Page images

amendments on page 5, line 8, after the ring outside of the United States to which an nity provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of word “protection", to strike out "re- agreement of indemnification entered into 1954, as amended, were introduced on May quired” and insert "required"; and at under the provisions of subsection 170 d. is 26, 1965, by Congressman MELVIN PRICE and applicable, such aggregate liability shall not Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON. The intro

. the beginning of line 11, to insert "in applicable, such aggregate liability shall not

exceed the amount of $100,000,000 together the aggregate for all persons indemnified with the amount of financial protection re

duction of these bills followed many months

of informal meetings and discussions among in connection with each nuclear inci- quired of the contractor.”

members of the Joint Committee, the Atomic dent”; so as to make the bill read:

SEC. 4. Subsection 170 k. of the Atomic Energy Commission, and their staffs, and Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended representatives of private industry. Among Representatives of the United States of by striking out the date "August 1, 1967" the topics considered during these meetings America in Congress assembled, That sub

wherever it appears and inserting in lieu was a draft of a study of the Price-Anderson section 170 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of thereof the date "August 1, 1977".

Indemnity Act which AEC had commenced 1954, as amended, is amended to read as

SEC. 5. Subsection 170 l. of the Atomic in 1964 to determine whether the act should follows:

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended be extended to licenses issued and contracts "c. The Commission shall, with respect to to read as follows:

executed after August 1, 1967. The AEC's licenses issued between August 30, 1954. and

"1. The Commission is authorized until final report of this study, as submitted to the August 1, 1977, for which it requires finan- August 1, 1977, to enter into an agreement Joint Committee, recommended a simple excial protection, agree to indemnify and hold

of indemnification with any person engaged tension of the Price-Anderson indemnity harmless the licensee and other persons in

in the design, development, construction, provisions for 10 years, to August 1, 1977.

, demnified, as their interest may appear, operation, repair, and maintenance or use The AEC also recommended further study of from public liability arising from nuclear

of the nuclear-powered ship authorized by a number of problems related to this legisincidents which is in excess of the level of

section 716 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, lation. financial protection required of the licensee. and designated the 'nuclear ship Savannah'. Public hearings on these bills were held on The aggregate indemnity for all persons in

In any such agreement of indemnification June 22–24, 1965, before the Subcommittee demnified, in connection with each nuclear the Commission may require such person on Legislation of the Joint Committee on incident shall not exceed $500,000,000 in- to provide and maintain financial protection Atomic Energy, as summarized in the next cluding the reasonable costs of investigating of such a type and in such amounts as the section of this report. and settling claims and defending suits for Commission shall determine to be appro

The Subcommittee on Legislation met in damage: Provided, however, that this amount priate to cover public liability arising from a executive session on August 26, 1965, and of indemnity shall be reduced by the amount nuclear incident in connection with such after full discussion voted without dissent that the financial protection required shall design, development, construction, operation, to approve H.R. 8496 and S. 2042, with two exceed $60,000,000. Such a contract of in- repair, maintenance or use and shall in- technical amendments. On August 26, 1965, demnification shall cover public liability demnify the person indemnified against such the full committee met to consider these bills, arising out of or in connection with the claims above the amount of the financial and after careful consideration voted unanilicensed activity. With respect to any pro- protection required, in the amount of $500,

protection required, in the amount of $500,- mously to report them out with the techniduction or utilization facility for which a

000,000 including the reasonable costs of in- cal amendments approved by the Subcomconstruction permit is issued between Au- vestigating and settling claims and defend- mittee on Legislation, together with a recgust 30, 1954, and August 1, 1977, the re

ing suits for damage in the aggregate for all ommendation that these bills do pass. The quirements of this subsection shall apply persons indemnified in connection with each committee also adopted this report on H.R. to any license issued for such facility sub

nuclear incident: Provided, That this amount 8496 and S. 2042. sequent to August 1, 1977.

of indemnity shall be reduced by the amount SEC. 2. The first two sentences of subsecthat the financial protection required shall

Mr. PASTORE subsequently said: Mr.

