(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Administration of criminal justice : oversight hearings before the Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress, first session ..."

ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 



OVERSIGHT HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND IN THE WASHINGTON 

METROPOLITAN AREA 



JUNE 4, 6, 9, 11, AND 12, 1975 



PART 2 (pp. 1113-2071) 



Serial No. 94-^2 



Printed for the use of the 
Committee on the District of Columbia 



y^, D^^'' • ■ 




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
82-887 O WASHINGTON : 1975 



NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL of lAW LIBRSRY 



COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 



CHARLES C. DIGGS, 
DONALD M. FRASER, Minnesota 
W. S. (BILL) STUCKEY, Jr., Georgia 
RONALD V. DELLUMS, Califorina 
THOMAS M. REES, California 
WALTER E. FAUNTROY, Delegate, 

District of Columbia ^ 

JAMES R. MANN, Soutli Carolina 
ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky 
HERBERT E. HARRIS II, Virginia 
DAN DANIEL, Virginia 
JERRY LITTON, Missouri 
HELEN S. MEYNER, New Jersey 
HENRY J. NOWAK, New York 
PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 
JAMES J. FLORIO, New Jersey 



Jr., Michigan, Chairman 

GILBERT GUDE, Maryland 
WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Oliio 
STEWART B. McKINNEY, Connecticut 
EDWARD G. BIESTER, Jr., Pennsylvania 
TOM RAILSBACK, Illinois 
ROBERT W. DANIEL, Jr., Virginia 
CHARLES W. WHALEN, Jr., Ohio 



Robert B. W.vshingtox, Jr., Chief Counsel 



James T. Clark, Legislative Counsel 
Ruby G. Martin, Associate Counsel 
Dale MacIver, Assistant Counsel 
Daniel M. Freeman, Assistant Counsel 
Dorothy Anderson, Professional Staff 
Y'vonne R. Chappelle, Professional iitaff 
Edward L. Cleveland, Professional Staff 
Wilbur G. Hughes, Jr., Professional Staff 
Nelson Rimensnyder, Professional Staff 
Jacqueline B. Wells, Professional Staff 
Margi Moseaek, Research Assistant 
Maria L. Otero, Office Administrator 



Mark Mathis, Minority Counsel 

James M. Christian, Deputy Minority Counsel 

Janice Lookneb, Professional Staff 

Ralph E. Ulmer, Professional Staff 

Carol B. Thojipson, Legislative Assistant 



(II) 



CONTENTS 



STATEMENTS 

Alexandria (Va.) : ^^^« 

Commonwealth's Attorney, William A. Cowhig, Esq 1600 

Public Schools : 

Butler, J. T., assistant superintendent 692, 699 

Hills, Richard, assistant superintendent 692 

Leone, Dennis, public information officer 692 

Stubbings, Dr. John R., director of Secondary Education 692 

Arlington (Va.) : 

Burroughs, William S., Esq., Commonwealth's Attorney, Arlington— 1600 

McLaren, Roy, chief, Arlington County, Va., Police Department.- 1291, 1295 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Association : 

Aldoek, John D., Esq., president 1668, 1669 

King, W. R 1668, 1669 

Queen, Thomas H 1668, 1669 

Bar Associations : 

Bar Association of D.C. : 

Monahan, Henry J., Esq., Chairman, Criminal Law Committee-. 1636 

Schwartz, Lawrence A., Esq., member 1636, 1639 

Wolf, Peter, Esq., member 1636 

D.C. Bar Association (unified) : 

John Douglas, president 1621, 1625 

Bonabond, Inc. : 

Yates, Waverly V.. executive director, Bonabond, Inc., accompanied by 

James Henry Reed, Jr., staff member 1091 

Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, Robert H. Fosen, Ph. D., 

executive director 366 

D.C. Court of Api^eals, Hon. Gerard D. Reilly, Chief Judge 3 

D.C. Department of Corrections : 

Burton, Arthur, Administrator, Employment Development, Division 

for Ex-Offenders 383 

Golightly, William. Assistant Director, Administration 383 

Jackson, Delbert C, Director 383 

Moore, Warren H.. Superintendent, Office of Program Development 

and Coordination 383 

Robinson, Edward, Correctional Program. Administrator 383, 416 

Rodgers, Charles, Ass^istant Director, Operations 383 

D.C. Department of Human Resources : 

Barr, William W., acting administrator. Social Rehabilitation Ad- 
ministration 673 

Benefield, M.s. Karen, Special Assistant to the Director 652 

Douglas, Milton C, Jr.. Chief, Community Care Services Division 666 

Parker, Sidney L., Chief, After Care Services Division 678 

Reams, Elwood L.. Supervisor, Home Detention Units and Program-- 671 

Russo, Albert P., Special Assistant for Social Services 652 

Taylor. Thaddeus J.. Chief, Bureau of Youth Services 676 

Whitehurst, William H., associate director for Planning and State 

Agency Affairs 652 

Yeldell, Joseph P., Director 652 

D.C. Public Schools: 

Dews, Edgar, Director of Security 711 

Diggs, Gilbert A. Regional Superintendent 711 

Guines, Dr. James T., Regional Superintendent 711 

Millard, Dr. Wilbur A., Assistant Superintendent, Division of Pupil 

Personnel Services 711 

(III) 



IV 

D.C. I'uhlif Schools— Continued ^^^^ 

Morris, Mrs. Virginia, president, Hoard of Education 711 

Novak, Mrs. Jaeobeth P., school attendance and work permits 711 

Heed, Vincent. Assistant Superintendent, State Administration 711 

Department of .Justice — U.S. Attorneys : 

Cumminss. William B., Eastern District of Virginia, accompanied by 

Justin Williams, Esq 1581 

Finney, .Tervis S., Esq.. District of Maryland 1572 

Silbert, Earl J., District of Columbia, accompanied by Dennis Dayle, 
assistant special agent in charge, Drug Enforcement Administration 
Office and Charles R. Work, deputy administrator, Law Enforcement 

Assistance Administration 1531 

Diggs, Hon. Charles C 1, 173. 305, 691, 965, 1009, 1113, 1531 

District of Columbia Bail Agency, Bruce D. Beaudin, Esq., director 29o 

District of Columbia Government : 
D.C. Corporation Counsel : 

Dowd, Michael J., Chief Juvenile Division 1591 

llulm. Nan, Assistant Chief, Juvenile Division 1591 

Murphy, C. Francis, Corporation Counsel 1591 

D.C. Council : 

Hardy, Hon. Willie, Chairperson, The Committee on Public Safety, 
District of Columbia Council, accompanied by Barney Shapiro, 

staff member; and Mrs. Jean Davis, legislative aide 1340 

Jones. Dr. James A., Special Assistant to the Mayor for Youth Oppor- 
tunities Services 871 

Renshaw. Benjamin H., Executive Director, Office of Criminal Justice 

Plans and Analysis 609 

Woodward, A. James, Chief, Juvenile Delinquency Section, Youth 

Opportunities Services 781 

Fairfax County (Va.) : 

King, Richard A., chief. Police Department 1305-1319 

Public Schools : 

Gustafson, Beatrice, coordinator. Division of Pupil Services 756 

Morris, Barry, associate superintendent for school services 756 

Weiser, F. Robert, assistant superintendent for instructional 

.services 756 

Galiber, Mrs. Yetta W , executive director. Information Center for Handi- 

cajiped Children, Inc 1056 

Gude, lion. Gilbert 2,1709 

Hill, Isaac P., director, EFEC Halfway House 418 

P'airlawn Citizens Association : 

Ilart, Rose, president 966 

Wallace, Florella, member 966 

Metropolitan Police Department : 

Cullinane, Maurice J., chief 1113,1119 

Gill, Vernor S., general counsel 1113 

Perry. Capt. Ronald, chief, the Financial Management Branch 1113 

Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade, Clarence Arata, executive vice 

president 1009 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments : 

Ben.son. Allen B.. Region IV project manager 1431 

Johnson, L. Kirk, project manager. Bicentennial Planning 1431 

Kelly, Thomas, acting project manager. Criminal Justice Planning 1431 

Touchstone. John E., director of Public Safety 1428, 1431 

Montgomery County (Md.) : 

Mattingly. Marion, chairperson, Montgomery County Juvenile Court 

Committee '_ 1078, 1081 

Moore, Hon. Douglas. Jr., judge. District Court of Maryland, Mont- 
gomery County, Sixth District Juvenile Division 125 

Public Schools : 

Miedema, Dr. Donald, Deputy Superintendent 744.745 

O'Toole, Dr. Thomas J., director. Department of Supplementary 

Education and Services 744 

Shetterly. Dr. Henry T., director of Pupil Services 744 

Sander. Larry, director. Department of Corrections and Rehabilita- 
tion, Montgomery County, Md 403 



Montgomery County (Md.) — Continued P^se 

Watkins, Col. K. W., diief, Montgomery County Police Department 1172 

Murphy, Patrick V.. director, the Police Foundation 1327 

National Alliance of Businessmen, Ex-Offenders Program : 

Armore, John, national director 996 

Cooke, Harry, D.C. manager 996 

Schatz, William, staff counsel 996 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Justus Freimund, director 

of Action Services 1102 

Ousley, Leonard P., president, Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association. 988 
Police Association of the District of Columbia : 

Goldring, Joseph S., president 1356 

Ferguson, John T., legislative committee 1356 

Prince George's County (Md.) : 

Felegy, Edward M., director of Pupil Services, Prince Georges County 

Public Schools 766, 776 

Marshall, Arthur A., Jr., Esq., State's Attorney, Prince Georges 

County 1600 

Nabors, Robert C, supervisor of Pupil Personnel, Prince Georges 

County Public Schools 766, 776 

Rhodes. John, chief. Prime Georges County, Md. Police Department, 
accompanied by Officer Lawrence Schweinsbuk, Research and De- 
velopment Division 1284 

Superior Court of the District of Columbia : 

Alexander, Hon. Harry T., judge 211, 220 

Belson, Hon. James A., judge 145, 151 

Bischoff, John M., principal deputy clerk 35, 72 

Greene, Hon. Harold H., chief judge 35 

Malech, Arnold M.. executive officer 35, 74 

Schuman. Alan M., director of Social Services 35, 77 

Thompson, Hon. William S., judge 145 

Sussman, Prof. Jack, Institute for Studies in Justice and Social Behavior__ 174 
Treasury Department : 

Corbin, John F., assistant director, Criminal Enforcement 1367 

Davis. Rex D., director. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 1367 

Dessler. Marvin J., chief counsel 1367 

Featherstone, James, deputy assistant secretary for enforcement 1350 

Peterson, A. Atley, assistant director, Technical and Scientific 

Services 1367 

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia : 

Chamlee. Donald L., assistant chief of probation. Administrative 

Office 311 

Jackson, Wayne P., chief. Division of Probation, Administrative 

Office 311, 315 

Pace. James R., chief, U.S. Probation Office 311 

U.S. Park Police : 

Housenfluck, Lt. Earl 1397 

Wells, Jerry V., chief 1397-1398 

U.S. Secret Service, Paul S. Bundle, deputy assistant director. Office of 
Protective Forces 1350 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Alexander. Hon. Harry T.. judge, Superior Court of the District of Co- 
lumbia, memorandum to GAO re Questionnaire for Judges and Magis- 
trates Supplement, dated Feb. 26, 1974 234 

Alexandria (Va.) Public Schools: 

Demonstration Program of School Security 706 

Discipline Report Forms 815-881 

Dropout Summaries 819 

Extra-Curricular Activities 795 

P>deral Programs 820-824 

Guidelines for Discipline 798-815 

Social Studies Curriculum 825-839 

Ameriran Bar Association Studies : 

"Expanding Government Job Opportunities for Ex-Offenders" 514-527 

"Laws, Licenses and the Offender's Right to Work" 528-607 



VI 

American Bar Association Studies — Continued 

Report of the Committee on Federal Legislation of the Judicial Ad- Page 

ministration Division 12 

Anacostians Concerned for Senior Citizens (ACSC), proposal for multi- 

serv'ice senior center 970 

Belson, Hon. James A., judge, Sui)erior Court of the District of Columbia, 

letter dated May 6, 1975 to Chairman Diggs 157 

Commission on Accreditation for Corrections : 

Correctional agency interest in 374 

Membership and description 381 

Statement of principles 369 

Community Care Service Division, fiscal year 1975 allotment 669 

Crime Index Offenses : 

Consumer price index on crime 1138 

Drugs and crime 1139-1142 

Police manpower vs. crime 1127 

Tables, January-December 1974 1121-1152 

Unemployment and recession 1130-1137 

Criminal Justice Coordinating Board, District of Columbia 633 

D.C. Bail Agency Recommendation Criteria for Superior Court 298 

District of Columbia Government : 
D.C. Department of Corrections : 

Employment Division Program Information 434 

Jackson, Delbert C, director, letter to Chairman Diggs, dated 

May 28, 1975 . 444-513 

Statement re training program 429 

District of Columbia Public Schools : 

Proposed new rules governing student rights and responsibili- 
ties 914-920 

Pupil absenteeism for all instructional levels 913 

Pupils enrolled, number and percent of dropouts 913 

Pupil membership in regular day schools by grades, race, sex 

and region (1973 and 1974) 841-911 

Pupil truancy and percent of truancy based on absenteeism 921 

Summary of membership for all school levels 912 

Renshaw, Benjamin H., executive director, OflSce of Criminal Justice 
Plan.s and Analysis, additional material for the record requested 

by Chairman Diggs 636-651 

Fairlawn (Anacostia) Citizens Association, petition for the conversion 

of the Ruppert Home property for community activities 967 

Gay Activists Alliance of Washington, statement 1712 

General Accounting Office report entitled "Administration of the Criminal 
Justice Act by U.S. Courts and the D.C. Superior Court, dated Nov. 21, 

1974 85-124 

Greene, Hon. Harold H., chief judge, Superior Court of the District of 

Columl)ia, letter to Chairman Diggs, dated June 30, 1975 50 

Handicapped Children, Inc., Information Center budget for Lorton 

Project 1070 

Jackson, Wayne P., chief. Division of Probation, Administrative Office 
of the United States Courts, letter and tables to Chairman Diggs, dated 

May 22, 1975, re probation in Federal Courts 331-356 

Kansas City Star, article bv Nick Thimmesch, entitled "Make Capital 

Safe for '70," dated May 22, 1975 34 

Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade : 

Equal Employment Opportunity Survey (1968-73) 1027 

Tabuliition of .shoplifters and shoplifting 1024-25 

Metropolitan Wasbington Council of Governments — Final Report entitled 

"Interjurisdictional Crime in the Washington Metropolitan Area" 1447-1479 

Montgomery County (Md.) : 

Annual Report (1974) Montgomery County, Md.. Department of 

Police 1176 

Moore. Hon. Douglas H.. Jr., judge. District Court of Maryland, let- 
ter to Chairman Diggs, dated May 19, 1975 140 

Public Schools : 

Chautauqua School Organization 947 

Correspondence 948 



VII 



Drug alternatives and counseling programs — Educational alter- Page 

natives program 959 

Memorandum 921 

Planning Committee 948 

Second Chance Education — Louisville's alternative school pro- 
gram 941 

Senate Bill No. 1064— By Senator Blount 950 

Summary evaluation of KAPS II (Keeping All Pupils in School)-- 921 

Time schedule 947 

Turned-Off Students get alternative — In the system 944 

Working papers — Area IV alternative program for junior high 

school students 952 

Shure, Hon. Ralph G., chief judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit, letter dated 

May 1, 1975, to Chairman Diggs, re criminal justice 362 

National Alliance of Businessmen, fiscal year 1975 itemized budget for the 

Washington Metropolitan office 1006 

Outstanding warrants, telegram and responses thereto, dated May 8, 1975, 

from Chairman Diggs 273-294 

Prince Georges County Police Department Bicentennial Committee Infor- 
mation 1262-1284 

Reilly, Hon. Gerard D., chief judge, D.C. Court of Appeals, letter to Cong. 

Blester, dated May 22, 1975 32 

Speedy Trial Act, memorandum from Hon. Harold H. Greene, chief judge, 

Superior Court of the District of Columbia 60 

Sussman, Jackwell, article entitled Juvenile Justice : Even-handed or Many- 
Handed? 181-195 

Telegram re half-way houses, dated May 20, 1975, to Joseph P. Yeldell, 
director. Department of Human Resources, and to Delbert C. Jackson, 
director, Department of Corrections, with replys thereto, from Chairman 

Diggs — - 985-986 

The Guardian (England), article by Simon Winchester, entitled "Kind- 
ness is a Poke in the Eye", dated May 14, 1975 1010 

The Washington Star : 

Article by Corrie M. Anders, entitled "Tough Gun-Use Law is Urged 

by Cullinane," dated June 7, 1975 1325 

Article by Winston Groom, entitled "Juvenile Justice System — Trac- 
ing One Case from Crime Through the Courts," dated June 7, 1975-_ 1659 
Article bv Betty James, entitled "Ex-D.C. Police Aide Suggests a Way 

to Cut Kindness Day-Type Violence." dated June 7. 1975 1339 

Thompson, Hon. William S., associate judge, Superior Court of the District 

of Columbia, corrections to statement 149 

T\S. Park Police, Experts from Annual Report. 1974 1401 

Washington Bar Association, Ruth E. Hankins, president, statement 1710 

Washinsrton Post, article bv Eugene L. Meyer, entitled "Cost in Area 

Shoplifting: $346 Million," dated May 22, 1975 1025 

Washington Magazine, article entitled, "Yetta Galiber", dated January 

1975 1086 

Yates, Waverly V., executive director. Bonabond, Inc., reply to questions 

submitted by Congress Gude. May 29. 1975 1100 

Yeldell, Joseph P., director. Department of Human Resources, letter to 

Chairman Diggs, dated June 2, 1975 985 

SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY 

Absenteeism in schools 703, 756, 759 

Accomplishments (1971-73) 407 

Accreditation 373 

Adult education 759 

Advisory Neighborhood Councils 991 

Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms (ATF) 1368 

Alcohol program 661, 1075 

Allocation of Resources 24 

Alternatives — Multiactivity Center 966 

Appeals 213, 245, 265, 1256 

Appellate Review of Sentencing 28, 68 

Arlington (Va.) and the District of Columbia 1291 



VIII 

Page 

Arlington County Police Department 1292 

Arrest records 214, 222 

Arrests increase 1537 

Assigning judges 1626 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Association 1669 

Attendance staff : 712 

Automated information service (PROMIS) 1549 

Bail 150, 244 

Bail Agency : 

Case load 1348 

Personnel lack 160 

Role 297 

Staff 305 

Supervisions 303, 306 

Workload 310 

Bail and probation figures 385 

Ban on manufacturing 1393 

Bar Association of D.C 1637 

Bench warrants 251, 1116, 1535 

Bicentennial celebration 1053, 1256, 1258, 1285, 1355 

Bicentennial funding 1294, 1435 

Bicentennial planning 1421 

Bonabond 1091, 1095 

Budget for juvenile care 680 

Budget for youth 787 

Business, Economic and Human Development Bureaus 1022 

Calendaring cases 1652 

Capitol Hill Southeast 993,994 

Career cluster centers 712 

Causes of crime 138, 620, 623, 653, 1103, 1105, 1328 

Causes of crime increase 9,23,970 

Causes of juvenile crime 1066 

Cedar Knolls 1656 

Chautauqua 749 

COG staff 1434 

Combatting illegal gun acquisitions 1376 

Commission on accreditations for corrections : 

Accreditation to D.C. Department of Corrections 873, 397 

Background 367 

Development of policy 368 

Organization and administration of commission 367 

Present activities 371 

Committee policy 1658 

Communication among criminal justice agencies 1361 

Communication with other systems 781 

Communications gap 741 

Communications in area 1433 

Community-based programs 427, 1092 

Community care service goals 666 

Community centers 202 

Community involvement 134, 1117, 1258, 1343 

Community programs 132, 386i 1320 

Community reaction to youth shelters 657 

Community release coordinator program 408 

Community resistance to halfw^ay houses ~423, 425 

Community response 1088 

Community services for students 760 

. Community treatment programs 199 

Compensating victims of crime 1578 

Compulsory savings 420 

Conditional relea.se violations 161 

Contacts with criminal justice .system 790 

Conviction rate 1532, 1631 

Convictions 1358 

Cooperation with other jurisdictions 1171 



IX 

Page 

Coordinating community resources 669 

Coordinating the Criminal Justice System 372 

398, 413, 630, 633, 664, 680, 1535, 1585 

Coordinating with other areas 1117, 1321 

Corporal punishment 793 

Corrections 1335, 1346, 1435 

Corrections budget 46 

Corrections-Kecidivists ^ 44 

Corrections standards 373, 375 

Cost of halfway houses 423,427 

Cost at halfway house and Lorton 427 

Cost of institutional care 410 

Costs of crime 1012, 1053 

Costs of incarceration 1068 

Costs of rehabilitation 1049,1649 

Council of Governments 1431 

Counseling for delinquency prone 667 

Counseling judges 29, 70 

Counselors for juveniles 679 

Court of Appeals case load 8 

Court appointed counsel 1345 

Court appointed defense counsel 1341 

Court nonjudicial personnel 82 

Court procedure for juveniles 134, 135 

Court Reform and Criminal Procedures' Act (1970) 7,9,1532,1548 

Courts Relationship with Other Agencies 25,67 

Crime increases 1102 

Crime prevention 54, 134, 1017, 1068 

Crime problems 989, 1628 

Crime rate in Prince Georges County 1286, 1290 

Crime statistics 622, 1106, 1357, 1612, 1617 

Crime by ones on release 307 

Crimes unreported 1103 

Criminal code amendments now 264 

Criminal defendants counsel 1706 

Criminal justice coordinating boards 309, 1169 

Criminal justice planning 1432 

Criminal justice system 257, 621, 1084, 1086 

Criminal justice system lack 1321, 1323 

Criminal justice system statistics 624 

Criminal offenses 1432 

Crowd control 1426 

Curriculum 763 

Custodial supervision 26 

District of Columbia and Prince Georges County problems 1611 

D.C. Bail Agency. Recommendation criteria, for Superior Court 298 

Dangerous recidivists 45, 197. 205 

Daytime crimes 1287 

Dealers 1390 

Dealers in the metropolitan area 1390 

Decriminalization of felonies 1170 

Defense attorneys' compensation 58 

Defense counsel 217. 260 

Defense counsel compensation 28 

Defen.se counsel for indigents 225 

Defense counsel selection 27 

Deference to State in dual violations 1579 

Deficiencies in District gun laws 1392 

Deficiencies in system 43 

Departmpnt of Human Resources 1648. 1655 

Detention facilities 133. 1612 

Detention of Federal prisoners (Va.) 1583 

Detention hearing 684 

Detention levels 654 

Detention on post conviction H 

Detroit's experience with offenders 1021 



Page 

Differential detention plan _' 654 

Discipline guidelines 695 

Discipline lack 1093, 1098 

Disposition of noncriminal cases 1652 

District Attorney, elected or appointed 26,66 

District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 197 0__ 7 

District of Columbia Jail 383,1349 

District of Columbia survey 1381 

District offenders in Virginia 1293 

Dropouts "'82, 765 

Drug abuse 157, 224 

Drug Abuse Controlled Substances Act 151 

Drug control 1167 

Drug distributors 1580 

Drug legislation recommended 969 

Drug program 721 

Drugs 620, 

653, 659, 660, 661, 742, 752, 969, 1115, 1164, 1293, 1334, 1343, 1432, 

1575, 1611, 1615, 1706 

Dual justice 221 

Early detection program 778 

Economic causes of crime 1013,1115 

Economic conditions 1342 

Education 414:, 683, 1056 

Emergency alarms 1434 

Employment 25, 219, 224, 304 

Escapes 387 

Evaluation of youth programs 687 

Exclusionary rule H- 217 

Ex-offender programs 1343 

Ex-offender Training Workshops 996 

Expenditures ^35 

Expanding halfway houses 424 

Extra-curricular activities 763 

Extraditions 1613 

Fairlawn Citizens Association 978 

Falsification 1375, 1377, 1587 

Family support 420 

Federal detention facilities 1589 

P^ederal Firearms Laws 1370 

Federal gun control requisite 1389 

Federal programs 696 

Female crime 1;)9S 

Financial resources 656 

Financing programs 1069 

Firearms imported to District 1388 

First offenders 203, 266 

Flock, Inc 1658 

Fourth amendment 223 

Fragmented Criminal Justice System 1534 

Full-time judges 131 

Funding for Youth Services 681. 792 

Funds 253, 1285 

Funds available 246 

Furloughs 386, 1057, 1060, 1065, 1075, 1116 

Future actions - 43 

~Future correctional planning 388 

Future plans 407 

Gambling 1119 

Grand jury records 249, 259 

Greenville project 1387 

Group homes 135 

Gun confiscation 1395 

Gun control 620, 

627, 986, 994. 1017, 1117, 1157. 1160. 1256. 1289. 1294. 1322. 1337, 

1338, 1344, 1358, 1366, 1538, 1555, 1586, 1587, 1610, 1613, 1615, 1617, 

1620, 1634, 1698 



XI 

Page 

Gun control Act (1968) 1368,1370 

Gun Control Legislation 969, 1161 

Gun licensing 1395 

Gun registration 1394 

Gun regulations recommended 1394 

Guns and crime statistics 628 

Guns displayed 1373 

Guns' effectiveness 1159 

Guns in schools 987,1158 

Guns' origin in District 1396 

H.R. 4286— Judicial conference 8 

H.R. 4287— Additional law clerks 8 

Halfway houses 255, 

386, 393, 416, 417, 422, 426, 969, 981, 985, 989, 991, 999, 1002, 1075, 

1169, 1365 

Handguns 212,228, 632, 1372 

Handicapped persons served 1066 

Home detention 57, 1596 

Homebound instruction 693 

Home rule 1106, 1108 

Human kindness celebration 788, 1331 

Identifying gun purchasers 1391 

Illegal dealer 1374 

Illegal sales 1375, 1376 

Inappropriate legislation 380 

Indeterminate sentences 1616 

Individual sales 1378 

Inmates' contributions 1067 

Institutional costs 1080 

Integration proldems 737 

Interjurisdictional communication 1445 

Interjurisdictional crimes 1619 

Interstate compact on juveniles 136 

Interstate firearms theft program 1379 

Jail inmates' reduction 623 

Jail population 403 

Job Corps program 71, 626 

Job programs 754 

Job training 357, 758 

Jobs 1013, 1019 

Jobs for ex-offenders 997, 998, 1000, 1002, 1008, 1055 

Joint Committee on Criminal Defense Services 1628 

Judges 1651 

Judges' assignments 1539, 1708 

Judicial training 1553 

Jury trials for juveniles 1630, 1647 

Justice system personnel training 1087 

Juvenile arrests 789 

Juvenile attitudes 792 

Juvenile authorities 751 

Juvenile court 197, 

202. 737. 779. 1054, 1079. 1080. 1085, 1100, 1556. 1626, 1630, 1645 

Juvenile court advisory committee 137 

Juvenile court as a special court 256 

Juvenile delinquency 45 

Juvenile judges rotation 82, 1645, 1646 

Juvenile justice 713, 1598 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 1596 

Juvenile laws 1089 

Juvenile offenders 48, 

55. 129, 267, 626, 632, 740, 1066, 1078, 1259, 1359, 1539, 1595, 1612, 

1654 



XII 

Page 

Juvenile problem 1644 

Juvenile programs 665, 1289 

Juvenile recidivists 663, 664, 686 

Juvenile rehabilitation 57, 69 

Juvenile services 652, 680 

Juvenile status offenses 1627, 1635, 1652 

Juvenile violent crimes 1090 

Juveniles, confidentiality for 268 

KAPS program 749 

LEAA 199, 379, 1433, 1444, 1532, 1615 

LEAA funds 228, 255, 631, 704, 739, 1096, 1255, 1259, 1322 

Landlord-tenant cases 24 

Laurel, children's center 658, 660, 662, 682 

Law enforcement clearing house 1425 

Law Revision Commission 1697, 1701 

Legal fees 1634 

Legislative proposals 1697 

Legislative recommendations 157, 656, 1003, 1092, 1118, 1539, 1584 

Leniency to criminals 1014, 1016 

Licensing fees 1396 

Limited number of dealers 1395 

Limiting Federal criminal jurisdiction 1579 

Liquor stores 980 

Lorton ^_1584, 1586, 1590 

Lorton alternatives 392, 393, 396, 401, 1317, 1365 

Lorton capital improvements 384,391, 1075 

Lorton population 389 

Mandatory sentences 1345, 1555, 1576 

Manpower in courts 1168 

Maple Glen facility 1653 

Mark Twain School 750, 755 

Marshals 67, 217 

Methadone 248 

Metro security 1162, 1165, 1261, 1294, 1305, 1336, 1431, 1589 

Minor offenders 44 

Misdemeanor cases 1698 

Misdemeanor dispositions 1538 

Misdemeanor trials 1707 

Montgomery County Corrections Department 403 

Montgomery County model learning center 404 

Montgomery County programs recommended 1084 

Mutual aid agreements 1436 

Mutual Security Act of 1954 1372 

National Airiwrt jurisdiction 1589 

National Alliance of Businessmen 997, 1001 

National associations in Washington 1013, 1023 

National Conference of Christians and Jews 696 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency 1105 

National standards 376, 378 

Need for more judges 1548 

Needs of the criminal justice system 131 

Noncriminal offenses 203 

Nonresident defendants 1424 

Oak Hill facility 684,1649 

Occupational rehabilitation 56 

Office of Criminal Justice Plans and Analysis 617 

t)mnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act (1968) 1372 

Oppose separate juvenile court 1597 

Other needed code revisions 1699 

Overscheduling cases 1651 

Overtime for courts 1424 



XIII 

Page 

Parenit-student coiinseling 710 

Park Police aides 1423 

Park Police manpower 1426 

Park Police minorities 1427 

Park for sports 978 

Parking 990, 995 

Parole 158, 1345, 1534 

Parole or probation revocation 11 

Pennsylvaina gun law 1383 

Personnel in job training workshops 1003 

Pleas 245 

Plea bargaining 226, 246, 1163, 1168, 1362 

Police 204, 214, 254, 993 

Police and juveniles 196 

Police Community Relations 992, 995 

Police Foundation 1320 

Police improvements 1329 

PoUce in court 1161, 1166, 1287, 1359 

Police manpower and crime 1114, 1116, 1165, 1366 

Police on beat 970,1342 

Police overtime 1423 

Police, prosecution, court process 43 

Police recruiting 1289 

Police residency 1363 

Preindictment diversion program 46 

Prep clubs 1054 

Pre-release programs 1000 

Pre-sentence investigations 249 

Pretrial detention 408, 1094, 1098, 1341 

Pretrial release 10,409, 1093 

Prevention of crime 653 

Prevention programs 196, 655 

Preventive detention 159, 223, 243, 256, 307, 1162, 1551 

Prince Georges County 1284 

Prince Georges County, crime in 1286, 1290 

Priorities needed in crime attack 1575, 1580 

Priority services for juvenile offenders 81 

Prisoner housing crisis 1576 

Prisons 268,1057 

Probation 132, 151, 158, 216, 1537 

Probation and parole problems 329 

Probation and parole violations 162, 249, 360 

Probation oflBcers 359 

Program 404 

Program evaluation 764 

Prosecuting attorneys 1598 

Prosecutors' assignments 1708 

Prosecutor's office, another 1700, 1702 

Prosecutors 215 

Prostitution 1705 

Public defender service 248, 270 

Ratio of probation officers to probationers 81 

Recidivism 1080,1288 

Recidivists 10, 22, 48, 305, 386, 394. 396, 422, 1059, 1115 

Recidivists 1534, 1536, 1574, 1613 

Recidivists' sentencing 56 

Recommendations 619, 1060 

Recommendations of President's Crime Commission 658 

Recreational center programs 1083 

Recruitment of minorities 1337 



XIV 

Page 

Referral services 667 

Regional needs 1320 

Rehabilitation 266, 268, 357, 399, 417, 1058 

Relations with other jurisdictions 158 

Release conditions 302 

Release for recidivists 304 

Release revocations 415 

Remedies 1078 

Report of the Committee on Federal Legislation 12 

Residency 257 

Responsibilities recommended 1014 

Robert L. Jones Case 1077 

Rotation of judges 66 

Rules for Home Detention program 672 

Salaries 216 

"Saturday Night Specials" 1385, 1392 

School and Criminal Justice Systems 777 

School, compulsory guidance 776 

School-Court-Probation counselor 759 

School participation in Criminal Justice System 737 

School priorities 705 

School, secondary occupational center 694 

School situation 201 

School suspensions 757 

School/work programs 685, 758 

Schools 132,219,252,358, 1079,1655 

Schools, compulsory attendance 694, 708, 761, 776 

Schools, criminal incidents in 736, 741 

Schools, discipline in 707,989 

Schools, early detection program 778 

Schools, programs in 1159 

Schools, security of 735, 739, 780, 789 

Security programs 1054 

Senior Citizen Center 968 

Sentencing 71, 251, 358, 381, 1395, 1548, 1552, 1575, 

1585, 1588, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1631, 170G 

Sentencing comparisons 1600 

Sentencing for crimes with weapons 56 

Sentencing review 69, 1554, 1577, 1613, 1633 

Sentencing under Gun Control Act (1968) 1590 

Separate juvenile court 1614 

Shelter home programs 137 

Sheriff for the District 1167 

Shoplifting and bad check losses 1012, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1018, 1020 

Social studies curriculum 697 

Sources of guns 1374 

Smuggling 1375 

Special education 758 

Special projects and activities 406 

Speedy trials 212, 1094, 1097, 1099, 1358, 1577, 1616 

Staffing 254 

Standards 631 

State laws 1383 

Statistical communications gap 384 

Statistical lacks 396 

Statistical studies 665 

Statistics of home detention program 673 



XV 

Page 

Statistics required 385 

Status oflfonders 1090 

Street academies 791 

Street crimes 1357 

Street law programs 720 

Street lights 994 

Student drop outs 711, 756 

Student employment 720 

Student resource centers 749 

Subpoening nonresident witnesses 159 

Subsidize police cost 1292 

Success of programs 654 

Success rate 419 

Superintendent of schools issue 713, 743 

Taxi problem 980 

Time element in case dispositions 43,58 

Time from arrest to appeal 29 

Tourist business 1013 

Traffic 1425 

Training programs in Lorton 420 

Training workshops 998 

Treatment centers 133 

Treatment plans 410 

Trespassers 761 

Trial periods 264 

Trials 218 

Truancy 83, 200, 692, 706, 709, 712, 715, 717, 

718, 720, 747, 757, 762, 778, 779, 1257 

Types of learning programs 405 

U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C 227 

r.S. Secret Service 1350 

Upper world criminals 1059 

Unemployment 1092, 1287, 1293 

Vandalism 736, 750, 760 

Vandalism in schools 705 

Victimless crime 44, 270, 302, 1118, 1170, 1323, 1361, 1704 

Victims of crime 1322 

Virginia Gun law 1384 

Visiting program 376 

Visitor information dissemination 1424 

Vocational programs 709, 758, 1079 

Vocational rehabilitation 652 

Vocational training 419, 687 

Washington Metropolitan area 1382 

Watergate effects 1293 

Witnesses 1540, 1550, 1577, 1584, 1699 

Women's detention facilities 1342 

Work release program 411, 1058 

V(.ung adult offenders 302 

Youth Assistance Service Centers 790 

Youth Corrections Act 84, 1536, 1657 

Youth Group Homes 681 

Youth offenders 1255. 1320 

Youth Programs 54, 984 

Youth Services Bureau 196 

Youth shelters 660 

Y'outh shelters community based 655 



XVI 



APPENDIX 



Report on Criminal Defense Services in tlie District of Columbia — By the 

Joint Committee of the Judicial Conference of the D.C. Circuit and the Page 

D.C. Bar (unified) IJl'^ 

I. Administration of the Criminal Justice Acts 1730 

II. Role of the Public Defender Service 1820 

III. Quality of Representation 1838 

Appendices : 

A. Judicial Conference Resolutions 1856 

B. Federal Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3006A 1858 

C. D.C. Criminal Justice Act, D.C. Code, Section 11-2601 (1974) 1862 

D. Public Defender Service statute, D.C. Code, Section 2221 1866 

E. Memorandum on Standards of Effective Representation 1870 

F. Interview Questionnaires — 1887 

The Law and The Administration of Justice in the District of Columbia.-- 1904 
The News Media and the Washington, D.C. Courts — Some Suggestions 

for Bridging the Communications Gap 1927-1978 

Administration of the Criminal Justice Act 1979 

Criminal Law Reform in the District of Columbia : An Assessment of Needs 

and Direction 2018 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Charles R. Work, deputy 

administrator for administration, letter and attachments, dated July 7, 

1975 to Chairman Diggs 2068 

Index 1111. 2072 



ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1975 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on the District of Columbia, 

Washington, D.O. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 :25 a.m., in room 1310, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Charles C. Diggs, Jr. (chair- 
man) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Diggs, Mann, Gude, Biester, and Daniel. 

Also present : Ms. Rubv Martin, general counsel : James T. Clark, 
legislative counsel ; Mark Mathis, minority counsel ; James Christian, 
deputv minority counsel; and Chris Nolde, counsel to Judiciary Sub- 
committee. 

The Chairman. We will come to order. Today in continuing hear- 
ings on the administration of criminal justice, the committee will hear 
from the chiefs of police of various jurisdictions in the Washington 
metropolitan area. 

The police are the most visible components of the criminal justice 
system and have initial contact with the law offender and the victim 
of the crime. The police are the first component of the criminal justice 
system, and are the first to perceive changes in the profiles of offenders. 

Therefore, the committee anticipates some insightful testimony from 
the chiefs of police appearing before the committee this morning. 

Our first witness is the Chief of Police of the Washington Metropoli- 
tan Police Department, Maurice J. Cullinane. Chief Cullinane, you 
have a prepared statement with rather voluminous attachments which 
the committee has in their possession. You may proceed, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MAURICE J. CULLINANE, CHIEF, METROPOLITAN 
POLICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF 
COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY VERNON S. GILL, GENERAL 
COUNSEL; AND CAPT. ROLAND PERRY, CHIEF, THE FINANCIAL 
MANAGEMENT BRANCH, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Chief Cullinane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
committee, ladies and gentlemen. I am happy to have this opportunity 
to appear before the committee to present my conclusions concerning 
the incidence of crime in the District of Columbia and the significance 
of and the reasons for the recent increase in criminal activity. 

For the record, Mr. Chairman. I would like to identify the people 
here with me. On my right is Capt. Roland Perry, in charsre of our 
financial management and on my left is Mr. Vernon Gill, who is our 
legal counsel for the Department. 

(1113) 



52-587 O - 75 - pt.2 - 2 



1114 

As you stated, T have prepared a rather lengthy statement which I 
have submitted for the record. With your permission I will confine 
myself to a brief summary of its contents. 

T a<2;ree that a meiv assessment of tlie extent of crime would be of 
little value. So much lime is already bein<ij spent in the accumulation 
of statistics that it seems to me that little can be added by another 
discussion of the mairnitude of the problem. 

AVhat is desperately needed. Mr. Chairuian. is a bettei" understand- 
ino; on the part of all concerned of its causes and sio:nificance. 

There is unfortunately no simple approach to a discussion of the 
causes of crime and the reason for the fluctuations in the level of crim- 
inal activitv. Crime is basically a pattern of human behavior and 
once this is recofrnized it becomes immediately apparent that it is 
affected by a host of factors. 

Tliis diversity of causes applies on a geographic basis as well since 
each city has its own individual physical, cultural, social, and econ- 
omic characteristics all of which are involved in the generation of 
crime. 

There is an interesting if somewhat trivial illustration of these 
facts: I recall that several years ago for one evening for about 2 hours, 
crime appeared to take a holiday in the District of Columbia. The only 
thing that was different about that particular eveninsx was that there 
was a very important football game between the Redskins and the 
Dallas Cowboys. 

The *rame was televised and it appeared that most of the people in 
the District stayed home to watch it. 

I would not advocate that we attempt to reduce crime by televising 
football games. As a matter of fact no other athletic contest has ever 
had the same effect. The point I am trying to make is that the incident 
indicates that the various factors which influence the level of criminal 
activity and it also helps to give some appreciation of the difficulties 
involved in any attempt to segregate the specific factors which are in- 
fluencing the level of criminal activity at any given time. 

Fortunately, many of these influences, like the one T just discussed, 
are short-term factors. There are also some seasonal variations. Most 
of these can be disregarded and concentrate on longer range trends and 
ignore the day-to-dav and week-to-week fluctuations. 

That is not to sav these variations are without importance but rather 
they are of tactical rather than of strategic value and influence. Tf T 
were not convinced that the presence of police had a positive effort in 
reducinir crime, then T would not have spent over 20 years in this 
profession. 

We have evamined this relationship and the statistics bear out my 
intuitive conclusions. 

POLICE MA^^P0■^^^=:R axd crime 

For a .Tiven period of time, thev will pliow that as much as 70 percent 
of the A'ai-iations in crime can be attributed to nolice manpower. There 
is an indication that an increase in manpower has a greater effect when 
crime is at a hiq-h level or is on the increase than it is when crime is 
nli-eadv low or is den-easiTiir. 



1115 

ECOxoAnr cat^sf.s of crime 

Another of tli(> lontr-raiiiro inflnoncos active in the Distric<" at the 
present time is tlie economic recession. "More snec'ficalh'. more ini'^ort- 
ant is the rate of uncmnloyment resuHin.'rj fi-om tlie recession. Here 
statistics indicate from Jainiary 19T2. for a ]:)eriocl mi to December 
of 1974, we feel that as mnch as 32 perce'^t of the variations in crime 
can be attributed to the variations in tlie rate of unemployment. 

We also examined the etl'ects of unemployment on ci'ime in six 
other larjre cities and found that there is a positive corelation as might 
be expected varied from one city to the next, it is a fpc<^or. 

In general. T feel there is a significant indication of the significance 
of those factors to warrant a study in nnich greater dc^th and with 
much more sophisticated techniques than we were able to provide 
at this time. 

DRUGS 

The relationship between narcotics traffic and other crimes has re- 
ceived ]niblicity in the past. There 's evidence to indicate th^^t we are 
again experiencing a resurger'ce of narcotics traffic, primnrilv heroin, 
and that a ]iortion of the increase in other crime is related to the nar- 
cotics problem. 

The purity level of heroin available on the street increased at the 
same time the crime trends reversed themselves. The percentages of 
liositive urine samples for heroin and the number of heroin-related 
deaths both indicate that the increase in the purity of available sup- 
plies is being reflected in a greater usage and an add'ction rate. 

All these trends closely parallel the increases in cime. T hr've al- 
ready taken steps to ii^crease the level of our narcotic enforcement 
efforts in the hope that we will be able to prevent this traffic from 
reaching its former proportions. 

RECIDIVISTS 

Our perpetual problem in crime prevent'on in the District, and 
indeed nationwide, are criminal recidivists. The Police Department 
defines a "recidivist" as an individual arrested for the commVsion of 
a crime while he is on some sort of conditional release program, either 
pre- or post-trial. We do not include repeat offenders whose release 
was not conditional. 

We are dealing with a relatively small number of hardcore criminals 
whose experience with the criminal justice system has been such 
that the risk of arrest and pimishment no longer deters them from 
the commission of additional crimes. 

Pretrial release programs, early release after sentencing, plea bar- 
gaining during trial, preparation phases are all contributing factors 
to this problem. 

For the past year or over the past several years, the percentage 
of recidivist arrests has fluctuated" between 20 and 25 percent. I am 
happy to say, and T believe sincerelv. that it is somewhat because of 
these hearings that during the first 20 davs of ^lav, that rate has 
dropped to 18 percent. 



1116 

I feel that this is an encouraging: indicator which can be attributed 
to the initiatives taken by a number of agencies in the criminal 
justice system. My Department has for some time had a major vio- 
lator section responsible for tracking repeat offenders. 

The U.S. attorney's office has established a special unit which 
examines recidivist cases with an eye toward recommendations like 
high security bonds or ^^reventive detention, based on the arrestee's 
previous record. The courts have responded favorabh' to many of 
these recommendations. 

BENCH WARRANTS 

In cooperation with the U.S. attorney's office, we have launched an 
intensified effort to arrest and prosecute approximately 500 fugitives 
w^anted on flown bench wai'rants. The District of Columbia Bail 
Agency which investigates defendant's backgrounds and suggests pre- 
trial status is now recommending preventive detention when Avar- 
ranting. 

FURLOUGHS 

The Department of Corrections has tightened its policy on fur- 
loughs and other types of early releases. If we can maintain the de- 
gree of vigilence and public interest in this manner, we may be able 
to bring this problem under control. 

These. I think, are the major influences which are at work in our 
community to produce the iiresent level of criminal activity. Let me 
emphasize again that this list is not all-inclusive. 

POLICE MANPOWER 

I would like now, Mr. Chairman, to consider for a moment the re- 
sources available for my Department to be used in its effort to con- 
trol crime. We are currently operating with an authorized strength 
of 4.750 sworn personnel and 1,032 civilian personnel, which includes 
our cadets. 

As the committee is probably aware, police manpower was reduced 
from an authorized strength of 5.100 in fiscal year 1975 to 4,750 in 
the current fiscal year. 

Our present budget provides funding for a total of 4,700 police 
positions. Unfortunately, unexpected reductions in apportionments 
have forced us to operate at a lower manpower level for much of 
this year. 

While manpower is our most important resource and consequently 
accounts for about 90 percent of our o))erating budget, men cannot 
operate without the tools of their trade. AVe operate a fleet of all 
types of vehicles from motor scooters to trucks which are dispatched 
and controlled by an up-to-date communications system using tele- 
phones, radios, and teletype equipment. 

^Ve also have an automatic data iirocessing system which makes 
available crime related data bases to each of our officers and is being 
used by several city. State, county, and Federal law enforcement 
agencies in the area within the boundaries of the District. 

As in evei'v other phase of life, inflation has made itself felt in our 
operations. Our budget for operating expenses other than personnel 



1117 

lias not kept paco w itli tlic rate of inflation. Our pfTorts to support tho, 
pi-osoiit level of opeiat ions, in this eiTort. we are i'e(| nesting from the 
('()(r that an equitable system be developed for future expansions 
of this data processing system. 

rOOKnTXATTXG WTTII OTTIKR AKKAS 

We have also developed through the CX)G an excellent working 
relationship with the sui'rounding jurisdictions. Within the Dis rict 
of Columbia the Crimiiud Justice Coordinating Board and the Office 
of the Criminal Justice Plans and Analyses provide avenues for the 
exchange of information and services. 

In terms of workload. I have sul)mitted statis is on crime as part 
of my prepared statement. The total crime index over 1975 totaled 
54,64-i- olfenses. There were in addition 18,555 minor oflenses, over 1 
million class II traflic violations, 167.000 class I traffic violations. 

Our officers spent -jrj'i.OOO hours testifying in court and we received 
nearly 1 million emergency calls. "We responded to 578.000 requests for 
services. Stolen ])roperty valued at over $2 million was recovered. We 
have looked at the efl'ects on our crime levels on suburban police de- 
])artments and those effects on crime in the suburbs. 

We have concluded that crime is a regional problem. Tlie spillover 
of crime from the I)is'"rict to the suburbs or vice versa is not a major 
factor in the crime level of any jurisdiction. 

Mr. Chairman, that is briefly the picture of crime in the District of 
Columbia as I see it. I cannot oiler any easy I'emedies. There are, how- 
ever, several potentially i)ro(luctive areas that I believe can be ex- 
ploited. 

coMaruxiTY ixvol\t;mext 

The fiT's^ and perhaps the most important is community involve- 
ment. I feel that evei-v one must come to realize that ]iolice are the 
public and the public are the police. Without the cooperation of the 
public, I believe that we can accomplish very little. 

Although this seems to be a simple goal, the avenues we are taking 
to achieve it ai-e numerous and varied. We have a central Community 
Relations Division as well as a group of officers assigned to this func- 
tion in each of our seven districts. 

I have ap])ointed a citizens advisory committee to help to keep me 
informed of the needs as well as the desires of the ciMzens. We havea 
number of specialized programs aimed at assisting homeowners, busi- 
nessmen, schoolchildren, and the tourists to help us in protecting them. 

We utilize the radio and television as well as the printed word in 
an effort to get our message across to as many people as possible. 

We are continually searching for new ways to provide better service 
to the public and to make better use of the assistance that the public 
can offer to us. 

GUX COXTROL 

A secondary area which T feel needs some attention concerns the 
weapons that are used in criminal acts. It is very mifortunate that this 
has become an emotional issue since it is really one that shoidd be faced 
calmly by all those who are concerned. 



1118 

We already have in the District of Cohinibia relatively strict laws 
concerning the sale, possession, and registration of hrearms. Handguns 
can be obtained only after a complete check of the purchaser's back- 
ground has been made and no handgun may be sold to a person with a 
criminal background. 

Registration of handguns is compulsory. The entire process takes 30 
days. But in spite of these regulations, less than one-half of 1 percent 
of all the firearms lecovered by the Police Department are registered. 

I do not feel that the gun bounty programs such as recently were un- 
dertaken in the nearby city has been truly effective. "While the suppl}' of 
cheap handguns can be replenished without limitation, I believe it is 
possible that programs could actually stimvdate the flow of weapons 
rather than stop it. 

Under our 90-day amnesty program, citizens are encouraged to sur- 
render firearms voluntarily to the police department with no questions 
asked. We do not expect to get large numbers of guns this way, but we 
think it is more effective than the bounty program. 

•' LEGISLATIOX REQUIRED 

I would like to say to this committee today that it is my belief that we 
should enact legislation to prohibit the manufacture and importation 
of cheap handguns which are so often used in the crimes of violence and 
family disputes. 

These firearms are not normally used by sportsmen, nor are they of 
any value to gun collectors. Therefore, those individuals with a legiti- 
mate interest would not be harmed. I believe we could eventually expect 
to decrease those violent crimes which have depended on the read}' 
availability of such handguns. 

At the same time, I feel that it is equally important that legislation 
be enacted both locally and nationall}- to provide mandatory minimum 
sentences for the whole range of gun-related offenses. We must also 
insure that these penalties are universally prescribed by the courts 
and that the penalties are not relieved by early release or by plea 
bargaining. 

VICTIMLESS CRIMES 

There are also several other areas while they would not directly re- 
duce crime could avoid the divergence of the resources of the criminal 
justice system. One area is the administrative adjudication of traffic 
infractions other than more serious ones. 

Several jurisdictions in Xew York which have instituted such sys- 
tems have found significant savings of time spent in the adjudication 
procedures by polices officers. 

Another such area is the decriminalizations of some of the so-called 
victimless crimes. While I do not support the movement to decrimi- 
nalize the use of marihuana, I would support a program similar to the 
Oregon experiment that would provide monetaiy fines for the simple 
possession of the drug. 

I feel that such a program would reduce the amount of ti'^ie cur- 
rently s})ent by this department in preparing cases toward which the 
public is indifferent, the courts are lenient and the prosecutors wish to 
avoid. 



1119 



GAMBLIXG 



I am also opposed to legalized gaiiibliiio; in the District of Columbia 
although I am far froui being convinced that the benefits would be as 
great as is usually anticipated. I did not feel that this is a simple 
yes or no decision, 

I would only reconnnend that before any jurisdiction goes into this 
pi'ogram, that they should study the experiences of other jurisdictions 
in (leveloping a proposal on this subject. The cases of prostitution and 
pornography, there we have a situation which is even more complex. 

Very few people object to these activities until their lives are directly 
touched or they experience adverse economic effects. Some cities have 
taken liberal attitudes toward these offenses and a considerable amount 
of data relative to their experiences is available. 

I would suggest that this experience be studied very thoroughly 
before adopting such a course. Finally, and Avith much trepidation, 
I suggest that if some increase in court resources is required, we might 
look to a reduction in the amount devoted to noncriminal cases. 

I feel much could be done to decrease the workload in such areas 
as landlord and tenant. I am not a strong advocate of it but another 
area is no-fault insurance which could possibly reduce accident 
litigations. 

Some other expanding areas of malpractice suits, also. Tn conclusion, 
]Mr. Cliairman, I feel that we are faced with some serious problems 
but not liopeless ones. Solutions will not come either quickly or cheaply 
but I am confident that they can be found. 

We must all be aware of the cost of our programs and our efforts 
to im|)r()ve our productivity nnist be increased. T think we should 
also consider the cost of negligence. "We must expect on occasion re- 
versals and use the insight which they provide to improve our efforts in 
the future. 

Above everything else, all elements of the criminal justice system 
must learn to work in harmony with each other and with the com- 
nuinity that they serve. 

^Ir. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would like to thank 
you and the meuibeis of the committee for your attention and I w^ould 
be happy, if there are any further questions, to answer them at this 
time. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Thank you very much. Chief. 

Without objection the full text of your testimony together with the 
exhibits will be included in the record at this point. 

[The document referred to follows :] 

Statement of Mavrke .T. Cuijixaxe. Chief of Police. Metropolitan Police 

Department, District of Columbia 

I approacliea these hearings of this Committee with mixed emotions. So often 
when crime in the District of Columbia (or an.vwhere else for that matter) is dis- 
cussed, what esults is a mere recitation of statistics detailiiis the masnitude of 
the prol)lem. with on'.v minor attention given to eau.ses, significance, and possible 
remedies. I was therefore happy when I was notified that this Committee was 
interested in "the meaning and significance of and reasons for the increases in 
the incidents cf crime in the District and surrounding area." I was. at tlie same 
time, sliglitly dismayed, since I have i)een involved with this i)rol)lem for more 
than twenty years und presenting the views which I have accumulated over that 



1120 

period seemed a stasffering task. However, with the understanding that it would 
be virtually impossible for one man to provide a complete treatment of all the 
facts involved in this problem, I concluded that I might at least be able to pro- 
vide the Committee with a summary of those aspects of tlie problem which seem 
to be most pressing and significant in today's environment. 

I think it is most important to stress, at the outset that crime is basically a 
problem of human behavior. Once this is recognized, it becomes immediately 
apparent that it is affected by a host of factors. It is a mistake to rely upon 
sweeping generalizations concerning the causes and signiticance of crime trends. 
Each time in history presents a different pattern of relationships, and at any given 
time, the area under consideration influences the order of importance of the com- 
mon factors involved. Each city has its own individual physical characteristics, 
and each presents a different social, cultural, and economic background, wliich 
means that statements made about crime in one city will not necessarily apply 
to all. and remedies which are successful in one area many fail when trans- 
ferred to a different environment. 

Washington. D.C. has a number of characteristics which distinguish it from 
other cities. The first, of course, is its position as the nation's capital. This quite 
obviously creates a number of unique law enforcement problems which are not en- 
countered to the same degree in other major cities. Probably the most important 
of these is tourism. It has been estimated that twenty million tourists visit the 
city each year. Aside from the increa.sed traflSc problem, each of these visitors 
is a potential victim of crime and must be protected during his stay. Another 
important problem for the lation's capital is its use as a focus for citizens 
demonstrations. This represents a pei-iodic increase in the police workload. While 
the massive demonstrations of a few years ago seem to have disappeared, there 
is no guarantee that this is a permanent condition, and the Metropolitan Police 
Department must maintain its capability to deal with them. 

I don't propose to perform a complete urban analy.sis hei-e, but I would like to 
point out one additional peculiarity of the District of Columbia, which is that, 
as cities go it has a relatively small area, limited by well-defined and regular 
boundaries. This gives us an area which is fairly easy to patrol, but it also gives 
rise to the existence of l-u-ge, heavily-jiopulated suburban areas, and a daily in- 
flux of commuters which is estimated at 930,000. I am certain that everyone 
knows from experience what this means in terms of trafl?'^ congestion, but T would 
also like to point out again that these commuters are also potential victims who 
nnist be protected. 

I am certain that this Committee will be hearing from law enforcement of- 
ficers from our neighboring jurisdictions, so I am going to confine my te.stimony, 
as far as possible, to a discussion of the conditions which exist in the District of 
Columbia. Of course, we do not exist in isolation, and it will Ix' impossible to com- 
pletely avoid occassional references to our neighbors. 

WASHINGTON'S CRIME OFFENSES 

A good place to begin a discussion, I think, is to take a brief look at the size of 
the problem itself. Crime is a major problem in every urban area in the country, 
and the District of Columbia is no exception. One way of measuring our success 
or failure in dealing with the problem is to compare ourselves with other cities. 
For this purpose we use the twenty cities in the Ignited States which fall in our 
population class. 500.000 to 1,000,000. The following tables show how Washington 
ranks with these cities in the incidence of serious crime. They also show the in- 
crease or decrease in each category between 197.3 and 1974. Since there is still a 
substantial varintion in size within this group, the most nieajiingful comparisons 
an- those which deal with crimes per 1000 population. I feel also that the direc- 
tion and magnitude of the changes are probably the most significant of all these 
comparisons. 



1121 



o *; 



_r--^i-— 000>U3U^^^OOCnOOOOr-«.-*CNJ^3'^S-CSJCsJ — " 






s« 



^ ^ CT> r^ m ^3- r^ [^ O U3 r~ CD "T* OO OO CSl T CNJ ^^ CNI ' .— « .— « 



r-*oo<^C3i^»— •ooOrocnrsjooo^^-'— 'cDCNJoocrj— ' 
to cNj c^' — ' cn'^ 



CM csj — " csi CNj •— ' f^ cNj •— t CNj •— ' eg 



o 

o 



o 
cr 

X 



=3 



CO 

Ui 
00 



o 

LU 



QC 
O 



O 



ooo c 
c o o 






^ r^Tto »— ' CO CNj cnT'— ' POcvjt-HcncNjcsjt^— •■— " ^"csj r^ 






m^tDoototopn'^ai(stfNjo^o^o<^uo<£soa^i — 
CT><^Otjoa>r--.r^cNic=>^tDa^oor^cD^riO^-Lnr^ 

CM •— ' CO •-< ^- ,_ ,_, ,_ CM,-. _ i CM 



r^«*>fl0^9'^Mi^O'— 'OSOOCTir^.— «oo<^cMPO^tOu^ 



i/i«MosjOtOt£»'^<^>j^csJoor^^^m^ou^cM«— t^r 

CMf^OmCMI — CMO^tD^-r^OOrOCM*^'J^°OCT>C3<^ 



r-.tOtnenoo^a'C^^'^'i'^cocor^cMCDuoiJ^ui^Lfi 



ir)i*^^r^or^cMcooorocT»p-*.to.— roJT-Dr-^ro.— » 



3 
O. 

S. 



0'=T■u^m'3■•— 'TCNj^cvj— lO^oocMCMLnoi— icold 






c o '<J 



ODCDOC 



c 

^ ^5 '"^ =^ - 5 Be,?; e 



IE 

- 3 



J 



a 
^ 






.§ 
1 

3 

m 



1122 



a TO 



to IT) CT) IT) r^' 00 irj od lo\d o o in .— • <J- to to" cnI ^ r^ 



O 

< 

Q. 
O 



O 



i 



a: 

UJ 

m 



o 
en 



>■ 



s, 



it 
o 



++' + 



oo(riooai<T>'T)oo'3-cNjLOC\ji — r^og«a-oooo^tr)c> 



CD^^r^oocDOCNiCTJCooor^ii^csi*— <to(^Ln^fO«— « 



tDr^inroooooooc3<£3CNj'— ■rooooouDmo^ooCTj'^j- 
'^' i' CD to -=*■' o csi LTJ ^ r-.* t£) ■*" ^ uS irj ro* r->! r-*" ^ oS 



cr> |rg_i_cocNj_i_icNj.— < 1 |cNjCsJ»-7«f— tr-tco. 



+^i 1 






++I+++ 



++ 



++^^+ 



+ 



r-.ro»Xi^3''*Lr)0— 'O^ooCTir^f— 'OOcsjfNifno<-OLn 



mcsjcsjototo^^tDtncNiOOr--,— ten.— *CT)ioc^-- 1^' 

r0CNJfNJCNJ'3-'^CD00r--.tX3'=3-r^CNjLnO'::f^a-^-r0^3- 

c\jr-»ococNjr-.csiaicci.— tr~^cococM<rLnooO^C3c£) 
r^ to in CO oo ^ co ^x ^3" ld ro ro r^ csj (^ lO ltj '^ ^ m 



cO(T)OOtr>oJcooooLnoocDLno-ji'^t£30Ji-ntrj^d'tD 
cocsj^T—- •csj--«C5CsicsjcsiC5ro.— f— 'rocsio-— «■— «ro 



D— ir-^tD'^TLO.— •rvJOOCT)LrjfO*^"*r^OOCT>C3C 



ro«^tDOO(X>cooor-»oicvjcvicT>cT>*^^^'^^^C)Lr)r^ 

CSI — CO -^ ^^^ ^^ CM^ — CNJ 



ooLr)r^c^'3-roocsj*d"0^cT>Lnr-ioocNi.— «fotr>r-.o Lno^.— <<*tD— •r^oocsjr^oocoiri^^o^f^'Jto^^ 



tDoocvjLncNJOor^oo^csjto.— 'CT>csjcMooo>^r^co 
CNjoo--«cDr^Lrjr^Lr)r^oo'^c^O^'3-tO.--.rorooo«g' 

cnI --" tT) od cnJ iT) cT) L") ro od cJ cri lt) o csj to" irJ C3 m* r-.' 
4; r--oOLnLnoooorotX3(X3tD'^tr)C3uootO(X)Oor^(XS 
O 



csitocNir-..— "O^cDLO'aj'— «oo<3-«:3-C3rocDooi^ror-^ 



CTJ.— i<DCTi*Mr*.LncTiOLnrvJc>ro'^'^'^C30CNi^3' 
o.— 'CD-— 'r-oOCT)CsJtO'3-a^ir)^-a^*3"CDooiDO'^ 
cocNjro'-^cNi--'^csj»-H<Nj^co.— i^ro"— *o.— '»— ■'^ 



■— 'OOCNjf^*3"CM^-^COP^Lr)t£JtD^LndOO.— "O^C 



I 

00 



ro (ij 



«3"<r^-'cooo^tD(.DroCTJLr)— 't^esiooojunLOCNj^ 



oomr--<-DcoCT^r-*.CNjoOLncD^cD'3-^<csjLn^Lr)<^ 

Csj --. CM CNJ .— . _- oj CNJ •-« .-H CSI 



O 
X 

UJ 

O 



'-<or--tocsio«*oo«:j-^HLr5roir)aicsjcnoot£)r-*ro 

,_, _» CSJ — ^ ,— , ,-H ,— I ,-* ,—1 ,— « ,— ) 






iDr»-.^i — oi — .rsjtoooroO^r^to.— "f^uDtor^mi— « 
r^C3(DtD*3-a5tooocDLoCDT3-a^.— «cNj^-r^a300ur) 

m .— rcrcrr<j-~^^oo"r-^~ro"r^ ro~^o rNr^tD"aT"o"co~ 
cs^TLnro^a--— I'^rcNJOcsj-^oioocsjCMLOcTJ^-roLrj 
CT)tOr^^LnoOLnr^Lr3(^tDr»^tnLnir>tDtD<^r->.tnr^ 



LDr^cDf^oi — cNnxJOOcocDi — to.— "cOLntCT-^ro'"? 
ld . — ■ o^o^ «3- ^a- «J oo"r^ ro r*. co'.— O OJ *3- to id ^ *^ 



So 



Q.roO 



■—3 3 



Q 

Z3 



— ^j 1^ 

O oo c 

<QL1- XT 



iQ =-!?^^Sz: 



■c ."t:; _ 

0.0.00 



aj^.t:^ 



!2 <" =; , 

— =::t; 1 lu TO ,_ , _ 

_TO— ii-<5 = t0^3^ — 3 3^ 



CO 

o o 
QLi_ z: 



TO tu ro <D ^ 
CO CO 00 00 > 



1123 



ir>r-^ro(Njooooesic 



.«*■_.__.... 

f— t r*. o o^ ^ tr> 






I I 



>-^+"^+ 



++I + 



Lr>a^roc»^<^f*^or*.CT»oocsjcNjLr)^ra^roCTiOr^ 
oo o r\j cvi 

•-♦CviCO CM 

++++ 









-++ I +++ I ++ 



•-•cMi^ti^^T'— «r--Lnooc)c3tocNiCT)«3-CT>oor^roco 



r-«.r^r--— <cs(ro^^ai<i3r^r^oopor^u*>oooou3LDcsj 
to iD tn t^ r^ r^ ^^ (^ r^ oo cm ^LOLr>r^LrtCM<.DLr>r^ 



C3rn^-unrocs]r-.<^C3'3-p>-cNjcO(T>oo>^roc^Lr)r^ 
r-. CNJ T f*^ oj oo <r C3 cvj 00 o^ oo o — "~- '^ en "cr ct> 
csjfsj-^«g-r-«^.— tr-^CTir — cnj*='''~*oO'^<-doO'— '0O«:r 

.-I'^co* CO CO ^ CD* co'=t <t c^ U3 '^T "cf oo csj csj to ro d 



^CNJtD^'— <00 4Di— <0»cooootor«»imroc»r^":*"CM 



•— •fO'*oooo«:j-for^a»oc>r-.csj.-<mCT»u3toi-ncM 



tD»-".-«eMinrotD*rcocMtDO^^rinoi(so^tO'— » 

0OLn«3-ti3ro^^Lr><DCMO^tD-- 'r^«3Tnc3co.-HCX3 
^ro^a-coo^'ts-comcnLn'— <cNjrocNj'^cocsi«3TOirj 



00Lr>C0'^^r--C0C3CMMr-.CTJtI3-^O^^'-«tD--««-» 

C3 CD — " 1^ ^ CD '^r tD CD oo ^3- CM ro c) o r)0Oro^<:r 
CM— <•— *oo>--to->roCTiC3<j)t^oo<ru"icor^oi^TOCT> 

Or-r^"*— ''co'cNrcM'<— '"c^ CM — «*CO CM~CM uS"— T— * <T CM r-~ 



>-HrotD<X3CsiCT)0>'3'0'— '(^p^LnoO'S-r-ootorocM 



^COLDr^— •(^■— 'OOCOOO'*Cn'3"r--OOC300u^cr)00 

if>oooO'3'OOCT)CT»— <cnu3'3-oi-ncNjocT>'a'i-rjcMtx> 
u^mi.ni.n(X)oof*^tDLnr-.CMT«TLr)CT>cocMr-Lnr — 



00— *rO«3'00CMa3«3'-— 'Cr>rn(^'^<nC3'^— "CZ><J3CT> 
£3— .Li-)<T>CO0O— '0OCDLn_<.— "CMOOCM— •'3-mCDr^ 

LOOT— 't^t — a3ooc;>ti3C3aT— cnczJco'd-OP^cM^a- 
ai o> ujVJ en ^ --H CO ^ <r —i uS CM irj oo" CM CM to cri OT 






CTitO^i-rjir)— «•— •r^cMa^Lnco^T<rir>Lr)roc3tDtD 
0>r^«3-cT>i — tDCTJCM^r-*r^^T(X)r--t^ior^<Tr-CT> 

^■CO^a-CMin^rCMCOCO^f— «CMCMCMLr>CM«— 'U^CMiTl 



CMOl—- •OOtDOCM— "rO-^'OPO— <r^l — OOCMI — CM— ^ 

— -(X)fMCD'^'— 'i^forocooocoo^TP-^r-cM— <cDr-> 
tDo^^i^LD— '<rcot£>roLncjc>'^tX)'— •LD'^cxDr^— « 

OO'lTj"^'— • PO CM — < •■ 



iCMCM— iCr>— 'CMiD— •— <^3-- 



•— t^r*»tDCMO**oO'a-^-Lr)fOir>oicMCT>oot^r^co 



oi— 'cor^— «oo'3-u->r^cia>— <cMr«».tDfoo>*3-— <o 

Lor^c>r^^r-cM(X)ooroCT»r-tD— «coLr>tDr-cO'— • 
r^ocDt-D-srtDtoooouncD'^ri^i— 'CM— <r-.(X30oi-o 

m — • O <D 'a-'^a-'^a- oo r-Cco"r--.~rn — <"cD CM'^a-'tO iJt"o <-D 
^■a'Lnro*3"^-'=J"CM^cNj— <CTJoocM<MiDd-^co>^ 
o>u>r^Lnooirjr^inLntcr^iOLr>LOtDto<^r^ir>r^ 



o>— »cnr^— 'OO'^Tini — OcT»— HCNir^tDcoo^'^^^CD 
Lrjr-N,or^^r^cM(^ooroa^i — to— ^mLOtO'"*-rO'^ 
r-.c50^*-o<TtD<^ooc:Dir>0'^'^'-«cM^^r^<x>oo-ri 

ltT— -To o^*:r ■T'S' oo r- ro p^-^co -— ^csj^a-tOJ^^to 
C)*3-tr)ro«3-— 'O-cMCD-vi— to^oocMCMLDOi— *roLr) 
CT)tor^LOOOLOtOiDtOtor^ir>iDLr>tD<.DtC*~ior^ 



O. 

< 



^ 2 



E o a> t 

nj o ^ o ro 
CDCQOOO 



ffi 
CQ 
O 






oi^:^: 



O 



C J3 



m (U — QJ r- *^ 






C C C TO 



!£ Q) 3 _ 

O — ^ I <1> TO 



)C/3S 






o *- 



cr c c= (u ; 



1124 



r^ oi t— ' to cvj t£> in ^^ ^ CNi ^ CO CO ir^ 



tDor^O^^tOOOl' 



iLnmCT>«cfoOCT)or^ro«*r^ 



O 



a. 
o 

0. 



o 

I— 

o 





^ 


Q. TO 




=3 


0) 


a. 


CO 


o 


C 








fc 




O 





+++ 1 



_l_«— iCsJ I .— . ^H I ^H |_ I _ . I CO CNJ 



++ 



t^cM— iCT»'"^csjtDcsjrooor^«*oototDC3r^'S-ir)^ 
I oor^csj ^^ I 4_CNj'<3- -H _|_csj I rg I ^ o4 _i_ csj r-^ 

I I. 1 I --r-r_i_j__L-r_4_ I j "t- _|_ _|_ "h _^ j 



+++^-"^"^+H-+"^+ 



I 



•*esj£NicD'— «{rjoouoesjooin— <c3^^ 
oor-'OOtcr-i — oofo — ^s-looocnj^ 

— '(XXXS-— 'OCDOO^-C3CT>OtDp^O 

ro CNJ c*^ csj ^cNr^evTco'T*".— Tiu 



++ 



CNjr^rvJcDr^tI3(J^^^0O— »f^»^^^r^' — "U^tI3C3ir>tD 
oc?t^oofOr--,r--^-4r^r----"OOCNJC3'^fOOOl — — «r^ 
r^' ^ fo »-H ^ crJ --« «T '^f cvj ^ CO -:^' CO irj CO .— ' CO csi ro 



ro Qj 






o 

UJ 

O 



O 
a: 



>- 
< 



I 
00 



o 

X 

UJ 

o 



O 



r^OO^JOI^^^^OOOOOCT>^NiOOO>— «— 'CT>eNI0OtD— • 

coLnr--.csu3cj)OOCNj'3-(rioocsj*TtD'=3"^^cntD.— 'oo 
to eg cNi">-H fo ^ cCcsTi— T csj cNr^f^"csj ^cnT.— Tcsi 



1— •rvl^00CNJP-.010»tDu^O-^'^O'*"^^*^00C0«* 






CMair--.-H<:tCNICT>Or-.LOCDOO^HU3 



'a"Ooro<OtDCDC>i — .rotn^ootDOO 
I — i-nc)ro^rocNj*:3-^:3-^coto^eNi 






OfO— 'P-<NJiOOOu3tOCSJCNJir)000» 

OO t£) cvj CNJ CO r--. CD o-rf*S"(Trto'cTrLrrod" 



o 

o.-t; 



<u 



u 



Ln^r-.Lr>(Ocoo>CT)C5rsjOooc3r^'^oo^*^^.— • 
^^^CTir-~.ooCTiooCT>cy>Ln'^CDtr300c>^o^-cooOin 

CD'cnT^ *:*■"•—•" ^^^ CNJCNJ.— irOCNJ— 'CNI PO 



Lnr^^^r^^r^cNjtoooro^^'"^'^'"'*^'-'^'^''^'^'— ' 
r^^oicD'=rco<^oo^unC>^3-Ln — cNjt— ir^cooOLD 

lT).— i^CT)*3'«3"«:rOO r-Cpo'f^ CO' — ' <^ C^ -^ i£> \S^ O i^ 

cD'3-.oro^r<— i^a-cNjcDCNi'— «CTJOOcNicNiLna>^*mii-j 
CT>tDi — triOOu^r^LnLntof^iJT^i^*o<otor^Lrjr-^ 



o^oo-^coirjfocNiror-cof^cNiCNjto 

CNJ^3-^-CNjCN)CNJor>'«3-««3-^^00Lr>CNJ^ 



'*a>oo^3-r-»iDr-coirjoootDcsiCT> 



OfOc:)— •tDtO<J»':r05.— '^-CNJCNJOO 

cor-..— t^.— .CD-— «(r>oo^3-<^<Njroa> 



.— •or-<.cDCNjc>'a'OO^S"^HLr>coti^a> 

.—•,-. CNJ 1—.^^.—, ,_ .-* ^M 



oi--<ror^^^oo^s-ir)r--cz)CT>— "CNjr^ 
LOp^or^CJr^cNjtxsooroCTir-to-— < 
r^^cT>tO'=3'totooo^LD^^TLn.— < 

^"a"<-Ofo»:3-.— i^^rcNj^cNi— 'OioocNj 



< 



< 

< 



E o a> = 

CDQDOO 



CL > 
u. TO CI 

CO oj c: o 



2 E 5 



:i:2Sz 



~ X ^ — 

O' 



- O CJ 

) DO C 



a: 



'j: m c 

x:._*w TO TO TO oj™ 

i-ci-oooocoooooS 



TO-O . - 

"SE J3 a; 



S.>0.C2^^ . M 



TO O ajo TO <U^ " TO 

COCQOOOQ — -?^ 



CL 


Sio 


= ;^ 


E 


*5 


OJ CO 




OJ 




^ 


SZQ-Q- 



1125 



co^^(^rOCTir-«.u^^s-ir>c 



^ to r-N.' od o OT 



oi od cvJ W r^ ^ CNj O •— «' f^' o^ <^ <-0 r^ o^ (^ IT) CO r*." CT> 



ooror~-ir)tDoor-ooOJr-^ir>a)C\jTf^CT>u-ior~ 

q:qi+ ' + 1 ++ 1 + 1 +7 ' 1 1 + 1+7 



++ 



+ 



00 ^ po •— • ro lO 
kT) cNj r- ^T 01 CNj 

00 ^ O^ CM CVJ 00 

"T CnT r-i ^—Tcsj" 

+ + I+ + 



r~ —**" ^ ^ 00" ^ cvi" ^ •^" ~r CO*" csT 



rcvimoicNj.— ico^"- 



++ 



kick; — J^?2'>!::£'~-<o — mo — — •<ror~.a) 

S;?;S;7S^Sii5S2j:3o.co--ooo-o.=ooo 

+^-+ 1 + 1 ++ 1 + 1 ++ 1 I I + I + I 



^fO^Dirt ror-^aicy>csjr^o0t0^^^^*^^'^'~'0^^^''^**'^" 



cooo^cOfcD tr> 



CT>^-<CNjt£>cMirjooa>^r^frjoor^'*roii->^a'tDoc3 



O^^CO to 00 CO 

ir> fo •a- m 00 P-. 
CT) CO «:r r^ r^ (^ 

•— • <o CT) CT^ '^ 00 
CO CNJ —. »-• csj ,— » 



ir)r-»csiroooooa^oocsjr--^oa5of>J^'^'^:-?iJ'^ 

C>C3COrOiOOOLi->C)r^' — 00<JiCT>{j5<X)00C000r-»O 

■<T tx> — "' r^ o r^"^ oci W -^j^ <^ 'XJ o^ r^' £> r-;^ 'T in iri CO 
rocNjcMcoir>rocsifoco<^*^'^*^'^'''*^'^f*'^>"*^ 



^iQ^SS'^<^OT2C<^csju-)0'*— 'CNjooiDoor*. 
r^aju3^oc\josjoj^r--oin-^ojoo^oaioo 
.^00.— •— "CNj^rcocNj^^o^-r^cjor^caroaiooco^^ 

^ c^ 2 *^ '^ ^ "^ "^ '^ "^ f^ '^^ *^ ^ "^^ *^ ~* "^ "^ 



CO tD CNI •— ' CT> O ^ t£) 0> p— .— f CO r-* CSJ U^ O ^*" 00 CM O ^'^ 00 CO t£> CT> r^ f^ •— " CM (T> CZ) r^ ^ O 2 ^** ^^ O 00 U3 ^ CO CM in iTJ to 



m 00 00 m CT> (O 

00 CM "^ CM • — -CM 
00 CM LD ^- CM —. 



ltj tx3 CO 00 r^ to CO CO CO f^ "^ ^^ ^^ O ' — - — ^ w -^ 

■ ^3- r- 00 (£) CO c> 
^-.— ""<7> (£> OCT) 00 «5; O uO^ltT 



LTJ to ^»^ 00 r^ to CO CO CO ^"^ ^~ *^ ^" ^^ -^ m ^ '^ OO 'S" 



O^ rv. cO^=T T ^ CD tD <Xro"csro^~t£rc3V-'— 01 *.D C3 c 

.—«.-. .^ ,-. ^- ._, CO ^^ •— • CM *a- .-< — « CM ^^ f^ '"' '^ ^'^ 



CM CM CO CM CM CM 



'«T--»or--cotDrou-iO*tOcocoP^oor-^rO'— 'CT>r-.^- 

^i^'^«25*^'^^^^°*^CT^OOOO~' — 'CNJ'd-^rcMCM 

cNjrotDcoococr>r^';^p-.CDcocNjto.-^^oo*ra^CT) 
O' ^ <^ CO to to CO csT*^ CO irTtxTtcT^o oo"^'^oo"co'"co* 



^- 00 LTJ on CM 00 CT) CO CO r^ r^ 01 ^ 00 irt to ^^ o ^*^ ^ i*^ <£> ^J" ^- o^ — « cm r^ co ^r O o^ ^ 00 — . 



CM r** ^ 00 Lr> ld 



r-N.oo<oco^ri^i/>csjto 



o^ CO ■— . r«.» ij^ CT) 

iD to tD '^ CO lO 



OOCOOCT>'3'«*tDtOCD<^'^'-'^^':N|iJ^OOr^OOOCM 
r^tOCT>^— CM— •CMcTiC-j'~^°0^^*^" '^^=J"— 'CTXTir-^ 
^TOOCOr-CMCM^-tO^I'''' '^^'^C^<D*^'^f*5'=rCT>CM 

00001 — I — o^coCT>^to'CM^'coLriTr'~~'^oo*d-oo^ 

CMr-.^-CMCOCO.— iCOCMf^f^f^^^^^''"'*^^*^f^f^f*^ 



a^'^ooocor-*cDcM*'2f^ooco'<s-':roocMr^CT>tD^ 
2St;t:'^2i"~^^^*='"r^^*'^c)'^'^'-'^coai^3-^co 
o<ooo^-ootDoor-.*^tOcNjr-Lr)r-^P^^C3ocM 

Oi TO to to to CO 'T •«?■' "^ uS r^ o CT) CM uT"t£> to' co" r^* to" 



CO r». CM ir> ^ ^^ 



loioo^j-.— iCMLr>cor^o^'~'*^cNJo^*'^<*^tooor^ 



i^-<CM<r>a>tor->c3^oo^^ooor-^co^fco^a-cocM 



CO 00 m to (O ~^ 
CO <o r- to CM <3 
o 00 ir> CO CT) 00 

<T> T ^ltTcm"^ 



CM o^ooto r^ CO 



tocoa>^ — o 
CO lo t^ r^ CO .— 4 
CM *-• r^ <jO 00 in 



Lr>cooo^^-m^-^j-CMCT>^^^-oi'^*^o^oi^to— ' 
o^aiLOtocMCT>^s-toCT>*^'^ooco<^coLnCTio^aiC3 

r^OCDCT>— iC3CMr^COC^*^CD— il OlOtOtOtDCT) 

irTcM co'^ro" !<"■*" to co'or-^'^cM''^ rn'o to'^ocM* 

CM — . — t i— « CO — 1 -t ,— . •— I CM •— ' •— » CO CMCMCMCMCMCM 



•— •^r^tDcMo^oo^'-^''^'^w^^f^^ootDr^co 



o<— 'COP-.I— tooTinr-o^CTi — cM''^tocOCT>^}-^-^ 
in r^ ^ r»- c^ r-*. cm to oo coo^r^tD'~'cOLn<or^cOi— • 

I — C3(DtO'*tDtOOOO'^<^^''»^^"CM'^-'r-(OOOin 



CM T to ^J-) ^ to 

oj in o) — • CO in 
to to to r^ in r>H 



in — cDtD^T^r^TOOr-.cor— CO— «C)cM*TtOincDto 
OTu-)co'cj-^-^rcMOf^^^o^ooCMcMma>— <rom 
CT>tor-.inoomr^tnmtor^miO''^totOtor^mr^ 



cMoooo'3'.— '^^-oo!Scti<t>cmoooooo*ti — cnoco 

'=r0^tOCOtO^-— iC^SS'^^^'^T^CM^-OCMCO^T— < 

cMCT>tocor-.^tOm'*'u^rMcointotD^T»^coi — r^ 
00 r- CM CO in r^cic^'^ co Lo'to'in'to'CTr^'^o^'co*"^" 



•-"or^torMOnroo^^^i/^fomaicMc 



cr>— Tor^— «oo*3"inJ!^2o^^^cMr--toc'3cr>^r — o 
mr^cTJr-or^cMtoS'^o^'^to — cOtntor--co.— « 
r^CD<J>tD'3-tDtDOO^^'^^Ci'a"LO-- "CM — I — tooom 

in -— CD oi^^r ^^oo'p; 5!!? f^ co — < o cM~^to'in o to' 
o^Tinco^T— «^s-cvjS^5^ — aioocNJcMina)— com 
OtDr^mooinn«-in"^'Of^ir>inintDtotor^mr-. 



to O 00 c 

. C C C "co 



«l *- 



^ 00 
(D O 
COCO 



-I 



S ra 









= O vj •-. 






c c 



Q-fl_C000COCOC/)S 



O 

<D C tn 
C O TO 
TO t« (/I 

^ tj nj 

C TO 






~ o a> _ 

^ -^ > :: — ' 






o o 
oo c: 
a> TO 



c.^ 

c c c TO IS 

TO TO TO (U ^ 

cooooocoS 



1126 

The tables show that the District ranked fifteenth amons these cities in total 
crime index offenses per 1000 population, and anion;; the individual crimes its 
rank varies from second for homicide to twentieth for auto theft. In terms of rate 
of increase in overall crime, only two cities in the group showed smaller percent- 
ages. While these statistics do not constitute a record to be ashamed of, the fact 
remains that 54.644 is a large number of crimes in a single year and leaves no 
room for complacenc.v. Also, while our 7.1% increase is smaller than most cities in 
the same cla.ss. I still feel that the change should l)e in the other direction. 

As I stated earlier, the causes of crime are numerous and they run the entire 
gamut of the .social, cultural, and economic background of the population of a 
city. It is reasonable to a.ssume that there are factors influencing the level of 
crime that have not yet been identified. I do not intend, therefore, that the di- 
cussion which follows should be taken to be all inclusive. I have tried to .select 
several of the influences which I feel are significantly involved in the current 
crime picture in the District of Columbia, and to show the relative importance 
of each. 

POLICE MANPOWER AND CRIME 

One thing that 1 am certain affects the level of crime is the existence of the 
police. If I weren't certain of this. T would not have spent twenty year?; in this 
profession. The following chart siiows the relationship between crime and police 
manpower in the District of Columbia from July 1969 to April 1975. 



1127 



in 
2^ 






o o o o o o 

o o o o o o 

o> 00 K 'O >n ^ 

«T ^ * * ^ T 



O O o ° O O 

o O o o O O 

M r< ^ o 0> CO 

«» * <t ^ « rt 



o o o 

o o o 

N O »rt 

<*) CO o 




1128 

I think that the chart itself shows the relationship quite clearly, but neverthe- 
less, it was analyzed by statistical procedures and the two variables, crime and 
manpower, were found to have a coeflBcient of correlation of — .83 which indicates 
that approximately 70% of the change in crime during the period under consid- 
eration was due to the change in manpower. When the same analytical tech- 
niques are appli( d to that portion of the statistics covering the period from Jan- 
uary 1972 to April 1975, the coefficient of correlation works out at — .69 which 
indicates that during that particular period approximately 48% of the variation 
in crime was due to the variation in manpower. The apparent discrepancy be- 
tween these two percentages indicates that an increase in manpower will have a 
greater effect on crime when the amount of crime is high, or when crime is on an 
upward trend, than it will when crime is at a relatively low level to begin with. 

CRIME INDEX OFFENSES (1958-1974) 

Crime index offenses in the District of Columbia for the years 1958 through 
1974 are summarized in the following table : 

CRIME IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
[January through December — CalewJar year] 

4 Offens€ 1958 1962 1966 1969 1972 1974 

Homicide... 79 

Forcible rape 65 

Robbery 709 

Aggravated assault 2, 535 

Burglary 3,642 

Larceny 7, 354 

Auto theft 1,899 



91 


144 


289 


245 


277 


82 


134 


336 


1 714 


• 561 


1,572 


3,703 


12,423 


7,751 


7,941 


3,005 


3,177 


3,621 


3,897 


2,811 


5,022 


10, 267 


22, 902 


12, 801 


14, 126 


9,202 


14, 593 


31,972 


21,386 


25, 004 


2,581 


6,565 


11,364 


5.821 


3,924 



Total --- 16,283 21,555 38,583 82,907 52,615 54,644 

> Reporting procedures changed. 

The high point was reached in 1969, and the 1974 total is 34% below that level. 
Manpower went from 3,574 in July 1969 to a high of 5,070 in June 1972, and 
dropped back to 4,561 in February 1975. A graphic presentation of these data is 
for the period from 1966 through the present is shown on the following chart: 



1129 










■^^" 


^^^ 





^ 


/ 


"^^ 


■"" 


























y 


-— 


I- 








— 

















^ 


^^^-^ 








\ 
















^^^^^ '^fc^ 


V - 




\ 




K 
0> 




- 


UJ 

ae 

UJ 

u. 
bk 

O 
X 

UJ 

a 

UJ 

S 

oc 
o 


Homicide 

Rape 

Robbery 

Burglsry 
Larceny 
Aino Theft 


1 




1-^^ -- ^ 










J 


7 




-/] 










^^ 


^--T* 








/ 


« 








^*'*«^^^'^^ 




\ 


- 








iV -^ 






\-U- 


» 


N 
0« 




1 


r 




/ 








r 




m 








> 


< ^ 










«s 








/ / 






1 • 


QJ 






^> >^ 












V 




UJ 




,„i^ 


b^-**^ 

^ 


^^^^ 


-— ■'^ 








/ 




«n 


t— 








^ 


' 










( 






<N 


OS 








V 


\ 










1 






^ 


^ 








\ 




\ 










/ 






•» 


N 


O' 






^^ 


^ 


jt^ 


X 










1 






m 






/^ 




/ 












\ 


CA 




M 


CO 

UJ 
C3 




/ 




/ 


r 




^ 








1 


O 




- 




J 




\ 






UJ 








1 


£ 






* 


O 
K 
0> 


1 


-^ 


^ 




x* 






O 








/ 






m 


c 




f 
















K 


< 

— «. 






«s 


ce 




j^^^^- 


^^*****— w 




IB 
3 








^sl 






- 


UJ 


en 

UJ 


/ 




■^^^""^ 










M 




n 




UJ 

u. 










/ a 








-^^ 




«n 




o 








\ ' ". 










X 




« 


^ 


UJ 

a 






^s 


Ks 










\ 




- 


zi 


TOTAL CRIME If 










V 


\ 
















«T 


00 


^ 








J 


- * 


■S^ 
















•n 


^ 








^ 










- 


— 


fi 














V^. 






















\ 


^ 








^ 




» 










--- 








\ 


S — 


— ■ — 


— 






r) 
















V 


IS 


















^J*^ 


w 






















I 


(- 


— 


— 








— 

































— 






























■■ .■ 1 




'" T 






r 




""^"^ 


"""""t 




— r 




^^ 


— 



o 



oooooooo ooooo 



s 
< 






UNEMPLOYMENT AiND RECESSION 

Another factor which I felt was significant in the present crime trend in the 
District of Columbia was the economic recession in which the country now finds 



52-587 O - 75 - pt.2 - 3 



1130 

itself. More specifically I felt that unemployment had a direct relationship to the 
current crime trend. The folluwing chart shows the relationship of unemploy- 
ment to crime during the period January 1968 to December 1974 : 




1131 

When tho data on whioli this chart is based are analyzed statistically, a nega- 
tive coetTR'it'nt of correlation develops over the entire period. However, when the 
problem is examined more carefully, this result does not seem surprising. In the 
tirst place, unemployment was relatively constant during much of this period. 
Other factors were at work to produce the crime peak of 1969. Then too, it is 
not reasonable to assume that crime will increase immediately with unemploy- 
ment. We therefore made a new analysis covering the period from January 1972 
to December 1974 assuming that crime would lag behind unemployment by three 
months. The coefficient of correlation using these a.ssumptions increased to .562 
which indicates that approximately 32% of the variation in crime was due to 
changes in the level of unemployment. 

The same assumptions and analytical procedures were then applied to six 
other cities: Detroit, Chicago, Columbus (Ohio), St. Louis, Cleveland, and 
Indianapolis. The results were not uniform, but a positive correlation was indi- 
cated in each case. In Detroit, for example, the indication was that as much as 
60% of the fluctuation in crime could be attributed to changes in unemployment. 
The percentages were 17 in Chicago, 54 in Columbus, 58 in St. Louis, 16 in Cleve- 
land, and 76 in Indianapolis. The data from which these calculations were made 
are shown in the following tables : 



H 



1132 




1133 




1134 




1135 




1136 




1137 




1138 

An attempt was made to perform the same calculations with twenty other 
cities, but the results were inconclusive. It is probable that, since, as I have 
pointed out, each city has its own peculiarities, a more detailed examination of 
each city would disclose the reasons for the disparities which were encountered. 
It might also be fruitful to examine the data for correlation with specific types 
of crime and for specific age and sex grouping of unemployed. Unfortunately this 
would be a rather ambitious undertaking and neither the time nor the manpower 
was available to complete it. 

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND CRIME 

An analysis was also performed using the Consumer Price Index and Crime 
Index Offenses in 19 cities for which data were readily available, but the results 
here too were inconclusive. The data are shown on the following chart : 



1139 



ii 

I! 



o« 



CO 

LU 
CO 



CO 



e/5 



Ii 

s - 



oopooooooooo. 
66066660600 

— OO'COKO'rt^OM — 



i^ 


2^.^.. ■ ^ , 1 i- - ■ 1 


1 
1 

t 

1 
1 

1 
e 

1 9- 

! 

Iirf 


y 


_^ , 




............ 


.,.^^... 


5 


1 +" 


i 1 




■ 







3 

2 Enitr--- ::vi-'^ 


-:.■■:. ■■■.--;: 


■ :-l 




3 ! 


,. 


... .,,... 


,.— , 











,. ,„„,„„, 


■ ■■ 


^A-^ ^^•^^^^^^■^■^■'-^- 


-„_-,-_., 


■.■■-:-■"■ 


.---^.. 


^ 
< 


sL^ 




a::.: 


-■,~\ii--u 




IS 


,...,.,. ..... 








c 


.■■1 




L 








eHEIS ■ :.'^" ^ ^""'^ 





■r:,:-. :::-;: 






!■■ 


» 

2 ^ :.. 








»• 


3"| 


b J 








1 b-j...n-"r---r 


r--"'-'-' 


^T!^^^^ 


^^ 











V.'.'.'.Vr.''" ' 






^■1 


5 


3 








, 




5b^ 


2"' 


■■■ 

9* 

oil 

6 

MHI 


!■■■■■ 

•1 '•■ •■:-'^- 














!■■■■■ 












■ I-; 


,...„ 


....^ 


.,.,...„., ..^ 


:S--H1"" 






:ifU ^i- -- 










*--J ^ \ — 1 — \ — UJ 






'<*, 



*''^ 



'^K 



•»v 



% 



'-'>. 



""♦y, 



"<*», 



'<v 



X 



***. 



X 



'V 



X. 



■*<>■. 



"'►*, 



•%. 



V 



♦» 



^>, 



"»>., 



'•v 






q p p p p p p o p p o p p o p 
6 in 6 "rt 6 «rt 6 "ii 6 "^ 6 wi 6 "ii 



1140 



DRUGS 



The relationship between narcotic traffic and total crime is shown in the 
following chart : 



SIP. 

Si 



*6 

UJ 
CO 

z 



O 

X 

lU 

Q 
Z 

lU 

S 

£ 
u 

Q 

< S; 

-JgO 

> > 



o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


"K. 




**. 


•^ 


•v 


^ 




^ 








« 


o 


00 


«o 


^ 


c< 


o 


00 


« 


^ 


ri 


« 


cs 


^" 


^ 


^ 


^ 


t» 












1141 



HEROIN POSITIVE URINE SPECIMENS DETECTED AMONG ARRESTEES IN D.C. CENTRAL LOCKUP BY QUARTER. 1971 ■ 1974 

(expressed as a percent of all urine specimens tested) 

3 0% 



2 5% 



20% 



15% 



10% 



5% 



0% 







\ 


S^ 


















ACTIIAI DATA POINTS 


I) 


— 





■- TREND LINE (thru June 197: 








/ 


V 

s 


\>- 


V. 




































V 


N 


V 












/ 


\ 
























\ 






^ 


/^ 


/ 


/ 
































N 


\ 






















































^^"^ 












" 




r 


















^^^ 





12 3 4 
-«— 1971 — »- 



12 3 4 
•*■ 1972 — »• 



12 3 4 
-* 1973 * 



12 3 4 
-« — 1974 ► 



12 3 4 
■*■ — 1975 — »- 



Positive urine specimens of 15% in November 1974 is the highest such level since December 1972. 



. PER 


100,000 




3 


5 




3 







2. 


5 




2. 






1.5 



1.0 



0.5 



HEROIN RELATED DEATHS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. BY QUARTER. 1969 ■ 1974* 
(expressed as deaths per 100,000 general population in the city) 
* 1974 data complete through November 







































\\ 






- 
















- 
















\\ 


































\' 


\ 
































\ 


\^ 


TREND LINE (3rd Qrt 1971 - 2nd Ort 1973) 















1 . Vv 




























1 


\ 




































\ 


v^ 


k 


,•*- i 


^CT 


JAL 


DE 






























\ 


kTH 


5 














\\ 




































\ 


I 




































T 


















- 

























\ 


k 






















___ 














\\ 
































k\ 












^X* 






















\^ 










^ 


^ 




















\\ 












d 


^ 




— -■ 




















N 


V 




-/ 


V 


--- 


'/ 


• i 


^ TREND LINE 


















:^ 


L 


\ 




/ 


(3rd Qrt 1973 4th Qrt 1974) | 




_^ 


_ ■ 






\ 








__^ 


_ 




»__ 


__ 


uj 



2 3 4 
-1971 *■ 



2 3 4 
-1972 ► 



12 3 4 
-» 1973 «• 



2 3 4 
- 1974 > 



12 3 4 

■* — 1975 — *■ 



Heroin related deaths in November 1974 ar« the highest such level since Auyjst 1972. 

Total drug related deaths tor CY 1973 was 21. 5 of which were herom related while total deaths for CY 1974 was 22, 

18 of which were heroin related. 



1142 

The first oi these charts shows the relationship between the purity of heroin 
avaihible on the street and total Crime Index Offenses. Both lines on this (hart 
show a reversal of the trend at a point in Calendar Year 1973. Heroin with a 
purity of almost 5% purchased in August 1974 is the highest value recorded 
since*197(». Wlien the heroin purity levels stiiy lielow 2 or 'S%, as in the past few 
years, compar.itively few new addicts are created. As the purity level rises, the 
probabilities of addiction increase. 

The second of these charts confirms the fact that availability and usage are on 
the increase as suggested by the changes in purity levels. Heroin positive urine 
samples amdug arrested persons at the D.C. Central Lockup increased from a 
low of approximately 9% at the end of Calendar Year 1973 to a high of approxi- 
mately 17% in the third quarter of Calendar Year 1974. Again this trend line indi- 
cates a turning point .somewhere in Calendar Year 1973. Heroin related deaths, 
long regarded as a reliable indicator of narcotic activity, .showed a dramatically 
sharp dro]) during Calendar Years 1971 and 1972. As shown in the third of these 
charts, this trend was also reversed in Calendar Year 1973. All of this informa- 
tion indicates quite clearly that we are faced with a serious revival of narcotic 
activity. We can therefore expect increases not only in narcotics offenses, but, 
since liiost addicts eventually turn to crime to support their habits, in burglary, 
larceny, and robbery also, since it is to these crimes to which drug addicts most 
frequently resort. 

I have already made substantial increases in the number of officers and officials 
assigned to narcotics enforcement, and narcotic arrests are being made by patrol 
officers in increasing numbers. The results of this effort are beginning to .show 
themselves as demonstrated by the following figures : 



4th quarter. 1st quarter. Percentage 

1974 1975 of increase 



Pieces of evidence sent to laboratory 1,451 1,666 15 

Heroin buys and seizures 205 314 53 

Totil narcotic arrests by the IVletropolitan Police Department _ 944 1,181 25 

Charges involving heroin 218 240 10 



These efforts are being coordinated with the Drug Enforcement Administra- 
tion, the Maryland State Tolice, Prince George's County Police, Virginia State 
Police, Arlington County Police, and the Alexandria Police. 

It is my hope that by this prompt action we can prevent this problem from 
reaching its former proportions. 

RECIDIVISM 

A perpetual problem in any discussion concerning the level of criminal activity 
is recidivism. We define a recidivist as an individual who is arrested for the com- 
mission of a crime and who, while on some sort of pre- and/or post-trial condi- 
tional release, is arrested again for another offense. It should be pointed out that, 
in this case, the Police Department's definition may differ from that of other 
criminal justice elements in that we are not including persons who have pre- 
vious criminal convictions if there were no conditions to their release. 

Our Department's mission is "to protect life and propertv through the pre- 
vention and detection of crime." It is obvious that the actual reduction of crime 
is dependent on its prcrentinn. rather than its detection : but prevention becomes 
extremely difficult when our criminal justice system functions in such a way that 
recidivists, even those arrested for the most heinnus jind vicious of crimes, are 
back on the streets within 24 hours of their arrest. This fact becomes even more 
frightening when we realize that a small number of bard core reneat offenders 
are responsible for a comparatively high percentage of the crimes that the public 
fears most. 

The basic concept upon which Police Departments thmun-hout the coim^ry base 
their methods is that police presence will deter the would-be offender, because it 
poses too great a threat of arrest and subsenuent incarceration. In other words, 
the theory supposes that the criminal fears arrest enough so that he will not 
commit a crime. 



1143 

Unfortunately, botli pretrial release and Department (tf Corrections' policy 
of early release on furlough, parole, or through "coniniunity-liased rehabilita- 
tion programs" tend to reduce this fear of arrest and. witli it, its deterrent 
effects on crime. 

PLEA-BARGAINING 

To complicate matters further, plea-bargaining, the system that the U.S. 
Attorneys Office uses to ease their case load, very nearly serves as an inducement 
for the individual on pretrial release to commit other crimes. I say this because 
the criminal has nothing to lose. Assuming that he is arrested for subsequent 
offenses, the prosecution may well use the additioiuil charges for plea-bargaining. 
I am not condemning this process, because plea-bargaining is necessary if the 
Superior Court is to continue functioning under its present liack'og of cases. 
However, when a multiple-count offender is permitted to plead guilty to just one 
of those charges and all the others are dismissed, the deterrent effects of arrest 
and imprisonment are again diminished. 

According to the information supplied by the United States Attorney's Office, 
Superior Court, 17,191 criminal cases were processed by that office during Calen- 
dar Year 1974. 

Of the 17.191 cases considered for prosecution, 3,580 (or 20.8%) were found 
to involve persons with offender status (on a conditional release as the result 
of pre- and/or post-trial action). 

Of the 3,580 persons having offender status, 2,037 (or 56.9%) were for a Crime 
Index Offense. 

Of the 2,037 Crime Index Offenses reviewed during Calendar Year 1974, 1,638 
(or 80.4%) were disposed of during 1974. 

Of the 1,638 cases disposed of, only 381 (or 23.3%) resulted from action by 
the court. 

The remaining 1,257 (or 76.7%) were disposed of by the United States Attor- 
ney's Office bv means of "No Paper" (218), Nolle (496), or Plea-Bargaining 
(543). 

From experience, we know that there will always be people who, because they 
are mentally disturbed, emotionally distraught, or de.sperate, will not be deterred 
from committing crimes by the high visibility of police. But to this group, I 
would add the career criminal. Seemingly, no threat that the criminal justice 
system currently poses to these repeat offenders is strong enough. 

As I have said, our Department has been concerned over this problem for 
some time. It is now also becoming a matter of increasing public awareness and 
apprehension. I believe that such concern is unquestionably justified, and I am 
g'ad that the is-ue is receiving concerte:l attention from bo^h the commimity and 
the criminal justice system. Such attention is absolutely necessary if we are to 
.succeed in substantially reducing crime. 

KECIDIVISM RATE DECLINE 

In this regard, I am pleased to report that the combination of public aware- 
ness and specific elTorts on the part of those of us in the criminal justice field 
appears to be paying off. For the past 2 years, the recidivist rate, which is the 
percentage of persons arrested who are on conditional pretrial release, or have 
heen temporarily released from a correctional institution, or are on probation 
or parole, has been fluctuating between 20 and 25 percent. However, I am pleased 
to report that during the first 20 days of May, the recidivist rate dropped to 
18.4 percent. We are encouraged by this statistic, and I would like to take this 
opportunity to explain what I believe to be the reasons for .such success. 

First of' all. our Department has long had a Major Violitors Section that 
concentrates exclusively on tracking major repeat offenders. The I'.S. Attorney's 
Office also has its own Major Violators Unit. This special staff of attorneys 
examines recidivist cases with an eye towards recommending preventive de- 
tention : a high surety bond ; or at the very least, a speedy trial, based on the 
arrestee's previous record or the possibility that he may present a danger to 
our citizens. Our Judges have been responding favorably to many of these 
recommendations. 



1144 

BENCH WARRANTS (FUGITIVE) 

Secondly, the Police Department and the U.S. Attorney's Office have mounted 
a joint effort to arrest and prosecute approximately ~)0i) fugitives wanted in the 
District on felony bench warrants. A .special scpiad of :.'."> police officers has been 
assigned to locate and arrest these individuals, while four A.ssistant U.S. At- 
torneys are exclusively handling their prosecutions. Again, the goal is to get 
such career criminals off the streets by recommending preventive detention or 
a high bond. 

PREVENTIVE DETENTION 

The D.C. Bail Agency, which investigates defendants' backgrounds and then 
suggests pretrial status, is also now recommending use of preventive detention 
when warranted. Although prosecutors must instead often ask for high bonds 
in order to comply with tlie law. either restriction means the arrestee will 
probal)ly be incarcerated until his trial. Of course, speedy trials are an absolute 
necessity if eitlier preventive detention or a high bond is imposed. 

Finally, the Department of Corrections has recently tightened its policy on 
furloughs and other types of relea.se including transfers to halfway houses. 

The Police Department's position on recidivism is therefore that those in- 
dividuals who have demonstrated that they are a danger to the community hy 
committing repeated crimes should be held on preventive detention or a high 
bond and given a speedy trial. If convicted, the Courts must ensure that sentences 
are commensurate not only with the offense under consideration, but also with 
the danger the recidivist presents to the community on the basis of his previous 
record. Furthermore, the Department of Corrections must equally ensure that 
no criminal is relea.sed in the community for any purpose without careful screen- 
ing. This will not solve the problem completely, but we already have some evi- 
dence that it will help. 

Now, I would like to interject an all-Important thought-namely, that the 
major reason we have recently been successful in dealing with recidivism is 
that the problem is now very much in the public's eye. I want to issue a serious 
warning that we must continue to expand our recidivist programs even though 
the limelight may shift to another of the city's major problems. If we become less 
vigilant in the future, recidivism will surely increase again, and we will all be 
the less secure for it. 

We have looked, however briefly, at the magnitudes of the crime problem 
in the District of Columbia and at some of the possible causes. I would like to 
examine, for a moment, the resources available to my Department to be utilized 
in its effort to control crime. Let me say again that I am aware of the importance 
of the efforts of all the members of the criminal justice system, and of the con- 
tributions of the public at large. In concentrating on the resources available to 
my Department I have no intention to detract from the importance of these other 
participants in the criminal justice system. However, 1 feel sure that they will 
give the Committee an adequate and accurate account of their efforts and the 
resources which they are bringing to bear on the problem. 

POLICE MANPOWER 

The Metropolitan Police Department is currently operating with an au- 
thorized strength of 4,750 sworn personnel and 1,032 civilian personnel, including 
199 cadets. As the Committee is probably aware, the police manpower level was 
reduced from an authorized .strength of r>.100 in Fiscal Year 1974 to 4.750 in 
Fi.scal Year 1975. Our budget provides funding for a total of 4,700 positions. This 
is equal to G.21 police officers per thousand population during the current fiscal 
year. The following table provides a comparison of the strengths of the twenty 
cities between 500,000 and 1,000,000 in population for Calendar Year 1973, the 
latest date for which information on these cities is available. Our funded 
strength at that time was 4,937 and this figure is shown for comparative purposes. 



1145 



POLICE ACTIVITY-EMPLOYMENT, CALENDAR YEAR 1973 



756, 510 


4,937 


6.53 


641,071 


2 565 


4.00 


905. 759 


3,571 


3.94 


622,236 


2.218 


3.56 


750. 903 


2,437 


3.25 


520.117 


1.551 


2.98 


717,099 


2,128 


2.97 


715.674 


1.957 


2.73 


507. 087 


1.310 


2.58 


517.678 


1.297 


2.51 


844. 401 


1.929 


2.28 


591.471 


1.343 


2.27 


581. 562 


1.307 


2.25 


530. 831 


1.138 


2.14 


539.677 


1.106 


2.05 


623, 530 


1.170 


1.88 


654 153 


1,040 


1.59 


744,624 


1.110 


1.49 


528 865 


770 


1.46 


696, 769 


1.014 


1.45 



Population Police Officers 

City (1970 census) officers' per 1,000 

Washington, D.C.» 

Boston 

Baltimore 

St. Louis. 

Cleveland 

PIttsburgti 

Milwaukee 

San Francisco 

Kansas City, Mo. 

Denver. 

Dallas 

New Orleans 

Ptioenix 

Seattle 

Columbus, Ohio 

Memphis 

San Antonio 

Indianapolis 

Jacksonville, Fla 

San Diego 

' Source of information was the FBI Uniform Crime Report dated Sept, 6, 1974, 

- The daytime growth of the District of Columbia is estimated to be 930, COO. Adding this figure to the Bureau 
of the Census figures for 1970 presents a more realistic per 1,000 daytime population figure of 2.91. The above 
adjusted per 1,000 daytime population figure of 2.91 would therefore place the District of Columbia in 7th place 
In relation to the above listed cities. 

POLICE BUDGETS 

The salary budgets for the same departments for Fiscal Year 1974 are shown 
in the following table : 

POLICE ACTIVITY— SALARY BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1974 

Population 

(1970 Salary 

City census) budget' Per capita 

Washington, D.C.2 756,510 $68,125,600 $90.05 

Boson 641,071 45,540,220 71.04 

Baltimore.. 905,759 47,430,138 52.37 

St, Louis 622,236 31,262,485 50.24 

San Francisco 715,674 31.296,565 43.73 

Phoenix 581,562 23,601,193 40.58 

Columbus, Ohio.... 539,677 20,551,734 38.08 

Denver 514,678 19,127,400 37.16 

Cleveland 750,903 27,772,690 36.99 

Seattle_ 530,831 19,251,858 36.27 

Kansas City, Mo 507,087 17,384,562 34.28 

Pittsburgh 520,117 17,500,000 33.65 

Memphis 623,530 19,654,777 31.52 

Dallas 844,401 24,178,742 28.63 

New Orleans 593,471 15,712,704 26.48 

San Diego.... 696,769 16,370,257 23.49 

Jacksonville, Fla 528,865 10,860,043 20.53 

San Antonio 654,153 12,192,715 18.64 

Indianapolis.... 744,624 12,291,520 16.51 

Milwaukee 717,099 NA NA 

' Survey of municipal police departments conducted by the Kansas City, Mo., Police Department dated Nov. 1, 1973. The 
Kansas City, Mo., Police Department has stopped publishing this survey; therefore, budget statistics for fiscal year 1975 
are not available. 

■ The daytime growth of the District of Columbia is estimated to be 930,000. Adding this figure to the Bureau of the Census 
figures for 1970 presents a more realistic per capita cost of $40.16. The many and varied methods of funding benefits (life 
insurance, health insurance, social security, and retirement) resulted in our excluding these expenditures entirely. In 
addition, the fundin.g in other cost areas such as equipment, contractual services, police vehicle fleets, and capital improve- 
ments varies from city to city. Therefore, the fiscal year 1974 salary budget Is reflected since it is a standard cost element 
pertinent to all police departments and constitutes approximately 90 percent of the total budget. The above adjusted per 
1,000 population figure of $40.16 would place the District of Columbia in 6th place in relation to the above listed cities. 



52-587 O - 75 -pt.2 - 4 



1146 

POLICE OPERATING EQUIPMENT 

While manpower is our most important resource, men cannot operate without 
the tools of their trade. Consequently, we operate a tleet of 1,100 vehicles of all 
types from motorscooters to trucks. We have an up-to-date communications 
.system and an ADP system which contains an automated data base which is 
used by several city, county, state, and federal l;iw enforcement agencies within 
and contiguous to the District of Columbia l)oundaries. 

FUNDS 

From the beginning it was expected tliat all systems users would share, on a 
prorated basis, in meeting the cost of a regional criminal justice information 
system. This Department did not i)ursue cost sharing during the development 
years of WALES ;is many luiforescen i)roblems prc'cluded the realization of the 
full lienents of the system. Most of these problems were related to the fact 
that WALKS (Washington area law enforcement .system) was a prototype 
.system recpiiring the implementation and maintenance of very complex tech- 
nology. These prolilems have now been solved and WAIVES has been expanded 
and improved to the point where it is as complete and reliable as any automated 
criminal justice system in the country. We have therefore requested that the 
Council of Governments form a permanent WALES Users Committee to: 

1. Define the future needs of WALES as a i-egional criminal justice infor- 
mation system : 

2. Develop a mutually acceptable plan for expanded use of WALES by 
various criminal justice agencies if such is needed, and 

3. Develop an equitable means of reimbursing the District of Columbia 
for the costs of providing these services. 

It has also been requested that reiiresentation on the committee not be limited 
to police agencies and that each element of the criminal justice system be 
represented. 

While we wisli to continue and to improve these cooperative efforts, we do 
not feel that it is fair to the citizens of this city to ask them to bear the cost 
of services i)rovided other jurisdictions. On the other hand, we feel the cost 
of these services to other jurisdictions is minmal when compared to their 
l)enefits. Any expansion of the use of WALES by its outside users and eventually, 
even the continuation of the services now provided, will be beyond our already 
limited budget. 

We have therefore taken the position with the Council of Governments, that 
the expansion of or the long range continuation of existing WALES service 
will lie dependent upon the development of an equitable system of cost sharing 
of the burden as well as the lienefits of a regional information system. 

COORDINATION WITH OTHER POLICE 

Since I am speaking of relationships witli other law enforcement agencies, it 
might be appropriate to point out that, while the ^Ietrolo))itan Police Depart- 
ment is the principal police agency in the District of Columbia, and has the 
major responsibility for the prevention and detection of crime and the appre- 
hension of criminal offenders, in carrying out this r(>sponsiI)ility, we often 
have occasion to coordinate our activities on matters of mutual concern with 
one or more of at least twenty-one other jiolice and investigative agencies hav- 
ing jurisdiction in the District of Columliin. A list of these a.gencies, along with 
their manpower resources, is ]ii'ovided below. 

POLICE AGENCIES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Manpower 

resources 

District of 

Columbia 

Legal authority only 

Aqueduct Police.. 40 U.S.C. 45 20. 

Drug Enforcement Administration... . 28 U.S.C. 509 Unknown. 

Executive Protective Service 3 U.S.C. 202... 850. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 28 U.S.C. 531 350. 

Federal Reserve Board Guard Force 12 U.S.C. 248 50. 

Federal Protective Service. 40 U.S.C. 318 775. 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1125, 1152 80. 



1147 

POLICE AGENCIES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA— Continued 



Manpower 

resources 

District of 

Columbia 

Legal authority only 



Internal Revenue Service 26 U.S.C. 7608 Unknown. 

Library of Congress Police__ 2 U.S.C. 167 103. 

Metro Transit Police _ D.C. Code §1-1431 65. 

St. Elizabeths Hospital 24 U.S.C. 161 43. 

Smithsonian Institution (including National Zoo) 40 U.S.C. 193. Unknown. 

Treasury Security Force.. 31 U.S.C. 1017. . 50. 

U.S. Capitol Police.. 40 U.S.C. 193, 206 950. 

U.S. Customs Service 19 U.S.C. 2071, 1581, 1582, 1595, 1624 52. 

U.S. Government Printing Office 44 U.S.C. 317 . Unknown. 

U.S. Marshals 28 U.S.C. 561 . . 250. 

U.S. Park Police _ _ 16 U.S.C. D.C, Code 4-202 225. 

U.S. Secret Service.. 18 U.S.C. 3056.. Unknown. 

U.S. Postal Service 39 U.S.C. 401, 404. . . . Do. 

U.S. Supreme Court Police 40 U.S.C. 13.. 52. 

Additionally, the Metropolitan Police Department provides a multitude of 
.services to most of these agencies. These services are in such areas as : 

1. Homicide investigations. 

2. Transporting and detention of prisoners. 

3. Explosive ordinance investigations and disposal. 

4. Crowd control. 

5. Evidence collection. 

6. Criminal records. 

7. Laboratory analysis. 

8. Narcotic identification and testing. 

9. Traffic towing. 

10. Collateral receipt. 

11. .Juvenile proces.^ing. 

12. Identification facilities. 

13. Follow-up investi.gations (when requested). 

It is. however, with only four (4) of these agencies that our day-to-day crime 
prevenfion and detectif)n efforts are most heavily concentrated. The.<e agenci»'s 
are : 

1. The r.S. Park Police. 

2. The Executive Protective Sevrice. 

3. The T\S. Capitol Po'ice. 

4. The National Zoological Police. 

As a result of our close association with these agencies, a well defined func- 
tional relationship, in which the responsibilities of each agenc.v are cleai'ly 
de'ineated. has been developed. The sjiecific functions assumed by these agencies, 
and the auxiliary services Tirovided by the Metroiiolifan Police Department in 
assisting these agencies in the performance of their fmiction, are provided on 
the matrix which follows. 

(Code: A— MPD responsibility; B— agency responsibility; C— mutual responsibility] 

Zoo 
Capitol Park Park 

MPD functional relationship to allied police agencies Police Police Police EPS 

Patrol agency property B C B B 

Offense incident reports _ B B C B 

Arrests B B B 8 

Transportation of arrestees. C C A A 

Booking responsibility. A B B B 

Identification, prints, photos A C A A 

Arrestee to court officer ..A AAA 

Court appearance B B B B 

Courtliaison C BAA 

Investigation of misdemeanors C B B A 

Investigation of felonies. C B' B' A 

Investigation of suicides A AAA 

Crime scene search C C A A 



1148 

[Code: A— MPD responsibility; B— agency responsibility; C-mutual responsibility! — Continued 

Zoo 
Capitol Park Park 

MPD functional relationship to allied police agencies Police Police Police EPS 



Custody of property: 

Prisoners C B B A 

Evidence C B> B' Ai 

Other 8 B A 

Securing warrants - A B B B 

Executing warrants -.. A ^ £ 1 

Securing search warrants. A B B B 

Executing search warrants A BOB 

Detention of prisoners: 

Male A A A A 

Female '^ * ^ . 

Juvenile - - '^ r r ^ 

Evidence collection... C CCA 

Evidence preservation C C C C 

Evidence presentation C C C C 

Ballistics identification and exanfiination A BAA 

Death notices ---A p r r 

Crowd control - - C a a 

Towing from agency property A ^ a a 

Police forms ^ ^ « a 

Chemical testing DUl and drugs A ^ a a 

Narcotic Identification and testing A ^ a a 

Breath analyzer program C ^ , , 

Useof crimelab A f' ? P 

Records facilities, access to (WALES, arrest) _ C pas 

Acceptance of collateral A C A A 

Maintenance of arrest book A r a i 

Citation release program... A o a a 

Handling of juveniles - A BAA 



' Except homicides. 

In sum, we consider the degree of cooperation and coordination amount the 
police and invest iiLjative agencies in the District of Columbia to be notliing less 
than excellent. 

LIAISON WITH .\REA POLICE 

There are also several media which facilitate the liaison and cooperation be- 
tween law (>iiforcement agencies and other components of the criminal justice 
system in the Washnigton area. 

The Police Chiefs" Committee of the Council of (Jovernmeiits includes all of- 
ficials in charge of law enforcement agencies from state, local and federal levels 
that operate in the Wa.shington Metropolitan Area. :Members of this committee 
meet periodicall.v to discuss and/or take action on matters that will improve po- 
lice services and effectiveness of operations throughout the area. There are also 
several sub-committees, i.e., police planners sui)-committee, communications — 
WALES sub-committee, na.rcotics sub-committee, and investigators sub-committee 
which are comi)ris(>d of and attended by designated re])resentatives of each mem- 
ber department. These sub-committees meet once a month to discuss matters of 
mutual concern, plan strategies and excliatige information to assure maxi- 
mum effectiveness in our efforts against crime by a cooperative and coordinated 
apprf)ach. 

CRIMIXAL .IXTSTICE COOROINATINO BOARU 

Within the District of Columbia, the Criminal .Tustice Coordinating Board was 
estiil)lisiie(l in May of 1D7(» by the Mayor to serve as the district's stat(> i)Iniining 
agency for the adniinistration of DEAA Block grant Fund<. to adtiress itself to 
issues concerning the entire criminal justice system and to advis«> atid make recom- 
mendations to the ^layor for improvement. 

Tills Board is comprisc'd of thirty-one (?i1) memliers from both tiie government 
a""n(l coinmunity sectors and meets monthly for the eiuimei-ated ir.iriMises. Like the 
Police Chiefs' Committee of the Council of Governments there .•'•.•e several func- 
tional sub-committees which are assigned major responsili'litv for criminal jus- 
tice i)roltlem iilentification and program recommendation. These committees are 
<u-ganized along the general functional lines of jM'evention. l;iw enforcement, 
courts and corrections. 



1149 

In addition, alons with other officials in chargo of local law enforcement orga- 
nizalions in the District of Coluniliia, I meet with Mr. Karl Silhert, T'.S. Attorney 
for tlie I )ist rict of Columliia to discuss matters df mutual concern. 

Each of these firoups I havi' brielly mentioned, though not all inclusive, serve.s 
as an excellent forum foir the identification and re.solution of problems in the 
criminal justice system .and the maintenance of j?ood cooperative relationshiits 
lietween all parties. The Metropolitan I'dlice Department has iieen and will cdu- 
linuc to ii(^ ;in :u'ti\"(> pai'ticipanf in each of these areas. 

.Major crime, which was discussed earlier, is a substantial part of the police 
workload, but it is by no means all of it, and the mere numbers involved do not 
constitute a clear picture of that workload. Patterns of crime change almost con- 
tinuously, and changes in resource dei)loyment must be m.adc in order to meet 
the newest developments. The t;ibles which follow show the changes in (listril)n- 
tion of crimes by police district and by type of crime from fiscal year 1973 to 
fiscal year 1974 ; 

CRIME INDEX OFFENSES— BY DISTRICTS 

Fiscal year- 
District 



1974 


1973 


ren-eiu 

change 


11,023 


9,059 


+21.7 


7, 987 


7,589 


+5.2 


9,199 


9,090 


+1.2 


6,121 


6,449 


-5.1 


8, 358 


7,511 


+11.3 


3, 961 


3,957 


+.1 


5, 859 


5,360 


+9.3 



1974 


1973 


Percent 
change 


247 


269 


-8.2 


556 


712 


-21.9 


7,435 


6,982 


+6.5 


3, 329 


3,670 


-9.3 


12,748 


11,389 


+11.9 


23, 588 


20, 905 


+12.8 


4,605 


5,088 


-9.5 



1 

2 

3 _ 

4 

5 

e 

7... _ _ 

Cllywide _.._ _.__ 52,508 49,015 +7.1 

CRIME INDEX OFFENSES— BY CATEGORY 

Fiscal year — 
Category 

Homicide _._ 

Rape __ 

Robbery _ , 

Aggravated assault.. 

Burglary 

Larceny 

Autotheft 

Total... 52,508 49,015 +7.1 

("hang(>s in the amount of crime vary from an increase of 21.77c in the First 
District to a dccrea.se of 5.1% in the Fourth District. Changes by type of crime 
vary from an increase of 12.8% for larceny to a decrease of 21.9% for rape. 
Similar changes on a smaller scale are taking place, and continuous readjust- 
ments in manpower must be made. 

policp: workload 

In .-iddition there are other workload elements which often go unrecognized 
iK'c.-uise crime is in the spotlight. In Fi.scal Year 1974 there were, in addition to 
(be r)2.~>W> major crinus. IS '}')') minor offen.-<es. 1.304.200 jjarking violations, and 
1(!7.9;")3 moving f rathe viol.-itions. Officers spent 252. 131 hours testifying in court, 
received 9,s,s.l2() emer.gency calls, and responded to 57.'^..S4() requests for police 
service. Of the major offenses. ll.OGO (22.2% ) were cleared. 

