		  


			   THE WHITE HOUSE

		    Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 16, 1994     


			    PRESS BRIEFING
				  BY
      SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT HENRY CISNEROS
	  AND ACTING ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BRYSON
	     
			  The Briefing Room
		  

 10:38 A.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  A huge crowd today, the Saturday gang.  
(Laughter.)  You're all so quiet.  
	     
	     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry 
Cisneros, and the Acting Associate Attorney General Bill Bryson are 
going to brief you on their report to the President on fighting 
violent crime in the public housing projects.  So, without further 
ado, Secretary Cisneros.
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  Thank you, Dee Dee.
	     
	     The last weeks have seen an eruption of violence in 
Chicago's public housing, of which has been unprecedented.  Last 
weekend alone, some 15 shootings and five deaths in the public 
housing developments along the State Street Court, or principally at 
Robert Taylor Homes and Stateway Homes.
	     
	     It prompted the President to direct the attentions of 
the Attorney General and the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development to several elements of this crisis.  First, to devise a 
policy on the sweeps, and secondly, to look at the other elements of 
security and community development that need to occur to stop the 
violence.
	     
	     Unfortunately, the violence we see in Chicago is not 
limited to Chicago public housing.  While it may not be on as intense 
a scale in other places at this time, it exists in many communities 
across the country, and Washington, D.C. as well, as many of us know.
	     
	     The President directed the Attorney General and the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to devise a policy that 
could be used nationally so that other housing authorities across the 
country would be able to act upon it; a policy that would look at the 
nature of sweeps that might be necessary and do it within 
constitutional limits.
	     
	     As you know, a judge, Judge Anderson in Chicago last 
week ruled that the sweeps as they were being conducted exceeded 
constitutional limits.  And so work has been done over the course of 
the last week to devise a national policy.  That policy has 
essentially five elements.  You heard the President describe it in 
general terms in his radio address.  I'd like to be a little more 
specific on the elements of the policy.
	     
	     First, the policy assumes that it is essential to get 
control of the lobbies of buildings.  So substantial effort is 
placed, and resources, to focus on access, entryways, metal 
detectors, guards, and control of lobbies.  
	     
	     The precise policy on sweeps includes the following four 
elements.  Sweeps can occur in the common areas of buildings.  This 
is important, because of what we have seen in recent weeks in Chicago 
includes the use of post boxes, mail boxes, as hiding places for 
guns, as well as stairwells, air vents and electrical outlets used as 
hiding places for weapons as well as drugs.  So it is not 
insignificant to be able to sweep the common areas.  That was allowed 
before and it continues to be.
	     
	     Secondly, obviously, sweeps can occur in vacant units.  
I was along with a sweep team last Sunday evening in Chicago that 
netted something on the order of 25 weapons just Sunday night --heavy 
weapons, rifles, 30-06 weapons with scopes, automatic weapons and 
revolvers -- just on Sunday night.  The stock room at the police 
substation of the Chicago Housing Authority is full; literally 1,000 
weapons that have been secured principally in vacant units.
	     
	     And I'll say more about the issue of vacancies in a 
moment.  But sweeps through vacant units can be very productive 
because the gangs tend to put the weapons -- locate these caches of 
weapons in vacant units.
	     
	     Fourthly, sweeps can occur where consent has been given.  
That consent can take several forms.  It may be consent that is given 
in advance as an element of a lease where people in the agreement to 
sign a lease for a building sign a consent that would allow searches 
for weapons just as they allow consent for searches -- for 
maintenance problems, inspections that are now a standard part of a 
lease.  And we expect that this will be decided on a local basis, 
sometimes as local as the residence voting themselves in a building 
whether or not they want that as a precondition on the lease.  We 
believe that would be important in a court test on this subject, that 
the residents voted that kind of element in a lease in advance.
	     
	     But another approach to consent is what I witnessed 
myself on Sunday, and that is leases that are signed on the spot as a 
police team arrives at a unit.  What you find -- you say, well, 
that's surprising that a resident would allow a search if they know 
there is contraband in their apartment.  Frequently, they don't know 
that there's contraband there.  It may be a mother who has small 
children, but a relative, a boyfriend, an older member of the family 
who has hidden guns there that the family doesn't know.  What I 
witnessed on Sunday was the discovery of heroin in bags hidden in a 
mother's chest of drawers -- bureau -- by a son who was in the room 
and when it was discovered, readily admitted it was his.  The mother 
did not know that it was there.  She had consented to the search.  So 
it is not insignificant to search when consent has been given.  And 
that, obviously, meets the test of the law.
	     
