Summary: State troopers_ Sheriff's and deputies__ Police officers Total State, county, and municipal law-enforcement officers_ PROHIBITION PROSECUTIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1929 Southern district of New York Criminal cases: It will be noted that in this judicial district, where three times as many criminal cases and more than three times as many prohibition cases are commenced and terminated than in any other judicial district in the country, that 93 per cent of all criminal cases commenced and terminated are prohibition criminal cases. Over 90 per cent of these prohibition cases terminated are under the possession or nuisance charges not coming under the so-called Jones amendment, and being misdemeanors and cases where a fine only can be imposed against first offenders. This opens the door to consideration to the thought whether the law constitutionally could and should be amended to permit these misdemeanor cases to be tried summarily without a jury before the court or the United States commissioners or some other created Federal judicial body. It will be noted, as in the southern district, that 93 per cent of all criminal cases commenced and terminated are prohibition cases. The percentage of jail cases is much larger in this judicial district than any other district. The average amount of fines is also much larger. Western district of New York Prohibition criminal cases commenced_ 1, 843 1, 239 255 274 The proportion of prohibition criminal cases to all criminal cases throughout the country is not so large as in New York State, but the proportion is so large and the volume of such cases is so great as to warrant mention for comparative purposes. This proportion of cases does not necessarily mean a similar proportion of time, labor, and service upon the part of United States attorneys and the courts, as some of the other class of criminal cases are of greater importance and require more time and work in preparation and presentation. Federal criminal cases throughout United States, fiscal year 1928 Total fines.. $262, 911 $185, 128 $156, 256 $225, 420 $318, 479 $230,092 $189, 696 $182, 424 1,721 1,618 1,541 1.532 892 Comparative prohibition prosecutions, fiscal years 1922 and 1928, throughout the Convictions in New York State for years ending October 31 Alcoholism, deaths, and death rates,' New York State Should the Congress of the United States modify the Federal act to enforce the eighteenth amendment so that the same shall not prohibit the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, or exportation of beverages which are not in fact intoxicating as determined in accordance with the laws of the respective States? As public claims were made that many "noes" deliberately ignored the referendum and would not vote upon the question, the total vote for governor for 1926 is given: Total vote for governor, 2,799,956; total vote on referendum, 2,361,554. SUGGESTIONS OF COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS About 10 county district attorneys have instituted injunction and nuisance actions in the State supreme court under section 22 of the national prohibition act. One district attorney brought upwards of 30 such cases, but he had to raise, privately, necessary funds to cover the expenses, and finally dropped such activity. The county board of supervisors took the position under an opinion of the attorney general of the State that it could not appropriate county funds for the exclusive purpose of enforcing a United States law. A number state they are willing to cooperate with the Federal authorities in nuisance cases if necessary evidence is furnished, as they have no county detectives and no provision is made to cover the expenses involved. About the same number of county district attorneys have brought criminal prosecutions and obtained padlock or closing orders under section 1530 of the State Penal Law and section 953 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. One district attorney (Nassau County) has procured over 200 indictments, and collected over $50,000 in fines, and caused the closing of about 300 places in his county under these provisions since January 1, 1929. One district attorney considers such weapon more effective than proceeding under section 22 of the national prohibition act, as defendants usually receive jail or penitentiary sentences in addition to closing orders. Another district attorney claims, however, that he is unable to obtain evidence of a sufficient number of sales to make public-nuisance cases under such sections of the State law. The suggestion was made by a number of district attorneys that the greatest need is a State prohibition enforcement act. Among other expressions are the following: Division of responsibility between Federal and State authorities, under which the Federal Government would confine itself to the cases involving international and interstate trades, large breweries and distilleries, while other offenses are left to the State authorities. If State prohibition law not reenacted, give local enforcement officers same powers as Federal prohibition agents to arrest, and that compensation for their services be paid by United States Gov ernment. Jurisdiction to United States commissioners to hear and determine liquor violations summarily. While without a State prohibition law there is need of more Federal prohibition agents. That prohibition agents be assigned to each county and consult with the county district attorney. Selection and regulation of agents according to standards similar to those imposed upon New York State troopers. A half-hearted attempt at enforcement of any law is worse than a policy of entirely ignoring it, and we can not entirely ignore it and be good citizens of this country. I believe that the prohibition officers in this section as a whole are now performing their work in a very creditable manner. SUGGESTIONS OF COUNTY SHERIFFS The sheriff of the most populous county outside of New York City states: I believe a State law which would authorize any peace officer to make an arrest and dispose of the case in a local court would be the most effective way to curb violations. Other similar expressions were made by other sheriffs, such asI do not believe the prohibition law can be enforced with the present force unless there is a State enforcement law. We handled it well when we had a State act. If we had a State law, we could deal with prohibition in our county. There should be local Federal courts and a system of city and county enforcement independent of the Federal forces. Local officers should have power to make prohibition arrests. Not more than four sheriffs have made arrests under the national prohibition act. The main objection, outside of their claim of lack of legal authority, is the fact that no financial provision is made to cover fees and expenses of deputies, and especially in attending Federal court, which may be held at a great distance from the county. Most of the sheriffs have furnished information to Federal officers, and all indicate they are willing to cooperate with Federal agents in the enforcement in every way possible. SUGGESTIONS OF POLICE CHIEFS About eight police departments have made arrests under section 1530 of the State penal law. About seven have made arrests under the national prohibition act. The record of New York City is hereinbefore set forth. Another city police department made about 200 such arrests. Most of the chiefs are of the opinion that they lack proper authority, or that it is up to the Federal Government, without a State prohibition law. All of the police chiefs indicate a willingness to cooperate except two, who advocate repeal and one of whom states the national prohibition act is a disgrace to the Nation, and an insult to the majority of the American people, and should be repealed. Among the suggestions and expressions are the following: Change the Federal law to permit United States commissioners to try and dispose of all small prohibition cases which would relieve Federal courts and would permit police officers to testify without traveling up to 200 miles to attend Federal court. The Federal Government force is admirable in its organization and personnel, but very much undermanned. Federal Government should provide more efficient detectives or undercover officers to work with police departments, as city police officers in the smaller cities are known. Federal agents should notify police departments after raids or arrests in cities. Federal prohibition agents should receive larger salaries. A training school for agents or similar institution for instruction dealing with continuous scientific and educational investigation of crime. Increase bail of offenders to maximum. Discourage modification of charges to lesser degrees. Encourage imposition of increased penalties. (Average in different judicial districts vary 1,000 per cent.) One chief states: "We are proud to say that we believe the enforcement in this city is all that it should be." The police chiefs have cooperated in a number of ways by reporting suspected places, securing evidence for search warrants, and assisting Federal agents in making investigations and arrests, and especially in assisting in raids. Many of them seem to feel they are powerless to enforce prohibition as other laws without a State prohibition law. |