Minor and miscellaneous bills : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 1241, H.R. 1533, H.R. 1552, H.R. 2359, and H.R. 2360, September 28, 1995 (Volume Pt. 2) online

report the crimes." For many reasons, sex offenses evoke special concern:

(1) sex offenses are associated with the greatest risk of psychological harm;

(2) most victims of sex offenders are children;

(3) unlike other criminals, sex offenders are often perceived to suffer fnm
psychological disorders, requiring special public policy attention;

(4) research has demonstrated that many sex offenders have a high propensity
to reoffend.

There is a growing recognition that most sex offense victims are children, and that
reporting of these offenses is still low. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin reported that
"only one to ten percent of child molestation cases are ever reported to police." A National
Victim Center survey estimated that 61% of rape victims are less than 18 years of age,
29% less than 11. A recent U.S. Department of Justice study of 11 jurisdictions and the
District of Columbia reported that 10,000 women under the age of 18 were raped in 1992
in these jurifldictionB. At least 3.800 were children under the age of 12. The Attorney
General of California found that 61% of the more than 60,000 registered sex offenders in
Califbmia were convicted of offenses agjiinst victims who were less than 18 years of age,
and another 18% victimized children and adults.



138



NCMEC encourages every state to adopt a iimple, commoa sense agenda which Is
tooffh, aggressive, balanced, sensitive to victims, practical and most importantly, effective.
Commoiuty safety could only be guaranteed if ail sex offenders received life sentences
without parole. This is not only unrealistic, it is not good policy. Since most sex offenders
will eventually return to the community, the community is interested in poUdes and
practices which will insure the greatest level of safety. A comprehensive criminal justice
response to sex offenders includes incarceration, treatment, community supervision, and
community notification.

NCMEX} has been a strong advocate of sex offender registration and community
notification laws. Currently 47 states have enacted sex offender registration laws,
beginning with California in 1947 and most recently Pennsylvania during the 1995
session. Thirty states also have community ixoti&cation laws. In 1993, Congress passed
the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration
Act which mandates passage of sex offender registration by next autumn and strongly
encourages the passage of community notification.

When employed in conjunction with each other, registration and notification laws
offer the greatest level of assistance to law enforcement and safety to neighborhoods
possible within the bounds of our Constitution. The sex offender registry assists law
enforcement in investigating cases involving sexual offenses against children by providing
immediate access to computerized information on convicted felony sex offenders living in
the conununity. In light of the fact that these cases are extremely difficult for law
enforcement to investigate and victims of sexual offenses frequently suffer long-term
effects as a result of the crime, a sex offender registry can provide law enforcement with a
valuable investigative tool. A responsible community notification program permits law
enforcement to release relevant and necessary information to the public as needed for
public protection. Notification guidelines to be developed by the appropriate agency
should provide instruction for law enforcement regarding the appropriate dissemination of
the information and a means of educating the community concerning responsible ways to
use and react to the information.

The registration of convicted sex offenders reentering the community is a control
that helps protect children firom victimization. Since sexual attraction of these offenders
to children may not be curable, and there is abundant evidence of the high propensity of
such ofEenders to reoffend, states have good reason to monitor the whereabouts of
convicted sez offenders. Protecting the public, especially children, from sex offenders is a
primary governmental interest The privacy interests of persons convicted of sex offenses
do not supersede the government's legitimate interest in public safety. Furthermore, the
fact that one eojoys illegal sexual exploitation is not protected information. The courts
have consistently upheld the constitutionality of sex offender registration and community
notification laws, most recently in New Jersey I have prepared for your review a legal
memoranda of the relevant case law that is attached herein.

Research from the Washington State Institute for Public Policy indicates that
community notification has worked weU in that state. A study conducted after the first
three years of that state's community notification program found only 14 acts of
harassment or aggression directed at registered offenders. This is particularly noteworthy



139



given that the Waabineton statute was enacted in response to two hoirific incidents of
â– exual brutality.

