Mr. McCLOY. Do you have a citation of that law?
Mr. BOUCK. It is in some exhibit, I am sure.
Mr. McCLOY. I think it is well to put it in the record if we have it.
Mr. DULLES. Yes; I think it would be very good.
Mr. CARSWELL. Can we supply it?
Mr. DULLES. Why don't you supply it?
(It was later supplied as 18 U.S.C., Section 871.)
Mr. BOUCK. If the investigation indicates that the individual is
mentally unbalanced, which a high percentage are, then attempt will be
made to persuade local authorities to get hospitalization, confinement
in an institution.
If neither of those are possible, attempts will be made to get local
officers and family, if they will cooperate, to help us keep track
of him, and we will institute checkups from time to time when we are
investigating. Those are basically the control measures that we are
able to use. In some cases we may conduct surveillance, by the way, if
we can't do any of those, and we regard the man as very dangerous.
Mr. STERN. I show you a 1-page pink card marked for identification
Commission Exhibit No. 765. Can you tell us what that is?
Mr. BOUCK. Yes; this is a card which we have prepared when an
individual that we have rated as dangerous is placed in an institution,
either a mental institution or a penal institution. We supply that card
to the superintendent of the institution. We ask him to put it in the
front of the individual's case jacket, and it is all filled in so that
the return address and all are on it. The frank portion of it on the
bottom is a frank portion, all he has to do is to indicate whether the
individual has escaped, transferred or been released and drop it in the
mail to advise us on action they may take on letting him out or if he
has escaped.
Mr. STERN. That is the control you exercise over persons who are
institutionalized in prison or some sort of hospital?
Mr. BOUCK. Yes.
Mr. STERN. When an individual is determined after investigation to
present some level of danger but not sufficient to warrant prosecution
or not to be a mentally disturbed person warranting commitment, how do
you control that individual, keep track of him?
Mr. BOUCK. If we think he is in fact dangerous, he would be in our
checkup file which is really a control device by which at least
every 6 months we reinvestigate and in between times we try to have
arrangements with the family and local officers to let us know if he
leaves town or buys a gun or anything.
The other device is a geographical card file in which we would put a
card to let us know about this individual in case the President went to
that geographical area so that the office might take a further look and
see if he was a menace.
Mr. STERN. At the time of Dallas, do you know approximately how many
persons were in institutions under this system where you would be
notified if they left or escaped?
Mr. BOUCK. I am sorry, I don't have that.
Mr. STERN. The order of magnitude, any estimate?
Mr. BOUCK. It would be some thousands but I wouldn't really have a
close idea. I could get that and supply it. I just would have to guess
and it would be a very bad guess.
Mr. STERN. Fine. But you can determine this for us?
Mr. BOUCK. Yes.
Mr. STERN. Good. How many at the time of Dallas would be in your
checkup control file system with this periodic review?
Mr. BOUCK. About 400.
Mr. STERN. 400 individuals?
Mr. BOUCK. That is nationwide.
Mr. STERN. Again, at the time of Dallas, how many individuals would
have been listed in the trip-index file which you have described?
Mr. BOUCK. About a hundred.
Mr. STERN. One hundred in the Nation?
Mr. BOUCK. Yes.
Mr. STERN. What are the criteria for putting someone's name in the
trip-index file?
Mr. BOUCK. The belief on the part of the local field office, with
confirmation from the Protective Research Section that this individual
would indeed constitute a risk to the President's safety, if he went to
that area.
Mr. STERN. This is done, this is organized, on a geographic basis?
Mr. BOUCK. Yes.
Mr. STERN. By Secret Service field offices?
Mr. BOUCK. Yes.
Mr. STERN. Is there any other control device that you employed at the
time of Dallas?
Mr. BOUCK. We had at the time a very small device that we call an
album which has a few, perhaps 12 or 15 people that we consider very
dangerous or at least dangerous and so mobile that we can't be sure
where they might be. This is a constant thing. Copies of these are kept
before the protective personnel at the White House all the time. This
resides in their office.
Senator COOPER. On that point, if this last category represents a group
that is so highly dangerous, have any individuals in that group reached
the place where they have made such statements as would bring them
under the Federal act which would require prosecution?
Mr. BOUCK. No, sir; if they were prosecutable we would seek that
solution immediately, and many of them have been taken to the district
attorney and it has just been determined they do not quite meet the
requirements for prosecution.
Some have been prosecuted, and have served sentences and are out at the
end of sentences but still thought to be dangerous.
Senator COOPER. Yes.
Mr. BOUCK. Some have been in mental institutions and discharged, and
there isn't ground to put them back but we are still afraid of them.
Mr. STERN. Are the individuals who are listed in the trip-index file,
which numbered at the time of Dallas about 100, also listed in the
checkup control files?
Mr. BOUCK. Yes. Yes; they would, primarily that 100 would to a large
degree be in both places.
Mr. STERN. Then it is a fair summary, Mr. Bouck, that at the time of
Dallas the number of individuals that you were concerned with were
some thousands, the number you will supply, who were institutionalized
either in prison or in mental hospitals, and with such institutions
you had an arrangement that would promptly notify you of the discharge
or escape of that individual, some 400 on a systematic review,
approximately every 6 months by your field offices, of which 400, 100
were separately identified as particularly dangerous in the trip-index
file, and some 12 to 15 whose photographs were in the album?