If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. [COMMITTEE PRINT] 95TH CONGRESS } HOlTSE OF 1st Session REPRESJili.~TATIVES ~PJf:'\1A.RY OF TESTIl\10NY AND FINDINGS AND OONCLUSIONS RESUL'£ING FROM HEARINGS IN NEvV YORK ON DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT -- SECOND INTERIM REPORT - . OF THE '::. SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS~" ABUSE AND CONTROL NINETY-FIFTH ·CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SCNAC-95-1-5 f I t ! APR 2 t '1977 ! FEBRUARY 1977 ~J1\ Printed fOl' the use >of the Select Oommittee on Narcotics Abuse Ilnd Control U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING Ol"FICE 82-0180 WASHINGTON: 1977 \ T.AB~E OF CONTENTS 1. Background ________________________________________________ _ Page 1 2. The issues and problems ___________________________________ ~ ___ ~= 1 The Harlem tour: Observations ______________ . _______________ _ Z SELEOT OOl\Th:IITTEE ON NAROOTICS ,< nU"E A 1I.T Presentation of the "tty's posit,ion __________________________ _ .<>.L) "" .a..L,D OONTROL 4 3. Specific aspects of the drug problem in New York City ________ =___ =_ 7 95TH CONGRESS; l;ST SESSION The effect on citizens _______________________________________ _ Narcotics division plainclothesmen ___ • _______________________ _ 7 LESTERL. WOLFF,NewYork, Chairman 8 Special narcotics prosecutor _________________________________ _ 9 PETER W. RODtNO, JR., New Jer- 4. Official ¥>ositioD of police department_____________________________ _ PAUL G. ROGERS Florida ' .ey I.RERBERT BURKE, Flotioa 5. Justice epal'tment testimony _______________________ • _______ • ___ _ 11 KtKA llE LA GAI>ZA Te a.s TOM RAILSBACK, Dlinols 13 6. Discussion/summary ____ • ____________________ -_ ---___ --_________ _ Ii) JAMES It,MANN, S~uth"Carollna LOUIS FREY, JII., Florida 7. Findings and conclusions ________________________________________ _ RERlIL\N BADILLO, New York ROBIN L. BEARD, Tenntssel' 8. Appendix ______________________________________________ - _____ _ 17 MORGAN F. MURPHY Dlinois BENJAMIN A. GILlIlAN, Now York 19 Exhibit A. Mayor Beame's letter to ,,~ttorney General LevL _____ _ 20 CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York TENNYSON GUYER, Ohio Exhibit B. Department of Justice re!!ponse ______ .. _____________ _ 21 FORTNEY n. (PETE) STARK, California Exhibit C. Proposal suqmitted by MI'. Scoppetta in response to r JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York Chairman Rodino's request. ____________________ _ 24 GLENN ENGLISH, Oklahoma Exhibit D. Proposal submitted by Deputy Commissioner Taylor HENRY A. WAXMAN, California in response to Congressman Rangel's request ______ _ 26 JOSEPH L. NELLIS, Chief COun8e! Exhibit E. Proposal submitted by Associate Regional Director JEAmm RonlNSON, Professional Staff Member Grubert in response to Committee request ________ _ 28 THO:MAS H. VOGEL, Professional Staff Member Exhibit F. "It's Easy To Score at Corner Drug 'Store' "-New York Post, December 9, 1976 __________________ _ 31 (lI) Exhibit G. "Stiff Antidrug Laws Held No Deterrent"~New York Times, January 2, 1971-________________________ _ 33 Exhibit H. Information supplied by Assistant U.S. Attorney for South~rn District of New York, John P. Cooney, Jr_ 34 Exhibit 1. Information supplied by Associate Deputy Attorney General Rudolph W. GiulianL __________________ _ III (m) t::Ij.. .. ,' \ '1;;. I ~1 ',to NEW YORK HEARINGS: DRUG LAW ENFORCEMEN't BACKGROUND Pursuant to House Resolution 1350 the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control held 9 clays of hearings in September 1976, chaired by Representative I..Iester L. Wolff (Democrat, New York) in Washington, D.O. As stated by the chairman, these hearings were "designeeI to. inform the committee on the current status of the Federal Government's narcotics control programs." Specific testimony was elicited during these hearings on the unique problems of drug law enforceme~t in New York City, especially in Harlem. Subst:quent to those hearlllgs, Mayor Abraham Beame, m a letter to Attorney Gen­ eral Leyi (see appendix, exhibit A), requested the Federal Government to as..CJume the eost of narcotics law enforcement in N ew York City. He pointed out that 30 percent or more of the Nation's drug addicts reside in New York City. In partial response to this request, hearings were held in N ew York City, ~ovember 19, 1976, chaired by Congressman Charles B. Rangel (Democrat, New York). Testimony was taken from Nicholas 8cop­ petta, chairman, criminal justice coordinating council and commis­ sioner of investigations; borough president Perry Sutton; Sgt. Alvin Ingram and Officer Clarence Morgan~ narcoticf-' division, New York City Poliee Department; special narcotics prosecutor Sterling John­ son; deputy chief inspector, New York Police Department, .Toseph