338 following lines to clarify the state of the law, to encourage the responsible execution of duties created by the statutes recommended herein to regulate intelligence agencies, and to provide relief for the victims of illegal intelligence activity. Recommendation 91.-Congress should enact a comprehensive oivil remedies statute which would accomplish the following: " 69 (a) Any American with a substantial and specific claim 70 to an actual or threatened injury by a violation of the Constitution by federal intelligence officers or agents acting under color of law should have a federal cause of action against the government and the individual federal intelligence officer or agent responsible for the violation, without regard to the monetary amount in controversy. If actual injury is proven in court, the Committee believes that the injured person should be entitled to equitable relief, actual, general, and punitive damages, and recovery of the costs of litigation.72 If threatened injury is proven in court, the Committee believes that equitable relief and recovery of the costs of litigation should be available. (b) Any American with a substantial and specific claim to actual or threatened injury by violation of the statutory charter for intelligence activity (as proposed by these Domestic Intelligence Recommendations) should have a cause of action for relief as in (a) above. (c) Because of the secrecy that surrounds intelligence programs, the Committee believes that a plaintiff should have two years from the date upon which he discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the facts which give rise to a cause of action for relief from a constitutional or statutory violation. (d) Whatever statutory provision may be made to permit an individual defendant to raise an affirmative defense that he acted within the scope of his official duties, in good faith, and with a reasonable belief that the action he took was lawful, the Committee believes that to ensure relief to persons injured by governmental intelligence activity, this defense should be available solely to individual defendants and should not extend to the government. Moreover, the defense should not be available to bar injunctions against individual defendants. "Due to the scope of the Committee's mandate, we have taken evidence only on constitutional violations by intelligence officers and agents. However, the anomalies and lack of clarity in the present state of the law (as discussed above) and the breadth of constitutional violations revealed by our record, suggest to us that a general civil remedy would be appropriate. Thus, we urge consideration of a statutory civil remedy for constitutional violations by any federal officer; and we encourage the appropriate committees of the Congress to take testimony on this subject. The requirement of a substantial and specific claim is intended to allow a judge to screen out frivolous claims where a plaintiff cannot allege specific facts which indicate that he was the target of illegal intelligence activity. "Federal intelligence officers or agents" should include a person who was an intelligence officer, employee, or agent at the time a cause of action arose. "Agent" should include anyone acting with actual, implied, or apparent authority. The right to recover "costs of litigation" is intended to include recovery of reasonable attorney fees as well as other litigation costs reasonably incurred. To amend Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 of 1973, and for other Public Law 93-253, 88 Stat. 50 H.R. 8245; 93d Congress Approved March 16, 1974 (References are to pages in the Congressional Record) Copy of Public Law 93-253. Copy of hearings held on H.R. 8245. Copies of House and Senate Reports. Copies of debate from the Congressional Record. AMENDING REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1973, AND PROVIDING A REMEDY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR INTENTIONAL TORTS OF ITS INVESTIGATIVE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS NOVEMBER 20, 1973.-Ordered to be printed Mr. ERVIN, from the Committee on Government Operations, REPORT [To accompany H.R. 8245] The Committee on Government Operations, to which was referred the bill (H.R. 8245) to amend Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. PURPOSE The purpose of H.R. 8245, as amended, is (1) to repeal those sections of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 which transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury certain functions vested by law in the Attorney-General, of the Department of Justice regarding the inspection of persons and documents at U.S. ports of entry; and (2) to provide a remedy against the United States for the intentional torts of its investigative and law enforcement officers. BACKGROUND Section 1. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 established in the Department of Justice a new agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury functions vested by law in the Attorney General, or the Department of Justice, regarding the inspection of persons and documents at U.S. ports of entry. This function involves approximately 900 immigration inspectors who, under the provisions of the Reorganization Plan, were transferred from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice to the Customs Bureau of the Department of the Treasury. 2 During the course of Committee consideration of Plan No. 2 of 1973, it became apparent that there was wide-scale opposition to the proposed transfers by the immigration inspectors involved, by the American Federation of Government Employees and by Members of Congress. Following discussions between administration and union representatives, certain understandings were reached whereby the administration agreed not to implement the transfer provided for in the Plan. A memorandum embodying the terms of the agreement was placed in the files of the Committee, and the American Federation of Government Employees agreed to withdraw its opposition to the Plan. During floor debate in the House of Representatives on H. Res. 382, to disapprove Reorganization Plan No. 2, Congressman Holifield, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations, explained the situation and gave assurances that prompt action would be taken to consider and report a bill repealing the objectionable portions of Reorganization Plan No. 2. The resolution of disapproval was defeated and the Plan became effective on July 1, 1973. H.R. 8245, which passed the House of Representatives on July 17, 1973, would repeal section 2 and subsection 6(b) and modify section 8 of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, thus nullifying the transfers of the immigration inspectors provided for in the Plan. Section 2. This section represents a Committee amendment to the bill as it passed the House. This amendment proposed by the chairman, and Senators Percy and Javits grows out of hearings held by the Committee on the Reorganization Plan last spring. During the course of these hearings several incidents were brought to the Com'mittee's attention in which Federal narcotics agents engaged in abusive, illegal and unconstitutional "no-knock" raids. The Committee's amendment is designed to prevent future abuses of the Federal "noknock" statute (21 U.S.C. 879). The most notorious of these raids occurred on April 29 of this year in Collinsville, Illinois. In separate incidents involving the same Justice Department agents, "no-knock" raids were conducted into two different homes in Collinsville. The agents entered the two houses without warrants in violation of the Federal "no-knock" statute, kicked in the doors without warning, shouting obscenities, and threatening the occupants with drawn weapons. The terrified inhabitants were only temporarily relieved when the agents left after discovering that they had entered the wrong houses. There is no effective legal remedy against the Federal Government for the actual physical damage, much less the pain, suffering and humiliation to which the Collinsville families have been subjected. Since they were not then suspects, nor are they now Federal defendants, they cannot move in a prosecution to suppress evidence, the tra ditional remedy for violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Indeed there was not any evidence seized in these raids because, of course, the agents were at the wrong addresses. Furthermore, neither family can recover from the Federal Government in a civil action because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. As a general principle under present law, if a Federal agent violates someone's constitutional rights-for instance, Fourth Amendment S.R. 588 |