	     Finally, the fourth element of searches are warrantless 
searches in exigent circumstances.  The key word there, of course, is 
exigent.  It has to do with what has occurred -- whether or not there 
has been shooting, for example, from the upper stories of the 
building, and how massive it might be, how frequent it might be, and 
how timely the response is.  All of those are subjective judgments, 
but the judge's order indicated that under circumstances of exigency, 
these sweeps can occur.
	     
	     So those are the elements, then, of clarification on the 
sweeps policy.  The bottom line is they allow for the continuation, 
the use of that particular vehicle, sweeps, within certain 
circumstances.  And they are an instrument available not only to the 
city of Chicago, but to other housing authorities that want to use 
that instrument.  
	     
	     Acting Associate Attorney General Bill Bryson is here in 
the event you have some questions.  But I'd like to follow up on the 
second aspect of this beyond sweeps to what is essentially a strategy 
of providing a down payment on the crime bill.  
	     
	     Yesterday in Chicago, the mayor and Vince Lane, the 
chairman of the Housing Authority, and myself announced a series of 
initiatives that represent cooperation between the federal government 
and the city of Chicago.
	     
	     You have in front of you a handout that I'd like to call 
to your attention because it speaks to the other elements of what 
have to occur.  The first page is called enforcement measures.  The 
second is called prevention measures.  Roughly speaking, they group 
into those two categories.  The first one are measures associated 
with security and safety and taking control of buildings and their 
surrounding areas.  And the second revolve around recreation, youth 
programs, antigang strategies, drug control and other elements that 
are preventative in character.
	     
	     Let me just quickly give you the highlights of this, 
because I think it underscores what the President has said all along 
in his fight against crime and, particularly, in his pressing for the 
crime bill that while we focus on security measures, we must also 
focus on the balancing of some preventative measures.
	     
	     On the security side, HUD is putting in new funds as 
well as advancing some CHA unobligated funds, totaling $10 million 
for the creation of 10 additional BITE teams which will augment two 
BITE teams -- that stands for Building Interdiction Team Effort --
already in existence.
	     
	     Now, let me just say quickly what those are.  They're 
18-member teams:  eight members of the Chicago Police Department with 
a sergeant or nine Chicago police; eight members of the Chicago 
Housing Authority Police and a sergeant or nine CHA police team up 
together and literally arrive at a building, take control of the 
lower floors of the building, and then proceed on searches within the 
limits of what has been described.
	     
	     I went with one of those teams on a raid on Sunday 
night.  This was one where consent was required, but the emphasis was 
on controlling the common spaces and vacant spaces, and, as I say, 25 
weapons were secured by BITE teams that evening.
	     
	     This is a very substantial commitment of 180 additional 
police personnel, 18 times 10, for a year with a capacity to extend 
it beyond a year with additional HUD funds, as well as with funds 
that are in the crime bill.  So this is a substantial addition of 
police capability that can be on the scene immediately.  It does not 
require hiring of police personnel.  These are off-duty personnel 
who, through overtime, can be in place as quickly as the funds are 
available.  We're talking about the next week to 10 days on this.  
It's a very effective mechanism.  They arrive en masse, without 
notice where buildings are in particular difficulty, and it's made a 
great deal of difference.  
	     
	     You see also under the next item, the third one down, 
$5-million advance to fund replacements of private security guards so 
that sworn police officers can be in charge of the lobby and entrance 
areas.  Today, there are so-called rent-a-cops, private security 
guards at the entrances, generally regarded to be ineffective.  
They're not trained, they're underpaid; the gangs intimidate them, go 
around them, even when they have a metal detector and it goes off.  
The rent-a-cops stay in there plastic, glassed-in cages for fear of 
stepping out and confronting the gangs.  We think the gang members 
will have a good deal more of a problem confronting a peace officer, 
a police officer, a trained policeman with back-up capability in the 
same way.  So this is an effort to replace the security personnel 
with sworn officers.
	     
	     You see a program that is part of -- the next one -- an 
element of our Operation Safe Home initiative which will bring FBI 
and Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms resources together in order that we 
can trace weapons and prosecute appropriately, based on interstate 
movement of weapons, moving weapons through the mails and other 
possible things such as that.
	     
	     The next one, I promised I'd say a word about vacancies.  
There's a $10-million advance to rehabilitate vacant apartments.  
This is literally an around-the-clock effort.  Conditions are so bad 
in the housing authority that I saw, the housing developments that I 
saw, that when you make an effort at vacancy rehabilitation, if the 
workmen leave at 6:00 p.m. in the evening, by the time they return 
the next morning, the work they did the previous day's been 
vandalized an undone.
	     
