Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A sociological study of public opinion concerning certain police practices in Los Angeles
(USC Thesis Other)
A sociological study of public opinion concerning certain police practices in Los Angeles
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
A SOCIOIOGICAL STOiY Of PUBLIC OPIiriOI
COIÎCEBIIHG CEETAII POLICE PHACIICES
Ilf IDS iïïGEIES
-A Thesis
Presented to the Department of Sociology
University of Southern California
In partial fulfillment
of the
Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Arts
: B y
David Siskind
May 15, 1933
UMI Number: EP68137
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Oisssftation MwMlsMng
UMI EP68137
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
This thesis, w ritten under the direction of the
candidate^s Faculty Committee and apptoved by
all its members, has been presented to and ac
cepted by the Council on Graduate Study and
Research in partial fulfillm e nt of the require
ments for the degree of
Master of Arts
Secretary
Dean
Faculty Committee
C hair'
CONTENTS
CmPTER Pag®
Introduction....... . 1
A. Scope ^
B. Oeneral Methodology ..... 2
0. Definitions 5
i; Active Opinion . . 6
A. Bar Association and Police Department ..6
I. Mobilization of Forces 8
2« Argumentation 10
3# Publicity 23
4# Cooperation and Conflict ..,.*»**,* 31
5# Investigations 35
6. Legislation .................... 47
7. Education ^ * 57
8. Prosecutions 61
B# Record Investigation By Grand Jury .#*. 80
C* Police and Radicals #**#*#,##*# ###*## 86
D. Newspaper Publicity 99
II. Inactive Opinion ..... . .. . ..188
A. Police 129
B. Attorneys 151
G. General Public 169
Page
III. Gonolaslons ..... 179
A. Sociological Concept of Public Opinion* 179
B. Functioning of Persons and Groups ..... 188
G. Functioning of Institutions ..........% 193
D. Functioning of Folkways and Mores ..... 194
B. Techniques'....... 196
Appendix:..............................^ • BOO
A. Eesume* of California Law ........... BOO
B. Newspaper Publicity Tables .. ........ 211
0. Jury Questionnaire .... 214
Bibliography ....... ... ..... ........ 220
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope
**if an accused person be asked to explain
his apparent connection with a criftie under in
vestigation, the ease with which the questions
put to him may assume an inquisitorial charac
ter, the temptation to press the witness unduly,
to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to
push him into a corner, and to entrap him into
fatal contradictions, which is so painfully
evident in many of the earlier state trials,....
made the system so odious as to give rise to a
demand for its total abolition. The change in
the English criminal procedure in that parti
cular seems to be founded on no statute and no
judicial opinion, but upon a general and silent
acquiescence of the courts in a popular demand. * ’-1
Words such as these led the writer to make this study of
public opinion concerning certain police practices in Los
Angeles, California. Not that public opinion had wrought
such changes in the law of California. But such opinion seem
ed to be fomenting in Los Angeles and the writer was inter
ested in its bubbling. Perhaps he had also a slight desire
that it would erupt and disturb the existing laws or police
practices. If so, he sought to brush aside his sentiments
and to probe the public opinion process in the spirit and
method of social research.
The police practices studied were broader than those
alluded to in the above quotation. They included the arrest
of persons without warrant, the search of homes without
1 Brown vs Walker, 161 U.S.596, quoted in People vs Loper,
159 Gal. 6 at 19.
warrant, the delay in registering prisoners, the delay in
presenting prisoners to a magistrate for formal accusation-,
the detention of prisoners incommunicado, the subjection of
■prisoners to prolonged questioning and the use of violence
upon prisoners. These practices were all related in theory
as violations of the constitutional rights of persons accused
of crime and, in public controversy, they were linked almost
indiscriminately.
The existence of considerable discussion presented a
propitious situation for a study of public opinion, and since
the public debate and activity in Los Angeles made local
issues of the police practices, it was possible - as well as
pragmatically desirable - to limit the study to that area.
When the cry of opinion spread to other cities, its travel
was noted; but it received further attention only if its echo
returned to Los Angeles.
General Methodology.
There was no intention to exhaust all the tools of the
social scientist in conducting this research. There was
merely an effort to employ such valid sociological techniques
as seemed necessary and likely to produce a true statement of
facts, and an astute analysis of them. The methods employed
were chiefly the personal interview, the questionnaire, the
survey and the statistical correlation. The ideas and activ
ities that formed the crux of the public opinion process as
well as the policies of the press were gathered by surveys.
The opinions of the police, lawyers and laymen were obtained
through personal interviews. The opinions of ex-jurors were
recorded in a questionnaire. To all were applied statistical
as well as more qualitative analyses. The exact procedure
followed is explained below with the presentation of the
several phases of this study.
Definitions.
The term ’ ’sociological study” was used to indicate an
intention to perform this research according to the methods
of sociologists and to observe particularly the social inter
actions of individuals and of their opinions.
The term ’ ’public opinion” was used in a broad sense,
inclusive of all expressions of thought purporting to reveal
group or societal attitudes. There was a desire not to limit
the scope of the study because of that term. The conceptions
of public, preponderant and consensus opinion as the opinion
resulting from social controversy and discussion, the opinion
pervading groups quiescently or traditionally, and the
opinion emerging from dispassionate and cooperative group re
search were held in mind.^ But it was thought advisable, in
order to get a comprehensive view of public opinion, to ob
serve also individual original opinion, individual opinion
seeking group recognition or support, and whatever other
types of opinion might be found. Then whatever should be
1 A.V.Dicey, Law and Public Opinion in England. 10, 19, 20.
G. L. King, ’ ’ ’Public Opinion in Government” in W.B. Graves,
Readings in Public Opinion, XXIII - XXVIII
E.S.Bogardus, Fundamentals of Social Psychology, 358-9.
called public opinion or whatever distinctions should be
made to explain the social phenomenon of public opinion, it
was hoped, would appear from the study and be indicated in
the conclusions drawn therefrom. For the purposes of the
study, either public opinion was not pre-defined or all
opinion in society was tentatively regarded as public opinion.
Wben the "police practices” were enumerated, to a large
extent, they were thereby defined; for their meanings were
readily apparent. The making of arrests and searches with
out warrant referred to the seizure of persons and the exam
ination of personal belongings by the police without first
obtaining instructions from a court specifying the persons,
to be arrested, or the persons, places and things to be
searched. The delay in registering prisoners was the failure
of officers to record the arrest or imprisonment of persons
for some time after they had been taken into custody. This
act of registration was commonly called, "booking”. The de
lay in taking prisoners before a magistrate was the failure
of officers to bring prisoners before a magistrate for formal
accusation until considerable time after the arrest. Since
the presentation of prisoners became a matter of routine once
formal charges were filed, this practice was often referred
to as delay in filing. The detention of prisoners incommuni
cado meant the withholding of a prisoner from an attorney,
friends or relatives or the withholding of communications to
and from prisoners. The subjection of prisoners to prolonged
questioning referred to the interrogation of prisoners con
tinuously for hours or days in order to obtain involuntary
statements. The use of violence upon prisoners was the in
fliction of physical or mental pain and suffering upon
prisoners to effect arrests, to extort confessions or evi
dence or to impose extra-judicial punishment. This was
commonly called "the third degree”. However, the term, "the
third degree” was often used in popular dispute as symbolic
of all the above police practices.
6
ACTIVE OPINION
BAR ASSOCIATION AND POLICE CLASH OF OPINION
Occasionally, during many years, individual attorneys
and news-writers in Los Angeles complained to police offi
cial and the public of notoriously unlawful acts commit
ted in the enforcement of the law by members of the
police force. Conferences were held, investigations were
conducted, slight remedial action was undertaken and much
was promised. In October, 1928, Hubert Morrow, president
of the Los Angeles Bar Association, announced in the
bulletin of that organization that
"There gradually have grown up
practices in connection with adminis
tration of justice which are violative
of the clear constitutional rights of
citizens, and unless these rights are
protected and the vicious practices
cease, the public will come to a point
of dumb acquiescence, where custom will
override the constitutional guarantees
which are the very basis of our govern
ment . " ^
He pointed a finger of condemnation toward the third
degree, the holding of prisoners Incommunicado and the
failure promptly to present prisoners before a magistrate.
He disclosed the mention of these practices in official
reports of court cases. He warned the Bar that the evils
were growing continuously and rapidly.
1 H. Morrow, "The Third Degree", The Bar Association
Bulletin, IV, 37.
Though he acknowledged the past efforts to deal with
these matters, he declared there was "no way to accomplish
the needed reform except to arouse the bar to the import
ance of action and to bring the whole strength of the Bar
Association and its individual members behind a movement
to compel strict and fair observance of the rights of all
citizens".^ He proposed the appointment of a committee
of lawyers of outstanding ability, experience, integrity
and judgment to study the problem and advise the Bar
Association of further action. He announced that a gen
eral meeting of the Association would be devoted to the
problem and that the work would continue steadily year by
year until the evil would be eliminated. To that policy
he sought to charge even his successors in office.
This pronouncement heralded a period of public
activity in which the play of public opinion became ob
viously significant. Committees were organized, letters
were printed, speeches were delivered, news reports were
released and published, conferences were held, investi
gations were made, legislative lobbies were conducted,
prosecutions were filed, rules and regulations were
drafted. One thing followed another, things continued
simultaneously, much was repeated and still the process
is in movement. The writer sought to discover, discern
and digest the course and character of public opinion
1 H. Morrow, "The Third Degree", The Bar Association
Bulletin, IV, 59.
