·Admimst.rat10n would be iudependcht of. .tl~e. confrol.' (:)rt.he ~t.forri'ey .O~tteral. Finally, we nhe'1ilj>too to rei110y~ t.he· ij1

fovisions'of the confojitiee hill which prod<Je tM :f~d~r.nl slll>)>le1~uerts to p·oficeriieh •s salar1es. i

\\' c will 'otfc1· these nh1end111ents fol' cdusideratfo11 ·by the Senate.

5


227

BLOOK GRANTS

The over1icling defidency of the cot'ilmittee bill is the fai_Iure to retain the so-called block grant provisions of U1~ House-passed bill. We offered amendments to reinstttte the block grant features in t.he full committeet but they were defeuted by none vote margin. We will off er them ngam on the floor of the Senate.

It is the purpose of these amendments to insure that federal assistance to $tate and local Jaw enforcement does not bring with it federftl domin.at ion and control nor pr?vide the n~achinery or p~tential for t.he estabhshme1H. of a federal pohce force. Frankly, we fear that S. 917, without such provisions, could well become the vehicle for the imposition of federal guidelines, restrictions nn<l eventual domination.

Our block grant amendments would revise Purt.s B and 0 of Title I, to adopt, with some changes, t.he provisions of Titles II and III of the l>ill as it was passed by t.he House of Representatives. The amendments provide that federal financial a.~istance to state and local law enforcement be channeled through "state planning agencies" created or designated by the several st.fltes. 'rhese moneys would be allocated by the state authority to state and local enforcement activities pursuant to comprehensive plans which must be B~>proved annually by the federnl Lnw Enforcement Administration. Fjach state agency would determine its own priorities for expenditures consistent with its com_prehensive p1an. \

Local act.ivities could apply directly t.o t.he Law Enforcement Assistance Administ.ration if a state planning agency is not de~ignated or created 'Within six months after tije effective date of the Federal Act. Specific criteria for comprehensive state plans are set fort.h in the amendment to P~ri C. Funds nppropriu.te<l for Part C gl'ants would be available to the states according to their respective populations, except that 15 percent of the funds would be reserved for 8.llocation as the Administration may determine.

Of the funds made nvnilable to the states 7 5 \>ercent must be spent at t.he local level unless there is no locfll demn1u .

\Ve off er this umen<lmen t for mnny reusons, reasons which the House of Hepresentf\tives has recogni?.ed und overwhelmingly approved.

The House very wisely did not puss a locnl police forces hill, but a law enforcement and criminal justice bill. Criminal just.ice is n system coverin~, law enfor<;en.i_~nt, court jud.gm.e~ts, and cor~ections. ~eiter protectwn und security. for every md1v1dunl Amer10an necessitates ~·oordir~ated and sir:nul tar~eous im i>rovemen t in . the sys tern~ nnd not Jtlst a srngle-shot cffo1·t to mi prove some loeal J>0hce forces. 'I he Housechose to require that states give writ.ten ev1 enee of their intentionsto improve their crimhutl justice systems, in eooperation with loclll go"vernme1it!-1, before federal fui1ds could he spent .. 'l'his is a call fr)1• state resj>onsibility. . . .

'rhe administrative complexities µnd long deluys associated with too nin~y federal· gra1its made directly to local govermnents ·are \\~ell document~d. :FJvery member of the Senate hu.s spenflo11g hours t1·yiHg to heg, bludgeon or cajole some bureaucrat to pry loose from voluminous dusty files grftnt applications which have·, been pending for mont.hs or.yenrs.

6


228

The fo<lernl govermnont shoul<l r.oncern itself wit.h the coordination of 50 st.nte proghims rnthor than it)'ing to evalunte, judge, and fund tJw J>roject.s of t.l1ousnnds of local governments.

Tie RtRtHR are· ready to assume their responsibilities for notion; In I 960 when limit.eel federal funds were off ere<l to the stntes·to establish pln11ning oo_mmi~8ion8 to cmnbat crirnc,. 16 stutcs established these cotn!1liss,i<)t1s, ntid eight of.he~ have hi1d 1i1>plications J~ending with the ,Just.we Depart.men(, for vnrymg lengths of tJme. Durmg ~he snme 18 month por1od, th~ ,Justice Dopnrtment with tho .nctive cooperation of

_ nn t ionnl 01·gani1.1Lti<>ns represonting · citie~ ~ nd comitfos, .only managed t.o upprovo it totnl of 11 grnnts to both cities nnd couilt11es, plus eig~t grunt.s for t-ho DiHtriot of Columbhi, out of n potontinl of over J s;ooo cit.i(1S ttrul. a,ooo. countios. 'rho published (Justice Department fncts show that tho stn:tcs more than other jurisdictions nre assumir1g their r~sp?t1sibilipos. hi ~ll, more than one-half of tho stn~es ~nve ~lre~dy rccmvcdstnte plannmg grants. Several niore have a.Pphcat10ns pendmg.

Within the la."1t month, 47 Governors meetmg in WaHhington unttuimously N~omrnonded that Congress push forward with these biJls, h\1 t wHh d t10 rognrd for required stntewide planning and project coo_rdit1ntion, including provisions for locul officials to pnrticipnte with tho Htnto olfich\ls iu tho development of these programs. 'fhe Nntional Associntioll of At.t.orneys Gencru.I recont.ly pnsse<l n resolution in sup.port oft.he Lnw l~nforcement und Criminal Justice Act'ns amended n11d pu~~ed h.v the H 011sc. Tiu~ 11 nnnin1ous j ud~men t of Lhese stn.te officiuls plus n suhstant.inl 11u,jority of the rnembcrs of the House of Ropr<'suntnthres is t,lmt if <'rcnth·o fedemlism iH t.o become worknble federalism, then iL must move u.way from direct project grants to local go,·ornmoHt8 thnt would bypu.s.'i st,~ito finanmal nnd -technical assistnnce relnto<.l tu Lhe solution of tho snme problem. Seldom does t.he sol tat.ion of u. problem in \'ol ve only one f unctionnl area; in most cases other Cunctiomil clements ure directly relu.ted.

Ne\\' York City mny hn\'e 29,000 policemen, but New York City's problems of luw cnfm·cem~nt,, cour'ts ttnd coITections, nnd juvenile ddh1querwy extend into t.he jul·h~dietion of three states nnd over 14,400 sept.-;ru te ~n~xing nu t.~aoriUes ii~ the !'\cw~ Y orkr metr<>polita!1 area. Direct fedcrul aud for pohce fuucf.wuH m New ) ork C1ty without proper requiremeu ls for concerted nction on· the part of N cw York State would be n sir1iple dfatrihutiou of more Cedernl money with no regnrd for the mult.iplicatiou of beticfits thut would result from a requirement that the Ht.ttte approve the grant while at the same time relating the grant to all e~ting nild proposed state programs .

. Most direct grants that bypt188 the stutes are project-oriented stopgap me88ures, which never approach the level of comprehensive program orientation an~ foil to proyide measl;'r~ble. evidence that problems are actually bemg solv~. With $100 million m federal funds for law enforcement and criminal jus~tice programs, about 350 project grants are~ proposed. The House very wisely foresaw the fruitlessness of scattering these funds among such a minute number of uncoordinated seJ>8!ate projects. Consequently, the House required that a coordinated action plan be submitted by each state before the funds are released:

Administratively, most Cities and counties have a greater chance of get.tilig some of the $20 billion of f~deral aid funds w,hen they are ~rocessed throt1gh a state a~ency. When they must deal directly with "\Vashington, the premium 19 on the new art of ''Grantsmanship."

7


Certainly, large cities with several f ulftime Grantsmanship· Officers would pref er qirect reltitions with Washington. However, our natiohal concern should be problem solving, with workable progrfLills to' meet locn.l needs. 'l'he state ,Will always be the primary administrative unit t.hat can see that funds are going where they nre needed, not where t.he Ornntsmen are operating.

'l'he prestigious National Council on Crime and Delinquency, in fl recent policy statement on block grants observed:

A serious program of lnw enforceme1\t assist~nce will promote at least pooling of _police derartments. in the major metr()pdlit-iin areas.. 'rhe President. s Commission . recommer1~led t .. his,.and ther.e really c.n!f!iot. he a qn~st.ion of cloin~ i.t. Reg1011nlrnnt10n, shnrmg of foc1ht1es nn<l serv1ces, nnd reabst1c pltinning nre going t<> occur. 'l'he renl question is who will decide how and which combiffaitil)ns will t.nke place. Cities, even those with n populnt.ion of 50~000, cannot do it. Metro .. politnn nrens nre beyond t.he jurh;dict.ion of cities. l t. must be <lone either by the stnte or Federnl go\·ernment8.

'l'he AdminiHtraLion's new bill would leave this decision to the Att.oriiey Genernl und the a31 cities with populnt.ions over 50,000. For t.he law enforccmon t. ngencies serving the ot.lier 58 percent. of thf3 pq'pulat.ion, stnte govermnen'ts would mnke the decisions. 'fhe hill pnssed by t.he House would leave to the ~Late planning bod.Y t.he decision in all jurisdictions. 'fo choose between these it is necessary to look beyond law enforcement, narrowly construed, t.o see it ns what it. is-part. of n. lnrger system. ··

It is inconsistent to expand direct federal-local relationships at a time when the crucial need is for more and better state-local relations. Direct federal-local actions generate unnecessary misunderstandinga, confusions, and endless debate at a time when local governments are in need of home rule powers, model court systems, grent;er state fi,nancial and technical nssistnnce, nnd modernization of n wide variety of laws for every functional activity.

The days are long overdue when the unmanageable and unworknble proportion of 495 separate authorizations for federal aid programs should be sevamped, repackaged, and consolidated where f et\sible, in the form of block grants to the states in broad program cnt.<-gories. At the very least, when it comes to adding 'new grant progrnms to the total such as Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice, and Juvenile Delinquency, state responsibility in urban affairs should be required, and not optional as encouraged by all bypassing proposals. . .

But ~he .fflo~t persuasive argument in support of i.ncrea8ing state respons1bihty for law enforcement. was well stated by the distinguished director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation when he said:

- '

America has no place for, nor does it need, a national police force. H should be a.bundan tly clear by now that in a \ democracy such as ours effective law enforcement is basically n local responsi~Hity. In the great area of self-government reserved for States, counties and cities, the en(orcement of the ln\\•s is not only their duty but also t.heir right.

'Ve agree.

8


280

INDEPENDEN'r LAW EN Jo'OHCEt\H)NT ASSISTANCE AI>~fINIS'l'RATION

Iu pursuit of oiic of the sttmc objectives of t:lie block grant provi .. sious,. m1mely ~he preveil'llc>·tl of fedeml don1inntiol1 nnd control of s(at.e nnd local lu.w enforcetl1ent, the Orhnirrnl Lnws St'tbpommittee, u1>on Uie iuitin.th·e ?f Chuirmnn Mc(/le11an, ndded 1\ p1·0,;~si.o-i1 to its bdl for th~ e.qtnbhshment . of Rtl mdependent. Lnw Enforcemeht. Assi~tnpc0Adr}1inh'Hrntion t<) ndminister the federul nid proghun. The ttdmiilisteriug 1wency wus to be hended by n t.hree-mnn board nppoiuted by U10 Presldcnt with the ndvicen'i1d consent of-t.he Sennte. MiuoHty J>nrty 1·epre.1.jentatiori' wns nsl-lt1recl h.~' t.he re·quire1Wertt thnt one of t.he three men would he n repre~en tn t.t \'C of the party on t. of power.

The sttbcomtni tt ee hill prodded: In the exei·cise of its ftinctious, powers, nnd <lutie8, the

A<lrni11h1t.rntion shull be independent. of the Attorney Geneml nnd ot.J1er offices nnd officers of the Depnrtment. of, Justice.

'fhis WU.8 deemed essentittl to in:-;tll't' t.hnt., tlS lllllCh f\S possible, the la.w enforcement a8sistance progrnm would be ndministered impartially nnd free from politictd 1fre~stt1•c:;. Also, it w11s considered to be imp;>rtant to refrain from placing in t.he httnds of one man the poten .. tial power of granting or denying f ederail finnucinl nssist.nr1Ce in very lnr~e .ttmounts to state n.nd city law enC<ircement ngencies.

l t is regrettable that the provision for the independent status of the Administration was dro1>ped from the bill .. We attempted unsuccessfully to reinstate the provision in the Cull rommit.tee, and will urge its adoption on the floor of the Senate.

,, In shqrt, we don't wunL U.10 Atto"ruey General, the so-called "~fr. BJg'' of federal law enCorcemetit to become the director of state and Jocal law enforcement as well. It is true that the Attorn~ General is cbief Jaw enforcement officer of the f edera} ~0\'0fllll18Dt. ~ut.he is not chief ]aw enforcement officer of states or cities. We believe America does not want him to serve in this latter capacity.

Organization and manage1iient experts may object to a dilution of executive authority, but we want no part o/ a national police force. Such dilutiont if a price at all, is a small priee to pay to presen'e n fundamental oalance of ~olice \>ower.

We don't want this bill to becom~ the ,·ehicle for t-he unpo8ition of federnl guidelines, controls, and domination.

POLICE SALARY 8Ul1PORT

'fhe. Admif ii_s{h\t.ion,s original proposal to · Cougress in eurly 1967 oontain~<l a Ceat4reJtJ~o\virig dp. to one-third of ,~ach federal grant. to be t.1 tHized. for_. conipcnsatioi'l :oJ law. erif orcemeht. p~rsonriel.. In the heari~1g record· ·of both the Hotise uud Senate Judiciary Committees, t.his. provision proved to -be' 'quite controversial. When _t.he House Committee reported the bill, the provision for salary support was deleted. Commenting on t.his action, the committee report on page 6 st.a t.ed:

The comrnilt.ee del~t.ed ~n · aµthority tp nse grant 'ruhds authorized by the bill for the purpose oCdi_rect compehsation to ~lice and other law enforcement personnel other than for t.raming programs or for the perfonnance of innovative

9


231

functions. Deletion of authority ·to· use Federal funds for . local law enforpement personnel compensation. underscores the committee's~ concern that responsibility for law enforcement not be shifted from State and local ·government level. It is anticipated that local gove#ihients, as the cost for research, ~~.nov.ative ser'Viees1,,traittirig, and new eqttipment developn1ents are shared by the Federal Go-\'ernment in the programs authorized in the bill will 'be able to devote more of their local 'resources to the soht'tion of personnel compensation problems. The comrnittee recognizes that adequate compensation for law enf orcemeilt personnel is. one of the most vexing· problems in .the fight against crime.

We wholeheartedly'suosc~ibe to the·House cotnmittee's·\'iew. There is indeed fl, grn,/e c6n~ern th'at~ responsibility for lnw enforcement not be shifted from the'state and local'levels~• I

The ·:sernite Crimirial La,vs 'Subcbmhiittee nlso deleted a ·similar prov.i~Hon by .an ove~'~h~lmirig .v9te~ ,hut· subseqft'e~r1tly· ·ti .~omewliat modifi~d salary provis10n was ;remst~~ed .. }n mo?ifi~·~ fo~~' .. UJ) to one-third of each grant could be made· ·ava.ilablo' to pk_y one-half' eh~ cost ·of salary itwrea'ses for law ehforcemeht persortnet. Even with this modification, we riitist strbrigly · oppose the :provisioh.· This is not because we are indifferen't to the low pay, of the nation's law ·enforce~ ment officer8. It is because we fear that· "he who· pay~ the piper call~ the tune" and that dependence lipon the federal government for salaries could ·be an easy street to federal domination and control. .

In addition, this provision would not hnve equal npplicntion oi· provide equal benefits to all law enforcement officials. In fact; most(of the nation's 400,000 police officers woWd not be· eligible because under

.. t.~e co~tnittee:.Nlli ·01lly· local jurisdictions or groups of, l?cal j urisdi.ct10ns '"~th popjllat10ns of more than 50,000 ·would be ehgible to apply for grarit aid. rhus, those smaller jurisdictions, some :go percertt of the nation's total with 58~J~ercent of th~ population, would not be eligib_le for grant· assistance. Who is· to say that tlie officers of City A which meets the population standard could receive federal salary Slipple~ ments whereas the officers of-Cfty B, perhaps·an adjoining community w~ose po1)lil~tion requirements go, not 1!10et t~e test, coulp not qualifr,.

fhe unfairness of _the Admuustration proposal becomes crystal clear when it is considered, that riot all large cities and. policemen will be beneficiarias of federal law enforcement 'grants, This Hf S'c) because there is simply. not'enough.federal 1 money·to go a·rohnd. 'fhtis, City C which perhaps gQt1its apipl\cation in early ~or whose political leader89ip was in favor with the Department of Justice received a 1grant and salary support, while Cit.y D with the same needs, the same criine problems and sa~e low pay scales .was left ~u~;because its.npplic!l-tfon was tardy or not m compliance with contempgrary federal notions on what a good·. application should contain. What could be more manifestly unfair? ' _

Finally, it should be noted t.htit once salary supp'ort!is granted; it would be difficult if not impo-s8ible for the f edernl government to abandon its assistance, thus leaving n permunent dependence on the federal treasury.

'l'ITLE II

'rhe spectre of American society-the ·greatest in ,the history of the world-plunging irito chaos as the rintionnl fabric unravels into law-

10


ESSENTIALS OF GRANT LAW PRACTICE PAUL G. DEMBLING of the District of Columbia Bar

MALCOLM S. MASON of the New York Bar

AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE-AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE ON CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 4025 CHESTNUT STREET. PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19104

11


32

• E

SS

EN

TIA

LS

01

' G

RA

NT

LA

W P

RA

CT

ICE

§

5.02

Th

ere

are

over

lapp

ing

char

acte

rist

ics

amo

ng

the

se c

lass

ific

a·

tion

s an

d c

ateg

orie

s o

f gra

nt p

rogr

ams.

For

exa

mpl

e, i

n a

part

icu·

Ja

r m

anda

tory

gra

nt,

alt

houg

h th

e gr

ant

is n

ot

cons

ider

ed "

disc

re·

tiona

ry,"

the

re i

s so

me

degr

ee o

f di

scre

tion

ary

jud

gm

em f

or

the

gran

tor

agen

cy i

n fa

ct.

Th

ere

are

also

sub

cate

gori

es o

f gr

ants

wit

hin

thes

e ge

nera

l cl

assi

fica

tion

s, a

nd

cer

tain

ter

min

olog

y im

port

ant

to u

nder

stan

d·

ing

the

gran

t fi

eld.

For

exa

mpl

e, s

ince

cer

tain

gra

nts

are

mad

e as

a m

atte

r of r

ight

to

reci

pien

ts w

ho q

ualif

y. T

hese

are

cal

led

"cm

itle

men

t" g

ram

s.

Whe

n, a

s is

ty

pica

l,

gran

ts t

o st

ates

(ty

pica

lly

man

dato

ry)

requ

ire

subm

issi

on o

f a

stat

e pl

an f

or a

ppro

val,

the

y ar

e ca

lled

"s

tate

pla

n" g

rant

s.

"For

mul

a" g

rant

s ar

e so

cal

led

beca

use

the

amo

un

t o

f th

ese

gran

ts a

re d

eter

min

ed b

y a

mat

hem

atic

al f

orm

ula.

Th

e fo

rmul

a fo

r a

gra

nt

prog

ram

is

ofte

n ba

sed

on

the

am

ou

nt

appr

opri

atel

y sp

ent

by t

he s

tate

, w

itho

ut a

max

imum

lim

it.

Th

ere

may

or

may

no

t b

e a

min

imum

lim

it,

bu

t th

e st

ate

can

clai

m l

arge

r am

ount

s if

it

spe

nds

mo

re i

n a

man

ner

con

form

ing

to t

he s

tatu

te o

r rn

les.

S

uch

gran

ts a

re c

alle

d "o

pen·

ende

d."

The

se v

ario

us c

ateg

orie

s ar

e re

ferr

ed t

o t

hrou

ghou

t th

is a

nd

the

fo

llow

ing

chap

ters

.

§ 5

.02

DIS

CR

ET

ION

AR

Y G

RA

NT

S

Dis

cret

iona

ry

gran

t pr

ogra

ms

auth

oriz

e gr

ants

fo

r st

aled

p

ur·

po

ses.

2 W

hen

aut

hori

zed,

an

d m

oney

s ar

e ap

prop

riat

ed,

the

pro·

gr

am m

ust

be c

arri

ed o

ut b

y th

e G

over

nmen

t ag

ency

. T

he

ques

· ti

on i

s,

lo w

hom

will

the

gra

nts

go?

In t

hat

sen

se,

the

stat

utor

y pr

ogra

m i

s di

scre

tion

ary

as a

mon

g th

e ap

plic

ants

.

An

appl

icat

ion

is n

eces

sary

. T

he

gran

tor

agen

cy m

ay m

ake

a gr

ant

or

refu

se i

t to

a p

arti

cula

r ap

plic

ant.

It

may

ord

inar

ily

mak

e a

gran

t in

a la

rge

amou

nt o

r sm

all a

mou

nt;

occa

sion

ally

the

amou

nt o

f th

e gr

ant i

s fi

xed

by s

tatu

te,

but t

hat

is n

ot u

sual

. T

he

gran

tor a

genc

y m

ay m

ake

no g

rant

at a

ll if

no

app

lica

tion

s ap

pear

suff

icie

ntly

mer

ito·

ri

ous;

bu

t it

may

not

mak

e a

gene

ral

refu

sal

on f

isca

l gr

ound

s to

'Sec

§

2.04

(b),

su

pra

and

Ch

apte

r 9,

"D

irec

t,

Dis

cret

iona

ry,

Pro

ject

G

rant

s."

03(.

i)

SO

ME

PR

INC

IPA

L T

YP

ES

OF

GR

AN

TS

•

33

11dt

•r ap

plic

atio

ns o

n t

heir

mer

its

wit

hout

a d

iscl

osur

e LO

th

e (

· 1g

1css

and

the

opp

ortu

nity

for

con

gres

sion

al a

ctio

n.

Whe

n gr

ants

are

dis

cuss

ed w

itho

ut i

ndic

atio

n o

f th

e ty

pe o

f 11

1t, i

t is

oft

en d

iscr

etio

nary

gra

nts

that

are

int

ende

d, a

ltho

ugh

n1o1

11da

tory

gra

nLs

are

far

larg

er in

tot

al d

olla

r am

ount

an

d p

roba

· bl

" m

ore

impo

rtan

t in

soc

ial

impa

ct.

§ 5.

03

MA

ND

AT

OR

Y G

RA

NT

S

A m

anda

tory

gra

nt p

rogr

am is

one

in w

hich

ent

itle

men

t to

the

gran

t is

r~cablished

by s

tatu

te.'

If t

he p

arti

cula

r ap

plic

ant

mee

ts t

he r

equi

re·

111<

'nts o

r cri

teri

a es

tabl

ishe

d, t

he a

genc

y m

ust a

war

d th

at a

ppli

cant

a

i.:ra

nt.

An

elig

ible

gra

ntee

has

a r

ight

to

rece

ive

a gr

ant,

and

the

;1

mou

nt o

f the

gra

nt is

als

o le

gall

y de

term

ined

. Alt

houg

h th

ese

stat

utes

a1

•e n

ot c

ompe

lled

by

cons

titu

tion

al p

rovi

sion

s co

follo

w a

ny

par

ticu

lar

patt

ern,

cer

tain

rec

ogni

zabl

e pa

tter

ns h

ave fc~rmed

over

the

year

s th

at

gene

rall

y ap

ply

to t

hese

man

dato

ry g

rant

s.

§ 5.

0.'3

(a)

Sta

te P

lan

Gra

nts

In t

he

man

dato

ry g

rant

pro

gram

, th

e gr

ante

e is

us

uall

y a

stat

e. T

he

gran

tee

is u

sual

ly r

equi

red

co s

ubm

it a

"st

ate

plan

n th

at

mee

ts s

tatu

tory

tes

ts o

f elig

ibili

ty.

The

se g

rant

s ar

e th

eref

ore

com

· m

only

cal

led

"sta

te p

lan"

gra

nts.

Th

ere

is o

f co

urse

som

e di

scre

· ti

onar

y ju

dg

men

t fo

r th

e gr

anto

r ag

ency

to

dete

rmin

e w

heth

er t

he

stat

e pl

an m

eets

the

sta

tuto

ry r

equi

rem

ents

, bu

t th

ese

requ

ire·

m

ents

are

gen

eral

ly s

tate

d in

fai

rly

shar

p te

rms.

Th

e ar

ea o

f di

s·

cret

ion

is t

hus

narr

ow,

and

it

is n

arro

wed

fur

ther

by

trad

itio

nal

prac

tice

. In

pra

ctic

e, i

f th

e gr

anto

r an

d g

rant

ee d

isag

ree,

the

re i

s lik

ely

to b

e a

nego

tiat

ed r

esol

utio

n. I

f th

e di

sput

e is

not

res

olve

d by

neg

otia

tion

, th

ere

is g

ener

ally

a p

rovi

sion

for

adm

inis

trat

ive

or

judi

cial

det

e1m

inat

ion.

Th

e di

scre

tion

th

at e

xist

s is

sel

dom

use

d to

re

fuse

a g

rant

, b

ut

it i.

s so

met

imes

use

d to

neg

otia

te d

etai

ls.

Whe

n th

e st

ate

plan

is a

ppro

ved,

it c

ontr

ols

the

gran

t, a

nd a

ny

ch

ange

in t

he p

lan

ordi

nari

ly s

houl

d be

mad

e by

an

am

endm

ent t

hat

go

es t

hrou

gh s

ubst

anti

ally

the

sam

e pr

oces

s as

the

ori

gina

l sta

te p

lan.

'Sec

§ 2

.04(

a),

supr

a, C

hap

ter

6, "

A S

ampl

e M

anda

tory

Gra

nt

Pro

gram

-

Med

icai

d; a

nd C

hap

ter

7, "

Man

dato

ry G

ranu

; -

Th

e To

wn

Cou

rt C

ase.