CRIME CI.EAR.XXCE RATE 

The clearance rates for Fiscal Years 1958 through 1974 are summarized in the 
table below. 



1150 



PARTI— OFFENSES, CLEARANCE RATE, FISCAL YEAR 1958 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 1974 





Number 








Number 








of pt. 1 


Number 


Percent 




of pt. 1 


Number 


Percent 




offenses ' 


cleared 


cleared 




offenses ' 


cleared 


cleared 


Fiscal 








Fiscal 








year: 








year: 








1958.. 


17, 047 


8,597 


51.0 


1967., 


47, 041 


9,335 


19.8 


1959.. 


17,515 


9,195 


52.5 


1968.. 


57, 997 


14, 124 


24.4 


I960.. 


19, 929 


9,623 


48.3 


1969.. 


71,187 


12, 166 


17.1 


1961.. 


21,802 


9,744 


44.7 


1970.. 


89, 434 


11,799 


13.2 


1962.. 


21,534 


9,320 


43.3 


1971,, 


75, 751 


14, 697 


19.4 


1963.. 


23, 194 


9,482 


40.9 


1972,, 


62, 070 


12,075 


19.5 


1964.. 


28, 469 


10,850 


38.8 


1973.. 


49, 046 


11,045 


22.5 


1965.. 


32,053 


10, 937 ' 


34.1 


1974., 


52, 543 


11,660 


22.2 


1966.. 


34, 765 


9,159 


26.3 











1 Pt. 1 offenses consist of the following: Criminal homicide, rape, robbery-burglary, aggravated assault, larceny (any 
amount), auto theft. 

STOLEN PROPERTY RECOVERED 

During Fiscal Year 1974 stolen property valued at $2,246,997 was recovered by 
the Department. 

VALUE OF STOLEN AND RECOVERED PROPERTY, FISCAL YEAR 1974' 



Offense 



Number 
offenses 



Value of 
property 



Robbery - 7,435 

Burglary.. ,., , , 12,748 

Larceny-theft , , 23, 588 

Autotheft , 4,605 

Total , -.- 48,376 

Recovered p roperty , , 

Net loss, , , , 

Percentage recovered , , - - - 

1 Source: Annual report, Metropolitan Police Department, fiscal year 1974. 



$1, 126, 477 
2, 987, 044 
2, 259, 483 
3,646,082 



9, 929, 086 
2, 246, 997 

7, 682, 089 



22.6 



CRIME AND THE SUBURBS 

As I pointed out at the beginning of this testimony, we do not exist in i.solation. 
The suburbs are a part of our environment and we are a part of theirs. 

In the late 1960's and early 1970's, there was much debate regarding the con- 
cept of "spill-over crime" from the District into surrounding jurisdictions. What 
was proposed was a "mercury theory" in that the increased pressure on the crim- 
inal element within the District forced this element to operate in the surrounding 
communities. This was the subject of several hearings by the Senate Committee 
on the District of Columbia in 1969 and 1970 and subsequently a series of studie.-; 
of the problem were conducted. On September 13, 1971, a special conference was 
held in Lanham, Maryland at the urging of Senator Mathias of Maryland and 
financed by T.EAA as a means of coordinating efforts in crime lighting after sta- 
tistics continued to demonstrate a decline of crime in the District and an increase 
in the suburbs. 

At this conference several studies were presented which cast doubts on the 
validity of the "mercury theory" of crime in the Washington Metropolitan Area. 
A report from the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission covering ar- 
rest records from 1968 through 1970 indicated that District re.sidents committed 
fewer than 5% of .serious crimes in Alexandria and Fairfax County ; and there 
was an average rate of 12% of serious crimes by Washington residents in Arling- 
ton County. A study by the Council of Governments showed a widely fluctuating 
and generally higher number of Washington residents arrested in the two con- 
tiguous counties of Montgomery and Prince George's for such crimes as robbery 



1151 

and burglary ; but the study indicated that overall the largest liUnilter of per- 
sons arrested were comity residents. A repurt from LEAA's ^Statistics Division 
also refuted the "spill-over" concept, and found no correlation between the low- 
ering of crime rates in the District of Columbia and the rise of crime in the 
suburban jurisdictions. 

A preliminary rei)ort on interjurisdictional crime was prepared by the Council 
of Governments and issued on February 8, 1!)73. This report dealt only with 
statistics from January through September, 1!>.2 for Montgomery County and 
Prince George's County. The following is a summary : 

1. During the nine-month study, approximately 20% of all arrests for index 
offenses made in the Maryland jurisdictions were non-residents. 

2. During the nine-month period, approximately 12% of all arrests for in- 
dex offenses made in the Maryland jurisdictions were residents of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia. 

3. Arrests statistics indicated that the problem of inter jurisdiction il crime 
in suburban Maryland was not limited to the commission of crimes in Mary- 
land by District residents, but was a broader problem which included sig- 
nificant participation of Prince George's County residents in Montgometry 
County crime and significant p.irticipation of residents of jurisdictions other 
than the Di.^-trict in Prince George's County crime. 

4. Robbery and Grand Larceny were two crimes not influenced by the 
non-resident offender. 

5. In both counties, juvenile participation in interjurisdictional crime is 
significantly less than juvenile participation in resident crime. 

This report was the last major study reflecting concern with the mercury 
theory of crime in the Metropolitan Area. It demonstrated that the crime rise in 
the surrounding counties could not be related to the increased enforcement in the 
District, and that the problem of spill-over crime from the District was prema- 
turely assessed as a major variable in the increasing crime problem of the 
neighboring jurisdictions. As the Director of the Council of Governments' study 
stated : "We've got a regional problem that can't be attributed to any one area. 
There is an exchange of crime that every section is a part of." 

Currently, the suburbs are still experiencing a rising crime rate. Calendar 
Year 1974 statistics for Part I Index Offenses .show a 18.7% increase over Cal- 
endar Year 1973 for suburban Metropolitan Washington while the District ex- 
perienced only a 7.1% increa.se. Preliminary investigation indicates that the find- 
ings of the studies conducted two years ago are still valid in regard to spill-over 
crime — whether from the District into the suburbs or from the suburbs into the 
District. Based on Calendar Year 1974 arrest data from Montgomery County, 
16.3% arrested for Part I offenses were District residents as compared to the 
12% figure in 1972. For the year 1974, a total of 26.4% of those arrested in Mont- 
gomery County for Part I offenses were non-residents. 

Crime in the District of Columbia has not indicated that suburban crime has 
had any significant effect upon the former. During Calendar Year 1974 88.9% 
of all arrests in the District were city residents. Maryland and Virginia arrests 
accounted for only 5.6% and 2.9%, respectively, of the total arrests. Similarly, 
88.2% of complainants of crime during Calendar Year 1974 resided in the Dis- 
trict : whereas 8.3% and 3.5% of the complainants were Marylanders and Vir- 
ginians, respectively. 

It is significant to point out that since 1972 rises and declines in crime gener- 
ally have been proportionately equal throughout the Metropolitan Area. When- 
ever crime has risen in the suburbs, it also increased in the District. 



1152 



OFFENSES KNOWN TO THE POLICE 
WASHINGTON, D.a AND SURROUNDING SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES 




Based on such telling statistics, it can be concluded that urban spill-over is not 
the overriding factor in the commission of suburban crime. Without delving into 
the multitudinal causes of crime, the data provided on the topic indicate that 
crime is a regional concern and is not attributable to any one area or people. 

I will not presume to attempt an analysis of crime in the suburbs. I feel that 
it is probable that many of the factors which affect crime in the District are also 
at work in surrounding areas. Certainly a major factor to be considered is the 
increase of population and the subsequent urbanization as seen in the plethora of 
shopping centers and malls being developed. The freeway system also provides 
easy access and egress routes throughout the Metropolitan Area. As such, crime 
does not have any jurisdictional boundaries and is not in the sole domain of any 
one jurisdiction. Crime is a major problem for the Metropolitan Area, and must 
be combated on a regional ba.sis in a fully coordinated effort among the regions' 
various law enforcement agencies. 

The search for remedies is not an easy one. With causes as diverse as those 
di.scussed, it should be obvious that there is no single, simple solution. The one 
area in which I feel that more can probably be accomplished than in any other 
single area is community involvement. 

COMMTJNITT INVOLVEMETNT 

We want to be a part of the community body, its strong protective arm. In 1829, 
a volume called British Police Principles was published. It stated. ". . . the police 
are the public and the public are the police ; the police being only the members of 
the public who are paid to give full-time attention to the duties which are in- 
cumbent on every citizen, in the interest of community welfare and existence." 
To me, this statement is profound. It expresses my personal, professional philoso- 
phy. I sincerely hope that it will become the philosophy of each nolice officer in 
our Department. Yet just as important, it must also become the philosophy of our 
citizenry. Our police number only 4.6."0 men and women, who obviously cannot 
be everywhere at once. If we are ever to reduce crime to the point that we are 
truly safe in our homes, in our businesses, and on our streets, we desperately 
need the cooperation, support, and re.spect of our community. 

Although community involvement in the fight against crime boils down to a 
single formula of police-citizen understanding and trust, the avenues that our 
Department is using to achieve this jroal are many and relatively complex. First 
of all, we have a central Community Relations Division, comprised of six 



1153 

civilians and thirty-two police personnel, as well as units in each of our seven 
police districts which are devoted to community relations. Additionally, one of my 
first actions as Chief of Police was a step towards promoting this concept. I 
appointed a citizens advisory committee of twelve people representing the whole 
spectrum of our city. These people are currently keeping me informed of the needs 
and desires of the citizens of the District of Columbia with regard to law en- 
forcement. The existence of this committee will help us to become ab.solutely re- 
sponsive to our community. Additionally, each district commander has his own 
local advisory committee to ensure that he stays in touch with his neghborhood. 

COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAMS 

I would like to present brief descriptions of several of our specific community 
relations programs to indicate the range of our activities in this area. 

OPERATION IDENTIFICATION 

1. Operation Identification is one of our best knovni and most successful 
community relations programs, whereby both sworn members and reser\-e officers 
visit homes and businesses to engrave valuables with an ID number and to make 
security inspections and recommendations. As of February 18. 19.5, we expanded 
the program to include marking auto accessories. Pertinent information on 
participants is entered in our computers to facilitate the return of recovered 
stolen goods to the rightful owner. There is also a good chance that a thief, dis- 
covering that an individual is a participant in Operation Identification, will be 
deterred from committing a burglary. 

CRIME PREVENTION BROCHURES 

2. We publish and distribute numerous crime prevention brochures ranging in 
subject matter from safety tips for women to crime-stopping suggestions for the 
business community. We sincerely hope that our citizens will read these pub- 
lications and heed our advice. Preventing crime is the only way to stop it. 

OPERATION AWARENESS 

3. Operation Awareness was initiated in March of this year by our Second 
District and proved so .successful that our First and Fifth Districts followed 
suit at the end of May. Under Operation Awareness, portable police information 
booths are erected in both commercial and residential areas. Police personnel 
hand out crime prevention literature and make appointments for Operation ID 
inspections with passers-by. 

"the NEWS beat" 

4. As our district commanders have always had the freedom to implement 
programs specifically tailored to their district needs, in January, 1975. the Fifth 
District published the first issue of a local monthly newsletter, called "The 
News Beat." The purpose of the newsletter is to increase community develop- 
ment in the Fifth District. 

RADIO AND TV PROGRAMS 

5. Our Department produces public service spot announcements and radio and 
TV shows. The media have responded to our need to approach the community 
in this manner by airing them free of charge. Programs include the weekly 
"Tell It To The Chief" show on WTTG-TY and a 5-minute program covering 
different aspects of our Department every Sunday on WWDC radio. We cur- 
rently have crime prevention spots on five radio stations, with WTOP-Radio 
running a concentrated series every half-hour throughout the summer. We have 
not forgotten the children either. Public service announcements remind adults 
that school is out and that safe driving is therefore all the more important, while 
Officers Friendly appear on WDCA-TV's weekly Bozo show. 

PUBLIC SAFETY CONTESTS 

6. In February, of this year, our Community Relations Division initiated a 
Public Safety Poster and Essay Contest, in conjunction with the city's school 
system, in a further effort to reach the youth of our city. The contest, hopefully 



1154 

commencing tliis fall, will be scheduled in three parts for elementary, junior 
high, and high school students throughout the District. 

OFFICER FRIENDLY PROGRAM 

7. The Officer Friendly Program is also directed at our young people. We are 
very pleased that our Officers Friendly now visit students from pre-school through 
ninth grade. I'resentations are geared to the various grade levels. For example, 
eighth grade discussions center around shoplifting and bicycle theft. AVe believe 
that if we can show our youth that we are honestly on their side, our rapport 
with the next generation of adults will be on solid ground. 

Although we have many other community relations programs, both city-wide 
and confined to individual police districts, those that I have just described are 
key to our efforts. Hopefully, they represent a giant step forward in achieving 
police-community cooperation in the fight against crime. 

GUN CONTROL 

An area of crime prevention which has received a great deal of attention in 
recent years concerns the weapons used in the criminal act. This has become 
an extremely emotional issue, but it is one which I feel must be faced logically 
and as unemotionally as pos.sible. 

No one knows exactly how many guns are in circulation, but the number must 
be staggering. We cannot expect the associated problems to get any better without 
taking definitive action based on a concerned and reasonable evaluation of all 
aspects of the situation. 

We have observed with great interest the gun bounty program undertaken re- 
cently by the City of Baltimore, and our evaluation of the effectiveness of such 
a program has led us in a different direction. To begin with. I feel that a basic 
contradiction exists when, on the one hand we seek to control and reduce the 
number of guns by purchasing them, providing a profit to the individual, and 
where at the other end of the chain the manufacture, sale and possession of 
these weapons is authorized by law and the supply can be replenished without 
limitation. I feel the net effect here is to stimulate, rather than reduce the flow 
of weapons. 

Under our current 90-day amnesty program, citizens are encouraged to sur- 
render voluntarily firearms to the police department on a no-questions-asked 
Itasis. The number of firearms which we expect to recover under this program 
is much sma'ler than expected with a bounty program. 

Nevertheless, the.se guns represent weapons taken off the streets and out of 
homes where their ready availability is the main factor contributing to their 
destructive use. 

Although a substantial number of guns may be recovered under a bounty pro- 
gram, there is no guarantee that the total numlier of weapons in the D.C. area 
would actually be reduced. As the flow of weapons between the states is not 
strictly controlled, it is likely that weapons recovered would be quickly re- 
placed. 

Our laws on the sale, possession, and registration of firearms are strict. An 
individual wi.shing to purchase a handgun must go to a registered dealer and fill 
out an application which the de^iler completes. The buyer then brings the ap- 
plication to our Department's Firearms Registration Section. We take two sets 
of fingerprints and send one to the FBI for a record check. Meanwhile, our 
Firearms Registration Section completes a thorough background investiffation. 
approving the purchase only nfter satisfactory findings both nationally and 
locally. We then notify both the dealer and buyer in writing of the applica- 
tion's approval. This entire process takes approximately 30 days. The buyer 
may only then return to the dealer and purchase the gun. He must also register 
it within 48 hours of its purchase. 

^Consequently, buving a handgun legally is not an easy or speedy matter. 
In addition, the District of Columbia Code provides for particularly stiff 
sentencing of those individuals who are convicted of committing a crime of 
violence with a firearm. These two things alone provide some measure of pro- 
tection from gun-related crimes. 

LEGISLATION REQUIRED 

Although our local regulations are good ones, it is obvious that they are not 
effective enough. For example, in our city, less than one-half of one percent 



1155 

of all firearms recovered by the police are registered. It is my belief that we 
imist tlierefore enact national legislation to proliibit the niannfacture and im- 
pnrtation of the cheap handguns Iliat are so often used in crimes of violence 
and family disputes. These firearms are not normally used by sportj;men, nor 
are they of value to the gun collector. Therefore, those individuals with a 
legitimate interest in firearms wonld not be hurt by such legislation, and I 
believe that we could expect an eventual decnase in those violent crimes that 
would never be committed without siicli ready accessiiiility to handguns. 

It is equally important that we enact legislation, both locally and nationally, 
that stipulates stiff mandatory minimum sentences for the whole range of gun- 
related offen.ses. We must also ensure that these penalties are universally pre- 
scribed by the courts and that tlie penalties are not relieved by early release or 
I'.lea-bargaining. 

There are two areas where it is generally felt that action could be taken which 
would decrease the workload of the entire criminal justice system. These two 
areas concern the administrative adjudication of traflSc infractions, and the 
decriminalization of certain so-called "victimless crimes." 

TRAFFIC OFFENSES 

In an effort to reduce the high costs incurred in court overtime expenses, 
preliminary research has been conducted in several areas regarding alternatives 
for the reduction of court overtime costs. As a great amount of court-time (30%) 
is spent in regard to traffic offenses, the category of traffic violations has come 
under review by this Department. One of the possible programs to reduce the 
inordinately high court-time rate is the process of administrative adjudication 
of traffic infractions. Several jurisdictions in Xew York which have decriminalized 
traffic infractions have found a significant decrease in the amount of time 
spent in adjudication procedures by police officers. 

Such a program, to be successful, must be carefully planned and coordinated 
among all the agencies and jurisdictions involved. It would require changes in 
the District's regulations, and reciprocal agreements on the part of Maryland 
and Virginia. 

Currently, the Department of Motor Vehicles, at the behest of Councilman 
Jerry Moore, is drafting legislation for the decriminalization of all traffic offenses 
except for the more serious ones such as Negligent Homicide and driving xmder 
the influence. The basic model is the system presently being used in Xew York 
City. It is expected that such legislation will be presented to the City Council 
before the end of Calendar Year 197"). This Department would support such 
legislation with the caveat that the procedures be carefully coordinated to ensure 
the efficient and cost-effective use of the police ofiicer's time. This Department 
has sent members to attend the Mid-Atlantic Advanced TraflBc Adjudication 
Techniques Conference to gain greater insight into the possible problems in- 
herent in the development of an administrative adjudication process. 

In addition, the Department has expressed formal interest in applying for a 
Department of Transportation demonstration project entitled "Enforcement and 
Adjudication of Traffic Violations Aggravated by Alcohol." This program is to 
establish an administrative procedure for processing traflfic violations aggravated 
by alcohol. 

DRUGS 

There is a major movement to decriminalize the use of marijuana. I do not 
support this movement inasmuch as hard evidence has not been developed to 
define the psychological and physiological effects of prolonged usage. 

I do support a program similar to the "Oregon Experiment" that would pro- 
vide monetary fines for simple possession of the drug. However, I reach this 
decision for perhaps different reasons than others who have proposed same. I 
base my recommendation on the priority of allocation of police resources. 

Simple possession cases have increa.sed at a spectacular level over the past 
five years. There were 203 such arrests in 1070. 5SS in 1971, 1557 in 1972, 2331 in 
1973, and 2536 in 1974. During this period the Police Department has not iso- 
lated marijuana use as an investigative priority. On the contrary in 1973, 95.5% 
of the simple possession arrests were based on the search of persons arrested for 
other criminal charges or open use and/or possession of the drug. Only 4.5% 
of such charges resulted from a direct investigation and the statistics for 1974 
are approximately the same. 

At this point in time, the Police Department is in the position of processing 
some 2536 cases of simijle marijuana possession per year, towards which the 



1156 

public is indifferent, the prosecutors would desire to avoid and the courts have 
taken a lenient attitude. Since the deterrent effect of public sanction and punish- 
ment has been removed, it is not in the best interests of effective management to 
continue allocating resources to this function. 

GAMBLING 

I am not opposed to legalizing gambling in the District of Columbia. "When 
legalizing gambling was first suggested in this country there was much expecta- 
tion as to the total benefits to be derived. We now have a limited experience with 
lotteries and other forms of government controlled gaming. In most instances it 
has not produced the revenue expected and has not eliminated illegal gambling 
We can now conclude the question is more complex than a simple yes or no de- 
cision, and 1 would recommend the District of Columbia study the experience of 
other jurisdictions in developing a proposal on this subject matter. 

PROSTITUTION AND PORNOGRAPHY 

The subjects of prostitution and pornography are even more complex. Few 
persons speak out against these activities until they disrupt the routine of their 
personal lives or have an adverse economic effect. It is suggested that the crim- 
inal justice system concentrate on violent crimes and assign some lesser priority 
to the subject offenses or even perhaps ignore same. The courts complain that a 
disproportionate amount of resources is required to process prostitution cases and 
cite the expanding arrest figures to substantiate this claim. This becomes a self- 
fulfilling prophecy in much the same form as the argument, re "simple possession 
of marijuana". Prostitution could be brought under control almost overnight if 
each person convicted were sentenced to straight time. However, first offender 
treatment, probation, and a small fine that does not even equal an evening's 
wages, does little to di.scourage the practice and in fact is an encouragement. It is 
little wonder that a revolving door policy towards prostitution becomes an invita- 
tion to persons in the trade to migrate to this city, and subsequently become a re- 
source management problem. 

Here again, decision need not be made without study. Cities that have taken a 
liberal approach to so-called victimless crime, have compiled considerable data 
relative to their experience. This data generally indicated a desire to extract 
themselves from a deteriorating situation. Pornography and prostitution appear 
to have a debilitating effect upon the quality of life in an urban area. Where 
these vices proliferate, other crimes, including violent crimes, predominate. In- 
deed, the majority of persons who provide such services have criminal records for 
serious offenses unrelated to their profession. In a high vice area, legitimate 
bu.siness is driven out and tourism becomes non-existent. In a city whose major 
industry is tourism, this would have serious ramifications. Thp pdur^ational and 
historical aspects of Washington, D.C., attract school children and families as the 
major part of its tourist trade. If moral decay within this city were allowed to 
divert revenues gained from the tourist trade, the reduced tax ba.se could only 
l)e balanced through increased local taxes and the residents of this city would be 
the losers. 

VICTIMLESS CRIMES 

If some action must be taken to reduce the court workload and resource ex- 
penditure, I suggest there are areas of study outside that segment of the justice 
system that deals in criminal matters. For decades we have increased pro- 
spective priorities in respect to criminal cases in the same manner as under con- 
sideration now. and the .situation has only worsened. Perhaps the area most re- 
sponsive to such study would be the civil section, inasmuch as this workload has 
substantially increased while the criminal workload remained relatively constant, 
df adjusted for disorderly, drunkenes.s, traffic, etc.) 

Much could be done to reduce the workload in landlord-tenant cases, no-fault 
insurance would reduce accident litigation and similar methods may be anpli- 
cable to the expanding area of malpractice suits. While I am not opposed to a 
further review of so-called victimless offenses. I suggest a review of both crimi- 
nal and civil procedures be undertaken, and nerhaps the latter would prove more 
fruitful with less effect on the quality of life in the community. 

In conclusion let me sav that we are faced with a serious problem, but not a 
hopeless one. Solutions will not come either quickly or cheaply, but I am confi- 



1157 

dpnt tlint tlipy can bo found. We must always be aware of tbe cost of our pro- 
frranis. and our efforts to improve productivity must be increased. But I think 
we should also consider the cost of neglect. We must expect occasional reverses 
and use the insight which they provide to improve our efforts in the future. 
Above everything else, all elements of the criminal justice system must learn 
to work in harmony with each other and with the community they serve. 

The CiiATRMAx. Tlie Cliair reserves its time and recognizes the gen- 
tleman from South Carolina. 

GUN CONTROL 

Mr. M.VNN. Chief, yon advocate the Saturday Ni.n^ht Special l-nv. T 
am afraid in recent years largely because of the failures of local law 
enforcement agencies throughout the counti'v, that tlte ty]>icnl citi- 
zen now considers it a legitimate interest to have a gun in his home. 

Now if that is a legitimate interest, what difference does it make 
what kind of a gun he has in his home ? 

Chief CmxixANE. Mr. Mann, I believe that is why I so strongly ad- 
vocate that we focus in on the Saturday Xight Specials. There are 
some arguments that can be made for people's rights to bear arms. 

Gun legislation has almost become a hysterical issue. You and I 
can now sit down and talk about gun legislation where just a few years 
ago that would have been out of the question. 

I believe we have come a long way in the last few years. It is now 
politically feasible to talk about legislation on a national level. While 
we have public sentiment in that area. I would hate to get it tied up 
in the rhetoric of the legitimate people who— and who really do have 
legitimate reasons to carry guns so we don't end up in that sort of 
position. 

I think the surest way to get helpful legislation is to talk about 
Saturday Night Specials. 

The tiling that makes Saturday Xight Specials so tempting, par- 
ticularly to the young, is that they are very cheap. A good gun costs 
quite a bit of money. We know that of the 4.000 guns that we picked 
up last year, that somewhere between 40 and 45 percent of them were 
Saturday Night Specials. 

It shows you the magnitude of the Saturday Night Special. You ar( 
not, Mr. Mann, going to take guns out of the hands of professional 
criminals. Professional criminals are going to have ways of getting 
guns, and I think that law enforcement people as well as legislators 
should understand that. 

What we have to do is to take the guns out of the pockets of our 
youthful offenders who have them for no good reason, get themselves 
involved in situations where people die for no reason or on the spur 
of the moment or as a lark, crimes of violence are committed. 

Getting back to your question. I believe that peo]>le who legitimately 
want guns, gun fanciers, will buy nice guns. But I believe that many 
of the people on the street, and our records will bear it out, many of 
the people on the street do not carry those guns because they are too 
expensive. 

Mr. Manx. If it is — and I am not conceding that it is — a legitimate 
concern for a citizen to be able to have a gim in his home for protection, 
and there are statistics that show that those guns kept in the home 



1158 

for that purpose are the ones with whicli most of the homicides are 
committed, but if it is a legitimate right to have such a gun, why should 
the person be required to pay three times as much to have such a gun 
in his home ? 

Chief CuLLiNANE. I would like to interject that when we talk about 
homicides particularly in family disputes, say a wife shoots a husband, 
a husband shoots a w"ife or a boyfriend slioots his girlfriend, but that 
is not the ty))e of crime that makes people afraid to walk on the street. 

It is said when it happens, but I can tell you when a professional 
criminal gets involved in a drug war and one kills another, again some- 
one is dead. But that does not frighten people from Avalking down the 
streets. 

What frightens people is that the large number of guns in the hands 
of particularly our very young who have no good reason for them other 
than that they are cheap and very available and then situations arise 
where at best you would have had an argument or a possible fistfight 
and what you end up with is someone shot. 

That is what frightens people. 

GUNS IX SCHOOLS 

Mr. Manx. In that connection, we had testimony from the school 
officials to the effect that only one case of illegal possession of a gun 
was made in the entire school system, I think the year was 1973-74. 

I am sure that school situation has come to your attention. 

Where is the problem ? 

Chief CurxiNANE. Fortunately on my Citizens Advisory Council, I 
have the principal of one of these junior high schools here and that is 
the advantage of having a citizens advisory council. He says there are 
serious gun problems in the school system. 

The problems with them are that the teachers, the administrators, 
are hamstrung about what they can do with them. That is another 
area of discussion, children's rights, whether or not you can go in lock- 
ers, whether or not you can search children simply because they are 
under age. 

It is a question that should be dealt with, and not hysterically over 
a gun issue. I can tell you from personal conversations that there are 
substantial problems with guns in schools. 

Mr. INIann. Is your advisory council or your department exercising 
any initiatives to work more closely with the school people to solve this 
problem? 

Chief CrEONANE, Yes, sir. We have officers assi.q-ned to the various 
schools, particularly schools that have a history of problems. But we 
have avoided and it is my policy to avoid to take over the discipline 
in the school. We try to get into positive programs in the schools as 
opposed to trettina: into programs where we go in and maintain the 
djscinline or maintain order in the schools. 

We have such programs as side-bv-side programs, officer apprentice 
programs, so we work in the school svstems but we do not go in and 
take over and run the discipline of the schools. 

Mr. Mann. At least vou can educate the teachers in coordination 
with the school authorities as to how to handle these situations. 



1159 



PROGRAMS IX SCHOOLS 



I am intorpsted in the juvenile programs in the schools and else- 
where that yon alluded to in your testimony. Tell us a little bit more 
about those pro<;rams, not in detail but the highlights of the primary 
projirams. 

Chief CuLT.TNAXE. "Well, we have probably the most successful pro- 
gram we have is a procrram we call side-by-side program. It is really 
just a litlo band that is made up of police officers. 

They go into the school and get the children, by playing the music 
that the children like and in between the various tunes, they give 
them — they talk to them about the necessity for being good children 
and the fact that police officers are their friends and we get tremendous 
cooperation from them. 

We started it out and thought it would just work in the lower grades 
but now we are in the junior highs and it is working just as well. We 
also have officers friondlies Avho are officers assi<rned to the schools. 

Again that is what they are supposed to be, friends of the children. 
The children do not look upon them as being oppressive. 

We do not see how many ofl'enders these officers can make arrests 
for. Their ^'>-hole aim and the wholp thrust of the program is to assure 
that the children understand that they have a friend in the police 
department. That is a long-time program and it also has been an excel- 
lent pro£rram. 

I think that vou broadened it ont into talkino: about juveniles. We 
run the Metropolitan Police Bovs Club. Several years ago we confined 
our activitv to goino- out and collecting monev and then we had civil- 
ians run the bovs clubs. It has been my feeling for a long time that that 
was a bad approach to it. 

Rather than expend the energy in collectincr moneys and pay some- 
body else, if we allow tlie same amount of time it took us to collect 
the money for the boys club, and we use that amount of money for 
officers' salaries and they .to in there. The children look upon it as 
beinof a bovs club run bv police officers. 

It runs the whole gamut. We have all teams, football, basketball, we 
have an inner city camp. That has b*^en a long-time successful program. 
I believe it has been more successful since we utilized the police officers 
as counselors as opposed to using civilians. 

Those are some of the proarrams. ]\Ir. Mann. 

Mr. Maxn". Thank vou, chief. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gude? 



guns' effectiveness 



Mr. CrDE. I certainlv want to commend you on your statement. 
Chief Cullinane. How effective are the guns that are in the hands of 
the homeowners and the shopkeepers as far as preventing specific in- 
stances of crime ? I know there was a study in Detroit of the homicides 
and accidental shootings involving guns that were not in the hands of 
criminals. I am interested in the homeowner who wants a gun to pro- 
tect his premises or the shopkee^Der who wants to keep a gun in the 
drawer. 



1160 

Chief CuLLiNANE. I don't have any hard figures but as crime rose 
rapidly, almost in the same proportion, citizens and storeowners 
started buying guns. The law, it is jDOssible through the law, you can 
purchase guns and carry them on your own property. 

Therefore, we do have substantial numbers of people in the city 
who have registered their guns and have them in their homes or busi- 
ness. I discourage people from having their own guns. Very, very 
few people that have guns can use them properly. 

I think more important than that, Mr. Gude, is that they talk in 
terms of what they are going to do if something happens to them but 
they really don't mean that. Too often, we see the shopowner who has 
told you that he is going to protect his property but when it comes 
time to shoot somebody, it is a very difficult decision to make. 

1 routinely every day give people who are qualified under the law 
and who purchase guns, we register them. But if they come to me, I do 
not believe that that is a good idea. The police department should be 
able to protect citizens and I just think that that is our function and 
I think it is possible for us to do it. 

GUN CONTEOL 

Mr, Gude. I appreciate your answer. One of the contentions of those 
violently opposed to any type of gun control legislation is that the 
homeowner or the shopkeeper ought to have a weapon to j)rotect him- 
self. It seems to me, just as you said, that we have arrived at a point 
where we can have a dialog and really discuss this with a little less 
heat and emotion, and statistics such as those collected in Detroit are 
very helpful. 

We get to the heart of the problem. If possible to develop statistics 
along these lines, how many shopkeepers do secure their premises and 
secure a robbery ? Occasionally this happens and you hear about in- 
cidents in the other direction where there have been some very tragic 
circumstances of somebody trying to defend their property or their 
lives with a gun. 

Chief CuLLiNANE. I think people who handle guns regularly would 
tell you that if you really wanted to protect yourself, then you would 
not buy a pistol. People who really want to protect themselves, there 
are long guns you can protect yourself wdth. 

If I were really frightened and wanted to make sure I was pro- 
tected, I would buy a shotgun. You can buy ammunition for it that 
would not only do the job, but it is safe as far as the distance it would 
go and not hit someone else. 

I didn't mean to say that there is no hysterical attitude still left in 
the gun control issues. I am saying that I believe it is fortunate that 
it has lessened enough that we can talk about it. Two or three years 
ago it would be impossible in a public setting for us to have this type 
of discussion. 

Mr. Gude. I agree with you. The hysteria was still there. Don't you 
think i^ would be appropriate that there be some type of examination 
for those people who do register firearms to provide that they at least 
know which end the bullet comes out of and whether the gun is on 
safetv. Wouldn't this be a reasonable requirement of ^he law? 

Chief Cullinane. Absolutely. We are preparing some proposed leg- 



1161 

islation that we are going to send to the City Council and that is part 
of the package. 

If we coukl rest for just a moment and aUude to Mr. Mann's ques- 
tion, if you were to make the Uh^e of a gun and the ability to use it and 
slioot accurate!}', you would almost then exclude Saturday night 
specials because Saturday night specials are notoriously inaccurate. 

They are so cheaply made that if you had to pass any type of a test, 
it would be very dillicult to do it with a Saturday night special. 

GUX LEGISLATION 

Mr. GuDE. Is there any legislation that surrounding jurisdictions, 
either counties or States, can pass to help you as far as dealing with 
the problem of guns coming onto the market in the District of Colum- 
bia especially relating to the movement of guns across the State lines? 

Chief CuLLixAXE. AVe have just started a study to go back in the 
history of where guns came from so I am not ready at this time to 
speak to that. But as I said earlier. "Washington has — the District of 
Columbia has pretty good gun legislation. We need some more, 
obviously. 

The major thing that would happen is either if all other jurisdic- 
tions had something as strict as Washington, part of the Saturday 
night specials are nuide or put together in ^laryland. In the late 1960's. 
I thought the intent of Congress was to outlaw the importation of 
Saturday night specials but the law has been circumvented by bringing 
them in in parts and putting them together and they do that in 
Maryland. 

Mr. GuDE. I agree with you that a No. 1 priority is to outlaw those. 

POLICE TIME IX COURT 

Judge Greene has suggested a program whereby the police officer, 
instead of appearing in the court at 9 o'clock in tlie morning and wait- 
ing for a trial would not be notified of his appearance until an hour 
before he was due in court. 

Does this seem like a proposal that would be helpful ? 

Chief CuLLixAXE. It has been. Judge Greene has been extremely 
helpful to us. Although we are not that aggressively into the pro- 
gram, we started Monday of this week into a program where in traffic 
cases the officer — we find that a good percentage of the j^eople who 
liave moving violations do not show up in court. 

But we keep the officer sitting there for long periods of time. Judge 
Greene has been more than cooperative. We are now into that pro- 
gram. Obviously, we have only been into it 3 days, but we are con- 
vinced that it is going to be helpful. 

Some interesting things have hapiDened to crime in the last few 
years. As a rule of thumb, our crime is on a computer and it is up- 
dated as reports are made. Therefore you can get out crime statistics 
at any given time. "We can find out right now how many crimes were 
committed upon until 10 o'clock this morning. 

As a rule of thumb, about 50 percent of all the crimes that we are 
going to have for a day would have been rei^orted by 4 o'clock in 



52-587 O - 75 -pt.2 - 5 



1162 

the afternoon. The first 16 hours of the day would be 50 percent. The 
last 8 hours a day would be another. 

Crime has shifted into a daytime problem and now 65 percent of 
the crime has been committed Idv 4 o'clock. The reason I bring it up, 
it is very helpful when people like Judge Greene act as a criminal jus- 
tice system and we get officers back on the street instead of sitting 
over in court. 

METRO SECTJRriY 

Mr. Gtjde. "What type of preparation have you made to coordinate 
with the Metro when they begin to operate their trains in September? 

Chief CuLLiNANE. The Metro is going to have its own department 
which will take care of the stations and the trains. We will have some 
concurrent jurisdiction in the stations themselves. But primarily our 
responsibility will be out on the parking lots. 

I meet with Angus McLean who is in charge of their security 
monthly. We anticipate — first of all because of the way Metro was 
engineered it is going to be relatively easy, I believe, to protect it and 
they are going to have a fairly large security force. 

With us taking care of the parking lots and some other things, I 
don't anticipate having any trouble. (•' 

Mr. GuDE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Blester ? 

Mr. BiESTER. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. 

PREVENTIVE DETENTION 

Several times in your prepared statement you made reference to 
the use of preventive detention. To what extent is that used, and to 
what extent do you regard it as an effective instrument in terms of 
crime lorevention ? 

Chief CuLLiNANE. Mr. Blester, I think you have to be careful when 
you are using preventive detention. The problem is — most places 
have preventive detention but they call them high-security bonds. 
Washington has been singularly set out and preventive detention has 
been talked about. 

In most areas and in Washington prior to the reorganization of the 
courts, what happened was someone would be arrested the first time 
and they would be out on a minimum bond and the second time they 
would get arrested the bond would go up. 

All the judges were doing was in effect, they would get the bond so 
high that no one would take them out and then they would be in jail. 
They just called it a security bond. I fully agree that you should not 
make money the keys to the jail. But you have to have a way to get 
repeaters and keep them incarcerated. It seems to me that preventive 
detention has some built-in safeguards. 

You have to have a hearinsr within several davs after — if someone is 
^detained. You obviously need speedy trials. It is used very seldom. I 
still believe that there are times when it is necessary. 

Mr. Btester. Give me some approximation of the number of times 
a year it is used. 

Chief CuLLiNANE. I don't have them. The U.S. attorney could give 
them to vou. In recent months they have been recommended much 
more by the bail agency. 



1163 

Mr. BiESTER. I appreciate the fact you would not have these figures 
at your fingertips, but would it be on the level of 20 or 30 a year or on 
the level of 100 a year? 

Chief CuLLiNANE. If I had to take between those two, I would say 
on the level of 20 a year, probably a little less than that. 

PLEA BARGAINING 

Mr. BiESTER. On page 14 of your prepared statement vou referred 
to dispositions with or throu'di the T".S. attorney's office by plea 
bargaining, 542, no paper, 218. What is "no paper" ? 

Ciiief ( FLLiNAXK. The no ])aper wouUl be t! nt at the time the of'cer 
and the U.S. attorney ha-d their preliminary hearings, that they did 
not want to present the case so they did not issue any papers. 

The nolle prosequi calls in that at that time they papered him but 
at some time along the line they nolle prossed it. 

Mr. Btfster. Would that be no indictment at all ? 

Chief Cullinaxe. It would be more than that. You could have a no 
indictment and still have a nolle prossed case. 

Mr. BiESTER. What does that mean then ? 

Chief CuLLixANE. It means that there were no papers drawn up to 
take the person to the preliminary hearing. After the preliminary 
conference between the officer and the — in this case the U.S. attorney, 
that he did not see prosecutional merit to the case and therefore did 
not participate. 

If the ca^e is a noPe pros, once this has happened and th^n some- 
thing happens along the way that he wants to nolle pros it — I am 
getting notes. 

At the prosecutor's discretion he screens cases out and he no papers 
them. This is according to our lawyer. 

Mr. BiESTER. A person may be arrested. heM in jail overnight, have 
a conferei^ce in the morning, and son^'eone decides that the case is not 
good enough. The court has no role m that ? 

Chief CuLLix-^AXE. The court also has ro role in plea bargaining. 

Mr. Btester. In other words, the court is presented with a plea 
bar.qrain which it is bound to agree to? 

Chief CuLLixAXE. Bound might be a little strong language but the 
court can really o'dy take under advisement those cas^s presented 
to them. Since that is controlled by the U.S. attorney, then I would 
sav that they have virtually no control over it. 

The U.S. attorney's office decides which cases that they are going 
to present to the court. If they do in fact change to no paper or plea 
bargaining, when they go up. that is the only case that will get before 
the iud.qre. 

Mr. BiESTER. These are unfair questions because they are not your 
responsibility, but I would like to have some idea of how it is handled. 

What you are saying is if there is indictment and the case is nolle 
prossed. the court does not sign anythirg with respect to it if there is 
a plea bargain? The court may make a sentence, but as a matter of 
practice that sentence is always the sentence bargained out by the 
U.S. Attorney and the defense counsel ? 

Chief CuLLixAXE. I don't believe that the plea bargaining is down 
to what type of sentencing you are going to get. What we are talking 



1164 

aboiifc is if there are multiple offenses and the U.S. attorney plea 
barrrains where if yon plead 2;uilty to one of them he will not take 
the other three or four forward. 

He does not <2:narantee what a judae is aoin^^ to do. The sente'^cing 
is up to the indjze himself and is not involved in the ])lea bargaining. 
We are talking about multiple offenses and offenders and for what- 
ever reason the Government thinks — it is usually over a court calendar 
that it woidd be beneficial to everyone that if they have three se])arate 
and distinct cases that if thev drop two and you plead guilty to one, 
that is the frame we are talkinjj about. 

Mr. BiESTER. Does the U.S. attorney consult with the prosecutor 
in the case? 

Chief CuLLTVAXE. Yes. sir. "We have a case review section headed 
by Mr. Gill. Then not only do they sit down and talk but any case 
we feel should not be no papered, we have an appeal right. 

Mr. Gill sits down with the T^S. attorney and we discuss — it does 
not have to (yet to his level — but our no pa]')er rate since the beginning 
of this case review has dropped substantially mitil now it is somewhat 
less than 20 ])ercent. That is very good nationwide. 

DRUGS 

]Mr. BiESTER. With respect to the correlation between the percentage 
of purity of heroin and the crime rate, I was struck by that table. First 
of all, why the correlation and second, what steps can be taken to see 
to it that the level of purity is low ? 

Chief Cfllixane. I was struck by it. That is a very telling chart. 
I could not agree more. It just does not seem to be any room for argu- 
ment about what happens as the purity of the drugs goes up. You 
realize that in the city particularly, but probably around the country, 
drugs are at an epidemic proportion except during the sixties and the 
early seventies. 

I hope public education had a lot to do with it. It was something 
tliat was on everyone's mind. I can also show you a chart that would 
surprise you just as much and that is the incidence of crime and how 
as the purity dropped down was when we were in the greatest decline 
of crime in the city. 

We saw a reversal in 1973 for a number of reasons. The real problem 
we have is the purity of drugs. During the time when crime was going 
down, drugs were about 2 percent, maybe 2iA percent pure. 

You would really have to get someone like Dr. Washino-ton up here 
but as I understand it, you could get psychologically addicted as well 
as physically addicted to something as low as 2 percent. 

In 197?> heroin Avent up to 5 percent pure. That means you are 
creating real addicts and new addicts getting into that drug and we 
saw an increase in crime. Because of our experience and because we 
had been watching we have known for a long time the correlation be- 
tween drugs and crime. 

I don't think there is anyone who would quarrel that the most pre- 
dictable offender would be a drug addict. We geared up again.^ We 
doubled the size of our enforcement. Our arrests have substantially 
gone up and hopefully we can turn it around. 



1165 

It appeal's that wo have. We ai'e not going to publicly say we have 
because it is uuich too early. 
Mr. BiESTER. Thank you. 

METRO SECURITY 

:\rr. GuDE. To follow up on the security force for Metro, would Metro 
be able to make arrests presently in the subway stations ? 

Chief CiLLiNAXE. There is going to have to be all new legislation. 
You are going to have jurisdictional problems. I am not sure where the 
legislation is.but Metro is going to be unique. 

It is the only system I am aware of that is going to cross political 
boundaries anil therefore you are going to have to change the laws 
when you cross from Maryland and into Virginia and tliey are going 
to have to have powers in three jurisdictions. 

To answer your question, you are going to have to establish a 
Metro Police Department and then you are going to have to give them 
whatever powers that you think they need. 

Right now I have the authority to make them special police officers 
and therefore have powers of arrest in their stations. 

Mr. GuDE. In other words, you could deputize their security force? 

Chief CuLLiXAXE. Mr. Gude, the same as I do others. We have secu- 
rity forces in banks and building guards and many places now that 
have either a singel guard or security forces. Under that system, I can 
take care of them in Washington. There is going to have to be legis- 
lation done at this level, because they are going to go across political 
boundaries. 

Mr. GuDE. You would be able to deputize them if there is no legis- 
lation on the books so they can make arrests in the subway stations 
without having to increase your force in the Metro stations. 

Chief CuLLTXAXE. We already have -omo nf them that ;ve special 
police officers and have the power of arrest. They have a uniform, and 
they carry guns. 

Mr. Gude. You will not have to increase your force when the system 
starts to operate? 

Chief CuLLixAXE. We are not anticipating asking for any increases. 

Tliank you. 

police strexgth 

The CiiATR^rAx. (^hief. v.hat w^ouVl be vour de])artment's strength 
under the budget as requested by the Mayor and what would it be 
under the Council proposal ? 

Chief CuLLTX-AXE. Mr. Diggs. the Mayor's, it would be very easy to 
maintain what we ha^-e now, an authoi-ized ^tren.o-th of 8.750. Under 
the Council's proposal, we are going to lose about 1.006 people. 

Now the Council did not identify those positions and where you 
would have to take them from. They identified 241 of them as being 
those that at the time that the budget was being prepared were vacant. 
They also took out an amount of money for them, trying to put the 
positions to flip mo»ipv I rnme UD that it Avo"ld ^av ^9(^ uniformed men 
and 115 civilians. Rather than bore you all the way down through the 



1166 

thing, some of the cuts you have to remember are just broad cuts that 
they^told the Mayor that he had to reduce m certain areas. 

He did not say you have to reduce the Police Department. They 
iust said you have to reduce. If you talk to the Mayor, he will tell you 
he did not have to reduce the Police Department, but since I have such 
a laro-e agency and the council dictated that they reduce the overall 
size oi the city's employees by 12 percent that unless they gave him an 
across the board, there would be very few agencies that could absorb a 
cut as massive as mine. 

With the means that they have taken, plus the several positions that 
they have identified, we would be reduced by 753 which would be re- 
duced by 753 which would bring the Police Department down to 3,997. 

The Chairman. That is almost 25 percent. 

What is that? 

Chief CuLLixANE. It is 17 percent of the police officers and 30 per- 
cent of the civilians. It is 34.4 percent of the civilians and 18 percent 
of the uniformed men. 

The Chairman. Do you think that your responsibility would be 
seriously impaired if the Council and the Mayor are unable to get to- 
gether on something that would be less impacting upon your agency ? 

Chief Cui.LiNANE. Mr. Chairman, there is no question about that. 
If I could, I would like to expand on it a moment. I am extremely 
aware of the size of my department and the cost. I am sure you remem- 
ber that we came forward last year and asked for a 250 man reduc- 
tion in the size of the department because we were well aware that it 
is very expensive to operate a department the size that we have. 

So we have asked twice now for— we have voluntarily cut the de- 
partment twice now. I would hope that some day I can come to you 
and tell you that we are prepared to reduce the size of the department 
again. 

But certainly when crime is going up, it is really not the time to 
be talking about reducing the size of the department. There is just no 
question. There is a chart in the prepared statement that I believe 
proves beyond a doubt that there is a correlation between the size of the 
Police Department and the incidence of crime. 

The Chairman. I just wondered whether or not this proposal took 
into consideration, assuming it is for the fiscal year, the tremendous 
increase in visitors that we contemplate within the next 12 months. 
Was that factored into this proposal for reduction, to your knowl- 
edge ? 

Chief CuLLiNANE. I can tell you that in my written responses back 
to them I as dramatically as "possible brought it to their attention 
that tourism was the No! 1 trade in the District of Columbia and 
whereas we have 20 million people here during the normal year that 
we were expecting somewhere between 40 and 45 million. 

The Mayor has vetoed most of those cuts, Mr. Chairman. He vetoed 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 cuts. 

POLICE IX COURT 

The Chairman. You mentioned earlier that approximately 250,000 
man-hours a year are spent in court cases. I was curious about the 
preparation; of cases and whether or not it would help to have more 



1167 

invest io-a to IS with the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney that would 
help out with that incidence and would be less impacting on the kind 
of manpower demand that these court appearances and investigative 
services require. 

Chief CuixiNANE. I 

The Chairman. Added to that, I would like to ^et your comments 
about proposals that have been raised about whether or not this juris- 
diction oufifht to be the same as other jurisdictions and have an elected 
sheriff and with that kind of component sharing- in the kind of load 
that you have. You, in effect, are two or three things all rolled up in 
one. 

SHERIFF FOR THE DISTRICT 

Chief CuLLixAXE. I would not really be prepared to talk to you 
about an elected sheriff. I am not sure. I would have to be clear about 
the functions you are talking about. I imagine the marshal is presently 
doino; much of the functions that I believe that a marshal would be 
expected to do. 

"\Ve do have a marshal, U.S. Marshal here and he does have a con- 
siderable size department. But I would be happy — I will get w;ith your 
staff and find out exactly what functions that we would anticipate the 
sheriff doing and I will certainly be happy to send you something, Mr. 
Chairman. 

As far as the cases in court, really the trouble is not in the area of 
preparing the cases for the court. The trouble is — in the cases are 
particularly the traffic cases which eat up tremendous man-hours. 

I would hope that the program Judge Greene has agreed with and 
we went into ]\Ionday is going to substantially reduce the number of 
man-hours. 

"We do assign officers to the U.S. attorney's office on a need-be basis. 
"We do not assign people over there regularly. On complex cases, 
lengthly investigations, multiple offenders, particularly in cases of 
homicides and to a lesser degree in robberies, we do have men that are 
assigned over there. 

The Chairmax. Have you or someone representing the department 
been asked to appear before the Harris subcommittee dealing with the 
bicentennial problems? 

Chief CuLLixAXE. Yes, we have. A deputy chief in charge of our 
plamiing and development wdio is testifying I believe today, Mr. 
Chairman. 

DRUG COXTROL 

The Chairmax. Does the Drug Enforcement Administration pro- 
vide your department and surrounding jurisdictions with the kind of 
intelligence and manpower assistance on drug traffic that you consider 
timely and useful? 

Chief CuLLixAXE. "We get some help from them, yes, sir. We at one 
time had some officers assigned into that program. We did not feel as 
if it was worthwhile so we brought our officers back. 

The Chairmax. What was wrong with it ? A"\''hat about it represented 
deficiencies in its utility ? 

Chief Cullixaxe. "\Ve just evaluated not that it was a failure, but 
if you put things in priorities, we could do more with our people and 



1168 

get a better roturn for tlie dollar than we could by detailing them 
to tlie daily proo-ram. We get an aAvful lot of help from the drug — 
))articularly in the area of interstate. AVe meet monthly with them. 
We do share infornnition with them. 

It is sort of hard to make an evaluation of whether or not we get 
sufficient for the dollar that the Government spends. Anything you 
get is helpful to you and I can tell you they are very cooperative with 
us and they give us whatever information they have. 

We have just found, though, over the years, that Ave control our 
people better, we think that we can set our priorities better than other 
people aud mucli prefer to try to do it without going into joint 
operations. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Do you think additional judges, in view of the 
liacklog and caseloads and all of this plea bargaining which obviously 
you have some serious reservations about, do you tliink additional 
judges would be helpful? 

MANPOWER IX COURTS 

Chief CuLLixAXE. jNIr. Chairman, I know this is something that 
you have heard since you have started these hearings over and over 
again. I will add my voice to it, that we don"t have a criminal justice 
system. I believe that just as the Police Department is trying very 
hard to do something, I believe the judges are too. and the U.S. 
attorney. 

But unfortunately we don't liave a system ; CA-erybody is trying to 
do his own thing, and it is not necessarily helpful. If you could go 
back into the history of the increases of the manpower of the Police 
Department you Avill see much testimony from this department say- 
ing, "Do not give this department the resources and expect crime to 
go dowu unless you give it to the U.S. attorneys and to the judges 
because unless you give it to them collectively as a system and unless 
we start some day operating as a system, we are just never going to 
solve the problem." 

If you put more judges in, you are going to have to have more U.S. 
attorneys. If you have more U.S. attorneys, you are going to put a 
Avorkload on the correctional people. I just do not think it is ever 
fair to talk about one particularly because from experience, I can tell 
you that when they give you a lot of people like they gave us, they 
ex])ect you to be the cure-all. 

It just does not work unless you start using it as a system. Judge 
Greene has probalily been the salvation of the Superior Court. He 
Avould probably be surprised if he was listening to uie. Judge Greene 
and I have difl'erences in ]~)hilosophies but he has done an outstanding- 
job in the court reorganization. 

PLEA BARGAIXIXG 

My comments about plea bargaining, I prefaced them by saying it 
is necessary to plea bargain or you will just break the system. 

Tliey must have souie way of scret'uing out cases thi'ougli jilea bar- 
gaiuing. Judge (ireene is the one best qualified to answer the (juestion; 
I think it Avoidd be helpful to get more judges but not mdess you have 
U.S. attorneys prepared to take the cases before the judges and unless 



1169 

wo liiU'o a correotional system tliai is prepared to take them after the 
judges sentence them. 

HALFWAY HOUSES 

The ('iiAiK:\rAX. Wdukl haxinii' more hallway houses and eouimun- 
ity-based rehabilitation prograuis be helpful? In view of what you 
just said if that is not accompanied by an increase in other related 
(•om[)oneiits. are you suggesting that this would not bt> the deterrent 
that some people think it might be ( 

Chief (\i,r.ixANK. You are talking about halfway houses? 

The CHATiniAx. Yes. AVe have had substantial testimony about the 
rehabilitating nature of halfway houses and woi-k fui'loughs and all 
that and how helpftd they are. and if we had more of them, it would 
lune a deterrent etl'ect. 

What is your assessment of these programs ? 

(^hief CiLi.ixAXK. They are not a deterrent. They are necessai'v in 
the ])rooram but thev are anvthiuir but a deterrent to crime. The deter- 
rent to crime is the punishment that is administered. Anytime you go 
into lial f way houses you have reduced the deterrent. 

I am not opposed to halfway houses. I think they are necessary. T 
can't institutionalize peo])le for long periods of time aiul i)nt thejn back 
in society. My objection has always been the way halfway houses are 
run. Halfway houses should be just what the name implies and that 
is after you ha\e gone to prison, have served time, and have been 
l)unished for violating society's rules, then l)efore the system releases 
you back into the community, there should be a time when you are 
brought halfway back. 

But you also have someone taking care of you or watching over you. 
The idea of halfway houses I sup{)ort. The way that they have been 
run in this city in the past — not presently — but in the past, I was very 
vehemently opposed to them. It is not the concept T oppose. It is the 
application. 

CRI:MIX'AL justice COORDIXATIXG BOARD 

The CiiATR:\rAX. I would like to know ]nore about the Criminal 
Justice Coordinating Board. You referred to it in your testimony. It 
is composed of ;>1 people from the government and comnuinity sectors 
and it meets monthly. What do they do and liow effective are they? 

Chief (^uij.ix'AXE. I think they ai'e very elective. It is a board estab- 
lished and chaired by the mayor. He had connnimity leaders. I sit on 
it. The Department of Corrections sits on it. There are judges on it. 
AVhat we do is leview applications for TiEAA money. 

Y'ou can reasonalily make a reasonable guesstimate of how much 
money this region is going to get. Y'^ou take all the gi'ant ai)plications 
and talk about areas that are going to be helpful not only to one agency 
but to the city as a whole and put priorities on it. 

That is just another way of assuring the city is getting the maxi- 
mum use out of the money that is available. 

The CiiAin:\rAX'. Counsel, do you have any wrap-up (juestions? 

]Ms. ^Iartix'. Mr. Chaii-man. we have a series of questions that we 
would like to put to Chief Cullinane in writing. There ai'c two ques- 
tions T would like to ask now for the record. 



1170 

Jndge Greene in his testimony before the committee several weeks 
ago recognized the same pi'oblem that you just articulated about the 
criminal justice system in our area. 

VICTIMLESS CRIMES 

He suggested a procedure for maximizing all of the energies of all 
the agencies involved in the total process. You touched on it a little 
bit when you talked about not decriminalizing certain kinds of so- 
called "victimless crimes." Judge Greene suggested that if the Criminal 
Justice Agency of the city got together and agreed upon some prior- 
ities where they would put their energies and their resources and where 
they would, in a sense, attach a very low priority. He went through the 
list of "victimless crimes" and said perhaps that wonld be the area 
where the total criminal justice system would not get into proirities. 

You spoke in terms of legislation, decriminalization legislation. I 
was wondering whether you thought Judge Greene's idea had merit. 
Would you be willing to sit down and try to develop a list of priorities 
that woidd have the effect of maximizing the energies and resources of 
all of the agencies by focusing in on certain kinds of very specific crim- 
inal activity? 

Chief CuLLiNANE. To answer your lengthy question, certainly I 
would be happy to sit down with Judge Greene. T have always found 
Judge Greene to be very reasonable, and we would attempt to do it. 
With that approach, the fallacies, to give you the worst example or the 
best example depending on which side you are on, is the use of 
marihuana. 

We put almost no emphasis on the policing of marihuana laws and 
yet marihuana arrests have skyrocketed in the last 5 years. Of all the 
arrests that we make, less than 5 percent of them were made as a direct 
effort on jrettino- that violation. When you look at some of the "victim- 
less crimes," even though you might put a low priority on it, they are 
at such a magnitude that the arrest is going to be there. 

Prostitution is one of them. It is not hard to go and see what is hap- 
pening to areas of the city. AAliether or not you put a maximum amount 
of effort to it, the arrests are going to be substantial. 

Ms. Martin. The arrests are not going to be substantial if a part of 
the program is that you are not going to arrest for those offenses. 

DECRIMINALIZATION OF FELONIES 

Chief CuLLiNANE. As I understood the question, you said put prior- 
ities on things and priorities means to me that you are going to put 
your maximum efforts in other areas, but you are going to give some 
attention to everything. If you are asking me if I would ever get into 
a program where we were going to overlook a law, the answer to that 
,would be no. 

The way to approach that is if the law is bad, then change it. I have 
supported not the decriminalization of marihuana but to do the same 
thing with marihuana as we do with traffic offenders and that is just to 
make a fine out of it. 

Ms. Martin. Judge Greene did not advocate decriminalization. He- 
did advocate something different from ignoring it but something very 
close to not emphasizing it because what he described as street crimes 



1171 

and violent crimes should be the major focus of law enforcement and 
the criminal justice system. 

Chief CuLLiXANE. The fallacies of it are that we have done that with 
marihuana here. "We have no one who Avorks exclusively enforcing the 
marihuana laws. We have relatively few cases Avliere we make an effort 
to get an individual knowing full well that he is violating the mari- 
huana laws. 

Yet the arrests have just continued to skyrocket. They are incidental 
to other ari-ests. The easy solutions they come up with are not solu- 
tions at all. You have got to come to grips with marihuana. 

It is here. It is substantial. There are a lot of people using it. I am 
opposed to decriminalization but that is an answer. My answer is to 
have monetary tines. The easy solution he gave you has already been 
attempted and it does not work at all. 

Ms. Martin. I appreciate your answer. .. 

COOPERATTOX AVITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS 

Tlie second and final question has to do with press reports that were 
on the front page of most of the neAvspapers in connection with the 
shooting of tAvo police officei'S, capitol police officers, and what was 
reported as lack of cooperation and communication between the various 
police departments in the District and in Virginia. 

As you know, this is a metropolitan area series of hearings and that 
dramatized rather frighteningly an issue we are A'ery concerned about 
and that is the amount and the quality of the cooperation between the 
various laAv enforcement agencies in this jurisdiction. 

I Avonder if you Avould care to comment on it because the paper 
alleged that the alleged offender was able to make his escape because 
of a breakdown in communications betAveen the law enforcement 
agencies. 

Chief CuLLiNANE. Just to clarify the records, they were Park police- 
men. I responded that night. Chief Wells, Avho is the Chief of the 
Park Police, was in another jurisdiction. Park Police have areas in 
New York and also out in California and I kncAv that. I responded. I 
can tell you that the cooperation was nothing but excellent. After 
reading that when Chief Wells came back, I asked him to look into it 
and I looked into it. 

I think you saw some newspaper reporting that was sensationalizing 
on something rather than making it factual. In any situation like that, 
there is a difference betAveen breakino; doAvn in communications and 
getting facts totally factual than it is in noncooperation. 

I think if you Avant to go back and critique situations like that when 
emotions run high and Avhen something very serious is ha])pening, cer- 
tainly, you can always find places for improvement. But I can tell 
you that the cooperation between the surrou?idii>g jurisdictions and 
the Metropolitan Police Department and the Park Police are — they 
just could not be better. 

Ms. Martin. Thank you A'ery much. 

The Chairman. Thank you Aerv much, Cliief, for your testimony. 
We appreciate your being liere today. 

Chief CuLLiNAXE. Thank vou, ]Mr. Chairman. 



1172 

The Chairman. I think the next witness would be the chief of police 
of Mont^Toinery County, Mr. K. W. Watkins. 1 see you have a pre- 
pared statement. Do you wish to summarize it and go into some 
questions ? 

STATEMENT OF COL. K. W. WATKINS, CHIEF OF POLICE, 
MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Colonel Watkixs. Perhaps I could give a summarization of my pre- 
pared text and in the interests of time, if there are questions, I would 
certainlv make an attempt to answer them. 

The Oiiairmax. Without objection, the testimony of Chief Watkins 
will be included in the record in its entirety and "the gentleman may 
proceed with his summary. 

[The document referred to follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Col. K. W. Watkins, Superintendent, 
Department of Police, Montgomery County. Md. 

In considering this topic for discussion, several aspects in the broad sense come 
to mind. Such things as demographics. urh:inization. the family unit and its rein- 
forcing institutions, and the criminal justice philosophy are. to a large extent, 
responsible for the increase in the Washington area's criminal activity. 

Y'OUTII OFFENDERS 

Demographically. the greatest portion of our national populnon is under 24 
years. In Montgomery County. 44% of the population is under 24. Historically, 
when thi.s segment has been at a record height, we have had major -crime waves." 
This was so in 1S75-1SSO; 193U-1935 ; and 19G3-Xow. While this does not explain 
completely the dramatic ri e in crime, it is a significant aspect. The bulk of crime 
is committed by individuals under 25 years and very frequently this same age 
group are the victims of these crimes. To illustrate as to perpetrators of crime : 

1. 779c of per.sons arrested for all crimes during 1974 in Montgomery County 
were under 24 years old. 

2. 83% of all per ons arrested for Part 1 Offen.ses during 1974 in the county 
were under 24 years old. 

Our county popu'ation increase between 1960-1970 is primarily attributable to 
in-migration (75%) rather than natural increase (25%). 

There are two characteristics of the urbanization impact on crime : 1 ) More 
things to steal in the city than in the rural areas, and 2) Persons who are crimi- 
nally inclined find a large number of like minded people readily available to 
support delinquent and criminal behavior. 

Another phenomenon of urbanization is the expressway/l>eltway which makes 
for a more mobile criminal, both inter- and intrajuri dictionally. These high speed 
roads have permitted him to extend his range of activities and remain anonymous, 
thereby escaping early detection. 

CAUSES OF CRIME 

From a social standpoint, it is my opinion the breakdown in the family unit 
and our educational process has impacted on the criminal activity of those young 
persons under 18. To illustrate this growing juvenile problem, in Montgomery 
County we find : 

1. 53% of those arrested for all crimes in Montgomery County in 1974 were 
juveniles, and 

2. 58% of all persons arrested for Part I Offenses were juveniles, including 
arrests for homicide and 3 for rape. 

With both parents working, there is little supervision for the young person. 
Parents often are too tired or too busy climbing the social ladder to really 
understand their growing children. Added to this is the highly competitive race 
betwen the male and female for all types of employment as well as the internal 
organizational pu.sh for upward mobility of females. Then, too, there is a pro- 



1173 

liforation of adult organizations whicli soeni to occupy the time of tlu; uucni- 
ployt'd iKirent anil tlie non-work time of ihc cuii)loyi'il parent. 

Who is lionu' niinding the store? and the younj^slersV Certainly, moral values 
have changed dramatically. Do your own thing! Cjuestion every legitimate exer- 
cise of authority ! There are too few examples of correctness in our society. 
Criminals ami dissidents are lauded. Not many puhlic figures can he viewed as 
models with which to identify. 

liDUCATIO.NAL KAC TOKS 

The educational institutions have reinforced the dissonance in the family 
unit. Neglecting their respousihilities to teach the academic slvills, and per- 
I'etuate the culture of the community, they have set themselves up as agents of 
social change and have sought to indoctrinate students into a new social order. 
The educators have de-emphasized competition, thus fostering a mediocre en- 
vironment. Those parents interested in the educational process ai-e channelled 
into such inane roles as heautifying the school grounds or campaigning for 
pa.ssage of a school budget. Has the substantive question as to why my .Johnny 
still cannot read at age 12 ever really been answered? 

DISRESPECT FOR AUTHORITY 

Disrespect for constituted authority has been evident at one time or another 
to most persons in this hearing room. In the last year, we implemented a low 
key, non-adversary approach to reducing hitchhiking on our streets. Officers on 
patrol stopped and discussed the problems relating to this practice witli the 
hitchhiker, gave the individual a brochure and, when appropriate, gave the 
hitchhiker a lift to a distant point. Officers were rebuffed by many youths who 
considered this contact harassment. Likewise, officers have been subjected to 
obscene and verbal abuse even after giving a youngster a ride. The rising 
incident of assaults (245 in Montgomery County during 11)74) on police officers 
continues to be an indicator of the disrespect for authoi-ity. 

Our recent overall experience with crime and traffic problems encountered 
in the county is reflected in our annual report for 1974. A copy has been provided 
each member of the committee. There is an analysis of persons arrested for I'art 
1 Offen.ses by residence contained in this report. 'iB% of those arrested (adult/ 
juvenile) for these offenses were the 'iiome grown" variety. 

(yi)t(': All percentages contained in this testimony have been rounded off.) 

An appreciable amount of our officers' energies are expended on large mobile 
groups of young adults of mixed ages (over/under IS) who congregate on parking 
lots used by the public, drinking beer (18 year old minimum age limit), harassing 
and terrifying passersby. This situation does not reflect in the .statistics fre- 
quently liecause dispersal tactics rather than arrest is the more efficient means 
of dealing with this problem. 

With respect to the element and forces at work in the criminal justice sys- 
tem, there are a number which pose formidal)le obstacles to the deterrence and 
reduction of crime and the perception of justice by the law abiding citizen. 

Our colleagues in the judicial and correctional components have not kept pace 
with the professionalization of tlie police service. Law enforcement has become 
more sophisticated, more innovative and efficient in the detection and apprehen- 
sion of offenders while remaining consistently undermanned to meet their entire 
spectrum of responsibilities. However, tlie system lieyond this point has not 
been brought up to cojie with the increasing numbers of arrestees. One of the 
results has been a push to divert offenders at the pre-trial stage. I suspect the 
idea has fallen into the numbers game where quantity rather than quality is 
the rule of thiuiib. Often, the philosophical views of the courts have been ob- 
tacles to deterrence. 

T'. S. News and World "Report, in its December 1074 issue pointed out that 
one man in Washington, D.C., was arrested 57 times in 5 years before he was 
convicted. Regardless of whether or not this is an exception, the question is : How- 
does the general pul)lic perceive this examjile of the rrimiiinl .Tnstice System at 
work ? 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FAILURES 

The prosecution of criminal cases is not vigorous. Plea bargaining is the order 
of the day. Speedy trials followed by swift, sure punishment where appropriate 



1174 

is almost a relic of the '"good old days." Interminable postponents discounige the 
citizen/witness from future particiiiation in crime prevention activites. as well 
as blur his recall with all the complex intervening events of his personal life. 

As for probation, most, if not all. of those convicttd short of murder receive 
probation of the first and even second offenses. Discussing this disposition with 
several long-term inmates, they felt, had a short-term in confinement rather than 
probation been the sentence in their cases, they may not be long-termers today. 
They felt that seeing the inside of a penal institution on a first offense for a 
.short sentence would have had a lasting effect and would have caused second 
thoughts before eonmiitting more crimes. Swift and sure punishment is vividly 
exemplified by the person who sticks his finger in a live electrical socket. 

CRIME VICTIMS 

"We have lost sight of the victim of a crime. The victim is left out of the 
"system." Restitution in property crimes is almost nonexistent except whatever 
police officers are able to recover for the victim. The traumatic experience of a 
violent and physical crime upon a victim is not followed up to determine what 
rehabilitation they might need. A case in point is the rape victim. Recently, our 
procedures on the haMling of rape victims have been subjected to a hard 
reappraisal within and without the department. The booklet, "What to Expect 
After the Attack," represents the fruits of this labor. I have taken the liberty 
of providing a copy for each committee member. I am confident these redesigned 
approaches will alleviate an appreciable amount of the trauma involved. 

Compare the intense concern for the rehabilitation of the criminal defendant 
which is often manifested in the probation without verdicts, suspended sentences 
that abound in the criminal justice system, with that of the victim. Until it be- 
comes dangerous to be a criminal rather than a victim, crime will increase. 

Another factor that impinges on the criminal justice system is the endless 
appeal processes that are available to the individual. While appeals on realistic 
substantive matters are appropriate to ensure corrective measures where ap- 
parent injustices have occurred, where does it endV 

Today we hear, "Decriminalize victimless crimes." We hear, "Why take in- 
vestigator time to bring gaming, certain narcotic, prostitution and liquor cases to 
court, cluttering the court's calendar." It seems to me these crimes, if allowed to 
flourish, create other crimes and further degrade society. 

LEGISLATIVE RECX)MMENDATIONS 

While I do not advocate a proliferation of laws at any governmental level, 
there needs to be a strengthening or revision of some present laws. We need to 
examine current mandatory penalties regarding the use of weapons in violent 
crime. Are they being administered properly? Should they be strengthened 
through additional legislation or repealed and rewritten in a stronger fashion? 
Such consideration as gun control legislation does not address the administrative 
nightmare that may well occur from the imposition of such a law on the wrong 
segment of society. Without a national sen.se of security and safety, the law 
abiding public naturally looks to personal ways to en.sure their own well being. 

Who would be the adminisf^rating agency for gun registration? Surely, local 
law enforcement authorities should not engage in this activity in light of its 
widespread implications. 

Through the mechani.sm of Federal assistance programs for criminal jusHce 
system components, perhaps these components can he finely tuned to work in 
concert with one another in light of the current input. This interdisciplinary 
apnroach should 1)*^ funded on an interdisciplinary basis, not focused on one com- 
ponent to the detriment of the other components. Within this approach, there 
should be an insistence on mandatory penalties at the stnte level with regard to 
u«e of weanons in violent crime and the recidivist who consistentlv commits 
-Part 1 Offenses. 

Wp must remember that there are those who must be segregated from society 
for the sole benefit of society. Concomitantly, relate criminal rehabilitation 
Cwhere appropriate) to victim rehabilitation. 

ILLEGAL ALIENS 

We have some indications that there is a growing number of illegal aliens 
of various nationalities entering this country and subsequently being employed 



1175 

by tlu'ir follow countrymen. Not only does I his impact on our national unemploy- 
ment problem but we believe official labor practices regarding these employees 
arc not being followed. The onus for the empbjyment of illegal aliens and sub- 
stHpient labor practices must fail squarely on the shoulders of the employers. 

BICENTENNIAL CELEBRATIONS 

Finally, we are told to expect some 40 million visitors during the next year 
for the Bicentennial activities. While I know that the Council of Governments 
is seeking federal funding on behalf of the local jurisdictions to preclude short- 
falls in budgeted police manpower allocations at critical times, it is difficult 
to plan in the ab.-ence of any timetable for metropolitan events. Not only are we 
in need of local timetables but we must be aware of events in other jurisdictions 
to determine the probable impact on our resources. I am not talking in terms 
of days, but in terms of montlis of advance notice which is necessary for adequate 
planning. 

UNEMPLOYMENT 

It is difficult to assess the impact of unemployment on tlie incident of local 
crime. It is estimated that in Montgomery County there are approximately 16,000 
unemployed persons in a hibor force of almost 270,000. I would imagine addi- 
ti(mal unemployment and extended periods of unemployment would have their 
impact because of the attending idleness and loss of steady income. Informal 
feedback indicates stealing of foodstuffs in supermarkets is more evident now 
and touches the spectrum of age groups. The most vivid example of the economic 
impact on crime is the recent suggestion that police officers be furloughed from 
their positions in order to meet budget constraints imposed on many municipali- 
ties and counties. Considering the investment in training and the services per- 
formed by the patrol officer, I perceive this as pennywise and pound foolish. 

Finally, we cannot overlook the fact that the demonstrated increases in crimi- 
nal activity have occurred in an unprecedented period of prosperity. Perhaps 
in these more difficult times, society will have an opiKirtunity to reflect and 
retrieve some of our moral and economic values and ideals that have under- 
girded this nation since its inception. This reflective posture and the anticipated 
zero pojiulation growth for the foreseeable future may well reverse the present 
trends in the SO's and 90's. 



1170 








1177 
1974 ANNUAL REPORT 



Montgomery County Department of Police 
Sixty Courthouse Square 
Rockville , Maryland 20850 



Colonel K W Watkins 
Superintendent of Police 



52-587 O - 75 - pt.2 - 6 



1178 




Table of Organization 



Superintendent's Message 



Introduction 



Office of the Superintendent 

Research & Planning Division 

Systems and Data Section 

Inspection & Internal Affairs Division 

Community Affairs Division 

Media Services Section 

Vice & Intelligence Division 

Police Legal Advisor 



8 
9 

11 
11 
14 
16 

17 



1179 



Operations Bureau 

Patrol Division 20 

Traffic Section 20 

Tactical Section 21 

Canine Section 22 

School Safety Section 23 

Crime Prevention Division 23 

Criminal Investigation Division 24 

Detective Section 24 
Juvenile Section • 26 

Administrative Services Bureau 

Personnel, Property & Fiscal Division 30 

Education & Training Division 30 

1974 Training Summary 33 

Technical Services Bureau 

Supply & Maintenance Division 39 

Records & Identification Division 41 

Communications Division 45 



1180 



statistical Data 

Selected Item Comparison 
Concentrated Crime Reduction Program - Part I ^^ 

Crime Index Comparison 50 

Annual Summary of Actual Offenses - Part I 51 



Criminal Offenses - Part I Classes - 
Arrests by Age Groups 



Residence of Arrested Persons 

Property Taken/Recovered in Part I Offenses 

Annual Summary of Actual Offenses - Part II 

Criminal Offenses - Part II Classes - 
Arrests by Age Groups 



1973-1974 Comparison of Total Calls and Preventive 
Patrol Availability 



48 



52 



Arrests by Age Group - Part I Classes Graph ^3 



54 
55 
56 
57 



58 
59 



Arrests by Age Group - Part II Classes Graph 

Motor Vehicle Accident Totals - Five Year Summary 

Summary of Fatal Accidents -' r 60 

Major Cause of Fatal Accidents 61 

Traffic Violation Arrest by Age Group ^2 

Alcohol/Drug Arrests by Age Group 6 3 

Demographic Data and Miscellaneous Activities Chart 64 



65 



Graphical Comparisons 1965 - 


- 1974 


68-70 


Awards 




72-78 



1181 



i= 




-ax 

(/) t>) Q 

vi a, < 

< => 




>.S£ 

■J Ul u 
a. H ►■ 
a. z ; 



£2 



O U 
o u 

h 



3 Cl. IH 

C Z Ci 



£ « 



en 
















u 




< 
u 




u 
z 


s 






z 


u 






3 = 


>3 
li 

t- CO 

z 






z ^ o 
c > w 

ot a > 

w u •- 
o. a. o 

g 

0. 




2 > 

u 

g 






E 


























<: 








































Wl 






E 












< 






b. 






is 


o 




> 
























-1 


Q 
















u 



















z 
o 

C VJ O 

sic 

Ch u l; 














< 
U 

z 

o 

s 






















>• 

§ a 
s ° 

w o 





-< t- o 

z < >-« 

MUM 

o cj a 



en a 
E a 

w O 



o 

E- 

z 

s 


■ 


O 

u cn 

Z "H 

•-> 




PATROL DIVISION 






























- 


o w 
o o 




1 




§ 

u 

5 




O to 

1 




z 
o 

en 

u 

z 

1 




1182 



Office of the Superintendent 
Department of Police 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND 

60 COURTHOUSE SQUARE, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850 • 301 279-1536 



May 9, 197 5 



Mr. James P. Gleason 

County Executive 

County Office Building 

Rockville, Maryland 20850 J 

Dear Mr. Gleason: 

The Annual Report of the Montgomery County Department 
of Police for calendar year 1974, is submitted herewith. 

Despite the increase in workload, the changing structure 
of law enforcement procedures, the consideration of 
public interest and the impact of judicial decisions, a 
year of successful and progressive effort was attained. 

In order to provide the citizens of Montgomery County 
greater service and protection, several new programs 
and procedures were initiated during 1974. Implementa- 
tion of the "911" Assistance Service System in November, 
and the Telephone Reporting Unit (T.R.U.) formed in 
June, were both highly successful and indicative of our 
efforts. 

I express :.;y sincere appreciation to you and tne County 
Council for the cooperation, support, and assistance 
received during the year. Each and every member of the 
Department of Police will continually strive to provide 
the citizens of Montgomery County with efficient, 
courteous, and protective policing. 




k\ W. Watkir 
Superintendent of Police 



1183 

INTRODUCTION 

The police role in today's society is one of 
constant change and increasing workload. The profile 
of 1974 is no exception to the above hypothesis, as 
departmental workload increased by more than 16 percent 
and innovative police administration concepts were 
introduced . 

A guide to 1974 has been formulated to provide a 
capsulated narrative and figurative summation of criminal 
and traffic activities. This annual data presents 
comparatively criminal and traffic information for the 
calendar years 1974 versus 1973. The presentation is 
intended as an introduction, further amplification of 
program developments, and specific crime activities are 
enumerated within the organizational descriptions and 
statistical sections, respectively. 



1184 



ANNUAL DATA: 1974 VS. 1973 

Crime - Part I Offenses 

Murder (16:23) 

Manslaughter (16:22) 

Rape (57:76) 

each showed significant decreases over 197 3 at year's end, 
Larceny • 13-5% (15,407:13,571) 

Aggravated Assault, and 12.2% (330:294) 

Robbery 8.7% (538:495) 

showed significant increases , and 
Burglary 31.3% (5,441:4,144) 

showed the greatest percentage increase . 

As opposed to slight increases in events in 1974 vs. 1973 in: 
Robbery, and 8.7% (539:495) 

Auto Theft 3.7% (2,245:2,165) 

Arrests were down significantly: 

Robbery - 17.7% (177:215) 

Auto Theft - 25.1% (338:451) 

Total Part I events were up 15.7% (24,050:20,790) 
and arrests were up 12.0% (4,715:4,211) 

While the number of Part I cases closed is up, the closure rate 
is down compared to 1973 (22.6% vs. 24.1%). / 



1185 



Crime - I'arL 11 Of Censes 

The ijrCiiLcsL increases were seen in: 

Hmbozzlomcnt 95.3% (84:43) 

Vandalism 45.3% (6346:4369) 

Weapons 26.1% (208:165) 

Family Offense 38.8% (272:196) 

Liquor Laws, and 103.2% (256:126) 

Disorderly Conduct 27.7% (12,552:9,826). 

Lesser, but still significant, increases were seen in: 

Minor Assaults 13.7% (1269:1116) 

Arson 16.5% (290:249) 

Contributing, and 52.9% (26:17) 

Vagrancy 42.9% (10:7) . 

Slight decreases were noted in: 

Prostitution/Vice - 60.0% (2:5) 

Narcotic Drug Laws - 8.2% (570:621) 

Juvenile Offenses, and - 9.2% (1896:2087) 

All other Part II - 8.5% (7743:8461). 

Total Part II Arrests were considerably higher in 1974 vs. 197 3, 

up 30.0% (6443:4958) ' 

Total Part II events were up 14.3% (33,612:29,404) 

Total Crime is up 14.9% (57,662:50,194) 

Total Events - up 9.1% (186,059:170,543) 

Traffic 

Motor Vehicle Accidents. were 

down slightly in 1974 - 1.9% (19,301:19,665) 

but Total Traffic Arrests were up 11.2% (118,679:106,739) 

4 



1186 



District Comparisons 



Crime 



1974 



+ Count + Percentage 
,973 - Change - Change 



Rockville 
Be the sd a 
Silver Spring 
Wheaton 



16,144 
12,114 
12,689 
16,715 



13,147 
10,047 
11,053 
15,423 



2,997 
2,067 
1,636 
1,292 



22.8% 

20.6% 

14.8% 

8.4% 



Total crime volume is approximately 1/3 greater in Rockville and Wheaton 
than in Bethesda and Silver Spring. Rockville and Bethesda showed con- 
siderable increases over 197 3; Silver Spring showed a moderate increase; 
and Wheaton showed the smallest (and yet still significant) increase. 



Traffic Accidents 

Rockville 

Bethesda 

Silver Spring 

Wheaton 



1974 



1973 



+ Count + Percentage 
- Change - Change 



4,769 
5,219 
4,449 
4,864 



4,724 
5,405 
4,730 
4,806 



45 

186 

281 

58 



1.0% 
3.4% 
5.9% 
1.2% 



Little change occurred in traffic accidents; insignificant increases were 
seen in Rockville and Wheaton; and minor decreases were seen in Bethesda 
and Silver Spring. 



Total Events 
and Incidents 



Rockville 
Bethesda 
Silver ■ Spring 
Wheaton 



1974 



101,541 
83,777 
83,080 
97,349 



+ Count + Percentage 
1973 - Change - Change 



90,826 
75,972 
82,196 
90,787 



10,715 

7,805 

884 

6,562 



11.8% 

10.3% 

1.1% 

7.2% 



TOTAL 



365,747 



339,781 



25,966 



7.6% 



Significant increases in total events and incidents were seen in all 
districts except Silver Spring. 



1187 



Unit Hours Expended 
(Events and Incidents) 



1974 



+ Count + Percentage 
1973 - Change - Change 



Rockville 
Bethesda 
Silver Spring 
Wheaton 



62,006 


50,423 


11,583 


23.0% 


54,655 


46,958 


7,697 


16.4% 


53,004 


48,356 


4,648 


9.6% 


63,396 


53,886 


9,510 


17.6% 


233,061 


199,623 


33,438 


16.8% 



TOTAL 



All districts experienced substantial increases in total workload as 
measured by unit hours out of service on events and incidents except 
Silver Spring which showed only a moderate increase. The overall county- 
wide increase was 16.8% over 1973, 



Personnel Assigned 



974 


1973 


+ Count 
- Change 


+ Percentage 
- Change 


133 


129 


4 


3% 


105 


107 


2 


2% 


113 


110 


3 


3% 


120 


109 


11 


10% 



Rockville 
Bethesda 
Silver Spring 
Wheaton 



TOTAL 



471 



455 



16 



3.5% 



The overall increase in unit hours expended (16.8%) was not matched by an 
equivalent increase in personnel assigned (3.5%). This would indicate a 
decrease in preventive patrol. The distribution of personnel to districts, 
however, seems to be reasonable. 



1188 
OFFICE of the SUPERINTENDENT 

RESEARCH & PLANNING DIVISION 

INSPECTION & INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION 

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DIVISION 

MEDIA SERVICES SECTION 

VICE & INTELLIGENCE DIVISION 

POLICE LEGAL ADVISOR 



1189 



RESEARCH AND PLANNING DIVISION 



The development of programs and the identification of depart- 
mental needs are the prirr.ary responsibilities of the Research and 
Planning Division. In 1974, the division was reorganized to function 
under the direct supervision of the Office of the Superintendent 
within which it serves as a direct staff to the Superintendent of 
Police and a coordination office for overall departmental planning 
efforts. 

The division sought to foster departmental change through the 
inception of federally funded grant-in-aid programs, as well as 
internally oriented management innovations. Constant attention to 
manpower allocation and department workload is an integral aspect of 
the planning function. 

The following are projects and programs planned or implemented 
during 1974: Edition and submission of the 1973 Annual Report; 
research of innovative police related equipment; research and writing 
of proposed department directives; creation of a sex assault booklet 
dealing with the trauma experienced by a rape victim; and the planning 
phases of a departmental management study and a career development 
implementation program. 

The preparation and development of federal grants are also duties 
of the Research and Planning Division. The program design and imple- 
mentation are overall duties of this division. The following are 
grant programs developed and submitted during calendar year 1974 by 
the Research and Planning Division: 

1. Tactical Section - 3 year refunding 

2. Concentrated Crime Reduction Program - 1st year funding 



8 



1190 



3. Organized Crime Grant - initial grant submission 

4 . Speed Computer Grant - funding for VASCAR equipment 

5. Traffic Enforcement Unit Program - Grant submission for 

selective enforcement at high accident intersections. 

6. Police Legal Advisor - 2nd year funding for an in-house 

legal advisor 

7. Police-Student Relations - in concert with the Montgomery 

County Board of Education. 

More than $850,000 in federal and state funds have been realized 
by the department through the application for grant-in-aid funds. It 
is through the use of these monies that the Department of Police has 
been able to retain a posture of progressive law enforcement in an 
era of increasing crime and reduced budgetary spending. ._ ,, , 

SYSTEMS AND DATA SECTION - ■, _ -■: . <,.■:.- 

The Systems and Data Section is responsible for managing the 
development, maintenance, operation, and coordination of automated 
law enforcement and criminal justice systems for the Department of 
Police, and provides advisory services to top level administrators 
on matters concerning records management, reporting requirements, 
communications systems, resource allocation, and budgeting. In 
addition, the section performs statistical analysis associated with 
planning efforts. Federal Grant Programs, resource allocation, the 
Capital Improvements Budget, the Operating Budget, the department's 
monthly and annual reports, the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, 



1191 



and to satisfy a variety of information requests from other local, 
state and Federal agencies. 

During 1974, the first phase of the Police Crime Analysis System 
was completed and implemented. The objectives during this phase were 
to convert the basic monthly and annual statistical reporting require- 
ments to an automated basis, and to collect basic crime data that 
would be used later for expanding our crime analysis capability. In 
addition, the system that produces statistical data on stolen property 
had to be modified to conform to changes in the Uniform Crime Reporting 
System. Also during the year, work began on replacing the current Beat 
Evaluation System with an improved version that would account for 
changes in operation that had occurred over the past several years. 
The new system will increase analytical capability and reduce costs. 

The major coordinating efforts during 1974 involved the Maryland 
Automated Accident Reporting System, the Montgomery County Criminal 
Justice Information System, and the Montgomery County Geographic 
Information System. The other systems and committees requiring on- 
going coordination include the Maryland Inter-Agency Law Enforcement 
System, the National Crime Information Center, the Washington Area 
Law Enforcement System, and the Montgomery County Committee for the 
Utilization of microfilming. 



10 



1192 



INSPECTION AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS 



The Inspection and Internal Affairs Division is responsible for 
conducting intra-departmental inspections and investigations of 
alleged member violations of department policies and regulations. 

In 1974, the Internal Affairs Section conducted forty-one (41) 
investigations involving fifty-five (55) individual officers. 
Citizen complaints resulted in the investigations of twenty-eight 
(28) cases, while the remaining thirteen (13) inquiries were 
initiated from within the department. These investigations concluded 
with the resignation of four (4) officers; the firing of four (4) 
officers and an official reprimand of one (1) officer. Sixty-five 
percent (65%) of the accusations against officers were unfounded. 
Three (3) investigations involving five (5) officers remain currently 
outstanding as presentations before the Hearing Investigating 
Committee have not yet been made. 

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DIVISION 

It is the responsibility of each department member to foster 
and encourage the development of an environment of genuine concern 
and trust between the citizens of the county and the Department of 
Police. 

The Community Affairs Division has been delegated as the unit 
with the primary responsibility for maintaining rapport, and insuring 
its continued growth. The Division accomplishes this responsibility 
through demonstrating its support of the department in its desire to 
increase the quality of police services. Their purview extends from 



11 



1193 



the strengthening of established community contacts to providing 
relevant information to the public regarding the scope of police 
services and the role of law enforcement. All efforts are an attempt 
to develop close police-citizen relationships, in the hopes of 
increasing cooperation between the two. 

The following programs were among those which were operational 
in 1974: 

Ride-Along Program 

The objective of this program is to provide county residents 
with an opportunity to observe firsthand the basic operations of 
the Department of Police, as well as to provide a forum for con- 
structive exchange between police officer and citizen. In 1974, 
more than 1,000 persons, 16 years of age and over, participated 
in this program and rode with patrol division officers for up to 
six hours per night, Monday through Saturday. Comments received 
from officers and citizens alike, have been overwhelmingly 
favorable concerning this commitment to police and community 
understanding . 

Latin Community 

Programs were devised to overcome the problems presented 
to the department due to language and cultural differences 
within the Latin community. The Code-A-Phone Message Program , 
in its second operational year, involves a series of messages 
which are taped in Spanish and deal with solutions to specific 
problems involving the police and the citizen. Additional time 
is available at the end of the taped message for a caller to 



12 



52-587 O - 75 - pt.2 



1194 

leave his name, address, and request assistance if he so 
desires. Calls of this nature are handled immediately. 

Public Meetings and Presentations " ' '' ' 

The exchange of constructive communication between the 
public and the police is the major responsibility of the 
Community Affairs Division. Division personnel conducted meetings 
on a variety of police and law enforcement topics with school 
groups and community and civic organizations. A total of 
ninety-one (91) speeches were given. 



13 



1195 



MEDIA SERVICES SECTION 



The Media Services Section, contained within the Office of the 
Superintendent, has been fully operational for one year. The Media 
Services Section, as a buffer between the Department of Police and 
the public news media, serves as a focal point for the dissemination 
of newsworthy information. The personnel of the Media Services staff 
are responsive to public media inquiries concerning on-going 
activity (s) and background information. . .v- ^ • . 

Several personnel and operational changes have taken place, within 
the Media Services Section, during the past year. In mid-March, the 
Superintendent of Police appointed a civilian to act as the Director 
of the Media Services Section and the Department's Radio/Television 
Unit. 

New and innovative services provided by the Media Section include 
the following: 

Round-the-clock On Call System 

a. The provision of an on-call schedule makes a representative 
of the Media Services Section available twenty-four (24) 
hours a day, seven (7) days a week. 
Mandatory Notification List 

a. Implemented, in conjunction with the on-call system, was a 
list of incidents requiring mandatory notification of the 
Media Services Section. The incidents contained on the list 
are those activities where media inquiry or response can be 
expected . 
The Media Services Section, in attaining its stated objective, 
as the focal point for the dissemination of information concerning 



14 



1196 



departmental activity provided the following: Daily News Summary 
(brief resume of occurrences for the preceding twenty-four (24) 
hour period) ; formal news releases to the public media; "Hotline" 
reports to the local news media; production and distribution of 
internal closed circuit television tapes covering departmental 
activities, training information, and headquarters reports; and, 
the utilization of a portable battery-powered video tape unit as a 
criminal investigation tool and for taping major events at-the-scene. 



15 



1197 



VICE & INTELLIGENCE DIVISION 



The Vice and Intelligence Division is deployed into three 
sections: Intelligence Section, Vice Section, and the Narcotics 
Section. 

In the broad perspective, the division's responsibilities are 
as follows: 

Coordination of intelligence information within the department 

and other law enforcement agencies. 

Investigate major narcotic, gambling and vice operations 

within the county. 

Insure that the Superintendent of Police is apprised of 

organized criminal activity and dissident movement which may 

lead to civil disturbances. 

The Vice Section initiated ninety-eight (98) local investigations 
in the areas of gambling, prostitution and liquor law violations. 
Additionally, this section has the responsibility for operation and 
maintenance of electronic surveillance equipment for all sections of 
the division. 

The Narcotic Section investigated a total of five hundred and 
thirty-three (533) events and closed three hundred and eight cases 
(308). During 1974, more than $200,000 (street value) in controlled 
dangerous substances were seized as opposed to $96,867 in value in 
1973. 

The Intelligence Section commenced formal information gathering 
in the area of organized crime within Montgomery County. In the 
latter months of 1974, a discretionary grant was requested from the 



16 



1198 



Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to identify the scope of 
organized crime within the county. Currently, personnel training 
and the procurement of equipment are being initiated to establish 
a foundation prior to the commencement of the grant period. 

POLICE LEGAL ADVISOR 



The Office of Police Legal Advisor is currently in the second 
year of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) funding. 
The grant provides salary and training expenses for a legal advisor 
(attorney and member of the Maryland Bar) to advise the Superintendent 
of Police relative to operational and administrative matters of the 
Department . 

The following duties encompass the broad parameters of the police 
legal advisor: - , . 

Provide legal counsel to the Superintendent of Police. 
Organize and plan comprehensive legal programs. 
Establish and maintain a cooperative relationship with the 
State's Attorney's Office for the purpose of exchanging infor- 
mation and seeking opinions in matters of mutual interest. 
Counsel department administrators on the legal propriety of 
new and established investigative techniques and processes to 
ensure that proper evidence is developed in criminal cases 
and that legal rulings are understood and adhered to regarding 
police procedures. '■ ■ ' -■ -> - - -• 
Update training materials pursuant to revised or newly insti- 
tuted legal concepts. 



17 



1199 



Instruct classes at the recruit and in-service training 
levels by providing legal guidance relative to police service. 
Through consort with police administrators identify those 
areas which may require legislative enactments. 
Review proposed departmental procedures for legal sufficiency. 



la 



1200 
OPERATIONS BUREAU 

PATROL DIVISION 

CRIME PREVENTION DIVISION 

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 



1201 



Patrol Division 



Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, the Department of 
Police provides constant patrol throughout every community within 
Montgomery County. The officers comprising the Patrol Division are 
uniformed, and operate marked police vehicles. They have an immediate 
response capability to all incidences of crime and related calls for 
service, and represent the nucleus of a crime fighting operation. 

This function is facilitated geographically by four patrol 
districts, each of which is sub-divided into a number of beats that 
are structured in such a way as to insure an equal distribution of 
the workload and at the same time to maximize the preventive patrol 
capability. 

It is vitally important that the Patrol Division remain flexible 
in its operational philosophy in order to insure an adequate response 
to a rapidly changing environment as well as the increasing complexity 
and incidence of crime. Therefore, it is essential that deployment 
methodologies and other patrol concepts be responsive to the dynamics 
of today's society, which significantly impact upon the Department 
of Police . . 

Traffic Section 

The Traffic Section has the primary responsibility for identifying 
and impacting upon high accident intersections or roadways throughout 
the county. Additionally, this section provides motorcycle patrol to 
effect selective enforcement and to perform traffic control at public 
events or ceremonies. 

In 1974, forty-four (44) officers were assigned to the four patrol 
districts and the headquarters staff. The commander of the Traffic 
Section operating from the headquarters location is responsible for the 

20 



1202 



three elements of the traffic function: 

Identification of potentially hazardous streets and high- 
ways, driving conditions, and unsafe motor vehicles. 
. Collection and analysis of statistical data regarding those 
dangerous situations. 

Deployment of selective patrol and enforcement to areas with 
a particular traffic problem. 
In an effort to reduce Montgomery County accidents, the Maryland 
Department of Transportation awarded a $62,000 grant for the selective 
enforcement of high accident intersections. The provisions of the 
grant provide for a team of motorcycle officers to impact upon thirty- 
eight previously identified high accident intersections throughout 
Montgomery County. It is anticipated that compiled data and enforce- 
ment methodology will serve as a model for further traffic related 
problems. 

Tactical Section 

The Tactical Section has recently completed its final year of 
federal funding under a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance 
Administration. The orientation of this section has primarily been 
aimed at the crime of robbery, and a variety of specialized training 
and sophisticated equipment have been utilized in their effort. For 
example, section personnel have been utilizing the Armed Robbery Mobile 
Alarm System, which is designed to enhance their response capability 
through an assortment of monitoring devices. 

During 1974, Tactical Section personnel were responsible for 79 
felony and 116 misdemeanor arrests. Additionally, this section 
accounted for the recovery of property valued at $49,277. . .. 



21 



1203 



Canine Section 

The Canine Section, within the Patrol Division, consists of eight 
specially trained man-dog teeims. The basic responsibilities of the 
Canine Section are: 

1. The prevention and detection of crime. 

2. Assisting in the apprehension of criminal suspects. 

3. Locating lost persons. 

4. Locating articles of evidence or lost property. 

The Canine teams have been trained to track fleeing criminals, 
lost persons, and to search buildings for suspects. They are also 
used to locate articles of evidence. Rigorous and continuous training 
on a regular basis insures that all canine units are maintained at the 
highest level of proficiency. 

In 1974, the Canine Section responded to 2,488 calls and made 147 
apprehensions. Additionally, six-hundred (600) seeks, four hundred 
and eight (408) tracks, and eight-four (84) article searches were 
conducted. 

Apprehensions According to Crime 

- -,, . .- 1973 1974 

Murders 1 

Robberies 9 12 

Burglaries 7 2 57 ; , - 

Larcenies 12 18 

Stolen Autos 7 6 . 

Narcotic Violations 4 5 

Other 43 48 

Total 147 147 

22 



1204 



School Safety Section 

The county, and in particular the police, are duty bound to insure 
the safety cind protection of its youth. Providing safe crossing points, 
both to and from school, is the primary responsibility of this section. 
Since 1950, the School Safety Section has, without loss of life to 
child or crossing guard, controlled school crossing locations in all 
areas of Montgomery County. Today the spirit of cooperation between 
school administrators, both private and public, and the police has 
created a willingness to complete such an important task. 

The School Safety Section has a complement of nine sworn command 
personnel. School Safety Coordinators are located two per district, 
while the lieutenant coordinates department-wide activity from the 
Headquarters location. The School Safety Coordinators supervise 242 
adult crossing guards and nearly 6,000 student school safety patrols 
throughout the county. 

Numerous activities are planned and supervised by the School 
Safety Coordinators in order to reward the student safety patrols. 
Among the many events rewarding these students for a job well done 
are: Safety Patrol Officers Training Camp; football, basketball and 
baseball games; and the annual picnic which highlights the year's 
endeavors. 

Crime Prevention Division 

The Crime Prevention Division became fully operational on 
September 1, 1974, with the assignment of all personnel (15) authorized 
by the grant. 

The division, funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administra- 
tion (LEAA) is part of a nationwide crime specific progreim, whereby a 



23 



1205 



particular crime is selected via an extensive planning process. 
Demographic and geographic variables are considered, as well as 
the volume of the specific crime. Commercial and residential 
burglaries were selected as the target crime, primarily due to the fact 
that the volume of burglaries was increasing. 

The Crime Prevention Division's primary responsibility is the 
establishment of programs and methodologies which will effect 
reductions of burglaries in designated target areas. It has been an 
educational process for the department and the division itself to 
foster a new philosophy of crime prevention. However, the rising 
crime rates in our society dictate the need for innovative approaches 
to law enforcement. 



Criminal Investigation Division 



The Criminal Investigation Division's primary responsibilities 
are the investigation, identification and apprehension of persons 
suspected of criminal acts, and case preparation for prosecution. 

The division is divided into the Detective Section and Juvenile 
Section. 
The Detective Section 

The Detective Section, comprised of sixty-eight officers, provides 
a staff of criminal investigators who are responsible for follow-up 
investigations of criminal activities in specialized areas. The Crimes 
Against Persons Unit is divided into two squads, Homicide/Sex and 
Robbery; the General Assignment Unit consists of the Warrant/Fugitive 



24 



1206 



and Check/Fraud Squads, while the area of responsibility of the Crimes 
Against Property Unit is mainly burglary and larceny investigation. 

The centralization of investigative responsibility was instituted 
in 197 2 and has proven to be effective as indicated in the following 
tables . 



Cases Investigated: 

Crimes Against Persons Unit 



1974 



1973 



% + 



Opened Cases 
Closed Cases 
% Closed 



1852 


1774 


+ 4% 


1633 


1567 


+ 4% 


88 


88 






Crimes Against Property Unit 



1974 



1973 



% + 



Opened Cases 
Closed Cases 
% Closed 



5554 5387 + 3% 

2903 2938 - 2% 

52 54 - 2% 



General Assignment Unit 



1974 



1973 



% + 



Opened Cases 
Closed Cases 
% Closed 



1660 1737 - 5% 

1381 1642 -16% 

83 94 -11% 



The Warrant/Fugitive Squad also processed 12,557 criminal and traffi( 
warrants for Montgomery County and other jurisdictions in addition to the 
figures shown in the General Assignment Unit table. 

The Detective Section also recovered property valued at $964,499.96 
of a reported stolen amount of $4,387,824.96 for an approximate 23% 
recovery of stolen property. 



25 



1207 



The extremely high closure rate (88%) in cases investigated by the 
Crimes Against Persons Unit is mainly because of witness availability 
in those cases, whereas there are seldom witnesses in Crimes Against 
Property cases other than the victims to testify relative to affirming 
that the crimes occurred. 

Juvenile Section 

The Juvenile Section has the primary duty to investigate all 

criminal cases involving juveniles and those person (s) under 18 years 

of age in Montgomery County. The following further quantify the duties 

of this section: 

Investigate cases involving juveniles and recommend dispo- 
sitions (i.e. referral to Juvenile Court, retention of the 
case within the section, seek outside or interagency assistance. 
Coordinate with the Juvenile Court. 

Counsel the offender and the parent in order to detemine 
the proper needs of the juvenile and the department. 

During 1974, juvenile arrest increased by 16 percent, as evidenced 
by the 6,166 arrests effected in 1974, in comparison to 5,293 during 
1973. It is now apparent that juvenile related crime is rising, 
following a year of reduction in 1972; juvenile arrests have increased 
by 25% in 1973 and again in 1974. 

Narcotic offenses declined by 6 percent in 1974, while arrests 
increased from 276 in 1973 to 288 in calendar year 1974. Narcotics 
continue to be a juvenile related problem, however, the tendency to 
use alcohol as an escape is rapidly infiltrating the youth groups. 



26 



1208 



Increased licjuor law violations and loitering under the age of 18 has 
increased over the past year. 

Child abuse and child neglect cases increased from 151 in 1973 
to 202 in 1974. A revised reporting system, increased publicity 
regarding community dangers of child abuse or child neglect, and 
increased civic group participation have combined to substantially 
increase the Juvenile Section workload. 

The Juvenile Section is staffed by twenty-eight sworn police 
officers and three non-sworn persons . 



27 



1209 
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES BUREAU 



PERSONNEL, PROPERTY & FISCAL DIVISION 
EDUCATION & TRAINING DIVISION 



52-587 O - 75 - pt. 2 - 8 



1210 



Personnel, Property and Fiscal Division 



The Personnel, Property and Fiscal Division's primary responsi- 
bilities are: departmental fiscal control; overall inventory of 
department equipment; processing purchasing forms; and the overseeing 
of formal personnel actions in coordination with the County Personnel 
Department. 

The division functions in a staff support capacity advising the 
Superintendent of Police in areas of fiscal management and manpower 
availability. Hence, the division functions in the vital area of 
finance, critical in view of today's economic dilemma. 

During the past year, nine non-sworn employee's have accomplished 
the division's workload which revolved around the authorized complement 
of 782 sworn officers, 165 full time non-sworn positions, and 242 
crossing guards, an operating budget of $17,477,000 and federal and 
state grants totaling $495,000. 



Education and Training Division 



The professionalism of a police department is immediately 
discernable by observing its personnel, and in particular, the sworn 
officer. The responsibility for training this individual and instilling 
within him/her a sense of pride for the department and a sincere desire 
to perform the job at the highest proficiency level resides with the 
Education and Training Division. They are further responsible for the 
presentation and coordination of all training programs. 

The entire Recruit Training Program encompasses a one year period, 
1800 training hours, from date of appointment and has been approved by 
the Maryland State Board of Education. The first phase is the entrance 
level classroom segment; the second involves actual field training and 



30 



1211 



is conducted under the guidance of a Field Training Officer; the third 
is the Probationary Officer In-Service segment. This final segment is 
conducted at the Academy facility and is structured around evaluations 
and recommendations of the Field Training Officers in order to meet the 
specific training needs of the recruits. 

To successfully accomplish their designated responsibilities, the 
Division is divided into two operational sections whose functions are 
as follows : 

I . Entrance Level Section 

This section, headed by a sergeant, is responsible for orien- 
tation of police officer candidates, materials and equipment, 
and assignment to appropriate training classes. Additionally, 
this section is responsible for the administration and presen- 
tation of all entrance-level training. This section also 
formulates and presents the two-week probationary officer 
in-service training and insures that all required post training 
evaluations are filed and recorded. 
II . Professional Development Section 

This section, headed by a lieutenant, is responsible for 
further development and prof essionalization of department 
personnel by administering, conducting and coordinating all 
in-service training courses. 
A major development which occurred during 1974 was the presentation 
of the 1st Session In-Service (Refresher) Training for all sworn members 
of the Department. Participants represented all ranks. Private through 
Captain. 

In addition to basic instructional responsibilities, the Division 
provided the following during 1974 : 



31 



1212 



1. Conducted twenty-one (21) tours through the Police Academy. 
The tour groups consisted of persons from government, civic, 
education/training and student sectors of Montgomery 
County and the Washington, D.C. area. 
»2. Provided Academy staff instructors to lecture in training and 
education courses conducted outside the Academy (i.e. Maryland 
Police and Correctional Training Commission, University of 
Maryland). In this regard, Academy staff instructors were 
provided on twenty-seven (27) occasions. 

3. Coordinated training programs offered outside the Department 
for attendance by Department personnel. 

4. Processed 265 applications for police and related positions. 
The total training effort of the Division was greatly enhanced 

by the development of the new Academy complex and an expanded 
instructional staff. 



32 



1213 





0) 












in 




,^ 


0) 










c 




0) 












0) 




• 


c 










c 




u 












4J 




rH 


c 








E 


c 




10 












10 




0) 







1 







■P - 0) 




T> 












T) 




Q 


in 








U 


(1 in f-i 




■H 












H 






u 








UH 


u 




T3 












•0 :>i 




T) 


OJ 










E■'^ "O 




C 












t; 4J 




c 


a, 








in c 


10 >H 




IB 












ro H 




to 




u 






n 


1 u< 




U 






U) 






CJ 






0) 


0) 


in 




a; rl 


inU-< rH 






ID 


U) 


M 




in 




in 


•a 


in u 


p 


u 




u ry 


Hi: -a 


to 


M 


V^ 


^4 


OJ 




u 


u a: 


M 


in E 


U H 


K 


0) 




•H 0) 


c 


u 


01 


01 


0) 





^^ 


0) 


0) u 


0) 


M — 


OJ u, 


0) 







UH 05 


•p iH to 


u 


U 


tj 





H 


- 





u 10 





0) 


CJ 


(J 


rl 




UH 


to a) J 


Q 


-H 


t-i 


■H 


>« 


JJ 


■H 


■H a, 


■H 


U in 


rl . 




UH 




• 


D^e - 


?. 


IM 


>« 


>M 


•M 


CJ^ 


»*-l 


<n 1-1 


U-l 


■H l-l 


UH 


rji 


l+H 




CJ 


•H 3 • 


w 


IM 


lu 


>4-l 


CO 


>*-( 


IM (0 QJ 


ij-i 


I4H 0) 


>H CJ 


c 







(U • 


-P U) > 


H 


















E 





Mh CJ 





H in 






CJ Q 


in c: )H 


H 








a. 


1 




H 




rl 


• 


D, U 


ft. 




•H 


0) 0) 


< 


0. 


CU 


O. 


CJ 




0. 


a. .v; iM 


a. 


UH 


O4 4-> 


a 


CJ 




rH - 


>o w 




U 


u 


u 


T. 


• 


u 


u 


O. HH 


C 


-P 


E 




• 


c 




5: 


s 


s 




■u 


E 


E H 


E 





s 


X rl 






a. x: 


M ■■ • 










n 


> 








E 


E 


t/l c 


in 




in 


• tJ 




r^ 





n 


TT 


a. 


CM 


CM .-1 


(M 


•-{ 


a\ 





t>j 




00 to 


r- 




^ 


•^ 


(N 


in 


' 


i-H 


T 


rH 


(N rH 


IM VO 


•^ E 


>-i 




n s 


CN CJ to 




0) 


0) 


0) 




0) 


0) 


1 

0) 


0) 






(U 


0) 






0) 







u 
















u 









u 











■H 


-H 


-H 




■H 


-r-t 


•H 


-rH 






•H 


■H 






■rl 




.—1 


rH 


r-( 




^ 


f-< 


»— I 


rH 






rH 


rH 






rH >, 









































O^P 




a. 


0. 


a, 




04 


0, 


o. 


Oa 




0) 


&, 


ft. 






ft. c 

3 


X 


>i 


>l 


>i 




>i 


>1 


>y 


>, 


l*-l 


-H 


>1 


>, 






>iO 1) 


CQ 


+j 


4J 


jj 




■p 


4J 


•U 


■p 





fc. 0) 


p 


■P 




01 


-P u 




c 


c 


c 




c 


c: 


C 


d 







c 


c 




U 


C rl 


Q 


a 


o 


3 




3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


0) -rl 


3 


3 




C 


3 ~UH 


W 


"-1 


»*-» 


"^-i 




'n 


"*H 


■« 


MH 


to c 


-P MH 


"*H 


"<H 




QJ 


OUh UH 


E- 


>*-i 


U ><-) 


CJ i" 




CJ 1-1 


CJ t-l 


U •*-! 


>« 


0) 


to Uh 


IH 


MH 




CP 


CJUH 


2 


ra 


nj 


lO 




(0 


10 


(0 


10 


>H H 


•P 


to 


to 




•rl 


m 


U 


>.4J 


>|4J 


>i4J 




>i-lJ 


>,4J 


>1-p 


>l-p 


3 -P 


CO 


>. -p 


>i-P 




.-{ 


>i-p in 


C/2 


Vi to 


Ij CO 


M CO 




1-1 CO 


>-l CO 


U O) 


u tn 


pq 10 


in 


iH CO 


u to 




rH 


Ht/i - 


a 


01 


0) 


0) 




OJ 


0) 


OJ 


a) 


CP 


-a- 


0) 


01 




0) C 


0) > 


E >^ 


e >: 


£ >i 




E >i 


E >■ 


E >, 


E > 


f-^ •f-\ 


C rH 


E >i 


E >i 




•P 


E >i OJ 


a 


E 


E 


e 




e 


E 


E 


E 


(0 -P 


to to 


E 


E 




cn 


E c 




cn 0) 


cr 0) 


CP 0) 




Di 0) 


CP 0) 


CP 0) 


CP 0) 


u m 


rH x; 


CP 0; 


CT' 0) 




M in 


CPO) )H 




JJ TJ 


ij -a 


J-> TJ 




JJ -O 


-U TD 


J-> T3 


-P TD 


0) 0) 


>, in 


•p t3 


4J 13 




•rl 


•PT3 




C fl 


C n) 


C ro 




C <0 


C (0 


C (0 


c to 


-a > 


u u 


C to 


C to 




a. > 


C 10 •P 







u 


U 













u 


0) c 


to to 





U 




U •H 


•P 




E < 


E < 


s < 




E < 


E < 


s < 


E < 


Ua m 


E S 


E < 


s < 




S Q 


E< < 








1 




1 








1 

CT\ 




1 


ro 

rH t-M 


CM 




CT> 




1 


o> 




1 




in 


1 


1 


(N 




r- 


1 1 


1 




,-^ 




in 


1 


1—4 




m (T. 


1 





in 





^ 


.-t ^ 


.-i 00 


in 





1 


Vi 


<— t t-t 


00 


CM r^. 


^ r- 


CM 


f— I 


CD rn 


fH 


rH ^ 






•-i l-\ 


CM 


(N 


CD 


w 




1 






4-> 








•rl 


(U 


0) 0) 










E- 


c ja 


c 


C J3 


U C 


a > 


M 


M CP 


V4 


U >i 


c 


c c 


c c 


c 


c 


rH 


< 


10 0) 


n) 


(d oj 


10 3 


0) 


a 


Q* 3 


a 


a to 


3 


3 3 


3 3 


3 


3 


3 


Q 


h) f^ 


"D 


'^ fc 


S >^ 


CO 2 


< 


< <C 


< 


< E 


■^ 


'^ 1-1 


1^ 'o 


1-) 


r) 


>-i 










in 


















in jj 






Z 


C .-H Ul 


to 




m 


1 in 




in 












c 






o 


Ul -H C M 


M 


en 




1 in u 


in 


in >-i 


in 


in 




tn 


in 


-P 




in 


M 


J^ C 3 


3 


u] s-i 


- U 


1 a; 3 


Vj 


y. 3 


>H 


in M 




u 


IH 


•rl 


in 


in iH 


H 


CI -H 


in 


y. 3 


>< 0) 


1 Q) 


in 3 


0) 


in 3 


^ 3 


• 


tn 3 


in 3 


in tn 


M 


>; 3 


g 


Q) ITJ Ul £ 


>ix: 


oj 


0) a 0) 1 0) x:| 


>i 


OJ X 


>i 


0) 


>i in 


>. 


>, 


in u 


>, 3 


OJ 


3 e j^ 


10 


0) x: 


0) 


in 1 3 


10 x; 


S 


to x: 


0) x: 


to u 


to x: 


10 X 


0) x; 


to 


ojx: 


D 


0) 0) 00 


TJ 'a- 


3 


3 tn 


(0 1 


■c 


•<T 


-a 


3 


T3X: 


T) 


-a 


CO 


T3 x; 


3 


Q 


^ OS 01 ro 


-—( 





V4 


n 1 1X1 rH 


m 


.-• in 


in 







•=r 


•-{ 


n 









rsi ^^ 3 rs) 


(M -^ 


(N r^ 


-H x; 


a. 1 <N <T\ 


in (-) 


<N 1^ 


in rn 


IN I^ 


rH ^ 


1^ CN 


m CM 


m vo 


rH \D 


CM T 




4J 




>. 








4-> 








^1 






1 






E C 


u 


U 


^-^ 






E C 















•H 






HI Q) 


0) 


10 


i-i 




CP 


rO 0) 


CP 






■P 






rH 






^H E 





c 


0) M 


i 


c 


Q^ 1-1 E 


C — 






■H 


4-1 




rH 






Cn D^ 


H 





x: 




•H — , 


01 CP 


■H M 




a 


C 














COO) 


U-l 


■H 0) 


"1 c 




C M 


COO) 


C M 


TJ ^ 


to 





in -H 




•P 






10 v< w 


(4-4 


■l-i 


(U 




•H 


lO >-l CO 


■r^ 


0) 


u 


S 


c cc 




c 


u 




U 0. 


E 


(0 ■'H 


U -H 




m c 


U Cu 


to c 





Eh 




— 




M Q) 


to 




■P r-i 


(0 


ja > 


iM in 




u 


+J i-H 


Vj 


c x: 




U 


■H 




•P 


c 




C CP 0) 


tT' M 


u 


0) in 




Eh -H 


C CP 0) 


Eh -H 


to 


>1 


0) 


-P CP 




C rH C 


•rl 


S 


u c > 


C tJi 


u <a 


OS (u 




in 


W C > 


in 


> CO 


Xi 


4J 


to c 




OJ to 0) 


E 


^ 


•H CJ 


H 


a. CO 


~-' CO 




•h en 


•H 01 


Sh in 


T! 





c 


M -H 




E C M 


•flj 


O4 


C C J 


c vi 


\ 1 






0) 0) 


C C J 


0) 0) 


< -P 





0) 


0) c 




0) 


CO 





-H 


H a. 


rn C 


0) 1 




+J CO 


-H 


4J CO 


c: 


CQ 


u 


a-H 




-H UH 







•H (0 OJ 


rO 


r- M 







— 


■H (fl 0) 


— 


73 -H 






to 




M .P C 


3 


K 


U) >-l 


^1 CP 


1 CP 


-H tji 







in M u 





C iH 


TD 


CP 


M ^ 


■^ 


000 


to 


0. 


Ul Eh C 


tH c 


^ M C 


> c 




c; E 


tn Eh c 


E 


10 a< 


c u 


C E 


rH Eh r- 


■4 


UH •H CJ 


-J 




0) fl 


■H 


OJ -H 


H-H 




to to 


0) to 


in to 


>H 


to to 


■rl to 


10 c 


3 


c -a 






W -H U 


T3 C 


in c 


0) c 




M IJ 


CO i-H V( 


u u 


0) 


c 


a u 


•H 0) I 


-4 


u in 01 


rH 




(1) JJ 


rH -H 


in -H -H 


CO H 




CP 


0) -u 


CP 


•H CP 


f^ 


Oi CP 


00 + 


J 


•H 


•rl 




+J > c 


(U 10 


m M-i (0 


1 (0 




■P 


■d > c 


■P 


in c 





0) >H C 


^ 


3 u.c 


> 




tn 0) w 


H H 


^ MJ M 


c u 




u 


c 0) w 


u 


to -H 


0) 


X u 


a. c 


3 


to 3 0) 


•H 




■H J ^ 


&< E-i 


U E-i 


H E- 




E 0^ 


CM J -- 


E 0- 


CO b 


CQ C/3 


CO a< 


CO 6h C 


J 


J I-) CP 


CJ 



33 



1214 











» 
















4) 


, 










^ 






■ 
















o - 


IH 










ID 






■a 










18 Ul 






•H C 


3 










c 




a s 










41 U 






^ 


ffi 






















(U 






U 41 






4-> 












-H 




V4 


* 




E 






< U 






0. 01 


• 










4-1 


0^ 


>4-l 


(8 


rH 


■H ~ 






•rl 






c -o 










y 


c 




•H 





M c 






• UH 






m •H 


41 






u 




0) 


■H 


Ul 







U 






CJ UH 






<N x: 


Ct. 










i-i 


73 


u 


"e 


J3 


^-•H 






• o 







Ul 








01 




l4 


-K 


(U 


3 


O 


0> 






Q 




•H 


» 18 T3 


C 




4J 


w 





■H 


Ul O rH 


cn Ul 


Ul -H 




Ul 


01 


Ul 


Tl 


Ul S 


C 


o 


01 


18 


u 


u 


3 


H H 





T3 


U > 




)H 


- O 


l4 


10 


U 


18 


•H 


u 


•P 


u 




m 


CJ U-l 


u • 


• M 


V -H 




41 


C •H 


4) 


o: 


41 E 




4J 


41 


(n 


Q 


• 




O <W 


18 


18 


O Q 




O 


o ^ 


o 




O 


C 


(8 


O 




z 





■ 


■H O 


>M > 


O 3 


•H 




■rH 


4J 


•H 


C Ul 


•r4 V4 





D*r| 


. 


H 


o 





U-l 


o 


O 


>« c 




UH 


CPQ. 


UH 


10 ^1 


UH UH 


■H 


•H 


UH 





tH 




o 


U-J (!) 


•D 


• 


UH 




UH 


c 


Uh 


•H 41 


UH 


tT>4-> 


UH 


CJ Ul 


•en 


• Ul 




o o 


■P c 


4-> CT 


OH 




o 


■H l-i 


o 


rH JS 


O 01 


41 


Ul 


o 


> 


< 


jJ l-i 


• 


-H 


O (8 


C C 


4-) 






£ 18 




•H 


u 


X 


41 




• 4) 




C 0) 


*J Ul 


0. r-\ 


•rl 


H 


0. c 




ft. 


Ul C 


ft. 


> 4J 


0. 41 




> 


ft. 


4-1 C 







C T3 


U O 


M - 


E Ul 


U 0) 




u 


10 


o 


■n 18 


CJ O 


, 


C 


CJ 


C V4 




Z-H 


v^ 


E a- 


4-> • 


Ul 


s > 




E 


3 •H 


E 


u a 


E-H 


u 


M 


E 







M-l 


E (0 




Ul rH 


CO 


m 






CP 




Ul 


Uh 








E 4-1 




ON <« 


3 


o m 


•rl d) 


CM U 


n M 




ro 


rH 4) 


in 


VO rl 


•«r UH 


■ 


UH 


o 


4J 




-H O 


00 U 


r-l rH 


Q Q 


CM U 


rH (X 




ro 


CO a; 


•^ 


rH Q 


^ O 


Q 





^ 


CO < 




4) 


Q) 








(U 


Ul 


OJ 




41 


01 1 


41 






0) 


41 




o 


O 








o 


IH 


o 


1 


U 


CJ •H 









CJ 







•H 


•H 






Ul 


•H 


4) 


•H 


4-1 


•rl 


•H C 


•H 






H 


■H 




.H 


^ 


• 




U 


rH 


U 


rH 


c 


rH 


rH 3 Ul 


1 rH 






f-< 


rH 










o 




0) 


(U 


•H 





1 4) 





OEM 


o 














& 


& 




Ul 






•H 


a. 6 

•H 


UH 
UH 


ft. 


E 

•O -H 


0. 


ft. E 01 

o 


N ft. 
4-> 






0. 


ft. 


X 


>1 


>, 


Ul 




UH 


>1 H 


O 


>1 


10 1 r-i 


>. 


