Rosenfeld Susan. Encyclopedia of American Historical Documents

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

interrogation.” . . . In his office, the investigator possesses

all the advantages. The atmosphere suggests the invincibil-

ity of the forces of the law.”

To highlight the isolation and unfamiliar surround-

ings, the manuals instruct the police to display an air of

confidence in the suspect’s guilt and form outward

appearance to maintain only an interest in confirming

certain details. The guilt of the subject is to be posited as

a fact. The interrogator should direct his comments

toward the reasons why the subject committed the act. . .

. The officers are instructed to minimize the moral seri-

ousness of the offense, to cast blame on the victim or on

society. These tactics are designed to put the subject in a

psychological state where his story is but an elaboration

of what the police purport to know already—that he is

guilty. Explanations to the contrary are dismissed and dis-

couraged.

. . .The manuals suggest that the suspect be offered

legal excuses for his actions in order to obtain an initial

admission of guilt. . . .

Having then obtained the admission of shooting, the

interrogator is advised to refer to circumstantial evidence

which negates the self-defense explanation. This should

enable him to secure the entire story. . . .

When the techniques described above prove unavail-

ing, the texts recommend they be alternated with a show

of some hostility. One ploy often used has been termed the

“friendly- unfriendly” or the “Mutt and Jeff” act. . . .

The interrogators sometimes are instructed to induce

a confession out of trickery. . . .

The manuals also contain instructions for police on

how to handle the individual who refuses to discuss the

matter entirely, or who asks for an attorney or relatives.

The examiner is to concede him the right to remain silent.

. . . After this psychological conditioning, however, the offi-

cer is told to point out the incriminating significance of the

suspect’s refusal to talk. . . .

Few will persist in their initial refusal to talk. . .[if it is

pointed out that a refusal implies guilt].

* * *

From these representative samples of interrogation tech-

niques, the setting prescribed by the manuals and

observed in practice becomes clear. In essence, it is this:

To be alone with the subject is essential to prevent distrac-

tion and to deprive him of any outside support. The aura

of confidence in his guilt undermines his will to resist. He

merely confirms the preconceived story the police seek to

have him describe. . . . When normal procedures fail to

produce the needed result, the police may resort to decep-

tive stratagems such as giving false legal advice. It is impor-

tant to keep the subject off balance, for example, by

trading on his insecurity about himself or his surroundings.

The police then persuade, trick, or cajole him out of exer-

cising his constitutional rights.

* * *

In . . . Miranda v. Arizona, the police arrested the defen-

dant and took him to a special interrogation room where

they secured a confession. . . . The officers [did not] under-

take to afford appropriate safeguards at the outset of the

interrogation to insure that the statements were truly the

product of free choice.

* * *

From the foregoing, we can readily perceive an intimate

connection between the privilege against self-incri-

mination and police custodial questioning. It is fitting

to turn to history and precedent underlying the Self-

Incrimination Clause to determine its applicability in this

situation.

II.

We sometimes forget how long it has taken to establish the

privilege against self-incrimination, the sources from

which it came and the fervor with which it was defended.

Its roots go back into ancient times. . . . These sentiments

worked their way over to the Colonies and were implanted

after great struggle into the Bill of Rights. . . . We cannot

depart from this noble heritage.

* * *

The question in these cases is whether the privilege is fully

applicable during a period of custodial interrogation. In

this Court, the privilege has consistently been accorded a

liberal construction. . . . We are satisfied that all the prin-

ciples embodied in the privilege apply to informal com-

pulsion exerted by law-enforcement officers during

in-custody questioning. An individual swept from familiar

surroundings into police custody, surrounded by antago-

nistic forces, and subjected to the techniques of persuasion

described above cannot be otherwise than under compul-

sion to speak. As a practical matter, the compulsion to

speak in the isolated setting of the police station may well

be greater than in courts or other official investigations,

where there are often impartial observers to guard against

intimidation or trickery.

* * *

. . . We have had little occasion in the past quarter cen-

tury to reach the constitutional issues in dealing with fed-

eral interrogations. . . . Supervisory rules, requiring

production of an arrested person before a commissioner

“without unnecessary delay” and excluding evidence

obtained in default of that statutory obligation, were

nonetheless responsive to the same considerations of

1622 ERA 9: Postwar United States

Fifth Amendment policy that unavoidably face us now as

to the States. . . .

* * *

Without the protections flowing from adequate warning

and the rights of counsel, “all the careful safeguards

erected around the giving of testimony, whether by an

accused or any other witness, would become empty for-

malities in a procedure where the most compelling possi-

ble evidence of guilt, a confession, would have already

been obtained at the unsupervised pleasure of the police.”

III.

Today, then, there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amend-

ment privilege is available outside of criminal court pro-

ceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in

which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant

way from being compelled to incriminate themselves. We

have concluded that without proper safeguards the process

of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or

accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures

which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and

to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do

so freely. In order to combat these pressures and to permit

a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-

incrimination, the accused must be adequately and effec-

tively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights

must be fully honored.

