Mr. ADAMS. Now drive into that deeper for me. It is my understanding and you have been in municipal court in the morning, and you have seen the operation and we all have been in this business. It has been my interpretation that the police officers become well acquainted with the chronic alcoholics in the area.

Mr. HUTT. That's true.

Mr. ADAMS. Assume though-I have not found that they generally just want him to be thrown in jail and be put away. They have a problem to get rid of. So I question the fact-and I want you to tell me about it-that the police officers are deliberately using other misdemeanor statutes against alcoholics.

Mr. HUTT. This has been our experience.

Mr. ADAMS. Why?

Mr. HUTT. I don't know. Let me go into a little bit of the background. The District of Columbia has a policy for the Police Department which states that any intoxicated person should be taken to his home if he has a home. But if the man has no visible home or means of support then he is arrested. In effect, the police policy says to the policeman, arrest any drunken derelict, alcoholic or not, and let all the well-to-do middle class, prosperous alcoholics go home, and don't bother them. This is present police policy and this is spelled out in detail in both-and not just the District of Columbia Crime Commission reports, but the U.Š. Crime Commission reports.

So that in effect this results in the persecution of the derelict inebriate. There is no question about that. And when the Easter decision was handed down they shifted it from one statutory provision to another.

Mr. ADAMS. But the Easter decision does not say to the officer that he cannot arrest, or use the intoxication statute.

Mr. HUTT. That's correct.

Mr. ADAMS. What Easter says, "Yes, you can arrest him but in the court procedure if we determine he is a chronic alcoholic we move him out of the standard court procedures.'

Why-What I am saying to you is, why would the officer, being able to arrest and use that procedure, want to use the vagrancy, loitering, public disturbance.

Mr. HUTT. A very good reason. Because the officer knew at the moment of arrest this was a chronic alcoholic who would be out of the door 10 hours later, acquitted of the crime of intoxication. So they try to use statutory provisions which would result in putting him in jail. They try to use disorderly conduct and the other statutes which they thought might not be subject to the Easter decision.

Mr. ADAMS. Do you think that is a reason then for changing the whole arrest system utilized by the Police Department in street disturbances, as suggested in 6143?

Mr. HUTT. No. I don't. And I think perhaps all that 6143 needs is some clarification to get rid of the problem that you foresee. In my judgment the 6143 would still permit the police to protect the citizen. Certainly that is the objective of this bill.

Mr. ADAMS. You say in paragraph 5-that's why I asked you this: "Title VIII would permit the police to arrest inebriates under other minor misdemeanor statutes, such as vagrancy, loitering and disorderly conduct. H.R. 6143 follows the D.C. Crime Commission recommenda

tion that inebriates be handled only under the new disorderly intoxication statute."

Mr. HUTT. That's right. It is my judgment, and it is the judgment of the D.C. Crime Commission, that if a man is endangering the public then he should be arrested. This is what H.R. 6143 states. A vagrant is not endangering the public.

Mr. ADAMS. But he could only be arrested under that statute.
Mr. HUTT. That's correct.

Mr. ADAMS. That's where we reach our point of departure, because in that area where you have the man-if he is in a position where he may be violating a law, a vagrancy statute-in other words what is a legitimate arrest for an officer in a difficult situation, but not be drinking at the time, and not be in a position where he would be refusing to do it, but you know he has been drinking, and that's another reason why the definition of intoxication was left in VIII, as opposed to the definition in H.R. 6143. You may know he has been drinking. Then you would freeze out all of those other possibilities.

I don't think the Crime Commission said that, and I don't think you want it to do that.

Mr. HUTT. The D.C. Crime Commission recommended that this approach be followed. I think Mr. Adams that it would be easy to change this to take care of the problems that you foresee, in the difficult situation where a policeman does believe that trouble is arising as a result of drinking.

I wouldn't like to suggest right at this moment how that could be done but I am confident that changes could be made to take care of your objections and I certainly would be quite willing to work on that.

Mr. ADAMS. I appreciate that, because you see what we are trying to do in H.R. 7327 is set out a series of guidelines and appropriate tools, not just absolutely limiting because we think the officers do have a problem in that area.

So, with that, I have no further questions.

Mr. DowDY. I have one. Mr. Adams was asking about this warning from the police on page 4 of H.R. 6143, subsection (c),

Mr. HUTT. I would like to explain that whole section, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dowdy. I'll state the question I had in mind. If a person is creating a public disturbance, drinking, "Provided, that any such person shall first be requested by the police to discontinue his drinking and public disturbance and that no such person shall be charged with a violation of this subsection if he promptly discontinues such drinking and public disturbance." You are letting him get away with his public disturbance. Why couldn't somebody else warn him, and then they have to call the police to settle the man down.