	     So in a mixture of fixing the buildings on a practical, 
round-the-clock basis, using the model that was used in the 
California earthquake to get the freeway built in a fourth of the 
time that was originally projected, as well as to have a physical 
presence in the buildings with workers and spotlights and guards 
moving equipment through the building 24 hours, that will be an 
element of getting control of some of these buildings and dealing 
with the vacancies.
	     
	     You see, finally, on this page funding for tenant 
patrols -- very important American heroes who wake up in the middle 
of the night to patrol their own buildings, no matter the weather.  
And they need some support in the form of radio equipment and so 
forth. 
	     
	     Let me quickly go through the second page because it's 
important to balance the security steps against the prevention 
measures.  You see there funds to rehabilitate playground facilities.  
Presently the ball fields around Robert Taylor Homes are covered with 
glass shards and fragments and drug paraphernalia; clearly, 
unavailable to the children who want to play there.
	     
	     In addition, $200,000 to support recreational programs, 
particularly one called Midnight Basketball that takes and allows 
gangs members to be engaged in something other than gang activity by 
participating in basketball late into the night.  Well orchestrated, 
coached, supervised basketball.
	     
	     A very successful drug program at the Harold Ickes Homes 
called CADRE will be extended to the rest of the developments in the 
Chicago Housing Authority with the funds advanced from the Bureau of 
Justice Assistance.  And then, very importantly, you see a $2 million 
new investment of family -- in what   we call Family Investment 
Center funds to provide recreational programs, youth counseling, 
cultural activities, after-school programs, and do that on the ground 
floor of the buildings, which then take some units out of circulation 
and replaces them with adults to add to the control of the bottom 
floor of the lobbies.
	     
	     In addition, what we find is that many of those ground 
floor units are being used for drug transactions because people can 
avoid coming to the building and just use the windows for drug 
transactions at the ground levels.  If we would transform those into 
active places where adults are providing youth services and 
counseling and so forth, they're unavailable for those purposes.
	     
	     And finally, $150,000 to establish a Boys and Girls 
Club.
	     
	     Let me just say two things in closing.  The first is 
that this represents a down payment on the concepts the President has 
pushed in the crime bill; the same balancing of, on the one hand, 
prevention measures with those matters related to enforcement.  And 
though this is particularly targeted to Chicago, because of the 
emergency circumstances of the moment -- the level of violence and 
gang war that is at its highest intensity -- this same approach will 
be available to other communities in the crime bill and through other 
programs that exist between the various federal departments.  And we 
will work with other communities in the same way.
	     
	     Finally, everything that we have proposed here is in 
consultation with the residents.  Keep in mind, it is the residents 
who have requested that the policy of sweeps continue, and support 
them.  And I can tell you this from firsthand, spending Sunday 
afternoon and Monday and yesterday with the residents.  I didn't take 
one step in recommending to the President, consulting with the 
Attorney General, or allocating our resources -- HUD resources --
without consultation with the residents.  It is an absolute 
imperative that we do that, and I can tell you from those discussions 
that they are nearly desperate with the conditions that they're 
forced to raise their children in today.
	     
	     I could tell you anecdotal stories; I won't dwell on it 
now, but perhaps the most plaintive voice that I heard on Sunday was 
a lady who just said, "Please make it stop."  Beyond ideology, beyond 
partisanship, beyond fine legal distinctions, she was just begging 
that the violence, the shooting, her children having to watch their 
classmates be taken to the hospital stop.  And they're convinced that 
the sweeps have played an important role in slowing down the flow of 
weapons.
	     
	     Without the sweeps, the weapons have come back into the 
buildings on a large scale.  As a matter of fact, one lady told me 
yesterday -- she said, they're bringing the weapons back in in 
bagfuls.  So some mechanism like the sweeps needs to be available to 
those who would try to provide safety and security.  We've tried to 
provide those within constitutional limits.  
	     
	     The rest of the things we've talked about here -- the 
BITE teams, the vacancies, the drug programs, the recreational 
programs -- all -- I can show you my notes -- are specifically 
requested by the residents, because they know their circumstances 
better than anyone else.
	     
	     I'll be happy to stop on that note and take questions.  
And Mr. Bryson may want to speak to some of the legal issues.
	     
	     Q    Is this problem only with the public housing?  I 
mean, why particularly with public housing?
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  Well, I'll tell you why 
particularly with public housing.  Because the configuration of the 
public housing is a big part of the problem.  First of all, we have 
created a legacy of concentration in Chicago -- not only in Chicago, 
but in Chicago, 67 high-rise buildings along State Street for four 
miles, literally -- no exaggeration -- you can check it on the 
odometer of your car -- four miles, 67 high-rise buildings without a 
break.  A concentration of something like a third of the 144,000 
people who are public housing residents in Chicago in this State 
Street corridor.
	     