. . .We encourage Congress and the States to continue

their laudable search for increasingly effective ways of pro-

tecting the rights of the individual while promoting effi-

cient enforcement of our criminal laws. However, unless

we are shown other procedures which are at least as effec-

tive in apprising accused persons of their right of silence

and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the

following safeguards must be observed.

At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected

to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and

unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent.

For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed

simply to make them aware of it—the threshold require-

ment for an intelligent decision as to its exercise. More

important, such a warning is an absolute prerequisite in

overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation

atmosphere. . . .

* * *

The warning of the right to remain silent must be accom-

panied by the explanation that anything said can and will

be used against the individual in court. This warning is

needed in order to make him aware not only of the privi-

lege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it. It is only

through an awareness of these consequences that there

can be any assurance of real understanding and intelligent

exercise of the privilege. Moreover, this warning may serve

to make the individual more acutely aware that he is faced

with a phase of the adversary system—that he is not in the

presence of persons acting solely in his interest.

. . .The right to have counsel present at the interroga-

tion is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amend-

ment privilege under the system we delineate today.

Our aim is to assure that the individual’s right to

choose between silence and speech remains unfettered

throughout the interrogation process. . . . Thus, the need

for counsel to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege

comprehends not merely a right to consult with counsel

prior to questioning, but also to have counsel present dur-

ing any questioning if the defendant so desires.

The presence of counsel at the interrogation may

serve several significant subsidiary functions as well. If the

accused decides to talk to his interrogators, the assistance

of counsel can mitigate the dangers of untrustworthiness.

With a lawyer present the likelihood that the police will

practice coercion is reduced, and if coercion is neverthe-

less exercised the lawyer can testify to it in court. The pres-

ence of a lawyer can also help to guarantee that the

accused gives a fully accurate statement to the police and

that the statement is rightly reported by the prosecution at

trial. . . .

Accordingly we hold that an individual held for inter-

rogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to

consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him dur-

ing interrogation under the system for protecting the priv-

ilege we delineate today. . . .

If an individual indicates that he wishes the assistance

of counsel before any interrogation occurs, the authorities

cannot rationally ignore or deny his request on the basis

that the individual does not have or cannot afford a

retained attorney. . . . The need for counsel in order to pro-

tect the privilege exists for the indigent as well as the afflu-

ent. . . . The cases before us as well as the vast majority of

confession cases with which we have dealt in the past

involve those unable to retain counsel. . . .

In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the

extent of his rights under this system then, it is necessary

to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with

an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be

appointed to represent him. . . .

* * *

If the interrogation continues without the presence of an

attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on

the government to demonstrate that the defendant know-

ingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-

incrimination and his right to retained or appointed

counsel. . . . Since the State is responsible for establishing

Struggle for Racial and Gender Equality and for the Extension of Civil Liberties 1623

the isolated circumstances under which the interrogation

takes place and has the only means of making available

corroborated evidence of warnings given during in-

communicado interrogation, the burden is rightly on its

shoulders.

“. . .The record must show, or there must be an alle-

gation and evidence which show, that an accused was

offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly

rejected the offer. Anything less is not waiver.” . . .More-

over, where in-custody interrogation is involved, there is

no room for the contention that the privilege is waived if

the individual answers some questions or gives some infor-

mation on his own prior to invoking his right to remain

silent when interrogated. Whatever the testimony of the

authorities as to waiver of rights by an accused, the fact of

lengthy interrogation or incommunicado incarceration

before a statement is made is strong evidence that the

accused did not validly waive his rights. In these circum-

stances the fact that the individual eventually made a state-

ment is consistent with the conclusion that the compelling

influence of the interrogation finally forced him to do so.

It is inconsistent with any notion of a voluntary relinquish-

ment of the privilege. Moreover, any evidence that the

accused was threatened, tricked, or cajoled into a waiver

will, of course, show that the defendant did not voluntarily

waive his privilege. The requirement of warnings and

waiver of rights is a fundamental with respect to the Fifth

Amendment privilege and not simply a preliminary ritual

to existing methods of interrogation.

* * *

The principles announced today deal with the protection

which must be given to the privilege against self-incrimi-

nation when the individual is first subjected to police inter-

rogation while in custody at the station or otherwise

deprived of his freedom of action in any different way, It is

at this point that our adversary system of criminal pro-

ceedings commences, distinguishing itself at the outset

from the inquisitorial system recognized in some coun-

tries. Under the system of warnings we delineate today or

under any other system which may be devised and found

effective, the safeguards to be erected about the privilege

must come into play at this point.

