CITY OF MILWAUKEE,
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE,

Milwaukee, Wis., March 29, 1963.

DEAR SIR: As an active member of the legislative body of the Badger State I am distinctly aware of your personal interest in maintaining a crime-free community for your loved ones, friends, associates, and the people you represent.

I am, therefore, directing to you a personal and professional appeal to consider bill 276A very carefully, as in my opinion as a professional police officer for many years and present chief of the Milwaukee Police Department, this bill (276A) would make any law enforcement agency in the State of Wisconsin largely ineffective.

The history of the Badger State has, over a period of many years, reflected that of a well-governed body of people located in a beautiful area of our country with fine tourist facilities, fine industrial facilities, fine sporting facilities, and a good place to have and raise a family.

May I call your attention to the situation now existing in Washington, D.C., U.S.A.? Some years ago (1957) a decision was rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in what was called the Mallory case. In this case the conviction and death sentence of the lower court was reversed solely because a confession was obtained in violation of a Federal rule. The confession was allegedly obtained during a time when the arrested person was unlawfully detained.

This was a particularly vicious rape case. At this time a U.S. district attorney of the District of Columbia stated, "I fear that with decisions of this kind on the books our crime rate is likely to get out of hand."

How right he was!

The whole country is alarmed at the tremendous increase in crime in Washington, D.C. One has only to pick up a Washington newspaper or almost any magazine dealing in current events to be made aware of the problem which many legal minds admit is unsolvable with existing legislation.

The April 1, 1963, U.S. News & World Report carries an article on Washington, D.C., with the Police Chief giving advice to "women in how to be safe in their homes," entitled "First Scream, Then Scram."

Certainly, the emphasis on individual rights which is law and tradition in our country is proper and compatible philosophy originating with our forefathers who pioneered and organized the United States of America. However, should there be overemphasis on the individual rights of the criminal as opposed to the individual rights of the majority of citizens, the basically honest, churchgoing, God-fearing solid citizens of our country?

What have some of our most distinguished jurists said about law enforcement?

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: "At the present time in this country there is more danger that criminals will escape justice than that they will be subjected to tyranny" (Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100 (1904)).

Learned Hand: "Our dangers do not lie in too little tenderness to the accused. Our procedure has always been haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted. It is an unreal dream. What we need to fear is the archaic formalism and the watery sentiment that obstructs, delays, and defeats the prosecution of crime" (United States v. Garsson, 291 Fed. 646 (1923)).

Benjamin N. Cardozo: "The law, as we have seen, is sedulous in maintaining for a defendant charged with crime whatever forms of procedure are of the essence of an opportunity to defend ***. But justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true" (Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934)).

A reproduction of bill 276A is attached with the objectionable portions in italic letters.

Interrogation techniques (not abuse) with resulting confessions and admissions have played a major part in the solution of crimes and conviction of criminals.

In this earnest appeal to you to reject this bill, I respectfully call your attention to section (2) which, from a police point of view, renders law-enforcement officers largely ineffective.

Such things as: Language barriers, inability to read and write, supply of stenographers, and uncooperative persons.

This, coupled with section (4) would render even investigative leads, developed inadmissible and would indeed be a "monster" that could envelope us and ruin our fine State.

We are enclosing an excerpt from the FBI uniform crime reports which is self-explanatory.

We are also enclosing a copy of a brochure developed by us in an effort to gain citizen cooperation which is the lifeblood of any law enforcement agency. Again, legislator, may I earnestly and sincerely-as a father, citizen, professional police officer, and chief-appeal to you. Reject this bill, 276A.

Sincerely and respectfully,

HOWARD O. JOHNSON,
Chief of Police.

P.S.-A special study of crime in the District of Columbia was held at the joint hearing before the District of Columbia committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on the increasingly serious crime situation in the District of Columbia. This has been documented and presented for these committee by the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1963.