>lCJ •H 


C 0) 






>, 


>, 


OQ 


4J 


4J 


< 




UH 


4J U 




■p 


3 O 


4J 


4-1 UH 


4) 4-1 






4-1 


4-1 




c 


c 






O 


c 


• 


c 


CT" Ul ft. 


c 


C 1 U4 


►J 18 






c 


c 


Q 


3 


3 


a) 






3 - 


> 


3 


(/I "0 


3 


3 O 


4-> 






3 


3 


U 


O "*-i 


iw 


--H 




>n 


UH 


•r4 


UH 


18 >iUh 


UH 


U4 


• CO 






UH 





E- 


CJ >M 


O iw 


U-l 




+J 


U UH 


Q 


CJ UH 


0) 3 4J UH 


U Uh 


CJ UH • 


>J 






CJ UH 


CJ 


2 


10 


(0 


■H 




(1) 


18 




10 


> Cr C 10 


18 


18 > 


4-> 






(8 




U 


>,-u 


>l4J 


OS 




UH 


>i-U 


C 


>1-p 


■H cn 3 •p 


>tP 


>l4J •H 


M 3 






>14J 


>1 


w 


>-i tn 


u w 






18 


>H (0 





)H !/: 


4-1 o cn 


i4 tn 


>H cn Q 


0) O 






tH CO 


M 


§ 


9! 


0) 


rH 




C/1 < 


0) 


•H 


41 


•r( rH O 


4) 


01 


4J -H 






OJ 


41 


E >, 


E >i 


(0 




Oi 


E >,-lJ 


E >i 


CP 10 >, 


E >i 


E >i Ul 


Ul 4-1 






E >i 


E 


0. 


e 


E 


c 




^ y 


E 


c 


E 


3 C >i E 


E 


O E C 


0) 






E 







Cr Q) 


CP 0) 







E 


tr (1) 


0) 


tn 4) 


tn H 4) 


CP 4) 


01 oj 


J 41 






01 4) 


Oi 




4J -a 


4J "D 


■H 







4J "O 


> 


4-1 'O 


■ri 4) -o 


4J -a 


4J tJ -H 


C 






4-» 73 


4J 




C (« 


C (8 


4J 




j: t3 


C (0 


0) 


C (8 


ft. 01 E 18 


C 18 


C 18 .p 


• C 






C 18 


c 




2 y 


o 


18 




u c 


O 


M 


o 


U OJ O 


o 


U 18 


>H 






U 







s < 


E < 


■z 




tn (8 


s < 


0. 


E< 


E « CP< 


E < 


E < O 


Q U 






E < 


s 




CM 




(N 




o 










o 


1 














CM 


1 


CM 




m 


vo 




in 




CM 














w 


1 


Ul 


1 




1 


1 




1 




1 


n 








1 •■ 




M 


<yi 


CM 


cri 




VD 


CM 




•w 


•«r 


o\ 


CM CO 








^ 


ro 


E-i 






rH 




CM 












•-I 


rH 






r- •-* 


(N 


< 


>i 


>1 








+J 




4-> 


4-1 


4J 


4J 








m 




Q 


rH 


r-l 


Di 




CP 


a 




0. 


D. 


a 


a..p 


4J 






•P M r~ 


4J 




3 


3 


3 




3 


(U 




4) 


01 


4) 


4) U 


O 






O 18 <Ji 


o 




•^ 


•n 


< 




< 


en 




(/I 


cn 


cn 


cn o 


O 






O E rH 


o 












(fl 

u;^ 


































Ul 




















CM CO 




•z 










0) CO 




















i-i ^ 




o 










Ul CM 












Ul 








Ul ■^r 




M 


01 




Ul 




* 


Ul 




Ul 




Ul 


u 








Ul M rH 




t' 


Ul M 


Ul 


M 




■T Ul 


u 




U 


Ul 


Ul U 


01 3 


Ul 






a: 3 18 1 


Ul 


g 


j<: 3 


Ul M 


Ul 3 




~ u 


^ 3 




Ul 3 


u 


M 3 


^ 


U 






0) -H -^ 


u 


<U 


>i 3 


>.o 




>. 3 


4) 




>iO 


>< 3 


4) 


4) x: 


>i 3 






01 £ 4J Ul 01 


>i 3 


D 


0) £ 


18 


IB jC 




18 


01 s: 




(8 x; 


ro 


4) x: 


OJ 


18 






3 -H j<; (H 


18 


Q 


o 


■O £ 


(N 




-u x: 


in 






•a x; 


o 


? o 


■ox: 






l~ C 41 3 
ro CM M 41 


-a x: 




<N (N 


CN 00 


T n 




rH (^ 


•-{ n 




(N r-i 


rH (^ 


CM r- 


•<» r-t 


•-I n 






<N 00 -- s x; 


rH (N 




U (0 








■o 






U 

4) 








C 






E 






U 








u 






O 




1 




Ul 






41 U 


1 




lU (U 




^ 




m 






•H 


-0 


18 1 


1 


•H 0) 






o o> 


■0 




o 









3 






UH 


4) 


J3 C 


Ul 


4-1 Ul 






C 


o 




(11 -H 


0) 


4J 




O 






UH 


C 


O M 


■H 


18 C 






18 M 


•f4 




<*-l 


O M 


u i 




w,l 


c € 




O E 


o 


H 01 


Q CP 


CJ 0) 






U ft. 


UH 




■H in 


•H 01 


3 3 




tj. i3 


3 




(8 


-O -rl 


ft. )H C 


C 


•H UH 






4J 


•H 




•P O 


4J <4-l TJ 


!h 1h 




C M 


•H M 




Cn ^4 


3 •P 


41 •H 


O •H 


UH UH 






C CJi 


4J 


^ 


o 


U M 


4J cr 




•H CP 


4J Ul 




C CP 


18 Ul 


1 C 


•H c 


•H O 






u c 


c 


^ 


fl ^ 


18 ^ (0 


Ul 




Ul 


C 




•H o 


iH 4) 


•H •rl 


TD •H 


4J 






•H 


(11 


K 


H m 


H j<; 3 


C U 




Ul M 


u 




C U 


b. 3 


C UH 10 


22 


C rH 






c c 


•o 


o 


c 


U O 


H ft. 




a, 


> ft. 




■H ft. 


O^ 


UH M 


0) 18 






-H 


M 


o 


0) 


(1) H 






u 


(U 




18 


t) -- Ul 


■H O Eh 


E-i 


"d c 






H (8 




q: 


> -H 


> iJ Oi 


Ul CP 




U 01 


H CP 




U Oi 


C 4J 


Ul 


C 


M •H 






Ul IH 


Ul 


o< 


•H 4J 


H U) C 


g.s 




c 


ft. c 




Eh C 


18 M C 


4) M O 


10 i4 E 


E 






a Eh 


g 




to O 


01 4J H 




•-< H 


■H 




■H 


18 41 


•H 0) 10 


rH •H 






(D 




C (U 


C £ T3 


IB C 




c 


4) C 




•o C 


M C £ 


(n 10 •H 


rH X: M 


18 U 






cn rH 


(8 




(U ^ 


4) a<^ 


(1) -H 




O H 


E H 




rH -H 


•H 3 


4-1 S 


•H 01 


4-> O 






41 


0) C 




X-l k4 


U-l -H -H 


U 18 




x; 18 


•H (8 




4) (8 


4) E 


> 4J 


c 






13 > 


M 




0) 


0) 2 3 


■H V4 




o u 


^ ^ 




•H M 


x: 4) 


Ul •rl 41 


•H 18 U 


41 C 






M V 


•H-H 




Q U 


Q — CQ 


tti E- 




to Eh 


U Eh 




In Eh 


u cn Q 


rH 4J cn 


u aft- 


Q W 






ro J 


&.*> 



34 



1215 



<w 




fl) 














ID 




o ^ 


Tl 












<U 




■H C 


c: 












D 




.H 

-P 


10 




e 










10 




0. CP 


• 




iH 10 


>i 






(U (U 




c 


Ul 




iw 0) 


4-1 






Si u 




TT H 


+J 




i-l 


C 






•U IT) 






J 




Ul < 

u 


3 







e • 




- (0 






<0 • 


U 






u 


in 


w S 


Ul 




o o 








u • 


V4 


)-i 


Vl 




H • 


>i 






VM Q 


0) 


4) e 


(U 




IH Q 


n 








o 


U 


O 




M-l 


3! 






1/1 » 


■rH 


•H U 


•H 




O - 


e 






c c 


4-1 


>4-l IH lO 


iw 




c 









4) > 


IM 


<4-i a) 


>4-l 




0) o 


cr> Ul 






N 4J 4J 


O 


°S^ 


O '- 




U -P 


+J 4) 






•H CT>-H 




m 




H cn 


c a) 






■P c c 


(X 


CU 0) 


Oi - 




rH C 


>i 






•^^ -H 3 


u 


u o • 


u • 




O -H 


E 






u x; g 


s 


S-H u 


2 -P 




0- x: 


r-{ 






U) g 




<4-l 


a 




Ul 


a> Q4 






r- rfl 


(N 


■<T IM • 


(N (0 




in (0 


rH e 






T S U 


rH 


!^ o a 


'T U 




IN S 


rH [d 






0) 


<U 




(D 






Q) 






O 


o 


















■H 


•H o 




■H 






•H 






i-l 


rH -H 




iH 




0) 


^ 









"« 









rH 









c 


(0 




C 




o 

•H 


& 






>l 


>i M 


M-l 


>l 




x; 


>1 






4J 


jj E-1 in 





-P 




(1) 


■P 






c 


C i-l 




c 




> 


c 






3 


3-0) 


3 


3 






3 






>t-i 


t-i O 


(0 c 


"W 




T3 


IH 






O «-i 


U U-l -H 


0) o 


O M-l 




0) 


tj >*H 






(0 


10 «-l 


M -H 


10 




c 


10 






>i-iJ 


>i-|J >w 


3 -P 


>l-p 







>I-P 






k w 


V4 U) O 


CQ 10 


i-l CQ 




n3 


w w 






lU 


0) 


CP 


<0 




c 


(U 






e >i 


e >i c 


rH -H 


e >i 




10 


E >< 






E 


e 


m -p 


e 




^ 


e 






tJi (U 


ff> (D -H 


1-1 Ul 


D> a) 




en (1) 






■P T3 


-p -a -u 


<0 0) 


-P T3 




-p 


4-1 TD 






C IT) 


C 10 o 


T) > 


c <0 




&- -H 


C 10 






O O 


0) 


0) c 


o 




u c 


u 






s < 


s < w 


&< M 


s < 




S 3 


S < 














rH 






ro in 






r~ 




^ 


r-l 




- 


rH rH 




n 


1 


00 


1 


1 


vo 


00 


- r^ 




(N 


•^ 


rH 


CM 


Ol 


<H 


rH ^O 


VO r^ 00 CTl rH rH 

IN r-j m 


r- 


jj 


> 


> 


o 


o 


o 


C -Xi 


U - >i -4J - 


> 











0) 


(U 


OJ 


10 ro 0) 


10 rH m IN T 
S IN S IN IN 





o 


2 


2 


Q 


a 


Q 


1-) IN 6l, 


2 




Ifl 




Ul 1 


Ul Ul 






Ul 

ffl Ul 




0) 


M 


Ul 


iH 1 


a) i-l 


Ul 


Ul 1 


iH <n M 
& >,3 




Sj 


X 3 


i-l 


Ul 3 1 


Ul 3 


n 


Ul tH 1 




>. 3 


O 


>. 3 


>, 1 


lO 


>, 3 


>, 3 1 


10 




(0 


0) £ 


(0 


10 x: 1 


£ x; 


10 


10 1 


i4 Ti x: 




T3 x: 


3 

in 


-O-C 


t) 1 

iH 1 


CN 


-a x: 


-a x: 1 
1 


a 

VO <N 




iH (N 


rH n 


iH IT) 


m (N 1 


(N «3> 


rH n 


"a- 00 1 


•^ rH n 




>i 


















4J 






.0-^ 












•H 






i-l 




(U 


IH 






c 






(U M 




O 









3 


C 

■H 




m c 
0) o 




s 

u 











c 


d) 


UH 




(U 


C Ul 






o 


•H 


Di 


U-l Ul 




Uh 


•H (U 








(0 


(0 


0) Ul 




C 


> 0) 






M-l 


u 


■P 


a (U 







■H >, 






10 


Eh 


Ul 


— Ul 




o 


iH 






0) 













Q rH 






Q 


0) 


X 


O 1 




■p 


a 






Ul 


rH 




o 




MH 


0) E 






1 C 


O 


1 


•H en 




0) 


> w 









>» 


u 


> c 




x: 


•H 






a) -H 


O rH 


a <o 


t4r4 




Eh 


Ul >i 






O 4J 


tj 


10 G 


0) c 






d 4J 






•H (0 


O 


C H 


WH 




o 


c 






rH ^ 


■U £ 


-o e 


1 10 




■p 


IH 3 






O <U 





■H 0) 


c u 




3 


0) 






& ct: 


S w 


« w 


M E- 




< 


Q U 







35 



1216 
TECHNICAL SERVICES BUREAU 

SUPPLY & MAINTENANCE DIVISION 
RECORDS & IDENTIFICATION DIVISION 
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION 



1217 



Supply and Maintenance Division 



The Supply and Maintenance Division is a vital component to the 
police team providing logistical support to line and staff units of 
the department. Major responsibilities of this division are as 
follows : 

Supply necessary equipment. 

Provide transportation and vehicle maintenance programs. 

Remove and process abandoned vehicles within Montgomery County. 

Receive and store evidence in possession of the Department of 

Police. 

Dispose of unclaimed property by auction or destruction. 

Supply Section 

The Supply Section distributes clerical supplies, weapons, vehicular 
equipment, and chemical agents to departmental units. Additionally, it 
is the responsibility of this section to auction or destroy property 
which heretofore has been unclaimed by the owner. 

Clothing Section 

The primary responsibility of this section is the issuance and 
control of clothing for uniformed personnel. The Clothing Section also 
coordinates the recycling of clothing in an effort to reduce departmental 
spending. 

Transportation Section 

The primary objective of this section is to provide dependable 
vehicles and to maintain the highest standards of safety through equip- 
ment usage and maintenance. The attainment of this goal is effected by 
liaison with the Department of Transportation, Division of Equipment, 

39 



1218 



in matters regarding purchasing, modification of equipment and 
maintaining the police fleet which numbered 353 vehicles in 1974. 

The Personal Patrol Vehicle Progreun, monitored by the Transpor- 
tation Section, allows designated officers, throughout the department, 
to be equipped with a fully marked pwDlice vehicle for both professional 
and personal use. Theoretically, it has been shown that the increased 
visibility of the police is a major deterrent to the incidence of 
crime. Additionally, officers are more inclined to assist in matters 
off-duty due to the availability and accessibility of standard equip- 
ment. There are currently 77 participating officers and vehicles 
within this program and it is anticipated that additional vehicles will 
be introduced to accommodate expansion. 

Recovered Property & Evidence Storage Section 

The secure handling of evidence is of utmost importance in police 
management. This section has the responsibility to coordinate with 
operational and analytical units of the department to establish a viable 
system, whereby evidence would be controlled and stored at the Head- 
quarters location. 



40 



1219 



RECORDS AND IDENTIFICATION DIVISION 

Records Section 

The effectiveness of the Department is dependent upon the collection 
and availability of accurate data pertinent to overall activity and 
performance. The central repository for this data is located within 
the records section which serves as the memory bank of the Department. 
Accordingly, all accumulated information must be recorded, disseminated 
and finally stored. To insure the maximum utilization of the collected 
data, the records section must organize the information received in a 
manner which is most efficient for its accessibility and interpretation. 
This is accomplished as follows: 

1. Information concerning each complainant, notification of 
crime, or request for police service is reviewed. 

2. Data concerning assignment of personnel in response to the 
complaint and/or request is inspected. 

3. The action taken as a result of the assignment is assessed. 

4. Distribute specific information to government agencies and 
other interested parties as required. 

5. Maintain the information for ready reference. 

6. Prepare administrative summaries from detailed records for 
internal reporting requirements, plus the department's obli- 

■ gation to federal and state agencies regarding traffic and 
crime figures. 



41 



1220 



Identification Section 

The primary function of the Identification Section is to support 
both the Criminal Investigation Division and the Patrol Division by 
providing expertise and technical assistance in areas relating to 
fingerprint identification, photography, handwriting identification 
and maintenance of files containing information on known criminal 
offenders. 

Specifically, the aforementioned mission is accomplished by: 

1. Examination of crime scenes to obtain latent fingerprints, 
photographs, and collection of other physical evidence that 
will aid in the identification and subsequent prosecution 
of criminal offenders. 

2. The taking, classifying, and maintenance of fingerprint 
files of known offenders and suspects for comparison with 
latent fingerprints obtained at crime scenes. 

3. The positive identification of persons, both alive and 
deceased, by the use of fingerprints. 

4 . The positive identification of suspects by handwriting 
comparisons in cases of forgery, threatening letters, etc. 

5. Preparation and maintenance of various files containing 
information of known criminal offenders (e.g. mug photos, 
alias, tatoo, M.O ., personal and criminal record files). 

6. Other technical services such as: 

a. Restoration of obliterated serial numbers on weapons, 
vehicles, office equipment, etc. 

b. Field tests for gunpowder residue, semen, blood. 

In connection with these primary duties, personnel from the I.D. 
Section responded to 2,819 crime scenes and as a result, obtained 

42 



1221 



7,389 latent prints and took 5,417 crime scene photos. Additionally, 
924 items were submitted to the I.D. Section for processing of possible 
latent fingerprints. At the section's office, some 1,634 man-hours 
were expended in comparing latent prints against existing prints on 
file with the result that 192 positive identifications were made. 
Department members submitted 313 items for handwriting examination 
which concluded in 102 positive identifications. 

The photo lab, in conjunction with the section's basic responsi- 
bilities, developed approximately 21,600 negatives and produced some 
41,182 prints. 

The data (fingerprint cards, background information, etc.) from 
5,861 individual arrests were processed and filed. 

The I.D. Section provides a realm of services for the Department, 
County Government, and the public. The general photographic needs of 
the Department are filled by the section, not only the taking of 
pictures, but the maintenance of equipment and the distribution of 
supplies. County Government, as a whole, was served by the processing 
of 609 applicants for prospective employment. This processing included 
the photographing and fingerprinting of each applicant. 

Direct services to the citizens of Montgomery County consisted of 
the fingerprinting, for security clearance purposes, of 1,394 persons. 
The section also provides attorneys, representing clients involved in 
automobile accidents, with accident photos at a nominal cost. 

The 1974 calendar year reflected a 1,470 increase in overall pro- 
duction and services as compared with 197 3 figures. 



43 



|000 



At the completion of calendar year 1974, the staff of the I.D. 

Section stood at a total of ten persons which included eight sworn 

personnel, one cadet, and one administrative aide. 

. ..: •>;. ■ *4'. 
Crime Laboratory 

The establishment of a Crime Laboratory, primarily for the 
analysis of controlled dangerous substance evidence, began during the 
ecirly quarter of 1974. The realized benefit of such a laboratory, as 
well as its obvious need, was recognized by the close inter-agency 
cooperation between the Department of Police, the Montgomery County 
Health Department, and the Montgomery County Office of Drug Control. 

The initial conceptual development involved extensive planning 
and coordination with later phases culminating in the physical con- 
struction of the lab, accompanied by equipment purchases. Addition- 
ally, a chemist was appointed to establish laboratory procedures and 
oversee departmental analysis of controlled dangerous substances 
confiscated by members of the department 

Although the majority of the evidentiary material analyzed will 
be submitted by Montgomery County Police officers, the laboratory 
will also analyze C.D.S. samples submitted by the County Board of 
Education, Health Department, Office of Drug Control and other law 
enforcement agencies within the county. 

The Crime Laboratory is expected to become fully operational 
during February, 1975. The lab will be located on the 2nd floor of 
the Rockville District Station. 



44 



1223 



Communications Division 



The Communications Division is perhaps the most vital link between 
a citizen's request for assistance and the timely response of a police 
officer, as it is this division's responsibility to maintain effective 
communications with the many police units patrolling county-wide. 
During 1974, 466 Montgomery County police units, along with 37 units 
of other departments, were serviced by the Radio System of the Mont- 
gomery County Police. Additionally, the Communications Division monitors 
other area police agencies, to insure that any pertinent transmitted 
information is relayed to county officers, in the event that such 
information would enhance the apprehension of a criminal offender. 

The Communications Division broadcasts all lookouts and other 
vital police information over three VHF frequencies, commonly referred 
to as channels. Channel #1 services the Bethesda-Silver Spring 
District, Channel #2 services the Wheaton-Glenmont area, and Channel #3 
services Rockville. The total number of radio transmissions for 1974 
was 3,801,200 which represents a 12.7% increase over 1973 transmission 
figures (1973 total 3,372,461). 

The initial implementation of the "911" Assistance Service System 
by the Police Communications Division, began during November of 1974. 
The "911" concept is designed to enable citizens of the county to dial 
an easily remembered code and thereby obtain prompt assistance in an 
emergency situation. Civilian radio dispatchers receive all incoming 
"911" calls and are responsible for insuring their transfer to the 
proper agency - Police, Fire or Ambulance. Statistical data gathered 
during November and December indicate an excess of 40,000 calls per 
month emanating from the "911" switchboards. This year, a 17.2% 
increase in the number of events reported to the department was realized 

45 - -• ■ 



1224 



over 197; totals. The number of events reported in 1974, totaled 
200,610 (550 per day), as compared to 171,155 (469 per day) events 
reported in 1973. 

In addition to "911", 1974 has seen the Communications Division 
undertake the responsibility of the newly formed Telephone Reporting 
Unit. The Telephone Reporting Unit, developed and implemented in 
June, 1974, is a method of providing improved service to the citizenry 
while simultaneously increasing the operating efficiency of the 
Department of Police. The unit, operating under strict guidelines, 
initiates police reports for non-urgent events via telephone exchange 
between the complainant and the unit. Reporting of this type is 
accomplished only with the expressed agreement and complete consent of 
the complainant. Evaluation of the Telephone Reporting Unit thus far 
has revealed that 17.27% of the total events reported during the last 
seven months of 1974 were successfully completed by the use of this 
informal means. 

Also, during the first quarter of 1974, the Communications 
Division delegated one officer the responsibility of training officers 
and civilian radio dispatchers newly assigned to Communications. The 
training, conducted during non-peak hours, allows four weeks of basic 
instruction in Police Communications prior to assignment of the indi- 
vidual to a shift of duty. 

The Teletype Section of the Communications Division houses the 
"MILES" and "VJALES" computer terminals, the "NLETS" teletype system, 
and all files and indexes related to these functions. 

In 1974, the Communications Division was staffed by 15 police 
officers, 3 of whom are permanently assigned to the Telephone Reporting 
Unit, 52 civilian radio dispatchers, one office assistant and 3 police 

cadets. ,, 

46 



1225 
STATISTICAL DATA 



1974 



1226 



SELECTED ITEM COMPARISON 

ITEM 1960 1970 1973 1974 

Criminal Offenses 16,454 58,236 50,194 57,662 

Criminal Violation Arrests 5,819 9,395 9,169 11,158 

District Court Summons, Criminal * * (1) 600 

Miscellaneous and Unfounded Calls 36,198 137,533 101,252 106,523 

Motor Vehicle Accidents 4,775 12,828 15,087 15,521 

Moving Traffic Violation Arrests 27,932 53,998 67,244 60,160 

Moving Traffic Warning Notice (2) * * 22,820 18,550 

Radio Transmissions (4) * * 3,372,461 3,801,200 

Cases Investigated by 

Detective Section 4,552 7,858 8,898 9,066 

School Crossing Guard Posts 111 224 232 236 

Estimated County Population (5) 339,000 522,800 571,000 585,000 

Authorized Police Officers 333 635 742 782 

Narcotic Drug Laws, Violations 13 423 621 617 

Complaints Received by Police (3) 142,051 171,155 186,059 



* No records compiled or item not applicable during period 
under consideration. 

(1) Estimated by District Court; Reduction primarily due to increased 
use of arrest warrant. 

(2) Instituted November, 1971. 

(3) Radio Communications located at each District Station. No 
centralized records maintained County-wide. 

(4) Radio Transmissions accurately recorded in 1973, heretofore 
transmission totals were estimated by the Communication Division. 

(5) July 1, 1974, Revised by Community and Economic Development. 



48 



1227 



z 

o 

M 
i- 

u 
a 

s 

w 
s 

(-1 
K 
U 

Q 

Eh 
Z 

o 
z 

o 
u 





w 




>J 


X 


M 


H 


b 


Z 


O 


3 


o: 


O 


Oi 


o 






a 


X 


w 


« 


z 


g 




o 


!u 


o 


o 


E- 




z 


M 


o 




s 


E-1 




§ 




0. 



0^ 









o 



U5 



00 



\ 





a 




Q 




M 




U 




M 




s 




o 




X 




Eh 




z 




u 




o 




H 




ij 


X 


o 


K 


a 


O 


z 


U 


1 


fcj 


z 


Eh 


o 


< 


z 


O 






l<. 


u 




w 


K 


z 


a 


Cd 


Q 


Dl, 


oi 


b 


D 


O 


2 



r^ 


O 


00 


r-H 


r~ 


in 


in 


m 


ro 


T 


o 


^ 




ro 


in 


«T 


^ 


tN 








■. 


>. 


*. 








in 


in 


Csl 


kD 


T 


in 


^ 


f— 1 


in 


r^ 


ON 


0^ 


'T 


r- 


VD 




fN 


■<T 


•-i 


in 


^H 








>. 


« 


^ 








■^ 




CM 


■<T 


nH 


TT 


ro 


00 


CT> 


r^ 


ro 


VD 


o 


o 


O 




<N 


m 


o 


a\ 


ON 








*. 


•m 


•• 








■T 


•-> 


.H 


(N 


VD 


CN 


o 


-H 


(N 


in 


CT\ 


U3 


in 


T 


CD 




.— 1 


m 


T 


CO 


^ 








*. 


fc 


•• 








ro 


fN 

r-H 


t— t 


00 


(N 


T 


00 


r~ 


O 


<N 


in 


a\ 


'^ 


rsi 


^ 




i-H 


<N 


T 


r^ 


VD 








^ 


«. 


» 








en 




^ 


o 


o 


m 


r-t 


lO 


O 


■<T 


■a- 


r-i 


\o 


in 


ON 




(—1 


IM 


r- 


00 


i-H 








« 


«. 


«. 








r-i 


o 


i-H 


in 


VD 


r- 


00 


(N 


rsi 


m 


in 


or. 


^ 


in 


ro 




iH 


f-t 


r- 


vo 


f-^ 








«, 


h. 










ro 


ON 


r-i 


T 


Eh 












J 












D 












< 












w 










w 


< 










K 


D 






< 


^ 




U 








a 


W 


Eh 




> 




w 


^ 


< 


> 


a 


X 


X 


oa 


> 


DS 


< 


2 


Eh 


M 


S 


a 


a 


W 




o 


CQ 


o 


u 


O 


a: 


o 


CQ 


a; 


05 


t^ 


o 


o 


o 


3 


< 


o 


b4 


< 


a 


CQ 


iJ 


< 



00 



m 
o 
in 



CN 

o 



ON 
00 





\, 




fNll 




„_^ 




05 




U 




Eh 




X 




o 




3 


M 


< 




J 


e 


w 


a 


z 


< 


<: 


a. 


^ 


a w 


^a 


u 


< 


Q 




D 


^ 




Eh 


z 


o 


M 


Eh 


~-' 



T) 




(1) 




T3 




D 




1— t 




U 




X 




0) 




(L) 




iH 




13 




4J U) 




C -U 




(D IH 




E 




4J CU 




u (u 




rj u 




0. 




Q) a) 




Q W 




c 




Q) <U 




u ^ 




-H 14-4 




^ 









B< (U 




tn 




>irH 




-U IB 




C >*H 




D 




o 'a 




u c 




(0 




>. 




U T3 




(U (D 




e TJ 




d 




Cr> d 




4J 




C MH 




c 




S D 




(U 




sz • 


• 


J-) U) 


iH 


0) 


d) 


>1 w 


-p 


X! C 


x: 


(1) 


ON 


-a XH 


3 


(1) MH 


fl 


■u 


iH 


4-) 


U] 


■H M 


c 


e nj 


(0 


X! D 


e 


3 -P 




Ul u 


a) 


IT5 


T) 


Ul 


D 


4J in 


rH 


U 4-) 





o 


c 


a Q) 


•H 


(1) I-H 




05 <« 


4-1 


0) 





rH V4 


c 


« 




D « 


in 


C +J 


4) 


C fl 





< Q 


Q 



CNJI 



49 



122^ 



w 
u 

w + 
2 

bJ I 
b 

Ik <x> 
O 



(Nl 



CM ro 






m 


00 


ON 


n 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


cr. 


OV 


in 



2 


w 




O 


u 




(/I 


w 


+ 


M 


2 




o: 


w 


1 


< 


(1^ 




a. 


u. 


00 


t; 


o 




o 






u 






X 






u 






D 






2 






M 






W 




c\ 


?; 




f-t 


M 






« 






U 










in 



in 00 

OJ o 



in 

CM 



00 



in 






in 



in 00 

\0 lO 

.-( 1^ 

PvJ o 



.-I in 



o 



u 






t) 












s 






»:) 












l-l 






P 












X 






< 












CJ 






CO 

01 












X 

u 

Q 

z 

H 






o 

w 




>| 






X 

u 

Q 

z 








< 


>< 


a 


>-i 


a: 


M 


^ 
3 


(z: 




> 


K 


< 


2 


(r> 




Q 


W 


s 




J 
9 




o 


S 


ti 


05 


0. 


o 


(Q 


« 


« 


E-i 


M 


^ 


3 

s 


g 


s 


§ 


3 


^ 


< 





50 



1229 



ANNUAL SUMMARY OF ACTUAL OFFENSES 



Actual Part I 


Offenses 






Offenses 


1974 


Closure 

(%) 
1974 


1973 


MURDER 


16 


12(75.0) 


23 


MANSLAUGHTER 


16 


16(100.0) 


22 


RAPE 


57 


50(87.7) 


76 


ROBBERY 


538 


320(59.5) 


495 


AGGRAVATED 

ASSAULT 


330 


239(72.4) 


294 


BURGLARY 


5,441 


1,590(29.2) 


4,144 


LARCENY 


15,407 


2,627(17.1) 


13,571 


AUTO THEFT 


2,245 


582(25.9) 


2,165 


TOTAL PART I 


24,050 


5,436(22.6) 


20,790 


PART I AND 
MINOR ASSAULTS 


; 25,319 


6,302(24.9) 


21,906 


TOTAL INDEX 


24,034 


5,420(22.6) 


20,768 



Closure 

(%) 
1973 



17 (73.9) 
22(100.0) 
67 (88.2) 
364 (73.5) 

225(76.5) 
1,446(34.9) 
2,206(16.3) 

669(30.9) 
5,016(24.1) 

5,861(26.8) 
4,994 (24.0) 



51 



1230 



Id (0 
o n 









> •«>■ 
O 



00 



o 









I 

o 






in 






IT) 
00 






U 
i) 
■O 00 

D 



rr o 



in 



in 


o^ 


o 


vc 


U3 


0^ 


r- 




.-H 



c 
o 

4J (1) 

fl U) 

o c 

•H (U 



Ul O 

-< o 
u 



r~ 


o 


in 


1^ 


\D 


n 


<T\ 


"T 


rH 


in 


T 


vo 






r~- 


'^ 


rvi 


r~ 













0) 




>i 
















■p 




c 






QJ 










.H 




0) 






tl 










3 




u 






■ f-i 




u 






10 




M 






O 




0) 






10 




lO 






•H 




+J 






W 




iJ — 






E 




j: 






< 









M 


O 

X 




3 






T3 




1 4-> 

3 


*j 


t^ 




M 


la 






tt) 




4J (i: 


UH 


S 


r-l 


dJ 


r-t 






•P 


>> 


m 


(U 


(0 


■O 


VI 




>1 


(0 


u 


Si ^ 


£ 


Oi 


c 


M 


c 




u 


> 


fl 


s: a 


H 




■rH 


D 


(8 




(U 


« 


iH 


EH (U 




i 


e 


2 


2 


<U 


^ 


Vj 


0^ 


O 


O 


•rH 






a 


ja 


CP 


u 


rH X 


4J 


Eh 


Vl 






IB 


o 


CP 





•r! " 


3 


o 


u 






en 


b: 


< 


a 


< — 


< 


Eh 



52 



1231 



ARREST BY AGE GROUP GRAPH 



PART I CLASSES 



I 

I' 

i 



; 1 



1 1 






i : 



1 1 



m 



I ! ' 



I 



i: 



I. 



■ I 



. ; . 1 






• . I 



' t ' i 



[ 



■-f 



rii 



ti- 



1 t 



t : t 



I I 1 - 



4-T 111 

trMi 



r 



i: 



I 



-L+- 



Ui 



Ml 



.,. J 



■ .41 
..... I 



m 



! 1 



^...^...^ 



-t-K 
111 



I i ■ 



TIT 

4 ! , i 



l-t I , 



iri 



INI 



1 1 ' 
■t-t-t 



II 



1 1 * 



r 

II i I 



ttir.t;:; : 



isco- 



*f^ 



12250- 



;^4- 



JllSfl^ 



OSDflL 



' •r:^sa_ 



1 'iin|na- 



.i-i3t5a- 



1 1 j 

jyQjt 



-!45QL 



m 









T' 



nrt 



IH 



: r 



bf - . . 

.4 . . . 
JT . . . 






rrrt: 






nrtteh 



SSffil 



J i 



^ 






ffl 



t!:ir 



t -t i 
ttLr:.tl 



i ' M 



-|t 



-H 



lliiir 



53 



1232 



RESIDENCE OF ARRESTED PERSONS 







JANUARY 1 - 


■ DECEMBER 31, 


1974 










K 

i 

D 


U 

0. 


.5 

< < 


u 

CQ 

s 


o 

CQ 


X 


O fc. 


u 

M 

< 
z 


o 

Eh 


MONTGOMERY COUNTY 


















Adult 


11 

10 


24 
25 


77 
iTf 


42 

105 


206 
285 


723 
737 


64 
106 


277 
243 


1424 
1648 


Juvenile 


6 

2 


3 
6 


37 
47 


83 
64 


675 
683 


1310 
1007 


212 
249 


282 

155 


2608 
2213 


WASHINGTON, 


D.C. 


















Adult 




4 

3 


11 
I3 


17 
4T 


31 

144 


396 
330 


9 
20 


21 
12 


489 
563 


Juvenile 
P.O. COUNTY 








10 
1 


9 
5 


267 
164 


12 
6 


3 



301 
177 


Adult 


1 



2 




2 

5 


7 
4 


20 
34 


114 
125 


5 
9 


15 
14 


166 
191 


Juvenile 






3 
4 


7 
I 


13 
22 


40 
23 


5 
4 


1 

r 


69 
55 


BALTIMORE COUNTY 


















Adult 








2 

T 


11 
10 


7 
6 






20 
17 


Juvenile 










2 

2 


1 
2 






3 
4 


OTHER MARYLAND 


















Adult 




1 

r 


5 
2 


2 

T 


9 

40 


39 
33 


7 

ir 


6 

2 


69 
96 


Juvenile 
VIRGINIA 










3 


6 
4 


22 
16 


6 
2 


1 



35 
25 


Adult 






1 
3 


2 


4 

7 


20 

13 


5 
4 


6 

5 


38 
34 


Juvenile 
ALL OTHER 










2 

5 


8 

5 


3 

55 


4 



17 
65 


Adult 


1 





2 


3 
IT 


17 
32 


34 
36 


2 

5 


14 


73 
92 


Juvenile 

MIXED 










7 
9 


12 

— 


5 



1 



25 
T6 


Adult 







4 






39 




31 



4 




14 



97 


Juvenile 










T 



6 




15 



6 



2 



30 


TOTAL 


19 
IT 

a*- t-r\r- 


34 
35 


138 
219 


175 
247 


1012 

1327 


2993 
2550 


335 
481 


631 
452 


5337 
5323 



Number at bottom is number of events cleared. 

54 



1233 

PROPERTY TAKEN/RECOVERED IN PART I OFFENSES 



Percentage 
1974 1973 Increase-Decrease 



MURDER 



Property Taken $ 8,489 

Property Recovered 8,000 



RAPE 



Property Taken 794 

Property Recovered 



ROBBERY 



Property 
Property 


Taken 
Recovered 




811,124 
44,512 


$ 378,225 
20,735 


114 
114 


.5 
.7 


BURGLARY 














Property 
Property 


Taken 
Recovered 


2 


,937,464 
402,732 


1,807,954 
293,502 


62 
37 


.5 
.2 


LARCENY 














Property 
Property 


Taken 
Recovered 


2 


,296,632 
296,405 


1,786,031 
237,611 


28 
24 


.6 
.7 


AUTO THEFT 














Property 
Property 


Taken 
Recovered 


3, 
2, 


,066,760 
,383,018 


2,769,750 
2,137,585 


10, 
11. 


,7 
.5 


TOTAL PART ] 














Property 
Property 


Taken 
Recovered 


$9, 
$3, 


,121,263 
,134,667 


$6,741,960 
$2,689,433 


35. 

16. 


,3 
.6 



$ Not Deflated 

* Data not retained for 1973. 



55 



1234 



ANNUAL SUMMARY OF ACTUAL OFFENSES 



ACTUAL PART II OFFENSES 
OFFENSES 



1974 



Closure (%) 
1974 



1973 



Closure (%) 
1973 



MINOR ASSAULTS 1,269 

CONTRIBUTING DELINQ. MINOR 26 

ARSON 290 

FORGERY COUNTERFEIT 370 

FRAUD 498 

EMBEZZLEMENT 84 

STOLEN PROPERTY 9 

VANDALISM - DESTRUCTION 6,346 

WEAPONS 208 

PROSTITUTION - VICE 2 

SEX 617 

NARCOTICS 570 

GAMBLING 14 

FAMILY OFFENSES 272 

JUVENILE OFFENSES 1,896 

LIQUOR LAWS 2 56 

DISORDERLY CONDUCT 12,552 

VAGRANCY 10 

ALL OTHER OFFENSES 8,323 



866 (68.2) 1,116 845 (75.7) 

26 (100.0) 17 18 (105.9) 

67 (23.1) 249 65 (26.1) 

247 (66.8) 351 289 (82.3) 

332 (66.7) 514 480 (93.4) 

62 (73.8) 43 32 (74.4) 

10 (111.1) 8 7 (87.5) 

515 (8.1) 4,369 517 (11.8) 

196 (94.2) 165 141 (85.5) 

2 (100.0) 5 5 (100.0) 

349 (56.6) 638 462 (72.4) 

504 (88.4) 621 629 (101.3) 

16 (114.3) 17 17 (100.0) 

175 (64.3) 196 169 (86.2) 

1,855 (97.8) 2,087 2,028 (97.2) 

244 (95.3) 126 120 (95.2) 

12,544 (99.9) 9,826 9,813 (99.9) 

9 (90.0) 7 7 (100.0) 

7,750 (93.1) 9,049 8,651 (95.6) 



TOTAL PART II 



33,612 



25,769 (76.7) 



29,404 24,295 (82.6) 



1974 



1973 



MOTOR VEHICLES STOLEN 
MOTOR VEHICLES RECOVERED 
BICYCLES STOLEN 
BICYCLES RECOVERED 



2,245 


3,066,760 


2,165 


2,769,750 


1,654 


2,383,018 


1,592 


2,137,585 


3,182 


264,722 


3,209 


224,619 


666 


53,400 


590 


34,794 



56 



I 



1235 



m 

IT) U) 
O >^ 

< 



00 tN 



o o o^ <N ON 

in CO CM -H 00 



fNroinom^fNrsifMOCNvD^vDoororsj 
in v£)co^ oromTTcNr^.— (invooin 



I ON m m 00 

T ^ i-H m 

00 •» r- rH 

f-H VX> ^ f-H 



CO 

a. 
o 

0:: 

o 

u 
< 

m 
w 

E-i 
W 



O CTl 

o 






^H O rH <N ^H 






0^ (N 



O tN ,H r-l m 



<M r-l tN .H ro 



•H tN -IT rH (N r— 



T r~ (H ȣ> 

in n o ^ 
^ .-H rM 



^ m m Ko 
^ fH vo r- 



r^ rr m oi 
m m 1^ <N 

rH IN 



\o o\ m 'a* 
<n .H 00 o 



to 



o 



E- 



W 

fa 

cni 

z 

w 

fa 

fa 

o 

J' 
< 
z 

M 

s: 

M 
Oi 

u 




C -H 

D 



C 
O 

•H W 

-P (1) 

Id VI 

c 

•H (U 

VM «-l 

■H M-l 

01 O 
01 

(8 >t-l 

r-l O 

o 



T fN m ^ 00 



m r^ ^ 00 rH 



r^ f-{ f-{ T \o 

tN r-( 



1^ <N 00 



.-H ^-* l^ 
ro iH iH 



rH 00 ^ C7> 



00 

n 



rov£> rOiHiHi— )m mnHcorHvx)rororov£)(rtootT^m 
a^ fN'S'i— tror^ oo tNmr^ ^iH f*iv£>^ 

•-< f-H tN 



00 ro 
<Ti m 
<N 



m ro tN ro 00 
ic 00 



rooot— ttNOvDtNOOrorotNvocororv) 
00 mrHro M* ■^i-H mvDom 

r-j ■w tN ro M 



^ tN 1X1 00 
O 00 T <N 
.H ^^^ f-i "a- 



^ 00 T r-j 
00 c^ 00 00 

rH 'T tN r~- 



m tN o tN 

r~ tN 0> rH 

VO 00 rH o 



m 00 ro f-H 
ro i-i vo <X) 
1^ fN r~ <J^ 



01 

-P 

3 
« 

Ul 
01 

< 






•H 
(U 

M-l 
M 
0) 
•P 

>i c 

M 3 

(1) O "D N 0) 
a>CJ 3 4) -H 
>J T) ^ O 



0<fa faUCOQS 




1236 



ARREST BY AGE GROUP GRAPH 



PART II CLASSES 



t 



I 



-a 

c 



I 



CM 






_ . 35D0 
_ 3250. 
,3000. 



^ '^ 



27?P. 

25M- 

2250 
20P0 

L 1750 



_ 1250 

lOOiU 

750 
500 

250 



0\i 

■I 
o 
-o* «- 









iO 



-iintna 



.4- . 
■u ■ 
•a . 



I ■ • 



58 



1237 



MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT TOTALS - FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 



1970 



1971 



1972 



1973 



16,000 



15,500 



15,000 



14,500 




10,500 



10,000 



1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 
TOTALS ALL MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS 



* Data not retained since January 1, 1973 

59 



1974 



Motor Vehicle Accidents, 
All Types 


12 


,828 


13,767 


15,440 


15,087 


15,521 


Fatal Motor Vehicle Accidents 




66 


48 


50 


42 


4? 


Personal Injury Motor Vehicle 
Accidents 


4 


,170 


4,415 


4,765 


* 


4,307 


Pedestrian and Motor Vehicle 
Accidents 




274 


270 


200 


* 


201 


Pedalcycle and Motor Vehicle 




52 


81 


123 


142 


211 


Daylight Motor Vehicle Accidents 


8 


,970 


9,698 


10,908 


* 


* 


Darkness Motor Vehicle Accidents 


3 


,858 


4,069 


4,532 


* 


* 


Number of Persons Killed in 
Motor Vehicle Accidents 




72 


49 


53 


44 


54 


Number of Persons Injured In 
Motor Vehicle Accidents 


6 


,276 


6,581 


7,034 


* 


5,423 



1238 



SUMMARY OF FATAL ACCIDENTS 



Cause 



Number of Number of 
Accidents Operators 
Killed 



Collision with other 

Motor Vehicle 

r; Fail to Yield R.O.W. 5 

2. Excessive Speed 3 

3. Fail to Keep Right 3 

4. Fail to Reduce Speed 1 

5. Fail to Obey Auto. Signal 1 

6. Improper Turn 1 

7. Fail Drive Designated Lane 1 

Vehicles Ran Off Roadway 

1. Excessive Speed 3 

2. Exceeding Posted Speed 1 

3. Fail to Reduce Speed 1 

4. Drowsy or Asleep 1 

Vehicle Struck Fixed Object 

1. Excessive Speed 4 

2. Exceeding Posted Speed 2 

3. Fail to Reduce Speed 1 

4 . Use of Alcohol 1 



Number of 

Passengers 

Killed 



Number of 

Pedalcyclisv- 

Killed 



4 

2 
2 

1 

1 
1 
1 



Vehicle Overturned in Roadway 

1. Excessive Speed 

2. Fail to Keep Right 

3. Unknown Cause (No Vio- 
lation) 

Pedalcycle Accidents 

1. Fail to Obey Auto. Signal 



TOTALS 



*47 



1 
1 



27 



11 



1 
1 



Pedestrian 



Number of 
Accidents 



Number of 

Pedestrians 

Killed 



1. Pedestrian at Fault 

2. Use of Alcohol 

3. Fail to Reduce Speed 

4 . Reckless Driving 

TOTAL 



11 
1 

1 
1 

14 



12 

1 

1 
1 

15 



* Includes Pedestrian Accidents 



60 



1239 



MAJOR CAUSE OF FATAL ACCIDENTS 



Pedestrian at Fault 

Speed Greater Than Reasonable 

Failure to Yield Right of Way 

Failure to Reduce Speed 

Failure to Keep Right 

Exceeding Posted Speed Limit 

TOTAL 

TOTAL ALL CAUSES 



Fatal Accidents 
11 
10 

5 

4 

4 

3 



37 
47 



FIVE YEAR COMPARISON OF DEATHS IN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS 
DISTRIBUTION BY MONTH 



Month 


1970 


1971 


1972 


1973 


1974 


Total Monthly 


January 


2 


6 


5 


4 


3 


20 


February 


4 


3 


8 


6 


3 


24 


March 


4 


3 


3 


2 


2 


14 


April 


11 


1 


3 


2 


2 


19 


May 


5 


6 


1 


5 


3 


20 


June 


6 


3 


5 


4 


5 


23 


July 


2 


7 


4 


2 


3 


18 


August 


7 


4 


9 


4 


4 


28 


September 


8 


2 


5 


2 


10 


27 


October 


9 


8 


3 


9 


6 


35 


November 


6 


4 


4 


1 


6 


21 


December 


8 


2 


3 


3 


7 


23 


YEARLY TOTALS 


72 


49 


53 


44 


54 


272 



61 



1240 



TRAFFIC VIOLATION ARREST BY AGE GROUP 



VIOLATIONS 



ARREST UNDER 


ARREST 18 


ARREST OVER 


TOTA* 


18 YEARS 


TO 7 YEARS 


70 


YEARS 


ARRESV 


526 


8,036 




64 


8,626 


88 


1,040 




23 


1,151 


26 


635 




4 


665 


4 


13 






17 


4 


29 






33 


403 


2,988 




80 


3,471 


380 


2,900 




27 


3,307 


89 


617 




1 


707 


259 


5,571 




76 


5,906 


21 


229 




2 


252 


2,064 


19,705 




50 


21,819 


380 


3,279 




16 


3,67' 


1,240 


9,219 




72 


10,531 


5,484 


54,261 




415 


60,160 



AUTOMATIC SIGNAL 
CHANGING LANES 
D.W.I. ALCOHOL 
D.W.I. DRUGS 
D.W.I. IMPAIRED 
FAIL TO GRANT R.O.W. 
FAIL TO REDUCE SPEED 
IMPROPER PASSING 
IMPROPER TURN 
PASSING SCHOOL BUS 
SPEEDING VIOLATIONS 
STOP SIGN 
OTHER MOVING 
TOTAL MOVING 



PARKING TOTAL 

REGULATORY 

TOTAL ALL VIOLATIONS 









45,605 


1,901 


10,983 


30 


12,914 


7,385 


65,244 


445 


118,679 



62 



1241 



< 

O 
D 

Bi 

a 

•J 
o 

a: 
o 
u 
-•J 
< 



l-l 

< 



n 
■p 
o 



4) 
> U) 

O ^ 
(0 

w 01 

■u >l| 
01 

V o 
i-i r~ 
u 
< 



00 w 

rH U 

U] 0) 

■U > 
in 

0) o 

u 

< o 



00 

4J 

>^ -a 
n c 

< D 



in 

VD 










(U 




0) 


in 


.-1 







u 


Q) 





c 




c 


in 


x; 


1- 




Q) 


c 





3 




3 


0) 





rH 




.-1 


in 


1-4 


M-J 




14-1 


<U 


< 


c 




c 


O 




M 




M 


>t-i 


1 


0) 




4) 





n 


x; 




x; 




d) 


-u 




-p 


c 


u 








o 


■H 


M 




^4 


•r^ 


« 


0) 




HI 


4J 


a 


^3 




'O 


« 


e 


c 




c 


o 


M 


=) 




D 


•H 










M-l 


CP 


DlrH 


CP 


•H 


c 


C 





C 


in 


•H 


■H x; 


•H in 


tn 


> 


> 





> tri 


(0 


•H 


•H 


o 


•H 3 


rH 


V4 


>-( 


r-l 


1-1 n 


O 


Q 


Q 


< 


Q Q 



CO 

O 
Eh 



in 








V 1 








in 


KO 


(Ti 


yj 


(1) + 


• 


• 


• 


M 


kD 


fN 


in 


M dO 


ro 






< 












w 








w 








w 








z 








w 








Ck 








Dk 








o 








a 








> 








o 








% 








!u 








O 








z 








o 








w 








H 








« 








< 








§ 








o 








u 


.-i 











.-H 






x: 





Ul 







x; 


CP 




o 





3 




rH 





M 




< 

1 


< 


Q 




0) 


1 


0) 




o 


■a 


U 




c 


(1) 


C 




d) 


u 


<U 




3 


•H 


3 




rH 


IT) 


i-H 




M-l 


a 


M-l 




c 


E 


C 




M 


M 


M 




S-l 


0) 


M 




OJ 


.-H 


<u 




T3 


■H 


TD 




c 


x; 


C 




D 


s 


3 




Cn 


Di 


Di 




c 


C 


d 




•H 


■H 


•H 




> 


> 


> 




•rH 


•H 


■H 




1-1 


S-l 


Vh 




Q 


Q 


o 



U) 




■P 




C T3 


(U 


0) 


TJ -IJ 


■H 


(0 


O M 


o 


0) 


< 


a 


■-H 


^ 


(0 





■p x; 


ra 


o 


b 


o 



* < 





d) 




in 




3 




(0 




u 




CP 




c 




■rH 


Eh 


JJ 


2 


3 


W 


XI 


D 


-H 


M 


M 


o 


-P 


u 


c 


< 







o 


i 




E-i 




< 




b 




6d 




EC 


<u 


Eh 


w 




3 


Q 


fl 


2 


u 


< 






>1 


iJ 


^4 


O 


(0 


K 


-a 


O 


c 


U 





^ 






CO 



(1) 
tn 

3 
(D 
U 

>i 

M 
ID 

e 

•H 
M 

a, 



o 






63 



52-587 O - 75 - pt.2 - 10 



1242 



a 

< 

X 

u 

M 

U 

M 

£-> 
M 

> 
H 
E- 
U 

< 

o 
w 
z 



u 
u 



C C ON 

o o ^ 

■l-l i 

<o 5 

0) o 

4: i-H TT 

se o 1^ 

ON 



r* 

ON 
l-l Ci^ 

<u c 

>-H 

•H CL^r 
W W r-- 

ON 



fl 


f~ 


T3 


ON 


in 


r-( 


a 




c 




4J 




0) V 


ffi 


r~ 




ON 



r- 

ON 

<u >-i 



U -I 
S. -H 

aa 

M ^ 
I7> o 

o u 
6 -u 



(U 

c 
c 

O -H 
Ul t) 

w > 

(U (U 
0. ,J 



a) -^ 

U to 

■H 0) 

^ iH 

O -H 

>*J U (1) 



O H 
M 

v^ H in 



>4-l .-3 
O O 
M 
•U «< 
C 

0) .-( 
U IB 



c 
"O o 

(1) H — 

m It) - 
4j a c 

01 O M 






n 



O dP 

o r- 

fN • 
- CN 

o — 

CD 



n c(p 



C 0) 

O ON 

•rt (0 

■tJ U] 

(0 Ul 

U 0) 

•H E 

c 

3 O 

g Tl 

O 10 

cj OS 



0) in 

>1 tJN 

•u nj 

o; Ul 

.H Ul 

<U ID 

E-i S 



1/1 



in 

On 



(N 00 



CO I 

r~ — 



U 

M in 

U Q) 

Z -H 

M 3 

J tr 

H C 

Em 



(0 

■P 

C 



o 



64 



1243 



Q 

H 
H 
U 

it: 

U ►J 

O H 

H < 
> 



W 



E O 

a: E- 

u < 

Q 

a u 

E- > 

U M 

K E^ 

J Z 

U U 

w > 



o 
u 

g 

(0 



DP 

in 





U 




O 




0) iw 




g (U 




•'^ 0) > 




E-* rH -H 


OC 


XI -u 


a\ 


.-H (0 C --H 


• 


-1 a) 


in 


1-1 --H > Ij 


1 


JJ 10 OJ -U 




(0 > u <0 



Of 


oe 


OP 


o 


O 


o 


n 


rg 


■— 1 


+ 


+ 


+ 



OP 

o 



0, < cu a< 



■p 
4J tn 
(U c 
a) 0) 
u u 







>i 




(0 A 




■P 




c-o 






■H a) 






rfl > 0) 


OP 




^ .-1 -rH O 


r- 




113 a oj -H 


00 




a; 


+ 




E-i u « a. 



E cu O 

■H )-l 

C 1-1 >iJ-) 

•H CJ X! « 

a. 

0) T3 T) 

U) 0) (1) QJ 

(0 4-1 4J > 
(DUO 

1-1 4) 0) 

O --I "*-i 
C OJ 

M W < 



c 
> 



m r~ t^ in m 

rH CO m ro in 

n ^ ^ 

-^ -t- -t- -t- -t- 



iw 

a) 
>ix; 

U Eh 

rH a) 
c^X) o 

i-l XI -u 
3 3 



lO 



e 

en 

C -H 

01 IT3 

U Tl 

U C 



03 K < ^q > 



65 



1244 



GRAPHICAL COMPARISON 



l [4iU|a. .jr:.-:i 



1965 to 1974 




murder 



rape 

aggravated assault 

burglary 

robbery 

auto theft 

narcotic offenses 
sex offenses 



1245 



-25 _ 


■ 


[ 








: 




20 _ 
,15 


1 ■ ■ ■ 


iDuruar 

: 
1 

. . ! ■ ■ 
1 \ 


i / 

■ i ■/ 

1 J 


\ 




:!■ • 

10 - 

: ■; 


V I 


1 J 


1 ^ 

1 




f 


. . 1 

- 1 


1 • ■ 














1 


1 


1 











19165 66 67 68 6p 70 7il 72 7;3 1 <■ 

._i __ 1 _ 1 — . . 1 i 1. 




124(5 




19«5 66 6,7 6B . 6S 70 7|l • • -72- 7tj; . i 7(4: 




■t ■ "19^5 : : i^ : :^:.:: ^E^:-^ H t|:iri^f ! t|;J Ijfi 



69 



1247 



700 ^ 

600 1 




narcotic 


offenses 

1 v' 


N 


...:... 




5.00 _ 
400 _ 


■ • 


■ • i 

■ 1 


__. jV 


1 

1 


--•-- 


■^ 


_3P0 _ 


■ - f • ■ 


■.:A: / 












1 ■ ■ 
200 


■ i: •. : 








■ 


IQQ _ 


: 
. t 




.... 1 . 




._L. .. 






1 


1 


I 











1965 66 



617 68 6& 70 VJL 72 7^ 

.: 1 . 



74 



T 



lODO.- 



800 



sex offenses 




:_[.. 



4 



1965 66 6|' 68 6p 70 71 72 7^ 74 



70 



1248 



AWARDS 

In grateful recognition of outstanding service rendered by 
the Department of Police to the citizens of Montgomery County, 
the following awards were made during the year 1974: 

POLICE OFFICER OF THE YEAR (KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS) 

On April 23, 1974, the Columbian Medal of Merit was presented to 
Corporal Harry E. Bailey, Jr., in recognition of his selection as 
Montgomery County Police Officer of the Year for 1973. 

CITATION TO ACCOMPANY THE AWARD OF THE COLUMBIAN MEDAL FOR MERIT TO 
CORPORAL HARRY E. BAILEY, JR. 

On March 31, 197 3, Corporal Bailey responded to a burglary- 
in-progress call at the United Parcel Service garage on Linden Lane 
in Silver Spring. Entering the building, he observed a male suspect 
in a crouched position before a safe. Corporal Bailey ordered the 
suspect to stand. The suspect began to comply but, as he was nearly 
upright, suddenly dashed between parked trucks and made his way 
toward the rear of the building. As Corporal Bailey gave chase, the 
suspect fired several shots from a revolver. 

Corporal Bailey was now joined by Officer Thomas Cauffiel. As 
Officer Cauffiel entered the building, armed with a shotgun. 
Corporal Bailey instructed him to withhold his fire since the suspect 
was trapped. He ordered the suspect to surrender, but again was 
fired upon. In the gun battle that ensued. Corporal Bailey sustained 
two gunshot wounds and the gunman was fatally wounded. 

Corporal Bailey's determined effort to effect capture of the 
gunman alive and unharmed, in spite of the provocation of being fired 



72 



1249 



upon, was in the highest tradition of those who are entrusted with 
the enforcement of our laws and the protection of our lives. In 
behalf of a grateful citizenry, we proudly honor him and designate 
him as Montgomery County Policeman of the Year 1973. 

CITATION FOR MERITORIOUS SERVICE AWARDED BY THE COLUMBIAN AWARDS 
COMMITTEE TO OFFICER H. THOMAS CAUFFIEL, II 

On March 31, 1973, Officer Cauffiel was dispatched to the scene 
of a burglary-in-progress as a supportive unit to assist Corporal 
Harry E. Bailey, Jr. Upon entering the building. Officer Cauffiel 
was advised by Corporal Bailey to withhold his fire as the suspect 
was trapped at the rear of the garage. 

When the suspect was ordered to surrender, he answered with a 
fusillade of gunshots. Corporal Bailey was wounded twice, and 
Officer Cauffiel alertly returned the gunman's fire, felling the 
suspect and protecting both Corporal Bailey and himself from further 
harm. 

Officer Cauffiel 's calmness and courage under fire reflected the 
greatest credit on himself and the Montgomery County Department of 
Police and has earned this Citation of Honorable Mention as Montgomery 
County Policeman of the Year 1973. 

CITATION FOR MERITORIOUS SERVICE AWARDED BY THE COLUMBIAN AWARDS 
COMMITTEE TO OFFICER LAUREN M. ACQUAVIVA 

On June 18, 1973, Officer Acquaviva and other policemen arrived 
at the scene of an aggravated assault to find the victim lying on the 
ground and bleeding profusely from chest wounds. As the victim was 
placed in an ambulance. Officer Acquaviva accompanied him. 



73 



1250 



Enroute to Suburban Hospital, the stabbing victim suddenly 
stopped breathing. Officer Acquaviva immediately began administering 
oxygen and performing closed heart massage, continuing these efforts 
until the ambulance reached the hospital where the victim survived 
emergency surgery. 

Through his initiative and his instantaneous response to the 
emergency. Officer Acquaviva reflected the greatest credit on himself 
and the Montgomery County Department of Police and has earned this 
Citation of Honorable Mention as Montgomery County Policeman of the 
Year 1973. 

CITATION FOR MERITORIOUS SERVICE AWARDED BY THE COLUMBIAN AWARDS 
COMMITTEE TO OFFICER GENE L. CONNER 

On January 3, 1973, in the late evening hours, two armed men 
robbed a store in a remote section of Montgomery County. Shortly 
after the broadcast of a lookout. Officer Conner observed the suspect 
vehicle approximately two miles from the scene of the robbery. 

Officer Conner gave pursuit and succeeded in apprehending the 
two gunmen and the operator of the vehicle on a desolate section of a 
rural dirt road. 

Officer Conner's alertness and personal courage during this 
potentially dangerous arrest reflected the greatest credit on himself 
and the Montgomery County Department of Police and has earned this 
Citation of Honorable Mention as Montgomery County Policeman of the 
Year 1973. 

CITATION FOR MERITORIOUS SERVICE AWARDED BY THE COLUMBIAN AWARDS 
COMMITTEE TO OFFICER CHARLES M. ALEXANDER 

On October 30, 1973, Officer Alexander responded to a Wheaton 

74 



1251 



apartment project where a young man, armed with a hunting bow and 
arrows, had refused to be transported to a hospital for treatment of 
possible drug overdose and ingestion of alcoholic beverages. The 
victim had threatened to shoot anyone entering the apartment. 

Officer Alexander took a position outside a window near the rear 
of the apartment and engaged the young man in conversation. He soon 
won the young man's confidence and trust and gained entry to the 
apartment. After extensive conversation with the young man, a friend 
was located and summoned to assist. Officer Alexander, with the aid 
of the friend, finally convinced the young man to put aside the 
weapon and be transported to the hospital for treatment. 

Officer Alexander's personal concern for the safety of the young 
man and his persuasiveness in a situation that was potentially hazardous 
reflected the greatest credit on himself and the Montgomery County 
Department of Police and has earned this Citation of Honorable Mention 
as Montgomery County Policeman of the Year 1973. 

CITATION FOR MERITORIOUS SERVICE AWARDED BY THE COLUMBIAN AWARDS 
COMMITTEE TO SERGEANT JOSEPH I. SNOW, JR. 



In the early morning hours of September 17, 1973, Sergeant Snow 
responded to a private residence where a man had fired a pistol and 
was threatening suicide. Upon arrival, Sergeant Snow found the suspect 
lying on a bed, holding the pistol with the barrel against his chest. 

Sergeant Snow conversed with the man from a hallway, won his 
confidence, and was able to enter the bedroom. In the discussion 
that followed. Sergeant Snow convinced the man he would not be harmed 
and would benefit from voluntarily surrendering the weapon and 
obtaining psychiatric assistance. 



75 



1252 



The compassion and understanding demonstrated by Sergeant Snow 
and his willingness to undertake personal risk to achieve the goal of 
disarming the emotionally distraught citizen reflected the greatest 
credit on himself and the Montgomery County Department of Police and 
has earned this Citation of Honorable Mention as Montgomery County 
Policeman of the Year 1973. 

AMERICAN LEGION POST 41 

During 1974, the Cissel-Saxon Post of the American Legion 
selected the following officers and presented them with certificates: 

Captain Thomas A. McDonald 

Pfc. Francis W. Young 

Officer Lauren M. Acquaviva 

Officer James R. Fitzgibbon 

Officer Daniel C. Frishkorn 

Officer Andrew W. Pecoraro 

Officer Allen J. Prettyman 

Oflicer Robert L. Price 

Officer Joseph G. Roberts 

Officer William T. Theros 

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE 

On November 9, 1974, the Maryland State Lodge of the Fraternal 
Order of Police presented Officer H. Thomas Cauffiel a plaque naming 
him as one of its "Policeman of the Year." 



76 



1253 



NATIONAL SOCIETY OF THE SONS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

On March 14, 1974, the General William Smallwood Chapter of 
the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution presented 
Captain Thomas Thear with a Law Enforcement Commendation Medal. 

KIWANIS CLUB OF WHEATON 

The Kiwanis Club of Wheaton recognized Corporal Arthur R. Sonntag 
for his outstanding service and dedication to the youth and other 
groups in the community. 

BETHESDA KIWANIS CLUB 

On August 20, 1974, the Bethesda Kiwanis Club honored Sergeant 
Joseph I. Snow, Privates First Class William R. Seested and John A 
Shigo, and Officers Lauren M. Acquaviva , Charles M. Alexander, and 
Gene L. Conner for outstanding community service, at a luncheon at 
Bish Thompson's Restaurant. 

BETHESDA CHEVY CHASE EXCHANGE CLUB 

On February 22, 1974, the Bethesda Chevy Chase Exchange Club 
presented a plaque to Officer Lauren M. Acquaviva. 

AMERICAN LEGION POST 105 

During the American Legion State Convention held in Ocean City, 
Maryland, Colonel K. W. Watkins, and Officers Allen J. Prettyman and 
Lauren Acquaviva were honored through Fitzgear Id-Cantrel Post 105 in 
Bethesda. 



77 



1254 



J. EDGAR HOOVER MEMORIAL AWARD 

On May 16, 1974, Colonel K. W. Watkins was presented the second 
annual J. Edgar Hoover Memorial Award. The award, a specially- 
designed bronze medal, was sponsored by Ridge Homes in recognition of 
"efforts to advance the prof essionalization of law enforcement." 

In winning the award, the Montgomery County Department of Police 
was cited for its emphasis on in-service, college and professional 
training programs; an extensive community affairs program; and the 
creation of several new programs and projects to provide more 
effective protection for the public, including a tactical section, 
school safety program and the reorganization of the detective section. 



78 



1255 

The CiTAiRMAx. The fjenthMnaii may proceed with his summary. 

ColoiK^l Watkixs. Tn considoiMtion of tliis topic for discussion liere 
today, there were several aspects in tlie hroad sense tliat came to my 
mind^ — sucli tliin^rs as demoo;raphics, urbanization, the family unit, and 
its reinforcino- institutions. 

The criminal jiisticc philosopliy is i-esponsible foi- tli(> iiici-ease in the 
AVashiuiitou area ciiminal activity. T suppose that M<)nto()inerv County 
is made up generally as other counties in the Washin<i:ton area demo- 
tjraphically. but I suspect, too, that our population is somewhat more 
so]-»histicated perhaps then soni(> areas; that is. county areas adjacent 
to lar<2e cities such as Washin<rt()n. 

I tliink, too, that the characteristics of urbanization impacts on crime. 
There are more thino^s to steal in an area where we have affluence as 
opposed to areas where wo do not. Likewise, we find individuals who 
are criminal minded able to lind others who are criminal minded to 
enter into associations one with the other and create crime. 

YOUTH OFFENDERS 

AVe find, too, that the bulk of our crime, as T suppose is true in other 
areas, is primarily committed by those under the ao^e of 18 years. Of 
course, the bulk of our crime is committed by persons overall up to 
24 years of a^e. 

For the last several years, more than 50 percent of our crimes are 
committed by those under the ao;e of 18. We feel, too, that in part re- 
sponsible for that is the breakdown in the family unit. 

Certainly, the values that used to abound in days past where the 
church was the center of attention, certainly an institution in the com- 
mimity that people rallied around, and we found certain values there 
that were reinforced in educational institutions and, indeed, in the 
community. 

I do not think — I think that with the passage of time, we do not have 
the kind of reinfoivement that we had been used to some years a^o. 
Therefore, the set of values as we had known them are not any more to 
the degree that they should be, all of which adds to the crime picture 
and, of course, the disrespect for the authority that is out there to sort 
of keep people in line. 

LEAA FUNDS 

We feel ^renerally that with the advent of Federal funds throu^rh the 
LaAv Enforcement Assistance Administration, that while there has 
been an attempt at planning for an entire criminal justice system, we 
find that nuich attention has been given to law enforcement in the sense 
of police which has created a situation where other elements of that 
so-called system have not kept pace. 

Therefore, if we want to call it a system, it is somewhat out of 
balance. 

We feel that because law enforcement has become more sophisticated 
and in some areas more efficient, particularly police arrests, that that 
has created a situation in prosecution where it is not as vigorous as 
it should be and has brought into focus pretrial diversion programs 
tluit reduce deterrents in the overall picture. 

Having talked with people who are serving lengthy sentences at 
fairly young ages, I hear several of them say that had their first offense 



1250 

rosiiltcd in a sliort term of coiifinonioiil outsido of the main stream of 
life, that perliaps they would not be on the inside at this time. 

HeariiiiT wlinf lonir-tei-mers speak indei^cTidontly of that. T would 
have to say tliere may be some merit to that. In our etl'ort to return 
people to society, we tend to overlook a first and second offense that 
miirht work to tlie detriment of society. 

Tliat has sort of led to a lack of attention to the victim and the 
jieople who ai'e really payin<i- the way in favor of a <;ood bit of atten- 
tion to the wron<rdoer. 

APPEAT. PROCESS 

Another factoi- that impacts, in oui' opinion, on wliy there is an 
increase in crime in the Washin<rton area is the appeal process that 
is available to evei-yone. T do not say that, expectinfr tliere to be no 
aj)peal process. But, it seems that law enfoivement is never rid of a 
case, rid of it in the sense that they are constantly going to trial about 
the same issue or some aspect of that issue. 

Tt seems that there should be some way to reduce the amount of 
appeals or tlu' time taken in appealing decisions along the line. 

It has been stated by Chief Cull inane this morning tliat the decrimi- 
nalization of certain kinds of criminal offenses which I would have to 
agree with. T might also add that if we deci'iminalize some of those 
victimless crimes, we may find that the fact that they are not receiving 
the attention that they once did, that other crimes may become more 
]")revalent. 

That is one of the reasons why T would oppose decriminalization. 

GUN CONTROL 

Much has been said about gun control. This is a tremendously diffi- 
cult problem to come to grips with. T do not know that any of us in 
the police area would have any answers to that kind of thing. 

Rut. it seems until something is provided to oivo some assurance to 
the citizen that his having a weapon of the liandgun variety is not 
necessai'v, when that assurance is souiewhat [)i"ovided, it seems that 
there would be less clamoi- on his part in opposition to any gun control. 

Certainly, T think it is recognized by almost anyone who has an 
acquaintance with this subject that any control lias to be at the Federal 
level. 

Otherwise, it is extremely ineffectual. 

There are considerations, of course, that there are a growing num- 
ber of illegal aliens in our country. In oi'der to imi)act that and to 
reduce unemployment, it seems some onus should be placed on the 
employei- of tlic illegal alien which would Iiaxc the effect of granting 
the job to the in(li\i(lual who wasboi-n licre. 

BTCENTEXXIAT. CELEURATIOXS 

- Finally. T think we can expect a gi'cat iiumbi'r of visitors in the 
"Washington area foi- the Bicentennial and w(> have had some difficulty, 
as I am sure other aica depai-tments have had. in determining what 
events are to take place at what time and at what locations. 

Of course, we are hoi)eful that the Council of (Toxernnient organiza- 
tion will play an extremely important role in that aiva and to sup- 



1257 

plonient that, certainly in Arontp;omorv County, avp would expect 
our Bicentennial office to be attuned to the thin<!:s in tlie Washin<i:ton 
area as well as in the county to lielp cooi'dinato and make ns aware 
of what is comino- np so that we nii<>-ht plan Tor it. 

The educators are tellin<r us that Avith the advent of birth control 
methods and other views of decreasino- population, perhaps in the 
foreseeable futuiv, the trend may be revei-sed alono- about the lOSO's 
or the ll)90"s. Perhaps our youno- pt>ople will not be as prevalent and 
perhaps will be g:oino; throu<>h another cycle where what we termed 
old values may have returned. 

That. Mr. Chaii-man. is a summarization of my pi-epared remarks. 

The Chairman. Thank you very nuich. Chief. 

I was particularly interested in your reference to first offenders. 
Your analysis would reveal that if somethino- had been done when 
they orirriiially entei-ed into this criminal activity, it would have 
served as a deterrent. 

TRUAXCY IX SCHOOLS 

I was backino; that up into the schools because we have such a large 
Iiercentage of criminal activity that is within that age category. I am 
})articularly interested in your views on the enforcement of truancy in 
your county. 

I have been very saddened by what I have heard thus far about the 
level of enforcement of truancy even in your area, Avliich has, within 
this metropolitan area, probably the highest per capita education of 
anywhere. 

bo you think tliat a more vigorous enforcement of truancy could 
help deal with this situation? If so, why have Ave abandoned the old 
standards? 

Colonel Watkixs. Well. I suppose, ]\lr. Chairman, that there are 
probably two ([uestions here — truancy and Avhy liave Ave abandoned, 
and you tie that to truancy. 

I really do not knoAv Avhy Ave have abandoned the old standards 
except that educational institutions in my opinion have sought to 
change society to the extent of exposing youngsters to not the three 
R's that Ave haA^e been accustomed to. but to subject matters and con- 
tents that liaA-e had the effect of diminishing Avhat has been in the 
past. 

And. folloAving along Avith that, by one l>eing able to express him- 
self, "do your OAvn thing,"' that might be some reason for some young 
people not going to school. 

As far as the enforcement of the truancy laAvs are concerned. I really 
do not think tliat police sliould be in the truancy business. But, I do 
think that there should be individuals Avitliin educational systems who 
should be attuned to that sort of thing. 

That can pei'ha])s tie that offense to the adults responsible for the 
youngsters' attendance someAvhere along the line. I think that so 
often our parents — the parents avIio have youngsters haA^e delegated 
the rearing of young people to eA'ery other institution that exists. 

As a result of that, they do not seem to be as much attuned to their 
resjionsibilitA' as they should be. 

Of course.there are all kinds of moA-ements that affect that. We haA^e 
wnuuMi. Avho. granted, should liaA'e the same opportunities as men. 



1258 

But at the same time, T would liope that thoy would not bo to tho detri- 
mont of the youncr people livinp; within the home. 

To ine, it is such a r-oniplexity that you cannot really put your finder 
on one thintrthat would hear on the (piestiou that you lisked. 

The Chairman. It woidd seem to me to be a very simple question. 
The standai-ds of truancy — and I am not sufrffestiiifr that police get 
involved in that situation except to onfoire it — were much different 
when you and 1 were in the school system than they are no\v. 

This is what T am «ettinfr at, Why don't they enforce the law? Not 
the police necessarily, but someone within the public school system 
with obvious encourairement on the pai-t of the law enforcement agen- 
cies that would liave oversifjht responsibility? 

Colonel "Watkins. I cannot tell you. Mr. Chairman. 

The Ctiairmax. The reasons for ti'uancy are obviously very complex, 
but I am talkino- about enfoi-cino; what we have pot on the books. 
When people do not show up for school, there are laws in Monto;omery 
County as well as in every other jurisdiction in the country that are 
su))posed to ))enalize those people. 

Colonel Watkixs. T cannot answer why school officials do not en- 
force ti'uancv laws. 

The Cttatrman. Mr. Gude? 

Mr. Gi'DE. Tliauk you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to apoloo-jze that T was in another meetinjj when you 
arrived, 

coivr^ruNiTT involat^ment 

I api)reciate your testimony aiul certainly the social causes of crime 
insofar as it relates to the family and the commmiity are important. 

I think that the community has jrot to start lookinc: at itself and not 
dependinii' on the police and the courts to soh-e its jiroblems. T^ntil the 
eonununity and the family wake up to that, we aregoino; to continue to 
have problems. 

BTCENTENNTAI. CFJ^KRRATIONS 

In reference to tlie upcoming Bicentennial, what ai'o the most 
jM'essing pi'oblems you see as far as Montgomery County is concerned. 
What comments would you make as far as planning for the influx 
tliat we are going to liave? 

Colonel Watkixs. Tbe lii'st Ihino- that I nirntioned can be solved 
more easilv than the second thing T want to mention. I think, first of 
all, that thei'e needs to be a cleai'inghouse of information of what is 
])lanned, where it is ])lanned. and at wbat time. 

Those who make in<|uiry within our county of activities in othei- 
places aside fi-om oui- county should be able to deteiniine that. I would 
hope that the Council of (^lovernments would act as a clearinghouse foi- 
the activities in and sui'iounding Washington. 

The second i)roblem is one everyone brings with tliein. tlie ])rol)lem 
of money. As I see our situation in the county, J^icentennial activities 
■ will recpiire overtime on the part of our police oflicei's which, of course, 
as Avith everyone, is at tinu> and a half. 

With our budtret crunches, cei'taiidy, th(>r(> has <':ot to be some moneys 
to pay those officers who are lequiied to work on theii- own time for 
these activities. By not knowing w1iat is i)lanned and foi- how long, we 



1259 

ai-e hard pressed to know how iniicli of our resources we will need so 
that we will be able to say an approximate amount of money we will 
need, 

I see that as a monumental problem. 

Mr. GuDE. You need to know more specifically what events are ^roinfr 
to occui- and when so yon can plan to beef u)) your forces accordinirly ? 

Colonel AVatkins. That is correct. Or, deploy our forces some of 
which would b(> on an off-duty status whom we would have to pay and 
whom we would be hard pressed to pay. 

JU\I:N I I-K ( )FFEXnKRS 

Mr. GuDE. Gettin<>: back to the (juestion of juvenile crime which you 
touched on, what programs have you had in the dei)artment that you 
see as bein«r most effective in workinir with juveniles? 

Colonel Watkixs, There are a number of pro<rrams. One projrram 
that we beiran approximately 2 years a^o was a ride-alon": i)i-oo;ram 
whicli o:ave younirsters an insi<>ht on police work and sort of set the 
staffe for more i-apport with indiviihial ofRcei's and those participants. 

Moreover, we instituted a liaison program whereby each of our high 
scliools has assigned a liaison officer assigned to our juvenile section 
who regularly visits the school. He is not tliere full-time by any means. 
He makes presentations in various classes on certain aspects of law 
enforcement. 

He is a resource to each teacher. He is a resoni'ce to the student him- 
self. AVe have found that has Ix'en helpful to us to a large extent. 

AVe were gi-anted Federal funds a year or so ago that made it pos- 
sible for educational people working with out people to design a cur- 
riculum on law enforcement for the use in the junior high school 
whereby a certain number of segments of education can be presented 
where the students themselves become participants in certain aspects of 
law enforcement. 

AVe intend to pilot that the first part of June. It looks very, very 
good. It is being developed at our Mark Twain School, which is a 
school whose students are those who are not interested in other curric- 
ulums in other schools, but find interest in the extraordinary. 

That has every promise of being beneficial to a number of students. 
Our pilot program is set for the Julius AA^est Junior High School in 
Rockville, which will be presented to some 750 students. 

AA^e would hope throughout the coming several years that that would 
gain momentum in all the schools and give insight to law enforcement 
and, hopefully, less youngsters will be participating in illegal 
activity. 

LEAA FUNDS 

Mr. Gfde. I have had the opportunity, as you know, to observe the 
several progi-ams that the county has used that have utilized LEAA 
funds and T think they are most effective. I was very impressed. 

Do you think that enough LEAA funds are being used to combat 
juvenile crime ])roblems? You deal with instances where we have util- 
ized these funds in Montgomery County which has also been helpful as 
far as combatting juvenile crime; juvenile crime being about 15 per- 
cent of all arrests. 



1260 

I undorstand that only about 18 percent of the LEAA funds are 
fjoino: toward juvenile crime. Do you liave any comment on that? 

Colonel "Watktxs. T am familiar with sovoi-al prooframs funded by 
the Federal (iovornment. But. I have always had a reservation about 
how worthy some of those ]:)ro<rrams have been. I see value in some of 
the programs in the governmental structure — juvenile intake and beef- 
in^r up the ca]iability of juvenile court, heefinir up the capability of 
l^robation officers, and what have you. 

But. where we have diajrnostic centers and determininfj what has 
caused this vounfrster to ^ro astray, I have yet to see any real result of 
that. 

But. at tlie same time, I cannot say that there has not been some 
<rood result. It has been hard to pet a handle on how many people such 
institutions treated and has that reduced the recidivist rate? 

Juvenile crime and the handlino- of juveniles has been a priority in 
Montoomery County in terms of Federal funds for some time, and I 
would have to say that in our rep;ion TV, Montofomery and Prince 
Georees Counties, in my opinion, sufficient moneys have been spent 
in that area. 

I question, sometimes, some of the lliino-s that it is spent for. 

Mr. GuDE. Is your department interacting with the juvenile court 
advisory committees? 

Coloiiol Watktxs. Our juvenile section, which is a part of our crim- 
inal investi^ration secticm, does have interaction throuo'h its com- 
mander and its deputy commander from time to time. So, there is an 
exchan<2:e of information. There is an interaction. 

As to how often. I cannot say. But. we are certainly not without 
communication. 

Mr. GuDE. Have you had any denials of requests for LEAA funds? 

Colonel AVatkixs. We have had some, but they really have not been 
that hard for us to accept. I think one of our bi<2: problems has been the 
categories at tlie Government level, that we mi^ht attemj^t to prograin 
from. But, at the same time, there is a mechanism that reduces that in 
that the two jurisdictions, Montgomary and Prince Georges, have 
much input on the categoi-ies for funding for the youngsters. 

But, invariably, something will come up after that lias l)een decided 
for which there is no category in wliich that might fit. 

As to denial of programs, we had hoped to get into something for 
.senior citizens in the way of crime prevention. That was rejected by 
our region last time. T think if we can take another approach, we may 
make it possible to fund. 

Mr. GiDE. ^"^Hiat was the proposal for the senior citizens? Was this 
a prevention proposal? 

Colonel Watkixs. Yes. 

It would have amounted to studying crime against the elderly for 
several montlis before we really implemented anything. T tliink the 
objection was to the study of that. 

Things can be studied to death, as you know. T think the action por- 
tion of that, with two full-time people witli the elderly and advising 
them on crime prevention techniques was the real thrust of that 
program. 

Mr. GuDE. Thank vou very much. Mr. Watkins. 



12K)1 

Colonel Watkixs. Tliank you. Mr. Glide. 

Mr, GuDE. Thank yon, Mr. Chairman. 

The CiiAiKMAX. Mr. Mann? 

Mr. Manx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Colonel Watkins. you have a countywide police department. Are 
there any municipal departments? 

Colonel "Watkixs. The city of Gaithersburg has three sworn offi- 
cers. Rockville luis 13 sworn olHcers. There is a special taxing area in 
the Chevy Chase area which employs two people. I think that is the 
extent of the other agencies within. 

Even though that is so, Montgomery County polices all those areas 
and those forces act as supplementary, or they augment our work. 

IVIETRO SECURITY 

Mr. Maxx". Have you had discussicms with the Metro authorities 
concerning the security of their stations in your area? 

Colonel Watkixs. We had jnore discussions concerning that sub- 
ject 18 months to 2 j'ears ago than we have had now. There is a mecha- 
nism for that. Angus McLean, director of secui-ity, meets with the 
chiefs monthly. He is always on the phone with the police. 

We have discussed policing in the stations that are planned for our 
area. That is a continuing kind of dialog. 

M^r. Maxx. Simplistically. will it be the responsil)ility of your police 
to police the stations themselves and the surrounding parking areas or 
has that arrangement been fully made ? 

Colonel Watkixs. The decision has not been fully made. At the time 
the study was made, in certain locations where terminals were to be 
had more than other areas where ternnnals were to be. 

In the areas where the crime was more significant, it was planned 
that the policing would fall to us on the level of criminal activity at 
that location as to wliether we would spend full time in that district 
or sporadically check it. 

In any event, the parking areas surrounding them, it is under- 
stood that that is our full-time responsibility, and that the Metro 
officers would ride the trains and add to the policing in the terminals 
from time to time. 

But basically, the terminals would be our responsibility. 

Mr. Maxx. Thank you, ]\Ir. Watkins. 

Colonel AVatkixs. Thank you, Mr. ]\Iann. 

Mr. Maxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairmax'. Thank yon very much, Chief. 

Our next witness is John Rhoads, Chief of Police of Prince Georges 
County. Chief, you have a i)re])ared statement together with a very 
comprehensive set of graphs ancl charts that are going to be very useful 
to the committee's deliberations. It is my understanding that you have 
a time problem here and if you wish to make a short general state- 
ment and then respond to wi'ittcn (piestions, we can accommodate you 
if that wouhl l)e helpfid. You have been \-ery patient here all morning, 
and we can understand your situation and desire to cooperate. W^ill you 
identify the gentlemen accompanying you ? 



1262 

[Tlie document referred to follows :] 

Prince Georges County Pouce Department Bicentennial Committee 

Information 

I. budget information 

Seventy-six and six-tenths percent of this 1976 budget comprises compensation 
to fund 045 sworn otficers as well as the necessary civilian employees to bring 
the department up to authorized strength. 

1976 Budget Information 

The budget for 1976 reflects an increase of $2,702,171 over the 1975 budget. 
This represents a 13.4% increa.se. 

Of the total budget 76.7% comprises compensation to fund 945 sworn officers, 
280 civilians, and 220 crossing guards. 

Of the total budget 16.S% covers operating cxpen.ses for a Department which 
is in excess of 1,300 personnel. The greatest portion is directly related to keep- 
ing a fleet of over 900 vehicles in operation. Gasoline alone will cost over a 
million dollars. Purchase and replacement of vehicles will require 6.4% of the 
budget. 

Only those items directly essential to the operation of the Department are 
included. 

II. MANPOWER strength INFORMATION 

As of May 1, 1975, this Department had an authorized sworn strength of 949. 
However only 822 officers were actually assigned. These 127 vancancies meant that 
the Department is only at 86.0 percent of its authorized sworn strength. Com- 
missioned officers constitute 7.6 i)ercent of this Department's assigned sworn 
strength. 

Personnel Status 

1. Civilian personnel (overall) — Full time — Totals: Authorized 303; assigned, 
207: vacant. 36. 

2. Part-time employees (220 crossing guards, 4 custodians) — Authorized, 224; 
assigned, 224 ; vacant, 0. 

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL (BY UNIT) 

Authorized Assigned Vacant 

Office of the Chief 

Research and development 

Community relations ' 

School security (no civilians). 

Special operations. 

Inspectional services 

Bureau of Pat roL_. 

Bureau of Criminal Investigation 

Bureau of Administrative Services 

Training and education ^ 

Central services. 

Bureau of Technical Services 

Communications 

Records 

Federally funded: 

Specialized tactical 

Research staff (crime analysis) 

> Includes 220 part-time crossing guards. 

> Includes 31 cadets. 

Personnel Statis Information — May 1, 1975 

1. Sworn personnel (overall) — Totals: Authorized, 949; a.^signed. 822; 
vacant, 127. 



13 


9 


4 


2 


2 





231 


230 


1 


1 


1 





3 


3 





37 


34 


3 


30 


28 


2 


6 


6 





36 


32 


4 


5 


4 


1 


18 


17 


1 


76 


64 


12 


63 


57 


6 


2 


2 





3 


3 






126.3 



SWORN PERSONNEL (BY UNIT) 



Unit 



Authorized 



Assigned 



Vacant 



Office of the Chief 

Research and development 

Community relations. 

School security 

Special operations 

Inspect lonal services 

Bureau of Patrol. 

Bureau of Criminal Investigations 

Bureau of Administrative Services 

Training and education 

Central services 

Bureau of Technical Services 

Communications 

Records and identification 

Federally funded: 

Specialized tactical 

Contractual of police services 

Research staff^Crime analysis 

Basic entrance level training 

Project "84" 

Noncommissioned officers: 

Sergeants... 

Private/ corporal 

Total.... 

Commissioned and noncommissioned (total) 

Commissioned officer— Lieutenant and above (total) 

Noncommissioned officers: Police/Federal: 

Sergeant 

Private/corporal ._. 

Total. 

Total 



14 


13 


1 


6 


6 





15 


15 





14 


13 , 


1 


55 


55 





12 


12 





596 


476 


120 


137 


137 





12 


12 





13 


12 


1 


5 


5 





4 


4 





18 


18 





13 


12 


1 


10 


10 





5 


5 





1 


1 





2 


2 





16 


16 






101 


100 
659 ' 


1 


782 


123 






883 


759 


124 






949 


822 
63 


127 


66 


3 






100/ 


100/ 
625/34 


1/0 


748/34 


123/ 






883 


759 


124 







949 



822 



127 



ni. CHIME RATE INFORMATION 

For the five year period from 1970-1974 index crime rose 118 percent. A com- 
parison of tlie first quarters of 1974 and 1975 indicates that this trend is 
continuing. 

CRIME INFORMATION FROM 19 70-74 

For the five year period from 1970-1974 index crimes rose despite the expanded 
efforts of the Department. The rate of increase varied from 23% for auto theft 
to 237% for larceny. Tlie total index crime rate of increase for the period of 
1970-1974 was 118% (16,715 to 36,433). In comparing 1973 and 1974 the only 
index crime to decrease was auto theft (down 1%). The trend of increase ap- 
pears to be continuing. The total index crime for January, February and March 
in 1974 was 7691. In 1975 the same period reflected a total of 9235 (a 20% in- 
crease). The only year in which total index crime declined was in 1972 (1971 — 
21.209 vs. 1972 — 21,104). All other years have registered serious increase in total 

index crime. 

Individual Categories 

Homwide 

The yearly homicide rate was mercurial in nature but mirrored an upward 
trend. The highest vears were 1972 and 1974 with 54. In 1973 tlie criminal homi- 
cide total was 49. In 1970 and 1971 the rates were 39 and 33 respectively. 



1264 

Rape 

The most draniatic rise in confirmed reportt'd rapes occurred in 1974 when 248 
cases were reported as opposed to 172 in 11)73. Tliere was a similar rise in 1972 
when the tigures rose from 113 to 186. In 1970 only 115 were reported a.s com- 
pared to 248 in 1974. This represents an increase of 1157^. This rise may he 
nttrilmted at least i)artially to an increased willliitrncss of victims to report the 
crime and the efforts of police, health officials, and women's groups to work to- 
gether to improve the handling of rape victims and subsequent investigations. 

Robba-y 

Robbery has risen 9S>% in the five year period, from 916 in 1970 to 1818 in 1974. 
The first three months of 1975 show a total of 582 robberies as oppo.sed to 408 
for that period in 1974, a rise of 42%. There was a dramatic rise in robberies in 
1971 when the total reached 1701 (as opposed to 916). In 1972 this total decreased 
to 1391. In 1973 the total again increased to 1434. Another serious increase fol- 
lowed in 1974 when the total reached a high of 1818. 

Assaultn 

Assault statistics show an uninterrupted rise for the five year period. The 
overall rise was from 873 in 1970 to 1720 in 1974 ( 97% ) . 

Burglary 

With the exception of 1972 when burglaries dipped to 6258 from 6665 in 1971, 
burglaries have risen strongly and steadily. From 1973 to 1974 there was an in- 
crease of 1514 from 7001 to 8515 (21.6%). The overall increase was from 5469 in 
1970 to 8515 in 1974. ( 55% ) . 

Larceny 

Larceny has demonstrated an uninterrupted rise. In 1973 and 1974 the rises 
were particularly disturbing. In 1972 the total was 7589. In 1973 this rose to 
14,909 and to 19,826 in 1974. The total five year increase was from 5872 to 
19,826 (237%). 

Auto Theft 

There may be some reason for optimism in this area. While there was an overall 
rise from 3431 in 1970 to 4252 in 1974 (23%) there were decreases in 1973 and 
1974. This may reflect the efforts of the recently formed auto theft unit in the 
Special Operations Division, as well as the engineering changes by manufac- 
turers instituted to increase anti-theft protection. 

MONTHLY CRIME STATISTICS 

An examinaiton of the statistics over a five year period discloses the following 
information. 

1. Average total index crime over the five years from 1970-1974 was highest 
in July and August. Generally there was a downward trend from S(>pteml)er 
\Hitil February, however there were increases in October and Decemlier for 
total index crime. Total index crime rose steadily from March thru August. 

2. Homicides per month over the five years ranged from a high of 5.8 for 
November to a low of 2.0 in .lannary. Other months with an average rate of 4.0 
or aliiive were March (4.4), Sei)tember (4.6) and December (4.4). 

3. Rapes per month over the five year period ranged from a low of 8.8 for 
March to an average high of 19.0 in September. Other months with an average 
of 15.0 or higher were June (15.8), July (16.8), August (16.8) and October 
(15.6). 

4. December proved to have the highe.st robbery per month rate over the five 
years (149). Those months with an average of 120 or higher include August 
(127). October (138), November (139) and January (131). 

5. Over the five year period the highest .serious assault average per month 
was 127 for the month of July. The .-iverage for June and August was 12(!. The 
aver.'ige for October was 122. Jaiuiary had the lowest average (76). 

(>. December had the highest averjtge number of burglaries (as it did for 
robberies), averaging 637. November, which had the second highest robbery 
rate, also had the second highest burglary rate (627). Other high months in- 
cluded July (585), August (605). September (584) and October (579). 

7. Larcenies averaged liighest in July (1178). The average for August was 
(1165). Other months in which the average exceeded 1000 include June (1084), 
September (1019) and October (1031). 



1265 



S. July and August were hifih months for auto theft also. The average for 
July \v;is ."iTl, with an average of i^74 in August. The average also exceeded 350 
in September and October (353 and 35G). 

PKIN'CK GBX)RGES COUNTY POLICK DEPARTMENT 

191 3/ 191 If percentages of increase or decrease for index crimes 



Percent 

Homicide +10.2 

Rape +44.2 

Robbery +26.8 

Assault +25.8 

Total +24.6 

1970/1974 percentages of increase or decrease for index crimes 



Percent 

Burglary +21.6 

Larceny +32 

Auto Theft — 1 



Percen t 

Homocide _- +38 

Rape +115 

Robbery +98 

Assault +97 



Percent 

Burglary +55 

Larceny +237 

Auto Theft +23 



Total +118 



1266 

Prince George's County Police Departrent 
Total Index Cnrre by Year 1970-74 



1970 



1971 



1972 



1973 



1974 



40,000 
39,000 
38,000 
37,000 
36,000 
35.000 
34,000 
33,000 
32.000 
31 ,000 
30,000 
29.000 
28.000 
27.000 
26.000 
25.000 
24,000 
23,000 
22,000 
21,000 
20,000 
19,000 
18.000 
17,000 
16.000 




NOTE: 

1975 Figures 
January - March 
Total Index 
Crime 9,235 



16,715 21,209 21,104 29,227 



36.433 



1267 

Knnce George's County Police Department 
Homicide 1970-1974 



1970 



1971 



1972 



1973 



1974 



54 

53 

52 

51 

50 

49 

, 48 

( 47 

. 46 

46 

i 44 

, 43 
42 

■ 41 
40 
39 
38 
37 
36 
35 
34 
33 
32 
31 
30 




39 



33 



54 



49 



54 



1268 

Prince George's County Police Department 
Rape 1970-1974 



1970 



1971 



1972 



1973 



1974 



250 - 

240 

230 

220 

210 

200 

190 

180 

170 

> 

160 
150 
140 
130 
120 
110 




2000 
1900 
1800 
1700 
1600 
1500 
1400 
1300 
1200 
1100 
900 
800 



1269 

Prince George's County Police Department 
Robbery 1970-1974 



1970 



1971 



1972 



1973 



"915 TTOT 



1974 




1818 



Prince George's County Police Department 
Assault 1970-1974 (Not Including Non-Aqgravatsd ) 



1970 



1971 



1972 



1973 



1974 




1201 



1232 



1367 



1720 



1270 

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT 
LARCENY 1970 - 1974* 



1970 



1971 1972 1973 1974 




"5872 



7473 7589 TTTMg 19,826 



* Includes $50.00-^ except for 1970 and months of 
^January - June and Septeirber - December 1971 
($100.00+ during these periods) ,^ -, nn 

52~DO/' 3x90 



1271 

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT 
AUTO THEFT 1970 - 1974 



1971 1972 1973 1974 




3431 



4023 4394 4295 4252 



1272 

Prince George's County Police Department 
Burglary 1970-1974 



1970 



1971 



1972 



1973 1974 



8600 
8500 
8400 
8300 
8200 
8100 
8000 
7900 
7800 
7700 
7600 
7500 
7400 
7300 
7200 
7100 
7000 
6900 
6800 
6700 
6600 
6500 
6400 
6300 
6200 
6100 
6000 
5900 
5800 
5700 
5600 
5500 
5400 




'W(^ 



1273 

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT 

AVERAGE TOTAL INDEX CRIME 

BY MONTH 1970 - 1974 



F eb. Mar. Apr. May . June . July . Aug. , Sept. . Oct. , Nov. . Dec . 




1855 1677 1845 1985 2050 2184 2398 2417 2202 2244 2029 2050 

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT 
AVERAGE HOMICIDES BY MONTH 1970 - 1974 



2 2.2 4.4 3.6 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.6 4.6 3.6 5.8 4.4 




Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 



52-587 O - 75 - pt.2 - 12 



1274 

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT 
AVERAGE RAPES BY MONTH 1970 - 1974 



11.2 11.2- 3.8 12.2 14.6 15.8 16.8 16.8 19 15.6 , 12.2 12.6 




Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov, Dec. 

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT 
AVERAGE ROBBERIES BY MONTH 1970 - 1974 



131 111 119 102 108 103 118 127 105 138 




Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 



1275 



PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT 



AVERAGE ASSAULTS BY MONTH 



76 80 93 107 99 126 127 126 116 122 106 100 




Jan. Feb. Mar. Arp. Hay June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. 



1276 



PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT 



AVERAGE BURGLARIES 1970 - 1974 BY MONTH 



560 503 530 512 534 523 585 605 584 579 627 637 



630_ 
620_ 
61 0_ 
600_ 
590_ 
580_ 
570_ 
560_ 
550_ 
540_ 
530_ 
i20_ 
51 0_ 
500 




Jan. Feb. Mar. Apl . May. June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 



1277 



PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT 
AVERAGE LARCENIES BY MONTH 1970 - 1974 



737 665 767 921 962 10S4 1178 1165 1019 1031 798 806 




Jan. Feb. Mar. Apl . May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 



PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT 
AVERAGE AUTO THEFT BY WNTH 1970 - 1974 

335 305 323 325 329 323 371 374 353 355 335 343 




Jan. Feb. Mar. Apl. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 



1278 

IV. UNEMPLOYMENT INFORMATION 

Since 1070 the unemployment rato in I'riiice George's County has climbed from 
2.6 percent to 4.2 percent in 1974. Index criiiie rates have risen also, particularly 
in the last two years as the unemployment situation has worsened. It appears 
safe to say that rising crime rates are linked to the declining state of the economy. 

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS 

The unemployment rate in I'rince George's between 1970 and 1974 declined 
only in 1971 when the rate decreased from 2.G to 2.r\%. Since 1971 the rate has 
increased cpiickly from 2..1% to 4.2% in 1974. For the first three months of 1975 
the county unemployment rate has risen to over 5.0%. In the D.C. border area 
tiie average unemployment rate was 7.04% in 1974 and has risen to 8.43% in 
1975. 

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES AND SOME CRIME CATEGORIES ' 

ROBBERY 





1970 


1971 


1972 


1973 


1974 


Number of Incidents. 

Unemployment rate (percent).. . 


916 
2.6 


1,701 
2.5 


1,391 
2.8 


1,434 
3.9 


1,818 
4.2 







This comparison shows continuing increa.ses in robberies and unemployment 
except for 1971. This high increa.se in i-obberies in 1971 may have been at least 
partially due to the great increase in the size of the M.P.D.C. in the early 
1970's. Ninety percent of the robberies in 1971 occurred inside the Beltway. 





BURGLARY 




' 








1970 


1971 


1972 


1973 


1974 


Number of incidents 

Unemployment rate (percent) 


5,469 
2.6 


6,665 
2.5 


6,258 
2.8 


7,001 
3.9 


8,515 
4.2 



Burglaries increased in 1971 despite small drop in tineniployment rate. In 
1972 burglaries dropjHMl somewhat while unemployment rose. Between 1972 and 
1974 when unemployment rose from 2.8% to 4.2% burglaries also rose from 
6258 to 8515. 

LARCENY ' 





1970 


1971 


1972 


1973 


1974 


Number of incidents 

Unemployment rate (percent).. 


5, 872 
2.6 


7,473 
2.5 


7,589 
2.8 


14, 909 
3.9 


19,826 
4.2 







Larcenies have risen steadily including 1971 when there was a small decrease 
in unemployment. The .serious rise in unemployment in 1972 and I'Jl'A mirrors 
the serious rise in larcenies in those two years. 

t" " ' - ■ . ■ 

AUTO THEFT 

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 

J<umber of incidents 

Unemployment rate, (percent) 



3,431 


4,023 


4,394 


4,295 


4,252 


2.6 


2.5 


2.8 


3.9 


4.2 



Auto theft rose in 1971 while unemi)loyment decreased. In 1972 auto theft and 
unemployment both increased. In 1973 and 1974 unemployment ro.se while auto 



1279 

theft declined a bit. This may be due to additional anti-theft equipment and the 
establishment of the Auto Theft Unit. 

TOTAL CRIME INDEX 





1970 


1971 


1972 


1973 


1974 


Index crimes 


16,715 
2.6 


21, 209 
2.5 


21, 104 
2.8 


29, 227 
3.9 


36, 433 


Unemployment rate (percent) 


4.2 







In 1071 index crime rose sharply while unemployment dropi)ed. In 1972 index 
crime dropi)ed to a small degree while unemployment rose. Sharp increases oc- 
curred in index crime as the employment scene worsened in 1973 and 1974. 

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES AND CRIME STATISTICS (MONTHLY AVERAGE COMPARISON 1970-74) 



Month (percent) 1 to 12 crime Rank 

January 3.14 8 1,855 9 

February 3.10 9 1,677 11 

March 3.04 10 1,845 10 

April.... 2.92 11 1,985 8 

May 2.80 12 2,050 6 

June.. 3.64 1 2,184 5 

July 3.34 2 2,398 2 

August 3.28 -3 2,417 1 

September.. 3.18 6 2,202 4 

October 3.16 7 2,244 3 

November 3.22 4 2,029 7 

December 3.20 5 2,050 6 

Thus indicates the following : 

January had an average unemployment rate of 3.14% which made January 
eighth ranked. January ranked ninth in average total index crime for the same 
five year period. 

February with an average unemployment rate of 3.10% ranked ninth in unem- 
ployment and lowest in average index crime. 

March ranked tenth in both average unemployment and average index crime. 

April ranked eleventh in average unemployment and eighth in average index 
crime. 

May showed a large discrepancy, ranking twelfth from the highest in average 
unemployment but ranking sixth in average index crime. 

June exhibited the highest average unemployment rate and was fifth in average 
index crime. 

July was ranked second in both categories with only June having a higher 
average unemployment and only Augu.-t having higher average index crime. 

In Augu.st the relationship was close also. August had the third highest unem- 
ployment rate average and the highest index crime average. 

September ranked sixth in unemployment rate and fourth in index ci'ime. 

October ranked seventh in unemployment rate average and third in index crime. 

November ranked fourth in unemployment and seventh in index crime. 

In December the relationship was very close again. December ranked fifth in 
unemployment rate and sixth (tied with May) in average index crime. 

In summary it appears safe to say that claim.s that miemployment is linked 
to rising crime rates are not without foundation. Generally crime has risen 
strongly in the last two years as the unemployment situation has worsened. 
This trend appears to be continuing in IdlTy. June, July, and August ranked first 
second and third in unemployment and fifth, second and first in index crime. 
July and March have similar positions on both scales. Only May, June, and 
October display a difference of more than three positions in their relative 
rankings. 



1280 

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT-EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION 1970-74 



1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 



Percent of unemployment: 

Maryland portion, District of Columbia metro area (includes 

Cfiarles, Montgomery, and Prince George's Counties) 2.4 2.3 2.6 3.7 4.0 

Prince George's County 2.6 2.5 2.8 3.9 4.2 

Average civilian 
Subarea labor force Average number unemployed 



College Park. 10,091,8.065.02... 711. 

(C.T.'s— 8,072; 8,071.02; 8,065.01) 7.04 percent average unemploy- 
ment rate for 1974. 

District of Columbia border area. 40.226 2,825. 

(C.T 'e— 8,026; 8,027; 8,029.02; 8,030; 8,031; 8,033; 8,034.02; 7.02 percent average unemploy- 

8,041.01; 8,043; 8,044; 8,046; 8,047; 8,048; 8,049; 8,042; ment rate for 1974. 

8,028.01. 

Unemployment information 

Average Average Average 

civilian number percent 

work force unemployed unemployed 

1975 (January, February, March): 

Countywide 338,503 17,066 5.03 

College Park 10,149 . 859 8.46 

District of Columbia border area 40,423 3,413 8.43 



1281 

Prince George's County 
Percentage Unemployment Rate 



5.0 



4.5 



4.0 



3.5 



3.0 



2.5 J. 



2.0 



1970 


1971 


. 1972 


1973 




1974 


1 1 

-4- 


\ 










1 






V 


y 


^ j 


1 

-«- 
1 




, 


/ 






V 




'/ 








-1- 


~~^\ 




- 







2.6 



2.5 



2.8 3.9 



4.2 



1282 

Maryland Portion - D.C. Metro Area 
(P.G. , Mont., Charles Counties) 
Percentage Unemnloyment Rates 



1970 



1971 



1972 



5.0 



1973 



1974 



4.5 



4.0 



3.5 



3.0 



2.5 



2.0 




V. RECOMMENDATIONS 

Members of ConRress should place very hish on their list of priorities a con- 
timiiiifr profrr.'iin to provide all clciiionts of tlie Criniiiial Justice System with 
tlie necessary resources for planninj; and implementation of crime prevention 
during the Bicentennial period. 

Tlie anticipated rise in crime rates due to the magnitude of the influx of 
tourists during the period of tlie Riceiiteiiiiial will present an increased challenge 
to law enforcement organizations in tliis area. It is becoming more and more 
apparent that tliis problem will be compounded by a continually escalation crime 
rate due to the frustration and limited opportunities caused by the depressed 
slate of the Nation's economy. 

Therefore efl'orts should be mkkIc to reduce unemployment especially in the 
Metropolitan area during tlie iH'ak tourist season when many teen-age youths 
are out of school for the summer. 



1283 

The expt'cted lUiKssivt' inlliix ol' tdurists. an estimated tliirty-live million during 
the liicentennial year, seventy percent of which are expected to use automobiles 
MS their mode ()f transportatinn siiould also be consideri'd. The i)ossibilily of 
nation-wide Irattic law ri'ciiiriK'ity ajireements for the liicentennial, and a future, 
n;\t ion-wide traffic code should be considered. 

xVlso. i)o.ssibly a uniform pamphlet with Hicentennial information, and a concise 
explanation of the different laws and traffic regulations which may apiily in the 
effected jurisdictions. This pamphlet, also containiu}; enierj^ency information such 
as the location of li(>s|»itals, police stations, emerjicency phone numbers, etc., could 
be provided to the puiilic by police when asked for assistance, or service. 

Serious offenses that occur in one .iurisdiction could be reported to any jurisdic- 
tion with a copy of the report forwarded to the jurisdiction where the offense 
occurred. 

Vigorous effort must be expended by all law enforcement agencies in the area 
during the Hicentennial period. Coorclination and cooperation between the vari- 
ous agencies and jurisdictions in the Metropolitan area is a necessity. Therefore, 
the communications hardware of the area police should be improved in oi-der to 
facilitate coordination. 

Boundaries should not be allowed to help the criminal and hinder the police. 
The fresh pursuit policies should be reviewed in order to alleviate borderline 
pursuit problems. 

CUIMINAL ACTIVITY INFORMATIONAL RELAY CENTER 

There exists in the Washingtim Metropolitan area a complexity of federal, 
state, county and local boundaries that have frustrated the law enforcement 
eJfort. It is evident that the perpertators of crime knowingly benefit from these 
inter-jurisdictional barriers. While the cooperation between area law enforce- 
ment agencies is excellent, inter-jurisdictional communication is at best minimal. 
Lookout broadcasts, anticipated events or situations and specilic crime trend 
information is severely limitetl since the most commonly utilized method of 
communication is teletype or written correspondence w^hich is not usually trans- 
mitted from state-to-state. 

The tremendous influx of visitors to the Washington Metropolitan area during 
the Ricenteiuiial year will undoubtedly generate a rise in the crime rate, not 
to mention probable acts of terrorism, sabotage, and other acts wiiich, if com- 
mitted in the Nation's Capitol, might acquire national attention for the 
perpetrators. 

What is proposed then, is a Criminal Activity Information Relay Center. This 
center .should be centrally located and easily accessible to all law enforcement 
agencies in the Washington Metropolitan area. It is suggested that this center 
be .staffed and operated on a twenty-four hour a day basis with assigned repre- 
sentatives of tiie following departments : 

Maryland : 

Maryland State Police 

Maryland-Xational (\apital Park & Planning 

Prince George's County Police Department 

Montgomery County Police Department 
Virginia : 

Virginia State Police 

Arlington County Police Department 

Fairfax Cotuity Police Department 

Alexandria City Police Department 
District of Columbia : 

Metropolitan Police Department 

WMATA 
Federal : 

Federal Bureau of Investigations 

Armed Forces Police Department 

U.S. Capitol Police 

U.S. Park Police 

Federal Protective Service 

Additionally. Fire Service representatives from the respective areas may be 
represented. 

This command center .should contain teletype equipment and other computer 
equipment necessary to maintain communication with WALES, NCIC, MILES, 



1284 

etc.. niul (liroct lines with the cinnimniicatiniis coiitcrs of all major law onforce- 
ment aj,'eiu-it's in the Motropolitan area fur llu- expL'dii'nr relay of iiertiiient and 
enierirency information. 

The purpit.se of thi.s information center shonld lie to maintain inti'r-Jurisdie- 
tiniial liaison for criminal activity information excliange. 

.\11 pertinent criminal information ac(|nired can he forward hy police a}i:(*iicies 
to their representative in the information centei-. 

Thi.s focal point will provide for immediate dissemination of criminal activity 
information to all law enforcement atrencies in th(> area dnrin^ the liicentennial 
jieriod. 

It is felt that this type of .system miuhl not only jirovide for dispersion of in- 
formation to all a^'cncies. lint conld he of siiiiiilicant valne in coordinatinji enforce- 
ment and mutual aid efforts between jurisdictions. 

It is also recommended that if comparable systems he initiated in other major 
cities throushout the country this communication effort might be extended to a 
national level. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN RHODES. CHIEF OF POLICE. PRINCE 
GEORGES COUNTY. MD. : ACCOMPANIED BY OFFICER LAWRENCE 
SCHWEINSBUK, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 

Chief RiioADS. This is ^Ii'. Lawrence Scliweiiisbiik, of tlie Prince 
Georges County Police Department's Kesearch and Development 
Division. 

In terms of my time. T would like to take all the time necessary to 
answer any qtiestions you may have. I will be very brief. 

I am the new fellow on the block. I have been a police chief for less 
than 2 months and the o-entlomen you are about to hear from and have 
lieard from are exporienced in their fields in terms of ])einn; leader.^ in 
their departments and my being new. 

PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY 

Probably their testimony here will be more direct and to the point. 
I would like to take a few minutes to exjdain to you where Prince 
Georges Comity is. We are a jurisdiction that borders on tlie District 
of Columl)ia with a 17-mile border and we are in a corridor between 
Washington, D.C. and Baltimore. 

Baltimore City having the highest crime rate now in the State of 
Maryland. Prince Georges Comity having the second liigliest crime 
rate, Wasliington, D.C. having the highest crime rate in the Metropoli- 
tan area. Prince Georges County having the second liighest crime rate, 
I believe that llie corridor creales a distinct problem in terms of crime. 
Also our comity is located within a north-.south mute. In oi'der to get 
from New York to Florida, it is very dillicult, uidess you ily, not to 
traver.se one of our highways. 

Our jurisdiction is receiving additional funds this fiscal for im- 
provements in my department in terms of increase in manpower and 
also in terms of equipment increases. 

My authorized strength will be going from 845 to 045 or an addi- 
tional 100 police officers this fi.scal year providing there are no conipli- 
f^ations in our monetary position. I would say to you as a committee 
and as Meiiiliers of Congr(>ss that it is most imi^ortaut as I .see it that 
on your list of priorities that the funding to LEAA continue. 

It is important becau.se there are progi-ams that police departments, 
the courts, the whole crimiunl justice sy.stem are expei'inienting with 



12S5 

and that is cxactl}'' what we are doing, experimenting, attempting to 
find ways to in fact reduce crime. 

FUNDS 

Those Federal funds nuide avaihiMe (o us from the Congress are 
very important and that continued effort to find new ways to prevent 
or at least control tlie crime — we have had crime since the beginning of 
time and will have crime until the end of time. 

I don't believe we will ever completely eliminate crime. If we could 
just get a handle on it and maintain a level that is acceptable to the 
residents of our individual communities and to the people in the Na- 
tion at large, T think that would hel{). 

I tliink LEAA is going a long way to help us produce pilot programs 
that we can either cletermine that they are not feasible or that we can 
carry on with oui- own funds after the funding programs. 

BICE XTEX X I AL CELEBRATIONS 

I would addi-ess myself to the Bicentennial for just a moment. T be- 
lieve that the Bicentennial will magnify the existing problems that we 
have in the area concerning transportation, energy, population, con- 
centration of crimes and many other areas that we must deal with. 

I think that we are going to learn some lessons in 1976. I think we 
are going to have jn'oblems in terms of people coming to the District of 
Columbia but also to our major population centers throughout the 
Xation. 

Many of those people are the ones who come to us by their own 
method of transportation, that method of transportation probably 
being the automobile, and we are going to have. I believe, tremendous 
traffic tie-ups that are going to exhaust a great deal of the resources 
that T have in terms of just the manipulation of traffic. 

At that point in time when I divert that amount of people to traffic 
direction and coordination, my crime problems is going to possibly get 
out of luuul because of the rede])loyment of personnel. 

We have sent to the (^ouncil of Governments a recommendation 
from our department in terms of how much additional funding we be- 
lieve it is going to take in order to, as Colonel Watkins indicated, to 
put the men on an ovei-time status. However, you can only work men 
so long before they become fi'ustrated and aggravated and as they be- 
come that way, so do the citizens and the visitors to the connnunity 
become frustrated and ajxirravated with their actions. 

T don't believe we have time to hire and train people now for 10^6. 
Xo one at this point in time can give ns a good estimate as to what is 
going to happen in 1076 in the Metropolitan area and I don't believe 
any of the police officials in the Metropolitan Area are in a position to 
tell us because we don't have a good idea, we don't have a good handle 
on it. 

It is going to be something we ai-e going to have to deal with on a 
day-to-day basis. There are some recommendations, T believe, that al- 
though this is not the Biceiitennial Committee Panel. I think it is 
something that the Disti'ict (\)mmittee needs to look at. 

I think that we need, because of the massive influx of tourists, I be- 
lieve we ai'e ijoing to need some sort of coordinating committee from 



1286 

law enforcement, if you will, a coiimiaiKl post type so we will be able 
to provide information back and forth. 

I believe the existinir jmisdictional boiindai-ies are pfoinp: to be elimi- 
nated durinji: that pei-iod of time if that is possible. 

For instance, I can sec the possibility of convoys on certain occasions 
cominjT throuixb my county into the District of Columbia and if I need 
to wait at the District line foi- a Disti-ict ])o1ic(' oflicer oi- if people 
are comino; out of the District and I need to fjet them throuo:h my juris- 
diction either to campo:rounds or to another jurisdiction, to be able to 
in fact brin<r them into their point of drop off and get them at some 
point and take thein out T think is frfuup to be very important. 

That is somethino: ajrain that should be looked at. It is ^oinfj; to take 
a maximum of cooperation under — among the Metropolitan area of 
Washington in order for us to get the visitors into the District and 
out of the District without creating a great deal of interference with 
normal couunutei' traffic that we are faced with. 

Therefore, I believe it is very important that a great deal of con- 
sideration be given to what may come about. T realize this does not 
have anvthiuir to do with crime. TTowever. 1070, if we are to be frasf- 
mented m terms of what we are doing in our fight on crime, maj', in 
fact, produce a ver^^ high or skyrocketing effect with crime. 

As that happens, concern of the citizens is going to be increased also 
and they are going to get back into some of the areas that you talked 
to Chief Cullinane about, the arming of individual citizens, their con- 
cern about the protection of proi:)ertv and their homes and their 
businesses. 

I am afraid that that is going to lead to an increase in the keeping of 
handguns, specifically in places of business and liomes to attempt to 
repel boarders, people who have no legitimate reason to be in those 
places, ]:)eople who are bent on crime. 

The CiTATK^rAX. Tliank you very much. Chief. Without objection, 
your entire testimony with its attachments will bo included in the 
record, as I stated previously. 

flU^Vrr. IJATK TX PniNC'E OKOROKS roi-xTv 

You indicated your anticipation that there will be an increase in 
problems just as a result of the Bicentennial but even without that, 
your tables .show that crime in Prince Georges County is going up 
while it is going down here in the District of Columbia. 

I wonder if you might make a fuller comment on the difference in 
trends between the District and youi" county. 

Chief RiroDEs. Well, sir. back in the late sixties and early seventies 
as you are aware, the Congi-ess of the Ignited States saw fit to fund 
the District of Columbia for additional police officers. 

In fact there was a large increase. At that time that they had their 
large increase, we were maintaining a normal increase. We asked at 
tjiat time that the Congress consider in the ^fetropolitan area of Wash- 
ington, that we receive funding at a rate of 10 percent of what fund- 
ing would go into the major metropolitan city. 

T think theie is a spill over ])i'oblem. As you incj-ease the amount of 
police officei's. Ihei-e is a certain amount — a certain tendency to displace 
crime. I believe that we are in that era now of displacement. By the 
same token, we can't just look at Washington. D.C. 



1287 

We also have to look at Baltimore. The law enforcement assistance 
prooraiii put ahont $20 million into tlu> city of lialtimoiv to increase the 
number of officers and to increase programs. I think I received some- 
where in the neiirhborhood of about $700,000 in Federal assistance in 
terms of our department, in the last fiscal year. 

We find ourselves sandwiched between two relatively hipfh crime 
areas. I don't believe that is unique to Prince Georgfes County. I think 
that Prince Georges County pTobably has a more severe problem in 
terms of displacement than any other suburban jurisdiction. 

There are bridfjes to cross to ^ro into Vir^i^inia and in Montgromery 
County, there are certain barriers that are there if only economic bar- 
riers. In my county, that borderline between the District of Co- 
lumbia and Prince Georges County is an imafrinary line. 

It is only an imacfinary line because the economics of the communi- 
ties are just about the same as you go out into and get closer to the 
outer beltway. 

If you look at those crime statistics that T presented to you, you 
will find that in the inner beltway our crime is up and the comparison 
to Washington and outside of the beltway where we get back into the 
suburban or rural ai-ea, yon find that the general trend is not increas- 
ing as greatly as it is in the interior parts of the county. 

I suspect that that trend will continue, as we have indicated. We 
don't see a lessening of that as I have indicated in my prepared re- 
marks. We believe also that there is a correlation between the crime 
rate right now and unemployment. 

UNEMPLOYMENT 

We are experiencing a higher degree of unemployment in the inner 
beltway than we are in the outer beltway and therefore we say a corre- 
lation between crime and unemployment. 

People who don't have anything to do. who are not gainfully em- 
ployed, are looking somewhere else for the necessities in life, if you 
will. That may. in fact, create a problem in our county in that we 
again may displace crime from the inner beltway to the outer beltway 
and we are very concerned about that, also, in trying to deploy our 
manpower. 

POLICE IN COURTS 

There are other programs that the police department is involved in. 
If you take, as was indicated to you, we have a high degree of officers 
in court, especially in the daytime when the courts are open. Our 
courts are not open at night in oui- couiity. I could lose 50 to 60 per- 
cent of my entire operational strength to the courtrooms on any given 
court day which leaves me between 25 and 40 percent of my opera- 
tional strength still in the field. 

DAYTIME CRIMES 

There is now a reversal in the trend from the nighttime burglaries 
and to crimes l^eing committed in the daytime. Certain crimes in this 
area are crimes that the police department really cannot control. 

ISfurder. for instance, domestic homicides. T^o way that a police 
department is going to be able to affect that. In fact, in burglaries, it 



1288 

is very difficult unless you have a tremendous saturation in areas where 
you already have a hi*rh dejirree of burglary. There arc many things 
that tlio police dcpnrtniont alone cannot accomplish. 

Aijain we say to you that citizeii i-esponse is important. "We see an 
apathetic look and fin<rer pointino; to the police. There is u risino; crime 
rate. What are you doinff about it? Yet the communities are not par- 
ticipating with the police, in some instances, in terms of helping to 
hold that crime level down. 

I think we need moi-e awareness by the citizens that it is in fact 
their responsibility as it is the responsibility of police departments 
to deal with the problem of crime as you are attempting to deal with 
it today and I salute you for that. 

The CTiAiK:\rAX. Tliank you very much. Mi. .Mann ? 

Mr. Manx. How loiio- were you with the force before you became 
chief? 

Chief RiioADS. Eighteen yeai-s. sir. 

Mr. INIanx. Given your bi-ief time as chief plus your own service, 
if you could change one thing in the criminal justice system in Prince 
(leorges County, what would you do ? 

Chief HiioAos. T suspect at this point in time that T would attempt 
to open more courtrooms and to also put more money into our deten- 
tion facilities. T don't mean by detention facilities necessarily peniten- 
tiaiies oi- jails, but community correctional facilities. 

There are a number of people who are arrested who are repeaters 
and while they are out on personal recognizance or bail, they are 
continuing their crime patteiii in older to pay foi- their attorneys 
and this type of thing. 

REcn:)iviSM 

The recidivist rate is high. That is Avhere we need to spend the 
money. T don't belicne that we have put the nion(\v into the other 
parts of the system that we need to [)ut there. For police officers to go 
out and make luunbers of arrests — if you will notice from the statistics 
that I have given you that our apprehension rate is up 105 percent 
and yet we are apprehending the same peopl(> over and over again. 

Mr. Mann. The speediei- trials, perhaps a bit of preventive deten- 
tion in the process and then a better coi-rectional system to try to pre- 
vent the recidivistic trend, are those the (hings you noted? 

Chief Ktioaos. We also need some rehabilitat iv(» effort. Tf we are 
going to put peopl(> in institutions just for periods of time and then 
release tluMu, ceilainly that is going to add to the recidivist rate. Thei'e 
must be a icliahilitative eff'oit in tliere. There must be schooling, there 
must l)e trade, all kinds of things. 

T think ue have fallen down in that general area. When we talk 
about in our county and when T hear other people talk about comnni- 
nity coiicctional facilities, everybody believes in them until we select 
the cominuni(y that they ai'e going to go in. 

- Then all of a sudden, there is a tremendous wall and a tremendous 
opjiosition to that particular program. Now we want to go out and buy 
an island somewhei-e and build a great big ccmcrete facility and house 
the i)eoj)le there so that Wwy walk out of that facility and walk back 
i)ito tlie community witli notliing in between. 

I think that is most important. 



