Mr. WHITENER. How much did some of these men give themselves during that 2-week period? Chief MURRAY. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are lots of cases that happen that are serious cases, and we do not have to even call the men back; they come back and want to work on the case. Just like this case you mentioned in the church, we had three other cases that were connected with the same individual, three rape cases. And the men wanted to come back to work. The same as when this police officer was shot about a month ago. The men that were supposed to go off at 12 midnight, the ones that arrested him at 5 o'clock in the morning, they had been working since 4 o'clock the afternoon before. Mr. WHITENER. Whatever happened to the prisoner? Chief MURRAY. I heard and read in the paper that they dropped the rape charges against him and he plead guilty to the stabbing and the robbery, I think, in the four cases. One stabbing and then four robberies. Mr. WHITENER. Do you remember what the punishment was, Chief Layton? Chief LAYTON. He has not been sentenced yet, Chief LAYTON. I do not know, sir. sir. Mr. WHITENER. Now, Chief, with reference to the firearmsMr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question right there on the proposed reserve force? Mr. WHITENER. Yes. Mr. BROYHILL. Chief, I can understand-at least I think I can understand the objection to the proposed reserve force versus the appropriation to provide for overtime for men on the regular force. But why do you prefer to have the appropriation for overtime recognized rather than to increase the size of your police force? Do your men object to that, or will it use time because of, let us say, lack of performance on the part of your men, the fact that they may be overworked? Chief MURRAY. No. Mr. Broyhill, the way I look at this Mr. WHITENER. If I may interject, I think Mr. Broyhill, like some of the rest of us, is somewhat amazed when the head of some department of the Government is not recommending more people. Mr. BROYHILL. It does astonish me. Chief MURRAY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any chief of police in this country who would not say he could use more men. But I think a more practical way to handle it would be to bring these men back to handle these details, instead of taking these men that are on duty and stripping the streets where you cannot see a policeman on the streets. Mr. BROYHILL. How about bringing the men back, Chief? They are not getting the rest that possibly they should have in performing police work, are they? And do they object? How does that affect the morale? Chief MURRAY. I think they would like that, if they had a chance to. Now, about the reserves, the only way they could be used is with a regular policeman, whether it is on the street or on one of these details. Mr. WHITENER. It would assist them, would it not? Chief MURRAY. We could not send the reserve men to handle what the active duty policeman would do. Mr. MCMILLAN. Chief, when I first became a member of this committee, a policeman was considered on duty 24 hours a day; isn't that correct? Chief MURRAY. Yes, sir. Mr. MCMILLAN. He could be called out of bed any time. There was no thought of overtime. Chief MURRAY. No, sir. It is like these cases I just mentioned. We do not have to call on the men to come back; if you have these bad cases happen, they will come down there and volunteer to work. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Mathias, do you have any questions? Mr. MATHIAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was curious in connection with the overtime which I heard the chief testify about in the past. Is there a tendency among officers to supplement their income from part-time work off duty? Chief MURRAY. Yes, sir, there is. And we have had to restrict that quite a bit. Mr. MATHIAS. But the economic pressures are such that there is a desire and need as far as the men themselves are concerned to do this sort of thing? Chief MURRAY. A great many of them have a good-sized family. They have to get something else to work on their days off. We would rather bring them back and use them for extra time, if we could pay them. Mr. MATHIAS. You feel that the program that you have suggested would help them to meet this need as well as meeting the Department's need? Chief MURRAY. We would already have trained men, and I think it would be helpful to us, and I think it would be helpful to the men who worked extra time. Mr. MATHIAS. I understand this question may catch you without preparation, but could you make any guess at all as to the prevalence of this, percentagewise? Chief MURRAY. That men are working on the outside jobs? Mr. MATHIAS. Yes; men that have outside jobs. Chief MURRAY. No; I could not tell you. We do have the figures at headquarters. Mr. MATHIAS. Well, it is a significant number? Chief MURRAY. Yes, sir, about 15 percent. VI Mr. WHITENER. Chief, do you want to now deal with the firearms proposal? Chief MURRAY. Yes, sir. I have a memorandum on this I should like to file for the record. MEMORANDUM ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FIREARMS Law The District of Columbia weapons law appears