United States. Congress. House. Committee on the J.

Law enforcement technology : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, May 17, 1995 online

. (page 1 of 12)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on the JLaw enforcement technology : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, May 17, 1995 → online text (page 1 of 12)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


A



LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY



Y 4. J 89/1; 104/20

Lau Enforcenent Technologg. Serial...

HEARING



BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION



MAY 17, 1995



Serial No. 20




'^'5 ; ; ,,



^S



Printed for the iise of the Committee on the Judiciary



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1995



For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0-16-052162-9



LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY

Y 4, J 89/1; 104/20

Lau Enforcenent Tecliiiolo9!(, Serial...

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME

OF THE

f COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

[ HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION



MAY 17, 1995



Serial No. 20







Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary



U.S. GOVERNMENT FWNTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1995



For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0-16-052162-9



COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman

CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado

Wisconsin BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts

BILL McCOLLUM, Florida CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania HOWARD L. BERMAN, CaUfomia

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

LAMAR SMITH, Texas JOHN BRYANT, Texas

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico JACK REED, Rhode Island

ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York

CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North CaroUna

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia XAVffiR BECERRA, California

STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana JOSE E. SERRANO, New York

MARTIN R. HOKE, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, CaUfomia

SONNY BONO, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
FRED HEINEMAN, North CaroUna
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, lUinois
BOB BARR, Georgia

Alan F. Coffey, Jr., General Counsel / Staff Director

Julian Epstein, Minority Staff Director



Subcommittee on Crime

BILL McCOLLUM, Florida, Chairman

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia

HOWARD COBLE, North CaroUna ZOE LOFGREN, CaUfomia

FRED HEINEMAN, North CaroUna SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

ED BRYANT, Tennessee MELVIN L. WATT, North CaroUna

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia

Paul J. McNulty, Chief Counsel

Glenn R. Schmitt, Counsel
Dan Bryant, Assistant Counsel

Tom Dl\z, Minority Counsel

(II)



CONTENTS



HEARING DATE



Page

May 17, 1995 1

OPENING STATEMENT

McColliim, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress ftx)m the State of Florida,
and chairman, Subconunittee on Crime 1



WITNESSES

Baker, Col. Carl R., deputy secretary of public safety, Governor's Office,

Commonwealth of Virginia 95

Boyd, David G., Director, Science and Technology Division, National Institute

of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice 4

Cansler, Robert E., chief of police, dty of Concord, NC 103

McEwen, Harlan R., chief, Ithaca PoUce Department, Ithaca, NY 42

Miyoshi, Dennis, Director, Nuclear Security Systems Center, Sandia National

Laboratory 87

Wenaas, Eric P., president and CEO, JAYCOR 73

Wright, Grady, C., vice president and general manager, TRW 80

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Baker, Col. Carl R., deputy secretary of public safety, Governor's Office,
Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement 98

Boyd, David G., Director, Science and Technology Division, National Institute
of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice: Prepared statement 11

Cansler, Robert E., chief of police, city of Concord, NC: Prepared statement .... 106

McEwen, Harlan R., chief, Ithaca Police Department, Ithaca, NY: Prepared
statement 46

Miyoshi, Dennis, Nuclear Security Systems Center, Sandia National Labora-
tory: Prepared statement 90

Wenaas, Eric P., president and CEO, JAYCOR: Prepared statement 76

Wright, Grady C, vice president and general manager, TRW:

Prepared statement 83

TRW law enforcement investigative analysis system 114

(lU)



LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY



WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1995

House of Representatives,

Subcommittee on Crime,
Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m., in room
2154, Raybum House Office Building, Hon. Bill McCoUum (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Bill McCoUum, Howard Coble, Steven
Schiff, Fred Heineman, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, Robert C. Scott,
Melvin L. Watt, Zoe Lofgren, and Sheila Jackson Lee.
Also present: Representative John Conyers, Jr.
Staff present: Paul J. McNulty, chief counsel; Glenn R. Schmitt,
counsel; Dan Bryant, assistant counsel; Aerin D. Dunkle, research
assistant; Audray L. Clement, secretary; and Tom Diaz, minority
counsel.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN McCOLLUM