Our decision is not intended to hamper the traditional

function of police officers in investigating crime. . . .When

an individual in custody or probable cause, the police may,

of course, seek out evidence in the field to be used at trial

against him. Such investigation may include inquiry of

persons not under restraint. General on-the-scene ques-

tioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general

questioning of citizens in the fact-finding process is not

affected by our holding. It is an act of responsible citi-

zenship for individuals to give whatever information they

may have to aid in law enforcement. In such situations the

compelling atmosphere inherent in the process of in-

custody interrogation is not necessarily present.

Confession remain[s] a proper element in law

enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily

without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible

in evidence. . . . There is no requirement that police stop a

person who enters a police station and states and that he

wishes to confess to a crime, or a person who calls the

police to offer a confession or any other statement he

desires to make. Volunteered statements of any kind are

not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibil-

ity is not affected by our holding today.

To summarize, we hold that when an individual is

taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by

the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to

questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is

jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to

protect the privilege and unless other full effective means

are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and

to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously

honored, the following measures are required. He must be

warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to

remain silent, that anything he says can be used against

him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence

of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one

will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so

desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be

afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such

warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded

him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive

these rights and agree to answer questions or make a state-

ment. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are

demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence

obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against

him.

IV.

In announcing these principles, we are not unmindful of the

burdens which law enforcement officials must bear, often

under trying circumstances. We also fully recognize the obli-

gation of all citizens to aid in enforcing the criminal laws.

This Court, while protecting individual rights, has always

given ample latitude to law enforcement agencies in the

legitimate exercise of their duties. The limits we have placed

on the interrogation process should not constitute an undue

interference with a proper system of law enforcement. . . .

Custodial interrogation, by contrast, does not necessar-

ily afford the innocent an opportunity to clear themselves.

A serious consequence of the present practice of the inter-

rogation alleged to be beneficial for the innocent is that

many arrests “for investigation” subject large numbers of

innocent persons to detention and interrogation. . . .

1624 ERA 9: Postwar United States

Over the years the Federal Bureau of Investigation

has compiled an exemplary record of effective law enforce-

ment while advising any suspect or arrested person, at the

outset of an interview, that he is not required to make a

statement, that any statement may be used against him in

court, that the individual may obtain the services of an

attorney of his own choice and, more recently, that he has

a right to free counsel if he is unable to pay. . . .

“‘The standard warning long given by Special Agents

of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is

that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to

counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used

against him in court. . . .

“‘After passage of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964,

which provides free counsel for Federal defendants unable

to pay, we added to our instructions to Special Agents the

requirement that any person who is under arrest for an

offense under FBI jurisdiction, or whose arrest is contem-

plated following the interview, must also be advised of his

right to free counsel if he is unable to pay, and the fact that

such counsel will be assigned by the Judge. At the same

time, we broadened the right to counsel warning to read

counsel of his own choice, or anyone else with whom he

might wish to speak.

* * *

“‘The FBI warning is given to a suspect at the very outset

of the interview. . . . The warning may be given to a person

arrested as soon as practicable after the arrest . . . but in

any event it must precede the interview with the person

for a confession or admission of his own guilt.

* * *

“‘When the person who has been warned of his right to

counsel decides that he wishes to consult with counsel

before making a statement, the interview is terminated at

that point. . . . It may be continued, however, as to all mat-

ters other than the person’s own guilt or innocence. . . .

* * *

“‘If any person being interviewed after warning of coun-

sel decides that he wishes to consult with counsel before

proceeding further the interview is terminated, as shown

above. FBI Agents do not pass judgment on the ability of

the person to pay for counsel. They do, however, advise

those who have been arrested for an offense under FBI

jurisdiction, or whose arrest is contemplated following

the interview, of a right to free counsel if they are unable

to pay, and the availability of such counsel from the

Judge.’”

* * *

No. 759. Miranda v. Arizona.

On March 13, 1963, petitioner, Ernesto Miranda, was

arrested at his home and taken in custody to a Phoenix

police station. He was there identified by the complaining

witness. The police then took him to “Interrogation Room

No. 2” of the detective bureau. There he was questioned

by two police officers. The officers admitted at trial that

Miranda was not advised that he had a right to have an

attorney present. Two hours later, the officers emerged

from the interrogation room with a written confession

signed by Miranda. At the top of the statement was a typed

paragraph stating that the confession was made voluntarily,

without threats or promises of immunity and “with full

knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement

I make may be used against me.”

At his trial before a jury, the written confession was

admitted into evidence over the objection of defense

counsel, and the officers testified to the prior oral confes-

sion made by Miranda during the interrogation. Miranda

was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. He was sen-

tenced to 20 to 30 years’ imprisonment on each count, the

sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, the Supreme

Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights

were not violated in obtaining the confession and affirmed

the conviction. . . .

We reverse. From the testimony of the officers and by

the admission of respondent, it is clear that Miranda was

not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an attor-

ney and to have one present during the interrogation, nor

was his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself

effectively protected in any other manner. Without these

warnings the statements were inadmissible.

