CNN Article on County Officials

Unannotated Secondary Research
September 24, 1979

CNN Article on County Officials preview

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Garner Hardbacks. CNN Article on County Officials, 1979. 567f93d6-26a8-f011-bbd3-000d3a53d084. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/845d6f28-aeba-45ed-892a-f81b213a1e03/cnn-article-on-county-officials. Accessed February 12, 2026.

    Copied!

    J

C^/^J
Department’s complaints about the House draft concerned 
restrictions on federal jurisdiction and investigative 
techniques.

Heymann objected to the draft’s wholesale 
elimination of federal jurisdiction that overlaps state 
jurisdiction in such areas as extortion and bribery involving 
state officials. In its four priority areas — white collar 
crime, corruption by public officials, organized crime, and 
major narcotics trafficking — the department prefers broad 
federal statutory jurisdiction limited by guidelines, 
federal-state working agreements, and congressional 
oversight.

The department also is unhappy about the draft’s 
requirement of a court order based on probable cause for 
recording of conversations by undercover agents or 
informants. Heymann said most such “ consensual 
monitoring’’ occurs at too early a stage in an investigation 
to permit a showing of probable cause.

Another provision attacked by Heymann would shift 
the focus of an entrapment defense from whether the 
defendant had a willingness or readiness to commit the 
crime regardless of government enticement to whether the 
government’s conduct would cause a “ normally 
law-abiding person to commit the offense.’’

The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee is 
scheduled to complete its bill within a few weeks. The 
Senate Judiciary Committee began a new series of hearings 
on the two bills on September 18, 20 and 24.

For further information, contact the House 
subcommittee (Washington, DC 20515) and Senate 
Judiciary Committee (Washington, DC 20510). Rector’s 
testimony is available from the NCCD National Capitol 
Office, 1101 15th St., NW, Wa.shington, DC' 20005, and 
the ABA testimony may be obtained from the Criminal 
Justice Section, 1800 M St., NW, Washington, DC 20036.

COUNTY OFFICIALS BACK NEW CJ POLICIES

Noteworthy pronouncements on juvenile justice, jail 
reform, and law enforcement were approved by the 
National Association of Counties at its recent annual 
meeting.

A new juvenile justice policy statement urges counties 
to remove juveniles from correctional facilities which 
detain accused or adjudicated adults.

A separate statement suggests reauthorization of the 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act with two 
new sections: 1) provisions to assist counties in creating 
programs for serious and violent delinquents; and 2) a 
program of financial incentives to states for establishing 
subsidies for local governments to promote deinstitu­
tionalization and develop community-based youth 
programs.

Jails. A resolution on jail reform urges that Congress 
supply 50% federal/50% local matching grants for 
construction and renovation of local corrections and 
detention facilities. Such a program might cost anywhere 
from $150 million to $500 million in its first year.

According to NACo, any federal financial assistance
9/24/79

should encourage creation of regional coirections and 
detention facilities and services, should place emphasis on 
community-based corrections and alternatives to prison 
incarceration, and should make social services available to 
local prisons and jails.

A separate resolution asserts that “ the mentally ill and 
retarded/developmentally disabled should not be 
incarcerated in local jails and that programs to provide 
alternative institutional or community-based residential 
facilities should be developed.’’

Further, it is proposed tliat the federal government 
“ reduce its budgetary emphasis on the reimbursement for 
institutionalized care and provide increased resources for 
the community-based social services program.”

Law Enforcement. Another resolution restates 
NACo support for reauthorization of LEiAA and a fiscal 
1980 appropriation of not less than $546 million.

In a separate resolution on law enforcement and crime 
prevention, NACo encourages the use of diversion, team 
policing, and interjurisdictional contracts for police 
services.

For further information, contact: Herbert Jones, 
Associate Director, Criminal Justice and Public Safety, 
NACo, 1735 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC' 
20006 (202/785-9577).

*  ♦  *

Information on Alternatives. A recent NACo survey 
of 221 counties indicated strong interest in adopting 
alternatives to juvenile court disposition processes such as 
mediation, conciliation and arbitration. Contact: Choice 
Richardson, at NACo for further details.

LISTINGS, ANNOUNCEMENTS

BRIEFS

lACP Convention Notes. Chief Joseph Dominelli of 
Rotterdam, NY was elevated to president of the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police at last week’s 
annual meeting in Dallas. Chief John J. Norton of Foster 
City, CA joined the line of succession by being elected 
sixth vice president. . . . During the convention 
representatives of the National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives called a news conference to urge 
lACP adoption of a resolution restricting the police use of 
deadly force. NOBLE wants departments to institute 
guidelines “ based on the principle that officers may not 
draw or discharge their weapons except to protect their lives 
or the lives of innocent citizens from imminent 
danger. . . .” The proposal was referred to the lACP 
resolutions committee for possible presentation to the full 
lACP membership. Contact: lACP, 11 Firstfield Rd., 
Gaithersburg, MD 20760, and NOBLE, PO Box 1743, 
Newark, NJ 07102.

Papers Solicited on Corrections. A call for papers on 
“ corrections and public policy” has been announced by the 
Policy Studies Journal. Issues to be explored in the

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.