to interrogate him without interference from attorneys or other sources. The questioning should be reasonable, with breaks or rest periods. I also feel a person so confined but not charged with a crime should be paid a fee for for his confinement by the State. This would tend to curtail unreasonable confinements. I do not believe an officer should have to advise a person he does not have to say anything, but do believe he should be advised that anything he says may be used in a court of law. That a copy of his statements should be given to him or his attorney. The crime should not be dismissed on errors of testimony or procedure. Every effort should be made to curtail crime and criminal activities. Thanking you for your interest in problems of the law enforcement people. Yours truly, HARRY KOCHANEK, Chief of Police. POLICE DEPARTMENT, To: Senator John L. McClellan. Endicott, N.Y. From: Delbert E. Pembridge, Chief of Police, Endicott, New York. Following receipt of the February 21st memo from Executive Director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Quinn Tamm, I would like to inform you of my very strong feeling concerning subject hearings: My protest is that the Miranda decision of the United States Supreme Court has seriously affected the ability of law enforcement agencies to fulfill their obligation to serve in the protection of lives and property. In an effort to insure all persons of their rights, the courts have moved to the other extreme and handed down decisions rewarding to the criminal element at the increasing expense of the law abiding citizen. A particular situation presently of primary concern here is that of investigations in relation to traffic accidents. Many lower court judges have misinterpreted the decision as to "in custody", and are applying it to all questioning and investigation before custody or arrest has taken place. An example of such later misinterpretation for instance would commence to arise at the scene of an accident to which an officer has been called. During the course of his investigation, the officer having concluded that one of the operators of the vehicles involved is in violation of any of one or more vehicle and traffic laws or regulations (intoxication, ignoring a stop sign, etc.), advises the violator of his rights, as required by the Miranda decision. We are finding ourselves in the position of having cases later dismissed because the officer failed to give such advice prior to commencing his investigation. If persons involved are not required to answer questions pertaining to the incident, the conduct of any investigation is impossible. The protection of the individual wronged has in effect been sabotaged. It would seem that President Johnson's War on Crime would accomplish more for the non-criminal were a more realistic appraisal of law enforcement be the subject of executive and legislative action. There were no trained police or organized crime when the fourth and fifth amendments concerning these problems were written. I strongly urge that the Supreme Court of the United States take a more realistic 20th century look at these cases; and that the legislature make a complete reform in criminal law and procedure. Respectfully submitted. Dated: March 1, 1967. DELBERT E. PEMBRIDGE. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, CITY OF LEXINGTON, KY., Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I have been informed by reliable sources that you are Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures and that you have introduced legislation, S. 674, which is a bill to amend Title 18, U.S. Code, with respect to the admissibility in evidence of confessions. 78-433-67-48 As a police officer of thirty-five years continuous service and experience in one department and as Chief of that department for the past fourteen years, I have experienced practically every facet and problem that a municipal police officer will have to face. Reference is made to recent Supreme Court decisions in the Miranda case and others, and most recently the case in New York where Jose Suarez murdered his wife and five children and after the heinous crime was perpetrated admitted to police officers that he had committed this horrible act. He was tried on February 21, 1967, and acquitted due to the fact that the only incriminating evidence against the subject was his statement that he had committed the crime, but there was no corroborative evidence of any kind and no witnesses, and, under the recent Supreme Court decisions, Judge Michael Kern, of the New York Supreme Court, had to turn him loose and, in so doing, remarked: "It makes one's blood run cold to realize such as this has come to pass." He also went on to say: "I am not a prophet, but the handwriting on the wall indicates a trend for the Supreme Court to outlaw all confessions made to police. If and when that melancholy day comes, the death knell to effective criminal law enforcement has been sounded." However, in researching old English Common Law there was found a particular case in which a man thought he had killed another man in a fight at a fair. Leaving the injured man for dead, he went to the Sheriff and confessed that he had killed a man. The supposed victim, who had not been mortally wounded, regained consciousness, arose, joined a band of gypsies and was gone from this locality for quite a few years. In the meantime, the self-accused, supposed murderer was tried and hanged. This was a classic object lesson on the necessity for res gestae and corpus delicti. In the case of Jose Suarez apparently, from newspaper reports, there existed five corpus delicti, but there was an absence of any res gestae or supporting evidence and most experienced investigators and police officers realize that the corroborative evidence is most essential and necessary in nearly all cases and the absence of same apparently influenced the courts to harken to the old Anglo Saxon concept in common law of reluctance to incriminate on inadequate evidence. However, in most cases that have occurred in this country since the recent revolutionary decisions for corroborative evidence, the indiscriminate relasing of felons on technicalities is extremely hazardous to organized society. It has been my personal observation in recent months after these damaging decisions that the police throughout the nation are in a state of deep confusion, inasmuch as we full well realize that we were delegated and sworn in to protect society against the criminal rather than the criminal against society, which is the case at the present time it seems. The general idea about police using great duress and brutality-sand bags and rubber hoses ordinarily, in my experience, does not exist in law enforcement today. The law enforcement agencies fully realize that they must continue to improve their techniques and adopt