Mr. ADAMS. Would you support that bill?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would support a bill that has a reasonable length of time to question people. I would support any bill that would give the police a right to question but not limit it necessarily to 20 minutes. Because sometimes it takes you 20 minutes to get a fellow to open his

mouth.

Mr. ADAMS. I understand. You may have some objection as to time. But do you believe that the Taft bill would be a step in the direction that you think we should go and would you support it?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would support the omnibus crime bill, Mr. Adams, and I am not saying this-I appreciate your sincerity and I know how sincere you are in this.

Mr. ADAMS. The thing, Mr. Sullivan I want to get across and get over to you is that it isn't an omnibus crime bill or nothing, or an omnibus crime bill or administration bill, an omnibus crime bill or a Taft bill. I hope, out of this, we will come up with a whole series of changes and embody perhaps a great portion of the omnibus crime bill. We are trying in this committee to develop a whole attack on the problem and that's why I keep asking you, do you support these things so if we put them all together we may be able to get a total bill through that will do a great many more things than the limited purposes of the omnibus crime bill.

Mr. SULLIVAN. We can clear that up, Mr. Adams, by saying our position is we support any bill that gives the police the right, under reasonable and justifiable conditions-like probable cause-to interrogate a person, after of course, as we have done in the past and are doing now, advising him of his constitutional rights.

Now, many times-and testimony has referred to this-if you operate like the FBI and it was mentioned that maybe you could compare the FBI with policemen. Let me say to you, sir, when I was commanding officer of the robbery squad, we had as many FBI agents in there as we had policemen. We worked hand-in-hand, glove-in-glove. We used the same procedure they used, and don't let nobody tell you that we use anything different. We worked together. We had to work together on bank robberies. It is a joint jurisdictional matter here. So we work all the way down the line. And their difficulties are the same as ours. Unless there is that moment of truth, that moment of interrogation where you can arrive at just the simple fact, "Were you there?" or "Weren't you there?" we are inadequate. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Sullivan, we are trying to produce this type of result where it can be properly done. That's what we are searching for, and that's why I wanted to be certain we have an understandingthe committee as well as yourself-of the various points where we are in an interrogation, that prearrest interrogation is valid, and statements against interest can be used; that when you get into arrest or custodial situations, I believe there is an area where we can produce some question.

What I want to say to you, I want to know whether you support these attempts, like Mr. Taft has made, and like the New York stop and frisk law-which may be the answer to it-I want to know if you support those so we can look at those and not just take the alternative of the omnibus crime bill.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Adams, will you yield?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes.

Mr. WHITENER. I think any suggestion as to a stop-and-frisk law will fall with a dead thud in this committee. We had that proposal before, and I can only speak for myself, I'm opposed to frisk methods. I think that it is indefensible. I certainly don't want to see any good citizen just stopped on the street at the whim of anybody and frisked.

Mr. ADAMS. I agree, Mr. Chairman, that that may be an invalid part, but I would say you would support, would you not, the search provisions as was set forth-I mean the stop and investigative procedures as set forth by Mr. Taft?

Mr. WHITENER. I am committed to title III of the omnibus crime bill.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Sullivan, you indicated also in this, and I want to be sure that I have it right, you did indicate opposition in your statement to H.R. 7327. I gather from your testimony you really don't have any opposition to it, it is just that you prefer the omnibus bill to H.R. 7327; is that correct? I would like to know if there is any provisions in the 7327 that you think are harmful to the police efforts. Mr. SULLIVAN. We are not oposed to those things in the bill as they go-we just don't feel they go far enough.

Mr. ADAMS. That's what I want to know. That's your position. Mr. SULLIVAN. This is what we are trying to do here by taking the omnibus crime bill.

Mr. ADAMS. That's what I wanted to know. In other words, if that bill were passed you would have no objection to it?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would have objection if that bill passed and didn't go any further than it is going.

Mr. ADAMS. I understand that. But you would have no objection

Mr. SULLIVAN. To certain parts of the bill. That's true.
Mr. ADAMS. All right. I have no further questions.

Mr. WHITENER. Inspector Sullivan, have you seen this handbill which is in circulation around the city?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don't recall seeing that, sir. May I take a look at it?

This is the same committee we were talking about earlier, Mr. Congressman. I have not seen this but I have seen another just as distasteful.

Mr. WHITENER. We'll make that handbill part of the record, Mr. Reporter.

(The handbill referred to follows:)

2.

1.

ALLOWED TO
BEAT NEGROES!

Stop the Cops from abusing us NOW!

THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT THEY DO NOT CONTROL
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE REFUSED TO
SUSPEND THE TWO WHITE COPS THAT BEAT MARION BARRY, JR., WESLEY
BRYANT AND LESTER MCKENNIE. THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT
COPS CAN BEAT NEGROES WHEN THEY WANT TO.

WE MUST ACT NOW!

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CHARGED WITH BEING DISORDERLY BECAUSE
YOU DIDN'T MOVE FAST ENOUGH OR BECAUSE YOU TALKED BACK
TO A COP ?

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ARRESTED FOR "FAILING TO MOVE ON"
BECAUSE YOU WERE MERELY STANDING ON THE CORNER ?

3.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CALLED "NIGGER" OR "BOY" BY A WHITE COP ?

5.

HAVE YOU CALLED THE POLICE ABOUT A PROBLEM AND IT TOOK
THEM AN HOUR OR MORE TO COME OR THEY NEVER CAME 7

hear

THIS IS POLICE BRUTALITY AND POLICE NEGLECT.