8
throughout it all.
The mass of material lent itself to analysis along
the following lines: the mobilization of forces, the
argument, the publicity, the tendencies toward conflict
and cooperation, the conduct of investigations, the
attempt to legislate, the formulation of police rules and
regulations, the efforts to educate and the prosecution
of officials. The following report of the opinions
actively involved was consequently organized along the
same lines.
MOBILIZATION OF FORCES
The Bar Association President proposed the formation
of a committee and invited suggestions and information
from the members of his Association. In November, 1928,
he announced the personnel of the Constitutional Rights
Committee— attorneys W. H. Anderson, R. W. Camp, H. J.
Goudge, J. L. Lewinson, J. W. Hart and H. Morrow, chair
man,— all experienced civil attorneys with conservative
and more or less wealthy clienteles. Within two months,
letters pledging support came from the presiding judge
of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the Public
Welfare Commission in charge of inspecting the public
institutions of the County, a former Chief of Police of
Los Angeles, the president of the American Bar Association,
who was a Los Angeles attorney, and several other promi
nent officials and attorneys. Similar letters were re
ceived from time to time thereafter. In April, 1929, the
California Senate was induced to support a measure spon
sored by the Constitutional Rights Committee. In May,
1929, the membership of the Los Angeles Bar Association
was rallied to the support of the movement through a gen
eral meeting devoted to a discussion of the third degree.
In the early part of 1929, Mr. Morrow announced the ap
pointment of two new committees, the Junior Committee,
then called the Auxiliary Committee, and the Advisory
Committee. The former was composed of five young lawyers
who were to assist in detail and time consuming work.
The latter consisted of seven of the most conservatively
"respectable” and influential members of the Bar who were
to counsel the Constitutional Rights Committee on matters
of basic policy. In 1930 and 31, the personnel of these
committees was altered only slightly. The original core
of enthusiastic workers was retained on the Constitutional
Rights Committee from year to year.
The police responded to the activity of the Consti
tutional Rights Committee of the Bar Association at once.
Chief of Police Davis gave statements to the press in
defense of his department as a law abiding and law enfor
cing agency. In December, Chief Deputy Sheriff Plummer
spoke publicly against the accusations of the Bar Associa
tion with vehemence and vindictiveness. Speeches, news
reports and magazine articles followed. But no express
public enlistment of services was attempted by the police.
10
They admitted no need of defense. They claimed that they
themselves had always insisted upon lawful police methods
and they pointed to the Personnel Board and the Police
Commission as duly constituted and functioning authorities
for the disciplining of officers. Those groups, neverthe
less, consistently seemed to come to the defense of the
police in the disputes that arose. The support of the
prosecuting attorneys appeared in April, 1929, when a
deputy city prosecutor expressed his belief in the inno
cence of two police officers under prosecution. In May,
1929, the California state assembly took the police stand
on proposed legislation. In July, when the Police Commis
sion issued an order requiring search warrants in liquor
raids on homes, the police opposition acquired the aid of
prominent prohibitionists.
So individuals were lined up in support of the
Constitutional Rights Committee or in support of the
Police. The former were definitely solicited and defiant.
The latter were enlisted more casually. Still on both
sides, there was a consciousness of the mobilization of
forces for a public opinion struggle.
THE ARGUMENTATION
The public discussion commenced with the accusation
of police lawlessness by the attorneys. They complained
of the police attitude that officers were above the law
and that persons accused of crime had no constitutional
11
rights. They complained of police brutality, of arrests
without warrants, of searches without warrants, of delay
in booking and filing, of holding prisoners incommunicado
and of gruelling examinations. Usually the practices
decried were Joined indiscriminately under terms such as
"the unlawful enforcement of the law" or "the third degree".
There was no dearth of sincerity in the accusation. It
was a challenge for refutation or defense by the police
and it was accepted as such.
The Bar Association Committee maintained first of all
that the practices complained of were quite prevalent. ^
They referred to isolated cases of police lawlessness that
had come within their personal experiences and to many
more within the experiences of their clients. Some of the
attorneys asserted that police officers themselves had
told them, in strict confidence, of numerous and cons
tantly recurring instances of the unlawful enforcement of
the law.
Their irrefutable evidence of the existence of the
unlawful practices lay in the public records of supreme
court decisions, frequently based upon the testimony under
oath of the police officers themselves. The first cases
to be cited were well known cases of the United States
Supreme Court or cases of other state jurisdictions.
Later, research brought forth the California cases in
1 Constitutional Rights Committee, Second Annual Report.
"Lawless Enforcement of Law", The Bar Association
Bulletin, VI, 197.
12
point. The few that were given the most attention were
those involving the use of force or excessive question
ing to obtain confessions. They were more sensational
and appealing than the cases pertaining to the other po
lice practices.
The case of People v. Loper ^was one in which the
defendant was convicted of having murdered a friend, dis
membered his body and buried the remains on a lonely
ranch. In questioning the defendant, the Sheriff, Dis
trict Attorney and others told him the deceased*s friends
would have hanged him if they had caught him near the
dead body. To his protestations of innocence, they called
him a "monumental liar" and after much vigorous, but futile
questioning, they put him in solitary confinement for the
night. In the morning he confessed and his confession
was accepted by the trial judge. On the appeal, the major
ity of the Supreme Court held the confession inadmissible
because the defendant had been "cajoled, browbeaten and
persuaded." A minority of the court, however, thought
the evidence was insufficient to disturb the ruling of
the trial judge.
In the case of People v. Borello,^ the defendant was
found guilty of having hired someone to burn an old
saloon in order that profit might be made from the loss
1 159 Gal. 6
2 161 Gal. 367
13
of a bad lease and from an insurance policy. The Sheriff,
deputy sheriff and District Attorney questioned him from
one to several hours, argued with him, cursed at him and
falsely told him that his brother had been arrested and
had confessed to the entire plot. This time the entire
court held the confession inadmissible because it was
obtained by an "inquisitorial method", "third degree in
character" with the "assumption of a dominating and brow
beating attitude" and the "employment of deceptions,
threats and intimidations emphasized with coarse profan
ity."
In the ease of People v. Quan Gun Gow,^ the defen
dant, a Chinese, was convicted of murder in a gambling
house affray. When questioned by detectives, he remained
silent for five to ten minutes and later said "no savey".
The officers testified that he squirmed in his chair
because he was afraid of something. After persistent
questioning, the defendant confessed. The Appellate
Court found that the confession was made unwillingly and
as a direct result of continued importuning.
2
In the case of People v. Clark, the defendant was
accused of having murdered her husband. She was subjected
to several severe and gruelling examinations by the police
for hours at a time. During these periods she was denied
1 23 Gal. App. 507
2 55 Gal. App. 42.
14
nourishment and she was in such a low physical and mental
condition, she had to have wet towels on her head and had
to be assisted into the examination room by matrons. She
was never advised of her right to counsel, and she was
told that it would be better for her if she told every
thing and that the police would do her no harm. On appeal,
her confession was declared invalid.
Other cases were offered as additional evidence of
police lawlessness and the argument was made that they
indicated the occurrence of a great many more similar
incidents. Only a few of any sort of lawless deeds are
made public, and of those given notoriety only a few are
prosecuted, and of those prosecuted only a very few ever
receive mention in the Appellate Court reports. Hence
the production of several cases in which appellate courts
found unlawful enforcement of the law was said to prove
conclusively the existence of such practices in a great
number of instances.
As the work of the Constitutional Rights Committee
progressed, many complaints of police lawlessness were
received from laymen and the committee used them to
further their proof of the extensiveness of the unlawful
enforcement of the law.
The response of most of the police was a vehement
denial of the common existence of unlawful methods.^
Some officials maintained there was no "third degree" at
1 Letter from Chief J.B.Davis to Atty J.W.Hart, Jan.15,
1929.
15
all. It was a bogie taken from the historic past in
which it had long been buried. Other officials protested
that police excesses were rare in comparison with their
proper performances and that the Bar Committee’s gross
exaggerations conveyed absolutely false impressions. In
every case but one, investigated by the Bar Committee and
proclaimed by them as involving the unlawful enforcement
of the law, the Chief of Police, the Police trial board
or the Police Commission reported an investigation and an
exoneration of the accused officer. The Police denied
specific charges of wrong and decried the general claims
of wide-spread lawlessness as entirely false or maliciously
magnified.
The chief argument of the lawyers against the unlaw
ful enforcement of the law was that it was unlawful. They
believed in law implicitly. The mere fact that an act
was contrary to the provisions of the Constitutions of
the United States and the State of California, or in vio
lation of the sections of the Penal Code of California,
was sufficient proof that it was not to be tolerated.
The argument that the practices of the police were unlaw
ful was usually expressed as conclusively condemnatory
without further words,^
Shortly after they commenced their work, several
members of the Bar Committee prepared summaries of the
1 W. Anderson, G.R.C. of the L. A. Bar Assn., 4
G. New!in. Annual Address of President, American Bar
Assn., Oct. 23, 1929.