effective and modern scientific aids in determining guilt in criminal cases. We should have legislation authorizing and allowing such aids as lie detectors, truth serum, blood tests and other scientific aids to assist in the proper investigation of criminal cases. The problem facing society at the present time here in the City of Lexington. in the State of Kentucky and in the United States of America is not only that of legal technicalities, it is a problem of educating the people to realize that all criminals, from the "Mr. Bigs" of Cosa Nostra to the lowest petty pickpocket and sneak-thief, are predators on those of organized society who are producing wealth and things of value and making an honest living. We must raise bulwarks against the underworld for our personal and financial protection. Our Honorable President, Lyndon B. Johnson, is justly and rightfully alarmed at the criminal situation in the United States at the present time. He has recommended the allocation of fifty million dollars for training police officers so that they can more adequately cope with crime, and he has allocated the use of better than three hundred million dollars to combat crime. However, all of this will be for naught if proper steps are not taken first to overhaul the courts by appointing more judges to eliminate and dissipate the enormous backlog of untried cases. One very important weakness in our system is the inadequate penal facilities in which to quarantine away from society criminals who are serving sentences. Rehabilitation by proper techniques may be effected in some types of criminals and should be promoted, but, at the present time, due to inadequate housing facilities in the penitentiaries and jails. the courts, in a way, have been forced to parole felons who should be removed from society for a time for proper rehabilitation and sometimes psychiatric treatment. As a result, sad to say, organized society is being beleaguered on all sides by the predatory criminals. There is a current case in Detroit where a groceryman has been robbed and held up so often that he has decided to sell his two groceries and emigrate to Canada. This is no reflection on Detroit, but is symptomatic of the conditions that exist all over the United States at the present time. I would like to bring another problem to your attention. It is the dilution of police strength in many areas where police are being allocated responsibilities that are not directly connected with crime control and the suppression of criminality. These must be kept to a very minimum. In closing, I urge you to do everything in your power to make it possible for a police officer to legally interrogate, as we have in the past, a suspect who has, in most cases, a long criminal record, advising him of his constitutional rights and informing him that anything that he shall say may be used against him in a court of law, and let's give the criminal the right of free will. If he wishes to cooperate with the investigating police officers, let's not make it illegal for him to do so. Sincerely, E. C. HALE, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., February 28, 1967. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, DEAR SENATOR: Reference being made to your position as Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures. I am sure you will agree one could write volumes on the subject-should suffice to say allowing the guilty to go free because of recent procedures prescribed by our Supreme Court is contrary to the peace-loving principles on which our forefathers founded this country of ours. Changes in procedure are certainly in order for the protection of the innocent. You have my support in your endeavors to make it possible for peace officers to again be able to perform their duties in a reasonable and prudent manner, without fear of legal embarrassment. Very truly yours, HON. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, W. J. BEAR, Captain of Police. CARLSTADT POLICE DEPARTMENT, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: It is most fortunate that the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Law and Procedures has in my opinion a most able chairman, statesman and law maker as yourself to head this most important committee in this day and age when our most learned jurist have conflicting opinions as to the interpretation of the constitution effecting the administration of justice with the respect to the admissability in evidence of confessions. It appears in my opinion as a law officer for the past twenty-six years that the Supreme Court has read into the constitution in their majority decisions, opinions that were never meant to be, more recently the Miranda opinion. First let me say that I agree that as many safeguards should be afforded the accused after an arrest but be limited to the following-He/She has a right to remain Silent-Anything said can and will be used against him/her in a court of law-He/She is not only privileged to contact an attorney or if he/she is indegent and cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed by the court. I have always believed and practiced that duress of any kind is never warranted under no conditions, but I also believe that a confession voluntarily made without threats, force, coersion or promises of immunity should always be admissible even though it be made without an attorney being present. It is my opinion the admissibility of voluntariness rest with the court as it should be. The mere fact that an attorney was not present during the interrogation and all the guide line were met as to the suspect being warned of his right and the statement being a voluntary statement does not make confessed criminal innocent and made to be set free to prey on society. It is my honest conviction that the rights of a suspect/defendant is protected by the police from self incrimination on arrest when he is advised of his rights, he again is advised of his rights by his attorney if engaged by the court or himself-his rights are protected in court against self incrimination in that he does not have to bear witness against himself in taking the stand and all other rights under law but nowhere do I read in the constitution that an attorney must be present during an interrogation between police & suspect. To bring any lawyer in the interrogation is a real peril to the solution of the crime, because under our adversary system, he deems that his sole duty is to protect his client, guilty or innocent and in such a capacity, he owes no duty whatever to help society 338 US at 59. It has got to be remembered that in many cases the only weapon law enforce ment has is a voluntary statement and admission from which other physical evidence is developed. Through skillful interrogation many cases are solved. It is a law enforcement officers duty to develop himself in all phases