THERE ARE TOO MANY WHITE COPS IN NEGRO NEIGHBORHOODS!

WE MUST ACT NOW!

Mass Rally: Mon. Apr. 10th 8pm
New Bethel Baptist Church, 9th&S St Nw

EX-CONVICT GASTON NEAL, MRS. WILLIE HARDY

REV. DAVID EATON LONNIE KING, REV. WALTER FAUNTROY, DICK
ANDERSON, MARTON BARRY, JR. LESTER MCKINNIE, JULIUS HOBSON
AND OTHERS.

Citizens Committee for Equal Justice phone 882-5387

STOP POLICE BRUTALITY NOW!

Mr. ADAMS. If you will yield to me for a moment, I would like to state that what these people are doing or suggesting is a very bad thing and is a very bad mistake on their part. I guess I didn't comment on that when Mr. Sisk was doing it. This is a very unfortunate thing.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you Mr. Adams.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Sullivan, I noted in your statement you very properly point out that as to title III of the omnibus crime bill, that it is not an arrest procedure, but merely a detention in order to ascertain certain facts.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes.

Mr. WHICENER. We have heard a lot about the relationship between title I and title III of the omnibus crime bill. Title I applies to where an arrest has already been consummated.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes.

Mr. WHITENER. Title III applies up to the time of arrest. The two titles deal with two separate matters entirely. Title III is substantially the language of the American Law Institute Uniform Arrest Act.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right.

Mr. WHITENER. Title I is a restatement, in effect of the Miranda decision. So they should not be considered together. There is no 10-hour provision for interrogation in the omnibus crime bill. Would you agree with that?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes; I would. And I would say it was just as much misinterpreted as was the bail bond system, when the judge says you can't hold a criminal and have to turn him loose.

Mr. WHITENER. I worked with the judges in the District in writing the Bail Bond Act, and some interpreted it to mean exactly the opposite of its clear language.

Mr. SULLIVAN. We are fully aware of that.

Mr. WHITENER. With reference to the title III, in your comment about having an arrest record, would you agree that this does constitute a material burden to a defendant who may later be charged with some offense of a similar nature to that for which he might have been arrested earlier where there was no evidence in the first case. I would point out my own experience. When I was prosecutor, in a serious case, one of the first things we did were to get the defendant's FBI record. If this record showed that 10 years before in Arkansas he was charged with a similar offense but released, it would not be competent evidence in the trial of the issue; but when it came to the sentencing of the defendant the prosecutor would properly call this to the attention of the court. The court was frequently influenced by such information in fixing punishment. It did place an additional burden on the defendant, whereas, if you have this title III procedure providing that no arrest be entered on his record, he wouldn't be so burdened.

Mr. SULLIVAN. And it goes further than that, Mr. Chairman. It goes to when he applies for a position.

Mr. WHITENER. Of course it does.

Mr. SULLIVAN. This is the main thing, as I tried to explain. Mr. WHITENER. I have noticed in the Government application forms, if I remember correctly, one is not asked whether he has been tried and convicted, it asks you what you have been charged with; doesn't it?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Most of them say have you been arrested for anything more than a minor traffic violation; answer yes or no.

Mr. WHITENER. And if a fine citizen, who had never committed a robbery, was improperly arrested in the past for armed robbery and that appeared on his FBI record, the record of arrest would be of great prejudice to him in an application for a Federal or governmental position, or even in private business, wouldn't it?

Mr. SULLIVAN. It certainly would; because you have that doubt. If you have another applicant with the same qualifications but without that doubt, you are going to take the other application.

Mr. WHITENER. Now, getting around to this threat of using sound equipment to harass an officer who has been exhonorated under the statutory procedures of the District of Columbia. What, if you know, is the reaction of the members of the police force to this?

Mr. SULLIVAN. We were informed no later than when the paper hit the streets that this was a great deterioration of the morale. Since my last appearance before this committee, these adverse items in certain newspapers as to retirements, resignation, and many other things have taken place. It has put the police morale situation below what Mr. Harney reported in his report. And I would like at this time to commend him for the fine report that he made. I failed to do that last time.

I would say that if this is allowed to happen the police morale is just about shot, and there is no way we can get around it. Of course, let me say this too, Mr. Chairman, we are not without legal advice, and we will attempt in any way we can, through the proper legal procedures, to take whatever civil action, or criminal action, that is necessary for this man.

Mr. WHITENER. I would hope that you would convey to Chief Layton the expressions which have been made by Mr. Adams and Mr. Sisk today. I join in those statements. I commend Chief Layton for his very prompt and effective statement on this matter. I hope that the Police Department here will exercise its own discretion and if they agree that section 505 of title 22 would apply to such conduct as is threatened, that they will promptly take into custody any person violating that statute.

Mr. SULLIVAN. We'll sure do that, and we join you also, Mr. Chairman, and the committee to express ourselves in our commendation of Chief Layton in taking the stand which he took. I think it is commendable of him.

Mr. WHITENER. May I express to you and Lieutenant Stickley, and Mr. Givens my appreciation for your appearance here today and particularly for your statement in support of the legislation which this committee offered in the last Congress.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITENER. Chief Murray. We are delighted to have the former Chief of the Metropolitan Police, Chief Murray, with us today. We have missed you around here since you retired. We are delighted that you have honored us with your presence today.

Do you have any comments you would like to make? I know you have no prepared statement.