SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM FOR PROPOSED BILL TO CLARIFY THE PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed legislation is to clarify the status and jurisdiction of the police force which serves the Supreme Court of the United States. The proposed bill affords the Supreme Court police formal statutory recognition in title 28 of the United States Code and amends other statutes to clarify jurisdiction and procedures. The proposed bill clarifies the authority of Supreme Court police to carry firearms, and protect Justices and dignitaries while on or off the Supreme Court premises. to BACKGROUND In 1800, the Federal Government moved to Washington, D.C., a new city and permanent Capitol. Since no provisions were made for a Judiciary building, the Court was loaned space by Congress in the new Capitol building. At this time, the United States Capitol Police provided security for the Court. After numerous relocations in the Capitol throughout the years, President William H. Taft persuaded Congress to authorize construction of a permanent "home" for the Court. Under the leadership of Chief Justice Hughes, construction proceeded from 1932 to 1935 when the Court was finally able to occupy its own building directly across the street from the United States Capitol. At this time, the United States Capitol Police detailed a small contingent of officers from the Capitol to provide security for the building and grounds and for the Justices and Court employees. These officers formed a nucleus for the security force at the new Supreme Court. Upon their appointment the officers were commissioned as special policemen for the Supreme Court Building and Ground by authority of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia under 30 Stat. 1057. Acting under this authority granted them by the Commissioners, they enforced the law without their authority being questioned from 1935 until September, 1948. Realizing at that time the statute was ambiguous in respect to appointment of special policemen, the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia issued an order that all special police commissions were to expire December 31, 1948. By the request of the Chief Justice, the expiration date was extended in order for legislation to be drafted providing for "policing of the building and grounds of the Supreme Court of the United States." Under the direction of Chief Justice Fred Vinson, the Marshal of the Court, Thomas E. Waggerman, worked with the leadership of both houses of Congress and with Mr. Perley, Legislative Counsel to the House of Representatives, to formulate legislation and put it into effect. The resulting bill (1949) was patterned after S.2405 Public Law 570 of the 79th Congress (2nd Session) - the - 2 intention being "to place [the Supreme Court] police force, within its jurisdictional limitation, on practically the same 'power and authority' basis under which the United States Capitol Police operates. " NEED FOR UPDATED LEGISLATION as Since 1949, when Congress gave legal recognition to the Supreme Court Police and established their jurisdiction special police to patrol the Supreme Court building and grounds, terrorist activities, assassination attempts, and street crime have substantially increased security problems. The jurisdiction of both the U.S. Capitol Police and the U.S. Secret Service have been changed from time-to-time to meet these increased security problems, but the authority of the Supreme Court police has not been changed to reflect present day realities. For example, under current law, the Supreme Court police do not have clear statutory authority to carry or use a firearm off the premises of the Supreme Court. Thus, if a Supreme Court officer were to witness a violent crime being committed against a person on the opposite side of the street of the Supreme Court grounds, the officer would not have express statutory authority to use a weapon to stop the commission of the crime. Nor would an officer, regardless of the severity of the danger presented, have clear statutory authority to use a weapon while pursuing a criminal fleeing the scene of a crime. This is in direct conflict with the generally held belief that an officer would have a duty to use all legal and necessary means to protect life or to apprehend a fleeing criminal. Arrangements have been made to assure that Supreme Court police are in full compliance with the law when it is necessary for them to carry firearms off the premises, by having many of them deputized as Special Deputy United States Marshals. This arrangement, however, is not permanent or satisfactory, either for the United States Marshal's Service or for the Supreme Court. An example of problems created by the current status of Supreme Court police is illustrated by the fact that the Supreme Court parking lot for employees is approximately one-half block east of the Supreme Court premises. Supreme Court police officers have an obligation to protect employees going to and from the parking lot, particularly late at night. They are authorized under current regulations to carry a firearm on the parking lot, since it is part of the Supreme Court premises. Officers who are not deputized as Special United States Marshals, however, do not have clear statutory authority to carry