Source:

Supreme Court Reporter, Vol. 86, pp. 1,602–1,665.

Freedom of Information Act of 1966

Federal U.S. legislation enacted July 3, 1966, designed to

make federal agencies disclose more information to the pub-

lic. It stated that all records in the possession of the executive

branch, except those specifically exempted by law, must be

provided to any person who requests them. Exempted materi-

als included national defense or foreign policy secrets, per-

sonnel or medical files, trade secrets or confidential financial

information, certain law enforcement investigatory files, and

information concerning private gas or oil wells. The act was

amended in 1974 to make information easier, quicker, and

cheaper to obtain by requiring agencies to publish uniform

fees for providing documents; empowering federal courts to

order agencies to comply with the act; setting time limits for

agency responses to requests; and requiring annual reports to

Congress from agencies and the attorney general on freedom

Struggle for Racial and Gender Equality and for the Extension of Civil Liberties 1625

of information matters. It was further amended in 1975 to

include sensitive agencies, such as the FBI and the CIA,

although later amendments and regulations put additional

curbs on information coming out of these agencies in order to

better protect sources and methods. Nevertheless, the Free-

dom of Information Act (FOIA) served to bring to light some

of the more nefarious actions of government agencies as well

as serving as a boon to journalists and historians. On the other

hand, the prospect of seeing one’s memos end up featured in

the media has inhibited advisers from putting certain infor-

mation on paper or in e-mails, thus affecting internal institu-

tional history as well as the work of future historians. Various

administrations have promulgated regulations effecting the

release of information. Under Presidents Carter and Clinton,

FOIA analysts were to give the benefit of the doubt to the

requester, allowing more information to be released; under

Republican administrations, decisions favored withholding

information. The 2002 Homeland Security Act exempted cer-

tain previously public information concerning commerce and

infrastructure from release because of the possibility it could

aid terrorists.

________________________

_______________________

An Act

To amend section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act,

chapter 324, of the Act of June 11, 1946 (60 Stat. 238), to

clarify and protect the right of the public to information,

and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

tives of the United States of America in Congress assem-

bled, That section 3, chapter 324, of the Act of June 11,

1946 (60 Stat. 238), is amended to read as follows:

“Sec. 3. Every agency shall make available to the pub-

lic the following information:

“(a) Publication in the Federal Register.—Every

agency shall separately state and currently publish in the

Federal Register for the guidance of the public (A)

descriptions of its central and field organization and the

established places at which, the officers from whom, and

the methods whereby, the public may secure information,

make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions; (B) state-

ments of the general course and method by which its func-

tions are channeled and determined, including the nature

and requirements of all formal and informal procedures

available; (C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms

available or the places at which forms may be obtained,

and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers,

reports, or examinations; (D) substantive rules of general

applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements

of general policy or interpretations of general applicability

formulated and adopted by the agency; and (E) every

amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing. Except to

the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the

terms thereof, no person shall in any manner be required

to resort to, or be adversely affected by any matter

required to be published in the Federal Register and not

so published. For purposes of this subsection, matter

which is reasonably available to the class of persons

affected thereby shall be deemed published in the Federal

approval of the Director of the Federal Register.

“(b) Agency Opinions and Orders.—Every agency

shall, in accordance with published rules, make available

for public inspection and copying (A) all final opinions

(including concurring and dissenting opinions) and all

orders made in the adjudication of cases, (B) those state-

ments of policy and interpretations which have been

adopted by the agency and are not published in the Fed-

eral Register, and (C) administrative staff manuals and

instructions to staff that affect any member of the public,

unless such materials are promptly published and copies

offered for sale. To the extent required to prevent a clearly

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, an agency may

delete identifying details when it makes available or pub-

lishes an opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, or

staff manual or instruction: Provided, That in every case

the justification for the deletion must be fully explained in

writing. Every agency also shall maintain and make avail-

able for public inspection and copying a current index pro-

viding identifying information for the public as to any

matter which is issued, adopted, or promulgated after the

effective date of this Act and which is required by this sub-

section to be made available or published. No final order,

opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, or staff man-

ual or instruction that affects any member of the public

may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by an

agency against any private party unless it has been indexed

and either made available or published as provided by this

subsection or unless that private party shall have actual and

timely notice of the terms thereof.

“(c) Agency Records.—Except with respect to the

records made available pursuant to subsections (a) and (b),

every agency shall, upon request for identifiable records

made in accordance with published rules stating the time,

place, fees to the extent authorized by statute and proce-

dure to be followed, make such records promptly available

to any person. Upon complaint, the district court of the

United States in the district in which the complainant

resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which

the agency records are situated shall have jurisdiction to

enjoin the agency from the withholding of agency records

and to order the production of any agency records improp-

erly withheld from the complainant. In such cases the court

shall determine the matter de novo and the burden shall be

upon the agency to sustain its action. In the event of non-

compliance with the court’s order, the district court may

1626 ERA 9: Postwar United States

punish the responsible officers for contempt. Except as to

those causes which the court deems of greater importance,

proceedings before the district court as authorized by this

subsection shall take precedence on the docket over all

other causes and shall be assigned for hearing and trial at

the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way.

