- FUGITIVES: THE CHRONIC THREAT TO SAFETY, LAW, AND ORDER

[Senate Hearing 106-1017]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

S. Hrg. 106-1017

FUGITIVES: THE CHRONIC THREAT TO SAFETY, LAW, AND ORDER

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE OVERSIGHT

of the

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

JUNE 22, 2000

__________

Serial No. J-106-91

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-292 WASHINGTON : 2001

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
Manus Cooney, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel
------

Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
Garry Malphrus, Chief Counsel
Glen Shor, Legislative Assistant

C O N T E N T S

----------

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 5
Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South
Carolina....................................................... 1

WITNESSES

Brooks, Israel, U.S. Marshal, District of South Carolina,
prepared statement............................................. 14
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., a U.S. Senator from the State of North
Dakota......................................................... 2
Gallegos, Gilbert G., on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police,
prepared statement and attachments............................. 35
Horton, Kevin, Detective Lieutenant, Massachusetts State Police
Fugitive Unit, Representing the National Association of
Fugitive Investigators, prepared statement..................... 24
Marshall, John W., Director, U.S. Marshals Service, Washington,
DC, prepared statement......................................... 6
Norris, Edward T., Commissioner, Baltimore Police Department,
prepared statement............................................. 18
Stephens, Andreas, on behalf of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, prepared statement.............................. 31
Sullivan, Patrick, Sheriff, Arapho County, representing the
National Sheriffs' Association, prepared statement............. 22

APPENDIX
Questions and Answers

Responses of John W. Marshall to questions from Senator Thurmond. 43
Responses of Edward T. Norris to questions from Senator Thurmond. 45
Responses of Patrick J. Sullivan, Jr., to questions from Senator
Thurmond....................................................... 46
Responses of Kevin Horton to questions from Senator Thurmond..... 47

Additional Submissions for the Record

Philip H. McKelvey, President, National Sheriffs' Association,
letter......................................................... 49
Richard J. Gallo, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association,
letter......................................................... 50
Gilbert G. Gallegos, National President, Fraternal Order of
Police:
letter supporting Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2000.......... 49
letter opposing S. 1898...................................... 50
Robert T. Scully, Executive Director, National Association of
Police Organizations, Inc., letter............................. 50

FUGITIVES: THE CHRONIC THREAT TO SAFETY, LAW, AND ORDER

----------

THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2000

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Strom
Thurmond (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STROM THURMOND, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Senator Thurmond. The committee will come to order. I am
pleased to hold this hearing today regarding fugitives from
justice and the serious threats they pose to the safety and
security of cities and towns across America.
Fugitives represent not only an outrage to the rule of law,
they are also a serious threat to public safety. Many of them
continue to commit additional crimes while they roam
undetected.
The number of wanted persons is truly alarming. There are
about 45,000 felony warrants outstanding in Federal cases.
There are over one-half million felony or other serious
fugitives listed in the National Crime Information Center
database. Yet, this is far less than the actual number of
dangerous fugitives roaming the streets because many States do
not put all dangerous wanted persons into the database. As
recently reported in the Washington Post, California has 2.5
million unserved felony and misdemeanor warrants and Baltimore
has 61,000.
Although violent crime in the United States has been
decreasing in recent years, the number of serious fugitives has
been climbing. The number of N.C.I.C. fugitives has doubled
since 1987 and continues to rise steadily each year.
Fugitives are the Achilles heel of law enforcement today.
As the number of warrants rise, the problem can almost be
overwhelming for law enforcement. Indeed, no one knows exactly
how many fugitives there are.
Each statistic represents a story. A few weeks ago, two men
robbed a Wendy's restaurant in New York. To make sure there
were no witnesses, they bound, gagged, and shot seven employees
in the head execution-style, killing five of them. One of the
men later arrested for the crime was a fugitive who was on the
run after having been charged with two other robberies last
year. If he had been caught earlier, these deaths may have been
prevented. This is no isolated case. Almost daily, we read
about fugitives in the newspaper who commit more crimes while
on the run.
The Marshals Service leads the Federal response to this
national problem. In 1998, it placed a renewed emphasis on the
problem and began significantly reducing a backlog of Federal
warrants. Nevertheless, the number of warrants received by the
Marshals Service continues to rise. Apprehending the rising
number of Federal fugitives and helping States address their
rising backlogs must be a top priority of the Marshals Service
today.
Toward that end, I have proposed legislation, along with
Senator Biden, that would provide $45 million for the Marshals
Service to form permanent fugitive task forces with State and
local authorities. They would be modeled after the successful
program that Mr. John Marshall operated while he was the U.S.
Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Task forces combine the expertise of the Marshals Service
in these specialized investigations with the knowledge that
local law enforcement has about their communities. This
teamwork helps authorities prioritize and apprehend large
numbers of dangerous criminals.
The legislation would also provide administrative subpoena
authority, which would allow investigators to track down leads
about wanted persons faster and more efficiently. Currently,
the time that it takes to get vital information, such as
telephone or apartment rental records, through a formal court
order can make the difference between whether a fugitive is
apprehended or remains on the run.
This bill has been endorsed by various law enforcement
organizations, including the National Sheriffs Association, the
Fraternal Order of Police, and the subpoena authority is
supported by the administration. This legislation is an
important step that we can take to help Federal and State law
enforcement address the serious fugitive threat that exists in
our country.
Our witness at this time is John W. Marshall, the Director
of the U.S. Marshals Service. Mr. Marshall is a career law
enforcement officer with a distinguished record and impressive
credentials. His most recent experience before taking the helm
of the Marshals Service was as the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern
District of Virginia, where he was responsible for fugitive
apprehension efforts. Director Marshall, we appreciate your
good work and would be happy to hear from you at this time.
Senator Dorgan, would you like to make a statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I would
make a brief statement and thank you for your indulgence.
Mr. Chairman, I have introduced legislation in Congress
that has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee and I wanted
to make a comment about it today, hoping that perhaps relating
to the topic that you are covering today, ``Fugitives and the
Chronic Threat to Safety, Law, and Order,'' my legislation
might be favorably considered.
We have a circumstance in this country today where someone
might be convicted of killing a child, as happened in North
Dakota, where Kyle Bell murdered 11-year-old Gina North in a
horrible murder. It was not his first act of violence, but this
was a horrible murder of this young 11-year-old girl. He was
convicted of that murder and then turned over to a private
transport company to be transported to a prison out of State
under the prisoner exchange agreements that exist between
States. As they were moving through the State of New Mexico on
a bus with 20 prisoners, Kyle Bell escaped. He has now been
apprehended, but he was on the loose for some long while.
Well, how did he escape? This private transport company,
having taken custody of a convicted murderer and stopped for
fuel. One guard was asleep on the bus, the other apparently in
getting a cheeseburger at one of these fast food fuel places
and Kyle Bell went out through the roof of this bus and was
gone.
I started looking into this, Senator Thurmond, and
discovered that there are no standards at all for private
companies that haul violent offenders in this country. I do not
think convicted murderers should be transported by anyone other
than the U.S. Marshals Service or some other venue of law
enforcement, but the fact is, some States routinely contract
with private companies that transport violent offenders. If
they are going to continue to do that, and I do not propose
that we prevent it, but if they are going to continue to do it,
I believe the companies that are transporting these prisoners
should have to meet some basic standards, some basic standards
to protect the American public.
The bill I have proposed, along with my colleague, Senator
Ashcroft from Missouri, talks about those standards. It would
have the Justice Department establish standards, standards that
are no greater than the standards they themselves employ, but
at least would be in a circumstance where we require basic
standards to be met before we turn over a violent killer to a
private transport company.
Mr. Chairman, the chart you just saw was a description of
Kyle Bell and his escape. By the way, when this child killer
escaped from the private company, they did not know he was gone
for 9 hours because they did not count the number of people
they had on their bus.
But this is not the only circumstance. I will show you a
chart that shows other escapes from private prisoner transport
companies of violent offenders and convicted murderers. In one
State, a retired sheriff and his wife showed up with a minivan
and a contract to transport six of Iowa's most notorious
convicts, five of them convicted murderers. The convicts
escaped from a husband and wife team. The husband and wife
showed up at the prison with a contract to haul five convicted
murderers and the prison warden looked at them and said, ``You
have got to be kidding me,'' but, of course, they were not
kidding. He had a contract.
And you, Mr. Chairman, or I or anyone in this room can hire
our neighbors or brother-in-laws or our cousins, buy a minivan,
and decide we are in business to haul violent criminals around
this country. We do not have to meet any standards. There are
no standards at all. We are just in business. And that is what
is wrong with the current circumstance.
Now, when Kyle Bell, a convicted child killer, escaped from
custody, he should have never been in the custody, in my
judgment, of a private company. Once convicted of murder, he
ought to have been in the embrace of law enforcement officials
until he was given his permanent address, a prison cell. But
that, regrettably, did not happen.
Now, we can correct this. Anyplace in this country where
you see those--and these are just some of the escapes from
private companies, but when you see this, you see danger of a
family driving up to a service station someplace and perhaps
not knowing that the vehicle next to them, the minivan next to
them that is fueling up, has a couple of convicted murderers on
board that is being hauled by a private company to a prison in
some remote location.
We can change that, and we can change that by passing the
legislation that Senator Ashcroft and I have introduced here in
the Congress. Senator Ashcroft and Senator Leahy, also a member
of this distinguished committee, has cosponsored this
legislation.
Let me, without spending more time, simply make the case
that you have, by this hearing, drawn attention to the issue of
fugitives, and that is an issue that, Mr. Chairman, does not
nearly get the attention it deserves. People on the loose,
fugitives on the loose, violent criminals that are on the loose
in this country endanger the American public. There are risks
from that that, in my judgment, are unacceptable. You are
calling attention to that today, and I wanted to use this
occasion to call attention to a piece of legislation that I
think aims directly at the heart of that issue, violent
criminals who are escaping from private transport companies.
In fact, just as a concluding remark, Mr. Chairman, there
was a convicted murderer from the State of Nevada who was being
transported to North Dakota under a prisoner exchange
agreement. Well, the company that was transporting this felon,
named Mr. Prestridge, lost him. He escaped, along with another
felon, and the second felon was found with a bullet in his
brain south of the border in Mexico. Mr. Prestridge has now
been reapprehended and is back in prison in Nevada.
But while Mr. Prestridge was out on the loose, what
happened? Did he commit additional crimes? While Kyle Bell was
on the loose, did he commit additional crimes? We do not know
the answer to that, but we know that the public is put at risk.
A final statement. When this country convicts violent
offenders, when the criminal justice system in this country
convicts someone of killing, that person ought not leave the
arms of law enforcement. When they are to be transported
someplace, they ought to be transported by law enforcement. In
any event, if some states or local governments decide they are
going to employ private companies to transport them, the
American public has a right to know that these companies are
meeting basic guidelines and standards and regulations. Today,
there are none, and that is a disgrace. This Congress needs to
pass our legislation.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for drawing attention to this issue
of fugitives and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps you would
be interested in joining as a cosponsor at some point on the
bill that Senator Ashcroft and I and Senator Leahy and others
will be pushing.
Senator Thurmond. Put me on it.
Senator Dorgan. Well, God bless you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you very much.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you. We are looking into it and I
will add my name just as soon as we get through it.
Senator Dorgan. I understand it. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you.
At this time I would like to place into the record a
statement from Senator Patrick Leahy:
[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, A U.S. Senator From the
State of Vermont

As a former prosecutor, I am well aware that fugitives from justice
are an important problem and that their capture is an essential
function of law enforcement. According to the FBI, nearly 550,000
people are currently fugitives from justice on federal, state, and
local felony charges combined. This means that there are almost as many
fugitive felons as there are citizens residing in my home state of
Vermont.
The fact that we have more than one half million fugitives from
justice, a significant portion of whom are convicted felons in
violation of probation or parole, who have been able to flaunt courts
order and avoid arrest, breeds disrespect for our laws and poses
undeniable risks to the safety of our citizens. We must do better. S.
2761, the Leahy-Kohl ``Capturing Criminals Act of 2000,'' which I
introduced yesterday, will provide additional tools and resources to
our federal law enforcement agencies to pursue and capture fugitive
felons on both federal and state charges.
Our federal law enforcement agencies should be commended for the
job they have been doing to date on capturing federal fugitives and
helping the states and local communities bring their fugitives to
justice. The U.S. Marshals Service, our oldest law enforcement agency,
has arrested over 120,000 federal, state and local fugitives in the
past four years including more federal fugitives than all the other
federal agencies combined. In prior years, the Marshals Service
spearheaded special fugitive apprehension task forces, called FIST
Operations, that targeted fugitives in particular areas and was
singularly successful in arresting over 34,000 fugitive felons.
Similarly, the FBI has established twenty-four Safe Streets Task
Forces exclusively focused on apprehending fugitives in cities around
the country. Over the period of 1995 to 1999, the FBI's eforts have
resulted in the arrest of a total of 65,359 state fugitives.
The Capturing Criminals Act would help our law enforcement agencies
keep the pressure on fugitives by authorizing the Attorney General to
establish regional Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces, to be coordinated
by the United States Marshals Service; authorizing administrative
subpoenas for use in obtaining records relevant to finding federal and
state fugitives; and, finally,requesting a comprehensive report on the
administrative subpoena authorities held by federal agencies, which
vary in scope, enforcement and privacy safeguards.
``Administrative subpoena'' is the term generally used to refer to
a demand for documents or testimony by an investigative entity or
regulatory agency that is empowered to issue the subpoena independently
and without the approval of any grant jury, court or other judicial
entity. I am generally skeptical of administrative subpoena power.
Administrative subpoenas avoid the strict grand jury secrecy rules and
the documents provided in response to such subpoenas are, therefore,
subject to broader dissemination. Moreover, since investigative agents
issue such subpoenas directly, without review by a judicial officer or
even a prosecutor, fewer `checks'' are in place to ensure the subpoena
is issued with good cause and not merely as a fishing expedition.
Nonetheless, unlike initial criminal inquiries, fugitive
investigations present unique difficulties. Law enforcement may not use
grand jury subpoenas since, by the time a person is a fugitive, the
grand jury phase of an investigation is usually over. Use of grand jury
subpoenas to obtain phone or bank records to track down a fugitive
would be an abuse of the grand jury. Trial subpoenas may also not be
used, either because the fugitive is already convicted or no trial may
take place without the fugitive.
This inability to use trial and grand jury subpoenas for fugitive
investigations creates a disturbing gap in law enforcement procedures.
Law enforcement partially fills this gap by using the All Writs Act, 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1651(a), which authorizes federal courts to ``issue all
writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions
and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.'' The procedures,
however, for obtaining orders under this Act, and the scope and
nondisclosure terms of such orders, vary between jurisdictions.
Thus, authorizing administrative subpoena power will help bridge
the gap in fugitive investigations to allow federal law enforcement
agencies to obtain records useful for tracking a fugitive's
whereabouts. The Leahy-Kohl Capturing Criminals Act makes clear that
the approval of a court remains necessary to obtain an order for
nondisclosure of the subpoena and production of the requested records
to the subscriber or customer to whom the records pertain.
I am certainly not alone in recognizing the problem this nation has
with fugitives from justice. Senators Thurmond and Biden have
introduced the ``Fugitive Apprehension Act,'' S. 2516, specifically to
address the difficulties facing law enforcement in this area. I commend
both my colleagues for their leadership. While I agree with the general
purposes of S. 2516, aspects of that bill would be problematic. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to
resolve the differences in our bills.
Without detailing all of the differences in the bills, let me
provide some examples. As introduced, S. 2516 would limit use of an
administrative subpoena to those fugitives who have been ``indicted,''
which fails to address the fact that fugitives flee after arrest on the
basis of a ``complaint'' and may flee after the prosecutor has filed an
``information'' in lieu of an indictment.
The Leahy-Kohl ``Capturing Criminals Act,'' by contrast, would
allow use of such subpoenas to track fugitives who have been accused in
a ``complaint, information or indictment.''
In addition, S. 2516 requires the U.S. Marshal Service to report
quarterly to the Attorney General (who must transmit the report of
Congress) on use of the administrative subpoenas. In my view, while a
reporting requirement is useful, the requirement as described in S.
2516 is overly burdensome and insufficiently specific. The Leahy-Kohl
``Capturing Criminals Act'' would require the Attorney General to
report for the next three years to the Judiciary Committees of both the
House and Senate with the following information about the use of
administrative subpoenas in fugitive investigations: the number issued,
by which agency, identification of the charges on which the fugitive
was wanted and whether the fugitive was wanted on federal or state
charges.
Although S. 2516 outlines the procedures for enforcement of an
administrative subpoena, it is silent on the mechanisms for both
contesting the subpoena by the recipient and for delaying notice to the
person about whom the record pertains. The Leahy-Kohl ``Capturing
Criminals Act'' expressly addresses these issues.
This legislation will help law enforcement--with increased
resources for regional fugitive apprehension task forces and
administrative subpoena authority--bring to justice both federal and
state fugitives who, by their conduct, have demonstrated a lack of
respect for our nation's criminal justice system. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to ensure swift passage of this legislation.