Mr. McCOLLUM. Good morning. This hearing of the Crime Sub-
committee will come to order. We are this morning meeting in our
neighboring government reform meeting room, and we are very ap-
preciative of the chairman, Mr. dinger, letting us have this for our
hearing this morning. I see we have a good turnout and a good at-
tendance, and a lot of folks interested in what we are doing today.

This morning we are holding an oversight hearing concerning
law enforcement technologies. As the tragic events in Oklahoma
City remind us, combating violent crime has become increasingly
challenging in the 20th century. Modem technology has led to new
criminal opportunities and methods and new ways of avoiding de-
tection. Increased technological sophistication has opened the door
to increased criminal sophistication.

At the same time, technological advances have helped improve
the crime fighting capabilities of Federal, State, and local law en-
forcement agencies. New technologies have provided the law en-
forcement community with invaluable new tools, while improving
efficiency and cutting costs. A wide range of technologies are now
indispensable to fighting crime. Technologies involving automated
identification information management and communications are re-
lied on daily by law enforcement agencies throughout the country.

The Oklahoma City tragedy has illustrated the central role of
technology in law enforcement today. It was a national automated
information system that provided key information leading to the
arrest of the suspect, Timothy McVeigh.

(1)



It is important to note that in an era of tight budgets, law en-
forcement is left trying to do more with less. Under such cir-
cumstances, it is vital that law enforcement be as smart as it can
be. A wide range of technologies have greatly enhanced the ability
of law enforcement to gather critical intelligence. Fiscal constraints
also place a premium on the effective coordination of efforts within
government and industry to identify and develop new law enforce-
ment technologies.

For more than 25 years, the Justice Department's National Insti-
tute of Justice has provided important Federal leadership in the
area of law enforcement technologies, identifying and supporting
technological advances applicable to criminal justice. NIJ sponsored
projects and research programs have focused on a wide range of
technology issues, including DNA analysis and light weight police
body armor.

Through its Office of Science and Technology, NIJ is currently fa-
cilitating efforts to develop less than lethal technologies that police
can use in situations where lethal force is not justified, or would
place bystanders at risk,

NIJ also coordinates with the Defense Department to ensure that
certain technologies which have both military and law enforcement
applications are identified and developed. This coordination effort
leverages resources and has led to new tools for both the law en-
forcement community and the military.

In February 1995, this Congress recognized the valuable role of
the National Institute of Justice in fighting crime and required
that one percent of the total funding of the local government law
enforcement block grants be set aside for use by NIJ to assist units
of local government to identify, develop and purchase new law en-
forcement technologies.

I know I speak for all members of this subcommittee in stating
my hope the Nationsd Institute of Justice will continue to work
closely with industry to ensure that the law enforcement commu-
nity can fully utilize emerging technologies in its fight against
crime.

My friend from New York is not here this morning. But before
I yield to Mr. Scott, if he wishes to make an opening statement,
I would like to make a comment and recognize the continuing lead-
ership of Mr. Schiff on this issue. In fact, it is largely due to his
initiative that we are holding this hearing today.

At this point in time, I am going to yield to Mr. Scott if he wishes
to make an opening statement, and then, certainly to Mr. Schiff.

Mr. Scott. I don't have an opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the hearing this morning. It gives us an opportunity to
use technology to catch the guilty. One of the problems we have in
this criminal justice system is that innocent and guilty people get
caught up in the same procedure. By the use of technology, we can
more closely identify the guilty. We can catch the criminals.

DNA has been one area where the guilty have been very well
separated from the innocent. Fingerprint identification systems
have done the same thing in helping us catch criminals and with-
out getting the innocent roped into the criminal justice system.

So I am looking forward to the technology that can help us fulfill
this goal.