in title 22, sections 22-3202 to 22-3217 of the District of Columbia Code (1961 edition). The law was originally enacted on July 8, 1932. The District of Columbia law is substantially the Uniform Firearms Act which was adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and approved by the American Bar Association in 1930. The Uniform Act was the result of years of study and much careful drafting, and was adopted by the conference as an act that "embodies sane forms of regulation which have stood the test of experience in this country." Congress enacted the Uniform Firearms Act for the District of Columbia in 1932. Subsequently, the act with only minor changes was adopted by the States of Alabama, Indiana, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington. Portions of the model law are found in the statutes of many States. About 1940, a more restrictive version of the Uniform Firearms Act called the Uniform Pistol Act was approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. This revised version, however, was never adtopted by any jurisdiction and in 1949, apparently recognizing the impracticability of the revised version, the national conference withdrew its endorsement. On the other hand, those States having the Uniform Firearms Act have found that only minor amendments have been necessary. The District of Columbia weapons law: (1) Requires that every sale of a pistol be reported, in detail, to the police, and prohibits the delivery of a pistol to the purchaser until 48 hours have elapsed from the time of the application for the purchase (sec. 22-3208); (2) Provides for the licensing of dealers of weapons (sec. 22-3210); (3) Makes unlawful the ownership or possession of a pistol by a drug addict or one who has been convicted of a felony or of certain specified misdemeanors (sec. 22-3203); (4) Prohibits the carrying of a pistol, either openly or concealed, without a license (sec. 22-3204); (5) Prohibits the sale of pistols to minors and persons of unsound mind (sec. 22-3207); (6) Provides for substantial additional punishment for persons committing a crime of violence when armed with a pistol or other firearm (sec. 22-3202). First offense: Not more than 5 years. Second offense: Not more than 10 years. Fourth offense: Not more than 30 years. The District of Columbia weapons law is a practical, satisfactory law. The so-called Sullivan law has never accomplished the purpose for which it was intended; on the contrary, the practical effect of this legislation is to disarm the law-abiding citizen and to take away one of his defenses against the criminal who pays no attention to such regulations. It may be argued that any legislation that would reduce the number of pistols in circulation would substantially reduce the number of aggravated assaults. The argument rests upon two mistaken premises. First, it assumes that restrictive legislation will prevent criminals from obtaining guns. The fact is that experience has shown that legislation such as the Sullivan law does not reduce the number of pistols in the hands of criminals. Second, the argument assumes that handguns are used in most aggravated assaults, whereas the fact is that pistols are used in only a small percentage of assaults. Thus, in the fiscal year 1962, there were 2,956 aggravated assaults in the District of Columbia. Revolvers or pistols were used in only 393 cases, or approximately 13.3 percent of the total. On the other hand, knives or razors were used in 1,297 cases or approximately 43.9 percent of all aggravated assaults. Out of a total of 85 murders, revolvers or pistols were used in only 24 cases. Legislation imposing further restrictions on the ownership and possession of handguns is not the answer to our law enforcement problem. Attention should be focused on the criminal, not on the gun. Chief MURRAY. I heard the witnesses here, Mr. Dingell, and the letter you read from the judge. That was a good letter. If I felt that we could take the guns out of the hands of the criminal with this bill or any other bill, I would be a hundred percent for it. But a criminal who is going to set out to hold up place or assault somebody with a gun, the carrying of a gun is not going to deter him. He is a criminal anyhow, and he cannot lawfully possess a gun. So the law on the book that he cannot have a gun in his possession is not going to deter him. Mr. WHITENER. Chief, let me ask you this. The statute which I was not familiar with but which I read here a moment ago, have you ever known of any court invoking the punishment provisions of that statute here in the District! Chief MURRAY. No, sir; I have not. And I think I have taken as many cases to court as any other member of our Department. Mr. WHITENER. Do you mind if I ask Chief Layton that same question? Deputy Chief LAYTON. No, Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any case where that has been invoked. Certainly not in the recent times. It is possible that in some case somewhere along the line it may have been done. I am not aware of any where that has been invoked. Mr. WHITENER. How about you, Captain? Captain WILSON. No, sir; I have never heard about it. Mr. WHITENER. Chief Liverman, have