16
law for their own references and after some time, state
ments of the relevant law began to appear in open publi
cation.^ Elemental propositions of law in the Constitu
tion and Penal Code of the State of California were taken
as mandates to the police. Unfortunately, the elemental
principles, as is generally true of all basic, simple
ideas, were broad and subject to various interpretations.
However, it was clear that arrest and search warrants were
positively required in many situations; that booking.and
presenting prisoners before magistrates were required to
be done immediately or without unnecessary delay; that
holding prisoners incommunicado was never lawful; that
prolonged examinations to break a prisoner’s resistance
were forbidden by law and that the use of violence in
making arrests, extorting confessions or inflicting extra
judicial punishment was taboo. The law made each of these
acts a crime.
The police did not dispute these statements of the
law. They claimed that the law allowed them a latitude
that wasn’t acknowledged by the lawyers. The law did not
require an arrest warrant when a misdemeanor was committed
in the presence of an officer, or when a felony was com
mitted and there were reasonable grounds for believing
the prisoner had committed it. The law permitted many
searches without warrant. Since the enactment of the
prohibition laws, no one was certain of the law on search
1 A brief resume of the law expounded on each of the al
leged police practices is given in Appendix I.
17
warrants and the Police Commission might make its own
rules. The Penal Code provided that prisoners might he
held for as long as two days, not counting Saturday, Sun
day and holidays, before being presented to magistrate.
The law authorized peace officers to exercise all force
necessary to the execution of their duties. Above all,
the law charged the police with duties of apprehending
criminals and assisting in their conviction. These
duties the law commanded them to perform efficiently;
hence the requirements of police efficiency were the re
quirements of law.
Some of the officers, in anger or defensive enthusi
asm,, declared that criminals had no constitutional rights.
They asserted that the constitutional safeguards were de
vised to protect the innocent and not to shield the
guilty.^ When an individual transgressed the law, they
believed, he forfeited the protection of the law. Deputy
Chief Clyde Plummer declared this view consistently and
2
calmly; but most officers were inclined to admit the law
as stated by the attorneys and to stress other provisions
or to interpret the intent and policy of the law differ
ently.
As a corollary to the argument that the police
practices were unlawful, the attorneys maintained that the
1 L. A. Police Dept., Div. of Public Relations Bulletin
No. 21, April 22, lU29\
2 Los Angeles Times, Dec. 15, 1928; Express, April 5,1929;
L.A. News, April 8, 1929; L. A. News, May 28, 1929.
18
practices undermined confidence in the courts, respect
for law and trust in the government. Time and time again
they quoted Atty. Gen. Mitchell, who was reputed to have
said over the radio,
"Nothing has a greater tendency to
beget.lawlessness than lawless methods
of law enforcement".
They also quoted Justice Brandeis, vfho said,
"Our government is the potent, the
omnipresent teacher. For good or for
ill it teaches the whole people by its
example. Crime is contagious. If the
government becomes a law breaker, it
breeds contempt for law; it invites
every man to become a_law unto himself;
it invites anarchy."-
The police countered this argument with the claim
that the true foes of government were the opponents of the
police. The attorneys, they said, were breeding a dis
respect for the police, and without public cooperation,
the police would be rendered helpless to preserve the
peace and security of society. The attorneys were dis
rupting the morale of the police by threatening them with
suspension, removal from office and even prosecution for
a slight mistake in their zealous enforcement of the law.
The attorneys were the allies of criminals, the abettors
of murderers and home wreckers and, wittingly or unwitting
ly, they menaced all law and order.
The lawyers frowned at the effort of the police to
fling back the names hurled at them. The Constitutional
Rights Committee went on to denounce the unlawful enforce-
1 Justice L. Brandeis dissent in Olmstead vs.U.S.. 277 U.S.
19
ment of the law or the third degree as brutal and inhumane.
They told of the beatings and "sweatings" of prisoners in
the Los Angeles Jails. Bony fists, bunches of heavy Jail ,
keys, rubber hoses, black-jacks and hob-nailed boots
figured in their stories. Cracked skulls, split lips,
bloated eyes, bloody mouths and noses were common results.
Sometimes permanent internal injury, insanity and suicide
were mentioned. The lawyers cried out against the gruel
ling examinations conducted by relay teams of officers
for hours and days with no sleep and little food for the
prisoners. They explained the ingenious devices of tor
ture-- that left no marks— in use in other cities. Some
where the police shone bright lights into the prisoner’s
eyes for hours at a time. Elsewhere, prisoners were
forced to dance on electrically charged mats until they
confessed. In another town, a prisoner was strapped to a
chair; Just above his head was a trap door; to his ex
tended hand was tied the string that on slight movement
would release the door; before his eyes a heavy cannon
ball was lifted to the trap and over his head a soft rub
ber ball was substituted for the heavy one. Then the
prisoner was peacefully induced to confess his sins. In
still another place, the fingers of pickpockets were
broken with rubber hammers. These were American devices.
In India, it was said, an officer found it easier to rub
pepper into the eyes of a prisoner than to go out into
the heat of the day in search for evidence. But the law
20
yers claimed these practices were removed only in the
matter of degree from those existing in Los Angeles, and
they suggested unmistakably that if allowed to go un
checked, the Los Angeles police would follow the examples
of their distant brethren.^
The police retorted with a denial of the specific
charges and a derision of the sentimentality of the law
yers. "Sob sisters" they called them. The lawyers
couldn’t see the true situation because their eyes were
beclouded with tears. A number of police officials, who
admitted certain acts of violence, sought to defend or
excuse them because the victims were criminals. They
thought that those who had killed, raped, assaulted or who
had been ready to do so on the slightest necessity in the
perpetration of other crimes should be given no pity or
sympathy. The police were waging a war against crime and
a war permitted no shedding of tears for the enemy.
The lawyers sought to rebut the severe police stand
on the grounds that the violence had actually been used
on some innocent prisoners; that the police were not law
ful or competent judges of guilt or innocence; that the
police were not authorized to administer physical punish
ment even to the guilty, and that if violence were con
doned when applied to the guilty, it would be extended
soon to all prisoners.
1 "Lawless Enforcement of the Law", The Bar Association
Bulletin, VI, 6 & 7.
21
The chief argument of the police was that the prac
tices complained of were necessary for efficient police
work.^ Most arrests and searches had to be made as soon
as an opportunity presented itself and before the dila
tory procedure could produce a warrant. Criminals did
not wait for arrest or indolently leave evidence undis
turbed. The police were compelled to race against them.
After arrest it took time to investigate the circumstances
of a- crime or the multiplicity of an offender*s past deeds.
In order to clarify hundreds of theretofore unsolved
crimes, it was necessary to withhold prisoners from magis
trates and bail until the investigations were completed.
The only way to obtain evidence and confessions from
prisoners was to interrogate them and it was often impos
sible to discover anything without prolonged questioning.
At times the hardened criminal was impervious to every
thing except a blow. The proof of the need and efficacy
of these methods was daily apparent in police work.
Thousands of dollars of property were recovered and hun
dreds of convictions obtained only through such practices.
The reply of the Bar Committee was that the police
exaggerated the necessity of unlawful methods or, even if
1 L. A. Police Dept.,. Div. of Pub. Relations Bulletin,
No. 16, Aug. 1928.
, J.W.Everington, "Police Problems", Police Reporter,
Vol. 1, No. 1, April, 1929.
J. Pinlinson, "The Third Degree", Police Reporter,
Vol. 1, No. 2, May, 1929.
22
necessary, the methods should not be used until made law
ful. Some of the lawyers believed the police were incom
petent to use more subtle methods and hid their incompe
tence behind unlawful means. They claimed that in Canada
and in England, the police did not enforce the law unlaw
fully and their efficiency was indisputable. Other
attorneys believed that police efficiency should be
studied and, if advisable, certain of our laws should be
changed. It was suggested that the right of a defendant
to refuse to testify, the inability of judges to comment
on the evidence, the methods of selecting judges and
prosecutors, the system of jail administration and similar
matters should be altered. However, all of the Bar
Committeemen insisted that while the law remained as it
was, compliance with it was absolutely essential.
Some of the police said it was unavoidable human
nature to exceed one*s powers occasionally. Notwith
standing that, the police themselves could and did restrain
their tendencies to go beyond the law as much as possible.^
The Police Department was obliged to use many men of limit
ed education and training. These naturally made mistakes;
others who were good officers were at times over eager to
succeed and thereby made mistakes. It was human to err.
Nevertheless, the Chief of Police, the Trial Board and the
Police Commission constantly received complaints, conduct- ,
1 L. A. Police Dept., "Order Against Violence", Daily
Police Bulletin, XXI, 296, Dec. 19, 1921.
23
ed investigations and meted out just punishments so that the
violations of the law by the police were reduced to a mini
mum by the police themselveè.
The lawyers maintained that the disciplinary powers of
the police officials were never or rarely used to eradicate
or even to curtail the unlawful enforcement of the law. On
the contrary, they accused the officials of deliberately
fostering those practices by defending and exonerating all
accused officers. They accused the officials of either be
lieving in the practices or entertaining a group loyalty
and solidarity that resisted all attack. The lawyers claimed
they were ready to condone mistakes in subordinates, but they
would not tolerate persistent unlawful tactics and the tacit
approval of the superior officers.
