Mr. WHITENER. What you are saying is that the suggested amendment of Judge Danaher is in line with the thinking of the Commissioners? Mr. KNEIPP. The first part of it, sir. The second part, the addition of a sentence in line eight on page three, which Judge Danaher offered the committee: Such interview, but only when requested by a judicial officer, shall also be undertaken with respect to any person charged with intoxication or a traffic violation. I feel that that would be agreeable to the Commissioners. It does lend some control over this vast amount of business that the District has with respect to intoxication and traffic violations. As Mr. Freed has said, the additional number of cases would be about 500, as estimated. And the additional cost based on the present budget of the bail project agency, or bail agency project, and the number of cases it handles, would come to aroung $10,500 additional over and above the cost of the bill without such an amendment. Other than that point, sir, I have nothing further to say. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Kneipp, I might tell you that in the discussion of the bill before it was finally drafted, it was suggested that to require this bail agency to make an inquiry into every public drunkenness case or of speeding or minor traffic case, would bring about such a skyrocketing cost of operation of the bail agency that we could not very well defend it on the floor. Now, I can see where the term "traffic violation" may be too broad, because there are some rather serious offenses that can be called traffic violations. And I think that with Judge Danaher's suggestion you can avoid that matter of having to have the bail agency function every time someone is locked up for some little petty public drunkenness case or running a red light or speeding or that sort of thing. So perhaps his suggestion is best. The Judge, if he feels that this is a case of such seriousness that it requires information upon which he can form a judgment as to the bail procedure that he will follow, that that would protect the taxpayer from an unnecessary expenditure of money. Mr. KNEIPP. Mr. Chairman, most of these cases of intoxication or traffic violation are of a very minor nature, and they are disposed of very quickly. It would only be an unusual kind of case where the judge would want to hold the person to bail that this would come into operation. And it is that kind of case that we estimate is in the order of perhaps five hundred a year or so. Mr. WHITENER. You are thinking now, I suppose, about cases as hit-and-run driving, or negligent homicide? Mr. KNEIPP. Or perhaps speeding, and things of that sort traffic violations other than those prohibited by statute, violations of regulations adopted by the Commissioners. The things you mentioned, hit-and-run personal injury, reckless driving, driving while drunk, this kind of thing is prohibited by statute. And the individuals would probably be held on many of those. And at that point the judge would ask for this bail determination. But the ordinary run-of-the-mill speeding and drunk cases, no. Mr. WHITENER. You are not suggesting that in each arrest, regardless of the offense, that there should be this bail fact-finding procedure? Mr. KNEIPP. No, sir. Only those more serious cases in which the judge feels the person should be held to bail and then ask for this bail determination. Mr. WHITENER. Gentlemen, we appreciate your coming here so much. We know that we have the legal lights of the Capital City with us this morning. And we appreciate the good work that you have done. And I want to take this opportunity to say in public, Mr. Bress, that some of us have been very greatly impressed with the work that you and your Department have been doing. A case has been brought to my attention by a constituent which reflects credit on the work of your office. And we appreciate the good work that you are doing in law enforment. And we always appreciate what Mr. Kneipp does to help us in the consideration of these technical legal bills. And you gentlemen from the law schools and the Justice Department have been very helpful to us today. I think if we could, as soon as possible, though, get this information that we have talked about informally here, that it would be helpful to us, because I am personally very anxious, and so is Mr. Nelsen, to move this bill as fast as we can. (Subsequently, the following recommendations were received by the Committee:) Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAIL PROJECT, Committee for the District of Columbia, Washington, June 9, 1966. DEAR CONGRESSMAN WHITENER: Pursuant to a conversation of June 8, 1966, between Judge A. Danaher and Mr. James T. Clark, we are sending to you our comments concerning questions raised by you and Congressman Fuqua during the hearings on H.R. 15065 and H.R. 15242. In addition, this letter contains a restatement of the other amendments presented