Senator Thurmond. We will now turn to Mr. Marshall for his
opening statement.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MARSHALL, DIRECTOR, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE,
WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon.
I would like to thank you for your strong support of the
Marshals Service, and on behalf of the 2,800 deputy marshals,
thank you for introducing the Fugitive Apprehension Act of
2000, which provides for administrative subpoena authority in
fugitive investigations and authorizes the establishment of
permanent task forces. I would also like to thank Senators
Biden and DeWine for their cosponsorship of this very important
initiative.
Further, I understand that yesterday, Senator Leahy, a
strong advocate for the Marshals Service, introduced the
Capturing Criminals Act of 2000, which also authorizes funding
for task forces and provides for administrative subpoena
authority. We look forward to working with the committee on
both of these bills.
Before I begin my testimony, I would like to pay tribute to
Deputy U.S. Marshal Peter Hillman. The Marshals Service lost
Deputy Hillman on June 8 in a tragic vehicle crash which
occurred while he was transporting prisoners. Peter was a 14-
year veteran of the Marshals Service who spent his career in
California and was committed to carrying out his duties. The
Marshals Service will always remember Deputy Hillman and he
will be missed greatly.
The Marshals Service is the oldest Federal law enforcement
agency. We are responsible for protecting the Federal
judiciary, the custody and transportation of pretrial and
unsentenced Federal prisoners, providing witness protection, as
well as the management and disposal of seized and forfeited
properties. Today, I am here to discuss the apprehension of
Federal fugitives, one of the Marshals Service's primary
missions.
The security problems that fugitives pose for every citizen
of this country are numerous, costly, and most importantly,
life threatening. Fugitives are mobile and opportunistic,
preying on innocent citizens by committing crimes against
persons and property everywhere.
As a former Virginia State Trooper, I have firsthand
knowledge of the dangers that fugitives pose to well-meaning
officers who may inadvertently come into contact with them. On
January 3, 1986, Virginia State Trooper Ricky M. McCoy was
viciously gunned down during a traffic stop. After the
incident, it was discovered that his two assailants were wanted
on State warrants for murder. Trooper McCoy was with the State
Police for 6 years and was newly wed when he was killed. Ricky
was my roommate for 19 weeks during our State Police basic
training. As coincidence would have it, his middle initial
``M'' stood for Marshall. I will never forget Ricky.
What happened to Trooper McCoy illustrates the threat
fugitives pose to the safety of law enforcement officers. By
statute, the Marshals Service has the authority to investigate
fugitive matters both within and outside the United States.
Each year, we arrest more fugitives than all other Federal
agencies combined. In the first 7 months of this fiscal year,
the Marshals Service has arrested well over 15,000 Federal
fugitives. Our State and local task forces have arrested almost
9,000 fugitives.
Domestically, the Marshals Service has sponsored several
special fugitive operations over many years. Since 1981,
Marshals Service fugitive operations have resulted in the
apprehension of tens of thousands of fugitives and were the
impetus behind the numerous fugitive task forces in which we
participate today.
Presently, we participate in 128 task forces and lead over
60 of these nationwide. In South Carolina, we are the lead
agency on Operation Intercept. You will hear more about this
operation and its successes from U.S. Marshal Israel Brooks.
This fiscal year, our New York task forces have cleared well
over 250 Federal, State, and local warrants. In Vermont, we
have cleared over 200.
One initiative with which I am personally familiar and take
great pride in was a Richmond area fugitive task force. This
operation was conducted during a 3-month period in the summer
of 1998 when I was the Marshal for the Eastern District of
Virginia. During this initiative, deputy marshals and Richmond
police officers teamed up to review, prioritize, and
investigate nearly 1,700 arrest warrants for fugitives charged
with violent crimes, such as murder, armed robbery, and
narcotics violations. This initiative led to the clearance of
514 arrest warrants, including 293 by physical arrest. In
addition, deputy marshals apprehended a group of five
individuals just before they were to carry out a drive-by
shooting.
The Marshals Service has apprehension authority for arrest
warrants issued by U.S. District Courts and the Parole
Commission for a variety of violations of Federal law. Unlike
other agencies with diverse investigative missions, our primary
investigative responsibility is the apprehension of fugitives.
The Marshals Service traditionally does not independently
initiate investigations for crimes against the United States.
The responsibility of the Marshals Service is to return the
fugitive before the court of original jurisdiction so that a
judicial process can be completed.
Let me give you an example of this. We recently
investigated a case involving an alleged armed robber. The
fugitive was arrested in April of this year by members of two
of our fugitive task forces in conjunction with local law
enforcement. The fugitive shot and robbed a 19-year-old man.
Luckily, he survived. The fugitive fled on foot as police
officers arrived on the scene. In flight, the fugitive turned
and fired nine rounds at the officers. Miraculously, no
officers or citizens were killed or wounded by the fugitive.
However, he did manage to elude capture.
Local law enforcement turned to the Marshals' task force
for assistance. In just 22 days, task force investigators,
along with local police, tracked down and arrested the
fugitive. A search of the residence was conducted, which
resulted in the seizure of two handguns and one sawed-off
shotgun. Detectives from the local police department determined
that the fugitive was involved in 29 unsolved armed robberies
in recent weeks, as well as a bank robbery committed only hours
before the arrest. Any of these 30 crimes could have ended in
tragedy.
In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
inviting me here to speak to the subcommittee today on behalf
of the men and women of the U.S. Marshals Service, the greatest
fugitive investigators in the world. I look forward to working
with you and the committee on the task force and administrative
subpoena legislation. Thank you.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]

Prepared Statement of John Marshall

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Senator Schumer, and members of the
subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your strong
support of the Marshals Service and on behalf of the 2,800 Deputy U.S.
Marshals, for introducing the Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2,000, which
provides for administrative subpoena authority in fugitive
investigations. I would also like to thank Senators Biden and DeWine,
for their co-sponsorship of this very important initiative.
Further, I understand that yesterday Senator Leahy, a strong
advocate for the Marshals Service, has introduced the Capturing
Criminals Act of 2000 which also authorizes funding for task forces and
provides for administrative subpoena authority. We look forward to
working with the Committee on both these bills.
Before I begin my testimony, I would like to pay tribute to Deputy
U.S. Marshal Peter Hillman. The Marshals Service lost Deputy Hillman on
June 8th in a tragic vehicle crash which occurred while he was
transporting prisoners. Deputy Hillman was a 14 year veteran of the
Marshals Service who spent his career in California and was committed
to carrying out his duties as a Deputy United States Marshal. Peter
lent support to the community of the Virgin Islands after Hurricane
Marilyn, apprehended fugitives during Operation Sunrise, provided
security at a high threat trial in Montana, as well as the Olympic
Games in Atlanta. The Marshals Service will always remember Deputy
Hillman, and he will be missed greatly.
The United States Marshals Service is the oldest federal law
enforcement agency. We are responsible for protecting the federal
judiciary, the custody and transportation of pretrial and unsentenced
federal prisoners, providing witness protection, as well as the
management and disposal of seized and forfeited properties.
Today I am here before the subcommittee to discuss the apprehension
of federal fugitives, one of the Marshals Services' primary missions,
and our role on fugitive task forces. The security problems that
fugitives pose for every citizen of this country are numerous, costly,
and most importantly, life-threatening. By definition and nature,
fugitives are mobile and opportunistic, preying on innocent citizens by
committing crimes against persons and property everywhere.
As the head of the oldest law enforcement agency and as a former
Virginia State Trooper, I have first-hand knowledge of the dangers that
fugitives pose to well-meaning officers who may inadvertently come into
contact with them. On January 3, 1986, Virginia State Trooper Ricky M.
McCoy, was viciously gunned down during a traffic stop. After the
incident, it was discovered that his two assailants were wanted on
state warrants for murder. Trooper McCoy was with the State Police for
six years and was married for less than a year. Ricky was my room-mate
for 19 weeks during our State Police basic training. As coincidence
would have it, his middle initial M stood for Marshall. I will never
forget Ricky.
What happened to Trooper McCoy illustrates the threat fugitives
pose to the safety of law enforcement officers. Far too often, a police
officer making contact with a person on the street or on a lonely
highway for a traffic violation or other reason is injured or killed
because thesubject in question is a wanted fugitive. During this
initial contact, the officer naromally is not aware that the person is
wanted. The fugitive knows his status and is motivated to evade the
law.
By statute, the Marshals Service has the authority to investigate
fugitive matters both within and outside the United States. Each year,
the Marshals Service arrests more fugitives than all other federal
agencies combined. In the first seven months of this fiscal year, the
Marshals Service has arrested well over 15,000 federal fugitives. In
addition, our state and local task forces have arrested almost 9,000
fugitives.
Domestically, the Marshals Service has sponsored several special
fugitive operations over many years. Since 1981, the Marshals Service
has sponsored a number of short-term initiatives which were focused on
the apprehension of federal, state and local fugitives. Operations
Southern Star, Sunrise, Gunsmoke, and Trident are our more notable
short-term initiatives. These have been region-specific or offender-
specific (for example, narcotics or firearms warrants). Operation
Southern Star yielded 3,928 arrests, Operation Sunrise produced 1,495
arrests, Operation Gunsmoke resulted in 3,313 arrests, and Operation
Trident produced 9,467 arrests and 411 firearms seized. All of the
Marshals Service's fugitive operations have resulted in the
apprehension of tens of thousands of fugitives and were the impetus
behind the numerous permanent fugitive task forces in which we
participate today.
Presently, we participate in 128 task forces and lead over 60 of
these fugitive task forces nationwide. Our task forces concentrate on
apprehending federal, state, and local fugitives. In South Carolina we
are the lead agency on Operation Intercept. You will hear more about
Operation Intercept and its successes from United States Marshal Israel
Brooks.
Our initiative with which I am personally familiar, and take great
pride in, was the Richmond Area Fugitive Task Force. This operation was
conducted in Richmond, Virginia during a 3-month period in the summer
of 1998. At that time, I was serving as the United States Marshal for
the Eastern District of Virginia. During this initiative, Deputy
Marshals and Richmond Police Officers teamed up to review, prioritize,
and investigate nearly 1,700 arrest warrants for fugitives charged with
violent crimes such as Murder, Attempted Murder, Armed Robbery,
Assault, Narcotics Violations, and Probation or Parole Violations. This
initiative led to the clearance of 514 arrest warrants, including 293
by physical arrest. In addition, Deputy Marshals apprehended a group of
five individuals just before they were to carry out a drive-by
shooting.
Fugitives threaten the very fabric of our criminal justice system.
By definition, they have been charged with a violation of law. They may
have been charged but not yet arrested, released on bail and fled to
avoid prosecution, escaped from jail or prison, or absconded from or
otherwise violated the terms of their probation or parole. These
actions constitute an affront to our justice system. When fugitives
flee from their charges our legal system is severely threatened. . . .
Prosecutors cannot try cases, society is deprived of justice and order,
and crime victims are denied their rights. They may, in fact, live in
fear and isolation while thecriminals who have victimized them remain
at large.
In addition, when warrants become backlogged and the number of
fugitives multiply, it sends a subtle message to others that flight and
failure to comply with the law is acceptable and easy. A final
consequence is that law enforcement agencies may have spent thousands
or hundreds of thousands of dollars to organize a prosecutorial
criminal case against a defendant or criminal organization. When a
defendant flees from the charges, these valuable expended resources are
for naught.
The United States Marshals Service has apprehension authority for
arrest warrants issued by United States District Courts and the United
States Parole Commission for a variety of violations of federal law.
The Marshals Service traditionally receives arrest warrants based on a
grand jury indictment or when an individual escapes from custody, jumps
bond, violates the conditions of release by engaging in further
criminal activity, or fails to appear. In addition, pursuant to
Department of Justice orders--and in connection with a number of
interagency memoranda of understanding--the Marshals Service also
pursues fugitives wanted by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
United States Customs Service, Internal Revenue Service, and a number
of other federal agencies, as well as foreign fugitives wanted on
charges in other nations.
The Marshals Service's criminal investigation efforts are
specifically focused on fugitives. Unlike other law enforcement
agencies with diverse investigative missions, our primary investigative
responsibility is the apprehension of fugitives. The Marshals Service
traditionally does not independently initiate investigations against
individuals for crimes against the United States. Instead, the Marshals
Service responds to arrest warrants that have been issued for
individuals by judicial officers or, in the case of convicted felons,
by a parole commission or equivalent entity. these individuals have
already been charged by a court, indicted by a grand jury or, in many
cases, tried and convicted by a jury or judge. Probable cause or some
greater burden of proof has already been proven. the responsibility of
the Marshals Service is to return the person before the court of
original jurisdiction so that the judicial process can be completed.
Upon receipt of any arrest warrant, the first order of business is
to properly identify the subject of the arrest warrant and to enter the
subject's biographical and warrant data into the Marshals Service's
Warrant Information Network (WIN). WIN is a comprehensive warrant
management system that tracks all fugitive-related information, as well
as statistical information related to the Marshals Service fugitive
apprehension program. The WIN system also provides all Marshals Service
offices nationwide with access to the National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
(NLETS). Both of these systems are clearinghouses for criminal justice
information related to wanted persons, criminal history information,
driver and vehicle registration information, as well as a myriad of
other related indices. In addition, they serve as real-time
administrative communication networks to federal, state, and local law
enforcement and criminal justice agencies nationwide.
Fugitive cases are assigned to our Deputy U.S. Marshals for
investigation andapprehension. Depending on the complexity of the case
and other circumstances, the duration of fugitive investigations ranges
from a matter of hours from receipt of the warrant to, in extreme
cases, years. Recently, the Marshals Services found that the average
duration of an investigation ranged from 64 days to 218 days, dependent
on the category of the investigation. The Marshals Service has reviewed
its current database of warrants outstanding on its most dangerous
fugitives. Results showed that the ``average'' fugitive is a 38 year-
old male, wanted in connection with narcotics violations, with a record
of four prior arrests, including one arrest for a violent crime. These
violent offenders take, on average, 179 days to apprehend.
Fugitives are as diverse as our society. They transcend gender,
ethnicity, religion, age, educational background, and any other
demographic parameters that one can offer. Every day in this country,
fugitives are arrested in America's inner cities, suburbs, and rural
areas. As evidenced by testimony of people on such reality-based
television shows as ``American's Most Wanted,'' and by the experience
of our investigators, ordinary citizens are often very surprised to
find that they have been living next door to a wanted dangerous felon.
In the past year, the Marshals Service opened an office, on a
temporary basis in Mexico City. The focus of this operation was to
pursue and apprehend non-Mexican fugitives wanted in the United States.
So far, the success of the Deputy U.S. Marshals has been significant.
The number of fugitive cases closed and extradited during the first
seven months of operations exceeded the previous seven years' total. We
have just recently assigned Deputies temporarily to Jamaica and the
Dominican Republic. After three months of operation in Jamaica, the
Marshals Service exceeded the totals of extraditable fugitives from the
previous two years. The federal, state, and local fugitives are
realizing that they will be apprehended outside the borders of the
United States.
A recent investigation in the Northeast United States involved an
alleged armed bank robber. Because the fugitive will be going to trial
on these charges soon I cannot disclose his identity. The fugitive was
arrested in April of this year by members of two of our Fugitive Task
Forces in conjunction with local law enforcement. The fugitive
confronted a 19 year old man, who was walking down the street, then
shot and robbed him. Luckily, the young man survived. The fugitive fled
on foot as police officers arrived at the scene. In flight, the
fugitive turned and fired nine rounds at the officers who were pursuing
him. Miraculously, no officers or citizens were killed or wounded by
the fugitive; however, he did manage to elude capture. The local law
enforcement turned to the U.S. Marshals Fugitive Task Force for
assistance.
Twenty two days later, Marshals Service Task Force investigators
tracked down the fugitive. That afternoon, Task Force investigators
along with local police arrested the fugitive. A search of the
residence was conducted which resulted in the seizure of two handguns
and one sawed-off shotgun. Detectives from the local Police Department
determined that the fugitive was involved in twenty-nine unsolved armed
robberies in recent weeks as well as a bank robbery committed only
hours before the arrest. Any one of these 30 crimes could have ended in
tragedy. It has been the Marshals Service's experience that the longer
a fugitive remains at large, the more brazen and violent the fugitive
becomes.
Since these fugitives know they are wanted, they are continually on
the run. Fugitive investigations are fluid and time is of the essence
when gathering information and executing investigative leads. A
fugitive may literally, be ``here today and gone in an hour.'' The
Marshals Service aggressively pursues fugitives using a wide range of
investigative techniques, ranging from the most basic and traditional
to applying some of the most sophisticated technology currently
available. The Marshals Service must act quickly to apprehend these
fugitives. One critical tool that would assist the Marshals Service in
apprehending individuals wanted pursuant to a court order is
administrative subpoena authority.
In closing, I would thank you, Mr. Chairman for inviting me here to
speak to the Subcommittee today, on behalf of the women and men of the
Marshals Service--the greatest fugitive investigators in the world. In
addition to capturing federal fugitives, I am also proud of our long
history of assisting state and local law enforcement agencies as well
as our strong cooperative relationships with these agencies. We take
pride in our success--it is a successful day for the Marshals Service
and our nation when we use our expertise to arrest any fugitive whether
it be a federal, state or local case.

