layer by layer. When the gangsters finished, nothing was left of the soul of the city.

In Wincanton, the chief racketeer-overlord with "national connections" contracted, bartered, and sold the position of chief of police for $10,000. The mayor, the police chief, and the police department were paid on a weekly basis, by the overlord and his syndicate. The chief racketeer gave the police specific instructions to keep hands off gambling and prostitution within the city.

With this kind of stranglehold on the government of the city, the city's growth and development was choked and its government paralyzed.

Who can deny that this city was put to plunder? Who can deny that democratic government in this city was totally and ruthlessely destroyed by criminals? Who can deny that the capture of this city by organized criminals was as great a threat, if not a greater threat to the city's security than invasion by hostile armies? Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, let us not delude ourselves, our very national security is at stake in this battle to combat crime.

Where is Wincanton, U.S.A.? Wincanton will be everywhere unless we get the investigative tools needed to bring organized crime to its knees.

Is there a need for court-approved eavesdropping? What kind of evidence is produced by this investigative device? Little is written on the subject, but recently the U.S. District Court of the District of Rhode Island made summaries of 10 days electronic surveillance an official part of the record in a pending organized crime prosecution in that district.

These 10 days of electronic surveillance show in graphic detail the day-to-day, hour-to-hour, minute-to-minute machinations of New England's No. 1 criminal czar.

These electronic surveillances revealed private criminal conversations by this New England czar wherein he discussed-among other things sending bank robbers to Philadelphia; the kidnaping of an individual in Miami, Fla.; the induction of a Cosa Nostra member in New York; splitting of $18,000 proceeds from a crime to get the man who committed it out of jail; the replacement of a numbers baron in Baltimore who was going to jail, and the hiring of a "hit" man to be used in the Providence area.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Do I understand that all this information was gained in one wiretap?

Mr. SENNETT. In 10 days of surveillance.
Senator MCCLELLAN. How recently?

Mr. SENNETT. This year.

Senator HRUSKA. The testimony was released this year, but it was gathered electronically at an earlier date.

Mr. SENNETT. That is right.

Senator MCCLELLAN. In the last two or three years?

Mr. SENNETT. It is fairly current.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Go ahead.

Mr. SENNETT. Other topics of conversation by this top organized crime figure in New England included: The effect of the Bonanno defection on Canada; shylocking personnel; arrangements to pay off

one of the State police departments in New England; discussion concerning labor racketeering; discussion concerning the sale of a track in New England for $900,000; and the discussion of franchises of juke box machines under the control of Angelo Bruno in Philadelphia. Finally, the electronic surveillance revealed that the New England racketeer kingpin categorically stated: "If the killings-in Bostondon't stop, I'll declare martial law."

These electronic surveillance summaries unquestionably demonstrate the need for court-approved electronic surveillance. The supreme arrogance of the man-he'll declare martial law. Where is government when he declares martial law?

Does organized crime cripple effective government? Recently a civic leader in Westchester County, N.Y., charged publicly that organized crime figures had stopped redevelopment in that county dead in its tracks. An underworld figure purportedly explained the syndicate's attitude on redevelopment: "You make more money out of a Harlem than a Scarsdale."

Surely, if we do not protect ourselves against the scourge of organized crime, we shall lose our government and our freedom. The experts agree that we have failed to effectively combat this urgent criminal problem. The experts agree that, at present, it is clear that traditional investigative techniques are totally inadequate to bring organized crime figures to justice. For the sake of free government and for the safety of our citizens, I urge you to present to the Congress a constitutionally sound act to permit closely supervised court-approved electronic eavesdropping.

Senator MCCLELLAN. You appreciate our problem there when you say present to the Congress a constitutionally sound act to permit closely supervised court-approved electronic eavesdropping. We may so think, but the Supreme Court may disagree with us.