3

Mr. McCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Schiff.

Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have some brief re-
marks to make. The first is, to commend Congresswoman Patricia
Schroeder, with whom I have worked regularly on this issue of
bringing high technology to law enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, there has always been a discussion here in the
Congress of what is the proper Federal role with respect to law en-
forcement. That is, what should we do here and what should State
and local government be responsible for doing.

I think one area of improving law enforcement, where I think
there is a very clear role for Federal leadership, is in developing
high technology for law enforcement. All of our local police depart-
ments and sheriffs' departments and other agencies cannot possibly
be expected to individually pay for the tests and examination of
products £ind evaluation of their effectiveness.

It seems to me that that could be done at the Federal level
through an organization like the National Institute of Justice,
which has been doing this job for a number of years. Then, the
Federal Government disseminating this information to the State
and local governments so that they can make the appropriate pur-
chases that fit their needs.

I think one of the greatest contributions that technology will
make, along with many others of course, is in fact to law enforce-
ment. I am going to mention just two, although obviously I and
many people here could go on past that. One is DNA identification.

When I began as an assistant district attorney in 1972, my recol-
lection is that blood analysis was limited to blood type and the Rh
factor. You know, you are A positive or AB negative, or whatever
it might happen to be, and that was it. Of course that limited a
blood sample to tens of millions of people, even on the rarest of
blood t3T)es.

Toward the time I was leaving law enforcement, at the end of the
1980's to come here, we had added the identification of different
antigens. I believe there were six different antigens that could be
identified, along with the different blood types and Rh factors. That
narrowed it down considerably, but still left numerous possibilities
of mistaken identity.

We now have what I don't believe existed only a few short years
ago. That is, DNA identification, which c£in get a blood type and
basically body fluid type identified almost down to a specific indi-
vidual.

A second contribution is in nonlethal apprehension technology.
We have had a number of incidents in the Albuquerque area which
I represent, which I think are not unusual, where the police are
confronted by an individual who may be armed with a gun or a
knife, and the situation is that individual at that moment may be
intoxicated or otherwise, not in possession of his right mind, as we
would say. The fact of the matter is the police on those occasions
have opened fire, because they were threatened. They were threat-
ened by the individual concerned and had to protect themselves.
But everybody, from the police to the citizens wished that there
was a way to apprehend someone in that circumstance without fa-
tally shooting them, because there is a belief that many of these
individuals in other circumstances would not be dangerous.



We have a number of technologies offered here that may well do
that. I did not name other technologies that are right in front of
us, but they are there for everyone to see.

I have just two more brief things, Mr. Chairman. One is, I want
to say there will be a demonstration of a number of technologies
here after the hearing. Everyone is invited to stay. TRW will dem-
onstrate an automated fingerprint identification system. DGE is
what I have, has a remote consultation information system. Sandia
National Laboratories in Albuquerque has a smart gun. That is, a
firearm that can be used only by the person who is supposed to be
able to use it. There are laser maxis dazzler and laser cited guns,
and a number of other items to be demonstrated. I hope people will
be able to stay.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request.
That is, I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for
5 days after this hearing, because a number of individuals wanted
to testify who are not available today.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you very
much, Mr. Schiff.

I would like to welcome our first panel of guests this morning.
Our first witness is David Boyd. If you could come, Director Boyd,
and have a seat and Chief McEwen.

David Boyd is the Director of Science and Technology for the Na-
tional Institute of Justice, the criminal justice research and evalua-
tion agency within the U.S. Department of Justice. Appointed in
September 1992, Director Boyd oversees the Institute's initiatives
to identify and develop new technologies and advance the effective-
ness of law enforcement agencies.

He is also responsible for the Institute's technology assessment
program which with the assistance of major law enforcement and
criminal justice practitioners, identifies priorities for the establish-
ment of standards and testing for law enforcement equipment.