"

12


34

•

ES

SE

NT

IAL

S O

F G

RA

NT

LA

W P

RA

CT

ICE

§

5.03

(b)

Th

e am

ou

nt

of

a m

anda

tory

gra

nt

is

gene

rall

y fi

xed

by

a

"for

mul

a."

For

tha

t re

ason

the

se g

rant

s ar

e of

ten

call

ed ~mandatory

stat

e p

lan

for

mul

a" g

rant

s.

§ 5

.03

(b)

Req

uir

emen

ts f

or

the

Sta

te P

lan

Th

e re

quir

emen

ts

for

the

stat

e pl

an

are

gene

rall

y qu

ite

leng

thy

and

com

plex

. T

hey

typ

ical

ly r

equi

re t

he b

enef

its

of

the

gram

to b

e pa

ssed

on

to t

he s

tate

's r

esid

ents

in

an

even

hand

ed w

ay.

Var

ious

sta

ndar

ds o

f th

is e

venh

ande

dnes

s ar

e sp

elle

d ou

t in

det

ail

incl

udin

g of

ten

som

e de

gree

of

proc

edur

al p

rote

ctio

n fo

r th

e in

te

nded

ind

irec

t ben

efic

iari

es. T

he

form

ulas

for

the

gra

nt

paym

ents

ta

ke i

nto

acco

unt

rele

vant

fac

tors

, su

ch a

s ec

onom

ic,

soci

al,

and

dem

ogra

phic

dat

a. T

hey

may

hav

e su

ch v

aria

bles

as

the

popu

la

tion

of

the

stat

e,

or t

he j

uven

ile

popu

lati

on,

or

the

popu

lati

on

resi

ding

in

cert

ain

kind

s o

f in

stit

utio

ns.

Gra

nts

for

wea

ther

izat

ion

may

hav

e as

par

amet

ers

the

nu

mb

er o

f "de

gree

day

s" i

n an

ave

rage

ye

ar a

nd

the

nu

mb

er o

f si

ngle

fam

ily

hom

es a

nd

the

ir a

vera

ge

squa

re f

oota

ge o

r cu

bic

foot

age.

Th

e fo

rmul

a fo

r M

edic

aid

gran

ts

to t

he s

tate

s u

nd

er T

itle

XIX

of

the

Soc

ial

Sec

urit

y A

ct f

ills

mor

e th

an a

doz

en p

ages

of

prin

ting

in

the

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Cod

e.•

Oft

en,

the

stat

e ha

s be

en r

equi

red

to a

dmin

iste

r th

e gr

ant

thro

ugh

a si

ngle

sta

te a

genc

y, b

ut t

his

requ

irem

ent m

ay b

e w

aiva

ble.

'

§ 5.

03(c

) F

orm

ula

Pro

vis

ion

s

Th

e am

ou

nt

of f

unds

ava

ilab

le i

s al

so t

ypic

ally

set

by

a r

ath

er

com

plex

for

mul

a. A

def

init

ion

of f

orm

ula

gran

ts g

iven

by

the

Gen

er

al A

ccou

ntin

g O

ffic

e re

ads:

"F

orm

ula

gran

ts a

re g

rant

s in

whi

ch

a st

ruct

ured

mat

hem

atic

al s

tate

men

t an

d d

ata

elem

ents

, su

ch a

s st

atis

tica

l da

ta,

are

used

to

(1)

allo

cate

fun

ds t

o el

igib

le r

ecip

ient

s,

or

(2)

dete

rmin

e a

pote

ntia

l g

ran

t re

cipi

ent's

eli

gibi

lity

to

rece

ive

fund

s, o

r bo

th."

' F

or e

xam

ple,

the

am

ou

nt

may

ru

n t

o ap

prox

i-

'42

u.s.

c. §

§ 13

96b,

139

6d(b

).

'31

u.s.

c. §

650

4.

·GA

O,

GR

AN

T F

OR

MU

LA

S:

A C

ATA

LOG

OF

FE

DE

RA

L

AID

TO

ST

AT

es A

NO

Loc

AL

tTtE

S at

10,

GA

O/H

R0

-87

-28

(M

arch

198

7).

Th

e G

AO

rep

ort

colle

c1s

a la

rge

nu

mb

er o

f gra

nt

form

ulas

. W

e di

scus

s in

Ch

apte

r 6

1he

Med

icai

d fo

rmul

a as

a s

ampl

e.

• '.'.i.

04

SO

ME

P

RtN

CIP

AL

TY

PE

S O

F G

RA

NT

S

• 35

111;

11dy

one

-hal

f to

two-

thir

ds o

f the

tot

al a

mo

un

t sp

ent

by t

he s

tate

ti1

r th

e gr

ant

purp

oses

, b

ut

may

inc

lude

100

per

cent

rei

mbu

rse

men

t o

f ce

rtai

n ex

pend

itur

es,

90 p

erce

nt o

f o

ther

exp

endi

ture

s,

und

50 p

erce

nt o

f oth

ers.

Th

e de

fini

tion

of e

xpen

ditu

res

that

may

be

cou

nted

tow

ards

det

erm

inin

g th

e fe

dera

l sh

are

is a

lso

typi

call

y tJ

Uite

com

plex

.

§ 5

.03

(d)

Co

mm

on

Ass

uran

ces

for

Man

dat

ory

Gra

nts

An

assu

ranc

e th

at t

he f

eder

al g

over

nmen

t w

ill n

ot

inte

rfer

e in

ce

rtai

n ar

eas

is f

requ

entl

y pr

esen

t. T

he

area

s ty

pica

lly

prot

ecte

d ar

e ed

ucat

ion,

med

icin

e, a

nd

pol

ice.

1 S

imil

ar a

ssur

ance

s ar

e so

me-

tim

es f

ound

in

dis

cret

iona

ry g

rant

sta

tute

s as

wel

l. •

§ 5.

03(e

) F

low

-Th

rou

gh

of

Ben

efit

s

Alt

houg

h th

e st

ate

may

be

the

gran

tee,

the

und

erly

ing

purp

ose

of

the

gran

t is

typi

cally

to a

ssis

t loc

al g

over

nmer

1'ts

thr

ough

sub

-aw

ards

by

the

stat

e, o

r to

ass

ist

the

stat

e's

resi

dent

s. B

ecau

se o

f thi

s, a

nd p

erha

ps,

in p

an,

beca

use

of

som

e co

nfus

ion

of i

deas

, th

e ul

tim

ate

inte

nded

be

nefi

ciar

y m

ay b

e re

cogn

ized

as

havi

ng ri

ghts

, w

hich

the

cou

rts

ofte

n ap

proa

ch i

n te

rms

of c

onst

itut

iona

l do

ctri

ne.•

§ 5

.04

CA

TE

GO

RIC

AL

GR

AN

TS

AN

D B

LO

CK

GR

AN

TS

Th

ere

are

gran

ts t

hat

are

clas

sifi

ed a

s "c

ateg

oric

al"

gran

ts,

whi

ch

can

be c

ontr

aste

d w

ith

thos

e cl

assi

fied

as

"blo

ck"

gran

ts. 9

Gra

nt

prog

ram

s th

at t

ypic

ally

dea

l w

ith

assi

stan

ce f

or f

airl

y li

mit

ed a

nd

spe

cifi

c pu

rpos

es a

re o

ften

cal

led

"cat

egor

ical

" gr

ants

. D

iscr

etio

nary

gra

nts

that

may

be

for

fair

ly l

imit

ed p

urpo

ses

are

also

con

side

red

to b

e ca

tego

rica

l.

In c

ontr

ast,

"bl

ock"

gra

nts

are

gran

ts t

hat

are

mad

e to

pro

vide

as

sist

ance

wit

hin

bro

ad l

imit

s ra

ther

th

an f

or

narr

owly

def

ined

pu

rpos

es.

Th

ey a

utho

rize

a b

road

er r

ange

of

acti

viti

es.

Th

ey a

re

not

cate

gori

cal,

sin

ce t

hey

deli

bera

tely

lea

ve t

he s

tate

a r

ange

of

'CJ

Cu.

rrm

l De

~/Qp

~ts,

P

ue.

CO

NT.

New

sL.

No.

2,

al 1

6 (J

an.

1979

).

See

§ 4

.09

, su

pra.

'See

, t.g

., §

1.0

l(c)

, su

pra.

an

d C

hap

ter

7, "

Man

dat

ory

Gra

ms

-T

he

1ow

n C

ourt

Cas

e."

'§ 2

.04(

c),

wpr

a, a

nd

Ch

apte

r 8

, "B

lock

Gra

nts.

"

13


11

Cro

ss-C

utt

ing

Con

dit

ion

s

§ 11

.01

DIF

FE

RE

NC

ES

AM

ON

G G

RA

NT

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

A g

rant

is

norm

ally

acc

ompa

nied

by

cond

itio

ns.

A m

ajor

dis

tinc

li

on a

mon

g gr

ant

cond

itio

ns i

s in

the

deg

ree

of g

ener

alit

y. T

her

e ar

e go

vmim

ent-

wid

e co

ndit

ions

, w

hich

app

ly n

earl

y un

iver

sall

y to

all

gran

t pr

ogra

ms

of a

ll ag

enci

es.

The

se a

te s

omet

imes

cal

led

"cro

ss

cutt

ing"

con

diti

ons.

1 T

her

e ar

e ag

ency

-wid

e co

ndit

ions

, so

met

imes

ca

lled

"ge

nera

l" c

ondi

tion

s, w

hich

app

ly b

road

ly t

o al

l gr

ants

of

a ce

rtai

n ty

pe i

ssue

d by

a p

arti

cula

r ag

ency

. T

her

e ar

e pr

ogra

m c

on

diti

ons,

whi

ch a

re g

ener

ally

app

lica

ble

to a

ll gr

ants

un

der

a p

arti

cul

ar g

rant

pro

gram

-th

ese

are

mos

t co

nven

ient

ly d

iscu

ssed

alo

ng

wit

h ag

ency

-wid

e co

ndit

ions

. A

nd

ther

e ar

e sp

ecia

l co

ndit

ions

, w

hich

are

mor

e o

r le

ss t

ailo

red

to p

robl

ems

perc

eive

d in

a p

arti

cu

lar

gran

t pr

ojec

t. T

hese

dif

fere

nt r

ypes

of

cond

itio

ns w

ill b

e di

scu

ssed

in

turn

.

§ 11

.02

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

-WID

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S

Gov

ernm

ent-

wid

e,

or

cros

s-cu

ttin

g co

ndit

ions

, ar

e la

rgel

y im

po

sed

dire

ctly

by

stat

ute.

Som

e ar

e im

pose

d by

Exe

cuti

ve O

rder

. A

few

arc

im

pose

d by

OM

B c

ircu

lars

pur

suan

t to

sta

tute

. O

ther

s ar

e im

pose

d p

urs

uan

t to

OM

B r

ecom

men

dati

on o

r o

ther

Exe

cu

tive

Dep

artm

ent

poli

cy a

dvic

e, w

itho

ut s

tatu

tory

req

uire

men

t.

Th

e cr

oss-

cutt

ing

requ

irem

ents

are

of

two

prin

cipa

l ty

pes:

a)

soc

io-e

cono

mic

pol

icy

requ

irem

ents

-su

ch a

s pr

ohib

itio

n o

f

'For

a b

rief

dis

cuss

ion

of t

he h

isto

ry o

f the

im

posi

tion

an

d e

nfor

cem

enr

of

cond

itio

ns in

gra

nt p

rogr

ams,

see

P.

Dem

blin

g &

R.

Dem

blin

g, S

igni

fican

t Ltg

is·

laliu

e D

roelo

j>tn

ent.s

, F

so

£R

AL

G

RA

NT

L

A w

28

1,

294

d se

q.,

part

icul

arly

§ V

L,

"Cro

ss-C

utti

ng C

ondi

tion

s,"

and

n.

25 (

AB

A,

M.

Mas

on e

d. 1

982)

.

107

14


DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2004

HEARINGS BEFORE A

SUBC01\11VIITTEE OF THE

COl\IlVIITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES

FRANK R. WOLF, Virgillia, Chainnan HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky JIM KOLBE, Arizona

JOSE E. SERRANO, New York ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia ROBERT E. "BUD" CRAMER, JR., Alabama PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota

CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID VITTER, Louisiana JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committ~c, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

89-471

MIKE RINGLER, CHRISTINE KOJAC, LESLIE ALBRIGHT, and JOHN F. MARTENS Subcommittee Staff

PART 2

Justification of the Budget Estimates ·

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 2003

15


--~

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman

RALPH REGULA, Ohio JERRY LEWIS, California HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia JIM KOLBE, Arizona JAMES T. WALSH, New York CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio ERNEST J. ISTOOK, JR., Oklahoma HENRY BONILLA, Texas JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan JACK KINGSTON, Georgia RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, California TODD TIAHRT, Kansas ZACH WAMP, Tennessee TOM LATHAM, Iowa ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri KAY GRANGER, Texas JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., Virginia JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California RAY L\liOOD, Illinois JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York DAVID VITTER, Louisiana DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania DAVE WELDON, Florida MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota STENY H. HOYER, Maryland ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana NITA M. LOWEY, New York JOSEE. SERRANO, New York ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts ED PASTOR, Arizona DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina CHET EDWARDS, Texas ROBERT E. "BUD" CRAMER, JR., Alabama PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 1 SAM FARR, California JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois CAROLYN c. KILPATRICK, Michigan ALLEN BOYD, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia MARION BERRY, Arkansas

JAMES W. DYER, Clerk and Staff Di"rector

(II)

16


Just

ice

Ass

ista

nce

Gra

nt P

rom

m

2003

Pre

side

nt's

Bud

get

2003

Per

form

ance

-Bas

ed R

eali

gnm

ent

2004

Tra

nsfe

rs In

20

04 A

djus

tmen

ts-t

o-B

ase

2004

Per

form

ance

-Bas

ed R

eali

gnm

ent

2004

Cur

rent

Ser

vice

s 20

04 P

rogr

am I

mpr

ovem

ents

/Off

sets

20

04 R

eque

st

2003

-200

4 T

otal

Cha

nge

Off

ice

of J

usti

ce P

rogr

ams

Just

ice

Ass

ista

nce

Pro

gram

Per

form

ance

Jus

tifi

cati

on

(Dol

lars

in

Tho

usan

ds)

CU

RR

EN

T S

ER

VIC

ES

PRO

GR

AM

DE

SCR

IPT

ION

:

Am

ount

$

--

-

800,

000

244

(10,

740)

78

9,50

4 08

9.78

0)

$599

,724

$ 59

9,72

4

In F

Y 2

004,

OJP

req

uest

s $5

99. 7

24 m

illi

on f

or th

e Ju

stic

e A

ssis

tanc

e G

rant

(JA

G)

Prog

ram

. T

he

tota

l pr

ogra

m a

mou

nt i

nclu

des

$60

mil

lion

for

the

Boy

s &

Gir

ls C

lubs

of A

mer

ica,

$19

.956

mil

lion

for

the

Nat

iona

l In

stit

ute

of J

usti

ce (

NIJ

) T

echn

olog

y R

&D

Pro

gram

, an

d $5

.921

mil

lion

for

the

Tri

bal

Cou

rts

Init

iati

ve.

Thi

s pr

ogra

m w

ould

pro

vide

fin

anci

al a

ssis

tanc

e to

sta

te a

nd l

ocal

juri

sdic

tion

s ai

med

at c

rim

e re

duct

ion

thro

ugh

loca

lly

dete

rmin

ed

proj

ects

that

can

rang

e ac

ross

the

ent

ire

spec

trum

of p

ossi

ble

crim

inal

just

ice

syst

em o

pera

tion

s. T

he p

rogr

am ta

rget

s fu

ndin

g fo

r th

e fo

llow

ing

purp

oses

: (I

) L

aw e

nfor

cem

ent p

rogr

ams;

(2

) A

djud

icat

ion

prog

ram

s;

(3)

Com

mun

ity-

base

d an

d st

atew

ide

prev

enti

on a

nd e

duca

tion

pro

gram

s;

( 4)

Cor

rect

ions

and

trea

tmen

t pro

gram

s; a

nd,

(5)

Pro

gram

and

sys

tem

im

prov

emen

ts.

33

.....

w

w

00

·

17


In F

Y 2

004,

JA

G w

ill b

e th

e si

ngle

larg

est p

rogr

am to

be

adm

inis

tere

d by

BJA

. It

com

bine

s an

d co

nsol

idat

es th

e be

st fe

atur

es o

f the

L

ocal

Law

Enf

orce

men

t Blo

ck G

rant

(L

LE

BG

) Pr

ogra

m a

nd th

e E

dwar

d B

yrne

Mem

oria

l Fo

rmul

a G

rant

(B

yrne

) Pr

ogra

m ..

The

JA

G

prog

ram

col

laps

es th

e 7

spec

ific

pur

pose

are

as o

f the

LL

EB

G P

rogr

am a

nd th

e 29

spe

cifi

c, r

epet

itive

pur

pose

are

as o

f the

Byr

ne

Prog

ram

int

o fiv

e br

oad

purp

ose

area

s th

at r

efle

ct th

e ex

pans

e o

f the

cri

min

al ju

stic

e sy

stem

. T

he r

educ

tion

in th

e nu

mbe

r of p

urpo

se

area

s do

es n

ot e

limin

ate

any

prev

ious

ly a

llow

ed u

ses

and

prov

ides

the

gran

tees

incr

ease

d fl

exib

ility

to

resp

ond

to lo

cal c

rim

e pr

iori

ties

by s

tren

gthe

ning

and

elim

inat

ing

dupl

icat

ion

amon

g ex

istin

g ap

prov

ed u

ses.

T

he c

onso

lidat

ion

of t

hese

two

gran

t pro

gram

s as

par

t of

the

Pres

iden

t's B

udge

t for

FY

200

3 al

so s

upi>

orts

the "

Adm

inis

tratio

n go

al o

f str

eam

linin

g an

d si

mpl

ifyi

ng th

e fe

dera

l gr

ant a

pplic

atio

n pr

oces

s an

d pr

ovid

es b

road

gra

nt a

utho

riz.a

tions

for

use

of f

unds

by

all

stat

e an

d lo

cal r

ecip

ient

s in

one

pro

gram

.

The

JA

G P

rogr

am r

epre

sent

s an

impo

rtan

t ste

p to

war

d st

ream

linin

g O

JP p

rogr

ams

and

the

fede

ral g

rant

pro

cess

. JA

G is

the

only

fo

rmul

a gr

ant p

rogr

am t

hat p

rovi

des

gene

ral p

urpo

se c

rim

inal

just

ice

assi

stan

ce to

sta

te a

nd l

ocal

con

stitu

ents

. T

he p

aram

ount

goa

l o

f th

e JA

G P

rogr

am is

to p

rovi

de f

und

reci

pien

ts m

axim

um f

lexi

bilit

y an

d co

ntro

l ove

r fu

ndin

g to

res

pond

to t

heir

em

ergi

ng a

nd

chan

ging

nee

ds.

Rec

ent e

vent

s ha

ve s

how

n ju

st h

ow q

uick

ly n

atio

nal a

nd l

ocal

pri

oriti

es c

an c

hang

e.

The

JA

G P

rogr

am s

uppo

rts

the

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Jus

tice

's s

tnite

gic

goal

3.1

: Im

prov

e th

e cr

ime

figh

ting

and

crim

inal

just

ice

adm

inis

trat

ion

capa

bilit

ies

of s

tate

, 'tri

bal,

and

loca

l go

vern

men

ts.

JAG

fim

ding

will

be

dist

ribu

ted

to b

oth

stat

e an

d lo

cal g

over

nmen

ts.

In d

eter

min

ing

the

dist

ribu

tion

form

ula

for

JAG

fun

ds,

BJA

has

m

ade

ever

y ef

fort

to m

aint

ain

an e

quita

ble

leve

l of f

undi

ng d

istr

ibut

ion.

C

ities

and

cou

ntie

s th

at c

urre

ntly

rec

eive

dir

ect f

undi

ng u

nder

th

e L

LE

BG

pro

gram

will

rec

eive

dir

ect f

undi

ng u

nder

JA

G.

Stat

es w

ill a

lso

cont

inue

to r

ecei

ve d

irec

t aw

ards

. B

JA a

ntic

ipat

es

awar

ding

bet

wee

n 3,

150

and

3,30

0 gr

ants

in F

Y 2

003

and

in F

Y 2

004,

mos

t of w

hich

will

be

to l

ocal

juri

sdic

tions

.

Fund

ing

avai

labl

e to

sta

tes

may

be

used

for

sta

tew

ide

initi

ativ

es, t

echn

ical

ass

ista

nce

and

trai

ning

, su

ppor

ting

rura

l jur

isdi

ctio

ns, a

nd

supp

ortin

g lo

cal j

uris

dict

ions

with

urg

ent,

unm

et n

eeds

. C

ompa

red

to t

he p

rede

cess

or g

rant

pro

gram

sup

port

ing

loca

l age

ncie

s, J

AG

pr

ovid

es lo

cal j

uris

dict

ions

with

gre

ater

dis

cret

ion

in a

dmin

iste

ring

aw

arde

d fu

nds.

Ad

di~i

onal

ly,

BJA

enc

oura

ges

loca

l jur

isdi

ctio

ns

to w

ork

toge

ther

by

com

bini

ng r

esou

rces

on

proj

ects

that

can

eas

ily tr

aver

se ju

risd

ictio

nal

boun

dari

es.

JAG

will

bec

ome

the

umbr

ella

for

achi

evin

g nu

mer

ous

Adm

inis

trat

ion

and

Con

gres

sion

al p

rior

ities

, inc

ludi

ng m

any

that

sup

port

ho

mel

and

secu

rity

and

the

prev

entio

n o

f vio

lent

cri

me.

BJA

will

enc

oura

ge r

ecip

ient

s, e

ncou

rage

them

to u

se t

his

FY 2

003

and

FY

2004

fun

ding

for

pro

ject

s ad

dres

sing

hig

h-pr

iori

ty n

atio

nal

issu

es, s

uch

as:(

!) c

ount

er-t

erro

rism

, (2)

dru

g an

d vi

olen

t cri

me

prev

entio

n an

d co

ntro

l, (3

) of

fend

er re

-ent

ry o

ppor

tuni

ties,

and

(4)

com

mun

ity-

and

faith

-bas

ed i

nitia

tives

.

34

......

\.;l

\.

;l

\0

18


BJA

ant

icip

ates

coo

rdin

atio

n an

d co

llab

orat

ion

amon

g gr

ant r

ecip

ient

s w

ill

cont

inue

to i

ncre

ase

beca

use

BJA

'so

n-l

ine

repo

rtin

g sy

stem

all

ows

stat

es to

see

wha

t lo

cal j

uris

dict

ions

are

pla

nnin

g to

do

or h

ave

acco

mpl

ishe

d. T

he a

dmin

istr

ativ

e bu

rden

on

appl

ican

ts

and

reci

pien

ts h

as b

een

ease

d by

a s

trea

mli

ned

(on-

line

, pa

perl

ess)

app

lica

tion

pro

cess

and

a s

ingl

e se

t o

f adm

inis

trat

ive

repo

rtin

g re

quir

emen

ts.

The

sys

tem

rem

oves

unn

eces

sary

adm

inis

trat

ive

requ

irem

ents

, but

als

o im

prov

es th

e qu

alit

y an

d us

eful

ness

of t

he d

ata

repo

rted

. T

hese

dat

a ar

e no

w m

ore

read

ily

avai

labl

e fo

r in

tern

al u

se, a

s w

ell

as t

o fa

cili

tate

bet

ter

repo

rtin

g ov

eral

l. Im

plem

enti

ng th

e JA

G p

rogr

am w

ill

allo

w B

JA to

sim

plif

y an

d st

ream

line

the

poli

cies

, pra

ctic

es, a

nd p

roce

dure

s ne

cess

ary

to a

dmin

iste

r a

subs

tant

ial

gran

t pro

gram

.

JAG

is

esse

ntia

lly

a co

mbi

nati

on o

f tw

o ex

isti

ng p

rogr

ams,

the

Byr

ne F

orm

ula

and

LL

EB

G p

rogr

ams,

tho

guh

it a

lso

may

fun

d ac

tivi

ties

pre

viou

sly

unde

r th

e C

OP

S H

irin

g gr

ant p

rogr

ams.

P

rogr

am a

ctiv

itie

s fo

r bo

th a

re e

xam

ined

as

foll

ows:

Byr

ne:

The

Byr

ne F

orm

ula

prog

ram

has

pro

vide

d su

ppor

t fo

r th

ousa

nds

of p

roje

cts,

sta

rtin

g ov

er 1

5 ye

ars

ago,

wit

h th

e w

ides

t po

ssib

le r

ange

of f

ocus

es a

nd o

utco

mes

. B

JA h

as e

mph

asiz

ed i

nnov

atio

n an

d pr

omot

ed s

trat

egic

pla

nnin

g, e

valu

atio

n, a

nd p

repa

ring

fo

r ev

entu

al a

ssum

ptio

n o

f pro

ject

cos

ts b

y re

cipi

ents

aft

er f

eder

al s

uppo

rt e

nds.

JA

G w

ill

cont

inue

this

bro

ad r

ange

of s

uppo

rt,

and·

B

JA w

ill

cont

inue

wit

h th

ese

emph

ases

, bu

t in

a m

ore

stre

amli

ned

and

effi

cien

t man

ner.

Whi

le B

yrne

fun

ds r

epre

sent

a r

elat

ivel

y sm

all p

orti

on o

f the

sta

te's

exp

endi

ture

s o

n c

rim

inal

just

ice,

they

hel

p st

ates

and

loc

al

gove

rnm

ents

eng

age

in d

evel

opin

g ne

w p

rogr

ams

and

cros

s cu

ttin

g in

itia

tive

s, i

nclu

ding

the

fiel

d te

stin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

of t

hese

in

itia

tive

s.