Senator Thurmond. I have a few questions for you, Mr.
Marshall. Mr. Marshall, does apprehending dangerous Federal
fugitives and assisting States with their fugitive backlogs
have the top priority of the Marshals Service today and would
enacting the Fugitive Apprehension Act assist you in this way?
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, it would be a tremendous
assistance to us. As you probably know, around the country, our
Deputy U.S. Marshals are criminal investigators, but they do
the vast majority of their fugitive work--they have to do that
with the court's schedule in mind and the dockets and moving
prisoners. So this task force proposal, initiative, would give
us the full-time permanent positions to be dedicated solely to
the investigation and apprehension of fugitives, and yes, it
would be of tremendous assistance to us.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Marshall, in 1998, the Marshals
Service initiated an effort to help clear the Federal warrant
backlog. How are you targeting prioritizing warrants and would
you like to do more through task forces to assist State and
local authorities in this regard?
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, in 1998, we were asked by the
Attorney General to reduce our backlog of fugitive warrants,
and backlog are warrants of a year or older. We were
successful. We wanted a 20 percent reduction of our warrants
and we were able to do that. As a matter of fact, we exceeded
the reduction rate that the Attorney General asked us to
accomplish.
Mr. Chairman, also, we certainly do prioritize our cases.
We have our top 15 most wanted, along with our violent
offenders, which are all in what we consider our Class 1
warrants, along with those that we, through memorandums of
understanding from other agencies, we are tasked with primary
responsibility for handling those.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Marshall, is there a problem today
with fugitives fleeing south across the border to Mexico and
how cooperative is Mexico in extraditing fugitives?
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, there is a problem with
fugitives fleeing into Mexico. Recognizing that problem, in
1998, we assigned deputy marshals to Mexico City, and in their
first 7 months of operation, they arrested more Federal
fugitives than in the 7 prior years, of fugitives who had fled
to Mexico.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Marshall, you stated in your
testimony that you needed administrative subpoena authority to
help you track fugitives quickly. Is it difficult and time
consuming to get court orders for information and are you aware
of cases where the process took so long that you lost track of
the fugitive?
Mr. Marshall. In fugitive investigations, Mr. Chairman,
time is of the essence. Literally, fugitives can be here today
and gone in an hour. Often, it has been our experience that in
order to obtain a court order, it takes 2 or 3 days or more to
do that, and oftentimes that delay allows the fugitive to keep
one step ahead of us.
We did have a case recently this year, as a matter of fact,
in May of this year, in Doraville, GA, where a police officer
who was investigating thefts from a vehicle in a nightclub
parking lot was shot by an assailant. He was shot three times,
and the fourth time he was shot at point-blank range right
through his badge. The assailant also shot the owner of the
nightclub in the face before fleeing.
We were contacted by the local police department to provide
some assistance in tracking the subject. The officer had been
able to get the subject's wallet from him and that was left at
the scene. We were asked to assist them in tracking the
subject, which we did, and we were able to develop information
that the subject was staying at a large horse farm in one of
the outlying counties. We also had information that he was
making numerous calls from a certain phone number and we knew
that phone number was somewhere on that farm, but we did not
know which farmhouse or which building. There were numerous
buildings and all the buildings had telephones in them.
In the current system, we would have to pursue that through
getting a court order. Meanwhile, during the time that it took
and our efforts to get a court order, the subject and his co-
assailant luckily were apprehended as they were leaving through
the woods by a sheriff's deputy who was coming to assist us
with providing surveillance of the area. This is clearly a case
where, if we had the administrative subpoena authority, we
could have quickly found out which house, which farmhouse the
subject was making these calls from and would have been able to
apprehend him quickly and we would not have run the risk that
we did of almost losing him.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Marshall, do other Justice Department
agencies have administrative subpoena authority for certain
crimes, such as drugs or child pornography, and has this worked
well in practice?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Other agencies do have the
administrative subpoena authority. By virtue ofour memorandum
of understanding with the Drug Enforcement Administration to assume
primary responsibility for their fugitives, I am most familiar with
their cases and the administrative subpoena authority has been an
invaluable tool to them and has also assisted us on our work with them
to apprehend their fugitives.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Marshall, the Marshals Service tracks
fugitives for numerous Federal agencies. Is it generally more
efficient and effective for the Marshals Service to assist
other Federal agencies with apprehending fugitives rather than
each agency tracking their own fugitives?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I definitely believe that,
and with regard to the administrative subpoena power, I think
that, without a doubt, that authority should be given to those
agencies who, by statute, have authority to investigate
fugitive cases.
Senator Thurmond. I think those are all the questions I
have at this time. Thank you very much.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, with
your permission, if I could, I have several U.S. Marshals who
have accompanied me here today and I would like to introduce
them for just a minute.
I recognize U.S. Marshal Israel Brooks from South Carolina.
Senator Thurmond. Please stand up, and thank you very much.
We are glad to have you.
Mr. Marshall. U.S. Marshal George McKinney from the
District of Maryland.
Senator Thurmond. Where is he? Thank you very much.
Mr. Marshall. U.S. Marshal Tim Mulaney from the District of
Delaware.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you.
Mr. Marshall. Marshal Dave Troutman from the Northern
District of Ohio.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you.
Mr. Marshall. Marshal Nancy McGillivray from the District
of Massachusetts.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you.
Mr. Marshall. Marshal Dan Byrne from the Eastern District
of New York.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you.
Mr. Marshall. And the Acting U.S. Marshal for the Eastern
District of Virginia, John Clark. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you. I see you had one lady there.
Please stand up. Have you found being a lady handicaps you in
your work?
Marshal McGillivray. No, sir, I do not. I have been with
the Marshals Service for 20 years and managed to break through
most of the handicaps.
Senator Thurmond. So you can stick it to them just like the
men can?
Marshal McGillivray. Absolutely.
Senator Thurmond. Congratulations to you, and best wishes.
Marshal McGillivray. Thank you, sir.
Senator Thurmond. On our third panel, we are fortunate to
have four witnesses with extensive experience in law
enforcement and fugitive apprehension and operations. I am
confident the testimony we will hear from the next four
witnesses will give the subcommittee valuable insight into the
extent of the fugitive problem in the United States today, the
challenges that law enforcement agencies face in trying to
address future problems, and how we can try to help law
enforcement agencies in their efforts.
This panel consists of Marshal Israel Brooks, the U.S.
Marshal for the District of South Carolina; Commissioner Edward
T. Norris of the Baltimore Police Department; Patrick Sullivan,
Sheriff of Arapaho County, CO, who is representing the National
Sheriffs Association today; and Detective Lieutenant Kevin
Horton of the Massachusetts State Police Fugitive Unit, who is
representing the National Association of Fugitive
Investigators.
Gentlemen, we welcome you and appreciate your appearing
here today and look forward to your testimony. I ask that each
of you please limit your opening statement to no more than 5
minutes and we will place your written statement in the record,
without objection, in full.
We will start with Marshal Brooks and proceed down the
line.

PANEL CONSISTING OF ISRAEL BROOKS, U.S. MARSHAL, DISTRICT OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, COLUMBIA, SC; EDWARD T. NORRIS, COMMISSIONER,
BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BALTIMORE, MD; PATRICK SULLIVAN,
SHERIFF, ARAPAHO COUNTY, CO, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, VA; AND DETECTIVE LIEUTENANT KEVIN
HORTON, MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE FUGITIVE UNIT, REPRESENTING
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FUGITIVE INVESTIGATORS, FRAMINGHAM,
MA

STATEMENT OF ISRAEL BROOKS

Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As U.S. Marshal for
the District of South Carolina, I appreciate the invitation to
speak in support of the multi-agency task forces.
The District of South Carolina is recognized as the home of
Operation Intercept. This is the first U.S. Marshals Service
sponsored multi-agency task force. The task force has been
responsible for the arrest of approximately 7,000 fugitives
since its inception in 1986. In South Carolina, apprehended
fugitives are certainly setting a precedent. Today, I have an
opportunity to highlight the crusade and the teamwork that
solidifies the cooperation between the local, State, and
Federal law enforcement agencies when bringing fugitives to
justice.
In order to discuss how this is accomplished, I have
identified three of the primary advantages of running a multi-
agency task force. First, the cost effectiveness of
consolidating resources. Second, the value of case consistency.
And finally, our most important goal is reducing warrant
backlogs and prompt fugitive apprehension, eliminating the
threat to our communities.
As a U.S. Marshal in South Carolina, I acknowledge the fact
that our arrest statistics would not have been achieved without
the ongoing support from State and local law enforcement
agencies. With the level of assistance they provide, I welcome
the opportunity to special deputize over 100 local and State
law enforcement officers from 46 counties annually. That means
that we blanket the State of South Carolina with local and
State agents to help us on our task force, and we receive
additional administrative support to our task force from the
South Carolina National Guard. At a time when we are faced with
rising costs and limited budgets, the consolidation of
manpower, equipment, and technology is critical for State,
local, and Federal law enforcement agencies.
One of the most prominent themes for the 1990's was, how
can we get more done with less? Well, South Carolina has been
successful in accomplishing this by consolidating our law
enforcement resources through the development of task forces.
There are so many benefits, Mr. Chairman, achieved in combining
the agencies to work in investigation.
It is necessary because the effective use of manpower that
is solely concentrated on apprehending fugitives is important.
Networking of information and research is very important.
Sharing of administrative and technical support units instead
of duplicating the recurring costs of these teams among these
agencies is very important. Streamlining the purchase of
equipment, allowing funds to purchase higher-quality and
advanced technology instead of duplicating equipment is very
important.
The talents and resources brought by both State and Federal
agencies are invaluable. The local officers bring a wealth of
community knowledge, local informants, and tactical support
units which can be developed immediately upon request.
State and local officers tend to be more familiar with the
area, pinpointing where fugitives may be hiding out and can
provide valuable information on the family, on the location and
other areas of concern. The extent of their manpower resource
strengthens the investigation.
The Federal agencies lend broader authority, nationwide
contacts, highly developed labs, computer database, mobile
command centers, field radios, and other equipment. This level
of assistance can prove critical to the smaller local agencies
that do not have adequate budgets, broader authority, or
interstate connections to apprehend fugitives when they have
left the area without the lengthy delay of extradition
procedures.
I will stress to you, Mr. Chairman, that this combination
is powerful and it is necessary for quick apprehension of
fugitives.
The initial steps in fugitive investigations are critical,
but just as important is the constant perseverance. This is
best accomplished by ensuring case consistency. Task force
operations lend themselves to this element because they work in
concert with each other.
For example, when a task force officer adequately documents
investigate efforts, other task force personnel, State, local,
or Federal, they can continue the case in his or her absence.
Simultaneously, administrative and technical support units are
able to provide analysis, research, and coordinate
investigative updates. There are no limitations, and by
combining resources and sustaining case consistency, law
enforcement personnel are able to achieve their most compelling
purpose, prompt apprehension of fugitives.
In my opinion, the reduction in warrant backlog can be
obtained faster when a task force is in place. We have proven
this in the District of South Carolina over the past few years.
For example, in 1996, the U.S. Marshals Service coordinated
with the State and local law enforcement agencies in the
northern part of the State and performed a sting operation to
lure fugitives to justice. It only took a short time to prepare
because our task force was already operational in that
location. In just one weekend, our sting operation effected the
arrest of 100 wanted individuals in five counties.
Overseeing one of the Marshals Service's oldest sponsored
multi-agency task forces, it is my firm desire to offer support
here today for providing our criminal investigators with
administrative subpoena authority. Time is critical, and this
would provide us with the investigative tool necessary for
quick apprehension.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot emphasize enough that the support
and participation in South Carolina task forces have always far
surpassed anyone's expectations. The importance of combining
resources and efforts to recognize the end responsibilities to
reduce State, local, and Federal criminals on our streets.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that each of you take a moment
and reflect on my comments here today, and before I conclude, I
would ask, are there any examples or questions that you would
like for me to address?
Senator Thurmond. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:]

Prepared Statement of Israel Brooks, Jr.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, as the United States
Marshal for the District of South Carolina, I appreciate the invitation
to speak in support of multi-agency task forces. The District of South
Carolina is recognized as the home of OPERATION INTERCEPT, the first
United States Marshals Service (USMS) sponsored multi-agency task
force.
The OPERATION INTERCEPT task force has been responsible for the
arrest of approximately 7,000 fugitives since its inception in 1986. In
South Carolina, apprehending fugitives is certainly setting a
precedent.
Today I have the opportunity to highlight the crusade and team work
that solidifies cooperation between local, state and federal law
enforcement agencies when bringing fugitives to justice.
In order to discuss how this is accomplished, I have identified
three of the primary advantages of running a multi-agency task force:
First, the cost effectiveness of consolidating resources; second, the
value of case consistency; and finally, and our most important goal:
Reducing the warrant backlog and accomplishing prompt fugitive
apprehension, resulting in eliminating the threat to our communities.

CONSOLIDATING RESOURCES

As the U.S. Marshal in South Carolina, I acknowledge the fact that
our arrest statistics would not have been achieved without the ongoing
support from state and local law enforcement agencies. With the level
of assistance they provide, I welcome the opportunity to special
deputize over one hundred local and state law enforcement officers
annually, from 46 counties. We receive additional administrative
support to our task force from the South Carolina National Guard.
The consolidation of manpower, equipment and technology is critical
for state, local and federal law enforcement agencies. One of the most
prominent themes for the 90's was ``how can we get more done with
less.'' Well, South Carolina has been successful in accomplishing this
by consolidating our law enforcement resources through the development
of task forces.
There are so many benefits achieved in combining the agencies to
work an investigation. For example: The effective use of manpower that
is solely concentrated on apprehending fugitives; networking of
information and research; sharing of administrative and technical
support units instead of duplicating the recurring costs for these
teams among the agencies; and streamlining the purchase of equipment,
by allowing funds to purchase higher quality and advanced technology
instead of duplicating equipment.
The talents and resources brought by both state and federal are
invaluable. Local officers bring a wealth of community knowledge, local
informants and tactical support units which can be deployed immediately
upon request. State officers tend to be more familiar with the area
where a fugitive may be hiding out and can provide information on the
family, location and other areas of concern. The extent of their
manpower strengthens the investigation.
The federal agencies lend broader authority, nationwide contacts,
highly developed labs, computer databases, mobile command centers,
field radios and other equipment. This level of assistance can prove
critical to the smaller local agencies that do not have the budgets,
authority or interstate connections to apprehend fugitives when they
have left the area, without the lengthy delay of extradition
procedures.
I would like to stress to you Mr. Chairman and to the Subcommittee
Members, that this combination is powerful and necessary for quick
apprehension of fugitives.

CASE CONSISTENCY

The initial steps in fugitive investigations are critical, but just
as important is the constant perseverance. This is best accomplished by
ensuring case consistency. Task Force operations lend themselves to
this element because they work in concert. For example, when a task
force officer adequately documents investigative efforts, any other
task force personnel can continue the case in his/her absence, whether
state, local or federal.
Simultaneously, administrative and technical support units are
available to provide analysis, research and coordinate investigative
updates.
Also available to task force participants in assistance from
jurisdictions nationwide. Leads are tracked and monitored to guarantee
an immediate response. There are no limitations, and by combining
resources and sustaining case consistency, law enforcement personnel
are able to achieve their most compelling purpose: Prompt apprehension
of fugitives.
prompt apprehension of fugitives and reducing the warrant backlog
In my opinion, a reduction in the warrant backlog can be attained
faster when a task force is in place. We have proven this in the
District of South Carolina over the past few years. For example, in
1996 the USMS coordinated with the state participants in the northern
part of that state and performed a sting operation to bring fugitives
to justice. It only took a short time to prepare because our task force
was already operational in that location. In just one weekend, our
sting operation effected the arrest of 100 wanted individuals in 5
counties.
Overseeing one of the Marshals Service's oldest sponsored multi-
agency task forces, it is my firm desire to offer support here today
for providing our criminal investigators with administrative subpoena
authority. In fugitive investigations, time is critical . . . and the
administrative subpoena authority would provide us with the
investigative tools necessary for quick apprehension.
I cannot emphasize enough that the support and participation in
South Carolina Task Forces have always far surpassed anyone's
expectations. The importance of combining resources and efforts will
provide endless opportunities to reduce the number of state, local and
federal criminals on our streets.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for your
continued support of law enforcement and thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today. I would ask that each of you take a moment
and reflect on my comments, and I would be pleased to respond to any
questions you may have.