Sex offender registration and community notification procedures are just one part
of an overall strategy of dealing with sex offenders. The community should not get a false
sense of security because these programs are available. Vigoroufi prosecution, strong
sentencing, comprehensive treatment, and rigorous follow-up should also be part of the
strategy. A sex offender registry and notification program is not a panacea, but it is a
simple, common sense approach to this problem

Contrary to media portrayals, this is not a zero-sum situation: mcreased public
safety and vigilance does not have to come at the expense of mdividual rights and
liberties. Society must work together to achieve the societal integration of ex-convicts
desiring a law-abiding lifestyle, while thwarting the recidivist attempts of those not so
principled. The National Center maint.ainB that community notification can further these
aims and be a valuable tool in the fight to protect our children ^en coupled with calm
rationality and deliberated decisions. Consistently, citizens nationwide insist they would
want to know if a convicted sex offender lived next door; it is our responsibility as
policymakers to respond to their concerns.

Representative Zimmer's own state is an example of community notification at
work. Following the terrible abduction and murder of Megan Kanka, the New Jersey
legislature responded with a community notification law - "Megan's Law." Under the
New Jersey law, identified sex ofifenders are evaluated by specialists and categorized by
risk of reofifense, and notification by law enforcement is made as broadly or narrowly as
that risk assessment dictates. The law provides for judicial review of this risk assessment
if legally challenged. It also provides the offender with extensive constitutional
protections to insure the validity and constitutionality of the system as implemented.
Megan's Law was initially modeled after its Washington state counterpart, which has
consistently withstood judicial scrutiny, and like its predecessor, Megan's Law has
withstood legal challenge Indeed, on July 25, 1995, the New Jersey Supreme Court
pronounced New Jersey's community notification law constitutional, despite problems it
dted in the then-current implementation guidelines. In spirit, the court said, community
notification as estabUshed in New Jersey is constitutional. It is our hope that Rep.
Zimmer's bill will initiate the passage of effective, constitutional Megan's Laws
nationwide.

I beUeve HR 2137 is legally vahd, and fairly and reasonably balances the rights of
the released offender with the compelling pubhc interest of protecting America's
communities against high nsk sex offenders. Most importantly, I am confident that such
a system will make the citizens of the United States, particularly the children, safer than
ever before.

I stron^y urge this Committee's support of the passage of HR 2137.



140




FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCUTION



tU fnta n n Moatm Cf



OTUL tCBDVMTtO Ofn9 - OB



IMtti a MOUU tT CMO—' OB
kOJBW UmS'T MWS - CD



iura«M.oHvats



viCTQtosoTsn.nL
w» mT*

UOMDCMLO
INCHMXCMKT

iTSnW.VMIMAtt



STATEMENT OF



VICTOR G. OBOYSKI



HATIONAL PRESIDENT



FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION



H.R. 2641



"THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE IMPROVEMENT ACT"



FOR THE



ROUSE JXroiCIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME



MARCH 7, 1»9€



141



The U.S. Marshals Service 1789-1996

The United States Marshals Service (USMS) was created in
1789. The U.S. Marshals of the states and territories were
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The
Marshals operated independently from Washington and served as
policy makers in the districts until an executive office was
created to provide oversight and coordination between the
Marshals and the Attorney General.

In 1969, the headquarters for the U.S. Marshals Service
was created. This office began central budgeting and provided
control over the selection of deputies in the district offices.
Gradually the individual policy making of the district Marshals
eroded and was replaced with more uniform policies and procedures
generated by headquarters .

Between 1969 and 1986, as increasing responsibilities
were given to the Marshals Service, headquarters developed
national programs in judicial security, witness protection,
prisoner housing and transportation, asset seizure and forfeiture,
fugitive investigations, and internal audits and inspections.
Headquarters set policies, controlled resource allocation and
coordinated multi-district operations, but had little input into
the selection of the appointed U.S. Marshals, many of whom were
not law enforcement professionals.

