Therefore, I believe that Government recommendations on the Durham decision and on proposed remedies such as H.R. 1932 should more appropriately come from the U.S. Attorney than from the chief of police.

III. Detention for questioning and as material witnesses

I would like to address myself first to the acute need for legislation empowering police officers to detain probable felons for questioning. In order of priority, I rank the need for such a statute second only to the need for congressional action to overcome the hindrances of the Mallory decision.

As this committee is aware, since March 15, 1963, arrests for investigation by the Metropolitan Police Force have been prohibited by order of the Board of Commissioners.

Statistical data which I have already submitted to the Congress and to the Board of Commissioners clearly show the adverse effect which changed policies on arrest for investigation have had on the clearance of crime in this city. For the calendar year 1960, before the Commissioners' Committee began its study of arrests for investigation, this department cleared 59 percent of the serious (crime index) offenses reported in this city. In March 1961, when the study by the Commissioners' Committee began, the rate of crime clearance immediately declined, and for that calendar year our rate of clearance for serious offenses dropped to 51 percent. This lower rate of clearance continued throughout the calendar year of 1962 and, for that first full calendar year after the examination of investigative policies was begun, our clearance of serious offenses dropped to 45 percent.

The first section of H.R. 1929 provides legislation in the nature of the Uniform Arrest Act, which I have recommended to the Board of Commissioners and to the Congress as an alternative to the now prohibited practice of investigative arrest. I urge favorable consideration of this bill by the Committee and by the Congress.

With regard to the detention of material witnesses, I view favorably the second section of H.R. 1929.

In its printed report, the Commissioners' Committee on Police Arrests for Investigation pointed out that the present statute governing detention of material witnesses in the District of Columbia is so cumbersome that it is of no practical value to the police and is almost never used. That Committee recommended reexamination and possible improvement of the statute and regulations on the subject. I am in full accord with that particular recommendation of the Committee.

I want to emphasize that I firmly believe that any material witness legislation, to be effective, must, as the Commissioners' Committee on Police Arrests for Investigation put it, "Play its proper function in insuring that persons who have knowledge of a crime will not disappear before a trial of the offense can be had."

To serve that function, the statute must be applicable to material witnesses before, as well as after, formal initiation of proceedings by the criminal court. Examination of the four material witness proposals coming before the committee today indicates to me that the language of H.R. 1929 would most completely fulfill that need.

IV. Four-time loser or habitual criminal statute

I have heard the testimony of Commissioner Tobriner at a previous session of this committee, and I must agree with him that legislation such as H.R. 1893— which would apply possible irrevocable life imprisonment to the vast selection of criminal offenses included in the felony classification-might not be in the best interests of the District. I believe that legislation such as this should be confined only to more serious felonies against the person and should include some provision for possible parole.

In general, the District Code provides ample maximum sentences for serious crimes, and it does already provide additional penalties for repeaters. I think crime prevention might be better served by an urging of the courts to impose greater penalties, under existing law, on the wide range of offenders than by the provision of an extreme penalty for the relatively few fourth convictions.

V. Activation of police reserve

I am favorable in principle toward the use of reserve corps officers to supplement the police force of the District of Columbia; however, in recognition of the objections raised by many business and citizens groups within the District to the proposed arming and uniforming of part-time volunteers, I would recommend that H.R. 4322 be amended to prohibit the carrying of firearms by such reserve police officers except during periods of public emergency declared by the Board of Commissioners because of riot, pestilence, invasion, insurrection. or war. I would recommend also that the reserve police officers be provided arm bands and caps rather than full uniforms. If those recommendations are accepted, the legislation should provide for compensation of the reserves for personal clothing damaged in the performance of reserve police duty, as well as for compensation for injuries as now provided.

We presently have slightly more than 1,000 members in the police reserve corps; estimates based on past experience indicate that active duty use of these reserves would produce about 700 volunteers for duty once each week for a partial tour of duty. However, since in most cases it would be necessary to assign the reserve police officer as a partner of a regular police officer, it must be recognized that in the final analysis this volunteer manpower will not actually provide a great deal of additional patrol coverage, but would largely duplicate existing coverage.

VI. Restrictions on dangerous weapons

Since the provisions of H.R. 678 would be more applicable to the prosecution of dangerous weapons cases than to police department handling of such cases, it would be appropriate for the U.S. attorney rather than the Chief of Police to submit the principle testimony regarding that proposal.

