conviction thereof in any court or courts, and for misconduct in office, or for any breaches or violations of the rules and regulations made by said Council for the government, conduct, discipline, and good name of said police force. Except in the case of an officer or member convicted by any court for an offense enumerated above, other than a minor traffic offense, no person shall be removed from said police force except upon written charges preferred against him in the name of the Chief of Police of said police force to the trial board or boards hereinafter provided for and after an opportunity shall have been afforded of being heard in his defense. No person so removed shall be reappointed to any office in said police force. Special policemen and additional privates may be removed from office by the Commissioner without cause and without trial. Charges preferred against any member of said police force to the trial board or boards hereinafter provided for may be altered or amended in the discretion of such trial board or boards at any time before final action by said board or boards under such regulations as the said Council may adopt with an opportunity to be heard as aforesaid.

TITLE XIV-ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT BY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SEC. 1401. Title 23 of the District of Columbia Code is amended by (1) designating section 23-582 as "Section 23-583" and (2) adding the following new section:

"SEC. 23-582. Arrests Without Warrant by Officers and Employees of the Department of Corrections. An officer or employee of the Department of Corrections of the District of Columbia may arrest, without a warrant having previously been issued therefor, a person whom he has probable cause to believe has committed or is about to commit an offense specified in section 8 of the Act of July 15, 1932, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 22-2601) or section 1 of the Act of December 15, 1941, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 222603). If the arrested person is a fugitive from custody."

Senator STEVENSON. Mr. Watt, it may be that on a few of these points, you will want to call on your colleagues who are here.

Is title II, the provisions which provide for licensing of businesses which buy or sell secondhand personal property requires daily reports on items which they obtain. Is that an unusual provision? I just do not recall having previously seen this.

Mr. WATT. No, sir; I think it is quite a common provision applied generally to junk yards, dealers in metals-particularly more valuable metals various kinds of equipment, often of a construction nature. It applies to pawnbrokers and those who buy and sell in secondhand goods.

At the present time we have approximately 275 dealers who under present law are required to, and do comply with the reporting requirements.

Senator STEVENSON. Would this provision apply to pawnbrokers? They are also lenders.

Mr. WATT. They are now covered.

Title II would extend the same requirement to such businesses as jewelry stores, which will sometimes receive a piece of jewelry in trade on a new piece, camera stores, some household appliance stores which again deal with tradeins-bring in your old TV, and get credit for a new one and stores selling office equipment, these are all items which increasingly are subject to theft, and to the need for new avenues of fencing, of disposing of stolen goods. It is our belief this will help alleviate this problem.

Senator STEVENSON. These requirements are not unusual, you say? Mr. WATT. No; they are not.

As a matter of fact, reputable secondhand dealers, junk dealers, pawnbrokers, for the most part, although they obviously have to fill out a form and submit it, welcome the fact that they themselves are being protected by the action of the police department in checking these daily reports against reports of stolen property.

Without that kind of oversight, quite unknowingly, a junk dealer, pawnbroker, or jewelry store, could become involved in a criminally related activity which most of them would certainly prefer not to. Senator STEVENSON. I am surprised that existing law does not cover the situation that title III is aimed at.

Is it not an offense, under other provisions of the law, to assault a policeman or fireman?

Why would it have to be an assault on a specific policeman?

Mr. WATT. At the present time, to carry forward a prosecution of an assault on a policeman, it is necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant assaulted a particular officer who was injured.

As you know, in demonstrations, a policeman may be established in a line, and firemen are grouped, either riding on an apparatus, or operating the apparatus.

Those who are intent on throwing missiles at the police, or at the firemen, seldom if ever seem to be by intent attacking a particular police officer or a particular fireman.

They are attacking the group. The throwing of a missile, of course, cannot be carefully controlled. It may hit anyone of a group of officers. At the present time, those guilty of throwing these missiles at random cannot be readily prosecuted for assault on a police officer, or for assault with a deadly weapon.

Furthermore, the only criminal violation which can be charged is that which prohibits the throwing of stones and missiles generally. For that there is a $5 fine.