by Judge Danaher, the Department of Justice and representatives of the D. C. Bail Project who testified at the hearings. We are authorized to state that Judge John A. Danaher has discussed each of these amendments with us and has no objection to any of them. Your office was notified by Judge Danaher that pursuant to your instructions we have met and agreed upon the suggested changes listed herein. We thus unanimously propose that the following changes be made in H.R. 15065 and H.R. 15242, and that these changes as agreed to by us and Judge Danaher shall be in lieu of the suggested changes contained in our respective statements included in the hearing record yesterday morning. Page 2, line 21 and 22 Delete the phrase starting on line 21 "except a charge of intoxication or traffic violation," and Page 3, line 8 Delete the phrase "any court in the District of Columbia" and insert in lieu thereof: "any court named in Sec. 3(a) of this Act. Such interview when requested by a judicial officer shall also be undertaken with respect to any person charged with intoxication or traffic violation." Page 4, line 3 Strike lines 3 through 7 and insert in lieu thereof the following: "(b) The agency when requested by an appellate court or a judge or justice thereof, or by any other judicial officer, shall furnish a report as provided in section 4(a) respecting any person whose case is pending before any such appellate court or judicial officer or in whose behalf an application for a bail determination shall have been submitted." Commencing on page 7 at line 18 and continuing on page 8 through line 25, strike out Sec. 10(a), (b) and Sec. 11. In lieu thereof insert the following: "Sec. 10. The Bail Reform Act of 1966 shall apply to any person detained pursuant to law or charged with an offense in the District of Columbia." Renumber Sec. 12 to read "Sec. 11." Very truly yours, DANIEL J. FREED, Acting Director of the Office of Criminal Justice, Assistant Dean, Associate Professor of Law, Chairman, District of Columbia Bail Project. Director, District of Columbia Bail Project. COMMENTS At a meeting between Judge Danaher and Messrs. Freed, McCarthy, and Molleur Wednesday afternoon, June 8, 1966, the suggested amendments listed herein below for H. R. 15065 were agreed upon as representing the only necessary changes to the bill to insure that the bail agency legislation is in full agreement with the Bail Reform Act of 1966, S. 1357. The suggested deletion on lines 21 and 22, page 2, Sec. 3(c) with the suggested amendment to be inserted in line 8, page 3, Sec. 4(a), is designed to insure that the judicial officer involved in a particular bail determination relating to an intoxication or traffic violation could request that the defendant be interviewed by the bail agency staff. The amendments will eliminate the need for the agency to interview intoxication and traffic defendants whose cases will be disposed of at the first hearing in court, but will permit the agency to assist judicial officers upon request in bail determinations which might otherwise result in detention. This suggested amendment *** is designed to permit judicial officers, in addition to appellate court judges and justices, to request the agency to furnish a report in an individual case. It was felt that this particular delineation was necessary in light of the Bail Reform Act. While appellate judges certainly need the authority to refer, there may also arise occasions where a judicial officer other than an appellate judge will be required to review a bail determination in light of different circumstances in order to impose conditions for release different from those set at the initial bail determination. With respect to the suggested amendment on pages 7 and 8 regarding the striking of Sec. 10 (a), (b) and Sec. 11, it should be noted that after reviewing the matter fully with Judge Danaher, it was agreed that these provisions need not be set forth in full in H. R. 15065 because the credit against sentencing and bail jumping provisions in the Bail Reform Act of 1966 would be controlling in the District of Columbia. Therefore, as indicated at the hearing, present Sections 10 (a), (b) and 11 were considered unnecessary in H. R. 15065 and should be deleted to avoid any conflict or confusion. However, it was agreed that the new Sec. 10 herein suggested would make clear Congress' intent that the provisions of the Bail Reform Act were fully applicable to any person detained pursuant to law or charged with an offense in the District of Columbia. H.R. 15065 as thus amended will comport with the provisions of the Bail Reform Act of 1966 as passed by the House of Representatives, June 7, 1966. These suggestions and comments are, of course, equally applicable to H.R. 15242. If there is nothing further, we have another little matter to proceed with. (Whereupon, at 10:50 o'clock a.m., the Subcommittee proceeded to the consideration of other matters.) |