	     Point number one, concentration.  Secondly, the federal 
government has been part of the problem in recent years in allowing 
income levels to drop so dramatically in public housing that the 
residents of public housing share all of the same problems.  The 
median income in Chicago public housing is $5,400, as against 
something in excess of $40,000 in the metropolitan area as a whole.  
So an eighth or so, and no income mix.  In many buildings, 85 percent 
single heads of households; no one working in regular jobs; no role 
models for the children at all.
	     
	     Now, that's the base condition.  Then it is exaggerated 
by -- rather it is complicated by the war for turf, and particularly 
for control of drug producing properties.  There is a gang war in 
Chicago right now -- and particularly, I speak now of Robert Taylor 
Homes and Stateway -- by two gangs; one called the Gangster 
Disciples, the other called the Black Disciples.  They literally 
control entire high-rise buildings, and frequently these buildings 
are adjacent to each other.  I am told by the Chicago police that the 
drug take from those high-rise buildings is as high as $30,000 a 
week, or $1.5 million a year.  Therefore, in the minds of 15- and 16-
year-old gang members, it is worth fighting for, even dying for, 
control of the buildings.  
	     
	     What you end up with, then, is high-rise buildings 
adjacent to each other with young men spotting from the upper stories 
to see whether their rival gang members are moving around in the 
common space between the buildings, and shooting from building to 
building with heavy weapons.  I mean, a 30-06 deer rifle with a scope 
is the kind of weapon that's in use and the kind of weapon that was 
confiscated the other night.  
	     
	     So, unfortunately, you find circumstances where, because 
children live there and families live there, they get caught in the 
cross-fire.  Women will show you apartments with bullet holes over 
their children's beds; bullets that have finally ended up in the 
hallway in their homes not because they were the targets, but because 
anyone in the opposite building ends up being a target in the cross-
fire.
	     
	     Q    Where are the Chicago police in all this?
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  Chicago police are patrolling, and 
they have allocated a unit of 125 officers in addition to what the 
Chicago Housing Authority has.  But it's not enough to patrol, when 
what is required is to actually take control of buildings and take 
them back from the gang members; and that's the circumstance.  That's 
why Chicago, at this moment -- and that's why public housing.
	     
	     Q    What are you hearing from the civil liberties 
groups on this?  What are your preliminary estimates of court tests?  
Are people telling you this will or will not pass constitutional 
muster?
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  We believe that this will pass 
constitutional muster, and a lot of work went into drafting a policy 
that would pass a court test.  The consent forms, the consents in the 
leases, the conditions under with warrantless searches can occur --
all of those were drafted with that in mind.
	     
	     Now, if you were, this afternoon, to call a member of 
the ACLU and ask them a specific question, I can't tell you what 
their answer might be.  My guess is that there are some who might 
continue to want to test these questions; and that's what the courts 
are for.  But we believe that we have devised a policy here that can 
meet the test.  
	     
	     And let me, in the final analysis, say that the 
conditions in public housing in Chicago -- as well as other places 
right now -- are so severe that any abstract analysis of people's 
rights of the type that the ACLU might do is swamped in real life by 
people's rights being denied.  Clearly, people ought to have a right 
to live safely, in peace, take their children to school, walk the 
sidewalks of their buildings, to be able to walk through the hallways 
of a building without all the lights having been knocked out and the 
elevators pitch dark because the gang members want to reduce the 
silhouette that they'll make to gunners in the next buildings --those 
are rights that people have, as well; and those rights are being 
abridged by the present circumstances.
	     
	     Q    In announcing the program --
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  I'll come back -- just let me take 
this lady and I'll come back.
	     
	     Q    What is the status of the overall issue of gun 
control in public housing?
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  We are, internally now, assessing 
the proper course that we want to follow.  Clearly we want to 
discourage -- obviously, illegal weapons are banned in public 
housing.  The question has arisen of whether or not we ought to ban 
all guns in public housing by lease.  Some public housing residents 
-- and there are some places in the country where people would feel 
this would be a substantial infringement on their rights, so we have 
not crossed that bridge at this point.
	     
	     There is some legislation that suggests that 
developments may want to vote on whether all weapons can be banned in 
a building.  And we think that has some plausibility and is worth 
looking at.  But we've not issued regulations or taken a stand yet on 
the question of banning all weapons in public housing.  It's an open 
question; it's now being discussed in the department and elsewhere.
	     
	     Q    In announcing this program, it sounds like housing 
authorities are admitting a failure on a rather extreme level -- that 
people are indeed living in circumstances where their children have 
bullet holes over their bed, or where they're always making --
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  I'm not afraid to acknowledge that 
public housing, in the worst configurations, has failed.  And 
therefore, we must go beyond security measures and even the kinds of 
community building measures, salvaging measures that I've described 
here today to profound and dramatic change in public housing.
	     