His

tori

call

y, t

he v

ast

maj

orit

y o

f fun

ds a

re u

sed

for

mul

ti-j

uris

dict

iona

l ta

sk f

orce

pro

gram

s to

inte

grat

e fe

dera

l, st

ate,

and

lo

cal d

rug

law

enf

orce

men

t age

ncie

s an

d pr

osec

utor

s fo

r th

e pu

rpos

e o

f enh

anci

ng in

tera

genc

y co

ordi

nati

on a

nd in

tell

igen

ce a

nd

faci

lita

ting

mul

ti-j

uris

dict

iona

l in

vest

igat

ions

. In

FY

200

I, 4

2% o

f fun

ds w

ere

allo

cate

d to

war

d su

ppor

t of m

ulti

-jur

isdi

ctio

nal t

ask

forc

es.

In a

ddit

ion,

11

% o

f tot

al f

unds

wer

e al

loca

ted

to i

nfom

iati

on s

yste

ms,

5%

tow

ard

corr

ecti

ons

prog

ram

s an

d 4

% to

war

d in

nova

tive

dru

g pr

ogra

ms.

LL

EB

G:

His

tori

call

y, l

aw e

nfor

cem

ent h

as b

een

the

prin

cipa

l be

nefi

ciar

y of

LI:

.EB

G f

unds

wit

h a

subs

tant

ial a

mou

nt g

oing

int

? of

fice

r hi

ring

and

tech

nolo

gy i

mpr

ovem

ents

to h

elp

poli

ce d

o th

eir j

obs,

rat

her

than

for

over

tim

e an

d m

ore

trad

itio

nal e

quip

men

t. U

se

of f

unds

for

sch

ool

safe

ty h

as in

crea

sed,

wit

h at

leas

t 375

pro

ject

s re

pres

enti

ng $

22 m

illi

on a

lloc

ated

to

this

are

a in

200

0.

In 2

000,

gun

(v

iole

nce)

con

trol

was

sel

ecte

d by

rec

ipie

nts

as a

pri

mar

y de

scri

ptor

of t

heir

use

of f

unds

for

212

pro

ject

s an

d $3

2.3

mil

lion

, whi

le g

un

safe

ty a

ccou

nted

for

233

mor

e pr

ojec

ts r

epre

sent

ing

$23.

9 m

illi

on.

Use

of f

unds

for

sch

ool s

afet

y ha

s in

crea

sed,

wit

h at

leas

t 502

pr

ojec

ts r

epre

sent

ing

$23.

9 m

illi

on a

lloc

ated

to

this

are

a in

200

I. I

n 20

0 I,

gun

(vi

olen

ce)

cont

rol

was

sel

ecte

d by

rec

ipie

nts

as a

pr

imar

Y d

escr

ipto

r o

f the

ir u

se o

f fun

ds f

or 2

71 p

roje

cts

and

$24.

02 m

illi

on, w

hile

gun

saf

ety

acco

unte

d fo

r 24

9 m

ore

proj

ects

35

......

VJ ~

19


-\;' l

L \1

'?f"

$'..?

k

Fede

ral A

ic! to

C

rim

inal

Jus

tice

Rhe

toric

, Res~s, L

esso

ns

John

K. H

udzi

k P

rinc

ipal

Aut

hor

wit

h co

ntri

buti

ons

by

Tho

mas

J. M

adde

n an

d

Ern

est E

. All

en

Cor

neli

us J.

Beh

an

Geo

ff G

alla

s R

ober

t M. M

orge

ntha

u R

ober

t L. S

mit

h

1984

The

Nat

iona

l Cri

min

al J

usti

ce A

ssoc

iati

on

Was

hing

ton,

D.C

.

\ \

(• "!.&

t!;j

20


\

14

"Fed

eral

Aid

to

Cri

min

al J

usti

ce"

the

find

ings

and

rec

omm

enda

tions

wer

e ba

sed

on t

he m

ost

com

pre

hens

ive

revi

ew e

ver

unde

rtak

en o

f th

e na

ture

and

cau

ses

of c

rim

e, o

f th

e pe

rfor

man

ce a

nd c

apab

ility

of

the

crim

inal

jus

tice

sys

tem

, an

d of

th

e pr

oble

ms

conf

ront

ed b

y th

at s

yste

m.

Cri

ticis

m w

as l

evel

led

not

so

muc

h ag

ains

t th

e C

omm

issi

on's

fin

ding

s an

d co

nclu

sion

s as

aga

inst

its

fai

lure

to

offe

r co

ncre

te s

ugge

stio

ns f

or m

eani

ngfu

lly a

ffec

ting

crim

e in

the

nea

r te

rm.3

4 T

his

too

wou

ld b

e ad

dres

sed

if n

ot r

esol

ved

in t

he

deba

tes

surr

ound

ing

pass

age

of th

e Sa

fe S

tree

ts A

ct i

n 19

68.

Safe

Str

eets

: T

he P

anop

ly o

f C

onfl

icti

ng V

iew

s B

y 19

67 r

epor

ts o

f cri

me

cont

inue

d to

pai

nt a

n in

crea

sing

ly g

loom

y pi

ctur

e. C

ivil

diso

rder

s o

f mas

sive

pro

port

ions

eng

ulfe

d se

vera

l Am

er

ican

citi

es d

urin

g th

e su

mm

ers

of

1965

, 19

66,

and

1967

. Pu

blic

ire

an

d co

ncer

n re

quir

ed a

fed

eral

res

pons

e gr

eate

r th

an t

hat

mad

e un

der

prov

isio

ns o

f th

e 19

65 L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent

Ass

ista

nce

Act

. In

res

pons

e,

Pre

side

nt J

ohns

on s

ent

Con

gres

s a

legi

slat

ive

mes

sage

on

crim

e (h

is

thir

d) t

hat

incl

uded

a p

ropo

sed

bill

entit

led,

"T

he S

afe

Stre

ets

and

Cri

me

Con

trol

Act

of

1967

." T

he P

resi

dent

's m

essa

ge w

as d

eliv

ered

on

Feb

ruar

y 6,

196

7, a

nd t

hirt

een

days

lat

er t

he P

resi

dent

's C

omm

is

sion

iss

ued

its l

ong

awai

ted

repo

rt.

The

tim

ing

of

the

two

even

ts w

as

not

acci

dent

al,

and

the

titl

e of

the

Pre

side

nt's

bill

was

cal

cula

ted

to

elic

it m

axim

um p

ositi

ve p

oliti

cal

resp

onse

. T

he S

afe

Stre

ets

Bill

rec

ogni

zed

the

prim

acy

of st

ate

and

loca

l pol

ice

pow

ers;

all

of it

s pr

ovis

ions

wer

e ai

med

at

assi

stin

g th

e st

ates

in

per

form

ing

thei

r fu

nctio

ns r

athe

r th

an a

t ta

king

ove

r th

ose

func

tions

or

undu

ly i

nter

feri

ng i

n th

e pe

rfor

man

ce o

f th

em.

Spec

ific

pro

visi

ons

incl

uded

pro

posa

ls o

f ass

ista

nce

to m

oder

nize

equ

ipm

ent,

to r

eorg

aniz

e la

w e

nfor

cem

ent a

genc

ies,

to

recr

uit a

nd tr

ain

law

enf

orce

men

t off

icer

s,

to m

oder

nize

the

cou

rt s

yste

m, t

o de

velo

p m

ore

effe

ctiv

e re

habi

litat

ion

tech

niqu

es,

and

to s

et u

p ef

fect

ive

crim

e-pr

even

tion

prog

ram

s. E

ven

thou

gh s

ever

al p

orti

ons

of th

e bi

ll of

fere

d as

sist

ance

to

corr

ectio

ns a

nd

the

cour

ts,

ther

e w

as a

n ap

pare

ntly

wid

espr

ead

assu

mpt

ion

held

in

Con

gres

s as

wel

l as

by

the

publ

ic t

hat

the

assi

stan

ce w

as p

rim

arily

, if

no

t ex

clus

ivel

y, a

imed

tow

ard

law

enf

orce

men

t. B

oth

the

Pre

side

nt's

pr

opos

ed le

gisl

atio

n an

d th

e su

bseq

uent

rep

ort o

f his

Com

mis

sion

gav

e fo

rthr

ight

rec

ogni

tion

to t

he c

once

pt o

f a c

rim

inal

jus

tice

sy

stem

-an

in

terr

elat

ed a

nd i

nter

depe

nden

t gr

oup

of "

crim

e-fi

ghti

ng"

agen

cies

.

I I l I l. I I

The

Ori

gins

of L

EA

A .

15

Yet

, du

ring

deb

ate

and

pass

age

of

the

legi

slat

ion

ther

e w

as l

ittl

e to

in

dica

te t

hat

this

con

cept

rec

eive

d m

arke

d re

cogn

ition

or

trea

tmen

t. T

he P

resi

dent

's S

afe

Stre

ets

prop

osal

s w

ere

clos

ely

fash

ione

d af

ter

the

appr

oach

und

erta

ken

in t

he 1

965

Law

Enf

orce

men

t A

ssis

tanc

e A

ct.

The

gra

nts

wou

ld f

und

inno

vati

on a

nd i

mpr

ovem

ent

in a

var

iety

of

cate

gori

es.

Gra

nt a

dmin

istr

atio

n w

ould

be

fede

rally

con

trol

led

unde

r th

e A

ttor

ney

Gen

eral

. T

here

was

muc

h m

ore

mon

ey i

nvol

ved

in t

he

19.6

7 pr

opos

als,

but

the

inte

nt o

f gra

nts-

in-a

id, a

s in

the

1965

legi

slat

ion,

w

ould

be

to m

ake

dire

ct "

cate

gori

cal"

gra

nts.

Citi

es w

ith a

pop

ulat

ion

of fi

fty

thou

sand

or

mor

e (f

ollo

win

g th

e co

urse

laid

out

by

othe

r gr

eat

soci

ety

fund

ing

vent

ures

) w

ould

be

elig

ible

for a

ctio

n fu

nds,

but

fund

ing

leve

ls p

ropo

sed

wer

e fa

r sm

alle

r th

an t

hose

pro

pose

d fo

r ot

her

grea

tso

ciet

y pr

ogra

m e

ffor

ts s

uch

as O

E0

.35 T

his

may

hav

e be

en a

con

scio

us

effo

rt t

o sh

ield

the

cri

me

prop

osal

s fr

om t

he t

ype

of

criti

cism

the

n be

ing

leve

lled

by C

ongr

ess

agai

nst O

EO

-nam

ely

, tha

t OE

O h

ad g

one

in t

oo f

ast

wit

h to

o m

uch

and

had

prod

uced

mas

sive

was

te b

ecau

se

the

infr

astr

uctu

re w

as n

ot a

vaila

ble

to m

anag

e th

e fu

nds

effe

ctiv

ely.

" A

ltho

ugh

the

Pre

side

nt's

fun

ding

and

pro

gram

pro

posa

ls w

ere

lim

ited

to i

nnov

atio

n an

d im

prov

emen

t th

at w

ere

likel

y to

hav

e a

sign

ifi

cant

eff

ect

on t

he c

rim

e pr

oble

m o

nly

in t

he l

ong

run,

the

pub

lic

and

Con

gres

s w

ere

for

quic

ker f

ixes

. P

art o

f thi

s di

spar

ity c

an b

e tr

aced

to

Pre

side

nt J

ohns

on h

imse

lf:

in 1

965

he c

harg

ed h

is C

rim

e C

om

mis

sion

to

find

the

way

s no

t onl

y to

red

uce

crim

e bu

t to

"ba

nish

" it.

37

Lat

er a

ttem

pts

by t

he P

resi

dent

to

retr

eat

from

thi

s ex

cess

ive

goal

w

ere

too

late

-th

e p

ublic

was

fixe

d on

the

notio

n o

f qui

ckly

min

imiz

ing

if n

ot e

limin

atin

g cr

ime.

The

Pre

side

nt's

Com

mis

sion

in it

s fi

nal

repo

rt

did

not

help

in

setti

ng e

xpec

tatio

ns s

trai

ght:

at

one

poin

t it

ass

erte

d,

"Am

eric

a ca

n co

ntro

l cr

ime.

'"8

The

Com

mis

sion

not

ed t

hat

it w

ould

no

t be

ach

ieve

d qu

ickl

y or

eas

ily,

but

few

hea

rd t

hat.

Am

ong

othe

r fa

ctor

s in

volv

ed,

the

nati

on w

as m

ovin

g th

roug

h a

peri

od o

f unb

ridl

ed

faith

in

the

pow

er o

f m

oney

and

esp

ecia

lly i

n th

e po

wer

of

fede

ral

expe

nditu

res

to s

olve

pro

blem

s.

Cha

pter

2 w

ill t

reat

the

leg

isla

tive

deba

tes

and

fina

l fe

atur

es o

f the

Sa

fe S

tree

ts A

ct i

n gr

eate

r de

tail.

How

ever

, th

ere

are

aspe

cts

to t

hat

deba

te a

nd t

o th

e ch

ange

s su

bseq

uent

ly m

ade

to t

he P

resi

dent

's p

ro

posa

l th

at r

efle

ct t

he s

ever

al c

ompe

ting

soc

ial

and

polit

ical

for

ces

disc

usse

d ab

ove.

Cle

arly

, the

sta

te's

pre

roga

tives

in e

xerc

isin

g th

e po

lice

pow

er w

ere

hotl

y at

iss

ue.

So,

too,

the

get

-tou

gh p

refe

renc

es o

f co

nse

rvat

ives

, la

rgel

y ig

nore

d in

Pre

side

nt J

ohns

on's

legi

slat

ive

prop

osal

s,

~~·

21


\

The

Orig

ins

of L

EA

A

21

26.

Ric

hard

Har

ris,

The

Fea

r o

f Cri

me,

(N

ew· Y

ork,

Fre

deri

ck A

. P

raeg

er,

1968

), p.

10.

Als

o se

e W

alke

r, o

p. c

it.,

p. 2

3 !.

27

. L

yndo

n Jo

hnso

n, T

he C

hoic

es W

e F

ace

(New

Yor

k: B

anta

m B

ooks

, 19

69),

p. 1

25.

28.

See

Cap

lan,

op.

cit.

, p.

586

.

29.

Wal

ter

B.

Mil

ler,

"Id

eolo

gy a

nd C

rim

inal

Jus

tice

Pol

icy:

Som

e C

urre

nt I

ssue

s,"

Jour

nal o

f C

rim

inal

La

w a

nd C

rim

inol

ogy

64,

no.

2 (J

une,

197

3),

p. 1

41.

30.

Cap

lan,

op.

cit

., p.

590

.

31.

Hea

ring

s on

S.

1792

and

S.

1825

bef

ore

a S

ubco

mm

itte

e o

f th

e S

enat

e C

omm

itte

e on

the

·

Judi

ciar

y, 8

9th

Con

gres

s, 1

st s

essi

on (

1965

), p

. 7.

32.

Cap

lan,

op.

cit

., pp

. 59

3-59

4.

33.

The

Pre

side

nt's

Com

mis

sion

on

Law

Enf

orce

men

t an

d A

dmin

istr

atio

n o

f Ju

stic

e R

epor

t,

op.

cit.,

p.

15.

34.

See,

for

exa

mpl

e, J

ames

Q.

Wil

son,

"A

Rea

der's

Gui

de t

o th

e C

rim

e C

omm

issi

on R

epor

ts,"

T

he P

ubli

c In

tere

st,

Fal

l, 1

967,

p.

65. A

lso

see,

Hen

ry R

uth,

"T

o D

ust

Sha

ll Y

e R

etur

n?",

Not

re

Da

me

Law

yer

43 (

1968

), p

. 81

!.

35.

The

Bud

get

in B

rief

, E

xecu

tive

Off

ice

of

the

Pre

side

nt,

Bur

eau

of

the

Bud

get,

U.S

. Gov~

emm

ent

Pri

ntin

g O

ffic

e. S

ee t

hese

for

the

yea

rs 1

965-

1969

.

36.

Tho

mas

E.

Cro

nin,

Tan

ia Z

. C

roni

n, a

nd M

icha

el E

. M

ilak

ovic

h, U

.S.

v. C

rim

e in

the

Str

eets

(B

loom

ingt

on:

Indi

ana

Uni

vers

ity

Pres

s, 1

981)

, p.

32.

37.

Pub

lic

Pap

ers

of

the

Pre

side

nts

of

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es,

Lyn

don

B.

John

son,

196

5 (1

966)

pp.

98

2-83

.

38.

Th

e P

resi

dent

's C

-0m

mis

sion

on

Law

Enf

orce

men

t and

Adm

inis

trat

ion

of J

usti

ce,

The

Cha

lle

nge

of

Cri

me

in a

Fre

e So

ciet

y (N

ew Y

ork,

Avo

n B

ooks

, 19

68),

p. 6

21.

39.

Cro

nin,

Cro

nin,

and

Mil

akov

ich,

op.

cit.

, PP

: 50

-53.

40.

Law

Enf

orce

men

t A

ssis

tanc

e A

dmin

istr

atio

n, O

ffic

e o

f G

ener

al C

ouns

el,

"Ind

ex t

o th

e L

egis

lati

ve H

isto

ry o

f th

e O

mni

bus

Cri

me

Con

trol

and

Saf

e S

tree

ts A

ct o

f 19

68.''

Jan

uary

23,

19

73,

p. 1

17.

41.

Cro

nin

et a

l., o

p. c

it.,

p. 5

1.

42.

LE

AA

, O

ffic

e o

f G

ener

al C

ouns

el,

op.

cit.,

p.

240.

43.

Ibid

., p.

238

.

44.

Wal

ker,

op.

cit.

, p.

237

.

\ \

r ·r_'( \1 :1 \! l I

Cha

pter

2

LA

WS

AN

D R

EG

UL

AT

ION

S

GO

VE

RN

ING

TH

E L

EA

A P

RO

GR

AM

T

hom

as J

. M

adde

n

In t

he 1

960s

, C

ongr

ess

bega

n to

use

the

con

stit

utio

nal

spen

ding

po

wer

to e

xert

sub

stan

tial

pol

icy

cont

rols

ove

r st

ate

and

loca

l fun

ctio

ns

and

to c

reat

e a

host

of n

ew g

rant

pro

gram

s. I

n 1

962,

the

re w

ere

only

16

0 fe

dera

l gr

ant

prog

ram

s au

thor

ized

by

the

Con

gres

s.'

By

Janu

ary

of

1967

, w

hen

Con

gres

s pr

epar

ed t

o ta

ke u

p th

e de

bate

on

the

Safe

St

reet

s A

ct,

the

num

ber

of i

nter

gove

rnm

enta

l gr

ant

prog

ram

s ha

d gr

own

to 3

79 w

ith s

ome

109

new

gra

nt p

rogr

ams

bein

g en

acte

d in

19

65 a

lone

. 2 F

eder

al a

ssis

tanc

e in

dol

lar

term

s m

ore

than

dou

bled

be

twee

n 19

63 a

nd 1

967,

ris

ing

from

7.7

per

cent

to

11 p

erce

nt o

f an

. fe

dera

l bu

dget

out

lays

and

fro

m 1

.5 p

erce

nt to

2.2

per

cent

of t

he g

ross

na

tion

al p

rodu

ct. 3

By

1967

, it w

as a

lso

clea

r tha

t the

new

pro

gram

s an

d la

ws

cont

roll

ing

the

expe

ndit

ure

of

the

new

gra

nts4

ha

d su

bsta

ntia

lly

alte

red

the

rela

tio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

stat

e, l

ocal

, an

d fe

dera

l go

vern

men

t re

latio

nshi

ps

wit

hout

est

ablis

hing

an

esse

ntia

l ra

tion

ale

for

assi

gnin

g in

terg

over

nm

enta

l fu

nctio

ns o

ther

tha

n th

at o

f pr

agm

atic

pol

itics

.' T

he S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

fol

low

ed t

he p

atte

rn le

adin

g to

the

cre

atio

n o

f m

any

of th

ese

new

pro

gram

s. T

he r

ise

in c

rim

e in

196

3 an

d 19

64 w

as

the

subj

ect

of d

ebat

e in

the

196

4 el

ectio

ns a

nd i

t w

as a

ddre

ssed

by

Pre

side

nt J

ohns

on i

n a

crim

e m

essa

ge i

n 19

65 c

allin

g fo

r a

nati

onal

re

spon

se to

the

crim

e pr

oble

m.•

Thi

s m

essa

ge w

as fo

llow

ed b

y C

ongr

es

sion

al e

nact

men

t o

f a

smal

l cr

imin

al j

usti

ce a

ssis

tanc

e pr

ogra

m a

nd

the

appo

intm

ent

of th

e P

resi

dent

's C

omm

issi

on o

n L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent

and

the

Adm

inis

trat

ion

of Ju

stic

e.7

The

Com

mis

sion

doc

umen

ted

the

need

for

a m

ajor

fed

eral

res

pons

e to

sta

te a

nd l

ocal

cri

me

prob

lem

s,

and

Con

gres

s re

spon

ded

with

the

Om

nibu

s C

rim

e C

ontr

ol a

nd S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

. W

hen

Con

gres

s to

ok u

p th

e de

bate

on

Pre

side

nt J

ohns

on's

pro

posa

l in

196

7 to

cre

ate

a m

ajor

new

cri

min

al j

usti

ce a

ssis

tanc

e pr

ogra

m,

it

quic

kly

beca

me

clea

r th

at th

ere

wer

e tw

o is

sues

of o

verr

idin

g co

ncer

n to

the

con

serv

ativ

e m

embe

rs w

ho w

ere

in a

pos

ition

to

cont

rol

the

Preced

ing p

age b

lank

23

.,,

22


\

24

"Fed

eral

Aid

to

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e"

deba

te.

The

fir

st w

as a

con

cern

tha

t by

ves

ting

the

Att

orne

y G

ener

al

wit

h th

e au

thor

ity

to p

rovi

de g

rant

s to

sta

tes,

the

Con

gres

s w

ould

als

o be

giv

ing

the

Att

orne

y G

ener

al t

he p

ower

to

cont

rol

stat

e an

d lo

cal

law

enf

orce

men

t ag

enci

es a

nd w

ould

the

reby

be

nati

onal

izin

g st

ate

and

loca

l la

w e

nfor

cem

ent f

unct

ions

. T

he s

econ

d an

d re

late

d co

ncer

n w

as t

hat t

he J

ohns

on p

ropo

sal b

ypas

sed

stat

e go

vern

men

t an

d al

low

ed

the

Att

orne

y G

ener

al t

o de

al d

irec

tly w

ith c

ities

in

mak

ing

gran

ts.

In

the

view

of

then

Hou

se M

inor

ity L

eade

r G

eral

d R

. F

ord,

a "

dire

ct"

fede

ralis

m a

ppro

ach

wou

ld e

nabl

e th

e A

ttor

ney

Gen

eral

to

"arb

itra

rily

" de

cide

whi

ch l

ocal

law

enf

orce

men

t ag

enci

es w

ould

rec

eive

fun

ds

and

wha

t th

ese

agen

cies

cou

ld d

o w

ith t

he f

unds

.' T

he S

enat

e Ju

dici

ary

Com

mitt

ee w

as t

he i

nitia

l fo

cus

of m

uch

of

the

conc

ern

over

the

crea

tion

of t

he n

atio

nal p

olic

e fo

rce.

The

min

orit

y re

port

of

the

com

mitt

ee,

for

exam

ple,

in

com

men

ting

on t

he d

iscr

eti

onar

y au

thor

ity

give

n to

the

Att

orne

y G

ener

al to

mak

e gr

ants

sta

ted:

[W]e

don

't w

ant

the

Att

orne

y G

ener

al,

the

so-c

alle

d "M

r. B

ig"

of

Fed

eral

law

enf

orce

men

t to

bec

ome

the

dire

ctor

of

Stat

e an

d lo

cal l

aw e

nfor

cem

ent a

s w

ell.

It is

tru

e th

at th

e A

ttor

ney

Gen

eral

is

the

chi

ef la

w e

nfor

cem

ent

offi

cer

of th

e F

eder

al g

over

nmen

t. B

ut h

e is

not

chi

ef l

aw e

nfor

cem

ent

offi

cer

of S

tate

s an

d ci

ties.

W

e be

lieve

Am

eric

a do

es n

ot w

ant

him

to

serv

e in

tha

t ca

pac

ity .

...

We

don'

t w

ant

this

bill

to

beco

me

the

vehi

cle

for

the

impo

sitio

n of

Fed

eral

gui

delin

es,

cont

rols

, an

d do

min

atio

n?

The

Hou

se o

f R

epre

sent

ativ

es,

whi

ch a

cted

fir

st o

n th

e Jo

hnso

n pr

opos

al,

had

acce

pted

the

vie

w t

hat

the

stat

es s

houl

d ha

ve c

ontr

ol

over

exp

endi

ture

s by

loc

al g

over

nmen

t.10

T

his

view

was

rej

ecte

d by

th

e Se

nate

Jud

icia

ry C

omm

ittee

11

and

the

Sena

te f

loor

bec

ame

the

foru

m f

or t

he k

ey d

ebat

e on

thi

s is

sue.

The

con

test

was

bet

wee

n th

e su

ppor

ters

of d

irec

t fe

dera

lism

-lar

ge c

ity m

ayor

s an

d th

eir

Con

gres

si

onal

su

pp

ort

ers-

and

the

sup

port

ers

of s

tate

con

trol

thr

ough

so

calle

d bl

ock

gran

ts-g

over

nors

fro

m t

he M

idw

est

and

the

Wes

tern

st

ates

and

Rep

ubli

can

sena

tors

and

sou

ther

n D

emoc

rati

c se

nato

rs.

