Lapas attēli

show that the reports were forwarded to Army Intelligence and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

A portion of the statement that was submitted read:

The whole network of American Constitutional Rights-especially those of free speech, press, assembly and religion; securing persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizure-was established to curtail government interference with peaceful dissent. These Constitutional Rights have been routinely violated by the Baltimore Police Department.

I would make the point here before this committee that in the violation of those rights, there was a linkage, a correlation, a tie-in with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and with Army Intelligence. This much we can demonstrate.

I will skip over to page 6. Let me indicate that among the signers of this document submitted to the Governor were: a bishop of the church, several ministers, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, representatives from Johns Hopkins University and the Johns Hopkins Hospital, representatives from Goucher State College, Towson State College, Loyola College, and the Community College of Baltimore, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Based upon information made available to me to date, I am firmly convinced that a national domestic espionage apparatus existed in America. I further firmly believe that this apparatus involved the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Army Intelligence, and local police departments.

In this domestic espionage apparatus, information gathered, without benefit of court orders, was exchanged between local police departments and Federal agencies. The information was gathered and exchanged on persons and organizations that were not involved in criminal activity.

Obviously, had the provisions of the bill been in effect, this dreadful Kafkaesque situation could not have developed in my city or in other cities across the Nation.

I would like to indicate to you that a similar kind of an operation took place in Houston, Tex., where a dossier was kept on Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. It is my further understanding that the contents of her dossier were transmitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to Army Intelligence.

I have one or two areas of concern that hopefully can be cleared u today.

The first is with the language referring to "private dwelling used and occupied as a dwelling." I think this language needs to be broadened and I shall explain why.

During my primary campaign in 1974, infiltration of my campaign headquarters took place. Here is the story as reported by the local press. We have further verified it by our own investigation.

Leonard Jenoff, the secret police operative who worked for dope trafficker John (Liddie) Jones' lawyer, also infiltrated the offices of Rep. Parren Mitchell, it has been learned.

Jenoff volunteered to work "morning, night, plus weekends" in Rep. Mitchell's last election campaign. He also took photographs of Mitchell's campaign workers.

Jenoff is an admitted supplier of information to the police department's Inspectional Services Division (ISD), a clandestine intelligence gathering unit that reports directly-and only-to Commissioner Pomerleau, who is the Police Commissioner in Baltimore City.

One of Mitchell's aides said Jenoff asked if he could take pictures of campaign workers for "a photography course he said he was taking." He turned over 10 to 15 pictures to us. I don't know if any were given to the police.

There is strong evidence to suggest that in my previous congressional campaigns similar infiltrations by paid or unpaid police agents took place. These persons could have, and I believe did, inspect records of telephone calls. I know that Mr. Jenoff inspected the roster of telephone calls received on a daily basis. They could have inspected credit records and the like, credit records relating to campaign expenses which were pretty available.

Therefore, I would like to see the language broadened to cover that kind of situation.

My campaign headquarters was not my residence, it was not my principal place of dwelling. The same kind of thing could have happened with an agent of the Federal Government. Under the language relating to residence and principal place of dwelling, there would have been nothing to prevent him from so doing.

My second area of concern deals with section 2519 of H.R. 3113, "Reports concerning intercepted wire, oral and other communications." Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am aware of the complexity of legal, bona fide information gathering by agencies, and I am keenly aware of the need for confidentiality to govern such operations.

However, I do feel that the person on whom information was gathered ought to be advised somewhere down the line that he was the object of such activities. Now, maybe I have not read the bill carefully enough. I have read it two or three times, but I did not see that protection for the individual in there.

Obviously, if the intercepts result in a specific criminal charge, then the person, when he is confronted with that criminal charge, would know that he had been the object of surveillance.

However, if intercepts do not result in such a charge-or charges— or if indeed intercepts prove that the individual's conduct and behavior has not been inimical to the best interests of the country, I think the person has the right to know that he was under surveillance and why the surveillance took place.

Hopefully, you can clarify these two problems for me. I have and will continue to support H.R. 3113 because it is legislation needed to protect basic civil liberties which are guaranteed by the Constitution. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Well, I thank you, Congressman Mitchell. I think your testimony is possibly the most valuable that we have had. Certainly, it is a testiment to the really outrageous, scandalous police state mentality, and techniques that are used in what presumes to be a free country. I think many of us were superficially aware by news stories of what has happened in Baltimore, but never could we have been brought so forcefully to the facts as you have so succinctly done for us in the last 5 or 10 minutes.

What was the purported purpose of such widespread surveillance over essentially political activities, whether these are the Vietnam war or your campaign activities? What possible justifications could a so-called police agency give for that sort of behavior?

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I think in this whole sordid experience the answer that I will give you is what hurt me the most. The investigation was conducted by two white investigative newspapermen. One of the informants indicated to the newspapermen and the story appeared in the press, that my campaign had been under surveillance. The newspapermen asked why, and the informant said there were many people who did not want Mitchell to win-this was the campaign of 1970, when I was elected-and that "he" was a black man reaching for too much power.

If that is true, and I believe it is, that hurt me and hurt me very badly. That is just so foreign to the direction in which we are attempting to move. There was a racial consideration involved in the surveillance of my campaign. There was a racial consideration involved in the whole domestic espionage conducted by the Baltimore City Police Department through its Inspectional Services Division.