We have worked closely with the successive U.S. attorneys and their staffs since I was appointed chief of police in 1951 and have had fine cooperation from all concerned. The experiences of the department in working with the U.S. attorney on problems of presenting various cases and on the severe restraints placed on the police department and on the U.S. Attorney have led me to have great confidence and admiration for the work of Mr. Acheson and his staff.

With regard to H.R. 5608, I must honestly testify to this committee that I am doubtful that it would be overwhelmingly effective in removing dangerous weapons from the hands of criminals.

Criminal elements and other irresponsible citizens tend to disregard legislative provisions which cannot be vigorously enforced at all times, and there simply is no way to effectively enforce a requirement for registration of a weapon until after some other criminal act has brought the unlawful possession of the weapon to the attention of the police. Consequentiy, the registration provisions of this legislation would impose a restriction on responsible citizens without really assuring that dangerous weapons would be less accessible to criminals.

One of the chief dangerous weapons problems of this city arises from the fact that pistols can be readily obtained by any criminal who is willing to go into one of the adjoining jurisdictions to make a purchase. This jurisdictional situation tends to negate the effectiveness of firearms control for the District of Columbia insofar as criminals are concerned.

I am inclined to believe that the answer to the prevalence of dangerous weapons among criminals of the District lies in a more vigorous prosecution of existing control statutes in the District, coupled with an encouragement of surrounding jurisdictions to enact better control over sales, rather than in enactment of registration legislation which would tend to restrict possession of firearms by responsible citizens.

I

Chief MURRAY. Referring to the first bill on the agenda, Mr. Chairman, when this Mallory ruling was handed in June of 1957, crime was at low point for 10 years. Immediately after the decision was handed down, crime began to creep up, and it has been creeping up; it has gone up 42 percent since June of 1957.

I testified before a committee of Congress about 3 weeks after the decision was handed down, and at that time I stated I felt it would have a very adverse effect on law enforcement in the District of Columbia and might possibly break down law enforcement.

Well, the Mallory decision, coupled with further and later decisions, have just about handcuffed the Police Department.

I will not go into detail, in the interest of time, but we feel that as to the bill, H.R. 1930, which passed the House of Representatives on two occasions, we feel that that bill would be most helpful to us. Mr. BROYHILL. Chief, before you leave the Mallory rule there, I am wondering if you could help us by giving us an example of how the Mallory rule has caused an increase in the crime. Is it because it has made it more difficult for you, your department, to apprehend criminals, or has it been more or less an invitation or a license for more crime to be committed?

Chief MURRAY. Well, it has hurt us in more ways than one.

First, we are not able to hold a man-we have to take him over before the Commissioner, U.S. Commissioner, or a judge and have him arraigned very shortly after arrest. It does not give you time to properly prepare your case. It does not give you time to go into any multiple cases he might have been involved in. It does not give you time to find accomplices, if he had any.

What a great many people do not realize, that we operate under a separate set of rules here in the District of Columbia. Unlike other cities, they operate in State courts, and here your common law felonies: that is, your murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and so forth, are prosecuted on indictment by a Federal grand jury and prosecuted in the Federal court.

For instance, Mallory himself. He was released here, and he went to Philadelphia and committed almost the same kind of a crime. But he was tried in a State court, and he got 112 to 23 years. He is in the penitentiary now.

Mr. WHITENER. Chief, is there not another aspect of it that could be said to be unfair to the accused, in that it does not give you gentlemen an apportunity to check out the alibi of a man toward whom the finger of guilt points very definitely, but during inspection you find that he was not involved in it?

Chief MURRAY. I think, Mr. Chairman, that any police department should have a reasonable time to go into the case, to investigate it properly, to find out if the person is implicated or if they are innocent. Mr. WHITENER. Whether it is favorable to him or unfavorable to him.

Chief MURRAY. Yes, sir.

There are many times when we will have a witness who will identify a man in a felonious crime or give the name of him, that he is involved in it, but after you have time to look into it, you find out that he is not implicated at all. And I do not think a man should have to have a charge against him under those circumstances.

Mr. WHITENER. Well, if you charge the wrong man and, upon further investigation you find that he should be released, then you get the right man later on, the question of identity is involved, and the defense counsel immediately raises great doubt in the minds of jurors

as to whether you are right this time, because you were wrong

other time.

the

Chief MURRAY. That has happened since the first of this present year.