a firearm as they walk the one-half block to and from the parking lot. The fact that a Supreme Court employee was shot to death last year within a few blocks of the Supreme Court premises evidences the need for this type of protection. - 3 Current law also does not provide clear statutory authorization for a Supreme Court police officer to carry a firearm for protection when he or she accompanies a Justice off the premises for official duties. Security organizations serving the White House and U.S. Capitol, however, have already been given this type of authority, as illustrated by the comparison chart attached as Appendix A. The responsibilities of Supreme Court police are very similar to those of the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Capitol police. The duties include, but are not limited to: maintaining security of the agency's physical plant; making arrests for criminal violations occurring within the statutorily defined jurisdiction; providing transportation and protection for government officials, their guests, visiting dignitaries, agency employees, and their guests, both within and without the boundaries of the District of Columbia; and providing security at the residences of government officials when deemed necessary. In order to maintain adequate security, consistent with their responsibilities, Supreme Court police should be granted clearer statutory authority which sufficiently provides for routine duties, and which is flexible enough in scope to allow for exigent circumstances. The lack of adequate statutory authority governing Supreme Court police has resulted in procedural and jurisdictional problems which have diminished their ability to provide effective security and to perform their duties. The proposed bill would correct these deficiencies. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS The first and second sections of the enclosed draft bill amend section 672 of title 28, United States Code, to place authority expressly in the Marshal of the Supreme Court to appoint, with the approval of the Chief Justice, employees to serve as police officers for the Supreme Court and responsibility to oversee such officers in the performance of their duties. this respect, the bill merely clarifies an existing statutorily authorized function of the Marshal. In Section 672 (c) (8) of title 28, as added by section 2 of the enclosed draft bill, would formalize the status of the Supreme Court Police as law enforcement officers. It would expressly define their duties to include the policing of the Supreme Court Building, its grounds, and adjacent streets, as well as the protection of the Chief Justice of the United States, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the other officers, employees, and official guests of the Court. Consistent with these law enforcement duties, this section would expressly authorize the Supreme Court Police to bear arms and make arrests in the performance of such duties. Subsection (c) (9) of title 28, as added by section 2 of the draft bill, would add to the enumeration of the Marshal's responsibilities in section 672 that of prescribing regulations, with the approval of the Chief Justice, for the protection of the Supreme Court Building and grounds and the conduct of the public therein. The Marshal is already empowered to make such regulations under section 7 of the Act of August 18, 1949, chapter 479, 63 Stat. 617 (40 U.S.C. 13 (1)). This amendment would more logically place the regulatory authority in the enumeration of the Marshal's functions under 28 U.S.C. 672. It would also alter the method by which public notice of such regulations shall be given, i.e., by public posting rather than newspaper publication. Sections 3 through 5 of the draft bill would amend the Act of August 18, 1949 in a manner consistent with the foregoing amendments to title 28. The amendments to the 1949 Act would, inter alia, eliminate any designation of the Supreme Court Police as "special police" and would apply to them the designation of "law enforcement officer," with duties as set forth in 28 U.S.c. 672 (c) (8). Section 8 of the 1949 Act (40 UiS.C. 13n), as amended, would specifically authorize the Supreme Court Police to bear arms and to make arrests in the course of enforcing any law, including sections 2 through 6 of the 1949 Act with respect to the Supreme Court Building, grounds, personnel and guests, and the regulations prescribed by the Marshal of the Supreme Court pursuant to amended 28 U.S.C. 672 (c) (9). Finally, section 6 of the proposed bill merely preserves the provision in existing law which accords to the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court Police to patrol the Supreme Court Building and grounds when requested to do so, but conditions the right of entry of the Metropolitan Police upon the request or consent of the Marshal of the Supreme Court or his assistants. CONCLUSION The need to clarify the authority and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court police in light of today's realities is long overdue. The enactment of the proposed bill accords the Supreme Court's police force the legal status and recognition which is merited by its present duties. ensure the continued efficient Court. Its enactment is necessary to administration of the Supreme |