1289 



POLICE RECRUITING 



Ml-. Manx. T know your department is not lull strength. Do you 
have a lecruiting prohleni? 

Chief Rtioads. No, sir. We had a problem with a court suit in terms 
of oui' i>roce(hues in Inriiiix and selection. That has been taken care of. 
AVe will now be in the |)i()cess of hiring and recruiting. We have some 
l.()00 applicants standing in line to be processed and go through the 
processing. 

GUN CONTROL 

Mr. IManx. Does Maryland have any gun laws that are more severe 
tlian the average or normal State gun control laws? 

(liief RiioAUs. I don't believe so, sir. 

Mr. ]Maxx. Xo legistration, no recjuirements on the purchase of 
them? 

Chief Rtioads. We have a purchase requirement. A person has to 
wait 5 days in ordei- to obtain a handgun. There is also a permit sec- 
tion of the Maryland State Police that handles the licensing of the 
firearm to be carried. 

But we have some new legislation or at least some legislation that is 
going to be inti'oduced or has been introduced regarding a person w^ho 
has been c(jn\icted of a crime who had a handgun or who committed a 
crime and had a handgun, that becomes a separate crime. 

Mr. Maxx. Is the 5-day waiting period serving any useful purpose? 

Does your agency investigate ? W]\o does? 

Chief RiiOADs. The Maryland State Police do the investigations. 
The 5-day waiting period was instituted so that a person emotionally 
disturbed or distressed who decided that they needed a weapon to 
either protect themselves or to become offensive, that that would give 
them a cooling off period. 

Unfortunately, many of those people don't have to wait 5 days. 
They can buy them on the street. They are readily available. 

^ir. ^Faxx. You imply then that despite the initial purpose of the 
act. that it is not being used to investigate the purchaser, as far as 
crime records are concerned ? 

Chief Rhoads. There are some cursory records but T don't believe 
that the peojile going in and buying weapons over the counter are the 
people using the guns in the commission of the crimes. 

JUVTiNILE PROGRAMS 

]\rr. Maxx. AVhat juvenile programs do you have of the type that 
Chief Cullinane described? Mr. Friendly or side-by-side ? 

Chief Rtioaos. Well, sir. w^e did not have a band. We do have a 
juvenile section. We have officers assigned in the schools in terms of a 
safety education program which includes rap sessions in economic 
classes. I have 15 officers assigned in that particular program. 

Our juvenile officers, as was indicated by Colonel Watkins. make 
periodic visits to our schools. Our school system in Prince Georges 
County also has a security force of its own. an unarmed security force. 
They are called security counselors. As Chief Cullinane indicated, we 
see an increase too in weapons in the schools. 



52-587 O - 75 - pt. 2 - 13 



1200 

In f;ict. wc had a clciitli not too loiifr a^ro in the area of one of our 
Sfhools wlncli was narcotics related. They are there. 

AVe have the same problems with locker inspections and the kind of 
thin<j:s that are ha])peninir all ovei- the counti'V. Scliools. in some in- 
stances, are bocomin*:; havens for contraband, lint we do have people 
in there, and they are educational experts rather than anythin«>: else. 

They are not enforcement types. 

^Iv. Maxx. Do they handle truancy ]>roblems? 

Chief RiioADS. Xo, sir. In fact we ha\e made with the board of 
education and the pupil personnel people in the last 3 weeks with re- 
fjard to the truancy problem and we are bein<r asked a.irain when Ave 
find truants to brinir tliem back to the school so that the schools mi^ht 
deal with them. 

There was a point in time when truants were just handled by the 
schools. Xow aji'ain they are askiiiir the j^olicc tliat when they find a 
truant, that they brinjr him in. 

Understand, thou^rh. that that creates some difficulties in some in- 
stances with the hasslin<r of youn": people by the police. It is difficult 
to tell who is the truant and who is the dropout and who is the rjradu- 
ate. Therefoi-e. the schools aiv now lookin<r to the police airain to ti'y 
and separate them so we can brintr the truant back to school. 

If it is in fact a dropout or a graduate who is unemployed and han*;- 
ino: around the ijeneral school area which happens quite often, we are 
accused of certain kinds of activities that don't lend themselves to the 
kind of situation that the police department would like to have in the 
schools, the ima^e. 

Mr. Manx. Thank you. 

Thank you. Mr. (^liairman. 

The CiiAimrAx. Minority counsel ? 

INIr. Ctiristiax. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to focus on the spillover theory with respect to the 
Washiufrton metropolitan area and the effectiveness of tlie District 
police and iiow this affects you in Prince Geoi-oes. 

CRIME TX PRTXCE GEORGES COUXTY 

The study seems to indicate that most residents are responsible for 
the criminal acti^nty in their areas. Do you have any ])ercenta,<re break- 
down of what crimes in Prince Georofos County are committed by non- 
residents and more specifically those committed by District of Colum- 
bia residents? 

Chief Rtioads. It is true that crime generally is committed in the 
community by members of the conununity. certain types of crimes. 
no\ve\-ei-. the ci'ime of i-obberv seems to be the area w(> are havina- the 
jjreatest concern and spillover problem with. 

I cannot ^ive you specifically a percentaire of the nmnber of I'csi- 
dents. There was a survey dojie 2 or ^ years airo whei-e it was reported 
to me that there was somewhere between 30 and 40 pei-cent of the a[)- 
prehensions were cominp: from other than our own county. 

But robbery seems to be the particular crime that uses mobility. 
Preak'iuir and enterinir does not <so too fai- uidess it is an orirani/.ed 
rni<; and then you can't look at tliat as a <lis[)lacement of crime. 



1291 

It is where the opportunity exists and where the opportunity is the 
iri'oatost to fulfill their mission tliat T thiulc that the crime is <roin,ir to 
<ro to. I don't think we are taikinir about neio-hhoi'hood crime. I think 
we are talkin<j: about hardened criminals at that point. 

yiv. Christiax. "\^'e will submit further written questions. 

The CiTAiKMAx. Thaidc you very much. 

We appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. Rttoads. Thank 3'ou. ^Slr. Chairman. 

The CiiAimrAx. Mr. Roy McLaren, chief of police of Arlin<2:ton 
County, Va. Chief McLaren has submitted a very comprehensive state- 
ment to the committee. If he is in a position to sununai-ize it he may 
have that preroirative. 

STATEMENT OF ROY McLAREN, CHIEF OF POLICE, 
ARLINGTON, COUNTY. VA. 

Chief McLaren'. Thank you very nuich, Mr. Chairman, for the 
pleasui'e of beino- here and the opportunity to testify before the 
coimnittee. 

First of all. I would like to aofree with some of the statements of my 
colleaeues that cooperation amono; the agencies in the area is excel- 
lent and T attribute this really to the efforts of organizations like the 
council of governments and our own regional organizations to provide 
the vehicle for this sort of cooperation. 

I have been chief of police in Arlington for 2 years and prior to 
that time served as director of field operations for the International 
.Vssociation of Chiefs of Police. I also served as the chief of police in 
California and began services as a police officer in 1951. With O. W. 
Wilson I am coauthor of '"Police Administration, 3rd Edition," pub- 
lished by McGraw-ITill Book Co. in 1972. 

With your permission I would like to summarize my statement, 
Ml'. Chairman. 

ARTJXOTOX (VA.) AXn THE niSTRlCT OF COLUMBIA 

First of all, I woidd like to state that Arlington County has a unique 
I'elationship with the District of Columbia in several respects. 

First, among the counties in the AVashington area, it shares with the 
District of Columbia the distinction of being classified as urban. Sev- 
eral years ago. the county met the criteria established by the Depart- 
ment of Housing and Urban Development for designation as an urban 
area- — the primary consideration being that more people come to work 
in Ai'lington than leave Arlington to work elsewhere. 

Second, we are closer to downtown Washington than any other juris- 
diction. Arlington was, in fact, once a part of the 100 square miles in 
the original District of Columbia. With an area of about 2.5 square 
miles, Arlington is about one-third the size of Washington, and has 
approximately one-fourth the population as is illustrated in exhibit I 
in the appendix of this statiMuent. 

We are the oidy pirisdiction within walking distance of Georgetown 
and Constitution Avenue. On the seven hiirhwav bridges wdiich connect 



1292 

northern Virofinia with Washin<rton. and suburban Maryland, five are 
in Arlington. 

Third, botli Washington and Ai'linirton linvo liio-her concentrations 
of U.S. Government facilities and employees, by far, than most other 
cities. As can be seen from exhibit '1 m the appendix of this statement. 
Arlinjrton has a hifrher ratio of residents who worlc for the U.S. Gov- 
ernment than does the District of Columbia, in ])i'0]-)ortion to 
poinilation. 

Fourth. Arlino;ton contains several a<rencies. facilities and attrac- 
tions which are considered as an inteofral part of AVashinirton, D.C. 
as far as many visitors — and residents — are concerned. 

The Pentaf>on, Xational Air])oi't, Xavy Annex. Hendeison Hall. 
Fort ]\ryer. Lee ]\ransion. and. of course, Arlington Cemeter}' are all 
located within our boundaries. 

AEIJXOTOX rOUXTV roiJCK DEPAiriMKXT 

A fidl desci'iption of the Arlinirton GountA' T'olice Department, 
alone: with additional connnents about the characteristics of the county, 
its irovernnKMit. and the criminal justice system, can be found in exhibit 
3 in the appendix of this statement. 

Tn summary, the department consists of 318 sworn personnel — to 
be reduced to 30R during- the 197^ fiscal year — and 83 civilians, for a 
total of '^OG. I'ersonnel are oro;ani/ced into four di\isions. with the larg- 
est division — operations — consistinof primarily of uniformed officers 
on motorized patrol, with a few officers on foot beats. 

The d(>]iartmental budfjct is $8.1 million. Arlington entrance renuire- 
ments arc hii>-h. and include 2 yeai's of collen-e as a prere(iuisite. ^Nfore 
than half of Arliiiirton's patrol officei-s have bachelor's dejrT'PPR. 

At the moment, the Arlington entrance salary of $12,313 is sliirhtlv 
hiofhor than the other nearby a<rencies. inclndinii- those who o-ivo addi- 
tional pav foi-the eqiiivalent education. 

Minority recruitment is on th(> increase, and our black and female 
officers ha\e w hip-lier ax-erao-p educational level than the white uiale 
officers. ]irimarily because most of the minoi-ity and fouiale officers have 
been recruited during" the past few years, in which the educatiojial in- 
centive pay plan and 2-year colleo^e requirement have been in effect. 

The Issues 

The committee may be interested in or abl(> to jxive assistance to us 
in any one of the followino- areas. 

SFBSTOTZF. POTJCE COST 

1. The need to subsidize the cost of police ]U'otection in .\rlin2t0n. 
"We have urbanization and some other factois in common with the 
District. As exhibits 1 aiul 2 indicate, when the District is indexed 
at 100 percent. Arlinirton has 38 percent of the ar(Ni and 22 percent of 
the population. Fui'thei'. despite the fact that we have 27 percent of the 
residential woi'k force of T".S. Government em]')lovees, w(> have only 7 
nercent of the police strenjyth. 7 peirent of the police budcret. and less 
than 1 percent of the Federal uuuiey which Cfoes toward the support of 



1293 

tlio Disti'ict of Cohiinbia Police Dopartmont. This is not to detract 
from any income that <roes to the District of Cohimbia Police Depart- 
ment, but to point out the disparity. 

DRUGS 

2. The increase in heroin percentage in street level drugs available 
to heroin addicts. Several years ago, the amount of pure heroin in 
sti-eet level drugs — drugs available for sale directly to the addict — was 
as low as 1 percent. In the past 2 yeais — beginning in April 1973 in 
Xorthern Virginia — the percentage of pure heroin in street level drugs 
available for sale directly to the addict has increased to 8 percent, 9 
l^ercent. and as high as 12 percent. Since the price per unit of pure 
hei'oin has not decreased in the past few years, and since a plentiful 
supply of the drug always means an increase in drug usage per addict 
because of buildup of tolerances, the net effect is that heroin addicts 
who commit crimes for the money to buy the drugs must continually 
commit more thefts, burglaries, forgeries, and robberies, 

UXEMPLOYMENT 

3. Unemployment and the recession. In my view, the recent economic 
slump has had an impact on certain kinds of crime in particular, such 
as shoplifting and bad checks. Street larcenies, shoplifting, and resi- 
dential burghiry also have a high percent of violations committed by 
youth, who are always among the first to suffer from unemployment — 
either their own or their parents'^ — and recession. 

WATERGATE EFFECTS 

4. Continued alienation of a large part of the society because of 
hypocrisy and unethical conduct by top-level Government and busi- 
ness. This is a subjective comment on my part, but which certainly has 
received attention in the national media. The effects of Watergate, 
i-evelations of tax manipulations, the continuation of white collar crime 
and unethical business practices have, in my opinion, contributed to 
the increase in certain kinds of crime. 

DISTRICT OFFENDERS IN VIRGINIA 

5. The proximitv of our jurisdiction to the District, and the increas- 
ing numbers of offenders coming from the district into other jurisdic- 
tions. If the anticrime measures taken in the last 10 years by the INIetro- 
])olitan Police Dei)a]-tment, the District Govermnent. the "\Aniite House, 
and the Congress had not been as effective as they have turned out to be, 
Arlington and other nearby iurisdictions would certainly be much 
worse off today. Nevertheless, the presence of the large central city ad- 
jacent to us is a siirnificant factor in our overall ci'ime rate, and a inajor 
factor in some crimes. Beginning in January 1975. we initiated a rob- 
l)ery task force which has had great success in reducing robberies in 
several specific target areas — including more than 50 consecutive days 
in the past few weeks without a robbery of any kind in the target 
ai-eas — and in achieving a phenomenal clearance rate of 63 percent 



12Q4 

for coinmeroiiil lobhories. The robborv task force has made arrests 
i-esultiiiiT ill 55 chinires since Jniiuarv 1. 1075, foi- rol)bery. rolilnMV- 
related offenses, oi- offenses coinniittetl by robbery suspects while under 
surveillance in Ailinfrton. As indicated in exhibit 4, 45 percent of the 
chai-o:es were placed on District of Columbia residents. For actual 
robbery arrests. Gr> percent were from the Distiict of Columbia. 

GUX CONTROL 

6. Lack of a national irun control jiioijram. Within the space of 1 
year. durin<z 1072 and 10715. two Arlinoton i)olice officers were killed 
as a result of shootin<r by hand<rnns. In 1074, an Arlington police 
sercfoant nni'rowly escai)ed death when a i-obbei'v suspect i)Iace(l a hand- 
g:un at the back of the seigeant's head and fired. The bullet penetrated 
the officers skull, then exited through the officer's face, narrowdy 
missino; his brain. Tii these i)ast few yeais. lumdicds of police oflicers, 
innocent citizens, and Aiclims of robboi'ies. assaults, aiul family (juar- 
rels have been killed by o'uns. Chief Cullinane identified the ijuestion 
of gnin control as an emotional issue and T view it as such. T have also 
vieAved the statistics wdiich discussed this issue in an unemotional vein. 
T have been a past member of tlu> Xational T\ifle Association; T have 
hunted with firearms since boyhood; T have worked as a jjun- 
smith as a youna' man; and T have fired thousands of rounds in hand- 
iruns, rifles, and shotauns. It is therefore my considered belief that if 
we do not immediately adopt a national program for ir'ni refristration 
and control, with minimum mandatory sentences foi' violations — and 
with heavy emphasis on violations relatino- to registration, conceal- 
ment, or use of handouns. we ai'c tlieii collecti\ely auilfy of national 
insanity. Exhibit 5 is an exceipt fi'om a letter recently submittcMl to 
the Virofinia Ci'ime Commission, expressing our opinion on the kinds 
of legislation we need. As T indicated in the letter. T believe national 
leofislntion is uiaently needed. State legislation is a i)oor substitute, 
but would be welcome in absence of national <rmi contiol laws. 

BTCENTENXTAT, FUXDS 

7. Inadequate funds to co]ie Avith the Bicentennial. The local areas 
which will receive the greatest inijiact from Bicentennial visitors will 
be the District. Alexandria, and Arlinirton. I^iiti! recently, no action 
money has been availal)le to us from law enforcement sources for cop- 
ine: with the increased workload. T estimate that Arlinaton Bicenteji- 
nial expenses for i)olice Avill approach $-l()().000 during the year 1076. 
and I ui-p-e Cono-ress to place Arlinirton. Alexandria, and the Disti'ict 
of Columbia in a special category amono; Washina-ton area aixoncies 
because of oui- unique status as tourist attractions and hotel centei-s 
for the celebration. 

:^rETRO SECTJRTTY 

8. The impact of Metro on police services : We lack adequate oruide- 
lines and i-ecommendations from W^MATA for planninof the increases 
in i)olice strength which will most certainly be necessary when the 
system bcLdns to become operational. By the end of 1076. it is expected 
that 10 of the 11 A ili no-ton stations will be completed or underway — 



1295 

inoiv than any other jiirisdictioii oxcpjit for the District. Tlio present — 
and inaJotiuate — police phuinin<>- n-uiileline in use by WMATA is 
based on the Arthur Youn<i: ]Metro security study, which was com- 
pleted several years a<io. Even then, the study attempted to account for 
only the ]iatrol coverage increments within the innriediate station area, 
rather tluiii projectinir costs for all incieases in ])olice service work- 
load as a result of ]Metro. It often escapes people that somethino: close 
to the total police force workload is not related to crime work. Often 
in makinof these projections, people look at the ci-ime workload and 
plan on the basis of that. The Ai-thur Youn<2: study estimated Arling- 
ton's increased police cost to be $2().000 as a result of JNIetro, while at 
the same time, it estimated the WMATA police and security costs Avill 
be if;2.r)00.000. Since Metro will have primary policino- responsibilities 
I'or the trains only, and only secondai'ily. accordinii; to the arrange- 
ments we have worked out so far for the trains and the stations, while 
local police will have i)rimarv policing responsibility for all station 
platform areas, above gromid stations, parking lots, as well as the need 
to cope with all of the other police workload bi'ought about by ^letro, 
it would appear that there is a need for a remedy. 

That concludes my statement. 

The CiiAimrAX. Thank you very much. Your statement was certainly 
com])rehensive and vour summai-y answered two of the questions I 
had in mind. Your full statement, without objection, will be included 
in the record at this point. 

[The document referred to follows:] 

Statkmkxt of Roy C. McLaren. Chief of Police, Arlington, Va. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: Thank you very much for the 
(ippDrtnnity to bo here. My name is Roy McLaren, Chief of Police, Arlington, 
Vir.iiinia. I have been chief in Arlington for two years, and prior to that time 
I was Director. Field Operations Division of the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police. I also served as a police chief in California, and first became 
a police officer in 10.51. With O. W. Wilson, I am co-author of Police Administra- 
tion. 8rd Edition, published by ^RGraw Hill Book Co. in 1972. 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF ARLINGTON TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Arlington County has a unique relationship with the District of Columbia 
in several aspects. First, among the counties in the Washingt(m area, it shares 
with the District of Columbia the distinction of being classified as urban. Several 
years ago the county met the criteria established by the Department of Hcmsing 
and Urban Development for designation as an urban area — the primary con- 
sideration being that more people come to work in Arlington than leave Arling- 
ton to work elsewhere. 

Second, we are clo.ser to downtown Washington than any other jurisdiction. 
Arlington was. in fact, once a part of the 100 square miles in the original Dis- 
trict of Columbia. With an area of about 2.") siiuare miles Arlington is about 
one third the size of Washington, and has approximately (me fourth of the 
l>::i)ulation. (See Exhibit 1 in the Appendix of this statement). We are the only 
.inris liction within walking distance of Georgetown and Constitution Avenue. 
Df the seven highway bridges which connect Northern Virginia with Washing- 
ton, and suburban Maryland, five ire in Arlington. 

Third, both Washington and Arlington have higher concentrations of U.S. 
g >vernment farilities and employees by far. tlian most other cities. As can be 
seen from Exhibit 2 in the Api)endix of this statement. Arlington has a higher 
ratio of residents who work for the X'.S. Government than does the District 
of Ciilumbia. in proportion to population. 



1296 

Fourfli. Arliiisrton cdiitains sovciiU ajrciicics. facilities and attractions wliicli 
ari' cdiisidtTt'd as an inli-gral iiail of ■Wasliingtdii. I ).("." as far as many visi- 
tors — and residents — are concerned. The I'entason. National Airi)ort. Navy 
Annex, Henderson Hall, Fort Myer. Lee Mansion, and of course Arlinjjton Ceme- 
tery are all located within our boundaries. 

TIIK AIU-IXOTON COINTY I'OI.ICK DKI'AKT M KNT 

A full description r>f the Arliuf^ton Counly I'olicc I >ei)artuient. alonj^ with 
additional comments about the characteristics of the county, its government, and 
the criminal .justice system, can be found in Kxhibit S in the Apiieiulix of this 
statement. In summary, the department consists of ^lo sworn personnel (to be 
reduced to 30S duriii.i,' the 1!tT(> fiscal year) and S:5 civilians, for a total of 390. 
Personnel are orjianized into four divisions, with the larjiest division — Opera- 
tion.s — consistinjj primaril.v of uniformed officers on motorized patrol, with a 
few officers on foot beats. The departmental Imduct is S.l nullion dollars. Arling- 
ton entrance reciuirements are hitili, and include l! y(>ars of colle.y:e as a pre- 
reipiisite. ^lore than half of Arlinj;ton"s patrol officers have bachelor's de.sirees. 
At the moment, the Arlin.gton entrance salary (►f $12,318 is slijihtly higher than 
the other nearby a.gencies, including thnse who gfA-e additional pay for the 
('(juivalent education. Minority r(>ci uituient is on the increase, and our black 
and female oflicers have a higher average educational level than the white male 
officers, primarily because most of the minority and female officers have been 
recruited during the past few years, in which the educational incentive pay plan 
and two-.vear college reiiuirement hav( been in effect. 

TIIK ISSUES 

The Committee ma.v be interested in, or able to give assistance to us in. any 
one of the following areas : 

1. The need to subsidize the cost of police protection in Arlington. As Exhibits 
1 and 2 indicate, when the District is indexed at lOO*;;, Arlington has 3S''7 of 
the area and 22% of the population. Further, despite the fact that we have 27% 
of the residential work force of CS. (Itivernment employees, we have only 7% 
of the police strength, 7% of the police budget, and less than 1% of the federal 
money which goes toward tlie support of the D.C. Police Department. 

2. 'I'he increase in heroin percentage in street level drugs available to heroin 
addicts. Several years ago, the amount of laire heroin in street level drugs was 
as low as 1%. In the past two years — begiinung in April 1973 in Xorthern Vir- 
ginia — the percentage of pure heroin in street level drugs available for sale 
directly to the addict has increased to 8, 9 and as high as 12%. Since the price 
[ler uidt of pure heroin has not decreased in the past few years, and since a 
l)lentiful s)ii)ply of the drug always means an increase in drug usage per addict 
i)ecause of the build-up of tolerances, the net effect is that heroin addicts who 
commit crimes for the money to buy the drugs must continually commit more 
thefts, burglaries, foi-geries and robberies. 

3. rnemployment and the recession. In my view the recent economic slump 
has had an impact on certain kinds of crime in particular, such as shoplifting 
and bad checks. A high i)ercentag(> of street larcenies, shoi)lifting and residential 
burglary violations are committed b> youth, who are always anunig the first to 
suffer from unemriloyment (either their own or their j^arents) and recession. 

4. Contiiuied alienation of a large part of the society because of hypocrisy 
and unethical conduct by top-level government and business. The effects of Water- 
gate, revelations of tax manipulations, the continuation of white collar crime 
and lUH'tbical business jiractices h;ive, in my oiiinion, contributed to the increase 
in certain kinds of crime. 

n. The proximity of our .jurisdiction to the District, and the increasing num- 
bers of offend(>rs conung from the District into other .iurisdictions. If the anti- 
crime m<>asures taken in the last 10 years I)y the Metropolitan Police Depart- 
ment, the District government, the White House and the Congress had not been 
.".s effective as they have turned out to be, Arlington and other nearby .jurisdic- 
tions would certainly be much wor.se off today. Nevertheless, the presence of the 
large central city ad.iacent to us is a significant factor in our overall crime rate, 
and a ma.jor factor in some crimes. Beginning in .Tanmiry 197." we initiated a 
Robbery Task Force which has had great success in reducing r<ibberies in sev- 
eral six'cific target areas (including more than HO consecutive days in the past 



1297 

few weeks without a robbery of any kind in the target areas) and in achieving 
a plienonienal clearanee rate of (>;>% for commercial robberies. The Robbery 
Task Force has made arrests resulting in ")."» charges since Jainiary 1, 1075 for 
r;)bb(»ry. robbery related offenses, or offenses committed by robbery suspects 
while under surveillance in Arlington. As indicated in Kxhibit 4, 4.j'/c of the 
(barges were placed on D.C. residents. For actual robbery arrests, au'/f were 
from the District of Columbia. 

(>. Lack of a national gun control i)rogram. Within the space of one year during 
l!)7l2 and litT."!. two Arlington police officers were killed as a result of shooting 
liy handguns. In 1!)T4. an Arlington police sei'geant narrowly escaped death when 
a robbery suspect placed a handgun at the back of the sergeant's head and fired. 
The bullet penetrated the officer's skull then exited through the officer's face, 
narrowly missing his brain. In these past few years in the United States, hun- 
dreds of police officers, innocent citizens, and victims of robberies, assaults and 
family quarrels have been killed by guns. 

I have been a past member of the National Rifle Association ; I have liunted 
with firearms .«^ince boyhood ; I have worked as a gunsmith as a young man ; and 
I have fired thousands of rounds in handguns, rifles and shotguns. It is therefore 
my considered belief that if we do not immediately adopt a national program for 
gun registration and control, with mininiuni mandatory sentences for violations — 
and with heavy emphasis on violations relating to registration, concealment or 
u.se of handguns, we are then collectively guilty of national insanity. 

Exhibit ") is an excerpt from a letter recently submitted to the Virginia Crime 
Commission, cxjiressing our ojHnion on the kinds of legislation we need. As I 
indicated separately to the Commission. I believe national legislation is urgently 
needed. State legislation is a poor substitute, but would be welcome in absence of 
national gun control laws. 

7. Inadequate funds to cope with the Bicentennial. The local areas which will 
receive the greatest impact from Bicentennial visitors will be the District, Alex- 
andria and Arlington. Until recently, no action money has been available for cop- 
ing with the increased workload. I estimate that Arlington Bicentennial expenses 
for iKilice will approach $400,000 during the year 1976. and I urge Congress to 
place Arlington, Alexandria and D.C. in a spceial category among Washington 
area agencies l)ecause of our unique status as tourist attractions and hotel cen- 
ters for the celebration. 

8. The impact of Metro on police services : We lack adequate guidelines and 
recommendations from W-MATA for planning the increases in police strength 
which will most certainly be necessary when the system begins to become opera- 
tional. By the end of 197(5. it is expected that 10 of the 11 Arlington stations will 
be completed or underway — more than any other jurisdiction except for the 
District. 

The present (and inadequate) police planning guideline in use by WMATA is 
based on the Arthur Young Metro security study, which was completed several 
vears ago. Even then, the study attempted to account for only the patrol cover- 
age increments within the immediate station area, rather than projecting costs 
for all increa.ses in police service workload as a result of Metro. The Arthur 
Young studv estimated Arlington's increased police cost to be $2G,000 as a result 
of Metro, while at the same time it estimated the WMATA police and security 
costs will be $L>,r)00.n0O. Since Metro will hiive i)rimary policing re.sponsibilities 
for the trains oidy, while local police will have primary policing responsibility 
for all station platform areas, above ground stations, parking lots, as well as 
the need to cope with all of the other police workload brought about by Metro, it 
would appear that there is a need for a remedy. 



1298 



EXHIBIT I 



68 3 



ItK 



25.7 



Ifi 



DC XrICo 

AREA IN 
SQUARE MIIES 



ARIIKITOH COWTY - V*3H».'CT0!', D. C. 
Conr»rison of Porul»tlon, Area and Police Resources 

745 000 5.468 J109 5M 



j VJ 




• .* • 




^ 




". 




lOK 




V 




% 




\ 




/ 




.• 












; \ 


165.000 






; ""i 



DC XrICo 
rorULATICN 



lOOS 


396 




..1: 



DC ArICo 

FCMCE 

STRENGTH 

(FY '75 - 

Including 

full-tijiie 

civilians) 



nsw;; 


S8.1M 




1% 



DC ArICo 

POI ICE 
BUDGET 
(FY '75) 



S280M 



100=; 



$.245M . 

1 Is 



DC Arl Co 

FEDERAM.Y 
SITPLIEC 
FCUCE FUKDS 
(All sources 
including 
grants ) 



1299 

FXIilEIT 2 

ARIIMGTCN CCUNTY - WASHINGTON, D. C. 
CC'TFARISCN OF U.S. GOVERMI-'ENT WORK FORCE 



115,756 
r ^! 



341.041 



100% 



31.158 



' 27% 



100% 



42.400 



12% 



DC ArICo 

RESIDENT UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT EMFI.OYEES 



DC ArICo 

UNITED STATES GOVER^mENT 

WORK FORCE 
(INCIUDIKG NON-GOVERNMENT 
WORKERS EMPIOYED ON TAX- 
EXEMPT GOVERrrMENT lANDS) 



Exhibit 3 

chabaotemstics of arlington county and a description of the arlington 

county police department 

General description and socio^eGonomic characteristics 

Arlington is an urban jurisdiction of 165.000 population, located immediately 
adjacent to and across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. Its area is 25.7 
square miles, and the county was once a part of the original 100 or so square 
miles in the District of Columbia. It was then known as Alexandria County of 
the District of Columbia. In 1S47 the county was retroceded to Virginia, and in 
1870 was separated from Alexandria and renamed Arlington in honor of Robert 
E. Lee, who had called his mansion Arlington House. 

With the exception of some lands held by the U.S. Government, almost all of 
Arlington County is now developed. There are no farms, and few undeveloped lots. 



1300 

A sizeable nercentage of Arliiistoii is dccupied by the I'.S. Government, which 
pays no real i>stat(> taxes. 

ArliiiKton's iiojiiilalion is itrt'doniiiiaiilly wiiite iiii(hlli' class, with a hiuh con- 
centration of government workers in tlie profes.sional and higher salaried olassi- 
ticatiiins. The average educational level of the iiriucipal wage earner in an 
Arlington iKnischold exceeds two years. Black iM)i)ulation is about eight percent, 
.lud a highi'r iicrccntagc of blacks than whites .-ire owners of rhcir own homes. 
Arlington also has a signiticant iiuniiier of ."^iianish sjieaking and Korean speak- 
ing residents, and a substantial number of foreign di[tloniatic families live in 
Arlington. 

At one time a suiiurban "bedroom" comiiiunily — maiidy for middle and upper 
income white families, jiliis a smaller number of lower income whites and 
blacks— Arlington is now officially classilied by IIID as an urban area. Two 
factors were primarily re.sponsible for this change: 

1. The increasing decentralization of federal government facilities and offices 
away from the District of (Ntlundiia into outlying areas over a period of years. 

2. Increasing iirojterry development costs and zoning restrictions in the outt-r 
suburbs beyond Arlington, so that (he construction of higli-rise buildings in the 
county become profitable. 

The eff«H't has been a dramatic increase in office buildings, government facili- 
ties, and high rise apartment buildings, with the result that there are now more 
people who come to work in Arlington than people who leave Arlington to work 
el.sewhere. The Pentagon, Navy Annex, Henderson Hall (a .Marine ('ori)s 
facility), Arlington Hall (a defense intelligence installation), Fort Myer, and 
Washington Natioiml Airport are located within Arlington. 

One of the world's busiest highway.s — I'lterstate f>-"i — carries connnuter, busi- 
ne.ss and tourist traffic through Arlington. The county is sep.-irated from AVash- 
ington by the Potomac River, and of the .seven Potomac River bridges which 
connect Northern Vir.siinia with suburban IMaryland and the District of Columbia, 
five are in Arlington. A new subwa.v is being constructed in the metropolitan 
area, with ten of the stations (nuu'e than .-my other ne.arby jurisdiction except 
the District itself) to be constructed in Ai'lingfon by the end of 197(». It is 
expected tliat there will be n substantial increiise in police worklo:id wIhmi the 
system is completed duiing the next several .vears. 

Arlin (/ton's gorcr>nii( )il 

Arlington has a council (board) — nianagei- form of governnienl. The Council 
of five lii)eral Democrats is in lolid political control. The county manager has 
been in oflice 11 yeais and is considered one of the tcqi people in his field by 
his peers. The poli<-e department is (,ne of a number of line agencies reporting 
to the manager, who serves as the chief executive for the county. The manager 
appoints the various dei)artment heads, and is assisted by a personal staff con- 
cerned with i)ersonnel matters, finaiu-e. systems analysis, criminal .justice plan- 
ning, and iiublic rel.ations. 

The council and the niana,ger are generally in fav<u" of increa.sed education for 
police, gun control, citizen participation, recognition of labor, service-oriented 
l)olicing, increa.sed minority recruiting, and deemphasis of the strict military 
model for law enforcement. The council has increased police strength signifi- 
cantly in the past five years, and has kept police salaries at or m'.ar the fo]) for 
the area. 

Arlington is uni(pie in being described by state law ;is both .i county and a 
city, with some of the beiierits and powers of both. It is the only county in the 
Tnited States without an incr.rporated city or t(»wn witliin it. 

Tlic criiiiiHftl justice si/stcin 

The county is nlso uni(|ue in having most of the elements of the criminal 
justice system — ixilice, courts, part of the correctional .system, and juvenile 
probatif)n— f)rganized at the county level. The exceptions are adult parole and 
probation, and long-termed corrections, lioth of which :ire state functions. There 
is a sheriff, but his dep.-irtnu'Ut exen-ises no law enforcement responsibilities 
e\ce])t for jail operation. The sherill's deputies also .serve civil process, act as 
bailiffs, and lransi)ort i>risoners. 



1301 

The police <lipiirt)ncnt 

Tlu' Arliniitoii County Police Dciiarltncnr has an oxc-cUi'iit reputation in the 
rciiion. l)otli for its operational etftctiveness and its freedom from corrui)tion. 
These ciiaracteristies <-an proi)al)l.v he attrihuted to the relatively hifrh educa- 
tional and income levels in the t-ommunily and to the relatively hiirh standards 
ot' empioynient in the federal yovi-rnment — resultin,ij in turn in lii.uh standards 
for selection in the i)olice department for nuiny years. 

Oriiunization and staffiiiy. — The department is administered hy a chief of 
police, who was hired from the outside in 1!»T3 in a merit system selection 
process, ('omi)etit(us for the job included a number of supervisors from within 
the dei)artment. 

At the time of the chiefs arrival, the department was reasonably well orga- 
nized. The only signiticant organizational changes made thereafter were the 
estahlishment of a Research and Development Section and an Inspectional 
Services Section (both reporting to the chief), the shift of Vice Control to the 
Investinations Division, and the transfer of Communications from the Operations 
U)atrol) Division to the Services Division. 

The department now has about 313 sworn personnel and 83 civilians organized 
into the three divisions mentioned above. Each division is headed by a captain. 
The Operations Division (the term for the patrol division in Arlington) works 
primarily on what in the beginning was the "4-10"' plan. Through reduction of 
the work day, it is now a "4-9" plan. Each of the live patrol sections (headed 
by lieutenants) is on duty for four nine-hour days, off for approximately three 
days, then back to work on another shift to repeat the cycle. A fifth operations 
section works tratlic, .scooter and foot patrol assignments on day shift. 

The county is organized into twelve patrol beats, with distribution of work- 
load determined by means of a computer-assisted analysis. Beats are also 
grouped into four districts, each under the supervision of a Police Officer III 
termed, appropriately, a District Supervisor. In addition to the two to four 
lu-at officers in marked cars, each district team is assisted by an officer in an 
unmarked car and a second officer, a Police Officer II. who is termed a District 
Agent. (Agents and detectives are in the .same pay grades). The agent processes 
crime scene, performs investigative work, and also acts as a back-up officer. 

The Investigations Division of approximately 7.") personnel is organized into 
three sections, each headed by a lieutenant : Vice Control. .luvenile, and Crim- 
inal. Day work and one-man assignments predominate. Detectives are often 
aitpointcd from among the more experienced offcers. but do not have tenure 
as detectives. They receive one or two pay steps more than patrol officers. 

The Services Division is responsible for communications, records, personnel 
and training, fiscal and property management and licensing. Most of the em- 
jiloyees of the division are civilians, but there are approximately three sworn 
officers per shift in the Communications Section, plus several others in licensing 
and property as.signments. 

Adniivixtration and management. — The budget for the department is approxi- 
mately .*?S.10(».()0(). Arlington is one of the few departments in the country to 
operate under a true program Imdget. 

The staff of the Research and Development Section Is active, producing 
studies on a variety of operational and administrative problems. The staff al.so 
produces formal directives, such as general orders and manuals. 

Within the \n\st few years the department has adoi)ted a number of con- 
tempor.iry concepts and iiniovations. Some of them fall into the broad category 
of administratioii or management : 

1. Educational entrance requirement of two years of college. 

2. Educational incentive pay. 

3. Reimbursement for education and training expen.ses, plus granting of 
leave. 

4. Regional minority recruiting. 
:">. Program budgeting. 

0. Four day work week. 

Field operationf(. — Besides the items mentioned above, the department has 
also adojited the followintr operational techniques and concepts : 

1. The Police Agent concept. 

2. The Community Service Aide concept. 



1302 

3. District team pnliciiiK and unit beat policing. 

4. Take-home patrol cars. 

5. Use of women otiicers on patrol. 

0. Crime assisted patrol manpower distrilmtion and crime analysis. 

A significant future change will give patrol otficers greater responsibility 
in the follow-up investigation of crimes. As in most large departments, Arling- 
ton restricts its patrol olhcers to the preliminary investigation of crimes and 
seriou.s incidents. With the recruitment of officers having higher education and 
through the raising of the educational level of existing officers, the department 
is now in a position to ui)gra(le the job content of patrol officers to include 
follow-up investigation for many catt'gories of felonies. 

Crime and workload in Arlington is increasing. The greatest rise in crime is 
in the robbery category, with a 62% increase for the tir>t six months of the 
1975 fi.scal year. Crime clearance rates were below departmental and national 
averages in most categories in 1!)74 over 1!»78. primarily because of the great 
increa.se in crime volume (i.e., crimes per investigator) without a corresponding 
increa.se in detective and patrol strength. In December, 1!»74, however, a newly 
created Robbery Task Force, consisting of a lieutenant, two sargeants, five 
investigators and fourteen patrol officers, began to have an impact on robberies 
in several designated areas. During the last few months, robberies in these 
target areas have been held to an extremely low level, including — as of this 
writing — H.S consecutive days without a robbery of any kind. At the same time, 
the clearance rate for robberies has jumped to .58%. 

Technical .terriccs. — Considering the size of the department and the affluence 
of the community, Arlington is below standard in the ai-ea of tactical com- 
munications, and in the absence of 24 hour records, identification and property 
service. Although the department has moved into a new multi-million dollar 
building, records and identification offices are clo.sed to the jinblic at nights 
and on weekends, and service to members of the dei>artmenf is very minimal 
(i.e.. a clerk or a su|)ervisor having to leave the communications room to go 
to the adjacent records room and making the record check himself) during these 
same periods. 

Educational incentive pay and the college entrance re<ii(ir<ine)it 

Arlington is now one of the few agencies with a requirement of two years 
of college for entrance. The practice was adopted in Jiily 1!)78. Although no 
recruiting problems have resulted (partly becau.se the starting i)ay was in- 
creased to the highest in the area abmg with the two year college re(|uirement. 
and partly because the requirement has actually served as an attraction for 
the job), the count.v has recently been sued by a group of officers .seeking to 
enforce the provisions of Title V of the Civil Rights Act of lf)(54 on the grounds 
that the educational (pialification bears no relationship to jo!) performaii<-e. 
and that educational incentive i)ay is discriminatory. .V parallel .action filed 
by the plaintiffs with the Kipial Employment Opportunity Connnission has 
resulted in a ruling that Arlington County i.s in violation, and must go to court 
to i)rove otherwise. Tlie lawsuit was subsequently dismissed in the U.S. I")istrict 
Court, and it is expected that the ruling will have a favorable impact on the 
ca.se before the EEOC. 

Actually. Arlington Comity has taken a number of iiositive steps in the jiast 
few years to avoid discrimination, including adoption of an affirmative action 
plan for hiring of minorities and women, adoption of a written examination which 
minimizes cultural bias, and agtrressive field recruiting and selective certiticati<m 
of minority .and women candidates. .As a result, eight of the nine bl;ick officers 
in the department are receivinc: educational incentive pay, which is a much higher 
ratio of college education to high school education than is the case with white 
officers. Average educational level for the black officers is 1.5.1 years, whereas 
for white officers the average is 13.0 years. 

In lOOS the county formalized some earlier experiments with incentive jiay. 
and for the most jiart during the jiast few years, officers who have completed 
more than two years of college are entitled to extra nay. The benefit to an officer 
~witli a four year degree, for example, is .SI. 000 jier year. 



1303 



EXHIBIT 4 
ARRESTS BY THE ROBBERY TASK FORCE SINCE JAN. 1, 1975 



Type of charge 


Arlington 
resident 


District of 

Columbia 
resident 


Maryland 
resident 


Other 
Virginia 
resident 


Other 
States 


Total 


Robbery 

Drugs 

Impersonating police officer 

Felonious assault. 

Concealed weapons 


2 

4 

;; i " 

5 
2 . 


14 
1 .. 

\"'. 

1 .. 


1 


1 

i""- 

I...'. 

i^]]' 

1 .... 

2 .... 

v..'.'. 


3 


21 


DIP. 




Unauthorized use of auto 




Tampering.. .. 






Petit larceny 






Abduction 

Auto larceny. ... 




1 .. 
1 .. 

"z".'. 


"'"i ... 




Grand larceny 

Attempted burglary 


; i ; 

1 - 




Burglary tools 

Possession of sawed-off shotgun.. . 




Stolen credit cards 














Total.. 


16 


25 


3 


8 


3 


55 



Exhibit 5 

(See Item 7) 

November 7, 1974. 
Mr. Lewis W. Hukst 

Executive Director, Virginia State Crime Commission, 
liichmond, Va. 

Dear Mr. IIurst : Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on need 
for ainondnionts and new legislation related to law enforcement. I offer the 
following proposals for the Crime Commission's review and consideration. 

1. THE OPERATION OF ALLJ^Y LIGHTS ON POLICE VEHICLES 

We need an aiucndment to Section 46.1-267.1 of the Code of Virginia that 
would permit law enforcement agencies throughout Virginia to install a side- 
directed flood light (consi.sting of 2,000 candlepower each) on each side of the bar 
light assemldy on marked police vehicles. 

Those lights are referred to as "alley lights." and are extremely valuable to 
police in the lighting of emergency .scenes, checking business establishments and 
the collection of physical evidence at crime scenes. 

•1. STATE LAW REGUI.ATING MASSAGE PARLORS 

Present laws do not give police the capability they so badly need to combat the 
illegal activity in massage parlors throughout the Commonwealth. 

3. INVESTIGATIVE GRAND JURIES 

We need a law establishing investigative grand juries, similar to the present 
federal law. including immunity and contempt of court clauses. The legislation 
should permit the Commonwealth's Attorney to appear before the grand jury for 
the purpose of cross examining tlie witnesses for the record before the grand 
jury. This .stej) in my view is most important for later prosecution by the 
Commonwealth's Attorney. 

4. TOWING OF VEHICLES OF OPERATORS WITH SUSPENDED LICENSES 

Section 46.1-1-2.">1.1 of the Code of Virginia should be revised to permit the 
seizure of license tags as an option to the towing of vehicles, and to ensure that 
the owner of the vehicle assumes the total cost of towing. 



Ii304 



5. INFORMATION IN I.IEU OF INDICTMENT IN C'KIITAIX CRIAflNAT, CASES 

■\Vo jieed legrislition permitting tlio regular and routine usi' of (lie tiling of 
criminal inforu! Kions by Commonwealth's Attorneys, in lieu of grand jury in- 
dictments. The f'ommonwealth's Attorney should have the option to use indict- 
ment or information as he sees fit, excei)t in capital cases. (The d<'fendant should 
not have to waive indictment in order for the information process to commence. 
In other words, I am suggesting the system as used in CalifoniiM and several 
other states, as oiiposcd to the federal system.) 



G. RIGHT TURN OX RED .SIGNAL 

We should have statewide legislation permitting a right turn on a red signal 
(or left turns, on one way streets) wivhout the need for signing. Some 23 states 
now permit right turns on red, and this change will sul)srantially improve the 
flow of traliic without a corresi)onding increase in accidents. In fact, this change 
will help reduce auto-pedestrian accidents at cro.s.swalks in busy downtown 
intersections. 

7. GUN CONTROI, 

We need statewide legislation making it unlawful to own or possess an un- 
registered handgun. Registration files should he mainl.-iined iiy the state. The 
legislation should provide for niandntonj ntiiiiiim Noiti tires for the following 
violations : 

(a) Owning or possessing an unregistered handgun, or tirearm which can he 
concealed. 

(b) Carrying a concealed registered handgun without a permit. 

(c) Carrying a concealed unregistered handgun without a permit. 

(d) Using a firearm in the commission of a felony. 

(e) Using a tirearm unregi.stered to the posse.s.sor during the commission of 
a felony. 

Your consideration of these recommendations will he appreciated. 
Sincerely, 

RoyC. :\I(Lari:x. 

Chief of Police. 

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON SERIOUS CRIME COMPARISONS, JANUARY-DECEMBER 19741 

[Rate per 100,000 population! 



Num- Num- 
ber 2 ber3 

Total: 

Alexandria 9,218 8,185 

District of Columbia 7,558 7,335 

Arlington County.- 5,698 5,539 

Prince Georges County. 5,364 5,067 

Fairfax County 4,374 4,296 

Montgomery County 4,289 4,108 

Murder: 

District of Columbia 38 37 

Alexandria 15 13 

Prince Georges County 8 7 

Arlington County 4 4 

Montgomery County 3 3 

Fairfax County 3 3 

Forcible rape: 

District of Columbia. 78 75 

Alexandria.. - 53 47 

Prince Georges County 37 35 

Arlington County 27 26 

Fairfax County 21 21 

Montgomery County 10 10 

Robbery: 

District of Columbia 1,098 1,066 

Alexandria 534 472 

Prince Georges County 268 253 

Arlington County 205 199 

Montgomery County 96 92 

FairfaxCounly 82 80 



Num- 
ber! 

Aggravated assault: 

Alexandria 459 

District ot Columbia 389 

Prince Georges County. 253 

Arlington County.. 91 

Montgomery County 59 

Fairfax County 53 

Burglary: 

Alexandria 2.311 

District of Columbia... 1,954 

Prince Georges County 1, 254 

Arlington County. . 1,128 

Fairfax County 1,028 

Montgomery County 971 

Larceny tfieft: 

Alexandiia . 5,124 

Arlington County 3, 781 

District of Columbia.. 3,458 

Prince Georges County 2,919 

Fairfax County 2, 753 

Montgomery County. 2,750 

Motor vetiicle ttieft: 

Alexandria 722 

Prince Georges County 626 

District of Columbia 543 

Arlington County 463 

FairfaxCounly 430 

Montgomery County 401 



Num- 
bers 



406 

377 

239 

89 

56 

52 

2,043 
1,896 
1,184 
1,096 
1,010 
930 

4,531 
3,675 
3,365 
2,757 
2,704 
2,634 

639 
591 
527 
450 
423 
384 



' Number of offenses as reported by the FBI in "Offenses Known to tfie Police, Wasliington, D.C., and Surrounding 
Suburban Communities; Preliminary Release, January-December 1974 Over 1973." 
' Based on 1973-74 population estimates by tfie Social and Economic Statistics Administration (SESA), Washington, D.C. 
' Based on 1974 population estimates by the Washington, D.C, Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (COG). 



1305 

The CiiAiKMAx, Minority counsel ? 

Mr. CiiiasTiAX. TJiank yon veiy much, Mr. Chairman. 

INIETRO SECURITY 

In reference to your last item dealin": with the impact of ISIetro on 
i)olice services, has it been an important — the exchanae of information 
and c()(M-dination with Metro, in order to rectify tlie accniacy of the 
<i:uidelines? 

Mr. McLaren. Not at all. Thei-e has been a lot of interchan*^e with 
the Metro people. We have had dialoi; at tlie Council of Govei-n- 
ment sessions. The difKculty as far as our police plannino- for addi- 
tional manpower is that there lias been a reliance on the earlier 
planninor studies which is out of date and does not take into account the 
^reat amount of ])olice woi-kload that will come to us not so much avS a 
result of crimes in and around tiie station but tlie ability of people to 
move freely on Metro and police service loads coming to us just 
because the sj'stem is there. 

Mr. Christiax. AVould you suji^rcst that the connnittee or members 
of the committee interested particularly in this ai-ca convey to Metro 
the fact that that is an existing jjroblem with respect to these 
guidines? 

(^hief ^McLaren. That would be appreciated and I also intend to 
follow up, giving additional comments to ]N[etro directly. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Thank you. Chief. 

Our second to the last witness is Richard King, Chief of Police of 
Fairfax County, Vii'ginia. Chief, you have sui)mitte(l to the com- 
mittee a veiy comprehensive statement. If you Avisli to summarize it 
before questions, you may do so. 

You might tell us a little something about your own background in 
the law enforcement field also. 

[ The document referied to follows :] 

Prepared Statement of Richard A. King, Chief, Fairfax County (Va.) 

Police Department 

Mr. Chairman. Members of the House Committee on tlie District of Columbia. 
Tliaiik yuu for this oi)i)ort unity to discuss with my colleairues in law enforcement 
the means by which we may i)etter deal witli crime in tlie metropolitan area. I 
have supplied for the record and your oxaminaticm the statistics which outline 
tlie Fairfax County experience since 1970. I do not propose to discuss them in 
detail because, taken toijether with the facts already l)efore you, the pattern 
is all too clear. Serious crime is increasinj;. More and more young pensons are in- 
volved. Police, court and correctional agencies, together with the other in- 
stitutions on which society has depended for the maintenance of order, all seem 
unable to achieve any long term abatement of the problems. 

It is a bleak picture which varies little from jurisdiction to .iurisdiction ; ex- 
cept, perhaps, those of us who police the suburbs have a measure of time 
before the pressure of population growth brings a full range of urban problems 
to our communities. It is a picture which no one can readily accept, least of all 
those of us who, l)y law and profession, are sworn to do something about it. 
Above all. given the facts now before you, it is a picture which, to me at least, 
requires no further elaboration. We have a crime problem of disturbing pro- 
Ijortions, and I propose to spend the short time we do have addressing the key 
i.ssues as I see them. Whenever possible, I have sought to offer some suggestions 
for regional steps which could be undertaken. They ai'e limited for reasons I will 
make clear. 



52-587 O - 75 - pt.2 - 14 



1306 

LIMITING POUCK TO SERIOUS OFFENSES 

Let rut' be^iii by saviii}? there are no luanic answers beeause. the key issue is 
how much luanpower and money each of the Region's communities can commit 
to the anti-orinie effort doUars are scarce. Improvements will be expensive unless 
some police services directed now toward less serious crimes or non-emergency 
matters are redirected. These are tough choices for many communities where 
citizens liave l)ecome accustomed to calling for and getting an officer on the{ 
doorstep for practically any complaint. I believe the Fairfax county experience is 
illustrative wiien I say tliat \ii)wards of tUK/i of available police maiitinie is 
regularly si)eiit on calls which do n(»t figure in the seriotis crime index prepared 
by the FBI an«l used by many to measure the severity of the crime proldem. In 
one sense, then, the region's anti-crime capacity may be reduced by the diversion 
of limited police resources to these non-index, non-emergency calls. To the extent 
that in poor economic times citizens are tmwilling to provide additional manpower 
to fight crime and answer the .service calls, the police departments of the region 
face a dilenma. unless the departments can find ways acceptable to the community 
to reduce the toll taken by sen'ice calls and do more with the manixnver the 
departments now have by deploying them more accurately at the times and places 
crime is most likely to occur. 

In Fairfax Comity we have done a bit of both. Some .service calls have been 
routed to trained officers who take the reports over the telephone, preserving the 
time which used to be spent by an officer on patrol for anti-crime assignments. 
We have reduced the nundjer of traffic accidents we investigate to those occurring 
on public highways, ending our investigations of the parking lot accident unless 
it involves an injury or a deatii. again leaving ollicer time free to respond to 
anti-crime calls. Beat assignments and shift .schedules have been altered to have 
more officers working when the calls for all .service are heaviest. They are small 
steps. But I do think such steps are illustrative of a range of services which 
poice liave l«'en called upf)n to provide by communities which were largely 
unaware of their impact on crime-related matters. 

BUDGET REQUIREMENTS 

We have also undertaken another effort which, in tlie long term, appears to 
hold more promise for demonstrating the relationship between the services we can 
provide and our l>u(lgetary reiiuests for manpower. This is a process which in- 
volved all criminal .justice agencies in a two-fold project: first to .set measurable 
goals and objectives ; second, to show in each budget request how the dollars and 
men sought would be used to meet those goals and objectives. Tlie aim was to 
give otir citizens an opjiortunity to see the impact of budget cuts on specific 
services. We just comiileted the FY 1976 cycle and I believe the effort helped 
substantially in adding needed strength to the department. Hut more importantly 
I believe the goals .setting ])rocess, which involved citizen representatives at 
every critical stage, has opened \ip a highly valuable new route to better under- 
standing of department needs. Since that understanding ultimately governs what 
resources we will or will not have to cop<' with crime, T offer the process as an 
item for consideration, believing that as others may find it useful and productive, 
they will be better equipped to contribute to the region. 

To some, the suggestion may .seem somewhat removed from the kind of effort 
that would add to the region's capacity to fight crime. T submit that tho.se who 
feel that way may fail to realize that our past has been marked by very different 
l)erceptions of wliat and how police should conduct themselves. The result has 
been often acrimonious misunderstanding and unmet expectations. If the region's 
communities are to reduce the opjiortunity for such circumstances, police and 
commimity must find a means of reaching an accord on a crime specific agenda for 
the future. Without such an accord, how can effective enforcement be tmder- 
taken? To any who believe what I suggest is revolutionary. 1 would say it is 
•mly evolution.'iry becau.se the process I described simply makes public a series 
of decisions whi<-h heretofore were made largely in private. I can find no basis 
for keei)ing such matters out-of-sight any longer. Citizen involvement in our 
profession is long overdue. 

RECOM MEN DATIONS 

As for specific recommendations for improved efforts to control and prevent 
crime in the region. I have three. They are limited hecause I believe the priorities 
of the .several jurisdictions are best set in consultation with the communities they 



130 



/ 



serve rather to some resional staiulnrd whieh, in all probability, would be far 
too fiencral to be useful. The three suggestions, therefore, are for improved or 
expanded means of couununicating between the region's police agencies. 

WASHINGTON ABEIA LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (WALES) 

First, I believe you should lend all possible Aveight to the expansion of the 
computed-based Washington Area Law Enforcement System (WALES). While 
most persons arrested in Fairfax ("oimty are residenls, all enforcement agencies 
are well aware (hat a growing number of lawbreakers use our interstate highway 
system for their purpivses. moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to commit 
their crimes. The WALES system provides needed information on persons wanted 
on warrants to officers on the street when they need it and with the speed they 
need it. It must bo expanded to accomniddate the warrants of all jurisdictions in 
the region. 

FUNDS FOR EQTJIP.MENT 

Second, I recommend you explore the means by which your committee could 
speed efforts to help linance for the departments of the region the equipment that 
would permit the high speed exchange of fingeniriuts and photographs of ar- 
rested persons. This capability would save hundreds of manhours in driving time 
and expense now required to circulate this essential material and enhance sub- 
stantially our ability to deal with the mobile criminal. 

RADIO COMMUNICATION 

Third, I would urge you to give immediate attention to discussions with the 
Federal Conununications Conunission (FCC) to determine the best means of 
securing conq)atible radio fre(iuencies over which we may talk with one another 
via mobile, in-car radios. Closer cooperation is hardly possible without more 
rapid means of direct communication than we now have available. 

To this point I have limited my comments essentially to those matters of police 
management or need I see as essential items of concern. In closing there are some 
other matters I would like to touch upon. 

COURTS 

First. I think the region's anti-crime capabilities would be aided markedly by 
fundamental changes in the policies of the judiciary and the correctional agencies. 
As with the police, the changes will cost money. But our efforts to control crime 
are bound to fail when courts are deprived of the prosecutors, judges and ancil- 
liary services which would permit them to assess more accurately the sanctions 
to be applied to a lawbreaker; when the correctional agencies are without the 
facilities or staft' to properly supervise the persons sentenced to tlieir care. 
Whether in the traditional jail or in some community-based alternative. And on 
the latter jioint, I would hope we are near the time when those who debate 
penology would stop presenting the issue as if we had a choice between either 
jails or community-based facilities. The facts are we must have both. 

GUN CONTROL 

Second, as desirable as it may be to have the handgun removed from our 
streets where it threatens the lives of citizen and police officer more every day, 
I do not believe the registration of these guns is a viable approach. It seems to 
me an open invitation to a black nmrket who.se customers would come largely 
from the criminal ranks. I am persuaded that there are better means. For crim- 
inals, I would favor automatic, stiff penalties as add-ons to conviction for any 
offense involving a weapon. For the victims of the handgun and other ofTenses as 
well. I would favor a system of compensation. 

Finally, to those who question the effectiveness of funds made available 
through the law enforcement assistance administration. I can speak with 
knowledge only about the program I have seen in Virginia. I judge it of un- 
estimable value to the Commonwealth and to my department where it has been 
used to experiment and innovate. We have learned much from these programs 
which, absent LEAA support, would simply have been beyond our financial 
reach. 

I see I've taken more time than I intended. I'll stop here and will be happy to 
answer any questions you may have. 



130S 

Serious crime reported to the Fairfax County police rose 18.8 percent durinu 
1974, according to the Department's audit (ifrures and analysis released hy Colonel 
Richard A. Kintr at a news hrieliiij: today. 

There were 24,477 offenses in 1974 as compared to 20.000 in 1973. As Table I 
show.s, the bulk of the offense increase occurred in the burirlary and larceny 
cateirorie.s which tosfther accounted for an increase of 3.ijG7 onVns<'s. 

The attached report was prei)ared hy the Department's Policy and rianning 
Section under the direction of Colonel King. 

TABLE 1.— FAIRFAX COUNTY OFFENSES AND CLEARANCE RATES, 1973-74 



Offense category 



1974 

Cases 



1973 



Ctiange 



Percent 
cleared 



Cases 



Percent 
cleared 



Cases 



Percent 



Homicide 15 100.0 18 94.4 -3 -16. 

Rape 114 42.9 83 32.5 +31 4-37. 

Robbery.... 493 20.6 342 17.2 +151 +44. 

Aggravated assault 289 46.3 230 25.1 +59 +25. 

Burglary 5,648 14.9 4,757 16.1 +891 +18. 

Larceny 15,519 9.3 12,843 5.7 +2,676 +20. 

Motor vehicle theft 2,399 11.5 2,327 5.7 +72 +3. 



In all crime categories except burglary, departmental performance imi)roved 
substantially despite the increases, and the clearance rates examined since 
August 1, 1974 when reorganization took place suggest strongly the improve- 
ment should continue. For example, in the seven months tiie Auto Sciuiid was 
operating, only three months of which were in 1974, the clearance rate was 2(>.r)% 
as compared to 5.3% in the same seven months a year earlier. AVbile the 1974 
burglary clearance rate was down in 1974, you should recall that the special 
anti-burglary effort in HIT was virtually idled during nearly five months of 
the year. This occurred when there were unavoidable delays in grant funding 
for the effort. In the first three months of renewed and more sharjily focused 
HIT operations, however, the cleanuve rate for burgl;iry was 22.4'' r. The higher 
rate in the HIT program appears to be attributable to the changes made in 
patrol strategy which emphasizes flexibility rather than the fixed routine of the 
earlier HIT effort. 

One additional factor appeared to influence clearance rates during 1974. As 
the worsening economic situation bore down on Fairf;ix County and Metropolitan 
AVasIiington in the last quarter, we experienced much of the increases in robbery 
and burglary. In the first nine months, we averaged 2()..5 robberies per month 
and 449.1 burglaries per month. In the l;ist three months, these otf(»nses aver- 
aged .">4.0 and r)3r> i)er month, respoctively. From past experience, we do not anti- 
cipate clearances for these offenses to begin showing in our arrest activity until 
early April 1975. Since recent study by the Dei)artment h;is tended to show a 
high percentage of juveniles involved in the.se crimes, we are examining persons 
charged with status offenses to .see if these charges are ac'tn:tlly for robbery or 
burglary. 

To place Fairfax County in its metropolitan context. Tj-bles 2 ;ind ."> show 
Fairfax crime rates and those of other large counties in the areas and elsewhere 
in the country. Where ijossible. we have also indicated the ratio of police officers 
per 100,000 population. In sum. the tables show that Fairfax County ranked 
third for crime rate among the four large counties in metro])olitan Washington 
and last in the luunber of officers jier 1(10.000 poimlalion. In addition, wliijc the 
tables show a worsening ])icture for .serious crime rates, it is also clear F.-iirfax 
County has not yet experienced the ftiU measure of problems facing some other 
jurisdictions and may have an opportunity to prepare. 

TABLE 2.— COMPARATIVE CRIME RATES PER 100,000 POPULATION, 1974 



Offense category 


Fairfax 
County 


Arlington 
County, Va. 


Prince Georges 
County, Md. 


Montgomery 
County, Md. 


Comparable 

counties 

nationwide 


Homicide 

Rape 

Robbery 

Aggravated assault 


2.7 

24.5 

89.3 

52.7 

1,038.8 

2,827.1 

437.3 


4.0 
38.0 

188.0 

83.7 

1,034.0 

3, 465. 

424.0 


7.2 

34.4 

252.9 

239.2 

1,184.3 

2,757.1 

591.4 


2.7 

9.7 

91.9 

56.4 

930.1 

2,633.7 

383.8 


6.7 

25.2 

103.5 

193.9 


Burglary 


1,329.0 


Larceny 

Motor vehicle theft. 


2,029.0 
397.4 







1309 

TABLE 3.-0FFENSE RATE FOR ALL INDEX CRIME AND OFFICERS PER 100,000 POPULATION, 1974 



County 



Offense rate Officer strength 



1. Arlington 

2. Prince Georges. 

3. Fairfax 

4. Montgomery... 



5,539.4 


194.0 


5,066.6 


131.2 


4, 472. 7 


107.1 


4, 108. 4 


133.7 



An overview of the statistic.-^ and the other analysis completed suggests tlie 
following : 

Inde.x- crimes in Fairfax County are continuing to increase at a rate beyond 
that attributable to poi>ulation growth, l)ut the problems have not worsened to 
the e.x'tent felt by oompariible jurisdictions. 

Clearance rates are improving l)tit the full impact of reorganization and the 
new otticers hired during FY I!)!") cannot .vet be evaluated fully. 

Preliminary study suggests strongly that increases in rape and burglary re- 
ported to police in Fairfax County are attributal)le, to a large degree, to heavier 
youth involvement in th(>se offiMii^es. 

Departmental capacity to slow or stop the increase appears to be headed for a 
peak between October 1975 and January 1!)76. This is the period during which 
the impact of promotions on available experienced on patrol and our dwindling 
cruiser fleet for overlap should hit hardest. 

Some enrichment of street-level forces ma.v be possil)le if some "replacement"' 
cruisers can be ptit to 24-hour duty while tluise scheduled for retirement are kept 
on; if the movement of officers from EOC can be accomplished on a somewhat 
accelerated pace. 

Fairfax County Police Department 



teoiA sriiricss 

SECTIIK 



CBlfilliiL 
IKVCSTIG/.TIONS 
DIViS'.CS 



F 



cRw:s vs. 

PES501S 



I Cftl-^ES VS. 
I PrC?£S Tr 



'OFG. CR1K£ 
[S NIRCQTICS 



OFFICE Cr ThE 
CKiE? OF POLICE 



iPLiSNIrtC REStARCH 

i BuDCaiKG 

SECTION 



] POLICE rOLICY ] 
50133 



il.NTERNiL AFFAIRS .--' 'l 
SECTION 



SERVICES OUREAU 



TECnIIICiL 
SEF.V ICES 



[ticks sect! 



AOHIK - 
ISTRATION 



. REC0S3S 
1 i 10 



VEHICLE 
SAINTEhAllCE 



GAME 
WA?.a£« 



L PROPERTY 



PERSONNEL 



TRAIHIKG 



TRAFFIC 
_SiF£IL_ 



Fiao operatiok;.| 

DIST.SICT I I 



HcLEAN 



CKttiTlLLY 



- AfiNANDALE 



-T RE5T0S j 



STAFF SERVICES 
SECTION 



FIELDOPERATIONS 
DISTRICT II 



GROVETC* 



-j FRillCONIA 



r VES'T "1 
^PR^KSflJLDJ 



POLICE DEPARTMENT RESOURCES 
MANNING 



Personnel 



Number 



Authorized 



Sworn officers: 

Colonel , 

Lieutenant colonel 

Major 

Captain 

Lieutenant 

Sergeant 

Corporal-. 

Investigator/detective. 

Private 

Park private (police).. 



1 


1 


1 


1 


2 


3 


10 


12 


12 


19 


33 


36 


34 


45 


84 


84 


370 


386 


20 


23 



1310 



POLICE DEPARTMENT RESOURCES— Continued 
MANNING 



Pers 



Number 



Authorized 



Civilians: 

Administrative assistant 

Cadet - 

Communications clerk 

Crossing guard supervisor 

Crossing guards 

Dog wardens 

Secretaries. 

Clerk/typists 

Clerk II 

Clerical specialist 

Accounts clerk 

Computer Systems analyst 

Storekeeper 

Keypunch operator 

Laborer 

Management analyst 

Fiscal officer 

Game warden 

Vehicle maintenance coordinator. 

Information specialist. 

Office service manager 



1 


4 


10 


12 


26 


45 


2 




89 


100 


13 


15 


1 




9 


19 


12 


12 


1 




2 




1 




2 




3 




1 




1 




1 




1 




















EQUIPMENT 



Nomenclature 



Quantity 



Vehicles: 

Patrol cars 157 

Unmarked cars. J 72 

Trucks 13 

Trailers 3 

Station wagons 2 

Brill bus . 1 

4-wheel drive.. 2 

Under grants: 

Patrol cars 17 

Unmarked 9 

Vans 3 



Nomenclature 



Quantity 



Communications: 

Portable 65 

Mobile... 266 

Other 

Investigation equipment: 

Dark rooms 1 

Photo equipment 35 

Fmgerprint. 8 

Office: 

Dictating 

Recording : 



FUNDING, FISCAL YEAR 1975 



Line items 



Amount 



Personnel $10,630,158 

Operating: 

Consultant contract 7,271 

Office supplies 20,291 

Telecommunications 75, 896 

Travel. 6,293 

Printing 42,328 

Postage 7,000 

Maintenance equipment 47, 685 

Rent?! equipment 18,900 

Utility 117 



Line items 



Amount 



Operating— Continued 

Building maintenance $1, 000 

Wearing apparel , 131, 573 

General operations 71, 196 

ADP . 364,061 

EMTA charges... 1,462,327 

Other operating.... ., 10,210 

Books, etc 749 

Memberships, subs. 1, 014 

Equipment, vehicles.. , 248, 630 



1311 



oo^ 






< 



O 

UJ 
O 



o 

Q. 



O 

o 



X 






< 
o 



< 
a: 
o 

< 






< 
o 

CO 



o 
o 

a. 



C9 

o 

=> 
m 



e/7 



.a o 
" E 



= P o = 

Eg™ E 



o <=•; 



> a* 



■o 


0) 


01 


■^ 




§ 


> 


3 


«3 


o 


TO 




oo 




■^ 





^ cnoo 
do Wr^' 



com (NicNj 
r^ CT> too 
ID ^- roco 



CDOO 

CD *r 
CO to 



CM CO 
CMCNJ 



c o <a c 
Q>:^ <-> o 

E S =■■== 
o o = 



£ ^ E £ 

O ra o 

EE 



C rt3 <U 

.— 0)00 

en — 2 

TO CT3X3 



*9- U^fO irt 



OOOO 
C3000 

*a-CNJ o CNJ 



-a-o _ __ . 

•— » O CT> CM ^- CM 
tOC) C3 ^T CM ^ 



oooooo 

lO 0> •— • CO 
,-. CO totu 

OCO-- '"od" 

U3'«a-cMeNi 



^o o o 
^ in CD ir> 

O CM U^ CM 



C3 iD^ to 

ld CO r^ CO 



CD C3CD O 
^ lO ^ iT) 



1 = 

o *- 2 °- 
a, a; Q.O- 

Q.SOUJ 



'•=2 



o 
Ol 



1312 

FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE STRENGTH, 1970 THROUGH 1975 

















Percent 




Total 


Authorized 




Actual 


Actual 


Actual case 


change. 




officers 


officers 


Authorized 


officers 


strength 


officers 


authorized 




authorized, 


per 1,000 


case 


on board, 


per 1,000 


per 1,000 


officer 


Fiscal year 


all ranks 


population 


officers 


January 


population 


population 1 


strength 


1970 


405 
444 


0.90 
.95 


0.69 
.72 


388 
406 


0.86 
.87 


0.66 . 
.66 




1971 


+9.6 


1972 


476 


.95 


.72 


461 


.93 


.70 


+7.2 


1973 


513 


.99 


.75 


501 


.97 


.74 


+7.7 


1974 


555 


1.02 


.78 


526 


.97 


.74 


+8.1 


1975 


587 


1.06 


.81 . 








+5.7 



' Case officers: This is the number of officers and investigators allocated to patrol and preliminary and followup case 
investigation. This excludes administrative support positions and Ist-line supervisory peisonnei. A 76.1 percent figure 
was derived for fiscal year 1975 as the percentage of authorized personnel utilized in the case investigation function. The 
76.1 percent figure was applied to the previous 5 fiscal years in determining per 1,000 population ratios. 

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SMSA CRIIWE INDEX BY MAJOR JURISDICTION ' 



Jurisdiction 



1973 



1972 



District of Columbia 

Prince Georges County ^ 

Montgomery County ' 

Total, Maryland suburbs 

Alexandria 

Arlington County 

Fairfax County. 

Vienna.- 

Fairfax City 

Falls Church.... 

Prince William County 

Total, Virginia suburbs.. 
SMSA total 



1971 



35.0 


38.0 


44.0 


22.0 


21.0 


19.0 


15.0 


14.0 


12.0 


37.0 


35.0 


31.0 


6.0 


6.0 


5.0 


5.0 


5.0 


5.0 


14.0 


13.0 


12.0 


.3 


W 


.3 


1.0 


.9 


.8 


.6 


.7 


.7 


3.0 


2.0 


2.0 


29.9 


27.0 


25.8 


101.9 


100.6 


100.8 



I Material is taken from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's "Serious Crime in Metropolitan Wash- 
ington, 1973." Percentages for the major jurisdictional categories were computed first, then the jurisdictions. 
Includes Hyattsville, Greenbelt, and Laurel. 



Prince Georges County. 
* Not available. 



of the city is located within 



1313 

Attachment 7 



Of 

3 O 
IH ro 



OOO^OT^'NOCO^X> 

^r n n m »n 



(N O 00 vD TT (N O 



I III inn TTT Till 






c 

3 

hi 



3 

c 

■TJ 
£1 

o 



•a 
o 



CO 
H 

< 




ALL CALLS FOR THE POLICE SERVICE, 1969 THROUGH 1973 



Year 



Parti 
offenses i 



Percent 
change 



Other 
offenses 2 



Percent 
change 



Police 
service ' 



Percent 
change 



1969. 
1970. 
1971. 
1972. 
1973. 



17,061 ... 




52,883 ... 
61,490 


""'+i6.'3" 


21,072 .... 
24, 181 




21,228 


+24.4 


+14.8 


21,407 


+.8 


65,313 


+6.2 


24, 503 


+1.3 


19, 427 


-9.2 


74, 488 


+14.0 


22, 880 


—6.6 


21,728 


+11.8 


82, 171 


+ 10.3 


23, 263 


+1.7 



' n/lurder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, and auto theft. 

"■ There are 35 offenses in this category, including narcotics offenses, forgery, vandalism, family disputes, runaway 
juveniles, bad checks, and animal cases, 

3 Calls for service comprises 7 categories; Responses to alarms, reports of injured persons, open windows and doors, 
property lost and found, and nonarrest police services including escorts for payroll or funerals, and parades. 



1314 



2S 

OS 



OS 

< 



2 
O 



o 
z 
< _ 

>■ g 



o 
o 

X 

< 



< — 



ra 

a: q: 
o — 

o 

UJ 

X 

UJ 

O 






(— C nj 

nj O0.C 

5 5« 



>. 


r/t 




O) 


a> 


H 






o 


o 


IX 





3.§ 



0»0 — CM"* 

^ i£> o ir> rJ 
ir> r- «Ni ^ CNJ 



if> CNJ CT» CT> U^ 

tnr** (,o u^ ix^ 



^M ^ _« r-«in 

CO ^ f^ od CO 

ooa}Oor^oo 



to p^ o» ^^ o» 



^00 CO CO '^ 



^-r^ o ^T ■— • 
O^ to' r^ to" irJ 



00*3-00 CO 
rJ ^ ro csj CO 



*a-moooo 

O O O O CO 

OO I— < O 0"> Ol 



OO CO CT) O^ fO 



CNj OO p^ o>r«* 
r-* •-« oi W u"> 

in CM CM CO ^ 

o^rocM ^oo 



•— • CM OdCM ^-< 






CO to 



^-o 

coco 

I 



ooo 



2*^ 



3 a> 
o o. 



0>^i-« CM CO ^ 

CO r»* r^ r«». r>. .— 

0> 0> 9> 9> O) ," 



^ O 



■ .•£ 



< 



a: 

< 
o 









a. 

>■ 
l- 

>- 

CO 

Q 

< 

o 

—J 
UJ 

< 



o 

Ql 



o 



H CO 



^^ ^^ u: — 

+ II 



CM •-«COO CO 

r^ oooooto 



+ 



COCNJ O CO 
to CO ^ o 

++++ 



coo CO CM CM 

OO ^r CO -^ .— < 



+ 



rr oo^-r--. 

+ +11 



^-oof^ cor^ [ 

corvj^ tncM I 

^ csi ^r ^-r- '1 

«— "CM CM<— 'CM 'I 



+ 



0»0 •-•fMCO O 

tor* p^ r- r^ Jr 



.E g 

ra 

«> .c 

.E <« 






is ™ 

^■2 i 

2° S 

sl < 



o 



OO 03 



" ^ 



i « 



V) 



^ (O (O 
CO U 

0.0) a 

^ ^ « 

E " p 

o £t3 .. 
lo (J c a> 

Q) *- re r; 

E- ^ « 
c >,«) ^ 

X S <1>T3 
0) <=-C C 
-O I/, O O 

ra otj " 
3 *- a) -'- 

0* ra Q> :^ 
<oT3 "" = 

o c CO 9? 
CO ra oj ^ 

Q) -;; 3'^ 

t c 5? »r 
o 5^=^ 

^— oj „ 

i°-o£ X 
a. c>- « 

-« ra r« h. 

Ob £ 



131'5 



< 
ui 






<c 
o 



o 

Ui 
X 

LU 

o 






o '"• 00 ■*■ oioo o^ ^-« r*— ^ 

^r . CO . «T . o> • csj . 

^o^ — tr- .— « ^ oooo cocsi 

.^T -<Ti -r^ .(X) -cNj 

cn^T tr> CO I — iD CSJOJ CNi ^T 






iT) .— « 1/1 OO 



•«r > ^^ ■ 

o) 00 (A o^ 
00 ■■ 



r-00 


roCNj 


^ir> 


^00 


. 


OJ . 


tjO 


CO • 


cno 


cmct> 


C7»UD 


t<in 




-CSJ 


.(^ 


-CSl 


o'csi 


--co 


•^<-* 


aioo 


^r - 


CM - 


CO - 


CO 



m 




< 


■0 C 03 


3: 


c a)-; 


z 


;^.2?-5 




oj 00 5 







■0 a>i2 


CD 


>- C CO 





= c c 


§ 


^ TO 






o: 


>-" 


LU 


r- <u 


Q. 


ai E 



.if 



^- ^- CO CT> 



r- ■ 00 



— CO 



00 —^ 



CsJ CO ^3- CM 



cvj CO r^ to 00^^ CO cNi 
-O -ir» -C5 to 

r- ^- o CO ^ •-< 



r—iT} — 00 



•— t ^sr 



en CO 


a>r^ 


r-> csj 


. 





0^ . 


IDO) 


^(X> 


CO CO 



<SJ »-t 



<z> ■ ^- 



01 -- 



csir^ 
m 



CNI 



.<-D 



00 



a)cvj o in 00 <x> o CO 

-^ .Lo -01 -Ln 

oor^ u^r- r^ LO cm ct> 

to- CM- CO- 'cr. 

r-^ CO toco <— "T •— tCM 



Q) C 

*^ ra 

c _ 

3 >> 
O *- 






X) a> 






E 







ro 




*o 


^z 






g 




!h 








a> 











to 


c 










5 


1^ 




to 






Q)-0 




-0 


c 




3 


to 










U 

c 


x" 






^ 




< 


^ 




00 


CO 




S 


U- 


CT3 


00 


c" 


C 












■5 


00 


d 


c= 


> 








c 


< 


c 









M 


■0 


XI 


c 


c: 




x: 


_t2 


=3 



a>co 



^fco 



lDCO 
<XJ . 
^^ «3- r^<T> ^3- CO 

-«— • -CM -•a- 

c» ^- ^r CO 01 to 



CO 
00 



-OO 
COCM 



\.r> —* >-* 



--o --<a> 



--H .00 



to ^f I"* '^^ ""^ CO ^-i 






<o s 



5 0)^ 

-occ 



to I I I ) I 

<i '. '. '. '. I 

'^ ■ . I 

S c ■ c ■ c 

<^ 3 ; s ; 5 

. o , o , o 

o c c , . . c 

(/) CO ^ (O 

- O) 0> ^ o> 

5 to ' V) ^ </> 



J3 
3 
00 



5 > u- 






= o 
E ™ 



^ 0) 

| = E 

*^ to >^ 
CO 



1316 

WASHINGTON, D.C., SMSA-TOTAL VOLUME OF INDEX OFFENSES REPORTED IN 1971-73' 



Jurisdiction 1973 1972 1971 



District of Columbia 

Total, Maryland suburbs 

Prince Georges County 2. 
Montgomery County ' 

Total, Virginia suburbs 

Alexandria 

Arlington County* 

Fairfax County' 

Vienna 

Fairfax City 

Falls Cfiurch 

Prince William County... 



'. 1,055 
53, 679 


52,642 
48, 600 


70, 725 
48, 989 


32, 005 
31,674 


29, 188 
19,412 


29, 487 
19, 502 


42, 468 


37,617 


41, 280 



8,216 


7,720 


8,693 


7,204 


7,231 


8,265 


20,416 


17, 836 


19,057 


548 


NA 


409 


1,441 


1,192 


1,345 


942 


1,016 


1,049 


3,701 


2,622 


2,462 



SMSA total 147,202 138,859 160,994 

' Material is taken from tfie Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's "Serious Crime in Metropolitan Wash- 
ington, 1973." 

' Includes Hyattsville, Greenbelt, and Laurel. 

5 Takoma Park counted totally in Montgomery County figures, though approximately }4 of the city is located within 
Prince Georges County. 

* Total volume figures include grand larceny and larceny involving $50 or less and so show a much greater volume than 
UCR totals for the same years. 

FAIRFAX COUNTY INDEX CRIME; CALENDAR YEARS 1969-73 

Percent Percent 

change, change, 

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1969-73 1972-73 

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter.. 8 

Forcible rape 75 

Robbery. 154 

Aggravated assault 380 

Burglary.. 3,513 

Grand larceny'.. 2,173 

Autotheft 1,396 



17 


15 


13 


18 


-1-125.0 


-f38.5 


66 


74 


77 


83 


-flO.7 


+7.8 


222 


259 


346 


342 


+ 122.1 


-1.2 


373 


256 


197 


203 


-46.6 


+2.5 


4,054 


3,810 


3,752 


4,757 


-f35.4 


+ 26.8 


3,027 


3,013 


2,805 


3,084 


-f41.9 


+11.0 


2,001 


2,259 


2,375 


2,327 


4-66.7 


-2.1 



Violent crime. 617 678 604 634 646 +4.7 +1.9 

Property crime 7,082 9,082 9,082 8,932 10,168 +43.6 +13.8 

Total, index of crime 7,699 9,760 9,686 9,565 19,814 +40.5 +13.1 

' Grand larceny includes only crimes involving property of a value greater than $100. 

Goals .\.\u Objkctivks ' 
Prevention and Suppression of Criiue (.$4,5r)9,0S2) 

GO.\I. 1 (.•? 1G0,:!-J8)"' 

To develop niininuun standards for residential, commercial and public properties 
within Fairfax County. 

Ohjcctirc l-a. — Establish the relationship between desij;u characteristics and 
the incidence of specific crimes with particular emphasis on robbery, burplary 
and larceny. 

Ohjcrthc 1-h. — Identify the desiuii cliaractcristics which will reduce the inci- 
dence of target crimes at an acceptable cnst. 

Objectives l-r. Coojierate with appropriate County agencies to develop the 
means to inchule protective design characteristics within County Code provisions 
which K'lvern development. 



' Tlio flolhir.f ;iss(i(iato(l wltli tlio four innior propi-.Tiiis ,nnfl o.nch fro.nl incliidp propor- 
tlon.Tl shnrps of opcr.-itlnsr and fa|iital costs, 'i'lip dollars .Mssociatod with oacli (>l).i<'ctivo arp 
l;ir>.'(>l.v tlioso associated wifli personnel and major capital items. Therefore the costs 
Identified with the ohjoctives will not total to those ol" the ^o.'ils. 

= Fund allocations In Ohjectives l-a throiijih l-il cnnsist l.-irfrelv of existing' resources. 
Thov do not Include support from other County agencies or a peiidin): .*.")0.000 j:rant re- 
quest the U.S. Department of .lustice, Law Knfdrcement Assistance Administration, in 
support of tills effort. 



1317 

Objectives l-<1. — Develop a prouiain of positive incentives to encourage County 
citizens to use protective design characteristics. 

GOAL U' ($■». 244,795) 

Increase police coverage in areas that display a high or potentially high 
incidence of crime. 

Ohjcctivc 2-a. — Achieve and maintain a level of man-power and equipment 
suflicient to permit short-term shifts in deployment to meet changing patterns 
of criminal activity. .'?8,18.S.S.S1. The costs are attributable to the costs of i)ur- 
chasing and operating an additional 38 marked vehicles to permit shift overlaps 
of patrol otlicers at peak crime times; to allocation of 80% of all patrol officer 
time to proactive patrol. Proactive patrol will focus on specific offenses and 
the delivery of anti-crime services to imlude security inspections in homes and 
business. 

Ohjcctivc 2-b. — Modify information system and analytic capabilities to permit 
accurate tracking of changes in patterns of criminal activity by offense and by 
small geographic area. $89.(581. This cost is comprised of one-third of the mantime 
available from six Crime Analysts and support for them from the Department's 
Planning, Research and Budget Section. 

GOAL ;! ($154,839) 

Use all available resources to encourage public cooperation in crime prevention, 
including the willingness to report crime and to prosecute perpetrators. 

Ohjcctivc 3-a. — To expend and develop the community support required for 
effective law enforcement and sound relationships between police and citizen. 
One-third of all mantime available from police-community relations officers and 
12% of that for patrol officers would he devoted to this objective. 

Law Enforcement and Public Service ($9,489,312) 

GOAL 4 ($5,871,263) 

Maintain effective police coverage throughout the County. 

Ohjcctivc If-a.- — Provide optimum partol area structure to equalize workload 
and minimize response times to calls for police service. $(5,285 in support and 
system analysis from Planning, Research and Budget Section. 

Objective .'i-b. — Acliieve a manpower and equipment level sufficient to deploy 
forces at the times and places crime is most likely to occur. $27,652, which 
represents one-third the mantime of the Criminal Analysts. 

Objective Jf-c. — Assure allocation of patrol time to preliminary investigation 
and problem-solving by beat officers. $4,269,743. This represents an allocation 
of 50.4% of all patrol time to these functions. 

Objective .'/-(I. — Assure that training for supervisors and officers is kept abreast 
of changing crime patterns and required change in anti-crime procedures or 
strategies, $118,521. This represents the full time assignment of a training officer 
to each station. Criminal Investigations Division and a Lieutenant to coordinate 
their work with that of the Northern Virginia Police Academy. 

GO.\L .'■) ($478,498) 

Enhance the investigative capabilities of the Department. 

Objective 5-a. — Improve the management of investigative resources available 
to the Department. $48,184. This would finance an in-house research effort to de- 
velop standardized criteria by which case assignments can be made. The aim is to 
identify the elements of essential information which must be available to warrant 
substantial investments of additional time. 

Objective 5-b. — Improve the collection and analysis of offense and offender in- 
formation. $18,826. This represents the full time effort in crime and pattern 
analysis by a Criminal Analyst assigned to the Criminal Investigations Division. 

Objective 5-c. — Improve the collection and analysis of physical evidence. 
$94,242. The full time effort of the department Identification Section and the 
proposed purchase of latent fingerprint kits for all investigators and field officers 
accounts for the dollars committed to this ol)jective. 

Objective o-f1. — Provide n higher level of supjiort for officers in case and trial 
preparation. $164,557. This represents the cost of adding an additional court liai- 
son officer to the Vienna Division of the Fairfax County District Court and de- 



1318 

voting 20 of 40 required hours of in-service training for each olFicer on sul)jects 
related to case and trial preparation. The traininj; would occur annually. 

Objective o-c. — Establish criteria by which to measure more precisely the case- 
load an investisator may carry effectively. $0,12T(i. An in-house research effort in 
cooperation with station investigators and ("ID personnel will he conducted. 

Objective 5-f. — Assure the close coordination of investigative and patrol re- 
sources. $27,652. A third of the Criminal Analysts assigned to all stations and 
CID would be devoted to the exchange of inter-.station information drawn by 
them from investigative and patrol forces. 

GOAL G l$:i,l.'?9,5.''. 1 ) 

Develop and field as required crime specific programs intended to diminish 
the occurrence of specific offenses. 

Objective 6-a. — Achieve zero growth rate for target crimes within the next 
three fiscal years. $2,347,205. This represents an allocation of the dollars and 
man-time associated with officers assigned to the HIT programs, ('ID, station 
investigation, K-9 and the Game Wardens. 

Maintenance of Order in Times of Unusual Occurrences ($1,174,620). 

GOAL 7 ($585,382) 

As a salaricMi function, maintain peace and order in public parks and build- 
ings, and on the occasion of authorized parades, music festivals <»r other events 
involving significant numbers of citizens. 

Objective 7-a. — Facilitate citizen participation. The dollars represent the costs 
associated with the order maintenance function of patrol officers and the Park 
Police, whose forces would be augmented by eight persons for FY 1976. 

GOAL 8 ($589,238) 

As a salaried function, maintain peace and order on the occasion of mass civil 
demonstration, violent or nonviolent. 

Objective S-a. — Protect life, property and rights of peaceful assembly and free 
.speech. The costs represent the allocation of 5.2% of available patrol time which, 
absent the need, may be reallocated to investigative duty. 

GOAL 9 ($.'0,-110) 

On a salaried basis, maintain peace and order at County school athletic or 
social functions in coordination with school officials. 

Objective 9-a. — Facilitation student and other citizen participation. The costs 
are borne by the School svstem which reimburses County officers for this effort. 

Movement and Control of TraflSc ($1,132,876) 

GO.VL 10 (.'!;7-12,4.'n) 

Maintain and promote the safe movement of traffic throughout the County. 

Objective 10-a. — To stabilize then reduce the County accident rate. $247,452. 
This represents 1.5% of all available time and patrol officers and a specialized 
eight-man enforcement unit. 

Objective 10-b. — To identify, report and help correct road characteristics that 
contribute to accidents or congestion. $1,455. The cost of maintaining liaison with 
appropriate agencies. 

Objective 10-c. — To provide traffic control at County schools at assigned times. 
$272,266, which is the cost of 100 civilian school crossing guards. 

Objective lO-d. — Enforce County parking regulations. $33,887, the level of 
effort associated with 0.4% of all available patrol time. 

GOAL 11 ($390,445) 

■- Maintain and promote a county-wide traflSc safety ])rogram. 

Objective Jl-o. — To support driver education and traffic safety programs 
within the schools and the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP). $248,401. 

Objective 11-b. — To provide traffic safety i)res(>ntatioiis to civic groups, as 
requested. $101,636. 

Objective ll-c. — To assure the safety of taxicabs oi)erating within the County. 
$29,404. 



1319 

Resume 

Col. Richard A. King, Ciiikf of Police, Fairfax Col'nty Police 
Department, Fairfax, Va. 

Name : Richard Alan King. 

Date of birth : January 21, 1931. 

Occupation : Chief of Police, Fairfax County, Va. 

Rank : Colonel. 

Present address : Fairfax County near Alexandria, Va. 

Married : Yes. 

Wife: Bobbie. 

Children : Edward, age 2. 

Colonel Richard A. King was born in Highland Park, Michigan, January 21, 
1931, and grew ui) in Detroit and Richwood, West Virginia. Pie moved to Fairfax 
County in 1948 and served in the U.S. Army from 1950 to 1953, during most of 
which time he was assigned to the 714th Tank Battalion of the 82nd Airborne 
Division. lie was discharged with the rank of Sergeant. 

Colonel King joined the Fairfax County Police Department on May 31, 1955. 
Working his way through the ranks. King served from 1955 to 1958 as a Patrol- 
man. In 1958, he was assigned as an Investigator with the Criminal Investi- 
gations Division where he served four years. In February, 1962, he was promoted 
to Corporal and assigned to Communications where he was promoted to Sergeant 
in May, 1963. Two years later. King was promoted to Lieutenant and assigned 
to an administrative position. He was promoted again in July, 1968, to the rank 
of Captain and commanded the Administrative Services Division. On May 11, 
1971, King rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel and became the Department's Deputy 
Chief. Upon the retirement of Colonel William L. Durrer on January 3, 1975, 
Colonel King was named Chief of Police. 

Colonel King is a graduate of the 85th Session of the FBI National Academy 
and the Southern Police Institute, University of Louisville, Louisville, Ken- 
tucky. He has completed the Dale Carnegie Leadership Course, and has taken 
police management courses at the American University in Washington, D.C. He 
has attended numerous management and crime prevention seminars throughout 
the country, and has lectured at the American University on systems analysis. 
He has written articles on law enforcement, including "Police Response to 
Disaster", which appeared in the May, 1974, issue of the National FBI Law 
Enforcement Bulletin. 

Colonel King played a major role in the design and introduction of data 
processing in the Fairfax County Police Department beginning in 1964 and 
culminating in the present Police Management Information System. Many de- 
partments throughout the country- have adopted data analysis programs based 
on Fairfax County's system. King has been instrumental in perpetuating con- 
temporary and innovative law- enforcement programs at local, regional and state 
levels. He played an important role in the implementation of such programs as 
the Alcohol Safety Action Project, the High Incidence Target Program and the 
Auto Theft Squad. 

Recently Colonel King was named to a 25-member State Crime Commission 
Task Force to stTuly Virginia's criminal information system. In September. 1974. 
he was elected by polic officials to the position of president of the FBI National 
Academy Associates for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Colonel King is a mem- 
ber of the following conuuittees : Fairfax County Criminal Justice Coordinating 
Council, Law Enforcement Committee for the Northern Virginia Planning Dis- 
trict Criminal Justice Advisory Council, and the Police Chiefs' Committee of the 
Metropolitan Council of Covernments. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD KING, CHIEF OF POLICE, 
FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA., POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Chief King. T liave just recently assumed the position of chief of 
police. I assumed the position in January of this year. Prior to that 
time T served as tlie deputy chief of police in the same department 
and have been with tlie i)()lice department for slightly over 20 years. 

The Chairman. Thank vou verv much. 



1320 

You may proci-ecl. 

Chief King. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this 
mornin<r. In summarizino; my statement to you, Fairfax County, per- 
haps as opposed to f)ur jurisdiction has been unique in tliat we have 
yet to really experience the increase in crime occurrin*:- elsewhere. 

That is not to say that it has not gone up because it has. I think 
the future is iroing to hold for ns tlie same kind of picture occurring 
elsewluM-e within the Washington Metropolitan area. 

COMMUNITY PROGRAMS 

One of the things that we have done — there are a number of things 
that we have done — in attempting to cope with the problem based on 
the scarcity of dollars that are more ])ressing in this present year than 
they ever ha\-e been, and we have tiied to ledirect our I'esources to the 
more pressing problems developing means by which we can deal with 
the lesser issues with fewer resources, still meeting what the citizen 
perceives to be a lesponsibility of law enforcement agencies. 

In addition to that, there has been a great deal of encouragement 
for participation in the connnunity in what its police department 
does. On that basis not only have T met with connnunity groui)S, there 
is a ci'imiiial justice coordinating council within tlie county that is 
made u]) of members of the system and also representatives of the 
connnunity that have pi'0\ided input for that purpose. 

Fuither. each of the distiict stations has been mandated to draw 
from within the connnunity tliat they are serving, representative 
groups so that the kind of connnunication necessary and understand- 
ing necessaiv can occur so that again we can apply the resources where 
it will provide the best services. 

YOUTH OFFENDERS 

Also, we ha\e an extensive program within the schools within the 
county from elementary through high where wo liave attempted to 
redirect what has been given by much of the media — at least in my 
opinion — a poor image of what law enforcement is all about iji this 
country. 

The glamoi'ization that has occurred has greatly misinformed not 
only the youth of this country, but the adults. Anoth(>r efToi-t that we 
have implemented that I think has gone a long way toward trying — 
toward pi-oviding better insight into how effective we are — is the 
development of the budgetary process and establishing goals and 
objectives and measurements to determine the success of these 
object i\es. 

AVhen budget cuts do occur, my governing body is in a better posi- 
tion to determine the impact of those cuts and the effect that they will 
ha\"e on our ability to deal with ci'ime in the county. 
, Insofar as what T feel is necessary, with some immediacy, it prob- 
ablv goes back to soine of your earlier questions as fai- as the impact 
of the Bicentennial in this area. 

REGIONAL NKEDS 

Tn looking at the regional progi'ams — and T believe in Chief Cul- 
linane's submitted statement h(> had icfinence to some of these items — 



1321 

1 also feel that the computerized base law enforcement system which 
o\er the years has been expanded needs to be expanded to the point 
iliat it is iroin*; to be a viable tool for the entire AVashinoton inetro- 
|)(»litaii aiea where each of the jurisdictions have the opportunity if 
\\ illiuij: to pay the bill to input data to that system to provide commu- 
nication on wanted persons that traverse this community so that they 
can be identified and taken into custody and put into the system for 
some resolve. 

In addition to that, there has been under study through COG the 
means of providing; hard copy communications on photographs and 
Hiiixorprints of wanted persons. 

By the greater emphasis in causing this development, I went 
through funding at the Federal level, COG, LEAA, would reduce the 
number of man-hours necessary to cause this transmission, providing 
us a greater ability to identify those persons we have at hand to make 
sure they are who they say they are as opposed to who they might be. 

COORDINATING AREA SYSTEMS 

I think it would increase our ability to be more effective in that area. 
There was some discussion this morning with regard to the shooting 
incident which appeared to be a result of a lack of communications. I 
propose that this committee do what it can to cause the Federal Com- 
munications Commission to release frequencies that are available and 
compatible to this region's communications system whereby there can 
be an all mobile police equipment within the metropolitan area, a fre- 
quency so that the miscommunication that can easily occur will be 
minimized. 

Therefore the speed of communications would enhance the likeli- 
hood of apprehension, reducing the opportunities for exposure of the 
citizens to the flight of that person. 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM LACK 

I might just speak to two final items. There were some comments 
this morning about the criminal justice system and the fact that it is 
not a system. I have to agree with that. For too many years we have 
operated autonomously. We call ourselves a criminal justice system 
and we effectively are not. Law enforcement in recent yeai-s has re- 
ceived significant inputs of fluids increasing its ability to deal with 
the identification and apprehension of those persons responsible for 
crime. 

T^nfortunately. little effort has been directed toward the area of 
prosecution, courts, and corrections. Therefore the law enforcement 
portion of the system has found itself suddenly thrusting upon the 
remaining portion of the sj^stem great nmnbers of persons who the 
system cannot cope with. 

Therefore you end up with your plea bargaining problems. You end 
up with no paper cases. Xol-pros or persons who are put into the sys- 
tem who cannot cope and are forced out the other side because there 
are not the types of systems for rehabilitation that would cause that 
person to return to society as a productive member of society. 

There are unfortunately — I would hope we are near that time when 
those who debate penology would stop presenting the issue as if it had 

52-587 O - 75 - pt.2 - 15 



1322 



a choice between jails or no pails, that there would be a recofrnition || 
that there will alwavs he a need for jnils. 

Tliere will also lie those people who cannot be rehabilitated, who 
cannot exist in society under the rides as established. There should be 
a jrreater emphasis certainly placed on community based correctional 
facilities to cause a kind of transition from incarceration for those 
who are rehabilitatable so they can cet back into the stream of society. 



GUN CONTROL 



Last, the issue of handjruns. I could not let that ^o by as all others 
have spoken to that issue. T cannot debate the desirability of havmc: 
the hand<run removed from the street. There have been too many 
police officers in this coimtiy in recent years who have become the 
victims of the handgun alono; with numy citizens who have become the 

victims. 

The mere registration of guns is not a viable approach. To attempt 
to eliminate the handgun from society is not a viable approach. There 
has to be a better way. Certainly registration has its point. But I 
believe that the effort' has to come from the Federal level to cause 
control. 

Without the overall implementation of a concerted program to deal 
with the control of handguns, legislation passed at the State or local 
level is not going to be effective. I feel that a greater emphasis on 
singling out those individuals who utilize handguns in the commission 
of crimes should receive mandatoi-y sentences for the use of that 
weapon. 

VICTIMS OF CRIME 

Also the victims of those crimes with handguns should receive some 
type of com])ensation. Tt might be that with that thrust and the cost 
to deal with that, would be of sufficient significance to cause the 
citizens of this coimtry to recognize that we cannot continue as we are. 
that something has to be done and it is going to take a concerted 
effort by all. 

LEAA FUNDS 

Last, there have been comments about the Law Enforcement Assist- 
ance Administration and the fact that the funds administered by them 
have not properly addressed the issues dealing with the control of 
crime. 

I would take some difference with that. I feel that the Law Enforce- 
ment Assistance Administration and the funds nuide available 
through them have gone a long way toward ]^roviding law enforce- 
ment and the criminal justice system the ability to experiment, to try 
and find ways of <lealing with the issues, to be innovative. 

Wlien those experiments have failed or Avhether they have been suc- 
cessful, we know, on a national basis, better directions to go or what 
directions have been identified as being viable directions and pui-suing 
them. 

T will be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

The Chairman. Thank vou verv much. Chief. 



1323 

VICl'IMLESS CRIMES 

You hnve a particularly informative presentation. I was interested 
in your i-efei-ouro to what you charactoi'ize as nonsorious crimes. You 
say more than GO percent of police time is spent on such calls. 

Chief TvTxn. Minibikes on private property, there is an ordinance 
that pi'ohibits that. An officer must respond to deal with that issue. 
There is also an ordinance that provides the owner of a portion of a 
property to seek our assistance in keepin*; motorbikes off his property, 
or a minibike. 

That takes man-hours and resources that could be directed toward 
other efforts. "When the dealer sells that bike he never tells the pur- 
chaser the limitations of its use. Obviously, in the number of cases 
we respond to, there does not appear the kind of concern possible that 
should exist as far as the parent and where the child goes. 

The CiiAiHMAX. How does that 60 percent figure compare to other 
jurisdictions within the area? 

Chief Kix(j. It might be a little on the low side. Some of the juris- 
dictions might range from TO to 75 percent. We have gone to a Telser 
l)iocess where minor incidents of crime have occurred, a theft of a 
bicycle, things that oflicers normally responded to, are now handled 
by phone where the same kind of detail can be gathered, to save the 
resources. 

The Chairman'. Minority counsel? 

CRIMIXAL JUSTICE SYSTEM LACKS 

Mr, Mathis. On page 7 of your testimony, you included a state- 
ment, "I think the regions' anti-crime capability would be aided 
mai-kedly by fundamental changes in the policies of the judiciary 
and the correctional ajjencv." 

Would you indicate what fundamental changes you are talking 
about there ? 

Chief King. The recognition that, if we are to be termed a criminal 
justice system, there has to be the recognition that we can work 
together even though we may come from separate bodies of govern- 
ment and still not impinge on the ability of any entity within the 
system to function effectively. 

There has been, for what reason I know not, concern of the judges, 
for instance, that to participate with law enforcement in determining 
better ways of dealing with the problem would some way affect their 
status of impartiality. 

I do not believe that is true. I think we can sit down and talk about 
issues that need resolve without affecting either one side or the other 
of that system. 

^fi-. ^Tatiiis. You feel that the problem you are talking about here 
is one of communication between the ditTerent elements of the criminal 
justice system or is there something further? 

Chief King. "Well, policies, of course. I debated with that word 
when it was in there because T thought it could be read in several ways. 
But probably both ways. I think in some cases, policies are personal 
policies. I am talking about in decisions of the bench where there are 



1324 

judges who, for wluit reason I know not. have greater concern for one 
level of crime as opposed to another. 

In the same courthouse in adjacent courtrooms, von have siirnificant 
disparity iii justice because the judge sitting next'to that one^nay see 
it in an entirely different way. therefore the penalty imposed is quite 
dilVerent. 

There has been a hue and cry tliat is there equalitv in the criminal 
justice .system, and I think rightly so. I sometimes question also, 
my.self, is there e(|uality in justice i 

Mr. ]\1atiiis. What policies do you think need to be changed? 

Chief KiN(;. The policies in the application of justice. 

It can't be the personal likes and dislikes of the system or people 
within the system. 

Mr. Matiiis. Do you mean the sentencing of particular individuals, 
the determination of i)rol)ation. j)arole bv the cori-ectional officials, 
which people will be allowed to participate in work furlough pro- 
grams and that type of decision. 

Chief Kixo. A greater degree of consistency in the application of 
the law. There may be laws I don't like l)ut that does not affect mv 
direction of my resources in enforcing the law. 

Mr. M.vTiiis. Do you feel that this need for change in policies is 
applicable to other elements of the criminal justice system, mainly the 
police and the piosecutors? 

Chief Kix(;. Could you be more specific? 

Mr. AIatfiis. P'or instance, you feel there is a problem with different 
justice for different people with lespect to the judiciary and correc- 
tional agency ? 

Some might suggest that there is different justice for different 
people as meted out bv the police and the ))rosecutors. We have heard 
some testimony. T believe, by Judge Alexander, that people M'ho are 
picked up foi- marihuana violations in (ieorgetown are treated a little 
differently than people who are picked up in Anacostia by the police- 
men and by the prosecutors. 

I think you ])robably take the view at least with resjx'ct to those 
two elements of the criminal justice system, there is a need for a big 
change in philosophy. 

Chief Kixo. I agree. I can make every effort on my part to see that 
there is an ecpial apj^lication of the law. T am saying that the same 
should occur tiirouiihout the svsteni. In re^raid to that particular 
policy, the saiiu^ should occur throughout the system. 

It should not be a question of the 'iiaves"' and the ''have nots." 

Mr. Ma'iiiis. Thank you. ^NFr. Chairman. 

The CiiATitMAX. riiere may be some further questions that we might 
submit to you for response in written form. Chief. T think, however, 
your testimony is com])rehensive enough to terminate the questions at 
this i)oint. We ajipreciate your coming befoi'c the committee. 

Our final witness, George T. Owens. Chief of Police. Prince William 
County Police Department, will submit his .statement for the record 
and the record will remain o]ien for that purpose at this point. 

The committee stands adjourned. 

[A^Hiereupon. at 12:40 p.m. the committee adjourned, to reconvene 
at 9 a.m., Friday, June (>. 1975,] 



1325 
[Subsequently, the following was received for the record :] 

[From tlio Washington Star, Jiuu' 7, 107.")] 
TOTIGTT (JUN-USK L.VW Is URGKU BY CULLINANE 

(By Corrie M. Anders) 

D.C. Police Chief IMauvice J. Cullinane has aslced the District Council to adopt 
gun control leKi^hitio'i retniirins a mandatory lO-year sentence for anyone con- 
victed a third time of connnitin.n- a crime wliile armed with a Kun. 

His suggestion is in addition to several contained in Iwo gun control hills 
on which the council's Committee on Judicial and Criminal Law is holding 
public hearings. The hearing will continue at 10 a.m. today. 

"I don't think you'll ever keep the guns out of the hands of professional crimi- 
nals," Cullinane said, but he said the council could regulate the possession of 
cheap handguns, whieli account f(u- nearly half of the weapons used in crimes. 

Most of the witnesses said tliey favored features of the two bills now in the 
hopper. One was introduced by Jolin Wilson, Ward 2, and the other by Polly 
Shackleton, Ward 3. 

However, CoriJorati^i Counsel C. Francis Murphy said he had .serious doubts 
whether the council had legal authority to enact gun control legislation since 
the home rule charter specifically prohibited the city from changing the criminal 
code for two years. 

Committee Chairman David A. Clarke, Ward 1, said he thought the council 
does have such authority. Staff members pointed out that the bill would not 
change the criminal code, but would expand it. 

"We are going to get something through although I don't know w^hat it will 
be," Clarke said. 

Wilsons' bill, by far the more controversial, calls for confiscation of all guns, 
including those legally registered and those carried by security guards. It also 
calls for mandatory jail terms for a second gun-related conviction. 

Mr.s. Shaekleton's mea.sure does not call for confiscation. It would ban the 
purchase, sale, manufacture, transfer and possession of handguns and 
ammunition. 

The chief said he is against the confiscation section of Wilson's bill. He said it 
would put a burden on liis men to locate and confiscate the weapons and that the 
city could face a court challenge of breach of faith from a resident who legally 
registered a handgun. 

Cullinane said he "agonized" before "reluctanly" deciding to ask the council 
to consider a 10-year mandatory sentence. "People who are facing a 10-year 
sentence are dangerous" when nearing apprehension, he said. 

Cullinanes' proposal would impose an extra oO i>ercent time on sentences 
of first offenders convicted of committing a crime while armed with a gun ; for 
example, if the nomial sentence for a crime were two years, it would be three 
years if the crime were committed while the person had a gun. A second offender 
would receive a mandatory five year sentence for using a gun, on top of whatever 
sentence was impo.sed for the crime. 

In all three cases, Cullinane said, the gun sentence would have to run con- 
secutive to, not concurrently witli, the sentence for the underlying felony in 
order for the bill to be an effective deterrent. 

Mere possession of an "unauthorized gun, Cullinane said, should be penalized 
by a $5,000 fine and up to two years in jail for a first offen.se. 

The Xational Rifle Association earlier this week mailed out several thousand 
"emergency" bulletins to its members in the District and the suburbs. The 
bulletins ask the members to lobby to defeat the legislation but warned them not 
to "send this bulletin or a copy of it to your council member." 



v/ 



ADMINISTRATION OF CUnilNAL JUSTirE 



FRIDAY. JUNE 6. 1975 

U.S. House of REi'RESENTATi\a<:s, 

CoiVr^SriTTEE ox THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Wi/.shhu/foiK D.C 

The committee met. ])nisuant to notice, at :i^() a.m., in room 1310, 
Ix)n(rwortli House Office Bnildinji-. Hon. Charley C Dio<rs, Jr. (chair- 
man of the committee) presiflino-. 

Present : Representatives Dioos. Sharp, and Biester. 

Also present: James T. Clark, le<iishitive counsel; Chris Nolde, 
Judiciary Subcommittee counsel ; James Cliristian. deputy minority 
counsel ; and Nelson Rimensnyder. professional staff. 

Mr. Sharp [temporarily presidino]. The conmiittee will come to 
order. Today in our continuin<r hearin<r on the administration of crim- 
inal justice the committee will hear from several witnesses. Some of 
these witnesses have been rescheduled from other lieariiiir days. 

The first witness is the president of the Police Foundation who will 
amonij other matters, discuss some aspects of the innovative reseaich 
carried out by that organization, and how such research mifrht assist 
police operations in the Washington metropolitan area. 

The second witness will ))r('sent a statement describino- the conjrres- 
sional mandate and operations of the Executive Protective Ser\'ice. 
The Executive Protective Service is hitjhly visible to the public in 
certain sections of the District of Columbia, but is perhaps the least 
understood Federal law enfoirement asfency in the area. 

The third witness chaii's the Subcommittee on Public Safety of the 
District of Columbia City Council and will present testimony on vari- 
ous components of the criminal justice system. 

Finally, this morninc:. the committee will hear from the president of 
tlie Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia. 

Our first witness is Mr. Patrick V. Murphy, director, the police 
foundation. We are pleased to have you with us. Mr. Murphy. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK V. MURPHY. DIRECTOR, 
THE POLICE FOUNDATION 

Mr. Mt-rpht. Thank you, Mr. Sharp. T am honored by your invita- 
tion to appear before this committee. Precedinir me has been a distin- 
jniished ffroup of police chiefs and other officials of the criminal justice 
system. You have heard from them of many of the problems and chal- 
lenges confrontiuir the police and other elements of the justice system 
in "Washinjiton and sui-roiindinf!: jui'isdictions. 

(1327) 



1328 

At tile coiv of tlic'ir tcstiiiioiiy has l)ooii the (luostion ol' what to do 
about crime. I jfliouhl like to take this opportunity to discuss the prob- 
lem of crime. 

As the United States beoins its iudejieudence Bicentennial celebra- 
tion, ci'ime is a national (lis<ii'ace of a pioportion <:reater tlian ever 
before in oui- history. This is as true in the District of CV)luml)ia as it 
is foi- the rest of the Nation. 

The I'eason for this condition is that we ha\e not addrc^ssed the ]irob- 
lem of crime for wliat it is. but rather have been misled by sim])listic. 
ill-conceived proposals to solve the ])roblem. 

This city, more than any othei- in the Nation, has been the object 
of the "'law and order" aj^j^roacli to the crime ])rol)lem. We are familiar 
with the sources of "law and oi-der" i-hetoiic and the recent national 
administration's heavy iinestment of law enforcement funds in 
"Washington. 

No other city has so many police officers ])ei- thousand citizens: no 
other city has been on the receiving- end of attempts to reduce ci-ime 
throufjh a "law and order" course. 

T^ut ci-ime in the Distiict of Columbia, as in the Nation, contimies to 
incT'ease. This has happened d(^s])ite able and often enli<jfhtened leader- 
ship. Wasliinirton has benefited from the leadership of a distiniruished 
INfayor. Walter Washinaton : of a nationally known and respected 
police chi(^f. -lei-i'y V. Wilson: of a fine new jiolice adniinistiator. 
Maui'ice Cullinane: of a distino-uished jurist, Hai'old II. (Treene, cliief 
judiTe of the supeiior court; and of courageous officers in the field 
of corrections. i 

As I ha\e indicated, a major reason Avhy crime continues to increase 
is that we have been lulled into a belief in one-dimensional solutions 
such as the "law and order" remedy for crime. 

In this regard, it was hearteniiifr to read the President's recent 
speech at Yale. The President biushed aside ''law and order" rhetoric 
and instead s))oke. in the historic terms of the Constitut ion. of "insuring 
domestic tran(iuility." 

Ci-inie is a complex jiroblem rooted in a variety of social and economic 
factors. The solution to the crim(> ]iroblem is equally roni])le\ and 
must address these factors. 

The police alone cannot control and prevent crime, nor. for that 
matter, can the criminal iustice system in all its parts. The burden 
for the alleviation of the Nation's'and this city's crime problem rests 
at least e(|ually with society at large. 

CAUSKS OF CRIME 

But as a society, we have done too little to attack the root social 
and economic causes of crime. 

For example. uneiiij)loyment. i)articiilarly among blacks and young 
l)e()ple. continues to increase. The familiar conditions of poverty, de- 
jirivntion. and want i)la()ue our cities, including Washington, and these 
conditions contribute to the cliiiil)ing ci'imi' rate. 

A few weeks ai>o I had the privilege of ajijiearing before an ad hoc 
hearing- of tlie Conni-essional Black Caucus which is .seeking to attack 
on a national level the ])rol)lem of unemployment. As I testified, when 
I was j)olice commissioiKM in New York City, T received census tract 



1329 

tlata tlial noted the areas of liii^h unciuployiueiit, Coniiii<r aci-oss my 
desk also were the li<^ures on levels of erime in New York C'itv. 

Invariably, the areas with the liighest erime rate were "also areas 
of liitrh unemployment and the degradation which accompanies unem- 
ployment. 1 might add that these crime i-ates were often 50 to 100 
times higher — or as high as those in other parts of the city. 

The same ratio of crime to unemployment existed also when I 
directed the police departments of Detroit, Syracuse, and this great 
city. 

Besides economic factoi-s, other i-oot ca-.ises of crime certainly exist. 
These include the use of drugs or alcohol, gang membership, mental 
illness, broken homes, poor education, and hostilities whicli flow from 
centuries of racial discrimination. 

About these causes, the police and the I'est of tlie criminal justice 
system can do little. It may seem umisual for one who has spent almost 
30 years in police administration to admit tliis. 

But experience has taught me that a great deal of the crime which 
aftlicts "Washington and other cities today is not readily susceptible to 
police action. This is not to say that the police should not continue 
to seek to improve and to develoj:) more successful methods of crime 
control. This Xation has no police dej)artment which cannot benefit 
from innovation. 

POLICE TMrROVE^IEXTS 

The Police Foundation lias been proud to work with many police 
departments in pursuing fhe goal of improved policing. Let me note 
some areas of improvement in policing. In many jurisdictions, 2:)olice 
departments have made majoi- ])rogress in the recruitment of 
minorities and women. 

The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia 
has been a leader in the utilization of women in all police jobs. The 
department greatly assisted the Police Foimdation when the Founda- 
tion sponsored an evaluation of the perfoimance of a large number 
of new women and ncAv men who were placed on police patrol in 
Washington. The evaluation concluded that women can perform the 
crucial job of police patrol. 

I am pleased to make a\"ailable to the committee a copy of the report 
on that evaluation, along with other research documents and publi- 
cations from the Police Foundation which may be of interest to you. 

In se\eral large police departments today, administration is seeking 
more productive ways of utilizing police pati-ol resources. The best 
data show that increasing or decreasing the level of routine preventive 
patrol, a traditional police pi-actice. has no significant effect on crime. 

At least on one such city. Kansas City, where a study was made. 

Now some police departments, are trying to develop more effective 
and efficient methods of using patrol officers. The police also are seek- 
ing improvement in the use of othei- existing resources. Some depart- 
ments have begun to seek better measures of productivity and ways of 
more successfully delivering ]:)olice services. 

But however much the police improve, they are limited to what 
they can do to stem the tide of crime in this Nation. 

The job of crime control and prevention belongs to each of us — 
to the whole of societv. We must recognize the complexity of ci'ime 



1330 

find the fact that there are no easy solutions to it. Finally. Ave must 
seek to alleviate the root causes of crime. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

BACKGROI'Xn OF poLicas rOUXOATIOX 

Mr. Sharp. Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. 
Afi". Murphy, tlie Police Foundation has recently been receiving 
considerable favorable publicity in our lu-ws media in the city, and I 
wonder if you might be able to give us a little history and background 
of the organization so that we can have a better understanding of 
how it works, its purposes and the scope of its operation. 

Mr. MuRTHY. The Police Fouiulation was created in 1970 by the 
Ford Foundation with a grant of $30 million to carry on a program for 
5 years later extended to G years to improve police in the United 
States. 

Last yeai- the board of directors of the foundation wliich is private 
and nonprofit, decided to continue the life of the foundation indefi- 
nitely. During the 5 yeare of its existence it has conducted a number 
of experiments in police operations. 

The best known of those experiments was the Kansas City Patrol 
experiment which was done under then Chief Clarence Kelly, now 
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who was the 
Police Chief in Kansas City at that time. 

After what T feel in all modesty I can see is the best social experi- 
ment ever conducted, in policing, it was learned that increasing or 
decreasing levels of police preventive patrol had no significant effect 
on the levels of crime in the parts of Kansas City where that experi- 
meiit was carried out. 

Additionally w^e have done the work here in Washington which I 
have described on the use of women on patrol. We have had projects 
assisting departments in the recruitment of minorities aiul women 
candidates. 

We are doing some work in victimization problems as they relate 
to bettei- Dolice services in dealing with victims as well as in the 
investigating of rapes. 

We are also sujiimrting a rape pi'oject with the New York City 
Police Department. 

Mr. Sharp. Woidd it be possible for you to provide us a descriptive 
biblionrapliv of the projects underway? 

Mr. Miiu'irv. T will be hai)py to t)rovide the copies of the repoi-ts. 
all of our completed projects as well as descriptions of projects that 
ai-e currently underway. 1 woidd like this conunittee and its staff to 
know we are" available at any time to offer consultation on any (|iiestion 
von. mav have. 

Mr. Sharp. We certainly apiu-eciate that, Mr. Mur]ihy. In addition, 
we wondered how you select the various research proposals that you 
-- undertake aiul whether or not you would be interested in receiving pro- 
posals fioni tliis committee legarding the District of Columbia. 

^{y. AfriMMiv. Yes. I must say that the Washington Police Depart- 
ment, we think. Iiom our biased point of view, is one of the very best 
in the Nation lieeause midei- Chief Jerry Wilson, the Departnient in- 
vited the Police Foundat ion in to do an exj^eriment which was lived up 
to as far as it ])OSsibly could. 



1331 

I should point out that tho police Avorld to bo^n with is not very 
researcii oriontod. Second, even police chiefs who would like to con- 
duct research find it extremely difficult to maintain experimental con- 
ditions in the day-to-day operations of a police department. 

But the kinds of departments, frankly, where we find ourselves 
eventually doin^ work, althouofh we receive many proposals for one 
reason or another, we do not fund. Those departments where the chief 
is dedicated to experimentation and tryin<r to ^et better answers, some- 
thinix better than the cliches about what really works. 

We have found the departments very willing to live up to their 
commitment to carry out experimentation. They tend to be that kind 
of department. I am confident that Chief Cullinane whom I know well 
and admire, would be receptive to further work. 

I would be happy to look into that. 

HUMAN KINDNESS DAY 

Mr. Sharp. As you know, we had some rather tragic circumstances 
here on Human Kindness Day. I wonder if you could provide us any 
insiffht into how the U.S. Park Police and the Metropolitan Police 
might better operate under these conditions where crowd control is 
needed. 

Could you describe what model crowd control operatoins might be 
for a situation similar to what we had here ? 

Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I was disheartened as I am sure all of 
us were, that a tragedy like that should happen in the National Capital 
in 1975, just 1 year before the Bicentennial celebration. 

I am well aware of the problems of crowd control and violence in 
the District of Columbia since I served as public safety director here in 
1968. Certainly the last role I would want is to be a 5londay morning 
quarterback. But to give you the benefit of my experience in four cities, 
one of them Xew York and the other Detroit as well as "Washington and 
a great deal of experience in crowd control, Avhat I have found to be an 
effective technique and I think the New York Police Department 
probably because it handles more of these crowd control problems and 
ones of larger dimensions than any other city in the country has been 
able over a period of years to develop a sophisticated system of infil- 
tration or having within large crowds of people police officers out of 
uniform who blend into the particular crowd. 

If the crowd is predominantly white, white officers are more valu- 
able. If the crowd is predominantly black, black officers are in the 
crowd out of uniform using perhaps small transceiver radios that can 
be hidden and having an elaborate plan of communication and rapid 
response to any kind of incident within such a large crowd. 

This can control crowds. 

In Central Park on a Sunday afternoon it is not unusual to have 
many thousands of people in attendance at various activities. Those 
crowds can be kept reasonably under control, I believe, using very 
highly sophisticated methods. 

Now in the District I am well aware of some of the problems that 
are different. 

In New York City, for example, there is one large police department 
with that responsibility. Here in the District there is some division of 



1332 

responsibility because there are a number of police departments with 
rosponsibility in the area. It was my experience in 1008 to find the 
lii<i:hest level of cooperation among the af^encies and I think tliat is an 
important factor for future planning, that the resources of all of the 
agencies be available well in advance, all of the police authorities with 
any responsibility for such events. 

All of the police who might have the responsibility are satisfied that 
they have planned well, adequate resources are on hand and contin- 
gency plans have been made. I don't want any of that to sound like 
^fonday morning quarterbacking in response to your question. 

Mr. SiiAur. You generally feel that we are better off with the plain- 
clothes police who are in the crowd rather than the uniformed police 
olhcer ? 

Mr. ]\rn?PTir. Both are needed but my perception is such that I would 
have seen the need for a larger numl)er of black officers out of uniform. 
There may be a question of availability. I think there is availability of 
sufficient numbers in the Metropolitan Police Department. I don't 
know if that problem was complicated by the numbers in the Park 
Police. 

I hope that in no city in this Xatio7i will the authorities feel that law 
abiding people cannot assemble. We cannot give in to the lawless 
elements. I think it would be a tragedy for any city in this Nation 
to say we cannot have a large group of people to assemble if they 
want to assemble for a legitimate reason because we cannot control 
the criminals, those who will commit crimes. 