you ever heard of the courts invoking that statute? Deputy Chief LIVERMAN. No, sir. Mr. WHITENER. Are there any other police officers here with you from the District? Chief MURRAY. No, sir. Mr. WHITENER. Does this statute not give the courts a real good weapon to use on persons who commit crimes of violence while carrying firearms? Chief MURRAY. They can give them up to 30 years for a fourth offense. I do think, Mr. Chairman, if we could have a uniform purchase law that would apply to the metropolitan area here, that that would be most helpful in seeing that guns did not get into the wrong hands. In other words, if they can go out in nearby counties and buy a gun over the counter, it is very easy for them. Mr. WHITENER. So you, I take it, would say that we should go with real caution on consideration of the so-called firearms limitation or restriction? Chief MURRAY. Yes, sir. I already, some weeks ago, in conference with Mr. Tobriner and Mr. Acheson, told them I had some serious reservations about the effectiveness of this bill. Mr. WHITENER. Did you desire to have Chief Layton have any comments on any phases of this? Chief MURRAY. He has nothing to add, he says. Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman. Mr. WHITENER. Yes. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. Before you conclude, may I ask the Chief Mr. WHITENER. Excuse me, Mr. Harsha. Chief Liverman, would you mind coming up here and being with us too? Just have a seat here on the lower deck, if you will. Mr. HARSHA. Apparently this provision on the existing law as to the additional offense that may be invoked by the court is permis sive or entirely within the discretion of the court. What would be your thoughts on amending that law to make that mandatory? Chief MURRAY. Well, Mr. Harsha, I would rather consult with Mr. Acheson on this to see how he feels about it. Since Mr. Acheson has been in office and run across some of these problems of restrictions, I think he has learned a lot about the Mallory decision and other decisions that have been harmful to law enforcement and harmful to the prosecution of cases. And I have a great deal of confidence in Mr. Acheson. Mr. WHITENER. Let me interject here that Mr. Acheson called, and would have been here today, but he felt that, having been out of town, he needed a little further time to consider these proposals, and he will be with us at our next meeting. JUVENILES INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC OFFENSES STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. LIVERMAN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. WHITENER. Now, Chief Liverman is here. Do you have anything to add, Chief Liverman? Deputy Chief LIVERMAN. My name is William J. Liverman. I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, pertaining to juveniles that I would like to submit to you, if it is appropriate at this time. Mr. WHITENER. All right, sir. If you will hand it to the reporter, Chief, we will make it part of the record; and if you have any additional comments, you may proceed. (The prepared statement of Deputy Chief Liverman follows:) STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. LIVERMAN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE IN CHARGE OF TRAFFIC, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT The Juvenile Court Act presumes all persons under 18 years of age to be children. Under the existing procedure in the District of Columbia, all such persons apprehended for violating the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Regulations are procesed through the Youth Aid Division of the Metropolitan Police department. This agency is authorized to counsel such offenders and dispose of the matters through the issuance of warnings, referral to the District of Columbia Traffic Violators School or referral to the Juvenile Court. Traffic violations, as such, are not symptomatic of personality difficulties which the juvenile court is equipped to handle. It is considered that if a juvenile has been legally determined to be mentally, morally, and physically qualified to operate a motor vehicle, he should be treated in the same manner as any adult driver who violates the regulations. The International Association of Chiefs of Police recently conducted a survey wherein 2,422 jurisdictions or police departments were contacted and asked the following questions: 1. Does your jurisdiction handle juvenile traffic violators in juvenile court? 2. Does your jurisdiction handle juvenile traffic violators in the regular traffic court? 3. Do you think juveniles should be tried for traffic law violations in the regular traffic court? 4. Do you think juveniles should be tried for traffic law violations in juvenile court? In response to this survey, it was determined that 37 percent of the jurisdictions contacted process juvenile traffic law violators through the juvenile court, and 63 percent process such violators through the regular traffic court. The survey further established that 67 percent of the jurisdictions contacted favor processing such offenders through the regular traffic court, while 3 percent favor such cases being handled by the juvenile court. |