Mr. SENNETT. In answer to your question, I think the Supreme Court in the Berger decision, has given us the guidelines within which both the Congress and the States may draft and enact constitutionally sound legislation.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I hope it has and I am inclined to share your view, but I am not fully convinced. But I take this position: Let the Congress meet its responsibility in the light of its judgment, and then if the Supreme Court disagrees, let it take the onus of such consequences as may follow.

Mr. SENNETT. After a searching examination of the Berger decision, it is Pennsylvania's view that a workable, constitutionally sound statute for strictly supervised court-approved electronic eavesdropping is feasible.

Pennsylvania's view is that there must be sufficient safeguards to justify the extreme degree of invasion of privacy caused by eavesdropping. Pennsylvania's proposed statute, therefore, will include the following safeguards:

1. Applications to court for court-approved eavesdropping must be made on application of the attorney general and the local district attorney.

2. Court-approved orders for court approved eavesdropping will issue only after a precise and definite showing of "probably cause"

under oath. The oaths would be by the police officer who would have the necessary information, but the application would always be by the district attorney and the Attorney General.

3. The person or persons whose conversations and communications are being sought, the nature of the conversations and communications, the crime and the place must be described with detailed particularity as much as is possible.

4. The maximum time of coverage for court-approved eavesdropping will be 24 hours.

I would suggest, as I say, my statement, keeping it to as short a time as 24 hours.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Let me ask you this: I have no objection to limiting it if you can get results. But it takes a little while to place a wiretap. You cannot place a wiretap just any time of day. Without advertising the fact you've got to take these things into account. Do you not agree?

Mr. SENNETT. I think the devices that would be currently, if not at least available, possible, are to the extent sophisticated that the matter of placement has become almost no problem.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That may be true. All right, go ahead.

Mr. SENNETT. 5. A specific provision waiving the requirement of any advanced notice to the accused on the basis of need and emergency. This is one of the most important things that the Berger decision has left open. But the Berger decision certainly implies, as I interpret it. that if you recite there is a need and an emergency, you do not have to give advance notice to the accused.

Senator MCCLELLAN. What would be the point of the wiretap if you have to give advance notice to the accused?

Mr. SENNETT. If you have to give advance notice there is no chance possible. But the Berger decision recites this possibility, it says its advance notice or the showing of need in an emergency.

Senator MCCLELLAN. In other words, I take it from the Berger decision, if you want a wiretap, got the court's approval, and gave advance notice, it would be legal. It would also be futile as well as legal, would it not?

Mr. SENNETT. Absolutely futile.

Senator HRUSKA. Is that not part in keeping with the Supreme Court's recent decision in the matter of regular searches and seizures? Mr. SENNETT. I think there is an analogy between the theory in the search-and-seizure matter that you mentioned and this also.

Senator HRUSKA. Thank you.

Mr. SENNETT. 6. Provision for the official return of the court order as a matter of record similar to the return requirements of search warrants. I don't believe I mentioned in my prepared statement, but certainly, in addition for return of the court order, making the information available at a subsequent time to the accused under discovery procedures.

With these specific safeguards it is Pennsylvania's belief that law enforcement officers will have, in some measure, the weapons which they need to combat organized crime and, at the same time, our citizens' right to privacy will be carefully protected by the safeguards I have just outlined.

I might then, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, that not only the evidence brought forward by the electronic surveillance in New England, not only the statements in New York, not only the reports of the President's Crime Commission, but also his prosecution with which we are familiar in Pennsylvania, both Federal and State, over the last several years, show the absolute factual existence of organized crime and its effect upon government and communities. One of the best ways to root it out is to give our State law enforcement officials a constitutional statute, and I believe it can be drawn within the guidelines suggested by Justice Clark in the majority opinion in the Berger case. Senator MCCLELLAN. If the Congress provided a statute authorizing it in Federal cases, a State law not in conflict therewith would, I assume, be held constitutional and the States could therefore enact statutes that do not contravene to Federal law.

I thank you very much for your statement. I see nothing to argue about or quarrel with the requirements, other than the 24 hours. Mr. SENNETT. The 24 hours may be somewhat restrictive.