Am

endm

ents

to

conv

ert

the

Sena

te C

omm

ittee

bill

fro

m a

dir

ect

loca

l ai

d pr

ogra

m t

o a

stat

e bl

ock

gran

t pr

ogra

m w

ere

intr

oduc

ed b

y Se

nate

Min

orit

y L

eade

r E

vere

tt M

. D

irks

en.

Sen

ator

Dir

ksen

con

te

nded

that

gub

erna

tori

al s

uper

visi

on o

ver s

tate

pla

nnin

g w

as n

eces

sary

to

avo

id d

upli

cati

on o

r con

flic

t bet

wee

n lo

cal a

nd s

tate

cri

me

redu

ctio

n pl

ans

and

prog

ram

s. I

n th

e de

bate

he

stat

ed t

hat:

Law

s an

d R

egul

atio

ns G

over

ning

the

LE

AA

Pro

gram

We

are

neve

r go

ing

to d

o a

job

in th

is f

ield

unt

il w

e ha

ve a

cap

tain

at

the

top

, in

the

for

m o

f th

e G

over

nor,

and

tho

se h

e ap

poin

ts,

to c

oord

inat

e th

e m

atte

r fo

r a

Sta

te b

ecau

se c

rim

e m

ay b

e co

m

mit

ted

in a

spo

t, bu

t be

fore

it

gets

thr

ough

its

ram

ific

atio

ns,

it

may

spr

ead

over

a v

ery

cons

ider

able

are

a.12

25

The

vie

w s

tate

d by

S

enat

or D

irks

en h

ad r

oots

no

t on

ly i

n th

e S

enat

or's

tra

diti

onal

con

cern

for

sta

te i

nter

ests

but

als

o in

the

196

7 re

port

of

the

Pre

side

nt's

Com

mis

sion

on

Law

Enf

orce

men

t an

d th

e A

dmin

istr

atio

n of

Jus

tice,

whi

ch r

ecom

men

ded

that

:

In e

very

Sta

te a

nd e

very

city

, an

age

ncy,

or

one

or m

ore

offi

cial

s,

shou

ld b

e sp

ecif

ical

ly r

espo

nsib

le f

or p

lann

ing

impr

ovem

ents

in

crim

e pr

even

tion

and

cont

rol

and

enco

urag

ing

thei

r im

plem

en

tatio

n.13

The

rec

omm

enda

tion

of t

he P

resi

dent

's C

rim

e C

omm

issi

on re

flec

ted

a co

ncer

n fo

r sy

stem

-wid

e pl

anni

ng.

Thi

s m

eant

at

the

very

lea

st a

d

hoc

coor

dina

tion

am

ong

polic

e,

cour

ts,

and

corr

ecti

ons

agen

cies

so

that

pol

icie

s im

plem

ente

d in

one

par

t of

the

syst

em w

ould

not

hav

e an

adv

erse

eff

ect

on o

ther

com

pone

nts.

T

he D

irks

en a

men

dmen

ts r

equi

red

each

sta

te to

cre

ate

a st

ate

crim

in

al ju

stic

e pl

anni

ng a

genc

y (S

PA)

and

to d

evel

op a

n an

nual

com

pre

hens

ive

plan

. T

hese

am

endm

ents

wer

e in

tend

ed,

in p

art,

to

addr

ess

the

conc

erns

of

the

Pre

side

nt's

Cri

me

Com

mis

sion

. T

he a

men

dmen

ts

wer

e al

so i

nten

ded

to a

ssur

e th

at t

here

was

a c

oord

inat

ed i

nter

gov

ernm

enta

l ap

proa

ch t

o cr

ime

cont

rol

in e

ach

stat

e.

The

blo

ck g

rant

was

als

o se

en b

y its

sup

port

ers

as a

way

of

min

im

izin

g su

bsta

ntiv

e fe

dera

l con

trol

ove

r sta

te a

nd lo

cal l

aw e

nfor

cem

ent.

In th

e Se

nate

Jud

icia

ry C

omm

itte

e re

port

on

the

Safe

Str

eets

Act

, th

e su

ppor

ters

of

bloc

k gr

ants

sta

ted

that

the

pur

pose

of

the

bloc

k gr

ant

was

"to

insu

re th

at fe

dera

l ass

ista

nce

to s

tate

and

loca

l law

enf

orce

men

t do

es n

ot b

ring

with

it

fede

ral

dom

inat

ion

and

cont

rol

nor

prov

ide

the

mac

hine

ry o

r pot

enti

al fo

r th

e es

tabl

ishm

ent o

f a fe

dera

l pol

ice

forc

e. "

14

The

Uni

ted

Stat

es C

ourt

of

App

eals

for

the

Fou

rth

Cir

cuit

in

197

1 ha

d an

opp

ortu

nity

to

com

men

t on

thi

s la

tter

con

cern

of

the

bloc

k gr

ant

prop

onen

ts.

In a

law

sui

t cha

lleng

ing

the

lack

of c

ontr

ols

exer

ted

over

blo

ck g

rant

exp

endi

ture

s, t

he c

ourt

sta

ted:

"The

dom

inan

t co

ncer

n of

Con

gres

s ap

pare

ntly

was

to

guar

d ag

ains

t an

y te

nden

cy t

owar

ds f

eder

aliz

atio

n of

loca

l po

lice

and

~----~

~

23


\

26

"Fed

eral

Aid

to

Crim

inal

Jus

tice"

law

enf

orce

men

t age

ncie

s. S

uch

a re

sult,

it

was

fel

t, w

ould

be

less

ef

fici

ent

than

allo

win

g lo

cal

law

enf

orce

men

t of

fici

als

to c

oord

ina

te t

heir

sta

te's

ove

rall

effo

rts

to m

eet

uniq

ue l

ocal

pro

blem

s an

d co

nditi

ons.

Eve

n m

ote

impo

rtan

t th

an C

ongr

ess'

s se

arch

for

ef

fici

ency

and

exp

ertis

e w

as it

s fe

ar th

at o

ver-

broa

d fe

dera

l co

ntro

l of

sta

te l

aw e

nfor

cem

ent

wou

ld r

esul

t in

the

cre

atio

n of

an

Or

wel

lian

'fede

ral

polic

e fo

rce.

"'"

The

Sen

ate

pass

ed t

he b

ill c

onta

inin

g th

e D

irks

en a

men

dmen

ts b

y a

72 t

o 4

roll-

call

vote

and

fin

al a

ctio

n on

the

leg

isla

tion

cam

e on

Ju

ne 6

, whe

n th

e H

ouse

acc

epte

d w

itho

ut c

hang

e th

e Se

nate

ver

sion

.16

On

June

19,

196

8, P

resi

dent

Joh

nson

sig

ned

into

law

the

Om

nibu

s C

rim

e C

ontr

ol a

nd S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

of

1968

.17

-

A k

ey a

ssum

ptio

n un

derl

ying

the

Saf

e St

reet

s pr

ogra

m w

as t

hat,

lik

e m

any

of

the

hund

reds

of

new

gra

nt p

rogr

ams

crea

ted

by t

he

John

son

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

"m

oney

mak

es a

dif

fere

nce,

" -th

at

is,

the

mor

e fu

nds

that

are

ava

ilabl

e, t

he g

reat

er t

he p

ossi

bilit

y o

f re

duci

ng

crim

e."

Whi

le th

e fe

dera

l gov

ernm

ent h

ad b

een

exte

ndin

g no

nfin

anci

al c

rim

in

al ju

stic

e as

sist

ance

to s

tate

and

loca

l gov

ernm

ents

at t

he o

pera

tion

al

leve

l fo

r se

vera

l ye

ars

prio

r to

the

ena

ctm

ent

of th

e Sa

fe S

tree

ts A

ct,

the

Act

was

the

fir

st m

ajor

eff

ort

to p

rovi

de f

inan

cial

ass

ista

nce

for

stat

e an

d lo

cal c

rim

inal

just

ice

effo

rts.

19 T

he S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

had

thr

ee

basi

c pu

rpos

es:

o th

e st

imul

atio

n of

eff

orts

to

impr

ove

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

sta

te

and

loca

l cr

imin

al j

usti

ce a

genc

ies;

o

the

coor

dinr

<tio

n of

the

activ

ities

of

stat

e an

d lo

cal

crim

inal

ju

stic

e sy

stem

s;

o th

e up

grad

ing

of th

e ca

pabi

litie

s o

f st

ate

and

loca

l cr

imin

al

just

ice

agen

cies

to

deal

with

crim

e.2°

The

Saf

e St

reet

s A

ct a

lso

gave

the

fed

eral

gov

ernm

ent

new

pow

ers

to

enfo

rce

cont

rol

over

the

sal

e an

d po

sses

sion

of

hand

guns

.21 It

mad

e po

sses

sion

of

fire

arm

s by

con

vict

ed f

elon

s a

fede

ral

crim

e.22

It

als

o m

ade

unau

thor

ized

wir

etap

ping

a f

eder

al c

rim

e.23

Tit

le I

of t

he S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

whi

ch e

stab

lishe

d th

e L

EA

A p

rogr

am,

had

the

follo

win

g m

ajor

pro

visi

ons:

Adm

inis

trat

ion.

A

Law

Enf

orce

men

t A

ssis

tanc

e A

dmin

istr

atio

n (L

EA

A)

was

est

ablis

hed

with

in t

he D

epar

tmen

t of

Jus

tice.

In

do

ing

so,

Con

gres

s se

vere

ly l

imite

d th

e au

thor

ity

of th

e A

ttor

ney

i J l I ~ I 11 I I i

n l. f i l' r! ll ti it i! ll 11 11 I! l

Law

s an

d R

egul

atio

ns G

over

ning

the

LE

AA

Pro

gram

Gen

eral

ove

r L

EA

A b

y es

tabl

ishi

ng L

EA

A w

ithi

n th

e D

epar

tm

ent

of J

usti

ce u

nder

the

"ge

nera

l au

thor

ity

of t

he A

ttor

ney

Gen

eral

." I

n es

senc

e, t

his

mea

nt t

hat

LE

AA

was

to

be f

ree

of

the

day-

to-d

ay s

uper

visi

on o

f the

Att

orne

y G

ener

al t

o op

erat

e as

an

ind

epen

dent

age

ncy.

LE

AA

was

sub

ject

to

the

Att

orne

y G

en

eral

's c

ontr

ol o

nly

whe

n th

e A

ttor

ney

Gen

eral

est

ablis

hed

polic

ies

of g

ener

al a

pplic

abili

ty t

o th

e en

tire

Jus

tice

Dep

artm

ent.

The

A

ttor

ney

Gen

eral

did

hav

e fi

nal

auth

orit

y to

rec

omm

end

to t

he

Pre

side

nt a

nd t

he O

ffic

e of

Man

agem

ent

and

Bud

get

the

amou

nt

of f

unds

tha

t sh

ould

be

appr

opri

ated

eac

h ye

ar f

or t

he L

EA

A

prog

ram

s.

The

LE

AA

was

put

und

er t

he d

irec

tion

of

a "t

roik

a" -an

ad

min

istr

ator

and

tw

o as

soci

ate

adm

inis

trat

ors,

app

oint

ed b

y th

e Pr

esid

ent,

and

conf

irm

ed b

y th

e Se

nate

. T

he "

troi

ka"

had

au

thor

ity

join

tly

to c

arry

out

, th

e fu

nctio

ns,

pow

ers

and

dutie

s of

th

e L

EA

A.

Blo

ck G

rant

s. B

lock

gra

nts

wer

e au

thor

ized

und

er P

art

B o

f th

e A

ct t

o co

ver

up t

o 90

per

cent

of

the

tota

l co

st o

f th

e op

erat

ion

of s

tate

pla

nnin

g ag

enci

es (

SPA

s),

whi

ch w

ere

to b

e cr

eate

d or

de

sign

ated

by

the

gove

rnor

of

each

sta

te a

nd w

ere

to d

evel

op

annu

al c

ompr

ehen

sive

cri

min

al j

usti

ce p

lans

. T

he S

P A

was

to

have

a r

epre

sent

ativ

e ch

arac

ter

incl

udin

g re

pres

enta

tives

of

law

en

forc

emen

t an

d un

its o

f loc

al g

over

nmen

t. E

ach

stat

e w

as t

o be

al

loca

ted

each

yea

r a

flat

am

ount

of $

100,

000,

with

the

rem

aind

er

of p

lann

ing

fund

s to

be

dist

ribu

ted

on a

pop

ulat

ion

basi

s. F

orty

pe

rcen

t of

the

plan

ning

gra

nt f

unds

wer

e to

be

mad

e av

aila

ble

to

loca

l ju

risd

ictio

ns.

27

Und

er P

art

C o

f th

e A

ct,

eigh

ty-f

ive

perc

ent

of t

he s

o-ca

lled

"act

ion

gran

t" f

unds

w

ere

to b

e al

loca

ted

to

the

stat

es o

n a

popu

lati

on b

asis

as

bloc

k gr

ants

, w

ith

seve

nty-

five

per

cent

of

the

fund

s to

be

pass

ed t

hrou

gh t

o lo

cal

gove

rnm

ents

. In

ord

er t

o re

ceiv

e a

bloc

k ac

tion

gran

t, th

e st

ate

had

to s

ubm

it a

com

pre

hens

ive

plan

tha

t m

et c

erta

in r

equi

rem

ents

, in

clud

ing

spec

ial

em

phas

is o

n or

gani

zed

crim

e an

d ci

vil d

isor

der

prog

ram

s. T

he fe

dera

l go

vern

men

t w

as a

utho

rize

d to

pay

up

to s

even

ty-f

ive

perc

ent

of

the

tota

l co

st f

or o

rgan

ized

-cri

me

and

riot

-con

trol

pro

ject

s, f

ifty

perc

ent

for

cons

truc

tion

pro

ject

s, a

nd s

ixty

per

cent

for

oth

er a

cti

on p

urpo

ses.

One

sig

nifi

cant

lim

itatio

n, a

dded

by

thos

e co

nce

rned

abo

ut f

eder

al c

ontr

ol o

f st

ate

and

loca

l la

w e

nfor

cem

ent

·-::-

24


-· ~' '

28

"Fed

eral

Aid

to

Cri

min

al J

usti

ce"

pers

onne

l, sp

ecif

ied

that

not

mor

e th

an o

ne-t

hird

of

any

acti

on

gran

t co

uld

be u

sed

for

pers

onne

l co

mpe

nsat

ion,

i.e

., sa

lari

es.

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

s.

Fif

teen

per

cent

of

the

Par

t C

act

iori

fun

ds

wer

e se

t as

ide

to b

e aw

arde

d at

the

sol

e di

scre

tion

of

the

troi

ka.

The

onl

y li

mit

on

the

use

of th

ese

fund

s w

as t

hat

they

be

awar

ded

to s

tate

and

loc

al g

over

nmen

ts f

or l

aw e

nfor

cem

ent

and

crim

inal

ju

stic

e pr

ogra

ms.

Res

earc

h. T

he A

ct, f

ollo

win

g an

othe

r rec

omm

enda

tion

of t

he 1

967

Cri

me

Com

mis

sion

, es

tabl

ishe

d a

Nat

iona

l In

stit

ute

of L

aw E

nfo

rcem

ent

and

Cri

min

al J

usti

ce w

ithin

the

LE

AA

wit

h its

ow

n di

rect

or.

The

Nat

iona

l In

stit

ute

was

aut

hori

zed

to m

ake

gran

ts

for

rese

arch

, de

mon

stra

tion

, an

d tr

aini

ng p

rogr

ams.

Edu

cati

on.

The

Act

cre

ated

a p

rogr

am o

f di

rect

stu

dent

loa

ns

and

gran

ts t

o be

aw

arde

d to

ind

ivid

uals

enr

olle

d in

col

lege

and

gr

adua

te s

choo

l le

vel

prog

ram

s. T

he l

oans

and

gra

nts

coul

d be

fo

rgiv

en i

f th

e st

uden

t pu

rsue

d a

care

er i

n la

w e

nfor

cem

ent

or

crim

inal

just

ice.

Tec

hnic

al A

ssis

tanc

e a

nd

Tra

inin

g.

The

adm

inis

trat

or o

f L

EA

A

was

aut

hori

zed

to u

se f

undi

ng t

o pr

ovid

e te

chni

cal

assi

stan

ce t

o st

ate

and

loca

l law

enf

orce

men

t and

cri

min

al ju

stic

e ag

enci

es. T

he

Act

als

o co

ntai

ned

limite

d au

thor

ity

to c

arry

out

tra

inin

g pr

ogr

ams.

Fun

ding

. A

ppro

xim

atel

y $1

00 m

illio

n w

as a

utho

rize

d fo

r F

Y 1

969

and

$300

mill

ion

for

FY

197

0. T

he in

itial

$10

0 m

illio

n w

as d

ivid

ed

into

$25

mill

ion

for

plan

ning

gra

nts,

$50

mill

ion

for

law

enf

orce

m

ent a

ctio

n gr

ants

, an

d $2

5 m

illio

n fo

r tr

aini

ng,

educ

atio

n, t

ech

nica

l as

sist

ance

and

res

earc

h.

The

bas

ic e

lem

ents

of

the

com

preh

ensi

ve p

lann

ing

proc

ess

esta

bli

shed

by

the

stat

ute

are

show

n in

sch

emat

ic f

orm

in

Fig

ure

1.

The

Om

nibu

s C

rim

e C

ontr

ol a

nd S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

of

1968

was

a

prod

uct

of p

oliti

cal

com

prom

ise.

As

is g

ener

ally

the

cas

e in

the

se

situ

atio

ns,

the

resu

lting

leg

isla

tion

cont

aine

d pr

oyis

ions

tha

t, i

f no

t co

ntra

dict

ory,

wer

e at

lea

st p

ursu

ing

som

ewha

t di

ffer

ent

goal

s.· A

lth

ough

the

Act

was

gen

eral

ly r

egar

ded

as a

blo

ck g

rant

pro

gram

it

had

dist

inct

cat

egor

ical

fea

ture

s w

hich

exc

lude

d ce

rtai

n ar

eas

of f

und

ing

and

enco

urag

ed o

ther

s. T

he m

anda

ted

pass

-thr

ough

of

plan

ning

an

d ac

tion

fund

s to

loca

l gov

ernm

ents

, for

exa

mpl

e, p

reve

nted

eff

ectiv

e

",]

\\

"'

25


CONTROLLING CRIME 'fHROUGH MORE EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT

1/33---1 HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

' .,,...--s.· aoo, s. s·. 798,VS.

~· 1094~,.

MARCH 7 •. 8, AND 9; APRIL 18, 19, AND 20;. MAY 9; JULY 10, lla AND 12, 1967

Printed for the use ot the Committee on the J'udil.cla17

U.S. OOVJ!lBNMBNT PRINTING OJJTJCB

W AS!fl:NGTON ·: i987

-------··,--·~-~-----------For a:6te bt tb..• ··~iaperlntendent ol DOC\tments, U.a. Government Prfntlns Otnoe·

Wubfngtoo, D.O. ~·frlce$MO

26


' .

OOl\IMI'r.rEE ON THE JUDICIARY

1AMEB O. EASTLAND, MlssLsslppl, Chcalrman JOUN L. McCLRLLAN, ArklUlW SAM J. ERVIN, JR,, North Carolina THOMAS J. DODD, Connoctlcut Pntf,IP A. UART, Mlehlgan EDWARD V. LONG, Missouri EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts BIRCH DA YII, Indiana QUENTIN N. DURDICK, North Dakota JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Maryland OBOROE A. SMATIIERS, Florida

EVERETT MCKINI,EY DIRKSEN, Illlnols ROMAN J,, llRUSKA, Nebrn.ska IIIRAM L. FONG, ltawnll HUOll SCO'l"l', Pennsylvania STROM Tll'U"RMOND, South Cnrollna

SVBOOMMl'rra 01' Canrm AL LA ws AND l'&OOEDUBES

JOHN L., MCOLELLAN, .Arkanw, Chairman BAM 1. ERVlN( 1R., North Carolina ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebra.ska PHILIP A. BART, Michigan . HVOH 8CO'fT, Pennsylvania IAMBS O. EASTLAND, Mississippi STROM THURMOND, South Carolina BDWARt>" M. KENNEDY, MMS&Chaaetk

Wa.LWC A. P.wtlY, CAl4/ G\>un11I

ti

'.

;:

27


..

CONTENTS

Text or-S. 300 _______________________________________________________ _

S.552-------------------------------------------------------S. 580-------------------------------------------------------S. 674--------------------------------------------------------s. 675 _______________________________________________________ _ s. 678 _______________________________________________________ _

s. 798---·----------------------------------------------------8. 824 _______________________________________________________ _

S.911 .. ------------------------------------------------~-----S. 916 _______________________________________________________ _

s. 911---------------~------------------------------~---------S. 902 _______________________________________________________ _ s. 1007 ______________________________________________________ _

s. 1094------------~-------------------~----------------------s. 1104 ______________________________________________________ _

s. 1333----~--------------------------------------------------8. 2050 ______________________________________________________ _

Reports of-Admlnfstratlve Office of the U.S. Courts on- .

· S.300~--------~----~-----------------·--------·---~---~--

..

Page 72 72 73 74 75 70 S3-..... 86 92 92 96

102 104 106 107 108

1001

72 Departmcnt of Just.fee on- . . . . ·

s. 552------~-------------------~----------------------~-- 72 S.674.---------------..:----------------------------------- 81 8.675---~~-------------------------------------~--~------ 82 Sf678--------------------------------·------------------- 82 ·8.798.~--------------------------------~-------~------~---8~85 8.824-----------------------------------------------~--~- 91 S.916 ... ---------------------------------------..:--------~- 95 s. 911-------------------------------------------------~-- 101 S.992~~----------------------------------~------·~----~-- 104 s. 1194 .. --- - ----------- -----·-- - - -- - --- ~- - --- - -- ____ ._____ 107 s. 1333 _______________________________ ~------------------~ 109

StAtement of- . . · · · Bonnett, Hon. Wallace F., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utaht.fn'.

sup~ort. of S. 911 ....... -- - -- ----- --- _ - ............ --- --- _ - ___ ·_; __ ,_ 117 Bible, Hon. Alnn; a·U.S. Senntorfrom the State of Nevada, re S.,674:; •. · 126 Dlakey, O. Robert professor of law, Notre· Dame, on wiretapping.__ 932 Bl.umeteio, Dr. Allred, Institute for Defense Analyses--------··----~ 1066 Broderick, Vincent L., on 'behalf of tho American Civil i Liberties

Union ..• _ --- -·-- _____ ; ___ -- • --- -----..:---- _,,.. _____ .. ~ _ -- ---- -~ ~ 1159

n'b~~ia~~ns.9;~~~~·-~-~:·-~-~~~:~-~~-~~:-~t~~-!~~~~~-~~-~~~~~ 155 Cahn W1llla'1n, district attorney, Nassau County, N.Y;), ro S. 674

ands. 675-- _ ~-_ ----- ------ -- --·- -·----- ---------. .:.. ~;:.- _ -- --- -- 595 Clnrk,: Hon. Ramsey, the Attorney· General of the Unite<J States,

accomptltl.led by Fred M. Vfnso~, Jr., Assistant Attorney Gcncral7- 1471 ' ' . ' . . 356, sou Damiani Louis R, Pollce De~artment,· PhUa~elphJa, fa., on behall

of the ~atertuil Order of Pollce, in support Ot s. 798 ___ ._.;. _____ ~.::..:· 647 Dlllon Michael, di.strict attorney, Erle County, Buffalo; N .Y.;; re

8. 917 • .: ......... -- -·----~---.:.; . ._ ___ · ...... .;. __ ---···-.:.----- _ ..; ______ .___ 864 EUberg, Hon. J95huo a R~presentati~e·trom the Fourth C<>ngressfonal

P.l~trfct o( the Sta~ of Penn~ylVtµlla .... ~ ... ------------;.~-~---!.·-- 1132 ErVln, Hon. Bam·J., Jr., &'U.S. Senatc>l'ftotn the State of North Car~:

lino, re S. 674, S. 676, S. 916, S. 917, and S.· 1194 ................ ___ _ ' • '. t "t ..

4 . } . u~ ..

28


IV CONTENTS

Stnt<'mcnt of-Continued l•'mmln, lion. Pnul J., a U.S. Sonntor from tho Stnto of Arl1.onn. __ • __ Ofrnrdln, Hny, J>0llco commlssfonnr, Dnh·olt, l\Hoh., on behalf of U.S.

Conforonco o Mayors, nccompnnlccl by l\lr. John Gunther, osoontlvo direct.or, ond John I~. NiohoJs, deputy superlntondont, D<'trott I>ollco J>cpnrt1nont. _. _ ..... _ ........... _ ............... _ ..... _ .. __ • - ... - .. ..

Orconhnlgh Wllltnm W. professor of Jnw Georgetown Unlvcrsltv, on bolrnlt of lho Council ot Oovcrnnumt.~, \Vnshha~ton, J>.C., ro S. 017 ....

Ormnct, Hon. Jnoob, chnlrmnn, New York Stnto Commission on lnvcstlgntlon, nccomp~niccl by M>'lcs J. IJtano nnd John W. Hyun, Jr.