Mr. Broyhill asked me about how it directly affects us.

We had a case where a 19-year-old man was surprised in an apartment by the occupant, and he stabbed the woman to death. He was picked up around 1:30 p.m.-no, he was picked up around 12:15 p.m., and he was we have got the log here. He reenacted the crime, he arrived at the homicide office at 2:45 p.m., processed through Identification Bureau; at 3:40 p.m. arraigned before the U.S. Commissioner, and the total elapsed time from arrest to arraignment, 2 hours and

45 minutes.

Defense at trial. Insanity and violation of the Mallory rule.

He was convicted. Conviction was reversed, and everything after the original confession thrown out. You cannot use it at the retrial that is now pending.

Now, to hold a man 2 hours and 45 minutes that committed a murder, that does not seem unreasonable to me.

And we have many cases like this.

And there are lots of people who mean all right, but they have not had the contact with criminals. They can talk about criminals, but I have had 33 years of dealing with them, and I do not mean 33 years sitting in an office. Twenty-one years of it was out on the street dealing directly with criminals.

II

Mr. WHITENER. Chief, could you get around to the Durham rule now? I believe our time is running out.

Chief MURRAY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I feel that the Durham rule has hurt us some, but it is an issue that is raised when the case is brought to trial. And I think that the U.S. attorney should more properly handle the Durham case before this committee.

III

Mr. WHITENER. All right, sir. Now, with reference to the detention for questioning material witnesses, I think your position has been made clear in the Joint Crime Committee.

Chief MURRAY. Yes, sir. When arrests for investigation were abolished by the Commissioners on March 15, that meant we cannot bring a man in, even for investigation of a murder, and talk to him about it unless we charge him with the crime itself."

This proposed legislation is to enable us to question before a case goes to trial, not after the case has

Mr. WHITENER. Now, to get around to this specific legislation, this business of having to electronically record or stenographically record every word of the conversation between the officer and the accused; you do not subscribe to that, do you?

Chief MURRAY. That is unrealistic, in my opinion.

Mr. WHITENER. I agree with you.

Chief MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, when the commissioners committee started the survey on our Department records on arrests for investigation, the clearance of crime began to drop off. So since the Commit

tee-they made a study of about 17 months; I think it has been 2 years have elapsed since they first started that survey, and our crime has dropped off-I mean our crime clearance has dropped off more than 10 percent.

Now, on the Mallory decision again, Congress has permitted us to take on 336 policemen since 1957, given us a

Mr. WHITENER. That gives you a total force of what?

Chief MURRAY. 2,900.

They have given us the Canine Corps. We already had the men. And the machines of different-I think we have got 20 two-way radios for footmen, which is used by 60 men around the clock.

But with all these things, crime has gone up 42 percent, and the reasons are because of these restrictions that are placed on us.

Our Department over the years has had a record of the clearance of crimes second to none that reports to the FBI. But it is dropping off now. And if they keep on putting restrictions on, it is going to drop more.

IV

Mr. WHITENER. Now, would you like to comment on the so-called four-time loser proposal?

Chief MURRAY. I believe it would be self-defeating, Mr. Chairman. We have plenty of good, strong laws on the books right now. You do not need any additional laws for a four-time loser. And I think the juries would be reluctant to convict if they knew that a man was going to get a life sentence without hope of parole.

V

Mr. WHITENER. Now, with reference to the activation of the police reserve, I believe it is your position that that may be all right, but it would be better to work out some compensatory pay arrangement.

Chief MURRAY. Yes, sir. I would rather have the appropriations that might go into that be used to pay our trained men, who come back from off duty to work on some of these special details.

Mr. WHITENER. So you feel that the expenditure, I believe, of $210,000 the first year, to activate the police reserve would not be a sound investment?

Chief MURRAY. I think it would be a better investment to let us have that for our own Department.

Mr. WHITENER. And use your own trained men for overtime more than you were able?

Chief MURRAY. Yes, sir. And I would be a little bit reluctant about arming police reserves, too.

Mr. WHITENER. Chief, I believe you told me that, in the case of the secretary of the Member of Congress who was stabbed when she prayed up here a block away, that there was some 10,000 man-hours used? Chief MURRAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. Within what, a 3-week period, 2 weeks?

Chief MURRAY. About 2 weeks: yes, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. Now, did any of those officers receive any additional compensation?

Chief MURRAY. No pay. And most of the cases they do not get compensatory time.