The politically appointed U.S. Marshals controlled the
day to day assignments, while headquarters controlled the career
deputies long-term career advances and duty stations. The
traditional independence of the Marshals clashed with the growing
central control exercised by headquarters. Headquarters began



142



bypassing and taking control away from the Marshals by
establishing national programs in the area of witness security,
fugitive investigations, asset forfeiture programs and high level
judicial protection activities. The success of many of these
programs can be attributed to the fact that responsibility for
these activities were taken away from the politically appointed
U.S. Marshals.

Today, the U.S. Marshals Service is a professional law
enforcement agency with 4,000 employees assigned throughout the
United States and its territories. The responsibilities of the
Marshals Service have grown tremendously since the day President
George Washington appointed the first thirteen U.S. Marshals.
What has remained the same is the way in which U.S. Marshals are
selected.

Politically Appointed U.S. Marshals

The selection of the U.S. Marshal is as varied as the
Senators that nominate them. Currently there is no criteria for
the selection of a U.S. Marshal. There is no age, physical
fitness, educational, managerial, budgetary or law enforcement
requirement or experience needed to become a U.S. Marshal. In
the past Marshals have been a phone company foreman, a coroner, a
pig farmer and a host of a childrens' daytime TV program,- just to
name a few. The continued lack of professional standards for the
position of U.S. Marshal allows individuals, with occupational
backgrounds similar to those mentioned above, the ability to still
be appointed U.S. Marshal.

Today, while there are still some Marshals with no law
enforcement or managerial experience, many Marshals are retired



143



law enforcement officers from state and local agencies, finishing
out a long career in law enforcement at the federal level . While
they come to the Marshals with experience from their former
departments, much of it has little relevance in the day to day
operations of the Marshals Service. A new Marshal must first
learn federal law and procedures, court rules and procedures,
department and agency regulations and policies, Civil Service
Commission regulations, budget formulation and execution
requirements, procurement law and procedures, and a host of other
federal government requirements in order to maJce competent
decisions in the daily operations of the office. The only training
a newly appointed Marshal receives from the Marshals Service is a
forty hour ordination session.

Because the presidentially appointed U.S. Marshal
frequently does not have the composite experience and the
requisite )cnowledge, the task falls to the Chief Deputy U.S.
Marshals (CDUSM) to provide the leadership and management
expertise to carry out the USMS mission in the district office.
CDUSM are senior career federal law enforcement employees who have
spent many years in the USMS developing their s)cillE. They
undergo a comprehensive and highly competitive assessment process,
in service training, amd are responsible for the operation and
administration of their districts. These CDUSMs provide the
management continuity of the USMS field operations.

The lack of expertise and experience of the appointed
U.S. Marshals necessitates the role of the CDUSM. This requires
that a CDUSM must be assigned in every district office. While the
CDUSM is responsible for the overall fiscal operation and
administration of the office. Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshals



144



(SDUSM) are needed for the day to day assignments and supervision
of the personnel . The system of CDUSMs and SDUSMs to support the
appointed U.S. Marshals has caused the USMS to have a bloated
middle nvanagement . The ratio between employee to manager in the
U.S. Marshals Service nationwide is four (4) to one (1); the
highest ratio of managers in federal law enforcement .

In addition, the president ially appointed U.S. Marshal
is not subject to disciplinary actions and may only be removed by
the President or upon the appointment of a successor. The
Director of the USMS has little authority to deal with a U.S.
Marshal ' s incompetence or misconduct . A letter of censure from
the Director is the most severe disciplinary action that can be
taken against a U. S. Marshal. By contrast, all other Marshal
Service en^loyees can be transferred, demoted, suspended or even
removed for similar infractions.