Mr. HUTT. I would have no objection to that. Certainly.

་

Mr. DowDY. If the police warns him and he promptly discontinues, the policeman goes off, and then he starts over again. The policeman might have to go back and warn him again, and go on having several disturbances.

Mr. HUTT. I fully understand that. The intent of this bill would be that there would be only one warning; that you wouldn't have to warn him two or three times. I would have no objection to that clarification. I would be happy to work on that also.

Mr. Dowdy. This has been a very helpful discussion. I'm sorry our time has run out for today. I usually like to set the next date for a hearing as we adjourn, but we'll be unable to do that at this because we'll have to see what the chairman of the full committee has in mind for hearings on other bills. The witnesses will have to be notified when this date is fixed.

Mr. HUTT. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I would like to work on some of the questions that you have raised, and Mr. Adams, and Mr. Steiger have raised, and I will try to perfect the language.

Mr. Dowdy. Dr. Grant, we'll get to you next time anyway. And if the other witnesses will check with the clerk of the committee we'll set another date as soon as we can.

There are a couple of statements and letters that I want inserted in the record. They can be taken care of by the clerk.

Mr. HAGAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may take 30 seconds. I already mentioned it to you once. On the next day of our hearing, if it is possible, and you agree, I would like to suggest as many of the committee as possible go out and see-and as many others that would like the facilities which are now existing in the District of Columbia. Dr. Grant has stated he would be happy to conduct a tour there. I would personally like as many as possible to do just that. Maybe we can incorporate that as part of the next day's hearings that we have. (The documents to be inserted in the record, referred to by Mr. Dowdy, are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. SANFORD L. BILLET, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr. Chairman, I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the idea that chronic alcoholism is a public health problem than can best be handled by public health techniques. HR 6143 defines "chronic alcoholic" in a highly acceptable manner from a public health point of view. The Bill also proposes a full spectrum of facilities and services for the care and treatment of the derelict chronic alcoholic. Although the 80th Congress recognized the need for some of the facilities and services in Public Law 347, there has been an appalling lack of activity in response to PL 347. Sufficient money has never been appropriated to support an adequate program. The District of Columbia has made little progress in developing effective programs of prevention, early detection, treatment or rehabilitation concerning chronic alcoholism.

This Bill can facilitate the prevention and early detection of chronic alcoholism. Unless we increase our effort in the direction of prevention, early detection and early treatment, we must expect the problem of the derelict alcoholic to persist and even increase. It is very important that the proposed Bureau of Alcoholism Control engage in a variety of techniques, especially public education in cooperation with the school and various other agencies, to help prevent chronic alcholism.

An effective rehabilitation program must be carried on in the community. It can't be done adequately out in the “boon docks." All services and facilities other than simple custodial care should be located within the District of Columbia. It is highly desirable that all facilities be readily accessible to each other and to the public. I feel that this is not sufficiently spelled out in the proposed Bill.

The method of treatment and the facility involved should be medically determined. Preliminary diagnosis done at the proposed detoxification centers should be sufficiently detailed to determine if further evaluation and treatment can be accomplished on an outpatient level. Inpatient care should be required only when medically indicated. If the court requires that a patient be kept in custody for non-medical reasons, that patient should be kept in a non-medical facility where medical care can be made available.

There is great question in my mind about the adequacy of a 30 day commitment. A one year commitment to an established treatment program would be highly desirable from a medical point of view in many cases. I am aware that

this viewpoint is in conflict with some other aspects of the problem and I am not prepared to claim that medical indications are more important than other considerations. It is predictable, however, that as the Bill is presently written it will effectively reach only a very small percentage of the patients who can now be classified as derelict alcoholics or alcoholic chronic court offenders.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ASSOCIATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH, INC.,
Washington, D.C., April 8, 1967.

Hon. JOHN DOWDY,

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 3, District of Columbia Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to take this opportunity to express the full support of the D.C. Association for Mental Health for HR 6143, to provide a comprehensive program for the control of drunkenness and the prevention and treatment of alcoholism in the District of Columbia.

We believe this legislation is vital to the health and welfare of this city, and therefore urge early approval of it by your Subcommittee. We also ask that this letter be made a part of the record of the hearings on HR 6143.

Thank you.
Sincerely,

JONAS V. MORRIS, Chairman, Legislative Committee.

The D.C. Association for Mental Health is a group of volunteer citizens orga. nized to help the community meet the growing problem of mental illness. It is a United Givers Fund Agency and a branch of the National Association for Mental Health.

Its purposes are:

To improve the care and treatment of the mentally ill.

To improve methods and services in research, prevention, detection, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and handicaps.

To promote mental health.