“(d) Agency Proceedings.—Every agency having more

than one member shall keep a record of the final votes of

each member in every agency proceeding and such record

shall be available for public inspection.

“(e) Exemptions.—The provisions of this section shall

not be applicable to matters that are (1) specifically re-

quired by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest

of the national defense or foreign policy; (2) related solely

to the internal personnel rules and practices of any agency;

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute; (4)

trade secrets and commercial or financial information

obtained from any person and privileged or confidential;

(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters

which would not be available by law to a private party in

litigation with the agency; (6) personnel and medical files

and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a

clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (7) inves-

tigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes

except to the extent available by law to a private party; (8)

contained or related to examination, operating, or condi-

tion reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of any

agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of

financial institutions; and (9) geological and geophysical

information and data (including maps) concerning wells.

“(f) Limitation of Exemptions.—Nothing in this sec-

tion authorizes withholding of information or limiting the

availability of records to the public except as specifically

stated in this section, nor shall this section be authority to

withhold information from Congress.

“(g) Private Party.—As used in this section, ‘private

party’ means any party other than an agency.

“(h) Effective Date.—This amendment shall become

effective one year following the date of the enactment of

this Act.”

Approved July 4, 1966.

Source:

Statutes at Large, Vol. 80, pp. 250–251.

The Black Panther Party,

The Black Panther Party Platform

and Program, 1966

Platform of the Black Panther Party (BPP), a militant black

political rights organization, founded by Bobby Seale and

Huey Newton in October 1966 in Oakland, California. This

10-point platform made a number of demands for African

Americans. Marxist influences infuse the platform, as in the

assertion that if “white American businessmen” deny African

Americans meaningful employment then the “means of pro-

duction should be taken from the businessmen and placed in

the community so that the people of the community can orga-

nize and employ all of its people.” The party closed its plat-

form by quoting the Declaration of Independence.

The Panthers were a highly controversial organization

and remain so in historical treatments of them. Early Panthers

asserted their Second Amendment right to bear arms and took

advantage of a California law that outlawed only concealed

weapons. Their open flaunting of guns gave them a frightening

public image. Some of their literature also advocated violence.

In addition, some Panthers, using the movie

Battle of Algiers

teach them terrorist techniques, were responsible for assassi-

nating police and other law enforcement officials and killing a

California judge.

On the other hand, the Panthers assisted former convicts

to better themselves and instituted free breakfast programs for

needy children (although they sometimes resorted to extortion

to acquire food for the breakfasts). The Federal Bureau of

Investigation mounted a Counterintelligence Program to dis-

credit Panther leaders and disrupt their programs, including

the free breakfasts and their Marxist-oriented “Liberation

schools.”

After a Panther allegedly murdered a Chicago policeman,

an FBI informant who was close to Chicago leader Fred

Hampton gave his handler a map of Hampton’s apartment.

Supposedly the map ended up with the Chicago police, who

raided the apartment, killing Hampton, who was in bed at the

time, and an associate. The FBI and Chicago police eventually

settled with the survivors.

________________________

_______________________

WHAT WE WANT

WHAT WE BELIEVE

WE WANT freedom. We want power to determine

the destiny of our Black Community.

WE BELIEVE that black people will not be free until

we are able to determine our destiny.

WE WANT full employment for our people.

WE BELIEVE that the federal government is respon-

sible and obligated to give every man employment or a

guaranteed income. We believe that if the white American

businessmen will not give full employment, then the

means of production should be taken from the business-

men and placed in the community so that the people of the

community can organize and employ all of its people and

give a high standard of living.

WE WANT an end to the robbery by the CAPITAL-

IST of our Black Community.

Struggle for Racial and Gender Equality and for the Extension of Civil Liberties 1627

WE BELIEVE that this racist government has

robbed us and now we are demanding the overdue debt

of forty acres and two mules. Forty acres and two mules

was promised 100 years ago as restitution for slave labor

and mass murder of black people. We will accept the pay-

ment in currency which will be distributed to our many

communities. The Germans are now aiding the Jews in

Israel for the genocide of the Jewish people. The Ger-

mans murdered six million Jews. The American racist has

taken part in the slaughter of over fifty million black peo-

ple; therefore, we feel that this is a modest demand that

we make.

WE WANT decent housing, fit for the shelter of

human beings.

WE BELIEVE that if the white landlords will not give

decent housing to our black community, then the housing

and the land should be made into cooperatives so that our

community, with government aid, can build and make

decent housing for its people.

WE WANT education for our people that exposes the

true nature of this decadent American society. We want

education that teaches us our true history and our role in

the present-day society.

WE BELIEVE in an educational system that will give

to our people a knowledge of self. If a man does not have

knowledge of himself and his position in society and the

world, then he has little chance to relate to anything else.

WE WANT all black men to be exempt from military

service.

WE BELIEVE that Black people should not be

forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist gov-

ernment that does not protect us. We will not fight and kill

other people of color in the world who, like black people,

are being victimized by the white racist government of

America. We will protect ourselves from the force and vio-

lence of the racist police and the racist military, by what-

ever means necessary.

WE WANT an immediate end to POLICE BRUTAL-

ITY and MURDER of black people.

WE BELIEVE we can end police brutality in our

black community by organizing black self-defense groups

that are dedicated to defending our black community from

racist police oppression and brutality. The Second Amend-

ment to the Constitution of the United States gives a right

to bear arms. We therefore believe that all black people

should arm themselves for self- defense.

WE WANT freedom for all black men held in federal,

state, county and city prisons and jails.

WE BELIEVE that all black people should be

released from the many jails and prisons because they have

not received a fair and impartial trial.

WE WANT all black people when brought to trial to

be tried in court by a jury of their peer group or people

from their black communities, as defined by the Constitu-

tion of the United States.

WE BELIEVE that the courts should follow the

United States Constitution so that black people will

receive fair trials. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Con-

stitution gives a man a right to be tried by his peer group.

A peer is a person from a similar economic, social, reli-

gious, geographical, environmental, historical and racial

background. To do this the court will be forced to select a

jury from the black community from which the black

defendant came. We have been, and are being tried by all-

white juries that have no understanding of the “average

reasoning man” of the black community.

WE WANT land, bread, housing, education, clothing,

justice and peace. And as our major political objective, a

United Nations supervised plebiscite to be held through-

out the black colony in which only black colonial subjects

will be allowed to participate, for the purpose of deter-

mining the will of black people as to their national destiny.

WHEN, in the course of human events, it becomes

necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds

which have connected them with another, and to assume,

among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal sta-

tion to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle

them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind

requires that they should declare the causes which impel

them to the separation.

WE HOLD these truths to be self-evident, that all

men are created equal; that they are endowed by their

Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these

are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . That, to

secure these rights, governments are instituted among

men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the

governed; that, whenever any form of government

becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the

people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new govern-

ment, laying its foundation on such principles, and orga-

nizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most

likely to effect their safety and happiness. . . Prudence,

indeed, will dictate that governments long established

should not be changed for light and transient causes; and,

accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are

more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to

right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are

accustomed. . . But, when a long train of abuses and

usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a

design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their

right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to

provide new guards for their future security. . .

Source:

The Maoist International Movement. “The Black Panther Party

Platform and Program.” Available on-line. URL: www.

1628 ERA 9: Postwar United States

etext.org/Politics/MIM/bpp/bpprog/htm. Accessed Novem-

ber 2003.

Omnibus Crime Control and

Safe Streets Act, 1968

Federal legislation signed into law on June 19, 1968, to pro-

vide federal assistance to state and local law enforcement

agencies in order to reduce street crime. The act created the

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to aid state and

local agencies in funding programs for police, courts, correc-

tions, control of organized crime, civil disorders, and related

crime problems; it authorized $400 million in grants to

develop programs over a two-year period. It prohibited inter-

state traffic in handguns and their sale to minors.

Its most controversial provisions sanctioned eavesdrop-

ping and wiretapping by federal, state, and local officials,

specifying when and how they may be authorized (Title III).

These provisions have been criticized as violations of rights

to privacy. However, prior to the passage of this act, govern-

ment agents conducted wiretaps but did not use this intelli-

gence in court because they were prohibited by section 605

of the 1934 Federal Communications Act from “divulging”

the fruits of those taps. The Department of Justice had for

years appealed to Congress to allow overhears in court.

Under the 1968 Act, a judicial official had to find probable

cause and issue a warrant, but these Title III wiretaps can be

used in court and have aided crimesolving, promoted guilty

pleas (saving court costs) and produced successful prosecu-

tions. However, the Act pointedly did not touch national

security overhears.

Two years later the Organized Crime Control Act rein-

forced federal power against organized crime by strengthening

legal tools for gathering evidence, by establishing new penal

prohibitions, and by providing stronger sanctions in dealing

with unlawful activities. It provided for special grand juries

to report to federal courts, issuance of general immunity to

compel witnesses to testify, and increased sentences for dan-

gerous special offenders. Its provisions covered a wide range

of offenses besides organized crime, including passing bad

checks, burglary, and conspiracy. However, it is best known

for Title IX, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiza-

tion (RICO) Act, which, among other provisions applied triple

damages to organizations convicted of violating it. It took over

10 years, but its use brought down major organized crime

families nationwide. However, it was also used effectively

against white supremacist and antiabortion groups as well as

small businesses sued by individuals, which may not have

been intended by Congress, but were upheld on appeal in the

courts.

________________________

_______________________

An Act

To assist State and local governments in reducing the inci-

dence of crime, to increase the effectiveness, fairness, and

coordination of law enforcement and criminal justice sys-

tems at all levels of government, and for other purposes.

. . . This Act may be cited as the “Omnibus Crime Control

and Safe Streets Act of 1968”.

Title I—Law Enforcement Assistance

Declarations and Purpose

Congress finds that the high incidence of crime in the

United States threatens the peace, security, and general

welfare of the Nation and its citizens. To prevent crime

and to insure the greater safety of the people, law enforce-

ment efforts must be better coordinated, intensified, and

made more effective at all levels of government.

Congress finds further that crime is essentially a local

problem that must be dealt with by State and local gov-

ernments if it is to be controlled effectively.

It is therefore the declared policy of the Congress

to assist State and local governments in strengthening

and improving law enforcement at every level by national

assistance. It is the purpose of this title to (1) encourage

States and units of general local government to prepare

and adopt comprehensive plans based upon their eval-

uation of State and local problems of law enforcement;

(2) authorize grants to States and units of local govern-

ment in order to improve and strengthen law enforce-

ment; and (3) encourage research and development

directed toward the improvement of law enforcement

and the development of new methods for the prevention

and reduction of crime and the detection and apprehen-

sion of criminals.

Part A—Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

Sec. 101. (a) There is hereby established within the

Department of Justice, under the general authority of the

Attorney General, a Law Enforcement Assistance Admin-

istration (hereafter referred to in this title as “Administra-

tion”).

(b) The Administration shall be composed of an

Administrator of Law Enforcement Assistance and two

Associate Administrators of Law Enforcement Assistance,

who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the

advice and consent of the Senate. . . .

Part B—Planning Grants

Sec. 201. It is the purpose of this part to encourage

States and units of general local government to prepare

and adopt comprehensive law enforcement plans based on

their evaluation of State and local problems of law enforce-

ment.

Sec. 202. The Administration shall make grants to the

States for the establishment and operation of State law

enforcement planning agencies. . .for the preparation,

Struggle for Racial and Gender Equality and for the Extension of Civil Liberties 1629

development, and revision of the State plans required

under section 303 of this title. . . .

Sec. 203. (a) A grant made under this part to a State

shall be utilized by the State to establish and maintain a

State planning agency. . . .

(b) The State planning agency shall—

(1) develop . . . a comprehensive statewide plan for the

improvement of law enforcement throughout the State;

(2) define, develop, and correlate programs and pro-

jects for the State and the units of general local govern-

ment in the State or combinations of States or units for

improvement in law enforcement. . . .

* * *

Part C—Grants for Law Enforcement Purposes

Sec. 301. (a) It is the purpose of this part to encourage

States and units of general local government to carry out

programs and projects to improve and strengthen law

enforcement.

(b) The Administration is authorized to make grants to

States having comprehensive State plans approved by it

under this part, for—

(1) Public protection . . . to improve and strengthen

law enforcement and reduce crime in public and private

places.

(2) The recruiting of law enforcement personnel and

the training of personnel in law enforcement.

(3) Public education relating to crime prevention and

encouraging respect for law and order. . . .

(4) Construction of . . . physical facilities which would

fulfill or implement the purposes of this section.

(5) The organization, education, and training of spe-

cial law enforcement units to combat organized crime. . . .

(6) The organization, education, and training of regu-

lar law enforcement officers, special law enforcement

units, and law enforcement reserve units for the pre-

vention, detection, and control of riots and other violent

civil disorders, including the acquisition of riot control

equipment.

(7) The recruiting, organization, training and educa-

tion of community service officers to serve with and assist

local and State law enforcement agencies in the discharge

of their duties through such activities as recruiting;

improvement of police-community relations and grievance

resolution mechanisms; community patrol activities;

encouragement of neighborhood participation in crime

prevention and public safety efforts; and other activities

designed to improve police capabilities, public safety and

the objectives of this section. . . .

[A State Planning Administration will coordinate the

grant program.]

Part D—Training, Education, Research, Demonstra-

tion, and Special Grants

Sec. 401. It is the purpose of this part to provide for

and encourage training, education, research, and devel-

opment for the purpose of improving law enforcement

and developing new methods for the prevention and re-

duction of crime, and the detection and apprehension of

criminals.

Sec. 402. (a) There is established within the Depart-

ment of Justice a National Institute of Law Enforcement

and Criminal Justice.

(b) The Institute is authorized—

(1) to make grants to, or enter into contracts with,

public agencies, institutions of higher education, or private

organizations to conduct research, demonstrations, or spe-

cial projects pertaining to the purposes described in this

title, including the development of new or improved

approaches, techniques, systems, equipment, and devices

to improve and strengthen law enforcement;

(2) to make continuing studies and undertake pro-

grams of research to develop new or improved approaches,

techniques, systems, equipment, and devices to improve

and strengthen law enforcement, including, but not lim-

ited to, the effectiveness of projects or programs carried

out under this title;

(3) to carry out programs of behavioral research

designed to provide more accurate information on the

causes of crime and the effectiveness of various means of

preventing crime, and to evaluate the success of correc-

tional procedures;

(4) to make recommendations for action which can be

taken by Federal, State, and local governments and by pri-

vate persons and organizations to improve and strengthen

law enforcement;

(5) to carry out programs of instructional assistance.

. . .

* * *

(7) to establish a research center. . . .

* * *

Sec. 404. (a) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Inves-

tigation is authorized to—

(1) establish and conduct training programs at the

Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy at

Quantico, Virginia, to provide, at the request of a State or

unit of local government, training for State and local law

enforcement personnel;

(2) develop new or improved approaches, techniques,

systems, equipment, and devices to improve and

strengthen law enforcement; and

(3) assist in conducting, at the request of a State or

unit of local government, local and regional training pro-

grams for the training of State and local law enforcement

personnel. . . .

1630 ERA 9: Postwar United States

(b) In the exercise of the functions, powers, and duties

established under this section the Director of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation shall be under the general author-

ity of the Attorney General.

Part E—Administrative Provisions

* * *

Sec. 515. The Administration is authorized—

(a) to conduct evaluation studies of the programs and

activities assisted under this title;

(b) to collect, evaluate, publish, and disseminate statis-

tics and other information on the condition and progress of

law enforcement in the several States; and

to States, units of general local government, combinations

of such States or units, or other public or private agencies,

organizations, or institutions in matters relating to law

enforcement.

* * *

Sec. 518. (a) Nothing contained in this title or any other

Act shall be construed to authorize any department,

agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exer-

cise any direction, supervision, or control over any police

force or any other law enforcement agency of any State or

any political subdivision thereof. . . .

Part F—Definitions

Sec. 601. As used in this title—

(a) “Law enforcement” means all activities pertaining

to crime prevention or reduction and enforcement of the

criminal law.

(b) “Organized crime” means the unlawful activities of

the members of a highly organized, disciplined association

engaged in supplying illegal goods and services, including

but not limited to gambling, prostitution, loan sharking,

narcotics, labor racketeering, and other unlawful activities

of members of such organizations.

District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

and any territory or possession of the United States.

(d) “Unit of general local government” means any city,

county, township, town, borough, parish, village, or other

general purpose political subdivision of a State, or an

Indian tribe which performs law enforcement functions as

determined by the Secretary of the Interior.

* * *

(i) “Public agency” means any State, unit of local gov-

ernment, combination of such States or units, or any

department, agency, or instrumentality of any of the fore-

going.

* * *

(k) “Community service officer” means any citizen

with the capacity, motivation, integrity, and stability to

assist in or perform police work but who may not meet

ordinary standards for employment as a regular police offi-

cer selected from the immediate locality of the police

department of which he is to be a part, and meeting such

other qualifications promulgated in regulations.

Title II—Admissibility of Confessions, Reviewability

of Admission in Evidence of Confessions in State

Cases, Admissibility in Evidence of Eye Witness

Testimony, and Procedures in Obtaining Writs of

Habeas Corpus

* * *

“Section 3501. Admissibility of confessions

“(a) In any criminal prosecution brought by the

United States or by the District of Columbia, a confes-

sion, as defined in subsection (e) hereof, shall be ad-

missible in evidence if it is voluntarily given. Before

such confession is received in evidence, the trial judge

shall, out of the presence of the jury, determine any

issue as to voluntariness. If the trial judge determines

that the confession was voluntarily made it shall be

admitted in evidence and the trial judge shall permit the

jury to hear relevant evidence on the issue of voluntari-

ness and shall instruct the jury to give such weight to the

confession as the jury feels it deserves under all the cir-

cumstances.

“(b) The trial judge in determining the issue of volun-

tariness shall take into consideration all the circumstances

surrounding the giving of the confession, including (1) the

time elapsing between arrest and arraignment of the

defendant making the confession, if it was made after

arrest and before arraignment, (2) whether such defendant

knew the nature of the offense with which he was charged

or of which he was suspected at the time of making the

confession, (3) whether or not such defendant was advised

or knew that he was not required to make any statement

and that any such statement could be used against him,

(4) whether or not such defendant had been advised prior

to questioning of his right to the assistance of counsel; and

(5) whether or not such defendant was without the assis-

tance of counsel when questioned and when giving such

confession.

* * *

“Section 3502. Admissibility in Evidence of Eye Witness

Testimony

“The testimony of a witness that he saw the accused

commit or participate in the commission of the crime for

which the accused is being tried shall be admissible in evi-

dence in a criminal prosecution in any trial court ordained

Struggle for Racial and Gender Equality and for the Extension of Civil Liberties 1631