Our next witness will be Harlin McEwen, a 37-year veteran in
law enforcement and chief of police in Ithaca, NY. Chief McEwen
has been a member of the National Institute of Justice's Law En-
forcement Technology Advisory Council since 1978, and has served
as the Council's Chairman since 1989. The Council reviews tech-
nology efforts on behalf of law enforcement, to ensure that the
practical considerations of the beat officer are taken into account
in the development of new technologies.

I want to welcome both of you here today. Director Boyd, if you
would proceed, we would appreciate it.

STATEMENT OF DAVID G. BOYD, DIRECTOR, SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. Boyd. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I want to express, in particular, our appreciation for
your support and that of Mr. Schumer and others of the conference
just concluded.

As you know, today was to have been a panel on the role of gov-
ernment in helping us to do these kinds of things. So the level of
interest you can see by the number of folks behind me who decided
to remain over and attend this hearing. We could not think of a



better alternative to our panel on the role of government than this
hearing.

Mr. McCOLLUM. We certainly appreciate everybody who came
and stayed. That's terrific. I'm very happy for that. Thank you.

Mr. Boyd. Thank you, sir. Every year, more than 23,000 Ameri-
cans are murdered, more than 170,000 are raped, more than 6 mil-
lion are victims of assault and at least 13 million are victimized by
property crimes. The total economic cost of crime in this country
in a single year comes to a staggering $70 billion.

Since 1988, investment in law enforcement and the criminal jus-
tice system has grown at roughly twice the rate of all other govern-
ment spending, until as a nation, we now spend more than $75 bil-
lion each year. We spend another $50 billion on private security
agencies and untold amoimts to protect our homes and businesses.
In December of last year. Business Week magazine put the annual
total cost at a much higher level, at least $425 billion.

Yet despite the incredible cost of law enforcement and the clear
expressions of concern by citizens about the consequences to the
pubUc of crime, we have done Httle to modernize our primary
crime-fighting instrument, the Nation's police. In fact. State and
local police are still equipped much as was Wyatt Earp in the late
19th century.

If we could reduce crime by only 1 percent, it would mean 230
fewer murders, more than 1,700 fewer rapes, 60,000 fewer assaults,
and at least 130,000 fewer property crimes. It would mean a sav-
ings of at least $700 million in economic costs, savings that would
be reaUzed every year.

If we had available technologies which ehminated the need for
high speed pursuits, we could save our cities huge tort losses. New
York City recently lost a judgment for over $100 million, for inju-
ries to an innocent child struck by a motorcyclist being pursued by
pohce. That is more than 50 times the total annual research and
development budget allocated to the National Institute of Justice
for the development of technologies to address this very issue.

In 1992, in California alone, there were more than 7,000 high-
speed pursuits, which resulted in more than 1,200 injuries. Fully

14 percent of those injuries were to law enforcement personnel, and

15 percent were to innocent bystanders. Nationally, about 1 per-
cent of all high-speed pursuits end in fatalities.

If we could find a technology that would safely and effectively
permit an alternative to incarceration for just 1 percent of our cur-
rent prison population, it would save at least $159 million each
year, not counting the cost of prisons themselves.

While there may be Umits to the amount of improvement tech-
nology is capable of producing in the levels of crime, the promise
of productivity improvements offered by technology is clear. The
numbers are impressive and the need compelling.

From 1970 to 1991, crimes per police officer increased more than
65 percent. Some argue the real figure is more like 500 percent.
This workload increase is reflected in the rate at which crimes are
now cleared. In 1993, fewer than 20 percent of all reported prop-
erty crimes, barely one-fifi;h, were cleared within 1 year. The clear-
ance rate for murder declined fi-om 91 percent in 1965 to barely 65



6

percent in 1992. The robbery clearance rate in 1993 was only 24
percent.

In 1950, every police officer handled fewer than three serious
crimes a year. Today, despite the fact that we have more than dou-
bled the number of officers in the United States, every officer is
faced with more than nine times that number of crimes. In 1950,
only 36 officers were killed in the line of duty. Today, we average
150 a year, 157 last year. The number is that low only because soft
body armor saves another 150 each year.