President, I ask unanimous consent that tion 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, exceed $60,000,000.” as amended, are amended to read as follows:

the Secretary of the Senate be authorized

The amendments were agreed to. "In addition to any other authority the

to make any necessary technical changes Commission may have, the Commission is

The bill was ordered to be engrossed

in the engrossment of S. 2042. authorized untii August 1, 1977, to enter for a third reading, was read the third

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there obinto agreements of indemnification with its time, and passed.

jection? contractors for the construction or operation

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I of production or utilization facilities or other ask unanimous consent to have printed in

Without objection, it is so ordered. activities under contracts for the benefit of the RECORD an excerpt from the report the United States involving activities under (No. 650), explaining the purposes of the the risk of public liability for a substantial

THE JOURNAL bill. nuclear incident. In such agreements of indemnification the Commission may re

There being no objection, the excerpt On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by quire its contractor to provide and maintain was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, unanimous consent, the reading of the financial protection of such a type and in as follows:

Journal of the proceedings of Monday, such amounts as the commission shall


August 30, 1965, was dispensed with. determine to be appropriate to cover public liability arising out of or in connection with committee on Atomic Energy, would amend

The bill, as recommended by the Joint the contractual activity, and shall indemnify section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENTthe persons indemnified against such claims as amended, to accomplish the following

APPROVAL OF BILLS AND JOINT above the amount of the financial protection principal purposes:

RESOLUTION required, in the amount of $500,000,000, including the reasonable costs of investigating riod of the Price-Anderson indemnity provi

1. The bill would extend the effective pe

Messages in writing from the President and settling claims and defending suits for

sions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as damage in the aggregate for all persons in

of the United States were communicated amended, for an additional 10 years, from demnified in connection with such contract

to the Senate by Mr. Geisler, one of his

secretaries, and he announced that the and for each nuclear incident: Provided, August 1, 1967, to August 1, 1977. That this amount of indemnity shall be

2. The bill would require a decrease in the President had approved and signed the reduced by the amount that the financial

$500 million governmental indemnity af- following acts and joint resolution: protection required shall exceed $60,000,000: forded under the Price-Anderson indemnity Provided further, That in the case of nuclear

provisions corresponding to the

the amount

On August 26, 1965:

S. 1648. An act to provide grants for pubincidents occurring outside the United whereby the financial protection required of States, the amount of the indemnity proan AEC licensee or contractor exceeds the

lic works and development facilities, other vided by the Commission shall not exceed amount of commercial nuclear liability in

financial assistance and the planning and $100,000,000." surance currently available, i.e., $60 million.

coordination needed to alleviate conditions of SEC. 3. The first sentence of subsection

3. The bill would provide that in no event

substantial and persistent unemployment 170e. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as would the liability of all persons who might

and underemployment in economically disamended, is amended to read as follows:

tressed areas and regions. be liable for public liability arising from a

single nuclear incident exceed $560 million, "The aggregate liability for a single nu

On August 28, 1965: clear incident of persons indemnified, ini.e., the maximum amount of governmental S. 45. An act for the relief of Maj. Ray

mond G. Clark, Jr.; cluding the reasonable costs of investigating indemnity which could be afforded under the and settling claims and defending suits for

Price-Anderson indemnity provisions, as they S. 125. An act for the relief of Armando damage, shall not exceed the sum of $500,000,

would be amended by the bill, together with S. Arguilles; 000 together with the amount of financial

the maximum amount of financial protection S. 207. An act for the relief of Dr. Jose S. protection required of the licensee or conrequired in accordance with these indemnity

Lastra; tractor: Provided, however, That such agprovisions.

S. 263. An act for the relief of Honorata A. gregate liability shall in no event exceed the


Vda de Narra; sum of $560,000,000: Provided further, That H.R. 8496 and S. 2042, identical bills to ex- S. 442. An act for the relief of Carleen with respect to any nuclear incident occur- tend and amend the Price-Anderson indem- Coen;

S. 570. An act for the relief of Frank S. minutes are available to the Senator in might freeze something into statutory Chow; charge of the bill; is that correct?

form before there was an opportunity to S. 582. An act for the relief of Aleksandr

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The get all the pertinent or relevant views. Kaznacheev; Senator is correct.

He believed that the cause of law enS. 616. An act for the relief of Miss Choun

Mr. BIBLE. I thank the Chair. Seem Kim;

forcement would be hurt far more than S. 826. An act for the relief of Har Gobind Mr. TYDINGS. Do I correctly under- it would be assisted by the enactment of Khorana;

stand that the amendment to strike title title I. S. 916. An act for the relief of Debra Lynne I is pending?