This argumentation waged back and forth with an exchange
at times of courteous compliments and at other times of in
sulting epithets. To date, none of the disputants has ad
mitted his conversion by the other side, and the debate,
much subdued, still continues.
PUBLICITY.
In 1928, when the intention to campaign against the un
lawful enforcement of the law was announced, a copy of the
article in the Bar Association Bulletin was sent to every
large newspaper in Los Angeles with a letter asking for sup
port whenever needed. This commenced a varied program of
of publicity by the Constitutional Rights Committee of the
24
Bar Association.
At the start, numerous letters were written to influ
ential persons soliciting their cooperation, and many favor
able responses were received. On practically every case
considered by the Constitutional Rights Committee or the
Auxiliary committee, on nearly every general investigation
made, on all determinations of the committees, there have
been many letters written to the police, to the press, to
legislators or to administrative officials. ^ Hot only has
there been an interchange of correspondence on “third degree"
matters, but each new field of activity, such as the police
rules, the treatment of aliens by the federal authorities and
the disturbance of radical meetings, has brought forth let
ters to officials and citizens not yet involved. Generally,
the letters designed to arouse interest or support have
produced a written expression of opinion in return. The
quantity of the correspondence has varied with the number
of activities engaging the committee’s attention from time
to time; but the flow of letters has been unbroken.
Simultaneously with this publicity, members of the Con
stitutional Rights Committee heralded their cause and elicited
support through many public addresses. Within the first few
months, speeches were made to the Ebell Club, Santa Monica
Women’s Club, City Club, Junior Bar Association, Academy of
1 Ann. Report of the Committee on Constitutional Rights
for 1928-1929, The Bar Assn. Bulletin, IX, 171.
26
Criminology, a church federation, forums and other organi
zations. Speaking was regarded by the president of the
Bar Association as the most effective way of getting solid
support. Its use subsided in the latter half of 1929; but
occasional talks were made constantly throughout the period
observed.
The bulk of the Constitutional Rights Committee’s pub
licity, fed by letters and speeches, appeared in the press.
The initial announcement of the Bar Association’s activity
was sent to the press with a request for future support and
a great mass of newspaper publicity followed. Still there
was a difference of opinion amongst the members of the Con
stitutional Rights Committee concerning a proper news policy.
One leader firmly insisted that the newspapers should be
given only general information of the committee’s program
and the scholarly results of the members’ research; but
none of the details of the cases being considered by the
committee. Others sought publicity in its whitest light
upon all of the committee’s work. The information of speci
fic cases got out and the newspapers magnified, misstated
and popularized much that aroused the ire of police offici
als. Even speeches of the committee members were distorted
beyond all fairness.^ The committee debated the matter. In
March, 1929, a motion to get the fullest publicity for all
work of the committee failed for want of a second, and a
1 L. A. Herald, Nov. 14, 1929, discussed on pages 29-31.
26
resolution was carried to the effect that all completed
reports, when directed to any public authority, were to
be submitted to the committee for a vote on the question
of releasing them to the press. However, the efforts to
cooperate with the police were already beginning to appear
disheartening and with that there grew a desire for more
publicity. The newspapers carried many items concerning
the complaints considered by the Constitutional Rights
Committee. One member of the committee had a series of
over twenty articles appear under his picture and signa
ture in an evening paper.^ The second annual report of the
committee said, "all the facts surrounding these cases
(investigated by the committee) have been most thoroughly
o
and elaborately exploited in the press of this city".
However, in May, 1930, several members of the Constitution
al Rights Committee again expressed their difference of
opinion over the advisability of pressing charges against
the police through the press. There followed a diminution
of press reports, but that may have been due to a lull in
the committee*s activity. In 1931, it was decided in
reference to a report on the treatment of aliens and a re
port on a third degree case to submit the reports to prop
er authorities and, only if unsatisfactory replies were
received, to release the reports to the newspapers. In
the matter of a resolution on the police prevention of
certain public meetings, a request was sent to the Board
1 W.W.Anderson, W.W. in L.A. Evening Express, Apr.-July,1929
2 Constitutional Rights Committee, Second Annual Report.
27
of Trustees of the Bar Association to distribute copies of
the resolution to the press. This caution over newspaper
publicity did not represent the attitude of some of the
members of the Constitutional Rights Committee and may or
may not represent the present policy of the committee.
The amount of newspaper publicity given the work of the
committee has varied not only with the quantity of the
work, Tmt also with the shifting of the committee’s desire
for it.
The Constitutional Rights Committee sought to dis
seminate its information and proposals far beyond Los
Angeles. Early in its career, communications were sent
to the other Bar Associations in Southern California. But
the defeat of a proposed bill in Sacramento seemed to im
press the committee with the necessity of making their
campaign state-wide and national# Organizations in San
Francisco and bodies of national scope were urged to sup
port the movement. Opportunely, a local attorney was pres
ident of the American Bar Association. He inveighed in
his presidential address against the lawless enforcement
of the law.^ Another member of the Los Angeles: Bar presen
ted a scholarly paper on the same subject to the Section
on Criminal Law and Criminology of the American Bar Asso-
o
elation. A Federal judge in Los Angeles was made a member
1 G. Newlin, supra
2 “Lawless Enforcement of the Law", supra.
28
of the Wicker sham Commission and, through him, the Commis
sion was urged to make the study of the unlawful enforce
ment of the law that it did. The files of the Constitu
tional Rights Committee were sent to the Commission*s
investigator, and the results of the committee*s work
appeared in the report of the Wicker sham Commission as
well as in the book later published by investigator for
p
the Commission. The committee*s information was imparted
to a visiting German professor and by him presented to a
European conference of jurists. The second annual report
(1929-30) of the Constitutional Rights Committee said,
"perhaps the most effective work of our committee has been
in broadcasting nationally, internationally and locally,
the gospel of lawful law enforcement."^ This work thus
started was continued by the Constitutional Rights Commit
tee in its third year (1930-31). Thereafter, few new
efforts were made and in its fourth year (1931-32), no
outstanding organizational alliance or publicity feat was
accomplished.
The Police met the publicity of the Constitutional
Rights Committee activities with relatively few public
statements. The Chief of Police gave the press a defen
sive reply to the original announcement of the Bar Asso-
1 National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement,
Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement.
2 E. J. Hopkins, Our Lawless Police.
3 Constitutional Rights Committee, Second Annual Report.
29
dation*s plans. In December, 1928, a chief deputy sher
iff, formerly of the city police force, delivered public
addresses in which he openly advocated the use of vio
lence upon known criminals. At the same time, however,
the Chief of Police caused to be printed in the Police
Bulletin an old order specifying the situations in which
force might be used lawfully and prohibiting its use in
all other cases.^ Thereafter several articles, presenting
the police argument in the general dispute, appeared in
the Police Reporter and the Public Relations Bulletin,the lat
ter published by the Los Angeles Police Department. Prom
time to time, more speeches were made before civic organi
zations by the deputy sheriff, mentioned above, and other
police officials. The Chief of Police complained to mem
bers of the Constitutional Rights Committee of various
extreme utterances in the press and sought to modify the
attack upon the police. The policy of the police seemed
to be to avoid publicity unless a public accusation called
for an answer.
This was probably caused by exaggerated news reports,
such as the following: On March 14, 1929, the Los Angeles
Herald reported a speech purported to have been delivered
by Attorney J. W. Hart of the Constitutional Rights Com
mittee. Its statements were so extreme, the Chief of
Police wrote Mr. Hart for an explanation. The newspaper
purported to quote from the speech,
1 L. A. Police Dept., Daily Police Bulletin, Dec. 19,1928.
30
"â captain said that only the
•rats* are subjected to this torture,"
........."But let me tell you that our
investigations have disclosed that not
a man in this audience could have any
grounds for believing himself safe from
their brutality."
Mr. Hart explained.
"I did not use the language quoted.
1 did, however, say that a former captain
of the police department had said that it
was only upon * rats’ that torture was used,
and that such persons had no constitutional
rights, and did say that the decision as to
whether a prisoner was a ’rat* or not would
be made by the police, and that the exer
cise of such power by any policeman was
destructive of fundamental rights of an
American citizen."
The paper printed.
"The attorney said police squads,
’made up of virtuous and puritanical police’,
ransack apartment houses, tear husband and
wife apart and smash up furniture in an ef
fort to find some poor couple living together
without a marriage license."
Mr. Hart explained.
"I did not use the language quoted.
I did say that moral and vice squads, called
by these or any other names, were frequently
sources of corruption in the police depart
ments throughout the country; that occasion
ally they were dominated by a puritanical-
minded person who might use his power to
punish those who held views, political or
religious, not approved by him. I did
cite an instance where, without warrant, an
apartment house was gone through and couples
separated and separately examined to ascer
tain whether they were married or not,"
The paper said.
"The attorney enumerated ten cases in
which he said innocent men have died or have
been maimed for life due to the ’third degree’
methods of Los Angeles Police."
31
Mr. Hart explained,
"I did not make that statement,
or any statement substantially to that
effect. In other words, I did not
state there were ten such cases, nor
did I refer to ten cases of that char
acter."
Though there were many complaints of newspaper mis
statement, this was the most striking. Both the members
of the Constitutional Rights Committee and the Police
force decried such publicity, but nothing more was ever
done about it.