	     We'll be introducing legislation this next week which 
will allow us to do things, for example, like change the rules and 
internal dynamics of public housing so that people can work, and 
families that have incomes and work can be included in the mix of 
families in public housing.  That goes to one of the questions that I 
answered earlier about the income mix.  
	     
	     We want to go farther than that, and make it possible to 
capitalize future streams of public housing assistance to housing 
authorities so that large sums of money can be made available now --
not down the road, not just rehabilitate, modernize and put Band-
Aids, but replace the worst of the high-rise public housing with more 
appropriately scaled, scattered, safer configurations across the 
metropolitan area.  These are the kinds of dramatic, profound changes 
I think we need to make in public housing.
	     
	     Let me just say, anytime that you're in Chicago -- and I 
know most of you are White House press so it may be restricted to a 
time when you're traveling there with the President -- but it is 
worth seeing this line up of 67 high-rise buildings and recognizing 
what was done there.  
	     
	     Q    Can that be torn down?
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  Much of it ought to be replaced 
because, as I said, the present configuration is a failed effort at 
housing people.
	     
	     Q    But, Mr. Secretary, may I ask you just a question 
about the allocation of resources understanding that you are going to 
accomplish nothing without a zone of safety.
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  Right.
	     
	     Q    I still note that some $30-odd million are devoted 
to enforcement, and of the $2,950,000 that have been slated for 
prevention, my count is no more than $950,000 that might go for such 
things as counseling, drug prevention, violence prevention.  What can 
you really hope to accomplish if you lay in a heavy dose of law 
enforcement short-term and you don't do anything to counsel kids who 
are seeing this violence, to help their parents find jobs who only 
have a median income, that you so eloquently put it, at $5,000 a 
year.  I mean, what about the so-called soft services that really are 
going to be the building blocks of changing this thing?  You've got 
to change the people.
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  Good question, and I'd like to 
answer it in two ways.  The first is that what you see here is an 
immediate infusion of federal resources to deal with the present 
circumstances.  In part, it's law enforcement.  It's also some of 
these community efforts.
	     
	     Yesterday morning, I met with the mayor, with the head 
of the Parks District in Chicago, which controls the park system as 
well as recreational programs; met with foundation leaders from the 
Chicago area and began discussions with the business community of 
Chicago.  There's one important element missing that was not present 
at the table, but the mayor committed to bring them to the table is 
the Board of Education.  And what we're asking is that this down 
payment be matched by these other institutions in their areas of 
capability.  And we received some tentative commitments yesterday, 
which the mayor will outline in the weeks ahead.
	     
	     This is a partnership in which the federal government 
has started and we expect fully that we will see resources for summer 
recreation programs from the Parks District,  for some educational 
initiatives from the Board of Education, some commitments from the 
foundation and business community to cultural programs, antidrug 
initiatives, and, very importantly, the city of Chicago with its own 
discretionary resources.  So what you see here is a small percentage 
of what will be brought to bear on this circumstance.
	     
	     Additionally, and the second part of the answer, we have 
many ongoing programs that are not represented in this -- our own HUD 
as well as the other federal departments.  And I might also say that 
in instances where we concentrate effort, such as you know the 
decision this week to join in a partnership with the District of 
Columbia government to deal with the very troubled District of 
Columbia Housing Authority, it gives us the opportunity, gives HUD 
the opportunity to work on the housing component, but also to bring 
to bear the efforts of other federal resources.
	     
	     So I fully expect you'll see the Department of Education 
and Labor and Justice and Health and Human Services joining us, using 
public housing, the base as the focal point for effort.
	     
	     Q    Considering the magnitude of the money you're 
discussing here for these two projects, doesn't that really limit the 
likelihood of this truly being a nationwide approach?
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  Let me make clear, the announcement 
yesterday in Chicago was not solely for these two projects.  If you 
look at many of these things, for example, the BITE teams, which is 
$10 million of this $29 million package; the vacancy reduction, which 
is another $10 million of the $29 million -- so now we're up to $20 
million of the $29 million -- are intended to be used throughout the 
CHA.  So we're talking about one of the largest housing authorities 
in the country that has new resources to work with.
	     
	     Now, as to the question of inadequacy of resources --
yes, we're always working with tight resources, always.  It's the 
sort of going in assumption that we're going to be very, very tight. 
That's why it's important to leverage beyond what the federal 
government can do and get others to the table.  That was the first 
thing I did on arrival yesterday morning in Chicago, is to meet with 
the group that I described.  And I think we can create partnerships 
that leverage money dramatically.  
	     