Finally, no more protection will be afSanders;

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That

That forded the individual citizen of the DisS. 954. An act for the relief of Ailsa Alex- is correct.

trict of Columbia with title I in the act andra MacIntyre;

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I yield than without it. An opportunity may S. 1103. An act for the relief of Kathryn

myself 5 minutes. Choi Ast;

simply be afforded to have the validity S. 1309. An act to authorize checks to be I desire to explain the effect of the of this title, of the police questioning drawn in favor of financial organizations for amendment of the junior Senator from procedure, attacked in the courts. the credit of a person's account, under cer- New York (Mr. KENNEDY] and myself in Since the Justice Department, the U.S. tain conditions;

connection with the omnibus crime attorney, and the police chief opposed S. 1498. An act for the relief of Nikolai bill.

this title, they certainly are not of the Artamonov; and

Our amendment, which would remove belief that it would be of assistance to S.J. Res. 81. Joint resolution to amend the title I, removes from the bill the strict the police and the prosecuting attorneys Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 to increase the amount authorized for the Interstate statutory version of what is now the ad- in protecting the lives and property of System for the fiscal year ending June 30, ministrative practice in the Police De- our citizens from the depredations of 1967, to authorize the apportionment of such partment of the District of Columbia. wrongdoers. Those are the basic arguamount, and for other purposes.

Last July, the U.S. Attorney for the ments in opposition to title I.
District of Columbia, Mr. David Ache- Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-

son, wrote an administrative memoran- sent to have printed in the RECORD exEXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

dum in the form of a letter to the Chief cerpts from the testimony of the Deputy As in executive session,

of Police of Washington, D.C., outlining Attorney General of the United States, The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid be- the procedures which he, the District Mr. Clark, which appears in part 2 of the for the Senate messages from the Presi- Attorney, felt the police could use in in- hearings dated July 15 and August 5, dent of the United States submitting terrogating the suspects of major

of major at pages 496, 505, 506, and the bottom of

, sundry nominations, which were referred crimes. Mr. Acheson wrote the letter in 511. to the appropriate committees.

order to clarify some of the misunder- There being no objection, the excerpts (For nominations this day received, standing which arose as a result of ju

standing which arose as a result of ju- were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, see the end of Senate proceedings.)

dicial decisions in regard to what was an as follows:
unreasonable period of time for a sus- It is more useful at this time than legis-

pect to be held before being brought be- lation incorporating the same features. It CRIME AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE fore a Commissioner.

does not run the risk of constitutional inIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

At the same time, both the American

validation of the standards involved, as Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I Bar Association and the American Law fording the police the opportunity for ques

would a statute. Most important, while afask unanimous consent that the unfin- Institute, are looking into the same

Institute, are looking into the same tioning which we deem essential, it is flexished business be laid before the Senate. problem, namely, permitting the police

problem, namely, permitting the police ible and permits the development of facts, The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The to effectively investigate crimes and at technology, and comprehensible language to Chair lays before the Senate the un- the same time providing the individuals guide police and courts through the complex, finished business, which will be stated. accused the protection afforded under varied, and critical processes of criminal inThe LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R. the Bill of Rights.

vestigation in a large city such as Washing

ton. 5688) relating to crime and criminal pro- At the time the House omnibus crime cedure in the District of Columbia.

bill was before our committee, the maThe Senate resumed consideration of jority of the members of the committee

At this time we really don't have a pattern the bill (H.R. 5688) relating to crime and felt that the administrative rulings of experience, and an objective and studied criminal procedure in the District of should be taken in toto and written into determination of all factors in police inter

rogation, when we really don't have an adeColumbia.

law. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

quate, in our judgment, fact basis to proThe Chief of Police opposed title I, the mulgate

a final rule. We believe that all the suggest the absence of a quorum. U.S. attorney for the District of Colum- advantages of the statute, plus flexibility, The PRESIDENT pro tempore.


bia opposed it, and the Deputy Attorney can be secured from the administrative proclerk will call the roll. General of the United States opposed it.

cedure without the inflexibility and the risks The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the They opposed it basically for three rea

that are inherent in statutory implementa

tion at this time. roll.

sons: First, because it would freeze in Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, I ask statutory form the procedure which the unanimous consent that the order for the police are just beginning to formulate.

Senator TYDINGS. I just wanted to see if I quorum call be rescinded.


It would remove all flexibility. It would got the thrust of your testimony this mornThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. With

As I understand that your primary

ing. afford an opportunity for an accused per

concern in this matter is to give assistance out objection, it is so ordered. son to attack the constitutionality of the

to the Police Department by giving them the Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, a parlia- statute.

greatest amount of flexibility in the conmentary inquiry.

That would become a most unfortunate duct of their investigations. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

situation, because rather than setting Your reason for cautioning the commitSenator will state it.

aside the confession in that particular tee against legislating in this area at this Mr. BIBLE. Is the pending amend- instance, the entire statute could be time is you held that rather than assisting ment the Tydings-Kennedy amendment, declared unconstitutional.

the police, legislation might conceivably which is to strike title I from the so

cause a court test. Such a test case inChief Layton requested that it not be

volving one action or arrest under the new called omnibus crime bill?

enacted, but that the Police Department law might simply throw more confusion into The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The be allowed a degree of flexibility in its an area in which the law is already greatly Senator is correct.

questioning procedure. The Deputy At- confused. Administrative procedures, on the Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, a further torney General asked us not to enact it. other hand, would give the police more flexparliamentary inquiry.