The daily press of Los Angeles carried a multitude
of reports concerning the activities of the Constitutional
Rights Committee and the Police. Many of these were
straight news items without editorial opinion. Others
clearly indicated partisan efforts to use the press for
purposeful publicity. A detailed study of newspaper pub
licity is presented below.
COOPERATION AND CONFLICT
In initiating the work of the Constitutional Rights
Committee, the President of the Bar Association announced
that he desired to cooperate with the police officials.^
The Chief of Police replied that he was willing to work
with the Constitutional Rights Committee. In December,
1928, a joint dinner conference between the Constitutional
Rights Committee and police officials was held and much was
said in a frank and friendly manner. The police attitude
1 The Third Degree, The Bar Association Bulletin, Vol.4,
No. 2. D. 39.
52
was later severely criticized; but the Chief of Police
wrote a member of the bar committee, “We have always been
ready and willing to more than meet you half way........
We believe that, working with your committee, we can make
great progress........if we can work quietly, scientific
ally, and without emotional bias.**^ This opinion was re
spected and repeated by all the members of the Constitu
tional Rights Committee only until February, 1929. It has
continued to be the desire of a few of the men until the
present time and several offers to cooperate on specific
problems have been accepted.
The Police Department cooperated with the Constitu
tional Rights Committee by instructing officers to submit
to the investigations of the Auxiliary Committee on com
plaints of unlawful practices. In February, 1929, however,
the Chief of Police announced that, due to the unfair
publicity given these investigations, and to the Constitu
tional Rights Committee’s intention to prosecute offenders,
he would no longer order his men to testify before the
Auxiliary Committee. They might still do so, he said later,
if they themselves were willing. The officers were usual
ly willing to grant interviews and the Auxiliary Committee
continued to conduct its investigations. The Police De
partment showed no active hostility and some measure of
cooperation prevailed.
1 Letter from J. E. Davis to J. ¥. Hart, Dec. 19, 1928.
33
The Constitutional Rights Committee sought to co
operate with the Police Commission more than with the
Police Department.^ The Commission passed a rule requir
ing search warrants for the search of private homes and
seemed to be more sympathetic toward the work of the
Constitutional Rights Committee than the Chief of Police,
When the Commission started to reconsider its ruling, a
few members of the Constitutional Rights Committee felt
that cooperation was impossible. Still the Constitutional
Rights Committee repeatedly presented its complaints
against the police to the Police Commission. The latter*s
reference of the charges to the Police Department for
further investigation, under a plea of lack of power to
take direct action, and the consistent exoneration of the
officers by the Police Department tended to dissuade most
of the members of the Constitutional Rights Committee of
the desirability of such cooperation with the Police Com
mission. The third annual report of the Constitutional
Rights Committee (1930-31) said, "we reluctantly conclude
that...... little good is accomplished by presenting such
matters to the Commission."^
In 1931, the outstanding attempt to cooperate with
the Police Commission was in regard to the drafting of
the police manual. The idea of compiling a simple state-
1 W,H.Anderson, "ignorance as a Factor in Criminal Law
Enforcement", The Bar Assn. Bulletin, V, 113.
2 Constitutional Ri^ts Committee, Third Annual Report.
34
ment of the rights and duties of policemen, showing
clearly the constitutional and statutory safeguards of
citizens, was announced in 1929;^ but a specific set of
police regulations was not submitted to the Police Com
mission until 1931. Some disagreement was expressed; but
the proposals were to be considered further. They are
still on file for consideration. Cooperation between the
Police Commission and the Constitutional Rights Committee
has not been very successful.
Faith in the possibility of cooperating with the
Police was evidently never strongly imbedded in the minds
of some of the members of the Constitutional Rights Commit
tee. After the first joint meeting, certain misgivings
were expressed. One member of the Committee tendered his
resignation because he believed the cooperative policy
futile. In February, 1929, a number of the Committeemen
felt that a definite breach of relations with the Police
was near. They waited for the Police to make the first
overt move away. This came in May when the Chief of
Police wrote one of the members of the Constitutional
P
Rights Committee that they spoke different languages.
The second annual report of the Constitutional Rights
Committee (1929-30) acknowledged the courtesy and profound
desire of the Police Department to aid in getting at the
truth of complaints against officers; but declared that
1 W.H.Anderson, ' "ignorance as a Factor in Criminal Law
Enforcement", supra.
2 Ibid., p. 110.
35
cooperation with the Police was infeasible.
Though there was much more said about cooperation
than ever accomplished or sincerely believed, practically
all personal enmity or conflict was avoided, at least in
its public manifestations.
INVESTIGATIONS
With the commencement of its work, the Constitutional
Rights Committee undertook to investigate complaints of
the unlawful enforcement of the law. The early publicity
given the Committee brought in complaints through lawyers,
interested citizens, and the complaining parties them
selves. To attend to the great amount of investigation
required, the Junior or Auxiliary Committee was appointed.
The members of this Committee spent considerable time inter
viewing the complainants, the eye witnesses and the offi
cers, inspecting records, jails and other places, and
presenting reports to the Constitutional Rights Committee
and the Police authorities. The initial spurt of activity
dwindled, but complaints have been heard and investigations
conducted to the present time.
The exact number of investigations made can hardly be
determined from the available records. No central file
seems to have been preserved and the members of the
Auxiliary Committee have not kept copies of all their re
ports. The report of the Auxiliary Committee for the year
1929-30 referred to only fifty cases. The Chairman of the
36
Constitutional Rights Committee, to whom most of the com
plaints came in the first instance, was of the opinion
that that was a modest under-statement of the number of
complaints received. Still, an examination of the min
utes of the Constitutional Rights Committee and the files
of the chairmen of the Auxiliary Committee, as well as the
records of several of the investigators revealed the men
tion of only ninety cases to the end of 1931. The follow
ing distribution of them is based on the dates when the
earliest mention of each case was made.
Number of Gases Mentioned.
Dec. 1928 2
Jan.-June, 1929, 47
July-Dec., 1929, 19 Total for 1929 - 66
Jan.-June, 1930, 10
July-Dec., 1930, 3 Total for 1930 - 13
Jan.-June, 1931, 4
July-Dee., 1931, 5 Total for 1931 - 9
Total, 90
The investigations in these cases lasted from a few
minutes to several months. Many complaints were apparent
ly disposed of at once by members of the Constitutional
Rights Committee because they were obviously unsound or
outside of the Committee’s jurisdiction, i.e., not cases
of local unlawful enforcement of the law. Many such cases
were probably never recorded anywhere, hence they would
not be included in the above table. Of the cases listed
37
above, there was no record of the disposition of most of
them. On April 15, 1929, the Chairman of the Auxiliary
Committee submitted a report to the Constitutional Rights
Committee of the cases referred to his committee. He
listed 31, 13 of which had been dropped, 7 of which had
been referred to the Police Commission and 11 of which
were pending. As to the 11 pending cases, no record was
found of any ever having been referred to the Police
authorities or the Prosecutors. The Police Commission
referred the matters sent to it to the Chief of Police
for investigation and all the officers were exonerated.
Two of the cases, however, were taken by the Constitution
al Rights Committee to the District Attorney and, in one,
a complaint was issued against two officers. This was
the determination of the first group of cases investi
gated, the cases about which most interest was aroused.
Though accurate data was not available, the indications of
the later records were that the later complaints produced
a much smaller proportion of cases taken to the Police
Commission or the District Attorney.
The opinion of members of the Constitutional Rights
Committee and the Auxiliary Committee as to the disposition
of the complaints investigated was best stated in the sec
ond annual report (1929-30) as follows:
"Many of these complaints, upon investi
gation, were found to be without merit and
the complainants so advised ..Others,
while made in seeming good faith, could not
be sufficiently substantiated to warrant their
58
being taken up with the authorities.
A very substantial number, however,
were found to be thoroughly justified
and amply substantiated. One or two
reached the peak of police brutality
and of the most flagrant flouting of
all constitutional and legal safe
guards. " ^
It is practically impossible to summarize the char
acter of the cases investigated by the Auxiliary Commit
tee. Most of them involved complaints of violence or
brutal force in the making of arrests. Many involved
complaints of unlawful searches. Complaints of physical
mistreatment to obtain confessions, of holding a prisoner
incommunicado, or of delay in presenting a prisoner before
a magistrate were relatively few; yet as individual cases,
some of them were outstanding. The cases stressed were,
of course, not necessarily the typical, but rather the
flagrant.
One of the earliest and most striking cases investi
gated was that of Alfredo Francisco Concha. The Auxiliary
Committee reported that Concha had worked as a machinist’s
helper from June 12th to November 4th, 1928. On November
4th, two policemen entered his home without a warrant,
made an unsuccessful search for narcotics and arrested
Concha. He was booked on suspicion of being a fugitive
from justice. A claim was made that he had jumped bail on
a narcotic charge in El Paso, Texas. Concha’s sister was
not allowed to see him in jail because when she came there,
1 Constitutional Rights Committee, Second Annual Report.
59
the arresting officer was out and there was a rule that
relatives could not visit felony prisoners in the absence
of the arresting officer. On November 9th, an attorney
was allowed to speak with Concha. On November 12th, Concha
hanged himself in his cell by the use of his belt. Upon
investigation it was learned that the narcotics charge
against Concha had been dismissed in El Paso on May 12,
1928. The Constitutional Rights Committee accused the
police of six breaches of the law, namely, arrest without
warrant when there was no showing a felony had been com
mitted, search without warrant when there was no reason
able cause for suspicion, failure to take the prisoner
before a magistrate without unnecessary delay, false im
prisonment, more restraint than necessary for arrest and
detention and inhumane and oppressive treatment.
