Mirelez, an alleged bigtime heroin dealer in Houston. Further investigation resulted in the conviction of a former Houston Police Department officer for perjury. Continuing investigation by the IRS resulted in the indictments of nine Houston Police Department officers on charges ranging from income tax evasion, sale of heroin, and civil rights violations, to illegal wiretapping. This investigation started. in December 1972. The indictments were returned May 31, 1974. This case is now pending. Obviously, I am limited on what I can say. The very thorough investigation by the IRS led to the conclusion that other HPD officers could have been involved in illegal wiretapping. I asked the IRS Criminal Intelligence agents to continue the already ongoing probe as to the wiretapping. The agents declined, informing me that Commissioner Alexander would permit them to conduct only title 26 investigations. And so, although they were already well acquainted with the case, they could not go on. We discussed the matter, orally, with the FBI in Houston, and finally, in April 1974, asked them in writing-with a copy to the General Crimes Section of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justiceto commence-if they had not already done so-a comprehensive investigation of the alleged widespread illegal wiretapping by the Houston Police Department. Concurrently, of course, my office commenced an investigation by grand jury. I personally participated in some of these sessions of the Federal grand jury in Houston. Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Title 18 U.S.C.A., Rule 6(e), I am limited by the rules. of secrecy as to what I can discuss. I am likewise limited by rule 3 of the local rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which deals with release of information by attorneys, and specifically section "A" in criminal cases and section "B" in grand jury proceedings. Last, but not least, I am also limited by title 5 U.S.C., section 522 (6) (7), on the disclosure of files and information compiled for law enforcement purposes and the regulations implementing that section, and Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 16.21-16-26 on disclosures by both employees and former employees of the U.S. Justice Department. On the matter of the allegations of illegal wiretapping by Federal agencies, there is little I can say. I read and heard various charges made that DEA agents allegedly participated in illegal wiretapping. To a much lesser extent, I read and heard the same allegation about FBI agents. I neither saw nor read any evidence, soft or hard, to support those charges. No one came forward to testify or to document those charges while I was in office. My real main concerns have been that the investigations of the Houston Police Department have lasted so long and have affected. some 2,300 officers when, at the most, some 50 were allegedly involved. Finally, I feel that the investigations in this case, as conducted by the Houston office of the FBI up to December 30, 1974, were less than thorough, less than aggressive, less than comprehensive, and less than enthusiastic. Mr. Chairman, that is the end of my prepared statement. The committee would like to take this opportunity to commend you for your obviously excellent service as the U.S. attorney, both statistically and otherwise, and the subcommittee and its parent group, the Judiciary Committee, is interested in the administration of justice and all the points that you raised earlier in your testimony as well. Mr. Farris, why, as you have testified, was the illegal police wiretapping in Houston uncovered by the Internal Revenue Service rather than the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Normally, one would think they would uncover it. Mr. FARRIS. I have asked myself the same question many times, Mr. Chairman. The charter of the FBI states that they are the Federal law enforcement agency charged with investigating violations for illegal wiretapping, and so one must presume that they did not know that it was going on, and so did not write reports on it which came to the U.S. attorney's Office, or else they did not know that it was going on and were not concerned. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Now, when you asked the Internal Revenue Service to continue its investigation to find out the full extent of this illegal wiretapping in Houston, what happened then? Were they not able to do it at all or what? Mr. FARRIS. That is correct. They had done such a tremendous job in putting together the case that resulted in the indictment of the nine past and present HPD officers that I felt with their already experienced background in the case that they would be the logical agency to do it, and since there was really a continuation that they would be the best. However, due to the unreal and rigid and inflexible policy of Commissioner Alexander, they were not permitted to do so on the theory that they are charged by Congress to do only title 26 investigations. I think that is an unreal policy and most U.S. attorneys around the country feel the same way about it. Mr. KASTENMEIER. What happened, what course of action did you pursue when they declined to continue the investigation; the IRS, that is? Mr. FARRIS. Well, of course, I had conversations with Tom Jordan, the then special agent in charge of the FBI about the matter, and when we finally got the word that the IRS would not be permitted to continue the investigation, we then wrote a letter to the special agent in charge, Tom Jordan, with a copy to the general crimes section of the Criminal Division here in Washington, asking for them, for the FBI in Houston, to conduct an investigation, if they were not already doing so. They finally got around to appointing, or rather assigning an agent, 1 agent out of 100 agents, to commence the investigation. Mr. KASTENMEIER. As a former U.S. Attorney, what was your professional judgment as to the initial FBI response and inquiry into this allegation of illegal wiretapping? Mr. FARRIS. It was such a poor job that it was, in my opinion, no investigation at all. And this was surprising, because the FBI is a very professional agency. When they investigate kidnapings or hijackings, or bank embezzlements, or bank robberies, they are tremendous. But here, they were not doing it. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Did you get FBI reports coming into your office, and if so, describe the quality of those reports, on this same line of inquiry. Mr. FARRIS. Mr. Chairman, generally they were short, sometimes just one page, and when I say they were pithy, I am being generous. Sometimes they included Xerox copies of newspaper articles, and generally they had nothing, no meat in them, nothing that we could use before a grand jury. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Now, the subcommittee has before it and will receive as a part of the record a copy of a letter that you wrote on December 17, 1974, to the Attorney General, the then Attorney General being the Honorable William Saxbe. [The letter referred to follows:] U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Re Houston, Texas Police Department; Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 2510, et seq., F.B.I. Bureau File Reference 139-4467, F.B.I. Field Office File Reference 139-189. Hon. WILLIAM SAXBE, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SAXBE: In June of 1971, the Criminal Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service, Houston, Texas, commenced an extensive income tax investigation of Sebastian Mirelez, a large heroin dealer in Houston, Texas. This investigation culminated in the conviction of Sebastian Mirelez and the imposition of a sentence of six years imprisonment. Further investigation with the assistance of Sebastian Mirelez, resulted in the conviction of a former Houston, Texas Police Officer for perjury before a federal grand jury. With the assistance of the convicted officer, Indictments were returned charging nine (9) additional Houston, Texas Undercover Narcotics Officers with income tax evasion, civil rights violations and narcotics violations. These cases are presently pending trial. The success of these matters is related directly to the performance of Criminal Intelligence Agents I. A. Filer, Jack Hollingshead, Don Nettles and Frank Zapalac of Houston, Texas. The dedicated, conscientious and competent efforts of these agents is unequaled in my experience as United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas. Sebastian Mirelez dealt narcotics on a major scale on the streets of Houston, Texas, for years, apparently with purchased immunity from the Houston Police Department, Narcotics Division. All the Narcotics Officers indicted were veteran officers who worked in an undercover capacity. Needless to say, the apprehension of these individuals required labor beyond traditional investigation. During the course of the income tax investigation, allegations arose reflecting the illegal interception of communications by the Houston, Texas Police Department. A portion of these allegations ripened to fruition and are contained as charges in the civil rights indictment presently pending trial. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently investigating the new allegations of illegal interception of communications. On November 19, 1974, the new Chief of Police of Houston, Texas, Carrol M. Lynn and the new Captain of the Narcotics Division, B. G. Bond, delivered information to this office which confirmed our greatest fear that the Houston, Texas Police Department had utilized illegal electronic surveillance on a large scale. While useful and conclusive, the information in no way amounts to evidence sufficient to meet the burden of proof in Federal District Court. It is my opinion that an immediate and exhaustive investigation may result in evidence sufficient to present before a federal grand jury under Title 18, United States Code, Section 2510 et seq.-Interception of Communications. The information further confirms positively that the interests of society and justice, which are synonymous in my mind, could not be served by allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate this matter. To provide you with complete background information on the captioned subject enclosed are the following: (1) Letter from Harris County District Attorney Carol S. Vance to Anthony J. P. Farris, United States Attorney, dated November 20, 1973, advising this office that allegations of illegal interception of communications by the Houston, Texas Police Department have already been presented to Tom Jordan, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Houston, Texas, by the Harris County District Attorney's Staff. Until the moment of receipt of this letter on November 23, 1973, this office had not been advised either by the Harris County District Attorney or the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the existence of such allegations. This letter is marked as Exhibit 1. (2) Original referral letter dated April 29, 1974, from Ronald J. Waska, Assistant Chief, Criminal Division, Assistant United States Attorney to Mr. Thomas Jordan, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation requesting "that a comprehensive investigation commence immediately." Please note that this office furnished as enclosures to the F.B.I. four (4) alleged illegally intercepted tape recordings and a Nine (9) Page sworn affidavit by a former Houston Police Officer admitting the rampant utilization of interception devices by the Houston Police Department. This letter is marked as Exhibit 2. (3) Letter dated September 12, 1974, from Ronald J. Waska, Assistant United States Attorney, Assistant Chief, Criminal Division to Mr. Robert Russ Franck, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation enclosing a newspaper article from the Houston Post dated September 12, 1974, describing an admission by a former police officer, Carlos Avila, that illegal interception devices were utilized by the Houston, Texas Police Department. This letter is marked as Exhibit 3. (4) Letter dated September 12, 1974, from Ronald J. Waska, Assistant United States Attorney, Assistant Chief, Criminal Division to Mr. Robert Russ Franck, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation enclosing two newspaper articles from the Houston Post and the Houston Chronicle further describing admissions by former Houston, Texas Police Officer Carlos Avila and Assistant District Attorney Bob Bennett, that illegal interception devices were utilized by the Houston, Texas