Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, BINGHAMTON, N.Y., February 28, 1967. Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: This is in response to the memorandum forwarded to members of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc. by Mr. Quinn Tamm, Executive Director regarding Supreme Court decisions concerning the function. I will restrict myself to one consideration only which to my knowledge Í have never heard come under discussion. This is the necessity for police officers to give, what has come to be called "The Miranda Warning" to suspects. Specifically, that this places an unfair burden on a policeman in that he is required to "educate” citizens as to their constitutions contents. Were the suspect an alien I could understand and appreciate this warning but I feel that all citizens should know the U.S. Constitution forward and backwards. But, my main thought on this matter is that this requirement places another opportunity for corruption in an enforcement officer's hands in that he could effect the release of a defendant by failing or stating he failed to comply with this requirement. If for no other reason I oppose this requirement. Respectfully yours, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, JOHN V. GILLEN, Chief of Police. DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN : I am in receipt of a letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police in regard to your work on the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures. I wish to commend you in your efforts to restore some logic in the handling of statements taken from defendants and evidence obtained during investigation through interrogation. A typical case of injustice through the recent supreme court decision was in the City of Douglas, Wyoming, in 1965. On December 27, 1965, Lynette Powell, age 16, disappeared from a home where she was babysitting. The following morning her body was found in the river and she had been stabbed twice in the chest. A short time later Richard Rogers was arrested, advised of his rights, and confessed to the murder. He showed the law enforcement officers where he had hidden the knife he had used in the stabbing of the girl and told them where he had thrown the body in the river. This case was not taken to trial because the judge ruled under the supreme court decision that no evidence could be allowed through interrogation. Richard Rogers was turned loose and never tried for the crime. I hope through your efforts that at least common sense can be used in the handling of prisoners, and again, I want to commend you for all the work you have done to help the law enforcement profession. Respectfully, PAUL V. DANIGAN, Chief. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: As Chief of Police of Knoxville, Tennessee, I should like to express our sincere appreciation for your introduction of Senate Bill 678, and to assure you of our support of any legislation designed to free Law Enforcement from the shackles of recent Supreme Court decisions. Every person with any knowledge of Law Enforcement realizes that interrogation is a necessary part of Police investigative procedure, and that, in many cases, it is the only key to the solution of the crime. If we apprehend a known criminal in the vicinity of a burglary, with the loot therefrom in his possession, must we have his attorney present before we ask him how he came by that stolen property? If, because of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against him, he confesses his guilt to the Officers bringing him to Police Headquarters, shall the court rule out his subsequent confession because his attorney was not present when he made his original admission of guilt? We make no attempt to justify the isolated instances of abuse of Police powers in the past. In common with Law Enforcement Agencies everywhere, we guard zealously against even the appearance of such abuse. We have no "third degree"; officers interrogating suspects are very careful to offer neither threats nor promises. For many years, our State Courts have provided counsel if the defendant in a criminal trial is unable to afford an attorney. With these policies, we are in whole-hearted agreement. However, to arrest a criminal under suspicious circumstances and to be unable to even question him regarding his guilt; or to be unable to use as evidence his voluntary statement regarding that guilt is an illogical overemphasis on the constantly-increasing rights of the criminal, while totally ignoring the declining rights of his victimsthe right of society as a whole to protection under the law. It is emasculation of Law Enforcement, to the point where Police and the Courts are well-nigh impotent in the performance of our sacred trust as guardians of the public safety. We offer you the whole-hearted cooperation of this Office and of this Department, in your commendable efforts to remedy this situation. Sincerely yours, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, H.C. HUSKISSON, Chief of Police. DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, Menasha, Wis., 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 representative of law enforcement, I strongly support a change in the law regarding the admissibility of confessions. The quagmire produced by recent court decisions is affecting police operations because of the lack of operational guidelines. In many circumstances, a confession is readily available from a suspect when he is confronted with facts relating to the case. The restrictions set forth in the Miranda rulings and the various interpretations given in the news media confuse everyone involved. I am certain that no one who lives in this country wants to lose any of his rights granted under the Constitution. By the same token, a truly professional enforcement officer does not want to violate those rights. The rights of law enforcement should also be considered and liberalized, and such legislation is long overdue. Very truly yours, LESTER D. CLARK. Chief. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, DALLAS, TEX., March 1, 1967. Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Dallas Crime Commission believes critical crime situation resulted from Supreme Court decision such as Miranda. Subcommittee hearings will be invaluable in assessing same. Recommend you call Orlando Wilson, criminologist and superintendent of police, Chicago, Ill., for testimony. Also suggest consideration requiring unanimous decision by Supreme Court in criminal cases or legislation to permit reversal of such decisions by Congress, voice of the people. JOHN MCKEE, President, Dallas Crime Commission. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, LANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: I was requested by Quinn Tamm, executive Director, of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc., of which I am a member, to contact you regarding the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures. I would like to express my opinion as follows: The lack of statements from accused criminals has forced the police to pursue a more painstaking and expensive type of investigation than was formerly necessary prior to the Supreme Court Decisions which re-defined the rights of the accused. Formerly the police interrogated a subject and in most cases there was no reluctance on the part of the suspect to give a statement. This eliminated the painstaking technical search of each and every crime scene for physical evidence necessary to connect the suspect with the crime. This time consuming police work coupled with the expensive laboratory work necessary to process evidence obtained has posed the problem of obtaining more personnel, more laboratory space and equipment. Personnel, time, laboratory expense, all run into vast amount of money of which is absolutely uncalled for in this writer's opinion. The accused was never mistreated by any enlightened enforcement officer and in most cases was always willing to admit a crime in which he was involved. The scientific crime scene search and laboratory evaluation has merely replaced scientific interrogation with no advantage to the criminal, but adding a great burden on the taxpayer. We in law enforcement certainly feel that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions are adversely affecting the ability of local law enforcement agencies to fulfill our responsibilities. Very truly yours, HARRY H. MARLOWE, Sheriff, Director of Public Safety. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN : I have just received a memorandum from Mr. Quinn Tamm, Executive Director, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc., regarding hearings by the U.S. Senate subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures scheduled March 7, 8 and 9, 1967. Law enforcement agencies join you and the other Senators and Representatives in your concern with regard to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions which are adversely affecting the ability of those agencies to fulfill their responsibilities. This will advise you that the under-signed strongly favors legislation such as S. 674, which I understand is a bill to amend Title 18, U.S. Code with respect to the admissibility in evidence of confessions. Such legislation, I believe will do much to relieve the almost impossible situation law enforcement agencies have been faced with since the Miranda decision. With best wishes for success in this matter, I am Yours very truly, THOMAS D. BURBANK, Director. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, Manteca, Calif., February 28, 1967. Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: I would like to add my support to your bill (S. 674). It is my opinion, related on my personal experience, that the Supreme Court has gone past a reasonable man's interpretation of the Constitution. I think it is time the rights of the victims of crimes be considered and society's right to be protected against violence and crime be brought to the forefront. Guilt or innocence no longer seems to be a factor in our courts. The contest now is to see if the defense can find any minute detail that may have been overlooked by the police to free a guilty person and return him to prey on society. Very truly yours, DAVID WALSH, Chief of Police. WAUSAU POLICE DEPARTMENT, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Law and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I wish to take this opportunity to express my views and objections to the problems fostered on the police by the Supreme Court Decisions in the Escobeda and Miranda decisions. We have experienced a great deal of difficulty in clearing cases involving criminals with previous records. These persons, when apprehended, are hiding behind their so called rights and refuse to answer questions, consequently only cases with physical evidence and witnesses are being cleared. We are not having any problems with the first offenders. These persons willingly waive their rights and confess to their crimes. The retroactive order of the Miranda Decision suppressed evidence secured by a statement in a vicious sex murder case in Wausau in July 1966. The statement was suppressed in its entirety due to the ruling. Included in the statement was an account of happenings leading to the crime which were not witnessed by anyone except the victim and the murderer. As a result the Murderer pleaded insanity and was found insane which would not have been possible had the statement been allowed as evidence. Other points that I wish to make and feel are important are: the many man hours needed to secure evidence enough for conviction of the criminal and the great lack of available laboratory facilities to examine the evidence secured. Then also the image of Law Enforcement has been harmed. The feeling of the man on the street is that the police have "goofed" and had to be put in their place by the Court. There has been relatively no feeling exhibited for the victims of crime. These are only a few of the views and as time goes by the real damage will be noted. As a policeman for the past thirty years I wish God's speed in correcting a bad situation. Sincerely, HON. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, EVERETT GLEASON, POLICE DEPARTMENT, Albuquerque, N. Mex., February 28, 1967. Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, US. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I am convinced that recent United States Supreme Court decisions have put a burden on police in the nation and have affected every law abiding citizen of this country. These decisions, in effect, have not caused less respect for law and order by criminals and hoodlums because they have none to begin with. It has caused a lack of respect for the police, being unable to enforce the law, and a lessening of fear for the consequences, if caught. The police can adjust to the interpretations of the Court but the law abiding citizen will never be able to understand why we cannot protect his rights from the criminal and hoodlum. It is my opinion that Mr. Average Citizen does not appreciate nor understand the release of admitted murderers, sex criminals, etc., merely because the accused had not conferred with an attorney before the admission. Sincerely, PAUL A. SHAVER, Chief of Police. POLICE DEPARTMENT, Saddle River Borough, Bergen County, N.J., February 28, 1967. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: In accordance with your request to the members of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, I am enclosing a photocopy of the article in which I expressed my opinions to a reporter for the Ridgewood News Incorporated, Ridgeway, New Jersey. I hope that as a result of your hearings that some changes will be made with respect to the admissibility of evidence of confessions. Yours truly, SHELDON T. MCWILLIAMS, Chief of Police. POLICEMAN'S LOT Now UNHAPPIER (By Suzanne Barrett, of Ridgewood News) While emphasizing that he did not wish to take a negative approach to the recent Supreme Court ruling on the procedure for questioning upon accusation, arrest or taking into custody of persons suspected of crime or criminal activity, Police Chief Sheldon T. McWilliams of Saddle River made the following observations in an interview with this reporter: "With time an essential element in criminal investigation and the subsequent apprehension of the criminal the recent Supreme Court decisions tend to tie the hands of the police even when making an ordinary, on the spot, arrest where circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the party involved and where, in the past a simple interrogation could produce, what was once considered by the righ courts, a bona fide confession or a release. Now we must advise the suspected law breaker of what the constitution says about his rights, delaying in some cases and preventing in others a confession of wrong doing. This hampers the work of the police which is, mainly, the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property. "What is not publicized is that the people who perform police interrogation are trained for this specialized work. There are hundreds of volumes written by eminent professors on the subject of criminology and the psychology of verbal methods of obtaining information. Given too much time, even the nonprofessional criminal can manufacture a story, convince his attorney of its truth and end up by going away free. Where I once could pick up a suspect and casually question him, perhaps leading him into telling me what I want to know, now I must begin by advising him he is under suspicion, putting him immediately on the defensive and I must further inform him of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney-which, incidently, if he cannot afford I will provide him-caution him against saying anything that can be used against him then, if he waives these precious rights, I must attempt to get information from this man. This procedure can introvert even the innocent man with nothing to fear. "There was a situation here where a man thought to have stolen a sum of money from his employer, was interrogated by that employer and restitution made, after the man admitted the theft, by withholding the amount from the man's pay check. The man was fired, of course, and the employer now satisfied .. refused to prosecute the individual. He felt that if the police had been called into this matter chances were that the man might have gotten off without restitution being made. A subsequent check by the police revealed that the subject had a long record of crimes. The function of the police is to apprehend and prosecute criminals. When private citizens feel they have to handle matters themselves in order for justice to be done, something is not quite right with the system. "It would be interesting to observe what kind of on the spot, split second and without deliberation decisions members of the United States Supreme Court and other learned legal counselors would make when confronted with many of the situations that the police officer encounters during the course of his duty. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police officer must not err in his procedure of arrest because if he does, not only will his case against the guilty |