The Police replied in letters, news reports and a
special number of the Public Relations Bulletin.^ They
maintained that they had been informed by two youths whom
they had arrested for peddling dope that Concha supplied
their wares. It was from the boys also, they said, they
learned that Concha had been arrested in El Paso, Texas,
for smuggling dope across the border and had forfeited
his bail. Concha was promptly arrested and he refused to
answer questions. The Federal Narcotic Agent was notified
and he produced an old letter from the Agent in El Paso
1 L.A.Police Dept., Div. of Public Relations Bulletin,
No. 21.
40
asking for Concha. The Federal Marshal wrote to El Paso
for further information and was informed on November 10th
that Concha was not wanted. The Narcotic Agent thought
there was some mistake and requested the local police to
hold Concha until further identification could be made.
On November 12th, Concha committed suicide. A later let
ter from El Paso confirmed the suspicions concerning
Concha’s past, even though it notified the police that
the charges against him had been dismissed. The police
claimed he was arrested without a warrant and his home
was searched without a warrant because there was reason
to believe he might escape or dispose of all incriminating
evidence as soon as he learned the boys had been arrested.
His sister was not allowed to see him in the absence of
the arresting officer because she might have learned how
to destroy evidence. According to the police, they had
taken "only that action which is permitted under the law
and which it is their solemn duty to take in their efforts
to protect the Los Angeles public from the deadly menace
of traffic in narcotics."^
The Constitutional Rights Committee pressed the char
ges that the police violated the law; that Concha was
driven to death before having been found guilty of crime,
and that even if Concha were disreputable, he was entitled
to the protection of the constitution and laws of the land.
1 L.A. Police Dept., Div. of Public Relations Bulletin,
No. 21.
41
If he were not accorded that protection, persons more
innocent than he would also suffer. The police, however,
insisted that the constitution was not intended to assist
criminals to evade the law and should not have been con
strued as the lawyers construed it. So the matter ended
without further action.
The only case given more publicity than the Concha
was the Hayrinen. It will be discussed in detail later
under the heading of "Prosecutions."
Another matter that received much attention was the
complaint made through a former Chief Justice of the Cali
fornia Supreme Court. According to the police, a man, who
later gave his name as "Tom Horton", responded to a phone
call and delivered liquor to a police operative on a cer
tain public street. When police officers appeared and
attempted to arrest Horton, he fled across the street,
jumped a fence, was seized by an officer Syhre, broke away,
ran back across the street, along to a crossing and down
another street into a yard where he was again seized by
Officer Syhre and struck once or twice before he was sub
dued. The statement of the woman into whose yard Horton
fled, and the statements of two neighbors were all that
Syhre beat Horton once or twice with steel handcuffs while
they were moving. Then Horton fell on his back, Syhre bent
over him and beat him over the head with the handcuffs,
striking many blows and producing a great flow of blood.
Horton did not resist, but said repeatedly, "Pal, I give
up." Since Syhre kept beating him, Horton rolled under
42
a hedge and into the adjoining yard. Syhre came around,
seized Horton and asked him if he would give up. The
witness heard no reply, hut saw Syhre strike Horton again
in the face and saw blood spatter in all directions. Then
Horton broke away and fled into the next yard where he
leaned against a house. Syhre followed, took hold of
Horton and led him along the street to where the police
car and another officer were waiting.
One of the witnesses jotted down the license number
of the police car and after repeated requests was told
the name of the other officer in the police car. Later
Syhre and another officer returned to the scene of the
melee and the other officer told one of the women wit
nesses that Horton had not been hurt much, but that the
arresting officer had received serious injuries. Syhre
was,observed and exhibited no injuries. The Receiving
Hospital record, attendant and doctor stated that Horton
was very bloody, had received very severe, blows and was
given four stitches in a two-inch scalp laceration.
Horton was not booked or prosecuted. The police
explained that he had broken the bottles containing the
incriminating evidence, and he gave them information that
led to the arrest of a bootlegger for whom Horton was
merely a delivery man. Neither Horton nor the bootlegger
could be located by the Auxiliary Committee investigators.
The matter was referred to the Police Commission.
After reading the complaint and taking statements of the
43
officers, without interviewing the other witnesses, the
Police Commission issued a report exonerating the officers
from all blame for the beating; but instead of mentioning
Horton, they gave the name of another person (the boot
legger) and placed the event at another location.^ When
the mistaken references were called to the Commission’s
attention, another report was made, with the correct name
and place, stating, “While absolving this officer from all
blame, it is the opinion of the Committee that this incident
would not have occurred had the leader in charge of the
squad seen to it that the arresting officer was not left
alone and thereby subjected to assault at the hands of a
person sought to be placed under arrest*
The Constitutional Rights Committee insisted upon a
more extensive investigation* The Police Commission re
ferred the matter to the Chief of Police* The Chief’s of
fice determined that because the complaining witness, Horton,
could not be found, no more could be done. The Constitution
al Rights Committee pressed-the case again and the Commission
submitted a lengthy reply to the effect that all the state
ments showed that Horton was resisting arrest, that the of
ficer was within his rights in subduing him, that the in
vestigations of the Chief of Police and the Commission ex
onerated Officer Syhre, that the Commission had no power,
1 L.A* Police Commission, Investigation Committee, Letter
Report on Syhre Complaint, Feb., 1930.
2 L.A. Police Commission, Investigation Committee, Second
Letter Report on Syhre Complaint, Feb., 1930.
44
anyway, to compel the Chief of Police to remove a member of
the Police Department, that the Commission did not sanction
brutality on the part of any officer, and that thorough in
vestigation revealed no brutality in this case.^ The Con
stitutional Rights Committee was unsatisfied; but the case
was closed.
Another case that received much publicity was the Bate
matter. In September, 1923, James H, Bate, a colored man
of sixty, stood on a street corner, with two grips in his
hands, waiting for a car. He was the assistant head janitor
of county buildings, and he had been awarded a deputy sher
iff’s badge in appreciation of his services. This badge
and the identification of his position were on his person
at the time. Two plain clothes officers, who were members
of a police detail known as “crime crushers" and who went
about to apprehend suspicious characters:, accosted him to
learn what he was doing there. They maintained later that
they showed him their badges; but he insisted he did not
know they were policemen and feared they were robbers.
Mr, Bate started to move away. The officers seized
him, struggled to hold him and beat down his resistance.
All the while, he yelled for help. In response to his cries,
three other plain clothes men and several civilians appeared.
The officers said they used only the force necessary
to overcome Bate’s resistance to arrest. The other witnesses
1 Letter from Arthur G. Boraw, Secretary Police Commission
to H, T, Morrow, Chairman C.R.C., Nov. 15, 1930.
45
testified that one officer punched him several times in the
mouth, another twisted his arm and others pummelled him gen
erally. Blood spurted from his face as he yelled, “Help
policeI“ An officer replied, “You’re in the hands of police
now, you black-.- - -“ Finally he was forced into an auto
mobile and, according to a witness who followed in another
car, the officers struck him repeatedly on the way to the
station. When they reached the station, they kicked and
punched him into the building.
In a few minutes, Bate was released without the filing
of charges against him. His arrest had been a mist#ce. For
several days. Bate remained in bed and then, still ailing,
he returned to work.
The officers, William J. Jolins, James R. Jester, J. K.
Caris, G. E, Ruppers and Lewis Finesilver were sued for assault
and battery. The Court awarded Bate $2500.00 damages and ex
coriated the officers as follows::
“Such men are not only unfit to be members of the
police department, but they are, to say the least,
undesirable citizens of the state. I do not think it
would be possible for me to express the contempt I
feel toward this sort of inexcusable, cowardly, brutal
treatment of a citizen by these officers. It is a
positive disgrace to the city of Los Angeles, and I
intend personally to take the matter up with the chief
of police and do what I can to see that the police
force is rid of such disreputable, cowardly vermin."^
The Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution
demanding the dismissal of the officers. The trial judge per
sonally requested the Chief of Police to remove them. But the
1 Judge Charles S. Burnell, reported in L.A. Express, March B,
1929.
46
officers appealed the case and action was delayed.
Two years after the beating, James H, Bate died. It was
claimed by his widow that he died as a result of the injuries
inflicted by the police.
Two years later, in February, 1929, the Supreme Court of
the State of California affirmed the judgment of the lower
court.^ Its sense of propriety was shocked by the vitriolic
remarks of the lower court; but it found no abuse of judicial
discretion.
The widow of James H, Bate then sought the payment of her
judgment and the discharge of the officers. The Chief of Police
investigated the matter and reported that the discharge of the
officers would undermine the morale of his department. At a
meeting of all the police captains, there was a unanimous re
solution to exonerate the officers and to raise the $2500.00
damages through a popular subscription amongst the police.