Everyone is welcome to become a member of the Association and help with its many programs to carry out these purposes.

April 10, 1967.

Hon. JOHN DOWDY,

Chairman, House District Subcommittee No 3,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Attn: Mr. James Clark

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DOWDY: I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman of the Alcoholism Committee of the District of Columbia Medical Society.

It is our understanding that Congressional hearings will be held before your Subcommittee beginning April 11 on H.R. 6143, a bill to provide for the handling of public intoxication and alcoholism in the District of Columbia. The Executive Committee of the Medical Society has authorized me to submit this statement to you in support of H.R. 6143.

From the medical viewpoint, we have long been of the opinion that alcoholism is an illness, not a crime, and that handling public intoxication under the criminal law merely perpetuates the problem rather than solves it. We would therefore fully support the objectives of H.R. 6143 to take drunkenness out from under the criminal system and to handle it on a public health basis.

As we understand the legislation, it would provide for voluntary treatment of alcoholics except for those who are a danger to other persons or property, or are so debilitated that they are in immediate physical danger themselves. The bill also requires a minimum of 200 detoxification beds, 500 inpatient beds, and 2,000 residential beds. The Medical Society supports the overall approach taken to this problem, and the specific minimum treatment facilities set out in the bill. We also believe that the minimum facilities considered necessary should be spelled out, since in the past the District Government has failed to provide adequate programs and facilities.

There are presently about 100,000 alcoholics residing in the Metropolitan Washington Area, and well over 6,000 of these are derelict inebriates. The facilities set out in the bill would obviously not begin to be adequate for all of

the District's alcoholics, should any form of compulsory or involuntary treatment be adopted. Nor is there any ethical justification for forced treatment for alcoholism, since it is not a communicable disease. The bill does provide a realistic minimum level of facilities for the number of voluntary patientsthose with the best prognosis for recovery-who would be expected to make use of them.

We therefore strongly support H.R. 6143 and urge its enactment. clude our statement as part of the hearing record on this bill. Very truly yours,

Please in

EARL MITCHELL, M.D.,

Chairman, Alcoholism Committee, D.C. Medical Society.

Hon. JOHN DOWDY,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEALTH AND WELFARE COUNCIL,
Washington, D.C., April 10, 1967.

House District Subcommittee No. 3, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C Attention: James Clark.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DOWDY: The District of Columbia Health and Welfare Council takes this opportunity to express strong support for the enactment of HR 6143, to provide a comprehensive program for the control of drunkenness and the prevention and treatment of alcoholism in the District of Columbia.

Through the recent Easter Decision, a result from the test case brought about through the efforts of the Washington Area Council on Alcoholism and the National Capital Area Civil Liberties Union, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that chronic alcoholics may not properly be convicted for public intoxication. An estimated 6,000 alcoholics jailed for public intoxication now require public health facilities for treatment and rehabilitation. An alcoholic is a sick person who needs medical, psychiatric, institutional, rehabilitative and treatment services of the highest caliber for his illness.

Alcoholism is a progressive disease and approximately 100,000 persons living in the Metropolitan Washington area suffer from this illness, of whom, only ten percent are homeless derelict inebriates. A large majority of these victims are living with their families and are trying to hold jobs but their drinking habits are interfering with their health, job performance, attendance and dependability. There has been very little help for these victims, who eventually become a burden to the community because the community must provide medical and hospital care for the alcoholic and health care and welfare support for his dependent wife and children. A comprehensive program for the control, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of inebriates and alcoholics as defined in HR 6143, will be in the best interest of alcoholics, their families and the community.

The District of Columbia Health and Welfare Council earnestly urge your favorable consideration for HR 6143.

Sincerely,

(Miss) FLAXIE M. PINKETT, Chairman, D.C. Health and Welfare Council.

NORTH AMERICAN JUDGES ASSOCIATION,
Denver, Colo., April 11, 1967.

Re: Hearings on H.R. 6143-Hagan Bill; to provide alcoholism program.
COMMITTEE ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Subcommittee No. 3, House of Representatives, Washington, D.O.
Attention: Honorable John Dowdy.

GENTLEMEN: There is no single problem which causes greater concern, or constitutes a greater enigma, to judges of the lower court system than that of alcoholism. It is in these courts, whose judges are members of his international Association, where the diverse ramifications of the major public health problem of alcoholism are brought into focus-in civil as well as criminal cases.

The appellate court decisions in the Driver and Easter cases, holding that the chronic alcoholic is not subject to criminal sanctions on account of his public intoxication, has presented these courts with a problem that rocks the very ramparts of our judicial system. Without public treatment facilities to care for these hordes of sick people, the judges are faced with the awful dilemma of whether