[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3750 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3750

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
authorize the Attorney General to provide grants to States and units of 
 local government for the video recording of custodial interrogations.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 20, 2011

 Ms. Richardson (for herself and Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
authorize the Attorney General to provide grants to States and units of 
 local government for the video recording of custodial interrogations.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Custodial Interrogation Recording 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) According to the National Conference of Commissioners 
        on Uniform State Laws, research has demonstrated that video 
        recording of custodial interrogations furthers three important 
        civic values: truth-finding, efficient and fair administration 
        of justice, and protection of constitutional guarantees. See 
        Richard A. Leo, Police Interrogation and American Justice 296-
        305 (2008); Thomas P. Sullivan, Recording Federal Custodial 
        Interviews, 45 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1297 (2008).
            (2) Video recording of the entire process of custodial 
        interrogation has proven to be a major advance in law 
        enforcement, improving the ability to solve crimes and prove 
        cases while lowering the overall costs of investigation and 
        litigation.
            (3) Video recording of custodial interrogations promotes 
        truth-finding in several ways, including by reducing the 
        incentive to fabricate, compensating for faulty or unreliable 
        recollections of witnesses, deterring problematic interrogation 
        methods, filtering out weak cases, and enhancing the ability of 
        finders of fact to assess witness credibility and veracity.
            (4) Video recording of custodial interrogations promotes 
        efficiency in the administration of the criminal justice system 
        by reducing the number of frivolous suppression motions, 
        improving the quality of police investigations, improving the 
        quality of review and case screening by prosecutors, and 
        reducing the likelihood of hung juries.
            (5) Video recording of custodial interrogations safeguards 
        constitutional rights and values by making it easier for courts 
        to adjudicate motions to suppress, by making it easier for 
        prosecutors to preserve and disclose material exculpatory 
        evidence required under the Supreme Court decision in Brady v. 
        Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by making it easier for superiors 
        to train police officers in how to comply with constitutional 
        mandates and for the press, and by making it easier for the 
        press, the judiciary, prosecutors, independent watchdog groups, 
        and police administrators to identify and correct misuses of 
        power by law enforcement.
            (6) Video recordings of custodial interrogations make it 
        easier to identify and avoid biases, which would otherwise be 
        difficult to detect and correct because such biases are often 
        unconscious, thus operating outside police awareness.
            (7) Video recordings of custodial interrogations help to 
        improve public confidence in the fairness and professionalism 
        of policing, which in a democracy not only is a good in itself 
        but also a proven means of reducing crime and enhancing citizen 
        cooperation in solving crimes.
            (8) Video recording of the entire process of custodial 
        interrogation is likely to be a major boon to law enforcement, 
        improving its ability to prove its cases while lowering overall 
        costs of investigation and litigation. Such recording will 
        also, however, improve systemic accuracy, fairness to the 
        accused and the state alike, protection of constitutional 
        rights, and public confidence in the justice system.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT.

    Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 
(42 U.S.C. 3711) is amended--
            (1) in section 1001(a), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(27) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
        part LL such sums as may be necessary for each of the first 5 
        fiscal years beginning after the date of the enactment of such 
        part.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:

       ``PART LL--CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION VIDEO RECORDING GRANTS

``SEC. 3021. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION VIDEO RECORDING GRANTS.

    ``(a) Grant Program.--The Attorney General shall make grants to 
States and units of local government to take whatever steps the 
Attorney General determines to be necessary to achieve the complete and 
accurate recording, by both audio and video means, of every custodial 
interrogation occuring within the State or unit of local government.
    ``(b) Matching Requirement.--The portion of the costs of a program 
funded by a grant under this section may not exceed 75 percent.
    ``(c) Definition of Custodial Interrogation.--In this section, the 
term `custodial interrogation' means questioning or other conduct by a 
law enforcement officer which is reasonably likely to elicit an 
incriminating response from an individual and occurs when reasonable 
individuals in the same circumstances would consider themselves in 
custody.''.
                                 <all>