The American Bar Association and the ibility, with less risk of a judicial test of esThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. The American Law Institute are spending a

tablished police procedure. Is that a fair

statement? Senator will state it. great deal of money in studying this

Mr. CLARK. Well, very generally, yes, that Mr. BIBLE. Under the unanimous- field thoroughly.

is true. The need for flexibility is to afford consent agreement heretofore entered I visited with Judge Lombard at the

an opportunity for empirical data, we can't into, 15 minutes are available to the American Bar Association convention. really say today, and the police can't say, proponents of the amendment and 15 He was upset, believing that Congress how much questioning goes on in a typical

case and we might be imposing by statute deal with crime in the District of Co- provided the Chief of Police; more inrestrictions on effective police investigations lumbia.

formation is coming to the attention of that would be very difficult for them to oper

The Senator from Maryland and I be- the Department of Justice. The Ameriate efficiently under their own administra- lieve that the approach taken by the can Law Institute is conducting an extive procedure which is flexible.

I think empirical data can be obtained committee is not the best way to deal amination in an effort to try to deal with and we can learn more.

with this problem. Both of us feel that the problem. So is the American Bar Senator TYDINGS. It is also my understand- legislation to establish rules governing Association. All this information should ing there are presently being undertaken police interrogation may ultimately be be gathered together. It is unfortunate several large-scale studies in this area by the necessary, but we also feel that when that it was not done in the past. But Department of Justice, with the assistance such legislation is enacted it should all that information should be accumuof the police department and by the Amer

offer the best protection possible for both lating soon. After it has been made ican Law Institute. There should be within a reasonable amount of time a great deal law enforcement efforts and individual available, appropriate action can be more information available as to what the liberties. We believe that title I, pending taken upon the recommendations of actual needs of the police are in this area. as it is while study of the problem is still those who have made the intensive study. . What you need now are the data as to the going on, is not the best possible resolu- I wish to emphasize that it is not only effect of the Mallory rule on police work, tion of this problem. We believe that the the junior Senator from Maryland who correlated data upon which a course of ac

bill may cause greater difficulty in the is opposed to taking the action that is tion can be based, facts and information which you do not now have available, is that months and years ahead if the Senate proposed by the bill; it is not only the

passes it today without deleting title I. junior Senator from New York; but the right? Mr. CLARK. That is true. I would like to

I want to emphasize that the Mallory Chief of Police of the District of Columsay I have only lived officially with this prob- rule is not the cause of crime in the Dis-bia also is opposed to taking this kind lem a few months, but in looking back over trict of Columbia. It is acknowledged of action at present. Certainly the Chief the history it appears to me there has been that there is a crime problem. The of Police is not in favor of crime. a very great tendency to deal with the Mal

crime rate in the District of Columbia is Likewise, the Deputy Attorney General lory problem in terms of theory and abstractions and we have never gotten down to the rising every day. It has become almost is against having the Senate take the hard cases and practicalities of police inves- a popularly accepted belief in the District action that is proposed. The Attorney tigations.

of Columbia that if the Mallory rule were General himself is opposed to taking such Now in the last 6 months we have worked changed, crime would go away. News- action. I point this out so that it will with the police at great length and tried paper headlines and articles have stated, be clearly understood that the question to face and understand their practical prob- in effect, that the Mallory rule is the

in effect, that the Mallory rule is the is not that Senators on one side of the lems of investigation and questioning of cause of the high crime rate in the Dis- question are in favor of crime while suspects and we feel that that is the real way trict. I think we should understand that those on the other side of the question to get to the heart of the problem and that if we establish, if we can establish a pattern

even were the Mallory rule to be done are against crime. of experience then this Congress can come

away with, the incidence of crime would The Chief of Police of the District of much closer to what is needed to perfect this not be materially affected in the District Columbia, the Attorney General of the bill.

of Columbia. The testimony of the prin- United States, the Deputy Attorney Gen

cipal law enforcement officers in the Dis- eral, the junior Senator from Maryland Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, how

trict at the hearings on this bill confirms [Mr. TYDINGS], who, as I have said, was much time have I consumed? this assertion.

an outstanding U.S. attorney, and I, who The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RUS