Senator Thurmond. Mr. Norris.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD T. NORRIS

Mr. Norris. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the men and women of
the Baltimore Police Department, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to offer testimony in support of this bill.
From New York to New Orleans, from Boston to Newark,
successful police departments understand one fundamental truth.
The crime reduction in American cities is dependent and
directly linked to the apprehension of fugitives. The
systematic tracking and capture of known violent criminals is
the single most effective crime fighting strategy in modern law
enforcement.
I urge the honorable members of the Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice Oversight to support and appropriate the
necessary resources to assist Federal law enforcement in their
efforts to bring modern outlaws to justice. I thank Senators
Strom Thurmond and Joseph Biden, Jr., for having the insight to
draft such important legislation.
The threat that fugitives pose to law-abiding citizens
cannot be overstated. In Baltimore County, MD, wanted criminals
killed Sergeant Bruce Prothero in the line of duty attempting
to thwart a robbery. In New York City, fugitive John Taylor
walked into a Wendy's hamburger restaurant and brazenly killed
six workers and patrons.
Wanted offenders who were deft at avoiding detection and
thrive in the cracks of our criminal justice system perpetrate
the carnage that haunts our urban areas. The implementation of
a forceful fugitive apprehension program as proposed by the
U.S. Marshals Service will seal these cracks and end this
unnecessary violence.
The criminal community in any city is a close knit, small,
and identifiable group. Career criminals do not stop offending
because they have a warrant out for their arrest. Fugitives are
a bold and lethal breed, unfazed by the flaccid threat that a
warrant alone represents.
As a deputy inspector with the New York City Police
Department, I was tasked with putting teeth into the warrant
apprehension task force. The architects of New York's
successful crime fighting effort realized that by tracking and
apprehending fugitives, we could reduce crime by taking repeat
offenders off the street. Armed with the probable cause a
warrant provides law enforcement and the support of the NYPD
brass, I mounted an aggressive assault on the criminal
community that held our city hostage for decades.
The results are staggering to outside observers and
devastating to the criminal community. Our warrant
apprehensions increased 104 percent, from 6,000 to over 12,000
in 1 year, and the murder rate plummeted. Robberies, rapes,
aggravated assaults all decreased and New York became the
safest big city in America.
Fugitive capture is the backbone of the successful crime
fighting strategies of not only New York but also Boston,
Newark, New Orleans, and Philadelphia. However, the
jurisdictional and fiscal limitations that plague local law
enforcement severely hinder the complete eradication of the
fugitive community.
As Commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department, I am
faced with the daunting task of reducing crime in one of the
most violent cities in America. Baltimore recorded 310 murders
last year, the second highest per capita rate in the country of
the 30 largest cities. This tremendously high homicide toll
exists in light of formerly ineffective fugitive apprehension
strategy.
Upon arriving in Baltimore, I discovered our warrant unit
consisted of five detectives and a sergeant charged with
serving over 54,000 warrants. In 1999, as of June 16, this six-
person unit served 10 murder warrants and 1,062 fugitive
warrants.
I immediately increased the warrant task force to 36
members. Operating under a philosophy that the speedy
apprehension of wanted offenders will prevent incidents of
mayhem and violence, this strengthened unit is showing signs of
success. As of June 16, 2000, total warrant arrests have
increased by 6 percent. However, most significantly, by
focusing on our most violent criminals, there has been a 500
percent increase in the service of murder warrants by this
unit. Sixty this year as opposed to 10 last year have been put
in handcuffs. Additionally, there is a 56 percent increase in
shooting warrants, a 120 percent increase in attempted murder
warrants, 83 percent first degree assault warrants, and a 280
percent increase in the service of warrants involving handgun-
related offenses. Overall, our clearance rate involving violent
offenders has increased 105 percent.
I am confident with the continued success of this unit, the
Baltimore Police will achieve its first year under 300 murders
in a decade. With the increased assistance of the U.S. Marshals
Service, our success is inevitable.
Effective warrant strategies remove fugitives from our
neighborhoods, thus increasing public safety. Furthermore, law
enforcement agencies are able to debrief career criminals upon
their apprehension, which enables crucial intelligence to be
ascertained and utilized to solve other crimes. Finally, many
fugitives will be located in correctional facilities. Upon
location, a detainer is placed to ensure the criminal will not
be released without facing a demanding jurisdiction's justice.
Warrant service not only removes fugitives from our streets,
but it keeps criminals behind bars.
Throughout the last decade, local law enforcement agencies
across the country have demonstrated that by implementing sound
policing strategies, crime can be drastically reduced. Police
officers in cities like New York, New Orleans, Philadelphia,
Boston, and Newark are once again proud to serve, proud to wear
the department's badge, proud because they know they can
succeed. Many lives in our urban areas have been saved by the
efforts of these men and women who choose to work in America's
most dangerous profession. This success, however, is not
enough. It is not complete and it is not enjoyed by all urban
areas.
As a police officer who knows the importance of tracking
down fugitives, I urge this committee to assist cities like
Baltimore, Detroit, and Washington, DC, by supporting this
fundamentally sound program offered by the U.S. Marshals
Service. This program will apprehend violent criminals who
flout the laws of our criminal justice system. As we move
forward in our strategy to reduce index crime through fugitive
apprehension and warrant service, we must keep in mind that a
number of these individuals move about freely with no fear of
being caught, no apprehensions concerning the commission of
future crimes. Our combined efforts will gain the support and
assistance of our communities and increase the fear and respect
of our wanted fugitives towards our ability to find and bring
them to justice.
As a police commissioner of a city that is being bludgeoned
by fugitives who brazenly reoffend and brutally inflict the
violence that drives our murder rate, I urge this committee to
attend to the assistance necessary to capture fugitives, no
matter where they seek refuge.
Finally, on behalf of the 310 citizens murdered last year
in Baltimore, on behalf of Sergeant Bruce Prothero who was
killed in the line of duty by a fugitive, on behalf of innocent
citizens slain by wanted felons, I urge this body to assist in
ending this chronic threat to public safety that is posed by
fugitives.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norris follows:]

Prepared Statement of Edward T. Norris

INTRODUCTION

From New York to New Orleans, from Boston to Newark, successful
Police Departments understand one fundamental truth: Crime reduction in
American cities is dependent and directly linked to the apprehension of
fugitives. The systematic tracking and capture of known violent
criminals is the single most effective crime fighting strategy in
modern law enforcement. I urge the honorable members of this
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight of the Senate Judiciary
Committee to support and appropriate the necessary resources to assist
federal law enforcement in their efforts to bring modern outlaws to
justice. I thank Senators Strom Thurmond and Joseph R. Biden, Jr. for
having the insight to draft such important legislation.
The threat that fugitives post to law-abiding citizens cannot be
overstated. In Baltimore County, Maryland wanted criminals killed
Sergeant Bruce Prothero in the line of duty attempting to thwart a
robbery. In New York City, fugitive John Taylor walked into a Wendy's
Hamburger Restaurant and brazenly killed six workers and patrons.
Wanted offenders who are deft at avoiding detection and thrive in the
cracks of our criminal justice system perpetrate the carnage that
haunts our urban areas. The implementation of a forceful fugitive
apprehension program as proposed by the United States Marshall Service
will seal these cracks and end this unnecessary violence.

THE IMPACT OF EFFECTIVE FUGITIVE APPREHENSION

The criminal community in any city is a close knit, small and
identifiable group. Career criminals do not stop offending because they
have a warrant out for their arrest. Fugitives are a bold and lethal
breed, unfazed by the flaccid threat that a warrant alone represents.
As a Deputy Inspector with the New York Police Department, I was tasked
with putting teeth in the paper tiger of the Warrant Apprehension Task
Force. The architects of New York's successful crime-fighting effort
realized that by tracking and apprehending fugitives, we would reduce
crime by taking repeat offenders off the street. Armed with the
probable cause a warrant provides law enforcement and the support of
NYPD brass, I mounted an aggressive assault on the criminal community
that had held our city hostage for decades.
The results were staggering to outside observers and devastating to
the criminal community. As warrant apprehension increased 104 percent,
the murder rate plummeted, robberies, rapes, and aggravated assaults
decreased and New York became the safest big city in America. Fugitive
capture is the backbone of the successful crime fighting strategies of
not only New York, but also Boston, Newark, New Orleans, and
Philadelphia. However, the jurisdiction and fiscal limitations that
plague local law enforcement severely hinder the complete eradication
of the fugitive community.

BALTIMORE'S FUGITIVE APPREHENSION EFFORTS

As Commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department, I am faced with
the daunting task of reducing crime in arguably the most violent city
in America. Baltimore recorded 310 murders last year, the second
highest per capita rate in the country. This tremendously high homicide
toll exists in light of an ineffective fugitive apprehension strategy.
Upon arriving in Baltimore, I discovered our warrant unit consisted of
five detectives and a sergeant charged with serving over 54,000
warrants. In 1999 as of June 16, this six-person unit served 10 murder
warrants and 1,062 fugitive warrant.
I immediately increased the warrant task force to 36 members.
Operating under the philosophy that the speedy apprehension of wanted
offenders will prevent incidents ofviolence and mayhem, this
strengthened unit is showing signs of success. As of June 16, 2000,
total warrant arrest have increased 5.7 percent (1062 in 1999; 1126 in
2000). Most significantly, by focusing on our most violent criminals,
there has been a 500 percent increase in the service of murder warrants
by the unit (10 in 1999; 60 in 2000). Additionally There is a 56.8
percent increase in shooting warrants served (44 in 1999; 69 in 2000),
a 120 percent increase in attempted murder warrants served (10 in 1999;
22 in 2000), a 8.1 percent increase in the service of first degree
assault warrants (59 in 1999; 108 in 2000), and a 280 percent increase
in the service of warrants involving handgun related offenses (5 in
199; 19 in 2000). Overall, a clearance rate involving violent offenders
has increased 104.9 percent (162 in 1999; 332 in 2000). I am confident
with the continued success of this unit, Baltimore will achieve its
first year under 300 murders in a decade. With the increased assistance
of the United Marshall's Office, our success is inevitable.
Effective warrant strategies remove fugitives from our
neighborhoods thus increasing public safety. Furthermore, law
enforcement agencies are able to de-brief career criminals upon their
apprehension, which enables crucial intelligence to be ascertained and
utilized to solve other crimes. Finally, many fugitives will be located
in correctional facilities. Upon location, a detainer may be placed to
insure that the criminal will not be released without facing a
demanding jurisdiction's justice. Warrant service not only removes
fugitives from our streets but it keeps criminals behind bars.

CONCLUSION

Throughout the last decade, local law enforcement agencies across
our country have demonstrated that by implementing sound policing
strategies, crime can be drastically reduced. Police officers in cities
like New York, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Boston, and Newark are once
again proud to serve, proud to wear their department's badge, proud
because they know they can succeed. Many lives in our urban areas have
been saved by the efforts of the men and women who choose to work in
America's most dangerous profession. This success however is not
enough, it is not complete, and it is not enjoyed by all urban areas.
As a Police Officer who knows the importance of tracking down
fugitives, I urge this committee to assist cities like Baltimore,
Detroit and Washington, DC, by supporting the fundamentally sound
program offered by the United States Marshall's service. This program
will apprehend violent criminals who flaunt the laws of our criminal
justice system. As we move forward in our strategy to reduce index
crime through fugitive apprehension and warrant service, we must keep
in mind that a number of these individuals move about freely with no
fear of being caught and no apprehensions concerning the commission of
future crimes. Our combined efforts will gain the support and
assistance of our communities and increase the fear and respect of our
wanted fugitives towards our ability to find and bring them to justice.
As the Police Commissioner of a city that is being bludgeoned by
fugitives who brazenly re-offend and brutally inflict the violence that
drives our murder rate, I urge this committee to tender the assistance
necessary to capture fugitives no matter where they seek refuge.
Finally, on behalf of the 310 citizens murdered last year in Baltimore,
on behalf of Sergeant Bruce Prothero who was killed in the line of duty
by a fugitive, on behalf of the innocent citizens slain by wanted
felons, I urge this body to assist in ending the chronic threat to
public safety posed by fugitives.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 21st day of
June, in the year Two Thousand.
Edward T. Norris, Commissioner,
Baltimore Police Department.

Senator Thurmond. Sheriff Sullivan. I want to ask you all
to limit your statements to five minutes and that will give us
a chance for questions. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF PATRICK SULLIVAN

Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important
opportunity to speak to you today and testify before this
distinguished committee about the U.S. Marshals Service and
about the larger issue of fugitive felons. This is not my first
occasion to testify before this committee. I am happy to be
with you again today and discuss what the sheriffs view as an
extremely important issue.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, NSA concluded its annual
conference and exhibition yesterday. In fact, I left that
conference early to be here to testify before this committee.
We met in Kansas City, MO, for the past week, and aside from
renewing old friendships and making new acquaintances, we
addressed many of the issues and concerns of the office of
sheriff. In fact, we spent a significant amount of time talking
about fugitive felons and the backlog of warrants that paralyze
law enforcement.
Aside from NSA's business, I am especially pleased to bring
to you in the committee the greetings from all the Nation's
sheriffs, and, Mr. Chairman, Sheriff Johnny Mack Brown sends
his warmest regards and wishes you all the best.
I am Patrick Sullivan. I am the Sheriff of Arapaho County,
CO, a county of about a half a million and suburban to Denver.
I have been Sheriff for 17 years. I am post certified and work
closely with all the sheriffs in Colorado to serve warrants and
apprehend dangerous fugitive felons. I am also a member of the
National Sheriffs Association's Executive Committee and Board
of Directors. Additionally, I am the Chairman of the NSA's
Congressional Affairs Committee.
I am here today to testify before this distinguished panel
on the issue of fugitive felons. As you know, fugitive felons
present a significant challenge for law enforcement. Every day,
my warrant squad tracks fugitives and makes arrests to ensure
that criminals are brought to justice.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the fugitive problem taps
significant resources and manpower. After all, serving warrants
is labor intensive. You cannot send the bad guy an e-mail or
expect him to turn himself in to the booking facility, and you
cannot send him a notice by registered mail and expect him to
show up for court. You have to track them down and physically
arrest them. You have to put on the handcuffs and transport
them to jail. That process takes people, intensive
investigations, and persistence. It is a rare occurrence to
find fugitives on the first try.
The fact of the matter is that fugitives are fleeing from
justice and that makes them dangerous. To combat this danger,
the law enforcement response to fugitive felons manifests
itself in many ways and the investigative effort drains
valuable resources. The challenge is that while attracting
fugitives and serving warrants, both vital functions of the
office of sheriff, we must also respond to a myriad of calls
for service. We must still provide patrol. We must still
investigate other crimes and operate the county jail. We must
do these other things that our constituents have elected us
for.
Mr. Chairman, NSA strongly supports this legislation. We
feel that the U.S. Marshals Service is the proper agency to
help the local sheriff find fugitive felons. They have nearly
2,500 deputies working but they need more, and that is where
Congress can help. By authorizing these task forces as
established in this legislation, deputy marshals will augment
and support the missions of the deputy sheriffs. Together, we
will be able to make significant progress in bringing fugitive
felons to justice.
How do I know that the U.S. Marshals Service is the right
agency to handle this project? Simply, 12 former sheriffs are
now U.S. Marshals. Eight of the U.S. Marshals are formerly
deputy sheriffs. Their law enforcement career contributed to
their understanding of the mission of the sheriff in
relationship to the U.S. Marshal. That means 20 out of the 94
marshals have direct experience in working with sheriffs and we
can be sure that the job will be done right.
The U.S. Marshals Service needs a strong commitment from
Congress to succeed. Enacting this legislation will help the
U.S. Marshals Service, but the real battle is for adequate
funding. That is why I am hopeful that we can reauthorize the
Violent Crime and Control Reduction Trust Fund and we can find
other sources of funding to back up this legislation.
At nearly 2,500 deputies, the U.S. Marshals Service is
still understaffed, in my opinion. I would suggest that the
committee strongly consider increasing the number of Deputy
U.S. Marshals and giving them the tools to be effective Federal
law enforcement officers. The U.S. Marshals Service is the
Nation's oldest and largest law enforcement agency.
Mr. Chairman, we also support Senator Dorgan's bill that he
discussed earlier for setting standards for the private
transport of fugitives.
I am now available for questions. Thank you.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]