I realize that those problems are very complex for the police. I 
don't mean to minimize them. They may be costly because of police 
overtime. I Avould hope that we would go to the limit of our potential 
in avoiding ever having to say because our crime problem is so bad, 
we can't have the kind of event that I thought we might be having 
during the Bicentennial. 

Mr. Sharp. Is your concern primarily that the officer in uniform 
might be provacative to some members of the crowd or simply that 
vou can more effecti velv know what is iroinfr on ? 

Mr. Mi-RriiY. I think you need a combination of uniformed and 
plainclothes officers and with a crowd of that enormous size on the 
Mall suggests to me that no matter hoAv well uniformed officers would 
do their work, that the realities of life in Wasliinirton sugirei^t that 
tliere be a significant number of plainclothes officers strategically 
distributed witliin the crowd with an instantaneous communications 
system so that if even one crime were observed by a signal on a radio, 
a dozen officers could be on the scene and make arrests immediately. 

If crimes occur and arrests are not made, a criminal may take that 
to mean that is a field-day for commiting crimes. 

Mr. Sharp. Do you see the need for a backup force in the immediate 
area as well as those genei-ally operating within the crowd? 

Mr. ^MiKPiiY. AVithin the crowd, ]irincipally plainclothes officers, 
uniformed officers on the fringe and certainly intelligence work in 
advance could be going on. It could indicate that there are a number 
of j-)eoplo bent on coming to the event to commit crimes. Thereby 
there could l)e a system of identifying groups or individuals and 
carefully observe their movements. 

If they don't select a location to sit down and enjoy the concert 



1333 

but are prowliup: obviously amonji; the crowd, that is observed and 
perhaps calls for close surveillance. 

Mr. SiTARP. The reason I ask some of these questions is — and I 
personally have not come to a judgment — but over the lonfj haul it 
seems that one of the things we want to (renerate is a jxreater trust 
among law abiding citizens in their police officers because they both 
need each other. 

What T wonder is whetlier this sort of techni(7ue. might over the 
long haul have the continuing etVect of enhancing the distrust of many 
citizens toward the Government if Government is constantly survey- 
ing us surreptitiously. 

Perhaps I am talking about an ideal world. 

Mr. MiRPTiT. ]\rr. Chairman, I share your concern about privacy 
and the rights of individuals and I am sorry that in recent months 
and years wo have learned of so many violations by law enforcement 
agencies. But the realities of life suggest that police departments 
should be doing some surveillance. 

I think this is a well-trained police department here in Washing- 
ton. I think officers who would have the delicate assignment of being 
within a crowd would not harrass the law-abiding citizens obviously 
to enjoy the concert. I think tliej- would be very reassuring to the law- 
abiding citizens who miisrht be frightened as they observe the crime 
occur and have plainclothes officers make that arrest in a minute. 

I think that is the kind of police work that would be strongly sup- 
ported. I am not suggesting anything in the nature of illegal wire- 
tapping or illegal surveillance in order to obtain advance intelligence. 
But any metropolitan police department in this day and age. not 
only in the organized crime area and thank God we are past that 
area, when there were problems of crowd control and civil disturbance 
of one kind or another — it is the responsibility of the police to know 
all thev can in advance usins: legitimate methods. 

Afr. Sharp. Do you have any recommended ratio in terms of the 
numbers of police, plainclothes or uniformed officers it would take for 
a given crowd, something that Avould give us more of a feeling of what 
it really takes in terms of a police force in numbers and costs? 

Mr. ^fi'RPTiY. T don't have a rule of thumb at the moment. T would 
be happy to provide the committee that information. I would be able 
to obtain tactical orders from the New York Police Department about 
handling demonstrations at the Ignited Nations, and elsewhere. 

It is difficult to have one rule of thumb because it does vary con- 
siderably from location to location. In an open area like the IVIall or 
Central Park it is very hard — very difficult from the United Nations 
area, with its tall buildings. From the experience in New York and 
elsewhere T would bo hapT)y to provide information for you. 
Mr. Sharp. Thank you. '^tr. Mui-phy. 
Mr. Blester, do you have some Questions ? 
Mr. BiESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I served on the Judiciary Committee for fi years, and T recall your 
testimony before that committee and it was enlightened then as it 
was today. 

It seems to me we are always struck with this balance of the pro- 
tection of private citizens. It seems to me also that he is subiect to 
being deprived of the integrity of his i)rivacy at least as much by the 



1334 

private sector — criminal activity — as by the public sector — police 
officers. 

DRUGS 

We heard some testimony from Chief Cullinane earlier in these 
hearings and one of the charts he had which struck me immediately 
and which I aske-d him about and wliich struck him — I do not think I 
have any good understanding as to the cause of the correlation — but 
which demonstrates an extraordinary correlation between the percent 
of purity of heroin in the city and the crime level. 

It is simply an inescapable correlation and it is an instantaneous 
corrchition. 

Do you have any thoughts about that, or any projects for getting at 
that or any advice about that ? 

Mr. MuRPTiY. We are not doing any research with police depart- 
ments on narcotics enforcements or any aspect of the narcotics prob- 
lem, frankly. 

My own view of the relationship between the abuse of hard drugs, 
especially heroin, and crime, is that I, too, have seen strong evidence 
that I have been able to correlate in my own mind without very power- 
ful data, as the need of the addict to commit crime, to obtain enough 
money for a very expensive heroin habit — I should add that that prob- 
lem is complicated by the exchange rate on the fencing market. 

For example, if a heroin addict has a $25-a-day habit, he probably 
has to steal $125 worth of merchandise. From that point of view, I see 
what I think is a powerful connection between heroin addiction and 
the level of crime. 

T don't think T can bo very lielpful in explaining that correlation 
which you and Chief Cullinane have observed. The only other point 
I would make is that drug treatment, I believe, in the early 1970's in 
both New York and Washington, seems to have been a factor in the 
reduction in crime. 

Certainly, the data on the side of treatment made quite clear that 
increasing numbers of addicts were going on methadone or taking up 
some other kind of treatment. Certainly, there was evidence from the 
medical side about overdose deaths which suggested a good indication 
of the abuse of heroin. 

There were two cities having similar experiences which gave some 
support to that notion, that treatment is one other part of this 
equation. 

I frankly — I wish I could give you a better answer, but I cannot 
explain that correlation. 

Mr. BrRSTER. The correlation is between the percent of purity and 
the crime rate. It is extraordinary. 

You described the circumstances of unemployment and very per- 
ceptively pointed toward the use of drugs and mental illness, broken 
homes, poor education, hostilities which grow from centuries of racial 
discrimination as causes for criminal behavior. 

Would I be correct in assuming that not only are those the causes, 
but the places in which most crime occurs — tend to occur — in those 
areas where there is the highest concentration of either those circum- 
stances or those feelings? 

Mr. Muiu'iiY. That lias been my experience. 



1335 

1 recall a study in Washington I did which indicated that the crime 
rate in 1968 in one period, I believe it was in Cardoza, was 50 times the 
crime rate of a similar section of Northwest Washinofton. 50 times. 

All of the social indicators referred to poverty, unemployment and 
some of the others had similar relationships between those two parts 
of the city. I don't say that is conclusive evidence. 

"We really need to learn a lot more about why two brothers raised 
in the same poverty family will go diti'erent ways. Or, from the same 
middle class family, for that matter. 

Generalizing, I have seen that correlation. 

CORRECTIONS 

Mr. BiESTER. AVith respect to the role of correction, you stress in your 
statement to what extent the greatest payoff in terms of the crime 
rate might occur in a more comprehensive and more intelligent view 
of corrections and its application. 

It seems to me with the recidivism rates as high as they are in this 
country, that a correction system that brings those recidivism rates 
down would have probably the highest payoff. 

Is your organization engaged in programs or research related to the 
effectiveness of corrections programs with respect to recidivism? 

Mr. Murphy. "\Ve don't do work in corrections. 

But, although I am really a police officer, I have been with the Fed- 
eral Government for 3 years in the law enforcement assistance pro- 
gram. Like any police administrator, I have had that frustration of 
wh}' the rest of the system doesn't do its job. 

I want to be very careful how I say that. 

But, I think you are touching on a very important question for all 
of us. which is, of all the funding and resources that are given to crime 
control or law enforcement and criminal justice — police, prosecution, 
courts and corrections — what is the best balance ? 

I wish we knew the answer to that. A study done in Xew York State 
about 6 years ago indicated that of all the funds spent in Xew York 
State by State and local government, approximately 70 percent was 
being spent on policing, approximately 2:) percent on corrections and 
10 percent for the remainder. 

Your question is a very important question. Maybe that should be 
30 percent for corrections. Maybe it should be 40 percent. We do know 
that in 3 years what has been spent on policing in the United States 
went up from $3 billion to $8 billion. 

Corrections was not increased that amount. Incidentally, in Wash- 
ington, this city is unique in that both the police function and the cor- 
rections function are part of city government. 

This might be a unique city in which to try to learn more about that. 

I, too. have moaned publicly about the level of plea bargaining in 
cities which I have been a police administrator. I have been frustrated 
that the corrections system does not correct. 

But. my own view of it as someone who doesn't know about correc- 
tions is that to generalize about the Ignited States, we have never tried 
corrections in our corrections system. 

It has tended to be what some call a "warehousing" system. I think 
the best corrections system we could devise, whether that be more com- 



1336 

miinity corrections, more education, more treatment, teaching skills 
and trades and all the rest of it, a more humane system of visits and 
conju«i:al visits, no matter what we do, I think the critical question is 
whetlier there is <2:oin<r to be a job for that individual when he <>ets out. 

80, 1 think you are asking about could corrections be more etfective. 
We have to look very hard at that question. I am troubled by something 
of a move that seems to be developing in the country to lock them up. 

We are frustrated. 

Mr. BiESTEK. It is very discernible in my mail and in editorials and 
so forth. 

Mr. Murphy. The first thing we ought to do, if we think about 
locking them up — we cannot control them, so why don't we get them 
out of the way — but we better cost that out. 

If we are talking about any kind of a significant program of keep- 
ing people in prison, if we looked at the cost of that — because we know 
the length of sentence has been coming down during this period — I 
don't think locking them up is too good. 

It sounds too simple, and the simple answers haven't worked. 

Mr. BiESTER. What I find distressing is there are some programs 
across the country which have attempted to apply different techniques, 
and although it is early, because the time elapsed for comi)arable 
recividism figures is not passed, their figures are good compared to the 
norm. 

I guess I have one last question, Mr. Chairman, if I might. 

METRO POLICING 

We are about to open a Metro system. You have had experience in 
a very large city. I wonder if you had any advice about the situation 
where there might be a Metro police force with the regular urban 
police forces? 

Mr. Murphy. From what I have read about the planning and de- 
velopment of this system, I think your Washington — the planners 
have had the benefit of Xew York's sad experience with crime in the 
subways and the experience of other cities. 

Just ])h3'sical design alone, I think would be much better here — 
the illumination of pillars on platforms, designated safe areas, espe- 
ciall}' during nighttime hours, where passengers are waiting. 

The trains will be in a secure area, well lighted, with jwssible elec- 
tronic surveillance. Concerning the policing of subway systems, I 
would make this one point : I think that kind of function is one level 
below the function of the metropolitan umnicipal law enforcement 
officer. 

I think of that more as a kind of guard position. So, whether that 
position would be integrated into a municipal police department budget 
or a separate agency created. I think that there is not the necessity 
for the highly trained kind of person that we want dealing with all of 
the interactions of them in their homes and in vehicular traffic accident 
'cases and so forth. 

From an economic ])oint of view, a saving could be accomplished by 
making that distiiKtion. 

[At this point Chairman Diggs entered the hearing room and as- 
sumed the chair.] 



1337 

Tlio Chairman. I am now paitii'ularly dolightod to welcome Mr. 
]\Iurpli,v to tlioso hearinos. As iiidicati'd in the biographical sketch, the 
gentkMiiaii was a very distiiiguishod oliicer in the city of Detroit. Behind 
that rcforenco is somcthino- siiznilicant. 1 think Pat Afuri^hy did more 
to ostahlish a progressive kind of image for law enforcement in the city 
of Detroit than anyone that 1 know prior to that time and set a prec- 
edent which has been followed. 

1 think it has been eiuiilatod in other connnunities. It was against 
that kintl of a background that I am particularly delighted to welcome 
him here to our connnitteo and then to see that he continues to be rec- 
ognized as one of the more progressive elements in the whole law en- 
forcoiiiont field. 

GUN COXTROL 

I am j)articularly interested. Mr. Murphy, in knowing your views 
on gun control. That matter has come up before this committee, as you 
can imagine, several times and with the breadth of your contacts and 
experience nationally, I am particularl}- interested and I am sure the 
cojnmittee is, in knowing your position on how the problem of hand- 
guns could be controlled by legislative means in your opinion. 

]Mr. ^luRi'iiY. Thank you very much and thank you for your kind 
remarks. Mv own view of gun control — I think that we must disarm 
the citizens. I think we need a Federal gun ])olicy in the Xation which 
need not mean Federal enforcement but at least Federal standards 
with which each State would be required to comply. 

It is my view that only the military and the police and a very limited 
number of citizens who can demonstrate a need to have a handgun 
should be permitted to have a handgun. I know that ])osition has been 
described as extreme or nnrealistic and frankly, I don't anticipate that 
kind of a national policy tomorrow or maybe not this year, although I 
would hope Federal legislation might be a possibility. 

But I think we must begin to lay the groundwork for a better na- 
tional policy which will take time to be effective, but we need only look 
at the homicide figures and the wa}' homicides are increasing in the 
city, in city after city, and nationally, in this country to be required 
to ask ourselves where does all of this end ? 

I think we must make that decision. I know it is a tough decision for 
maiw people, politically and for other reasons. But I see no end to 
violent crime in the United States, the killing of police officers, the in- 
creasing racial tensions, in my opinion, I think as the society has inte- 
grated, tragically, interracial crime has increased. I believe that is 
increasing the tensions in our great cities where violent crime, in my 
opinion, is out of hand. 

Without gun control, which I think as a practical matter can be 
achieved only through Federal legislation, Federal policy, we are 
going to continue to see that problem worsen. 

RECRUITMENT OF MINORITIES 

The Chairman. You mentioned interracial crime. "What about the 
recruitment program for women and minorities ? Do you think this has 
been effective in improving police-community relations? 



52-587 O - 75 - pt. 2 - 16 



1338 

If so how should police-reorganization programs be used to further 
this? 

Mr. Murphy • think we have made slight progress nationally. This 
city has made the outstanding progress in tlie Nation of any city in 
increasing the number of minorities and women in the department. 

Other cities hav^ made progress in the past 5 years but we have a 
long, long way to go. Frankly, one of the things that is troubling me 
at the moment with a number of cities possibly having to have to lay 
off police officers is MiPt some of that gain would be lost if the seniority 
principle is applied rigidly. 

We are making progress but we have a long way to go. Every en- 
lightened urban police administrator in the N^ation knows that his 
minority police officers are among his most valuable assets. 

Although the police have improved enormously, in my opinion, in 
the United States in the past 10 years in race relations, in restraint, 
and the use of force — I am generalizing about the Nation — I think 
tremendous progress has been made and it is really a baby step in the 
direction of where we must go in the next 10 to 20 years in making our 
urban police departments more representative of the racial balance of 
the cities. 

The Chairman. Do you have any model guidelines for this? How 
do we get around this seniority question which is troiibling Detroit, 
for example ? 

Mr. MuRPTiY. I spoke to that question, Mr. Chairman, when T had 
the opportunity to testify before the Black Caucus hearings a couple of 
weeks ago and express my feeling that I would hope that the very im- 
portant benefit that has been achieved in recruiting more minority 
officers would not be severely lost by the strict application of a senior- 
ity principle. 

But I do not have an answer. I know the laws vary from State to 
State and I would just hope that anytliing that is possible to soften 
the severity of the seniority principle could be effected in each 
jurisdiction. 

We do have a project with Howard University, a very modest 
project which provides police departments with interns who are mi- 
nority students at the university. 

We have done some studies of minority recruitment. We have some 
work underway in Dallas, some research, and I will be happy to pro- 
vide you and the committee, Mr, Chairman, with all of our materials. 

GUN CONTROL 

The Chairman. What are your guidelines for disarming, and out of 
all the complexion of suggestions which have been made for gun con- 
trol, which appears to you as the most practical ? 

Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman. I am unable to support any particular 

piece of legislation. We are a nonprofit tax-exempt foundation, and the 

view I have expressed has been my personal feeling for many years, 

-that the policy should be very limited licensing of private citizens to 

carry handguns after a demonstrated need has been established. 

Now that is easilv said but verv difficult to spell out the kind of 
legislation that would be the best from a balaiiced point of view, con- 
sidering the variety of situations that currently exist in different 
States and in different cities. 



1339 

The New York City Police Department, for example, and the 
mayor's office uiuler Mayor Lindsay did a brief study a few years ago 
of how irmis <xot into Xew York City — guns that are used to commit 
L'rinie. 

I am not talking only about Saturday Night Specials; I am talking 
about good, expensive haiulguus manufactured liere in the United 
States and how they flow from the factories to some States that have 
very weak controls and are bought up in carton lots and run up the 
east coast and Dcddli'd on the streets of Richmond, AVashington, Balti- 
more. Philadelphia, Xew York, and Boston for very high prices. 

T think that is a problem that Federal legislation could be addressed 
to, liow to deal witli the manufacture and distribution. 

The Chairman. Well, I want to thank you again, Mr. Murphy, not 
only foi- your contribution to the onliirhtcmnent of the committee at 
those liearings but for all past contributions you have made to en- 
lighten law enforcement. 

Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[From the Washington Star, June 7, 1975] 
Ex-D.C. Police Aide Suggests a Way To Cut Kindness Day-Type Violence 

(By Betty James) 

Patrick V. Murphy, former chief police administrator for Washington and New 
York City, gave the House District Committee a prescription for crowd control 
yesterday to prevent the kind of violence that occui'red on the Washington 
Monument grounds on Human Kindness Day. 

The prescription : Scatter hundreds of phiinclothesmen through the crowd and 
liave them make arrests on the sj^tt when thefts or assaults occur. 

The rock concert on Human Kindness Day drew more than 12.5,000 people. One 
man lost his eye and HOO people were lieaten or robbed in outbursts of violence. 

Approximately .300 imiformed U.S. Park Police were on duty on the Monument 
grounds, stationed arouiul the rim of tlie crowd and the stage. There were 18 
arrests and 027 complaiiit><, many registered after the event. 

ilurpliy said a crowd that large can't be left unprotected, with policemen only 
on the fringe. The technique he recotnmended, wliich would require 200 to 300 
plainclotliesmen, has worked in New York City, he said. 

Now president of the I'olice Foundation, Murphy testified at hearings on the 
adniini.-itration of justice being conducted by the House District Committee. 

He commented on Human Kindness Day in response to questions from Rep. 
Pliilip K. Sharp, D-Ind. His formal statement contained no reference to Human 
Kindness Day. 

Murphy, stressing that he was not a Monday-morning quarterback, said he 
didn't know enough alioiit planning for the event or the relationship between the 
U.S. Park Police and the Metropolitan Police to say whether he would have been 
satisfied that adequate protection was being provided. 

But the "tragedy of what occurred is to let the impression go out that criminals 
cannot be controlled' In Wasliington, Murpliy said, and this is particularly tragic 
in 1!>7.") with tlie Bicentennial so near. "Any public official must agonize in his 
conscience l)efore he tells large numbers they cannot assemble because criminals 
can't l)e controlled," Murphy said. 

Plainclothes officers equipped with sophisticated communications devices could 
clo.se in (piickly on offenders and arrest up to a dozen at a time, Murphy said. Or 
they conhl arre.'<t them one by one. The point is that offenders should be arrested 
on the spot before thefts and assaults become "contagious," Murphy said. 

Violence on Human Kindness Day was characterized by assaults by blacks on 
whites. 

If the crowd is predominantly black, a number of black officers would be 
needed. Murphy .said, adding that he doesn't know if the Park Police force has 
enough Mack officers but the Metropolitan Police certainly would. 

National Capitol Parks officers said after the trouble on Human Kindness Day 
that the era of large rock concerts on the Monument grounds has ended for 



1340 

the foreseeable future. The concert last year, also sponsored by Compared to 
What, Inc., was marred by violence but on a smaller scale. 

Although some officials have blamed the nature ut the event — a rock concert — 
for the troulde on Human Kindness Day, :Muri)hy said he doesn't think rock con- 
certs necessarily brinj; out the worst in pecJiilc. The important thins is to keep 
order rather than worry about whether "a little pot is being smoked," he said. 

George Rerklacy, assistant to Jack P'ish, director of National Capital Parks, 
construed Murphy's remarks as Monday-morning (juarteri)acking and said, "I've 
just about had it. The Park Police have got a Imd rap on this tbing, Pat Murphy 
and congressmen calling shots from tlie bleachers notwithstanding. 

"I was there. I saw the trails of terror that would open up. then disappear. 

"It was an ugly scene — sporadic, day-long. There was hoUigauism there. 
When you have a large free rock concert you've got problems." 

Murpliy was a "line" pul)lic .safety director in Wa.shington and New York but 
is off base in his criticism on this Issue. Berklacy said. 

"What is Patrick Murphy saying?" he asked. "Is our first concern to have X 
number of policemen in a crowd to insure a pleasant program? That's a sad 
commentary. 

"The Park Police did everything they could. "When an incident occurred they 
handled it. Wlienever they had an opportunity to make an arrest they did it." 

The I'ark Police were on the periphery because they were advised not to put 
horse-mounted officers or other uniformed policemen in the crowd, Berklacy said. 

"Pat Murphy says we should have plainclothesmen. We were told there would 
be 800 civilian marshals in the crowd but only 50 showed up." 

The CiiAiRMAX. AVc would like to call now as our next witness the 
distinguished chairperson of the Committee on Puhlic Safety of the 
District of Columbia City Council, the Honorable Willie Hard}'. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIE HARDY, CHAIRPERSON. THE COM- 
MITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
CITY COUNCIL: ACCOMPANIED BY BARNEY SHAPIRO. STAFF 
MEMBER ; AND MRS. JEAN DAVIS, LEGISLATIVE AIDE 

Ms. H.\RDY. I have with me this morning two members of my staff on 
the Public Safety Committee. I have Mrs. Jean Davis, a legislative 
aide of that committee, and Barney Shapiro, also a staff member. 

The CuAiitM.\x. Yow have a p7-eparod statement and you may 
proceed in any way you wish. If you wish to summarize it, we can have 
it entered in the record at this point. 

Ms. H.\RDY. If you don't object, I would like to read it, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Cii.\iRMAx. You may proceed. 

Ms. H.\RDY. ^[r. Chairman and ]Nfembers of the PTouse District Com- 
mittee, (hank you for inviting jne to aj^pear before you to presi'ut some 
of my views on (ho matter under consideration liere today, the criminal 
justice system in AVashington, D.C. 

The three agencies under the purview of the Public Safety Commit- 
tee, whicli T chair, that are involved in (he ci-jminal justice sy.'^tem are 
the Dei)artment oF Corrections, the Metropolitan Police Department, 
and the Parole Board. The performance of these agencies affect the 
lives of every resident in this city in some way. 

- There is room for ini|n-o\-enient in the performance of these agencies 
which each is making a valiant attcmjit to correct. 

Over the past 10 years we have seen this Nation change in its think- 
ing on social issues. We have seen the fiist war ever televised and the 
Nation reacted strongly and assorted its will. 

The media's role in reporting i)rison uprisings resulted in public 
demands for change in the penal system. Court suits followed on behalf 



1341 

ol" inmates and we saw the Sni)ieine Court strike down the death 
penalty. 

We also saw penal institutions begin to underjjjo major changes. 
AVhile I recognize and suj^port penal reform, T also realize that it will 
take years to improve the pejial system to satisfy the current thinking. 

Everyone is aware that we have some very serious problems with our 
correctional system. Resultant to the April 19 upi-ising at the D.C. jail, 
I formed an investigati\e committee^ comprised of citizens, lawyers, 
correctional ollicers, media, and si)ecial interest groups in an attempt to 
identify, wherever possible, the underlying factoi-s that may have acted 
as a catalyst in the uprising. 

So far, we liave found that while overcrowding plays a major role 
in uprisings, the lack of professionalism among correctional officers; 
the lack of responsible lawyer-client relationships; and a sometimes 
slow judicial process are also primary contributing factors. 

Interviews held with inmates by this committee revealed that the 
inmates' court api)ointed attorneys wei'e often inaccessible to their cli- 
ents. The inmates also expressed doubt as to their attorneys' interest 
in defending them to the best of their ability. 

COURT APPOIXTED DEFEXSE COUNCIL 

Also, the inmates complained about the long wait for them to appear 
in court so tliat their cases could be heard. Further, investigation 
revealed that some court appointed attorneys carry as many as 17 
indigent cases at one time. 

The very nature of the crimes that some of these inmates have been 
charged witli would indicate that in order for an attorne}^ to prepare 
a proper defense would necessitate that the attorney carry a much 
smaller number of these cases at one time. Case overloading results in 
inadequate preparation and improper defense for the client. 

I believe tliat in this area the inmates have a legitimate complaint — 
a complaint which could and should be corrected immediately. 

To this end, I am in the process of conducting a survey among the 
inmates at the D.C. jail in order to ascertain the performance of these 
court appointed attorneys. Certain judges in our courts have sanc- 
tioned this survey and are awaiting the results. 

It is my desire that these judges will call those attorneys mentioned 
in the survey befoi'e them to ansAver the complaints lodged against 
them. 

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that since preparing this state- 
ment, I have received most of those surveys back. 

PRETRIAL DETENTION 

There is also an obvious bi-eakdown in our court system and bail bond 
agency. This situation can best be described in terms of a recent class 
action suit filed in the U.S. district court on behalf of pretrial detainees 
incarcerated in the D.C. jail. 

Judge "William Bi'vant found the evidence presented concerning 
overcorwding to be overwhelming. The court found that by reason of 
overcrowding alone, the plaintiffs constitutional rights were being vio- 
lated and ordered that counsels for the plaintiffs implement procedures 
governing the release of pretrial detainees. 



1342 

Further, tho Department of Corrections was ordered to refrain from 
housin<r any pretrial detainee in any cell, room or dormitory which is 
less than 48 scpiare feet per person. 

Before this newly-elected City p:overnment took office, plans were 
beinp made by the District (rovernment to improve the Department of 
Corrections' facilities. Kvidence of this is seen in the cnii-cnt construc- 
tion of a new $30 million detention center here in the District of Co- 
lumbia. This facility is scheduled to open in May. 1070. 

Eyen Avith the openinir of this new center, Ave are still faced Avith 
problems. The rapid increase in crimes, especially crimes of violence, 
amonjr Avomen is one that can no lon<;er be i^i^nored. 

We must come to f^rips Avith it. Accoi'din": to the latest FBI statis- 
tics, crimes committed by Avomen has risen 246 percent in the past 
12 years. The District of ('olumbia has it> shnre of female^ ot^Vnders. 

From January 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974. 109 women were tried 
and convicted in our courts. The first H months of this year — 1975 — 
another 61 have been tried and convicted. 

Our Women's Detention Center is not adequate to house lonof-term 
offenders. Therefore, those District Avomen whose prison sentencpa 
exceed 1 year are sent to various Federal women's prisons. 

women's detention facilities 

-^ Two weeks ago. I Ansited the Federal Avomen's prison in Alderson, 
W. Va., and talked Avith some of the District Avomen incarcerated there. 
These Avomen expressed tAvo major concerns : 

1. That the distance and poor transportation facilities to the prison 
virtually nefrated visits from theii- .families and friends. 

2. They Avanted to knoAv Avhen they could expect to be transferred 
to the neAV detention center or to the Lorton facility. 

The Director of the Department of Corrections, Mr. Delbert Jack- 
son, has already testified that the male population for the new de- 
tention center is predicted to exceed its capacity of 950. So the hous- 
ing problem for our Avomen oifenders is still unresolved. 

The crime picture here in the District of Columbia, I must admit, 
is bad. What I am most concerned about is hoAv to prevent a bad situa- 
tion from becoming worse. 

police on re at 

One of the first official acts of our neAvly-appointed Chief of Police, 
Mr. Maurice Cullinane, Avas to return more policemen to foot patrol 
duty. 

From September 1974 to January 1975, there has been an increase 
of 78 percent more officers Avalking beats — Ave can expect this increase 
to rise even higher. HoweA^er, befoie Ave can talk about reducing crime, 
we must first recognize and understand some o,f the contributing 
factors that most probably cause it. 

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

One source of oui- oirreul crime prol)lem is tlie Avorsening economic 
condition in our country and its associated unemployment. The des- 



1343 

peiation of poverty has lon^ been a factor in the commission of crimes, 
and our current situation is no exception to the rule. 

DRUGS 

Another reason for the rise in the crime rate has been a resurgence 
of the use of lieroin. In tlie Lite 1960's. the druii; problem almost got 
out of hand. However, ed'eetixe treatment programs, social pressure, 
and a concerned law enforcement drive brought the problem under 
control in the early lOTO's. 

Based on and benefiting from this past experience, our Metro- 
politan Police Department has been closely and continuously monitor- 
ing the drug situation ever since. They know what is happening on 
the streets right now and the}^ are acutely aware of potential problem 
areas. 

Therefore, the Department is committing additional resources to 
tliese areas in an effort to prevent the problem from reaching its former 
magnitude. 

It should be noted, though, however hard our police department 
attempts to prevent the recurrence in heavy drug traffic, it will take 
the joint support of the Congress and the Nation in initiating programs 
that would ilrastically decrease, if not halt, the importation of drugs 
into this country. 

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 

The need to educate the community about the criminal justice sys- 
tem is of paramount iuiportance. From the standpoint of corrections, 
we need their help and understanding. And, from the standpoint of 
law enforcement, we need their cooperation. 

The couimunity must be made to understand that in reordering 
its priorities to conform with demands for change, penal institutions 
began looking at alternatives to incarceration. 

These alternatives are an integral part in the habilitative process. 
However, the public was not ready to accept halfAvay houses in their 
communities or the concept of work-release and furlough programs. 

In any new programs as bold and innovative as those just men- 
tioned, there will always be some problems. However, when these 
jH'obloms are exaggerated and the successes played down, fear and 
distrust is magnified among the community. 

Mr. Jackson has already cited statistics to show how effective our 
furlough program has been. The community must understand that 
most incarcerres will at sometime return to society and that it is 
l)rograms such as those currently in use by the Department of Correc- 
tions that are intended to make this transition work for the betterment 
of everyone. 

EX-OFFEXDER PROGRAMS 

I have introduced in the Council a bill which would amend the Dis- 
trict of Columbia's Human Rights Law to include ex-offenders who 
no longei' have court constraints against them. 

Councilman Arrington Dixon has introduced at least two pieces of 
legislation which would benefit exoffenders. One resolution would urge 
the District Government to hire exoffenders under certain conditions. 



1344 

Preventinor crime is the only way to stop it, but to do this, the public 
must first realize that in essence, the goals of the police department 
are theirs. 

Second, they must know what they can do to help. The public must 
be encouraged to read the police department's crime prevention 
literature and practice the self-protection measures suggested therein. 

The police can do just so much on their own; they also need the 
eyes and ears of the public. 

A great mai\y crimes go unreported. A citizen knows as well as any 
police oflicer when something suspicious happens. The public has got 
to become more responsive. 1 call this citizen responsibility. 

They should notify the police of their suspicions. It is far better 
that the police check out a false alarm, than have one more citizen 
unnecessarily victimized. 

Additionally, it is important for our residents to understand the 
court procedures they will encounter as the victim of a crime and to 
undertake willingly their obligations to ap[)ear as witnesses. For. 
without the public cooperation in this area, the ellect of a good arrest 
is negated. 

GUN CONTROL 

At present, there is a specific area where I feel that congressional 
attention is needed. I see a need for legislation on gun control. Gun 
control has been a matter of great concern to me. 

I am sure we would all like to see the number of gun-related crimes 
substantially reduced or even eliminated. However, it is a very com- 
plex and serious issue, and we must do our best to insure whatever 
measures Ave adopt will solve the problem, not compound it. 

Before I discuss what is, in my opinion, the most reasonable ap- 
proach that we can take, I would assure you that even now, buying a 
handgun legally is not an easy or speedy matter in the District of 
Columbia. 

The process takes approximately 30 days before the buyer actually 
takes possession of the gun. Yet, a District resident can take a 15- 
minute bus ride to one of our neighboring jurisdictions and purchase 
a gun in less than 1 hour. 

In acldition, the District of Columbia Code provides for particu- 
larly stiff sentencing of those individuals who are convicted of com- 
mitting a crime of violence with a firearm. These two things alone 
provide some measure of |)i'otection from gun-related crimes. 

Although our local regulations are good ones, it is obvious that they 
are not effective enough. For example, in our city, less than one-half 
of 1 percent of all firearms recovered by the police are registered. 

It is my belief that Ave must therefore enact national legislation to 
prohibit the manufacture and importation of the cheap handguns that 
are so often used in crimes of violence and family disputes. 

These firearms are not normally used by sportsmen; nor are they 
of value to the gun collectoi-. Therefore, those individuals Avith a 
legitimate interest in firearms would not be hurt by such legislation. 

And, I believe that we could expect an eventual decrease in those 
violent ciimes that would ncA-er be committed Avithout such accessi- 
bility to handguns. HoAvever, this is only one side of the coin. 



1345 



MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES 



Wc must enact ]oji;islatioii. both locally and nationally, that stipu- 
lates niaiulatory sentences for the whole range of gun-related otfenses. 
We must equally insure that the courts enforce such prescribed 
penalties. 

PAROLE 

The Public Safety Connnittee sees a need for reorganization in our 
parole system. At present, the District of Columbia Parole Board has 
no supervisory powers over parole officers. Our parole officers are now 
under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. 

We believe that the Parole Board members and our parole officers 
should be brought together in order that our parolees may be more 
easily monitored in terms of the relationship to their grounds for 
parole and their actual progress in the community while on parole. 

Home Rule is still very new to us, and it will be for many years 
to come. I have observed an eagerness on the part of our residents to 
participate in this new form of self-government. 

Our Council sessions and public hearings are always well attended. 
There is every indication that the public is becoming more aware of 
the tilings that are being done in government which will affect their 
lives. This is good. 

Working together, the Congress, our newly-elected city govern- 
ment and the community can make the criminal justice system in the 
Nation's capital acceptable and workable. 

Thank you. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, IMs. Hardy. 

Among other things, I am particularly delighted at the note upon 
which you ended your testimonjy; namely, the partnership of the 
Congress and the newly-elected city government. 

There is no question that we do have a dual jurisdiction and a dual 
interest — a local interest and a Federal interest — that must be pro- 
tectee!. The kind of spirit you enunciated in your final statement about 
working together, the Congress and the newly-elected city govern- 
iTient, is the only kind of concept that will make both of our responsi- 
bilities — allow both of our responsibilities to be carried out in a proper 
way. 

COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL 

You mentioned this survey regarding court appointed attorneys. 
Are you in a position to give us some insight as to the results of that 
survey at this point ? 

Ms. Hardy. Yes, sir. I think we just recently got them back in the 
last few days. The staff has prepared— we sent up 600 survey forms 
to the inmates in the District of Columbia jail. To date and I "suppose 
this was on Wednesdaj^, we received 326 of those surveys back so far. 
82 of these have been incarcerated 5 months or more and had a court 
appointed attorney. 

Of these 82, 19 are satisfied with the services their attorneys 
rendered. 63 are not happy at all. They range from not having seen 
tlieir attorneys since they have been incarcerated at the District of 
( olumbia jail, having called the attorney at the time allocated to call 
the attorney which is normally during the day which most attorneys 



1346 

are in court, the attorney has no way of retnrnino: a call to an inmate 
at tho jail. 

If he, returns a call, leaves a messap;e, he gets it. They have written 
to the attorneys. They have asked them to come visit. One man showed 
us five letters he liad written to his attorney, one every 3 weeks. 

Not a word from his attorney. Some i-elative have called. Some of 
the inmates' families are paying the attorneys some forms of money. 
That has been the range for that. 

Some of the questions we asked, Mr. Cliairman. to ascertain this, is 
what — was your lawyer appointed by the court ? "We explained to them 
by covering memo that we were interested in yes or no. Then we want 
to know what is the name of your attorney and the phone number. 

When did you first come to the jail on tliis case? How many times 
have you talked with your lawyer since he or slie has been assigned 
to yoiir case? Then we ask how many times have you called your 
lawyer? How many times has he or she visited you? How many times 
liave you written to your attorney? What is the name of the judge 
that assigned the attorney? xVre you satisfied with the services your 
lawyer is giving you ? If yes, check yes. 

If no. then state the problem. 

Tho Chair-^iax. Is there any general comment that you care to 
make as a result of the survey if you have had time to analyze the 
results ? 

Ms. Hardy. T have not had time, really, to analyze the results of 
that survey, but the reason we started this survey was because, as I 
said in my testimony, after the testimony in the committee, over and 
over again, we were hearing that the lawyers were not running the 
calls and they did not knoAv what was happening to their cases. 

To analyze that survey, I don't know, but I could sav that I think 
there needs to be a change because they are not happy. Men don't know 
when their next case is coming up. Men are told that certain papers 
have been filed and those papers have not been filed. 

CORRECTIONS 

The Ch ATR>rAN. Your Committee on Public Safety, Madam Chair- 
man, held budget hearings and you made recommendations to the 
council and the council took action on the budget. Could you tell us 
how the decisions of the council are going to affect the Police Depart- 
ment and the Corrections Department ? _ 

Ms HvRDV. If I can talk about corrections first, decisions ot the 
council on its budget should not and will not affect the De])artment of 
Corrections at all. Prior to budget hearings, we had been able to make, 
as agreed with Fairfax Board of Supervisors, certain changes, improv- 
in£r conditions, perimeter road location, and so forth. 

We felt when we deleted some money for food— and ^lay may have 

been the highest figure— it is because they were getting that person 

to deal with nutrition and the whole food survey. T do not lx>lieve that 

~the cuts in— or anv changes in that budget— will affect them at all. 

We have found from our investigating, the one thing that we think 
we need to do, we do need more correctional officers, formerly called 
guards, but we need better trained and bettei- professional persons 

there 

Therefore, it is our attempt to attempt to escape the civil service 
series HOT which those officers are now liired under which will give us 
better officers. 



1347 

I want to do that })eoausp in our invcstifjation not only hearinfr from 
the inmates themsehes but then liearing from cori-ectional officers 
which we also interviewed and lookinrj at some of the actions of those 
correctional officers, they are all administrative. For instance, we 
have correctional officers who have been charged with contraband. 
"We know that that moves all the way from chewing gum to others. 

Then it is broken down — drinking on the job, narcotics being 
handled on the job. Those were handled administratively, meaning 
tliat there could be an inmate then in there for violating the Narcotics 
Act being held by a guard or a correctional officer who is also handling 
narcotics. 

But the correctional officer had 10 days' suspension or 3 days' sus- 
pension. Budgetarily, we don't expect that there should be any change. 
As a matter of fact, we added in an OB-gyn for women that correc- 
tions did not ask for. We don't see that the budget will affect any 
operational — in our corrections system, even though we have many 
problems there. 

As to the Police Department, jNIr. Chairman, it is true that I believe 
that the budget for the Police Department was indeed not reduced by 
the committee, the Public Safety Committee, except by taking away 
five positions, and we took away some of the money for the Bicenten- 
nial because we laiow that there was a fund that they could draAv from. 
AVe did, in fact, request, 101 cadets be added. "We felt that that would 
be a source of getting jobs for residents and to assure that our Police 
Department would become a little more locally oriented. 

However, the Council as a whole did in fact change that and re- 
quested that more jobs be given, and that was taken away. "We now, 
1 believe, are going to restore those jobs. 

The Chaikmax. :Mr. Blester? 

Mr. BiESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

LORTOX ALTERNATIVES 

"What plans, if any, does your committee have to analyze some kind 
of oversight within the District for the replacement of Lorton? 

Ms. Hardy. Sir. that becomes a very tough subject for us. We 
absolutely have no place. We have looked. There is no place to re- 
locate Lorton, ]iot in the District of Columbia. We have not found a 
place for that. I know that there is a lot of talk about it but we don't 
have any plans for relocating Lorton in Washington. 

Mr. Btester. The problem is that there is no place in which you could 
do so, is that correct? 

^Is. Hardy. Yes. 

[Mr. Biestkr. If it became necessary to do so, you don't have facil- 
ities to handle it, is that correct? 

Ms. Hardy. You are exactly right, sir. 

Mr. Biester. Well 

The Chatrmax. Did I understand that to mean that you have 
stopped looking? 

Mr. Btester. That is what I took it to mean, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Hardy. Mr. Chairman, I must say Washington is a small city. 
We have looked, we have talked, we have thought. T don't know how 
to continue to look when we have looked at Avhat we have. 

I just don't see that it is feasible. We don't have the space anywhere 
to build a multijail like Lorton in the city. 



1348 

The Chairman. There is space in the District. It is ca matter of 
where — I am curious as to where you liave been lookinjr. If tliis is a 
diljorent pursuit, obviously, there is space. You may not like the space 
or you may have other overall alternatives that you would like to use 
the space for, but there is space in the District of Columbia. I am 
curious as to where you have been looking. 

Ms. Hardy. Well, I think as mentioned in many reports, I think 
we liavo two spaces: Bollinsr Air Force Base which I understand the 
Federal GoAcrnment has plans for that. We talked about the Boiling 
Air Base and even for housing for the District residents a long time 
ago. 

I would like for the chairman to suggest a space. I don't see the 
spaces. Fort Lincoln is under construction and that is moving. 

The Chairman. Is it really? 

Ms. Hardy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I was just curious as to your response because it 
would appear that the local government is — has stopped looking. In 
view of the alternatives that are facing us. I am surprised that they 
have stopped looking. We are going to be faced with a very realistic 
situation in terms of the alternatives, and to suggest that there is not 
any other facility within the District of Columbia for this kind of 
purpose, and that the search is off — to me is very disappointing. 

Ms. Hardy. Sir, as I say, it is a very small city. I have looked. Those 
are the places we have looked at. T think wo are being — we just can't 
move them there. We are talking about looking at other forms of 
incarceration. 

We are looking at halfway houses being different than the existing 
halfway houses, maybe. ^laybe we are talking about rehabilitatJA-e 
housing. I don't like to use the word "rehabilitative" because to me that 
means we return them from where they came and the system we have 
been using for rehabilitating them does not work the way it should. 

We are identifyinir places that we can have the type of i-ehnbilitative 
centers which mio-ht help some. But foi- the jail — and I would not want 
to sit here and tell von that Ave have found some place or anything more 
than the truth — and that basically is where we are. 

The Cttatkvav. Mr. Blester? 

Mr. Btf,=;ter. T find it very difficult to understand. Are you still 
looking? Mv problem is T am ncAV on this committee but T am a lon.<r- 
time supporter of home rule. Implicit in the whole concept of home rule 
is the capacity not only to make jud.o:ements about the circumstances of 
the city, but also to resolve those judjxments with action. 

I was surprised at this development. T would hope that at least there 
will be some continuing effort to explore some possibilities in the fu- 
ture. It would be a disaster to face the prospect for circumstances 
totally beyond the control of the District at some point down the line 
to lose the Lorton facility and have nothing to replace it with. 

bah. agency 

You mentioned a breakdown in Bail Bond Agency work. TSHmt is the 
breakdown tliere? 

ISfs. Hardy. Sir. sometimes T have seen the Bail Bond Agency — and 
I know vou know the process. Wiion the judge steps back a person with 
the Bail Bond Agency, there is a few minutes mavbe and the bail bond 
man is back saying T cannot verify. This means that if I were to say I 
lived at flii-^; afldress nud T work for whoever it is and thoy make a 
quick call, it is like a 5-minute process. 



1349 

lived at this address and T work for whoever it is and they make a 
quick call, it is like a 5-niinuto process. 

If you do not reach a person at the job site, then there is no way to 
verify it. ]\Iany times there is no phone. Tlie person may not know the 
neioflibor's phone next door and it is the verification that is a short 
process wliich I think should be aoino- on. I don't know that I am criti- 
cizing;. I don't know what their staff capacity is but maybe later that 
niirht somebody mioht try that same A'erification for that person. 

INIr. RiESTER. That does go on, does it not ? 

There is a continuing process. The bail bond man does not give up on 
the first try, does he ? 

Ms. Hahdy. After Judge Bryant's order, the overcrowdedness, the 
bail bondsman docs go over that again. At the time they did their 
initial attempt to verify, they did not do it and apparently did not 
get back to it. 

Mr. BiESTER. Sometimes the bondsman does not want to take on the 
bond. Is there any evidence, or do you have any suspicion that the 
bondsman is reluctant and uses that one telephone call as an excuse. 

Ms. Hardt. No. 

INIr. BiESTER. You are not challenging the good faith of the 
bondsman? 

Ms. Hardt. No. I think when they do it, they will take them on. 

Mr. BiESTER. On this whole question of lawyers for the accused, I 
have been following for the last year a running dialog between mem- 
bers of the District bar and the courts with respect to services in those 
cases. 

I gather that there is a kind of continuing bar available to the 
court when the court is prepared to make assignments, members with 
limited office facilities, and who are regularly present in the courts. 

I also understand that there has been and there is a continuing 
defender ]:)rogram in the city. Have you been able — and again this 
may be premature and if it is perhaps you can supply it later — have 
you been able to make a correlation in terms of number of complaints 
receiA'ed in your questionnaire about the relationship between the 
Depaitmont and his lawyer and whether it is in fact a court-appointed 
lawyer under circumstances in which he is not part of a regular de- 
fender program and not one of those who ai-e part of the regular 
defender program. 

]\rs. Hardy. I have not been able to but we shall and I will supply 
you with that. 

?»rr. BiESTER. Thank vou, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sharp ? 

]Mr. Sharp. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. 

The CiiAiR:\rAisr. Any point of clarification from counsel ? 

Mr. CiiRisTiAX. Just one point, Mr. Chairman. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAIL 

JNIs. PTardy, we asked Mr, Jackson when he appeared before us 
about the ]iossi])ility of expanding the present District of Columbia 
jail site to house moi-e detainees. I Avould like to know whether or not 
that alternative has been the object of study or what plans do you 
have in your committee to take a look at that possible solution? 

]\fs. Hardy. That is a continuing one we are working on. As a matter 
of fact we were looking at that prior to Mr. Jackson's testimony 



1350 

before you. Just on yesterday, my Special Committee To Investigate 
District of Columbia Jail took a tour. T had a tour of the new jail 
under const ruction now. 

We have found — we Avere not in office at (he time the new jail 
was authoriziHl to be built. "We believe also — and my committee will 
be talkinir at the architects and lookiuir at the specifications of that 
])uildinir. to see if we can't ffo another floor. 

Well, one of the problems we found on the tour of the jail was that, 
as yon know, if we have juveniles remanded to be housed at District 
of Columbia jail, they must be seirrecfated from the ireneral population. 
This had not been included in the arcliitectural drawino:s and those 
plans had not been made at that time. 

So if we have even two juveniles they would be takinp; up a block 
since the seerefration must <ro into efl'oct. They would be takiuir up 
a block of 25 cells. We are at tlie j)oint now in" that construction that 
the architects are sayin*;^ that they can now make some adjustment so 
we can have segregation cells in smaller numbers than the 25 block 
there. 

To expand it, I believe, where we are now, is looking at the pos- 
sil)ility of goingnp rather than broadening. 

So that is part of it. As yon know, the new jail is housed in a very 
tight area. We have a hospital and that is a very sprawling hospital. 
Space is limited. We may have to go up with it rather than out and 
that is a continuing discussion. 

Mr. Christian. I have no further questions. Mr. Chairman. 

The CiTAiRMAX. Thank you very uuich. The Chair would like now 
to call the Deputy Assistant Director for the Office of Protective 
Forces. Mr. Paul Kundle, accompanied by Mr. Earl L. Drescher, 
Chief, Executive Protective Service, and James Featherstone. Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, T'^.S. Treasury Department. 

Mr. Eundle, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL S. RUNDLE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 
OFFICE OF PROTECTIVE FORCES (U.S. SECRET SERVICE). ACCOM- 
PANIED BY EARL L. DRESCHER. CHIEF. EXECUTIVE PROTECTIVE 
SERVICE. AND JAMES FEATHERSTONE. DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY FOR ENFORCEMENT. U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT 

Mr. RrxDLE. Would you like me to read the statement? 
Tlie Cttatrmax. If you are in a ]-)osition to summarize it you may 
do so. Tlie entire statement will be placed in the record at this point. 
[The document referred to follows :] 

U.S. Secret Sera^ce 

RTATF^fENT OF PaVL S. RuXDLK, DePT'TY AR.ST.STANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

Protective Forces; Accompanied by Earl L. Dbescher, Chief, Executive 
Protective Service 

Mr. Chairman, we are grateful for this opiiortnnity to meet with you :uul the 
other ninnbors of this Coniniitteo to discuss the history, operations, and mission 
of the Executive Protective Service, which is a unit of the Protective Forces 
Division of the United States Secret Service. 



1351 

EXECUTIVE PROTECTIVE SERVICE 

Let me besin by relating the historical development of the Executive Pro- 
tective Service. During the late 1960's, domestic crime was increasing tre- 
mendously, not only in the District of Columbia but in most large cities across 
the nati()n. I'olice services to the foreign missions located in the metropolitan 
area of Washington. D.C, prior to litTO. were provided in the city of Wash- 
ington by the Metropolitan Police Department and in the adjacent counties by 
the police departments of those jurisdictions. W^ith the spiraling crime rate, 
the.se departments could not provide the necessary personalized, protective 
police service to foreign missions without diminishing the overall performance 
uf their itolice responsibilities. 

Under international law, treaties, and resolutions, it has long been the re- 
sponsibility of host governments to provide reasonable police protection to the 
foreign missions accredited to their countries. In order to improve the police 
service to the foreign missions in the metropolitain area of Washington, D.C. 
the President prepared legislation in 1969 which was introduced to Congress. 
On March 19, 1970, the Act, now known as Public Law 91-217, was signed into 
law. This Act changed the name of the White House Police to its present title 
"Executive Protective Service," and increased its statutory ceiling from 250 to 
8-"<> officers. Police responsibility was accordingly increased to include protection 
of the President and his immediate family, the Executive Residence and its 
grounds and any building in which presidential offices are located, protection 
for the foreign diplomatic missions located in the metropolitan area of the 
District of Columbia and for such other foreign missions located in other areas 
of the United States, its territories and possessions as the President, on a case- 
by-case basis, may direct. The Act also provides that the members of the Exec- 
utive Protective Service possess privileges and powers similar to those of the 
members of the Metropolitan Police Department. 

The Executive Protective Service is presently headquarted at 1310 "L" Street, 
X.W.. and has two operational divisions. Tlae first of these is the White House 
Division which has been in existence since 1922, and is charged with the re- 
sponsibility of providing a safe and .secure environment to the President and 
his immediate family and to the White House staff located in buildings where 
presidential oflBces are located. This safe and .secure environment is achieved 
primarily by providing police perimeter posts where appointment clearances are 
conducted. Within the outer perimeter jwsts, as mo.st members of this Com- 
mittee are aware, other posts are strategically located for security of the 
building and grounds. 

Another function of the White Hou.se Division is the security and control 
of the great numbers of tourists who visit the White House. During the year 
1974, 1,333,907 individuals made this tour. 

FOREIGN MISSION DIAntSION 

The other major operational division of the Executive Protective Sen-ice is 
the Foreign ^lissions Division. This division incorporate the new responsibility 
added to the former WTiite House Police in 1970. Tliis division presently con- 
sists of ^}3 uniformed officers who have the responsibility of providing physical 
protection to the approximately 300 foreign diplomatic missions of 127 different 
countries that are located in the metropolitan area of Washington, D.C. 

The concept used by the Foreign Missions Division to provide this protection, 
is the same as that used by most large metropolitan police departments: that 
is, a combination of roving random cruiser patrols, scooter patrols, footbeats, 
and fixed stationary posts. This concept is directed to maintaining activities that 
will act as a deterrent to criminal and terrorist elements by creating an im- 
pression that the opportunity to commit a crime does not exist. 

We are quite fortunate in the Di.strict of Columbia area because the foreign 
missions are located entirely in the northwest section, and for most parts, west 
of Ifith Street and north of Massacbu.setts Avenue. However, there are approxi- 
mately 12 foreign missions located in nearby iSIontgomery County. 

The area in which the forpign mis.sions are located has been divided into .seven 
patrol zones. A highly visible and well identified police cruiser is assigned to 
patrol constantly and to visit frequently all foreign missions located in each 
zone. They are also used for emergency response and to answer routine calls 
from the missions for police services. 



1352 

In each zone with several missions in close proximity of one another, we 
have a number of short beat foot patrols. The officers assigned to the>-e constant 
foot patrols also frequently visit the missions on their beat. Moving out of the 
downtown area, the distance between embassies greatly increases; and we, there- 
fore, provide the patrolmen in tlie.se areas with mobilily in the form of motor 
scooters. This enables the officer in each zone to check the missions on his beat 
with great regularity. 

Based upon hard intelligence or when the international situation dictates, 
the Executive Protective Service will also provide a certain number of fixed 
posts. 

COMPLAINT PROCEDURES 

Complaint procedures followed by the Foreign Missions Division are closely 
coordinated with the State Department, the Metroitolitan Police Department, 
or both, as appropriate. If a foreign mission desires police services that are 
not of an emergency nature, these services are requested through the Depart- 
ment of State. Should an emergency situation ari.se, the missions contact the 
Executive Protective Service directly through established police emergency lines. 
The response is immediate. 

Whenever an emergency request is received by the Executive Protective 
Service, the Metropolitan Police Department and Department of State are im- 
mediately notified and vice versa. The efforts of all agencies are closely coodi- 
nated for the purpose of bringing the incident to a successful conclusion. In 
February 1971, an agreement between the Metropolitan Police Department and 
the Executive Protective Service was executed. The purpose of this agreement 
was to define the jurisdiction and operational responsibilities between depart- 
ments. The agreement is still in effect and has proved an outstanding example 
of cooperation. 

ARREST POLICY 

While the Executive Protective Service is preventive, and not investigative in 
nature, it does on occasion become involved in making arrests. These arrests are 
incidental to the protective assignments. The arrest policy of the Executive Pro- 
tective Service is to take the appropriate police action whenever felonies or seri- 
ous misdemeanors are committed in their presence. These arrests are made 
whether or not the offense was committed on foreign mission property or on 
public space around or near the foreign missions. 

During calendar year 1974, the Executive Protective Service made 90 arrests 
and presented to the courts 27 felonies and (J3 misdemeanors. These arrests ranged 
from petit larceny to armed robbery, burglary and assaults. 

Mr. Chairman, once again we thank you for this opportunity to appear before 
you and we shall be glad to an.swer any questions you may have. 

Establishment op Responsibilities With the Metropolitan 
Police Department, Ficbruaijy is, 1971 

The purpose of this order is to define the jurisdictional and operational respon- 
sibilities between the Metropolitan Police Department and the Executive 
Protective Service. 

I. policy 

It is the policy of the Metropolitan Police Department and the Executive Pro- 
tective Service to extend, to the other, all possible assistance in a joint mission of 
jtroviding protection for the President of the Fnited States and his immediate 
family ; and the missions of foreign states within the District of Columbia. 

II. GENERAL 

A. By an act of Congress, the White Hou.se Police has been organized into 
what is now known as the "Executive Protective Service." The Executive Pro- 
tective Service is subject to the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
shall perform such duties as the Director, T'nited States Secret Service, may 
prp«rrihe in connection with the protection of the following: (1) the Executive 
Mansion and grounds in the District of Columbia ; (2) any ])uilding in whifh 
Presidential offices are lor-.Tted ; (.S) the President and members nf his immediate 
family: C4) foreiern diplomatic missions located in the metropolitan area of the 
District of Columbia : and (.">) foreien diplomatic missions located in snch other 
areas in the T'nited States, its terroritories and pos.sessions, as the President, on 
a ca.se-by-case basis, may direct. 



1353 

B. This Department, over the years, has enjoyed a close working relationship 
witli the .Metropolitan Police Department. The excellent spirit of cooperation 
whiih has existed between the agencies in the past can he relied upon to continue 
diuini: the operations of the Kxeiutive Protective Service. 

C. The Executive Protective Service will be preventive in nature, not investiga- 
live. and it will not replace the Metropolitan Police Department in any matters 
\\ here the police have primary jurisdiction to protect citizens and proi)erty. 

D. The Executive Protective Service may utilize the patrol signal system of the 
.Metroi)olitan Police Department ; however, no record or log of communications 
for the Executive Protective Service will be maintained by the Metropolitan 
Police Department. 

E. The Executive Protective Service will have no riot control or similar units, 
but will rely on the Metropolitan Police Department for this type of support. 

HI. RESPONSIBILITIES 

The purpo.se of this section is to delineate and clarify the specific and individual 
resiionsibilities and other areas of mutual concern where assistance will be pro- 
vided between the Metropolitan Police Department and the Executive Protective 
Service. 

A. Arre<<tf< 

1. Where the initial apprehension is made by an oflScer of the Executive Protec- 
tive Service, he will be considered the arresting officer for the purpose of 
prosecution. 

2. As sworn police officers, Executive Protective Service officers shall have, and 
perform, the same powers of arrest as the Metropolitan Police of the District of 
Columbia. 

3. The Executive Protective Service has available Metropolitan Police Depart- 
ment Forms PD 2.')1. Offense Report; PD 253. Incident Report; PD 255, Arrest 
Report ; and PD 103, Prosecution Report, for their use in reporting and processing 
all arrests. Upon execution, these reports will be submitted through the Metro- 
politan Police Department for information and processing. 

4. Executive Protective Service officers will obtain a Central Complaint Number 
from the Metropolitan Police Department's Communications Division for use on 
all report forms prepared as a result of an arrest. Executive Protective Service 
will xerox reports of sufficient number so as to permit the Executive Protective 
Service officer to retain a copy for this agency's records. The original copies will 
be turned over to the Metropolitan Police Department District station clerk for 
processing through the Central Records Division. 

5. The Metropolitan Police Department shall, upon request, provide transpor- 
tation .service for the Executive Protective Service to a district facility for book- 
ing and in all cases to the Identification Branch for fingerprinting, photographing 
and lineups. 

6. The Metropolitan Police Department shall provide cell block facilities for 
all Executive Protective Service prisoners. 

7. Executive Protective Service arrests shall be booked on the "outside" arrest 
hook at district stations and later transferred via landline to the Executive Pro- 
tective Service Foreign Missions Division Desk Sergeant, who will enter the case 
into that asrency's arrest book. 

8. It will be the resi)onsibility of Executive Protective Service officers to request 
the arre.st records of persons arrested by them from the Central Records Division, 
Metropolitan Police Department. 

9. The Executive Protective Service will transport all arrested juveniles to the 
nearest district station where they will he turned over to Metro])olitan Police De- 
))artment Youth Division personnel for i)rocessing. The Executive Protective 
Service officer will be required to appear in Juvenile Court as the arresting officer 
within 24 hours in all ca.ses when a juvenile is detained. Youth Division personnel 
shall advise the Executive Protective Service officer of the necessary procedures 
relative to th'^ nresentation of the case. 

10. Metropolitan Police Department, district station personnel shall arrange 
for the release of per.sons arrested by officers of the Executive Protective Service 
if the arrested person qualifier for such release under the provisions of the Cita- 
tion Release Program — Public Law 90-226. 

B. Traffic control 

1. The Metropolitan Police Department shall continue to handle all parking 
violations which occur in the proximity of foreign mission premises. 

52-587 O - 75 - pt.2 - 17 



13i54 

2. The Metropolitan Police Department shall handle all traffic accidents, re- 
gardless of location. 

3. The Metropolitan Police Department shall be responsible for impounding the 
vehicles of (1) persons arrested by the Executive Protective Service; (2) persons 
committed for mental observation by the Executive Protective Service; and for 
the removal of articles which have been abandoned on foreign mission property. 
The Executive Protective Service will contract with a private crane service for 
the servicing of its fleet vehicles. 

4. The Executive Protective Service will handle traffic control only at intersec- 
tions and other points immediately adjacent to the White House grounds and at 
all foreign missions relative to special events. Traffic control at points further 
removed will be the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Department. 

C. Presidential and foreign dignitary movements 

1. It shall be the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Department to pro- 
vide security during Presidential and foreign dignitary movements outside the 
White House grounds and foreign missions. 

2. All escort functions shall be performed by the Metropolitan Police 
Department. 

D. Demonstration control 

1. The Metropolitan Police Department shall handle all demonstrations and 
unusual occurrences, including the enforcement of the 5U0-foot rule, involving 
foreign mission property. The Executive Protective Service will strengthen their 
security around the mission during such periods. 

E. Requests for assistance 

1. Upon receipt by the Metropolitan Police Department of a report, from any 
source, indicating the commission of a crime against foreign mission personnel, 
or premises, a Metropolitan Police Department unit, or units, will be dispatched 
to the scene. This action shall be relayed to the Deslc Sergeant of the Executive 
Protective Service by the Metropolitan Police Department's Communications 
Division. 

2. All emergency requests by the Executive Protective Service will be directed 
through the Metropolitan Police Department Communications Division. 

3. All requests for assistance that allow for pre-planning will be submitted to 
the Assistant Chief for Field Operations. 

F. Reporting of offenses or incidents on enihassy propertij 

1. The Executive Protective Service will report and record for their own 
usage, all offenses and incidents which occur on foreign mission property. 

2. The Executive Protective Service will notify the Metropolitan Police De- 
partment's Communications Division, of all criminal offenses in which an arrest 
is not made, in order that the appropriate Metropolitan Police Department re- 
porting forms may be executed by a member of that department. 

3. Tlie Metropolitan Police Department and the Executive Protective Service 
shall make notification to the other when an incident of emergency, or non-emer- 
gency nature occurs regarding each agency's respective responsibilities. This 
notification shall be accomplished by the receiving officer notifying the Desk 
Sergeant of the Executive Protective Service or the Metropolitan Police district 
in which the incident occurred. 

G. Criminal investigations 

1. The Metropolitan Police Department shall assist, where necessary, in in- 
vestigations of criminal offenses occurring on foreign mission property, both in 
those cases where an arrest has been made by an Executive Protective Service 
officer and when an arrest has not been made. 

2. In ca-ses where identification or evidence gathering expertise is required, the 
Executive Protective Service will call upon the identification and evidence tech- 
nicians of the Metropolitan Police Department to provide his service. 

IV. EFFECTIVE DATE 

The provisions of this order are effective upon date of publication. 

Lawrexce B. Quimby, 
Chief, Executive Protective Service. 



1355 

Mr. RuxDLE. The Executive Protective Service was initiated during 
the late 1960's during which period of time domestic crime was in- 
creasing tremendousl}', not only in the District of Columbia but 
throughout the United States. 

AVith this spiraling crime rate, it was impossible for the police de- 
partments to provide the personalized protection necessary for foreign 
diplomatic missions and still maintain the level of enforcement tor 
their own responsibilities. Therefore Congress on March 19, 1970, the 
act now known as Public Law 92-217 was signed into law. 

This act changed the name of the former White House Police De- 
partuient to the Executive Protective Service. It increased the respon- 
sibilities of the EPS at that time to include the protection of foreign 
diplonuitic missions in and around the metropolitan area of Washing- 
ton, D.C. 

I'here are approximately 300 foreign diplomatic missions in the 
metropolitan area for 127 foreign nations. The main responsibilities 
of the Executive Protective Services are outlined in the report but I 
would say that — I would like to stress that our responsibilities are pre- 
ventive in nature. 

We do not operate as a metropolitan police department. Our main 
objective is to prevent crimes against foreign diplomatic missions and 
the White House, the Executive Office Building, and its grounds. 

I will be glad to answer any questions that I may. 

BICENTENNIAL REQUIREMENTS 

The Chairman. Tliank you very much. What do you anticipate your 
increased demand to be regarding the Bicentennial ? 

Mr. RuNDLE. We anticipate that the large numbers of visitors com- 
ing to the Nation's capital during the Bicentennial will negate an 
increase for the EPS. It will not change our responsibilities or the 
locations which are protected but it will negate that we try to have 
more officers on the street, increase our shift lengths and to have more 
and concentrated patrols in the areas of the diplomatic missions. 

The Chairman. You recently increased your force through H.R. 
12 to provide protection for foreign diplomatic missions outside of 
Washington. What was the purpose of that ? 

Mr. RuNDLE, We requested, sir, an increase in the ceiling of EPS. 
We presently have a legislative ceiling of 850 officers. We have re- 
quested that that ceiling be increased to 1,200 officers to provide more 
officers on the street. 

That bill has presently passed the House of Representatives and is 
pending before the Senate at this time. 

The Chairman. Mr. Biester? 

Mr. Biester. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sharp ? 

Mr. Sharp. No questions. 

The Chairman. Counsel ? 

Mr. Christian. With respect to the relationship between the Metro- 
politan Police Department and the Protective Service, you make ref- 
erence to an agreement governing that relationship, I want your as- 
sessment of how that relationship is working and do you feel that that 
agreement needs revision ? 

Mr. RuNDLE. No, sir. I would be glad to leave this committee a 
copy of the written agreement, if you so desire. 



1356 

Mr. CirRTSTiAx. Thank yon. Mr. Chairman. 

Tlie CHATR^fAx. "We would like to have a copy of that for our re- 
ports, and it will be included in the record along with your com- 
plete statement, as previously noted. 

Our final witness this mornino: is from the Policemen's Association 
of the District of Columbia, Inc.. Mr. Joheph Goldring. the president, 
and I assume Sgt. John T. Ferguson of the legislative committee is 
with you. 

There has been a statement submitted to the committee. Do you wish 
to summarize it? 

Mr. GoLDRiXG. I will read it, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairmax. You may proceed. 

STATMENT OF JOSEPH S. GOLDRING. PRESIDENT. POLICE ASSOCIA- 
TION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ACCOMPANIED BY 
SGT. JOHN T. FERGUSON, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE 

Mr. GoLDRixG. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I will proceed with my 
statement, as prepared. 

The Chairmax. Thank you, Mr. Goldring. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity extended to me to 
testify before this committee on Ijehalf of the Police Association of 
the District of Columbia. 

The association represents approximately 3,000 active and retired 
members of the Metropolitan Police Department, the U.S. Park Police, 
and the Executive Protective Service, all of whom are sincerely and 
vitally concerned with the safety, health, and welfare of the residents 
of and visitors to Washington, D.C., the Xation's Capital. 

AAHiile this concern is ever present, its significance is enhanced by the 
massive influx of visitors who will visit the District to participate in 
the celebration of the 200th annversaiy of what has been described as 
mankind's most noble endeavor in government, the birth of a free and 
democratic country populated by diverse persons seeking a fair and 
open society. 

All of us here recognize that the nature of the fairness of our form 
of self-government carries within it certain burdens, not the least of 
which are inhibitions upon state action, not to be found in many other 
countries. 

The individual is foremost and government action devised to curb 
individual excesses can never lose sight of this. Our job as policemen 
is thus made more difficult. Our task is, and has always been, to fulfill 
our responsibilities with due regard for the important protections 
guaranteed to our citizenry. 

Creativity and perseverance have been and will continue to be our 
route to success. 

You have requested our ideas on a board range of subjects covering 
the vast general area of what has come to be referred to as the criminal 
justice system. Our first observation is that there is a lack of the 
necessary planning and coordination among all of us to justify the use 
of the word "system." 

For example, the long mystifying subject of crime causation, al- 
though certainly a component to be considered in any such system, in- 
volves matters which may be thought to be outside criminal justice. 



1357 

Crime is behavior fjiven a certain title. To discover its causes is to 
discover the cause of behavior, and to acquire knowledge useful in 
preventing behavior before it occurs or preventing its recurrence 
thereafter. 

To suggest that there exists a system in which all of the institutions 
concerned with criminal behavior, including the police, participate 
comprehensively is to suggest something which is even more than ap- 
parently inaccurate. 

On the other hand, the situation is not entirely void of some kinds 
of coordination, but these are largely limited to what are seen as tradi- 
tional aspects of crime control. 

STREET CRIMES 

Of prime importance here is the particular category of crime. For 
the present, at least, we perceive the general attitude of the people to 
reflect the greatest emphasis on "street crime,'" such as assault, robbery, 
rape, and larceny. 

In this category, a main cause of the occurrence, if not also the be- 
havior, is opportunity. An automobile is left unlocked or with valuable 
goods visible to the public. A person travels alone at night on a street 
which is without adequate lighting. 

The victim provides the offender with opportunit3\ Here, a police 
department, especially if given sufficient resources, can perhaps ef- 
fectively educate the public in preventive measures. 

The point here is that while under the present "system" the police 
should not be expected to address that aspect of behavior resulting 
from unsolved societal problems which shape human behavior from 
birth, they can, if properly supported, significantly impact upon cer- 
tain types of potential criminal behavior. 

Beyond prevention, the police function is law enforcement or more 
specifically, detection, arrest, and testimony. Whatever else is thought 
about criminal behavior, crime, convicted persons, prisons, and the 
judicial system, a recognition that the police function is necessary and 
desirable. 

Or. to put it another way, support from the public for the policeman 
and policewoman doing their jobs is, of course, an important factor in 
crime control. 

CRISIE STATISTICS 

Public support for and participation in the war against crime has 
other practical benefits. One obvious example is statistics and their 
constructive utilization. Historically, two phenomena appear to be 
inevitable : 

1. Rising crime statistics, especially as urbanization grows. 

2. Public concern over them. 

The first step toward proper statistics usage is their accurate ac- 
cumulation. This, of course, is impossible without the public's input. 
It is important, therefore, that the manner of collection be such that 
public fears growing naturally out of anj^ kind of data collection are 
not given reason to reach such proportions that this needed activity 
is impaired or disallowed. 

Attention to statistics is, of course, necessary for obvious needs such 
as trends, personnel development, research, and the like. Consideration 



1358 

should be given, in this connection, to the expansion of WALES to 
inchide the neighboring Virginia communities. 

Of more practical importance, perhaps, is the availability of ac- 
curate data to allay fears. For example, if our efforts effectively reduce 
crime in commercial and entertainment areas, and if this can be shown 
to the resident and the visitor, the quality of life of the law-abiding 
person, including the feeling that he or she can use these areas without 
undue fear for physical well-being, can be greatly improved. 

GUN CONTROL 

Paramount among such fears today is harm from persons armed 
with handguns. We seem to have no good answers today to the ques- 
tions of how to get guns away from criminals and how to keep them 
away. 

Here, legislation mandating long prison terms without prerelease 
for any person convicted of intentionally discharging a handgun while 
committing certain specified crimes, and further mandating speedy 
trials for persons accused of such offenses, might operate to deter the 
use or the shooting of a gun. 

Consideration should also be given to coupling these measures with 
comprehensive Federal and local legislation concerning access to guns. 
Guns will still be obtained illegally; this, of course, is no reason for 
the absence of well-reasoned legislation. 

SPEEDY TRIALS 

Speedy trials, as you can see, may have a real impact on certain 
aspects of crime control. In any event, they are constitutionally re- 
quired. The gains made in the local courts in handling their caseload 
should be continued and expanded upon. 

For example, we believe that judges shouud be held to a higher 
standard of punctuality and should be required, at a minimum, to com- 
plete the day's calendar before departing for the day. 

Also needed is a workable and efficient method of preparing and 
presenting police testimony without the inexcusable waste of time of 
manpower now caused by the present lack of coordination between the 
various trial participants and the courts. 

Similarly, procedures should be devised which would provide for 
the ticketing of persons suspected to have committed certain misde- 
meanors, much like pereons are presently ticketed for traffic offenses. 

CONVICTIONS 

After conviction follows corrections. There is little support for the 
proposition that prisons correct, change, modify or rehabilitate be- 
havior. Perhaps, as with the police, there is too much dependency upon 
corrections to eliminate or reduce crime. 

If anything, the environment which we create and tolerate in such 
places probably is the major cause of crime committed by prisoners 
after they have been released. Again, too much lip-service from our 
leaders and little or no followthrough or, at least, commitment of 
resources. 



1359 

JUVENILE OFFEXDERS 

And, as bad as adult institutions are, we are told that juvenile fa- 
cilities are worse. We should consider the usefulness of removing the 
handling of the problems of our younger juveniles from the structure 
and metholology of the traditional court and corrections system. 

Xot doing so may simply put the hopefully deterable child into a 
milieu which is nearh' identical to that used for the adult offender, 
with the resulting stigma that predictably becomes a self-fulfilling 
l)rophecy. 

The juvenile system, so to speak, may be nothing more than a crime 
factor}' in need of dismantling. 

By now, I am sure 3'ou understand that the emphasis of this tesi- 
mony is the need for the building of a true system, with identifiable 
goals, objectives, and priorities and the commitment of resources nec- 
essary for their achievement. 

This means that all persons and entities interested in this result — 
including the police, the judiciary, the social scientists, correction, and 
the citizenry- — must be pro\ided with the means of providing the in- 
formation and knowledge they possess to each other in a planning 
process. 

The record of achievement must be capable of measurement. Simply 
put, we must begin to know where we are going, how we expect to get 
there, and how far we have traveled. This is good government. This is 
what the residents of and visitors to the District of Columbia are 
entitled to expect. 

One such goal, for example, is the preparation of a brochure or 
kit for visitors and residents dealing with emergency situations, crime 
[)revention, and police access. The police department or the association 
can do this if you Avill provide the resources. 

The investment Avould be a wise one and would be a tangible trans- 
lation of desires into commitment. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and would be happy 
to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

The Chairmax. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Blester ? 

Mr. BiESTER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

I particularly appreciate the testimony of you gentlemen this morn- 
ing. I often think that probably the people who are out doing the job 
know more about its problems than anybody else. To what extent do 
you have a feeling of being engaged in things not productive to your 
■job? 

POLICE IX COURTS 

How much time do you spend in court, for example, on traffic cases, 
not criminal cases, but civil traffic cases ? 

Mr. GoLDRixo. The courts are working on a new svstem in which 
the officer can remain on the street until he is called by the courts and 
he sliould be ready to testify at that time on ncAv cases. 

Continued cases are a different thing. However, a continued traffic 
case, if it is set for court for 0:.30 and the judge does not ^et to court 
until 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock and it could be maybe 25th on the cal- 



1360 

endar, the officer may have to sit from 9 :30 until 2 o'clock before his 
case is called. 

Tliis is one of the prol)loms that we have. T don't know how. really, 
to eliminate it, unless it is throufrli the jud<res and the continued type 
of cases bein^ set for specific times to be continued. If the case comes 
up today and it is continued for a week from now, it should be set for 
10 o'clock and that case shonhl be heai'd at 10 o'clock. 

The judfro should direct his calendar or work out his calendar so 
that when he continues a case he should know generally how long a 
trial will take. Consequently, his time will be worked out where the 
officer does not ha^e to sit 3 or 4 hours. 

Mr. BiESTKR. In terms of duty time, tlie time the officer spends in 
criminal court waiting to become a witne?s or let's say he is presenting 
the case, let's suppose he has worked from 12 until 8. The case comes 
on at 10 o'clock and he goes in at 10 o'clock. Is that added to or does 
it come off liis schedule ? 

Mr. GoLDRiNG. It is not a continuation of duty. If he got off at 10 
o'clock, he has to go to court. However, if he locked someone up, then 
it is a first appearance and it is more or less a continuation of duty in 
that sense. 

Mr. BiESTER. I was thinking more of a trial. 

Mr. GoLDRiXG. In cases where it is continued if he worked mid- 
night — it depends on the day. He should set it. he should set it on his 
day work. But if tlie court sets it on a day when he is Avorking late, 
then if it is a second appearance he gets paid for it providing he has 
one appearance in. 

Mr. BiESTER. Second appearance? 

Mr. GoLDRiNG. Second appearance. So that is additional duty time 
with additional compensation. 

Sergeant Fergusox. I Avould like to respond briefly to that. If a 
man worked midnight to 8. and tlien he goes into court and has to sign 
in by a certain time in the morning, then he stays in court until the 
case is called or until he is relieved by the prosecuting attorney and 
this is additional time. 

T\niether it is compensatory time or paid time, will be worked out 
later. 

Mr. BiESTER. It is quite possible that during court week he might 
be in court twice. Let's say he has a case that goes over to the second 
day. He might being court twice, 6 or 8 hours tliat day. and also work- 
ing on the street during that time. 

Mr. GoLDRiNG. That is quite possible, especially if it is a continued 
case anrl it gets a late call on the calendar and they carry it over until 
the next dav. He has 2 days running on that case. 

Mr. BiESTER. Do you meet with the court administrator about these 
pro'-ilems Avith any ree^ubritv? 

Mr. GoLDRiXG. The Chiefs of Police have been working in this 
area trying to come up with a better solution, ^fy feelings are it is 
according to the way the judires have their calendar regidated and 
their time. I am not that familiar with what goes on behind the doors 
of the iudge's chambers, but it appears to me that there is a lot of time 
wasted by the judiros in getting cases into the courtroom. 

There is a lot of waiting time. 



1361 

VICTIMLESS CRIMES 

Mr. BiFSTER. Xow with respect to the Anctimless crimes — I am not 
quite sure how to characterize them but we call them victimless 
crimes — what percentajre of time does the average officers spend on 
those kinds of cases both in court and outside ? 

Mr. GoLDRixG. Well, victimless crime cases, for instance, marijuana 
cases or sometliin<:: like this, it would run just about the same as any 
other crime case depending: on the prosecuting attorney, depending on 
liow he wants to break it down, whether he Avill keep it at the exact 
charge as it comes into this office or whether he will drop it down, hope- 
fullv to eliminate some of the time that could be involved. 

These cases could extend, depending on the court again, over — 
getting them on the calendar and getting them tried — they could have 
four or five continuances. 

It would be just the same as any other criminal trial. 

Mr. BiESTER. In other words, your victimless crime case, like a small 
marijuana case, could cost j^ou just as much time as a burglary or a 
robbery ? 

Mr, GoLDRixG. That is correct. 

Mr. BiESTER. "\^^iat sort of relationship does your association have 
with the prosecutor's office? Do you have representatives talking with 
his representatives regularly about this kind of problem? 

Mr. GoLDRixG. No, not recently anyway. We have recently had a 
changeover with the union in the Metropolitan Police Department. 
They now have the right to negotiate with the Police Department. We 
do, we do. whether there are cases that come up — recently we have had 
cases of police brutality where the prosecuting attornej' would not 
prosecute. 

Thev would break them down to simple assault or something like 
this. This was tlie latest problem that we have had where we have had 
to go to the I^S. attorney. It is not that often that we have to go to 
them about this. There is a lot of mixed feeling in the members on court 
times especially on the midnight tours and first arrests. What they 
really want is a system where they can do a short form of paperwork 
and this can be presented to the court in their absence rather than to 
go over off of midnight or maybe working 3 to 11 and have to go back 
to court the next morning and have to come back to work that after- 
noon, and I would like the system where the paperwork is there which 
is what the court needs to know. 

COMMUNICATION AMONG CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES 

Mr. BiESTER. I am just wondering and trying to explore the extent 
to which there is communication on a regular basis between the courts, 
your organization, the administration and the prosecutors office. 

I gather from your answers that there is not that steady kind of 
regularized communications ? 

Mr. GoLDRiNG. No, there is not. Only when a problem arises will we 
actually have some kind of communication with — even the department 
heads or the court or the prosecutor section. As the association or an 
association, we more or less do whatever the membership wants. 



1362 

If they come to \is with a problem, we try to deal with it at that time 
instead of tryin<]: to sit back and think of problems that the member- 
ship are i-onfronted with. 

Some things we feel are problems, some members feel they are satis- 
fied with. 

Mr. BiESTER. As a general proposition would you say that the gen- 
era] membership — not all. but the general membership — would you 
subscribe to your complaint that there does not seem to be a criminal 
justice system? 

Mr. GoLDRiNo. Not at all. 

TLEA BARGAINING 

Mr. BiESTER. One last question, Mr. Chairman, if I might. On the 
question of plea bargaining, to what extent is the officer-prosecutor 
consulted by the prosecutors' office with respect to plea bargaining'^ 

Mr. GoLDRiNG. You mean to what extent the officer and the prose- 
cutor consult ? 

Mr. BiESTER. I use the word arresting officer. 

Mr. GoLDRiNG. Normally it is the defense attorney and the prosecutor 
who get togetlier on any sucli tiling ns plea barLrnining. The arresting 
officer has very little to do with it. The only times he may have some 
conflict with whatever the prosecute^ and the defense attorney does 
in situations like that is if there has been some hassle with him and the 
defendant, for instance a police brutality case where he has been as- 
saulted and he does not feel it should be dropped to simple assault. 

He feels the charge should be more severe. This is the only time 
that the officer and the prosecutor have in the conflict or actually 
contact. 

Mr. BiESTER. Is he consulted? Before the bargain is struck, is he 
consulted ? 

Mr. GoLDRiNG. No. In most cases he is not. He is usually consulted 
afterwards or informed that the prosecutor feels that this should be 
done this way. He does not get any suggestions from the officer, per se. 

He will ask the officer the elements of the case. I am sure if the ele- 
ments are strong enough, then he will not drop the charge or make it 
a lesser charge. 

Mr. Ferguson. About the only time, sir. that the officer is ever ac- 
tually consulted is in a police assault where when he goes to make the 
arrest, he is actually assaulted. If the assault is severe the district at- 
torney may ask him how he feels about reducing the crime for a plea. 

Otherwise I would say that the consultation maybe is 1 in 1,000 
when they would ask the officer, they notify him that the man had pled 
guilty to simple assault or unlawful entry or some other offense. 

Mr. BiESTER. That is the substance of the real contact? 

Mr. GoLDRixG. That is right. 

Mr. BiESTER. Thank you, ^Ir. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You don't hear much about police brutality cases 
anymore, certainly in a relative sense. Does that mean that there has 
been a qualitative change in police personnel or what does it moan? 

;Mr. Goldring. I may have said the wrong thing. Mr. Chairman. 
What I mean, not police brutality, but assault on police officers. Those 
are the cases that I was referring to. 



1363 

Mr. BiESTER. I understood that. 

Mr. GoLDRixG. I think in many areas of police briitalit}^ since you 
mentioned that, 1 think Ave have probably a better grade of officers on 
the street and there are less oases. The officer is able to deal with the 
conmiunity and the citizens a little better. Primarily they are getting 
better schooling in the department, out of the department, and they are 
more involved in the connnunity. They are learning the citizenry a 
little better. 1 think they are having less problems with the citizens 
because they are not making their own jDroblems as much as they have 
in the past. 

The Chairman. Is tlie increase in minorities and women on police 
forces — does it have an^'thing to do with the reduction of these kinds of 
cases ? 

Mr. GoLDRixG. I would not say that. I oftentimes will hear from 
minorities in the community, well I live here in the community myself 
and I deal with a lot of people in the community, and they feel that in 
many cases the minorities are harder in the community than the other 
groups that they deal with. 

So it goes both ways I would say. I don't think the fact that we have 
more minorities on the department is the answer. I think the fact that 
l)olicemen are becoming more educated in social science courses and 
learning more about cliB'erent types of public behavior, I think this is 
probal) V the gi-eatest im])act that we have in that area. 

The Chairman. You both are members of the Metropolitan Police 
Department? 

Mr. GoLDRiNG, Yes. 

POLICE RESIDENCY 

* 

The Chairman. Do you live in the District of Columbia ? 

Mr. Goldring. I live in southeast. 

The Chairman. The sergeant ? 

Sergeant Ferguson. No, sir. I live in ^Maryland. 

The Chairmais:, "\\niat do you think about the question of residence? 
Suppose they pass a regulation requiring residence, Sergeant? Do you 
think you could find some place within the District of Columiba to 
live or would you quit ? 

Sergeant Ferguson. Sir. I have too much time on to quit. I would 
have to find some place to live. Presently, because of the crime situation, 
I would have to find someplace else for my family to \ive. My main 
reason for moving out of the city was crime, was concern for my wife 
and my children, crime committed next door to me and the fact that I 
was on duty 24 hours a day to my neighborhood. 

I get off of work — worked in the 13th precinct along 13th and U. I 
would get off at 8 o'clock in the morning, spend 5 or 6 hours in court and 
averaged 3 days a week. When I went home I would like to have a little 
rest. The next-door neighbor would come and knock on the door, some- 
body hit his car. illegally parked, and that sort of thing. 

In Maryland I am able to do my job. If I have to handle the neigh- 
bor's problem when there are policemen on the street that should be 
called — a major pi'ohlom. hojuicido or rol^boiv or somothing of that 
nature is far different, because you are not called that often. It is not 
that often you have known policemen in the area that you would have 
something to take action on. 



1364 

If YOU have a major problem, they normally call the on-duty 
officers. Coupling the two together was my reason for moving from the 
city. 

The Chairman. I did not want to make it personal. T was just curious 
about this matter. It cropped up recently, I think in an unfortunate 
context. But I think t])o (juoi^tion of i-esidoncy is a valid qnostioii. It is 
certainly a matter of considerable interest in the city of Detroit, not 
witliin a rnrial context but just on a rosidoncy basis. 

TMiat has been your experience, in living in the city, Mr. Goldring? 
Do you have the same problems as the Sergeant had ? 

Mr. GoT.nRTXo. T have lived in the city all my life. T would not want 
to go anyplace else. I have all my ties here. I have no problem being off 
duty. I am a plainclothes detective so there are many that don't know 
I am a police officer. There are many that do not know that. I think 
the fact that T do live on a particular block has quieted my block down 
since I moved over there. 

I don't know. I think the few people that know I am a police officer 
give me a little more respect within that block. The kids all know I 
am a police officer because if you get out of a car with a gun, I don't 
care how well you have it covei-ed up, they see this g\m. 

I think when the kids know everybody on the block knows. In my 
area — I live in the 7th District— it is nn average apartment there — no 
highrise, no big security building. In that area, the burglary statistics 
are quite hicrh but I have lived in this particular block for the last 2 
years and I have not heard anyone to come to me to mention that 
there has been a burglary on the block. 

I got a brand new car where I used to live in a highrise and I got 
ripped off 2 weeks after I was there, my spare tire and hubcaps. Here 
my cars sits on the street and nobodv touches it. I don't know what to 
say about the different trend you will have living in the District. 

I have had no problems. In fact I wouldn't go anywhere else. I have 
an uncle that is a police officer who lives in the District and I have a 
nephew who is a police officer living in the District and I have not 
heard them mention any problems they have living in the District. 

The CiTArRMAx. Did you have any pergonal problems. Sergeant, 
while you were here? You mentioned your family and of course all of 
us would be concerned about that. Did your move grow out of some 
personal problems against your family? Or is this something you 
anticipated? 

Sergeant Ferouson. It grew out of two problems. I moved right 
after a burglary in my apartment. When I am at work, I have to have 
my family where I feel that they are safe in my absence. In the area 
that I moved to I was there 3 or 4 years and it seemed to me to de- 
teriorate for whatever reason. 

They had an influx of crime. When mv apartment is burglari:^ed I 
have to find someplace else to go. Wlion I am on duty. I just feel that 
I want my family in a secnro ])lace. With the urbanization of the area, 
it is almost impopsiblo to find an area that you can really say is safe. 

It is hard problem to deal witli as far as when you ^et right down 
to it why you go. You have a i^articular feeling thnt this area is safe. 
You move thoro. You find out it is not. I bo.fT'n to look for someplace 
else. I think basically this is the problem that we have. 



1365 

If I moved into the District and felt that the place was secure, I 
would fool porfoctly all ri<2;ht until something happened. Then wlien I 
began to <2;ot uneasy in tlio District, I would be looking; for some other 
place to mo\o that 1 i'olt was safe. It was — it is a safety factor that is 
important. 

Tho other other is really personal and it probably depends on the 
people who live next to you, how they feel aI)out you as a policeman or 
the situations that they have or the availabihty that they have to the 
police. It is just a personal factor of rest and relaxation, being able 
to sit back and say. ''OK, I will take it easy." 

HALFWAY HOUSES 

The CiiATRMAX. Does the association have an official point of view 
relative to halfway houses? 

Mr. GoLDRiXG. We really have not looked into the halfway houses 
or that type of incarceration or whatever you want to call it. My per- 
sonal view is, along with City Councilwoman Hardy, is that these 
people eventually do have to come back into the community. 

Whether they come back in 5 weeks or 6 weeks or 6 months, it is not 
going to clumge one way or another until they feel that they are getting 
a fair shake. This is tlie only way you are going to get any decent 
results out of bringing them back into the community. 

By keeping them for 2 or 3 years and then throwing them back into 
the community I don't feel you are going to solve the problem. Per- 
sonally I agree with the halfway houses. 

The Chairmax. Do you have any in your neighborhood ? 

Mr. GoLDRiNG. I reall}' don't know. Like I say, I live in an area 
where there arc apartments and it is rather difficult, unless there is a 
separate unit, to set up a halfway house. There are some in southeast, 
I do know that. But right in my immediate neighborhood, I really 
don't know where they are. 

LORTOX ALTERNATIVES 

The Chairmax*. If the association were commissioned to find an 
alternative to Lorton in the District of Columbia, where would you 
begin to look ? 

ISIr. GoLDRixG. As City Councilwoman Hardy said, the properties 
are limited. However, there are some pi-operties here. INIost of them 
arc federally owned, and federally controlled, and most of them I 
don't think the Federal Government would lelease too easily. I heard 
her mention the Boiling Field area which I think is a fair area because 
it is separated by Highway 295. This is probably the most practical 
area that I could think of. Other than that, you have mostly park areas 
or areas that are right in the center of big housing communities where 
you are going to get a lot of problems. You could not very well set it 
up in the Rock Creek Park area or in the Fort DuPont area. You 
would get a lot of kickback from the citizens. 

The only area I see that is practical in the Boiling Field area be- 
cause it is cut off, more or less, from most of the other areas of the city. 



1366 

GUX COXTROI. 

The Chairman. AVhat is the association's view about tliis ^in con- 
trol matter? You are dculinp; witli this matter, as the o;entlenian from 
Pennsyh ania said, every day. You have heard all the argument pro 
and con. AMiat makes sense to the association on this subject? 

Mr. GoLDRixo. AVell, we definitely feel that there has to be some way 
to eliuiinate the ouns. "We do not believe in strong <^m control as taking 
the guns away from all citizens. 1 don't say let's let citizens have guns 
for protection because then they can become a second arm of the law. 

But people that use guns for hobbies, collectors, and whatever, I 
think these people are entitled to have guns. T don't think anyone 
needs a gun to protect their house if they have sufficient or adequate 
police protection. 

I think there are other moans of protecting your residents without 
guns. You buy a gun and if your house is not protected with the proper 
lock, key, or proper door or whatever, in order to keep a thief from 
coming in, then you lose your gun and you are actually putting another 
gun into the hands of a criminal. 

I think people should concentrate more on protecting their homes in 
other ways than with a gun. I don't think buying guns for house pro- 
tection is necessary or is really the answer to the citizens' problems 
of protection. T think if we could eliminate this area of buying gims 
for protection, we probably could take away a good 40 to 50 percent of 
the guns off the street. 

POLICE MANPOWER 

The CHAiR:\rAX. Finally, do you think that we are making the most 
efficient use of police manpower? Specifically, what does the associa- 
tion feel about the use of police in administrative positions? Ts there 
an area here where perhaps civilians might be able to relieve this 
A'aluable man])ower for dii'ect j^aiticipation in law enforcement? 

Mr. GoLDRiXG. T would say personally, not so much the association's 
opinion here, I have worked at police hend(|uaiters the past 7 years 
and I have seen the system actually slow down with civilian workers. 

For instance, in getting i-ecoixls. 7 years ago we had a system where 
you could come in and get a record at the counter within 5 minutes. 
AVith the new system with civilians and everything computerized, 
sometinu's you can't get a record for an hour or 2 because nothing is 
kept in the same area. 

Certain re(|uests that police officers come in to rj^et from a civilian, 
he is not really well read in what the i^olice officei-s wants. A police' 
officer has more capability of as.sisting a police officer than a civilian. 

But I am not saying that civilians are completely ineffective because 
they do have some of the jobs which they are very cai)able of handling. 
Some jobs, civilians should not ha\(\ Some jobs, police officers should 
maintain and woi-k at. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Does counsel have any points of clarification? 

Mr. CifRisTiAX. Wo have none, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

The CiT \TKAr.\x. Tliank you veiy much. gentltMuen. 

Ml-. (i()ij)i!ix(i. Thank you. Mi', (^hairman. 

The Ciiair:max. The conunittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11: U) a.m.. the committee adjourned, subject to call 
of the Chair.] 



ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 



MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1975 

U.S. House of Eepresextatrtes, 
Committee ox the District of Columbia, 

Washington., D.C. 

The committee met. pursuant to recess, at 9 a.m., in room 1310, 
Lon«rworth House Office Building, Hon. Charles C. Diggs, Jr. (chair- 
man) presiding. 

Present : Representative Diggs, Delegate Fauntroy and Representa- 
tive Harris. 

Also present : James T. Clark, legislative counsel ; James Christian, 
deputy minority counsel; Nelson Riemensynder, professional staff; 
and Chris Xolde, Judiciary Subcommittee counsel. 

The Chairman. The committee Avill come to order. 

Today, in our continuing hearings on the administration of criminal 
justice, the committee will hear from three witnesses. Some of these 
witnesses have been rescheduled from other days. The first witness 
represents the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, U.S. 
Department of tlie Treasury, and will hopefully be prepared to discuss 
handgun traffic, and the weaknesses of existing Federal legislation in 
this area. The gentleman representing the Department in that 
capacity is Rex D. Davis, who is the Director of the Bureau of Alco- 
hol, Tobacco, and Firearms ; and he is accompanied this morning by 
otlier members of the Bureau. 

I will recognize Mr. Davis, and then he may proceed to identify his 
colleagues. The gentleman docs not have a prepared statement. He 
expects to speak from notes and testimony on the same subject that 
he has spoken to before in related committees, and you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF REX D. DAVIS. DIRECTOR. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, 
TOBACCO. AND FIREARMS. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREAS- 
URY: ACCOMPANIED BY A. ATLEY PETERSON. ASSISTANT 
DIRECTOR. TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC SERVICES: MARVIN J. 
DESSLER. CHIEF COUNSEL: AND JOHN F. CORBIN, ASSISTANT 
DIRECTOR. CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT 

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, ]Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure 
to appear before tliis committee, and to provide what information the 
Bui-eau has that will help the committee iu its task. 

On uiy immediate left is Mr. Marvin Dessler, who is chief counsel 
of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. On the far left is 
Mr. Atley Peterson, who is assistant director for technical and scientif- 

(1367) 



1368 

ic services; and on my immediate ri<rlit. Mr. John Corbin, assistant 
director for criminal enforcement. We have also with lis, should he be 
needed as a resource for the committee. Mr. John O'Rile}-, who is the 
special agent in charge of our Falls Church office, which includes the 
District of Columbia in its jurisdictional area. 

AL«.OHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIKElAKiSrS (ATF) 

If the Chair agrees, I would like to very briefly outline the history of 
ATF, and what it presently does. AVc trace our origins back to 1863, 
when two detectives were appointed by the Commissioner of Internal 
Revenue to seek out people who were evading the tax on liquor — in 
other Avords, moonshiners. At that time, of course, being part of the 
Internal Revenue Service, and for many .succeeding years, our basic 
responsibilities were taxing alcoholic beverages and apprehending per- 
sons Avho dealt in illicit liquor. 

During the period of the 1940's and 1950's the Bureau was given ad- 
ditional responsibilities in the ai-eas of the Federal Alcohol Adminis- 
tration Act, which deals with the trade practices, labeling, and other 
aspects of alcoholic beverages. AVe were given the responsibilitj- for 
regulation and taxing of tobacco products; and finally, Ave were given 
the responsibility for the Federal Firearms Act, wliich was enacted in 
1934, and the Xational Firearms Act, which was enacted in — pardon 
me; it is the Federal Arms Act enacted in 1938, and the National Fire- 
arms Act in 1934. 

GUN CONTROL ACT (19 68) 

In 1968, the Congress of the United States passed the Gun Control 
Act of that year, which vastly increased ATF's responsibilities for 
enforcing Federal firearms laws. At the same time, we were given the 
import provisions of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 — in otlier words, 
responsibility for approving importation of firearms into tlie United 
States — and title VII of the Onuiibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968, which deals with the possession of firearms by proscribed 
individuals. 

In 1970. the Bureau was given the responsibility for the regulation 
of explosives at the Federal level under title XI of the Organized 
Crime Control Act of 1970. In 1972, on July 1, the gun division of the 
Internal Revenue Service was transferred out of the Internal Revenue 
Service and became an independent bureau of the Department of the 
Treasury. Then finally, on December 24, 1974, the Secretary of the 
Treasury transferred to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fivearms 
responsibility for enforcing the amended Avagering tax hiAv. So, at the 
present time, the Bureau has responsibility for regulating and enforc- 
ing the criminal statutes relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explo- 
sives, and Avagering. 

The three basic functions or responsibilities of the Bureau are tax 
administration, regulation of the indicated industries, and hnv en- 
-forccment. AVe have just under 4.000 employees throughout the United 
States and Puerto Rico. These include 700 inspectors Avho are respon- 
sible for insuring the proper payment of alcohol and tobacco taxes, and 
to make sure that the regulated industries are not engaging in unfair 



1369 

trade practices. We lia\-e about 1.550 special agents who enforce the 
\arious criminal laws of our jurisdiction. 

In fiscal year l!)71. ATF collected just nnder $S billion in alcohol 
and tobacco excise taxes. This, then, is the second largest source of 
revenue to the U.S. Government, followiiiir corporate and individual 
income taxes. Durinii" that same year, we arrested over 5.000 persons for 
N'iolatino; laws under our jurisdiction. 3,123 of those arrests were for 
violations of the Federal firearms statutes. Durin<r the same period, we 
seized about 6.522 firearms for being in violation of the Federal laws. 

AVe are engaired in otiier areas — consumer protection as it relates to 
alcoholic beverages. "We have certain environmental impact responsi- 
bilities related to the issuance of peimits that we issue to the alcohol, 
tobacco, firearms and explosives industries. We are also engaged at the 
present time in the moving toward the metrication and standardiza- 
tion of alcoholic beverage containers. AVe have already accomplished 
that in the case of wine, and Ave will soon do it in the case of spirits. We 
also have — we are the lead agency chairing a Federal advisory commit- 
tee seeking to determine methods of tagging explosives so that they can 
be detected prior to detonation, and hopefully preventing bombings 
before they occur; and also, of course, to trace explosives after a 
detonation has occurred. 

Mr. Chairman, on the easel there is an organizational chart of the 
Bureau of Alcohol. Tobacco and Firearms. We have seven regional 
offices that cover the United States. Puerto Rico and Guam, each one 
headed by a regional director. In our headquarters office, we have five 
assistant directors lieading up the various functional offices. We have 
28 district offices for our criminal enforcement activities, each headed 
up b}' a special agent in charge. 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND HREARMS 




1370 

Mr. Chairman, that is sort of a capsule presentation of tlie Bureau 
and its hi^^tory, and what it is currently en<ia<red in. I thouirlit it inio;ht 
be useful to the committee at this i)oint i,t we review the Federal 
firearms laws, a^ain very briefly ; and then, we hoped to present to the 
committee the situation as it exists today in terms of production and 
other aspects. 

FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS 

As I have already indicated, the two early firearms acts were the 
National Firearms Act. which was passed in liKU; and this act was 
directed to so-called oranjister weapons, such as machineguns, sawed-off 
shotguns, and rifles, and certain other firearms. It involved the regis- 
tration of these weapons, the taxing of those engaged in the business as 
dealers and manufacturers, and the imposition of transaction taxes. 
The effectiveness of this act — and 1 might say, Mr. Cliairman, this was 
a true registration act; that these guns had to be registered with the 
Bureau and its predecessor organizations, the gun was associated with 
a named individual, and transfers of these guns had to be approved by 
the Bureau — the effectiveness of this act was severely limited by the 
Hanes decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1968, by which 
decision the Court held that registration requirements tlien m effect 
violated. the rights guaranteed by the fifth amendment of the U.S. 
Constitution. 

The Federal Firearms Act had never proven effective, due to many 
loopholes. Included among its deficiencies were the lack of dealer quali- 
fication criteria, the absence of a requirement for positive identification 
of purchases, and the subversion of local laws by State authorities. 

GUN CONTROL ACT (1968) 

In 1968, the Congress enacted the Gun Control Act of that year. 
Title I of the statute replaced the Federal Firearms Act, and title II 
replaced the National Firearms Act. Overall, the Gun Control Acts 
significantly strengthened the Federal Government's control over com- 
merce in firearms. 

The administration of the act presents some immediate problems. 
The act, which Ijecame effective on October 22, 1968, provided for a 
30-day amnesty period beginning on November 1, 1968. During this 
period, individuals could register gangster-type weapons and destruc- 
tive devices with no questions asked. "Within this period, for which we 
had 80 days to prepare, we registered about 70,000 gangster-type 
weapons and destructive devices. 

The next pressing order of business was the licensing of manu- 
facturers, dealers and importers under the provisions of the new law. 
In the 8 months following the effective date of the law. we received 
86.958 applications for licenses, and expended 46,674 man-days in their 
processing. The effectiveness of our field checks of applicants was 
hampered by the fact that the law provided a license must be issued 
within 45 days after receipt of the application. 

Another area presented an equally pressing problem. Prior to the 
Gun Control Act of 1968, the Office of the Munitions Control, Depart- 
ment of State, had been responsible for issuing permits for the im- 
portation of fii-earms into the Unitcnl States. lender Executive Order 
11-4-32, October 22, 1968, this resjionsibility was transferred to ATF. 



1371 

"Wlien the Gun Control Act became law, we were immediately faced 
with taking action on the 5,000 applications for the importation of over 
200,000 firearms. This situation was created by the tact that the De- 
partment of State luid not processed import applications for several 
months in anticipation of congressional action. 

Finally, the Gun Control Act required the publication and issuance 
of industry regulations, preparation of internal guidelines, and the 
development and conducting of training of employees. I think maybe 
at this point, it may be useful to review the major provisions of the 
various Federal statutes relating to firearms. 

The provisions of title I of the Gun Control Act of 1968 set forth 
comprehensive and expanded restrictions on commercial and private 
transactions involving firearms and ammunitions, and on the trans- 
portation, shipment and receipt of these articles in interstate or for- 
eign commerce. The scope of these provisions extends to firearms and 
ammunition of every nature except antique weapons. Among other 
things, title I channels interstate and foreign commerce in firearms 
through federally-licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers, 
thereby prohibiting the commercial mail-order traffic in firearms. It 
provides for a licensing system with meaningful standards so as to 
insure that licenses will be issued only to responsible persons actually 
engaged in businesses, importers, manufacturers, and dealers. It pro- 
vides a system for licensing collectors of curios and relics. It prohibits 
sales of firearms by Federal licensees to persons under 21 years of age, 
except that sales of rifles and shotguns can be made to persons at least 
18 years of age. 

It permits a Federal licensee to sell a firearm only to persons who 
are residents of the State where the licensee is doing business, except 
in certain narrow circumstances. It prohibits the sales of firearms by 
licensees when they know, or have reasonable cause to believe, that 
the purchaser is a convicted felon or under indictment for a felony, 
a fugitive from justice, a narcotics addict or user, or a person who 
has been adjudged mentally defective, or who has been committed 
to a mental institution. It provides for more emphasis on the record- 
keeping responsibilities of licensees, and for authority to furnish a 
record of information to State and local law enforcement authorities. 
It prohibits a nonlicensee from transporting into, or receiving in a 
State of residence, a firearm purchased outside that State, and encour- 
age the flow into the United States of surplus military weapons and 
other firearms not suited for sporting purposes. 

Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 amended the National Fire- 
arms Act, although retaining the basic statutory scheme of the original 
National Firearms Act. Title II amended that earlier statute in sev- 
eral significant respects. The prior statute passed on machinguns, 
sawed-off and short-barreled shotguns and rifles, mufflers, and 
silencers. While continuing to cover these weapons, the title II amend- 
ments added machinegun frames and receivers, so-called conversion 
kits for turning other weapons into machinegims, and any combina- 
tion of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled when in the 
possession of a single person, the single most significant extension for 
the inclusion of destructive devices within the definition of a firearm. 
This is broadly defined to include any explosive, incendiary, or poison- 
ous gas bomb, grenade, rocket with a propellant charge of at least 4 



1372 

ounces, missile havings explosive or incendiary charge in excess of 14 
ounce, mine or similar device, and weapons witii bores of at least i/^ 
inch, such as mortars, antitank guns, and artillery pieces. 

OMXTRUS CIIIMK AND SAFE STREETS ACT (lOCS) 

Title VII of the Omnibus Crime and Safe Strets Act of 1968 
])rovided that persons convicted of a felony in any Fedeial court or 
court of any State or political subdivision thereof, or persons dis- 
charged from the Armed Forces undei- dishonorable con<litions, per- 
sons who had been adjudged mentally incompetent by a Fedeial court 
or court of any State or political subdivision thereof, could not possess 
a firearm — rec-eive. possess, or transport in commerce any lirearm. 
The 1971 Supreme Court decision in Bask vs. United States became 
a precedent case related to title VII. In that case, it was held that the 
term, "affecting connneice.'' did not make the mere possession of a 
firearm a violation of the statute; but that the nexus of the fiivaiin 
with the State commerce must be proven. 

MUTUAL SECURITY ACT OF 1954 

Just to mention one or two words about the Mutual Security Act 
of 1954. the import provision. This law governs the imjmrtation of 
arms, ammunition, and implements of war. Persons who wish to im- 
port aiticles included in the U.S. munitions import list must register 
with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. An application 
for a permit to import articles on the list must be submitted to the 
Bureau and approved before an importation can take place. The 
categories of articles included in the list are firearms, amnninition, 
launch vehicles, guided vehicles, rockets, bombs and mines, vessels 
of war. special luival equipment, tanks and military vehicles, aircraft, 
spacecraft and associated equipment, toxicological agents and equip- 
ment, radiological equipment, nuclear weapons, design and test equip- 
ment, and oceanographic and associated equipment. 

Mr. Chairman. I think that provides the background on the history 
of firearms legislation at the Federal level, including the major pro- 
visions of the law that are now on the books. If I could. I Avould like 
to use another display to indicate to the committee the way we see 
the handgun situation in the United States. 

TTANDGUXS 

"We feel that we have the best estimates available, aUhoujrh they 
are estimates. Based on the various production and importation fig- 
ures, we estimate that there are 40 million handguns in private pos- 
session in the Ignited States. That is beiuT increased thi-oivh both 
domestic manufacture and importations at the rate of 2.4 million per 
year. "We feel, based on oui- l)est estimate, that those weapons — hand- 
^ms in private hands — thi-ou'rh loss, seizure or destiuction, represent 
ai)ont 250.000 ])er yeai-. so that the net increase would be about 2.150.- 
000 handguns being |)laced in the reservoii- of handgun ownership 
in the I'nited States each year. There are about 100,00 private thefts 
of handgims reported each year. We feel that is a very conservative 
figure, because we are aw^are that many citizens are reluctant to report 



1373 

the thoft of luiiulunns and weapons; in some cases, of course, their 
possession bein^ in violation of local laws. So we feel that that figure 
is very niininuil. 

GUNS DISPLAYED 

Mr. Chairman, then, if I could refer to the board on my right, I 
think this indicates the situation that occurred with resi)ect to the 
passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The white area of the board 
i-e]-)i-esonts Avhat was hap])oning befoi'c the ]^assage of the act : the 
blue area, what occurred afterwards. At the very top of the display 
IS a (xerman .i22-caliber revolver, and the act very effectively elimi- 
luited its importation into the United States. The second gun is a 
German Luger. It is a surplus military weapon, and again, since the 
act absolutely ])rohibitcd the importation of surplus military firearms 
into the T'nited States, that type of weapon also was eliminated from 
being imported into the United States. 

The third gun is a German .380-caliber automatic. Now, in its form 
at that time, it could not be imported ; and what was done was that, 
in Germany, the gun was added to — that is the expression; it was 
altered. I should say — in various ways to make it importable into 
the United States. Primarily, the frame and so forth was enlarged, 
the weight factors and things of this kind: so in that case, of course, 
at least the spirit of the act was circumvented. 

The next gun is a Belgian 9-millimeter automatic, which was im- 
portable before the act : it was importable after the act. The next 
gun is a German .38-caliber revolver. This gun. in that configuration, 
was importable; and we feel that it was manufactured to be import- 
able for tliat purpose. And you will notice that it has a rather large 
grip, and in that instance, I believe about a 4-inch barrel. It was 
imported into the T'nited States in that form. Once it was legally 
nnported into the United States, it was again altered, and you will 
notice there that the barrel has been reduced in length to make the 
gun more concealable. And, of course, the grip has been reduced in 
size, again to make the gun more concealable. so that in effect, after 
it had been altered in the United States, the gun would not have been 
importable if it had been done outside the country. 

Xow. on the far right are a series of rather small, easily-concealed 
handguns that were manufactured — I am sorry; I did forget one 
which I think is very important. The very small automatic just to 
the Y'frht of the LuGrar is a Spanish .25 automatic. The Gun Control 
Act did not permit its importation in that form into the United States. 
What did happen was that the parts were brought into the country, 
except for the receiver. So. under the Gun Control Act. frames and 
receivers, which are integral parts of automatics and pistols, revolvers, 
were also firearms. They could not be imported, but the rest of the 
gun could be imported, and they could be moimted on U.S. frames 
and receivers. And therefore, the gun could be recreated, as you see. 
The three guns on the far right are gims that arose, or were manu- 
factured, in the Ignited States following the Gun Control Act, appar- 
ently to circumvent the restrictions on the importation of these weap- 
ons. To put it another way, they were manufactured in the United 
States to meet the demand for the market in the marketplace that 
could no longer be filled by the importation of cheap guns. And, Mr. 



1374 

Chairman. I tliink it goes without saying that I would be happy to be 
interrupted by questions at any point that you would like to bring out 
additional details. 

We feel that today about 54 percent of the handguns manufactured 
in the I'nited States will not be importable, so that, in elTect, the pro- 
duction of handguns in the United States has very adequately — if 
that is a good word — has very adequately renlace^^l the importation of 
handguns as it occurred before the passage of the 1968 act. 

I might say, Mr. (^hniiman. that Secretary Macdonald in an ap- 
pearance before the Bayh connnittee, stated the Treasury Department's 
position with respect to remedial legislation and that one of the pro- 
posals adopted by the I)ei)artinent of the Treasury was the passage of a 
so-called "'Saturday Xight'' bill which would more or less extend the 
criteria, the factoring criteria, that we are presently to determine 
whether guns are importable, to extend that to domestic manufacture 
of handguns. 

SOURCES OF GUNS 

Mr. Chairman, you know one of the objectives — one of the interests 
of the committee is to determine how the criminal acquires guns, in 
circumvention of Federal law, or in violation of it. in order for them 
to be used in the street for crime. 



fusmmoN 



WiSCRUPUlOUS DULIK 
• nisfKAnMvntem 




• «aviouiis 

n 



J[J!^S^' 



A^ 



SMuccimc 



(WCOtNC 

CM 'UOM 
PWOPOMO. 
tiotu w y oiJUiM 



^ 



l_^ ^ mm 



ONCfMC 




UliGU SALES 

• Ml£tlQID 

• Off STt 



ONCOINC 
coMnuua wiictoii 

Cuk tUClMC 

ruKOOIlK MVlJIiUnONS 



-CJ- 




ik 



^9 



^ 



0MC0I1VG: 
L^ouanrui innncjiTKM] 






awupuiamiTuru 



.Z3=rfM'* 



INDfVIOUAl. SAIES 
• tuu. 



iV-i. 



\h 



UiCAl M»IIUf*CTUII£ 

• AOliatflKruTt 

• rUBM 




And we feel that this chart depicts the various ways the criminal 



obtains guns 



ILLEGAL DEALER 



On the far, up[)er left-hand corner, is represented the illegal dealer. 
In this case, the dealer fails to keep records, or he falsifies records. 
He accepts, obviously, fraudulent idcnt ilicat ion. and tilings of this 
kind. 

In other words, the dealer is involved in the violation of the law. I 
might add liere tliat just last Friday, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, 



1375 

Tobacco and Firearms arrested eight firearms dealers in six counties 
ill Soutii Carolina. ))lus three athlitional employees, so that we are, in- 
sofar as we can, atteiiipiii<5 to eliminate this source of handguns for the 
criminal. 

FALSIFICATION 

In the center portion of the chart is the way in which the criminal 
can acquire a gun without the dealer's participation in the offense. In 
other words, it can be done in two ways. One, he can acquire false 
itleiititication. Under the 1968 (Jun Control Act, the dealer is required 
to have some form of positive identification. 

Mr. O'Riley. for example, informed me just this morning that they 
recently apprehended an individual in Virginia who was acquiring 
firearms who had, I think he said, 11 separate driver's licenses from 
various States and from Virginia. And so, false identification, while it 
does pose some problem in some States, is not a major barrier for the . 
criminal to overcome in acquiring a gun. 

Now the second way in which he could obtain a weapon from the 
unsuspecting dealer would be to falsely swear, on the firearms trans- 
action form which must be completed with the purchase of any gun, 
he would unlawfully swear that he was not, for example, a convicted 
felon when in fact he was; or, one of the other proscribed categories of 
individuals. 

ILLEGAL SALES 

On the far upper right, we have a situation where we have unlawful 
sales by individuals. And here, in this case, which we have depicted by 
dealing out of the trunk of a car, an individual can buy a handgun 
from a licensed dealer and then go out on the street and sell them to 
anybody who is willing to pay the price. 

This is particularly bad because he is usually — I will say almost 
invariably — he does not bother to keep records. He does not inquire as 
to the person's status as being proscribed, and so forth. 

The next one down is the individual sales. Now this one is merely 
the case where one individual sells to another and, of course, there is 
nothing improper under the 1968 Gun Control Act. 

On the next one down, of course, is the illegal manufacturer. We do 
have the manufacturer of penguns, which we have tried to stop. We do 
have the conversion of weapons from semiautomatic to fully automatic, 
which is illegal. So we have various methods. 

SMUGGLING 



On the far bottom left is the smuggling activity which we feel is 
negligible at this point in time, and, in fact, we would reverse and say 
that the United States is a source of weapons, rather than a market for 
weapons, from out of the country. 

And, of course, our sister agency in the Department of the Treas- 
sury — the U.S. Customs Service— is involved with us in prohibiting 
the smuggling tliat is done which, I say, I think is not a major source 
of guns for criminals. 

Just above that, we have theft. And we feel that this is a growing 
problem. We have theft from individuals. I have already indicated 
that tliis is, at a minimum, 100,000 thefts— private thefts— of guns a 
year. 



1376 



"Wg think it is considerably more than that. We have theft from 
interstate shipments. In other words, from the manufacturer of 
weapons tliat are destined for eitlior wholesalers or retail dealers, and 
dealers. 

80, those are the three main thefts, falsif^'ing with dealers shipments, 



and froju illegal dealers 



ILLEGAL 
MANUFACTURING 



05 






LOST SEIZED 
DESTROYED r 



hc^ 



,n,«r,.o|-.«»vj 



IMPORTED 






"do 



--^^.ooopooUN- „ 



40.000.000 
HANDGUNS 
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP 



r 



sales" 



TO CRIMINALS 




^ loaooo-^ 

PRIVATE 
THEFTS 





COMBATTING ILLEGAL GUN ACQUISITIONS 

Mr. Chairman, as I might briefly say, what we are doing in order, 
under existing law, to try to i)revent some of these acquisitions. In 
the case of the uiisci'upulous dealei". we do liaA'c coiii]ilianc(' insi:)ections 
in which both oui- inspectors and special agents visit the premises of li- 
censed dealers to determine if they are keeping their records in con- 
formance with Fedoi-al 1-aw, and, to the extent possible, to determine if 
they are making illegal sales. 

Probably our most successful method of operation in this area are 
undercover investigations by oui- s):)ecial agents. And, in fact, in the 
cases we made in South Carolina, this was accomplished by undercover 
agents. Generally an undercovei- agent will appear at a dealei-'s prem- 
ises and indicate he is a resident of another State, and have api)ropriate 
identification. 

ILLEGAL SALES 

And, if the dealer is inclined to violate Federal law, then he will 
illegally sell him a weapon. And, of course, in our gun tracing activities 
in which Ave trace weajions that are used in crime, many times tiiis will 
pinpoint dealers who have disposed of a large (juantity of guns which 
are used in crime. 

Mr. Chairman, I might say that at the present time that there are 
about 1.50.000 licensed firearms dealers in the Ignited States. Xow 



13(77 

we feci tliat tliis is a great deal too many in terms of people who are 
actually engaiied in conunei'tv, on the commei-c-ial scale, with firearms. 

AW' feel that if the number were reduced, and only those people 
who were proj)erly enoaovd in the business, then there would probably 
be no more than ;U),000 or 40,000 such dealers. We know that many of 
these people are nominal dealers, in the sense that they acquii-e a Fed- 
eral license which costs only $10, for the i)uri)ose of acquirin<i: firearms 
or annnunition at wholesale, or for the purpose of shippin*;: firearms 
interstate. 

Unfortunately, under existino- law, the criteria for issuinof a license 
are sufliciently lax tiiat we cannot eliminate this. Ag:ain I might say 
that Secretary Macdonald in outlining the Department of the Trea- 
sury's i)ositi()n, has indicated that the Treasury Department favors 
legislation which would increase or make more restrictive the qualifica- 
tions or criteria for issuing a license to a dealer. 

In addition to that, we have indicated that there are certain features 
such as the ability to suspend a license, or to accept an offer in com- 
promise for the renewal of an action against a license which would be 
very good administrative tools for use to have. 

FALSIFICATIOX 

In the case of falsification on the part of the purchaser of either 
identification or the transaction form, again our compliance inspections 
j)ick u}) some of these. Gun tracing picks up some, and we do routinely 
make purchase investigations if the indications arc that an illegal sale 
has occurred. 

Now, in the case of an illegal sale by unlicensed indivichials, this is 
a particularly difficult one. We do make some cases by the use of under- 
cover agents Avho make the multiple purchases from the unlicensed 
dealer. 

PROJECT! 
COMPOSITE GRAPH OF ALL CITIES SURVEYED 



8000 
7000 
6000 
5000 
4000 
3000 
2000 
1000 



7150 




^y'm 



mi 



3752 



3210 




CmES AND AREAS SURVEYED 1973 - 1174 
NEW VORK CITY 
ATLANTA 
OETROrr 
NEW ORLEANS 

DALLAS 
OENVEf) 
KANSAS OTY 
OAKLAND 

MIAMI 

DADE COUNTY 

MINNEAPOUS ST. PAUL 

PNILAOEIPHIA 

SEAHIE 



^^ HANDGUNS SUCCESSFULLY TRACED 

fe?v--:! SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS 

I I HANDGUNS FROM OUT OF STATE SOURCES 

^H * STOLEN (DOES NOT INCLUDE CITIES OF MIAMI/DADE CO ■ ST. PAUL/MNPLS - PHIL b SEAHLE 



1378 

But, more recently, and as a result of our Project Identification 
activities, we have discovered that many dealers — or, I should say 
many individuals — are <roinjj: to dealoi-s and pui-chasinp; large numbers 
of handguns; j)erhaps as uuuiy as oO or 100 at one time. 

And, under Federal law, there is nothing illegal about this so long 
as the person is not in the i)roscribed category. But as a result of 
this information ivflected by Pi'oject Identification, an ongoing in- 
vestigation, we have moved to recjuirc dealers to report multiple sales 
of handguns. 

This will be eti'ective as of July 1, 1975. and was published in the 
Federal Register. In othei- words, if a dealer sells more than one 
handgun to the same individual at the same tinie, or during 5 
consecutive business days, then he must report that fact to ATF on 
a simple form that he sends to the nearest ATF office. 

Wo are providing the dealer with a postei- to inform prospective 
purchasers of this fact. In other words, we would just as soon deter 
the practice as try to make cases after the fact. 

We recognize that there are some situations in which a person 
legitimately needs to buy more than one handgun at one time. The 
head of a security agency, to equip liis guards, or something of this 
kind. 

Of course in those cases, a very quick check will indicate that this 
individual has a legitimate reason for purchasing more than one 
handgun at a time. We feel this will be an important step in reducing 
the unlicensed and unlawful sale of handguns by people who are not 
dealers, 

IXDTVrnUAL SALES 

Of course there is absolutely nothing that we can do under existing 
law that would prevent one individual from sellingf a gun to another 
individual. Aiid, of course, with no record or questions asked. 

In the case of illegal manufacture, again criminal investigation is 
one of the areas that is very effective. In the last few months, we have 
made several seizui'os whei-c ]dants are making illegal penginis. Those 
are weapons which resemble fountain pens. They are very small 
caliber. In most cases, in the Detroit area, we seized an illegal manu- 
facturing i)lant that had about 1,500 of these either assembled or 
having sufficient component parts. 

In a place in Tennessee, we arrested an individual with a machine 
shop who manufactured about 100 or 150. In order to prevent this, and 
the conversion of those already on the market, we issued a pengun 
ruling which, again, is effective on July 1, 1975. Those weapons that 
are jjenguns — usually they are originally manufactured to expel tear- 
gas, but unfortunately tliey use standard-size ammunition — so, their 
conversion to fii-e bullets is relatively simple. 

In order to stop this source of guns for criminals, as of July 1 — that 
is, June 1, 1075, these nnist be treated as firearms under the Gun 
Control Act. They must — the manufacturer must be licensed. He must 
go thi-ough federally licensed dealers and records kept. 