Senator STEVENSON. Title V-does the District now have a law which permits the confiscation of vehicles used in the commission of an offense other than narcotics violations?

Mr. WATT. Under the District of Columbia Code, the police department may now confiscate vehicles or conveyances which are seized in connection with gambling violations.

We would like to have the same provision applied to those seized in connection with narcotics violations.

At the present time, the Bureau of Narcotics has this authority. If the District of Columbia police wish to impound or seize a vehicle which is involved in a narcotics violation, they must go to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and have them seize the vehicle.

Senator STEVENSON. Are you saying then that you would not want the authority to confiscate vehicles used in the commission of murders, bombings, or other equally serious offenses?

Mr. WATT. I do not know. May I call on one of my associates with regard to those vehicles involved?

This is Mr. Alprin of the police department, general counsel's office.

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY M. ALPRIN, GENERAL COUNSEL, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. ALPRIN. Good morning, sir.

No; I would not say that we would not want that authority, but we do not have it presently for offenses other than narcotics. We do not have it for the District specifically, but we do have it peripherally, and for gambling also. Finally, I believe that Federal authorities can seize vehicles used in national firearm violations.

Those are the only areas federally, or anywhere else that I know of, where vehicles used in the commission of crimes can be actually seized for purposes other than evidence, kept for evidence and then returned. Senator STEVENSON. I know one jurisdiction that has one, that I wrote in Illinois, in 1965, which did set up procedures, as well as the authority for the confiscation of the vehicles used in a wide range of serious offenses. It just strikes me as being a little inconsistent to say that they may be confiscated in the case of narcotics violations, but not for murder, kidnaping, burglary, and bombings which are becoming increasingly present.

Mr. ALPRIN. Certainly we would take the position that for all of those crimes, at least in most cases, it certainly would be a deterrent to the commission of the crime to be able to seize or confiscate the vehicle that was used.

I think in preparing this legislation, we did not want to go further than the Federal law, but certainly, it is something that, from a law enforcement purpose, would be very valuable.

Senator STEVENSON. I do not know that we have to take up these other possibilities in connection with this bill—but you might want to consider a broader bill.

I for one would be very receptive to any such suggestion, and would also volunteer the advice that you take a look at the good law of Illinois, if you would like, to get the benefit of our experience.

I understand from law enforcement authorities in Illinois that the law which we did write and pass, in 1965, has been very helpful— particularly in the larger cities.

Mr. WATT. We will certainly do that.

Senator STEVENSON. I remember one of the difficulties at the time was with lienholders against vehicles used in the commission of offenses, and with owners of vehicles stolen by the offenders.

How do you, in this proposal, make provision to protect the innocent lienholders and owners of vehicles used by others in the commission of narcotics violations?

Mr. WATT. The draft of the legislation provides that if there is a bona fide lien against the property, the government of the District of Columbia in this case may make payment of the lien and retain the property, or the property may be disposed of by public auction, the proceeds of which shall be used first for the payment of the expenses, which are incident to the forfeiture, secondly to the payment of any such liens, and any remainder, of course, would be deposited in the District's general fund.

It goes on to say to the extent necessary, liens against property so forfeited shall, on good cause shown by the lienholder, be transferred from the proceeds of the sale of the property.

Elsewhere, there is a reference in the act, which reads, "No conveyance shall be forfeited under the provisions of this act by reason of

any act or omission established by the owner thereof to have been committed by any person other than such owner, while such conveyance was unlawfully in the possession of a person other than the owner in violation of criminal laws," so there is also that protection. Mr. Chairman, in other words, if the owner can establish that the vehicle was unlawfully possessed, he is protected against forfeiture. Senator STEVENSON. The burden would be on the owner?

Mr. WATT. On the owner in this case, and, finally, there is the provision for the paying up of the lien, either directly by the District Government, or through the sale of the property and satisfaction

of the lien interest.

Senator STEVENSON. Your impression is that lienholders in the District feel that they would have adequate protection under this provision?