This led to several heated hearings before the Police Commis
sion. The Constitutional Rights Committee representative, an
attorney for the widow and a delegate from the Municipal League
urged action against the police, and the president of the Com
mission furiously attacked the police report. But it appeared
that the Commission could not act in the matter, except through
the Chief of Police and the Commission was unwilling to insist
upon any action on his part.
It was argued by the police representatives that the matter
had been determined by the courts and that the punishment of the
1 77 Gal. Dec. 343.
47
$2500.00 was sufficient. The attorney for the widow.dis
closed that he had as yet been able to recover on the judg
ment only $46.00. Simultaneously, the case was presented
to the City Council which demanded the immediate discharge
of the police, and which instructed a committee to probe the
rumor of a plan to collect the judgment from the rank and
file policemen. The demand for the discharge of the of
ficers was never heeded, but the threatened action on the
raising of funds from the department prevented the subscrip
tion of money and ironically left the judgment unpaid.
These cases were not necessarily typical of police
practices or of those investigated by the Constitutional
Rights Committee. They were not all the cases involving grave
circumstances. They are presented merely because they were
regarded as significant, they were given much attention by
the Constitutional Rights Committee and the Police and they
received extended public comment. They were influential in
forming the public opinion studied.
The investigation of complaints was the foundation of
the work of the Constitutional Rights Committee. It provided
ever new material for consideration. It aroused the emotional
forces behind the work. It supplied news for publicity. It
kept the causa vivendi of the Committee always before them.
LEGISLATION.
The Constitutional Rights Committee decided, e arly in
its existence, to propose various measures to the state leg
islature. In January, 1929, it endorsed five suggested changes
48
in the law.
1. A bill, prepared and recommended by the Committee on
Criminal Law and Procedure of the Los Angeles Bar Association,
to require confessions to be taken by a stenographic reporter
in the presence of a magistrate, provided the said bill be
amended to include misdemeanors as well as felonies.
2. A law prohibiting the search of any dwelling house
without a proper search warrant, and providing that in the
event a dwelling house is entered without a proper search
warrant being first had and obtained, the evidence shall not
be admissible at the trial.
3. A law making an unlawful entry into any house, room,
apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable,
outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, railroad car, mine
or any underground portion thereof, a misdemeanor.
4. Any legislation that may be required to place the
City prison in the control of a warden who shall not be a
member of or connected in any way with the police department.
5. Any legislation that may be necessary to place the
control of the County jail with an independent warden not
connected in any way with the office of the sheriff.
In the same month, that the Constitutional Rights Com
mittee approved the above legislative proposals, the bill
prepared by the Criminal Law and Procedure Committee of the
Bar Association was introduced on the floor of the State
Senate and referred to the Committee on Revision of Criminal
Law and Procedure. The bill was submitted by the Chairman
of the Constitutional Rights Committee to a few friends for
49
comment.# It was criticized ably and the Constitutional
Rights Committee decided to suggest certain amendments.
Those amendments were forwarded to the Senator who spon
sored the bill and he succeeded in having the Senate Com
mittee report favorably on the new bill, which was then
sent to the Senate as Senate bill 666. This bill provided
that no evidence of a confession should be admissible un
less certain conditions obtained. The most important of
these Conditions were that confessions made in the presence
of a police officer had to be taken down by a shorthand
reporter and had to be made before a magistrate and that
the magistrate must have advised the prisoner of his right
to counsel and of his right to refuse to speak.
Members of the Constitutional Rights Committee wrote
numerous letters and newspaper articles in defence of the
bill. The Los Angeles City Council adopted a resolution
indorsing the action of the Bar Association and ordered a
copy of the resolution sent to each member of the legisla
ture. The police utterances in opposition were few. Con
sequently, in April, the Senate passed bill 666.
The optomism of the Constitutional Rights Committee con
tinued, the newspaper comments were as spirited though not
as numerous as they were before; but in May the Assembly
Crime Problems Committee tabled the bill. It seemed impos
sible to marshall the necessary two-thirds vote of the Assem
bly to withdraw it from the Committee to the floor of the
50
House' and the bill was defeated.
Just why the bill was tabled by the Assembly Commit
tee is somewhat uncertain. All of its members, except
one, were from the northern.part of the state where the
Constitutional Rights Committee publicity had been feeble.
The outstanding opponent of the bill before the Committee
was the Attorney General for the State who insisted that
it would be a step backward in the State’s attempt to re
vise the Criminal Code. The Attorney General had also
been outside of the group mobilized by the Constitutional
Rights Committee in its work. Immediately belated efforts
were made to alter his views. A rumor reached some of the
members of the Constitutional Rights Committee that the
bill was defeated largely by virtue of a sneering statement
that it was an effort to clean some "dirty linen of Los
Angeles" at the expense of the administration of justice
throughout the state* Whatever was responsible for the
death of the bill, the Constitutional Rights Committee pro
claimed its determination to spread its gospel to the North
and fight on until the bill became law. To date, .little
has been done in this regard.
The second proposed legislative change— to prohibit
the search of a dwelling house without a search warrant—
was embodied in a resolution passed by the Police Commission
in June, 1929. However, the Constitutional Rights Commit
tee in January, 1929, proposed not only such a police regu
lation but also the enactment of a state law to that effect.
51
As yet no such law has been sent to the legislature.
The corollary law proposed, namely, that in the
event a dwelling house be searched without a warrant, the
evidence secured should be inadmissible at a trial, also
was prepared. This was the rule in the Federal Courts,
but the California Supreme Court in the case of People vs.
Mayne, 188 Gal. 237, held that evidence unlawfully obtained
might be used in a trial. The third annual report of the
Constitutional Rights Committee presented the draft of a
bill providing the rule of the Federal courts for the
State of California. Though there had long been a strong
sentiment against the Mayne case amongst criminal lawyers
and many citizens, notably some active anti-prohibitionists,
there was little publicity given this proposed bill. The
bill was forwarded to the Senator who had introduced the
Senate Bill 666; but whatever effort, if any, was made to
interest the legislators in it was to no avail in the 1931
session of the legislature.
Not even the drafting of a bill seems to have been
done for a new law making an unlawful entry a misdemeanor.
Every now and then, a member of the Constitutional
Rights Committee wrote or spoke of the need for civilian
control over the jails. However, the suggestion was appar
ently left dormant until considered at a meeting in May,
1931. Then the prevailing attitude toward it seemed to be
one of study and education instead of legislation.
The early thought that the County jail should be placed
52
under the control of a warden independent of the sheriff
did not persist long except perhaps as a theoretically
ideal objective. There was little complaint heard about
the treatment of prisoners in the County Jail. Once con
fined there, the prisoners were beyond the jurisdiction
of the city police. With the absence of immediate cause
for a change, there was no movement to alter the control
of the County Jail by legislation.
There were occasional proposals made by individual
members of the Constitutional Rights Committee to change
certain traditional rules of law in order to relieve the
burden upon police officers and thus reduce the tendency
toward unlawful enforcement of the law. Some of the mem
bers thought that trial judges should be given the power
to sum up evidence and comment thereon. Some believed
that either defendants should not be allowed to refuse to
testify or prosecutors should be allowed to castigate them
for it. Others declared that a verdict of nine out of the
twelve jurors should be sufficient to convict. All of the
proposals were regarded by some of the members of the com
mittee as dangerously depriving defendants of age-tested
constitutional protections. The members of the Committee,
however, generally declared themselves in favor of legis
lative measures that would make the conviction of the
guilty swift and certain so that the police might be will
ing to moderate their methods. No agreement was ever
formally reached on specific proposals.
53
After the defeat of the Senate Bill 666, there was
little new specific legislative activity. The second
annual report of the Constitional Rights Committee said,
"Our Committee is now most seriously considering and hopes
...to formulate certain constructive hills to be presented
to the next legislature."^ The third annual report pre
sented the draft of the bill against the use of evidence
2
unlawfully seized. During 1931, an ordinance allowing
the Public Defender to visit prisoners in the City Jail
was considered by the Committee. ’ yVhen it was discovered
that it required an amendment to the City Charter, it was
tabled. The year 1931 closed with the Constitutional
Rights Committee still committed to the consideration and
advocacy of legislation against the unlawful enforcement
of the law, but with no specific proposals before it.
Related to the legislative activity of the Constitu
tional Rights Committee was the effort to secure the adop
tion of a police manual by the Police Commission. The
Committee’s intention was to furnish the Police with a set
of rules or orders clearly specifying the rights and duties
of officers in the light of the constitutional and statu
tory liberties and privileges of citizens. The manual was
to be inclusive of all departmental regulations covering
all phases of police work, but the Constitutional Rights
Committee was particularly interested in preparing the
1 Constitutional Rights Committee, Second Annual Report.
2 Constitutional Rights Committee, Third Annual Report.
54
section that was to be a guide toward lawful enforcement
of the law.
In January, 1929, a sub-committee of the Constitu
tional Rights Committee recommended Conferences with the
Police and suggested the establishment of the following
rules:
"1. Prohibiting any police officer from giving or
suggesting to a person under arrest, or to any rela
tive or friend of such person the name or names of
any attorney or attorneys to be consulted on the
case of the person arrested."
"2. Prohibiting any searck or any dwelling house,
etc.. without proper search warrant."