of law enforcement, skillful interrogation is one of them to serve his community better. If in the opinion of the court that council has to be present it appears instead there seems to be a factual presumption that all confessions are a product of coercion through interrogation and there is no rational basis for that presentation. Since the state is responsible for establishing the isolated circumstances under which the interrogation takes place and has the only means of making available corroborated evidence of warnings given during incommunicado interrogation during questioning. The true function of any court is to find out where the truth lies. The most basic function of any government is to provide for the security of the individual and of his property. The courts interpretation of a voluntary statement is one that is made without threats, force, coersion or promises of immunity, here again it contradicts its interpretation and says that in the event one would come into a police station and confess to a crime he had committed without any interruption from the desk officer, this would be a voluntary statement-then where does the obligation on the part of a police officer and his duty to do so to advise the individual of his rights-it appears there are no guidelines whatsoever for the police to follow and it appears that the court is so far out in their interpretations of the Fifth Amendment that it will never get back until definite guidelines are established can properly operate within the law whereby those guilty of violating the law will be prosecuted and not released on an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment where there is no basis for such a conclusion, for if this is to continue then all confessions and statements no longer be part and a most important tool will be taken from law enforcement hands. I may add that the British Courts have found a middle way; they have given police a set of "Judges Rules" which are few and understandable-They must warn the suspect only of his right to remain silent; and that he may consult with a lawyer-but the lawyer is not allowed to be present during questioning. Sincerely, Chief FRED D. BARCELINE. OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, COUNTY OF MORRIS, Morristown, N.J. March 1, 1967. Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: As a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, I strongly urge the passage of Senate Bill No. 674 ammending Title 18 of the United States Code with respect to the admissibility of confessions. It has been my experience since the pronouncement in the Miranda case by the United States Supreme Court, the work of this office has met with considerable difficulty in the investigation endeavors of the personnel. Although we have never relied solely on a confession for the purpose of prosecution, the information obtained from a confession has very often been the foundation of criminal prosecution. The status of the law presently has I believe increased the difficulties in solving criminal cases and bringing the accused before the court. It is my suggestion that Legislation be passed to allow voluntary confessions to be admitted in evidence, not withstanding the fact that the defendant was not apprised of his constitutional rights. In the majority of cases, once an accused is informed of the fact that he is entitled to an attorney before arraignment, no more information of any kind has been forthcoming. I believe what the Miranda decision has done is to place the Supreme Court in a position of telling the police how to conduct a criminal investigation. This I believe is usurpation of the United States Constitution of the powers of Executive by the Judiciary which is prohibited by the United States Constitution. It has become evident that it would be impractical for the Court which as no practical experience in police matters to direct the law enforcement agencies in criminal procedure. Very truly yours, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, EDWARD F. BURKE, Chief of County Detectives. MERIDIAN, Miss., February 24, 1967. Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: I am in receipt of a memorandum dated February 21st, 1967 from the International Association of Chiefs of Police of which I am a member and it is my understanding in this letter that you have introduced Bill #S.674 which is to amend Title 18, U.S. Code with respect to the admissibility in evidence of confessions. Senator, as a career man in law enforcement and Chief of Police for the past thirty-four years, I am whole heartedly in favor of your bill to try to give the police officers part of the rights back that rightfully belong to them. We are operating under conditions now where the criminal is the most respected person and the law enforcement officer is the out-cast. Unless the law enforcement men of this country get some relief from some of the Supreme Court decision rendered, then I feel that in a matter of a few years true law enforcement will become a thing of the past and the criminal element will take charge. I am sure you aware of what this will mean to society and our way of life. I would like to relate a case we recently had in our County: There was a sailor at the McCain Air Force Base who beat his two year old son to death and threw his body into a nearby lake. The Navy personnel handled this case. He was indicted at the last term of the Grand Jury and the District Attorney, Mr. George Warner felt under the "Miranda" decision that he had no alternative but to noll-process this case and send it to file. This case was an unusual one and when this happened the public became highly indignant. Nevertheless, the man was set free. It is time for true Americans who love their country more than anything else stand up and be counted and you can put me down as one of these. It is my prayer and my earnest hope that you will meet with unanimous approval and favorable consideration in the passage of your bill which will enable us to start back on the long road of forcing the criminals of our country to respect and fear the laws of the land. Sincerely, your friend, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, C. L. GUNN, Chief of Police. POLICE DEPARTMENT, INTERNATIONAL FALLS, MINN., February 27, 1967. Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: It is with deep interest and satisfaction to myself in learning of your concern over the present status of law enforcement as a result of recent U.S. Supreme Court Rulings (such as Miranda 6-13-66). I know this feeling is shared by all conscientious law enforcement people nation wide. The effects of these rulings are only starting to be noticed in all branches of enforcement. As time goes on, I am certain, that the results will become disastrous to society. It bothers me to hear the high courts say that the |