Other steps have been suggested. The have had some experience in the field of SELL of South Carolina in the chair), Senator from Oregon (Mr. MORSE) has law enforcement, believe that this is the The Senator from Maryland has used 5 proposed that our committee examine

wrong time to take the action proposed minutes; he has 10 minutes remaining.

into the subject in great detail. President in the bill. Mr. TYDINGS. I yield 5 minutes to Johnson has appointed a special com

This is the wrong time to take action. the distinguished junior Senator from mission to study the crime problem in I understand the frustration of the SenNew York.

the District, and another commission to ator from Nevada, who has studied this Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr. study the crime problem nationally. The subject for a number of years, but I rePresident, first I shall take a moment to Department of Justice and the District iterate my belief that action now is still pay tribute, as I have done before, to the of Columbia police are even now working premature action. chairman of the Committee on the Dis- together on a careful study of the mat- We ask that this proposed legislation trict of Columbia, the distinguished Sen- ter. The American Bar Foundation and be put off so that when we take the kind ator from Nevada [Mr. BIBLE], for the the American Law Institute are conduct- of action which we feel is necessary, we hearings he has held and the efforts he ing a systematic review of the situation. can undertake it with the amount of has made in this field. He has devoted As I said during the hearings, I do not knowledge and information that would a far longer period of time to this subject feel that an intensive effort has been permit the statute to stand up in the than has either the junior Senator from made to understand what has to be done courts when it is tested, as it surely will Maryland or I.

to combat crime. We have made be. I also understand his exasperation in speeches, but we have not made an in- Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, I yield 3 3 feeling that something needs to be done tensive effort to analyze crime and to de- minutes to the senior Senator from Oreto correct a disturbing condition in a dif- termine what steps must be taken to deal gon. ficult field. This subject has been dis- with it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. cussed for many years, and the Senator Well over 50 percent of the crime com- MONTOYA in the chair). The senior from Nevada has come forward with a mitted in the District of Columbia is Senator from Oregon is recognized for proposal which has received considerable committed by repeaters. Why is that? 3 minutes. support.

What is going on in the probation office? Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I say to I speak with some hesitation because What is going on in the social service to the Senate that I hope it will support of my great affection and strong admira- offices? All these factors must be ana- the committee today and will adopt title tion for the Senator from Nevada in his lyzed. Merely changing the Mallory I in its present form. conduct of the work of the committee. rule would not cause crime to disappear I say to my close friends the Senator I speak not because I favor crime; I am from the District of Columbia.

from New York and former Attorney against crime. The question is how to It should be understood, too, that by General of the United States [Mr. KENdeal with crime in the District of Co- administrative action, new standards NEDY], and the Senator from Maryland lumbia.

governing the application of the Mallory (Mr. TYDINGS], a former U.S. attorney, The junior Senator from Maryland rule have already experimentally been that I believe they proved my case by also is against crime. He was U.S. at- established in the District of Columbia. their utterances. What the Department torney for Maryland and compiled an What now concerns us is whether to of Justice, the District of Columbia Comoutstanding record in the United States write this experiment into a statute. missioners, and the police chief want to in his efforts to deal with crime. So we More information is being provided the do is not to bring about a change in the are all engaged in a common effort to committee; more information is being Mallory rule under the administrative procedures of the District of Columbia cerning a title almost identical to the cago Police Department on October 22, to the U.S. Supreme Court for a consti- title before the Senate today, I queried 1963, before the committee. He said: tutional test. They have stated so dur- him myself as to whether we should I feel that the purpose of the machinery ing the course of our hearings.

await the conclusions of the study being of criminal justice should be to ascertain The Deputy Attorney General does not made by the American Law Institute. the truth so that the innocent may be freed want this provision in a statute because He responded in the following way: and the guilty punished. The Mallory rule

. he questions its constitutionality. As I

arbitrarily excludes the truth on the peculiar I have the greatest respect for the Ameri

theory that by doing so, the court can punish argued for 2 hours yesterday afternoon, can Law Institute, but I don't see any rea

the police for what the court considers to be I do not believe there is any question son why Congress should delay action that

a violation of the rights of the accused. But about its unconstitutionality. I am will- it feels is necessary pending study by that

it is society that is being punished; not the ing to await the decision of the Supreme body. You can always consider their recom- police. The only beneficiary is the criminal. Court, but we should take it to the Court mendations subsequently, and amend any

As a consequence, crime is overwhelming and find out whether the circumvention laws in the light of anything they come up

our society. with. of the Mallory rule by the administrative

The problem here in the District of Colum

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will procedures that have been adopted by the bia has been urged by those responsible for the Senator yield? Chief of Police upon the recommenda- law enforcement that it be an urgent one, Mr. BIBLE. I yield. tion of the Deputy Attorney General of and I think they state that with good faith Mr. PASTORE. Will the Senator exthe United States is constitutional. and conviction, and would not feel that plain, for the enlightenment of the SenWhat are we afraid of? Since when

there was any reason to await a study by an ate, what title I would do? should we not send to the Supreme Court outside body of a more general problem.