STATE OF WISCONSIN

IN ASSEMBLY

No. 276A

February 21, 1963-Introduced by Mr. Nager-Referred to Committee on

Judiciary

A BILL To create 939.75 of the statutes, relating to the rights of those accused or suspected of crime in connection with interrogations and other basic rights

The people of the State of Wisconsin, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

939.75 of the statutes is created to read:

"939.75 PERSONS ACCUSED OR SUSPECTED OF CRIME, RIGHTS OF WHEN IN CUSTODY, (1) Any person suspected of the commission of a crime who is interrogated, taken into custody for the purpose of interrogation, or arrested, shall be informed by the official conducting any interrogation prior to its commencement of the following

"(a) That anything said by the suspect will be taken down and may be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution.

"(b) That the suspect has the immediate right to consult with an attorney of his choice if he so desires.

"(2) The questions and answers thereto given in the proceeding under sub. (1) shall be reduced to writing and signed by the suspect and the official who asked the questions. If the suspect is unable to or refuses to sign the writing, a certified verbatim stenographic report of the proceeding will be considered in compliance with this section.

“(3) When it is ordered by process or otherwise to take a person into custody, the order shall be executed as soon as possible, and where such person is charged with or held for a crime he shall be brought before a magistrate without unnecessary delay.

"(4) Failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall render any statements, admissions, confessions or any other evidence obtained from the suspect's person, property, or residence after such interrogation, taking into custody or arrest, inadmissible in any court of this State."

Mr. WHITENER. Chief Murray, Chief Robert V. Murray, of the Metropolitan Police Department.

Chief, do you prefer to have some of your associates with you? Chief MURRAY. Yes, sir. I would like to have Deputy Layton and Captain Wilson.

Mr. WHITENER. Deputy Layton and Captain Wilson, come around. I take some pride in the fact that Captain Wilson is, maybe not of my constituency, but his origin is my home county. I am very proud of it.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. MURRAY, CHIEF OF METROPOLITAN POLICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY DEPUTY POLICE CHIEF JOHN B. LAYTON AND CAPT. JERRY V. WILSON

Chief MURRAY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have a short statement here that takes up each bill. Would you care to have me read the statement?

Mr. WHITENER. As you prefer, Chief.

Chief MURRAY. All right, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. Would you just like to make the statement a part of the record and summarize it in your own way?

Chief MURRAY. Yes, sir.

(The prepared statement of Chief Murray follows:)

STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. MURRAY, CHIEF OF POLICE REGARDING BILLS TO AL LEVIATE THE CRIME SITUATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

I. Changes in the Mallory rule

I view the enactment of legislation to clarify the intent of Congress as expressed in rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as the paramount need for improvement of law enforcement in this city. As I have reported to the Congress on many occasions, under the hampering affect of the Mallory ruling and corollary decisions, our rate of offense clearance has decreased and the related effectiveness of swift arrest and punishment has been diminished.

It is exceedingly difficult and often impossible under the restrictions imposed by those decisions to obtain convictions of criminals in the many serious cases where neither scientific evidence nor eyewitness identification is available. It is imperative that those encumberances be lessened if we are to fully restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to walk the streets of the District with reasonable safety.

H.R. bill 1930, which is one of the bills now before the committee, has been approved by the House of Representatives during previous sessions and is in line with recommendations of the Law Enforcement Council. I personally favor enactment of H.R. 1930 as the best remedy proposed so far for the problems imposed by the Mallory decision; however, I recognize that the other bills which have been proposed to this committee on that subject are apparently intended to alleviate the Mallory problem while, at the same time, possibly meeting some major objections of the opponents to H.R. 1930. Because of the dire need for early legislative relief in some form, I certainly am not adverse to compromise provisions so long as the value of the change to law enforcement is not thereby impaired.

II. Changes in the Durham rule

The Durham decision, which was handed down in 1954, has, I think, had a detrimental effect on overall law enforcement in this city; however, the provisions of that decision are not directly applicable to police activities and are not encountered in the criminal processes until the case actually goes to trial.