	     We're looking now at some changes in rules that would 
allow us to bring private sector partners that can bring resources, 
like our pension fund relationship where we put $100 million of 
housing vouchers, and with pension money, extend that to $1.2 billion 
worth of housing product.  We'll have to do a good deal more of that.  
And I think that's going to be one of the watchwords, one of the 
hallmarks of our efforts the next few years.
	     
	     Q    Mr. Secretary, are these search consent clauses now 
going to be a part of everybody's lease in the Chicago Housing 
Authority?
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  The preconsent given in leases will 
be a local decision.  That is to say, we believe it is an element of 
policy that will enhance the ability of housing authorities to 
conduct searches.  The decision will have to be made as local as each 
housing authority, and potentially, each development where residents 
may want to vote.  That would further enhance the constitutionality 
of these preconsent devises.
	     
	     Q    Are sweeps being used in other housing authorities?
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  Yes, they are.  Yes, they are, but 
in different configurations.  For example, in Baltimore, they give 48 
hours notice that a sweep is going to occur and have not been tested 
with that approach.  
	     
	     Bruce, do you know other cities that are using sweeps 
now?
	     
	     MR. KATZ:  I think Philadelphia and Puerto Rico are 
using sweeps similar to the ones they use in Baltimore.
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  In Baltimore -- with advance 
notice.
	     
	     Q    Is that successful?
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  You'd be surprised at how 
successful they are because, as I said earlier, frequently residents 
don't know what another family member has put in the unit.  So it's 
more successful than you might imagine, but clearly, not as 
successful as a surprise sweep might be.
	     
	     Q    But there are dangers, too.  I mean, recently, in 
Boston, a 71-year-old man who also happened to be a preacher had a 
heart attack and --
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  I don't think that was a sweep, 
though.  That was a -- my recollection is it wasn't public housing, 
it was a private apartment and -- it may have been assisted housing, 
but it was a private apartment and it was a police action.  That was 
not a sweep, but it was an anticrime raid.  It was a different 
circumstance.  They arrived in force, rammed down the door, were 
looking for fugitives and had the wrong person.  It's exceedingly 
unfortunate.  The mayor and the police chief apologized; obviously, 
apologies aren't enough in such a circumstance, but that was the 
circumstances of that case.
	     
	     Q    Could you just clarify -- when you were talking 
about the warrantless searches in exigent circumstances, does that 
mean that -- let's say, there's a shooting, a shoot-out, and the 
police come into the building, that they are able without a warrant 
to go into an entire floor, searching?
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  It does.  It does --
	     
	     Q       kind of leave open the possibility that whenever 
there might be any type of incident whatsoever, the police could use 
that in order to --
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  No, and let me tell you some 
practical reasons why it doesn't.  First of all, the sweeps involved 
a lot of police personnel.  You can't just assemble large numbers of 
people anytime there's an incident.  The sweeps, as they were being 
run in Chicago, involved over 100 personnel.  So the likelihood that 
you could say, oh, there's been some shooting; we need the excuse; 
let's put 100 people together and go -- it doesn't work that way as a 
practical matter.
	     
	     Legally, what we interpret the -- and Bill may want to 
expand on this -- what we interpret the exigent condition to be an 
appropriate response in a timely fashion.  It can't be three days 
later.  It's got to be in some rough approximation to when the 
incident occurred and targeted to the circumstances of the incident.
	     
	     Bill?
	     
	     ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL BRYSON:  With respect to 
exigent circumstances, there's a lot of case law on this, and the 
theme of what we're saying here is that we think we can have an 
effective crime prevention and apprehension program without departing 
from standard Fourth Amendment law.  We're not trying to create new 
law here.  What we're really trying to do is to avoid having 
everything tested in court, avoid having long delays while programs 
get precleared, in effect, by federal and state courts.  We think 
there is the capacity through existing Fourth Amendment law to take 
care of the problem.
	     
	     Now, with respect to exigent circumstances, the standard 
formula -- and of course, it's very fact specific; you just can't say 
in any more than the most general terms how exigent circumstances 
will apply in a particular case until you know the facts -- but by 
and large, the way the courts would articulate it is to say that you 
need some kind of emergency situation where the need to act without a 
warrant is pressing.  And the police, under those circumstances, can 
engage in an appropriate response.  
	     
	     If a gang is running into a building and the police are 
following, they can run into the building.  They can pursue the gang.  
That doesn't mean that they can go through the entire building, to 
the top floor, and look through everybody's chest of drawers in their 
apartments.  That would be well beyond what the courts would 
characterize as exigency.  But it really is a fact-specific kind of 
inquiry that has to be done and yet, it gives flexibility to police 
to deal with emergency situations.
	     