Mr. BIBLE. I should be happy to do in statutory form the procedures that

Certainly, in any criminal procedural so. I explained it at length on yesterday. are designed and devised to get around statute, the challenge is to strike a bal- It is a modification of the so-called rule a former decision of the U.S. Supreme ance between protecting the rights of the 5(a) that deals with the Mallory rule. Court known as the Mallory rule?

accused and protecting the law-abiding It lays out the four requirements, the That is the issue, and the committee citizen from criminal molestation. It is conditions under which an arresting offihas met it forthrightly. What about the the committee's judgment that title 1, as cer may question the accused, with cerstudies that are being made by the Amer- amended, meets that test squarely. tain procedural safeguards, before the ican Law Institute and the American

The complexities of the Mallory rule accused is taken before a committing Bar Association? What have they got to question are admitted. There is no ques- magistrate within the period of “unnecdo with our action here today? They tion that the courts of the entire coun- essary delay" as set out in rule 5(a) of have nothing to do with it. They will try are watching the Mallory develop- the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. continue, as they should, their studies.

ments, not to mention law enforcement The procedure is set out in detail. The Senator from New York_talks officers. As an example, Chicago Police This is the very language that was given about a period of 3 or 4 months. Permit Superintendent Orlando

Superintendent Orlando W. Wilson, to us by the distinguished Senator from me to say that we will not get this ques- testifying October 22, 1963, before the

testifying October 22, 1963, before the New York (Mr. KENNEDY), who was then tion before the Supreme Court in 3 or 4

committee on title I, expressed a fear the Attorney General of the United months, if we pass the bill today with

that the Mallory rule, as made more re- States, together with the U.S. attorney these provisions excluded from it. We strictive by the District of Columbia Cir- for the District, with one slight modificawould be a long time getting it before the cuit Court of Appeals, might be adopted

cuit Court of Appeals, might be adopted tion that I do not think is really pertinent Supreme Court. However, if we were to by other State courts and possibly by here. These Federal officers were having keep these provisions in the bill, we the legislatures of States looking to the a great problem in the District, as we all would get the issue before the Supreme Congress for guidance in the arrest and know, in attempting to establish arrest Court at the next term of court. detention area. He said:

and detention guidelines that would meet Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, I rise to

There is always lurking in the back of my the requirements laid down by the Disoppose the amendment offered by the

mind the fear that the Mallory rule may cne trict Circuit Court of Appeals. Senator from New York and the Senator day be imposed countrywide on all law en- We asked the Attorney General to sugfrom Maryland. I do SO with some forcement agencies, placing the Chicago po- gest methods to meet this problem. He reluctance because of my great respect lice in the same position that the Metropoii

lice in the same position that the Metropoii- met with the U.S. attorney for the Disfor their ability and knowledge, par

tan Police are confronted with here
This I think would be disastrous for our to us by Mr. Katzenbach, who is the pres-

trict of Columbia. Testimony was given ticularly in this field.

country. They have brought to the Committee

ent Attorney General. It is their lanon the District of Columbia a reservoir

Testimony on the same day from Chief guage. It is not the language of the poof experience from the Federal and State

Stanley R. Schrotel of the Cincinnati, licemen. It is the language of the Delevel that has been very valuable to us.

Ohio, Police Department and president partment of Justice and the U.S. district In essence what they are saying is,

of the International Association of attorney. “Wait until later to adopt title I, or some Chiefs of Police that year, was substan

I believe that there is no need for waitmodification of it.” This was the same tially the same.

ing further to determine what the Amerthing that was said to us in the 88th

Attorney General Katzenbach touched ican Law Institute might do. The Congress. It was rejected then. It was

on this very point in testimony before reporter for the American Law Institute considered by our committee a few short

the State, Justice, Commerce, and Judi- has been before the committee on a numweeks ago and was rejected. ciary Appropriations Subcommittee of

ber of occasions. I am very well aware of the fact that the Senate on June 10, 1965, when he

He indicated to us that they would be the American Law Institute is meeting said:

meeting in Atlantic City in early June, in this very complex and complicated The law has developed and really stems and the advisory Committee did meet. field. But they have been meeting on out here in the District of Columbia. While

They were hopeful that by that time this subject for several years.

it is related to a rule with respect to prompt possibly something might evolve. He was

arraignment, it is getting on the fringe We questioned the then Attorney Gen

not too hopeful. Our staff members were throughout every constitutional decision eral of the United States and the present and we get to the point if this is not acted

present at the meeting. They discussed Attorney General of the United States, on as wisely and as carefully and as speedily the problem and came back and said, Mr. Katzenbach, concerning title I. This as we can * these are going to be con- “We are not ready to recommend anyis and was a modification of rule 5(a) of stitutional decisions, all of them.