In the theft area, we have several things that we have done here. 
Some months airo — since 1973, as a matter of fact — it came to our 
attention that about 1.000 guns a month were being stolen from inter- 
state shipments of firearms. 



1379 

INTERSTATE FIREARMS THEFT PROGRAM 

So, what \vo did in that case was to institute the interstate firearms 
theft pro<,nani. "We asked for the vohmtary cooperation of the inter- 
state carriei-s throufrhout the United States. And I must say, we re- 
ceived it wholeheartedly. Ajjain, they were given a form on which 
to report to ATF the loss or theft of weapons from interstate ship- 
ments; and, of course, were encouraged to call. 

"We think this has been effective directly. We started out, we were 
getting about 75 theft instance reports per month. Xow we are down 
to about 40 — i8, I believe. So there does appear to be a decrease in 
theft from interstate shipments. And I think there was an important 
side benefit. That was, that all of the carriers and manufacturers 
became much more security conscious. 

United Parcel Service, for example, has installed magnometers in 
some of their terminals. The firearms industry has returned to the 
practice of shipping firearms only in containerized ways. They are 
taken under security to the airport, or other point, and are met at the 
other end. 

So, we think tliat all of these things will serve to reduce theft in 
interstate shipment. 

Xow, in the case of individual thefts, of course there is a much 
greater problem. "We are seeking to make the individual owners of 
firearms more security conscious. "We are just now getting underway a 
public educational program in which we will use TV spots; radio 
spots. "We have had the services of rifleman Chuck Connors in some 
of these. The basic theme will be this ; that is, for the individual owner 
of firearms to keep his guns secure, out of sight, to record serial num- 
bers, to kee]) them apart from the gun, and to report thefts of firearms 
promptly either to his local police or to ATF. 

And Ave feel that, again, if we can make the owners of firearms more 
security conscious, that hopefully the theft of individually owned guns 
will decrease rapidly. 

There are thefts from dealers. "We ran a survey in our Midwest 
region which includes Chicago — I mean Illinois, and other Midwestern 
States. Based on that survey, and projecting it on a national basis, 
we feel there are about 35.000 firearms stolen from dealers each year, 
either individually by employees from their shopowners and in some 
cases, of course, by multiple numbers, through burglary or things of 
this kind. 

Mr. Chaii-man. we feel that one of the things that we do, that is, 
the tracing of firearms used in crime, not only is a valuable service to 
State and local law enforcement officers and to other Federal agencies 
and ourselves, but also it generates a great deal of useful information. 



1380 



PROJECT 'T 



HANDGUNS TRACED 



3000 



2000 



1000 



\ 



NEW YORK 



HANDGUNS TRACED 



3000 



2000 



1000 



l"-rn 



^. 



ZM 283 



s n 



' I' , 



' — "^ 



ATLANTA 



DETRDfT 



NEW ORLEANS 



DALLAS 



DENVER 











1 ' OASS C b -SATUROAV NIGKT SPtTIMr 










UTHER HANDGUNS 






«s 




1 •; j STOlfll 

^i;s| OUT Of STATI SOURCt 

J7» 




^ ^ 9 « 


inW 111 




^^ ^-T^ ' ^ rn»r 



KANSAS Cmr OAKLAND MIAMI DADE ST. PAUlj 

COUNTY VINNEAPOUS 



SEATTLE PHILADaPHW 



NATIONAL FIREARMS TRACING CENTER 



36^ 
33^0 
30,000 
27,000 
244)00 
21,000 
18,000 
15,000 
12,000 

%m 

6,000 

2m 



TOTAL TRACES 
RECEIVED 



CENTRALIZED TRACING 
STARTED OCT. 1972 

3.442 

1,223 



1 



23,839 




33,184 




TRACE REQUESTS 
FROM STATE & 
LOCAL LAW ENF. 



FIREARMS 
LOST OR 
STOLEN 
(FACTORY - 
RETAILER - 
IN TRANSIT) 



1972 



1973 



1974 



1381 



FIREARMS TRACm SUPPORT 
TO SPECIAL AGENTS 



NUMBER OF % OF YES 

YES RESPONSES RESPONSES 

DID TRACE ASSIST 

IN IDENTIFYING 

THE VIOLATOR? 55 27.5 

DID TRACE ASSIST 

IN THE INVESTIGATION? 147 73.5 

DID TRACE ASSIST 

IN MAKING A CASE? 84 42.0 



FROM RANDOM SAMPLING OF 200 TRACES 
REQUESTED DURING OCTOBER 1974 

Durino; the year 1974, we traced 33,184 weapons that were suspected 
or known to have been used in crime. And, of that number, 17,797 
were requests from State and local law enforcement organizations. So 
that over 50 percent were at the request of State and local agencies. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SURVEY 

The Chairman. You are in the process of a survey for the District 
of Coknnbia I Is that true ? 

Mr. Daats. Yes, sir. 

The Chairmax. What is the status of that ? 

.Mr. Davis. I have the figures with me. Unfortunately, we started 
that, I think, on May 12tli. following our conversations and it has 
been so early that we only have about 67 of the forms in. We have 
sucessfully traced 60 percent of them. We think we have traced .3 
more, but at least we have the results on 36 of the guns picked up in 
the District of Columbia. And this is the way that they break out. 

Seven of the weapons had their soui'ce in the District of Columbia. 
In other words, through dealers. They were acouired from dealers in 
the District of Columbia. One was from Kentucky, eight from Mary- 
land, three from Ohio, one from Oklahoma, one from South Carolina, 
12 from Virginia, three from West Virginia. 

Mr. Chairman. I may say that this has followed a pattern, our 
Project Identication activities, in 16 other cities. We have found 



1382 

that in those areas where they have restrictive gun laws such as the 
State of New York, or the State of Micliigan, that there is a very 
liitrh ratio of jruns used in crinio in those cities, such as Detroit and 
New York, from outside of tliat State. 

In the case of New York, there were 70-some percent of the weapons 
used in street crime in New York who liad their source outside of the 
State of New York. In the case of our survey of Detroit, there the 
ratio was 02 pcM-ccnt. 

So we think throughout we have developed a very definite pattern 
of tlie flow of weapons from States with noniestrictive firearms laws, 
to States where they have restrictive ones. In other words, it appears, 
on tlie basis of our surveys, that a restrictive local law is not very 
effective. 

The Chairman. At our request — was our request for Metropolitan 
Washinofton? Oi- just for the District of Columbia? 

Mr. Davis. Metropolitan Washington. 

The Chairman. So you are running your .survey for contiguous 
counties to the District ? Montgomery County, Fairfax ? 

]\Ir. DA^^s. Yes. 

The CiTATR:\rAN. Those fiirures that yon just mentioned were made 
strictly within the District of Columbia's boundaries? Or did they 
include the others? 

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. While we have .some requests from some of the 
other areas, the ones I read were only from the District of Columbia. 

w^asiiington metropolitan area 

The Chairman. Do you have any results from the contiguous areas 
that you could share at this point ? 

IMr. Peterson. Very liimted. In the short time that we have had, we 
have had one from ^faryland and four traces from Arlington, Va., 
and one trace from Prince William County's Police Department. 

The Chair:man. What part of Maryland ? 

Mr. Peterson. I think it was Hyattsville. It Avas Hyattsville. 
Hyattsville Police Department. 

Mr. Davis. ^Ir. Chaii-man. I miofht say that we intend to, of course, 
pursue this Project Identification for a period of 3 months from 
the time that we initiated, foUowincr oui- conversations with vou, 
and certainly as they come in we will make them available to the 
committee. 

I think that it will be very interesting. I think that I can predict 
now that we will see the source of guns in the District of Columbia 
being on the high side in the State of Virginia, wliich has very non- 
restrictive guns laws. 

I might say that we found, in our survey of Philadelphia, a like 
situation that a large luuuber of the guns used in Philadelphia's 
street crime came from Virginia. It is interesting to note, for example, 
that in noithern cities such as New York, Philadelpia, and places 
of that kind, that the guns a])pear to come, for example, from Virginia 
and South Carolina. Yet. North Carolina, which has a more restrictive 
law, has a waiting period and there has to be a permit approved by 
the local law enforcement head — the sheritl' oi- chief of police, that 
there are hardly any guns that we see turning up in street crime in 



1383 

the northern cities that had their source in Xorth Carolina. They 
seem to by-pass it. 

I mi.o-lit sav, too. tliat one of tlio useful benefits of Project Identifica- 
tion, I believe, is the fact that it does alert the authorities in a source 
State such as South Carolina, to the problems. I notice the South 
Carolina Legislature has addressed itself to this problem. Our repre- 
sentatives have appeared before committees in order to advise them. 

So this is, 1 think, an added benefit. It does let the various juris- 
dictions know what the problems are on their borders. 

STATE LAW8 

Mr. Harris. I am not clear on the difference between gun laws in, 
say. the State of Pennsylvania and Virginia. What is the difference 
to which you refer? 

Mr. Davis. Right now, the situation in Philadelphia is somewhat 
confused because, my understanding is. that the city of Philadelphia 
passed a very restrictive gun ordinance, a city ordinance, that the 
State Legislature of Pennsylvania enacted a law which, in effect, 
withdrew to the State all responsibility for all gun legislation, so there 
is some question there about the validity of the city ordinance for the 
city of Philadelphia. 

For example, the total project in Philadelpia, where there was a 
3-month period we successfully traced 571 guns. We were submitted 
993, and, of course, a percentage are not traceable. Xow, 54 percent 
had their source in Pennsylvania — I am sorry, 571 guns traced, 306 
from Pennsylvania, 5-1 from Virginia — that is 9 percent — 48 from 
South Carolina, 8 percent; 31 from Florida, 5 percent; Georgia, 24 
guns or 4 percent. Each of those States, after Pennsylvania, of course, 
each of those States has — I would characterize each of those States as 
not having strong State laws. 

PENNSYLVANIA GUN LAW 

i 

Mr. Harris. This is what I understood from your testimony. What 
I was asking was, what is the difference between the Pennsylvania law 
and the Virginia law with respect to that ? 

Mr. Davis. Keferring to the Pennsylvania State laws — and I hope 
it is still operative— no seller shall deliver a firearm to the purchaser 
thereof until 48 hours shall have elapsed from the time of the applica- 
tion, of course, and so forth. Then it goes on to say the statement to 
be signed by purchaser at the time of applying for the purchase of 
a firearm, the purchaser shall sign in quadruplicate and deliver to the 
seller a statement containing his full name, address, occupation, color, 
place of birth, date and hour of the application, caliber and length 
of barrel, make, model and manufacturer's number of firearm to be 
purchased, and a statement that he has never been convicted in this 
Commonwealth, or elsewhere, of a crime of violence. The seller shall 
within C^ hours after such application sign and attach and forward by 
registered or certified mail one copy of such a statement to the chief 
of head of the police force or Police Department for the city, or the 
sheriff, or county, and so forth. 



1384 



VIRGINIA GUN LAW 



Mr. Harris. I think I understand the nature of the law now. As I 
understand it, Vii-giniu does not have a similar statute. Is that the 
point 'i 

Mr. Davis. That is my understanding. Mr. O'Riley, are you familiar 
with the ^'il•ginia law ? 

Mr. O'KiLEY. It is under the local option. 

Mr. Harris. And there is no over-all State statute in Virginia that 
applies similar standards? Frankly, those standards are not very im- 
pressive to me. I drafted and had adopted in Fairfax County one that 
talks about a T-tlay, rather than a 48-hour lapse ol" time, so. at least, 
the police had a chance to make clearance on the person trying to jnir- 
chase the weapon. What you are saying, is that the problem is that 
Pennsylvania does have a statewide application of this type of re- 
quirement, and Virginia does not, and, apparently, South Carolina 
does not. The tou.'ih standard in North Carolina is basically similar 
to what you have told me about in Pennsylvania ? 

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. I might say that Mr. O'Riley is our special 
agent in charge of Falls Church and covers this area, and he says 
that it is common practice in Virginia, for example, for a person com- 
ing down into the State to shop ; in other words, if he stops in Arling- 
ton County and he finds out that he has to make certain inquiries, he 
just goes down to the next county. 

Mr. Harris. The next county is Fairfax, and he cannot do it there. 
But he can go down to Loudoun or Fauquier and get a gun. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. I would appreciate making note of this testi- 
mony because I think the General Assembly of Virginia should be 
apprised of the testimony given here if, in fact, it is not only affecting 
the safety of Virginia, but apparently it affects Philadelphia. I think 
they should know about it. 

The Chairman. I am sure they will, following his testimony and 
your knowledge of the implications of it. Do you have further 
comments ? 

Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, this is a representation 

The Chairman. As a matter of fact, one of the things that could 
come out of these hearings with respect to the surrounding jurisdic- 
tions, and it might be an observation such as that directed to them over 
the signature of the chairman of the committee and the interested 
member, and, perhaps, the minority would join us in addressing a com- 
munication to the speaker of the house and the president of the 
assembly in Vir.rrinia and in Maryland. 

Mr. Harris. I would certainly applaud such a procedure because I 
would love to have the loadei's of the geiieral asscMiibly hear the testi- 
mon}- that I have just heard. I am sure they do not want Treasury 
officials saying that about Vir.frinia, and the general assembly is going 
to meet in January, and T would like for them to know about that. 

Mr. Davis. Perhaps, this follows on from the observations that have 
been made, but for the last several months we have been conducting 
Project Identification in the major metropolitan areas of the United 
States. We have now completed 10 of them, and we hope, when all of 
them are done, to uiake a compilation, and we think it would be very 
useful for various purposes indicated here. I think there is a very clear 



1385 

pattern that will emerge though this particular chart represents — I 
might, just by wa}' of explanation, say that in those cities where we 
conduct Project Identification, we work closely with the local authori- 
ties. "What happens when they recover guns that are used in street 
crime in that city, they fill out a form 5000, which identifies the 
weapon and tells what kind of crime it was involved in and this sort 
of thing. They bring it to our National Firearms Tracing Center where 
it iS traced back to the dealer who sold it. Now, this then becomes the 
source of the gun originating, and we try — I might say we are getting 
more sophisticated with each four cities — we have taken these by fours 
and each four cities we have been refining the kinds of information we 
have been obtaining. 

For example, starting with the second four, we started determining 
what role the pawn shop played, and I think in four of them we found 
that about 37 percent of these crime weapons — if you can characterize 
them as that — had gone through pawn shops, and this varies by the 
area of the country. At any rate, the 12 cities represented on this are 
New York, Atlanta, Detroit, New Orleans, which were the first four ; 
Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, and Oakland, the second four; and the 
Miami/Dade County area, the St. Paul-Minneapolis area, Seattle area, 
and the Philadelphia area. 

As I say, we have four more that we are winding up. Again, if you 
look at New York and Detroit, where they have restrictive laws, either 
city or State or both, you have a high ratio of out-of-State weapons 
that have come in. I think the over-all results, you will see that of the 
7,150 handguns traced in the first 12 cities, that 3,752 of them, or well 
over half, came from sources outside of the jurisdiction where they 
were used in crime. I might sa}', too. that one of the features we want 
fo determine here — and, of course, we have a very great breakdown of 
these — we want to find out what kinds of guns are being used in 
crimes. So, we divided it into three classes. Class 1 was a gun that cost 
over $100, a handgim. All of these are handguns. Class 2 was a gun 
that cost between $50 and $100 and c]ass3 Mere gims that cost less than 
$50, and these were what we characterized as "Saturday night 
specials". 

"SATURDAY XIGHT SPEOIAI^" 

There has been a great deal of debate over what a definition of a 
"Saturday night special" is, but for our purposes and merely for this 
l)roject, because, in fact, we are not pushing it. we took the criteria 
that it cost less than $50 ; it had a 3-inch barrel or less, and was .32 
caliber or less. Now, in order for a gun to qualify, it had to be all three 
criteria, not just one or two, so we feel it is a very tough definition of a 
"Saturday night special." It is concealable, cheap, in terms of price. 

Of the 7,150 that Ave traced in the first 12 cities. 3.210 were found 
within this category of class 3, or "Saturday night specials." We're 
finding a fairly significant number of stolen Aveapons being used in 
such ci'ime — it varies, of coui-se. from city to city — but, I think it will 
come out to around the 7-percent figure, between 7 and 10 percent. 



1386 



GREENVILLE PROJECT 

(SURVEY OF HANDGUN SALES BY LICENSED 
DEALERS IN GREENVILLE. S.C. (5/1/74 ■ 10/31/74) 




1387 

GREENVILLE PROJECT 

When wo dotenninoci that South Carolina was an important source — 
in fact, the most important source of handguns used in New York 
street crime — then we took several actions to try to find out more about 
it. What we call our Greenville project — we went to Greenville and 
picked the 17 largest dealers in the Greenville area and took (heir 
sales records for 6 months, and we found that, doing this, that there 
were over 2,000 handguns that had been sold by the 17 dealers in 6 
months. In order to determine to what degree persons who should not 
have bought them were buying them, we ran the names of all 2,000 
through the FBI name check, and we got back a figure of 225 — I 
belie\e that is correct^ — 215 ; that is, w^io had arrest records indicated 
on the FBI name check. 

Now, obviously, we had to run those down because many times no 
disposition was shown. So, in other words, about 10 percent of those 
people who purchased a gun had some kind of an arrest record. In 
running those down, it came down to 70 convicted felons, or about 3 
percent, that under Federal law should not have purchased the fire- 
arm, and they lied on their statements, and so forth. 

Then, we went one step further and reviewed the individual cases, 
wherever the}' were convicted. Some of them were many years old, 
some of them had not been adequately represented by counsel, or for 
other reasons we did not consider them to constitute acceptable Fed- 
eral cases, but, eventually, working with the U.S. attorney's office, we 
came down to 26 of those purchases who could be prosecuted under 
Federal law for acquiring a firearm by fraudulently executing the 
form, and, in fact, in April we arrested and issued warrants for all of 
them. I found that 4 of them were in jail elsewhere; we arrested 21 
and so forth. 

And, so, this is a case of not only — I might say some of the people 
had already used the guns and had violated the law — but not only do 
we feel that this kind of project, not only, perhaps, keeps the guns out 
of the hands of these people who should not have them, but also gives 
us some information about the activity going on at this level. 

In order to try to validate our findings, we are initiating the same 
kind of a project in a midwestern city of comparable size to Greenville 
to see if there are any characteristics in Greenville that would not 
make it a true sample. 

Mr. Fauxtroy. "Would you explain the circle opposite 2,047 pur- 
chasers ? What does "'possible unlicensed dealers" mean ? 

Mr. Davis. Yes ; I am sorry. In other words, they were a number of 
multiple sales of handguns. I think, Mr. Fauntroy, before you arrived, 
I was talking a little bit about the procedures that we begin on July 1, 
1975. where dealers must report to ATF the sale of more than one 
handgim to the same individual at the same time, or within 5 consecu- 
tive days, but those cases are the ones where the individual who made 
the purchase bought more than one. and I forget now the largest 
number. I do not think we have it there. At any rate, it varied from 
various numbers. I think, maybe, the highest was something like 50 
handguns. 

We feel that those people who do that probably are violating Fed- 
eral law by reselling them without having a proper Federal license. 



1388 

Mr. Fauxtroy. So, 324 people purchased the 875 onns in multiples, 
and you suspect that they were unlicensed, but you ha\e no way of 

Mr. Davis. No, sir, that is correct. Now, it may be that, following up 
on tluit project, that we will make some cases against individuals who 
have purchased several handguns with the idea of reselling them with- 
out obtaining a license. 

The Ciiair:max. In tracing down tliose 20-some-odd cases you re- 
ferred to, were you satisfied that the dealers involved in those cases 
were actually deceived, or did you find any complicity there? 

Mr. Davis. Xo. sir. As far as 1 know, we did not find any complicity. 
It is very dilKcult to prove. In those cases, you assume that eitlier the 
individual had proper identification or false identification that was 
given and would be acceptable to the dealer under the law. As I indi- 
cated eai'lier. just last P'riday we did make cases on eight licensed 
dealers in South Carolina. They were not necessaril}' related to the 
Greenville project, 

AVell, Mr. Chairman. T think that constitutes our presentation. I 
hope that in this way we have given you the frami^vork of the situa- 
tion and certainly, any further questions the committee may have, I 
will be happy to respond to. 

The CHAiR:\rAN'. Thank you very much. You have set forth a very 
compi-ehensive framework and a ver}- impressive approach to this 
w'hole matter. ^Nlost of your testimony has been general, and I wonder 
if you would care to apply this to the local jurisdiction in a high- 
lighted way. Out of your analysis and out of the various components 
of your presentation here, wliat has impressed you as being the princi- 
pal problems involved in this local jurisdiction? 

FIREARMS IMPORTED TO DISTRICT 

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. Well I think, even on the early returns, that 
we can show that the District of Columbia, for example, with its fire- 
arms laws, that it has on the books at the present time, that it is fairly 
easily circuui vented by the introduction of weapons from outside of 
the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. 

I know from looking at Chief Cullinane's statistics that there are 
over 3,000 weaj^ons recovered by the ])olice in the Disti'ict of (\)lumbia. 
I know that a significant number of those are Saturday night specials, 
by even the ATF definition, so that, again, it seems the cheap, easily 
concealed handgun represents a particular pi-oblem. not only in terms 
of its acquisition, but in terms of its concealai)ility. I would say that 
in those areas when we conducted T^i'oject Identification we lent 
assistance to the local authorities, and it does give them a picture of 
where the guns are coming fi'om in their area. It also gives them a 
very complete picture of what kinds of guns aiv being used. 

I would hay. also, that I think it probably has l)een demonstrated, 
through our information acquired undei- Project Identification, that 
a stiingent local law — even at the State level — does not effectively 
prevent the introduction of weapons into that area. 

The Chairman. I wonder, counsel, if you could give us some exam- 
ples of how the inadequacy of local laws has frustrated jirosecution 
of those who are in violation locally in connection with this gun con- 



1389 

trol matter^ Statistics have boon rci)rescnted here, and, obviously, 
there are ^aps between the number of people arrested and the number 
of people finally prosecuted and convicted. It seems to reflect, among 
other tliino-s. ujxm the adequacy of local law. and I just wondered 
what your observat ions are with respect to the problems of prosecuting 
present laws as they apply to this matter? 

Mr. Dkssi,ki{. 1 do not really feel that competent. I am not able to 
address myself to that aspect of it. It primarily deals with the prosecu- 
tion policy in the 1.8. attorney's oHice of the Department of Justice. 
I am not really that familiar with that aspect of it, sir. 

The CnimrAX. Well, I guess what, in essence, I am seeking here is 
some evaluation fi'om your point of view about statutes in this juris- 
diction that apply to the matters under your jurisdiction, the weak- 
nesses in existing statutes that need to be tightened. As I recall, I 
think the gentleman referred to several cases earlier in his testimony, 
and I assumed those repivsented part of what you perceive to be 
niade(iuacies in local law, because you have had actual cases. This 
is the soil: of thing I am talking about because this committee is 
going to be concerned with revisions of the local statutes. AVe have 
continuing jurisdiction over that. The City Council cannot make any 
amendments to the local criminal acts until 1977 if, in fact, the Law 
Revision Commission has com])leted its work and if they have not, 
that might be extended, but, in any event, we have joint jurisdiction 
over the provisions of the acts, and so we were interested in knowing 
what your leconnnendations are. You made recommendations to the 
Bayh committee and, obviously, to the Conyers committee, as it ap- 
plies on a national basis. Of course, you already referred to what you 
perceived to be an. inhei-ent weakness in local laws be effective in this 
area, and, perhaps, that is why you are a little hesitant about suggest- 
ing anything, but if that is the case, we would like to know. 

FEDERAL GUN COXTROL REQUISITE 

Mr. Davis. Well, sir, I might say that we agree that the firearms 
problem ultimately has to be the responsibility of the State and local 
jurisdictions. It is such a tremendous problem". I guess really what we 
are saying in that respect, though, is that, if all 50 of the States Avould 
enact restrictive legislation in terms of insuring that only qualified 
individuals acquire firearms and after an appropriate check, then I 
think that this Avould be an effective system of control of firearms. I 
think that it is pretty obvious that that is not going to occur, or, at 
least, is not going to occur within, maybe, my lifetime, where all 
States would do that. I guess what T am coming down to is the 
fact that there has to be Federal legislation in order to assist those 
States that want to have restrictive legislation in preventing guns 
from coming into their jurisdiction. 

I wonder if T might ask Mr. O'Riley, since he is very close to the 
situation, if he has i)erceived any areas in terms of local statutes? 

I will repeat what he said, and, if he has additional comments, we 
will ask him to make them. p:ssentiallv, he points out something that, 
I think, does present a problem, and that is. there are different defini- 
tions applying to firearms between not only the Federal and State 



1390 

level, but probably between the various rity and State laws: so that, 
many times, von are reallv workinji towanl dillerent ends and prob- 
ably" they should all be workin<r witliin the same definition, at least of 
what is "a firearm, or what is a restrictive weapon. 

T know, for example, in some cases that State laws are more re- 
strictive than Federal laws, such as the definition of a machinegun. 
In Ohio, for example, any weapon that has a clip of more than 30 
rounds becomes a machine<r"n within the definition in State law. and 
it would not be a marhine'Tun within the definition of Federal law. 
The test is whetlier it fires more than one round in a sin.Tle pull of 
the trifrger. so this mio^ht be one area that the committee mig:ht con- 
sider— ^the similarity and identical nature of definitions in the firearms 
statutes. 

The Cttairmax. Do you think that you have done all that you could 

do administratively? 

Mr. Davis. No. sir, we have not, primarily because. 1 think, of 
resource problems. Tliere are a number of thinirs that could be done 
toward more effective administration of the Federal laws, with addi- 
tional resources. To pinpoint some of them — for example, we issued 
importation permits. This merely authorizes the individual to import 
that particular kind of pnm. It gfives us an opportunity to insure that 
it is imported. Then, when the gun is actually introduced into the 
country, there was a form 6-A, which is stamped by the Customs 
Service, indicatinof that this number of gnns has been introduced into 
the Ignited States. 

Unfortunately, the number of these are so trreat that it would take 
a computer operation to match up the 6-A's against the 6's to insure 
that you know exactly hoAv many guns were being inti'oduced into 
the United States and to follow up and make sure that they had ar- 
rived at their intended and legal destination. 

DEALERS 

So, this is one area, just the sheer mass of numbers. For example, 
as I indicated earlier, we have 156,000 licensed firearms dealers. Xow. 
obviously, these people should be visited, not only in the terms of 
assistance, to make sure they know what they are supposed to do, but 
also to detect irregularities or violations of the law. 

The Chairman. How many of those are in the local iurisdiction that 
we are talking about and what is tlie manpower problem there? 

Mr. Davis. We only visited 30,000 dealers and probably some of 
them were visited more than once. At that rate, it means that we 
would never get around to all 156.000 of them, except once every 5 
years. So tliat is one reason why the Department of Treasury feels 
that it would really assist control of the movement of firearms if tlie 
criteria were increased to cut down the number of dealers to only those 
who are actually commercially involved in the business. 

DEALERS in the METROPOLITAN AREA 

The Chairman. If you could provide for tlie record tlie ninn])er of 
dealers witliin this Metropolitan "Washington area? 
^Nfr. Davis. Yes, sir. The number is 1,066. 



1391 

The Chairman. 1,066 in the District of Cohmibia and in the con- 
tiguous Virginia and Maryland counties that are licensed to sell? 

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. I will give you the exact nunibei- in the District. 
That includes the metropolitan area. 

The Chairman. And the enforcement inspection personnel involved 
in monitoring these people for the local area, how many work out of 
that Falls Church office? 

Mr. Davis. Well, sir, what we are trying to do is to use our inspec- 
tors Avhich are our regulatory types rather than our special agents or 
criminal law enforcement types to make these kinds of visits. But I am 
sorry to say that we only iiavo one inspector in this area. 

The Chairman. What about the local law enforcement people? Is 
there any way that they might be able to help you with these 
inspections? 

Mr. Davis. Well, sir, of course, again, you run into the varying 
degrees of regulation of dealers of firearms, so that they could not do 
it to see if they were in compliance with the Federal law, but only with 
respect to State laws. So that 

The Chairman. Well, that is easy enough to work out, is it not? I 
mean, the local jurisdictions cooperate in other areas. The Park Police 
and the local police cooperate in many areas. I do not know what, in 
terms of manpower and hours, we are talking about here, but if you 
have 1,000 dealers locally, and you have a gentleman from Falls 
Church with a small staff, this would be one of the areas, one of the 
things that we have talked about all during these hearings; that is, 
cooperation among the various law enforcement components within 
the area. And that would appear to me to be one of them. 

IDENTIFYING GUN PURCHASERS 

I wonder about the identification. For example, what problems 
would there be in acquiring picture identification or even fingerprints? 

Mr. DA\as. Well, sir, that is one of the problems that we have en- 
countered. For example, a driver's license is acceptable to a dealer as 
a means of identification. In the State of Pennsylvania, of course, 
there is no picture — at least there was not a few months ago; I assume 
that there still is not. So this is not a very good means of identification. 

The Chairman. Well, pictures are required in Michigan; I have 
mine right in my pocket, and I do not mind having my picture taken. 

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. For example, I do not want to pick on the State 
of Virginia, where I make my home, but the method they use in Vir- 
ginia and described by Mr. O'Riley, is to give a temporary license. 
You immediately, within 15 minutes I think it is, you get a picture 
portion of your driver's license, plus a temporary slip. And a person 
coming into Virginia with an out-of-State license can acquire one of 
those very readily and this is commonly used to go in to a dealer and 
say, here I am. 

The Chairman. And a fingerprint is required in Michigan for a 
license for the possession of a handgun. I see nothing wrong with that. 
The civil liberty purists who have objections look upon this as possibly 
a means for categorizing people and putting them into a computer for 
tracing down later on, and I do not take a back seat to any of the civil 
libertarians, but I think that that is carrying it too far. There are use- 



1392 

fill ways of iisinp: this kind of identification that outweigh the possi- 
bility tliat there inifrlit l)e misuse. 
I yield to the gentleman from the District, Mr. Faimtroy. 

DEFICIENCIES IN DISTRICT GUN LAWS 

Mr. Fauntroy. You indicated that the present District of Columbia 
laws are relatively easily circumvented, as to the acquisition of liand- 
guns. Arc you familiar at all with the legislation presently being con- 
sidered by the local Council ? 

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir, in general terms. 

Mr. Fauxtroy. To what extent do you think that that would shore 
up some of the loopholes in the law ? 

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. Well, certainly I think that if I understand the 
legislation that is being considered, it would strengthen the law within 
the District of Columbia. However, I do not believe it would do very 
much toward preventing the introduction of firearms into the District 
of Columbia from the surrounding jurisdictions. I think that the situ- 
ation with respect to that would be pretty much the same. 

Mr. Fauntroy. You are telling us that for 1,066 dealers, there is one 
inspector in this area? 

Mr. Davis. I might say that in this area, where we do not have 
enough inspectors, that I am sure that our special agents are visiting 
these dealers, particularly the ones that are suspected of doing some- 
thing, you know, if they are suspect in some way. We have 22 agents 
in our Falls Church office that cover the District of Columbia, the 
northern Virginia counties, and some counties in Maryland. And Mr. 
O'Riley tells me that we have a variable number of inspections of 
dealers by his agents. 

SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS 

Mr. Fauntroy. To what extent would the anticipated ban on the 
sale of Saturday night specials have upon traffic within the District of 
Columbia? 

Mr. Davis. My best recollection is — from the District of Columbia 
records — is that a percentage of Saturday night specials, as defined by 
US, is somewhere in the neighlwrhood of 25 percent overall — or 22.4 
percent of those few that we have alreadv traced. But it would cer- 
tainly be speculative — the degree to which a ban on Saturday night 
specials would reduce the traffic of handguns in the District of 
Columbia. In other words. I am certain it would have some impact but 
whether or not tjie ci-iminal would merely move to a higher priced 
or difl'erent tyi)e of gun, this is just speculation. 

Xow, one thing about it, the Saturday night special ban, the one that 
the Treasurv Depai-tment has jx)sed. would go to concealabilitv, so 
that it would make — guns that could be imported into this country 
would l)e less ronceahible. For example, none of tlie tliree guns on the 
far riijht of the board over thei-e could be manufactured in this 
country. And in order to qualifw they would have to be biirger and 
therefni-e. they would be less concealable and less of a threat to citizens 
and the i)()lice. 

Mr. Fattntroy. Do I understand that that Belgian automatic there 
is a special ? 



1303 

~Mv. Davis. That weapon is a veiy expensive automatic, and it was 
not proluhited from heiiiir impoit(Ml by the (xun (^ontrol Act of 1968. 

Mr. Fauntroy. Do 1 understand fuilher that the 22 percent fig^ure 
that you <rave us applies to tlie number of, the percentage of use of 
Saturday niuclit specials in crimes? 

Mr. Davis. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Fauxtroy. That roujildy 77 percent 

Mr. Davis. Xo, sir. Of course, it varies a great deal. I think my best 
recollection is that in New York City it is about 50 percent. In other 
words, nationwide — and T am afraid oui- T^istrict of Columbia sample 
is so small up till now — that nationwide, throughout the 16 cities that 
we have entered, metropolitan areas, that about 50 percent of them are 
Saturday night specials under our definition, which is a very restric- 
tive definition. It has to be less than $50 in price, the barrel must be 
three inches or less, and it has to be .32 caliber or less. 

Mr. Fauntroy. That is why I was concerned about the preliminary 
findings on the District of Columbia that the figure is down to 22 per- 
cent, and that apparently the giuis used in crime here would not be 
stifiled in atiy \\a3- — well, relatively minimally — by a Saturday night 
special ban. 

Mr. Davis. Of course, again, the reason we use this very restrictive 
definition, only for oui' project identification purposes, was because by 
using til is one we did not have to have the gun actually in our hands. 
In other words, the description entered by the police on form 5000 is 
sufficient to make a categorization of the gun. 

Xow, obviously a gun that cost $50, that has a two-inch barrel, and 
is .88 caliber, I would think, is certainly a Saturday night special, by 
anybody's definition. l-Jut it Avould not be in case. We very frankly 
wanted to use a very conserA^atiA'c definition. We did not want to seem 
to be stacking the deck and so I think by almost any Saturday night 
special definition, this figure would go up considerably. 

BAX ox M VX-UFACTURIXG 

Mr. Fauntroy. I have one more question, jNIr. Chairman, and that 
is, could you give mo an estimate of the economic impact of a ban on 
the manufacture of handguns in this country ? 

]Mr. Davis. Well, sir, we know that those companies Avhose produc- 
tion of Satuixlay night specials is high — in other words, we have lists 
of them with over 50 percent of their production being Saturday night 
special type weapons — but by and large, our experience is that these 
are — I do not want to call them Johnny-come-lately firms, but I think 
that is probably pretty accurate. Many of them were companies that 
spi'ang up after the 1068 Gun Control Act was passed. I would say 
that — and of coui'se in dollai"s and cents, it is going to be very difficult, 
because we do not k)iow to wliat extent the production is going to be 
replaced by better quality guns — but I Avould say that none of your 
major domestic manufacturers, the Colt, Harrington. Richards, 
Stearn, Ruirer. is really going to be very hard hit by this kind of a bill 

Mr. Fauntroy. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Mr. Harris. 

Mr. Harris. Thank you, ]\Ir. Chairman. 

I am just sittiuir here appalled by the idea that we are equipping 
])eople with 35,000 handguns per5^ear. 



1394 

One question — is it possible — have you, or is it possible to develop 
figures with regard to the definition of the Saturday night special with 
various alternatives as to liow tinich the manufacture would cover? 
For example, if the definition was below $100 instead of below $50, 
how much — has this type of work been done, statistical work? Do you 
know ? 

Mr. Davis. In other words, what we can do in that case is, we have 
our class 2 weapon, which is in the range between $50 and $100. We 
could add class 8. which is less than $50, and then we could give you 
a total which would show you what percentage of these weapons we 
traced fell in that — in other words, T think it could be extended, a 
projection could be extended on that basis. 

Mr. Harris. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this type of statisti- 
cal analysis would be really helpful for us to get a feel as to 

The CiiAiioiAN. Well, if the gentleman can provide that to the com- 
mittee, we will leave the record open nt this point for this purpose. 

The Chairman. Minority Counsel Christian. 

Mr. Chrtsttax. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. 

First. I think that A\e have veiy iri'eat interest in fono^^■inir up on the 
results of the survey and also wholeheartedly endorse your suggestion 
Mr. Chairman, with respect to transmitting to the area jurisdictions 
the results of that imder a cover letter by the chairman joined by mem- 
bers of the committee. 

GUN REGULATIONS RECOMMENDED 

I have some questions, Mr. Chairman, in the area of the combination 
of various laws and their impact possibly on the flow of guns, especiallv 
small handguns, into the District. It seems to me, Mr. Davis, that all 
your testimony points to the fact that we cannot focus on any particu- 
lar aspect of gun regulation, but it has to be a stiffening up of all of the 
laws with respect to not only registration but importation, exchange 
and confiscation. With that in mind. I wonder if you could present to 
us, just from your own experience, what you think would 1^ the most 
effective combination of regulation covering the whole spectrum of 
ideas. 

Mr. Davis. If I can preface this by saying that, as I have indicated 
earlier, the Department of the Treasury has cfone on record as making 
certain proposals, and I would feel restrained from going beyond those 
proposals. But I can give you sort of a range of alternatives that cer- 
tainly have been considered and things of this kind, if that would be 
useful to you. 

GUN REGISTRATION 

One of the areas, of course, as you have indicated, is registration, in 
^hich — and it can be accomplished in two ways. One way is to associate 
a given gun with a given individual, so that if a gun is used in crime, 
for example, it can then be identified with a given individual and this 
provides a strong investigative lead in the solution of a crinie. Another 
way the gims can be registered would be without associating it with 
the name of an ijidividual ; in other words, you can have a gun and you 
could have the records of it that would he associated Avith a particular 
dealer, say, so that if a gun were used in crime, you could immediately 



1395 

say this is the dealer who sold it. And of course, by referring to his 
records, you could find out who the first purchaser was. 

GUN LICENSING 

Another area, of course, is licensinc;. Of course, this is contemplated 
— this would be a system, I would say at the Federal level, where, much 
as the chairman indicated a minute ago. a person could apply for a 
Federal permit, we will call it, which would permit him to acquire, 
purchase, and possess handguns, and the directions on it would have 
the picture of the individual, plus perhaps a physical description and a 
number, or something of this kind. So that, if the individual wanted 
to purchase a firearm, the dealer would enter that license number or 
Federal permit number, if you wanted to call it that, on the records. 

This would, again, give you certainly a degree of control. It would, 
I think, assist State and local officers to some degree, if in fact, there 
was an investigation at the time the application was received, in other 
woids. it was not just a pi'o forma issuance, if in fact, it was deter- 
mined that the applicant was not a felon or otherwise proscribed from 
acquiring it under Federal law. 

GUN CONFISCATION 

Then, of course, as there have been suggestions of confiscation with 
or without compensation, so that, in effect, all handguns except those 
bein.<r used by police, military authorities and other designated groups 
would become contraband, and they could be voluntarily surrendered 
with or without compensation. And since they were contraband. Fed- 
eral search Avarrants or local searcli warrants could be issued for 
obtaining these. This one. of course, there are tremendous administra- 
tive problems related to this. There is a tremendous cost in compensa- 
tion, and certainly speaking from the view of the law enforcement 
officer, the concept of trying to obtain contraband handguns from 
citizens' homes through search warrants and other means, is sort of 
a horrendous task, and I am sure that there would be a great deal 
of resentment built up in this particular area. 

And then some of the more specialized areas, of course, is to try 
to address ourselves to the problem of Saturday night specials, which 
in effect, would bind the same rules to the importation of weapons as 
to those domestically manufactured, and to eliminate a small, easily 
concealed cheap handgun from the scene. 

SENTENCING 

And of course, in the area of sentencing, some thought has been given 
to the concept of mandatory sentences of short duration for first 
offenses, say up to 1 year or 1 year mandatory, for a first offense of 
the Federal firearms laws, and of course, the recidivist receiving a 
major mandatory sentence. 

LIMITED NUMBER OF DF^\LERS 

As I have indicated in one of the remedial areas that I think would 
be the reduction in the numbers of dealers to those that are truly 



1396 

be very helpful in the control of the flow of weapons and <riins. would 
en^ag:ing in commercial dealing in weapons, and who you feel would 
be responsible. 

LICENSING FEES 

And the Treasury Department's view is that this should be accom- 
panied by an increase in licensing fees from above the $10 fee that 
presently is required for a firearms dealer. 

That is sort of a wide range of possibilities that have been at one 
time or another advanced. There is another one, and that is what you 
might call a retrogressive tax scheme, in which you would tax any 
weapon, and this goes to the Saturday night special primarily, wherein 
any weapon that retailed for less than $100, that you would tax it. 
You would apply a tax that would raise it to $100. In other words, if 
it is a $50 gun, then you would tax it $;")(). So in effect, you increase 
the price of the gim up to a certain minimum, whatever you want 
to make it. 

guns' origin in district 

Mr. Christian. With respect to the survey of major cities in the 
country and the number of guns from out of State, have you been 
able to determine what percentage of the guns used in those cities have 
actually originated in the District ? 

Mr. Davis. I determined that of the 36 we have traced so far, 
that 7 of them had their origin from dealers in the District of Colum- 
bia. I am probably not responding 

Mr. Christian. I think what I was asking was that, of those cities 
that you have done, New York, Detroit, I'm trying to get at the ques- 
tion of whether or not it is fairly easy to acquire them here, trans- 
port them out, and then utilize them in other places. And I think that 
can also be used as an indication of the effectiveness of local statutes. 

Mr. Davis. Yes; I will go back and we can look at it in a little 
different way. In 1974 we traced over 33,000 guns from all over the 
United States used in crime. And of that number, only about 60 had 
their origin in the District of Columbia. So I would say, from the 
standpoint of the District of Columbia being a supply source for other 
areas, that that would not be true in any major meaning. 

Mr. Christian. It could also indicate that outside criminals do not 
like to start liere from the District. We do not have a lot of transient 
criminals from the District going to other places. 

Mr. Davis. Yes ; I think that would follow. 

Mr. Christian. Witli respect to the use of handguns by criminals 
here, you are limited in the tracing collection at this point. You seem 
to indicate that we in the District are going to track the national aver- 
age with respect to the number of out of State guns used in the Dis- 
trict. What would you consider to be the most effective means of 
stopping tlieir importation and bringing them in ? What are the items 
that we can do to more so tighten up on tlie importation or bringing 
them in ? Is it dealers, people acquiring them and bringing them in ? At 
what point do we really lay it on the line? 

Mr. Davis, "\^'oll, it seems to me that this is really the true role of 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, that obviously in the 
District of Columbia, even though it realizes that many or most of 



1397 

the guns used in crime liere have their source somewhere outside, really 
tliere is not much that can be done by the District of Columbia 
autliorities. 

On the other hand, if we tlirough various ways, through project 
identification or otlior investigations determine that an area is a source 
of supply for the District of Columbia, then we can take appropriate 
steps; wo can try to tigliten up on the dealers in that area, again, do 
some of the things such as in the Greenville project and things of this 
kind. 

But. again, I think there is very little the District of Columbia can 
do internally that would prevent the sale of weapons into the District 
from other jurisdictions. Now, you might argue, and it may be true, 
that if we started putting a 1-year arbitrary sentence on everybody 
in the District of Columbia who was found with a gun, improperly, 
then, you know, this might be an effective means of doing it. 

Mr. Christian. Following up on that, I think that your presentation 
also indicates that, to a large degree, crimes committed in the District 
are committed by District of Columbia residents. Now, what I would 
like, if possible, submitted for the record in your study is not only 
an indication of the crimes committed with guns that are imported 
but crimes that are being committed in the District by nonresidents 
with guns purchased from outside of the District or crimes committed 
by residents with guns purchased from outside of the jurisdiction. Is 
it possible to get that kind of statistical breakdown? 

Mr. Davis. At least under present procedures this would be rather 
difficult to get. When a gun, of course, is covered by the Metropolitan 
Police Department or other jurisdictional areas, they fill out the form. 
Now wliat we can do, we can take it to the dealer who sold it — the first 
transaction — and it would be rather difficult to try to determine if the 
person using the gun was a resident of the District or a nonresident. 
For us it would be. I do not know whether Chief Cullinane has that 
kind of information or not. 

]Mr. Christiax. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions, and certainly will join 
with the rest of the committee in submitting further written questions. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Onr next witness will be the Chief of the U.S. Park Police, Jerry 
V. Wells. Chief Wells has a prepared statement, and if he has a way 
of summarizing it, very well; if not he can proceed to present his 
testimonv as written in advance. 

The Chairmax. Chief Wells, if you will identify your colleague 
here, 

STATEMENT OF JEERY V. WELLS. CHIEF, U.S. PARK POLICE; AC- 
COMPANIED BY LT. EARL HOUSENFLUCK 

^fr. Wells. I have with me Lt. Earl Housenfluck, and he is with 
the Planning and Development Section of the U.S. Park Police. 

I would forgo any reading of the statement if you would like, and 
I would just make a few comments, if that is what you desire. 

The CiiAiRMAX". If you wish to proceed that way, we have a copy 
of vour advanced testimony. 



1398 

[The prepared statement of Jerry V. Wells in full, and excerpts 
from the Annual Report, 1974, follow :] 

Statement of Jerry V. Wells, Chief, U.S. Park Police 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee : I very much appreciate this 
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the incidents of crime within 
the National Capital parks in view of the projected visitation to the Nation's 
Capital for the bicentennial celebration. Before starting my specific remarks. 
I would like to compliment you for your efforts in behalf of the criminal justice 
system within the District of Columbia and to thank you for including the 
United States Park Police on this occasion as part of the total law enforcement 
picture of the Washington metropolitan area. 

U.S. PARK POLICE 

The United States Park Police may be considered a unique law enforcement 
agency. As a Federal law enforcement organization within the U.S. Dei>artment 
of the Interior. National Park Service, the force is structured to perform 
identical law enforcement functions associated with municipal, state, and county 
police agencies. Operating on a yearly budget of approximately 13 million dollars 
and an authorized uniform strength of 552, the U.S. Park Police has success- 
fully met the cballenges of increased law enforcement responsibilities through- 
out the National Park Service and within the Washington metropolitan area. 

During 1974, as an example, two new tield offices were opened by our force 
to provide law enforcement services to Gateway National Recreation Area in 
New York City, and Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Francisco. 
When the occasion warrants, our officers are also temporarily a.ssigned to other 
parks or offices throughout the national park system. Presently, officers at the 
rank of captain serve as law enforcement advi.sors to the eight National Park 
Service regional directors. Presidential and dignitary protection is provided in the 
Washington metropolitan area and other park areas outside the Nation's 
Capital when the need ari.ses. Liaison is continuously maintaind with all elements 
of the criminal justice system, the U.S. Secret Service, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, United States Marshals and the U.S. Department of State, both 
here in the Washington area and where appropriate, in other regions of the 
National Park Service. Our efforts in the metropolitan area community have 
included the placing of substations at various key locations throughout the area 
to provide more effective service to the residents of that area. 

BICENTENNIAL CELEBRATIONS 

The dramatic increase in numbers of i)eople exi)ected to visit our Nation's 
Capital within the next 20 months for the Bicentennial celebration will undoubt- 
edly concentrate their visitation plans around the many historical monuments 
and memorials within the National Capital parks, and more specifically, tho.se 
centrally located in and adiacent to the downtown area. It is also this area that 
the heaviest workload of the United States Park Police public safety responsi- 
bilities will be located. 

The Bicentennial celebration events already planned for the National Capital 
Parks reflect a wide variety of activities. It is anticipated the vast majority of 
the visitors and metropolitan area residents will attend those activities in the 
area lying between the U.S. Capitol Building and the Lincoln Memorial. To pre- 
pare for these activities, early active participation in the planning stages were 
initiated with several concerned organizations. One such effort was the estab- 
lisbinent of a Police Bicentennial Coordinating Coniniittee to exchange informa- 
tion and discuss problems concerning the police community in relation to the 
Bicentennial activities. One result has been the development of i)lans to 
initiate a combined law enforcement communication office within U.S. Park 
Police head(|narters staffed by various representatives of law enforcenu'nt 
agencies affected by the primary celebration areas. This communication effort 
will be tied into key locations, such as other police headquarters, fire depart- 
ments, hospitals, and other organizations directly involved with the safety 
of residents and visitors. Liaison will be maintained with city government 
agencies, such the Department of Human Resources, the Civil Defense, and the 
Mayor's Command Post. 



1399 



PABK POLICE AIDES 

We have requested authorization and funding to hire approximately 220 tem- 
porary appointees to serve as Park Police aides. These paraprofessionals will 
be assigned to the major c-eh>lirati(m area within the National Capital Parks to 
assume traffic control, information, and hrst aid services to citizens and visitors 
that are usually provided by the uniformed officer. 

PARK POUCE FOBCE 

Presently there are 449 sworn officers of the U.S. Park Police assigned to the 
National Capital Parks area. These officers provide public safety services to a 
total of (J.l)3o acres of Federal parkland in the District of Columbia and a total 
of 38,680 acres in the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia 
combined. In view of the limited number of officers assigned to this vast area 
of responsibility, the expectation of heavy visitation, and our commitments to 
the park areas within the adjoining metropolitan areas, plans are now being 
formulated to place all uniformed oi^erational personnel within the National 
Capital Parks on 12-hour tours of duty. 5 days a week during the celebration 
period. This proposal will enable the assignment of approximately 75 additional 
uniformed officers to the celebration area between the U.S. Capitol and the Lincoln 
Memorial during the peak visitation hours. To facilitate the public safety services 
within this area, trailers will be located at key sites to serve as operational 
bases for police officers and to provide the citizens and residents ready access 
to needed law enforcement services. 

BICENTENNIAL 

Our experience during the recent Bicentennial kick-off program at Concord, 
Massachusetts, has indicated that we can anticipate demonstrations during the 
celebration. We further anticipate many unscheduled events and various Presi- 
dential and dignitary protective details, especially in view of the 1976 Presi- 
dential campaign. 

Additionally, we have been advised on some tentative plans to utilize some land 
located at the Department of Agriculture Research Center in Beltsville, Mary- 
land, for campsites. The U.S. Park Police provide one patrol vehicle each 8-hour 
tour of duty for law enforcement services to this area. These additional plans will 
place further demands upon a limited resource that has already been committed 
to the major celebration area. 

TRAFFIC 

One of the major problems we expect is traffic control since it is anticipated that 
most visitors will come by automobile. Limited parking areas within the down- 
town section of the city and traffic congestion will undoubtedly cause an increase 
in motor vehicle accidents as well as pedestrian accidents. Thefts of automobiles 
as wf'll as hincnies from automobiles are exjtected to increase .substantially. We 
also expect an increase in assaults and robberies, 

crime's AGAINST VISITORS 

It has been our experience over the years that the visitor to our parks is often 
the victim of specific criminal acts. Displaying a typical and readily identifiable 
stereot.vpe of a tourist with camera in hand, he is subjected to pocketbook snatch- 
ing, pickpocket, robbery, and larceny of his belongings from his automobile. The 
visitor is imaware of the few necessary basic precautions needed when travelling 
and sightseeing. He is often careless in leaving valuables in his vehicle openly 
exposed to view from the outside. He leisurely walks towards points of interest 
loaded down with cameras, maps, and pocketbooks, preoccupied with seeing as 
much as possible, taking as many pictures as possible, and tending to the needs 
of his family. Together with this, he is in unfamiliar surroundings not totally 
aware of what to do when confronted with an unpleasant situation such as 
robbery. As such, the visitor becomes an easy victim to the criminal. 

When a crime doe-- o<Tur, the visitor is faced with sfill nnother problem. What 
should he do? Quite often, and by far, predominately the case, the visitor is re- 
stricted by his vacation plans and is from out of State. When he reports the 
crime and an apprehension of the perpetrator occurs, these two factors take on 
prime importance in achieving a successful prosecution. By the time the case is 



1400 

presented in the courts, our visitor has returned home. He can afford neither the 
time nor money to return and assist in the prosecution of the case. This places the 
visitor in the category of "fair game" to the criminal, as the knowledgeable and 
experienced criminal can easily utilize this disadvantage to his benefit. 

CRIMINAL OFFENSES IN PARKS 

When I speak of the crimes committed against the visitor, it is important to 
point out that this is not by any means the only type of criminal activity occurring 
within our jurisdiction. Within the parks and upon the parkways, a wide variety 
of criminal offenses occur. Part I offenses such as criminal homicide, rape, rob- 
bery, assault, and burglary occur as well as Part II offenses such as arson, dis- 
orderly conduct, narcotic violations, and sex offenses. This is not to imply that 
serious crime is running rampant within our parks, but is intended to illustrate 
the similarity of offenses committed within our jurisdiction to those of the city 
and suburban areas. The recent shootings of two of our officers within the shadow 
of an internationally known national monument serves as a grim reminder of the 
seriousness of crime today. 

During 1974 in the Washington metropolitan area, the U.S. Park Police investi- 
gated 4,772 criminals cases of which 1,341 were Part I offenses. This represented 
an increase of 13 percent from 1973. Of 394 persons charged for these offenses, 
227 were juveniles. .Tuvenile arrests also accounted for over one-third of the 
total arrests made for Part II offenses. We too share the concern expressed by our 
colleagues of the apparent rising rate of juvenile offenders especially within the 
category of serious crimes. The juvenile offender as well as some of the adult 
offender group, appear to demonstrate a casual attitude towards the seriousness 
of the offense they commit. There have been examples of an apparent disregard 
for the personal and property rights of the victims. What contributes to this 
display of indifference is difficult to identify, as there are numerous factors related 
to the overall problem. 

DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES 

U.S. Park Police criminal cases within the District of Columbia are processed 
similar to those of the metropolitan police department. Initial processing occurs 
at our central substation, where tlic basic i)rocednres of oriminal invcstisiitive 
processing occur. Contact is made with the D.C. bail agency and other appropriate 
agencies of the D.C. government when necessary. Depending upon the offense 
committed, the case is then presented to either the District of Columbia or 
United States courts. The facilities of the metropolitan police department are 
used to house tliose persons incarcerated. Liaison is continually inaiiitainod with 
the metropolitan police department on serious criminal offenses, such as rape 
and homicide. 

Those criminal offenses occurring within the State of Maryland and the Com- 
monwealth of Virginia are processed through the U.S. District Court. Coojierntion 
is maintained with the U.S. Magistrate's Court and the U.S. Attorney's Office. 
The facilities of city and/or county, depending upon location, are used for some 
preliminary processing and bousing of offenders prior to release or preliminary 
hearings. Cooperation is maintained in these areas with the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, and many other local agencies having a role in the law enforce- 
ment efforts of the area. 

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 

Although various elements of the criminal justice system have made many sig- 
nificant individual efforts with limited resources to bring about a reduction in the 
overall crime picture, the problem is one that cannot be left entirely to the police 
and the courts to resolve. All elements of the society must work together to bring 
the problem under control. Efforts must be made in further identification of crim- 
inal and safety hazards with the appropriate means made available to correct 
such deficiencies. Community action groups should be given support for programs 
aimed at providing corrective guidanc(> and .services for the juvenile. Support of 
summer employment efforts for youth should be encouraged. 

OVERTIME FOR COURTS 

In view of the anticipated increase in crime during the bicentennial, the courts 
.should evaluate the i>ossibility and merit of extending the judicial process beyond 
the normal S-hour working day. We recognize the alreay heavily overloaded court 



1401 

schcdiilc ;iTi(l liniifcd resources tlu» courts presently have, but one can only con- 
clude, thai ill view of the above, tliis problem will be further compounded. Such 
a prof^raui may in some way help absorb this expected increase. 

PARKING 

We would encourage the use of all available fringe parking areas and shuttle 
services to the major celebration events. Further efforts by both the city govern- 
ment and the National I'ark Service aimed at providing the desired services to 
both the visitor and the resident will greatly affect the successfvd outcome of this 
historic occasion. Educational efforts directed towards informing the visitor of 
private and public farilities and services will assist in making his visit more 
enjoyable. Such information shnuld include a brief explanation of the various 
governmental services available within the Washington metropolitan area in 
order that the vi.sitor may be properly directed to the appropriate service agency 
should ho exi)erience some misfortune or need assistance. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT CLEARINGHOUSE 

We support efforts to establish a metropolitan area law enforcement clearing- 
house of information for the many agencies within the entire metroiwlitan area 
prior to the actual beginning of the celebration. In view of the many jurisdic- 
tional areas involved, such a program would be beneficial, not only to law 
enforcement, but to residents as well as visitors. 

CRIME STATISTICS 

We encourage additional .study into those various factors that have been tenta- 
tively identified as possibly contributing to the rise in crime with the ultimate 
objective of providing viable .solutions and guidelines for the criminal justice 
system, governmental agencies, and the community to follow. The statistical data 
traditionally used to report an increase in crime and reflect the status of the 
overall crime problem can no longer be utilized as the sole method of measuring 
and evaluating the effectiveness of law enforcement nor reflecting an accurate 
picture of crime. We must encourage a thorough investigation into those areas 
which contribute to the information gathering process and critically examine 
tho^e efforts to seek some of the answers to the problem before us. 

This concludes my prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman. I will now be happy to 
answer any questions you or other committee members may have. 

[Excerpts from the I'.S. Park Police annual report 1974, follow:] 

Excerpts From U.S. Park Police, Annual Report, 1974 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, 
Office of National Capital Parks, 

Headquarters, U.S. Park Police, 

Washington, D.C. 
memorandum 

To : Director, National Capital Parks. 
Prom : Chief, U.S. Park Police. 
Subject : Annual report. 

The 1974 Report has been designed to reflect the human aspects of the United 
States Park Police in our endeavor to provide the highest caliber of law enforce- 
ment professionalism necessary to en.sure that the public receives maximum serv- 
ice. In addition to the routine police activities, efforts have been made to show 
Force members providing services that made 1974 another successful year for 
the Force. 

The greatest challenge to the Force in 1974 was the opening of two field offices : 
the Golden Cate National Recreation Area in San Francisco, California, and 
Gateway National Recreation Area in New York and New Jersey. Both field 
offices are now in full oj^eration and are providing the citizens of those areas with 
the same high standard of law enforcement professionalism that the citizens of 
the Washington area have enjoyed. 



52-587 O - 75 - pt.2 - 20 



1402 

Visitation continued to increase in all park areas as did the demands on the 
Force. The 'I'M Force members investigated l,r)92 Part I offenses, 9,067 Part II 
offenses, 3,130 motor vehicle accidents, and answered an additional 40,380 re- 
quests for service. In all instances, the statistics reflect an increase over those of 

1973. 

More than ever, 1974 has been a year for the Force in which great changes were 
made, new innovations took place, and new roles were created. 

We feel tliat we have successfully met the challenges and demands placed upon 

us and appreciate your continued support. 

Jebby V. Wells. 

History of the United States Park Police 

Many of our present-day parks have been under the auspices of the Federal 
Government since George Washington was President. The firm control of Federal 
lands has been handed down through a long succession of Federal oflScials and 
through the hands of many agencies, and, as far as the park system is concerned, 
rests now in the United States Department of the Interior. 

The United States Park Police, known as Park Watchmen prior to 1919, has 
been continuously on duty in the older Federal parks of the Nation's Capital since 

1791. 

Park Watchmen were appointed by the Board of Commissioners established 
by President George Washington. Constables, Park Watchmen, and Town Watch- 
men policed the Nation's Capital until the Civil War brought rapid changes to 
the Federal City. In 1891, Congress combined the District, then called the County 
of Washington, and the towns of Washington and Georgetown into the Metro- 
politan Police Di.strict. 

By an Act of Congress of August 5. 1882, the United States Park Police was 
given concurrent jurrisdiction in all areas of the District of Columbia. Prior to 
this Act, its arrest authority was limited to the Federal park areas within the 

city. 

The expansion of police authority and the responsibility of the Unite<i States 
Park Police from local to regional jurisdiction began in 1929 with the assignment 
of officers to patrol the Mount Vernon Memorial Parkway in nearby Virginia. 
Now^ by virtue of their jurisdictional purview, the United States Park Police 
provides protection and enforces the laws and statutes of the Federal Govern- 
ment within the geographical confines of the District of Columbia, the Federal 
parks and various other federally-owned reservations in the State of Maryland 
and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Jurisdiction has recently been extended to 
include the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Francisco. California, 
and the Gateway National Recreation Area in New York and New Jersey. When 
the occasion warrants. United States Park Police officers are also assigned tem- 
porarily to other parks or offices throughout the National Park System within 
the United States and its possessions. 

planning and inspections 

The Planning and Inspections Unit is under the direction of Inspector Milton R. 
Lomax. 

Captain George W. Winkel and his staff provided the Chief with policy and 
program recommendations and conducted lengthy studies including the review 
of existing policy procedures. The Planning Unit represented the United States 
Park Police on the Department of the Interior Task Force Study on Law En- 
forcement and was instrumental in the develojiment of the conclusions of that 
Study. Planning also jirovided the National Park Service with assistance in law 
enforcement connected problems. 

The Inspections Unit, under the command of Lieutenant John D. Christian, 
conducted critical examinations in all areas of Force activity that may have posed 
a threat to Force integrity. The Inspections Unit provided field and management 
Inspections, investigation of personnel comi)laints, internal safety, and Equal 
Employment Opportunity (EEO) compliance. 



1403 

OPERATIONS DIVISION 

The Operations Division, commanded by Deputy Chief Paul F. Burgus, has a 
complement of 432 Force members and 12 civilians. It is divided int(j .'} branches: 
Patrol, Si)ecial Operations, and Criminal Investigations. Operations Division 
personnel responded to over 40,0(10 re(piests for service, 1,592 Part I and 9,067 
Part II offenses, and investigated 3,136 motor vehicle accidents. 

PATROL BRANCH 

The 231 Force members assigned to the Patrol Branch, are under the direction 
of Captain Denny R. Sorah. The Branch is divided into 5 districts and provides 
police services to the citizens and visitors who frequent the 45,615 acres of 
parkland in the Washington metropolitan area. 

DISTRICT ONE 

The primary responsibility of District One Substation personnel is the protec- 
tion of the visitors to the parks, monuments, and memorials in the downtown 
area of Washington, D.C. The 103 police personnel assigned to District One 
answered 13,942 requests for service, including citizen assists, motor vehicle ac- 
cidents, misdemeanor and felony arrests, and other incidents. Special duties per- 
formed by District One personnel include foot, bicycle, cruiser, and scooter 
patrols. An administrative staff of 12 police personnel provides support services. 

DISTRICT TWO 

The 41 officers of the Glen Echo Substation are responsible for safety and 
law enforcement on the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the C&O 
Canal areas. Officers of District Two are commanded by Lieutenant W. Franklin 
Stevens. District Two units issued 6,536 TVN's and 5,553 Courtesy Tags. 5,203 
disabled motorists were assisted and 809 accidents were investigated. 

The recently opened Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts, the site 
of the Filene Center, was a major area of responsibility. Because of the heavy 
traffic congestion due to the high visitor attendance at Wolf Trap, additional 
patrol was necessary and required many overtime mauhours. 

DISTRICT THREE 

The Rock Creek Park Substation is commanded by Lieutenant Richard E. 
Magee. The officers of District Three provide a localized and effective service to 
the residents and visitors of the Rock Creek Park area. Rock Creek Park is the 
largest area of responsibility in District Three and consists of 1,754 acres, 71 
miles of horse, bicycle and nature trails, 49 miles of roadways, and 70 picnic 
groves. 

Police coverage is provided for the parks east of Rock Creek Park, such as 
Malcolm X Park, Fort Totten, Barnard Hill, Fort Slocum, and Langston Golf 
Course. Parks and areas west of Rock Creek Park, the C&O Canal, Fletcher's 
Boathouse, Fort Reno, Battery Kemble Park, and Glover Archbold Park are 
also well patrolled. 

In addition, police coverage is provided at the yearly concerts held at Carter 
Barron Amphitheater. Some of the entertainment which was available included 
Rufus, Harold Melvin and the Bluenotes, and Earth, Wind and Fire. Major 
sporting events, such as the International Tennis Matches also took place in 
Rock Creek Park, as well as other minor events. 

The 30 officers of District Three have handled 3,978 cases utilizing cruisers, 
motor scooters, and bicycles in their patrol. 

DISTRICT FOUR 

The 25 officers assigned to District Four are under the command of Lieutenant 
Lloyd E. Hill. The Greenbelt Substation officers responded to 9,152 reported 
complaints and drove more than 505,900 miles in order to provide service to the 
over 65,000 motorists traveling the Baltimore- Washington Parkway daily. The 



1404 

number of miles patrolled by these officers, together with the decrease In the 
speed limit on the Parkway, resulted directly in the total reduction of motor 
vehicle accidents by 12G i>ercent and of fatalities by 50 percent. 

7,912 TVX's ami 11,247 Courtesy Tajis were issued to motorists. District Four 
personnel also provided services to the Agriculture Research Center and to the 
l,29G,-13r) visitors of Greenbelt Park. 

DISTRICT fi\t: 

The 34 police officers assigned to the Anacostia Park Substation, commanded 
by Lieutenant Edward R. Brodie. provided service to the citizens and visitors 
of the park areas in the urban community of southeast Washington as well as 
those park areas in Prince George's County, Maryland. In addition to patrolling 
the Suitland Parkway in Maryland, the officers of the Anaeastia Substation pro- 
vided the community with more than 25 .special programs which were planned 
to help improve community involvement. Great emphasis was placed on promot- 
ing communication with the youngsters. The programs, presented at different 
schools and parks, included bicycle and traffic safety instruction and informative 
group "rap" sessions. The '"Summer Hut", which was attended by over 200,000 
people, was part of these summer programs for which visitor protection was 
necessary. This protection was accomplished through foot patrol and the use of 
motor scooters, bicycles, and cruisers in Anacostia Park. 

NOP GUARD FORCE 

The National Capital Parks Guard Force, under the command of Lieutenant 
Henry H. George, provided security operations for the National Capital Parks 
during 1974. The 43 guard personnel provided service for the John F. Kennedy 
Center, Wolf Trap Farm Park, Carter Barron. Ford's Theatre, the Dougla.ss 
Home, and the National Capital Parks Headquarters Building. When public 
gatherings created a strain on Park Police per.sonnel, the Guard Force provided 
supplemental coverage at the monuments and memorials. 

FBI National Academy Associates 

Jerry L. Wells, Chief, Seventy-seventh Session 
Franklin A. Arthur, Assistant Chief, Seventy-first Session 
Paul F. Burgus. Deputy Chief, Seventy-ninth Session 
Roland D. Fallin. Deputy Chief. Sixty-sixth Session 
Hugh A. Groves. Inspector. Ninety-sixth Session 
Edward A. Haralson. Inspector, F^ighty-.second Session 
P^dward H. Hen'ey. Inspector. Eighty-first Session 
Parker T. Hill, Inspector, Eighty-sixth Session 
Milton R. Lomax. Inspector. Eighty-eighth Session 
James P. Deely. Captain. Ninety-seventh Session 
Bobbie W. Huffman, Captain. Ninety-fifth Session 
.Tames C. Lindsey. Captain. Ninety-ninth Session 
Douglas C. McPherson, Captain. Ninetieth Session 
William W. McQueeney. Captain. Ninety-third Session 
Jack M. Sands. Captain. Ninety-first Session 
Dennv R. Sorah. Captain. Ninety-eighth Session 
John D. Christian. Lieutenant. Ninety-fourth Session 
Ronald R. Kerzaya. Lieutenant. Eighty-fourth Session 
George R. O'Neill, Lieutenant. Ninety-second Session 

criminal in\'estigations branch 

The Criminal Investigations Branch, under the command of Captain .Tames P. 

Dee'y. is comprised of 25 investigators and 5 additional officers assigned to the 

Identification T'nit. During 1974. the Criminal Investigations Branch personnel 

investigated 1.775 criminal cases of which 1..592 were Part I offenses. This repre- 

^sents an increase of 405 cases or 40 percent more Part I offenses than 1973. 

In November 1974. 13 additional investigators were trained and assigned to 
CIB. 

The Identification Unit fingerprinted and photographed 1.688 persons in 1974 
and a.ssisted with the investigations of .307 criminal cases. 



1405 

. SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE 

The 103 police personnel of the Special Operations Force, under the command 
of Captain James C. Lindsey, provided field support operations in 1974. SOF 
units, comprised of motorcycle, horse mounted, aviation, canine, radar, special 
events, special eiiuipment and tactics, and selective cnfort-ement, provided police 
services for 304 spei-ial events involving over 2,000,000 visitors. Among these 
special events were the Cherry Blossom Festival, Human Kindness Day, the 
President's Cup Regatta, the Annual Fourth of July Celebration, and the Festival 
of American Folklife. In addition to the special events, over 66,000 persons par- 
ticipated in 117 demonstrations. 

The Motorcycle Unit ah)ne provided 116 Presidential escorts. 118 requests for 
escorts for Heads of State, Congress, and others were also filled. 

The Aviation Unit logged in over 900 flight hours, providing airborne service 
in over 600 criminal and non-criminal incidents. Over 25 lives were saved through 
medical evacuation and search and rescue operations, and Aviation also provided 
over 20 medical evacuations for victims in otlier area jurisdictions. In addition to 
medical and search and rescue operations, the Aviation Unit provided air recon 
for all the major special events of 1974, and participated in over 30 community 
relations and public safety events. 

The 35 officers in the Horse Mounted Unit provided patrol and rescue operations 
to the more than 44,000 acres of parklaTid in the Washington area. They pro- 
vided traffic and crowd control assistance during the 106 major demonstrations 
and special events such as the Carter Barron programs. The Horse Mounted 
Drill Team participated in 4 police competition shows, and over 30 parades and 
exhibitions, including tlie Washington International Horse Show. 13 officers were 
trained in horse mounted duties in November and December 1974. 

The 5 officers assigned to the Force Canine Unit provided service to the entire 
Washington area and participated in over 50 school and community demonstra- 
tions and exhibitions, including the FBI Academy and the International Horse 
Show. Trained in explosive device detection, 2 officers and dogs assisted in bomb 
search operations in park and other areas such as National Airport and the 
Smithsonian Institution. The Park Rangers of Cape Code National Seashore 
were assisted in a search operation by an officer and dog. 

The Force Radar T'nit provided selective enforcement to all the traffic problem 
areas. Over 5.000 TVX's were issued in order to reduce speed-related motor ve- 
hicle accidents. The Radar Unit was involved in 16 exhibitions and other com- 
munity relations programs. 

The IS officers assigned to the Selective Enforcement Unit provided security 
coverage at Catoctin and supportive field operations such as additional coverage 
on the Parkways and casual clothes operations in high crime areas. This unit 
was also summoned to Delaware Water Gap. Big Bend National Park, Texas, 
and the Herbert Hoover National Historic Site, West Branch, Iowa, to provide 
supplemental law enforcement. 



1406 



Statistical Summaries 1974 



HIGHLIGHTS 



TOTAL ALL ARRESTS 73,105 

Adults Arrested 72,311 

Juveniles Apprehended 794 

TOTAL ARRESTS FOR PART I CLASSES — 427 

Adults Arrested 201 

Juveniles Apprehended 226 

TOTAL ARRESTS FOR PART II CLASSES -- 1,753 

Adults Arrested 1,284 

Juveniles Apprehended 469 

TOTAL TRAFFIC ARRESTS 70,925 

Adults Arrested 70,826 

Juveniles Apprehended 99 

TOTAL TRAFFIC CHARGES 70,925 

Adult Violators 70,826 

Moving 31.399 

Parking 39,427 

Juvenile Violators 99 

Moving 99 

Parking 

TOTAL MAJOR OFFENSES REPORTED 1,?04 

Deduct Offenses Unfounded 17 

ACTUAL MAJOR OFFQJSES 1J87 

TOTAL MAJOR OFFENSES SOLVED 169 

AUTOMOBILES STOLEN 43 

AUTOMOBILES RECOVERH) 34 

AUTOMOBILES RECOVERED FOR OTHER 

JURISDICTIONS 122 

TOTAL TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS 3,635 

Fatal Accidents 26 

Injury Accidents 551 

Property Damage Only Accidents 3,058 

TOTAL TRAFFIC DEATHS 26 

Non-Pedestrian 21 

Pedestrian 5 

TOTAL TRAFFIC INJURIES 551 

Non-Pedestrian 528 

Pedestrian 23 

33 



1; 



75,532 

74,363 

1.169 

394 
167 
227 

2,041 

1,320 

721 

73,097 

72.876 

221 

73.097 

72.876 

26,247 

46,629 

221 

218 

3 



INCREASE 
2,427 
2,052 
375 



1 

288 

36 

252 

2,172 

2,050 

J22 

2,172 
2,050 

7,202 

122 

119 

3 



DECREASE 



33 

34 



5,152 



1,612 

20 

1,592 


408 

3 

405 




198 


29 




81 
65 


38 
31 




110 




12 


3,136 

15 

504 

2,617 




499 
11 

47 

441 


15 

14 
1 




11 
7 

4 


740 

717 

23 


189 
189 





1407 



PERSONNEL STATUS FOR ^9^h 



PERSONNEL DISTRIBUTION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 197U 


DIVISION 


POLICE 


aUAPDS 


CIVILIANS 


TOTAL 


Office of the Chief 


16 




c; 


:i 


Services 


58 




21 


79 


Other Regions 


11 






11 


Operations : 










a . Uniformed 


li32 




n 


h96 


b. Plainclothes 
TOTAL 


20 




1 


21 


* 537 


^63 


■;kh:-38 


628 



c5-lM';ges i:: k:lice persckhel 

■~~— — "■ ■'■ ■■ ■" i.-i — . ■■■ ■ .1 . -■■■ ...--■. ^. 

1 . Present for duty end of 1973 U70 

2. Recruited during 197U 98 

Total to account for 568 

3. Separated from the Force: 

a. Volixntary resignation and transfers 18 

b. Retirement on Pension 12 

c. Termination 1 

Total Separations 31 

h. Present for Duty End of 197U 537 



*Includes one officer on military furlough and 8 Force members of the 
Services Division on detail to the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement 
Training Center. 

«*Includes _10 guards assigned to Gateway NRA on Career Conditional (Part 
Time) Appointments. 

■iHHt-lncludes _7 civilian employees hired on other than permanent appointments. 

3U 



1408 



COURTESY TAG REPORT 



?F ■ 


O.C. 


MD. 


VA. 


CAL. 


NY. 


TOTAL 




1491 


3073 


459 


78 


109 


5210 


Right-of-Way 


448 


114 


27 


1 


2 


592 


Signal Lights 


1036 


194 


60 


1 




1291 


Stop Signs 


139 


58 


21 


3 


30 


251 


Turns 


711 


87 


78 


1 




877 


K' taking 


50 


19 


4 


2 


3 


78 


Following Too Close ) 


59 


156 


11 






226 


Intention Signal 


14 


34 


1 


1 


1 


51 


Brakes 


2 


1 




33 




36 


Reckless Driving 


2 


48 


1 




6 


57 


Other Driver Behavior 


1870 


1400 


395 




29 


3694 


Other Unsafe Vehicle & Load Condition 


760 


895 


172 


6 


11 


1844 


Miscellaneous 


618 


622 


60 


19 


80 


1399 


Vehicle equipment. Not Safe 


55 


26 


9 






90 


Overtime Parking 


546 


2644 


241 


44 


1 


3476 


Parked Wrong Way 


5165 


614 


323 


265 


636 


7003 


Parked Wrong Manner 


201 




2 


5 


8 


216 


Hazardous Pedestrian Behavior 


2 


146 


1 




1 


150 


Other Driver Conditions, Galsses, Helmet, 
Etc. 


17 


15 


2 


3 




37 


Accident, Fail to Make Identification 


1 










1 


Vehicle Registration & Permit Regualations 


1355 


789 


182 


142 




2510 


All Other Non-Traffic Offenses 


45 


89 


19 


89 


78 


320 


TOTALS 


14587 
-35 


11024 


2068 


693 


1037 


29409 



1409 



UNITED STATES PARK POLICE FORCE ACTIVITY REPORT 



1974 



YEAR 





OFl'-iCE OK 


0PE!u\T10t!3 
DIV.TSTOH 


SERVICES 
DIV.lSTOtl 




FuF.rE 

TO"M. 




A'^TIVITIl^ 


TOLICIC 
4 


CIV. 


,;,a;'OP»-:K) 

2670 


C.I.H. 
84 


GUAliD 


CIV. 


fULICii 
39 


CIV. 


POLICE 
2797 


GUAii) 


Cl\^. 


krci."ji :-.ade 


r.oving 'nffl's 


8 




28525 


11 






220 




28764 






lion Coving 






46598 


51 






221 




46870 






Cases Asc^n. 


114 




49366 


1326 






277 




51083 






Ccurtc^y Tgs 


1 




30630 


4 






73 




30708 






Kv5u?.S V.Ox-O 


2344 


12 


100184 


3667 


85 


121 


4882 


516 


111077 


65 


649 


Special Euty 


Court 


838 




9850 


1620 




12 


367 




12675 




12 


V.'ritinj Rc-ot. 


2233 




32556 


4867 


8 


1 


883 


17 


40539 


8 


18 


Office Duty 


26214 


5523 


135001 


8576 


4289 


15076 


63641 


29020 


233432 


4177 


49619 


Other Duty 


4481 


59 


47776 


2168 


872 


4685 


4643 


3098 


59068 


872 


7842 


Patrol 


1165 




333007 


2524 


81530 




548 




337244 


81514 




i;'-f. Control 


9 




18237 


20 


6697 




317 




18583 


6693 


( 


Acci:i. Inves. 


2 




4096 


270 






9 




4377 






Cri-T. Inves. 


498 




8653 


15176 






50 




24377 






Other Inves. 


1740 




8270 


460 






610 




11080 






Training 


1109 


196 


131933 


4323 


783 


201 


21071 


665 


158436 


745 


1062 


Vehic. Kaint. 


40 




18231 


184 


60 


20 


589 


3249 


19044 


60 


3269 


TOTAL HOIJRS 


40673 


5790 


847794 


43855 


94324 


20116 


97610 


36565 


1029932 


94134 


62471 


Hj'.-rs c:-~ ii'kj'li 


17480 


2833 


362474 


18912 


40668 


11536 


41744 


16884 


440610 


40668 


1 

31253 ! 


f'ny Off 


A.'.'-.ual Le^r/o 


3262 


669 


54179 


3368 


6818 


1537 


8302 


2923 


69111 


6818 


5129 1 


Sick Leave 


796 


176 


31770 


1335 


4473 


912 


3317 


1773 


37218 


4473 


2861 1 


Ccr.p. I^ave 


611 




15766 


1751 


52 


49 


1283 


163 


19411 


52 


212 i 


OT-her 1/eavo 


1245 


211 


20442 


1028 


5337 


2174 


2515 


2258 


25230 


5337 


4643 ! 


■:c'iAL LiiWK 


23394 


3889 


484631 


26394 


57348 


16208 


57161 


24001 


591580 


57348 


44098 


•..^J. 0.1. i-:,ia-. 
Co; pondtory 


611 




14949 


1846 


34 


41 


1083 


137 


18489 


34 


178 ' 


■■.:..L.ry 


1303 


26 


64276 


2668 


7520 


787 


7070 


1216 


75317 


7520 


2029.1 












36 















141U 



PERSONS CHARGED 



PART I OFFENSES 



ADULT 



JUVENILE 



TOTAL 



Manslaughter by Nealiqence 

Rape 

Robbery 

Assault 

Burglary 

Larceny (Except Auto Theft) 

a. $100.00 and over in value 

b. Under $100.00 in value --- 
Auto Theft 



1 

8 

18 

46 

16 

35 

7 

36 



9 
64 
45 
10 

7 
49 
43 



1 
17 
82 
91 
26 

42 
56 
79 



TOTAL PART I 



167 



227 



394 



PART II OFFENSES 



ADULT 



JUVENILE 



TOTAL 



Arson 

Stolen Property (Buy, Rec. & Possess.) 

Weapons 

Sex Offenses 

Narcotic Laws 

Liquor Laws 

Drunkenness 

Disorderly Conduct 

Driving Under Influence 

Road & Driving Laws 

Parking Violations 

Traffic & Motor Vehicle Laws 

Offense Against Family - 

Vandal ism 

All Other Offenses 

Gambl ing 

Suspicion 



25 

63 

14 

63 

140 

11 

214 

438 

22,737 

46,629 

3,510 

1 

18 

329 

4 



3 

23 

27 

13 

103 

39 

8 

97 

13 

97 

3 

121 

80 

236 

1 

78 



3 

48 

90 

27 

166 

179 

19 

311 

451 

22,834 

46,632 

3,631 

1 

98 

565 

5 

78 



TOTAL PART II 



74,196 



942 



75,138 



GRAND TOTAL 



74,363 



1,169 



75,532 



37 



1411 



FIVE YEAR COMPARISON OF 
ACTUAL MAJOR OFFENSES 



OFFENSES 



1970 



1971 



1972 



1973 



1974 



Murder 

Nealiqent Manslaughter 

Rape 

Robbery 

Assault 

Burglary, Breaking & Entering 

Larceny, Grand 

Larceny, Petit 

Auto Theft 



26 
175 
166 
113 
149 
635 

67 



1 

1 

40 

172 

104 

75 

143 

430 

51 



45 
161 
135 

65 
141 
339 

28 



1 

1 

37 

256 

144 
46 

596 
63 
43 



48 
294 
193 
106 
650 
218 

81 



TOTAL 



1.334 



1,017 



915 



1,187 



1,592 



PART 1 OFFENSES REPORTED, 
BY CLASSIFICATION 





2 
0»F(NS(1 •(POittO 

0» INOWN TO 'OLICf 
ONCLUOt -UNfOUNOeO- 

ano AmMHK 


] 

UNFOUNOtO. 1.1, 

FAlSt 01 lASEVESS 

COMFLAIMIS 


4 

NUMlEt OF ACTUAl 

QfrtNSfS ICOlUMN I 

MINUi COLUMN 31 

QNCLUOt ATTEMFTSl 


5 

NUMIER OF OFFtNlES 
CUAIED IT AIKJT TMIi MONTH 


TOtAl OFFENIES 

CKAKO 


b 
IT A«ltn OF 

msoNS UNDO 11 

ONCIUOFD IN tol 


1 CtlMINAL HOMICIDE 


3 


1 


2 






0. MUtOII **.0 nO.».(CUC*nT MANilAUCMTa 


k. IA«^«LAUCHTa n NfCllCtNCt 












7 fORClBlE lAPE TOTAL 


50 


2 


48 


19 


7 


•. tAn It fcact 


38 


2 


36 


12 


6 


k. AtiAuiT TO i*w ■ *mv<Fn 


12 




1? 


7 


1 


3 ROBKEtT TOTAl 


300 


6 


294 


48 


26 


«, AlWlO - AWT *lA»OH 


62 


3 


59 


13 


6 


». lTtONC-*lM ■ >0 WIA»C». 


238 


3 


235 


35 


20 


4, ASSAUII TOTAL 


196 


3 


193 


66 


22 


a. GUN 


22 




22 


9 


4 


k. tH*t C* CUTTW.G INMlUMlNT 


23 


1 


22 


9 


5 


t. OIWB 0»»«CI«OUJ wtA»0- 


46 




4fi 


16 


9 


< MANOi. mn. MIT, nc. ■ AOGiAVAtto 


91 


2 


89 


31 


3 


., OTMB AHAUlTl ■ NOT ACOIAVATtD 


14 




14 


1 


1 


S BURGlAtr TOTAl 


106 




106 


10 


8 


o. »aicn.i fNTiT 


72 




72 


7 


5 


♦, u-.tA-iot. iNT»T - SO 'cmzt 


25 




25 


3 


3 


t At-IlvFTlD »0»C«L( (NT»T 


9 




9 






6 LAHCENY . THEFT lEXCEPT AUTO THEFT) 


653 


3 


650 


38 


15 




k UNO(t J» in VALUt 


221 


3 


218 


12 


7 


7 AUTO THEFT 


83 


2 


81 


5 


2 


GRAND TOTAL 


1612 


20 


1592 


198 


87 



38 



1412 



PART 1 OFFENSHS REPORTED, 
BY MONTH & LOCATION 



LOCATIOI 


JAN 


FEB 


HAR 


APR 


HAY 


ju; 


JUL 


AUG 


SEP 


OCT 


HOV 


DEC 


TCTAL 


DISTRICT 1 (Sub-Total) 


23 


17 


22 


60 


127 


59 


115 


66 


36 


39 


3D 


39 


633 


(V) mtv St.reets. D. K. 








3 


? 


1 




3 


3 




3 


3 


19 


n Constitution Ave. D.C. 








1 


1 




3 


1 


2 






ft 1 


1^ I.Mpont Circle. 3.C. 






2 






1 


1 


1 


3 




1 


1 


11 


17 East Potomac. D.C. 


£ 


4 


\ 


5 


5 


8 


12 


12 


4 




5 


<- 


64 


19 Ellipse. D.C. 


1 


2 




5 


? 


5 


f) 


1 


? 




1 


4 


39 


20 JFK Center, D.C. 


5 


5 


12 


6 


6 


n 


7 


fi 


3 






4 


fin 


29 FYanklin Park. D.C. 


1 






'} 


2 


2 


!? 


■j 


3 




2 


f, 


39 


31 I-'.aricn i Folrer 










1 
















1 


37 Lafavette Jqoare 










1 


1 




1 








2 


6 


39 Lincoln Park 








? 


1 


1 






1 






1 


6 


il Hall 


6 


3 


1 


15 


14 


23 


21 


20 


14 


12 


5 


9 


149 


47 Mount Vemon Sauare 




























58 West Potomac Park 


1 


5 




7 


2 


2 


32 


6 






3 


1 


59 


69 Washinptcn Konirnent Gmd 


3 


1 




14 


89 


4 


21 


8 


1 




2 


6 


152 


DISTRICT 2 (Sub-Total) 


5 


6 


10 


6 


17 


24 


33 


25 


8 


21 


9 


12 


176 


06 CiO Canal. Md. 


2 








1 


3 


4 


2 






1 




13 


11 Colunbia Island. D.C. 




1 


1 






2 


3 


2 




4 




1 


14 


16 Citv Streets. Va. 




























22 Great Falls. M. 


1 






1 


3 


2 


2 


1 


1 


? 


1 


1 15 1 


2'- Fort Hunti Va. 










? 


1 


1 


4 








L 


in 1 


28 .'cr.es Pointj_Va. 










1 














1 1 


32 Great Falls. Va. 






1 






p 


1 


3 




^ 






in 


33 G,'.V,M,P.. Va. 


? 


1, 


fi 


£; 


Q 


in 


14 


Q 


fi 


11 


6 


4 


85 


36 Arlinrton, Ce:ieterv, Va. 






1 






1 


2 


1 










5 


38 G.W.M.P., D.C. (Ad1 Cifl) 










1 


1 














2 


to G.W.M.P., m. 




1 










1 


1 


1 


1 




1 


1 s 


52 Woir Tnp --an-.. Va. 




1 


1 








r. 








1 




1 1 


63 Roosevelt Islar.d, ':..Z. 




























DISTRICT 3 (Sub- Total) 


10 


11 


12 


35 


25 


2^ 


18 


fi? 


13 


17 


10 


1? 


281 


07 CiO Canal. D.C. 








? 


3 


1 


? 


1 




? 






11 


U^ Meridian Hill, D.C. 


3 


? 




3 


4 


1 


? 


fi 


P 


P 


1 


1 


?7 


45 Montrose ftirk. D.C. 






1 






1 








c 






5 


49 Falisades. D.C. 










1 






1 










2 


57 Reservaticn West. D.C. 


1 


1 


2 


4 


4 


-} 


8 


13 


3 


2 


4 


3 


50 


59 Rock Creek ferk. D.C. 


4 


3 


8 


12 


6 


12 


30 


38 


7 


8 


5 


7 


140 


61 Rock Creek FSrkwav. D.C. 


2 


3 


1 


14 


7 


7 


6 


3 


1 


1 




1 


46 


DISTRICT 4 (Sub-Total) 


6 


7 


7 


9 


7 


14 


13 


1 


8 


5 


i 


3 


85 


03 Bait-Wash Parkway. I-U. 


1 


2 


5 


2 


4 


6 


7 






1 


4 


2 


37 


05 ActIc. Resc. Canter. M. 


c 


1 


T 


1 


3 


^ 


3 


1 


2 


2 


1 




1 -> 


03 Catoctin. Md. 




























12 Citv Streets. Md, 




2 




1 




5 


2 




3 


? 






15 


34 Greenbelt F^rk. Md, 




2 




5 




2 


1 












in 


DISTRICT 5 (Sub-Total) 


3 


5 


§ 


18 


If? 


17 


3fi 


,10 


PI 


14 


13 


7 


ISfi 


01 Anacostia Park, D.C. 


2 




1 


2 


fi 


S 


PI 


17 


fi 




1 


? 


6? 


10 RTr; :>.3dia-:i. r.c. 




1 




3 


1 


1 


2 


4 


1 


3 


q 


4 


?9 


21 rr,r. LMlxr.t, D.C. 




1 


1 


-J 


1 




■J 


4 


1 




? 




22 


2") Fort Foote. Md. 








1 




1 


1 




1 


1 






5 


27 Fort Washinrton, Md. 




1 


7 


4 


4 


1 


? 


9 


6 


4 


1 




29 


30 Piscatawav. (id. 




























55 Reservation East, D.C. 


1 


2 


1 


3 


2 


4 


7 


3 


6 


4 






3 3 


65 Stanton Park. D.C. 
























1 


1 


68 Suitland F&rkwav. Md. 






1 


1 




1 






1 








5 


;;3-; YOFi: fiQ-D office 






1 


5 


32 


31 


47 


11 


18 


16 


17 


14 


H2 


SAN FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE 








5 


7 


11 


6 


7 


5 


4 


6 


8 


59 


TCT?AL 


47 


46 


58 


138 


231 


182 


298 


202 


109 


116 


90 


95 


1612 


l":fol;:.jcJ 






2 


2 


4 


1 


1 


I 


2 


t 






20 


c-ia::d tctal 


47 


46 


56 


136 


227 


181 


297 


201 


107 


109 


90 


95 


1592 



39 



1413 



PART II OFFLNSLb KI-lOKTl^D, 
BY CLASSH^ICAIION 



CLASSIFICATION 



D.C. 



MD. 



VA. 



N.Y. 



CALIF. 



TOTAL 



Arson 

Vandalism 

Stolen Property 

Weapons 

Sex Offenses (Other than Rape) 

Narcotic and Drug Laws 

Liquor Laws 

Drunkenness 

Disorderly 

Vaqrancy 

Gamblina 

Driving Under Influence 

Road and Drivina Violations — 

Parkina Violations -- 

Suspicious Persons 

All Other Offenses 

Fraud 

Embezzlement 



4 

292 

18 

31 

25 

29 

3 

292 

198 



58 
666 
521 
609 
306 



1 



168 

9 

42 

7 
42 
17 
52 
44 



302 

1,172 

49 

244 

197 



76 
4 

21 
6 

12 
11 
15 
53 



70 
164 

31 
133 

39 



4 

378 

25 

13 

20 

6 

3 

131 

5 
1 
389 
658 
125 
919 



1 
75 
1 
3 
5 
1 
1 
3 
5 



93 
18 
63 
86 
1 



9 

989 

57 

110 

63 

90 

32 

365 

431 

6 

431 

2,484 

1,277 

1,174 

1,547 

1 

1 



TOTAL 



3,054 



2,345 



635 



2,677 



356 



9,067 



SERVICE INCIDENTS REPORTED, 
BY CLASSIFICATION 



CLASSIFICATION 



D.C. 



MD. 



VA. 



NY. 



CALIF. 



TOTAL 



Abandoned & Impounded Autos 

Animals and Wildlife 

Assist to Citizens 

Assist to Other Departments 

Bomb Threats 

Deaths -- 

Disaster — 

Unsecured Installations 

Damage Govt. Property 

(Non-Malicious only) 

Fires 

Hazardous Conditions 

Athletic 

Park Maintenance Needed 

Permits 

Personnel 

Persons Missino & Found 

Police Services 

Property Lost and Found 

Sick and Injured 

Suicides 



351 

161 

,198 

,726 

16 

15 

719 

58 

98 

200 

10 

,280 

1 

484 

121 

,490 

,675 

529 

12 



351 

187 

4,295 

1,034 

4 

2 

362 

24 
77 
93 

868 

63 

18 

1,743 

208 

85 



150 

39 

1,979 

377 



63 



5 
28 



335 

31 

7 

1,012 

178 

89 

4 



185 
233 
803 
238 

2 

297 



367 
362 

4 
694 

1 

7 

112 

619 

77 

464 

2 



14 


1,051 


53 


673 


320 


11,595 


348 


4,723 


5 


25 


4 


26 


1 


1 


172 


1,613 


10 


97 


20 


590 


45 


781 


1 


15 


146 


3,323 




2 


28 


613 


10 


268 


696 


10,560 


56 


3,194 


40 


1,207 


5 


23 



TOTAL 



20,144 



9,414 4,381 
•UO- 



4,467 



1,974 



40,380 



1414 



PART 11 OFFENSES REPORTED, 
BY MONTH & LOCATION 



LOCATICW 


JAN 


FEB 


MAR 


APR 


MAY 


Jin 


JUL 


AUG 


SEP 


OCT 


NOV 


DEC 


TOTAL 


DISTRICT 1 (Sub-Total) 


172 


113 


156 


122 


149 


124 


166 


146 


134 


150 


127 


131 


1690 


OQ mtv Streets, n.n. 


42 


27 


21 


13 


22 


15 


16 


18 


33 


32 


27 


31 


297 


13 Constitution Ave, D.C, 


12 


16 


26 


5 


18 


7 


15 


15 


16 


15 


19 


18 


182 


15 Dupant Circle. D.C. 


2 




2 


1 


7 


3 


1 


3 


7 


7 




3 


36 


17 East Potomac. D.C. 


14 




5 


13 


15 


13 


14 


20 


5 


10 


12 


8 


130 


19 Ellipse, D.C. 


1§ 


1 


19 


13 


13 


9 


10 


14 


6 


19 


8 


11 


149 


20 JFK Center, D.C. 


1 


5 


3 


10 


3 


5 


3 


5 


10 


5 


4 


6 


60 


29 FVankliji Park. D.C. 


3 




4 


§ 


1 


4 


16 


4 


3 


3 


3 


1 


48 


31 Marion i Folger 




























37 Ufayette Square 


5 


2 


7 


7 


5 


7 


10 


10 


5 


7 


2 


2 


69 


39 Lincoln Park 








1 


6 


7 


S 


3 


1 


1 


3 




27 


il Mall 


31 


10 


17 


17 


14 


19 


19 


1? 


16 


16 


21 


29 


226 


t.7 Mount Vemcn Square 


1 
















1 








2 


58 West Potomac f^rk 


26 


28 


27 


25 


20 


23 


40 


26 


21 


25 


20 


15 


296 


69 WashinRtcn Monument Qmd 


19 


13 


25 


11 


25 


13 


17 


10 


10 


10 


8 


7 


168 


DISTRICT 2 (Sub-Total) 


54 


46 


72 


79 


52 


71 


77 


58 


71 


94 


67 


53 


794 


06 CiJO Canal, Md. 




2 


3 


1 


1 


2 


2 


1 


2 


3 






17 


11 Columbia Island, D.C. 


3 


3 




5 




2 


8 


2 


6 


4 


5 


4 


42 


16 Citr Streets, Va. 




2 


1 


1 




4 




1 






1 




10 


22 Great Falls, Md. 








2 


1 




2 




1 


2 






8 


25 Fort Hunt. Va. 


7 


6 


13 


8 


2 


11 


10 


3 


15 


17 


3 


4 


99 


28 Jones Point, Va. 




1 




1 




5 




1 


1 


1 


1 




11 


32 Great Falls, Va. 


5 


3 


5 


3 


2 


3 




5 


2 


7 


2 


1 


38 


33 G,W,M,P,, Va. 


30 


21 


36 


45 


38 


39 


48 


34 


35 


51 


44 


25 


446 


36 Arlinpton. Cemetery, Va. 






1 


1 




1 




2 








1 1 6 1 


38 G.W.M.P.. D.C. (Ad.1 040) 


















2 






1 


3 


W G.W.M.P.. Md. 


8 


8 


9 


8 


4 


2 


4 


7 


5 


8 


11 


15 


89 


52 Wolf Trap Farm, Va. 


1 




4 


4 


4 


2 


3 


2 


2 


1 




2 


25 


63 Roosevelt Island, D.C. 




























DISTRICT 3 (Sub-Total) 


55 


SO 


64 


88 


61 


78 


101 


112 


63 


54 


47 


41 


814 


07 CJbO Canal. D.C. 


3 


1 




4 


2 






2 




1 


4 




17 


Wi Meridian Hill, D.C. 


1 


1 


6 


1 


7 


4 


2 


2 




4 






28 


i»5 Montrose Park. D.C. 








■] 


4 


s 


4 


1 


S 


in 


1 




34 


49 Palisades, D.C. 




1 






5 


1 






3 


1 






11 


57 Reservaticn West. D.C. 


4 


6 


6 


14 


8 


19 


21 


16 


16 


9 


9 


9 


137 


59 Rock Creek Park. D.C. 


PI 


?7 


IS 


37 


PS 


33 


fin 


79 


31 


12 


22 


21 


405 


61 Rock Creek Parkvav. D.C. 


?4 


14 


17 


?9 


in 


16 


14 


1? 


7 


17 


11 


11 


182 


DISTRICT It (Sub-Total) 


105 


119 


116 


141 


134 


1/0 


186 


149 


172 


165 


152 


124 


1733 


03 Bait-Wash Parkway. Md. 


'''i 


lin 


ion 


11? 


111 


145 


168 


132 


158 


144 


136 


118 


1529 


05 Ara-ic. Resc. C^ter, Md. 


5 


e 


11 


12 


13 


11 


12 


7 


4 


10 


7 


3 


101 


08 Catoctin. Md. 


1 
























1 


12 City Streets. Md. 


1 




1 


2 


1 


3 




2 


4 


6 


3 


1 


24 


34 Greenbelt Park. Md. 


3 


3 


4 


15 


9 


11 


6 


b 


6 


b 


6 


2 


78 


DISTRICT 5 (Sub-Total) 


69 


79 


114 


77 


83 


86 


81 


94 


75 


88 


75 


82 


1003 


01 Anacostia Park. D.C. 


5 


8 


15 


10 


18 


12 


21 


32 


17 


22 


22 


21 


199 


10 RFK Stadium. D.C. 


1 


1 


1 


2 


2 


1 


1 


5 


4 


2 


5 


2 


27 


21 Fort Dupant, D.C. 


IS 


1? 


14 


8 


15 


18 


13 


Q 


7 


10 


11 


9 


141 


23 Fort Foote, Hd. 


? 


1 


1 


1 


? 


3 


1 


4 


1 


2 




3 


21 


27 Fort Washington, Md. 




4 


18 


20 


19 


12 


4 


9 


11 


8 


7 


1 


113 


30 Piscataway. Hd. 




1 


1 




2 






2 


1 


2 


2 




11 


55 Reservaticn East. D.C. 


IS 


18 


19 


11 


7 


7 


14 


7 


6 


7 


7 


19 


137 


65 Stanton Park, D.C. 






1 




















1 


68 Suitland Parkway. Md. 


^^ 


34 


46 


?s 


18 


33 


?7 


Pfi 


Pfi 


3S 


PI 


P7 


353 


NO* YC5JK FIELD CFFICE 






7 


201 


313 


389 


351 


303 


333 


223 


337 


220 


2677 


SAN FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE 








38 


49 


59 


50 


32 


28 


22 


36 


42 


356 






























GRAND TOTAL 


455 


407 


529 


746 


841 


977 


1012 


894 


876 


796 


841 


693 


9067 



la 



1415 



JUVbNlLtib AHHKtntlSUtU 



TYPE OF OFFENSE 



Rape 

Robbery 

Assault 

Burglary — 

Larceny 

Auto Theft - 

Arson 

Stolen Property - 

Vandalism - 

Weapons 

Sex Offenses 

Narcotic Drug 

Gambling 

Driving Under Influence -- 

Liquor Laws 

Drunkenness 

Disorderly 

Vagrancy 

All Other (Except Traffic) 
Curfew & Loitering Laws -- 

Run-Aways 

Suspicion 



10 & 

Under 



Total 

Traffic Violations 



7 
4 

4 
1 
1 
2 

13 
1 



4 
12 

2 

3 



55 

4 



11-1? 



11 
8 
2 
8 
2 
1 
2 

16 
1 



68 

17 



13-14 

4 
21 

7 

4 
11 

4 

1 

7 
22 

7 

6 

8 



4 

8 

2/ 

12 

18 

171 

36 



15 

1 

6 
5 
3 

10 
6 

5 

14 

9 

5 

20 



7 
21 

39 
2 
5 

15 

173 

48 



16 



12 
9 

14 
22 

5 
7 

4 
2 

34 

6 
9 
6 

28 

48 
2 
2 

19 



229 

53 



17 

4 
7 

12 
1 
9 



2 
8 
5 

41 
1 
6 

19 
2 

32 

73 

3 
19 

252 

63 



TOTAl 

9 

64 
45 
10 
56 
43 

3 
23 
80 
27 
13 
103 

1 
13 
39 

8 
97 

207 

4 

25 

78 

948 

221 



GRAND TOTAL 



59 



85 



207 



221 



282 



315 



1169 



TYPE OF OFFENSE 



Arson 

Rape 

Robbery 

Assault 

Burglary 

Larceny 

Auto Theft 

Stolen Property - 

Vandalism 

Weapons 

Sex Offenses 

Narcotic Drug 

Liquor Laws 

Gambling 

Disorderly 

Vagrancy 

Drunkenness 

Curfew J Loitering Laws 

Run-Aways 

Truancy 

Driving Under the Influence- 
All Other (Except Traffic)-- 
Suspicion 



1970 



4 

49 
20 
10 
74 
49 
2 
35 
11 

58 
25 

116 

4 
63 
53 
65 

1 
73 

7 



1971 



25 
14 

7 
28 
30 

5 
23 
20 

3 
55 

9 

89 

6 
6 

45 
21 

150 
12 



1972 



41 
16 
17 
43 
28 
18 
23 
22 
1 
53 
13 

72 
1 
5 
2 

21 

1 

117 

39 



1973 



1 

51 
40 

3 
91 
40 

4 
48 
19 

4 

68 
13 

57 

1 

6 

26 



169 
46 



1974 

3 

9 
64 
45 
10 
56 
43 
23 
80 
27 
13 
103 
39 
1 
97 

8 

4 

25 

13 

207 

78 



Total 
Traffic Violations 



GRAND TOTAL 



719 
82 



548 
96 



801 



604 



533 
74 



607 



695 
99 



794 



948 
221 



1,169 



U2 



1410 



SERVICE INCIDENTS REPORTED, 
BY MONIH & LOCATION 



LOCATICN 


JAN 


FEB 


MAR 


APR 


MAY 


JUJ 


JUL 


AUG 


SEP 


OCT 


NOV 


DEC 


TOTAL 


DISTRICT 1 (Sub-Total) 


1079 


1168 


1174 


1272 


1188 


1252 


1419 


1381 


923 


1046 


922 


1118 


13942 


OQ tXt.v St.rect.s, n.C. 


239 


265 


253 


233 


238 


219 


211 


25b 


2Ub 


24fi 


261 


2tl 


290B 


13 Constitution Ave. D.C. 


27 


23 


44 


29 


31 


25 


43 


b4 


30 


54 


bl 


56 


46/ 


1^ Dupont Circle. D.C. 


7 


2 


5 


4 


5 


5 


2 


2 


17 


6 


a 


6 


69 


17 East Potomac. D.C. 


44 


37 


53 


91 


70 


88 


102 


90 


b6 


63 


bl 


60 


835 


19 ElUpse. D.C. 


P?9 


??7 


243 


277 


258 


276 


252 


209 


131 


106 


66 


19t 


2465 


20 JFK Center. D.C. 


?R<> 


344 


306 


267 


236 


244 


211 


202 


169 


249 


245 


284 


3046 


29 Franklin Park. D.C. 


"J 


} 


2 


7 


5 


3 


10 


16 


8 


6 


■t 


"J 




31 Kai-iCTi i Foli^er 




1 


1 


2 


3 
















7 


37 Lafavette Square 


14 


Ifl 


R 


17 


in 


45 


2n 


?r 


?0 


22 


18 


13 


225 


39 Lincoln Park 


= 


1 


? 


4 


7 


15 


30 


12 


5 


4 




1 


86 


J»l Mall 


4f^ 


41 


5fi 


fifi 


fi? 


69 


5fi 


in<i 


4fi 


60 


4S 


59 


727 


47 Ho\a\t Vemm Square 




























58 West Potomac Park 


109 


128 


128 


191 


120 


169 


301 


204 


179 


142 


134 


112 


'1917 


69 Washingtcn Monument Gmd 


63| 


70 


81 


84 


143 


94 


181 


16E 


57 


66 


3<J 


72 


1118 


DISTRICT 2 (Sub-Total) 


406 


346 


440 


492 


417 


509 


482 


549 


431 


370 


412 


409 


5263 


06 CiO Canal. Hd. 


7 


1 


n 


f, 


3 


G 


7 


7 


7 


2 




4 


62 


11 Columbia Island. D.C. 


27 


n 


11 


25 


25 


11 


15 


26 


?3 


1? 


15 


Ifi 


217 


16 City Streets. Va. 


19 


''§ 


?? 


23 


14 


19 


17 


13 


13 


n 


17 


?0 


71fi 


22 Great Falls. Md. 


2 




9 


5 


6 


7 


5 


5 


? 


? 


3 


7 


';', 


25 Fort Hunt. Va, 


11 


19 


15 


23 


16 


17 


25 


9 


16 


1? 


1? 


7 


182 


28 Jones Paint, Va. 








2 




1 


3 


3 


1 


p 


3 


3 


18 


32 Great Falls. Va. 


16 


14 


16 


17 


7 


15 


l(j 


IS 


1 


?? 


IS 


21 


179 


33 G,W,M,P.. Va. 


270 


224 


270 


317 


282 


316 


pap 


340 


295 


264 


312 


264 


3436 


36 Arlinpton, Ceiieterv, Va. 


2 


1 




4 


2 


4 


6 


? 


fi 




1 




7R 


36 G.W.M.P., D.C. (Adi CAO) 


7 


1 


? 




3 


1 






5 


_' 




3 


19 


to G.W.M.P.. Md. 


42 


39 


72 


60 


47 


42 


27 


4'> 


40 


3? 


22 


59 


527 


52 Wolf Trap Farm. Va. 


S 


8 


14 


in 


1? 


fiPi 


79 


84 


?? 


7 


4 


5 


321 


63 Roosevelt Island. D.C. 






1 






2 














3 


DISTRICT 3 (Sub-Total) 


324 


272 


322 


371 


362 


342 


456 


391 


302 


?6f3 


313 


255 


3978 


07 CiO Canal. D.C. 


7 


2 


9 


10 


6 


7 


10 


8 


5 


4 


P 


1 


7? 


U3 Meridian Hill. D.C. 


4 


4 


5 


14 


15 


5 


19 


17 


9 


3 


6 


1 


102 


W) Montrose Park, D.C. 


4 


2 


3 


6 


14 


in 


p. 


5 


4 


7 


? 


1 


66 


A9 Palisades. D.C. 


5 


4 


? 


4 


5 


3 


1 


3 


6 


6 


8 


? 


4y 


57 P^servatlcii West. D.C. 


84 


45 


64 


82 


82 


76 


106 


101 


54 


?7 


■)? 


44 


817 


59 Rock Creek Park. D.C. ■ 


lis 


106 


137 


140 


142 


140 


P06 


17") 


148 


135 


138 


116 


1701 


61 Rock Creek I^rkwar. D.C. 


102 


109 


102 


115 


98 


101 


lOfj 


8? 


75 


Rfi 


105 


90 


1171 


DISTRICT U (Sub-Total) 


537 


592 


761 


722 


732 


728 


615 


m 


S98 


623 


469 


520 


7586 


03 Bait-Wash ftirkwav. Md. 


460 


436 


595 


555 


548 


560 


46? 


555 


477 


4fi8 


37R 


412 


5966 


05 AKTic. Resc. Coiter. Md. 


17 


28 


59 


35 


40 


46 


38 


30 


35 


36 


29 


23 


416 


08 Catoctin. Md. 


1 










1 




1 


1 








4 


12 City Streets, Md. 


4^ 


40 


41 


62 


39 


42 


53 


46 


P9 


47 


38 


56 


534 


3/. Greenbelt Park. Md. 


28 


38 


66 


70 


105 


79 


fi? 


57 


Sfi 


5? 


?4 


29 


666 


DISTRICT 5 (Sub-Total) 


211 


247 


258 


256 


248 


272 


305 


343 


213 


240 


230 


181 


3004 


01 Anacostia F&rk. D.C. 


37 


39 


53 


70 


65 


71 


83 


1?? 


47 


53 


58 


31 


729 


10 RFK Stadium. D.C. 


13 


19 


7 


12 


27 


17 


14 


3^ 


P9 


31 


19 


18 


245 


21 Fort Dutxjit, D.C. 


2S 


29 


31 


36 


34 


59 


86 


37 


37 


37 


35 


15 


464 


23 Fort Foot.e. Md. 


U 


17 


13 


4 


13 


8 


8 


11 


10 


8 


9 


6 


123 


27 Fort WastmiRton. m. 


6 


13 


20 


24 


20 


10 


12 


11 


15 


1^ 


7 


5 


](:? 


30 Piscataway, Md. 


6 


4 


3 


? 


^ 


3 


3 


4 


1 




1 


4 


34 


55 Reservsticn East. D.C. 


30 


33 


42 


30 


22 


30 


3? 


?7 


1" 


?9 


41 


24 


365 


65 Stanton Park, D.C. 








1 



c. 


5 


3 


3 


1 


3 






18 


68 Sultland Parkway, Md. 


75 


93 


89 


77 


62 


69 


58 


89 


S4 


60 


fiO 


78 


864 


NEH YORK FIELD CFFICK 






3 


143 


346 


636 


898 


749 


367 


350 


544 


429 


4467 


SAN FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE 








219 


228 


213 


322 


253 


186 


207 


199 


147 


1974 


ALL OTHER REGICKS (Sub-Total ; 


9 


10 


15 


17 


24 


18 


27 


17 


15 


4 


7 


3 


166 


C3!AND TOTAL 


!566 


2635 


2973 


3492 


3545 


3972 


1524 


4372 


3035 


3108 


3096 


3062 


40380 



k3 



1417 



FIVE YEAR COMPARISON 
OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS 



CLASSIFICATION 



1970 



1971 



1972 



1973 



1974 



MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS 

Property Damage 

Injury (Non-Fatal 

Fatal 

TOTAL 



2,764 

595 

22 



2,938 

552 

26 



3,381 3,516 



TYPE OF ACCIDENT 

Motor Vehicle - Motor Vehicle 
Motor Vehicle - Pedestrian --- 
Motor Vehicle - Fixed Object - 
Other (Non-Collision) 

TOTAL 



2,661 

32 

571 

117 

3.381 



Persons Killed (Non-Pedestrian) ■ 
Persons Injured (Non-Pedestrian) 

Pedestrians Killed 

Pedestrians Injured 

TOTAL KILLED 

TOTAL INJURED 



20 

878 

4 

27 

24 
905 



3,091 

586 

19 

3,696 



3,058 

551 

26 

3,635 



2,695 

43 

770 



3,516 



21 

809 

6 

39 

27 
848 



2,913 

30 

735 

18 

3,696 



19 

913 

3 

26 

22 
939 



2,848 

35 

615 

137 

3,635 



21 

528 

5 

23 

26 
551 



2,617 

504 

15 

3,136 



2,487 

27 

514 

108 

3,136 



14 
717 

1 
23 

15 
740 



uu 



52-587 O - 75 - pt.2 - 21 



1418 



TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS BY LOCATION 



LOCATION 



PROPERTY 

DAMAGE 

ACCIDENTS 



PERSONAL 

INJURY 
ACCIDENTS 



FATAL 
ACCIDENTS 



TOTAL 



DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Anacostia - 

Bal timore-Washinaton Parkway 

C i Canal 

Areas Outside Park 

Columbia Island 

Constitution Avenue 

East Potomac Park -- 

Ellipse --- — - 

Fort Oupont Park 

Mall 

Reservation East 

Reservation West 

Rock Creek Park --- 

Rock Creek Parkway 

JFK Center -- 

Washington Monument Grounds 

West Potomac Park 

G.W.M.P., Washington, D.C. - 

R.F.K. Stadium, D.C. 

Palisades 

TOTAL 

STATE OF MARYLAND 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway 

C & Canal ■ 

Fort Washington 

G.W.P. (Md.) • 

Suitland Parkway ■ 

Agric. Research Center 

Greenbelt Park ■ 

Great Falls --- ■ 

Areas Outside Park 

Fort Foote ■ 



20 

1 

1 

38 

113 

156 

27 

54 

13 

41 

4 

1 

169 

180 

25 

108 

386 

1 

12 

1 



10 



7 
8 
14 
10 
5 
5 
2 



60 
21 

20 
31 



30 

1 

1 

45 

122 

170 

37 

59 

18 

43 

4 

1 

232 

201 

25 

128 

417 

1 

13 

1 



1.351 



194 



1,549 



497 

1 

8 

42 

102 
32 
5 
4 
4 
3 



128 

1 
10 
35 
13 

2 



631 

1 
9 

53 
137 

45 
7 
4 
4 
4 



TOTAL 

STATE OF VIRGINIA 

G.W.M.P. 

Fort Hunt 

Great Falls 

Wolf Trap Farms 

Areas Outside Park - 
Arlington Cemetery - 

TOTAL 



698 



190 



895 



481 
8 
2 
9 
2 
5 



107 
4 
1 



591 
12 

3 
9 
2 
6 



507 



STATE OF NEW YORK 
Breezy Point 
Staten Island 
Jamaica Bay 



113 



623 



TOTAL 



16 



18 



STATE OF NEW JERSEY 
Sandy Hook 



19 



20 



TOTAL 



19 



20 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
Waterfront Park 
San Francisco Headlands 
Marin Headlands 
Fort Point NHS 
Areas Outside Park 



4 
1 
11 
9 
1 



4 
1 
15 
9 
2 



TOTAL 



26 



31 



GRAND TOTAL 



2,617 



504 



15 



3,136 



US 



1419 



TRAFFIC ACClDliNT SURVliY 



CLASSIFICATION 

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS 

Property Damaae 

Injury -- 

Fatal - 

TOTAL - 

TYPE OF ACCIDENT 

Motor Vehicle - Motor Vehicle -- 

Motor Vehicle - Pedestrian 

Motor Vehicle - Fixed Object --- 
Other (Non Collision) 

TOTAL 

PERSONS KILLED AND INJURED 

Persons Killed (Non-Pedestrian) 

Pedestrians Killed 

Persons Injured (Non-Pedestrian) 
Pedestrians Injured 

TOTAL KILLED -- 

TOTAL INJURED 



DISTRICT 

OF 
COLUMBIA 



STATE 
OF 
MD. 



STATE 
OF 
VA. 



STATE 
OF 
NY. 



STATE 

OF 

CALIF 



TOTAL 



1,351 
194 

4 

1.549 



698 
190 

7 

895 



507 

113 

3 

623 



35 
2 

1 

38 



26 
5 



31 



2.617 

504 

15 

3.136 



1,322 

16 

186 

25 

1.549 



645 

8 

190 

52 

895 



481 

2 

121 

19 

623 



29 
1 
7 
1 

38 



10 

10 
11 

31 



2,487 

27 

514 

108 

3,136 



4 



277 

16 



293 



6 

1 

275 

5 



280 



3 



154 

2 



156 



14 

1 

717 

23 

15 
736 



AGES OF OPERATORS INVOLVED 



AREA 


18-20 


21-24 


25-29 


30-34 


35-39 


40-44 


45-49 


50-54 


55-59 


60 
Over 


TOTAL 
























D.C. 
























Male 


195 


332 


336 


335 


201 


194 


174 


139 


91 


281 


2,278 


Female 


73 


127 


111 


102 


55 


43 


38 


37 


32 


68 


686 


MARYLAND 
























Male 


211 


138 


182 


164 


108 


104 


110 


61 


38 


127 


1,243 


Female 


68 


59 


62 


50 


30 


25 


25 


24 


8 


23 


374 


VIRGINIA 
























Male 


144 


83 


112 


105 


85 


84 


86 


67 


39 


92 


897 


Female 


62 


37 


38 


42 


11 


16 


22 


12 


10 


24 


274 


NEW YORK 
























Male 


15 


13 


4 


7 


1 


4 


1 






1 


46 


Female 


5 


1 


3 




1 


1 










11 


CALIFORNIA 
























Male 


6 


6 


11 


4 


1 


1 


2 


1 


1 


4 


37 


Female 














1 


1 


1 




3 


TOTAL 
























Male 


571 


572 


645 


615 


396 


387 


373 


268 


169 


505 


4,501 


Femal e 


208 


224 


214 


194 


97 


85 


86 


74 


51 


115 


1.348 


TOTAL 


779 


796 


859 


809 


^93 


472 


459 


342 


220 


620 


5,849 












1 


i6 













1420 



TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS 

by 
MONTH, DAY OF WEEK & HOUR 



CLASSIFICATION 


JAN 


FEB 


MAR 


APR 


MAY 


JUN 


JUL 


AUG 


SEPT 


OCT 


NOV 


DEC 


TOTAL 


Property Damaqe 
Accidents 


133 


142 


170 


228 


228 


245 


242 


256 


197 


247 


259 


260 


2.617 


Personal Injury 
Accidents 


25 


22 


33 


46 


40 


54 


53 


58 


36 


39 


46 


52 


504 


Fatal 
Accidents 


1 


1 


5 


1 


■ 


1 













1 


15 


TOTAL 


159 


165 


208 


275 


269 


300 


295 


326 


235 


286 


305 


313 


3,136 



DAY OF WEEK 


O.C. 


% 


MD. 




VA. 


% 


N.Y. 

& 
N.J. 


% 


CALIF. 


r? 


TOTAL 


PERCENT 


Monday 


215 


145; 


105 


12', 


89 


14% 


6 


16% 


5 


16% 


420 


13% 


Tuesday 


218 


14% 


116 


13% 


86 


14% 


9 


24% 


1 


3% 


430 


14% 


Wednesday 


239 


15% 


117 


13% 


76 


13% 


1 


3% 


2 


7% 


435 


14% 


Thursday 


231 


15% 


97 


11% 


101 


16% 


3 


7% 


1 


3% 


433 


14" 


Friday 


259 


17% 


191 


21% 


101 


16% 


6 


16% 


6 


19% 


563 


18% 


Saturday 


192 


12% 


155 


17% 


88 


14% 


6 


16% 


9 


29- 


450 


14% 


Sunday 


195 


13% 


114 


13% 


82 


13% 


7 


18% 


7 


23% 


405 


13% 


TOTAL 


1,549 


100% 


895 


100% 


623 


100% 


38 


100% 


31 


100% 


3,136 


100% 



HOUR OF DAY 

12 - 01 ■ 

01 - 02 • 

02 - 03 

03 - 04 ■ 

04 - 05 • 

05 - 06 ■ 

06 - 07 • 

07 - 08 ---■ 

08 - 09 

09 - 10 • 

10 - 11 

11 - 12 

TOTAL 



TOTAL 



A.M. 
HOURS 



P.M. 
HOURS 



250 
233 
270 
302 
310 
288 
258 
264 
318 
239 
203 
201 



112 

89 

81 

53 

30 

29 

66 

127 

219 

131 

103 

106 



138 
144 
189 
249 
280 
259 
192 
137 

99 
108 
100 

95 



3,136 



1,146 



1,990 



■1*7- 



1421 

Chief Wells. The only thing I would say is that the U.S. Park 
Police not only works in the District of Columbia but we have areas 
of responsibility in the environs of the District of Columbia, which 
basically iiicliulo Prince (leor^jes County. Montgomery County, and 
Anne Arundel County in the State of Maryland. We also have re- 
sponsibilities in Fairfax, Arlington, and the city of Alexandria on 
Federal property. 

We are planning some of the necessary arrangements with law en- 
forcement agencies concerning the Bicentennial. We feel that the major 
area of the Bicentennial will be from the Capitol to Lincoln Memorial 
along the Mall area, and we have been meeting regularly with the 
Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police, the Armed Forces JPolice, and 
the Smithsonian protective people concerning the events that will be 
held in this area. 

We are planning a communications system which will have a central 
point at our headquarters and we hope to coordinate the activities that 
occur in this area ; and we are also going to put some trailers on the 
Mall to provide police services to the visitors ; and in the process we 
are developing a plan which will give us additional police for the Bi- 
centennial period, as well as getting some police aides which will be 
able to aid in traffic and informational services during this period. 

And I would be glad to answer any questions that you have with 
reference to my statement, or anything I have said, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Chief. I am going to yield 
to the gentleman from the District and reserve my time. 

Mr, Fauntrot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have no questions at this time. 

The Chairman. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. 

BICENTENNXAL PLANNING . -r 

Mr. Harris. T was in the preparations with regard to the Bicen- 
tennial. What sort of trailers did you say you were going to have with 
regard to assisting the District police service? 

Chief Wells. At the present time we are planning on locating four 
trailers on the Mall where we will station these police aides and police 
officers where the people will have a point of contact for police services 
in what we think will be the major Bicentennial area of the District of 
Columbia. 