	     Q    How throughout the chain of command would a 
determination need to be made in order to declare a circumstance 
exigent?  Are we talking about a sergeant, a captain?  What are we 
talking about?
	     
	     ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL BRYSON:  Well, typically, 
when -- real exigency is typically something that has to be decided 
on the spot, because if it has to go up to the captain, by that time, 
your need for immediate action very often has ended.  Not 
necessarily, but very often.  So this is the kind of thing -- if 
there is a medical emergency; somebody has been shot, somebody is 
shooting from the windows of an apartment, you can identify the 
apartment.  You go in and you try to apprehend them then.  You don't 
need, under those circumstances, to get a warrant because you have no 
capacity to get a warrant.  You don't have the time.  And you also, 
of course, don't have the time to call the chief of police.  
	     
	     That's the way exigent circumstances typically works.  
Now, there may be circumstances in particular cases in which you do 
have to go up the chain.  But the normal exigent circumstances case 
will not involve the opportunity for that.
	     
	     Q    So it could be a cop on the beat?
	     
	     ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL BRYSON:  It typically has 
been.  In exigent circumstances law, it's the cop on the beat who is 
trained to understand what the limits are of exigent circumstances, 
but it's the cop on the beat that has to make that decision in many 
exigent circumstances cases.
	     
	     Q    On another part of this, you say that it will be 
helpful for a tenant to show their support for searches in advance.  
Is this basically a majority rule can overrule the Fourth Amendment?
	     
	     ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL BRYSON:  No.  What we think 
is very important here, and the theme of that element and really a 
lot of this is, one, local circumstances really control what is 
reasonable in a particular case.  The whole Fourth Amendment is 
premised on the concept of reasonableness.  And reasonableness is a 
balancing of need against the intrusion.
	     
	     Now, in particular cases, the need may be very great.  
And that's true of these two units.  We need desperately to get 
control of these units -- to get control from the gangs.  Therefore, 
the need element is extremely high.  The intrusion of searches into 
one's home obviously is high, too.  But what's important, I think, 
about allowing the voice of the tenants to be heard through tenant 
organizations or otherwise is that you have evidence in the clearest 
form that you can have of what the people who are affected by both 
the emergency need and also by the intrusions that are involved --how 
they feel about it.
	     
	     Now, this is not to say that the Fourth Amendment is 
somehow subject to majority rule; of course, it's not.  It is, 
however, to say that in assessing a particular case what the level of 
need versus intrusion is, that it's very important to consider how 
the people who are there view it.  And for that reason, I think a lot 
about this policy is really local specific.  This is not to say that 
the same policy were to be applied in say a senior citizens' public 
housing home in Sarasota which hasn't had a serious crime problem in 
years -- of course not.  This is a policy which, in its various 
applications, has to be made specific to, as the Secretary said, a 
particular housing authority and even perhaps a particular building.  
	     
	     Q    Are you suggesting that the consent to be searched 
be a condition of the lease?  And what circumstances would that 
consent be able to be withdrawn?
	     
	     ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL BRYSON:  Well, again, that's 
going to have to depend on how these particular authorities work that 
out.  I think that there certainly are circumstances in which it is 
legitimate to have in the lease a provision similar to the 
maintenance and emergency clause provision which would allow for 
administrative inspections for firearms, let's say.  In fact, there 
is already a provision in the consent decree in the Chicago case that 
allows inspections of that character.
	     
	     Now, this is in the leases.  It is a provision that 
everybody who is in the unit is bound by.  Whether there would be, in 
a particular case, provisions that would allow somebody to opt out at 
particular time; or whether somebody could say, no -- just at the 
outset -- I don't want to sign that; and whether that person would 
then be able to do that would depend very much on the local 
conditions.  And that's the gist of, I think, the whole 
constitutional analysis here, is that it really is not something on 
which you can make any across-the-board pronouncements that X policy 
applies regardless of where and regardless of the circumstances.
	     
	     I point out that when you have a clause like this in a 
lease, what it really gives you is flexibility.  That means you 
don't, then, necessarily have to conduct any of these procedures.  
You can say, we've got this capacity and, therefore, when the time 
comes, if we need to use it, we can invoke it.  That gives you the 
flexibility that the current typical lease clauses do not.  They do 
contain emergency entry provisions.  But they typically -- the word 
emergency in that sense usually means the place is on fire, or there 
is water flowing out from the place and down into the lower units.
	     
	     We think that, in effect, that in some of these units 
there is a fire -- there is a problem that ought to be addressed in 
the same sort of a way; this is a form of emergency.  Now, obviously, 
it's different from the emergency or maintenance inspections.  But it 
is of the same general nature, and can be dealt with in the same kind 
of way.  It is something that has to be explored, I think, by, again, 
the local agencies.  
	     
