There are approximately 340,000 licensed motor vehicle operators in the District of Columbia of which 8,400 are considered to be between the ages of 16 and 18 years. It is considered the juvenile drivers do not present a serious traffic problem in the District of Columbia. This conclusion has been reached through the following facts: 1. During the 5-year period from January 1, 1958, through December 31, 1962, of the 191,066 drivers involved in traffic accidents in the District of Columbia, 9,992 of the drivers were under 18 years of age. 2. During the 5-year period from January 1, 1958, through December 31, 1962, of the 400 operators involved in fatal traffic accidents, 6 were juveniles under the age of 18 years. 3. During fiscal year 1962, the Youth Aid Division of the Metropolitan Police Department conducted 1,189 hearings of juvenile operators for violations of the traffic regulations. These hearings were disposed of as follows: (a) Referred to juvenile court_. 176 230 783 There is no doubt that many parking violation notices received by juveniles are not reflected in the above figures since they are paid through the Court of General Sessions. That is possible, since there is no direct officer-violator contact, and since payment may be made by mail to the Central Violations Bureau of the said court. The age of the violator is rarely noted on the traffic violation notice. It is considered the accepted presumption of 16- and 17-year-old drivers being children is inconsistent with the responsibilities we place on these individuals when we issue them a license to operate a motor vehicle. Their privileges and responsibilities parallel those of any adult driver, and it is considered they should be brought before the same court of justice when they fail to abide by the rules of conduct and behavior designed for the safety and welfare of all highway users. I can see no valid reason why juvenile drivers should not be permitted to deposit collateral for traffic offenses and to secure trial in the traffic branch of the Court of General Sessions. Mr. MCMILLAN. I have a question I would like to ask the Chief. When you catch a car full of juveniles driving too fast and search. the car, do you frequently find pistols or other firearms? Deputy Chief LIVERMAN. I do not recall of any great number, Mr. Chairman. I would have to check the records to answer you correctly. But I do not remember any at the present time. Mr. MCMILLAN. I had some of the Members of Congress ask me that question; that is one reason I wanted to have you up here today. Deputy Chief LIVERMAN. I do not recall at the present time any case of finding any weapons in the cars. I might say that our records of juveniles between the ages of 16 and 18 in this town is well loaded nationally with violations, and so forth. Now it is not bad at all, in my opinion. I do say that I am of the opinion that the really the juvenile court and also the Youth Aid Division have a lot of workload-that the juvenile, since he has a responsibility of a driver, physically, mentally, and so forth, that he is qualified, that he sure has the responsibility; and in minor traffic accidents and charges I see no reason why he should not go to the regular traffic court rather than burden it and load the juvenile court and the Youth Aid Division with this work. Mr. WHITENER. You feel that, if he is old enough to get a driver's license and the privilege to drive, that he ought to be dealt with on the same level as any other offender? Deputy Chief LIVERMAN. That is correct, sir. And I think that opinion is in my statement that I submitted here. Even the International Association of Chiefs of Police have made a study, and you will see in that study they feel the same way about it. Mr. WHITENER. I think I asked this question of you gentlemen. Do you not have a statute here that permits you to search an individual where you suspect that he has a weapon on him, some special statute, without getting a search warrant? Deputy Chief LAYTON. Yes. In the arrest of any individual you would be permitted to search him for weapons or possible means of escape. The immediate search of the individual. Mr. WHITENER. Well, can you utilize that statute to do a shakedown operation on a Saturday night if you wanted to in an area where you had a high incidence of crime? Deputy Chief Layton. This would only be lawful if we had probable cause to charge the individual with a crime, with an offense. Otherwise it would not be lawful. Mr. WHITENER. Well, now, another thing. Of the dangerous weapons that you normally take off prisoners, what proportion would you say would be switch-blade knives or weapons of that type as opposed to firearms-switch-blade knives, blackjacks, knucks, and that sort of weapon as compared to firearms?" Deputy Chief LAYTON. I would say, just my offhand recollection would be, that the number of knives, that sort of weapon, would be much greater than the pistols, firearms. Mr. WHITENER. But, now, even with this proposed legislation it would not get to the problem of knives unless it was what they called that gravity driven or whatever it is, or switch-blade knife, would it? Chief MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, we checked for 1 year weapons used in aggravated assault. I think handguns were used about 13 percent and knives in 49? Captain WILSON. Yes. Chief MURRAY. Forty-nine percent. Mr. MCMILLAN. What about a razor? Chief MURRAY. The razor is even a smaller number. Captain WILSON. A smaller number. Mr. WHITENER. While you are getting that, Captain, do you have any problem here about lye being thrown? Chief MURRAY. I think there were about seven or eight cases last year, aggravated assault with lye. Mr. WHITENER. What do you charge one with when they throw a batch of lye on somebody? Chief MURRAY. Assault with a dangerous weapon. Captain WILSON. We had 31 cases involving lye and 79 involving razors in the last fiscal year. Mr. DOWDY. How many paring knives were involved? Mr. DOWDY. While I was prosecuting for about 8 years, we ran into a lot of them, especially in women's purses; they would carry a paring knife around. Mr. WHITENER. Do you gentlemen have anything further? We have some bells ringing. Chief MURRAY. No, sir. Mr. WHITENER. We certainly thank you for coming to testify. And may I ask the committee, when would you think we can sit again-Thursday? Mr. HARSHA. As far as I am concerned, that would be all right. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. J. Frank Wilson and Mr. Ted Newman, I believe, are in the room, are they not? (No response.) Mr. WHITENER. If not, I am sure they will get notice for our next hearing. Well, we will meet here at 10 o'clock. We may not be able to use this room, but we will try to set up another room for Thursday morning at 10 o'clock, if that is all right. Chief Murray, I would like to see you before you go. The hearing will now recess until Thursday. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was recessed until Thursday, May 2, 1963, at 10 a.m.) CRIME LEGISLATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1963 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m., in room 445-A, Cannon Building, Hon. Basil L. Whitener (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Mr. Whitener, Mr. Dowdy, Mr. Broyhill, Mr. Harsha, and Mr. Nelsen. Also present: James T. Clark, clerk; Hayden S. Garber, counsel; Donald Tubridy, minority clerk; and Leonard O. Hilder, investigator. Mr. WHITENER. The subcommittee will come to order. At this point, Madam Reporter, on yesterday we asked the Chief of Police, Chief Murray, for some information with reference to the utilization or failure to utilize section 22-3202 of the District of Columbia Code in connection with punishment. We have a report in writing in the form of a letter from the Chief of Police which we will make a part of the record. (The document referred to is as follows:) GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, May 1, 1963. Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. WHITENER: During my testimony before your subcommittee of the Committee on the District of Columbia on April 30, 1963, there was a general discussion between the committee and myself regarding the provisions of section 22-3202 of the District of Columbia Code pertaining to additional punishment for conviction of commission of a crime of violence when armed with or having readily available any pistol or other firearm. At that time I wanted to suggest that the committee, while it is in the process of studying dangerous weapons legislation, might want to give favorable consideration to an amendment of section 22-3201 of the District of Columbia Code to include the offense of "robbery" within the definition of "crime of violence." Reading of that section will disclose to you that an assault with intent to commit robbery is included among crimes of violence, but, apparently because of oversight, the actual offense of robbery is not included. Since the crime of robbery is a major problem within the District of Columbia, I would recommend that the committee include it within the definition of crime of violence as presently defined or as defined in H.R. 5608, if that bill should be reported out favorably. ROBERT V. MURRAY, Chief of Police. Mr. WHITENER. We have several witnesses here today from whom we are expecting to receive some helpful information. First, I would call the Honorable Robert E. McLaughlin, former President of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia and presently serving as Chairman of the Crime Commission of Metropolitan Washington. At the opening of our hearings into these legislative proposals, the Chair expressed appreciation for the efforts of some of the leading citizens of the community in trying to get at this problem. I think it is commendable that they are doing it. But having read yesterday afternoon's paper and the morning paper, which report an address delivered to the Federal Bar Association luncheon by the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, I know that those good citizens who are interested in doing something about the crime situation in the District of Columbia must have been as shocked as I to read these news stories. I have no reason to doubt that the reports were accurately given with reference to the unjudicial utterances of one who is serving in a high judicial position. I don't believe that in all of my experience in the courts and as a citizen I have ever read a statement by a judicial officer which, in effect advocates the propriety of thievery and robbery. The statement which was quoted in both the Evening Star and the Washington Post, as having been made by this gentleman, states that he said, "These people have to eat like the rest of us, you know." I construe that to mean that this judge was saying that one who misses a day's work has every entitlement to go out on the street and knock another person in the head and take his money away from him. I could not avoid being concerned also about the reported unwarranted attack upon the Metropolitan Police Department. In my opinion, anyone who says that in the District of Columbia the police discriminate between the rich and the poor is guilty of rabble-rousing of the worst sort. I don't want to say too much, but I just say to some of those who advocate a home rule vote in the District of Columbia, that if the people of this jurisdiction think as the people in my area, this judge can be very grateful that the people do not have the right to vote on judges in the District of Columbia. Mr. McLaughlin, you don't have to agree with anything I have said, and I don't expect anybody else to. But this type of statement could not, in my judgment, fail to arouse the concern of those of us who are working and trying to do something to help the people in the District of Columbia. I am sure that the average citizen who has read this story must have equal concern. And to have read that this man had said that there was something inhuman about the canine corps being used to apprehend those who brutally and viciously assaulted others, who themselves had made attacks, physical attacks, upon people more vicious than any dog would have the capacity to make upon a human being-to say that there is something wrong about the apprehension of criminals with dogs or any other weapons that might be available, it seems to me indicates that someone somewhere has a warped idea on the subject. |