Police Department. This letter is marked as Exhibit 4. (5) Letter dated September 23, 1974, from Ronald J. Waska, Assistant Unitea States Attorney, Assistant Chief, Criminal Division to Mr. Robert Russ Franck, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation enclosing two newspaper articles from the Houston Post and the Houston Chronicle dated September 21, 1974, describing the setting aside of marihuana convictions because the convictions were supported by evidence obtained as the result of illegal interceptions conducted by the Houston, Texas Police Department. This letter is marked as Exhibit 5. (6) Letter dated September 25, 1974, from Donald J. Waska, Assistant United States Attorney, Assistant Chief, Criminal Division to Mr. Robert Russ Franck, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation enclosing two (2) motions filed by the Harris County District Attorney's Office, Houston, Texas, and two (2) orders executed by a State District Judge setting aside marihuana convictions because the Houston, Texas Police Department gathered evidence through the use of illegal interception devices. This letter was marked as Exhibit 6. (7) Letter dated October 31, 1974, from Ronald J. Waska, Assistant United States Attorney, Assistant Chief, Criminal Division to Mr. Robert Russ Franck, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation correcting an erroneous assertion on an F.B.I. Report and again referring to our request for "an exhaustive and diligent investigation of these serious allegations." This letter is marked as Exhibit 7. (8) Excerpts of tape-recorded conversations obtained with the prior consent of one party as follows: (a) between Houston, Texas Police Chief Carrol M. Lynn and Joe Humbarger, Assistant Superivsor, Radio Technician, Houston, Texas Police Department. This is marked as Exhibit 8(A). (b) between Houston, Texas Police Chief Carrol M. Lynn and Lt. Joe Singleton, formerly with Criminal Intelligence, Houston, Texas Police Department. This is marked as Exhibit 8(B). (c) between Houston, Texas Police Chief Carrol M. Lynn and Radio Technician Charles Everts, Houston, Texas Police Department. This is marked as Exhibit 8(C). (d) between Houston, Texas Police Chief Carrol M. Lynn and Lt. J. D. Belcher, formerly with the Vice Division of the Houston, Texas Police Department. This is marked as Exhibit 8 (D). (e) between Robert Tarrant, Criminal Defense Attorney, Houston, Texas, and Lt. Edward Kennedy, former lieutenant with the Narcotics Division and currently a lieutenant with the Communications Division, Houston, Texas Police Department. This is marked as Exhibit 8 (E). (9) Excerpts from the transcript in U.S. v. Dudley Clifford Bell, Jr., Criminal Number 72-H-361, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, which reflect statements made in open court by Mr. Richard DeGuerin, Attorney for the defendant, concerning the involvement of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in illegal electronic surveillance. This is marked as Exhibit 9. (10) Letter from Houston, Texas Police Chief Carrol Lynn dated December 13, 1974, reflecting events in the F.B.I. investigation of the captioned matter which led to his conclusion that "I realized at this time that the whole investigation was a joke." This is marked as Exhibit 10. (11) Memorandum from Captain B. G. Bond of the Houston, Texas Police Department dated December 13, 1974, reflecting in his opinion the unusual manner in which the F.B.I. conducted the captioned investigation. This is marked as Exhibit 11. (12) Xeroxed copy of Federal Bureau of Investigation Report dated July 30, 1974, Page One with synopsis which indicates "no one has admitted having knowledge of any wire tapping aside from rumors." Subsequent investigative reports also reflect negative results. This is marked as Exhibit 12. Numerous telephone calls and conferences with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Houston, Texas, during which we expressed our concern and displeasure with the course of the investigation has resulted in no improvement. It is now apparent that further dilatory handling of this matter by the Federal Bureau of Investigation will result in loss of prosecutions by virtue of the statute of limitations. Therefore, it is imperative that we receive immediate investigative assistance from the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Intelligence Division. Further reliance on the Federal Bureau of Investigation as the agency assigned jurisdiction in matters pertaining to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2510 et seq., in my opinion will be disastrous. Accordingly, we respectfully urge the immediate designation of the Criminal Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service, Houston, Texas, and specifically Agents I. A. Filer, Jack Hollingshead, Don Nettles and Frank Zapalac as the investigating authority for the captioned matter. As the basis for such an authorization we cite the following reasons: (1) Vital experience and familiarity in directly related matters since June of 1971. (2) Allegations of the possibility of participation of the local office of the F.B.I. in illegal electronic surveillance. (3) Documented evidence as enclosed herewith of totally inadequate and unprofessional investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Houston, Texas. (4) Documented evidence as enclosed herewith of partisanship between the Houston Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that has thwarted the investigation. (5) Service to the interests of society and justice. Furthermore, we request an immediate response to our request since each additional day of delay in investigation is resulting in a substantial detriment to the successful prosecution of this vital matter. Very truly yours, ANTHONY J. P. FARRIS, U.S. Attorney. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Why did you write this particular letter? Would you explain that to the committee? Mr. FARRIS. I will try, sir. Since I was not getting the needed investigation by the local office of the FBI, since I was not getting the case moving and the police department obviously was suffering moralewise from the matter going on and on and on, and nothing happening, and since the Criminal Division itself had not answered either our |