1 oonunl~loncrs, ro 8. 07~1mad8, 675 ............................... ..

llnst ngsi J. J,,1 mnnngcr or spcl'iul services, tho Atchison, '1'011ckn ,~ Hnntn ~o ltntlwny System ......................................... _ ..... _ ............. ..

lfcgnrty.t.. Cccl~ Polfco Dc1>ortmcnt, Anokn, Minn., ro S. 67'1 ............. .. Ilognn, nnnk ~. Now York County dJstrlot nttornoy ro S. 674 8. 676. JfoltiofT, lion. Aloxundor, U.S. clhstrlct Judgo, Wnshlngton, b.c., ro

S.074 ..•......•. ------~----·-··~·-·-·---------·-·---··--·-· Hornig, Dr. Donnld Jt'~ l>lruotor, Ofilco or Scfonco nnd 'l'cohnology .... Hruska, Hon. Uomtm 1,,, n U.S. Sonntor from tho Stnto of Ncbrnskn,

ro s. 674, s. 6791.S. 076, s. 677, S. 017 ........................................ .. Johnson, Hobert w., county nttornoy, Anokn l\llnn. res. 674 ......... .. I\ontlng, 'l'. W ., s~nlor \•lee chnlrmnn, 1,onns~·\vnnln f,lncs I1:nst of tho

Hrothorhood or Locomotlvo l•'iromcm nud :m1glncmcn, re S. 552 ... _ Kelly, Capt. John, I>olll'o Department, Now Orleans, J,n.i ro S. 798 .. .. J{enncdy, Hon. m.Jwnrd M., a U.S. Scnntor trom tho Stn o of l\fossn·

chusotts, ro S. 092 .............................................................. .. Koota Aaron B., distrlot attorney, Drooklyu, N .Y ., ro S. 074 nnd

s. ot& ....................................................................... . I<rclder, lion. Homer L!J president judge, Court of Common Picas,

llarrisburg, Pa., ro S. u74 ......................................................... .. fo\USOho, Hou. lt'rnnk J., n U.S. Sonotor from tho Stnto of Ohio, ro

S. 674 nnd 8. 075 ................................................. .. Lumbard, lion. J. Edwnr~J chief judge, U.S. Court of Ap1>cnls, Second

ClrouliJ Now York, N.I' 1J ro s. 674 nnd 8. 675 ....................... ..

Mg~~~~ ~.o!~~·-~~~~r~~~~: ~1~~~~~~ -~~J~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ -~·- ~~? .. ~~ MoCullooJ1,, 14Mward L~ nntlonal logislRtlvo repreacntntlvo, Drothor-

hood of J.Aocon1otlvo l'lnginccrs, ro 8. 562 .................................. .. MoDermott, Thomas F., hrst vlcu president, l>ollco Chiefs Assoolntlon

of Sou thews tern Pon nsyl vnnlu. ............................................ .. Mooker W. 14'., inspector of police, J>onnsylvcmla Uallrond Co., ro

8. 662 .................................................................... .

M ~{~~~ro cJ~~~C: ~~a ~~.67s,r.~~·~- ~~~~~~o:. _r~~ -~~~ .. ~~i:_ ~~ .. ~~~~1~~~~: Muaumnno, JusUco Mlchnol A., Supromo Court of Ponnsylvnnln, ro

H. 674.·--------·--····-······--·~----··--······-········-·· Niokoreon, l~ugono ·II., count,r oxcoutlvo N1\$Sn\l County, N .Y ., nocompunlod by I•'l'nncle D. Loonoy, pllli~'o commlsslonor, Nnsanu Count~\ N.Y.1 re8. 917 .......................................................... .

Pit~::1t 0~1kt~g~:~ ~~t~gl~~l1Y~h~~~fT~~~\~1{ J~~~~ o~~:rdto~~~~:! orgi\Dlaod crime, wlrot.npplng_ ot, cot-Otn ............................................. .

Hector, Milton O..:t director, Nntlonnl Council on Crln10 nnd Dolin· quonoy Now . iork, N.Y. accompnnlcd by Mark l~u11$tcuborg, n&80Clt\lo, Washington, n.C., ro s. D17 ....................................... ..

Scho~r, llon. Jamea HU n Member of Congress from t.bo 21si District

sog~.1 h~'tl\~~~·1ron~· 8u~cr -P., .. j\iag9; • i>iS triof ~ouri, • N" o\v ~ oricnns~ La., ro olfcota of reoo11t Hupremo Court dcolslone ................ ., ...... ..

Sennoti, Hon~ WIUlnm o., nttorney gon9:rnl, Cop.m1onwot)lth ot Penn· aylyJ\nla1 ro s. 676 nnd orgnnl•otl 9rlmp ........... -~-- -.................. ..

Sensing, 1'nurmtml oxocu~lvu vloo pmldent, Sotlthorn Stnt«J InduQtrlal CoulioUJ..NMhv lh>, Tenn., re 8. 784 ....................................... .

~~:· ~· ~le~~~~;rf!~1~~~~,PiYi1l1~rJ;.i~1~,l'f>~~0~ ~.0an ~ii~G~: Sp~~!r; . Lawronco;. difOCiOf •• Wfteli1D rt.Oii". omoo,·. AiiiOft~i\il. CiVU

Mbertles Union, re S. 674, ~. 07lS, ~· fto4 nnd S. 1333 ..... .; ............ .

Paro J 24

aoo (t80

500

1010 J;(>2

IOU2

2r.o 1001

{) r,37

1126 O·J5

JO·Hl

21D

208

130

170

037

1030

1133

1031

010

572

1024

885

1164

1062

842

011

878 1033

100

1173

29


CONTJDNTS v Stntcm('lnt ot-Contlnued

Htcnnis, lion. John, t\ U.S. Scnntor from the- Stntc or MIN!lsslppl, re Paso s. 074.----------------------------·------·----·------·----- 110 'J'nmm, QnlnE1 oxccuU\'o dlrootor, Intcrnntionnl Assoointion or Chlcft:1 of l,ollcoJ wnshlnglon, D.C., ro S. 074 nnd 8. 017.................... 320

'l'ydln~, hon. Joseph J>., n U.S. S"nntor from the Shlto or l\fnrylnnd, ro S. 821 ........ __ ... _ .. _ ............ _ .................................... _.. .. • • • .. 86·1

Wnlsh, Wlllfnm 11'., Attornny, Houston, 'l'ox., re S. 002............... 106-1 Wtlkluson, lion. Jnm(\s D., cornmom\·cnllh nltotnoy, IUchmond, \'n.,

rcS.674......................................................... 243 Wiison, Orlnndo W., superintendent or 11ollcl', ChlMgo, Ill., re 8. 074,

S. 676 nnd S. 017 ............................................................ fitl.J, 582 Wood, D. J,,, cMcf spcclnl ogcnt, IIUnols Ccmtrol Rnilrond, ro S. MS2.. 1014 Wren, Hon. J,nurnnco 'l'., judge, Superior Court, lc'lngahlfT, Ariz., to

rotrlnl of ?t11rnndn......................................................... 520 \'nrborough, Ilon. Unlph, n U.S. Scnntor froh1 tho S~lo of 'roxns, ro s. 017 _______________________________ .,______________________ 10~3

8tntNncnt submitted by- . .

Ho~~l~:\~1t~i J~1Y. ~74~~~. ~l~l:~ _J~~tJ~~c_o_ ~~ -~~o- ~~'!:~~~~ .:~~t~~ .0!. ~~~": 680 Downum, \ton. Jom<'s S., Court of CoQlmon Pion&, t2t.h Judlcfitl

Dlstrlot., DnupJ1ln County, Pt\.t.!>n hnbcos CQrpu11 l)tocodu~s- ..... _. 280 Drlloy, lion. C. llcvorly, mnyor, .Nl\shvlllo, 'l'ehn.

1 ro S. 017............. 067

Hrown, Hobert M., nuthor of "Tho Elcotrohlo nvnsloh," on wlre-

Cr~~~l::1lf o6oft7 w~; Ag_~oilliJiyilii\,1 ... s~~io <>r ·a.rnr~f.Itii: }(; ~r ui r. -.. : : : ~Jg~ Curry._ lion. Cbnrl~, l>t<'.elthmt Judge, Jnoksori, Mo., on bbhfilf bf tho

Nnt.tonnl Assoolntlon of Conn ti~, ro S. 017 .................... - .... - - .. .. 587 Duling, MnJ. lt'rank S., Durt'nu of 1,olloc, Rlolimond, Va.............. U51 <Jormnn, Jnmos I>., J>rt'shfont, I lynclnth Control Soclflty, 11\c., l'ort.

l1nudordnlo, Ji'ln., re S. 680 ..... " ............. _ ..... _ .... ~ .......... ..-. .. • .. • .. 146 llollmul, llon. S1X'ssa\rd J,,, n U.S. Scnntor from tho ~tnto of Fin.,· re -

S. f>SO ........................................ _ ..... _ ... _ .. _ ......................... - 145-1 nbnu, ~'red B., profc~or of ll\\~1 Northwestern Univ.\· Ohlcngo,· 111.... 070 l\no~, John 'l'., AMcmblymnn1• ljtnto of CnUf., ro S. O 7 .......... - .. .. .. 1038 J.ong, Hon. lMwnrd \' • ._n U.S. ~cnntor from tho Stnto of Mls.~ourl, l'<'ln-

tlvo to wsUmony ot JUdgo l~dwnrd S. l>igglns ................ ~. _ - - .. - 010 J,ynoh, llou. 'l'homns 0., nttorncy Rlmornl, Stnto or Cnlirornln, ro S.

674, S. 1104, S.J. Iles. :!2 nnd S. 075 ........ __ .. __ ......... ~ ....... _ .... _.. 92·1 Monctnlo, lion. Wnlt-0r F., n U.8. Scnnt.or from tho Stnto of Mhint'sotn,

introducing Mr. Uohort. Johmwn tmd l\lr. Cccll lfogt\rty .......... _... 537

M~~~olo"s~~~t~~o-~~ ~-1:,_ ~ -~~~·-~~·~~t-~r_r_r~~1~ _t~'~-~~~·~~ ~f- ~-<'~~-~I-(\~~ 143 t>oJnnco-Abrcu, lion. Snntfngo_, llt'shtlmt Commissioner, Con1mon· W<'l\lt.h or l>ncrto Rico, ro s-. ·10s .. ______________ ._______________ 651 Pritohnrd, Allen N., asslstnnt ~xc.10Utl\'O director, NnUonnl 1.cmguo of

Cities, ro S. 017. _ ••. _. _ ..... _. __ . __ . ~ __ • __ ............. _. . . • • . . • • .. . 053 Rector, Milton O., dh'cctor, Nntlonnl Council on Crlmo nnd llclln·

quonov, ro S. 902 ............... _ ...... _ •• _ .. _ .......... _ ... _ . __ .. _ . • .. . • .. 1073 Simko, ltnudcl, dircotor1 Nntlonnl Chief Wolforo Commission, 'l'ho

Aniorlcan l.l'glon, ro S. 911----------------------·~-·---·----- l102 Skolcr, Dnnlcl, Ontco of J,nw Bnforc<'mcnt As.qistnn~). 0 14'cd~rnl A~ist·

Rnco in Do\'doptng tho •rcchnology of Crhhlnnl JuRt.ll'<'". _. "_..... 1075 'l"nmm, Quinn, oxccntlvo director, lntcrnntlonnl A~orll\tion of Chtcrs

. of Poll co, ro S. 002 .. _ .......... _. _ ... __ ... __ ................ _ • .. .. .. .. .. • .. • . .. .. .. • 107 4 Exhlhlts-

Usrobcdo v. IIUnoitt, 378 U.S. 478 (l00-1). __ ••• _ ....... __ .... _. _ ......... .. Miranda v. Stat~oJ Ari1ot1a, 3N4 U,S. 436 CIQ66)........................ 2a Jolma(Jti v. Stat~ of N~w Jtrsty, 384 U.S. 7HJ {1966) ...................... - .. .. 05 }1'Bl tnt-0.rrogntlon pn~ctlccs, c~corpts from Afirat'ida v. State o/ Ati1ot\a. 332 Judlolnl Confcronco of Vlrglntn, l'(\Solutton of Mny 12, ·10~7, re S. l H>4

nt\d S.J. llos. 22 ..... _ ......................................... _ •• _ ............ ~... . 651 omc-0 ot 141\\V l•!11forcomont Assfstnnco, oxcorpts from t'CJ)()tt. nw\d dntn

T1f1~ ~1i°~f'01~1rni 1~t&"K~ior1oll¥ .• t1\fo~42, .. ;('"0:2oood.·u:s:c<>C1<;: :: ~= '

1fo AIU of Judgc.'d ,/lnddrcs8 by t.h"o l~oh·. \V. ·Wnlter Bmbnm, lltcsl~cnt, Ponnaylvantn Ilar ~98oolnt.IQ~, Jnn. -19, UU)7 ........................ ..; • -.- 278

Mt'88ngo ftt>tal tho··n1rcotor· ·or tho ~BI;· 11t\W Entorooh1ont llulfotln, Scpt-01nbcr l, 1966_ ........................ _ ••• ;,. ••• · •• _... ... • .. • 334

14

30


Exhibits-Continued MC'asagc from the Director of the FDI, J,aw Enforcement Bulletin, Page l\Iarch 1, 1967 ___ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 33·1 Younger, Bvcllc, district attorney, J,os Angeles, Callf ., survey nnd

lctt-Or re .Miranda v. Arizona·---------·----·------------------ 341 Resolution re ~liranda v. Arizona by N ntlonal District Attorneys' Assocla ti on. _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 610 Police-Community Relations in Detroit, Experience Report No. 100,

Commun It)' Relations Service U.S. Conference of Mayors ... ______ 322 Zimmerman, B. M., Lancnster, Pa., lett-Or re benefits payable to slain policeman .. _ .... ______________________________ .. _______ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 630 Lett.Ar signed by all former U.S. attorneys for the Southc:-rn Dlstrlot of

New York supporting court-approved wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping_______________________________________________ 511

Memorandum to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, re wlrcta~ping and electronlo eavesdropping, from tho U.S. Attorney Gcnernl, June 16, 1967 .. __________________________________ .. _ _ _ 022

Ap.swcrs to questions submitted to tho Attomey Gencrnl oh S. 917 _ _ _ 820 Antlcrlme program, excerpts from hca·rln~ before Subcommltt~e No. 5

,of th~ Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives,

T~c01~c~:;;.fr~o~t8l~~~~roiiar11ieil-cfrime:-0x-ceri>ia-r?om-hiarini 978

_be.fore Committee on Government Operations, U.s; House of RcJ>:o rcscntatlves, 90th Congress, first session ____________ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9;39, 060

Resolution adopt-ed by International Narcotlo Enforcement Officers Association, Washirigton, D.C., May 24., 1967------------------- 807

Senate Joint Memo. No. 10 ot the State or Washington, Feb. 1, 1967. 69:J Resolution re uu of electronic suroeilfance devices by Natlonnl District Attorneys' Association. ________ • .., .... __ .. ___ .. ___________ .... ______ 615

Letter froin-Canal~, Hon, Phil M . .l Jr., district attomey1 Mcmphfsl Tenn_________ 667 Carter, Hon. James .l\f,, chief jUdge, Soutnern Dlsir ct of Calltornla,

c1~:~ Pr~~.0E~:l~ ·M.~ i>rC81<feiiifticiii, _4_otii-j liaici;i i5t8ii1ci,-irici1ann~ 664

Pa---------------------------------~-------·--------------- 66~ Corbin, Robert K. county attorney, Maricopa County, Phoenix, Ariz. 674 Crosland, Da~Jd, district attorn~y, Montgomery~ Ala .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 669 Edwards, Hon. George, judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit,

Detroit, Mich .. ___ --------------•-- --- ----- .. ----- ___ ---- _ _ _ _ _ 677 Gernert, Paul J., ~halrman, Board of Parole, Commonwealth of Pcnn-

Gif~ii~,1f\s: iia;nici; aiioirte"Y-ar iaw; -N'~W"-vo;k,-N~t:1- eilcios1iii-a 681

lett-Or from all the former U.S. Attorneys for tho Soutnem DlstrJot · of Now York supporting court-approved wiretapping and electronic

o~~~dlf trr.1~ousiaa ·-w.;-stiC1-g-e~ ·nivision · 2; c1rcu~-cotirt~ ·s.;.:1n8: 011

field, ~0--------------------------------------------------- 667 Harris, Curtis P., dlstrlct attorney, District No. 7, Oklnhotna City, Okla·------------------------------------------------------ 675

Hcnfng, Hon. Edmund W., Jr., judge, 10th Judicial Circuit, Rich-. ·mond, Va _____ .. _ ... ________ • _____ .. _____ • _____ • __ • ______ • ___ .. _ 670 Hopf, William V., stat-O's attomoy, Du Page County, Wheaton, Ill ••. - 69J,

782,930 Hughes, Hon. RichardJ., Governor of tho St.ate of Now Jersey....... 68:1 Jenkins, Ray H., attorney at law, KnoxvillehTcnn ___ . _____ • _____ ._ _ 685 Johnson, W. H., Jr., district attorney, Eight Circuit Court District,

K~~:~~1t~~o: ·nos;,·· ua8;; niv18iori n; isiii-j tiCiiciai n18ir1ci; o! 686

loµlsiana, Port Allen, ta ..• _ - ..... -1- - .. ___ .. __ ..... - - - - - - - - _____ - - 678

~~f:go~2C'!:flt.~?~~ _ ~~t~~~t- -~t-t~~~~~:-~~~-n_t:_ -~f- -~~~,- ~!~~~:,. ~~~ 675 Kimball, Hon. P.anlel P., Judge, Division A., 18th Judicial Dtstrlot of

L~ulslann, Port Allenl.. La. __ ~_ - - • - ....... - - - - .... - - - • - - - ':" - - - • -.- ... . ICnowles, Hon •. War~n .r., Governor o( tho Stat~ of Wisconsin ....... .. Kreider, Hon. Horner L., president jurlgc, Court of Common Pleas,·

678 931

683 'Harrisburg, Pa._ ••• -•- ..... -.-_-.... -:":'-'. .. _~.- ____ ... ·.-· ... -... _.~_--:-· .. __

K'B!~elb?e~~; -~~~-~·~-'-~~~I~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~:~~c_t _~!.?f~'!~~~~a~ 664 . t ..

31


Letter from-Continued Par• McDonald, Miles F., justice, Supreme Court of New York State____ 6.87 Mitchell Hon. John A., judge, Criminal Court, Fifth Circuit,· Cook-vlllo, Tenn _________________________________________________ - 671 Mondale, Hon. Walter F., a U.S. Senator from the State of Minn ___ _ Moylan, Charles E. Jr., StRte's attorney for city of Bnltlmore, Md. - 623 Mullen,_Hon. John E., presiding judgo, Superior Court of Rhode Island,

Providence, R.1--------------------------~------------------ 686 Nsi~~'or~n~~ _ ~~~~1~~~~~~~'- ~~~:~~ -~f_?_r~~-1~~~ -~:~~~~~~~1_0_~ 611 Osborne, Clyde W., prosecuting attorney, Mahoning Co., Younga-

town, Ohio ______________ ~---------------------------------- 666 Polanco-Abreu, Santiago, Resident Commissioner, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. ___ .. _______ . ___________________ • _ .. _ .. ~ _ ~ ________ - - 650

Ral:~~~l~t~~~'-~~~~~t!~~ ~!~ ~_r~:~e-~t~ !': ~~~o~~-1-~~t~~c_t_~~~~~e!.s~ 615 Rueger, Melvin G., prosecuting attorney, Cincinnati, Ohio_________ 673 Santiorn, Keith, county attorney, Wichita, Kans.----------------- 678 Sennett,. Ron. William C., attorney general, Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania ............. -----~-----------------------~--~--- 663,911

scent:;'~--~~~·-~~~~~ -~·~ -~ ~·~ -~~~~-0-~~~~~t~~~ -~t~~~~: ~ ~~~~: 674 Schulingknmp, Hon. Olive P., judge, Criminal District Coul't, New Orleans, La. ____ ... _______________________ -:-_,.._-. ____ ,_ .... _ .. ____ . 668, 8112 Shafer, Hon. Raymond P ., Governor of Penns:vlvanla. - _ - • - ~ - • - - - - 664

St~.'kY~x~~~~~:- ~~s-t~~o_t __ a_t~~~~:,_ -~~~~~_~~~~I~_~!~~~~ .. ~!~~~~ 787 Sykest.Jlon. Bernard F., assistant attorney genera~ State of Alabama. 665 Van .ttoomlssen, Georgia, district attorney, ~1ultnomo.h County, Portland, Ore. ___ ... __ .. ______ ...... _. ___ • _____ • ___ .... _ ..... __ .. ,.._~.___ 666

W ~~e{t' a~~~~l-~ -~,~·~ -~r~~~~~t_n_~.~~~~r~_e!~ -~-a~~~~~_~~~'- ~~-~r~~-t~~ 686

Adkins, Willie H.1 ohlef of poll~ Dra~r, N.C................................ 746 Alverez, K. c,. onlef of police, ucala, Fla.~-- __ ...... - -·-. -- ... -- - -- • 719 Anderson.t.. C. H ., chief of ~lice, Austin, Tex __ ... _ .... _ ............ - .. .. .. .. .. .. · 72-1 Armour, (;laude A., commissioner of ftro and ~lice, Memphis, Tenn._ 70-l Barcelln~(. Fred D., chief of. police, Carlstadt, N .J. _. ___ .. __ ... __ .. _ _ _ 743 Bnrker, 11. T., chief of .J>Ollce, Conway1 ~.O. _ ... _ ........ _ ... _ .... ___ .... _ 760 Barloga.1..-.. Joseph, superintendent of ~ohce, Cicero, IlL ..... ___ • _ - .. __ • 770 BaughJ.r!~· O., oneft of police, Brea, Calif .... ____ ... -- ... __ ..... -- --- -- 735 Bct\r, w. J., captain of police, Minn~~Us, Minn_________________ 743

Bl~~o~~f ~:~ori:!~~i~~~l-~~~~~~~:-~~~I~~! .. :~~:~.?~~~~~~ 929 BJaok, J.M., ca~~in, Long Beach Police Department, Calif.------- 715 Brower,. Robert 'Y·i chief of police, The Dall~ Ores-------------·- 746 Budd, John W ., oruef of police, Philll~burg, .N .J ................. _. _.......... · 780 Burbank, Thoma.S D., director, Department of Public Saf~ty, Baton

Bu~ug~~~i-d-i("'ohieroioo\iiii'" .. tietioiives:-iloiriik,Wii;N.j:::::: ~~~ Cam~ellJ.L. J., ohlef of ~lice, ~lunib_la, 8.0.............................. 689 CarlSon, .w. A., ohlef of Police, Antioch, Calif ...... _ .... _ .................... _...... 723 Carrel, Cot.(). R., chief, ColOrado State Patrol, Denver, Colo............ 701 Casey, Col. Dan J, ·superintendent, Law Enforcement and Safety

PatrolJ Lhlcoln, N'ebr .. ;.. ......... ~: ................................ ~.................... 771 Caylor, 11. H., chief of polloel :payton..1. Ohio ............... --------------' . 73!

. Chambers, James L.1 chief o police, u>nco~ Callf......................... 782 Clark, ;Le8ter D.,- ohtef of PQUce, Men~ha, wls.-.·----~-·--··---·!"- 762 Cla.rk1 Lester F., chief of 1>9llce, Avonl.. Conn ....... 't;·-------··------ 739 Cranuell, Everett M., ohlet of i>QUoe," ulver Edge, n.J........................ . 756 Danlga!!J l>. V., chief 9r_w~ce, C~pett. Wyo............................ 7tn DavfS, .·ro:qit.;o~ef of,J>Qlloe, &lelgli, .N.C......................................... . 779 Degenhart,· .tWph V., ch~ef of ~ete~tlv~t Bullato, N.Y .. ~--------··· 781

. Dfe1'mey~~ ~~bP.: .~.,-.chief QfJ>ollC.,!, Inwan.Hlll, Ohio.- ............... ~-- ,· 697 Donald, ~alcolm, olilet ot ~~cel..-.w.eetf\eld, Mass ................... ~----· . 698 Durbin, Max A., chief of poll~1 .J.\.fr~lV®~ Mo:. .... -. ...... .: ... ~'------~ ,_. 779 Elll:son, Rich~, chief of PQUce, I~tematlona\l Falls, Minn.~· •• ~-.:........ 745 . .,, ,. , ' .. ' . . .

32


VnI CONTENTS

Letter from-Continued Pase Ellsworth, H. A., chlef of polf co, Eugene, Oreg ...... _. _ ..... _. ___ • __ •• 709 Fellcetta, Frank N., commissioner, Department of Police, Buffalo,

N.Y-------------------------------------------------------Fetzer, Dix R. M ., chief of 1191ice, Somerville, N .J. _ - __ - . - • - . - - - . - -Fomll...Fred1

chief of police, Saugus, Mass ________________________ _ Fox, Jtobert 0., chief of PQlice, Mountlnko Terrace, Wash.---------lc"rimkllnJ H;oward A., chief of pollc~J. Provldenc~, R.I .... ______ • _ - __ Funk, ~iaJ. F. M., chief of police, winchester, va ________________ _ OannonbPeter J., chief, Bureau of Navigation, Trenton, N.J _______ _ Gearyt.,.; avid Patrick, chief of police, San Buenaventura, Calff _____ _ Geer, Hilton, chief of 1>9llcef Ol<lahoma City, Okin. __________ • ___ ._ Gillen, John V., chief of pol ce, Binghamton, N .Y ___ • __ ... _. _. _ .. ~ ••

705 737 773 691 707 767 720 720 721 751

Givens, ROyco L., executive director, International Conference of Police Associations, Washington" D.o ________________ --- __ • _ __ 690

Gleason, Everett, chief of J>Qlice, w ausau, \Vis. ___ •••• _ .. __ ._ •• _.__ 7 5-1 Gray, Charles W., chief of police, Up1>9.r Southhampton Township, Pa. 757 Grieco, Theodore E.1 chief of~ police, Fort Lee, N ,J ___ ...... __ • _.. • 695, 781 Gunn, 0. L:, chief or police, Meridian, Miss----------------------- 745 Hagy, R. O., chief of J>!:?lfce~ Tazewell, Va._. __ • ___ -- __ .. _______ • __ 715 Hale, E. 0.1 chief of police, Lexington, KY------------------------ 741 Harrfs, ... R. A.J..!'hlef of 1>9llcel Portola, Oalif_ ____ ..... ____ •• ________ • 733 Hird, Hartt w., ohlef of pol ce, North Olmsted, Ohio-------------- 775 Itobmaii1 Arthur c.

1 Mariposa, Calif ________ • ____ --- -- • _. -- -- • - -- 720

Hopf, · wilU~m V., egal counsel, Du Pago County Chiefs of Police A~oolatlon, Woodrldg~ 111--------------------------------- 69.J, 782

Howard, JpJm P~ chief or yollce, Wauwatos!t. Wis_________________ 758 Hummer, Dana J.J., chJef 0 j!c>llce, Topeka, Aans__________________ 711 H usklsson, Harry C.; chief of J>ollc'!I._ Knoxvllle, T~nn .. _ • - - - - .. - • - - - • 7 51 Imes, Russell,. clilef of police, New .Hoston, Ohio ______ -- • _ -- __ -- __ - 779 Ingersoll, John E., chief of police, Charlot~,· N.0 ..... -------------- 700 Ivey, W. T., director of law enforcement, Spartanburgi S.O.------·-- 769 Jenkins, Harry P ., Chief of police, Elk Grove Village, IL __ - • __ - _.. 769

. Johnstone, Carlisle, chief of police, Orlando, FIB------------------- 780 Keene, Forrest E., chief of police, University Park, Drul8.s, Tex.____ 776 Kelly, Oliver._ chief of police, Newark, N.J __________________ .______ 709 Kemerait, Eaward 0., chief ot police,- Geneva-on-the-Lake, ·ohlo. --- 698 Kennedy, J. J., Jr.""' chief of poHce, Ringtown, PR------------------ 778 Klaumann~ Clyde .r.l. chief.of police, Carmel-b~·the-Bea, Calif_______ 714 Knutson, rJ. D., chler of ~lice, Orrutd Forks, N. Dak ...... ·---------- 747 Kochanek, ohlcf of police, Port J\ngQles, Wash-------------------- 740 Koenig, W niter R., chief of pol .. fceJ.. Torrnnooi Ca.lit •• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • 712 Kol~ar, Andrew, chle~ of police; titreator, I1L _____ .;________________ 777 KonctsJ<_y, E. J., chief of police, OJI Oity, Pa .. --------------------- 762 Kulig, Henry_ A., chief of pouce1 Chicopee, MRSS------------------- 762 Kummcrlc, George F., commfss oner of publio safety, Mount Vernon, N.Y------~-----------------------~--~---~------------~----Lf vengood, William S., Jr. chief cotihscl, Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Assoolatlon, Hnrtlsburg, Pa. ___ ._ - _ •. .;. - • -- • -- - --- -- -- - -

LlddJe, H.oward O., chief of police, Lyndhur,st, N .J. ____ - --... - . - ... --Lucas, Ferris· E.,· executive director, Natlon81 Sheriff's ~ociatlon,

Washington, D.O ...... ----·- -- --- •• - ----. --- - --- --------- -- -- -Loveman, Robert B., Bogota Police Dc1>artment, Bogota, N .J ~ - .. - - .. McAullffo, L. E., chief of police, St. Pau1_ Minn __ .; _______________ _ McOoldrfck, J. HowardL_chlct of police,, uanbur.Y, Conn~;--·---~---MoOranaghan, Francis r.1 chief of police, Manclie~Wlj .. ~.H .... -----McMahon, Daniel F.l commlsslbner of im~l.lo saf~ty,'.,xonkers, N.Y .. ;. McNamara, Donald 1., Ohlet ot.pollc~, J>orUan«!t Oreg •• .; ........... .. MoWilllams, Sheldon T., chief of police, Saddle 1dv~r Dorbttgh, N.J ... Main; Charles V;l.chlef .ot ~U~e; _¥red~ri~k, Md ........... ..;_ ............. . Marlowei..Uarry H., sheriff, Eugen~ Ote~-----:. ___ .. ______ ., _____ _

749

703 775

874 768 690 779 775 696 697 765 768 753 764 Matias, ueo~ge J .; chief of police; 't,;edar abide, l~~a- - ~.:. - - :.. ., ... - :- ..

Matthews, Mtllard T.; chief· deputy, · offce Department; Crown

M;;~~t·JIU1aiiio.:·;h"tei6r~11c~,~<f trc~.~i;tt.·~.-v~:::::::::::~:~: · ~A1 Mlch~lson, ·MorrJS, chle( ~~ polfc~, ,Pler~,' s~ _Sak~ .. ~ -.. ~ ~ -.. ---..; ·~ _. ... - 700 Miies, R. A., ch~ef of P.olfoe, Atµt~.1 T~x ...................... ~----·.-·---".' · 725 Milke, Robert~L.; chief of tsollce, MeqUo.n, Wis .......... .: ..... ..:.·.;;.;_.. · 774 ,

33


CONTENTS

Letter from-Continued Page Miller, D. L., chief of police, Grandview Heights, Ohio_____________ 771 Miller,.Harold W., chief of pollce, Zenia, Ohio_____________________ 722 Moline, James J.1 Police Department, St. Clol,ld, Minn...................... 749 Moore, James E., chief of police, Virginia Beach, Va--------------- 759 Morton, H. R., chief of polic~, Fresno, Caut ____________________ 695, 783 Mulcahy, James F., chief of police, Ncw~ort, Vt------------------- 769 Murray, CUff ord 0 ., ,chief of po lie~ San Clemente, Ca lff .... _ ....... - .. .. .. .. 723 Nest-Or, F. P., chief of pollco, Oak !"ark,' Ill .. _ .. _ .... _ .. __ .. - - .. - .... - .. .. .. .. .. 766 0'1\folloy, Pntrlck J.~chlcf of police, Enst CJovclancl.,.Ohfo.................... 761 Pcm bridge, Delbert .ti,, chief of police, Endfcot~ N. r.. .. - .. - ...... - .... - - .. 741 Perkins, Lyle C., chief of police, Lake 011wcgQ, ureg'!·------------- 734 Pct-Orson, Delbert E., chief of police, Grand Forks, N. Dak .......... - - - .. 748 Pollar<t. James, chief of'pollcet,llermlston, Oreg ...... _ ................ - ......... - 724 Pond, .ti. M.; ·chief of police, \vichlta, Kans_______________________ 679 Ramon, F. -o., ·chlcf of police, Seattle, Wash....................................... 740 R~yburn K_. 0., director, S.9l1thwest Cenwr for ,Law Enforcemen~

EducatlolJ1 University of O"_lahoma,. Norma'1f Okla .................... ~-- 709 Reynolds, lvHllam F. president, Maryland Oh efs of Police Assoc,la-

t~on, Baltimore, M~L- _ .. _ .. _ ......... _ .......... _ .. _ ~ .......... -- .. _ .... -- -- .. --;- 704 Rlempp, William F., Jr., ,chief of police, Cornwells Heights, Pa........... 746 Robar$, Sam L., chief of police, Sprinifle~~J..Mo ........... ~~-.--------i. 739 Robinson, I. A., chlel of police, Downey, \.iallf., letter to Hon. De1

R~~~~~~ifr~ ~f,··~~;~~!~f ~Ni~t= w~i~;;t: =a~~~=::::::-::::::: Sayre,.John B., oh ef of police, Summit, N.J ....................................... .. Scally, Francis M., chlef.o, f,polfce, !\.llen~urs_~.N .. J .............................. .. Sohalle!J R. W ., olilet ~f ~~lice,· 1'l$plewood, Minn .............. - .......... - .... .. Scott, .t;dgar E., Hyattsville, Md ................ ~---~---~---------------Shananhail, James J :, · ohfef of police, ,Grovela~J Mass ........ - .. ~ - ...... ~ .. Shav~r1• Paul A., chief ot pollce1 AlbuquerqueJ..1". Mex .. _ .. __ ~ - .... - .... .. Sill auen .. W., president, CaJhornla Police \.ihlefs Association, Inc.,

West Covina, Calif ...... __ ...... _ ........ _ ...... ____ .. _ ........ __ .. _ -- .. _ -- ......... Smith, Harold C., chlef o,f pollo.e, ,St. Pc~r.iJJmrg, Fl~--~~--~-.------- ... Smith, P.R., captain, Po,lce.Department, Beverly' Hi~,, .Calif_-----Sorensen, Clyde A., cnlef of pol/ce, St. Louis Park, M_inn __________ _ Stegan, Norman_R., clJ,tef Of po foe, ltalll$ey, N.J _________________ _ St-One, Walter, E., supefintendent, 'dlvlslon of SU\te Police, North

Scituate, R.I ........ ;.. - .. ~--· .. -- .... - .. -- --- ------- -- - .... -- ......... -- ---St-Ottlcmlro, Howard, chief of pollce1 Eaton; Ohio ...... _ .... ___ ...... - - .... - .. Stover, John ~·i. ohlct ·or ,f,Q~Jee,-BrlBtQJ, Va .... _. __________________ _ Sweeney, Earl M.1 ohtef o pollce, B_elniont, N.H .. ---------------·-Van Wagoner, Rooert L., executive secretary, Maryland Police Train-

ing Cotilml~lon, P~ke,s_vllJe, Md .. __ ...... ___ ...... _ .. ___ .................. -- ---WalSb, David, chief of police, Manteca, Calif .. ·-------------------WatJdnst Sam,, Poli9e P,ep~rtment, Hu~ttngton,·w. Va .......... -------Wehr, A.tfre ... ~ chief of police, Seekont Maa8 _____________________ _ Wilkln,on1 ,nugh H., obfef of P.Oltcei .. :l"fgard, Oreg ........... --- - ............. - -Wise, Antnonr M., chlofofpolice, liudahy, Wls .................................. .

784 765 733 769 747 609 688 762 754

704 770 736 764 761

723 702 765 763

761 753 717 760 717 777

Woodson, C. W., Jr. colonel, superlntendent, Department of Stat-0 Pollce, Rlohnion~ Va .... _ ...... --- .. __ ................... --- .. _ .. --- .. ---- -- -- 760

Yarbrough, E. ~d, alreotor, ~lorlda Sheriffs' Bureau,-Tall~htissee, Fla., 714

Alexander,' Donn~ N at'l. Lo ague of Cities re S., 9 J.7 ..................... _ ...

Bi~;t!~~~&~l---·~ .. t~~~:O~-~~~~e:;_~~~·-~~-o~~l~~~~~:e~:-~~~: Bqnnett, Rl9h11r4 ()., MoLe_~l Va ......... !"~ .. ·-·--·------- ... --~·~-----·,· Decker, Her~rt, .attorney at aw..t. Cl,ilcag~..t.I~---··------------,--"'.· Dibble, Hon. Dan,el ~., ,m~yor, ~olyo~~, Ma~~~.;. ............ f" .. ------ .. ,.".' Eacho 0. L., . director of p_ro~rty proteotiqn, Soa,bo8:1'.d , Air_ 1'me

.naWrQ~d Qo., l\fohm9n,c,t • .va .......................................... °'! ... i.:it:-·· .. Fletoh~r, D~n_a1d 1(., manager, Dlstrlb~tloil ProteQtl_on.t Siplt)l Ahne ~ Frenoh Lak9r~~rles, rµUadelpbla,..P4 .. r.'!'·-., .. r.,-·-~·--:-"'.'··-·-iT'"•"'

Frisk, _Jobrh d,epµ.tf _~frectQr, Ec~nom~o Opportunl~)' Ag~noy, Stn~,·or West Vlrg_lrila, Charlestonl W. Va ..... _ .. ---- --- .. ·------- ------- .... ..

Fritz, Mrs. Leonard S., Bou der, Colo ................................................. ..

1204

592 802 789 791

801

798

804 788

1.

34


x CONTENTS

Letter from-Continued P11e OlnsbergJ... Davld,,,.)Vashlngtop, D.C ______ •• --- -- • _ - - .... -- •• .;.. •• • •• 786 Golden, ~lthne, ~ow York, i'4 .Y ___ • --- __ ----- •• --- • _. _ ...... __ •• • 802 Guthrie, C. Robert, D~artment of Criminology, California State

College, Long Beaoh, Calif _____ • -- .. -- -- .... ____ ...... __ ... -- __ .. _ .... _ Hickman John C., president, RookvUlc Chamber ot Commerce, Rock·

nJl~~fs~~j:-niiii)li; coillriii8sioiier; siiiie ¥ax-coilimi8sioil; 'Jciic-r&oii City, ~O-----------------·---------------------------------Jacoppl, J. ~:1. New York, N .Y ...... _____ .. --- ___ .... _ .... ____ ................ ...

Kanngawa, wayne Y., R_rcsldent, Hawaii Probation, Parole and Cor-rections Assoolatlon, Honolulu, Hawaii.. ......... _ .. _ .......... ____ ...... _ ..

803

790

708 800

806 Langlois, HRrold V., warden, Adult Correctional Institutions, Sta~ of

Rhode Island, Providence, R.L •• -- -- -- .. _ .. -- .... _ .... __ ..... ---- _.. .... 785 Lansing,_ Robert E~ }nstructor-coordlnator, Police Solencc, College of

Ban Mateo, San MatoobCallf. _ .. - • - .. - ... -- ---- .... -- .... ______ ----- 795 McKee, John president, alias Crime Commission Dallas, Tex...... 952

~:~nm~~:~~.vcle~i~~~:~c:t!a~:,!rt~~~~r ol-suil6iv18or;,-ii1g 800

Rapids, Mtoh. _ .. -- ..... - .. - .. -- ... - - -- .... ----- ________ .......... ___ .. _ 804 Mullins, James D., coordinator, police solcnco ptogram, · Clatsop Co~rpunlty Collegel Astoria, Oreg ...... -- --- _ ......... ______ .......... -- 704

National Guard Assoc atlon of Wisconsin, resolution of .. ..' ... ·~-------- 806 Oldham, Charles Carlton, chairman, Citizens Advisory Committee

/or Community Improvements, Louisville, KY-------··----------· 797 0 Leary1 William J.1 East Norwich, N.Y. _ --------------- -·------ 788 Petwortn· Citl~ene' Association, Ino:.t. Washington, D.C., resolution..... 805 Political Study Club, Waahfn~on, u.C., resolution.------·-------· 805 Potter, Anthony N ., Jr., security manager, Bamberger's, Morristown,

N.J .... -- ........ -- --·--- .. - .... ----·-- - ...................... ..; ..... -- _ .. _ -- • .. 795 Rotroff, Robert W., president, Alexandria Chamber of Commerce,

Ale:iJ:andrJa, Va ......................... ~---------------~------------ 702 Russell, Hon.· Riobard, enclosing a resolution from· City CommiBSlon

sb~~~~in~ha~/"~ n~; p-resicien~ .. XDier1caii- it'arill-liureau .. Federai1'0'D~ Waahlnicton, ·~.C------- .......... __ • ---- ~-.-- ---- .... ·-- ·--~-- .. _. _

78t

786 791 Sinopoli, J"oseph A., attorney at law, Yonkers, N.Y .......................... .

Sli:~!\':~~::1-f~J:• ~~~~:o~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~-o~~~~I~~ ~~ ~r~~!~ -~~a~_a_~C: 793 Smith wllllam T., director of probation, State of New York, Albany,

N.Y ....................... -----------------·--------------------Stoddard, Hon. Robert, L., mayor,1...Spartanburg, S.C ..................... . Tyree, Normf\n L., Philadelphia, ra----------------------·-----Willey, Georg~ W :.1 Fort Stooktoh, Tex.--------·-·---·----------Wong, Mrs. Keo t1oon, Honolulu, Hnwnil. ...................... · ............. .

Editorh'\18, newspa1>9r and magazine articles- ·

sot 799 778 789 796

_ "Wfrotapplng Justified," editorlnl, Progress Bulletin, Pomona, Calif., ~arch 14, 1967 ...... ------------------------~---~----------- 52l "Ammunition for tho 'War on, Crime,'" editorial, tho Evcning·Star, Washington, D.C., Feb. 20, 1967 ....... ------------·------•------- 1182

"Our Crbne-Ridden City," editorial, tho Evening Star, Washington, p.c., March 1, 1967 .. _ ~- _ ...... _ --.- -- • _ ....... _ - ....... ;. ..... ___ .. __ -- _. _ 1183 "Court Decisions Hurt Crime ·Fig_ht," l\foLellan Smith, Washington -

correspondent Delaware State News, Dover, Del. March 20, 1967 _ 1 ISJ "Imbalance in Favor of the Criminal," editorial, American, Austin,

"T'1:"·b~~0~:J· i::1 i>eoi>ie:;r .. 6ci1toi1&i;-st&;.:· iildia~apoil&; ·i.;a~ 1181

11&I::b i:2t!~~~a~<r ·i;; · ieili~rii-co~iris: ;,- ~aifu1i~1: ··i>osi:iiefaid~ · 1185

Beck~, W; Va., Maroli 28, 1967 .... ;1-................................ ,..... 1185

"WJ1lnt;1°~~t\o'['l:1e~~·~~-6 .. ~~~~·~~,_·!~~~e~~~e-~t--~~~r-~,~~~~~~a: 1186 "Crlqi~ Wh.~t'a , Tnat?~', editorial t~e Evening Star, , Washington,

D~c., May 22, 1067 ............... _ ... __ .. ~.a--_ ..... --"'.:_ .. -•- ......... _~---. 1186 "Crime-Law Shift Urged In Britain," the· New York Times; Jun~ 2, .

1967~--------·-·-~~---·-----·--~ .. -~~---~----·-~·-~-~-----~~ :1187

35


Edttorfols, newspaper and magazine articles-Continued . "Message from Britain," editorial, the Evening Star, Washington,

D.C., June 10, 1967 _________ -------- ---- ------- __ • __ ~· --·s ·· _ "0,~:h'l~~~~, ~.a~'1u~~· 4,J~9ae.f __ J: _ ~~~~~~,~~~ _ ~~~ _ ~~~~~!- __ ~~r~ Excerpts from editorial, Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Ill., Juno 11, 1967 _________________________________ ·--------------·----~-

.. ~~67 ~~~~~:: ·e-~l~~~I~!·. ~~~~~~~~~ _ ~~:~:~ -~~~1:'_ -~~~~:-~~~~ _1~~' "Rhode Island versus tho Supreme Court," editorial, Chicago (lll.)

Tribune, June 24, J067 ... 9 - - - ---- - - - - - -- - - --- • - - - - - - - ......... - - - •

"Crime in the District Rises 41.1 Percent During May," Wnshlngton (D.C.) Post, June 21, 1967 ................................................ .

"Crime Statistics," edltorlnl, the Evening Star, Washington, D.C., June 27, 1967 ................ - - • - - • - - .... - .. - - - - - .. - - - - .. - - - - .. - .... - .. - .. - .. -

"~~cf.~~~I~,, ~~%17~~~:'~ _e-~l~~I~~'- ~~~ _ ~~~~~~~ _ ~~r: .. ~ ~l~l~-g-t~~~ "BJ~~~1t4~ ~i7~~~:~ ~~~r!~~ .. ~~~ -~~~~~~~ ~-~~: ~ ~~~t~~~~~'- ~·~·~ "The Case for Wiretapping," the Washington (D-.C.) Dally News,

editorial, February 2!,,.1967 ....... - -- .. _ --- _. -- ..... _ .. _ .... _____ ... ~ _ "Wiretapping a Potent weapon" edltorlal, Tribune-Democrat, John&-town, Pa., Februarp 27, 1967' _______________________________ .. _

"'Yterois~~~~ -~~ -~ __ 1~~~~~ ~~!~r!~~· -=~~-~:-~~~~~1~~e~ _ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ 11 \Vhy the Horror of Police \Vlretapplng?", editorial, Times-Delta,

Visalia, Callf.J.Maroh 13, 1967. - - - • - - - - - • -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- .. - - -"No \Vlreta~ wanted?", editorial, the Evening Star, Washington,

D.O., March 17, 1967. ------ __ -- _ --- ------- ---- -- - _ ----------"Crime Is Everyboc_ly's Buslnesst" editorial, Police, May-June 1967 .. "Much Ado About Nothing," cd torinl Police, Ju~-August 1966 •••• "Sheltering Ju.stloe," editorial, Police1 Hoverriber...;.Deccmber 1Q66 .... _ "Who's Being Proteot-Od," edltoria1, Times Newspapers, April t,

1965-------------------------------------------------------"Brlng Them io Trlal," Philadelphia Inquirer, editorial, January 17, 1965-------------------------------------------------------

"ls There No Protection Under tho Lnw?.,, editorinl, Times News-/iapers, August 4, 1966. __ - _ - ___ - ___ - .. - - ... - _ - __ - - _ ... _ .. _. _. ___ ...

" ;~lla~f;~tf, P°! .. ~-o~-f~i~~~:·~ _ ~~~~~r!~~ _ -~~1~1~~~~~~~~ _ ~~:~~~~r~ "Murder at the Corner Grocery," editorial, Philadelphia Inquirer,

,,~~!~~~E1il~h~e"xr6 ·n ailClcuficCi/·-e<iitoria1:-i>iif1adciiihia iilC.\i1rcr~ Phil.ndelphia, Pa ___ -- - _. -- ..... _ .. - __ .. _____ .... _ ••• __ .. _ .. __ .. _____ ..

''PP~U!d~l:h~~s~~~ ~ ~ ~~-!~~~~:'~ -~~l~~l_n!~ !:~~~~~~~~·~- ~~~-"!~~r: "Advising . tho Supremo Cotirt,u <'dltorlnl, Evening Bulletin, Phila-

delphi'H Pn.------------------------------------------------

"SB~:bcr e~u~~e61_ r~~ _ ::_~o-_: ~~t~~~· ~·- ~~!~~r .. i~~·- _:~~~~ _ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ "Confessed Slay~r of Wife nnd Five Children Freed," the New

York Times, February 21, 1967 _____ ............. ________ . ________ _ "Gangs In th& Street," editorial, Philadelphia. (Pa.) Evening Bulletin, -Jul~ 24, 1966. _. _ -- ... -- - • -- ... - - - - ------ -- ....... ·-- - ~ - ........ ..

"A Mental Patient and His Gun,0 editorial, Philadelphia (Pa.)

wfC~i1::uri(; oi-Moraui;,1.-(;llicirini; .. i>iilia<ieiPli1a ·ciit\.)-iii(iuirer: August 14, 1966 .... --- ... ----. --· --- ...... _ ·--- ·--·- ...... --- • _ ---

"Police and the People.'' editorial, PhlladelphJa (Pa.) Inquirer, October 28, 1963 .. _ - .. _ .. _ ... _ .. _ ...... __ .. _ ... _ •• _ ....... ______ • _ ... __ •

"\Velnrott Invites U.S. Justices Hero to See Impact of ·Free Counsel Rule," article .... _ ..... __ ...... _ .... _ ........... ___ .. _ ....... _ ... __ .. __ .. _ .. __ .. ..

"T;s~;1~~n~r:,'i~~~:~~ _ ~~~~~·~·- ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~·-~~~~n-~t~~~ WMAL/Rm/tm/tv editorial broadcast July 6, 1967 .... _ .. ____ ........... .

;i,

.rare 1188 I

1189

1190

1190

1191

1191

'1192

1192

.1193

1101

1191

1105

1195

1196 1139 1139 1140

1141

1142

1142

1143

1144

114-1

1146

1146

1145

8

1148

1148

1147

1147

1149 ~

"~

881 119~

' "

36


XII

Edltorlals, newsl!_ap_er and magazine articles-Continued "What the Bl;!g Told at 168 Atwells Avenue," Providence Journal,

Providence ,H.J., May 2~ 1967- -------- -- -- __ -- -- - _ --- ---- -- - -

"Ci!f.~.~~:YR~~fg~f ~~~_~-~~~~I~•: _t~e-~-e~ :_ ~~~ ~i~~:-~ ~~~ :_o_r~ The New York ·u~es, Julr 2, 1967, article._ -- ----- _ -- --- -- _ - -· - _ FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Octob~r 1966, excerpt------------·. The New York Post, Ju!y 6, 1966, article ________________________ _ Article from New York Times, Nov. 23, 1066, re wiretapping ______ _ Article from the Now York Titnes, Janu·ary 30, 1967, re wiretapping .• Article from the New York Times, March 30, 1967, re org*plz~d crime_ ArticlO from the New York Times, June 26, 1967, re Wm. O. Blttman_ Article from South Bend Tribune, Nov. 16, 1966, re wiretappfn_g ___ _ Articles from Chicago Sun-Times, re Las Vegas "Skimmfng OJicra·

tions'' ------··-- - ---- --- - -- - - - - - -- ------- - --- ---- ---- -- -- - --"The· Doors Are Open, 'fhe Enemy Can Walk In," Dr. Max Rafferty._ "Ramsey Chrk, and Crime," Washington, D.O., Daily News, July 12, 1907 __________________________________________________ _

"Pf2~qra:.~~ ~~- -~~i~~·~~ ~~: ~~~~~~~ ~-t~~~ -~~-s~~~~~~~'- ~·~·~ ~~!:

' ..