Prepared Statement of Patrick Sullivan

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important opportunity to speak to
you today and testify before this distinguished committee about the
United States Marshals Service and about the larger issue of fugitive
felons. This is not my first occasion to testify before your committee
and I am happy to be with you again today to discuss what the sheriffs
view as an extremely important issue.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, NSA concluded our Annual Conference and
Exhibition yesterday. In fact, I left the conference early so that NSA
could be heard on what we feel is an important topic. We met in Kansas
City, Missouri for the past week and aside from renewing old
friendships and making new acquaintances, we addressed many of the
issues and concerns of the Office of Sheriff. In fact, we spent
significant time talking about fugitive felons and the backlog of
warrants that paralyzes law enforcement.
Aside from the business of NSA, I am especially pleased to bring to
you and the Committee the greetings of all of our Nation's sheriffs.
And, Mr. Chairman, Sheriff Johnny Mack Brown sends his warmest regards
and wishes you all the best.
I am Patrick Sullivan and I am the Sheriff of Arapahoe County,
Colorado, a community of about a half million and suburban Denver
county. I have been sheriff for the past 17 years. I am POST certified
and work closely with all of the sheriffs in Colorado to serve warrants
and apprehend dangerous fugitive felons. I am also a member of the
National Sheriffs' Association where I sit on the Executive Committee
and Board of Directors. Additionally, I am the Chairman of NSA's
Congressional Affairs Committee, our largest.
I am here today to testify before this distinguished panel on the
issue of fugitive felons. As you know, fugitive felons present a
significant challenge for law enforcement. Every day, my warrant squad
tracks fugitives and makes arrests to ensure that criminals are brought
to justice. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the fugitive problem taps
significant resources and manpower. After all, serving warrants is
labor intensive. You can't send the bad guy an email and expect him to
turn himself in to the booking facility. You can't send them a notice
by registered mail and expect them to keep their court date. You have
to track them down, and physically arrest them. You have to put the
handcuffs on and transport them to jail. And that process takes people,
intensive investigations and persistence. It is a rare occurrence to
find the fugitive on the first try.
The fact of the matter is that fugitives are fleeing from justice
and that makes them dangerous. To combat this danger, the law
enforcement response to fugitive felons manifests itself in many ways
and the investigative effort drains valuable resources. The challenge
is that, while tracking fugitives and serving warrants, both vital
functions of the sheriffs, we must also respond to the myriad of calls
for serve, we must still provide patrol, we must still investigate
other crimes, and we must do those things our constituents elected us
to do.
Mr. Chairman, NSA strongly supports this legislation. We feel that
the U.S. Marshals Service is the proper agency to help the local
sheriff find fugitive felons. They have nearly 2500 deputies working,
but they need more. And that is where Congress can help. By authorizing
these task forces as established in the legislation, deputy marshals
will augment and support the missions of deputy sheriffs. Together, we
will be able to make significant progress in bringing fugitive felons
to justice. How do I know that the USMS is the right agency to handle
this project? Simple, 12 former sheriffs are now U.S. marshals and
eight other Marshals were deputy sheriffs during their law enforcement
career. That means 20 of the 94 Marshals have direct experience with
sheriffs and their unique needs. We can be sure that the job will be
done right.
The U.S. Marshals Service needs a strong commitment from Congress
to succeed. Enacting this legislation will help the USMS, but the real
battle is for adequate funding. That is why I am hopeful that we can
reauthorize the Violent Crime Control Reduction Trust fund, and we can
find other sources of funding to back up this legislation. At nearly
2500 deputies, the USMS is still under staffed, in my opinion. I would
suggest that the committee strongly consider increasing the number of
Deputy U.S. Marshals and give them the tools to be effective federal
law enforcement officers. The USMS is the nation's oldest law
enforcement agency. It is only fitting that they have the resources and
manpower to carry out their mission and supplement the ability of state
and local law enforcement officers. They do an excellent job with
limited resources, but they have increasingly diverse missions and need
more support. I know the sheriffs would support and benefit from an
enhanced Marshals Service.
To give the Committee an example of the cooperation the bill
espouses, Deputy U.S. Marshals worked with my investigators on a case
just last month. Crack cocaine dealer, Edward Hickey, was wanted by my
office, the Chicago PD, Aurora PD and Denver PD. This dealer was so bad
that he even recruited kids to peddle his drugs and hold the narcotics
while he completed the sale. A fugitive from justice, we have him
linked to the sale of a minimum of 25 kilos of crack. Working together,
with intense research and sound investigative techniques, we
apprehended Hickey last month and he has been extradited to Illinois
where he awaits his day in court. This is but one example of how we
work hand in glove with the U.S. Marshals Service. We need this
legislation and we need to address the chronic problem of fugitive
felons.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the National Sheriffs' Association
strongly support this legislation and sheriffs across the nation would
be among the first to utilize the fugitive task forces created by the
bill. We look forward to working with you and the Committee to enact
this measure and I am prepared to answer any questions the Committee
may have. Thank you again for the opportunity to be with you this
afternoon.

Senator Thurmond. Mr. Horton.

STATEMENT OF KEVIN HORTON

Mr. Horton. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege and honor to be
here to talk about a topic I have spent 15 of my 23 years in
the State police chasing fugitives. Being in the clean-up
position, I am not going to try and reiterate basically what
has been said in my report. I am going to try and sum it up as
quick as I can.
It does not seem in the 15 years that much has changed. To
catch fugitives, you need to make it a priority, you need
commitment, you need resources, and you need manpower, and that
is why we are all here today. There is no better agency in the
country to head up this program than the U.S. Marshals. They
are the premiere fugitive investigators in the country.
Last year, I recently sat in at a meeting at the State
level, as I am sitting here today, facing the same problems we
are talking about at the State level. What came out of that
meeting was in the State of Massachusetts, we have over 300,000
warrants outstanding right now. Out of those, 80,000 are felony
warrants. Out of those, 40,000 are violent felony warrants. So
you can imagine, after that meeting, it very quickly became a
priority through the governor and the secretary. We then
established a task force with the State police, the Department
of Corrections and the local departments. Byrne grants were
gotten very quickly and we established our own task force
because the priority was given. The commitment was given to do
something about warrants.
Since the task force was established in August 1999,
arrests have increased 127 percent and our clearance of
warrants have increased 140 percent. Again, manpower and
resources, Mr. Chairman.
I can give you examples in my report, as the other board
members have, of fugitives on the run. Fugitives kill people. I
give an example of two police officers that were killed in
Massachusetts by people who had warrants, a 10-year-old boy who
was raped and murdered by an individual who had 75 warrants on
him, a young lady whose ex-boyfriend killed her, also wanted
for violent felonies. We can go on and on and on. A 12-year-old
girl who was molested by a sex offender who had felony warrants
on him.
The problem is resources, manpower, and commitment, Mr.
Chairman, and the marshals, without a doubt, are the people to
handle that problem.
The only other thing I would like to say is the most
significant change we have had in the apprehension of fugitives
that I have seen in my 15 years is the advent of the Welfare
Reform Act in 1996. What this did is it opened the eyes of
Federal and State governments that we are subsidizing
criminals. What we did in 1997 with the first cross-match of
the welfare records in Massachusetts against the felony
warrants in Massachusetts and came up with 14,000 hits of
people collecting some type of government aid who are wanted.
We put into action Operation Welfare Sweep and we targeted
1,900 of those which were violent felons. We arrested 563 in 30
days. Four hundred turned themselves in and 900 were taken off
the rolls because they have warrants.
We then did a similar operation with New York City and we
did a similar operation with Connecticut, which shows that the
State governments and the Federal Government is subsidizing
criminals. We need to get access to databases and we are trying
to pass legislation in Massachusetts as we speak to get us at
the Department of Revenue, Department of Employment and
Training.
One of the topics that is always big in this country is
deadbeat dads. Well, deadbeat dads, and rightfully so, it has
to be done. But deadbeat dads are now done by the Department of
Revenue. The Department of Revenue has access to thousands and
thousands of records throughout the country which law
enforcement cannot legally get. So they are chasing deadbeat
dads and have access to records. We are chasing murderers,
rapists, and armed robbers and we cannot get the data. It is
there.
I thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horton follows:]

Prepared Statement of Kevin M. Horton

1. It is an honor and privilege to be able to address the
subcommittee on such an important issue. It is an issue that I have
dealt with for over 15 years of my 23 year career in law enforcement.
The commitment to the apprehension of fugitives has never been a
consistent priority with most states and local police departments. It
has been my experience, at the State and Federal level that budgetary
constraints often hinder the amount of resources that are dedicated to
Fugitive Apprehension. For example, the Massachusetts State Police
Fugitive Section, which started with five (5) officers in 1985,
research a high of sixteen (16) officers in the early nineties and
dropped to six (6) officers in 1996. In 1999 the Massachusetts State
Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight, released a report on
``Warranting Improvement: Reforming the Arrest Warrant Management
System''. The report indicated that there is a backlog of more than
300,000 outstanding arrest warrants, an amount that is growing by 5,000
warrants per month. Almost two-thirds of the arrest warrants are
default warrants that are issued as result of an individual failing to
appear for court or failure to comply with court ordered sanctions.
Apprehension on these warrants is usually a result of random encounters
by police with wanted people during routine traffic stops. As a result
of the subcommittee report the Governor of Massachusetts, Paul
Cellucci, through the Secretary of Public Safety, Jane Perlov made
Fugitive Apprehension in Massachusetts a major priority and created the
State Police, Violent Fugitive Task Force. The Secretary also acquired
a ``Byrne'' grant to administer the Task force. Of the 300,000 warrants
currently in the system, the Task Force concentrates on the most
violent wanted individuals which comprises approximately 35,000
warrants. Our top priority is to identify and arrest the most violent
criminals. These individuals by virtue of their life-styles are career
criminals and responsible for committing multiple crimes. It is our
experience that their arrest and incarceration significantly reduce the
crime rate within the state. Several studies have shown that
approximately 10 percent of criminals are responsible for the majority
of crimes committed and that getting these people off of the street has
a strong crime-reduction impact. Also added to the Task Force
priorities were individuals with multiple arrest warrants. The Task
force now concentrates on individuals with ten or more warrants.
Several cases have brought to light the need for more enforcement in
this area. Here are some examples of people with outstanding warrants
that continue to commit serious crimes while they were at large:
In February 1994, Boston Police Officer Berisford Anderson
was shot and killed by Dalton Simpson, who was wanted on
default warrants at the time of the shooting. Simpson was
wanted for Assault w/intent to Murder, Possession of Firearm
(2cts.), and Discharging a Firearm.
In October 1997, ten year old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge was
brutally murdered by Charles Jaynes, who was wanted on 75
outstanding arrest warrants from 18 District Courts at the time
of the murder.
In October 1997, Annie Glenn was shot and killed in front of
her three children by Richard Kenney, an ex-boyfriend who was
wanted on outstanding warrants for possession of cocaine and
receiving stolen property.
In November 1997, New Jersey Police Sergeant Patrick King was
shot and killed by Deon Baily, who was wanted for assault &
battery w/dangerous weapon, assault & battery, and violating
probation.
In June 1998, Gilberto Sanchez, a convicted sex offender,
sexually molested a 12 year old girl after climbing through her
bedroom window. Sanchez was wanted on six outstanding warrants
for crimes such as assault & battery, violating a restraining
order, and defaulting on drug charges.
2. The problems with warrant apprehension have not changed much in
the fifteen years I have been in the business. In order to effectively
deal with warrant management, a commitment to deal with the problem has
to be made. This commitment has to be maintained over time because
warrants will never cease to exist; however they can be effectively
managed to lessen the negative impact on society. It is a long term
commitment to this process that is required. Once warrant apprehension
is made a priority then you need RESOURCES AND MANPOWER! Since the
advent of the Task Force in Massachusetts in August of 1999, our
arrests have gone up 127 percent and our clearance of warrants has gone
up 140 percent. The number one resource is always money, but just as
important is the networking of agencies like the United States Marshals
Service, a national leader in Fugitive investigations. Fugitive
apprehension training and techniques used by the Massachusetts State
Police Fugitive Section were developed and taught by USMS.
Administrative subpoena authority granted to the USMS, as is currently
available to the FBI and DEA, would aid all law enforcement in the
pursuit of fugitives and would make available additional manpower to
devote to apprehensions.
3. Without a doubt, the most significant change, in the way we
apprehend fugitives has been the ``Welfare Reform Act of 1996.'' This
legislation finally brought to light the fact that State and Federal
governments were subsidizing wanted criminals. In 1997 the first
computerized ``Cross-Match'' of databases in Massachusetts of our
felony warrants against the state welfare rolls produced 14,000 matches
of wanted people collecting some sort of government aid. Of the 14,000
individuals wanted on felony warrants, approximately 1900 were wanted
for violent crimes. In August of 1997 Operation ``Welfare Sweep'' was
conducted targeting the 1900 individuals wanted for violent crimes,
using the information supplied by the state welfare department. The
operation lasted 30 days resulting in the arrest of 563 people. Over
400 people turned themselves in to the courts for disposition, and over
900 individuals were taken off the welfare rolls until their warrant(s)
were cleared. In 1999 we initiated ``Operation Clean Sweep'' which
entailed sending our felony warrants to New York City to ``Cross-
Match'' against their welfare rolls. It produced 385 matches of which
90 were authorized for rendition. Thirty six individuals authorized for
rendition were located and taken into custody. Notable arrests in New
York included subjects wanted for Rape, Rape of a child, Armed Assault
to Murder, and Illegal Possession of a firearm. The remaining wanted
individuals were removed from the welfare rolls in New York until they
cleared their warrants in Massachusetts. We then reversed the process
with New York City and matched our welfare records against their felony
warrants. An additional one hundred and forty four matches were
identified. The same process was done with the State of Connecticut
with one hundred thirty five matches identified. We are attempting to
pass legislation in Massachusetts that will provide law enforcement the
ability to ``Cross-Match'' data bases with the Department of Revenue
and the Department of Employment and Training. Even at the Federal
level, although some measures have been taken with Social Security,
SSI, and Food Stamps, more has to be done to make it easier to obtain
``Cross-Matching'' information. The administrative subpoena authority
granted the USMS would solve some of these problems. At both the
federal and state levels, we have to stop subsidizing wanted felons
with tax payers money.
4. Over the years the USMS have run several Task Force operations,
one of which was called F.I.S.T. back in 1984. This operation brought
to light the serious problem that Massachusetts had with warrants. This
program also resulted in the creation of the Mass. State Police
Fugitive Section as we know it today. Other Task Force Operations over
the years such as ``Operation Sunrise, Operation Trident'' and
``Operation Gun-Smoke'' have also proven successful. From the knowledge
learned through these operations, the Mass. State Police Fugitive
Section has adopted what we call today ``Warrant Sweeps''. These
``Warrant Sweeps'' target the top 20 cities that have the most violent
felony warrants. We then coordinate with the local police departments
and conduct early morning raids. These ``WarrantSweeps'' have proven
very successful and although you are dealing with the lesser felony
charges, assault & battery etc., they clear a larger amount of warrants
in a short time. With access to the previously mentioned welfare data
bases we were able to increase our arrest rate from 1 in 10 to 4 in 10.
With the added manpower resources and monies supplied by the USMS we
can surmise that the Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2000 could only
improve our apprehension rate.
5. I believe if we are ever going to get ahead of the curve in
fugitive apprehensions, we need the resources and cooperation of all
facets of government, both federal and state. Not just law enforcement
agencies, but agencies that control the data have to participate in the
sharing of information. We ask only that they return information that
is relevant to the apprehension of wanted violent felons. I can't
stress enough that we must stop subsidizing wanted fugitives and aid in
their escape from justice. We must also get the courts, district
attorney's office, department of corrections, probation departments and
parole agencies involved as we have in Massachusetts. All working
together to hold these fugitives on bail and supervise and detain these
individuals which create a threat to society. Without full cooperation
between all agencies we will be in the same sinking ship 10 years from
now, trying to figure out the same questions we are trying to answer
today. An example in Massachusetts of not getting support from
Government is the issue of ``dead beat dads''. It is a high profile
priority in most states and rightly so. Investigators from the
Department of Revenue have access to millions of records throughout the
state and country. These records are unavailable to law enforcement
personnel who could be looking for more serious offenders such as
murders, rapist, and armed robbers. We are attempting to rectify this
problem but in the meantime more innocent parties will be victimized
while we wait. The legislative bill filed in Massachusetts is asking
these state agencies to allow us to supply data to them (wanted
felons). All we are asking is that they return data to us if the wanted
individual is in their system.
6. Another very serious growing trend in this country is the
ability for fleeing felons to obtain false identification and assume
the identity of another person. I see this as the next major obstacle
in the apprehension of fugitives. It is estimated that in the state of
Massachusetts there are thousands of counterfeit or illegally obtained
drivers licenses and identification cards. We can surmise that a large
majority of these false identifications are used by wanted fugitives.
We have investigated several cases in Massachusetts which leads us to
believe that there is a major problem with this type of activity. At
present you can go to the internet and order a drivers license from any
state in the country. There are also internet sites and books available
which give step by step instruction on how to change your identity. One
investigation in Massachusetts revealed that gang members were using
falsely obtained drivers licenses to change their identity, because of
past crimes they had committed. This is where the Social Security
Administration and Supplement Security Income (SSI) can play a key role
in validation of Social Security numbers and fraud. Although Social
Security and SSI are cooperative on a case by case basis we need more
use of computerized ``Cross-Matching'' of databases to get a better
picture of the real problem.
7. I have been on the board of directors of the National
Association of Fugitive Investigators (NAFI) since its' inception in
1991 where we began with the states of South Carolina, Georgia, New
York and Massachusetts. NAFI was incorporated in South Carolina in
1994. The USMS played a large part in our formation by providing their
expertise in the field of Fugitive Investigations. This year will be
our 10th anniversary and we are returning to Charleston, South Carolina
where it all began. We have grown to over 600 members, representing 45
states, consisting of State, Federal, Local and Sheriff agencies across
the country. The main purpose of the association was to increase our
networking nationwide. The networking obtained at these conferences has
proven to be another major tool in the apprehension of fugitives. The
reason for our success is that these officers know the value of talking
to someone who does fugitive investigations on a full time basis. The
other valuable asset of the conference is the knowledge sharing that
takes place, and the new ideas that are brought forward in the
apprehension of fugitives. The referral cases for fugitives out of
state have increased ten fold since the associations formation. We now
have the networking capabilities to contact state, local, and federal
agencies throughout the country and know our case will be in competent
hands.
8. In closing I will reiterate the basis for a successful fugitive
apprehension program. First and foremost you must make it a priority.
Most state and local departments just don't have the ability to do this
because of manpower and resources available. Second, we need the
resources to do the job right. This means appropriations for personnel
and equipment, but also means the cooperation of all law enforcement
and non law enforcement entities in the state, i.e., Administrative
Subpoena Powers, computerized ``Cross-Matching'' abilities, the
cooperation of the District Attorneys, Probation, Parole, Corrections,
and all state agencies that can contribute to the goal of fugitive
apprehension. We must stop subsidizing wanted criminals in this
country. Lastly, we do not lack the initiative, dedication, and
commitment of our law enforcement people, however we do lack a few
tools that would make us more effective.
``HE ESCAPES WHO IS NOT PURSUED''--Sophocles
Respectfully, submitted,
Kevin M. Horton, Detective Lieutenant,
Massachusetts State Police, Violent Fugitive
Apprehension Section.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3292A.001

