Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2021, Volume 34, Number 3
Content
- A Lion in Winter: Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace at 92
- California LITIGATION
- Can California Protect Employees from Entering into Mandatory Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements and Avoid Federal Preemption?
- Chevron Corp. v. Donziger and Paying the Piper
- EDITOR'S FOREWORD No Longer on Demand
- Flood v. Kuhn: Paving the Way for Athletic Bargaining and Free Markets
- From the Section Chair
- "Isn't that Special": The Limited Powers of Special Masters
- "Present at the Creation"
- She's No Rookie: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett Emerges as a Key Influencer in Her First Term
- Table of Contents
- The California Supreme Court, 2020-2021: Tracking the Impact of the Pandemic
- Three Recent Decisions on Section 998 Settlement Offers
- Dirty Harry Turns 50: What If Harry Had Worn a Body Cam?
Dirty Harry Turns 50: What If Harry Had Worn a Body Cam?
By Colin C. Alexander
Colin C. Alexander is an Assistant District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco. He is solely responsible for any opinions expressed in this article.
A renegade cop holds back the torrent of crime in San Francisco, plugging the dam with the barrel of his .44 Magnum.
Controversial when released in 1971, Dirty Harry was banned in Finland for over a year but was also used as a training film for police in the Philippines. Fifty years after the film was released, we watched it again to see how it holds up today, with a focus on the film’s depiction of race, constitutional law, and police procedure.