If we could improve the productivity of the entire law enforce-
ment and criminal justice system by just 1 percent, it would be
equivalent to investing at least an additional $750 million in law
enforcement. That is roughly equivalent to the cost of putting an
additional 15,000 officers on the streets.

Unfortunately, our efforts to leverage technology to obtain those
productivity improvements have hardly been reassuring. From
1985 to 1990, total Federal research and development investment
increased nearly 8 percent. During the same period, crime in-
creased more than 30 percent, while the number of criminals incar-
cerated rose by 60 percent. Yet investment in research and devel-
opment for the entire law enforcement and criminal justice system
actually declined 19 percent over the same period.

As you are all aware, NIJ is the Department's principal research
and development component. In that capacity, NIJ supports State,
local, and Federal law enforcement agencies by providing and en-
couraging research and demonstration efforts aimed at improving
the effectiveness of all elements of State, local and Federal criming
justice systems and related aspects of the civil justice systems. In
fact, NIJ's legislative charter requires the Institute to give primary
emphasis to the problems of State and local justice systems. That
makes a lot of sense, because supporting the smaller agencies is
the crucial challenge. More than 90 percent of the roughly 17,360
law enforcement agencies in the United States employ 24 or fewer
sworn officers. Half employ fewer than 12. Yet these tiny agencies
account for 95 percent of all law enforcement personnel in the
United States, and the vast bulk of what we consider policing falls
within their local jurisdictions.

Federal agencies are rarely the first on the scene for those prob-
lems the average citizen is most concerned about: domestic disturb-
ances, rapes, assaults, murders, gang brawls, drive-by shootings,
burglaries, carjackings, robberies and the like. While Federal agen-
cies are involved in a dozen or so hostage barricade or barricade
operations each year, the New York City police alone are csdled out
to confront this kind of problem several hundred times each year.

Over 90 percent of prison inmates and all jail inmates are held
in State and local facilities. In fact, the largest Federal facilities,
which rarely house more than 2,000 prisoners, are dwarfed by the
Los Angeles County Jail, which houses over 20,000. If we want to
have an impact on crime, we'll have to support law enforcement at
the State and local level by helping to provide technological force
multipliers.

Despite a budget that has rarely exceeded $3 million, and a staff
that only recently grew to five, we have had a remarkable impact
on law enforcement technology over the years. Almost all the foren-



sic DNA research done in the United States has been funded in
whole or in part by the National Institute of Justice. If you watch
the O.J. Simpson trial, you have seen Judge Ito leafing through
this book, "DNA Technology in Forensic Science." It was produced
by the National Academy of Sciences at our request, and we funded
it.

I should here point out that NIJ funds the Office of Law Enforce-
ment Standards within the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, so that we can capitalize on those laboratory facilities
and that expertise without having to build our own laboratory.
They produce the standard reference materials kit used by DNA
laboratories to help assure reliable results with the most commonly
used DNA identification process. That kit was recognized in 1993
by Research and Development magazine as one of the 100 best re-
search and development projects in the United States.

We have just completed and will shortly offer for sale, this stand-
ard materials kit for a new DNA technology which can produce re-
sults in a day at a cost of about $30 per test, instead of the 6 to
8 weeks and $300 to $600 required by the current most commonly
used method.

We have also been tasked by the Attorney General with the man-
agement of efforts to enhance the DNA capabilities of qualified
State and local laboratories. Congress has tasked us with the de-
velopment of a way to ensure the accuracy of DNA identification
by laboratories.

Working with the FAA some years ago, we demonstrated the
value of the metal detectors you now find in airports and of drug-
sniffing dogs. We developed, produced and demonstrated the soft
body armor worn today by most of our police, a technology which
has so far saved more than 1,800 police officer lives. In addition to


1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on the JLaw enforcement technology : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, May 17, 1995 → online text (page 1 of 12)