Senator Thurmond. I see that we have a vote on. We will
have about 5 or 10 minutes for questions.
Marshal Brooks, I understand that the fugitive task force
in South Carolina has been very successful. Could you explain
how you have addressed the fugitive there and what lessons you
have learned that other jurisdictions could apply to assist
their efforts?
Mr. Brooks. Senator, I think the task force in South
Carolina has been very successful because we have had 46
counties in that State, we have had deputization of officers
that help out our task force.
Some of the lessons that we have learned in working on
State, Federal, and local warrants is that we need to adapt to
the participating agencies while addressing the needs of the
U.S. Marshals Service.
Another area that might be of concern is, Senator, that I
would encourage that the initial steps for agencies considering
sponsoring a task force, they need to outline a collective
spending plan while defining the memorandum of understanding
between agencies. This would allow each agency to define their
responsibilities well and determine all available resources
that may be utilized before the operation is up and running.
This would include, but not limited to, manpower, equipment,
vehicles, and training.
But I think one of the most important, and the last one
that I would caution you on, is the ultimate result of the task
force participation is best achieved when no one agency is
attempting to be the superior agency and they all should work
together without getting one agency to say that they are tops.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you. Mr. Norris, how serious is the
fugitive threat in Baltimore and do you find that fugitives
often commit additional crimes before they are caught?
Mr. Norris. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The threat to the citizenry
of Baltimore is extraordinary. As you stated in your opening
remarks, there are about 60,000 open warrants in our city,
which is one of the most violent in the country. Unfortunately,
we do not know how many crimes they commit as they remain
unapprehended. However, we know they do not retire and go drive
a truck for UPS. They continue to do whatever they were doing
prior to being caught the first time. So the threat is enormous
to our citizens and speed is everything. If we catch them
within the first week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, you save that many
more crime victims if the person does not go unapprehended for
several months.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you. Sheriff Sullivan, do the
sheriffs share statistics and communicate to learn from each
other innovative ways to track and prioritize future
apprehensions?
Mr. Sullivan. The most innovative and most productive way
is through task force operations, where we share the personnel,
share the technology, and in some cases some have better
technology than others. But by going into a task force
operation, we can share that technology, skills, and ability
and be far more effective. So, yes, we try to innovate and
share as much as we can.
Senator Thurmond. Lieutenant Horton, we see that the focus
of law enforcement seems to change from time to time. Drugs,
organized crime, and gangs are all recent examples. It seems
that fugitives are a major component of all of these problems.
Would you agree that controlling fugitives helps control all
these problems?
Mr. Horton. Mr. Chairman, I think without a doubt, every
gang unit, every organized crime unit that is out there, one of
their primary ways of getting these people is through warrants,
through warrant apprehension. With the establishment of task
forces to look into all these situations, you will see that
most of them have got long criminal histories, have all got
default warrants. They would be a major, major way to get these
people.
Senator Thurmond. This question is for all of you, and do
not elaborate, just answer, because time is about up. Do you
find the assistance of the Marshals Service to be vital to your
efforts to apprehend fugitives?
Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Norris. Yes, I do, sir, very much so.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir. They have been great partners for
the sheriffs of this country and were pretty helpful at one
time when we were able to use the U.S. Marshals airlift, but
that has kind of disappeared because of the press of business.
Mr. Horton. Yes, sir. Most of the training and techniques
that we incorporate in the State police are from the U.S.
Marshals.
Senator Thurmond. Before we close, I would like to ask
unanimous consent to place in the record a statement from the
Federal Bureau of Investigations.
[The prepared statement of the Federal Bureau of
Investigations follows:]

Prepared Statement of Andreas Stephens, on Behalf of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee I am privileged to
have this opportunity to provide this written statement regarding the
need for administrative subpoena authority in furtherance of fugitive
investigations. Unfortunately, the FBI is all too aware of the dangers
fugitives present to law enforcement and the public. FBI Agents pursue
and apprehend armed and dangerous fugitives on a daily basis. On one
tragic day in May 1995, Special Agent William Christian, Jr., was shot
and killed while conducting a surveillance to apprehend a murder
fugitive. The subject subsequently killed himself. Within the past
month, two prisoners, serving sentences for violent crimes escaped from
prison in Mississippi. The prisoners led FBI Agents, working with other
law enforcement agencies, on a nationwide search, prior to being
apprehended in Indiana. In order to avoid apprehension, the fugitives
are alleged to have bound, gagged and robbed an elderly couple in
Mississippi, ``hog-tied'', assaulted and robbed a man in West Virginia,
robbed a man in Indiana and fired at law enforcement officers who
attempted to apprehend them.
Understanding the risk to law enforcement and the public, the
objective of FBI fugitive investigations is to effect the swift
location and apprehension of all FBI fugitives, particularly those
wanted in connection with crimes of violence, substantial property loss
or destruction, illicit drug trafficking, terrorism, and parental
abductions. Through its 56 field offices, in addition to 35 Legal
Attache offices throughout the world, the FBI has an extensive network
available to support fugitive investigations. The FBI employees its
entire arsenal of investigative techniques to locate fugitives, who
have developed increasingly sophisticated methods to avoid
apprehension. Fugitive investigations are manpower intensive and can
require extensive time to resolve. For example, the average duration of
an investigation to locate and apprehend a fugitive on the FBI's Ten
Most Wanted List is 316 days.
Our fugitive investigations have become increasingly difficult and
complex as options for communications services have become so varied.
These complexities require intensive coordination between international
law enforcement agencies, the business community and the public. If a
law providing administrative subpoena authority in fugitive
investigations is passed, federal law enforcement will gain a valuable
tool in assisting state and local law enforcement to locate and
apprehend violent fugitives. Many organizations and businesses refuse
to provide law enforcement with information due to liability concerns.
Businesses including telephone companies, apartment buildings, hotels
and landlords often maintain records that are crucial to the
expeditious apprehension of a fugitive and would not object to
releasing the information contained within their records, with the
protection of a subpoena.
Any legislation should guarantee that this limited subpoena
authority is not misused. Approval authority should be set through
guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Records soughtshould be
relevant or material, and facts should exist that demonstrate that the
records sought are likely to provide information regarding the location
of the fugitive. Finally, administrative subpoenas must comply with
rules and regulations established under existing statutes, such as
Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703 and Title 12 Sec. 3402.
The FBI has statutory authority to investigate fugitive matters
wherein the fugitive has fled the state's jurisdiction to avoid
prosecution or confinement. This authority is given to the FBI in Title
18, U.S.C. Sec. 1073, Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution (UFAP). This
statute prohibits ``persons from moving or traveling in interstate
commerce in order to avoid prosecution, confinement, or service of
process in connection with felonies under the laws of the place from
which flight is taken.'' Violations of Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1073 may be
prosecuted only upon formal approval in writing of the Attorney
General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General or
Assistant Attorney General. Per DOJ policy, no indictment may be sought
and no information may be filed, nor any criminal proceedings be
instituted under Rule 40, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure without
the approval of the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division.
Because Federal Grand Jury Proceedings against subjects of UFAP
investigations are extremely rare, Federal Grand Jury subpoenas are
generally not used in UFAP investigations. The only available
mechanisms are the All Writs Act, court orders, and state and local
subpoenas. These options are often cumbersome in effectively responding
to modern fugitive investigations. For each new record sought,
investigators must halt the investigation in order to draft affidavits,
travel to meet with prosecuting attorneys, and interrupt the duty
magistrate before serving the order.
A recent example of a fugitive investigation in which
administrative subpoena authority would have assisted investigators is
the search to apprehend H. Rapp Brown, also known as Jamil Abdullah Al-
Amin. On March 16, 2000, two Fulton County Sheriff's deputies were shot
while attempting to arrest H. Rapp Brown, who was a fugitive charged by
local authorities with impersonating a police officer. As the two
deputies approached Brown's grocery store in Atlanta's West End, the
deputies were engaged by gunfire. Both deputies were struck by
projectiles from an M-16 rifle. Deputy Ricky Kinchen died as a result
of his injuries. H. Rapp Brown was charged with shooting the deputies.
The Fulton County Sheriff requested the assistance of the FBI in
locating and apprehending Brown. The USMS service also offered to
assist in the investigation. For the next five days, investigators
worked around the clock to locate Brown. Investigators believed that
Brown was using a cellular phone to contact associates in order to flee
the country. On March 20, 2000 investigators tracked Brown to the area
of Mobile, Alabama. As FBI Agents and Deputy U.S. Marshals narrowed the
search for Brown, they were fired upon. A perimeter was established and
Brown was apprehended without further incident.
This significant investigation was delayed due to the lack of
administrative subpoena authority. In order to locate Brown, FBI Agents
repeatedly had to return to a U.S. Magistrate in order to obtain court
orders for subscriber information and toll records. Because cellular
phone companies, like Internet service providers, often sell blocks of
numbers to smaller companies, Agents were forced to weave through
multiple layers of bureaucracies in order to locate Brown.
The FBI and USMS are the primary DOJ components responsible for
apprehending fugitives. The FBI and USMS participate in working groups
with other law enforcement agencies including the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Department of Justice,Office of International
Affairs, and the Department of the Treasury. These working groups aid
in coordination of investigations, and minimize investigative overlaps.
In 1992, the FBI's Safe Streets Task Forces (SSTF) were initiated
to address the increasing violent crime problem which was overwhelming
state and local law enforcement. There are currently 60 FBI lead task
forces involved in the apprehension of fugitives. Of these 60 task
forces, 25 are exclusively fugitive task forces. Through the early
establishment of fugitive task forces, the FBI has been able to
establish the professional bonds necessary to work with local
authorities in violent crime matters. The ``Safe Streets'' initiative
was designed to allow the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of each FBI
field office to address violent crime, street gangs and drug related
violence, through the establishment of FBI sponsored, long term,
proactive task forces focusing on crimes of violence and the
apprehension of violent fugitives.
Although the initiation of formal FBI fugitive investigations
involving state and local fugitives are conducted through the Unlawful
Flight process, the USMS can initiate fugitive investigations pursuant
to special apprehension programs (such as Fugitive Investigative Strike
Teams and Warrant Apprehension Narcotics Teams) and other special
situations approved by the Associate Attorney General, pursuant to 28
Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 566. If state or local authorities
request the assistance of the USMS in locating or apprehending a
fugitive and it is determined that the fugitive is the subject of an
FBI warrant, the USMS refers the requesting agency to the FBI for
assistance and notifies the FBI of the request by the state or local
authority.
By order of the Attorney General and memorandum of Understanding,
the FBI and USMS have distinct fugitive apprehension responsibilities.
The FBI has apprehension responsibility for all arrest warrants issued
as a result of FBI investigations. In FBI led multiple agency task
force investigations, the FBI retains apprehension responsibility. In
the event of a bond default, the FBI maintains apprehension
responsibility for all FBI fugitives, at all times prior to an
adjudication of guilt. Although the USMS generally has apprehension
responsibility in cases involving violations of the Federal Escape and
Rescue Statutes, upon written notification to the USMS, the FBI has
exclusive apprehension responsibility at any stage of any case
involving an existing FBI Foreign Counterintelligence, FBI Organized
Crime, or FBI Terrorism investigation. Additionally, the FBI may assume
responsibility in any case in which the FBI is seeking the fugitive on
an arrest warrant based on charges filed by the FBI for an additional
offense beyond the charge for which the subject is a fugitive.
As previously indicated, the FBI has statutory authority to
investigate fugitive matters wherein the fugitive has fled the state's
jurisdiction to avoid prosecution or confinement, under Title 18 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1073 and 1074. In exercising its jurisdiction, the FBI does
not seek an Unlawful Flight warrant when the USMS is already seeking
the fugitive as an escape, probation/parole, mandatory release, or bond
default violator. Similarly the FBI does not seek an Unlawful Flight
warrant against any fugitive already sought by the USMS pursuant to the
Federal Escape and Rescue statutes. The FBI notifies the USMS of any
state or local requests for Unlawful Flight assistance in the above
situations. The FBI also notifies local or state authorities when the
USMS is already seeking that person. The above provisions do not
preclude the USMS from providing available information to state and
local law enforcement agencies regarding fugitives being sought by
their jurisdictions.
In furtherance of all FBI investigative responsibilities, the FBI
has arrested a total of 133,094 individuals during FYs 1995-1999. Of
these arrests, 65,359 were arrested for Unlawful Flight to Avoid
Apprehension, in furtherance of the FBI's fugitive program designed to
assist local authorities in the apprehension of interstate and
international fugitives.
Every FBI subject of an investigation that becomes a fugitive is
entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer
system. During Fiscal Years (FY) 1995-1999, the FBI pursued 27,981
fugitives. Of the fugitives entered between 1995 and 1999, all but
4,545, have been removed from NCIC, as a result of arrest or dismissal
of process. Currently, the FBI has a total of 7,269 outstanding federal
warrants obtained as a result of FBI investigations. Additionally, 60
FBI sponsored task forces are currently conducting approximately 1,883
preliminary inquiries regarding state and local fugitives for evidence
of interstate flight. These fugitives are wanted by state and local
authorities for violent crimes such as rape, robbery and homicide.
These figures do not include the many instances in which FBI
efforts led to the arrest of a fugitive even where the FBI does not
actually arrest the fugitive. Through the NCIC system, the FBI assists
other law enforcement agencies with the identification fugitives. FBI
liaison with law enforcement and the media is a vital component in the
fugitive apprehension process. In cases in which FBI fugitives are
located in a foreign country, the FBI Legal Attache, assigned to the
host nation, coordinates closely with the Department of Justice, Office
of International Affairs, United States Immigration and Naturalization
Services, and the Department of State to effect the arrest and
extradition of the fugitive. Once extradition has been authorized, the
United States Marshals Service is generally responsible for the
physical return of the fugitive to the United Stats.
The USMS and the FBI have distinct responsibilities with respect to
the location and apprehension of fugitives sought in the United States
by a foreign government. The FBI has location and apprehension
responsibility for a foreign fugitive whenever the fugitive, or the
organization of which he is a current member, is the subject of an
existing FBI Foreign Counterintelligence, FBI Organized Crime, or FBI
terrorism investigation; whenever the FBI is seeking the fugitive on an
arrest warrant for a Federal offense; whenever the fugitive is the
subject of an FBI investigation which it is currently conducting at the
request of the foreign government concerned; and whenever a referral
has been made exclusively to the FBI through one of its 35 Legal
Attache offices. A recent example of the effectiveness of the FBI's
Legal Attache program is the arrest of Andras Lakatos. Through liaison
with the FBI Legal Attache in Vienna, Austria, a provisional warrant
authorizing the arrest of Lakatos was issued. Lakatos was charged by
Hungarian authorities with racketeering and fraud, and was considered
to be one of Hungary's top fugitives. FBI Agents coordinated an
international effort to locate Lakatos. On June 8, 2000, FBI Agents in
Miami, Florida arrested Andras Lakatos after he arrived on a flight
from Las Vegas, Nevada.
In order to improve its effectiveness in apprehending international
fugitives, the FBI's participation in Interpol has greatly expended in
recent years. By redesigning applications, the FBI has established a
mechanism to obtain Interpol international fugitive notices for
significant fugitive cases. Through participation in Interpol, the FBI
has greatly supplemented the efforts of the legal attache offices to
assist in fugitive investigations.
Some of the resources utilized by the FBI to generate publicity to
aid in locating and apprehending fugitives include: Identification
Orders (distributed worldwide); Wanted Flyers (distributed worldwide);
Circular Letters (distributed to a substantive region of the country);
Internet: FBI Website: FBI.GOV (international); and Television Media:
America's Most Wanted, Unsolved Mysteries, 20/20 and international new
sources. INTERPOL; Radio: Voice of America; National Crime Information
Center database; and FBI rewards program (including $50,000 for
information leading to the arrest of Ten Most Wanted Fugitives). Public
Source data base; Foreign Fugitive Database; and Department of Justice/
Office of International Affairs.
The FBI's Identification Orders, Wanted Flyers and Circular Letters
are distributed to approximately 60,000 recipients around the world. A
recent survey reflects that these flyers directly assist in locating
fugitives in approximately half the cases sampled. The use of
television media and the Internet have greatly expanded the ability of
the FBI to circulate information regarding the FBI's fugitives. The
most visible resource employed by the FBI is the Ten Most Wanted List.
Since 1995, approximately 60 fugitives featured on Wanted Flyers and
Identification Orders have been apprehended, including 15 Ten Most
Wanted fugitives. ABC News recently produced a documentary recognizing
the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Ten Most Wanted List, which
aired in March, 2000.