Do you have any comments from lenders in the District?

Mr. WATT. I know of no comment with regard to this particular provision, although it is my belief that the protections, which are proposed to be established in this legislation, are the same as those which are now established for vehicles seized in connection with gambling violations, and I am quite sure patterned after the Federal law, which applies in similar cases.

Senator STEVENSON. Turning to title VI, could you tell us a little bit more about how you utilize Police Reserve Corps volunteers, and intend to do so in the future, under the authority of this provision?

Mr. ALPRIN. Presently, Senator, the Reserve Corps helps our officers in such ways as to free the officer for performance of other duties more generally in line with crime control. For example, traffic control, stadium control, when there is a football game being played, school crossing guards, station clerks, that type of activity, and, generally, they are used in such a way so that other regular officers of the Department can be used for crime control.

Reserve officers presently do not carry weapons, and they are not used in the traditional sense of officers being used to patrol the streets and prevent crime.

The authority contained in this proposal is not intended to alter

that.

Mr. WATT. Quite specifically, Mr. Chairman, in the attachment to my statement, there is the reference to the fact that Reserve Police would not be used for patrol duty in any high crime areas, they would not be permitted to participate in any search or seizure, and they would not be utilized for police duty requiring a high level of qualified police performance. So we have both the indication that they would be used for certain kinds of more routine police functions, as Mr. Alprin has referred to, and, specifically, would not be used for a variety of assignments which require high level of skills, or would expose the man to the kinds of dangers to which a more appropriately qualified police officer would be exposed.

Senator STEVENSON. Does the District now have the authority to permit these volunteers to carry firearms?

Mr. ALPIN. To my knowledge, Chief Wilson has prohibited, in a recent order, the reserve officers from carrying firearms. The question came up, also recently, as to whether or not they should be permitted to carry them, and we gave the opinion, because they were not police officers, they should not have the authority.

The fact that the Chief has prohibited, I suspect, indicates he could have permitted it also, but he has prohibited it.

Senator STEVENSON. I am wondering whether this expands the authority.

Mr. WATT. Section 602 (b) of the act would vest in the City Council the authority to make rules and regulations generally relating to this title of the bill, including provisions which would prohibit, permit, regulate, and control the possession and carrying in use by reserve officers of weapons, including firearms. So the City Council would have the rulemaking authority which would be administered by the Chief.

Senator STEVENSON. The staff has suggested it might be helpful to us to just know whether the District feels in its opinion that it does now have the authority to permit the Volunteer Corps officers to carry firearms, so that we know whether we are expanding upon that.

Mr. WATT. Let me check that specifically, and report to you within a day or two on it, for insertion in the record.

(See letter of January 11, 1972, from Graham W. Watt, assistant to the Commissioner of the District of Columbia to Senator Stevenson on p. 110.)

Senator STEVENSON. As to title VIII—we have received testimony in our hearings on the Department of Corrections in the District, which lends a lot of support to your request.

We do not anticipate any difficulty or controversy over that pro

vision of the bill.

Title XI, you say, is technical and perfecting amendments in existing law.

Mr. WATT. It does contain one item of substance with regard to the carrying of knives.

Our existing law, the District of Columbia Code, prohibits possession with the intent to use unlawfully against another person a knife or a blade longer than three inches.

Title XI would delete this three-inch specification so as to provide that possession of a knife of any length when coupled with the intent of unlawful use against another person, shall constitute an offense. Senator STEVENSON. I suppose it is the unlawful intent that is the saving provision in this proposal.

Mr. WATT. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENSON. People will not have to be worried about commiting an offense if they possess a pocketknife. It has to be coupled with the intent to use that pocketknife to commit a crime?

Mr. WATT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ALPRIN. This is not the simple possession of the weapons statute. This requires the intent of the use.

Senator STEVENSON. All right. Let's move on, Mr. Watt.

Thank you, Mr. Alprin.

Mr. ALPRIN. It is a pleasure.

Senator STEVENSON. We have one more bill--S. 2208.

S. 2208

Mr. WATT. Yes; Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the