Short of illegal or gross misconduct, U.S. Marshals
cannot be held accountable for their actions . The disparity in
discipline between political U.S. Marshals and career employees
has a devastating impact on morale. The double standard breeds
strong resentment among the career Deputy Marshals. When there is
a disagreement between the appointed U.S. Marshal and the career
CDUSM (who actually runs the office) the CDUSM is frequently
reassigned. U.S. Marshals cannot be.

Flagrant disregard for fiscal discipline is a serious
problem within the field offices. The Government Accounting Office
(GAO) has sited the USMS numerous times for poor fiscal management
and budgetary responsibly. Because there is little control or
accountability over the political appointed Marshals, a Marshal
that routinely exceeds his budget by thousands of dollars is



145



allowed to remain in office.

The n.S. Marshals Zaprovement Act

Vice-President Al Gore's National Performance Review
(NPR) recognized the problems the USMS faces with the current
system and recommended that the position of U.S. Marshal be a
career position from within the Marshals Service. The passage of
the "U.S. Marshals In^rovement Act" will professionalize the
office of the United States Marshal and will help accomplish a
number of goals that have been set forth by NPR. The following
are some of those goals :

• Only experienced career managers from within the USMS will
become U.S. Marshals. It will ensure that individuals being
considered for the position of U.S. Marshal will be selected on
the basis of what they know, not who they know.

• Career Marshals will be subjected to the same disciplinary
actions as the employees that they supervise. U.S. Marshals
performing at an unexceptable level could be transferred, or
demoted if necessary. Marshals performing at an exceptionable
level can be utilized by headquarters in offices where they can
do the most good. The Director will have, for the first time,
control over the operations of the entire USMS. This will
ensure that the field offices are more responsive to
headquarters when required.

• The USMS will be able to create a career ladder for those
ett^loyees that want to become top managers, similar to those
already utilized by DBA and the FBI. This will ensure that
only the best managers within the USMS will be promoted and



146



assigned to the larger and more demanding field offices.

• Middle management positions can be downsized. There will be no
need for the extra positions currently used to support the
political Marshals. Experienced career Marshals will have

the knowledge needed to run a small or medium size field office
without the extra layers of management to support them.

• In critical incidents, such as a shooting, a career U.S.
Marshal who has a federal law enforcement bacJcground,

a working )cnowledge of federal law and procedure, and USMS
policies that are to be followed, would be able to respond and
assist the USMS personnel involved.

• Career Marshals will ensure that the USMS operates as a
national organization, not ninety-four separate ones. This
will increase the overall efficiency of the USMS nation wide.
Cooperation between district field offices and headquarters
will improve, as will the cooperation between the field offices
themselves .

• A number of the USMS national programs can be delegated to the
field offices where am experienced career Marshal can oversee
its operation. This will allow for the downsizing of USMS
headquarters staff to the field where they are needed most.

It will also cut red tape and layers of bureaucracy that
currently exist.

The USMS reorganization plan calls for many of the same
goals as stated above. The reorganizing calls for the
decentralizing and downsizing of USMS headquarters. Also, the
cutting red of tape and bureaucracy. This is to be accomplished



147



in part by giving the U.S. Marshal in the filed district office
more decision madcing authority and responsibly. Headquarters will
then assume more of a support role. Most of the goals in the
reorganization plan are good ones and are in line with the
recommendations of NPR.

• The success or failure of the reorganization plan will
depend upon another important NPR recommendation, career U.S.
Marshals. If implemented, the responsibility for the success of
the reorganization plan will fall squarely on the ninety- four U.S.
Marshals. The reorganization plan calls for the U.S. Marshal to
be the central focal point, or hub, in future USMS operations.
Having political appointees, who change every four to eight years,
with such an important role in USMS operations, the reorganization
plan will talce the Marshals Service baclcwards, not forwards. Only
career U.S. Marshals, selected from within the Service, will
ensure that the USMS reorganization plan will succeed.