	     And one of the things in our discussion with the people 
at HUD -- which has been very profitable on this, and I expect to 
continue -- will be to try to provide guidance to local housing 
authorities to the extent that they seek it as to what kinds of 
innovative mechanisms can be used to try to address the problem 
without infringing Fourth Amendment rights.
	     
	     Q    Do you think in some circumstances it ought to be a 
condition of the lease?
	     
	     ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL BRYSON:  I think in some 
circumstances it can be a condition of the lease, that's right.  Now, 
the basic theme of consent law in the Fourth Amendment is that you 
can't coerce somebody to consent to something.  So if the conclusion 
is that, under those circumstances, you would be effectively coercing 
consent because the person has no other choice, then you would have 
to reassess that.  If the person had other choices -- if there were a 
provision, let's say, in a particular development that conditions 
were so bad that you felt you had to go to some mandatory lease 
provision, then if the person had choices -- was offered public 
housing under the circumstances, it might well take the coercive 
element away.  But in any even, that's the basic theme. 
	     
	     What we're saying is, we can square this with the Fourth 
Amendment.  We are not engaged in an effort to try to undermine the 
principles of the Fourth Amendment; and we would welcome, as a matter 
of fact, the constructive suggestions of any civil liberties groups 
as to how we can go about doing this while minimizing the 
intrusiveness of these procedures.  But I think they, as we, 
recognize that what we're dealing with here is an emergency situation 
in which some kind of innovative action is required.  And we're 
prepared to embark on it without, in any way, trampling on the rights 
of people under the Fourth Amendment.  And we think it can be done.  
We think there is enough room  under the doctrines that the courts 
have devised to do that.
	     
	     Q    I have one more question for Secretary Cisneros.  
You had said that people in public housing had supported these 
measures and you had worked in consultation with them.
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  Correct.
	     
	     Q    But some of the other tenants that I've talked to 
have said that housing officials have, in effect, set up a second-
class citizenship, forcing people to endure things like metal 
detectors and frisking and home searches -- the kinds of things that 
would be viewed as indignities if they were applied to more middle-
class neighborhoods.
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  Interesting question -- let me take 
it in two parts.  The first piece is, I've talked with the public 
housing residents, talked with their elected leaders -- the people 
that I meet with when I go to Chicago are the leaders of the 
buildings, the people who are duly elected.  They are quite clear 
that they want security measures.  Unequivocal, strongly worded -- in 
fact, if anything, our package didn't go far enough for them when I 
described it yesterday.  They wanted more money, more resources, more 
programs and want to make sure that we carry out on these, which we 
will; but, very clear speaking the voice of their members.  
	     
	     As a matter of fact, we had a meeting at a church on 
Monday morning in Chicago with residents and other persons in the 
community, and several discordant voices were raised on these points; 
and the residents literally took back the meeting and said, "You 
don't live in public housing; you don't know what you're talking 
about.  We live here, and we want these protections."
	     
	     Q    Excuse me, this is to say that older women, elderly 
women and elderly men are saying that they don't mind going through 
metal detectors?
	     
	     SECRETARY CISNEROS:  Well, that was the second part that 
I wanted to answer.  If you -- many developments in America today 
have protections.  The most elite developments in America today have 
a guard at the door; a security person that you walk by at a desk; 
closed-circuit television from the downstairs desk to the upstairs 
hallways, from the parking garage.  Frequently they are fenced in, in 
some way.
	     
	     And article in last Saturday's Washington Post talked 
about the number of people who live in some 20 enclosed communities 
throughout the Washington area.  Now, I'm not proposing that that's 
the preferable way to live, but it is not correct to say that people 
are stigmatized somehow by living with security when the most elite 
communities in America have it.  Indeed, what we're doing is offering 
some of the same protections to the poorest of our population that 
those who can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for shelter pay.
	     
	     One of the interesting things, for example, is the issue 
of fencing of public housing.  For years, I had a kind of personal 
sense that fencing might be regarded as fencing people in, instead of 
keeping trouble out.  And so I resisted it until I talked to 
residents who said that when fencing had been put in place and it had 
restricted people driving through their developments without going 
through some kind of a entry way, sometimes even a guard shack with a 
guard there, but that when it was done, drive-by shootings stopped, 
drug trafficking stopped, people wandering across the development 
from outside to come and do drug purchases had stopped.  In Houston, 
44 percent reduction in crime the first year after fences -- simple 
step -- fences around a development.
	     
	     Again, if we go up Connecticut Avenue, Massachusetts 
Avenue in Washington, D.C., we'll find the most elite condominiums 
have those same basic security measures.  So I don't think it's a 
fair attack on the concept of providing security.
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

				 END11:25 A.M. EDT