Mr. Harris. T asked the question of some other men here the other 
day, but basically let me ask you the same unfair question. What, in 
your opinion, has to be done with regard to large crowds in the Bicen- 
tennial that was not done with regard to Human Kindness Day to 
prevent occurrences like those that occurred on Human Kindness Day? 

Chief Wells. I would think 

Mr. Harris. Outside of banning rock music. 

Chief WelIvS. Well maybe that is not the easiest thing to do. I would 
say that our programing has to attract a broad base of people, and 
when you have directions or programs that bring together large groups 
of youth with all the frustrations that are in our society today over a 
long period from say noon to almost 8 at night, where some of those 
programs are interrupted and not continuous in nature, where there 



1422 

are a lot of — if a lot of wine-drinkinp, pot-smokiner. and this type of 
activity, then I think you can expect trouble. But I do not share the 
fear that we are ^oing to have a violent Bicentennial. 

If \ye use tlie appropriate propramin^ and have the proper amount 
of police and protection methods to handle these situations. 

Mr. Harris. As I understand it. basically the enforcement responsi- 
bilities were left to the Park Police with resrard to Human Kindness 
Day with respect to the activities on the Mall grounds. 

Is that correct? 

Chief Wells. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. Harris. Has it been determined that this is a bad idea to have 
sort of a cooperative enforcement responsibility when a crowd is that 
large? 

Chief Wells. Well, I do not think there is any lack of cooperation. 
We planned with the Metropolitan Police and other groups for over 
5 months for tins situation. We worked closely with them. They knew 
our plans; we knew theirs. And I think what we are dealing with here, 
sir, is the history of rock concerts in the District of Columbia has 
shown that there is a definite pattern of violence, whether it is in the 
parks or whether they are at an arena or the D.C. Armory, and I think 
that from the police standpoint it is a no-end situation. 

In 1974 we had a situation where* we went in and took a certain type 
of action. We were criticized for overreacting. We tried to work with 
the community and other groups to deal with this situation, and that 
did not seem to work. 

But as far as cooperating with the Metropolitan Police and with 
other agencies within the District of Columbia, we do that on a con- 
tinuing basis and I am sure that if we have felt that more men were 
necessary, more police personnel to deal with the problem, then we 
would have gotten them from the Metropolitan Police. But as we 
planned this with the other agencies, there was no feeling that this 
was necessary. 

And you know it is too late after some of these things get started 
and 

Mr. Harris. I could not agree more, if we wait until after they get 
started. 

Chief Welus. And how many policemen do we have to put at an event 
to make it successful I mean I am not asking you for sympathy in this 
situation, but these are the things that we did. We looked at it in the 
most professional manner we knew, and it was our best iudgment that 
they should not have it. And it is still our best judgment that they 
should not have any large, free rock concerts. 

Mr. Harris. That lasts for 8 hours? 

Chief Wells. Yes, sir; that lasts for 8 hours, l>ecause I think you 
could have a reoccurrence of what happened. 

]\rr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. On page 8, Chief, you say that a combined law en- 
forcement communication office is being planned by your office in East 
Potomac Park. 

Could you tell us when this would be in operation and whether this 
would not include police forces of local jurisdictions like Alexandria 
and Prince Georges County, or will it be in the Federal enclave area? 



1423 

Chief Wells. I would say basically, sir, this is for the people in law 
enforcement agencies concerned with the Capitol, with the parks, the 
Smithsonian. 

What we are trying to do is. and I think some of my colleap:ues have 
brought up that tlic planning, there was no central phvnning and with 
the feeling of this emphasis on the ceremonial area of Washington, we 
felt that there had to be something done rather immediately to take care 
of the situation, to take care where we already had a high visitation. 
And this is not planning necessarily to take over the Council of Gov- 
ernment's responsibility or anything like that but to deal with what 
we think is a very immediate problem in the central area of Washing- 
ton, D.C. But we' will, as this develops, you will find we will call other 
people in to the planning process that we do not now have. 

PARK POLICE AIDES 

You also on page 3 talk about your request for 220 temporary Park 
Police aides. 

Could you tell us what the requirements are for that position and 
where does it stand in the 1976 fiscal year budget ? 

When would you hire these people and so on ? 

Chief Wells. OK. I might say that we are starting a pilot project 
this year of 25 to see how this particular program would work. And 
basically these are young people who will be taken from high school 
and college rolls for the summer and be put into a training program 
and supervised by police officers who perform traffic functions and 
general information. 

The CiiAiRMAx. How will they be selected ? 

Chief Wells. Well, this year, because we got started late. National 
Capital Parks had over 3,000 applications for summer employment 
and we selected the 25 from that group of applications. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Based on what kind of criteria ? 

Chief Wells. Well, basically, that they were over 18 years old and 
that they had a desire to work in this police-related activity. That was 
basically the requirement. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Well, to reduce a list of 3.000 down to 25 takes a 
pretty sophisticated selection process. So I just wondered what kind 
of criteria you used. 

Chief Wells. I think that in all honesty, I think that they took 
a group of applications and went down the list and pulled out 25 
as they went down the list. There was no major task in getting these 
people because there were so many people who were available for 
employment. We just went down in the order that they were sent over 
and asked the people if they wanted to participate in this type of 
activity, and we hope that we made a good selection. 

police o\t:rtime 

The Chairman. On page 4 you talk about plans for a 12-hour duty 
tour for uniformed personnel in order to assign 75 additional uniform 
officers to the celebration area. 



1424 

When will these assiornments start and wlio is o^oing to, who do we 
have to clear this kind of plan with, and what effect is that going to 
have on vour budget ? 

Chief Wells. Well, as I stated this was a proposal at this time. 
We are discussing this with the Xational Park Service for funding. 
I think there are good indications that we will have the money and 
the main determination of whether this proposal is accepted or im- 
plemented, I should say, will depend on the money to fund it. 

We have the plan and we are ready to go if the funding is available. 

NOXRESroENT DEFEXDAXTS 

The Chatrmax. One of your big problems and I guess one of the 
problems of law enforcement in this area is the fact that it involves 
so many defendants who are from out of this jurisdiction. 

Is there any solution to the problem of getting prosecutions from 
these out-of-State defendants after they have left and gone back? 

Chief Wells. We have found no legal ^vay to do it unless we have 
the complainant there, and as we stated in our statement it is just 
an impossible situation Avhen someone goes halfway across the countrv' 
after they have visited Washington to get them to come back. Without 
the complainant, the prosecution usually fails. The only solution which 
we mentioned, and I do not know if the courts could accommodate it, 
is the case being processed maybe in the same day, which gets into 
the rights of the defendant and things like that, and it is almost an 
impossible situation. 

The Chairmax. Have you had discussions with your counsel about 
this and that is the only solution that you have been able to come up 
with? 

Chief Wells. That is correct. 

o\t:rtime for contTS 

The Chatrmax. On page 9 you suggested that the courts are going 
to have to work beyond regular hours during the Bicentennial period. 

Have you had discussions with the local court administration on 
this ? What has been the result ? 

Chief Wells. We at this time have not had any discussion but we 
do plan to talk with the courts and see if they can provide some 
assistance in this area. 

VISITOR ixformatiox dissemixatiox 

The Chairmax. On page 10 you are talking about the need for 
further information to visitors on emergency services. What are you 
doing? Are you woi-king on some kind of a pamphlet either individ- 
ually or in conjunction with someone else that might be passed out? 

Chief Wki,ls. Yes. we are Avoi-kinof on ove Avhich would nrovide 
~])olico information and the National Park Service and the National 
Capital Pai-ks working on several ))amphlets in reference to the bi- 
centennial locations and maior attractions within the Washington 
area, and ho))ofnlly the visitor's center would be in July 4th. 



1425 

LAW ENFORCEMENT CLEARING HOUSE 

The rTr.\TR:>rAN. You talk also about the metropolitan area law 
enfoiTeinenl clearinti; house proposal hoping that something like that 
IS going to be established before the celebration gets underway. 

Tould you explain that a little more fully ? 

Chief Wki.ls. AVell, I would liope that maybe the Council of Govern- 
ments could provide this information collected on a regional basis 
and disseminate it to the various agencies. 

This is a proposal that they were talking about awhile back. I think 
it seems that we are beginning to get a great deal of information 
about what the National Park Service is planning to do and what 
the District of Columbia is doing and the capital area here. 

But as far as some of the other local jurisdictions, I think that is 
one of the difliculties, as to just what they arc going to do, and I think 
as we <le\elop a trans])ortation system for the bicentennial, we will be 
able to develop more information for some of these regional areas 
because we will be able to explain how the traffic patterns are going to 
affect all of the jurisdictions. 

TRAFFIC 

The Chairman. Do you have under review in this connection the 
whole traffic sign situation to make some further judgments as to the 
clarity of traffic signs in all freeways and in the park system? 

You know right outside here people come out from third street 
entrance on to that bridge out there, and are met immediately with 
those that are trying to go down on to Seventh Street. And I do not 
know how many people get mixed up when they reach that juncture out 
there where you go to the airport and out Elaine. There is enough 
confusion on those bridges and other areas around this town as it is 
now. I can imagine with the influx that we anticipate that there is 
going to be a lor more confusion. And I just wonder what is the 
process for reviewing these id'^ntifying marks? 

Chief Wells, Well, generally, the system of signing is that which is 
put out by the Federal highway people and we use those standard 
signs in the park system. 

The (^iiairman. That is what I am talking about because if I have 
gotten lost in the park once. 1 have gotten lost a thousand times. We 
are trying to negotiate that Rock Creek Park route. Over 20 years 
I have become less confused, but going through the park, you know, 
was just incredible, how that situation still remains as it is. 

I just wonder how ofren is it actually updated, how often do you 
actually review that ? 

Chief Wells. Well, I hate to say this, being as you get lost, sir, but 
we just recently remarked and re-signed the parkway. One of the 
difficulties is that there is an awful lot of construction at the present 
time. Over the years it seems like we changed signs very often, and 
now the idea is to go to these international signs which many of the 
foreign countries used. 

And so this is a process that we hope that this will be a little bit 
easier and maybe if as many people as have in the past get lost 



1426 

The Chairman. Do you have a pamphlet or soinethin<r that explains 
how to ne<iotiate the park? 

Chief Wells. I will he frlad to send you a map. sir. and T am not 
trvinff to he facetious. 

The CiLMKMAN. This is a very serious prohlem. I uefjotiate that park 
all the time, particularly jroin^ to these emhassies, under my other hat 
as a memher of the Inteinational Relations Committee. There is not 
a week that pfoes hy that I do not have to neirotiate, vou know, to find 
one of these embassies, and ^oinir througli the park is a very frequent 
experience for me. 

Chief Wells. AVell, in following Rock Creek Parkway, as soon as 
you go under V Street make the next light turn, sir, and that will put 
you on to Massachusetts Avenue. And I will send you a map. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Your testimony has been 
extremely valuable to one member of the committee. 

Minority Counsel ? 

Mr. Christian. Thank you, !Mr. Chairman. ■•'- " 

PARK police manpower 

Chief Wells, I have questions in one particular area. Of the 449 
officers listed in your testimony, how many of those are specifically 
assigned to the Washington area ? 

Chief Wells. 449 positions are assigned to the Washington area. 

Mr. Christian. Given the fact of the racial composition of the crowd 
at Human Kindness Day how many officers of the 449 assigned to your 
Department are black officers? 

Chief Wells. I do not have that exact figure but we have approxi- 
mately 22 percent minorities and women. 

Mr. Christian. Twenty-two percent minorities and women ? 

Chief Wells. Yes. 22 percent of the force is made up of women and 
minorities. 

CR0\VD control 

Mr. Christian. To what extent do you think the assignment of 
officers with respect to racial composition would have minimized the 
impact of the activity on the Mall ? 

Chief Wells. I think that is a calculated guess. I really do not 
know how to answer that. I have seen that that is particularly a point 
if people are doing something wrong. 

We had the situation last year at the Carter Barron where we had 
black officers assigned and there was a disturbance and they w^ere in 
just as much trouble as if they had been white officers. 

So I do not think vou can really evaluate that. We do try in situa- 
tions where there is a predominantly black composition of people to 
assign 1^1 nek officers, and we do find that to be effective. But we also 
assign white officers to these same situations and it works out OK, too. 

I think the main thing is having an understanding of the situation 
-that you are dealing with, regardless of what the composition of the 
people is. 

]\fr. Cttrtsttan. With respect to that, do you think that the utiliza- 
tion of plain clothes officers in the crowd would have been an effective 
tool to use toward preventing the offenses? 



1427 

Chief Wells. We had plain clothes officers — it was very limited but 
our experience is that when you put plain clothes officers in the crowd, 
tliat you also have to put as many uniformed officers in the crowd to 
protect those when they do make an arrest because in some crowds 
the people will turn on uniformed officers and if they see people effect- 
ing arrest that they cannot identify, they surely will turn on those too, 
and we have had that happen. 

Mr. Christian. So I jjuess what you are saying is that to be more 
effective you need more people on the scene to handle the situation, 
whether uniformed or plain clothes. 

Chief AVr.i.Ls. That is correct. That is a good statement, 

Mr. Christiax. Thank you very nuich, Mr. Chairman. 

PARK POLICE MINORITIES 

The Chairman. A follow-up question on the composition of the 
Park Police as to the minority standpoint. How do you account for 
those statistics? Presumably you draw from the same people locally 
that the District of Coluiiibia Department draws from, and their 
statistics are considerably ditferent from that. 

Do you have — is this related to a different set of standards, or how 
do you account for the fact that only 22 percent of your Park Police 
are minority people in an area that is much higher than that in terms 
of its racial composition ? 

Chief Wells. The only thing that I could say about that is that we 
do very little recruiting for the force. The only recruiting that we 
deal with is minority recruiting. 

The Chairman. Then you have so many volunteers trying to get in? 
Is that right ? 

Chief WelIvS. At the present time the list is closed and we have over 
a thousand applicants for positions in the Park Police and we are not 
hiring because of the freeze and what have you. 

The Chairman, And these temporary aides you referred to, were 
there any women and/or minorities in those 25 you selected? 

Chief Wells. There are minorities and they are predominantly 
women. We have tried to get as many blacks and women on the job 
as we possibly could. I would like to think that we have a pretty good 
police organization and we have a lot of people applying to get on. 

Civil service tells us right now that they would not open the test, 
and to get through the number of people that we have on the register 
at the present time would probably take us a year, and I do not know 
what composition that is. Civil service, with our assignments in New 
York and San Francisco, also place the announcements in these large 
cities and there is a high rate of unemployment in New York City, 
and the last class that we hired, many of these people were from New 
York City. 

The Chairman. Well, if you could follow up minority counsel's 
question witli the exact statistics broken down by minority and women 
and showing their positions, that would be very helpful, so we can just 
see how they are placed within the categories. 

Well, thank you very much. 



1428 

Our final witness is the director of public safet}' policy planning 
for the "Washington Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, Mr. 
John E. Touchstone. 

You may proceed either in sunnnary form with your statement or, 
if you wish to do that, your entire testimony as presented in advance 
in written form will be included in the record at this point. Then, if 
you wish, you nuiy proceed and just present your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Touchstone follows :] 

Statement of John E. Touchstone, Director of Public Safety, Metropolitan 
Washington Council of Governments 

My name is John E. Touchstone, I am Director of Public Safety for the 
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, which was established 18 
years ago as a forum to — for area oflScials to discuss and take action on is.-ues 
of common concern. 

coo organization 

COG is composed of local elected oflScials from the governing bodies of the 16 
major cities and counties in the Washington area plus all area members of the 
Maryland and Virginia legislatures and the area members of the U.S. Senate 
and House of Representatives— 219 local elected officials. State legislators and 
members of Congress. 

COG'S hope is that this Committee, working with the Administration, will 
provide the leadership and guidance to develop responses which can reduce the 
serious level of criminal activity in the metropolitan area. 

Since the establishment of the Council of Governments, crime and its effect 
on the citizens of the Washington area has gained universal recognition as a 
problem area-wide in scope rather than purely local. Like traflSc, housing, pollu- 
tion and others, it cannot be confined within the city limits or the county line — 
and neither can our efforts against it. 

criminal justice activities 

For these reasons, one of the first committees established in COG many years 
ago was our committee of Police Chiefs, whose purpose is to provide a forum 
for discussion of issues of common concern to over 70 local. State and federal 
police agencies. 

This committee is served by 5 sub-committees, a group of the chief prosecutors 
of area jurisdictions, a Corrections Committee of the principal correctional 
officials from area jurisdictions and from Maryland and Virginia State level 
agencies, and a committee of officials with the responsibility for responding to 
the abuse of alcohol and other dangerous substances. 

Each of these committees meets on a regular basis through COG to discuss 
common problems and to develop a coordinated approach to respond to the 
increasing levels of reported crime in the Metropolitan Wa.shington area. 

In providing ."support for this metropolitan-wide criminal justice committee 
structure, COG has become involved in such Regional programs as drug abuse 
planning, metropolitan criminal justice planning, criminal justice responses to 
the new METRO rapid rail transit system and criminal justice planning for the 
impact of the Bicentennial celebration. 

We have not discovered any magic new formula which guarantees dramatic 
reductions in crime. We have, however, begun the development of what I feel 
is an important and promising mechanism for coordinating criminal justice 
responses to crime on a metropolitan scale. 

Through the COG Police Chiefs Committee, an areawide information and 
communications network has been established, providing a communications link 
among area police, fire and civil preparedness offices. 

Police mutual aid agreements among the various police dcpartnicnts in the 
metropolitan area have removed the barriers often formed by political bound- 
aries. Now, police departments can cross city, county, and even State lines 
to aid each other in emergencies, thanks to those agreements developed throuirli 
COG. These agreements substantially increa.se the day-to-day level of public 
safety in the entire region and could well prove their value during the 
Bicentennial. 



1429 

METRO SECUBITY 

la the past several years the potential criminal justice impacts of the new 
METltU Rapid Kail system have been of concern to area officials. The entire 
COG criminal justice committee system became deeply involved in the ques- 
tion of how the new METKU rapid rail system would be policed. As a result 
of this intensive involvement, particularly on the part of our Public Safety 
I'olicy Committee, area prosecutors, the I'olice Chiefs Committee, criminal jus- 
tice planners, and area chief administrative officers, a metropolitan-wide policy 
was developid whereby law enforcement would be the joint responsibility of 
the Area Transit Authority and local jurisdictions to be served by METRO. 

Several police subcommittees, meeting on a monthly basis, have demonstrated 
the value of the information exchanges which are taking place through COG. 
In crime and criminal investigation, information has been exchanged that 
recently resulted in the arrest of two criminals— one an escapee from Ix)rton 
being held for two murder charges and another wanted in several local juris- 
dictions for rape. 

Several years ago these information exchanges through COG enabled detec- 
tives to crack over 50 theft cases committed by the "Beltway Bandit" who stole 
items in one jurisdiction, tied by way of the Beltway and sold their stolen goods 
in another jurisdiction. 

DRUGS 

In narcotics enforcement, a new "era" in cooperation between local police 
departments and federal narcotics enforcement agencies has just begun. As a 
result of a recently adopted amendment to our Police Mutual Aid Agreement 
and the efforts of the Narcotics Officers Subcommittee of COG, cooperative 
arrangements between local departments and federal agencies have recently 
been completed. It is the hope of narcotics officials that this new mechanism 
for coordination will considerably improve their enforcement efforts. 

These metropolitan activities have provided the foundation for COG to become 
directly involved in metropolitan criminal justice planning. While the State 
criminal justice planning agencies (SPAs) for the District of Columbia, the 
State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia have the primary 
responsibility i'or criminal justice planning within their portions of the metro- 
politan area, each has recognized and endorsed the premise that crime, in many 
respects, is a regional problem and requires, therefore, a response at the 
metropolitan level as well as at their state level. 

In fact, impetus for COGs involvement came from the SPAs and has resulted 
in the Federal funding of a Metropolitan Criminal Justice Planning Program 
at COG. This grant has enabled the there SPAs and two sub-state regional 
planning agencies to come together for discussion of areas of mutual concern 
and interest affecting the metropolitan area. 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AREA PLANNING 

COG is currently in the third year of this Metropolitan criminal justice 
planning program, funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 
(LEAA). 

The major goal of this project is to improve the performance of the criminal 
justice system in Metropolitan Washington through four related objectives: 
(1) the coordination of planning efforts; (2) development of alternative recom- 
mendations: (3) the exchange of information: (4) the identification of 
additional metropolitanwide criminal justice problems. 

This program is the first of its kind in the nation to specifically address the 
problem of crime and responses to criminal activity on a metropolitan as well 
as a state and local level. As a pilot program, we do not yet have all the area- 
wide answers which we are working toward, but some of COG's experiences 
during the first two years of this criminal justice planning effort indicate both 
the potential and the promise of metropolitan criminal justice planning. 

Increased and improved cooperation and coordination of planning efforts have 
been realized which involve tlie three state planning agencies, the Northern 
Virginia Planning District Commission and the Region IV Planning Board, 
local criminal justice and law enforcement planners, COG criminal justice 
coordination committees and state and local justice line agencies. 



1430 

During the past two years, criminal justice problems of both an interjuris- 
dictional and metropolitanwide nature have been identified by agencies and 
coordinating groups. In several cases this identification has resulted in further 
analyses by COG which have uncovered these problems in even clearer terms. 

Several examples of metropolitanwide criminal justice problems identified 
and described through this criminal justice program process include those asso- 
ciated with responding to the phenomenon of child abuse throughout the region, 
the legal and operational problems involved in the inability to extradite mis- 
demeanants in the tri-state area, the interjurisdictional ramifications of the 
runaway youth problem in the metropolitan area, and the safety problems 
associated with the dramatic increase in the use of bicycles in the region. 

COORDINATING AREA NEEIDS 

As a result of this two-year experience, we are convinced that a need exists 
at the Federal, state, regional and local level for coordinated and concerted 
action by all parties if we are to realize a reduction in crime. 

Part of the problem faced by the police and other criminal justice agencies 
may lie in the fact that the general public is unaware of the role and opera- 
tions of the various agencies in the criminal justice system. The national 
victimization survey conducted by the LEAA and Bureau of the Census has 
.shown that the number of crimes reported to the police is in some cases less 
than half of the actual crimes committed. This may result from apprehension 
on the part of people about "getting involved" in the belief that nothing will 
happen if the crime is reported. 

OmZEN INVOLVEMENT 

In this case as well, COG is in a unique position to afford citizens the oppor- 
tunity to make their views known and to participate in the activities of the 
criminal .jusiici' systeiii. 'riircumh (Hir FuIiIm' Sattty Citizen Advisnry Cnminittee, 
citizen representatives from each of the COG jurisdictions have the opportunity 
to present their concerns to the policy and technical committees and to leam of 
the current activities of the area's public safety agencies. This process has added 
a new dimension to our criminal justice planning efforts. It is a process which 
will be continued and expanded to increase the involvement of citizens In crim- 
inal justice planning. 

LEAA EFFORTS 

We have also found that there is a critical need for basic research into the 
relntioii-liip lit'twcoii crime aiul otlier fuiictinns and activities of our society 
which will result in new approaches by criminal justice agencies, LEAA's re- 
search efforts on victimization and the relationship between crime and land use 
should be endorsed and further efforts to develop realistic alternative approaches 
to respond to criminal activities, such as the forecasting of future criminal jus- 
tice resource needs, should also be encouraged. The products from such research 
efforts could be directly beneficial in responding to crime. 

Our world and our problems are extremely complex. The solutions to them are 
similarly diflScult to identify and much more complicated to implement. A broad 
approach to these problems must be continued, making concrete advances when 
possible but also establishing a sound basis of mutual trust and understanding. 
The District of Columbia, Northern Virginia and suburban Maryland are, indeed, 
a community In which common problems are shared and common efforts are 
being made on a coordinated metropolitan scale. 

COG is currently involved in the third year of this continuing metropolitan 
criminal justice planning. Building on past efforts in improving crime reporting, 
communications and information systems coordination, the upgrading of coordi- 
nation mechanisms must continue with increased attention to such areas of con- 
cern as the problems of children and youth, and the development of interstate 
-legal tools to aid in improved cooperation on criminal justice matters. 

Through the continued combination of the resources available, through the 
criminal justice committee structure, active involvement by our citizens and 
the availability of well-re.searched planning approaches, we believe that the 
metropolitan criminal justice planning process can provide positive answers for 
reducing the crime problem in the Washington area. 



1431 

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. TOUCHSTONE, DIKECTOR OF PUBLIC 
SAFETY, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERN- 
MENTS: ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS E. KELLY, ACTING PROJECT 
MANAGER. CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING; L. KIRK JOHNSON, 
PROJECT MANAGER, BICENTENNIAL PLANNING; AND ALLEN B. 
BENSON. REGION IV PROJECT MANAGER 

Mr. Touchstone. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

You will have to excuse my voice ; I have been sick. 

On my left is Mr. Kirk Johnson, who is project director of our com- 
prehensive public safety plannin<y as it relates to the Bicentennial. On 
his left is Air. Tom Kelly, who handles our criminal plannino; project. 
On my right is Mr. Allen Benson, who handles our region IV project — 
that is with Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties. 

1 would like to read a statement that is kind of a summary of my 
testimony. 

My name is John E. Touchstone ; I am Director of Public Safety for 
the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, which was 
established 18 years ago as a forum to — for area officials to discuss and 
take action on issues of common concern. 

COG 

COG is composed of local elected officials from the governing bodies 
of the 16 major cities and counties in the Washington area, plus all 
area members of the Maryland and Virginia Legislatures and the area 
members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives — 219 local 
elected officials, State legislators and Members of Congress. 

From its beginning in 1957, COG has been deeply involved in efforts 
to reduce crime and improve law enforcement in Aletropolitan Wash- 
ington. Our sustained efforts over the last 18 years have produced these 
major accomplishments : An areawide police and radio Teletype net- 
work linking mobile police and fire departments throughout the area; 
an areawide. computerized police information system formed with a 
hotline connecting local police, fire, and civil defense departments; 
mutual aid agreements so fire and police departments can cross city, 
county and State lines to help each other in large scale emergencies. 
These agreements greatly increase the day-to-day level of public safety 
in the entire region, and may well be extremely valuable during the 
Bicentennial. We are the only interstate metropolitan area in the 
United States with such agreements. 

The arrest of the Beltway Bandits, charged by the police Avith more 
than 50 cases of housebreaking in which they stole items in one juris- 
diction, fled by way of the Capital Beltway, and sold the items in an- 
other jurisdiction in the area — they were arrested based on information 
exchanged through some of the COG committees. 

METRO SECURITY 

The negotiation of the metropolitan policy for law enforcement on 
the new Metro rapid rail system, which includes and provides for law 
enforcement to be the joint responsibility of the Area Transit Author- . 
ity and the area of cities and counties served by Metro. 



1432 



DRUGS 



In narcotics enforcement, a new era in cooperation between local 
police departments and Federal narcotics enforcement agencies, which 
makes possible the exchange of narcotics undercover agents among 
local government'^. 

These programs in drug abuse, in improved communications, public 
safety on Metro, and criminal justice planning for the impact of the 
Bicentennial celebration are only some of COG's major public safety 
efforts. We have not discovered any magic formula which guarantees 
dramatic reductions in crime. However, with these projects and others, 
we have begun to develop what I feel is an important means in coordi- 
nating criminal justice responses to crime on a metropolitan basis. 

CRIMIXAL JUSTICE PLANXING 

COG is directly involved in this important planning through its 
metropolitan criminal justice planning program. This program makes 
it possible for law enforcement agencies to work together to improve 
the performance of the criminal justice system in the Metropolitan 
"Washington area. 

COG's experience during the first 2 years of this criminal justice 
planning effort indicates both the potential and problems of the metro- 
politan criminal justice planning, of criminal justice planning. As a 
result, we are convinced that a need exists at all levels of government — 
Federal, State, regional and local — -for coordinated and concerted ac- 
tion by all parties if we are to reduce crime. Part of the problem may 
lie in the fact that the general public is unaware of the role and 
operations of the various ageiicies in the criminal justice system. 

CRIMINAL OFFENSES 

A national victimization stud}- showed that the number of crimes 
reported to the police is in some cases less than half of the actual crimes 
committed. People are often afraid to get involved, and many believe 
that nothing will happen if the crime is reported. 

We have also found a critical need for new approaches by criminal 
justice agencies. More must be learned about the victims of crime and 
the relationship between ci'ime and land use; and more effort is needed 
to develop realistic responses to criminal activities. 

During the pa=t 2 yeai'S. the Council of Governments has identified 
problems of both interjurisdictional and metropolitanwide nature. 
These include child abuse and the inability to extradite misde- 
meanants in the tristate area, and tlie interjurisdictional ramifications 
of the runaway youth problem in the Metropolitan Washington area. 

The world of problems is extremely complex ; solutions are difficult 
to identify and even more complicated to implement. A broad approach 
to these problems must be continued and sti-engthened at all levels of 
- Government if we are to make concrete advances and establish a sound 
basis of mutual trust and understanding. The District of Columbia, 
Xorthern Vii-ginia, and suburban Maryland are. indeed, a community 
in which common problems are shared and common eft'orts are being 
made on a continued, coordinated Metropolitan Washington scale. 



1433 



LEAA 



Much of our work in this field lias been funded by the Law En- 
forcoinont Assistance A<hninistiation. It is our hope that LEAA wil 
continue to fund tiiis iini)()rtant pro<>i'ani. Thiou^h the contiiuied com- 
bination of the available resources, expanded by congressional appro- 
priations into the areas which I have suggested with the criminal 
justi'M^ sh-uctuiT. thiough active involvement by our citizens and the 
availability of well-researched planning approaches, we believe that 
the metropolitan criminal justice program can provide a positive 
means for reducing crime in the Washington area. 

Thank you. 

The Chairman*. Thank you very much, Mr. Touchstone. 

Would you start out by telling us about the current status of your 
study concerning the expansion and cost sharing of WALES ? 

Mr. Toi'ciisToxK. The AVALES program, as it presently stands, is 
virtually implemented. But what has happened, I guess, in the last 
month or so 's that the District of Columbia Police Department has 
found that their computer memory banks are loaded and are full : so 
therefore, they have recommended to area jurisdictions that, in order 
to 1)1 u'r in adfl'tional progiam information into the information 
basket, there will be a cost factor involved. The original agreement did 
perceive that a cost factor would be involved in the areawide use of 
WALES, but T think wliat has happened is that due to the increased 
use of the computers by the District police department, the Metropol- 
itan Police Department, the cost factor has hit a lot sooner than was 
anticipated. The cost factor was anticipated, but the time frame has 
been moved up considerably. 

COMMUNICATIONS IN AEEA 

The Chairman. Is there a model of interjurisdictional communica- 
tional systems in other areas that you might be emulating ? 

Mr. Touchstone. I think we are taking the lead in the development 
of the interjurisdictional and interstate communications system ; and 
in addition to being interjurisdictional, we are interstate. So most of 
the things that we are doing are almost a pilot effort. There may be 
some others in the country, but we have been so engrossed in what we 
were doing that we had very little time to check on some of those others. 
I doubt if there are very many others, if any. 

The Chairman. There have been several people before this commit- 
tee who havo talked about the need for a Federal communications — 
well, the FCC has designated a common frequency. I am sure you have 
heard about that. I just wondered what your reaction was to that. 

Mr. Touchstone. The members of our Disaster and Emergency Pre- 
paredness Committee have been discussing this very issue, inasmuch as 
they have been discussing the need to not only regionalize communica- 
tions approaches throughout the country in case of an emergency, but 
within each jurisdiction there needs to be a communication network 
that will spread nationwide and come up with some semblance of 
doing this. 



52-587 O - 75 - Dt.2 - 22 



1434 

We are working very closely with the region II Emergency Prepar- 
edness Office, out of tlie Department of Defense, in addressing this par- 
ticular issue. But nothing, as yet, has been generated out of that. 

The Chairman. Is there any enthusiasm on the part of the people 
who would be involved in this decision ? 

Mr. TouciiSToxK. Tliere is an awful lot of enthusiasm at the local 
level from the Disaster and Emergency Preparedness people. They 
are very enthusiastic about it. But the costs involved, the necessary 
changes to the alert systems that would have to be incorporated are 
causing massive problems with — massive technical problems and also 
massive funding problems. 

The Chairman. What kind of problems are you talking about, 
specifically? 

EMERGENCY ALARMS 

Mr. Touchstone. For instance, in the emergency alert system that 
would lead to an emergency broadcast, there would be a sounding of 
alarms in the Metropolitan AVashington area. As things presently 
stand, if the Montgomery County were to say, we want the alarm 
sounded, the alarm would sound throughout the whole Metropolitan 
Washington area. Now there may not be an emergency in the District 
of Columbia but yet that — but yet that alarm would be sounded and 
people would be listening to their radio for an emergency broadcast. 

And presently, we are exploring ways in which the system can be 
such that the alarm can be sounded in a single jurisdiction without 
alerting the whole Metropolitan Washington area. And that is a tech- 
nical problem that the telephone company is working with us on. 

And the region has also indicated, if we were to try to switch over 
without the technical expertise that the telephone company has. and 
would provide almost free, that it would involve a massive amount of 
funding. 

COG STAFF 

The Chairman. What kind of staif do you have, and what kind 
of bud."-et do you have out of the COG budget ? 

Mr. ToucFiSTONE. Our department consists of 14 people. We have 
14 people out of the total COG staff, and that includes approximately 
10 professionals and 4 clerical. Those 14 persons are split between the 
different proje^^ts represputed bv the centlenTen here at the table. 

And the total budget for the whole department is somethin.<T around 
$190,000 ; and that includes the four separate projects, and those are 
their total budgets. 

Each of the projects, as represented, also includes the deliverables 
out of funding source from a Federal a^-ency. We have certain deliv- 
erable products that you have to accomplish. And also, it inchides the 
huge coordinative effort that we have to evolve ourselves, that often- 
times takes un a lot of time and causes us to stay in a crunch with that 
amount of staff on a day-to-day basis. 



1435 



BICENTENNIAL FUNDING 



The CiiAiRMAX. Tn earlier testimony, we heard from the superintend- 
ent of police of Montgomery County that COG has requested Fed- 
eral funding for the Bicentennial, for police manpower. 

Could you tell us more about your request? 

Mr. TouciisTtixE. COG has requested Federal funding from LEAA 
to do a study in conjunction with the area Bicentennial planning 
activities to analyze information on Bicentennial events relative to the 
criminal justice community — the survey of area criminal justice re- 
sources available to i-espond to events and to survey the experiences of 
other selected localities which have hosted major events and to co- 
ordinate information for public safety agencies and develop appro- 
priate measures to assist criminal justice responses to the Bicentennial 
related activities. 

AVe have received a portion of those funds. We have received the 
LEAA side. It was supposed to be a dual contract in which we would 
receive funding from LEAA and the Department of Transportation. 
We have received the LEAA funds, and we are working on the 
project, and we hope to have a report out in November. 

The biggest problem we are encountering, though, is that if we had 
built the project based on funding from two sources — and at this time, 
the Department of Transportation has not seen fit to fund the other 
side of the contract — and we are exploring reasons for that now. 

CORRECTIOXS CONCERNS 

The Chairman. We had the director of the Montgomery County 
Department of Corrections before the committee about a month ago — 
May 13 — and he was complaining about attendance. He said specifi- 
cally — I am quoting him : 

It's a shame that the Region IV Committee on Corrections has gone down the 
tube, so to speak. There was poor attendance by Montgomery County, Prince 
Georges County and the District. The people who do attend are not in a position 
to make decisions. 

What is your reaction to that statement? Is this typical of COG 
committees in the criminal justice area ? 

Mr. Touchstone. We think just the opposite. It is true of COG 
committees dealing in the criminal justice area, by and large, we 
find that most of our committees are extremely interested and are ex- 
tremely represented in what the decision is. 

The Corrections Committee, I must honestly say, from my investiga- 
tion of what is happening, has been a problem. As late as, I guess, last 
week, we began to make an overt effort to revitalize that committee 
and to make sure that those committee members had an integral role 
to play in our total coordinative effort. 

Now, what has happened is that we have approximately 10 members 
from each of the major areas : Approximately 10 members f roni north- 
ern Virginia; approximately 10 members from Maryland jurisdic- 



1436 

tions; approximately 10 members from the District of Columbia. I 
think what has happened in the past is that certain problems have 
come lip witliin the corrections system in the District of Cohimbia 
that liave interfered with some niectiiifrs time? and it was vii-tiially 
impossible, from wliat 1 have been able to find, to change the meetin<;s 
to coincide with some of the crisis situations that had arisen, and some 
of the other members were insistin<r on comin^r to the meetings at 
the times that they had been scheduled for; and therefore, you did 
not have tlie kind of representation that one would have liked to have 
had. Hopefully, we are going to rectify that situation. We Avill work 
very hard on that. 

MUTUAL AID AGREEMKXTS 

The Chairjiax. You have Avorked out various mutual aid agree- 
ments between the various jurisdictions, and the committee would be 
helped in its deliberations if they could get copies of these agreements. 

Mr. Touchstone. "We would be more than happy to provide you 
with these. 

[Subsequently the following material was submitted for the record :] 

Metropolitan Washington Councii, of Go^'EP.NMENT8, 

Wa>ihinfftov, B.C., June 16, 1975. 
Hon. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., 

Chairman, Cnmmitte on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, 
Longicorth House Office Building, Wa.'ihiugton, D.C. 
Dear Mr. Chairman : During my testimony before the Committee on the Dis- 
trict of Columbia on Junp 9. 1075. on the subject of crime and criminal justice 
in the metropolitan Wa.shingtnn area, Mr. Mark ^lathis. Minority Coun.sei. re- 
quested a copy of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' Police 
Mutual Aid Agreement. 

In response to that request. I enclose the Mutual Aid Agreement and the 
amendments to that Agreement which exi)and the number of local government 
participants and authorize the use of narcotics officers across jurisdictional Mnes. 
I appreciated the opportunity to testify before the Committee on metropolitan- 
wide criminal justic? cooperation and coordination which are seen in metropolitan 
criminal justice planning and Bicentennial planning. 

Please let me know if the Committee requires further information on these 
areas. 

Sincerely yours, 

John E. Touchstone, 
Director, Department of Public Safety. 
Enclosure. 

Metropolitan Washington Cot-nctt op Oo'ernments — Police Mvtual 

Aid Agreement 

This agreement, made and entered into this eighteenth day of January, 1971, 
by and between the local governments within the Washington Metropolitan Area 
signatory hereto, 

Witnesseth : 

Whereas, certain local governments in the Washington Metropolitan Area have 
determined that the i)rovision of jjolicc aid across juri.sdictiouil 'hies in emer- 
gencies will increase their ability to preserve the safety and welfare of the entire 
area; and 

Whereas, legislation in Maryland. Virlgina and the District of Columbia au- 
thorizies the local governments to establish and carry into effect a plan to pro- 
vide mutual aid, 

Now, therefore, the parties hereto do agree as follows : 



1437 

1. DECT^RATION OF EMERGENCY 

When a state i>i cuH'r.wiicy exists within tlie Ixiuiularies of any of tiie parties 
hereto, as the result of, or due to the imminence of fire, flood, epidemic, war, 
internal disorder, or other pulilie disaster, the party or parties shall notify the 
other party or parties to this Agreement of such state of emergency and its need 
for police assistance. Assistant' shall be rendered according to the procedures 
established in the oi)erational plan developed and agreed to by all the parties to 
this Agreement pursuant to the provisions in Paragraph 2 herein. Each party 
shall designate the appropriate oflicial within its jurisdiction who is empowered 
to re.iuest assistance under this Agi-eement. 

2. OPERATIONAL PLAN 

The mutual assistance to be rendered under this Agreement shall be available 
upon the development and approval by the parties hereto of an operational plan. 
Th,' plan shall outline the exact procedure to be followed in responding to a 
request for assistance. Upon execution of this Agreement, the parties shall desig- 
nate the a|ipropriate othcial in their Jurisdiction who shall participate in the 
development of a metropolitan-wide operational plan. The parties shall meet at 
least annually to review and. if necessary, to propose amendments to the opera- 
tional plan. Any proposed amendment shall not be effective until approved by 
written memorandum by all the parties of this Agreement. 

:i. COVKIt.WII.NIAI. IMMfNITY 

( A) The services performed and expenditures made under this Agreement shall 
be deemed for public and governmental purpose and all inniuniities from liability 
en.ioyed hy the local government within its boundaries shall extend to its par- 
tis ipation in rendering police aid outside its boundaries. 

(P.) Each party .-hall waive any and all claims against all (he other parties 
hereto which may arise out of their activities outside of their respective juris- 
dictions while rendering aid under this Agreement. 

(C) Each party shall indemnify and save harmless the other parties to this 
.\gr(M'ment from all claims by third parties for property damage or personal 
injury which may arise out of tlie activities of the other parties to this Agree- 
ment outside their respective jurisdictions while rendering aid under this Agree- 
ment. The party receiving assistance shall be solely responsible for indemnifying 
all parties rendering assistance to it. In no case shall the responding party (ies) 
have joint or several responsibility for indemnifying other party (ies) rendering 
assistance. 

4. EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS 

(A) All the immunities from liability and exemptions from laws, ordinances 
and regulations which the parties' policemen, agents, and employees have in 
their own jurisdiction shall be effective in the jurisdiction in which they are 
giving assistance. 

(B) All pension, relief, disability, workmen's compensation and other benefits 
enjoyed by said employees shall extend to the services they perform under this 
Agreement outside their respective jurisdictions. 

5. DIRECTION OF ASSISTANCE 



(A) The parties' policemen, agents, and employees rendering assistance under 
this Agreement shall do .so under ^he direction and control of the appropriate 
ofl!icial designated by the jurisdiction requesting the aid. 

(B) The parties hereto shall take all the necessary measures under their 
respective state and local laws to enqiower the iiolicemen. agents, and employees 
rendering assistance wi'h the authority to enforce the laws of the recipient 
jurisdiction. 

((') The parties shall notify each other of the name, address, and telephone 
number of the official authorized to direct mutual aid activities within their 



jurisdiction. 



1438 

6. DURATION 

This Agreement shall remain in effect iin'il terminated by all the parties 
hereto upon written notice setting forth the date of such termination. With- 
drawal from this Agreement by one party hereto shall be made by thir'y days 
written notice to all other parties but shall not terminate the Agreement among 
the remaining parties. 

In witness whereof the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the 
date first above written. 



District of Columbia By 

Montgomery County, Maryland By 

Prince George's County, Maryland By 

Rockville, Maryland By 

Takoma Park, Maryland By 

Arlington Covjnty. Virginia By 

Fairfax County, Virginia By 

Alexandria, Virginia By 

City of Fairfax, Virginia By 



First Amendment to Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' 

Police Mutual Aid Agreement 

Whereas, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' Police Mu'ual 
Aid Agreement (hereinafter called Agreement) was made and entered into on 
the eighteenth day of January. 1971, by nine local governments in the Washing- 
ton Metropolitan Area ; and 

Whereas, the Ci y of Falls Church, Virginia on February 2, 1971 adopted the 
Agreement and Operational Plan and wishes to become a party to the Agree- 
ment ; and 

Whereas, the existing parties must assent to the addition of Falls Church as 
a party to the Agreemen*^, 

Now, therefore, the parties hereto agree as follows : 

That the City of Falls Church, Virginia be included as a party to the Metro- 
politan Washington Council of Governments' Police Mutual Aid Agreement. 

Jurisdiction Signature 

District of Columbia ' By 

Montgomery County, Maryland By 

Prince Georges County, Maryland By 

Rockville, Maryland By 

Takoma Park, Maryland By 

Arlington County. Virginia By 

Fairfax County, Virginia By 

Alexandria, Virginia By 

City of Fairfax, Virginia By 

City of Falls Church, Virginia By 



Second Amendment to the Metropolitan Washington Council of 
Governments' Police Mutual Aid Agreement 

Whereas, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' Police Mu- 
tual Aid Agreement (hereinafter called Agreement) was made and entered into 
on the eighteenth day of January, 1971, by nine local governments in the Wash- 
ington Me*roi)olitan area ; and 

Whereas, the City of Falls Church, Virginia, subsequently became a party to 
the Agreement ; and 

Whereas, Loudoun County and Prince William County. Virginia, have re- 
quested to become parties to the Agreement including the Xarcotics Amendment ; 
and 

Whereas, *^he existing parties must assent to the addition of Loudoun and 
Prince William Counties as parties to the Agreement, 

Now, therefore, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

That Loudoun and Prince William Counties. Virginia, be included as parties 
to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' Police Mutual Aid 
Agreement. 



1439 

Jurisdiction Signature 

District of Columbia By 



By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
inia By 



iMsrncr or »^oiumoia 

Montgomery County, Maryland 

Prince Georges County, Maryland 

Rockville, Maryland 

Takoma Park, Maryland 

Arlington County, Virginia 

Fairfax County. Virginia 

Alexandria, Virginia 

City of Fairfax, Virginia 

City of Falls Church, Virginia — 

Loudoun County, Virginia By 

Prince William County, Virginia By 

Police Mutual Aid Operational Plan 
i. criteria for requesting assistance 

A. A State of emergency shall exist or appear imminent. 

B. The requesting jurisdiction shall have committed or shall have foreseen 
the need to commit all its available resources. 

II. PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING ASSISTANCE 

A. The official authorized by the parties to the Mutual Aid Agreement to 
request assistance shall do so by contacting the individual (s) in the jurisdictions 
designated in Attachment "A". 

B. The Metro Radio Communications System, or other communications system, 
shall be used to make a request for assistance. The request shall be verified 
by Metro Teletype by the official authorized to make the request. 

C. All jurisdictions party to the Mutual Aid Agreement shall be alerted by 
general broadcast over Metro Teletype of the possible need for mutual aid 
assistance ; notified of an actual request for assistance, and, if necessary, the 
need to stand by. 

D. The request for assistance shall state : 

1. The nature of the emergency and its location. 

2. The type and number of personnel requested. 

3. The type of equipment needed. 

4. The name and location of the ranking officer to whom the assisting personnel 
shall report. 

III. USE OF ASSISTANCE 

A. The Chief of Police of the assisting jurisdiction, or other authorized official, 
shall determine the type of personnel to be dispatched and shall use the Metro 
Teletype to acknowledge the request, stating the amount and type of assistance 
which will be provided. 

Jurisdictions not on the Metro Teletype System shall request aid by letter, on 
official letterhead, and signed by the official authorized to make the request, 
which .shall be delivered for transmittal to the nearest police agency with a 
Metro Teletype System. Such jurisdiction shall respond to requests for assistance 
in the same manner. 

B. The assisting personnel shall report to and shall be under the command 
of the ranking officer named in the request. 

C. Whenever possible, assisting personnel shall be deployed as integral units 
and under their own supervisor. If such deployment is not possible, the assisting 
personnel shall be deployed as members of a team with officers of the requesting 
jurisdiction. If neither of the preceding is pos.sible, then deployment shall be 
determined by the ranking officer named in the request (II D 4). 

D. The nature of the emergency .shall be a consideration in determining where 
the assisting jjersonnel shall be deployed. 

1. In the event of natural disaster, the assisting personnel generally shall be 
deployed on the scene of the disaster. 

2. In the event of civil disaster, the assisting personnel generally shall be 
deployed as supporting units. 



1440 

IV. WITHDRAWAL OF ASSISTANCE 

Whenever possible, the assisting personnel and equipment shall be withdrawn 
pursuant to the mutual agreement of the requesting and assisting jurisdictions. 
If agreement is not possible, either the requesting or assisting jurisdiction may 
unilaterally withdraw the assisting personnel or equipment, after notifying the 
other (s) of the intended action. 

ATTACHMENT A 

Initial contacts made regarding police mutual aid will be made between and 
among the chiefs of police of the various jurisdictions (or their representatives). 

Following this initial contact the chiefs or their representatives will be respon- 
sible for contacting other officials within their own jurisdiction regarding police 
mutual aid notification required below : 

Officials authorized to make, approve, and cancel 
Police jurisdiction : request for assistance from another jurisdiction 

1. District of Columbia Mayor. 

2. Montgomery County County Manager. 

3. Prince George's County 1. Chairman, Board of Commissioners, 2. 

Vice Chairman of Board, 3. Any other 
Board member. 

4. Rockville 1. City Manager, 2. Deputy City Manager. 

5. Takoma Park 

6. Greenbelt 

7. Fairfax County County Executive. 

8. Arlington County Manager. 

9. Alexandria City Manager. 

10. Fairfax City City Manager. 

11. Falls Church City Manager. 

12. Prince William County 

13. Loudoun County 



1441 





















ii ri 




























J 




'ri ^^ 




!i 




















kl 














r; ^ 




;-; 




















S3 3 










c 




3^ 


-^ 


o 




■ 
















v» ^ 










■»•. 




'^i 




I 




t 
















^ 










i 




o 3 




< 




r 




VO 






i 






1 5 












3 3 

^ • 1 5 






















1 
6 
















\ 




^ 












> 
-> 




« 












n r 


,_1 








-i 


1 
































i 


5 












i 








g 


















a 










9 




S 




5 




























: 




1^ 




:^ 


-- — 






{ 






>• 












•i i 

— at 


^ 




I 




:^ 




t 




1/1 

UJ 

>< 










1 








1 ^ 


-I 

i 




-1 
C 
















5 




^ II. 
1 » ™ - 










ran riS 




5 
















c 




it 


■ 






■ 






•KTO =T» 
















> 








t - 








^ 






KB &a 




z 












P 




c 




5 








( 






















J 
H 




1 












i 






«« — CK 


1 1 












— 1 


^ an 


>^ 




































^ «2 


v! 






















., 




w 








• < 










?2 
























■15 




~ 




s 




il 






i 










z 
> 




tI 




5^ 


--- 






3 

i 




« 






5 
3 








■J -J 


1 








H * 








• 

1 

s 


c^ ^^ 


1 


^^ 








bil 


J i 














^ tdJ 












a - 










< 








S 1 




f^ 


1— 25 














i 




y 

< 




o 

5 




5S 




w? 






2 


1 


^ ^ 


S 


5 

a 












i 




1 




a. 








' J 






























J 










■J 2 


























, 








ll 




z 

5 




^ 
^ 










s 'i 


'3 




e 




^ 3 




2 ^ 




u- 1 






s 1 


1 1 ' "' 


2 
-J 




1 




J 6 




H a. 
r. 




i 


<• 1 












"""-^•^"^^ 


1 


















V) 


_ 








o 








1- cr 
y uj 


t 






^ 


•- 


O 






UJ >- 

>- -c 
cc = 
< o 
Q. a 
UJ -* 
O UJ 


i 




^ 


lu 

z 
z 
o 

CO 

oc 


-< 

h- 
IT- 
O 

a. 
v> 

z 

o: 

1- 


1- 
-< 

o 

s 

o 



1442 























- 1 










■•, :; 




^ '. 




















































- t 




U 




-; 




. 2 




,•; 












-; J 




H 




5 




'■i ' 








^ 








■ ~> * 








.1 




ii '" 










" ^^ 






. 










* 




!i ^ 








» ^ 








'2 2 






























3 3 

t i 
















^^ 


J 5 




< f- - 












i» 










5 




-; 




; 




i 








m ... 




















^ 


X _ 










:; 












C _ ;. 






-- 


5 










5 












S ;;i 


















;i 












=5^;? 






















^' -^ - - 








3 














^ 








< 


~-~~-- 






i 














3 




^^' 




S 2 












I . . 1 


,- 




- 




3 




~ 3 








.^ * 










i 

-t 




; 




5 n 




2 ^ 








- i 










T 




5 




- 




Ul "^ 








(K < 










> 




*" 




'" ^ 




2 *^ 


"~— 






- 1 . . . 


3 
C 




-' i 




1 " 




3 T 






















5 « 




5 i 




"'' -^ 








■ 










i 

5 




a 


""^ 






' t 












* 














2 




- ■i 
























u 




< ? 
























^ 








^ I 
















2 




s 




J 




■ <^ 5 
















^ 




















i 








i 








5 




i 1 
















1 












a 


■ — ^ 














a 
< 




• 








t < 
















fe 












J 5 












t; 




3 












^ t 
















^ 




























i 












i 

3 










.^ 










i 








1 3 




H 1- 




















3 




M 




5 i 


















= 




:: g 




= P 


**-.^^__^ 


■J It 

— — 




S 












-J 




1 1 




^ i 


^^ 


H 















v> 


















■3 - 




ii 

it 






i 


i 












J 




i 




^ 








u 


a 








a 












ii 






1 










2 












K 
























z < 




























^ c 








'i 
















3 




. 1 

< 
c 




5 Si 




^ ° 


















1 




t 




I I . 








1 


















c = 
































J v. 


























^ 


Si 




s i 
9 3 


^^ 














3 




1 




> i 








^ 


^""""^ 


< « 








i 
3 








H 3 




J 




r 5* 
















< 




3 s 








c 
















w 


-1 




u 


_l z 


-jie 


*2 




< 


-< Ul 

— S 


f 1- 


o^ 




s 


a. ' 


" Ij 


^S 




a 


UJ — 


UJ _ 




oe 


Q. 3 


«^ 


o5tf 




o 


«o 


«" < 


0* 






U 


u. 


•< 



1443 

Narcotics Amendment to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern- 
ments' Police Mutual Aid Agreement Operational Plan 

Whereas, the local governments in the Washington Metropolitan Area entered 
into a Police Mutual Aid Agreement (hereinafter called "Agreement") on Janu- 
ary 18, 1971 ; and 

Whereas, the Agreement provides for the exchange of police in emergency 
situations ; and 

Whereas, by amendment to Virginia law, and under provisions in existing 
Maryland and District of Columbia law, narcotics investigators may l)e ex- 
changed and cross jurisdictional lines on a routine, non-emergency basis for the 
enforcement of laws designed to control or prohibit the use or sale of narcotics ; 
and 

Whereas, the Operational Plan to the Agreement must be amended to provide 
the conditions for exchange of narcotics investigators and the operating pro- 
cedures to lie followed, 

Xow. therefore, the parties hereto do agree as follows : 

Under special amendment to the Virginia Police Mutual Aid Law. and within 
the existing provisions of the District of Columbia and Maryland Police Mutual 
Aid Laws, narcotics investigators may be exchanged and ma.y. cross state lines 
for the enforcement of laws designed to control or prohibit the use or sale of nar- 
cotics. This may be done on a routine, non-emergency basis. All other police ac- 
tivities remain subject to the emergency only provisions of the Police Mutual 
Aid Agreement in efifect in the Washington Metropolitan Area. 

I. conditions for interdepartmental transfer of pers6!nnel 

A. Determination by a jurisdiction party to this Amendment that there is a 
need for narcotics investigators which cannot be met through use of its own nar- 
cotics personnel. Said jurisdiction then may request such persons from other 
jurisdiction (s) signatory to the Police Mutual Aid Agreement which have ap- 
proved this Amendment to the Agreement's Operational Plan. 

B. The official, or his designee, authorized by the parties to the Police Mutual 
Aid Agreement to request assistance, .shall do so by contacting the individual (s) 
in the jurisdictions designated in Attachment "B". 

C. A request for assistance shall be made in writing on official letterhead. In 
the event such assistance is needed immediately, a telecommunication can initiate 
such action to be followed by the written confirmation. 

D. The request for assistance shall state : 

1. The reason for the investigation. 

2. The number of narcotics investigators requested. 

3. Equipment, if needed. 

4. The name and location of the ranking officer to whom the narcotics investi- 
gators shall report. 

5. The name and location of the ranking officer in the assisting jurisdiction to 
whom all contacts shall be addressed. 

E. The assisting narcotics investigators .«hall be used in the following ways : 

1. The assisting jurisdiction which supplies narcotics investigators shall pro- 
vide for their salary and benefits. 

2. The requesting jurisdiction shall supply equipment and any monies neces- 
sary for the successful operation of the investigation. 

3. The officer in charge of the assisting jurisdiction's narcotics divi.sion sball 
determine the number of narcotics investigators which may he dispatched and 
shall inform his Chief of Police monthly of the extent of such operations. The 
Chief shall be advised as to the number of his men assisting other jurisdictions 
and the number of men giving assistance in his jurisdiction. 

4. The assisting narcotics investigators shall report to and shall be under the 
command of the ranking officer named in the request. This officer is resnonsible 
for informing the officer-in-charge of the assisting jurisdiction's narcotics division 
of the quality of service being rendered. He .shall also keep a record of tbe nar- 
cotics investigator's work time and send such information to the assisting juris- 
diction so that employment benefits are maintained. 

5. Whenever possible, as.sisting narcotics investigators shall be resnonsible to 
a single supervisor. If this is not possible, the ranking officer in the requesting 
jurisdiction shall determine how supervision is to be arranged. 



1444 

F. Term of Assistance. The assisting narcotics investigators shall serve at the 
discretion of the requesting jurisdiction. The assisting jurisdiction may unilater- 
ally withdraw its pcrsdiiin'l at any time alter formally notifying the requesting 
jurisdiction of such action. 

II. GENERAL OPERATING PROCEDURES 

A. When a narcotics investigator crosses a jurisdictional line for the purpose 
of buying illicit drugs, without the prior knowledge and consent of the entered 
jurisdiction, he shall report his activities to the oflScer-in-charge of the narcotics 
division in his juri^sdi(■tiun wlu» sliail then infuim llie ulii ci-ln-Lluirge oi the en- 
tered jurisdiction's narcotis division as soon as practicable but no later than 
twenty-four hours thereafter. 

B. The assisting narcotics investigator shall have the use of deadly force only 
in defense against an attack that may result in death or serious bodily injury to 
the oflScer or to an innocent bystander. 

C. The assisting narcotics investigator shall not become involved with matters 
other than those pertaining to possible violations of narcotics laws. 

D. A narcotics investigator shall not make arrests outside his jurisdiction 
when conducting general investigative activities. 

Attachment "B" 

Initial contacts regarding narcotics assistance shall be made between and 
among the narcotics divisional oflScers-in-charge. 

Jurisdiction Offlcer-in-charge 

District of Columbia . 

Minty. Maryland . 

Montgomery County, Maryland . 

Fairfax County, Virginia . 

Arlington County Virginia . 

Alexandria City, Virginia . 

Falls Church, Virginia . 

Fairfax City, Virginia . 

Takoma Park, Maryland • . 

LEAA FUNDING 

The Chairman. How does tlie Council answer the question of the 
jrrowiniif movement toward the administration of law enforcement 
agencies by area wide organizations such as yours? 

Mr. Touchstone. Tliat has been a very sticky issue. 

In 1973, out of the 33 interstate areas in this country, 29 of them had 
interstate councils of government. Out of those 29, only 7 of them dealt 
with public safety issues. And the reason at that time was mainly 
funding. LEAA was the major source of funds, but most LEAA fund- 
ing came through the States. It was through the State planning 
agencies. 

Since that time. Senator Mathias has succeeded in getting a slight 
amendment to the omnibus crime bill, and we have been able, as well 
as a few others, I think, to secure from them — we, right now, through 
our criminal justice — we like to call it CJ3 — it is really in the third 
year of our criminal justice grant — have been able to secure funding 
from LEAA to do some of the metropolitanwide planning things that 
the local jurisdictions feel that they need. 

Wo do not know, and wo arc unable to identify what the current 
fooling is as to tiie success of this. Wo will bo doinjr, at the end of this 
vear, an overall 3-year rppoit. Hopefully, this report and our efforts 
in this 3-year project will, through its pilot effort, enhance the ability 



144'5 

of other councils of government to work in the area of public safety 
at the metropolitan level in a more funded sort of way. Hopefully, 
LEAA, in the administration of the LEAA funds, will look favorably 
on what we have accomplished in a 3-year period. 

Tlie CiiAiRMAX. Mr. Harris. 

Mr. Harris. I have no questions, ^Nlr. Chairman; thank you. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Minority counsel. 

INTERJURISDICTIOXAI. COlVrMUXICATIOX 

Mr. CiiRTSTiAX. Mr. (^hairman, I would just like to ask one question, 
Mr. Touchstone, to highlight what you touched on insofar as what 
you consider to be major interjurisdictional problems Avithin the 
criminal justice system, and what possible solutions there would be 
for them ( 

]Mr. ToucHSTOXE. Well, that is a very hard question — at least from 
my perspective — to deal with because I think that some of the prob- 
lems, as I perceive them, with crime on interjurisdictional basis in- 
volves communication in one way or the other. And when I say com- 
munication, it is a very broad term I am using; not onlj^ through the 
teletypes, but actual communication between police chiefs, between 
fire chiefs, between those persons responsible for the public safety of 
individuals in this Metropolitan AA'ashington area. 

I guess I get the feeling that we are such a transitory, migratory 
area that people are every day, through the beltway and through the 
other transportation mechanisms, going from one jurisdiction to 
anotlier. And the communication necessary, involving citizens as 
things happen to them within this metropolitan area, is almost an es- 
sential element. 

So communication — and the other thing is the coordinative efforts 
which are related to communication — tliere is no sense in having com- 
munication if you do not coordinate out of that communication. That 
is another very important area. 

And the other important area. I think, is that the tristate area, the 
Metropolitan Washington area, ought to look A-ery carefully at how 
some laws can adversely affect one jurisdiction versus another. There 
ought to be some communication between the major jurisdictions as to 
the laws and how they affect another jurisdiction. And it may be that 
some laws are causing problems in another jurisdiction, unbeknownst 
to the provider of those hiMS. So I think that should be another major 
area that is important to the whole metropolitan area. 

Mr. CIIRISTIA^^ To follow up on that, is your committee now analyz- 
ing any of the laws of those jurisdictions to try pinpoint some 
conflicts? 

Mr. ToucHSTOxE. We have analyzed the laws to the extent that it 
would take us to develop the metropolitian — a metropolitanwide pact 
that we have done. That basically has been the extent of our involve- 
ment with the different State laws and the different legislation that 
is on the books. And we have had t do that to get some of these metro- 
politan pacts approved, because different States have different laws 
that apply to — to the extent that it affects one of the projects that we 
are working on, we have looked at it to that extent, but by and large, no 
further. 



1446 

Mr. Christian. Thank 3'ou very much. 

Mr. ChHirmim, I have no further question. 

Mr. RiEMExsYNDER. I liavc one brief question, Mr. Chairman. 

There wore reports in tlie press that there was a communications 
breakdown of some kind after the shooting of the two Park Police 
officers about 3 weeks a^o. And is there now a common frequency that 
the different police jurisdictions use between cars when they are in- 
volved in flights for felons from one jurisdiction to another? 

Mr. Johnson. There is a common frequency, a mutual aid frequency 
which is used throughout the metropolitan area. One of the specific 
things that can be done with that fi-equency is for lookouts for stolen 
vehicles, for felons, and this kind of thiiiir. JRut the things that happen 
with that frequency is that periodically it has to be tested, and right 
now, currently, that system is being tested to see what kind of traffic 
goes on in tlie commujiication system to make sure that because of the 
change in pei*sonnel in the area that everybody knows how to use this 
properly. 

There are concerns about the Bicentennial, and one of the reasons 
that we are working with DOT to secure some funding in the second 
half of this package is that before the May Day demonstrations in this 
city, we had an oppoi-tunity, about 2 months previous to that, for the 
simulation of the communication systems throughout the metro- 
politan area. This was kind of like training for exactly how that sys- 
tem works. Since that time, we have not had an opportunity to run a 
metropolitanwide simulation of the communication systems, but we 
are working on, through our subcommittees, testing the system to — 
and A^e would again like to run that kind of a system, hopefully to 
overcome any kind of bugs or problems that happen in that system 
over a ])eriod of time. 

Mr. RiEMExsYNDER. Thank you; we appreciate — and we would like 
to be informed of the kind of conununication system est-ablished. 

The Chairman. Thank you very nmch. 

The committee staiids adjourned. 

[AVhereupon, at 11 :i)i> a.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene 
subject to the call of the Chair.] 

[The following re[)()rt of the Metropolitan Washington Council of 
Governments was submitted for the record :] 



1447 



INTERJURISDICTIONAL CRIME 
IN 
THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA 



FINAL REPORT 



PREPARED BY 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 



the 

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON 
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 



September 5, 1973 



The preparation of this report was financed in part 
through a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, 
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, through 
the District of Columbia Office of Criminal Justice 
Plans and Analysis. 



1448 



PREFACE 



This report was prepared under the direction of Blair 
G. Ewing, Director, Department of Public Safety, Metropolitan 
Washington Council of Governments. The principal author was 
David L. Dougherty, assisted by Roy Wynn. Special assistance 
was also provided by Katy Bennett, Allen B. Benson, Jeanne W. 
Halleck, Gary V. Hodge, Stacy Moss, John J. Protopappas, and 
Matilda Saddler. 



We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the police 
departments of the Washington metropolitan area and especially 
the following persons: 



Chief Jerry V. Wilson 
Inspector Herbert Miller 
Mr. Tom Steele 
Mr. Gerhard Kirchner 
Chief Roland Sweitzer 
Captain Robert Duncan 
Lt. Charles Wolfe 
Mr. John Hoxie 
Officer Michael Mulligan 
Col. Kenneth W. Watkins 
Lt. Michael Desmond 
Officer Jack Kaminski 
Chief William Lane 
Chief John Downs 
Chief Robert M. Kaiser 
Chief Robert E. Porter 
Corporal Werner Winkler 
Chief John B. Holihan 
Lt. Robert C. Key 
Sgt. Joseph M. Seiffert 
Chief Roy C. McLaren 
Captain Alvin Fuchsman 
Chief William L. Durrer 
Sgt. Alan I. Barbee 
Corporal Donald Schrum 
Chief Murray Kutner 
Lt. Carl W. Buchholz 
Corporal Robert Fleck 
Acting Chief Ralph Adams 
Sgt. Joseph Cifala 
Sheriff Robert W. Legard 
Chief George T. Owens 
Sgt. James Cornell 
Mr. Ron Steger 

Ms. Joy Marshall 



District of Coluii±)ia 

District of Columbia 

District of Columbia 

District of Columbia 

Prince George ' s County 

Prince George's County 

Prince George's County 

Prince George ' s County 

Prince George's County 

Montgomery County 

Montgomery County 

Montgomery County 

Greenbelt 

Hyattsville 

Laurel 

Takoma Park 

Takoma Park 

Alexandria 

Alexandria 

Alexandria 

Arlington County 

Arlington County 

Fairfax County 

Fairfax County 

Fairfax County 

Fairfax City 

Fairfax City 

Fairfax City 

Falls Church 

Falls Church 

Loudoun County 

Prince William County 

Prince William County 

Northern Virginia Planning District 

Commission 
Northern Virginia Planning District 

Commission 



1449 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I . SUMMARY 1 

II. INTRODUCTION 2 

III. BACKGROUND 5 

IV. LIMITATIONS ON DATA COLLECTION 

AND ANALYSIS 10 

V. TOTAL METROPOLITAN AREA 13 

VI. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 18 



VII. MARYLAND 



VIII. VIRGINIA 



21 



Montgomery County 24 

Prince George's County 32 

Greenbelt 44 

Hyattsville 47 

Laurel 50 

Takoma Park 52 



54 



Alexandria 5 8 

Arlington County 61 

Fairfax County 64 

Fairfax City 67 

Falls Church 70 

Loudoun County 73 

Prince William County 76 

IX. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 79 



52-587 O - 75 - pt. 2 - 23 



1450 



I. SUMMARY 

The conclusions that follow concerning interjurisdictional 
crime in the Washington metropolitan area are based on the 
analysis of data concerning the residences of persons arrested 
for serious offenses (Part I Index offenses) in the several 
jurisdictions of the Washington metropolitan area during 1972. 
They are subject to the limitations of completeness, accuracy 
and comparability which apply to this type of data in general 
and to the specific data available for this study. These limi- 
tations are discussed in detail in Chapter IV of this report. 
The reader is urged to refer to that chapter and to the analyses 
and tables for each jurisdiction in Chapters V, VI, VII, and VIII, 

° Approximately one in five arrests, a rate of 19.7%, for 
serious criminal offenses in the metropolitan area during 
1972, was of a person who did not reside in the juris- 
diction in which he was arrested. 

° The rate of interjurisdictional crime, as reflected 
by residences of arrested persons, is higher in suburban 
areas than in the District of Columbia. The rate in the 
Virginia suburbs is 30.3%, in the Maryland suburbs, 20.6%, 
and in the District of Columbia, is 9.7%. 

° Residents of other Virginia jurisdictions comprised 
the largest single group of non-residents arrested in 
the suburban Virginia jurisdictions. 

° District of Columbia residents comprised the largest 
single group of non-residents arrested in the suburbcin 
Maryland jurisdictions. 

° Prince George's County residents comprised the largest 
single group of non-residents arrested in the District 
of Columbia. 

° In absolute numbers, more adult non-residents, 587, 
were arrested in Prince George's County than in any 
other jurisdiction. The District of Columbia arrested 
the second largest number of non-residents, 480. 

° Metropolitanwide, the highest rate of non-resident 
arrests, 35.5%, was for larceny. The lowest rate, 12.9% 
was for assault. 

° The rate of arrests of non-residents for narcotic 
offenses was 19.9%. Narcotic offense arrests showed a 
pattern similar to that of index offense arrests. 

° The rate of interjurisdictional crime in the Washington 
metropolitan area has declined slightly but remained 
fairly constant, based on comparison of this study with 
previous studies, including those conducted by the 
Council of Governments, local governments, the FBI, and 
a 1939 study conducted by the Brookings Institution. 

-1- 



1451 



II. INTRODUCTION 

The Washington, D.C. Standard Metropolitan Statistical 
Area (SMSA) is one of the largest, most prosperous, and fastest 
growing metropolitan areas in the United States. The area is 
made up of the core city of Washington, D.C, Montgomery and 
Prince George's Counties in Maryland, Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, 
and Prince William Counties in Virginia, and the cities of 
Alexandria, Fairfax, and Falls Church in Virginia. 

While there still remain some rural areas on the fring««, 
the metropolitan area can be largely characterized as urban 
and matured suburban. As in all metropolitan areas, the Washing- 
ton area is confronted with a variety of problems, including 
serious crime and illegal narcotics use, which are not limited 
by the political boundaries separating cities, counties, and 
states. 

Crime has long been recognized in this area as a problem 
demanding close cooperation and coordination among jurisdictions. 
It is clear that, like most other activities in the metropolitem 
area, criminal activity crosses jurisdictional boundaries in 
its planning, execution, and impact. 

Mutual aid agreements, metropolitanwide criminal justice 
planning, and regular meetings of area police chiefs, prosecutors, 
and corrections officials are among the many efforts in the 
metropolitan area to approach the regional aspects of crime 
control. Among these efforts, this study is one means of 
assessing the problem of metropolitan crime. 

For some time there has been concern aibout the degree to 
which crime is interjurisdictional, that is, the extent to 
which crimes are being committed by persons who are not residents 
of the jurisdictions in which they commit crimes. Questions 
have been raised on several occasions by citizens and public 
officials about the causes of interjurisdictional crime and about 
possible ways to limit or control it. Some of those questions 
and responses to them are discussed in Chapter IV of this report. 

This study is an attempt to determine, for each of the 
jurisdictions in the Washington metropolitan area, and for the 
area as a whole, the extent and nature of interjurisdictional 
crime. It is not possible, in the scope of this report, to 
determine the reasons for interjurisdictional crime or, to any 
great extent, to suggest ways to control it. What can be done is 
to determine the extent of it and where its impact is primarily 
felt. 

The study covers the calendar year 19 72 and is based on 
records of the residences of persons arrested for the seven 
criminal offenses categorized as Part I (Index) offenses by the 
FBI, and for narcotics offenses. Fourteen major jurisdictions 



-2- 



I4ry2 



in the Washington metropolitan area are included: Washington, 
D.C., Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland; 
Greenbelt, Hyattsville, Laurel and Takoma Park, Maryland; 
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William Counties, 
Virginia and Alexandria, Fairfax, and Falls Church, Virginia. 

The seven Part I offenses are: 

Murder . Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of 
a human being with malice aforethought. Any death due to a 
fight, argument, quarrel, assault, or commission of a crime 
is included. It does not include attempts to kill, suicides, 
accidental deaths, or justifiable homicides. 

Rape . Forcible rape is defined as carnal knowledge of 

a female forcibly and against her will. All attempts to rape 

are counted, but carnal abuse, statutory rape and other sex 
offenses are not included. 

Robbery . Robbery is defined as the felonious and forcible 
taking of the property of another, against his will, by violence 
or by putting him in fear. The element of personal confron- 
tation is always present. 

Aggravated Assault . Aggravated assault is defined as 
an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose 
of inflicting severe bodily injury, usually accompanied by 
the use of a weapon or other means likely to produce death 
or great bodily harm. Attempts are included since it is 
not necessary that an injury result from an aggravated assault 
when a gun, knife or other weapon is used which could result 
in serious personal injury if the crime were successfully 
carried out . 

Burglary . Burglary is defined as housebreaking, safe- 
cracking, or unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony 
or theft, even though no force was used to gain entrance. 

Larceny . Larceny is defined as the taking of property 
of another with intent to deprive him of ownership. All 
larcenies and thefts resulting from pocket-picking, purse 
snatching, shoplifting, larcenies from autos , thefts of auto 
parts, thefts of bicycles, etc., are included. Grand larceny 
includes only thefts where the value of goods stolen is 
$50.00 or more. 

Auto Theft . Auto theft includes all theft and attempted 
theft of motor vehicles. This includes all motor vehicles 
which can be registered as such. Excluded are the taking of 
a motor vehicle for temporary use such as family situations, 
or unauthorized use by others having lawful access to the 
vehicle . 

In addition to the seven index offenses, included in this 
study are narcotics offenses. They are defined here as all 



1453 



violations of the narcotic drug laws of the jurisdiction in 
which the arrest occurred. Included are possession, sale, use, 
growing, manufacturing, and making of illicit drugs, including 
opium or cocaine and their derivatives (morphine, heroin, 
codeine) , marijuana and hallocinogens, synthetic narcotics 

(demeroal, methadone) , and dangerous nonnarcotic drugs 

(barbituates , benzedrine). 

Since this study is based only on records of arrests for 
these offenses, the analysis and conclusions can give only an 
indication, rather than a full picture, of the extent of inter- 
jurisdictional crime in this area. A complete picture is not 
possible since we can know only about the crimes for which some- 
one was arrested, a number less than all crimes reported to the 
police, a figure, in itself, limited due to some amount of un- 
reported crime. Those and other limitations are discussed more 
fully in Chapter IV of this report. 

With those limitations in mind, however, this report 
does give as accurate an indication as is possible to obtain 
of the extent of interjurisdictional crime in the Washington 
metropolitan area and the degree to which it affects the several 
jursidictions of the area. The findings indicate that the 
need for cooperation and coordination of law enforcement and 
other criminal justice efforts is a continuing one. 



-4- 



1454 



III. B ACKGROUND 

Several studies of interjurisdictional crime in the 
Washington metropolitan area have been conducted over the past 
several years. 

In 1964, the Federal Bureau of Investigation carried out 
a special examination of the problem in metropolitan Washington 
which was included in the 1965 publication of Crime in the 
United States . This study, printed under the title, "Mobility 
of the Offender", was an analysis of statistical data on 
residences of arrested persons obtained by the FBI from the 
seventeen municipal police agencies in the Washington D.C. 
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. The following quotation 
from that analysis summarizes its content: 

"The Maryland and Virginia suburbs of this metropoli- 
tan area experienced proportionately a greater degree 
of criminal mobility than the large core city, 
Washington, D.C. In these suburbs 31 percent of all 
persons taken into custody were non-residents of the 
community where arrested. For the crimes against the 
person, 16 percent of the persons arrested were non- 
residents. For the property crimes of burglary, 
larceny and auto theft, 39 percent were non-resident 
offenders. In suburban robberies it was disclosed 
that over one-half were solved by the arrests of 
offenders who were non-residents of the communities 
where the crime occurred." 

In 1969, public discussion of the issue of interjurisdic- 
tional crime was initiated, when public officials in Prince _ 
George's County noted the high percentage of non-residents who 
were regularly being arrested for robberies in that County. The 
same high participation of non-residents in robberies was 
also noted by Montgomery County officials. Their assertions 
were discussed in detail during 1969 in the Washington Post and 
the Evening Star. 

During extensive hearings which were conducted by the 
Committee on the District of Columbia of the United States 
Senate, on March 11 and 12, 1969, and later on January 20 and 
February 3, 1970, testimony was heard from local Prince George's 
and Montgomery County officials which gave rise to the "Spill- 
over" theory of interjurisdictional crime. As Francis J. 
Aluisi, Chairman of the Prince George's County Board of Commis- 
sioners put it at the time, "We submit that a great majority of 
the criminal activity along our common boundary is a direct 
result of conditions in the central city and that increased anti- 
crime activity there will result in increased criminal activity 
in Prince George's County." A similar message was conveyed in 
the hearings by the several law enforcement officials and 



■5- 



1455 



elected officials who testified at the hearings on the regional 
aspects of crime in metropolitan Washington, and the inter- 
jurisdictional crime problem which had been identified. 

These hearings on the regional aspects of crime did much 
to raise the level of interest in the problem of criminal 
mobility in metropolitan Washington. l^rtiat followed was a series 
of studies of the problem, utilizing varied types of statistical 
information, and conducted for various purposes. 

Several of these analyses of the question of criminal 
mobility in the Washington metropolitan area should be summarized. 
In 1971, the Metropolitan Police Department conducted a study of 
the residences of persons arrested in the District of Columbia 
during a three month period. The findings showed that 3.8% 
of the adults arrested in the District of Columbia were residents 
of Virginia, 1.8% were residents of Montgomery County, and 
3.8% were residents of Prince George's County. 

In the same year, the Office of Crime Analysis of the 
District of Columbia carried out a study which was based on 
records maintained by the U.S. Attorney's Office. This study 
covered the period of January through August, 19 71, and 
indicated that of persons processed by that office during that 
period, 2.4% were residents of Virginia, 4.6% were residents of 
Maryland, and 9% were from other jurisdictions. 

During the Metropolitcin Washington Crime Conference, 
convened in September, 1971, several addresses were made by 
officials of the metropolitan Washington area on the subject of 
interjurisdictional crime, which contained statistical informa- 
tion assembled on the problem. 

Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. of Maryland, a principal 
sponsor of the Conference, again expressed the theory that the 
pressure applied toward crime reduction in the District of 
Columbia had forced criminal elements to seek targets for their 
criminal activity outside the city, in the suburban metropolitan 
area. Senator Mathias referred to this theory as the "mercury 
theory". He cited a study carried out by the Council of 
Governments during the three previous months as the source of 
information supporting his theory. 

Mr. Ronald Steger of the Northern Virginia Planning 
District Commission, presented a statement containing an examina- 
tion of the residences of persons arrested in the Northern 
Virginia jurisdictions during 1968, 1969, and 1970. His 
statistics indicated that 5% of the persons arrested in 
Alexandria City and Fairfax County were residents of the District 
of Columbia. Also, his study showed that the greatest number 



-€- 



1456 



of non-residents arrested in Northern Virginia jurisdictions 
were residents of other Virginia jurisdictions, and were not 
residents of the District of Columbia or Maryland. 

Mr. George Hall, Director of the Statistics Division of 
the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, presented a paper 
at the Conference, prepared by Sue Lindgren, which compared the 
increase and decrease in reported crime for individual jurisdic- 
tions, over the period of several years, in an effort to deter- 
mine any correlation between them, especially between a lowering 
of crime rates in the District of Columbia and the rise in crime 
in the suburban jurisdictions. The paper also compared 
resident and non-resident arrests in all suburban jurisdictions 
for individual index offenses. Based on reported index offenses 
in all jurisdictions in 1970, the decrease in the District of 
Columbia share of the index crime reported did not appear to be 
matched by an equivalent increase of such crimes in the suburbs. 
The study of residences of arrestees was based on a sampling of 
arrest records from the area jurisdictions. All jurisdictions 
cooperated and reported most of the data requested for the 
study, but few were keeping such data on a regular basis. The 
manner in which arrest data was maintained prohibited compilation 
of absolute numbers of non-resident arrests for analysis. 
Already small numbers of arrests were made smaller by sampling, 
which may have caused the study results to be less reliable. 
The study findings indicated that in the District of Columbia, 
9.4% of the adults arrested, and 13.0% of the juveniles, were 
from suburban Washington areas. In Virginia arrests, the 
average non-resident rate was slightly less than 5%, although 
for some offenses the rates were higher. Maryland non-resident 
arrest rates were higher. Of all arrested persons in Montgomery 
County, 11.9% were residents of the District of Columbia. For 
the crime of Grand Larceny, the percentage rose to 2 3%. Prince 
George's County, according to the study, had the highest rates 
of arrest of District of Columbia residents for index crimes. 
The average for all offenses was about 22%. The highest inter- 
jurisdictional crime rates were found in the arrest for the 
offense of Robbery, with 53.1% of all persons arrested for that 
crime in 1969 in Prince George's County being District of 
Columbia residents, and 38.2% in 1970. 

In June, 1972, an examination of the interjurisdictional 
crime question was conducted by Mr. John W. Hoxie, Public 
Information Officer for the Prince George's County Police Depart- 
ment. His study concerned only the crime of Robbery as an 
interjurisdictional offense. His examination of arrests from the 
period January through May, 1972, revealed that 40% of the persons 
arrested for robbery in the County were residents of the 
District of Columbia, and another 5.1% were residents of jurisdic- 
tions other than Prince George's County or the District of 



-7- 



1457 



Columbia, amounting to a total non-resident percentage of 
45.1%. These figures were cited by County Executive William W. 
Gullett in July, 1972, when he stated that "Prince George's 
citizens have increasingly become the victims of crime committed 
by D.C. residents driven out of the city by the wall to wall 
police force being established there." 

Four studies of this subject have been prepared previously 
by the Department of Public Safety of the Metropolitan Washington 
Council of Governments. The first was prepared for the 
Metropolitan Washington Crime Conference, and was concerned only 
with interjurisdictional crime as it was experienced by the 
suburban Maryland jurisdictions. The second, prepared in 
October, 1971, examined robbery as an offense particularly 
influenced by the non-resident offender in both Virginia and 
Maryland. The third, in May of 1972, was an update of statistics 
of the previous two studies, and examined some of the theoretical 
questions which had been raised. A fourth, prepared in February 
of 1973, analyzed nine months of statistics from the police 
departments of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties. That 
study indicated that the overall interjurisdictional arrest 
rate in those two counties was 20%, 12% of which could be 
attributed to District of Columbia residents but which also was 
distributed among other jurisdictions. That study also found 
that robbery and grand larceny were the crimes for which most 
non-resident arrests were made. 

Of special interest is a survey of the government of 
Montgomery County conducted by the Brookings Institution of 
Washington, D.C, in 1939, and published in 1941. 

This survey indicated that, during a sixteen month 
period, from January 1, 1938 to April 30, 1939, of 1,472 persons 
released from the Montgomery County Jail, 1,120, 76.1% were 
residents of Montgomery County, 45, J. 3%, were residents of 
other Maryland jurisdictions, and 196, 13.3%, were residents of 
the District of Columbia. States other than Maryland accounted 
for the remaining 107, 7.3%. 

The authors of the study said, 

"It is an extremely significant fact that more than 
three-fourths of those who are put in jail report 
their place of residence as Montgomery County. Of the 
remainder, more than half say that they live in the 
District of Columbia. Those who declare a residence 
in states other than Maryland constitute 7.3% of the 
total; and the smallest number, only 3.3 percent, give 
a Maryland residence outside of Montgomery County. 



•8- 



1458 



Of these, the largest number come from Baltimore 
and only a very few from Prince George's County. 

". . .[T]he record of the Montgomery County police 
in 19 38 was noticeably poorer than that of various 
city police departments with respect to arrests 
for rape, robbery, burglary, and larceny. 

"• . .One probability, however, should be pointed 
out, which, if it is a fact, may explain the 
apparently poor showing made by the local depart- 
ment. It is possible that a large proportion of 
the unsolved robberies, burglaries, and thefts are 
committed by persons who come into the suburbs 
from Washington and return there. If this is true, 
their apprehension depends not alone on the 
efficiency of the county police but also on the 
efficiency and cooperation of the District Police." 

The study went on to make the following recommendations: 

"1. Legislation, both state and congressional, 
authorizing pursuit and arrest in one 
jurisdiction by the police of the other. 

2. Definite provision for liaison between the 
two forces. 

3. Enlargement of the County Detective Bureau 
so that at least one man may be available 
for cooperation with the Washington police 
in the solution of crime involving both the 
District and the County. 

4. State legislation permitting employment in the 
county of men who have had experience on the 
metropolitan force and congressional legisla- 
tion permitting the detail of District officers 
to the County Police Department. " 

The findings of this report indicate little change in 
the interjurisdictional crime rate as compared with these 
previous studies. Although, in large measure, the recommenda- 
tions made by the Brookings Institution have been carried 
throughout the Washington metropolitan area, interjurisdictional 
crime still exists as a law enforcement problem and continues 
to be a matter of concern for the metropolitan area. 



1459 



IV. LIMITATIONS ON DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

While information about persons arrested is the only 
practical source for determining the characteristics of per- 
sons who commit crime, it is recognized that there are cer- 
tain problems and limitations with drawing definite conclusions 
from such data, largely due to considerations concerning how 
accurately that information is indicative of the entire 
population of persons who commit crimes. 

Arrests are made for only a portion of the total number 
of crimes which are reported to the police. In 1972, 96,921 
' index offenses were reported to the several police depart- 
ments in the Washington metropolitan area. This study found 
that 15,992 arrests were made for index offenses.* In some 
cases, one arrest closed more than one of the reported crimes 
and, in other cases, more than one arrest closed only one crime. 
The fact remains, however, that a large proportion of index 
crimes were committed by persons who were not apprehended. 
Hence, the effect of those offenders on the volume and rate 
of interjurisdictional crime cannot be known. 

Furthermore, examination was not made of data which would 
show whether the persons about whom information is available 
were quality of the crime for which they had been arrested. 

Knowledge about the total impact of interjurisdictional 
crime is also affected by what is termed the "dark figure 
of crime," the gap between the amount of crime known by the 
police and the amount actually committed. There are several 
reasons for this gap, among them that some crimes are not 
reported and are never discovered by the police. This varies, 
of course, from crime to crime, but can be affected by the 
citizen's feeling that the police would not be effective 
in solving the crime, his reluctance to spend the time necessary 
to file a report, his lack of knowledge about the procedures 
for reporting a crime, or his fear of reprisal from the person 
who committed the crime. That gap must be considered in terms 
of the analyses and conclusions of this report. 

There were specific problems encountered in the process 
of data collection for this report which must also be considered. 
Some jurisdictions regularly collect data on residences of 
arrested persons and maintain it in a readily accessible fashion. 



* This does not include all juvenile arrests, which, in some 
jurisdictions, make up a substantial portion of all index 
arrests. 



■10- 



14G0 



That data, however, is not always strictly comparable, in terms 
of periods of time covered, categories of offenses, or categories 
of residences. To the extent possible, such data vfas inter- 
preted to provide compatibility but, in some cases, differences 
remain. 

For most of the jurisdictions included in this report, it 
was necessary to collect data manually from arrest books, 
arrest reports, or other original source documents. It should 
be pointed out that these documents are maintained for 
operational purposes by the individual police departments 
and are usually not in a format efficient for research purposes. 
Each department, moreover, maintains its records differently, 
using different forms, methods of storage, and, in some cases, 
different language. 

There are efforts underway, in which the Council of 
Governments is participating, to assess and improve record 
keeping and information systems in police departments and 
other criminal justice agencies. These-ef forts place con- 
siderable emphasis on the compatibility of data and the 
maintenance of it in ways permitting effective research and 
planning. Until such time, however, that data is maintained 
in much the same fashion areawide, the limitations on the 
data to fully and accurately describe particular phenomena 
must be consideied. 

Some of the more specific limitations involve accurate 
and accepted definitions of crime categories. This is especially 
true of aggravated assault and grand larceny, two categories 
not strictly comparable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction 
in this report. 

Only aggravated assaults are Part I offenses. For 
some jurisdictions, limitations on data sources and collection 
procedures resulted in the inclusion of both simple and 
aggravated assaults in that category, thus inflating the 
total numbers of arrests for that offense. Those jurisdictions 
are so noted in the analysis and table of this report. 

The category of grand larceny includes only those 
larcenies where the value of the goods stolen is $50.00 or 
more. That category has been changed by the FBI in 19 73 to 
include all larcenies, over and under $50.00. In some jur- 
isdictions it was not possible to determine from the available 
data which larceny arrests were larcenies of $50.00 or more. 
In such cases, the larceny categories in this report are 
inflated. Those jurisdictions are so noted in the analysis 
and tables. 

It is recognized that a significant proportion of 
crime is committed by juveniles. There are, however, restric- 
tions on the accessability of juvenile arrest information. For 
those jurisdictions where aggregated totals could be provided 
of juveniles arrests by category and residence, they have 



■11- 



1461 



been included. In other jurisdictions, where it was necessary 
to examine source documents or where aggregations of juvenile 
arrest information could not be provided, juvenile data was not 
available. Where data on juvenile arrests has been included, 
it is so noted in the report. 

Where juvenile data is not included, the total numbers 
of arrests shown in this report are, of course, lower than the 
actual number of arrests made. While it is not possible to 
determine to what extent non-resident juveniles were 
arrested in those jurisdictions, data available from other 
jurisdictions indicates that arrests of non-resident 
juveniles are less frequent than arrests of non-resident 
adults. If this is the case, the rates indicated for 
non-resident arrests in those jurisdictions without juvenile 
data are somwhat higher than if juveniles had been included. 

It has been suggested that an additional source of 
information about interjurisdictional crime is the recovery 
in one jurisdiction of articles stolen in another. Investigation 
showed that that data is not maintained throughout the area 
in a manner which could be analyzed for this study, thus 
it is not included. 



■12- 



1462 



V. TOTAL WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA 

In 1972, 15,992 arrests were made in the metropolitan area 
for Part I Index Offenses. ^ Of these, 3158 persons were not 
residents of the jurisdictions in which they were arrested, a 
rate of 19.7% non-resident arrests. Most non-residents were, 
however, residents of other jurisdictions in the metropolitan 
area, with only 3.9% of the arrestees from jurisdictions outside 
metropolitan Washington. 

Of 4,188 arrests for narcotic offenses, 819 persons 
arrested were not residents of the jurisdiction in which the 
arrest occurred, a rate of 19.9%. 

In the District of Columbia, 480 of 4957 index arrests 
were of non-residents, a rate of 9.7%. Non-residents made up 
16.4%, 216 of 1316, of the narcotics arrests. 

In all of the Maryland suburban jurisdictions combined, 
1414 of 6861, a rate of 20.6%, index arrests were of non- 
residents of the jurisdictions in which the arrests occurred. 
For narcotics offenses, 303 of 1791 arrests, 16.9%, were of 
non-residents . 

In Virginia, combining all suburban Washington jurisdic- 
tions, 30.3%, 1264 of 4174 index arrests, were of non-residents 
of the arresting jurisdictions. For narcotics offenses, 29.7% 
300 of 1011, of the persons arrested were non-residents. 

The highest rate for non-resident arrests was in the 
category of grand larceny, for which 35.5% of the persons 
arrested were non-residents of the jurisdictions in which the 
arrest occurred. The lowest rate was for aggravated assault, 
for which 12.9% of the arrests were of non-residents. It should 
be noted that, as further discussed in Chapter IV, the totals 
for both of these categories of crime are somewhat inflated. 
In Prince George's County, Maryland and in the suburban Virginia 
jurisdictions, all assaults, both simple and aggravated are 
included; in all of the Virginia jurisdictions, the category of 
larceny includes all larcenies, over and under $50.00, which 
includes petit as well as grand larceny. The rates for the 
other categories are between 16% and 20%. 

The jurisdiction showing the highest rate of non-resident 
arrest is Fairfax City, Virginia with a rate of 76.8^. Of 



This includes juvenile arrests in Montgomery and Prince 
George's Counties only. 



-13- 



1463 



the larger jurisdictions in the area, the highest rate was 
for Arlington County, with 44% of the arrestees for index 
offenses, non-residents. 

The highest rate for narcotic offense arrests of noa- 
residents was Fairfax Citv where 82.1% of arrestees were non- 
residents. Of the larger jurisdictions, Loudoun County showed 
the highest non-resident narcotic arrest rate, 52%. 

The lowest rate of non-resident index offense arrests 
was the District of Columbia where 9.7% of the arrestees were 
non-residents . 

The lowest rate for non-resident narcotic arrests was 
Hyattsville where no non-residents were arrested for narcotics. 
Prince William and Montgomery Counties also had low rates, 13.9%, 
and 14.9% respectively. 

In absolute numbers. Prince George's County showed the 
highest number of non-residents arrested. Including both 
juveniles and adults and the four municipal police department 
figures, 982 arrests were of non-residents. Adult arrests made bv 
the County Police Department alone still included the highest 
number of non-residents, 587, compared to 480 for the District 
of Columbia, 443 for Fairfax County, 365 for Arlington, 359 for 
Montgomery County, and 192 for Alexandria. 



-14- 



14G4 



^MONTc;()Mi:m 



LOi norx 



KAIHKAX 



Us Asliive. 

IXC. 



(I 



PKINC 

\(;K<nu;t:'s 



I'RINC i: 

W II.I.I AM 

cot ^^■^ 



FIGURE 1 



METROPOLITAN WASHi;;CTO:; AREA 



■15- 



1465 



c 



(U 

E m 

o <u 

c: c 

O 3 

s o 

CJ CM 






0) 


H 


+J tT" 




an 




0) 




O 0) 




xo 




01 




<u 




. CJ 




>iC 




f-4 -H 




C M 




Q< 




cn 




4J 




rH 




3 




■a 




< 









in 


m 


VO 


ID 








*> 




O U. 
f W 


1^ 


^^ 


<M ID 


r- r- 


n ■>! 






(T\ 


o 




n 


CO 


r> 


CO 


in 






^ 


o 




(T> 














^ 


^ 




-< t> 
















^ 






(N 






















>• 




u-t 


(j> 


T 


rsi 












a u 




• 


• 




m TT 








OP 




z o 


vo 


•<T 


CO ^ 


in ID 


m 






<N 


o 




ss 


fM 


VD 


ID -H 


rH .-H 


^^ 






^ 


o 




o 




T 


in 








rH 


f~H 




O J 


IN 














m 






>< 






















§ 




CO 


<T\ 


ro 


o 








dC 




>-] 


00 


(N 


n-> ro 


r-H r^ 


1^ .ID 






a\ 


O 




a 


^ 


00 


ro 


in 


O 






ro 


o 


in 


CO 




^ 


rs) ■ 


IN 






T 


^ 


in 


03 


CM 















n 




C 




















<t-i 


X 

u 




in 


n 


.-1 


t-\ 








*> 
o 


U-l 




• 


• 


> 


• 








o 


O 


ro 


o 


(N r^ 


(N n 


1^ ro 






•^ 


.— ( 




m 


ro 


CO 


r^ 


CO ^ 


^ 






in 




X 


o 


r~- 






(N 








f-H 




0) 


o: 


rH 














IN 




1 






















M 


^+< 








• 














eJ 




F-H 


in 


in 


CO 








OP 




-o 










• 








o 




Is 


r- 


r~ 


^ in 


n •■r 


^ r\] 






r~- 


o 




kO 


00 


a\ 


rf 


in 






n 


rH 




vo 




fNJ 


fNl 


f-H 






m 






o 


TT 














in 






o 






















< 


























lO 


00 


in 


.H 








c»P 






n 


(N 


^ in 


^H r^ 


r-. rr 






in 


O 
O 






TT 


CO 


tN 


m 


f-\ 






fH 


^ 


< 


'"" 


m 














T 






a: 




m 


rsi 


i-H 


^ 








OP 




u 




> 


* 


. 


• 








o 




Q 


o 


m 


^ ^ 


■a- o 


00 CN 






ID 


o 




a; 


CO 


00 


r^ 


m rH 








ro 


^ 




3 


CM 














m 






' 


« 


u 


« w 


a. u 


« W 


« u 


« u 


K 


1 
u3 






u 


o 


u " 


t] CJ 


t) C3 


U C3 


u o 


to 


o 






f3 


< 


03 < 


PO < 


m < 


PQ < 


03 < 


ca 


■c. 




13 


s 


s- 


S S 


s r- 


Z H 


S H 


S £-• 


s 


Eh 




D 


^ 


3 ?! 


D Z 


3 2 


D 2 


3 2 


3 


2 




(U 


2 


u 


2 " 


s: w 


« W 


2 U 


Z W 


2 


M 




4J 




o 


CJ 


u 


o 


O 


O 




CJ 




tn 




« 


^ 


K 


a 


cr; 


« 












t4 


u 


U 


u 


w 


W 




u 






0. 


Oj 


0, 


a, 


& 


a 




ti* 




1-1 
< 


















« 




UJ 























c 




















in 























c 


•H 























•P 




in 


in c 


c 












in 


o 




c 


C 1) 


10 












l-i 


•H 







-P 


p 












0) 


-o 




•M 


•H -H 


• H 












a. 


in 

■H 




4J 




JJ -\ 
O 















U-l 


1-1 




-H 


■H a 


a 















3 




■O (1) 
in -p 


■O 

in u 




1-1 












in 






•H (0 


•rH 4J 


p 












01 


0> 




1-1 jj 


1-1 dJ 


(D 












o 


C 




3 CO 


3 S 


s 






J 

^ 






c 


•H 




^ 


•o 












4) 


4J 




C 


C 


UJ 






f i 






■n 


in 




1-1 -H 


1-1 -H 


o 






b 






-H 


0) 




tt)x; 


0) x: Hi 


Ifl 






t- 






in 


1-1 




jC -u 


x: -p (1) 


P (U 












HI 


u 




•P -H 


4J -H M 


3 1-1 












OS 


< 




OS 


o S < 


O < 
-1 


i- 









OP 


OP 






n 


r~ 






o 


<ri 






00 


.H 






\ 


\ 






<N ■» 


CO 






a\ n 


in 






a, CO 


f-A 






^ ^ 


«. 






in rsi 


n 






r^ ^ 








in in 


in 






P p 


4J 






in c 


c 






0) (U 


(U 






IH "0 "O 






U H 


•H 






< in 


in 






o 


0) 






X « 


OS 






a) 


1 






13 


c 






c 


C) 






M 


2 






^ 








(0 








p 

















E- 


in 






Ti S-i 


n 






r^ 









H <4-l 


•H 






^ in 


-p 
o 




u 


o 4J 


•H 







" -1 -O 




m 


o 3 


in 






" nj 


•H 




o 


o in 


1-1 




in 


.5 " 


3 




<«■ 


■^ 10 


■t—i 




M 


=? 0. 


IT) 







3 ^ 


■H 




■o 


_ a c 




C 


fl f; 


-H 




3 


iJ -H 


rp 






■J in 


^^ 




-o 




■H 




c 


« T3 > 




(B 


5- C 








3 (0 TD 




1-1 




G 




lU 


' T) 


fl 




> 


^ OJ 






• 


r -^^ 


>i 




m 


" ID 


P 




» C 


« > 


c 




>i 


n 10 


3 




C-H 


a 1-1 







0) 4-1 


t O^O 


• 


o o 


CP 




c 


Vj -h 


(0 


in 





nj -a 




- 


■p 


.-H in 


r- 


0) 


CP 


■H 


P 


cn c 


.-H 1-1 





u 


H 


-H 3 


XI 





»H 


(13 -r-i 




4) 


1-1 




in 


O 


< 


in (0 


4) 






4) -H 


•o 


0) 


4J 


■D C 


3 





a 3 •-< 


f-H 


c 


0) 


^ CP 





• H 


o 


U 


c 


1-1 


X 


C -H 


M 


a, 


01 


l-l > 


W -H 






IN 


H 








O 








2 









52-587 O - 75 - pt.2 - 24 



1466 



Residences of Persons Arrested for Narcotics Offenses 

Total SMSA 
1972 



NARCOTICS 



Arresting Jurisdictions 



NUMBER: 



PERCENTAGE ; 



3299 

80.1 



NUMBER : 
Other Jurisdictions within 

state PERCENTAGE: 



265 
6.4 



Other Jurisdictions within NUMBER: 

Metropolitan Area 

PERCENTAGE: 



345 
8.4 



Out of Metropolitan Area 



NUMBER: 



PERCENTAGE: 



209 

5.1 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



TOTAL 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



4118 



100% 



-17- 



1467 



VI. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Data was collected from the Metropolitan Police Department 
of the District of Columbia by means of a hand tally from the 
Arrest Books maintained in each Police District Headquarters 
and, in some cases, District substations. Only adult arrests 
are recorded in the arrest books in the Police Districts. 
Since juvenile arrest data was not available, the total numbers 
or arrests are, of course, lower than the actual total number of 
arrests made. While it is not possible to determine to what 
extent non-resident juveniles are arrested, data available from 
other jurisdictions indicated that arrests of non-resident 
juveniles are less frequent than arrests of non-resident adults. 
If this is the case, the rates indicated for non-resident 
arrests are somewhat higher than if juveniles were included. 

The total number of index arrests of adults in the 
District of Columbia was 4957. Of these, 480, 9.7%, were non- 
residents. The remaining 4477 arrestees were recorded as 
District residents. The highest number of non-residents were 
from Prince George's County, approximately 27% of the non- 
resident total. 

The index crime for which the greatest percentage of non- 
resident arrests were made was burglary, for which 15% of the 
arrests were of non-residents. The largest number, 135, of 
non-residents were arrested for aggravated assault. 

The crime for which the smallest percentage of non- 
residents was arrested was robbery, for which 6.6% of the persons 
arrested were not residents of the District. The fewest non- 
residents, 19, were arrested for murder. 

1316 narcotics arrests were recorded; of these 16.4%, 
216, of the arrestees were not District residents. The largest 
number of these, 59, were from Montgomery County. 



1468 



ic 

3 O 

O 1/1 

U -P 

« CM 
O 1-1 0^ 

t< --( 
o 

■y 3 
in "O 

•H < 

Q 







fn 


<N 


^ 


^ 


\D 


r- 


^ 












0* 

O 






ri in 


^O <N 


(N ^ 


<H 


r- CM 


(N 


IN "T 










r^ 


O 




m 00 




•-H 








^ 










r- 


I-H 




n X 


(N 






















rsi 






•« H 
































n 


O 


O 


P^ 


in 


in 


O 












(*> 






in 00 


TT ^ 


CN r^ 


m 


vc r-: 


fN 


o m 










CN 


O 

o 




"5^ 


in 00 




—1 








IN 










O 


fH 




m 






















^ 






r3 
































o 


VO 


^ 


r- 


vO 


m 


IS 












OP 




(|( 






• 


. 




• 


• 












o 




3 


V in 


TT ^ 


r^ ro 


<•£> 


TT ^ 


ro 


lo r* 










^ 


o 




ro 00 


rH 


(N 




1—4 




VA 










• VD 


I-H 




X 


r- 






















oo 




in 






























01' -» 




























V) 






























c 




























OP 


OJ 


>* 
u 


^ 


tN 


ro 


O 


.-4 


^ 


CT> 












O 


>i-l 


• 




• 




• 


• 












in 


O 


"i^ 


03 


r^ m 


ro 


O fM 


m .-1 


in .-t 


IN 


in rH 










rsi 


rH 


o 


CQ 
O 






n 


^ 


.— ( 




fNI 










m 




X 




rH 


























V 






























"O 






























c 


H 




























M 


^ 


r^ 


(N 


^ 


r- 


^ 


m 


v^ 












OP 

o 
o 




<5 


00 ^ 


a\ -H 


in (N 


i-H 


m M 


T 


ro fM 










m 






r-t 


m 


'H 


04 




^ 












r-( 




o 

u 


.-H 






















^ 






< 






























'" 


























t* 




u 


(N 


^ 


CM 


T 


in 


r-- 


lO 












o 




r- 


iH 


• 




. 


■ 












00 


o 




5 


■<r IN 




•X) CN 


rH 


^ ^-^ 


IN 


r* fN] 










vo 


rH 






IN Ol 






















CN 






a: 






























u 






























Q 


f— t 


o 


fN 




l~i 


O 


vo 












o 






ro o 


IN) f-H 


cn T 


I 
1 

1 


^ CN 


(N .H 


m ^ 










CT\ 


o 

rH 






tC M 


« S 


K U 


CC u 


K U 


K li 


K U 




W 




u 




U 




u o 


u u 


U U 


w o 


u o 


U U 


u u 




J 




o 




" 




§ g 


i ^ 


ffi < 


g g 


g g 


s g 


§ g 




r- 




g 


o: 


t 




D 2 


5 z 


3 Z 


ZJ z 


3 Z 


•T 2 


D Z 


tc 


2 


cn 


z 


z 




Z U 


2 H 


2 U 


z u 


z u 


W 


z u 


u 


U 


u 


u 


u 


u 




4J 


^ 




u 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


CQ 


•i 


i 


^ 


C3 


a: 




(1. 


0. 


M 




u 


a 


It] 




0. 


g 


M 


3 
Z 


a. 




m 
























































« 
































u 






























< 






>i 
























<n 






4-1 
























c 


ra 




c 



























•H 




3 
























V) 

u 


■i 


>! 




u 




10 




















01 


3 


+J 






-H 




















0. 





C 

:3 


w 


73 


c 

■H 


10 


















U-l 


u 





0) 


C 


CT> 


■H 





















iw 


u 


u 


m 
^ 




c 

■H 














< 




to 





>1 





>i 


> 


CT 


















Q) 




u 


0) 


14 




tH 


^ 

















■P 


<u 


o 


(TJ 


c 


■H 


(V 
















c 


o 


e 




5. 


>■< 


> 


£ 
















dl 


■H 





QJ 




01 




•p 
















T3 


u 


t7> 





U 


JZ 


M 


o 








^ 








■H 


4J 


4J 


c 


QJ 


4J 


(U 
















W| 


in 


c 


•H 


j:: 


>-l 


j: 


>-H 
















V 


■r^ 





t^ 


4J 





•p 


rH 
















o: 


Q 


E 


a 


o 


2 


O 


< 


1 













r~ 


r^ 


o 


m 


t~ 


00 


a\ 


^ 


«T 


T 


f 




n 


in 


tn 


4-1 


jj 


*J 


in 


c 


c 


ai 


m 


HI 


u 


TJ 


■0 


u 


•H 


■H 


< 


tn 


in 




41 


m 


X 


o: 


o: 


111 




1 


n 




c 


c 







M 




z 


rH 






Id 






4J 






O 






Eh 







-19- 



1469 



RESIDENCES OF PERSONS ARRESTED FOR NARCOTICS OFFENSES 
District of Columbia 
1972 





NARCOTICS 






NUMBER : 
District of Columbia 

PERCENTAGE : 


1100 
83.6 


NUMBER: 
Montgomery County 

PERCENTAGE : 


59 
4.5 


NUMBER: 

Prince George's County 

PERCENTAGE: 


53 
4.0 


NUMBER: 
Other Maryland 

PERCEN'i'.' GE: 


18 
1.4 


NUMFR: 

Northern Virginia 

PERCENTAGE: 


37 
2.8 


NUMBER: 

Other Virginia 

PERCENTAGE : 


6 
.4 


NUMBER : 
All Other 

PERCENTAGE : 


43 
3.3 


NUM'jER: 
PERCENT ^GE: 




Ntl/IBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 




NUI-J'.ER : 
TOTAL 

* PERCENTAGE : 


1316 
100% 


1 





{*Does not always total 100% due to roundinq) 

-20- 



1470 



VII. MARYLAND 

Figures from Maryland include data from Montgomery and 
Prince George's Counties and the cities of Greenbelt, Hyatts- 
ville, Laurel, and Takoma Park. Discussions of the data collec- 
tion methods are included in the sections for each of the 
individual jurisdictions. 

Data for both adults and juveniles are included for the 
two counties and for Greenbelt. 

For Prince George's County, the category of Aggravated 
Assault includes all assaults, both aggravated and simple. 
Generally, fewer aggravated assaults occur than simple assaults, 
and, consequently, fewer arrests are made, thus the assault 
figure is somewhat inflated. 

The total number of index arrests reported for the combined 
suburban Maryland jurisdictions was 6861. Of these, 1414, 20.6% 
were of non-residents of the jurisdiction in which the arrest 
occurred. The highest number of non-residents were from the 
District of Columbia, approximately 60% of non-residents arrested. 

The index crime for which the highest percentage of non- 
residents were arrested was robbery, with 37.9% of the persons 
arrested non-residents of the jurisdictions in which the arrest 
occurred. The greatest number of non-residents, 463, were 
arrested for grand larceny. 

The crime for which the smallest percentage of non- 
residents was aggravated assault, with 12.3% of the arrests 
non-residents. The smallest number of non-resident arrests, 24, 
was for rape. 

Of 1791 arrests for narcotics offenses, 16.9%, 303 were 
of non-residents. The largest number were from the District of 
Columbia, 133, 7.4%. 

The Maryland jurisdiction with the highest rate of non- 
resident arrests was Greenbelt with 72.3%. This was based on a 
small number of arrests, 47, most of which, 25, were for grand 
larceny, usually involving shoplifting at a major department store 
in Greenbelt. 

Takoma Park also showed a high rate of non-resident 
arrests, 58.5%. This again is based on a small number of arrests, 
82, although the arrests are distributed over several categories 
of offenses. 

Of the two counties, Montgomery showed a slightly higher 
rate, 21.1%, than Prince George's, 20.4%. There are some 
limitations on this comparison, however, since Prince George's 
County Police data includes both simple and aggravated assaults, 
thus inflating the assault category. 



■21- 



1471 





in 






4) 






•H 






4J 






c 






3 













u 






>1 


tfl 




M 


Q) 




01 


rH 


■V 


E 


■H 


c 





c 


"O 


Oi 


dJ 


^ 


.u 


> 


> 


c 


3 


u 





"TJ Ol 


■fl r 


r^ 


?: 




■0 a> 




■o 


C -^ 


f— ( 


c 


10 


IT! 


(0 




4J 




tn 





m 


4J 


H 


- 


—1 




(V 


3 




01 T3 




H 


< 











HI 






u 






0) 






u 






c 






■H 






M 






o. 





O Cu 
E-< Ul 
3 X 



Z 

o u 

2 U 






00 



00 



u 
a 
s 
o 
z 



c 


■H 

o 

-H 

■o 
1-1 

3 

c 

•H 
4J 
01 
0) 
1-1 
U 
< 



a 
< 

z 

u 
o 
a 
u 

0. 



C «1 
10 c 

^ o 

>iH 

M 4J 
10 U 
S -H 

■O 

ij in 

OJ ■'-i 

£ 14 

■P 3 

O •-) 



u 
m 
s 



o 
u 



4-> 

u 



4-1 

in 



a 
m 

E 



U 



-22- 



< 

H 

Z 

w 
t.' 



O 



a 

£ 

Z 



O 

in o 

<N ^ 



ae 
o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 



00 

o 
o 



< 



o 
< 

z 

u 
u 
« 



o 





o> O 




r^ IN 




\"\ 


.-< 


r~- •» 


^ 


T ^ 


00 


•ST •» 


'Xl 


in -H 


in 


in in 


4J 


4-1 4J 


in 


C c 


<U 


01 m 


u 


T3 TD 


u 


■H -H 


< 


Ul in 




uj m 


X 


a a: 


4) 


1 


■n 


c 


C 





M 


z 



3 
(0 
<n 

07 

10 

■a 

m 

4J 

10 

> 

(0 
M 
01 
Oi 
10 

■a 

c 

(0 



a. 

E 



O 
Xi 

01 

(U 
TD 

3 

rH 
U 

c 



W r-l 
E- 

O 

2 



1472 



RESIDENCES OF PERSONS ARRESTED FOR NARCOTICS OFFENSES IN 
SUBURBAN WASHINGTON AREAS OF MARYLAND 
Includes Adults and Juveniles for Prince George's and 
Montgomery Counties and cities of Greenbelt and Hyattsville 

1972 





NARCOTICS 






Arresting Jurisdiction NUMBER: 

PERCENTAGE : 


1488 
83.1 


NUMBER : 
Other Maryland Jurisdictions 

PERCENTAGE : 


74 
4.1 


NUMBER: 

District of Columbia 

PERCENTAGE : 


133 

7.4 


Virginia NUMBER: 

PERCENTAGE : 


9 
.5 


NUMBER : 
Other 

PERCENTAGE : 


87 

4.9 


NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 




NUMBER: 
TOTAL 

* PERCENTAGE: 


1791 
100% 







(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 



■23- 



1473 



Montgomery County 

Data on the residences of persons arrested was provided 
by the Montgomery County Police Department from monthly reports 
compiled by the Records Division. Juveniles and adults are 
included in the reports in separate categories. Tables are 
included here for adults and juveniles combined and for each 
separately. 

Combined adult and juvenile data show a total of 2034 
index offense arrests; of these 432, 21.1%, were not residents 
of Montgomery County. The greatest number of non-residents 
were from the District of Columbia, approximately 56%. 

The index crime with the highest rate of non-resident 
arrests was grand larceny, for which 33.2% of the persons 
arrested were non-residents. Grand larceny was also the offense 
with the highest absolute number of non-resident arrests. 

The index offense with the lowest rate and number of 
non-resident arrests was murder, for which only one, 10% of the 
persons arrested, was a non-resident. 

590 narcotics arrests were recorded; of these 14.9%, 
88, were non-residents. The highest number of non-residents 
arrested for narcotics violations were from the District of 
Columbia. 

Of adult arrests only, 10 38 index arrests were recorded, 
of which 359, or 34.6%, were non-residents. The highest number 
of these, approximately 55%, were from the District. 

The highest rate of non-resident arrests was for grand 
larceny, 45.6%. This was also the offense with the highest 
absolute number of non-resident arrests. 

The lowest rate and number of non-resident arrests was 
murder with one, 10%, of the arrests a non-resident. 

There were 291 adult narcotics arrests of which 80, 
27.5%, were non-residents. The largest number of these non- 
residents were from Prince George's County. 

There were 996 juvenile arrests recorded, of which 73, 
7.3%, a much lower number and rate than that of adults, were non- 
residents. The greatest niimber of non-residents arrested were 
from the District of Columbia, making up approximately 62% of 
the non-resident juveniles arrested. 

The highest rate of non-resident juvenile arrests was 
for rape of which two arrests, 18.2% were non-residents. The 



-24- 



1474 



highest in absolute numbers was grand larceny, for which 33 
of the juveniles arrested were non-residents. 

The lowest rate was for burglary, with 7, 1.6%, of the 
arrests non-residents. 

There were 299 juvenile narcotics arrests, eight of which, 
2.7%, were of non-residents. The largest number of those, five, 
were from Prince George's County. 



-25- 



1475 



(0 
4J 
01 
0) 

>.n 

■U M 
O 01 

U-H 

•H 

>i C rsi 

O > <T\ 
£3-1 
O >-3 

c c 

O 10 

s 



3 

■a 

< 



O I". 

H U 

3 I 

«: c- 



z u 



X 

<u 

c 






Q 



01 
V 
0) 

a 
u 
u 

< 

VI 

c 
o 
m 

0. 

o 

(0 

a) 
o 

c 

<D 
T3 



OS 



t-~ ,-1 



o: 


W 


u 


u 


o 


a 


a 


< 


<o 


s: 


£-■ 


T 


r-> 


Z 


3 


2 


a 


2 



c 

D 
O 

u 

4) 
E 
O 
Di 
•P 

c 
o 

s 



u 
u 

< 

z 

u 
u 
a 
u 



c 

o 
u 



o 

(1) 

o 

c 

■H 

ex 



u 
< 

2 

U 



-a 
c 

IB 

>i 

S^ 

x; 



-26- 



w 

< 

2 



0< 






o 
o 



o 



00 

o 



a; 
u 



o 

< 

2 

U 
« 

0< 



u 
di 

o 



OP 

o 





00 ^ 




r^ rsi 


T 


CM CM 


m 


O '^ 


O 


VO ^ 


(N 


«— ) 


U) 


Ul 0! 


■P 


4J -P 


in 


C C 


« 


0) d) 


u 


T3 -0 


u 


■H -H 


< 


Ul U) 




<U (U 


X 


a: q: 


(U 


1 


TD 


c 


C 


CJ 


M 


2 



s 






< 
Eh 

o 



1476 



RESIDENCES OF PERSONS ARRESTED FOR NARCOTICS OFFENSES 

Montgomery County 
Adults and Juveniles 
1972 





NARCOTICS 


NUMBER: 
Montqomery County 

PERCENTAGE : 


502 
85.1 


NUMBER : 
Prince George's County 

PERCENTAGE : 


40 
6.8 


NUMBER: 
Other Maryland 

PERCENTAGE : 


4 
.7 


NUMBER: 
District of Columbia 

PERCENTAGE : 


27 
4.6 


NUMBER : 
Virginia 

PERCENTAGE : 


7 
1.2 


NUMBER: 
Other 

PERCENTAGE : 


10 

1.7 


NUMBER: 
TOTAL 

* PERCENTAGE: 


590 
100% 




1 



(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 



-27- 



1477 



•u c 

C O 

3 

O in 
U -u 

>. a) (N 

£<-< 
O 

c ^ 
O 3 

< 



























<*> 




f-. 




r- 








^-^ 



















I^ 




• 






• 


• 















H M 


ro 


m 


v£ \0 


IM CN 


rsj ^ 


(N CM 


^ 


■^ 




a\ 


f-1 




3 S 


t~ 


r^ 






rH ,H 










cn 






< H 


























X 




^ 


^ 


ro 


(N 


00 




00 






Of 




z 




, 


. 




• 






• 











a u 


>-* 


^ 


(N rn 


in •O' 


ro fN 


rsi 





(N 




rH 







z u 

3 


cr» 


in 


^H 


rH 


.— ( ro 


.H 


r-t 






in 


^-t 




rH 








r-t 










m 






>* 


























a: 

3 




r-t 


VD 


vc 


On 


rsi 




SO 

















a\ 


(N a\ 


CM '^ 


ro a^ 


^ ^ 


<N 


m 




n 







u 


ro 


VD 


n 


r-\ 


ro 


r-i 


^ 






ro 


rH 




D 

m 


<N 


















n 




(A 


























4) 


>• 






















00 


to 


a: 




r-t 


m 


1- 


(N 


ID 













C 


u 
m 
a 







. 


. 


■ 


• 














01 


in 


Ol 


CO r^ 


n tN 


r-- 


^ ro 








^ 


f— 4 


M-l 


VD 


in 






ro rsi 










rH 




14.4 


a 



















































X 


























0> 


E-i 
























-o 


QJ 
























c 


10 




n 


'T 


I 


fo 


1 










a^ 


M 


§2 




, 


. 


1 


. 


1 















m 


00 


^ vo 


1 


in in 


1 








^ 







S^ 


CO 


00 
















a^ 


rH 































u 


























< 




























00 


m 

CO 


in 
00 ov 


-—1 rs] 




.-t rsj 


t— ( 


(Nl 




.-H 








(M 


U3 


1— 1 














T 


rH 




« 


























« 


























Q 







t 


1 





1 










OP 




a: 






1 


1 


. 


1 

















Ol 





1 


1 


.-1 


1 

























.—1 










.-H 


rH 






« 


'-J 


a S 


K U. 


c: w 


a w 


K 


u 


« a 


« 


u 






U 


'J) 


w 9 


U f 


a u 


w u 


a 


e) 


:■: 


U 


u 






n 




a g 


m ^ 


a < 


m a: 


m 


< 


c < 


CQ 


< 






s 


e-* 


s ^ 


S fr- 


S H 


S Eh 


s 


Eh 


n Eh 


X 


Eh 






3 


z 


= S 


3 Z 


2 


3 Z 





z 


D Z 


3 


Z 






z 




2 H 


z a 


Z H 


z w 


z 


w 


z u 


Z 


w 




■a 




u 


y 


(J 


U 


u 




u 


u 




u 




OJ 






cri 


K 


K 


K 




« 


« 




a 




4J 




s 


CiJ 


u 


a 


U 




tJ 


M 









y] 






04 


o< 


Q. 


CU 




Q. 


CU 




Ou 




0) 






















« 




























< 






>. 




















in 






4J 




















c 






c 




TJ 























3 




-H 
















en 



























M 




>, 


u 




"c 
















01 




4J 






















cu 




c 

3 


in 


T3 



















M-l 







lb 


C 
























u 


u 


10 


IM 
















tn 




>, 





>. 













J 






aj 




u 


a) 


;-l 












< 











v 





l« 


4J 


fl 








H 






c 




e 




E 





-rH 















dl 







0) 




■H 


c 








£h 






■a 




tr 





>-i 


^J 


-rH 


Lh 












-H 




jj 


c 





•P 


cn 


0) 












(n 




c 


■H 


x: 


in 


u 


.c 




















V^ 


iJ 


-rH 


-H 


-p 












q; 




E 


a. 





D 

-28- 


> 














in ^ 
W 

CO ON C» 

ro r* in 
o »^ ro 



in 


.. U) 


-p 


in -P 


rH 


■P C 


3 


C HI 


■n 


dJ "O 


< 


T3 -H 




-r( in 




in (U 


m 


4) PS 


-u 


a: 1 


in 


c 


a; 





u 


z 


u 




< 




X 




(11 




-a 




c 





1478 



RESIDENCES OF PERSONS ARRESTED FOR NARCOTICS OFFENSES 

Montgomery County 
/ Adults 

1972 



NARCOTICS 



Montgomery County 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



211 
72.5 



Prince George's County 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



35 
12.0 



Other Maryland 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



4 

1.4 



District of Columbia 



NUMBER: 

PERCENTAGE : 



26 
8.9 



Virginia 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE: 



5 

1.7 



Other 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



10 
3.4 



TOTAL 



NUMBER : 
* PERCENTAGE: 



291 
100% 



(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 



■29- 



1479 



f- 

o u. 