Then you thing yet.” the Criminal Procedure and designed to are in the difficult process of having to

We asked them how long it might be, amend the Constitution. give the Police Department a better hand

and they said, “We are meeting again in in law enforcement, and to resolve some I want to call to the attention of the November, and again at the first of the of the uncertainties which exist through- Senate the most succinct statement on year." I believe that I am correct in sayout the Nation, and particularly in the the Mallory rule problem I have ever ing that they also stated that the full District of Columbia today. When we heard. Its brevity makes its impact. Institute membership would meet and heard from Deputy Attorney General That statement was made by Superin- vote when convened in the District of Katzenbach on November 5, 1963, con- tendent Orlando W. Wilson, of the Chi- Columbia in May 1966.



I see no need for waiting until this In our judgment, some station house ques- questioning. These records would not only study is completed.

tioning of such persons is urgently required be helpful as evidence of disputed facts in a Mr. President, the Department of Jus

by the demands of fair and effective law en- criminal case, but should be of great help tice and the outgoing U.S. attorney for forcement and is not inconsistent with the as a factual experience background for leg

present state of the law, provided that the islation. In addition, I understand that you the District of Columbia actively sup- safeguards discussed herein are observed and will explore the possibilities of making sound ported the Mallory title of this bill in there is no unnecessary delay in arraignment. recordings of questioning, and that these 1963. In fact, singly or together, they Before setting forth the proposed specific possibilities will be pursued with persistence were the drafters and authors of title I guidelines which we recommend to you, it and every effort made to devise a practical of this bill as it stands before the Senate may be worthwhile to refer to developments method to preserve questioning. today.

in recent months which make the formula- 4. Questioning should be of limited duraThis year, when the Department of

tion of such guidelines at this time particu- tion and should, of course, be reasonable and larly appropriate.

unoppressive in manner. While it is imJustice testified before the committee,

First, the Office of Criminal Justice, in col- possible in the present state of the case its position had shifted somewhat. Dep- laboration with your Department and my of- law in the District of Columbia to ascertain uty Attorney General Ramsey Clark fice, has made à careful analysis of police a specific permissible time limit for quesurged that legislative action on the Mal- questioning, its purposes, circumstances, tioning, I believe it would be advisable to lory rule section be delayed pending re- limitations and methods. It is clear from avoid having the aggregate period of quessults of Department of Justice studies this study that some questioning to deter- tioning, exclusive of interruptions, exceed 3 and examinations of the arrest and de- mine whether to proceed with a criminal hours. Interruptions will inevitably occur,

for the purpose of verifying facts stated by tention problems being carried on by the charge and precisely what crime to charge is American Law Institute and the Ameri- with the legitimate interests of the person

essential to law enforcement and consistent the arrested person, questioning the com

with the legitimate interests of the person plainant or other witnesses, checking out can Bar Association. Subsequently, the under arrest. Concurrently, the American evidence and records which may indicate the President's National Crime Commission Law Institute and the American Bar Asso- truth or falsity of statements, and confrontand the District of Columbia Crime Com- ciation project on minimum standards for ing persons making statements with inmission have come into being within criminal justice have commenced intensive consistent facts. And in the case where a recent weeks.

studies of police questioning, its legal frame- suspect requests a polygraph examination it Actually, Mr. Clark told the commit

work and relation to a fair administration may occasionally be impracticable to operate of the criminal law.

within the suggested limitation on questiontee on July 15, 1965, that the Depart

Second, there are several legislative pro- ing time. The time taken for the whole inment of Justice today prefers no legis- posals before the Congress at present which vestigation should, of course, not be such lative action in the Mallory rule area

are designed to give the police affirmative as to conflict with the requirement of rule awaiting the outcome of the studies. He statutory authority to question persons un- 5(a) calling for appearance before a magisannounced to the committee that the der arrest. In analyzing these proposals, it trate without unnecessary delay. The U.S. attorney for the District of Colum- has become clear to the Department of Jus- shorter it is, the better. Questioning should

be avoided where it is without investigative bia was placing into immediate effect tice that safeguards of the sort proposed in via the Metropolitan Police Department this letter should be part of any procedure, purpose or is likely to weaken a case by whether or not governed by statute.