I,

Page 042

041 062 965 966 982 983 985 986 087

988 692

1124

1124

37


96 CONTROLLiNO • 'cfilME

tlal" C()mrinittlty treatment ·<?enter&; to ·permit them -to· take emergency, or~ rehabllltatlve leave, and to permit them to work at paid employment· or 1 participate lo community training Dr~.rams. iAs a result, new ~chnlque,s·t~v~lvwg pi·e_1·et_eas~ ~d. work release, PXQl~Jl~ .are belng perfected in the hove we wlll moJ"e pf ten return useful, rehablUtated clUzens. to theJr· communlUes: . T~~ hu~t-~nt '. r;r.oposal ~Quld , cons.mute ·a tur_thet ·step·· 1r.. the·. impro1ve~~nt o~ our cor.recttons procesa; It would establlsh a United States ·corrections S~r.~lce .whl~l\ would combtne under ·a single direction ~h~ supervision ot convlc~ed .1 per_son~.' lrre~pec~~v.·e of whethe~. they ar.~. contlne·d In an· lnstl~iltlon, ·t_,otalJy In th<t ~~~ .conunu~1ty· on Pl'ol:>atlo~ or, t>~role,_ or soµi_e\Vher~ · betwc~n co~plete. confl.O,ement and com_plete: treedoQi~tor ~xample, in a· hal(-way ho.use. This con~ollclatlon _.p;t _reS,poll$Jb~llty ·~9, ·th~ ·s~pervlsf~n · ~nd reha~nttntton· of Federal.oftend_ers .certalnlY has the }lOtentlftl. of J,elng more eft'ecttve. · ·

.Tfle.,prapos~l would aJ..So make· se1era1 :chllnges :lh ·the membership .atid; resi><>n~lbl_lHY,. ot the, .~,vl.sory COrrecttop~, Con_l'}rill~'.T_lie Cou·pcll'wo~t~ be composed ot four United States judges, and, ex oftlclo, t'he Chairman .of the Board of P~role, tbe Chairman nt .the Vo.nth Dlvl~dn ·of UiEi"Hoard of: P~i'.ole; th~. Director· o.t .'the Uul~ert . St~.tes · CpJ;'r~tlomi S~rv.lce/ &J?.d a physlcl~~ _ ~e~lgnat_ed by the S~retary of Health, Education, "and Weltare.- This· Councll''would' continue to consider problelful , of treatment and correction ·and ~would also. ·consider problems ot coordination and Integration of· PQll9.f amp~. the . brancties ot the Government havl.ng. ~tatutory . ,responslbllldes. fa this area. It wo\tl<t make recommendations to the Attorney Generai"and 'to th~·~udlchU Corlference or the United ·States relating to ·these responelbllltles and ·to ,·the'. lmptovement of the administration· of criminal justlce. In addltlon, the Councll ,would be authorized· to etnploy 1ftn ·Executive ~Director · aild · other nccessary·_:personnel to cAl'rJ out:lts expllndetlt\tnctl0ns. ; · · . · '. · · 1

• • . • .. ; i L•st Cohgre88,' the~'IDepartme:nt or Justloo. submitted .a. proposal -sltullar to

·this on~,; but broader~· It would· have ·trabsferred· )the 1 United States · l!robatlon Service from the coulis to the Departmenttof,J'ustlce-;.todglng with .thlsrUepart· :ment: aU-nf the ;tnneJ;t6ns· t>f ·the! Servlt-e,1 including. ~sponsJbllley. ·for· t1'e i})repara·uon i 1of rpresentence l reports. ·unllke'the .earlier proposaI.1-howeTer,·ithe ·j?Urrent measure continues the Probation Service as a part· of .the· CQU1't·sys~m •Wlth the reeponslblllty!foriprepa'1ng·presentence reports f~.the use of·dletd~ judges.

-- The ·t!ontlnuM ;In-Crease 1ln· crlnte ·.warrants; the ~pr()tllPt. . close. at~ntlQJJ i Qf. the Congress to this proposal.· I urge Its early lntroduotton -and1·.copal<\eJ1ttlon., . : · r.l'he· ·Bureau ot·the'Budget bas' advised ·tbat~there·ls ·no:obJootlon t<> :the Rnb-1\llsston ·ot~tht&·legtslatton from· the standl)olnt~ of Ute Admlnlstl'atlcm's.prograµi. • · • • 1 Slncerely, .. ' ... 1, · .. :i '.- - .... , ·~·" .: • ···: ·· · tt:, 1:•::;1:• 1

·-.

,.,.... .; 1 • • 1; ·•, : , '··' 1!•·i ·. !• . :- , :RAMA~Y Cul\K, .. • ·. /, . . : . , · , ~': .: : . AcUng 1AtlONUJJ1.,General. ·

i'

I • ,

A BILL TO a88lRt 1 8tate and 'local -.onrnment11 In reducing the Incidence of crime. to lneteaee _the e«edlveneu, falrnesa. and coordination of law enforcement and criminal Justice aystema at all levels of government, and for other purposes.~ .. : . ..

1 _; :

Be ii enacted 1JU l'he Senate and Houae of Repreacntatlvea of the UnUed:'States of America In. Oongreu aaaembled, That this Act may be cited as·· the "Sate Streets and Crime Control-Act of-t96r"~1

•

PlNDlMOS A..~,D 1>¥CLABATION OJ' PURPOBE ' I ' ! ' ' • ' ' ~ ~ • ' ~

-SEC. 2. Tbe Congre8$.h~reby declares.,lt.to be the poUoy otJhe tJ.ntt~ States to promote the general welt~re by IJnprovlng iaw .enforceiµent aqd .tf\e-admtnts· tratlon of- criminal Justice .. Crime ls __ essen~lally. a loeal ,PJ'.Q~lem. tllat .mu$t be dc•alt with by .State an4 ·.local ,gove~n~ents. Bu~ .sWJµalned :aqd .s\lbst~tfal national .a~lstanoo ls: necessary to ald the~e.goverQD).entEf·fp ooptng wlthtl).e lawl~asne88 that has become a .~rlous probl~ of Jiatlonatswntftcan<;e, . . .

It is the _purp~ .ot tbls .Ac:t to! ll;i,creaee, tho .. ~raonat sa~e.i.1 · ,0~ tbe. ,pe~J>le of the Nation by reducing the incidence ot crtme; to stlm,ula~ ,t_b~: .a\l,o~at,lon of new resources .and the development ot ~ec;-hnologtcal a.dva11cea,aud other Jnnovatl.,ns tor prev~Jitlng ~rJ.me; to increas,e -the, e~cleiiQY ·and t•t~ne..1J:1 ot law enfo1t'elnent an_~ crlmln~l -Ju9tlce ttirough ln)prov~l man~w~r; tr~~tng, o~gantzatlon, and equipment; f\nd to encourage coordination In planning, operations,

38


CON'l'l\OLLINO CRiltJE

and research by Jaw enforcement and. criminal Justice ageucles. throughout the N11tlon. : . . , . , , ,

. TITLE I-PLANNING OltANTS

SEo.101."lt: ls the puri>os~ ot'thhdltle to ettcourage States·a~d1 1ivns.of general ·1ocal government to· prepare ·ntid adopt' comprehenslV'e ·p1a·ns bO:s'ed oh· thelr evaluation ot Stnte and local Pl'Oblems ot law enforcement and criminal justice.

SEc. 2. The Attorney General ls au'Uiq~Jzed· to ·make gr~nts to s'tat~s, units of general local' government, or· colllbl~atforis 'of such Sthtes ·or uults~ tbr. preparing, developing, or revising the plan~. described In section. 2P4: Provided, however, That no unit of general loc .. l government or combination of such units shall be ellglbM. ·tor a gra·nt under this tltl~ ·unless lt' has a population · dt not less than fifty tho~nd persons. .. . . .

SEo. 103. A Federal grant authorized· under section 102 slloll ·not exceed 00 per centunl ot th~ total cost of Uie prepqratlon~ developm~nt, or l'etlslon ot a pltru.

SEo. 201. It ls the purPose ot this title to' authOrlze grants to Sttltes c:ind units ot general local government for new approaches and Improvements· In law en· torceinent and crUnlnal justice. ·The pur})Oses tor which grants ma)' be made may Include but sltall not be limited to- .

(a)· public protection, Including the development, demonstration· and ·eraluatlon of methods, devices, equipment and d~slgu to Jnc1·ease safety from crime In streets, homes, and other publlc arid pii\'ate places; . ·

(b) equipment, Including· the d~velopment and acquftdtlon ot equt1n11ent. designed to Increase the eff~ctJvertess· and· improve tb·e deployment. of law enforcement·and cr1m1n·a1 justtce·persbbner: . . ·. . .· .

(c) manpower, lnchtdh11rthe·rec~ltn1ebt~ education~ arid:.tral~lUg of. all types_ of law· enforcenient aud~dfit!tifttl' J\ts.tlce· personnel';- .. · · .. : .·

(d) manngement nnd otganltatlon, lliCIUdfng .the· otg11n1z:n.t1on~ _adtnfn. lstratloil, and. coordlnntlorr ot law ·enforct!inent and. crlmlbal Just le~ agencies and ·function«; · · · · . · , · ·

(e) operatronir an·d tacllltles; for' ht~rea$ing the· capability an'd·talrness. ot Ial1t· entotcement ·and. crtttllntt1·.1urtlee, · hfoladlhg· tli(f pro~•s1l1g, · disposi-tion~ and rebabl\1Uitloii1C:>t oft'endbrlt, 1 . : · • , · · • , •

Ctl oom~htt1· rel~t~o.nr. · l.~~htdln~ pnb1fo· understan·dtn1f or·anc1''co.01>era-t1on with law ent6r~ment and .~ttmlnal jus~lce age~cles ;.and , .

. <g) publ.~c e~,~c~~1o1r rel~tlbg ~~ ct.lme pre.\tentton, mcludlrl*, education program~.ln sc~ool.and ~omtttttbttY.iig¢b:~les. . . .. . . . .- ..

SE~. 202~ (_a)· ~egtnn~ng·,anuatt' li 1008, tlte ~tt~rney· General ftJJl\lthorlzed to ~ake grai:its to ·$tttt~. units of g~n,l'al l~ar go.'f~rnment; or cotnbll)ntlons ot rmch States· or· units' for the p'U~PQses des~tlbetf'ln · s~uon 201". ·'tit~ ·amount of any sucli· grant sball'n~t; ex~e~_<\'~'~r ~~tnm: o.ttht! hhpfo~e~ent ijx~ndlture of the applicant : Prootd"ed hotctjvhf: rTHnt:..!.. ! • · • · · , •

. ( 1) no gratit tihdl\~ this l~tfbtt; shihl be used foi- 'ihe eonstru~tl~n 'of any building or other physical tacUltf ·; arid · · . · · · ' · ·

<2> · not: niore"'th'1in one-Wlid .... of! ·a1uy grant ~ndet: tht~ · $~tlon ~haU be expe~cJ~d for .the .co.m~nsatfon, o~ ~,r~~nne1~· exce1>f :ttt4'.t thtt1' ~t»'•ltatlon $hall·not aPP.11·t6''fb'e··~tr,i~iurat1<1Jl. 9tr~rsonnel"'tor. tlflie enga-g~· 1n.conctttct1t1g or undetgolngl-tthUilng·progra.ntS' aua ·spectal~~ .. ~onnef.perform-lng Innovative functions. . . · · 1

· . • •

. c b > Imllrovettt~it~ ~!t~ri_'cfrture· ~s··th.~)~tri~tirtt ·tiy :1'litcu.· th~'P.tbp(>s~ 0perat1n . budge:t~ ott· tile .ainMnt)~ 'W.hl~Ji th ff '.r>ropp$ed! o~ra.t1ng:h:tidget· 1¥u'.c~lta whlc:. ev~r 1$"-gr~ter',·dt'f8'61l~l)llcttiit tb~tlA"v·th;ift)\oOO)bent··amt ctt lb u Ji #( · 'ut · ~es tor the flscal y_ear f9r which ti\~ ~ra.n.t 1.~~stmglifeit~~dift~' i~i)l~an~~qu~ty. lt1jt e~pehdlture 1 · .. . • · . · · . · · . . . • . . .

' (~l" Qbtmt;tti•f~~ttdll~i~''i·r1't ~}!i'.' ••• ;, • ;.p:' -.. : ; .. '. ·: r ·l·.d~"· ii 111 .

. (1) 105 ~r centum ot the. oll/~:i eiiiilffll ~1 ' ; t ; 'i) '!' ; ~I:,! 'f·'?: ·ftlmt~lto<'beltt!:tM''frll tliet·,a» u~ai~I . pl I '1i k"r u-' r!tl\e .. a .Pl.~~tlbft, ta for . 100SP· , .. , " , · · ·.; "'"" o·,. • P . · ·., ·: .. , . ., : o • Y . 11. .~, o.fik ,JP,: ,; ·,4:11\~1!4-r,. ~ear

C2) 110 jler <'entnm ot the base expenditure It the appllcatroln~: '.to'~~funds to be used In the appllcant•s fiscal year ending In the· calendar year 1969. . .

39


98 CON'rROLLtN'O .. CRIME

<3> , 115 per centum, ot the base· expendtture·· 1t the appllcatlon,~ ls tor funds to be used In the applicant's fiscal year ending tn the calendar.year 1970 ; ' ' ' . . ' : ' ~. ' .

( 4), l~O per centum of the base expenditure if th~ appll~atlon Is for fUJlllS to be used ln the applicant's' ftS'cal. year endh?-g In t'1e calendar year 10{~~- 125 'per centum ·ot ·the b·a~e· ex~ncuture ·u lh·e. appllc·auo~ :ls for funds to be used In the appllcant's fiscal year ending In 'the calendar· year 1072 O • I ' , •

. ( 6) 130 per centum of the base expenditure lf the apptt~atlon ts for tunds to be used ln the· appllcant's fiscal year ending In the calen<lar year 1M&

1 ( d) llnse expenditure ls the appllcan.t's operating expendfttfres or· operating l'Xl>ellllltures per capita, as the case may beJ· for law enforcen1ent and crlmtnnl Justice purposes for the fiscal year completed next preceding· January 1, 1968: Pmvlded. hoivci,m·, That lf the applicant's base expenditure, t.ncludes sul>stantlal nnd extraordlnary·amounts nnd the Attor~ey General Is ot ttle opinion tliut the l'equlrements of this section constitute an' unreasonable restriction on the applknnt's ellglblllty ~or a graQt und~r t_bls, section, tile Attorney General mny reduce snch requlr'.e1I1ents to the extent he deems appropriate. . · . .

SEC. 203. (a) ~he Attorney General ,ls nu.,thorJzed to make grants ·to States, , units of general' local government, or ·~omWrinUoµ~ of. su~h. S~ates ·'<>r u1il(.s. f~r the c_onstrucUon o~ bulldlngs or othe~ p}lystcal tacllltles which ~uum ~ slgniflcnnt, lnn\whttv~ 'fQfi'ctlort. The· niJ?.ount of any sue~· grant ahnu .·n.ot ex~eed 50 per cent um ot the cost of _such const'ructtw1. ·; , '. . .. . , . ; , .. , ~ bJ, 7-\n, applicant sh~ll ~~ :eU~lpl_eJ~F o._ gi:~nt ~~ct.er this se~Hon only Jf such

nppllt'ant.,\yould al,ao be ellglble. fo~ a grant ~nder s~cUon 20~. . . . Sro~

1

2~: '(a) The Attorney OeneJ"(ltls.aulhor•ze~.'to m~~ 'gr'ants .tQ al) nppllcant. un~cr thls title onlf .if su~~.:ai>~i~n~·baS-.a tl,1~ .'witn t~e· A.tt0ri1ey Oen(\rat ·a t\il'tent hi~ ~nfor~~~~~t. anct"'c~ffi(n~ti)~tlce.)~tan ."7hlclf ~oritorms .with the purpose and reqµlrements of thls ~~t, Each s~ch. plan shaU- . . i, · ·

(1). untess:tt ls no~ prac~l~~bl~· tg.:do so'h\.), enoomp~~s a State~ .unit of genernl toc·at government, or combfnatton of such States o~):fntf!J,; ai;\d (B) be_,ppU_~able to~ pop~tatlon ot.n~~ 1~~ t~~n ftft1 thousal:l~ ~?!$0~B;,

· ( 2)', Uicorw~a te tnnovnU6ns and ad~anced . technl~uea and. cont~ln a com· preben~I v~' oiitllne 'of ·prtotl Ue8 tor. ~e Jm1»rovem~J\i, aqd ~~~r4illa tlQJ) of all aspect~ .of law epf~.r~me~t ~~ 1 ~l'J~~-~~tju~_t1~ ·~eaJt,w,~:J~Jl!e. 'plan, In· eluding descrlp_Uons o~: (A) genb{~t:.~~~' au~. nr9.~l~~~C0l) .~xJstJng sys· tems; (0) al'~tlabte ~urces; (J;>).purposes tQr whkh Federaf funds are sought (wlth. 9peclftc"reteren&f tQ. t~~lr. ~eq\le!lce: tliiiln.f, a~d'.~os.bl) ; (E) ~:vstems. and ad?tlll;lstt"atlve ~achl1:1:~r11 tor tmplemeqt~g .t~e plan; ·cF~. the direction, scope, and· types ot ln\proyemenu to 'he m.ad~ In the. f~ture; end ·cor~~·the extent api>roprlate;:ili~l re1au.o~hlp ot the.jllan to ,other relevant State or local law enfQrceme~~ ~n<\ crl~t~,41 Justice plan~ and systems.

\ b) In Implementing this section, the At~rne:r (Jenera I ahall--- . . (1) encourage . State .flt\cl Joe~\ .lblMatlv~ In developlng. c9mprehensl\"e

law enfor<?ement atid crlmln91 Just ~e plah;s s'. . { ' ; J " " • , ' '

(2) enconrage pltins which encompas~ the entli-e metropolitan area, If any, ot whlCh 'the a~pllcant ls a part: .,l:, , . , .. .. . , ,

(8) ,encourage plans which deal wltii ·the problem.s.ap~ i>rovid~ tor the lmpfo'yement ·~t-~ll l~w ~ntorceinent and·crlxnlnat ju·suce ~gencles In the area enrompassed by the plans; . : , .... '; : . ; , ,

( 4) encour~ge plans which provide tor reseti.~ch ll~d development; . (lS) e~couraf;& plans whlc~ pr~vld~ .(OJ' an .•ppr<>'prlate batan~ between

fund alJocatlo~d to~ the several parts of the law eqforcement and ~rlmlnal ;tnatl~ ,atstem~ ~~vel'.~ l>J the p~s; . . . . ; ... : . , . . ; . ..

'6) encourage pJariR whlch' demonstrate the Willingness of, the appll<!ant to asmme the coats of improvements tonc!e4 under this title·. after a reason· able period ot l'e(leral a88lstance: •n4 . , . . · . _ . . . . · . . , ·

· · ('1)' encourap · p~ 'Which uplOre. tlJ.e ~ata an4 benefit& of ;alternative cotines of action an4 promote eOlclenc)' and economy In manage1llent and operations.

•I ~ < ' ._ , ' • : I I ~ "•'

1 1

~ ' t

40


CONTROLLING CRIME ·99

TITLE· III..;..RESEAROH, DEMONSTRATION, AND SPECIAL PROJECT GRANTS

SEO. 301. It Is the purpose ot this title to encourage research and development for the purpose ot improving law enforcement and criminal justice arid developing new methods tor the prevention and reduction ot crltne. ;

SEO. 800. The Attorney General ls authorized to.make grants to,. or enter Into contracts with, Institutions ot higher education and other -'public agencies· or private organizations to conduct research, demonstrations, or special proJetts which be determines will be ot regional or national Importance or ·wnt make a slgnlflcant eontrlbutlon to the improvement ot law enforcement and criminal justice.

SEO. 803. The Attorney General ls authorized to .make grants to institutions of higher education and other publlc agencies or private· nonprofit organizations to establish national or regional Institutes for research and education pertaining to the purpose ot this Act. ·

SEO. 804. A Federal grant authorized tinder section 802, or 803 may be up to 100 per centum ot the total cost of each project or institute tor which such grant Is made. The Attorne1 General shall require, whenever teaetble, as a condition of approval ot a grant under this title, that the recipient ·conttlbute money, fa.; cllltles, or services to carry out the purpose for which the grant ls sought.

SEO. 303. The Law· Enfor~ement Assistance Act of, 1065 (79 Stat. 825) Is repealed and superseded by this title: :Provided, howover, That-

( a) tho Attorney General htay award new grants, enter Into new contracts or obligate funds for the continuation ot projects ln accordaflce with the provisions of the JJuw. }Jilforcement Assistance Act, 'based upon applications received under thnt Act prior tO tha effective date of this Act; r ,

• • i. ( b) 'i the Attorney General is authorized: ·to obligate fnilCJs . tor 1 the con. tlnUntlon of projects a:pp\loved ttnderttbe Law Enforcement\ Assistance. Act 1)rior to the effective date ofrthts ·Act, .to the extent that· rruch approvftl l)rd-i vided for continuation ;•and "· " : · .. - ... · ... .. . . : . · · · · (c) any awarding of:gra11ts; enterlrlg Into :contracts 1or oblfgatloti·of.fuiids under subsection :(a) ·or· (b) 1 of' thl,. section, and 'all· activities necessary .or appropriate for the revlew,·lnspectton; audlt,)ftnal'dleposltlon·and·dissemlna'tlon ot project nccompllshtnents with respect ·to· projects which: are approved in accordance wttli the'provtslons·ot the»Law Enforcentent·Asststance Act and which continue in operation beyond the effective date of this Act may be carried on with funds appropriated: under thls'Act. · · · · · ·

.. I . l : • + I ~ I • • . : ii

· TITLE·ilV,...;..AD:MINISTRATION

· SEC,. 401 .. (a) There sh~ll l>e ln~th~.Departm~nt qt Justl~ a· ril'rector of.Law Enfor~~.ment and Crhulnal .Justice A~sl~tance. who s~aU. ~. appoJ~ted by the President, by and with the advice and consent .of the. Senate, whose function shf\ll .be to assist the Attornf)y Oene.-al In the ·pertormance·()f :bis dutles under

th.tcbfc~~ectlon 5SilS ot'tltte 5 of hie U~ited 1 St~tes Code '18.'~ine.nded. by .t.be addl· tlon ()f the foJlc;m~J~g at th~ entt tberepf: . · . ., ; , ~: .... · ·1·.· . : ... ",.;,.. • . •

11 (78) Director of Law Enforcement an~ .Qrh:plnal Jqatlce .4ssl$tance." SEO. 402. The Attorney ~n.eral Is fi.U.t~~rlzed to BPPC>\:Pt such• technlc.al or other

advi8ory committees to advl$e him in .conn~tlQn .with .the adµllnlstrr\tlon of this Act as h'e deems ne~ary. Members of such C011Ulllttees not otherwise in the employ of the United States, while attending Jlleetlngs of. the comDJlttees, shall be entitled to receive compensation at· a rate to. be fixed by .the Attorney General, ,Jjµt not exc~<llng,$l()9 per dleµi, and .while away frQi;n. b,ome or regumr plac9 ot business they may be allowed travel ex~ses, including per diem In lieu ot subsistence, as authorized by la'w (ls u.s,o. lS703). (01 perso1;1e In the. Gov· ernment servlee employed Intermittently. .

SEo. 403. To Insure that' all ,F~deral assletan®.tQ State and local programs tor lnw enforcement and crlmlnat Justice Is carried out JD a coordinated manner, the Attorney General Is authorized to request any .. Feder1ir deliat1ment'or,agency·to supply.such statletlcs;·data,· program reports, 18.ndi·(Jther materials as lie deems necessary to carry out· his tnn·cttons under ! this 1 A~t. Each, such· department or agency ls authorized to.cooperate with the Attorney· General abdj t()·the"extent permitted by law, to furnish such materials to tlid:Attorney General. ·AiiJ :Fed·

41


100 CONTROLLINO CRIME·

eral department or. agency engaged· in. admlnlaterh~li proaraui~ .related· to i law enforcement and criminal Justice .s)JaU.'. t9, the maximum extent practicable, consult with and seek advice from the Attorney General to Insure fully coordl· nated etrorts. .. · · " · . · .. · . . ..

SE(J. 404. The, Attotney. General.may. arrange with amt. re.lmbul'Se. the· heads of other Federal departments and agencies. fori the pe,rtorJllnbce. of! nny .of his functions under~ this Act, and,. as necessary or appropriate; delegate any. of bis powers under this Act. with respect to any part thereof, andJ authol'lie the redele· gatlon of such powers. . .

SEo.. 405. Tbe Attorney. Ge11eral le authorized- . . (a), to. conduct, re$earch and, evaluation·. studies: with l respect· to· matters

relnted to this Act; and (b) ·to· collect, evaluate, pubUsh, and· disseminate. statistics .and ·other In·

tormaUon on:.the ·condltlon and, progress of· law enforcement andicrlmlnal justice In: the. several States.. . .

SEO. 406. Payments under this Act may be made ln Installments, and·in·advance or by way of•. rellll bursement, as may· be determined! by· the· Attorney General.

SEO. 407. Whenever· the Attorney. General, after. reasonable; notice and ·oppor· tuntty for hearing. to .a grantee un,der this Act. finds: that, with r~pect· to· any payments made::under thle1Act, there ls a· substantial tallure·to. comply wltb-

(a) the provisions of, this ·Act; , (b) regulations promulgated by the· Attorney· General under-this Act; or (c) the law, enforcement· and crlmln.al· Justice plan submltted.Jn:accord·

ance with too provisions of this Act' the Attorney.. General shall notify such grantee that further:payments shall not·be,made (or ln,bls discretion· that further Pft.1Dlenta shall· not be made tor activities In which there , ls such failure), until there la no longer such tallure. ·

S&o. 408, NothlDg contained ·ln· thla · Act. shall ·be iconstrued to authorize any department, agenc7+ omcer;: or . eniplo1ee of the · U~ted ·States to es:erclse . any direction,: ~\lpe.rvle!on, ·or control i over au1· po}IC!e force . or. other agency· of; any State or local law ~ntorcement and criminal jnatlce; system. .

·SEO. 409. Unless. otherwlse:speclOed~ in :thie-::Act, the!Attorney General shall carr11out.the .. progranul:provlded~tor In.this· Act during the 0 flscal:year. ending June 80.-19ea: and·tha fou1' suc~edlng.flsoal·year&.; .

Szo.·410. Not n:tore tban,l'5lper._centwn1ot the,·sums approprlatedior allocated for any, fiscal year, to carry. out the purpose. of thla: A.ct shall .be used wlthln any one State. · . , . . . .

