A Simpler Quicker Justice

I know what you're thinking ... a post on Dirty Harry after a post on same sex marriage? There is no connection.  Dirty Harry is a piece of pure Americana. It tackles sensitive issues of civil rights with a sledge hammer, and justice with a .44 Magnum. It is a piece of 1971. This movie helped define the genre, and gave America a character to attach its frustrations.  Dirty Harry can be watched alongside of its 1971 cousin The French Connection, but while the latter is certainly the better film the former has become a part of American culture.

Whenever I watch a recent cops and robbers movie or television show they are all about satellites, cell phones, and some other techno gadget.  The worst one has to be Body of Lies, with a fat Russell Crowe walking around Washington yacking away on his headset.  There is nothing appealing about watching an actor talk into a phone to tell another actor whats going on.  Act! Let there be some suspense!  Some movies use the technology as an aid, and some use it as a substitute for their brain (the Jason Bourne trilogy took a good balance between the two).  Crime is still solved with more shoe leather than UAVs. 

You won't find Callahan using a laptop, a cell phone, or DNA to solve this case.  Rather, Callahan uses his grit and Smith & Wesson. 

Watching Dirty Harry today I come away with a conflicting take on how the movie deals with race.  When presented with a new partner, Gonzales, the dialogue goes:

De Georgio: "Ah that's one thing about our Harry, doesn't play any favorites! Harry hates everybody: Limeys, Micks, Hebes, Fat Dagos, Niggers, Honkies, Chinks, you name it."
Gonzales: "What about Mexicans?"
De Georgio: "Ask him."
Callahan: "Especially Spics.

That dialogue would not stand in a modern movie as it offends our contemporary sensitivities. But we find Callahan in his own way standing up for Gonzales, and visiting him after he is shot.  Callahan seems to say "If you're good police you're fine."

Later, Scorpio hires a black man to beat the hell out of him, and tells the guy he wants "Every penny of it you black son of a bitch." The guy then drags him out of the basement and kicks Scorpio to knock him out and says "This one's on the house." The movie seems to say race is there, and we can either try to avoid it or look it straight on.  Dirty Harry appears to look at it straight on and through it to where if your a criminal then your bad and if not "Who cares?"

On a different note. The movie also tackles constitutional police procedure.  After busting into Scorpio's quarters, shooting him, and pressuring him into giving the location of the girl we Callahan goes to see the district attorney.  The dialogue goes:

DA: "Where the hell does it say that you've got a right to kick down doors, torture suspects, deny medical attention and legal counsel? Where have you been? Does Escobedo ring a bell? Miranda? I mean, you must have heard of the Fourth Amendment. What I'm saying is that man had rights."
Callahan: "Well, I'm all broken up over that man's rights!"

The law has changed since 1971, and while watching it I asked is this still good law? First, the Fourth Amendment. A search is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant, which was not obtained in the movie. A valid warrentless search is permitted if it falls within one of the defined exceptions.  Consent could have come up if the owner of the stadium had been contacted, but there is no indication the owner had been contacted.  The hot pursuit and emergency exceptions seem applicable, but the hot pursuit would apply only if Callahan tried to effect an arrest and then Scorpio fled into his quarters.  The emergency exception would apply if Callahan had heard the girl in the quarters and believed her to be injured.  See Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) and Michigan v. Fisher (2010). The problem is that we do not see where Callahan finds the gun, so would it even be excluded as evidence obtained from an illegal search and seizure of Scorpio's quarters?

Second, Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda applies where there is custodial interrogation. The custody requirement has been met because Callahan is standing on top of Scorpio and his freedom of action is restricted in a significant way. (See J.D.B. v. North Carolina for the most recent custody case.) The interrogation element applies where Callahan the questions are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from Scorpio. Berghuis v. Thompkins does not come into play because there were not any Miranda warnings to start with. So Miranda applies, but what would be excluded? After United States v. Patane (2004) the physical evidence would not be excluded. The girl's body, and the gun would come into evidence regardless of the failure to give Miranda warnings.

Third, Escobedo was basically overruled by Miranda. No need to discuss.

In summary, in the movie nothing was obtained from the illegal search of Scorpio's quarters so there is nothing to exclude. The statement given to Callahan about the location of the gun and the girl would be excluded, but not the physical evidence.  Certainly a defense attorney would argue that the evidence is the fruit of a Due Process violation (torture), but the girl could possibly come in under the independent source or inevitable discovery exceptions.  In today's criminal procedure environment it is likely a district attorney could convict him of a lot more than "spitting on the sidewalk." This is not to mention the murder of the woman, and the attempted murder of the priest. 

Anyways, Dirty Harry gets his swift justice.

If it has been a while then get a copy and enjoy the simpler days of quick justice.  This link opens to Amazon where you can get the Dirty Harry Collection for $10! It does not include The Dead Pool, but your not missing anything.