The 'U.S. ttarsbals Improvement Act" is a common sense
approach to professionalizing the U.S. Marshals Service. This
proposal has been supported by former Attorney General William
Barr and former USMS Director's Henry Hudson and Stanley Morris.
Attorney General Janet Reno and current USMS Director Bduardo
Gonzalez both support having career U.S. Marshals from within the
USMS. It is also supported by the Fraternal Order of Police and
the over 11,000 men aivi woman of FLEOA. We now need the support
of Congress to help lead the United States Marshals Service
into the twenty-first century with career U.S. Marshals at its'
helm.



TOTPIL p. 89



148



STATEMENT BY

FRED O. DICKINSON, III, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF

HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES,

STATE OF FLORIDA

on behalf of

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS ("AAMVA")

Regarding H.R. 2803,
The Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act

BEFORE THE -^



COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Washington, DC
7 March 1996



Mr. Chairman, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Admmistrators appreciate this opportunity to testify
in support of H.R. 2803, legislation that would do more to help fight auto theft than anything
else Congress could do this year.

Our State of Florida issues more than 4.4 million vehicle titles each year. The Title
Information System is a major item in Florida's strategic plan, so we Floridians are
especially proud of the leadership you have shown in introducing this bill. I am sure vou
will have the continumg .support of state titling and law enforcement officials all over



149



Statement by Mr. Fred O. Dickinson, III

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

March 7, 1996



America as you move H.R. 2803 toward enactment and the National Motor Vehicle Title
Information System toward reality.

Our Association, AAMVA, represents the state and provincial officials in the United States
and Canada who are responsible for the administration and enforcement of all laws pertaining
to motor vehicles and their use. AAMVA, and its subsidiary, AAMVAnet, are not-for-profit
corporations which operate in active partnership with agencies of the federal government to
promote more effective law enforcement, safety and technology to improve services to our
customers and citizens.

In 1992, at AAMVA's urgent request. Congress wrote into the Anti-Car Theft Act provisions
to establish a National Motor Vehicle Title Information System ("NMVTIS") no later than
January, 1996. Unfortunately, this deadline came and went. With swift congressional
action, however, it is possible to implement the system by the start of Fiscal 1998. Thanks
primarily to the leadership of Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) of the House Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee, Congress took one positive step by appropriating
approximately $1 million in the current fiscal year for "seed money" grants to states
implementing the system on a pilot basis.

I am pleased to report that Florida is one of the states leading the way on the pilot project.
Florida and five other states - Virginia, Michigan, Indiana, Massachusetts and New York -
are working diligently with AAMVA to define the technical requirements of the system. We
expect to be able to begin exchanging title data on a "live-time" basis soon.

Our ultimate success depends on the willingness of Congress to fill critical gaps in the
existing law. H.R. 2803 would improve the Anti-Car Theft Act in three important ways.
First, it would transfer responsibility for the system to the Justice Department and establish a
realistic system implementation date. Second, it would authorize appropriations for the
previously-established grant program to enable states to make necessary software changes.
Finally, it would encourage private sector participation in establishing and operating the
system and also the National Stolen Auto Parts Information System, which was also
established by the 1992 Act.

The states want the Title Information System. Law enforcement needs it desperately. The
Justice Department has all the necessary incentive, experience and know-how to get the Title
Information System operational and to make it financially self-sufficient. But we cannot
make the NMVTIS a reality without a modest amount of additional financial support and
other assistance from the federal government. For Florida and the other pilot states, timely
enactment of H.R. 2803 is especially critical. By participating in the pilot pro|ccl, we are all



150



Statement by Mr. Fred O. Dickinson, III

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

March 7, 1996

committing substantial time and resources to a system that cannot reach maximum
effectiveness unless the remaining states are also able to participate.

The NMVTIS is needed because there currently is no automated way for motor vehicle
departments to verify the validity of vehicle titles issued by other states. NMVTIS fixes this
probleni by establishing a national system whereby states will be able to verify, within
seconds, the validity of titles and other documents from other states prior to issuing new
titles. This will prevent thieves from obtaining legitimate vehicle ownership documentation