One of the newspapers quotes the investigative reporters as asking the police commissioner whether or not the dossiers were kept on individuals in groups and whether or not they could see those dossiers. The newspaper report has the commissioner replying with words-and I am trying to quote exactly-"Don't worry, they were only kept on the blacks, just on the blacks." That was a pretty horrendous experience.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Well, that is very dismaying indeed, and I take special note of the fact that you say you are convinced that a national domestic espionage apparatus existed in America. Whether it does today or not, you do not know. Presumably it does not, if we are to believe certain people. We are making discoveries in this connection. Obviously, the whole picture is not yet available to us, although the legislative branch, the Congress, and certainly the press are making every effort to learn the truth of this.

But, for anyone who has any notion of what a police state is supposed to be like, this is as close a copy of such a police state that I can possibly imagine in this country and, indeed, is a very great danger not only to you and to citizens in Baltimore, but to everyone in this


I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Pattison.

Mr. PATTISON. I just have really one concern. The thrust of this bill is to make it illegal to do certain things and to impose a fine or imprisonment for doing these things. I am not sure what the effect of this is in terms of the admissability of evidence before a court. Is there something in this bill that relates to that particular?

Suppose they are conducting an illegal surveillance and do, in fact, discover some crime or evidence of crime. Is there a prohibition against the use of that?

Mr. MITCHELL. No, not in terms of my reading of the bill. I did not find any such prohibition in terms of my reading of the bill.

Mr. PATTISON. I was just concerned about the enforcement of this, whether anybody is ever going to get arrested or indicted or convicted if any police officer, let us say, is ever going to get arrested in those cases where he actually does find some evidence of criminality, and I would have an idea that that would be the only time that you are ever going to discover that this has ever happened.

Mr. MITCHELL. I would, of course, defer to the author of the legislation. But I understand your concern.

Mr. PATTISON. I am also a little bit concerned about the fact that one of these days down the road we are going to have a case where a person has been accused of, and is being tried, did get indicted for doing something and we are not going to be able to introduce the evidence that he did it because in obtaining that evidence we will have violated the rule ourselves.

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, that is a very strong possibilty.

Mr. PATTISON. I have no further questions.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you. The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. RAILSBACK. Whatever happened to Leonard Jenoff? Did anybody pin him down and ask him what he was doing?

Mr. MITCHELL. There are two investigations now being conducted. The Baltimore city grand jury is going into the matter. I do not know whether or not Mr. Jenoff has appeared before the grand jury. However, the problem in these situations will be whether or not the statute of limitations will apply. Some of the surveillance took place in 1970, 1971. and 1972. I think there is a 1-year limitation in Maryland, and I just do not know beyond that.

May I just add also

Mr. RAILSBACK. Has he ever made any public statement or not?

Mr. MITCHELL. No. He sort of disappeared after this broke in the press, and no one I know has heard from him since that time. The investigative reporters have attempted repeatedly to contact him at his home without success. A committee of the Senate of the Maryland General Assembly is also in the process of looking into this whole matter of domestic espionage and surveillance. I do not know whether Mr. Jenoff has been called to appear before that committee.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Is there evidence that the police department itself was involved directly in his activities? Or was he doing it in kind of an informal, unofficial capacity?

Mr. MITCHELL. There were two versions that appeared. The first being an official statement by Mr. Dennis Hill, who represents the police department, who indicated that Jenoff was a regular supplier of information, but was not a part of the police department; he was not on the payroll.

Then a subsequent statement appeared, and I cannot attribute it to any particular person, which indicated that he was one of the regular informants and on occasion did receive money for the information supplied to the Baltimore City Police Department.

We have testimony adduced from at least one former police officer who testified that he was told that it was his responsibility to gather all information possible on the Parren J. Mitchell campaign and to submit it to the city police department. This was an officer who was on payroll at that time.

Mr. RAILSBACK. There is a provision under section 2518 of title 18 that deals with an entry of an order, or the application for the wire tap, the date of entry, the period authorized, approved or disapproved interceptions, or the denial of the application; and the fact that during the period wire or oral communications were or were not accepted.

In other words, the person is eventually put on notice and then he has the right, I believe, to move for discovery or to suppress. I do not know if that is enough protection, in your opinion.

Do you follow me?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, I follow you.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Eventually, he is given notice, and then there is a trial.

Mr. MITCHELL. But you see, that really does not help me too much. Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes.

Mr. MITCHELL. Because that will deal only with a situation where the intercept or the tap leads to the placing of criminal charges against the person. It does not cover that situation where the intercepts, wiretaps and so forth disclose nothing at all wrong, no behavior that was not in the best interests of the country, and this man does not know that he has been the object of a secret surveillance. That is my concern. Mr. RAILSBACK. This is required within 90 days, or not later than 90 days after the application for the order.

Mr. MITCHELL. I see.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Regardless of what happened.

Mr. MITCHELL. Whether it results in a criminal charge or not?

Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes. He must be advised in any event.

Mr. MITCHELL. Fine. Well, that helps, then.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes, that should help.

That is all I have. Thank you very much for your very constructive and personal testimony.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you for letting me be here.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. We appreciate your appearance this morning, Congressman Mitchell.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. This concludes this morning's hearing on various bills relating to wiretapping and surveillance and other invasion of privacy.

The subcommittee hearings on the subject will continue and will be scheduled in the near future. The subcommittee will meet on Friday morning next for the markup of the Federal parole bill, and until that time the subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »