just something we can overlook, because they have done this before and they will do it again, or does he bring one or both parties in and the machinery starts grinding on. So I am sure that is true of narcotics as well.

Senator WEICKER. I will give you an example of the point I am trying to arrive at. There is a police raid, let's say, on a group of people who have or are using narcotics. Maybe one is a pusher, maybe one has been on narcotics for a great number of years, maybe someone is trying it for the first time, and maybe someone is there not using it at all. Don't you think a great number of decisions have to be made about who is going to be prosecuted at that juncture?

Judge GREENE. That is true, Senator. My impression is, at least in the last year or so, the police effort has to be as all-inclusive as possible. As a result the results of narcotics prosecution, even of simple possession of narcotics or possession of narcotics paraphernalia has increased considerably. So, from that circumstantial evidence, I would deduce that the police are exercising perhaps less discretion in that regard than they have in the past.

Senator WEICKER. That is really, I suppose, the question we come down to. Are you satisfied with the way the laws are presently written that we are lessening the discretion used by the policeman? After all, this is not his problem as much as it is yours.

Judge GREENE. The law, of course, makes possession of narcoticsone capsule of heroin or the slightest amount-an offense. I don't think that that really is a question of the law. As I indicated earlier both appellate courts in this jursidiction have before them this issue. I am sure, one of these days, it will reach the Supreme Court as to whether constitutionally a person can be punished for possessing drugs for his own use only. If that were to be decided in the negative by the Supreme Court or if the Congress went into that field, then you would have a clear delineation between the pushers and the users. You would have, obviously, a lessening of the drug problem both in law enforcement and in the courts as to whether that is desirable or not or whether that is valid or not. I would prefer not to get into that because some of these cases may come up before me. They have come up before several of my colleagues and they have come to different conclusions.

One has held that possession of narcotics for his own use is an offense and another one of our judges held the other way. So it is by no means settled.

Senator WEICKER. Thank you.

Senator TUNNEY. I have one last question, Judge.

I was interested in your remark that since August 1970 approximately 2,500 persons were before your court who have been tested and found to be narcotics addicts. Has this problem gotten worse in the last year or two? Do you feel you have come around the bend on it or are you getting better now? If your answer is it is not getting any better-is the system being overloaded to the point that it is becoming unmanageable?

Judge GREENE. Since we have precise statistics only since August 1970, when our program started, my answer would have to be based more on simply comparison based on experience. I am quite sure that when I first came on the bench 6 years ago and the narcotics problem was not near as severe as it is today as to whether there has been an

increase in the last year or two, I don't know. I would like to think that some inroads have been made as a result of the efforts of the Narcotics Treatment Administration and others so that I don't think it has gotten worse in the last year or two but again I am not as competent perhaps as others who may keep statistics.

As far as overloading the courts are concerned, if you meant to address yourself to the question of the courts, that is what we are there for-to adjudicate controversies. If the Congress passes statutes that make possession of narcotics a crime, then we handle those as well as any others. At the moment our criminal and civil backlog are lower than they have been in 5 years. 1 am confident we are capable of handling this problem as well as any others that might be thrust

upon us.

Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much.

What is your backlog by the way-how many months?

Judge GREENE. Not counting the demonstration cases, which are really in a somewhat different category, I suspect many of which will not go to trial for one reason or another, because of pleas of guilty and forfeiture of collateral or because the Government will choose not to go forward, we have a criminal backlog of about 1,100 defendants. That is a reduction from over 2,000 as much as a year or two ago. In fact 1,100 is the lowest figure since I have been on the court. It is really a very small figure when you consider we have something like 18,000 cases filed a year. 1,100 is a matter that can be disposed of in 2 or 3

weeks.

We do, as a matter of fact, try criminal cases in our court within no more than 6 weeks and the same is true of juvenile cases. Unfortunately, I can't be quite as optimistic about our civil cases, but there, too, our civil backlog used to be from the time of filing the case to the trial was over years has now been reduced to about 1 year. So that is also making progress.

Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Chief Jerry V. Wilson, the Chief of Police of the District of Columbia. We certainly appreciate the Chief coming to the hearing today and giving us the opportunity to benefit from his knowledge. We all agree that being the Chief of Police here in the District of Columbia is one of the toughest jobs in America. We certainly appreciate your excellent work.

STATEMENT OF JERRY V. WILSON, CHIEF OF POLICE, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY INSPECTOR WALTER BISHOP, MORALS DIVISION

Chief WILSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I get an awful lot of support and help from all quarters.

I have with me Inspector Walter Bishop, inspector of the Morals

Division.

Senator TUNNEY. Glad to have you here, Inspector Bishop.

Chief WILSON. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before your committee in response to your request for information on the problems of drug abuse in the District of Columbia-especially the heroin problem.

Although reliable statistical data on narcotics use is almost impossible to develop, and thus trends are hard to perceive and interpret, I believe that even the most casual observer has observed that over the past several years there has been a dramatic upsurge, both in this city and in other American cities, in use of hard drugs such as heroin. Generally, it is assumed that the upward trend began in about 1967; it must be noted that this assumption is based almost entirely on perception rather than on sound statistical data.

This dramatic increase in hard drug usage has produced a secondary effect of apparent changes and increases in the types and numbers of crimes against property committed by persons either addicted to or using drugs. Although our statistical data in this field is rather limited, both because of logistical problems and the fact that most of the data is derived from voluntary participation of persons arrested, the consensus is that in the past few years narcotics users moved from the crimes of larceny and burglary into the crime of armed robbery, and that the proportion of narcotics users involved in crimes against property exceeds 50 percent of all persons arrested. These data also indicate that some 90 percent of these users are using heroin.

Although there is this very high percentage of narcotics users among arrestees, it is nevertheless unclear what effect massive cures of the narcotics problem would have on the overall crime rate. There is simply not enough data to ascertain whether property crimes committed by users and addicts are the direct result of their dependence on drugs or whether the property crime and the drug addiction both derive from other root causes. It is likely that the truth is a combination of the two, and that cure of the drug problem would result in a significant reduction of other crime but not necessarily a 50-percent reduction.

One concrete field of data available to us regarding narcotics is in the field of police enforcement activity. Over the past 3 years there has been a significant increase in the number of arrests for narcotics violations-from 1,076 in 1968, to 1,745 in 1969, to 4,729 in 1970with the major emphasis being on the hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine. I would like to interpolate here this really reflects the policy of more enforcement and doesn't indicate there was more drugs in 1970 than there was in 1969.

This increased enforcement was achieved by increasing the size of the narcotics branch, by expanding narcotics operation in the District, and by training uniformed officers in techniques of narcotics enforcement. At this point I think we have had more than 1,400 uniformed men complete the 3-day Narcotics and Dangerous Drug program.

The police department closely cooperates with the Narcotics Treatment Administration in its efforts to assist addicts through a methadone maintenance program and other therapeutic approaches. We direct many persons to the Narcotics Treatment Administration programs who want medical help and we seek to enforce those sections of the District of Columbia Code which permit the civil commitment of addicts. The police department also works closely with members of the medical profession by advising them as to how they can best contribute their much needed talents to combating the problem. In recent months, in particular, their response has been gratifying.

Although it is felt that the various programs dealing with the treatment of addicts by means of methadone have been promising and

worthy of increased support, it is perhaps also true that a methadone maintenance program alone will not be the complete answer to our problem. The maintenance of persons on an addictive drug such as methadone for a long period of time is unacceptable to many peopleincluding some addicts. The need is to attack the problem from other, equally innovative angles. Hopefully, scientific research will produce an acceptable antagonist that would make the use of heroin unattractive.

There is no question in my mind that narcotics use in this city presents a significantly grave problem to warrant concentrated efforts of all elements of government or finding a solution. Some steps needed

are:

(1) Diligent enforcement of the present narcotics laws, particularly against those persons who are the large-scale dealers in drugs as opposed to those who are only involved in a small way.

