1955

Holmby Productions, Inc. v. Vaughn, 350 U.S. 870 (1955)

1957

Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380 (1957)

Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)

1959

Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the Univ. of N. Y., 360 U.S. 684 (1959)

1961

Times Film Corp. v. Chicago, 365 U.S. 43 (1961)

1962

Manual Enterprises Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478 (1962)

1963

Bantam Books Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963)

1964

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)

A Quanity of Book v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964)
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1964)

1966

A Book Named 'John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)

Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)

Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966)

1968

Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U.S. 676 (1968)

Teitel Film Corp. v. Cnsack, 390 U.S. 139 (1968)

1969

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)

1970

Rowan v. Post Office Department, 397 U.S. 728 (1970)

1971

United States v. Riedel, 402 U.S. 351 (1971)

United States v. Thrity-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363 (1971)

Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 (1971)

1973

United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973)

United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139 (1973)

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)

Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 (1973)

Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973)

1974

Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974)

Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974)

As a U.S. Probation Officer for the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, I felt that it would be
worthwhile to communicate to you and the members of your
committee, my feelings regarding pending legislation before
you in the House Sub-Committe on Criminal Justice.

At this point, I feel a few words relative to my background
might be in order. I am a graduate of St. John's University
with both Bachelor's and Master's degrees in sociology. Ini-
tially upon graduating from college, I was a junior high
school teacher in New York City for four years. At that
point, I became an After-care Counselor for the New York
State Division for Youth working with juvenile offenders
following their release from custody and on their return to
the community. After approximately three and one-half years
with the New York State Division for Youth, I was appointed
as a U.S. Probation Officer in the Southern District of New
York on March 1, 1976.

As I have already been assaulted on two occasions while performing my duties as a U.S. Probation Officer, I must commend the committee for specifically including U.S. Probation Officers in the murder and assault protective statutes to be included in the legislation recommended by the committee. In light of prior confusion as to whether or not an assault upon a U.S. Probation Officer could be prosecuted on the Federal level, we find this inclusion to be significant in providing a sense of security in that we now have the knowledge that an individual acting against a U.S. Probation Officer in the performance of his duty will be prosecuted in Federal court.

However, in reading the definition of a law enforcement officer in Section 2303, I question if a clearer description of the law enforcement officer to include the U.S. Probation Officer might remove any doubt that we are considered as included within this group.

It is apparent that our role as a law enforcement officer is clear in other sections of the legislation as for example in the sentencing section where our function in arresting and returning probationers/parolees, for cause, without an arrest warrant, while they are under supervision clearly points out our law enforcement function.

As with all other law enforcement officers in the country, our primary function is to protect the community in which we serve, historically, we have always functioned as law enforcement officers and inclusion in the legislation before your committee will clarify and articulate this function clearly for the community at large.

Therefore, I would request that a rewording of paragraph number 1 of Section 2303 be considered so that it is clearly evident that U.S. Probation Officers are included under the term of law enforcement officer. One way that I might suggest of doing this would be for the committee to change "or supervise" to "supervision"; and "an offense" to "an offender".

I can speak only for myself but I'm sure that the same would hold true for my colleagues across the country when I say that you should feel free to communicate with us for any assistance that we might be able to provide you relative to the current legislation pending before your committee or at any time in the future that we might be of assistance to you.

The line officer of the U.S. Probation System although burdened by our every day work realizes the need to provide input into the decisions now being made by your committee due to the significant impact that this legislation will have on our future careers in the Federal Criminal Justice System.

Please feel free to communicate with us by mail or by telephone at 212-791-9074 or FTS # 662-9074.

Thank you for your time and interest in this area of concern to us.