Szo. 411. The Attorney .. General;, atter; appro~rlate consultation with· repre· sentatlnis ot State and local governments, ls authorized to precsrlbe such regulations as may be necessary. to Implement the: purpos~ of this Act, Including regulations whtcb-

( a)· provfd6 tl}at a·grantee·wlll from ttm:e to ftme, but not less often· than annually, submit a ·rewrt ·evaluating aecompllshments and cost-effectiveness ot acttvltles ft1bded ·under this Act·; . . : .

· ( b r provide tor· fiscal control; sound· accounting'. ·procedures and periodic revorts to the Attorney General regarding the appllcatlon of funds· paid under thte Act; and , · ·

(c) establish criteria to achieve an equitable' distribution among tlie States of· assistance\ uttdel" this A:ct · · · · · ·

SEC. 412, On-or:b~<h'e ~UgUSt·Bl,· 1968; ant1 eacli y~ar tbereaf,er; the'·Attor-rtey General shall rel)Ort to tlie· Prestde~t and to th& congress on actlvltl~s ·p.ursuant to tlie pro~&tons o~ .th's ·A~t dtlrln$ th.e·p~eced~ng-fiscal 1~~r.. . . : · :. ·

SEC. 418. ·For· the· ·PU~ ot: carrying' out; thl~ Act, there· is: heteby authorized to be approprfat~!tlie sum'of f59,000;00:0 for the ·ti~\ ·y~ar e~dlng Jtine so, )008; and· tor each· $~~~ng ftfleatlyear· aucb· s~11· as tlie Congress m.aY hereafter ap~ropHrtteJ FUtlds app~prl~t~.d for .tlie· p1;tr~se of ·catritng: out thJs ;Act shall remain. avallabl& tmtlll expended;- ' · · ·.· · · " · · , .. ·

1 • r "·· ., TIT;LE·v-nEFl~1fri6Ns . . . ·1 •• : · •

" l\-, .. t:·, ~· '~:r ~.~ • • I•',~~ 0 , ' , 0 • • ~

S~o. C>01 •. A.a 1 Qed ~ f P. l tbla .. Act-._ · · . . _ · ! : : . : · • ~ • . • 1 . ) ·.. • , .: • • ·

. (a) ''Daws entor.ceme:qi.·,andr crhulnat·jqatlc~~: m~ana.all·aotlvltteaipertalnhig to crlw.e:P~TentiQn. Ql" the ~ntorcement· and· admlniatratton of1 the crtmtnal law, lncludlnc .but iiotilbnlted to ·acttvltles.1.n.voltlng. Police; prosecutlon'or detense·ot crtmln}IJ!cuetJ;: .courf.a,i probatlon,, correcttona and patolei, . · ··.. ':; · " , : .·

•· i I

42


382 CONTJlOLLlNO CRIME

Attorney General CLARK. Thnt would certainly be something we11 w<>rth.\,·hile nnd we would hope it. would be done in the context of title III.'~Ve would hope.that it would not cause nny signJficu.a1t delay in ennct.ing this l~islntioi1. Progmms qnd~r titles II ~nd III he.ve t?- be coordinated. The reseai:ch and develOpm~nt grant prqgram provides nn anchor and foundation for the action gra_nt i>rogmm.

Senntor KENNEDY. :Could I request '-our comments on those ·two pieces of 1egislation.1'hank yo\1 v~ry much. .

Senator McCLELLAN. Senator Hruska. Senator HRusx.\. Thnnk you, Mr. Chairman. ~Ir. Attbn1ey General, you gave some figures for overnl.l national

expenditure· hi the po1ice field nnd you ment.ioned the figure of $4 billion. 'Vhnt is thnt for? .

Attorney Genel1\l CLARK. A Jittle over $4 billion is tho estimate contained in the Natiom\1 Crime Commis3ion report for nll of the

I>~ of criminal justice. Of that1 nbout $2.8 billion i,s for State, ocnl and Federal pohce. About $1,0aO million is fo~ Fedeli\1, State

!'nd locitl cor~ti~ns-nll you1· pri~1~s, nil your .jails, nll other P.u~lfo involvement 111 pr1sohs nnd correct1011s. Sometlimg over $300 mllhon is, the gross l1nfionnl expe11diture for· the criminnl nspe_cts of court ncti~ities pips prosecution. rt. is amazing how little it ~s when you l'ons1derthe 1mportnnce.of the work.,

Se1\nto1• HRUSK.\. D0es $~0 million go very fnr against such n corpuat , ·

~tto~ey·G~iu~n)l CLA~K. lt. ~s interest~ug to ~.ho~ it goes. Let me, skip ·to·t989, it I might. With n con?US of $4 bllhon, if you ·hnve the lS perc~nt increase ·required by the l)ill (which ·hns been the t1ational average) nn· increase of $209 mlllioit will be required before Federal dollRrs· are a.v·ana~le. · _ . . '

If you, t.hen have $80() mlllibn available for grant purposes on a ma~~i~g b,asis9t~is would ~t1volye .ut> !O. ~o ~~er,i~ ·~o ~a.tch',to ·~oo million tno~ hotn the Stat~ and·Jooal JUrlS~.1ct1ons *o bf>.~4~e4 to the $800. ~ill!on.,th~t w~uld mean .a.n increa8ed 1ny~tmel,l~ _in tbnt,year.of $700 mllhpn. to· be added to: the bnse of $4 bilhon .. In 1 yenr the m· o~ wo~l~ l;>e three and n. hat f times greater than our experience at the pres6nt time. Sena~r HRUSKA. w~ .there. any tho~ghi gjven •to the idea of a

Gove~or's veto over this pa~1cular ~ype of. ~edernl gra~t' .' At!<jm~1 GeJ?-eral C.LARK. It 1s a subJ~~t ~hat can hardly esca~ your

attention m ·this ~neral area toda;y and 1t· was considered. It 1s our j~dgln~nt t1tat'the j\lstificati.o,il· 'for that is ~U:ch ~~re difll~~lt ~fin~ 1n Jaw en~orcement than In other a~. And the· reason pr,1mj\rdy 1s that· law enforcement has· been basically n local fun~H<m •. Police ex· pendlturcs ,by l.ooal ~vernments are about 2~ times poUc~ expendi· tures by ~tat~· rhe avera~, ~t~te doea,n_ot,glve ~ny fl!1anci.nl aupport to· local l.~w -~~fo~m~"t. Jt.haa ~r-oally no ~pertence 1n Iocatl~w. en· . fo;:-ceme~t. Th~ a~erage State ~00.S not have ~n offlce to'.coordmnte t~1e

. nbHv!ti.eil~~ fOOfll, ~a! ehfo~~ment~.~Ji~~ i~ iio -~t basis for 'the qover· r/or of a Sta~· in th~ exerc184S ~of I.us funbhons to say.that fl.,part1culnr p~~m ifl ·nlW sou.n<1 since he .haa np·:ex~rien~, ~.if the· .fl.~Id.- , ·• ~~ator ;ll'.~'C18KA.~ ·.~U,t are l)~t; the c1_t1~ nnd, c~unties ~d~aU ~f their

~~~t!!:: ~~:.~~crir~i:~gJ~~~mJ·lt~:f ~tt~~~~r:iii~~,. 43


CONTROLLING CRIME 383

course, the Governors often play n vital role in these functions. The nttorne'-s general of the States have general supervision of nll major criminal P.rosecutions and the trials. There is a very close support.mg relationsli!I? between States and cities. For example, how can it b6 said that New York City is free and clear of State government and does not have any close ties or relationship in law enforcement. I cannot follow that reasoning.

Would you have a comment on thist ·It is not limited to New York, but, ~nerally, I cannot see nny dift'erence between t.his field and any other fields. Attome~ Geneml CLARK. I guess thnt p<>lice activities were the first

function of cities if not of ~vernment itself. It hts been ~ function we have left to the cities in this country. New York City provides an illustration. There are 28,000 policemen there. The nnnuttl bud~t. of the New York City Police Department exceeds the budget of the U.S. Department of Justice by $400 million. As far ns I know the State does not provide any funds for police protection in New York City. They supply no advice. Only· last year they established 'nn office inlhe State govemment involving one mnn and one staff assistant .. What can they. contribute to the mighty police department of New York City, which has protected the people for generations. ·

As far as the powers of the State attomeys genern]s are concerned, the average attorney genel1'1 of a State exercises no si~iftcant crlm· inal powers. Many have no 1~1 authority hl' tltis nren. ThoS& that do have common law pqwers find it diftlcult to use them. A·rare exception is the State of California where there is a department of justice but its functions, too, are limited. It tends to be on the· prosecution slde1 rather than to: involve police protection.· And it exercises no control over the local. district attom~ys in their handling of prosecutions.

Senator HRUSKA. Your bill emphasizes that we nre ·prosecutors of cases.. . ·;. i · ,

AttorneJ: GeneralCLARK. Yes. 1• . · ;. • . • •

~ene:tor HRUSKA. Those claiming. to be in the ]R.w enforcement part of Justice make.up a very small percentage.· . . ·

Attome1- General CLARK. Y~ very_ small. . · · · ·~nator HRUSKA. In many. of the Middl~.W~em Stat~ the At~r·

ney General prosecutes all appeals from trial courts nnd ·1n many·m· st~nces p~rticipat~ in the pro~u~ion of cases nn~ trials in St.(\te <lis-trl~ oourts. .. ; . . .·, 1,. • ' ' . • . . • • . . ' .

Attorner. General CLARK. There·would·be no need for n Goverhor veto there because he would be directly· involved, presumably.

Senator HnusKA. Of course, when we ex1_>erienoo breakdown~ ·in n city ,police .. fo~:due to either,civil.commotion or massive civil disobedience, th~ Governor ste~ in, does he not t ... : . : · · · · ~ ; .. AttorneI General CLARK. He hl\S=to sorqetim.es, unfortunlltely. ·: ·: ·

1 ~nator HntrsKA.:ln.thinking of.the~CJ6vernor, I wonder·if the fear of .. bypassing the State in• a program.:of· this kh~d :w~uld! i1dt gr~J? the heart as much. as other programs wluch tliey·l~ave·dascu~d so;v1go~

°,uf ft~bi~y. GtiPeral C~R~,'ify j~dgi~ent :j~ thit: it ~~~)d' rioi' ~~9' police_departm~n!-8 are old·lipe n~n:~wa wi~h which.the.G~vem~rs have had ~ verz_ m1n1mal experience, conuechon, and. ·teJat1onah1p. · i .: , ;Sepator ,Hausu. I do not, k11ow- If .r.ou .have eonvmoed. me.· I: JU&t wanted.t6 ascertRin 'from yo\l.\tl,ether thnt had.~ive,d any thought,

44


384 CONTROLLING CRIME

Such questioning is going to be l'l\iscd on tho Scnnto floor because t.h&re l\re mnny Oovern01'8 who BRY you rn1fnot. ho 1>nrtners with tho Jt"odera! Government.

Tho Federal Government is dcalin~ out, this money ·nnd l\f~r it ho· comes n substnnt.ial nmount tho munic1pnllty Is hooked. If munlcipaJI. ties do not subshmt.iRlly t~Qmply with the p1Rn, thnt money cnn be wit.l1drl\wn and thoy hR\'O no nlternntlve. They must. runtl11\t depart· ment the WRY tho AUornoy General says t.hoy must., pursuant to t-hRt 1>lan. Control then eli~s nwny from thl\ municipality nnd goos into the Attorney Oenem I's Office.

Is that not nbont tho sizo of it t Attorney General Cfo\RK. No. Not nt nn. That would be both R

violntion of tho mnndnto nml sJ?irit of section 408. I think ns a pmctical matter tho Attornov G<-nornl will not. run the police dept\rtment bacau86 t.hoy will not let. hlm nnd hecnuse ho dON not want fo. He would not oven if he could do so.

And tho nmount of money conh·ilmted by tho Federal Government will bo n smnll fmction of tho totnl investment nnct it could hArdly be tho controlling pn.rt.

Senntor HRUSKA. You cnn go ns high ns 60 percent of thoso budgeta for ndministmtlvo improvement. The expenditure ·of 60 percent is n big percenta~. .

Attorney General Cr,ARK. Sixty percent. of t.he incre·11se nbove 10~ percent the first yenr 110 t>ercont t.he next year, 1US percent

Senator Hnu&KA.· ~t is only to nn imt>rovement component which this 60 percent applies t

Attome.1-Genernl CLAnx. Thatjs nll. Sonator HntrsxA. Will lt not in due ti mo be a sizn.ble amount 9 Attorney Goneml Cr.ARK. It will become I\ Jnrgo sum ·tn some cnses

in due time. · · · · Senator HnusKA. Now you rofe1• to section 408 which states that

nothing contained in this net shntl be construed 'to aut.horize any de· pnrtment, ngenoy, ofttcer, or employee of the United StaUs to exercise any dlrection\8UP.Orvislon1 or control over nny police force or·agenoy of Rill'_ State or ocnl IRw entorcement nnd criminal justice ~stem.

That is n. most noble statement. innde In good faith. Yet the p~lng ~~~: .

Whenever tho Attorney Oeneral, after reaBOnablc notlt'G and OPPQ.rtunltJ for ht,\arlug to a 1ranteo under thle Act, ftnda that, with respect to any payml'nt11 made under this Act. there le a substantial tallu'ro to compl7 with-

( a) the provlalone of ~la Act-And (b) and (o)-Considerlng tho vnst discretionary power invested tn··the Attorney

Genernl in this net and its· overwhelming discretion' In· connection lVith this p~m, any ~~~t of tho plan ~hat hns bee.n subm)tted nnd np1_>roved~must be OK'd ·by' the Attorney,General~ Thus, if ho feels it 1s being. maladmlnistered and not subatm\tially complied wlt.h, he will say "Sorry; boys• the show Is over. No· more money.•' ·

Would that. constitute control and sut>t?rvlslon in your judgment t It is well intended and·ft11ed .with· the spirit of wnnUng improved Jaw enforcement . service nnd all . of ·. ite p~ but is Tt, not a; pretty compulslvo eituatlon I . ·: · · · · ·

·:Attomey. General Cr~RK. No. ·I think it-is n~ry to·the ln~lty of~ the act that its provisions be com,Plied with1 and· its regulations be

45


CONTROLLING CRIME 385

complied with· ·and the plans submitted be complied with. Othenvisc, tho very imrposes of the net. fail.

Senf\tor HRUSKA. Exactly. Ae soon as thnt control is shifted ove1· from the local or State level, it finds its way into the Det>artment of Justice and the pur1>0SeS oft.his act would frtil; but them t.l1ey would be controlled and supervised. Apprehensions nt'e being raised about t.11is RSP.OOt of it.

Attorney General Cr1ARK. In my jud~nent, in view of the nnture of how t>Olico departments function and t.he extent of the Federal con-tribution, the fears are unfounded. .

Senator HRUSKA. They were not unfounded in a number of Govon1ors this past ycn.r in t.ho flold of aicl to dependent. children, n flotd in which I hn<l 8 years of t>ersonnl experience.

They were not unfounded in med1cnre or the ndmlntst.mtio1r of t.hl' water and sewage for municipalities with their ~uirement of com· ~unity· planning .. And in the field of educatiot), the cry Is becoming bigger nnd more vigorous as t.lmo goos on. More and more, t.l1e prerogn·, t.ives of local schools nre being taken away from them on tlie threat thnt unless thoy do thus and so, t.ho plan will not be complied with and no more checks from Washington, D.C.

This is not my invention. This record has been made In other com· mittees of· this Con~. This is becoming inoreasinEy well known.

·I am confident it will not hap n witn t.he first O mlllioil. But. what about the *800 million loveff How long will t 1at $800 million Jovel obtain 9

Attorney General CLARK. In my iudgment, it will probably lnoronse if the program is successful as we hope, at least for several ,years f\nd tfom level oft', and. hopefully, terminate at some time. ·

Senator HnusxA. Do you think It will terminate if It reaches as high as $l billion a ·year I · · ·

Attorney General CLARK. I t.hink that depends on many factors. We cannot meaningfully predict now. In t.l1e l8$t analysis, it involves the a.mount of resources wl1ich local and Stnto revenues <'an contribute to law enforcement.

Senator HnusxA. Them are somo 200 Federal aid grant progmms now. The history of t.his country does nht record mnny programs of n co~parablo nature havjng ~ne out of existence.

Would it reach as high RS $1 bl Ilion In the near future t Attomey General Cr,ARK. This is specutaf.ion, but I t.hf nk that. it is

conceivable that it may. , · , Senator HRUSKA. Then no longer would it be a relatively sma11 per·

centage of expenditures by t.he communities. , ·Attorney General CLARK. It would still be less than that part of

U1e iceberg now above the water. · Senator HRUSKA. nut still a part... . ' . Attom&l General CLAR~· Tlfat Is State ~nd local, govern~ents·part. Senator HnuexA. That 1s tho ~art of t.he1r'e, subJert tot.ho winds of

political activities and political philosophy. · ,. · Attorney General· Ci.ARK. Ourront8 of; t.he water are stronger than

those of tlie air. · . Senator HRUSKA. Yesc ther are. ' . . j

Now, re~~ly in the bll we do have speoiflo·referencea to tieetion 204-(&) (9). These plans shall "lncort><?l'R~ inno~tlons and advanced techi1iques and contain a ·comprel1enslve outline of priorities for the

46


496 CONTROLL1NG CRIME

A~tomey Gen·eral CLARK. It can apply t<> any need of a police department or ii. corrections agency or a court..

Senator· '.\'ffun110N'o. You· have got a ~ill here then· in ;which any p<>lice ~epar_tnu~nt of any_c~t:y irt·t~1s· N'at~on can·as]c Washm~n,'!>Ur Govemm¢nt, to· help to ·supply uniforms and clothmg to their pohce .. men; is thnt right 9 . ·

Attopte.Y General OLARK. Well, that, is a.peculiar w.ay of thinki~g about 1t. But they could come out that way. We require, however, that 'they have sperit 105 perce.rit before the1- are· entitled· to any.thi~ from the Federal Government. We would look at the wl,tole budget to!{ether. Why in the world they would take out of all their budget umforms and put it in the Federal part! Whether they could .P the. fun~s when tliey actually ~ught tll~t_n for ~~ch a lim~ted purpose or not 1& anoth~r' question~ ·-n~t these ftin~s w~uld ]>e ~vailable for any need of a PQhce department that me.t the quah.~cattons.

SenatorTHuRHOND. Would that1nclucleshoes, to09 Attotriey· Gert6ral eu·nK • .Yt could include shoes·; yes. Senat·or .TliuRM:oNo. Well now, ·supp'ose the Federal Government

said to the police departments over· the c~untt'1-, ~upp~, your director says, "Now, I thihR ·the :policemen will look handsomer, better· and appear more discipl~n~~ if. t!tey .all u~d ,b~ue uni~~~llls and ·b~ac~ shoes, and we are goJPg to withhold funds unless you buy blue· tiht· fornisand blackshoeg." ·, · · ·

Would your direc't<>r have· that authorit· ttYdothat t· ·: ·Attomey:General ·cuID(:Well, 1·t1iih~ we would start'ldOking·for

a new director about that tiiri~. , ' · ' Sena.tor •T!rimM:b1'tn. ;I know) but that' is ·not 'the· question.· I am

visualizing some Attorney General othe~ than· Mr. Clark· now; soineo~e ·wh~ ·~ight_·su~~ .'yo~· aom~ocia~t an~ ~- ,arbitrati':·· Wo~ld y~u~ director have the right· ro wlthho~d ·fundEf1f the p(,Iice ·departments did'not·use'the tcolor·uniform'·he' wanted·;or the oolor shoes ·or· the quality of uniform or shoos that he wanted them to use t .

Attorney 06neral CLARK. He has to have broad discretion, ·and in theory h" would probably hat~tliatdiscretion under the bill. .

As "° practical matter, the opportunity to exercise it ~.o~l.d be ve~ . limited. The .Poli~ are an independent 'ty~· of person, and I ju~ do n~ thi~k ~h·~~ is~ real possibility., .. , . ;·, · · · , . . . . , ..

s~~~t.O)\ ~MO.ND.·· B~t }'_Oµ tp1nk he would. ha ye that" aut~brity.t A'.tt<srneY. General CLARk. Yes sir. · ',~en.~t~r.~tmHO~~ Well~ tlien· wotiJd~yol;1r director:als0 have 'tlie

authority.·~ saY.that, "We·dan't_tHih'k, ·a. c~'t is ~·very good P.i~~. It ~98Sll't .. ~ rest1t~, and!l,herefore;··~e .are 1,1ot going to gtve any·fUnds unlessyoubuySm1th& wesson_pistOls." . , . ,

Would :your 'director have .tile authority· to withh'old:ffulds unless the used Smith & Wesson ' istols 9. . ' ' . I' . . ' •

. '7ttorn~tGenejtal ·Ct'Aaif. lihmk'if s0me ¢lice department· sought Fe(!~t ~d~: for a' ~Y~ of w~apon :that w~·.~1i0ttght was d~mg~~o~ or '\Ul~hable, or ot~erwi~ defective; that .'Ye would ltave· a duty to'w1th· hold funds. · · · · , .

Senator TH~uoNI>. So the· Dil-ector·,.w()UJ.d' have.the authontf to wi_thho~~. ·1und1f as t6 1thd:ldnd 'of :W~J>On :of the··qualit)' ,of '9eaP<>n that the city police department ot' the "State la.w enforcement· ·agency would purchase I . . ··

' t . . I 47


CONTRO~LJNO CRIME 497

Attorney General CLARK. The probability of an exercise of discre-tion like tliat is very, very slight. It deP.ends, unless- .

Senator THURMOND. I am not sayi~ how he would use this discretion, Mr. AttorneY. General. I ~m just a~drlng, I am trying to get at the authority' the tiill gives.J.. whether he would have the authority.

AttorneI General CLARK. The bill g!ves broad discretion. Senator THURMOND. It gives broad discretion. AttorneI General CLARE. Yes. . Senator THURMOND. So ;your direetor would have the ~ight to with

hold fund~ if he ~w flt· unless a policem.ap used ~~e J:<~d of .weapons that he said they must use or use the kind of uniforms that he says they must use or use the kin.d of shoes that he said they must use.

Attorney (}e11eral CLAnx. N: o. I think that really~ is ve!l remote. It is necessary under the bill to · give broad discretion. But i.f 1t came tO the s~iftcity 7ou ·are ~~l"itig ~boutJ su~h a~_,e~erci8e of discretion would probabty·violate seet1on 408 itselt. It 1s so unreal. . . .. ·Senator TH~~owo. It is11ot~nte~plated, but is tt·po~lble 1

Attorney ·aeneral CLAitK. I would say when it reac\ies the.leve\ that yo\t nite· ~~w re~hed with ~~~ and ~if~r~s at;t_d P.!1S ~n.~ ~~l ~hese oh~.J; th1np thei:e :w:ould ~gm to be control 9f ~e pohce department., ~rid ~n~re ~o~~~- tie.!' ~~~l~~i~~. of·sectiQn 408 of the act, ~d;therefore, it woUld be 1n v1olat1on of the act. . .

!Se;nator THua~oND." WeJJ, X tOQ]:c ·up·t;ach.orie separ~tety,,an:d y.ou said . he . wo'uld have th'e aut)lority, ,.at)d then l. ~ummarized lt. and .lumpe<l ii to~ther, and no\'1 you say you <Jo riot. Wliat is· your pC>Sttion t : . A~fney ije~er~1· 1

CLARK. ·My :·position is as stated : that the case

~~~·~;f~1,1;,i~~;!\;~l;!n~~~~e![~iihf~1t:C1~~t,w~ andsounreahst1oast<rnot~.a~U~il1ty~. . . . . . : .•.. ; .. • ...

. Sepato~.,~9~· WJio ·~~going~ .control whether 4e 1s arbitrary or :\}Ott ·He D).~kes the flnat decu~1on .<loes he nott · . · .

1 i.\ttomey ~n~~aJ,"CuitK. WelJ, lhere- are loufo~.~ec~s and"balances t~a~.~e ha.ye .Jtft~~ ~~ni,.and o~e:is_~e ~oul~ _hope.he wo:~td al~ays try ~ a~mph$1}. t.~e purposes o.f Ute act; and ,if he proceeded the way you 1nd1~ted, I thmkthe act would break down. . ~,

Sen.~to.r ,T~<>~. 'l'hat iEinot the question. I asked yo\t' who would caU. lll~ ha~c:t if li!~ be9&me arhitra~. '. . . ',. • . . 1 t . , • · • ; . :

Attorney General CLARK. Well perhaps, with y9u Senato~ .UP pere, you would· help and there would ~ an Attorney Ge~eral and other

·~~~~t(>r TllunuoNo. That is ·not·it. I mean in the executive.br~noh. · Suppo~you ~ad~ director under you·or s0~e ·othe~ Attorney,

1General who was arbit~ry, ·and he. was trying to. hrb1g about c6nforrµity 'in every· :w.ay,· :·shape· ~d f9rm, J·ust ~mpletely arbitx-Qry ... Now, wlio Js above him to ·corr~t him' . ' : . ' '; i\ttorney' General .CLARK. We 'fOrked for these. 19 'monthS under

·the _LjLw · Enfo~men~. 1\~istance 4~. Tl;\~re is com.t>le~ .·~i~~ii>n_ .in .. : ~~e. dt~4'C~r: tli~re .. ~e can ~nt or .no.t:gr$~t. ,~Ju~~ ~~ n~j~rl:wria or standards set w~atever, ana we. have not ,had any compla~ts 9f any

ty~~!~;t:Q~p: ·.rn ~~!ll.'. ~QicJs, h~ 4~ ~ave the' d~reiiO~ but · you do not t~11;1~-h~.woul~ be ar~Jt~ey;_istn,~t itf. . ... , .. _,. ~ .. ;

48


OONTROLLlNO CRIME

49


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the accompanying Brief for Amici Curiae States of New York et al. with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by using the CM/ECF system on January 4, 2018.

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.

Dated: January 4, 2018

New York, NY

. /s/ Anisha S. Dasgupta .


United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the...

Documents

Transcript of United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the...