Senator MCCLELLAN. It may be too short. I do not know. But I agree that it ought to be under the strictest supervision of the court issuing the warrant with the authority to recall the order and the authority to require a report. I have no objection, as someone has suggested, to requiring the filing with the court promptly upon discovery any testimony, or all testimony, and let it be placed in the court's custody. I have no objection to any reasonable restriction or requirement to prevent, as far as possible, any abuse. But to deny to law enforcement this instrument, this means of combating crime, I think, is a grave injustice to society.

Senator Scott?

Senator Scorr. I thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for a very useful statement.

I have the same concern Senator McClellan has expressed about the 24 hours, partly because of certain experience with sometimes the lethargy or interruptions which occur in the actions of a political-of a police official who may be diverted to some other business by orders of his superior or simply slow moving-all because of the continuity which may occur during a wiretap where a conversation was interrupted by one of the parties who says, "I will call you back tomorrow." This may be a minor thing, but perhaps a period of longer than 24 hours may be useful.

On two other bills which Senator McClellan and I have cosponsored, if you would care to express any reaction-the obstruction of criminal investigation-this is related to criminal activities. It is a crime to obstruct court proceeding, yet it is not a crime to obstruct an investigation. By stifling the flow of information at the investigative level some persons can prevent the case from ever reaching the court. This bill would make such obstruction of activity, for example, through threats, violence, and force, a criminal activity. Do you have any opinion on that?

Mr. SENNETT. Yes, Senator, I think that it would be our view that such legislation is necessary. I have had the opportunity to review the statute which you provided to me prior to my coming here, and I believe there is a deficiency in the law in not allowing us to proceed in this particular area. I believe the legislation is sound.

78-433-67- -59

Senator SCOTT. Thank you. This bill, S. 677 on witness immunitythese bills are now pending in the House. The witness immunity bill is intended to cover situations where many witnesses who can provide necessary information in criminal cases refuse to do so, exercising their constitutional right against self-incrimination which results in the defendant going free, whereas if there were witness immunities another result may well occur.

This bill would prevent such a possibility-such a possible miscarriage of justice by vesting the Attorney General with the power to ask the court to compel the witness to testify and without a promise not to prosecute.

Mr. SENNETT. Yes, Senator, and certainly a general immunity statute where it is limited to the attorney general's providing the immunity is necessary. I would also say that at the present time in Pennsylvania we have drafted a similar immunity statute which would be limited to the attorney general's discretion and we hope to have it inrtoduced and enacted by our general assembly.

Senator SCOTT. Just in conclusion, so the record shows the background, I would appreciate your correcting me if I am not stating this accurately, but for a period of a great many years in Pennsylvania, there was no effective restriction on wiretapping. It was conducted interstate and intrastate. Then there was a decision which I think outlawed intrastate wiretapping. There was a subsequent decision which outlawed interstate wiretapping. At least in both cases they restricted the practice, following which in a session of the legislature where there was some emotion surrounding it the legislature repealed all wiretapping legislation in Pennsylvania. That is the present situation; is it not?

Mr. SENNETT. That is correct. We are one of the few States where the legislature has enacted several years ago a statute which make wiretapping a criminal offense. Incidentally, there has never to my knowledge, been a prosecution under that statute and it is our view, of course, that that statute should be repealed and replaced with the type of statute authorizing which I have described today.

Senator SCOTT. A Senator said to me this morning before we met here that we seem to proceed in the way of a pendulum, that we go too far in one direction and permit too much and then go too far in other directions and outlaw everything. I think that's the purpose of these hearings, to find out if wiretapping is to be permitted and what scope should be allowed, what protective safeguards provided for and whether such a bill can be enacted, as Senator McClellan says, which will pass the scrutiny of whichever five members of the Supreme Court happen to form a temporary majority on that day. That is all I have.

Mr. SENNETT. It is a problem.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you very much. Any other questions! Senator ERVIN. Just one or two.

The Berger case is based on the fourth amendment?

Mr. SENNETT. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. If I remember correctly, it says the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.