note, with respect to this problem, that the Fire Department has modified its existing equipment so as to provide cabs for the drivers and protective assemblies for tillermen on the aerial ladders, in order to protect them from missiles, and has included in its specifications for new equipment requirements for five-man cabs and plastic protective assemblies for the tillermen. I mentioned earlier that the revision of the existing law relating to assaults on policemen and corrections officers does not contain language with respect to resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating or interfering with a policeman or corrections officer. This law, providing that resisting a police officer shall be prosecuted as a felony, makes it difficult to convict a person who has committed a mildly repressive act directed toward a police officer, or an act which could be described as a nonviolent resistance to arrest. Some months ago the District Government concluded that an offense of this kind should be considered a minor offense, punishable as a misdemeanor, and that there was some need to have a separate provision to this effect. However, in view of the fact that section 206 of the Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act amends existing law relating to assaults on policemen and corrections officers to add at the end thereof a statement that "It is neither justifiable nor excusable cause for a person to use force to resist an arrest when such arrest is made by an individual he has reason to believe is a law enforcement officer, whether or not such arrest is lawful", it would now seem inappropriate to delete this language, and accordingly I recommend it be retained and title II be changed accordingly. The third title provides for the seizure and forfeiture to the District of Columbia of any conveyance used in connection with a violation of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act. This title would provide authority similar to that already available in the case of gambling violations. Presently, when vehicles used in narcotics violations are seized by the Metropolitan Police force, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs of the Department of Justice is asked to act to have them forfeited. In many cases however, the vehicles are not of a kind or in a condition as to make this action desirable, and the vehicle is returned to the owner. I am informed by the Metropolitan Police Department that an estimated 100 motor vehicles per year would be subject to being seized and forfeited to the District. This action would, of course, not only deprive narcotics violators of vehicles used by them in their dealings, but would have the added benefit of providing motor vehicles for the use of the District Government. Finally, title IV authorizes the District to adhere to the Interstate Parole and Probation Compact in like manner as have all other jurisdictions in the United States eligible to become signators. The District is the only remaining jurisdiction eligible to become a signator to the pact that has not done so, and if the District were authorized to adhere to the compact there would become available to the District a number of benefits with respect to the handling of parolees and probationers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for allowing me to present the views of the District on this legislation, and I am ready to respond to any questions you may have concerning it. H.R. 9548 Senator BIBLE. Our next bill is the House-passed bill, H.R. 9548. Tell us about this bill, Mr. Kneipp. (H.R. 9548 follows:) [H.R. 9548, 91st Cong., second sess.] AN ACT To amend section 15-503 of the District of Columbia Code with respect to exemptions from attachment and certain other process in the case of persons not residing in the District of Columbia Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 15-503 of the District of Columbia Code is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by inserting immediately after subsection (b) the following new subsection (c): "(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the wages (as defined in section 16-571 of the District of Columbia Code) of any person not residing in the District of Columbia who does not earn the major portion of such wages in the District of Columbia shall, in any case arising out of a contract or transaction entered into outside of the District of Columbia, be exempt from attachment, levy, or seizure, by any process or proceeding of any court, judge, or officer of the District of Columbia in the same amount and to the same extent as is provided by law of the State in which such person resides for persons residing therein. Whenever any claim is made for an exemption from attachment pursuant to this subsection, the burden shall be upon the plaintiff to prove that the contract or transaction involved in the case was entered into within the District of Columbia." STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. KNEIPP, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT, ON H.R. 9548 Mr. KNEIPP. Mr. Chairman, this bill is designed to take care of a rather peculiar situation that exists here in the District. Under existing law in the District, it is possible for a nonresident creditor to file-bring an action against an employer of a nonresident debtor merely because the employer has an office in the District of Columbia and can be served with process. It has happened primarily with Maryland creditors because, as I mention in my statement, under Maryland law, an employee earning $100 a week or $433 a month is exempt from any garnishment. In the District, however, under the same circumstances, with $433 a month earnings, $66.60 of the employee's earnings is subject to being garnished. In Virginia, there are two reasons why this would not be the case. The Virginia law allows, out of $433 a month earnings, $281 plus a few cents to be subject to garnishment, and then the Virginía law makes it illegal to bring an action outside that State for the purpose or with the intent of depriving the debtor of the right to have his wages exempt from garnishment under Virginia law. So, the problem in this regard stems from the exemption provisions in Maryland law so that the Maryland creditors can come into the District and file a garnishment action against the employer of a debtor who has an office here even though the principal place of business and the place of the debtor is in Maryland, and the principal place of business of the employer and the place of employment of the debtor is in Maryland. What this bill does is to make District law pretty much the same as Maryland law. Under Maryland law, you cannot attach wages of a nonresident, to any greater extent, than you can attach the wages of persons who are residents of Maryland. That is what this bill does. It would, in effect, provide that if you file a garnishment action here in the District of Columbia, you can collect under it no more than you could have collected had you filed it in the State of the residence of the debtor, and it is merely intended to relieve the District court system of having to handle this kind of action. Senator BIBLE. That would seem to be a fair law. In other words, if I understand it correctly, if I am living in Silver Spring, Md., and I am employed there, and the a company has its principal place of business there but they also have an office in the District of Columbia, then, as I understand your statement, in order to attach my wages for a higher figure they could take advantage of the District of Columbia's lower exemption law. Mr. KNEIPP. By serving the employer who has his office in the District. Senator BIBLE. By serving the overall employer who has his office in the District, although I am a resident and employed at all times in Maryland; is that correct? Mr. KNEIPP. Yes. Senator BIBLE. That would seem to be a little unfair, and I should think that should be corrected. I have no further questions on this bill. (The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Kneipp reads in full as follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. KNEIPP, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT, ON H.R. 9548 Mr. Chairman; Under existing law in the District of Columbia relating to the garnishment of wages, it is possible for a nonresident creditor to garnish the wages of a nonresident debtor by initiating garnishment proceedings in the District of Columbia against an employer of the debtor who or which maintains an office in the District, although the employer's principal place of business is outside the District. This use of the District courts by nonresident creditors to garnishee the wages of nonresident debtors is particularly of advantage to Maryland creditors, inasmuch as under District law a greater proportion of the wages of the debtor are subject to garnishment. For example, under Maryland law, an employee earning $100 a week, or $433 a month, is exempt from garnishment. In the District, however, under the same circumstances, $66.60 of the employee's wages would be subject to garnishment. The problem to which the bill is directed does not, however, occur with respect to Virginia for two reasons-first, taking the example I have given, $281.45 out of earnings of $433 per month would be subject to garnishment under Virginia law, and, second, section 34-32 of the Virginia Code makes it illegal to bring an action outside of that State for the purpose or with the intent of depriving the debtor of the right to have his wages exempt from garnishment under Virginia law. H.R. 9548 would have the effect of eliminating the difference between District and Maryland (or other State) law, by providing that the wages of nonresident debtors who do not earn the major portion of those wages in the District shall be exempt from garnishment to the same extent as is provided by the law of the State in which the debtor resides. In this regard, the bill would add to District law essentially the same provision that is presently contained in Maryland law, providing that the wages or hire of persons not residing in Maryland shall be subject to attachment in the same manner and to no larger extent than the wages or hire of persons who reside in Maryland. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, in the belief that the courts of the District should not be utilized by nonresident creditors to the detriment of nonresident debtors, the District Government recommends the enactment of H.R. 9548. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present the views of the District, and if there are no questions, this concludes my statement. Senator BIBLE. It is always good to see you, Mr. Kneipp. Mr. KNEIPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.) |