exposing it to legal challenges. new administrative procedures for arrest and detention of accused persons. It was circuit and other circuits have further em

Third, recent court decisions in our own

It is difficult at best to devise a procedure

which will insure the admissibility at trial admitted that those procedures were

phasized the division of view among judges of every incriminating statement made by practically identical with title I, as the as to what time limitations and other cir- persons under arrest. But, pending legislaDepartment of Justice and the U.S. at- cumstances make questioning permissible

tive or judicial clarification of the governtorney suggested to the committee in under the Mallory decision. It is particularly

It is particularly ing law, I believe that our public responsi1963. Today, the Justice Department ardifficult to find any consensus on these mat

bilities will best be served if the course out

lined herein is followed. As we have disrest directives are in effect in the Dis- ters in a reading of the opinions in the

cussed, representatives of my office and your trict. Those directives are practically Spriggs, Ricks, Perry, Copeland, and Alston

cases. On the other hand, there appears to Department will continue to work closely toidentical with title I of this bill today. be a wider judicial agreement on the neces- gether to insure fair implementation of these In fact, the committee amended title I, sity of a careful and complete warning of

sity of a careful and complete warning of guidelines, and, hopefully, as we see how so as to conform to the arrest safeguard the rights to silence and to counsel before these procedures work in practice, to delanguage changes contained in the Jus- a person under arrest at a station house is velop more detailed operating provisions for tice Department administrative direc- questioned. We think, therefore, that ques

the guidance of your personnel. tive. tioning procedures may be formulated which

Sincerely, Mr. President, I ask unanimous conmake use of judicial guidance where it exists

DAVID C. ACHESON, and which leave procedures flexible in the

U.S. Attorney. sent to have placed into the RECORD at phases where such guidance from the courts (Enclosure.) this point in my remarks a copy of a let- or the Congress is not now available.

PROPOSED WARNING ter, dated July 14, 1965, from U.S. At

In short, we think that the public responsitorney David Acheson to Chief John B. bilities of our respective departments require

1. You have been placed under arrest. You

are not required to say anything to us at Layton, of the Metropolitan Police De- an affirmative formulation of police ques

any time or to answer any questions. Anypartment, and a copy of General Order tioning procedures, and that this may be done consistently with constitutional re

thing you say may be used as evidence in No. 9-B, series 1964, dated August 11,

court. 1964, from Chief Layton to members of quirements of voluntariness of statements

2. You have a right to call a lawyer, relathe Metropolitan Police Force, carrying rights. These views are not only my own. and notice to arrested persons of their legal

tive, or friend. He may be present here and out the administrative arrest and deten- They are supported by the Department of

you have a right to talk to him. tion procedures.

3. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one may Justice, which has carefully considered the

be appointed for you when you first go to There being no objection, the material problem and authorized this letter. Accord

was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, ingly, we recommend to you the following
as follows:

JULY 14, 1965.
1. Consistent with what we understand to


be your Department's general practice, per- METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Depart- sons arrested and brought to a station house

August 11, 1965. ment, Municipal Center, Washington, should there be clearly warned before any

Subject: Questioning of persons arrested on D.C. questioning that they may remain silent and

felony charges. DEAR CHIEF LAYTON: This letter is intendthat they may consult with a lawyer, relative,

To the Force: ed to summarize the understandings we or friend. A recommended form of warning

Under date of July 14, 1965, a letter was reached in our recent discussion and to outis attached.

received from the U.S. attorney in which he line the practices which we believe should be

2. One under arrest should be permitted

concluded that some station house questionfollowed in questioning persons arrested on to communicate with a lawyer, relative, or

ing of persons arrested on probable cause is probable cause and brought to a station friend and such persons should be given

often necessary and desirable for effective house. Of course, the starting point is rule access to him. Such communication or ac- law enforcement and for fair treatment of an 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Process should not, however, be allowed where

arrested person and is not inconsistent with cedure requiring judicial appearance "with- there is reason to believe it is sought for the

the present state of the law, provided that out unnecessary delay"; the purpose of this purpose of concealing or destroying evidence

certain safeguards are taken, proper warnletter is to specify practices with respect to or otherwise defeating the ends of justice. ing of constitutional rights is given and no questioning pending the time when such ap- 3. Police officers should regularly keep unnecessary delay occurs between arrest and pearance takes place.

records relating to frequency and duration of arraignment. CXI -1406

« PreviousContinue »