TOTAL FBI APPREHENSIONS FOR FY 1995-1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Number of arrests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999........................................... 25,066
1998........................................... 27,114
1997........................................... 26,331
1996........................................... 27,125
1995........................................... 27,458
------------------------
Total FBI apprehensions.................... 133,094
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI UNLAWFUL FLIGHT APPRHENSIONS FOR FY 1995-1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Number of arrests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999........................................... 10,633
1998........................................... 12,228
1997........................................... 12,886
1996........................................... 14,357
1995........................................... 15,255
------------------------
Total FBI unlawful flight apprehension..... 65,359

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I would like to
thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide this written
statement to you regarding this very significant matter. Crime surveys
reflect that fugitives from justice are likely to continue criminal
activity in order to avoid apprehension. Violent fugitives pose a
serious and continuing threat to public safety. In recent years,
fugitives have become more sophisticated and more violent. The
expansion of the Internet and globalization of world economies has made
it possible for criminals to easily obtain fraudulent identification
documents which allow them to cross international boundaries in order
to avoid apprehension. Law enforcement officers need evolving
investigative techniques in order to execute their duty to protect and
serve the public. By providing federal law enforcement with
administrative subpoenas, you will greatly enhance our ability to
fulfill that duty. We look forward to working with all members of the
Subcommittee throughout the legislative process.

Senator Thurmond. I would also like to place in the record
a statement from the Fraternal Order of Police.
[The prepared statement of the Fraternal Order of Police
follows:]

Prepared Statement of Gilbert G. Gallegos, on Behalf of the Fraternal
Order of Police

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Senator Schumer, and members of the
Subcommittee; it is an honor to appear before you again. My name is
Gilbert G. Gallegos, and I am the National President of the Grand
Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police. With over 290,000 members, the F.O.P.
is the largest law enforcement labor organization in the nation. I am
appearing before you today on an issue which is of the utmost concern
to law enforcement at every level of government. And as the title of
this hearing suggests, it is one which poses an ever increasing threat
to law enforcement and public safety.
The problem of fugitives from justice in Federal and State felony
cases is one which exacts a heavy toll on law enforcement's ability to
reduce crime in our communities. While we can all be proud of the years
of continuous decline in the overall crime rate, we have not seen a
corresponding reduction in the number of fugitives across the country.
In fact, the exact opposite has occurred. There are currently over
500,000 fugitives from justice entered with the National Crime
Information Center (NCIC); a number estimated to be only 20 percent of
all outstanding State and local felony warrants. These are often
desperate individuals who will do everything in their power to avoid
apprehension, and who continue to commit additional crimes while at-
large.
In addition, criminals and fugitives are becoming more adept at
using the latest technology to change their identities. Just last
month, the Washington Post reported on the story of Robert Crutchfield,
a convicted murderer from the D.C. area and a fugitive from justice for
more than twenty-five years. Crutchfield obtained a new driver's
license and identity, enabling him to disappear until he was arrested
earlier this year in Denton, North Carolina by what the newspaper
described as ``pure chance''. And with the ability to create a new
identity becoming increasingly easier, the number of individuals and
the length of time they can successfully remain fugitives will no doubt
continue to increase.
The U.S. Marshals Service is the lead Federal law enforcement
agency in tracking down and apprehending these dangerous individuals.
They are responsible for the arrest of more fugitives than any other
agency, with roughly 30,000 captures per year. However, with the
current resources available to the Marshals Service, and the increasing
number of fugitives, they face a difficult task. To try and stem this
tide, the Marshals have been working with State and local law
enforcement in jointly fugitive apprehension task forces across the
United States. First established as short-term operations such as
Operations Sunrise and Gunsmoke I and II, the Marshals Service
currently operates permanent multi-agency task forces in over 150
communities. By pooling intelligence and resources, these cooperative
efforts have increased the effectiveness of law enforcement in locating
and apprehending these individuals.
The successes of the fugitive task forces have proven that this is
a program that works, and one which should be supported and expanded to
other parts of the country. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police
is proud to join you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Biden in support of S.
2516, the ``Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2000.'' The primary result of
this legislation will be an added focus on capturing fugitives while
providing other law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to
effectively reduce the number of these individuals roaming our streets.
First and foremost, S. 2516 would provide the Marshals Service with
the resources they need to establish additional permanent Fugitive
Apprehension Task Forces and supplement the funding available to
existing operations. The cooperation betweenthe Marshals and other
Federal, State and local agencies has proven to be an effective
approach to reducing the number of fugitives in the jurisdictions where
they currently operate. They combine the expertise and intelligence
capabilities of the Marshals Service with ther personnel and assets of
other law enforcement agencies, and provide specialized training in
fugitive apprehension to State and local law enforcement personnel.
Not only will the legislation increase the personnel and assets
dedicated to the apprehension of fugitives, it will also provide law
enforcement with the legal resources necessary to quickly act on
information regarding their whereabouts. To do so, section (3) of the
bill amends current law to provide for administrative subpoena
authority in fugitive investigations. Currently available to the
Justice Department in controlled substance-related criminal
investigations and administrative proceedings, S. 2516 also contains
important safeguards to prevent the abuse of this important provision.
In any investigation involving a fugitive from justice, the ability to
act quickly on information about that individual's location is
paramount to a successful apprehension. Delay for even a few hours can
make the difference between capture and the further flight of these
dangerous individuals. Access to the records available under the
administrative subpoena authority provided to the Attorney General
would be of tremendous assistance in helping to locate the fugitive.
In addition, this section further allows Federal law enforcement to
issue an administrative subpoena to assist their State and local
counterparts in the apprehension of State fugitives when they affect
interstate commerce or when there is a request for assistance from the
appropriate state official. This provision is essential to assisting
State and local law enforcement locate and apprehend fugitives who
cross State lines to avoid capture, and to the proper functioning of
regional, multi-agency fugitive apprehension task forces.
The problem of fugitives from justice is one which is growing at an
alarming rate. The legislation which you and Senator Biden have
introduced provides for a nationwide response, and represents the
proper approach to dealing with the large number of fugitives who have
chosen to evade our criminal justice system. The Fraternal Order of
Police stands ready to work with you and your staffs to ensure the
speedy passage of this important legislation. On behalf of the
membership of the Fraternal Order of Police, I would like to thank you
again for your leadership on this issue, and for allowing our
organization the opportunity to submit testimony for this hearing.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3292A.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3292A.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3292A.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3292A.005

Senator Thurmond. I also wish to place in the record
letters of support for S. 2516, the Fugitive Apprehension Act,
from the National Sheriffs Association, Fraternal Order of
Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
[The letters regarding S. 2516 are located in the
appendix.]
In addition, I ask unanimous consent to place into the
record a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police regarding S.
1898, the Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act
of 1999.
[The letter regarding S. 1898 is located in the appendix.]
We are going to keep this record open for one week for
additional materials and for follow-up questions.
Unless somebody has something else, the hearing now stands
adjourned and we thank all of you very much.
[Whereupon, at 2:59 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

----------

Questions and Answers

----------

Responses of John W. Marshall to Questions From Senator Thurmond

Question 1. Mr. Marshall, please list and describe the fugitive
task forces that are currently operating.
Answer. There are generally six types fugitives task forces in
which the USMS participates. A list of each type of task force and a
brief description of the task forces' missions follows:

1. Operation Weed and Seed: Operation Weed and Seed is administered
by the Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS) within the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ). The program currently operates in 200
sites. The program is designed to control violent crime, drug
trafficking, and drug-related crime; and to provide a safe environment
in which residents can live, work, and raise their families. The Weed
and Seed crime control strategy is composed of 3 primary elements:

Weeding: law enforcement efforts to remove violent offenders,
drug traffickers, and other criminals from the target areas.
This is the component in which the USMS and other law
enforcement agencies are involved.
Seeding: human services and neighborhood revitalization
efforts to prevent and deter further crime; and
Community policing: proactive police-community engagement and
problem solving.

2. High Intensity Drug Task Forces (HIDTA): the HIDTA's mission is
to reduce drug trafficking in the most critical areas of the country.
This is accomplished by teamwork among local, state and federal
efforts. To qualify as a HIDTA, an area must:

Be a major center of illegal drug production, manufacturing,
importation, or distribution;
Have state and local law enforcement agencies already engaged;
Have a harmful impact on other areas of the country; and,
Require a significant increase in federal resources.

3. Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF): The
OCDETF is a federal drug enforcement program that focuses attention and
resources on the disruption and dismantling of major drug trafficking
organizations. OCDETF provides a framework for federal, state and local
law enforcement agencies to work together to target well-established
and complex organizations that direct, finance, or engage in illegal
narcotics trafficking and related crimes. The program has been in
existence since 1982 and operates under the guidance and oversight of
the Attorney General.
4. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Safe Streets Task Forces:
The FBI announced the Safe Streets Violent Crimes Initiative in 1992.
The mission of Safe Streets task forces is to attack street gang and
drug-related violence, as well as seek the most significant fugitives
wanted for crimes of violence through the establishment of long-term,
proactive and coordinated teams of federal, state and local law
enforcement officers and prosecutors.
5. USMS Violent Felon/Violent Offender Fugitive Task Forces: The
USMS leads numerous task forces, the goal of which is to apprehend
violent federal fugitives, as well as the ``most wanted'' state and
local fugitives.
6. Local and State Fugitive Task Forces: These task forces are led
by state bureaus of investigation, local police departments and
sheriffs.
For further information, I have enclosed a February 2000 internal
publication which outlines all multi-agency fugitive task forces that
the USMS sponsors and/or in which the USMS participates. (United States
Marshals Service Fugitive Task Forces, Section B.)

Question 2. Mr. Marshall, does the National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) wanted persons database contain all felony fugitives in
federal cases, and how many such fugitives are there today?
Answer. According to NCIC, all federally-wanted persons are
contained in the database. As of July 31, 2000, the NCIC database
contained 530,000 federal, state and local fugitives. At times, the
number of federal fugitives in the database has exceeded 45,000.

Question 3. Mr. Marshall, I understand that the National Crime
Information Center wanted persons database does not contain all felony
fugitives. Are you aware of states that have more felony or other
serious fugitives that do not include all such fugitives in the NCIC
database? If so, please list those states and statistics.
Answer. NCIC maintains the database and is more suited to provide
detailed information. It is the USMS's understanding that approximately
20 percent of state and local wanted felons in the United States are
entered into NCIC. The USMS obtained the following information from
newspaper articles and select state/local law enforcement offices:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent not in
State Reported by State Felons in NCIC NCIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA..................................................... 87,707 3,409 96
MO..................................................... 26,250 18,018 31
OH..................................................... 35,453 11,020 69
CA..................................................... 233,060 38,926 83
UT..................................................... 7,826 1,391 82
WI..................................................... 10,890 7,594 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 4. Mr. Marshall, if a fugitive is wanted for warrants
under the jurisdictions of more than one agency (such as the Federal
Bureau of Investigation [FBI] and USMS) at the same time, what efforts
do the agencies make to coordinate to prevent duplication from both
agencies looking for the same fugitive at the same time?
Answer. Generally, the USMS and other agencies work together at
both the local and headquarters' levels in order to avoid duplication
of effort. Occasionally, however, one agency will take the lead and
provide the other agency with the information from the investigation.

Question 5. Mr. Marshall, what Memorandums of Understandings (MOUs)
does the Marshals Service have today with other federal agencies?
Please explain.
Answer. The USMS has MOUs with several federal agencies. These MOUs
are agreements between the USMS and another federal agency for the
Marshals Service to assume both administration and apprehension
responsibility for those agencies' fugitives. The USMS currently has
MOUs in place with the following agencies:
Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Customs Service, Internal
Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division, Naval Criminal
Investigative Service, Air Force Office of Special Investigations,
Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Social Security Administration,
Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General (OIG), Food & Drug
Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations, Department of
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Agriculture,
OIG.

Question 6. Mr. Marshall, is the USMS working to increase the
number of MOUs that it has with other federal agencies? Please explain.
Answer. The USMS has MOUs, or is in the process of establishing
MOUs, with all the major federal law enforcement agencies, except for
the U.S. Secret Service and the INS. The USMS is in various stages of
finalizing fugitive MOUs with the following agencies:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Health & Human Services,
OIG, Housing and Urban Development, OIG.
Smaller federal agencies do not have the resources or expertise to
enter fugitives into the NCIC database or conductinvestigations to
locate and apprehend fugitives. Therefore, the USMS will continue to
assist these smaller agencies with this mission.

Question 7. Mr. Marshall, would the federal system regarding
fugitives be more efficient if the USMS had responsibility for all
federal wanted persons who were in fugitive status for a specified
period of time?
Answer. By statute, the USMS and the FBI have the authority to
pursue and arrest fugitives. The USMS has primary apprehension
authority for arrest warrants issued by United States District Courts
and the United States Parole Commission. The USMS traditionally does
not independently initiate investigations against individuals for
crimes against the United States.
Currently, the Marshals Service works the overwhelming majority of
federal fugitive cases. These federal cases include USMS fugitives as
well as MOU agencies' fugitives, as discussed above.

Question 8. Mr. Marshall, I understand that the work years
attributed to the fugitive program in your annual reporting to the
Congress are not all directly related to fugitive apprehensions, and
include other duties such as the [time] spent on threats against
judges. Is it important to clarify the work years for the fugitive
apprehension program to keep them more accurate?
Answer. The USMS believes that recording the hours dedicated to
fugitive apprehension is critical. Currently, the USMS is working on a
system to equate hours worked in fugitive investigations to a
particular fugitive. This will assist the USMS in analyzing hours
worked on a particular fugitive case with apprehension time and cost
per arrest.

Question 9. Mr. Marshall, are smaller districts closing a higher
percentage of the warrants that they receive than larger districts, and
if so, are you working to address this disparity?
Answer. Through the 94 districts, there are varying numbers of
active warrants, ranging from 10 (or less) to 2,000. As can be
expected, smaller districts have smaller caseloads, whereas larger
districts have larger caseloads. In districts with smaller caseloads,
the warrant closure rate is higher because there are fewer cases to
close. From a management standpoint, it is easier to manage and
investigate 10 warrants rather than 2,000. The USMS has developed an
internal formula that we have used during our Fugitive Investigative
Strike Team (FIST).operations to establish the number of warrants per
deputy. The ultimate goal is to have each Deputy U.S. Marshal assigned
25 warrants. With adequate resources, the USMS could achieve this goal.

Question 10. Mr. Marshall, a recent follow up review of the
Fugitive Apprehension Program by the Department of Justice Office of
Inspector General recommended that you establish a quantifiable goal
for apprehending violent fugitives. [Has] this been completed, and if
so, please explain the goal.
Answer. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) report issued in
January 2000, recommended three changes to our performance measures
within the fugitive program:
1. Raise our goal to close Class I warrants under one year from 80
percent to 85 percent. The USMS has accomplished this goal.
2. Enhance the Warrant Information Network (WIN), which is in
progress. Congress appropriated $1.6 million to the USMS in Fiscal Year
2000 for database enhancements. Approximately $400,000 is being used to
enhance the WIN System.
3. Establish a quantifiable goal for apprehending violent
fugitives. We are currently conducting research to establish this goal.
Although the OIG report recommends establishing this goal, it notes
that the USMS arrest of violent felons increased from 1994 to 1998. The
report stated, ``When we [OIG] analyzed WIN data, we found that the
percentage of violent fugitives the USMS apprehended out of all
warrants closed increased by 27 percent from FY 1994 through FY 1998.''
__________

Responses of Edward T. Norris to Questions From Senator Thurmond

Question 1. Mr. Norris, is there a growing problem today with
judges allowing a defendant to be released on a relatively low bail and
then the defendant failing to return for his court appearance, as a
component of the growing fugitive population?
Answer. There is, and current data seems to verify a growing
problem. The Baltimore Police Department's warrant database, as of July
24, 2000, indicates there are 54,093 active warrants in the system. Of
those, 14,202 are for failure to appear. In these cases, a defendant
either received a relatively low bail or was released on their own
recognizance without a bail. These warrants represent 26.3% of the
total warrants in the system. That data holds true for the year 2000.
Of the 8,534 warrants in the system issued in the year 2000, 2,643
represent failure to appear cases. Those warrants represent 30.9% of
the total issued this year.