Preiss. and deputy police COllID1issioner James Taylor. xlr. Charles Kenyattit, a community representatiYe, was also a witness. On December 10, 1976, in Waslrington, D.C., testimony was taken from Associate Deputy Attorney General Ruclcrlph \'Y. Giuliani of the .Tustice Department and ITom John P. Cooney~ .rr., assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District 0:£ N ew York, chief of the nal'cotics division. TIm ISSUES AND l?110BLEMS There were two specifically stated concerns that necessitated the hearings. In his opening statement on November 19, Congressman Rangel saicl: The purpose of today's hearings by the House of Representatives' Select Com­ mittee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, is to respond to Mayor Beame's press release, in which he requestecl that the Federal Government assume the cost of narcotics law enforcement, pOinting out that 30 percent or more of the Nation's drug addicts reside in New York City, We all recognize that drug trafficking on the streets of New York ,City 1..<; occurring now without any apparent enforcement of i!ither the State or Federal laws a~ they relate to violations of the narcotics law. [See appendIx.l In his later statement 011 December 10, Congressman Rangel noted: On November 19, we held.a hearing in New York City and asked city officialS to state for the record their current narcotics law enforcement capabilities, (1) \ ! 1 3 I 2 ! resources, and strntegies and to tell us what kind of additional Federal assistance no one will leave here with the impression that it is a harmless thing. I,. , was being sought and, if granted, how effectively it would be used. The borough president said: 1 The committee challenged city officials to disprove the allegation that the New ffi tl t' these supermarkets on the streets, York City Police Department had adopted a "no arrest" poliry for many narcotics So outrageous is the drug tra MC i . im l~r~~n 'rhe Judge Xo-i\Ionkey-Business, violators and in so doing, had abandoned the streets of Harlem to this criminal drugs are sold by brand name: l a co re "ust some of the almost 200 brand element. I personally challenged the city \Jfficials to taKe the same tonr a numbpr J \ Ruby's Red Cup, Space Walk, etc. Tl1es~ athe traffic that they can stamp it so of colleagues had already taken in Harlem to see the open hawking and selling names of drugs. that are sold. So bO\~n~~ the qualitr, the strength of the drug, of dope in open defiance of the law. that one who \\'1shes to purcha~e c~n , her that we see in the sUllermarket, I because the brand name, lil'fetLl~bbYta~prsat~I~~~re on the packets of drugs that are I The H a?'Ze:m Tour: Oosen'ations is there. And I haye some 0 Ie s ! On three separate occasions, trips in police vans and a walking' tour I were taken by Members of the Committee: Ohie1 Counsel Joseph L. SOI~~l commenting on what he had observed and clescribed, the borough i Nellis, and witn€sses who testified at the hearings. Be.('unse what ,vas president said: . seen is inElxtricably intRrtwined in the testimony of 'all the witnesses, l' ffi' 1 c1 undercover policemen can walk their observations. are reported in part. Additicll.{\lly, a film, slides, and Something is wrong when pub lC 0 cm s an treet and hear them singing out a into crowds of drug pUSher an~ n(~~d)n~~~ ~re so confident that they will n?t pictures were offered for the record during the hearing in New York litany of name,> of drug~ or sa e and out of their shopping bags, 1ll City. be arrestE'd that they wlll c~fe tir thesc~r~e:~.s of heroin by their brand names. Chairman W 6lff,at the Federal agency,oversip:ht hearings held by sight of aU, pull out and se pac. age l' , ! I d the conunittee in 'September 1976, made the following {}omments: He agreed with Mr. Biaggl that the nature of the busl1!-;~!dc~hl~ ~o with the absence of proper law enforcement, has permI Last Friday, members of this committee had a vivid and horrifying illustration of what unChecked drug trafficking can produce. As we drove along the strcE'ts becom~ a stable mark~t, Y 1 C't Poll'ee Department narcotics in an unmal'l,ed pOlice car, street pushers literally thrust themselves through S· t InO'ram New orr ,1 Y '., 1 t our windows and offered to sell heroin, cocaine, marihuana, and a yariet~· of divi~i~~~~~ho :as p~e~nt chrL'il~g all the h~ps, did 'lla ta!ili l:~d ';h~~ drugs at prices as low as $5 to $7. These pusllers knew we were surrounded by an r )art 0·£ the borough preSIdent's testImony an co I' police, anci they didn't care. Their contempt for the consequences of the law is that great. However, it may be suggested that these street pushers have learned shown their lesson: in reality, they risked little" they know the result of cutbucks­ ~nJI-d~tdY PO!bi~me ~ffit.l~:r~;:~~~ t:1~~td~t!~rti~1~bfh:~i~~tc.ffl~ * * n escn b b.