(2) Cooperation on the part of the court system in expeditiously processing cases dealing with narcotics violators.

(3) Early enactment of the proposed Controlled Substances Act for the District of Columbia to bring our laws on drug violations in line with the new Federal laws.

(4) Increased expenditures to expand existing programs that deal with narcotic drug users so that they can make significant gains in those parts of their overall treatment which deal with counseling, educating and preparing the drug user to achieve gainful employment in society.

(5) Expanded research into the causes of drug addiction and how these causes can be dealt with, as well as accelerated studies into possible new treatment techniques.

(6) Greater educational efforts at all levels of the community, with particular emphasis on the teenage group. I would interject here one of the phenomena noted in the last half of the sixties has been the shift from the addict in his 20's to the increasingly younger group of the older teenagers and even younger teenagers.

(7) A centralized account of all persons being treated whether in a program or by a private physician.

In closing I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear. I feel with the continuing interests and concern that is shown by the Congress, as well as all branches of the Government, significant improvement can be achieved in this area.

Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much, chief.

I certainly appreciate your specific proposals as to what you feel are some of the solutions.

I was interested in learning from you whether you feel that there ought to be an expansion of the court system in the District of Columbia to more expeditiously process narcotics cases or what did you mean by cooperation with the court system?

Chief WILSON. It is difficult at this point, Mr. Chairman, to analyze what should be done with the court system. The courts have just recently been reorganized. We have had some improvements but there are still serious overall problems in getting cases through the courts-although there are significant improvements. Although the court reorganization was enacted in October of last year, it didn't go into effect until February of this year, which isn't that long ago

given the fact major reorganizations tend to disorganize by their very nature in the early stages.

We had some difficulties with the court earlier this year in getting proper treatment of our narcotics cases in the court, but I think this is alleviated now. I think we have to give continued attention to it. I wouldn't make specific proposals for changes in the court at this time, however, until we see what the reorganization achieves.

Senator TUNNEY. With regard to the proposed Controlled Substances Act for the District of Columbia-my understanding is this proposed legislation is still in the White House and awaiting clearance. Inspector BISHOP. The last dealings with the Controlled Substances Act was with the Justice Department. It is only recently we submitted our comments to the Justice Department.

Senator TUNNEY. When did you submit your comments to the Justice Department?

Inspector BISHOP. About 3 weeks ago.

Senator TUNNEY. Are you basically in favor of the act as it is written?

Inspector BISHOP. Yes, Mr. Senator. We made several recommendations for improving the act but basically we are

Chief WILSON. I would assume, Mr. Chairman, it will be forthcoming, obviously the hearing is here and I would be remiss if I didn't point this up though as a major idea.

Senator TUNNEY. If this act is passed-what is going to be the basic thing that it is going to do?

Inspector BISHOP. Well, it is certainly going to improve the difference in the attack as far as the individuals first using the drug. It is going to cut out a lot of the individuals who have first usage and it is going to give us more flexability in the operation of our unit.

Senator TUNNEY. In other words the first user will not be processed through the court system.

Inspector BISHOP. He will not be processed in the same fashion. In order to get a felony conviction you have to prove intent to use and possession with the intent to sell.

Senator TUNNEY. Will it make it a misdemeanor?

Inspector BISHOP. It will be a misdemeanor on the possession.
Chief WILSON. On simple possession.

Senator TUNNEY. Do you feel this will speed up the processing of these cases?

Chief WILSON. Yes, sir. It should speed up the handling of cases and gives the Government more tools with which to handle cases.

Senator TUNNEY. What about jobs for former addicts?

I polled California when I was holding drug hearings several years ago as a Member of the House of Representatives. We kept hearing over and over again it was almost impossible for the former addict to get a job because employers were reluctant to hire them. Is that the situation here in the District of Columbia?

Chief WILSON. I am not aware that it is, Mr. Chairman, but I am not aware that it isn't. Probably, Dr. DuPont who works more closely with individual addicts could give you a better answer to that. Of course, given the fact that particularly in general course there are job problems for many individuals that this probably is accentuated in the case of the addict.