Question 2. Mr. Norris, do you find that cross-matching databases,
such as welfare and food stamps, is an effective way to help find
fugitives, and do government agencies that control the data fully
cooperate in these efforts?
Answer. Cross matching databases is an effective tool to locate
fugitives and has had a positive effect on our efforts. On August 22,
1996, the President signed the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act, known as Welfare Reform, into law. The
law specifies that fugitives and those violating conditions of parole
or probation are ineligible for food stamps. This has made it possible
for state social service agencies to provide law enforcement
authorities certain identifying information from their files pertaining
to fugitives. In 1997, the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted a
nationwide effort called Operation Talon, in which the Baltimore Police
Department participated. This initiative, the first of it's kind,
cross-matched databases of state social service agencies with
information from law enforcement, resulting in the arrest of 2198
fugitives. A similar local initiative is currently being prepared and
will be conducted prior to year's end. The Baltimore Police
Department's Warrant Apprehension Unit has cross matched databases for
occupants of public housing, real property and vital statistics. We are
currently working to enhance our relationship with the Maryland Motor
Vehicle Administration. For the most part, all agencies we have
contacted have been helpful.

Question 3. Mr. Norris, is the N.C.I.C. wanted person database
effective in helping to track fugitives, and can changes be made to
make the system more efficient and effective?
Answer. N.C.I.C. is an effective and reliable tool to aid in
locating fugitives. It provides a host of valuable information, such as
past criminal history, places of prior residency, out of state
registration of vehicles or boats, and ownership of real property. The
only deficiency may be a lack of timely information, as some
jurisdiction may not readily enter information regarding fugitives or
additional information as to a willingness to extradite.

Question 4. Mr. Norris, violent crime has decreased nationally
every year since 1992, but the number of dangerous fugitives appears to
be increasing, based on N.C.I.C. data. Why does there seem to be no
connection between the crime rate and the number of fugitives?
Answer. I would suggest there is a connection between the crime
rate and the number of fugitives. The decrease of the crime rate has
resulted from many factors, including new technology, creative problem
solving and an increase in the level of cooperation and coordination
between jurisdictions. Indeed, regional and inter-jurisdictional
approaches to fighting crime are a successful national trend. More
crimes, especially crimes of violence, are being solved and the
perpetrators identified. Longer sentences, as well as mandatory
sentences, contribute to a known perpetrator's effort to avoid
prosecution, hence expanding the N.C.I.C. wanted person database.
______

Responses of Patrick J. Sullivan, Jr., to Questions From Senator
Thurmond

Question 1. Do you find that cross matching databases, such as
welfare and food stamps, is an effective way to help find fugitives,
and do government agencies that control the data fully cooperate in
these efforts.
Answer. Cross matching data bases is a good way to locate fugitives
however, there are times where the information on the fugitives does
not get to the appropriate agency. In August of 1999, the Fugitive Unit
participated in Operation Talon which resulted in the arrest of 109
food stamp recipients. We do not receive information on fugitives from
the Federal Government on a regular basis.
We currently receive information from the Colorado Bureau of
Investigation on fugitives that receive Social Security Benefits,
Unemployment compensation and other services from Colorado. We find
this information helpful in the apprehension of wanted felons. There
have been times where the recipient is not at the listed location and
the address is just a place for the fugitive to pick up a check. One
problem that we run into is private agencies that receive federal funds
for subsidized housing refuse to help us with information regarding
wanted felons. They normally cite the Freedom of Information Act and
require us to get a search warrant.

Question 2. Is the NCIC wanted person database effective in helping
to track fugitives, and can changes be made to make the system more
efficient and effective?
Answer. The NCIC database is an effective way to locate fugitives.
We currently use the ``QQ'' screen, which tells us if an agency has
queried an individual, the ``QDA'' screen which gives us information on
vehicles that are registered to individuals, the arrest record, pawn
and drivers information. One area of improvement would be a database in
the computer of individuals that are in jail or prison. There are times
when a warrant comes out for an individual that is incarcerated in
prison or jail and we have no way of obtaining that information.

Question 3. Violent crime has decreased nationally every year since
1992, but the number of dangerous fugitives appear to be increasing,
bases on NCIC data. Why does there seem to be no connection between the
crime rate and the number of fugitives?
Answer. Clearance rates for all crimes decreased in the `60's,
`70's, and `80's i.e. homicides dropping from about 95% to in the 60%
range. New technology such as DNA and increased investigative time
previously tied up with higher rates of violent crime has allowed more
case clearances creating more warrants for arrest. Plus, an increased
rate of failure to appears after conditional release (bonding), and
warrants for increased rates of probation and parole violations. The
'90's saw much less respect for the courts and defendants willingness
to appear.
__________

Responses of Kevin Horton to Questions From Senator Thurmond

Question 1. Lieutenant Horton, we see that the focus of law
enforcement seems to change from time to time. Drugs, organized crime,
and gangs are all recent examples. It seems that fugitives are a major
component of all of these problems. Would you agree that controlling
fugitives helps control all of these problems?
Answer. It has been proven time and time again that the easiest way
to control organized crime, drugs and gangs is by enforcing warrants on
these individuals. Not only does it get them off the streets but it
gives investigators a change to interview and question these
individuals. It gives law enforcement the leverage that might be needed
to solve a case, obtain intelligence, a photograph, fingerprints, or
recruit a cooperative individual.

Question 2. Lieutenant Horton, based on your experience, do you
think that state and local law enforcement needs to do more to make
fugitives a top priority? Please explain.
Answer. Yes, more has to be done to make fugitives a ``top
priority''. As I have stated above, when fugitives are made a top
priority, as in Massachusetts, the police will produce results. The
problem has always been that police departments will follow the lead of
the Federal Government and go where the ``grants'' for resources and
manpower are. Whether its community policing, gangs, organized crime,
or fugitives, the police will go to where the money is. What they don't
seem to understand is that fugitive apprehension can effect all of
these priorities.

Question 3. Lieutenant Horton, does law enforcement in your area of
the Northern Border have problems with fugitives fleeing to Canada, and
how cooperative are federal agencies in assisting with your efforts to
extradite fugitives?
Answer. Over the last fifteen years we have had very few fugitive
fleeing to Canada. We have always used the Royal Mounted Police or the
local department of jurisdiction. For fugitives out of country other
then Canada, we use the Marshals and Interpol.

Question 4. Lieutenant Horton, is there a growing problem today
with judges allowing a defendant to be released on a relatively low
bail and then the defendant failing to return for his court appearance,
as a component of the growing fugitive population?
Answer. In my opinion, the number one problem for the growing
number of fugitives in this State, is the release of fugitives on low
bail or no bail at all and the failure of the District Attorney's
office's to authorize rendition for individuals located out of state.
In fairness to the courts, the prisons are full, when the prisons are
full the fugitive population increases. The courts give the fugitive a
new court date and release him/her to return on said date. The veteran
criminal knows that he/she will get one or two continuances and a new
court date, so he/she will show for court until they know its trial
time. At this time they will default and the cycle continues. The other
major problem is the fleeing felon. These individuals are usually the
more serious felons and they flee to another state. After he/she is
located, but before he/she is arrested, authorization from the District
Attorney of jurisdiction is required. It has been my experience that it
is about a 50/50 chance they will authorize rendition. The problem
isn't that they won't authorize rendition, the problem is they won't
dismiss the warrant(s) which leaves us with a number of serious violent
warrants and know prosecution.

Question 5. Lieutenant Horton, do you find that cross-matching
databases, such as welfare and food stamps, is an effective way to help
find fugitives, and do government agencies that control the data fully
cooperate in these efforts?

Answer. Without a doubt, the most significant positive change, in
the way we apprehend fugitives is ``cross-matching databases.'' Cross-
matching databases gives the fugitive investigator more accurate
information on the location of an individual. It has also brought to
light the fact that State and Federal governments are subsidizing
wanted criminals. At present we are working with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, and the U.S. Department of
State, Diplomatic Security Service and have found their cooperation
outstanding. The one federal organization that seems unable to fully
cooperate is the Office of Inspector General, Social Security. Social
Security has a wealth of information and we need more access and less
``red-tape''. Also with all the false identifications today we need
Social Security's help in identifying bogus SS#'s. I JUST RECEIVED A
LETTER FROM SOCIAL SECURITY, INSPECTOR GENERAL JAMES HUSE, ADVISING
THEY WILL BE CONTACTING ME REGARDING ``CROSS-MATCHING''. I guess
someone read my letter!

Question 6. Lieutenant Horton, is the N.C.I.C. wanted person
database effective in helping to track fugitives, and can changes be
made to make the system more efficient and effective?
Answer. N.C.I.C. has always been a valuable tool in tracking and
apprehending fugitives. It is the only national system we have to let
other states know who is wanted. The failure of the system lies with
the States not the Federal Government. The States failure to enter all
violent fugitives into N.C.I.C. is a national problem, that beings with
it tremendous liability. The officer on patrol should know when he
encounters a violent fugitive and that fugitive should be in N.C.I.C. I
believe that the federal government should mandate that all violent
fugitives be entered into N.C.I.C.

Question 7. Lieutenant Horton, violent crime has decreased
nationally every year since 1992, but the number of dangerous fugitives
appears to be increasing, based on N.C.I.C. data. Why does there seem
to be no connection between the crime rate and the number of fugitives?
Answer. I don't agree that they are more violent fugitives and less
violent crimes! I do agree that they are more fugitives and less crime.
There are a couple of reasons why we have more fugitives and a drop in
the crime rate. As stated above, the jails are full, so in turn more
fugitives are being released on bail and defaulting again, and again,
and again. We also have the wide spread use of false identifications
whereby you could have one individual committing numerous crimes under
numerous names. In Massachusetts we have a problem with our probation
warrants. When a individuals defaults on a probation warrant in
Massachusetts, the original warrant is re-entered. If that warrant was
for a violent crime, that is what we give N.C.I.C. to re-enter. When in
fact it is a probation matter! You also have, as was mentioned above,
the fleeing felon who know one wants back and the warrant remains in
the system.
We all know the system is broke and over worked. If all the people
who were suppose to go to court on a given day reported for court, the
whole court system would collapse. The problem we face today is, not
only do we know the system doesn't work, but the bad guys know the
system doesn't work, and the consequences for defaulting are non-
existent!
Additional Submissions for the Record

----------

National Sheriffs' Association,
Alexandria, Virginia,
March 31, 2000.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
President Pro Tempore, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thurmond: I am writing to strongly support your
legislation, the Fugitive Apprehensive Act of 2000. The National
Sheriffs' Association (NSA) appreciates your efforts on behalf of law
enforcement.
As you know, fugitives from justice place enormous burdens on law
enforcement at every level of government. Empowering the United States
Marshals Service to help state and local law enforcement capture
fugitive felons is essential to reducing the backlog of cases that
exist today. According to recent estimates, there are approximately
45,000 fugitives in federal felony cases. Combined with the more than
500,000 state and local fugitives; it is easy to see the problem. Your
legislation will crate task forces, led by U.S. Marshals, that will
focus solely on apprehending fugitive felons. With this increased
federal support and dedication to a single mission, we can expect to
see a dramatic reduction in the number of fugitive felons.
NSA looks forward to working with you to ensure that this
legislation becomes law. With its enactment, resources will be targeted
to meet the threat posed by those who flee from justice. The bill will
enable federal, state and local law enforcement to work together to
apprehend fugitives and bring them to justice.
Sincerely,
Philip H. McKelvey, President.
__________

Fraternal Order of Police,
National Legislative Program,
Washington, DC, February 22, 2000.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thurmond: I am writing on behalf of the more than
285,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our
strong support for legislation you intend to introduce entitled the
``Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2000.''
The problem of fugitives from justice in Federal and State felony
cases is one which has a tremendous impact on public safety, and on law
enforcement's ability to reduce crime in our communities. Each year the
U.S. Marshals Service arrests thousands of these fugitives, often with
the assistance of State and local law enforcement officers
participating in joint Federal-State fugitive task forces. This program
has been highly successful in every area of the country and helped to
reduce the number of fugitives in felony cases.
Your legislation will provide the Marshals Service with the
resources they need to continue and expand this highly effective
program, allowing Federal and State law enforcement officers to share
intelligence, personnel and assets to reduce the number of fugitives
attempting to flee justice.
On behalf of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police, I
would like to thank you for sharing with us a draft of this
legislation, and to thank you for your continued efforts in support of
law enforcement. If I can be of any further assistance on this or any
other issue, please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director
Jim Pasco through our Washington office.
Sincerely,
Gilbert G. Gallegos,
National President.

National Association of Police Organizations, Inc.
Washington, DC, June 21, 2000.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thurmond: Please be advised of the National
Association of Police Organizations' (NAPO) endorsement of S. 2516, the
`Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2000.' I want to thank you and Senator
Biden for your leadership on this important piece of legislation for
law enforcement.
NAPO is a coalition of police unions and associations from across
the United States that serves in Washington, DC to advance the
interests of America's law enforcement officers through legislative and
legal advocacy, political action and education. Founded in 1978, NAPO
now represents 4,000 police organizations and 220,000 sworn law
enforcement officers.
Criminals who become fugitives are often a threat to public safety
and pose serious problems for law enforcement when evading court
jurisdictions. NAPO supports S. 2516, which would set up permanent
`Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces' around the country. These task
forces would assist federal, state and local law enforcement
authorities in locating and apprehending fugitives. It is important for
federal, state and local agencies to work together in apprehending
these individuals.
If I can be of any assistance on this or any other matter, please
have your staff contact me at (202) 842-4420.
Sincerely,
Robert T. Scully,
Executive Director.
__________

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
May 17, 2000.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thurmond: On behalf of the more than 18,000 members of
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA). I wish to
thank you for introducing the Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2000, and
express our strong support for S. 2516. This proposal provides funding
for task forces made up of federal, state and local law enforcement to
locate and apprehend fugitives in felony cases, and also bestows
administrative subpoena authority to the United States Marshals
Service. Effective law enforcement requires the passage of this
legislation.
According to estimates, there are about 45,000 fugitives in Federal
felony cases. The number of serious federal offense warrants received
by the U.S. Marshals Service has increased each year for the past four
years. In addition, over 500,000 fugitives in State and local felony
cases have been entered into the National Crime Information Center
(NCIC). This number is up from 340,000 reported in 1990. NCIC estimates
that they receive only about 20 percent of all outstanding State and
local felony warrants in the country. If their estimates are correct,
then there could be over 2.5 million State and local felony fugitives
in the country. This presents a serious problem in the fight on crime,
and a danger to the safety and security of Americans.
FLEOA, a volunteer, non-partisan, professional association, with 63
chapters across America, is the largest association representing
exclusively federal agents. FLEOA is looking forward to working with
you and your staff to ensure movement of this bill through the Senate
and any companion legislation in the House. If you have any questions
or need further information, please feel free to contact me at (212)
264-8400 or through FLEOA's Administrative Services Office at (717)
938-2300. Again, thank you for proposing this bill.
Richard J. Gallo.
__________

Grand Lodge--Fraternal Order of Police,
Washington, DC, June 22, 2000.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight, Committee on the
Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing on behalf of the more than 290,000
members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our
opposition to S. 1898, the ``Interstate Transportation of Dangerous
Criminals Act of 1999.''
In many ways, States and local units of government are turning more
and more toward privatizing services in an effort to cut public costs.
While this trend may in fact provide cheaper services to citizens, law
enforcements is not a service that can ever be safely contracted out to
private firms. No private firm or corporation will ever have the same
level of training, professionalism or accountability as fully sworn law
enforcement agents. The rise of the private correctional industry in
our country is of especially great concern to me because putting our
nation's criminals in the hands of a for-profit company is a recipe for
disaster, placing the public at greater risk.
This legislation proposes to regulate private companies who
contract to transport prisoners. These regulations promulgated by the
U.S. Attorney General, will foster a false sense of security and
reliance on these firms and their personnel, who do not have the same
kind of training or experience in dealing with dangerous criminals. The
legislation fails to clearly recognize that even with these regulations
in place, escapes and other mishaps are much more likely when prison
transfers and other correctional responsibilities are handled by non-
law enforcement personnel.
We agree that the transport of dangerous criminals is a serious
public safety issue, but we strongly disagree with Senator Dorgan that
the solution is writing regulations for private companies. Quite the
opposite, it may lead to more State and local governments using private
companies, meaning the public will be at greater risk. When dealing
with dangerous criminals, there is no substitute for fully trained,
sworn law enforcement officers. We are hopeful that the defeat of this
legislation will cause those looking to save a few dollars to think
twice about trying to cut costs at the expense of public safety.
If there is anything further I can do, please do not hesitate to
contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco through my Washington
office.
Sincerely,
Gilbert G. Gallegos,
National President.