(fl 

0) 

cn 

c 

O 

X 

(U 

■o 

c 



o: 



o 



o 



S5 



a: 
u 

a 

X 



•a 
a> 

01 

(1) 

< 

in 

c 
o 
m 
U 
01 



<u 
o 

c 

■H 



U 
CQ 



u 
u 

< 

E-i 
2 

U 

u 
o: 

M 



c 
a 
o 
u 

>1 

31 
E 
O 
cn 

4J 

c 
o 
s 



m 

2 






c 

D 
O 



(U 

^< 
o 

u 

4) 
O 

c 

-H 

c 



c 

IT! 

o 



CQ 

S 



< 

Eh 
2 

U 

a 

M 
Oi 



OS 

u 

Oi 






-30- 



« 
u 
m 
s 

z 






O 
O 



O 

o 



s: 
o 



o 
o 



00 

o 



Id 


(K 


a 


O 


a 


n 


< 


m 


< 


H 


s 


H 


Z 


D 


■^ 


u 


2 


a 


o 




n 


K 




a 


M 




t; 


P< 




a 





on 00 




r* ro 




IN r~- 




a\ 




~v\ 


VO 


r^ ro 


a\ 


(N r^ 


ON 


(T. 


U) 


u) in 


u 


JJ 4J 


m 


c c 


a> 


0) 11 


^ 


■a -o 


1-1 


•H -H 


< 


U> Ul 




d) D 


X 


a: q: 


(1) 


I 


Tl 


c 


C 





M 


z 



1480 



RESIDENCES OF PERSONS ARRESTED FOR NARCOTICS OFFENSES 

Montgomery County 
Juveniles 
1972 





NARCOTICS 






Montgomery County NUMBER: 

PERCENTAGE : 


291 
97.3 


NUMBER : 
Prince George's County 

PERCENTAGE : 


5 
1.7 


NUMBER: 
Other Maryland 

PERCENTAGE : 


- - 


NUMBER : 
District of Columbia 

PERCENTAGE : 


1 
.4 


NUI4BER : 
Virginia 

PERCENTAGE : 


2 
.7 


NUMBER: 
Other 

PERCENTAGE : 


- - 


NUMBER: 
TOTAL 

* PERCENTAGE: 


299 
100% 







(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 



-31- 



1481 



PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY 

Data were collected for Prince George's County from the 
County Police Department and the municipal police departments of 
Greenbelt, Hyattsville, Laurel, and Takoma Park. Other 
municipal police departments report arrests for index offenses 
to the County Police, therefore data from those departments are 
included in the county totals. 

Data from the County Police Department were provided for 
both adults and juveniles separately by month from automated 
records maintained by the Records and Identification Division. 

Records from the four municipal departments were provided 
by those departments from hand tallies of their arrest records. 

For the County Police Department, the category of 
aggravated assault includes all assaults, both aggravated and 
simple. Generally, fewer aggravated assaults than simple 
assaults occur, and, consequently, fewer arrests are made, 
thus the assault figure is somewhat inflated. This is not the 
case for the municipal departments, for which the category 
includes only aggravated assaults. 

Juvenile data is included only for the County Police 
Department and for the city of Greenbelt. 

Combined data for the county indicated a total of 4827 
index arrests, of which 982, 20.4%, were of non-residents of 
the county. Of these, 604, approximately 62%, were from the 
District of Columbia. 

The index crime with the highest rate of non-resident ^ 
arrests was grand larceny, with 40.3% of the arrests of non- '■ 
residents. This was also the offense with the highest absolute 
number of non-resident arrests. 

The index offense with the lowest rate of non-resident 
arrests was aggravated assault, with 12.3%. Rape showed the 
lowest in absolute numbers, nine. 

1201 narcotics offenses were recorded, of which 215, 
18%, were non-residents. The largest number of non-residents 
were from the District of Columbia. 



•32- 



52-587 O - 75 - pt. 2 - 25 



1482 





j<: 




ki 




ifl 




a 




nj 




E 









ji; 




-0^ 


>. 


,n "O 


•p 


?1 c 


^ 


c« 





41 . 


- C 


o 3 


41 -H 


Q- nj<M 


CriT3 


«^ J r- 


ti 3 


Q cr- 


-H 


-^ 


(U U 


Si! 


(■) C 




"* ^ 


01 


o--^ 


V 


P > 


c 


a. „ 


• H 


u 


u 


« -^ 


a 


fl « 



1} 
c 

0) 
0) 
M 
O 





O Cm 


en 


r^ 


^ 


(N 


1^ 










OP 






H M 


00 u^ 


f-i (N 


rsi in 


t-< 


m in 








in 


O 






3 X 


TT CO 


<H 


fM 




(N 








o 


o 






< H 


m 
















TT 


rH 






Z 


r- 


^ 


m 


m 


r^ 
















a u 


• 


• 


• 


. 


• 










OP 






2 U 


o a\ 


\o in 


TT 00 


(N 


00 in 








O 


O 






S5 

u 3 


o in 


n 


a\ (N 




n 








r~ 


o 






^ 




t-H 












^D 


^ 






>; 


























3 


OJ 


00 


O 


1 


o 


















• 




1 












DP 






o 


r- TT 


yO -H 


—1 |-~ 


1 


—t r^ 








in 


O 






« 


r-i 00 


OJ 


o 




o 








■<» 


o 






D 


rsi 




^ 




.-( 








^ 


.-1 






03 


iH 
















rH 






u 


























a 


>< 
























tf 


K 


o 


r^ 


00 


1 


in 














c 


U 


• 


• 


* 


1 


* 










BP 




a 


0) 


in o 


n 


TT in 


1 


\^ n 








00 


O 




M- 


r^ «X) 




\C> f^ 




i-H 








in 


o 




U- 


(N 




f-t 












^ 


.-t 




c 


























X 


























a, 

C 


WD 


r^ 


en 


kO 


lO 


1— 1 










9P 




H 


^ 


m 


• 


( 


. 










ro 


O 






o r- 


(N -H 


vo in 


^ 


.H ■» 








rH 


o 






^ 


in 00 


rn 


a\ 


.-I 


C- 








1^ 


rH 






u 


























< 


























u 

0. 


in 
in en 


.-1 (N 


(N 
CO 00 


1 
1 


1 
1 
1 






' 




OP 
O 

o 






IX 


























u 


























Q 


























a 


00 


m 


t^ 


1 


p-1 










OP 






D 


• 


> 




1 


• 










O 






E 


vo r- 


ro m 


ON O 


1 


ro ro 








CM 

<n 


O 

rH 








X ui 


1=^ i*i 


CC [j 


a u 


u u 


o: 


a 


K U 


o: 


U 








u o 




U O 


w o 


u u 


u 


u 


N O 


u 


O 








n « 


g g 


to < 


u < 


§ 


< 


in < 


S 


«: 








E E- 


Z E-" 


Z H 


S H 


H 


S H 


£ 


H 








D Z 


5 2 


3 Z 


D 2 


o z 


3 


Z 


D Z 


a 


Z 








z ri 


2 ^ 


2 W 


Z U 


2 U 


Z 


u 


Z U 


2 


u 






-0 


y 


^ 


O 


o 


o 




o 


o 




u 








a: 


« 


q: 




K 


K 




K 






V 


u 


u 


u 


u 


u 




U 


W 




U 






4J 


M< 


Cu 


CU 


0. 


Oj 




CU 


& 




a. 






<n 




















« 


■ 




4) 

l4 


















































u 


























< 


>-. 
























t/l 


4-> 
























c 




c 




« 




















3 




•H 
























u 
1/1 




1 

3 




















U-l 



01 


c 

IB 




O 




















01 

c 
11 

•H 
Ul 




ttl 


IT) 
















s 








(1) 
o 


;j 


■rH 

V4 


c 


u 
















c 


0) 


4J 


01 


CI 
















■H 


j:: 


U> 


u 


j: 
















a) 


l-l 

0. 


4J 

O 


-H 

Q 


•H 

> 

-33- 


o 

















OP dp 




UST 




eno 




I^(N 


r^ 


in CM 


rsi 


^ 00 


00 


CO en 


T 


rn 


Ul 


Ul Ul 


■P 


4J 4J 


CO 


c c 


0) 


OJ 01 


l-l 


-OTJ 


IH 


•H H 


< 


Ul Ul 




(V <U 


X 


IX a 


01 


1 


■o 


c 


c 





IH 


i; 


•-i 




m 




•p 









H 





3 
(0 
Ul 
Ul 

nj 

•O 

<u 

4J 
10 

> 

le 

u 
tji 

A 

TD 

C 
HI 

a 

E 



•P 
O 

ja 

Ul 

41 
•O 

3 

rH 
(J 

c 



M rH 
i- 

o 
z 



1483 



RESIDENCES OF PERSONS ARRESTED FOR NARCOTICS OFFENSES 
Prince George's County 
Including Cities of Greenbelt and Hyattsville 

1972 



NARCOTICS 



Prince George's County 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



986 

82.0 



Other Maryland 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



30 
2.5 



District of Columbia 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



106 
8.8 



Virginia 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



.2 



Other 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE: 



77 
6.4 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



TOTAL 



NUMBER : 
* PERCENTAGE: 



1201 
100% 



(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 



■34- 



1484 



PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Most of the arrests, by far, made in Prince George's 
County were made by the County Police Department, 4508 of the 
4827 arrests recorded. 

Based on the County Police Department data only for 

juveniles and adults, the rate of non-resident arrests was 

19.1%, 859 of the arrests made. The largest number was from 

the District of ColuiT±>ia, 525, or approximately 61% of the 
non-resident arrests. 

The index offense with the highest rate of non-resident 
arrest was robbery, with 38.8% of the arrestees non-residents. 
Burglary showed the highest number of non-resident arrests, 
212. 

The index offense with the lowest rate of non-resident 
arrests was aggravated assault, with a rate of 12.1%. Rape 
was the lowest in absolute numbers of non-resident arrests, 
eight. 

There were 1171 narcotics arrests recorded, 208, 17.8%, 
of which were non-residents. The largest number of non- 
resident narcotics arrests were from the District of Columbia. 



-35- 



1485 





c 






o 




>! 






4J 


4J 




c 


c 




3 


V 







E 




u 






in 


flj 




- 


a 




v 


o 


N 


CTQ 


^ 


u 




as 





4) 


l~i 


i) 







o 


•H 




0) 







b 




c 






•H 


>1 




u 


JJ 




cu 


c 

3 

o 
u 







o£ 


rsi 


m 


t-H 


n 


f-i 














• 


. 


• 


. 








DP 




H U 


O 1^ 


a> «M 


o in 


.— t 


o in 






o 


O 




Si 


•>» 00 




IN 




rsi 






CT> 


o 




< H 


ro 














r-l 


rH 




>< 

z 


00 


<N 


Ol 


•<T 


p^ 












Q U 


• 


• 


■ 












00 




5 y 


ro ro 


CM (M 


ty\ ID 


CM 


r- lo 






ro 


o 




g3 


in >D 


f-t 


^ IN 




m 






in 


o 




m 




^ 










in 


f-\ 




> 


r^ 


VO 


■^ 


1 
1 


m 








* 




<J 


m •>T 


(N ^ 


o> ^ 


1 


^ I^ 






in 


o 




e 


r-- 00 


IN 


00 




o 






00 


o 




D 


rH 








f— I 






m 


r-\ 




to 


^H 














.-H 




in 

0) 










































<n 


>< 




















c 


a: 


IN 


fN 


o\ 


1 


r^ 










0) 


a 


• 


• 


• 


1 


. 








*> 


M-l 


a 


r^ rt 


r-4 


IN •<r 


1 


ID ro 






ID 


o 


IM 


03 

o 
a. 


kD \d 




in rn 




rH 






m 


o 


o 


fN 




.-) 










^ 


rH 


X 






















ft) 






















•c 


'-i^ 




















c 




OV 




in 


r- 


IN 








9P 




gS 


00 r^ 


r- rH 


as in 


^ 


OO ^ 






m 


O 




r-l 00 


(N 


CO 


-1 


KD 






rH 


o 




is 
















ID 

rH 


rH 




o 






















< 






















u 


in 


^ 


f-t 


1 


1 








<^ 




0< 


m o 


rH IN 


r~ t^ 


1 
1 


1 

1 






rH 


o 
o 




n 00 




rH 










•>T 


rH 




« 












































<N 


m 


fH 


1 


m 








dP 




3 


• 


• 


. 


1 


. 








O 




s 


in rg 


m m 


as ^ 

■-H IN 


1 


ro m 






O 

OS 


O 
>-< 






a :4 


a « 


K :" 


k u 


a M 


a u 


K U 


o: 


u 






u c 




u o 


w u 


u u 


w o 


;■! u 


u 


u 






a •'. 


m < 


i g 


(0 < 


m < 


ir- a. 


ID 


< 






s t^ 


^ ^ 


2 H 


S t< 


2 E-i 


•i E- 


s 


H 






D 2 


^ ^ 


3 Z 


D 2 


D 2 


D 2 


D Z 


D 


2 






z :i 


^ u 


z w 


2 M 


2 H 


2 (d 


2 W 


z 


w 




■a 




u 


U 


O 








o 




£i 


P! 


Bi 


Pi 


PJ 


pj 




ce 




•J 


u 


H 


M 


H 


u 


H 




u 




*i 


tu 


p. 


04 


Da 


cu 


0< 




0. 




in 


















* 




(U 










































u 






















< 


>1 




















V) 


4-1 




















c 


c 




10 



















D 




■H 
















in 


O 
















~ 




^ 


u 




g 










_ 






<D 






















a. 


01 


73 



















l4-< 




U) 


C 


u 
















Oi 


10 




















u 


^ 


IM 
















in 
HI 


c 


















< 






U 


IB 


•M 


n3 








o 








E 


o 


■H 








H 






T3 


41 




■H 


c 














O 


l4 


vj 


■H 


1-1 












•H 

m 


c 


0) 


4J 


CT> 


a) 












■H 


s: 


in 


1^ 


x: 












QJ 

a. 


Ij 


•u 


•H 


■H 


jj 












D, 


O 


Q 


> 


O 




















-36- 













oe di> 
<y\ rH 

OCTi 
00 rH 

00 9% CN 

o ^ in 

in ID OO 



in in 
+J 4J 
C C 
<a u 
73 -o 

•H H 

u) in 

K oi: 
I 

c 
o 
z 



in 
jj 

rH 

3 
10 

in 
in 

10 

TI 
01 
4J 

n) 
> 

10 

u 

01 
Cr> 
10 

T3 

c 

10 






x: 
jj 
o 
XI 

in 

ID 

•O 

3 

rH 
O 

c 



Eh 
O 

z 



1486 



RESIDENCES OF PERSONS ARRESTED FOR NARCOTICS OFFENSES 

Prince George's County Police 

1972 





NARCOTICS 






Prince George's County 


hnjMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 


963 
82.2 


Other Maryland 


NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 


23 
' 2.0 


District of Columbia 


NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 


106 
9.0 


Virginia 


NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 


2 
.2 


Other 


NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 


77 
6*^ 


NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 




TOTAL 


NUMBER : 
* PERCENTAGE: 


1171 
100% 


1 





{*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 



Ir. I 



■37- 



U87 



PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE - ADULTS 

Based on adult arrest figures alone, there were 2255 
index offense arrests, of which 587, 26.1%, were of non- 
residents. The largest group of non-residents arrested were 
from the District of Columbia, approximately 63%. 

The index offense with the highest rate of non-resident 
arrests was robbery, with a rate of 47.2%. In absolute 
numbers, the offense showing the most non-resident arrests, 
165, was grand larceny. 

The lowest rate of non-resident adult arrests was for 
aggravated assault, 16.1%. Rape was lowest in absolute numbers 
with eight non-residents arrested. 

There were 855 adult narcotics arrests, 20.8% of which 
were non-residents. The largest number of these were from the 
District of Columbia. 



'H- 



■38- ; 



1488 





c 




o 




at 


>.*! 


*t 


n 


§ 


M 





M 


<J< 


in 


4-1 


- 


rH 


0) 


3 CM 


tri-o r~ 


U <eT> 





^ 


V 


1 


U 






« 


« 


u 


u 


•H 


C-H 


•H 


o 


Vi6 


04 






>■ 




■p 




§ 









u 



i b. 



D U 
Z U 

is 



73 

C 



Is 



■0 

a; 

4J 

in 

0) 
M 

< 

c 



Ul 

U 

HI 



9) 

o 

c 

(U 

-o 

■H 
Ul 

0) 



o 



o 
o \o 
rg 



00 



a 






u 






Q 






a: 




"T 


3 




« 


X 


r~ 


O 




in 


r~ 



u 

H 

z 

u 

u 

0. 



< 

z 

u 
u 
o: 
w 



< 

H 
Z 

M 
U 

a 
u 

0. 



w 
o 

< 

Z 

u 
c 
a 
u 



u 
o 

< 

Z 

u 
u 
a 



o 
in o 

03 rH 



o 

o 



o 
rsl o 



o 

o 



«p 



o 
m o 

o —I 

ON 



o 
o 



(d 

H 

z 
u 
u 
a 
u 



OP 

o 

^ o 

00 .-H 



c 

3 
O 

u 



D> 
L4 
O 
HI 
U 

01 
(J 

c 

■H 



T3 
C 
1) 

f-H 

(0 



■i 
3 
^^ 
O 
O 



c 

•H 

> 

■39- 



< 

O 

H 






dOcW 

in 00 p^ 
'KO oo 
ic in 



in in 
■u JJ 
c c 

CI 41 
•O T3 

•H H 

in in 

a, en 
I 

c 
o 

z 



in 

■i "o 

in 

-. -D 

4-1 ni 

o u 

' s 

o 

c -o 

' s 



a 

e 



a 
*i 
o 
a 

in 

01 

•o 

3 
O 

c 



01 

■p 
o 
z 



1489 



RESIDENCES OF PERSONS ARRESTED FOR NARCOTICS OFFENSES 
Prince George's County Police 
Adults 
1972 



NARCOTICS 



Prince George ' s County 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



677 
79.2 



Other Maryland 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



20 
2,3 



District of Columbia 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



98 
11.5 



Virginia 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



Other 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



58 
6.8 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



TOTAL 



NUMBER: 
* PERCENTAGE: 



855 
100% 



(*!Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 



-40- 



1490 



PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE - JUVENILES 

There were 225 3 juvenile arrests recorded by the County 
Police Department, of which 272, 12.1% were non-residents. 
This rate is less than half of the adult non-resident rate. 
Again, the largest number of non-resident arrests was from the 
District of Columbia, approximately 58%. 

The index offense with the highest rate of non- 
resident arrests was robbery with 27.9% of the juvenile 
arr>ests from outside Prince George's County. The largest 
number was burglary, 102, 

The lowest rate was for rape, for which no non-residents 
were arrested. 

Narcotics arrests totaled 316, of which 9.5%, 30, were 
non-residents. Most of these, 19, came from outside the 
metropolitan area. 



f r . 



•41- 



1491 





o 




m 




■u 




CO 


>i V 


4J 


i-i 


§ 


< 







u 


v 




iH 


in 


■ H 


- 


c 


lU 


41 rg 


tJi > r- 


U 


3a\ 


TH 


4) 




U 


1 


OJ 


0) 


U 





c 


-H 


-^ 


r^ 


M 





0. 


o. 




>- 




Jj 




c 




3 









u 









00 


o\ 


vC 


n 




ro 








OP 






^ ^ 




• 


f 


• 


• 




• 








O 






o t^ 


•» 


ON 


VI3 ^ 


•» •<T 


r-* 


o 


m 






in 


o 








r^ 


00 




f-l 




^ 








o 


.H 






< t- 


<N 


















m 








> 
2 




fO 


\D 


O 


vo 




in 








aP 






Q [4 






















o 






2 U 


ro 


o 


*-l 


IT) TT 


-H 


oo 


T 






00 


o 






55 


TT 


00 




OJ -H 












r-- 


f-( 






r^ 


















.-H 








X 




o 


■9 


^ 


1 




in 








tfP 






o 
a: 


^ 


00 


(N nH 


rs vo 


1 
1 


00 


^ 






ro 


o 
o 






in 


00 


rH 


in 




m 








in 


.H 






0) 


r^ 


















CO 






« 




























4 




























V. 


a: 




(— ( 


in 


m 


1 




T-{ 








00 




C 




• 


• 


■ 


1 




> 








o 




4 


m 


r- 


(N 


fH 


00 u-l 


1 


•<r 


(M 






o 


o 




u- 


eg 


ro 


r- 




tr (N 












<y\ 


1— ( 




ItH 


o 


.-H 


















f-H 






O 


o: 


























X 




























4? 


























•0. H 


























C- cjJ 




o 


m 


tn 


^ 




o 








<3e 




"•i 






■ 
















o 




O 


ro 


CJN ^ 


00 rsl 


^ 


CN 


ro 






O 


o 






i^ 


U3 


Oi 




fH 




<N 










I-H 






u 




























CJ 




























< 




























Ul 




o 


1 


1 


1 




1 








<*> 






a 




• 


1 


1 


r 




1 






00 


o 






2 


00 


o 


1 


1 


1 




1 








o 








o 


















^ 










1-1 
























e 




























Q 

a; 




a\ 


! 


•-I 


1 
1 




1 
1 








ap 






Zl 


CO 


00 


1 


f-H »H 


1 




1 






a> 


o 






s 




00 




1— * 














o 








K 


u 


K '^ 


a u 


ex UJ 


K 


W 


K 


U 


« 


u 


K '-1 






Ul 


u 


u 9 


U3 L? 


w u 


U 


o 


W 


c 


w 


o 


u n 






CQ 


< 


s < 


n < 


9 "^ 


m 


< 


03 


< 


ffl 


«: 


0) «• 






s 


?: 


£ & 


S H 




E 


tn 


s 


H 


E 


H 


S H 






o 


2 


S z 


Z2 2 


D 2 


p 


2 


o 


2 


D 


2 


O 2 






2 


U 


Z M 


2 W 


2 U 


2 


W 


2 


W 


2 


U 


2 ;," 








M 


y 


U 


U 




u 




u 




y 


U 




"O 




a 


a; 


a. 


a. 




a; 




a: 




OS 


r: 1 




4) 




u 


u 


w 


bJ 




u 




u 




w 


CO 




4J 




0, 


a< 


[X 


a. 




Q. 




(X 




cu 


u< 




in 
























« 






































u 




























u 




























< 




>7 
























in 




■p 
























c 




c 




10 

























3 




■rH 




















0) 






o 




^ 




















4) 








3 




















Oi 




CO 


■a 


i-H 



























4) 

u 


.-H 


o 

u-l 




















in 

4) 






4) 


> 

M 



















1-3 
< 









u 


(0 


4-1 


nj 










1 




O 




c 






s 


o 


■H 














B 




4) 




0) 




'r-4 


C 


















TS 




o 


^ 


1-1 


■H 




W 














■H 




c 


4) 


•u 


tJi 




4J 














cn 




-H 


j: 


«) 


^ 




j: 














4J 




^ 


■4J 


-^ 


-H 




•y 














a 




o. 


O 


Q 


> 

-42- 




O 










t 



CT\ .-I 



m ^ rsi 
in 00 r* 
rsi (J. CM 



^ — 


• > 


in 


cn 


cn 


■p 


4; 


iJ 


c 


.-H 


c 


4) 


■H 


4) 73 


c -a 


•H 


4) 


• H 


cn 


> 


cn 


41 


3 


4; a: 


3 


a. 


1 

C 



cn 




z 


j-i 






cn 






4J 






i-i 






1-1 






< 






X 






4) 






-O 






C 






M 






r-l 






1J 






4-1 






O 






H 







3 
CO 
cn 
cn 

10 

T) 
41 

jj 
CO 
> 

10 

1^ 

t7> 
10 
•T3 

c 

CO 






o 

XI 

cn 

4) 
T! 

3 

O 

c 



1492 



RESIDENCES OF PERSONS ARRESTED FOR NARCOTICS OFFENSES 
Prince George's County Police 
Juveniles 
. 1972 



NARCOTICS 



Prince George's County 



NUMBER: 

PERCENTAGE : 



286 
90.5 



Other Maryland 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



District of Columbia 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



8 
2.5 



Virginia 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



Other 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE; 



19 
6.0 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



TOTAL 



NUMBER : 
* PERCENTAGE: 



316 
100.0% 



(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 



-43- 



1493 



GREENBELT, MARYLAND 

Greenbelt recorded 47 index arrests in 1972, including 
both adults and juveniles. Of these, 72.3% were of non-residents, 
the largest group of which were from the District of Columbia. 

The offense with the highest rate of non-resident arrests 
was auto theft with a 100% non-resident arrest. 

The offense with the second highest rate of non-resident 
arrests was grand larceny for which 96% of the persons arrested 
were non-residents. This was largely attributable to shoplifting 
in a large department store in Greenbelt. 

The lowest category was aggravated assault, for which 
18.2% of the arrests were non-residents. 

There were 25 narcotics arrests, 13, 52%, of which were 
non-residents. The largest group of non-resident narcotics 
arrests were from other Prince George's County jurisdictions. 



■44- 



1494 



3 X 
< t- 



>< 
Z 



tn 

tn 

c 

V 
lU 
VM 
O 

X 

<u 
■o 

c 



•o 


n 




c 


V 




« 


rH 




>H 


•r< 




>. c 




M 


ai 




« 


> 




5; 


3 






•-> 


N 


^ 




:^ 


4J 


"O 0^ 


•-I 


C 


^ 


V 


IS 




J3 






C 


0) 




V 


4J 




0) 


■-t 




u 


3 




-o 






< 





<5 



o 



c 
n 

>, 

1-1 

X 



c 

0) 
ID 

O 









OP 

o 



OP 

o 
o 



OP *> 

r^ pn 
CM r^ 



DP 
O 

o 



m m 

iJ -M 

c c 

U 01 
73 T3 

•H -H 

VI in 
HI 41 
oi b: 

c 
o 

z 



ITJ 

o 



u 

z 



u 

o 

< 

E- 

z 

M 

u 



H 

Z 

u 
u 

K 

u 

IX 



z 



0) 




tH 


>i 





•u 


ii 


c 


u 


3 







« 










c 


>t 


■ H 


u 


l4 


4) 


a. 


E 


>< 





1-1 jj 


CP 


01 c 


•u 


£1 a 


c 


■U 





U 


X 



c 
m 

u 
ns 



01 

x: 

O 



o 
o 



o 

■H 

in 

•H 
Q 






01 

JZ 

o 



-45- 



1495 



RESIDENCES OF PERSONS ARRESTED FOR NARCOTICS OFFENSES 
Greenbelt, Maryland 
Adults and Juveniles 
1972 



NARCOTICS 



Greenbelt, Maryland 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



12 
48.0 



Other Prince George's County 



NUMBER : 



PERCENTAGE ; 



6 

24.0 



Montgomery County 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



5 

20.0 



Other Maryland 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



2 
8.0 



District of Columbia 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



- - 



Virginia 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



- 



TOTAL 



NUMBER: 
* PERCENTAGE: 



25 
100% 



(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 



-46- 



1496 



HYATTSVILLE, MARYLAND 

Hyattsville recorded 79 adult index arrests, of which 
37, 46.8%, were non-residents. Most of these, approximately 
70%, were from other Prince George's County jurisdictions. 

The highest rate of non-resident arrests recorded was 
robbery, for which 100% of the persons arrested were non- 
residents. 

The lowest non-resident arrest rate was for aggravated 
assault, for which 21.7% of the arrests were of non-residents, 

Five narcotics arrests were made, all of which were of 
residents . 



-47- 



1497 



IS >, 

X -• 

c 

»0 IN 

•-I tDO\ 
<H *JrH 
•H iH 
> 3 

n "O 

Id 
>i 
X 



O b 

3 I 

< H 



■O 

c 

10 

.— I 

>1 

M 



10 

>1 

X 



w 


K 


1.3 


U 


< 


CQ 


H 


T. 


Z 


a 


u 


Z 


u 




a 






(V 

o 

c 

•H 
M 
CV, 

a) c 

•p o 
o u 



u 


a: 


[i1 


u 


[■) 


(•! 


s 




< 




D 


?; 




2 


UJ 






( ) 






n- 






fil 






cu 



o 
u 

111 

£ 

o 

4J 

C 

o 



u 
O 

< 

Z 

u 
o 

X 

u 

0. 



z 

F 

IX 
M 



C 
« 

I— I 

u 

ID 

E 

k4 
V 

o 
-48- 



o 
u 



o 
m 

Q 



U 

E- 
Z 

H 
'O 



o 
o 



m 




H 




C 




H 


u 


CP 


d) 


^ 


s: 


rH 


+j 


> 


o 



o 

o 



o 

o 



o 

m o 

IN ^ 



a 


K 


u 


n 


a 


o 


g 


? 


g 


z 


D 


z 


u 


Z 


w 


u 




t) 


X 




K 


U) 




U 



E- 
O 
H 





DP 


aP 




IN 


00 




ro 


>x> 




in 


^ 




><\ 


CT> 


(N 


c^ 



01 


.. 


01 


JJ 


01 


4-1 


U) 


4J 


c 


01 


c 


01 


u 


0) "O 


U TJ 


•H 


< 


-H 


«1 




01 


01 


X 


0> 


OS 


ai 


« 


1 


n 




c 


c 







H 




z 



52-587 O - 75 • pt.2 - 26 



1498 



RESIDENCES OF PERSONS ARRESTED FOR NARCOTICS OFFENSES 
Hyattsville, Maryland 
ADULTS 
1972 



■ 


NARCOTICS 






Hyattsville, Maryland ' DUMBER: 

PERCENTAGE : 


100% 


NUMBER: 
Other Prince George's County 

PERCENTAGE : 


- - 


NUMBER: 

Montgomery County 

PERCENTAGE : 


- - 


NUMBER: 
Other Maryland 

PERCENTAGE : 


- - 
1 

1 - t 


NUMBER : 
District of Columbia 

PERCENTAGE : 


- - 


NUMBER: 
Virginia 

PERCENTAGE: 


- - 


NUMBER: 
TOTAL 

* PERCENTAGE: 


5 
100% 







(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 



-49- 



1499 



LAUREL, MARYLAND 

Laurel recorded 111 adult index arrests, of which 54, 
48.6%, were of non-residents. Of these, the largest number 
were of residents of Maryland jurisdictions other than those in 
the Washington metropolitan area, approximately 39"^. 

The offense with the highest rate of non-resident arrests 
was auto theft, with 100%. This involved, however, only two 
arrests. Robery, involving five arrests, had a rate of 83.3%, 
and grand larceny, with 61 arrests, had a rate of 62.3%. 

The lowest rate was for murder, for which the one arrest 
made was a resident. The second lowest was for aggravated 
assault, with 19.5%. 

' •"' 

Data on narcotic arrests were not available. 



-50- 



1500 



T3 

C 

Id 

^ >i 

u c 

10 O rg 

X r- 

in <T> 

(I) 3 
M T3 
3 < 
« 
•J 



(i Ul 



a u 
z u 









o 

00 



o 
o 



o 

—I 00 



•o 




O 


0) 




u 


•p 




Ul 


Ul 
















M 






< 






CD 






c 













91 






u 








■0 

c 













M 




01 


nj 




0) 

o 


E 




c 


^ 




01 






•o 


01 






kl 




m 


3 




<u 


10 




a. 


J 





CI 


u 


? 




H 


2 


Z 


s 




2 



01 
Id 

o 

HI 

o 

c 

■H 

Id 

lU c 
JS 3 

■P o 
o u 



+J 
c 

3 

o 
u 

4) 
E 
O 
D> 

4J 

C 

o 

s: 






3 
Z 



u 
< 

o 

K 
Ed 



T3 

C 
nj 

^H 
>i 

>-l 

10 

s: 

u 

o 



■51- 



o 
o 



o 

o 



a. 
u 



a. 
u 



u 



5 
3 
z 



V4 

x; 



OP OP 
r-l 00 

m ^ 
^\ 

in in 



in 


in 


4J 


• • U 


Ul 


<ti C 


(U 


■P 01 


Id 


C 73 


^ 


(UH 


< 


■O Ul 




■H (1) 


X 


Ul q: 


(U 


HI 1 


-0 


a. c 


c 





M 


z 


^ 




10 




4J 









H 





o 



1501 



TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND 

Takoma Park recorded 82 adult arrests for index offenses, 
48, 58.5%, of which were non-residents. Most of these were 
residents of the District of Columbia, 75%. 

The offense showing the highest rate of non-resident 
arrests was grand larceny with 85%. Robbery was second highest 
with 71.4%. 

The lowest rate was for auto theft, in which two arrests 
were made, both of residents. ; 

Data on narcotics arrests were not available. 



\ \ 



■52- 



1502 



M >. 




U -H 




nj C 




0, <) 


rsj 




r- 


10 m 


(J> 


F -y 


»-H 


O'H 




J< 9 




m-o 




t<< 







(< 


o 


1 


1 


1 




1 




1 




1 


0» 






Ob. 


* 


1 


1 


1 




1 




1 




1 









H li 


CM O 


1 


1 


1 




1 




1 




1 


CM 






3 X 


O 




















^ 






< ^ 


>H 






















































o 


O 





1 









1 




1 


00 






^ 


m in 


tN O 


r^ in 


1 
1 




IN 





1 
1 




1 
1 










o 13 


»H 


^ 


^ 






^ 


NO 








r\l r-l 






>* 




























a 


r^ 


1 


r~ 


1 






r~ 


1 




I 


afi 






X 


• 


1 


# 


1 








1 




1 









3 


tM \D 


1 


CM \a 


1 




CO 


VO 


1 




1 


IN 






CQ 


^ 




.H 








V£> 








•—t i~i 




UI 


























" 


V 




























in 
c 

01 


X 

a 
m 
o 

o 


^ 00 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 









1 
1 

1 




1 
1 
1 


OP 


■o- 




O 


a: 


OJ 










i-i 


r^ 








l-f f-i 




X 




























Q) 




























•o 


H 


























c 


1 


KD 


«C 





1 
1 






VC 


1 
1 




1 
1 


00 










O ^ 


CN v£> 


rn 


1 




in 


VD 


t 




1 


m 






rsi vx) 




^ 








•H 








t~* 






u 




























< 




























u 


CM ^ 


1 
1 
1 


1 
) 
I 


1 
1 




f-H 




1 

1 
1 




1 
1 
1 


OP 

s ° 

(^ 








VO 












m 








r^ 






gs 




























H 




























D 


o 


1 


I 


1 




















a 


. 


1 


1 


1 








1 




I 


o(= 






i 


rH O 


1 


1 


1 








I 




t 


^ 






o 














1 




1 


0. 








•H 




















1-1 








« U 


K J^ 


X 14 


a. 


u 


0: 


U 


fX 


U 


B U 


K 'J 








u a 




111 


u 





u 


U 


u 





U U 


U 1? 








S ? 


§ g 


§ 


< 


m 


< 


9 


< 


g < 


m ': 








S H 


E £ 


t- 


s 


H 


2 


H 


2 E- 


£ E-> 








3 Z 


s g 


3 Z 


D 


z 


z> 


z 


D 


z 


D Z 


3 2 








z u 


Z U 


Z 


u 


z 


u 


Z 


u 


z w 








■0 


u 


U 








^ 




^ 


u 









Q> 


u 


U 


u 




u 




u 




u 


W 


u 






•P 


0. 


O4 


b 




0. 




0. 




a. 


a 


U4 






in 






















« 






i" 




























M 




























M 




























•< 




























n 

§ 
n 

0) 




tn 

4) 




c 






10 
■H 

<— 1 
















Mh 




u 


3 


TD 





















o 









C 




u 


















lU 


u 


10 




















en 

(D 

o 
c 
«> 
•a 

— t 

VI 
OS 


jb: 







rH 




»M 
















10 


c 

■r-1 


£r 


1^ 















i 






a. 


u 


0) 


10 




iJ 




10 












Ct, 


E 


z 









■H 






H 






10 

E 







u 




■^ 

^ 




c 

■H 




M 











01 c 


•P 


01 




4-> 




IT 




0) 








M 


JC 3 


c 


j:: 




w 




tl 




x: 








10 


■u 





4J 




■H 




■H 




4J 








E- 


U 


y 







□ 




> 













.•'■ 








-53 


- 



















W 


r-4 


•»T 00 


00 


m TT 


.. 


m 


01 


■ • 4J 


■u 


It c 


n 


*J 0) 


01 


C T) 


u 


D H 


u 


•0 Ul 


< 


■rt HI 




in X 


X 


0) 1 


41 


K C 


•D 





C 


z 


M 




■H 




« 




4J 









H 





1503 



VIII. VIRGINIA 

' iti 
Figures from Virginia include data from Arlington, 
Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties, and the cities of 
Alexandria, Fairfax, and Falls Church. Discussions of the data 
collection methods are included in the sections for each of che 
individual jurisdictions. 

Data for juveniles are not included for any of the 
Virginia jurisdictions. It cannot be known, therefore, the 
degree to which non-resident juveniles were arrested for index 
crimes. Information available from other jurisdictions indicates, 
however, that juvenile arrests include fewer non-residents than 
do adult arrest totals. If that is the case in Virginia, the 
rates of non-resident arrests are somewhat higher than would be 
the case were juveniles included. 

For all Virginia jurisdictions except Arlington, the 
category of aggravated assault includes both aggravated and 
simple assaults. Generally, fewer aggravated assaults occur, 
and consequently, fewer arrests are made for aggravated assaults 
than simple assaults, thus the aggravated assault figure is 
somewhat inflated. 

In all of the Virginia jurisdictions, the category of 
grand larceny includes larcenies both over $50.00 (grand larceny) 
and under $50.00 (petit larceny). The total figures for larceny 
are therefore somewhat inflated and are not strictly comparable 
with the corresponding figures for the District of Columbia and 
Maryland. 

The total number of adult index arrests* reported for the 
combined suburban Virginia jurisdictions was 4174, of which 
1264, or 30.3%, were non-residents of the jurisdiction in which 
the arrest occurred. Of these, the greatest number, 839, 
approximately 66% of all non-residents, were residents of other 
Virginia jurisdictions. These were primarily residents of 
Virginia jurisdictions within the Washington metropolitan area. 
Maryland and the District of Columbia combined accounted for 
approximately 24% of the non-resident arrests. 

The index crime for which the highest percentage of non- 
residents were arrested was rape, for which 53% of the persons 
arrested were not residents of the arresting jurisdictions. About 
one-half of these, 14, were from other Northern Virginia jurisdic- 
tions while the remainder, 13, were from Maryland, the District 
of ColvLmbia, or outside the metropolitan area. 



Including both simple and aggravated assaults and larcenies 
over and under $50.00. 



■54- 



1504 



The greatest number of non-residents were arrested for 
larceny, a total of 606. Of these, nearly two-thirds were 
Northern Virginia residents. 

The index offense with the smallest percentage of non- 
resident arrests was assault, for which 17.5% of the arrests 
were of non-residents. Over three-fourths of these arrests 
were of residents of Northern Virginia jurisdictions other than 
the one in which the arrest occurred. 

The crime with the lowest number of non-resident arrests 
was murder, with 11 non-residents arrested, all of whom were 
from Northern Virginia. 

Of 1011 narcotics arrests, 300, 29.7%, were of non- 
residents. The largest number, again, was from other Northern 
Virginia jurisdictions, 191. 

The Northern Virginia jurisdiction with the highest rate 
of non-resident arrests was Fairfax City with 76.8%, 119 of 
155 arrests. It should be noted, however, that Fairfax City is 
completely surrounded by Fairfax County, the residence of 72 
of the persons arrested. 

Arlington County also showed a high rate of non- 
resident arrests, 44%, 365 of 829 arrests. Of these, the 
highest number came from other Northern Virginia jurisdictions. 

The lowest rate of non-resident arrests was in Prince 
William County, with 55 non-resident arrests from a total of 
470 arrests, a rate of 11.7%. Alexandria's rate was second 
lowest, 17.2%, 192 of 1118 arrests. 



-55- 



1505 



(0 

(U 

u 

< 

c 

(0 
XI 

u 

3 
•§>, 

c 
nj o 

■H f 

C 01 r 

•H JJ C 
H 3 

•H T3 

> < 



ID 
O 























OP 




E-i 


a\ 


in 


o 


n 




p^ 






o 




O U- 


t 


. 


■ 






• 






o 




t- w 


r~ o 


m 00 


in o 


in m 


.-H 


r~ 




rH 


r-i 




D X 


r- in 


■<r IN 


— * r-t 




fH 






in 






.( (- 
















.H 






r^ 






















s: 


m 


r^ 


o 


ON 




o 






lft> 




Q U 


. 


. 




• 










o 




?. U 


ro a\ 


P^ lO 


o oo 


<3\ ^ 


O 


^T 




a\ 


o 






00 in 


Tl <N 


IN 


rvi 


VC 






CO 


rH 




CD 


m 


-^ 










»H 






x 






















3 


o 


c> 


o 


Ov 




IN 






OP 




a; 


a^ ^ 


rH If) 


CT\ 0© 


TT r-1 


a\ 


in 




IN 


o 
o 




D 


m s£) 


k£> ^ 


IN 


(—1 


fH 






IS 


^ 


in 


m 


(N 














m 

























t/i 
c 


>< 


r~ 


(T" 


*r 


in 




in 






OP 


(U 


a: 


* 


• 


. 


■ 




• 






o 


tM 


M 


vo rsi 


00 00 


no ^ 


m rH 


^ 


in 




.H 


o 


I4.< 


c 


o in 


in fM 


IN rt 




rH 






O 


rH 


o 


01 

o 


rH 














CM 




X 


OS 




















«i 






















■o 






















c 


:i5 






' 
















is 


in 
o 


in n 


oo ^ 




<J^ 


o 




00 


OP 

o 
o 




in <N 


in -H 


<N 


IN 


1— I 






r-- 


^ 




in 00 


OJ 












oo 






o 


rH 














rH 






o 






















< 
























o 


in 


(T. 


CO 




00 






Of 




CO 








• 




• 






o 




a. 


■<T r-~ 


T I^ 


n-t in 


tr r^ 


vo 


rH 




rH 


o 




S 


rvj ^ 


^ rN 








.H 




in 


rH 




« 






















w 


00 


fN 














OP 




Q 






1 


1 










o 




E 


M rn 


.-H VO 


1 


1 








(N 


o 




m r- 


^ (N 


1 


1 








^ 


fH 






« u 


« H 


q; m 


0^ a 


o: 


W 


c: u 


o; 


1 






w o 


w ^2 


u u 


w o 


w 


O 


w o 


w 


o 




•O 


n < 


a < 


ffi < 


05 < 


(0 


•a: 


g < 


m 


< 




0) 


2 H 


= ^ 


E E-i 


S H 


s 


H 


S Eh 


E 


fH 




4J 


3 Z 


= S 


D Z 


o z 


3 


Z 


D Z 


o 


z 




CO 


z u 


2 H 


Z U 


z w 


z 


w 


z w 


z 


;-j 




U 
U 


u 


CJ 


(J 


o 




o 


u 




y 




o: 


tx 


a 


K 




p: 


« 








u 


u 


u 


u 




u 


w 




C 




cu 


0* 


cu 


a« 




Cl4 


cu 




Uf 




< 


















« 




0) 






















C 






n) 
















o 






-H 
















(fl 

l4 






•| 
















V 






D 
















0< 




(0 + 


i-H 


















H-l 


in 


■rt in 


o 



















c 




c c 

■H 


IM 
















0) 


-H 


Cr-H 



















(U 


014J 


^ u 





















c o 


■H 


4-1 


■O 














c 


•H -rH 


> -< 





§ 














V 


4J "O 


T) 


-H 








^] 






"a 


in in 


u in 


U 


.— I 




u 




ra: 






■H 


QJ -H 


0) -H 


4J 


>t 




<u 




H 






m 


M M 


JS u 


in 


V4 




x: 




o 






01 


U 3 


+J 3 


-H 


nJ 




jj 




H 






cc 


< lO 


O 1^ 


Q 


-5( 


- 


o 











OP 


OP 




r~ 


m 




a\ 


o 




ID 


m 




\ 


\ 


■"T 


o 


T 


r- 


-H 


ID 


rH 


O. 


CM 


^ 


(N 


^ 


in 


in 


in 


•p 


4J 


•p 


in 


c 


C 


(1) 


a) 


(1) 


U V 13 


U 


-H 


■H 


< 


in 


in 




0) 


m 


X 


a 


a: 


<u 




1 


T) 




e 


c 







M 




z 



c: 


HI 




? 4J 


o 




§ in 
o 3 . 


c 


>1 


H £i • 


^ fdO 


M U) 


^ in </>■ 




(1) 0) 


QJ 113 


-0 


4J rH 


c 


10 


^ T) 4) 


10 


E M 


K flj T? 




H 


=► JJ c 


>i4-l 


3 10 3 


u 


01 in 


> 


dJ 


W ^ 


^ 10 "O 


E 




3 M r: 

<» 10 >J 


(J 
■u 


• XI 

c 


c 





-P -tJ 


U-l 


C -P 

•H C 





rH 0) 


= ^p 


01 


>H fc 
< -p 


3 -H )-( 


c 


U 10 


0) 


a. 


t in 10 


73 u-1 m 

■H Q 




01 


m 




aj 


m u 


^ 


u 


•H o 


XI Its 


0) 


4-1 -H 
C -H 




E 


3 


0) a) 





Q. 


■0 -o 




o 


3 3 






fH fH 


01 


01 


O 

c c 




- 4-1 
ID CP 


3 


CP C 






V< H 







rH 




r: 


ID U 


W rH IN 


M 


U < 


E- 






O 






2 







1506 



Residences of Persons Arrested for Narcotics Offenses 
Total Virginia Suburban Area 
Adults Only 
1972 



{*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 

+ Includes some residents of Montgomery and Prince 
George's Counties for Arlington. Estimated by 
Arlington Police Department to be 15 or less. 





NARCOTICS 


NUMBER: 
Arresting Jurisdictions 

PERCENTAGE : 


711 
70.3 


. NUMBER : 
Other Virginia Jurisdictions 

PERCENTAGE : 


191 
18.9 


NUMBER: 
District of Columbia 

PERCENTAGE : 


35 
3.5 


NUMBER: 
Maryland 

PERCENTAGE : 


19 
1.9 


NUMBER : 
Other 

. ' PERCENTAGE : 


55 
5.4 


NUMBER: 
OTHER 

PERCENTAGE : 


1 


NUMBER : 
TOTAL 

* PERCENTAGE : 


1011 
100% 







-57- 



1507 



ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 

Data from Alexandria were collected by a manual search 
of the arrest books. Only adult arrests are recorded in the 
arrest books, therefore juvenile data were not included. 

The total number of adult index arrests* recorded was 
1118, of which 192, 17.2%, were non-residents. Of these, the 
highest number recorded was from Arlington County, 42, or 
approximately 22% of the non-resident arrests. 

The index offense for which the most non-resident arrests 
occurred was auto theft, for which 47.4% of the arrests were of 
non-residents. The greatest number of non-resident arrests 
were for larceny, 79. 

The lowest rate of non-resident arrests was for murder, 
for which 9% of the arrests were non-residents. Murder and 
rape both showed the smallest numbers of non-resident arrests, 
with one each. 

There were 210 narcotics arrests of which 24.8% were of 
non-residents. The largest percentage of non-resident narcotics 
arrests were from Arlington, 5.7%. 



Includes both simple and aggravated assaults and larcenies 
over and under $50.00. 



-58- 



1508 



•H >, 

C --I 

•H C 

•H 01 
> -P 
01 <N 

- 01 r^ 

■r^ u ■-' 

u < 
•o 

C -P 

Id »-< 

X 3 

4) -O 

3-^ 






•^ 



i3 



in 
o 



C71 



u 


ra 


(1) 


■M 


o 


u 


c 


n 


<u 


c 


T3 


(0 


■H 


X 


01 


OJ 


<U 


f-H 


a: 


< 



o 
o 



"a 

c 

10 

>-. 






x: 
o 
u 

D 

x: 
u 



10 






c 



u 
< 



01 



4J 



10 






O 



10 

[14 



en 



u 

0) 

s: 



< 




H 




Z 


« 


M 


u 


O 


m 


o: 


>: 


u 


=> 


0. 


z 



00 (N 

fN r- 

03 .-( 

CO <£> (N 
>-H CM a^ 
•-H ON »-* 



Ul 


0) 


01 


Jj 


+J 


4J 


01 


c 


c 


01 


(U 


ID 


M T) -a 


u 


■H 


■H 


< 


01 


01 




Q) 


CI 


X 


a 


(£ 


a) 




1 


"O 




c 


c 







M 




z 


-H 






10 






•p 













H 







3 


. 


10 


o 


01 


in 


01 


uy 


10 






u 


T3 


(U 


OJ-O 


4J 


£^ 


10 


J 


> 




10 -a 


u 


c 


IJ^ 10 


rri 




10 


^ 




ai 


TJ 


> 


c 


<) 


10 






^ 


QJ 


>^ 


^ 


c 


a 0) 


E 


u 


•H 


u 


01 


10 




rH 


x; 




•p ^ 


rH 


XI 


10 


01 


01 


IV 


<0 


■a T3 


D 


3 


<-l 


H 





o 


c 


c 



-59- 



1509 



Residences of Persons Arrested for Narcotics Offenses 
Alexandria, Virginia 
Adults Only 
1972 





NARCOTICS 










NUMBER : 
Alexandria, Virginia 

PERCENTAGE : 


158 

75.2 




" " " ' '' NUMBER: 
District of Columbia 

PERCENTAGE : 


6 

2,8 




NTjf 3ER : 

Maryland 

PERCENTAGE : 


li 

5.2 




NUMBER: 
Falls Church, Virginia 

PERCENTAGE : 


3 

- 1.4 




. ,.-:'- K'JMBER: 
Arlington, Virginia 

PERCENTAGE: 


. ,12 . 

5.7 




NUilBER: 
Fairfax City 

PERCT-N' AGE : 


4 

1.9 




NUK B£R : 
Fairfax County 

PERCENTAGE : 


7 

3.3 




NUMBER: 
Other Virginia 

PERCENTAGE: 


4 

1.9 




NUMBER: 

All Other 

PERCENT. iGE : 


5 

2.4 




NUMBER : 
TOTAL 

* PERCENTAGE : 


210 

100% 











(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 

-60- 



ir)iu 



ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA 



Data were obtained from Arlington County by means of a 
computer print out of punched cards maintained for all adult 
arrests in the county. 

The residence categories used by the Arlington County 
Police Department do not include separate categories for 
individual Virginia jurisdictions. All of the suburban jurisdic- 
tions in both Maryland and Virginia with the exception of 
Arlington County are included in the category, "Metropolitan 
Washington Area." The Arlington County Police Department 
estimates that this category includes fifteen or fewer Maryland 
residents for all index offenses and fifteen or fewer Maryland 
residents for narcotics offenses. 

The category of grand larceny includes larcenies both 
over and under $50.00. , . .. , . _, 

The total number of index offenses* recorded was 829, of 
which 365, 44%, were of non-residents. The greatest number of 
these were from the metropolitan Washington area, approximately 
42%. 

The index offense with the highest rate of non-resident 
arrests was auto theft, with 54% of the persons arrested non- 
residents. The greatest number of non-resident arrests, 248, 
occurred for larceny. 

The lowest rate of non-resident arrests was for rape. 
Of seven arrests, one person was a non-resident. 

There were 372 narcotics arrests, of which 30.9% were non- 
residents. The largest number of these were from the metropolitan 
Washington area. 



* Includes larcenies both over and under $50.00. 



-61- 



1511 







H 


o 




o 


VC 


00 




(N 


m 












dP 






°h 


• 






• 


• 




• 


■ 












o 






t^ tt 


in ^ 


vo 


^ 


in lo 


(N in 


r~ 


CT\ 


rH rH 










VD 


o 








ro TT 


.-H 


(N 




rH ^ 
















f^ 


rH 




>• 


(N 




O 


r~ 


TT 




r- 


O 












0P 






z 


• 




• 


• 


• 




• 


• 












o 






Q U 


00 \D 


CO 


a\ 


(N in 


o r>j 


in 


<N 


n -T 










\D 


o 




isy 


r-> in 


o 


^ 


n 


r~ rH 


fH 




(N 










\o 


•-( 






g3 


n 


f-H 






















in 






5m 
































' 5 


r- 




in 


•«T 


r~ 




t~ 


tr. 












dP 






3 


• 




• 


• 


• 






• 












O 






o 


o ^ 


CT\ 


in 


CM m 


fSl o 


. rH 


^ 


^r ^ 










■ 00 


o 






a: 


m in 




.-1 




. ^ (N 
















in 


f-i 




































C 


•>« 


T 




.-1 


•«T 


o\ 




•«T 


VD 












dp 




01 


a. 


• 




• 


• 


• 




• 


• 












o 




>t-l 


U 


.-1 n 


•<T 


^ 


<N rn 


^ v£) 


(>J 


ro 


in 00 










00 


o 




■M 


Pi 


ro in 


^ 


CM 




















in 


(H 




o 


o 

a: 
































X 




































































































c 


H 
































M 
































m 




00 




o 


(N 


(N 




rH 


r- 












O 


•H 






•q- 00 


r^ 


1— ( 


TT ^ 


T \D 


(N 


m 


n •<T 










^ 


O 


c 




tT \c 




r-i 




















vo 


<~-\ 


a> >i 




'-. 






























u ^ 
































■H c 




u 


t~- 








ro 


















dP 


> o 




1 


vo in 


1 
1 




1 

1 


^ •<T 






1 
1 










r- 


O 
O 


» U) 




00 


1 




1 


i-H 






1 












rH 


>.-w 


































+J U) <N 


































C 0) r~ 


































3 M o> 

>-l 'H 




of 
































^! 






























U < 




9 






























c -u 






1 


1 




1 


1 






I 












1 


0-1 








) 




1 


1 






1 












1 


4J 3 






1 


1 




1 


1 


' 




i 












1 


cn-o 


































c < 


































•H 



































^ 


































^^ 


































< 
























,^ 




.. 












K U 


OS 


U 


« U 


« m 


o: 


u 


X u 


« 


u 




u 




V 








U O 


u 


o 


u u 


K o 


u 


o 


a o 


w 


o 




y 




c 








O 4 


m 


< 


0) < 


g g 


CO 


< 


m < 




< 




g 




rt. 








S K 


z 


H 


E B 


s 


E-. 


2 H 


s 


fr^ 




H 


tx 


E» 








3 Z 


3 


Z 


n z 


O £. 


:d 


z 


3 Z 


3 


z 


a: 


z 


"Z 








z u 


2 


u 


z u 


Z K 


z 


u 


z u 


Z 


« 


u 


u 


u 


u 






TJ 


^ 




u 
a: 




U 




u 


u 






s 


^ 


CQ 


^ 






(U 


u 




u 


u 


EO 




u 


td 




w 


D 


u 




w 






-P 


0. 




a* 


0< 


D< 




D4 


a. 




CL4 


z 


0. 


*■ 


a. 


































* 






































u 


































< 




c 
o 






in 


























m 




+j 






























§ 




C71 






4-J 






















~ " 




c 



























f 




(0 




■H 






•H 






















u 


>, 


£ 






M 




















' 




0) 


4J 


U) 






4J 
























a. 


c 

3 


10 

s 




ro 


tn 

■H 
























H-( 









-H 


a 




















^ 







u 


c 




c 




















hJ 


-f~ 




co- 
ll) 



c 
<u 

T) 

-H 
U] 
(D 


c 

(0 

4-) —1 

Oi c 

C -H 

•H cr 

U -H 


ITI 
4J 
■H 
rH 



a 

O-H 
l-l IQ 
4J (1) 

(1) u 




■H 
CT 

•H 
> 

u 
d) 
x: 

4J 


c 

■H 5 


4J 




C 
S 



c 
c 




-, 














1 
-- 1 


< > 


E < 




o 


3 U 


o 




D 

















|>P 


dP 




o 


O 




KD 


■«■ 




in 


^ 




W 


a^ 


^ 


in 


IN 


^o 


vo 



vi in tn 

4J 4J -P 

tn c C 

lu m 0) 

>H 73 T) 

(H -H -H 

< u) in 
ID QJ 

X OS a; 



c 
o 
z 



,^ 


0) C 


d 


O 




C 4J 


t^ 


•H CP 


3 


u c 


\* 


a- -H 


^ 


• <— ) 


u 


'U w v^ 


3 


Sg"^ 


■^ 


■-1 >, 


S-i 


>.-t-i XI 


o 


Vj 


— * 


aj -H "0 


^ 


E T3 0) 




tn -u 


o 


xj^-rJ. n . 


^ 


•u M E tn 


0) 


C 3 -H in 


S" 


T-l 4J D 


3 


S in rH 


« 


10 a 


1, 


IW -H iH 


o 


c 




■H • 


M 


tn cu m 


O 


tU >H ■ rH 


u 


■H -H Q 


■^ 


-u > tu 




C Xl i3 




3 C C 




^^ (B 




O <U -U 




£ C 




TD 4J -P 




C M -P C 




m on 41 




rH 2 C E 




>, -H 4J 




M 73 rH M 




nj c n (0 




S (0 < c 




tu 




in tn tn Q 




0) - 4) 




73 11) 73 4) 




3 Cr> 3 o 




rH >H rH -H 




O O rH 




C 4) X 




M tj H (X 



-62- 



1512 



Residences of Persons Arrested for Narcotics Offenses 
Arlington County, Virginia 
Adults Only 
1972 



NARCOTICS 



Arlington County, Virginia 



NUMBER : 



PERCENTAGE ; 



257 
69.1 



Metropolitan Washington 
Area-*- 



NUMBER : 



PERCENTAGE ; 



47 
12.6 



Other Virginia 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



15 
4.0 



Washington, 
District of Columbia 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



17 
4.6 



Other 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



28 
7.5 



Unknown 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



8 
2.2 



TOTAL 



NUMBER : 
* PERCENTAGE : 



372 
100% 



(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 

Includes Maryland counties of Montgomery and Prince George's 
and Northern Virginia jurisdictions. Excludes Arlington 
and D.C. Estimated by Arlington Police Department to be 15 
or less. 



-63- 



1513 



FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Data were collected from Fairfax County by a manual search 
of the Arrest Books covering the year. Juvenile arrests are not 
included. 

The total number of index offense arrests* recorded was 
1353. Of these 443, or 32.7%, were non-residents. The highest 
number of non-residents were from Virginia jurisdictions other 
than Alexandria, Fairfax, or Arlington. This includes 113 
arrests, approximately 26% of the total non-resident arrest. 

The highest rate of non-resident arrests was for rape, 
70.4%. The highest number of non-resident arrests was for 
larceny, 15 5. 

The lowest non-resident arrest rate was assault, 22.8%. 
The lowest number of non-resident arrests was for murder, 9 of 
19 arrests. 

Of 278 narcotics arrests, 29.2 were of non-residents, the 
largest number of which, 27, were from Virginia jurisdictions 
other than Fairfax, Alexandria, and Arlington. 



* Includes both simple and aggravated assaults and larcenies 
over and under $50.00. 



-64- 



52-587 O - 75 - pt. 2 - 27 



1514 



C >i 


•r1 ^ 


tT>e 


uo 


•H 


> 01 


4-> 


» CO 


>, (U CM 


■U l< r- 


C M a\ 


a < M 





U n 


*> 


XrH 


« 9 


"MT3 


H< 


•H 


« 


h 







<N 




t^ 




CM 




r» 


■* 








r^ 




''I 


* 




^ in 


<N 


in 


in 


.-4 


<N 


in 




1 
1 
1 


1 
1 

1 


(N 


in 


f-i 


f> 


o 
in o 




'S. 


ffi 




o\ 




fH 




o 


<N 


.-I 


n 




o 




rn 


oc 


|o i 


fN oi 


n 


in 


VD 


^ 


T 


^ 


TT VD 


OJ n 


^o o\ 


>-i 


00 


CT^ 


(% 


o 
r- o 




r 


m in 


CM 




•H 








OJ 


r-l 


m 


m 








00 -H 

m 




> 


































^ 


^ 




(N 




00 




r- 


in 


1- 


r-- 




m 




^ 






o 


^ ^ 


OJ 


00 


o 


<x> 


^H 




. rH 0-' 


•«• Ol 


^ rsi 


00 


in 


CM 


- 


■ VO 


in 

OJ 

m 

c 

0) 




ON \0 


^ 




>-i 








^ 
















>< 


'H 




£N 










VO 


<J1 


o\ 




Ov 




rM 


<*P 


U 


1 a\ CO 


^ 


r- 




1 

1 




1 

1 


f~- 00 


•» ^ 


00 ON 


00 


ON 


.-* 


^ 


O 
iH O 


o 


a 
o 


m ^ 


#H 


(— ( 




1 




1 
















00 ,-( 


X 


































u 


































-0 


^ 
































c 


H 
































M 


,^ 


fN 




in 




VD 




^ 


^ 


^ 


o 




^ 




\o 


0P 






00 r- 


O 


<-H 


f-* 


^ 


r- 


<-* 


r- 'T 


VD OJ 


o <^ 


in 


00 


-^ 


* 


o 
00 o 






o r- 

in 


i-~1 




^ 








Ol 


•H 


(N 


in 








in .-H 




t; 






























VD 




o 


































*• 


































a 


«) 




T 




00 




■>r 


1^ 


r~ 


^ 




00 




r-i 


OP 






00 a^ 

<N 


(N 


r- 


TT 




<N 


(^ 


-H m 


«H ro 


rvi r- 


T 


TT 

^ 


m 


(—4 


o 
r- o 

Ol ^ 




X 



































tL 


































ri 


































:■> 


^ 














CD 




ro 




m 






a" 






o rsi 

f-t in 




i 
1 
1 


■ 






1 
1 


o in 


1 
1 
1 


rH in 


in 








o 
ON o 






K ui 


« 


< 


a 


U 


a 


u 


K U 


K U 


K U 




cii 




U 


.■■1 






K ^ 


!^ 


u 


o 


u 


o 


U O 


u u 


U O 




o 




O 


o 






S? g 


a 

s 


§ 


g 


s 


g 


g g 


i g 




,. 


g 




g 


.. g 






3 z 




5 

u 


D 


2 


a 


§ 


• D Z 


O 2 


3 Z 


cc 


S5 


a: 


z 


« z 






z u 




2 


u 


2 


Z U 


z u 


z u 


u 


U 


u 


u 


-1] u 




"0 


y 






o 




u 


U 


o 


u 


CQ 


u 


s 


u 


o o 




01 


K 






a 




K 


DC 


a: 


K 


z 


Of 


a 


X oc 




U 




w 

0. 




u 




u 


U 


w 


U 


i 


u 


D 


bl 


"3 M 




Ot 






0. 




Oi 


O. 


[L. 


& 


0. 


Z 


CL 


i, ?. 


































« 




































M 


m 
































< 


-H 

c 










10 






(0 
















01 


■H 










■H 






-H 
















c 


CP 


ITJ 








c 




03 


c 



















^ 


-H 








■H 




■H 


■f4 


<TJ 














0) 


> 


f 












c 




c 














H) 




3 








■H 




CP 


■H 


-H 














a. 


>. 











> 




■H 


> 


0^ 


•H 












U-l 




4-» 


u 








h 




> 


^ 


■H 












3 










>i 






x: 


> 


c 








.-3 






U<4 








4-1 




« 


u 




• H 








g 




la 














-H 




<o 


^ 1 


* 


tr 















u 










u 




■H 


p 


C 


^ 












-p 




■o 








^ 


x: 





• H 












c 




o 

•H 




c 

TO 




X 

10 




c 


u 


4J 


> 












"2 


M-l 


V4 




1—4 




U-l 




ro 


tfi 


c 


M 






o: 






•'^l 


Wt 


4J 




>, 




^ 




X 


tH 


-H 


01 






u 






!lil 


•H 


0) 




u 




■H 







t— * 


nH 






X 








(d 


•H 




OJ 




10 




.-H 


ID 


M 


4J 










Ck 


Q 




r 




b 




< 


U< 


< 


o 






J 




- 


— 




























:^ 





00 OP 

n r- 

r^ OJ 

VD **> 

w 

m o fn 
in i-i ^ 
ro ov ^ 



0) 01 01 

4-> -P 4J 

01 c c 

01 41 01 

U -H -H 

< 01 01 

01 OJ 

X a: a 

OJ I 

■o c 

c o 

M z 



3 
O 


to 


^ 


r-i 


u 


3 . 




<«o 


3 


w in 


■" 


w v>- 


X 


fl 


o 


v^ 




•O OJ 


^ 


(UT) 


o 


i;i§ 


" 


> 


■ 


HJ TJ 


•0 


Ij C 


> 


IJi «J 


« 


CT 


,, 


ITJ IJ 


o 


01 




■o > 


a 


C 


9 


(fl 




^ 


i. 


01 >i 




rH C 




a 4) 




t o 




•H Ij 




01 10 




.-1 




£ 




4-) rH 




-H 




J3 (0 




01 01 




01 01 




■O T3 




3 3 




i-t <-< 









C C 



W ^ Ol 

o 
z 



-65- 



1315 



Residences of Persons Arrested for Narcotics Offenses 

Fairfax County 
Adults Only 
1972 



> 


NARCOTICS 


NUMBER: 
Fairfax County 

PERCENTAGE : 


197 

70.8 


NUMBER: 
District of Columbia 

PERCENTAGE : 


8 

2.8 


-J. ■.; ;■.. NUMBER: 
Maryland 

PERCENTAGE : 


-5 

1.7 


NUMJER: 
Fairfax City 

PERCENTAGE : 


5 

1.8 


NUMBER: 
Alexandria, Virginia 

PERCENTAGE: 


11 

3.9 


NUMBER : 
Falls Church, Virginia 

PERCENTAGE : 


8 

2.9 


NUMBER : 
Arlington, Virginia 

PERCENTAGE : 


14 

5.0 


NUMBER: 
Other Virginia 

PERCENTAGE : 


27 

9.7 


NUMBER: 
All Other 

• PERCENTAGE: 


3 

1.1 


NU^BER : 
TOTAL 

* PERCENTAGE: 


278 

100% 







(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 

-66- 



1516 



FAIRFAX CITY, VIRGINIA ' '' 

Data were obtained from Fairfax City by means of a 
manual search of the Arrest Records (OCR Reports) maintained for 
each arrest. Juvenile data were not available. 

The total number of index offense* arrests made was 155, 
of which 119, 76.8%, were non-residents. Of these, 72, or 
approximately 61% of the non-resident arrests, were from Fairfax 
County, which completely surrounds Fairfax City. 

The offenses with the highest rates of non-resident 
arrests were murder, robbery, and burglary, all with 100% of 
the arrests non-residents. The second highest was larceny with 
66 of the 77 arrests, 85.8%, non-residents. The greatest number 
of non-resident arrests were also for larceny. 

The offense with the lowest rate of non-resident arrests 
was assault, with 62% of the arrests non-residents. 

Of the 28 narcotics arrests, 82.1% were non-residents, 
12 of vhom were Fairfax County residents. 



* Includes both simple and aggravated assaults and larcenies 
over and under $50.00. 



■67- 



1517 



■H >, 

C ^ 

■H C 

CT>0 

ki 

■H m 

> -P 

m 

- 4) 
>-, kl CM 

U ^ 

U 
X -iJ 

m 







o 

rt o 
(N 


o 
rt o 

IN 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 

1 


1 
1 

1 


o 

•H O 
CM 


1 
1 
1 


o 

IN O 


1 
1 


00 

o 
in o 




£3 




GO 

1*1 m 


oo 


p-i 

*T IT) 


1 
1 

1 


•-H i— 1 






ro 


o 
r- o 

r- rH 


to 

0) 


>- 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


O 
ro o 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 




ro 

IN ro 
ro 


o 
• \D o 

rH 


in 

c 

IM 

O 
X 

HI 


> 

a: 
u 

CQ 
CQ 
O 
CC 


1 
1 


r 

1 
1 




1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 




PO 

rH ro 

m 


1 
1 
1 


* 

o 
ro o 


c 

M 


i 

< 


O 
TT 00 


in 

•H •— 1 


1^ 

n ■a- 


•>T CO 

IN ro 


1 

1 

1 


1 
1 
1 


ro 

•<T If) 


rH 

I^ rH 

rH 


1 
1 


a" 

o 

ro o 

VO rH 




u 

1 


1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 

1 




PC 

u 

Q 


1 
1 

1 


1 

1 
1 


1 

■ 1 

1 


O 

^ 3- 


1 
1 


1 
1 

1 


I 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 

1 


* 
o 

rH O 

rH 




(V 
4J 

tn 
<u 
u 
u 

< 

to 

c 


tn 
M 
0) 
0. 

<4-l 


I» 

(U 


c 

0) 

■o 

-H 

tn 

0) 

o: 

—i 




i i 

0. 


a: CO 
u o 

u 

D. 


CQ < 

= g 

IX 

u 


a. u 
to < 

D Z 
Z f>] 

o 

K 

a 

0. 


M (J) 

£ S 

w 

td 
0. 


« tl) 

i g 


't3 

u 

CS Z 

tg Ui 

Z 0. 


It) u 

D W 
Z 0* 


.. g 

CC z 

w u 

CQ U 

z a 

Z 0. 










■H 

c 
>^ 

> 

■P 

u 

X 

Id 

U-l 

u 

• H 
10 


-H 

3 



u 

u-l 


■P 


■H 
l4 
4J 

in 

-H 

Q 


T3 

C 

IS 


(T3 
■H 

c 

•H 

CP 

■H 

> 

jj 

c 

3 


u 

X 

10 
1^ 

V4 
• H 

10 
6. 


10 

■H 

c 

■H 
CP 
>.l 
-H 
> 

10 

•r-l 

u 
■o 

c 

10 
X 

ID 

< 


10 

-H 

c 

-H 
D^ 
l-l 
■H 
> 

x: 



i-i 

3 
O 
in 

rH 

10 


03 

-H 

C 

-rH 

CT 
^^ 

•H 

> 

c 


•p 
tp 

c 

-H 

f-l 
u 

< 


10 
-H 

c 

-H 

•H 
> 

U 
111 
£ 
•P 

O 









■ 


so 




ro 


r- 




rsi 


X 


in 


\IT> 


in 


V£> 


rH 


rH 


ro 


rH 


in 


in 


iii 


JJ 


4J 


4J 


in 


c 


C 


m 


Ql 


01 


IH -D T3 


IH 


■H 


•H 


< 


tn 


in 




m 


HI 


X q: q: 


u 




1 


T3 




c 


C 







HH 




2 






' 


H 




r« 








■S 


. 


3 


en 


v> 


4J 




•H 


•-• 


3 • 


11 


(0 o 


3 


w in 




w </> 


M 


(d 




u 




t3 0) 


^ 


(U TJ 




-P C 


O 


(0 3 




> 


« 


(TJ 73 


^ 


^H C 


» 


CP (0 




Cn 




m M 


o 


(U 


o 


tJ > 


CO 


C 


o 


m 




•■ 


i. 


HI >, 




rH C 




a 01 




e o 




■H U 




m 10 




rH 




£ 




4J rH 




rH 




ja 10 




tn to 




01 01 




■0 -o 




3 3 




rH i-i 




o 




c c 



E- 
O 
2 



-6 8- 



1518 



Residences of Persons Arrested for Narcotics Offenses 

Fairfax City 
Adults Only 
1972 



- 


NARCOTICS 


Fairfax City 


NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 


5 
17.9 


District of Colvunbia 


NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 


3 

10.7 


Maryland 


Nt/fJBKR: 
PERCENTAGE : 


2 

7.1 


Fairfax County 


NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE: 


12 
42.8 


Alexandria, Virginia 


NJMBER: 
PERCENi'AGE: 



0.0 


Falls Church, Virginia 


NU.IBER: 
PERCT="N"AGE : 



0.0 




Arlington, Virginia 


NW. BER : 
PERCEInITAGE : 


1 

3.6 


Other Virginia 


NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE: 


4 
14.3 


All Other 


NUMBER: 
PERCENT. vGE: 


1 
3.6 




TOTAL 


NUM:5ER : 
* PERCENTAGE: 


28 
100% 


1 





(*Does not always total 100% due to roundinq) 

-69- 



1519 



FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 

Data were obtained from Falls Church by means of a manual 
search of the Arrest Book for 19 72. Juvenile arrests are not 
included. 

Falls Church recorded 128 index offense arrests*, of 
which 58, 45.3%, were of non-residents. Of these, 31, approxi- 
mately 53%, were residents of Arlington, with which Falls 
Church shares a common border. 

The offense with the highest rate of non-resident arrests 
was larceny, 54.7%. Larceny also accounted for the greatest 
nxomber of non-resident arrests. 

The offense with the lowest rate was robbery, the one 
arrest, a Falls Church resident. 

Narcotics arrests totalled 19, 26.4% of which were non- 
residents. The largest number of non-resident narcotic arrests 
were from Virginia jurisdictions other than Arlington, Alexandria, 
and Fairfax. 



Includes both simple and aggravated assaults and larcenies 
over and under $50.00. 



-70- 



1520 






D>C 


HO 


•H 




> 


in 




4J 


•• 


n 


£ 


0) 





t< <N 


H 


U r- 


O <0\ 


£ 


i-t 


o 


4J 




-H 


in 


3 


rH 


T5 


i-H 


< 


10 




[l. 








3 

s: 
u 



CO 



c 

10 

>l 

Id 

10 






■V 

c 

10 
X 

01 






C 



1-1 
< 



c 

3 
O 

u 

(0 
10 c 

—1 U 
CO H 
b< > 



(7> 

Id 



V4 



JZ 





DP 


DP 




r~ 


m 




V 


in 




m 


^ 




^"^ 


oo 


o 


CD 


(N 


p^ 


in 


^H 






in 


in 


in 


4J 


■p 


■u 


en 


c 


c 


CD 


OJ 


Q) 


u 


T3 T3 


u 


■H 


■H 


< 


in 


in 




11) 


ai 


X 


a « 


u 




1 


n 




c 


c 







M 




2 



O 


3 


• 




CO 


o 


-3 


in 


in 


-o 


in 


i/> 


H 


« 




o 




u 




■o 


0) 


^ 


(1) -o 


a 




§ 




> 




9 


10 "O 


S" 


u 


c 


» 


o 


m 




CP 






10 


u 


O 




01 




■o 


> 


<a 


c 





« 


10 












ID 


>. 




iH 


c 




a 0) 




F 







•H 


u 




in 


10 




x: 






4-1 


^ 







rH 




JO 


10 




in 


in 




0) 


01 




XI T3 




3 


3 




.— 1 


rH 












c 


c 



-71- 



1.321 



Residences of Persons Arrested for Narcotics Offenses 

Falls, Church, Virginia 
Adults Onlv 
1972 





NARCOTICS 


l^rUMBER : 
Falls Church, Virginia 

PERCENTAGE : 


14 
73.6 


• ■ NUMBER: 
District of Columbia 

PERCENTAGE : 



0.0 


NUMBER: 
Maryland 

PERCENT.'.GE: 




0.0 


NUMiiER: 
Alexandria, Virginia 

PERCEN'i'AGE: 




0.0 


NU.'4.5ER: 
Arlington, Virginia 

PERCENTAGE: 




0.0 


NUMBER : 
Fairfax County 

PERCENTAGE : 


1 

5.3 


NUMBER: 
Other Virginia 

PERCENTAGE : 


4 
21.0 


NTiyjER: 
All Other 

PERCEN-^AGE: 


n 
0.0 


NtjMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 




NUi-IBER : 
TOTAL 

♦PERCENTAGE: 


19 

100% 




, 



(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 



1522 



LOUDOUN COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Data were obtained from Loudoun County by means of a 
manual search of the event oriented arrest card file to deter- 
mine the type of crime and the defendant file to determine the 
residence of the person arrested. Juvenile records were not 
available . 

There were 121 index offense arrests* recorded. Of these, 
32, 26.4%, were non-residents. The highest number, 12, of 
non-residents were from Fairfax County. This made up approxi- 
mately 37% of the non-resident arrests. 

The offense with the highest rate of non-resident arrests 
was robbery, 100% of which arrests were non-residents. The 
greatest number of non-resident arrests were for assault, for 
which 16 non-residents were arrested. 

Murder showed the lowest rate of non-resident arrest, 
all arrests for which were Loudoun County residents. 

There were 25 narcotics arrests, 13 of which, 52%, were 
non-residents. Five of these were of Fairfax County residents. 



* Includes both simple and aggravated assaults and larcenies 
over and under $50.00. 



•73- 



4 



1523 



H U 

^ X 
< H 



0) 

c 



c 

•H >, 
Oi« 
1-1 c 

■H O 

> 

- 4J 
>1 0) (N 

4J <U r- 

C U ON 

a u ■-< 
o < 
u 

4J 
C rH 
3 3 

O "O 
■o < 

3 

o 






T3 
(U 
4J 
in 
01 

< 



c 
o 
in 
u 
V 



in 

01 

o 

c 
1> 

in 
a: 



o 

o 
o 



OP 

o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 

C4 



00 

o 



00 


OP 


>c 


^ 


PO 


NO 


r- 


IN 


\ 


\ 


r-l ON 


CM 


<N 00 


m 


iH 




10 in 


in 


jj jJ 


■p 


in c 


c 


0) 0) 


0) 


l-i "D 


-o 


l-l 'H 


•H 


< 0) 


in 


0) 


n 


X EC 


X 


(U 


1 


Tl 


c 


C 





»H 


z 



c 

3 


u 

c 

3 
O 

-a 

3 
O 



o 
u 



o 

-H 

•p 
in 

■H 

Q 



C 






V4 



c 

3 

o 
u 

X 

10 



ro 



73 

C 
« 
X 

01 



CP 



o 

3 

r. 



10 



u 



c 
o 

4J 
CP 

c 



u 

< 



CP 

l-l 



4J 

o 



3 


. 


10 


3 


in 


n 


in <n- 


10 






l-l 


-a 


OJ 


0) -o 


JJ 


c 


10 


3 


> 




10 t) 


^ 


C 


CP 10 


a> 




(0 


u 




0> 


73 


> 


C 





10 






^ 


01 


>, 


l-l 


c 


a w 


f= 


o 


-H 


M 


in 


(8 




>H 


XI 




jj 


.H 





i-H 


ja 


10 


in 


in 


01 


o; 


73 73 


3 


3 


rH 


^ 


CJ 


O 


c 


c 



W •"! fN 

O 



-74- 



1524 



Residences of Persons Arrested for Narcotics Offenses 
Loudoun County, Virginia 
Adults Only 
1972 



Loudoun County, Virginia 



NUMBER: 



PERCENTAGE ; 



District of Columbia 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



Maryland 



NUMBER: 
PERCENTAGE : 



Fairfax County, Virginia 



NUMiER: 



PERCENTAGE : 



Alexandria, Virginia 



NUMBER; 
PERCEN1AGE: 



Falls Church, Virginia 



NUMBER: 



PERCENTAGE : 



NARCOTICS 



12 
48.0 



1 

4.0 



1 
4.0 



5 

20.0 



0.0 



1 
4.0 



Arlington, Virginia 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



0.0 



Other Virginia 



NUMBER : 
PERCENTAGE : 



ALL OTHER 



NUMBER; 
PERCENTAGE ; 



2 

8.0 



3 
12.0 



TOTAL 



NUMBER: 
* PERCENTAGE: 



25 
100% 



(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 

-75- 



1525 



PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Data were obtained from Prince William County by a manual 
search of the Arrest Reports (CCR Reports). Juvenile data 
were not available. 

There were 470 index offense arrests* recorded. Of these, 
55, 11.7% were non-residents. The largest group of non- 
resident arrests, 16, were of persons from jurisdictions outside 
the metropolitan area. Of jurisdictions within the area, 
Fairfax County residents made up the highest proportion of 
non-resident arrests, 13 or approximately 24%. 

The offense with the highest rate of non-resident arrests 
was robbery, for which 60% of the arrests were non-residents. 
The largest number of non-resident arrests, 18, were for larceny. 

The lowest non-resident arrest rate was for murder, all 
of which arrests were of Prince William County residents. 

There were 79 narcotics arrests, 11, 13.9%, of which were 
of non-residents. The largest number of these were from outside 
the metropolitan area. Of jurisdictions within the area, 
Fairfax County residents made up the largest number of non- 
residents arrested for narcotics offenses. 



Includes both simple and aggravated assaults and larcenies 
over and under $50.00. 



-76- 



1526 



0> 
M 
•H >, 

> r-t 

c 
~o 

3 U 



U as 



^ 4J 

< 
01 

o 

c 





5 uj 


o 


1 


1 


1 


ro 


1 


1 


n 




m 




O 






OS v/1 


1 


1 


1 


>H CO 


1 


1 


fH 00 


^ 


CO 


(N 


O 






< P 


r- 


1 




1 




1 










i-t 


i-t 






z 


r" 


r- 




CT> 


in 






CM 




(T> 




O 






r. u 


r* vo 


i-H 


1 


V rg 


fM ^ 


1 


1 


r* in 


•<T 


• 


in 


O 






p_ 


^ CO 




1 
1 






1 
1 


1 
1 






rg 


«-4 


i—t 






1 


rsi 


t 


1 


CM 


1 


1 


T 


^ 




CO 




<*P 

o 








o f^ 


1 


1 


in fN 


1 


1 


^ rg 


rH rg 


^ 


OS 


^ 


o 






^ 


ro p^ 


1 


1 


^ 


1 


1 










^ 


^ 




« 


^ 




























9 

































^ 


O 


O 


m 


*n 


r- 


r~ 












dP 




1 


GC 




• 


• 


• 


* 




1 


1 




1 




O 




u- 


U 


VO O 


rt o 


fN m 


fN ro 


^ so 


^ so 


1 


1 




1 


in 


o 




O 




^ 


tN 


i-i 


" 






1 


1 




1 


rH 






» 






























c 


:i 




























H- 


^ 


m 


^ 


^ 


CO 


■^ 






00 




OS 




dP 






ss 


.-1 lA 


rH 


.-1 


rs) 


f-H 


1 


1 


• 

<N 


in 


f-t 


ro 


O 
O 






^ 












1 

r 


1 
1 








in 


^ 






u 






























•< 






























u 




1 
1 
1 


1 
1 


1 
1 

1 


1 

1 
1 


1 

1 
1 


1 
1 

1 


1 

1 
1 


<NI 


SO 
CO 


c^ 


dP 

O 

o 

1-4 






a 




























u 






























Q 


o 




























r> 
























OP 






A 


r~- o 
o 


1 
1 

1 


1 
1 
1 


1 H 


1 
1 

r 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
1 




1 
1 
1 


r^ 


O 
O 








ec bi 


a u 


ee u 


K U 


a u 


« .1: 


K U 


u 




u 




u 

< 

s 






Ed O 


u u 


u o 


W O 


u u 


u o 


U Q 


•i 




^ 








s g 


g * 


s g 


§ g 


CD < 


5 g 


s ? 






cc 

u 

CQ 






T) 




S z 

OS 


z> z 

z w 

u 


3 z 
z w 


3 Z 

Z U 


2 g 


13 Z 

T. U 
U 


a. z 

a> u 
s a, 


0£ 
U 


s 
^ 






4J 


u 
a. 




u 

04 


0. 


0. 


0, 


U 

a. 


i S 


i 




3 

z 


u 

0. 






to 

0) 
























« 


































u 






























u 








n) 






















< 


^ 






• H 

c 




fO 


















0) 


>s 






■H 




■H 


















c 


•u 


(0 




01 


n 


c 





















c 


■■H 




u 


■H 


■H 


TJ 
















in 


3 


^ 




■r^ 


c 


CP 


■H 
















u 





^ 




> 


■H 


v^ 


C 
















Q) 


u 


3 






tr 


•H 


•H 
















a. 




o 




>, 


k4 

-H 


> 


ff 


ID 














U-l 


(Q 


o 




4J 


> 


.. 


•H 


•H 

















• H 


<w 




§ 




o 


> 


c 

-H 








1-3 






Ul 


#H 










(0 


i4 


k 


D> 








g 






(U 


•H 






u 


■H 


3 


c 


l-i 












o 


3 >0 


4J 


73 




^ 


£ 





■H 














c 


•t-* 





C 


X 


•o 


u 


•p 


> 














4) 


(U c 


-H 


<T3 


UJ 


§ 




en 
















•a 


O H 


v^ 


f-t 


iw 


m 


c 


^ 




U 










•H 


c cr 


4J 


t: 


)-i 


X 


rH 


-H 


(U 




X 








U) 


'H kl 


03 


-H 


ID 


^ 


•-t 


£ 




H 










<u 


M -H 


-H 


(0 


IT) 


>— I 


10 


^ 


4J 




o 










a: 


. »• > 


D 


E 


b. 


< 


u. 


< 


O 

1 




:3 











dp 


ao 




n 


r* 




CO 


.-t 




CO 


rH 




w 


o in 


in 


r-- ^ 


in 


V 


V 




in 


<n 


in 


■p 


jj 


■4J 


in 


c 


c 


D 


01 


0) 


M -O 73 


^ 


■H 


■H 


< 


in 


in 




HI 


01 


X « 


a 


01 




1 


T3 




c 


C 







M 




z 



3 


in 




U 


4-1 






rH 




w 


3 


• 


• 


m o 




in 


in 




in 


in- 


S 


rs 




o 




ui 


'* 


■o 


« 


"m 


01 -o 


u 


•p 


c 




> 


3 




UJ T3 




IH 

OS 


§ 


« 


OS 




44 


nj 


U 


o 




<u 




•0 


> 




c 





o 


Itl 


















(U 


>. 




f-H 


c 




a v 




E 







-H 


IH 




in 


10 




£ 






4J 


rH 







t-i 




i: 


10 




10 


in 




41 


(U 




•O Tl 




3 


3 




rH 


rH 







o 




c 


c 



■77- 



1527 



Residences of Persons Axrested for Narcotics Offenses 
Prince William County 
Adults Only 

1972 ■ ■ ' '•• 



• 


NARCOTICS 






NUMBER: 
Prince William County 

PERCENTAGE : 


68 
86.1 


NUjMBER : 
District of Columbia 

PERCENTAGE : 




0.0 ■ - 


1 NUMBER: 
Maryland 

percent; GE : 




0.0 


NUI4BER: 
Fairfax County 

PERCEN^'V.GE: 


3 
3.8 


NUMi KR : 
Alexandria, Virginia 

PERCENTAGE : 





NUMBER: 
Falls Church, Virginia 

PERCENTAGE : 




0.0 


NUMBER: 
Arlington, Virginia 

PERCENTAGE : 


1 

1.2 


NTiM'iER: 
Other Virginia 

PERCENTAGE: 




0.0 


NUilBER: 
All Other 

• PERCENTAGE: 


7 

8.9 


NUIxBER : 
TOTAL 

* PERCENTAGE : 


79 

100% 







(*Does not always total 100% due to rounding) 

-78- 



1528 



IX. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 



TITLE 



AUTHOR, AGENCY, AND 
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 



City and Suburban Crime 
Interaction 



Crime in the Nation's Capital: 
Hearings Before the Committee 
on the District of Columbia; 
U. S. Senate; Ninety-First 
Congress. On Implementation 
of the Recommendations of 
the President's Commission 
on Crime and Regional Aspects 
of the Crime Problem. 

Crime in the Nation's Capital; 
Hearings Before the Committee 
on the District of Columbia; 
U. S. Senate; Ninety-First 
Congress. On the Regional 
Aspects of Crime. 

Crime in the United States 



Final Report on the Metro- - 
politan Washington, D. C. 
Crime Conference. September 
13 and 14, 1971. 



The Government of Montgomery 
County, Maryland. The Brookings 
Institution, 1941. Chapter VIII: 
Law Enforcement. 

Interjurisdictional Crime in 
the Washington Metropolitan 
Area: A Preliminary Report 
on the Maryland Suburban 
Jurisdictions . 

The Mobility of Offenders 

in the Washington Metropolitan 

Area. 

1 



Law Enforcement Assistance 
Administration, September, 
1971. 

Government Printing Office, 
March 11, and 12, 1969. 



Government Printing Office, 
January 20 and February 3, 
1970. 



Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Annually. 

Office of Criminal 
Justice Plans and 
Analysis. Government 
of the District of Columbia. 
1329 E Street, N. W. 
Washington, D. C. 

The Brookings Institution 
Washington, D. C, 1941. 



Department of Public Safety 
Metropolitan Washington 
Council of Governments. 
Washington, D. C, 
February 8, 1973. 

Office of Crime Analysis 
Government of the District 
of Columbia, 1971. 



-79- 



i:y29 



TITLE 



AUTHOR, AGENCY, AND 
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 



Preliminary Study of Citizen 
Opinion Within the Beltway: 
A Study of Citizens' 
Reaction to Crime in the 
District of Columbia and 
Adjacent Suburbs. 

Report on Interjurisdictional 
Crime Trends in the Washington 
Metropolitan Area. 



Serious Crime in the Metropolitan 
Area: Report and Analysis. 



Special Statistical Survey 
Prepared on Crime in Prince 
George's and Montgomery Counties 
(Region IV) for the Governor's 
Commission on Law Enforcement 
and the Administration of Justice, 



Office of Criminal Justice 
Plans and Analysis. 
Washington, D. C, 19 72. 



Department of Public Safety 
Metropolitan Washington 
Council of Governments, 
May 22, 1972. 

Department of Public Safety 
Metropolitan Washington 
Council of Governments, 
May 25, 1973. 

Department of Public Safety 
Metropolitan Washington 
Council of Governments, 
September, 1971. 



Study of Crime Spillover from 
Washington, D. C. Into 
Prince George's County. 



Supplement to the Region IV 
Crime Survey Evaluating the 
Extent of Armed Robberies 
Committed in the Washington 
Metropolitan Area by the 
Interjurisdictional Offender. 

Uniform Crime Reports 



Office of Public Information 
Prince George's County 
Police Department, 
August 24, 1972. 

Department of Public Safety 
Metropolitan Wa^nington 
Council of Governments, 
October 20, 19 71. 



Local Police Departments, 
Monthly. 



-80- 



52-587 O - 75 - pt.2 - 28 



ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1975 

Housp: of Repri-^sentatives, 
Committee ox the District of Columbia, 

Washington^ D.C. 

The committoo met. puisiiant to recess, at 9 :05 a.m., in room 1310, 
LonfTwoith House Office Building, Hon. Charles C. Diggs, Jr. (chair- 
nuiii) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Diggs. Mann, Delegate Faimtroy, and 
Representatives Harris and Gude. 

Also present : James T. Clark, legislative counsel; Chris Xolde. Ju- 
diciary Subcommittee counsel ; and James Christian, deputy minority 
counsel. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Today and tomorrow the Committee will receive testimony from 
those Federal, State, and local officials most clearly involved in the 
criminal justice system, the prosecutors, and the administrators, and 
enforcers of our legal system, and the private attorneys, and bar asso- 
ciations as well. 

They can only be effective, and as efficient, as protective of us all, as 
we are willing to support them and back them up in the accomplish- 
ment of their tasks. 

They are our representatives who are truly, deeply involved in 
behalf of the rest of us. But unless they can be assured of means to co- 
ordinate their efforts, to reflect the will of society that we live in peace 
in every sense of the word, they cannot assure us the security in our 
homes and elsewhere to which we are entitled as free people. 

"We appreciate you gentlemen taking the time to prepare testimony 
and to come before us in a common effort to assess our present laws 
and programs and make improvements and changes where needed. 

We will start with the T^.S. attorneys— Washington. Alexandria, 
and Baltimore: then the local U.S. Marshals, followed by Common- 
wealth's attorney from Virginia and State's attorneys from Maryland. 

Mr. Earl Silbert, U.S. Attorney for D.C, please'come forward. 

STATEMENT OF EARL J. SILBERT. ESQ., U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES R. WORK, 
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE 
ADMINISTRATION. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND DENNIS 
DAYLE. ASSISTANT SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, DRUG ENFORCE- 
MENT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Mr. Sii^ert. With me is Charles Work, Deputy Administrator of 
the Law Enforcement Administration, commonly known as LEAA. 

(1531) 



1532 

To my right, Dennis Dayle. assistant special agent in charge of 
DEA for the District of Columbia. Xo problem is more important to 
us than the problem of crime. 

COURT REFORM AND CRIMIXAL PROCEDURES ACT (1970) 

Since these are the first extensive hearings that the Congress has 
held into the question or concerning the question of crime since the 
exhaustive hearings held by the Congress before the enactment of the 
('ourt Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of the District of Co- 
limibia in 1970, I thought it might be helpful to briefly summarize 
some of the developments that have occurred since that time. 

As you may recall, Mr. Chairman, the Congress was concerned pri- 
marily with two principal aspects of the criminal justice system as it 
then existed particularly so far as the courts were concerned. One was 
the extensive delay that was occurring in the courts between the time 
of arrest, time of indictment, and trial. 

Second, was the apparent incapacity of the then system because of 
a lack of resources that prevented both the prosecution and police, 
and the courts from responding adequately to the increase in crime 
that AVashington was at that time experiencing. 

As a result, court reorganization, court reform took place. Addi- 
tional resources were provided to the courts and to the prosecution 
and to the police. As a result, whereas in 1970 the last year before the 
effective date of the court reform bill, the S3'stem, because of its limited 
resources and notwithstanding the highest peak of crime that the 
District of Columbia had yet experienced, was only able to process 
approximately 2,200 indictments which resulted in about 1.600 con- 
victions. This amount being handled by the criminal justice system in 
1970 had not increased for a period of 20 years. 

CONVICTION RATE 

Following enactment of the court bill in 1970. and its effective date 
in 1971, and pursuant to legislation for an increase in resources, the 
system was able to handle and for the next 4 years handled an average 
of 3,800 indictments being filed with an average of 3,000 convictions 
being obtained. 

Of course, I am addressing myself only to felony cases, Mr. Chair- 
man. I think it is significant that this increase did not occur with a 
corresponding reduction in the quality of the cases. In fact, Mr. Chair- 
man, the rate of conviction went up during the following 4 years, not 
down. 

SignificanMy. as Chief Judge Greene has already testified before 
this committre, there was also a significant reduction that occurred 
during the period that elapsed from the time of arrest to the time of 
trial. 

LEAA FUNDS 

Followinor that and by Congress providing our office with additional 
resources, the U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia, we 
too were able to make improvements in the operation of our system 
that in our view have contributed to the benefit of the citizens of the 



1533 

District of Columbia. AVe -svere able to expand our maior criminal 
divisions, a division of our office which has the principal responsibility 
of identifying and following that identification, investigating, hope- 
fully arresting and convicting those who are the principals behind the 
more organized types of criminal activity in the District of Columbia, 
narcotics, weapons, burglary, fencing, and gambling. 

We were able to expand extensively our fraud unit which is in- 
volved in the investigation of the so-called white collar crime. We 
were also able to complete significant investigations and prosecutions 
in the area of stock fraud, corruption, home improvement, auto re- 
pair, and false advertising. We also became the first prosecutors office 
to automate, to provide the prosecution management information 
system which has been of great benefit to our office. 

Mr. Work is the person primarily responsible for the installation 
of that system in our office, a system, which has permitted us to try 
to identify problems of crimes, serious offenders and offenses, informa- 
tion that helps us know more about what is going on in the criminal 
justice system so that we can identify problems that require 
improvement. 

Mr. Work was instrumental in another improvement that has 
occurred, the development of a training program for both new 
assistants entering the office and the more experienced assistaiits. 

We have a training program second to none in the countiy. Train- 
ing manuals from our office have been distributed to all the U.S. 
attorney offices throughout the country and have been requested by 
a number of local and State prosecutors. 

We have set up a section that we call special litigation major 
violators for the purpose of concentrating on the more serious offenses 
and offenders. Both of these sections have hopefully resulted on our 
ability to identify and give more particular attention to these offenders 
who are repeaters in the system. 

Certainly it is beneficial and its effects have been demonstrated in 
our misdemeanor section where convictions on these cases are higher 
than in other misdemeanor cases. I am talking about a heavy volume, 
approximately 3,500 to 4,000 indictments a year and over 8.000 mis- 
demeanors. At the same time our office has experimented with and de- 
veloped a number of diversion programs for first offenders, particu- 
larly those involved in nonviolent crime — certain drug offenses, shop- 
lifting, and other offenses. 

People come into the criminal justice system for the first time, those 
persons who in our judgment would benefit more from a diversion 
program designed to try and preclude a repetition of the conduct 
that brought them in as opposed to the necessity of processing them 
through the criminal justice system with all that that entails. 

As a result o,f the court reorganization and improvements made 
by the police and the prosecutors, the District of Columbia witnessed 
a significant decrease in crime following the Court Reorganization 
Act, a decrease that occurred or progressed until 1974. 

Then crime began to increase in 1974, and further increased in the 
early part of 1975. In the last 2 months, statistics show a decrease 
from the corresponding figures of a year ago, a decrease that obviously 
all of us hope will continue. 



1534 

Nevertheless, the question is being raised by all, the public, your 
committee, those of us directly involved in the criminal justice system, 
what should be done about the increase in crime. 

RECIDIVISTS 

As recently explained in an article in the Washington Star by 
James Q. Wilson, a professor in government at Harvard University, 
we must, as he said, recognize that most serious crime is committed 
by repeaters. While I do not myself necessarily agree with Professor 
Wilson that there are no root causes of crime, I fully agree with him 
it is essential to devote more time and resources of the prosecutors, 
courts and correctional agencies to identifying and incapacitating 
these hardcore repeaters, a group Professor AVilson labeled from an 
earlier study as the G percent. 

Thus, police and prosecutors must properly obtain sufficient evi- 
dence to arrest and convict. The courts must impose substantial prison 
sentences on these hardcore repeaters. The Department of Corrections 
must confine them and not release them prematurely and the board 
o.f parole must deny parole until convinced the repeater will no longer 
be a threat to the conmiunity. 

FRAGMENTED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 

I would like to turn to the major obstacles to obtaining what would 
appear to be a not too difficult goal. The major obstacle is that the 
criminal justice system is inherently and intolerably inefficient. This 
is because it is so terribly fragmented. 

It consists of a large number of different agencies and institutions, 
virtually all extremely jealous of their own prerogatives, deeply 
divided among themselves, a number operating at cross purposes with 
one another, some representing different branches of government, 
some Federal, some local. 

In the small geographic area of the District, we have the Metro- 
politan Police Department, the Park Police, the Capitol Police, 
the U.S. marshals and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Drug 
Enforcement Agency, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. We have 59 trial judges and 3 mag- 
istrates, many of them with demonstrably different philosophies, sen- 
tencing practices and so on. 

We have two probation officers that work for the Federal court 
and for the local court. Wo have parole officers employed by the 
District of Columbia Board of Parole but they work for the District 
of Columbia Department of Corrections. 

PAROLE 

Many of the halfway houses available for prison release are not 
under tlic control of the Department of Corrections. 

While in recent years there has been im])rovement. it has been my 
experience that the coordination and connnunication among these 
agencies remains woefully inadequate. 



1535 

To cite as an example in my testimony, ■which consisted of an 
opinion of a trial judur of the Siipci'ior Court (Hon. James A. Bil- 
son) wlio stated tilt' problem in this way: 

It is my practice as a judge to impose a low minimum sentence on an offender. 
The purpose for my giving a low minimum sentence is so that the parole board 
may have maximum flexihility in making its determination as to whether the 
prisoner will he hest suited, most eligOtle for parole. However, I am confronted 
with testimony from the parole hoard in whicli they appear to have stated tiiat 
they consider a prisoner presumptively eligible for parole at the exi)iration of the 
minimum sentence I impose, no matter how low my minimum may be. 

The si<xniticance of that is not whether the judge or the parole 
board is (^orret-t. The siirnificance to us is that here were the parole 
board and the jud^e. not intentionally, not knowingly or with delib- 
eration but unintentionally going off in entirely different directions, 
wholly inconsistent with one another, with the public the sole loser. 

COORDINATING CRIMINAL JUSTICE EFFORTS 

There are other exam]iles of the lack of coordination in the system. 
For example, several months ago I called together a meeting of the 
investigative law enforcement agencies in the District of Cohunbia — 
the chief of police, the head of the Wa.shington field office of the FBI, 
and so on. the major law enforcement officers in the District of 
Columbia. 

That was the first time such a meeting had ever been held in the 
District of Columbia. The purpose was twofold: One, to permit those 
involved as the heads and chiefs to get to know one another person- 
ally, and. secondly, so that we could discuss and identify common 
mutual problems. 

BENCH WARRANTS 

Indeed one of those problems that we did identify at the initial 
meeting — and they aiT now being held regularly — was one that has 
come to the attention of this committee and that is the large number 
of outstanding warrants for arrest, particularly bench warrants for 
arrest of fugitives in felony cases. 

The manpower shortage at the U.S. marshal's office has curtailed 
its capacity to cope with a large number of these warrants and they 
were not being executed. 

As a result of the meetings that T held and with the tremendous 
coopei-ation of both the FBI and the Metropolitan Police Department 
and Chief Cullinane. we initiated a concerted effort with respect to 
the apprehension of those fuiritives. the effort has had success but 
which also has a long, long way to go. 

Also on April 20 under the auspices of the Council of Governments, 
a meetinof was held in my office of all area prosecutors, both State 
and local, includins: two of the witnesses scheduled to be here before 
you today. .Tervis Finnev. U.S. attorney for the District of Marvland 
and ^Tr. Cummings. U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of 
Virginia. 

At the meetinsf it was aereed that information relatin.<r to offenses 
and offenders of multijnrisdictional concern would be sent to our 
office, collated and from there sent to offices of area prosecutors. 



1536 



YOUTH CORRECTION'S ACT 



Other meetings I have held have demonstrated the need to improve 
our coordination and communications. For example, in the meeting 
with the members of the Department of Corrections, I learned from 
them that with respect to those who had been committed for a study 
and evaluation to determine their eligibility or their suitability for 
sentencing under the Youth Corrections Act, it was brought to my at- 
tention that the studies were being conducted without any information 
being provided to those conducting the study concerning the facts and 
circumstances of the crimes for which these persons had just been 
convicted. 

As I indicated in my statement, one could verj' well wonder, sir, how 
such a study and evaluation could be conducted without access to that 
kind of information. Nevertheless, for years the studies were being con- 
ducted and reports and evaluations being sent to the courts. We have 
tried to remedy that situation by providing the youth study people 
and officials with that information. 

Until they told us that they were not getting the information, we 
were not providing it to them. 

Similarly, the Department of Corrections people told us that under 
the Youth Corrections Act, there is a provision — 5010(c) of title 18 of 
the United States Code — under which a person in need of longer treat- 
ment under the Youth Corrections Act can be sentenced to a longer 
than the ordinary sentence under the Youth Corrections Act. 

The typical sentence provides for a maximum of 6 years' treatment 
under 5010 (b). Section 5010(c) provides for a longer treatment and 
in the Federal system the resources for that treatment are available. 

The Department of Corrections people have advised us that they 
don't have the facilities and resources for that more extensive treat- 
ment and therefore though a judge may impose a sentence under 5010- 
(c) for that longer treatment, they are treated as anyone sentenced 
under 5010(b). 

The practical result of that is everyone is released within a period of 
1 year from the time he is sent for that treatment. This can be confus- 
ing to the public because insofar as a judge imposes a sentence for an 
armed robbery or a murder or a rape for 15 years, the public believes 
that the person Avill receive the more extensive treatment that he needs. 

Xevertheless, in fact, the reality is he is not receiving the more ex- 
tensive treatment. He is being treated like anyone else and being re- 
leased within not more than 1 year. 

RECIDIVISTS 

Our experience with the hard core repeaters to whom I have referred 
is that many of them are on parole or probation. In the Court Reform 
Act of 1970, the Congress enacted a provision that permits a person 
who is charged with a new offense who is on parole or probation to be 
~held for a period of 5 days in order to give the parole and probation 
authorities an opportunity to examine the case and determine whether, 
based on the facts surrounding the new arrest, the probation or parole 
should be revoked. 



1537 

To make this operate rcauires coordination among the police but 
particularly our office and the Board of Parole. We have had a great 
deal of coordination ajid comnnmication to an extent unheard of o 
3'ears ago. Bj- and large with respect to this 5-day-hold provision and 
the Board of Parole, I would sav the system is working reasonably 
well. 

PROBATION 

With respect to the Probation Department, because of the enormous 
size of the Probation Depai-tment of the Superior Court particularly, 
because of the different philosophies of the judges and the need to co- 
ordinate that many more people, the system has not been working well. 

Recently. I have held meetings with the personnel from the Proba- 
tion Department and as difficult as it is, we are going to make another 
effort to see if we can make that 5-day-hold provision in appropriate 
cases a more effective remedy for the protection of the citizens of the 
District of Columbia. 

ARRESTS INCREASE 

I think it also should be noted that as the police improve and become 
more professional, the number of arrests have been going up. Our 
office screens cases brought to us by the police. 

We review tliem ver}' carefully to determine whether in our view a 
charge should be filed, whether the cases have merit. In the years fol- 
lowing court reorganization, the rate of our screening was that w^e 
were dropping right at the start between 20 and 30 percent of all cases 
brought to us by the Police Department. 

The Police Department took this very seriously. They have reviewed 
our jackets in which we dropped cases so that they could determine the 
reasons why the cases w^ere dropped and also try to improve so that the 
same mistakes, if there were mistakes, would not be repeated. 

Our most recent experience is that they have learned : they have im- 
proved : and they are bringing us better cases. As a result, our no- 
paper rate has fallen from between 20 and 30 percent to 15 percent. 

What this means is an increase in the number of cases that we bring 
into the system. Similarly, as we have improved, as we have become 
more professional, as we have been able to devote more resources 
particularly at the initial stages, the preindictment stages to investi- 
gate and prepare the case more thoroughly, we are finding the number 
of our indictments are increasing. 

The significance of this is — this has been a matter of discussion be- 
tween Chief Judge Greene and myself for some time now — we are 
getting concerned about the present capacity of the resources in the 
District of Columbia to handle the increased caseload. 

In fact, the increase may be too much for the Superior Court to 
handle with its present number of judges and for our office to handle 
with its present complement of attorneys. 

Despite the dedicated effort of Chief Judge Greene and most of the 
Superior Court judges, the Superior Court may be overtaxed already. 
For example, with the understandable priority given by Judge Greene 
to felonv and juvenile cases, there have been for several mcmths only 
about 3 "judges actually available to handle the 40 to 70 cases set each 
day for trial. 



1538 



MISDEMEAXOR DISPOSITIONS 



One judge has been handling 75 percent of all misdemeanor disposi- 
tions, placing the majority of those convicted on probation without 
supervision and incarcerating not more than 1 percent. 

As the caseload of each judge grows, and the delavs before trial 
increase, fewer decided to plead guilty, until, if at all, the last minute. 
Defendants over 22 who expect that the worst that can happen to them 
is a 1-year confinement under the Youth Corrections Act have no in- 
centive whatsoever to plead guilty. This contributes to the backlog and 
the delay. 

GUX CONTROL 

Public concern over the rise in crime recently has also focussed on 
the violence and the disturbing rise in the use of handguns. This has 
naturally given rise to the question about what can be done. 

On the Federal level, the subject is presently under intensive study 
by the Attorney General. So far as the District of Columbia itself is 
concerned, apart from the nonmandatory penalty provided for viola- 
tions, the District has strict laAvs on handguns. All handguns under 
the present law must be registered and none can be carried away from 
the home or place of business without a license. 

There are very few licenses in the District of Columbia. The penalty 
for a first violation is up to 1 year in jail. The penalty for a second 
violation of that offense or a person who commits that offense who has 
a prior felonv conviction is up to 10 years in jail. 

This committee has already received some statistics on this subject, 
I understand. The following additional information from a survey 
we completed in our office covering January 1, 1974. through June 30, 
1074, may be informative. 

We chose that particular period because it was the most recent 
period in which we felt that not only would there have been cases ini- 
tiated into the system but a significant proportion of them would have 
been disposed of so we would have more complete information for 
the committee. 

Our policies are very strict with regard to carrying a handgun. 
Our conviction rate is probably the highest. Nevortheloss. during this 
period, 184 persons were prosecuted and convicted of the misdemeanor 
from carrying a dangerous weapon. 

Of these. 168. or 91.3 percent, received a suspended sentence, pro- 
bation, or fine. Only 14, or 7.6 percent, received a jail sentence. Of the 
184 persons indicted, one judge imposed a jail sentence on 1 out of 73, 
l)lacing 37 on unsupervised probation and another 26 on supervised 
probation. 

A total of 76 persons were prosecuted for the felony of carrying 
a pistol without a license: 46 were convicted of felonies. 18 were con- 
victed of misdemeanors. Of the 46 convicted of the felony, 20 received 
a suspended sentence, probation, or fine. Twenty-three Avere sent to 
~jail and throe are nendintr sentence. Of the 18 convicted of misde- 
meanor, 8 received a suspended sentence, probation, or fine. In 
light of this, one has to question whether the stringent handgun laws 
enacted by the Congress and the District prosecution policies of this 
office have a significant deterrent effect on carrying a gun. 



1539 

Mr. Chairman. I was also asked for my views with respect to the 
wisdom, tlie advisability of scttiii^^ up a separate juvenile court. I 
addressed myself to that in my statement. 

JUVENILE OFFENDERS 

Basically thoufjli, our office is not directly involved with juvenile 
cases, we certainly see the results of the prosecutions through the sys- 
tem when we handle some of the graduates of that system as an adult. 

I am opposed to that for two reasons: First of all, if you had a 
separate court, a separate juvenile court with a fixed number of judges, 
it would, in our view, deprive a general court of the flexibility that is 
needed to respond to the needs of that juvenile court. 

For example, under the present system if a backlog is developing in 
the juvenile area, because Judge Greene is in a position where he has 
a number of judges upon whom he can draw, he can assign more 
judges to handle that particular juvenile problem. 

If the need diminisnes, the number of judges that are assigned to 
handle juvenile problems can be diminished. It gives the system a 
greater flexibility for dealing with a problem confronting them. 

judges' assignments 

This same kind of flexibility permits Judge Greene, if he sees a prob- 
lem in felonies, to assign more judges to felony. Having a separate 
court with a fixed number of judges does not give it the kind of 
flexibility that we think is advantageous as the needs increase or 
decrease. 

Second, although the problems confronting or caused by juvenile 
crime are tremendously difficult and the solutions to them are as 
frustrating as any in the criminal justice system, the legal problems 
confronting judges are not complex. 

They are not difficult. In our view, an exclusive assignment to handle 
only juvenile casos for a judge would not be challenging enough from 
a legal point of view to attract an able, experienced, energetic judge 
that we hope would be attracted and appointed to the bench. 

legislative recommendations 

In his prepared statement. Judge Bellson has made a number of 
legislative recommendations. "We endorse and support those that he 
has made relating to the split verdicts, enforcement of subpenas, the 
Interstate Probation and Parole Act and the ability of our system to 
remove from other jurisdictions those wanted in our jurisdiction for 
misdemeanors. The last two particularly merit the speedy attention 
of this committee. 

As we have in recent years quite properly attempted to assure those 
charged with crimes are treated fairly and their constitutional rights 
are protected, we have ignored the victim of the crime. In addition to 
the injury that they have incurred, the impositions by the system are 
virtually intolerable. 

They are interviewed by police, by plainclothes officers, and of course 
the better the system and the more sophisticated the police are in 



1540 

investifjatint; the case, peraps the more often the witnesses will be 
interviewed to determine the facts. 

Thev are interviewed repeatedly by assistant U.S. attorneys in our 
office. They may be asked to go down to police headquarters to look 
at pilot ographs of potential suspects. They will be, if an arrest is 
made, in a case involving identification, asked to come down and attend 
a lineup. 

If the defendant has been released on bail and does not show, they 
may liave to come down to attend a lineup on more than one occasion. 
They will have to attend a preliminary hearing and appear before the 
grand jury. ..." 

If a case is contined it means more than one appearance for trial. 
Economically for people who cannot afford to hire a babysitter or 
people hurt by being away from their job, this is a tremendous hard- 
ship. Snuill wonder it is that many people are reluctant to become 
involved as witnesses to crime, a problem with which we are familiar. 

WITNESSES 

In 1973 we found that of all felony cases that we dropped at the 
initial stage. 40 percent were dropped because of potential witness 
problems. At the preindictment level, for those cases initially charged 
but eventually dropped before indictment, 32 percent were dropped 
because of potential witness problems. 

Even after indictment, of those cases dismissed by the court, 14 
percent were dismissed because of witness problems. In our view, one 
of the many needs of the criminal justice sj'stem is an effort being 
made now — LEAA is taking an active role in this, the Criminal Justice 
Coordinating Board is conducting studies with regard to potential 
witness compensation: to provide more attention to the victims of 
rape and other crimes, and to witnesses. 

]\Ir. Chairman, this completes my statement on behalf of LEAA. 
I would like to submit for the record and have attached to a copy of 
my statement a compilation of LEAA grants in the Washington 
metropolitan area (see p. 1547) . 

It sets forth the dollar amount of and number of LEAA grants 
both block and discretionary within the metropolitan area. 

The Chairman. Without objection, that information will be in- 
cluded in the record along with your complete statement, Mr. Silbert. 

[The statement referred to follows:] 

Statement of Earl J. Silbert, United States Attorney for the 

District of Columbia 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee : I appreciate the opportunity 
to appear before this Committee to testify concerning the problem of crime 
in the Nation's Capital. With me are Charles R. Work, Deputy Administrator for 
Administration of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, and Dennis 
Dayle of the Drug Enforcement Agency. 

No problem is of more immediate and direct concern to those of us who live 
"and work in the District than crime. Moreover, no problem is more frustrating 
and difficult for those whose public responsibility it is to control : police, pros- 
ecution, courts, and corrections. 

COiniT reform and criminal procedure act of 1970 

As Chief Judge Harold Greene of the Superior Court has already testified 
before this Committee, the District of Columbia has made significant improve- 



1541 

ment in the fight against crime since the rate of crime reached its all time peak 
during the period of 1908-1970. Much of this improvement is attributable to 
the enactment by Congress of the District of Columbia Court Reform and Crim- 
inal Procedure Act of 1970. This legislation greatly expanded the resources of 
the courts — through the creation of the Superior Court — and of the United States 
Attorney's Office with the strong support of the Department of Justice — and was 
accompanied by a major increase in the size of the police department. 

CONVICTION KATE 

As a result, whereas in 1970, the last year in which the Federal District Court 
had exclusive felony jurisdiction, only 2,287 felony indictments and informations 
were filed and only 2,201 cases were disposed of with 1,617 convictions, in the 
four years since 1970, an average of 3,816 felony indictments and informations 
have been filed, an average of 3,713 felony cases have been disposed of, with 
an average of 3,008 convictions. This enormous increase in prosecutions has not 
resulted in any decrease in their quality : the rate of conviction in 1970 was 
80 percent ; the rate of conviction during the four years since court reorga- 
nization, 81 percent. Moreover and importantly the average time between ar- 
rest and trial was significantly reduced. 

In addition to this substantial increase in the quantity and speed of criminal 
felony prosecutions while maintaining high quality in the nature of the cases 
prosecuted, several other developments by the United States Attorney's Office 
since court reorganization deserve mention. This office has expanded its major 
crimes and fraud divisions so that each has a scheduled complement of nine 
attorneys. The purpose of the former is to identify, investigate, and prosecute 
in both the federal and local courts principals in the more organized form of 
criminal activity in this city and the surrounding areas; narcotics, gambling, 
guns, burglary and fencing, etc. 

A number of its prosecutions of narcotic wholesalers, together with the treat- 
ment made available for addicts by the Narcotics Treatment Agency, helped 
reduce the quality and quantity of available heroin in the District and conse- 
quently the narcotic addition problem. The fraud division has successfully investi- 
gated and prosecuted a number of major cases in both the federal and local courts 
in such significant areas as home improvement, auto repair, false advertising, 
stock fraud, and corruption. 

The day has long passed when a prosecutor's office can sit back and wait until 
investigative agencies bring in cases ready for arrest and trial. To the contrary, 
though it requires a tremendous comparative investment of resources, particu- 
larly attorney time, this office recognizes that if it is to serve the public interest, 
it must, working with grand juries and the investigative agencies, initiate, orea- 
nize, and direct investigations against principals of organized and white collar 
crimes as well as major street-crime offenders. 

AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROMIS) 

To assist the management of our high volume of eases — nearly 4,000 felonies 
and 8,000 misdemeanors a year — this office was the first of its kind to institute 
an automated information system, a system that other prosecutor offices are be- 
ginning to install. In use for several years in our Superior Court Division, it has 
been revamped and improved this year and we are planning to install it in our 
federal court to more fully integrate our oi>eration. This system — named 
PROMIS (Prosecution Management Information System) — provides a wealth of 
information for statistical and research purposes, for evaluating and identifying 
Important cases and major offenders, and for analysis of areas of need in our 
operation. 

LEAA FUNDS 

We are presently participating in and supporting an exhaustive research pro- 
gram financed by the Law Enforcement A.ssi.stance Administraiton (LEAA) 
which, using data from PROMIS, is conducting an open-ended examination of 
the operations of our office so that we can obtain a more complete and accurate 
picture of what is happening in our operation and the system. 

With the assistance of other grants from LEAA. this offi-e has developed train- 
ing programs for its prosecutors— both new and experienced— that are second 
to none in the nation. Our training manuals have been distributed to all United 
States Attorneys throughout the country and numerous requests are received for 



1542 

them from state and local prosecutors. There is no question but that in all aspects 
of the criminal justice system the public has a ri^ht to demand the highest ^vel 
of professional compctenc... In both our recruitment of new prosecutors and their 

MISDEMEANORS 

Because of the obvious problems necessarily present in the processing of eight 
thousand misdemeanor cases a year, we have instituted and developed two very 
diverse programs. First we have created in our Misdemeanor Trial Section a Spe- 
cial Litigation I nit. With the assistance of information provided by PROMIS its 
principal purpose is to identify and give individual attention to the fifteen or 
twenty percent of the misdemeanor cases which, becau.se of the serious nature of 
the offen.se, the prior criminal record of the defendant (s), or a combination of the 
two, merit more attention. The individual attention these cases have received 
has proved extremely beneficial as demonstrated by the significantly higher 
conviction rate we have obtained in these cases. 

At the other end of the spectrum, we have expanded our diversion programs, 
programs operated either in cooperation with agencies of the Superior Court or 
by our office. These programs are primarily intended for first offenders charged 
with non-violent misdemeanors. In 1973, more than 1,100 misdemeanor prosecu- 
tions were dismissed by our office after the defendant had successfully completed 
a diversionary program. There is presently under way in our office a review of 
these programs, a principal purpose of which is to determine in what ways these 
programs can be improved and expanded. 

DRUGS 

As is well known, the speedier and increased number of prosecutions the Nar- 
cotic Treatment Agency programs for heroin addicts, and the decrease in the 
available supply of heroin, contributed to a significant decrease in crime between 
1970 and 197.3. 1974 and early 1975 have, however, witnessed a reverse of this 
downward trend, not rising to the 1968-1970 levels, but to an extent sufficient to 
cause justifiable concern. Interestingly, however, and hopefully, statistics from 
both April and May show a decrease in crime from a year ago and may be an 
indication that the reverse upward trend is either halted or at least slowing 
down. 

RECIDIVISTS 

Nevertheless, the question is being raised by all — the public, this committee, by 
those of us directly involved in the criminal justice system — what can and should 
be done about the increase in crime? As recently explained in an article in the 
Washington Star by .lames Q. Wilson, a professor of government at Harvard 
University who has studied and written about crime during much of the last 
decade, we must "recognize that most serious crimes are committed by repeaters." 
While I do not necessarily agree with Professor Wilson that there are no "root 
causes" of crime, I fully agree with him that if serious violent crime is to be 
reduced, it is essential, to "devote more of the time and resources of prosecutors, 
courts, and correctional agencies to identifying and incapacitating" these hard- 
core rejieaters — a group Professor Wilson, based on an earlier study, labels the 
"6 percent". 

Thus police and prosecutors must properly obtain sufficient evidence to arrest 
and convict ; the courts must impose substantial prison sentences on these hard- 
core repeat offenders ; the Department of Corrections must confine them and 
not release them prematurely on furlough or to a halfway house; and the Board 
of Parole must deny parole until convinced that the recidivist will no longer 
be dangerous to the community. Because this is much easier reconmiended than 
accomplished. I turn now to what I consider to bo the major obstacle to attain- 
- ing what would superficially appear to be a not too difficult goal. 

FRAGMENTED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 

The major obstacle is that the criminal justice system is inherently and 
intolerably inefficient. It is inefficient because it is so terribly fragmented. The 
system consists of an incredibly large number of different agencies and insti- 
tutions, virtually all extremely jealous of their own prerogatives, many of 



1543 

them deeply divided among themselves, a number operating at cross-purposes 
with one another, some, of course, representing different branches of govern- 
ment, and some federal, some local. In the small geographic area of the District, 
we have the Metropolitan Police Department, the Park Police, the Capitol Police, 
the rnited States Marshals, and a large number of federal law enforcement 
agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Ad- 
ministration, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, and Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearm. There are 59 trial judges (44 local. 15 federal), many with 
demonstrably different philosophies, sentencing practices, etc. There are two 
probation departments that work for the courts, with inevitably strong loyalties 
to their probationers. Parole oflBcers employed by the D.C. Board of Parole 
work for the Department of Corrections. Many of the halfway houses available 
for prison release are not under the control of the Department of Corrections. 

PAROLE 

While in recent years there has been improvement, coordination and communica- 
tion remain woefully inadequate. A classic example of the potential result of 
this, with its expected adverse effect on the criminal justice system, is demon- 
strated by the last section and appendix to the statement of Judge James A. 
Belson submitted to this Committee. The appendix is a memorandum opinion 
of a Sui)erior Court Judge pointing out the conflict between his sentencing 
practice of imposing a low minimum sentence to give the Parole Board maxi- 
mum flexibil