"3. Permitting counsel or near relatives of per
sons held in jail to talk freely with such person
without requiring thé presence of the officer who
made the arrest. Counsel shall have the right to
talk with the accused without the presence of any
officer or other third party. If jail officers
fear that knives, saws, etc., may be passed in by
counsel, the accused may be searched before and
after counsel’s visit."
"4. Prohibiting police officers from questioning
the prisoner after arrest except in the presence of
some neutral or trustworthy third party not in any
way connected with the police force."
"5. Limiting arrests without warrant to actual
emergencies when there is imminent danger of the
escape of the defendant before a warrant could be
procured. In such case or emergency arrest, the
officer or officers making the arrest shall, within
twenty-four hours after the arrest is made, file a
written statement with the Police Commission stat
ing the facts upon which the officer based his
belief in the flight or escape of the prisoner.
Such statement shall be open to public inspection."
Few of these were ever adopted.
The general publicity given the work of the Consti
tutional Rights Committee produced the publication in the
Daily Police Bulletin for December 19, 1928, of a rule
55
against the use of force except in certain cases. It
read:
"The use of force or violence upon a prisoner for
any other purpose than in self defense, or in over
coming resistance in arrest, or to prevent an es
cape is strictly forbidden. Securing statements
or confessions by the use of threat or force or
violence is likewise forbidden. If any officer
is found guilty of using force or violence upon a
prisoner for any reason other than the three noted
above, drastic action will be taken immediately!"
"Complaints of brutality will be thoroughly inves
tigated by the Dep. Chief in charge of Personnel
and disciplinary action will be taken in all cases
in which the findings warrant it."
The continued criticism of the Police upon the investi
gation of the early complaints caused the Chief of Police
to repeat the publication of above order in the Daily
Police Bulletin of March 28, 1929. The Chief of Police
firmly declared at all times that the regulations of his
department strictly forbade the use of force or violence
upon prisoners except in situations provided for by law.
The next police rule to be stressed was not promul
gated by the Chief of Police. In June, 1929, the Police
Commission passed a resolution that dwelling houses were
not to be searched for liquor without a warrant. This
was met by a storm of opposition. The police, ardent
prohibitionists, and an evening newspaper attacked it
bitterly.^ The Police Commission decided to reconsider
it. The Constitutional Rights Committee came to its sup
port and the Commission was persuaded to reaffirm its
1 W.H.Anderson, "ignorance as a Factor in Criminal Law
Enforcement", supra.
56;
former stand.
The proposals for police rules made in January came
up for discussion before the Constitutional Rights Com
mittee again in August. In September, the President of
the Police Commission attended a meeting of the Constitu
tional Rights Committee and the idea of a manual was con
sidered with him. In December, the chairman of the
Constitutional Rights Committee and a representative of
the Police Commission conferred again over the manual.
At the end of the year, the second annual report of the
Committee said, "the Police Commission, conforming to
suggestions from our Committee, is now at work upon a
manual of police regulation.... to substantially embody
the IT ovisions of our Constitution and laws prescribing
the duties of the police.
The conferences with the chairman of the Police
Commission and the secretary at work on the manual were
resumed in February and May of 1930. But in January, 1931,
the suggestions of the Constitutional Rights Committee
were rejected by the Police Commission as unsatisfactory.
They were then sent to the Assistant Chief of Police for
his consideration. Further conferences were had and re
ports considered by the Constitutional Rights Committee
in April, May and June. In May, 1931, a sub-committee of
the Constitutional Rights Committee completed a draft of
1 Constitutional Rights Committee, Second Annual Report.
57
a Police Manual. It was submitted, to the Police Commis
sion, but no agreement was reached. The year ended with
an attitude of patiently awaiting a more cooperative
spirit in the future.
EDUCATION OF THE POLICE AND THE BAR
The Constitutional Rights Committee undertook its
mission with the hope of raising the educational level
of the police force. As part of the program of coopera
tion, the Committee was to volunteer its services in pre
paring a police manual and in lecturing to squads of
officers on the Constitutions, Statutes and Ordinances
affecting their work.^ The early conferences were not
very encouraging. At the end of 1930, the second annual
report said of cooperation and educational lectures,
"Neither of these propositions proved feasible, largely
because while met by Chief Davis and his aides v/ith
assurances of good will and friendly cooperation, we were
soon convinced that they entertained no such friendly
spirit, but rather looked upon us as a set of sentimental,
meddling interlopers who did not understand the problems
with which the Police had to deal."^
Still the ideal of proper police education persisted.
In December, 1930, it was decided to write to the police
1 Ann. Report of the Committee on Constitutional Rights
for 1928-29, supre.
2 Constitutional Rights Committee, Second Annual Report.
58
heads in various cities for their methods of determining
which applicants for police jobs had an adequate know
ledge of the law. A report of the replies was made to
the Committee in January, 1931. An outline for the Com
mittee’s work during 1931, consequently listed,(1) the
study of a police training school; (2) "Constructive work
within and through the Police Department looking to the
education of officers of the law in ,the rights of prison
ers and of persons suspected of crime" ^and (3) the teach
ing of the Constitution to applicants for police jobs.
The Constitutional Rights Committee considered these mat
ters a little, and Individual members continued their own
research, but no concrete plans were evolved by the end
of 1931.
The Police themselves favored a municipal police
school. During 1924 - 1926, a school was operated under
the supervision of Inspector J. Pinlinson, later made
Assistant Chief of Police. The school was abandoned in
the course of a city economy campaign. Fifty of the fifty-
two officers interviewed in this study were enthusiasti
cally in favor of the reopening of the school. To meet
the need for such a school, two private institutions of
fered classes to policemen. The studies were undertaken
chiefly to pass examinations for promotion and higher pay,
and no special emphasis seems to have been laid upon the
1 Outline of Work adopted by the Constitutional Rights
Committee for 1931.
59
law of citizens* rights. Still those principles of law
were taught along with the rest; consequently the Consti
tutional Rights Committee in October, 1931, determined to
cooperate with the instructors in those schools. The
possibility of a municipal police school, despite the
mutual desire for it amongst the Constitutional Rights
Committee and the ^olice, is still frustrated by the de
pression and the supposed need for economy.
The necessity of educating the Bar and the members
of the Constitutional Rights Committee did not escape the
attention of the Committee, The leaders of the Constitu
tional Rights Committee immediately conducted their own
researches and advised each other and other lawyers of
their findings. Court decisions, magazine articles, a
New York Bar committee survey, a report of a Royal Com
mission to study police problems in England and other
relevant information were circulated widely. The investi
gations of the Auxiliary Committee produced a constant
stream of data. The letters to officials and organizations
brought replies with various viewpoints. The reports of
the sub-committees of the Constitutional Rights Committee
showed the results of thought and preparation. Articles
were submitted to the local law journals. Speeches were
made to the neighboring bar associations. The report to
the Section of Criminal Law and Criminology of the Ameri
can Bar Association was a scholarly climax.^
1 "Lawless Enforcement of Law", supra.
60
In January, 1931, 500 copies of it were printed and sent
to legislators and Bar associations in California and
elsewhere.
The Chairman of the Constitutional Rights Committee
for 1930-31, wrote in his outline of the work for 1931,-
"it is not enough that we should investigate,
criticize and attempt to prosecute violations of
constitutional rights of citizens. We must under
stand the causes for conditions as they exist....."
"During all the life of this Committee, it has,
of course, carried on studies in practically all
the subjects allied to the work, but, with a few
noted exceptions, the efforts along some lines have
been desultory and incomplete. Prom now on some....
plan....should be followed, without, however, any
cessation in investigations, and when justified,
prosecutions of offenses against constitutional
rights."
Notwithstanding the last clause, the emphasis of his re
commendations was clearly upon sound study. He proposed
the assignment of one specific problem to each member for
study and a report. The tentative plan adopted by the
Committee for its 1931 activities followed these sugges
tions of the former chairman. It listed for study the
police methods of handling complaints, the rule permitting
relatives to consult prisoners only in the presence of an
officer, the needed legislation, the Wickersham report,
the segregation of prisoners from arresting officers in
jail under a civil officer not responsible to the Police
and the educational systems for Police in other cities.
Some of these were old program planks submitted for further
study.
61
These studies were undertaken by men with time
severely limited by their law practices, hence progress
was necessarily slow. Still, a survey of the Los Angeles
jails was executed by a member of the Auxiliary Committee
and a draft of a Police Manual was completed by members
of the Constitutional Rights Committee. Exigencies of
the time diverted attention to new situations. A new
study was made of the unlawful arrest and detention of
aliens ^and a hasty preliminary study was made of the
practices of the Police in prohibiting radical meetings.
The work of investigations went on and the more profound
study took its course more sL owly. The process of edu
cating the members of the Constitutional Rights Committee
and the Bar was forced to adapt itself to practical cir
cumstances that differed from the outlined plan.
PROSECUTION
The first public announcement of the Bar Association
campaign against the unlawful enforcement of the law said,
"we must be prepared to institute proper proceedings in
instant cases against those who continue to violate or
Q
deny the constitutional rights of citizens." As compla
ints came in and investigations disclosed abuses of po
lice power, more positive assertions were made of a deter-
1 "L. A. Bar Association investigates Lawless Enforcement
of the Law", The Bar Assn. Bulletin, VI, 354.
2 H. T, Morrow, "The Third Degree", The Bar Assn. Bulletin,
IV, 40.
62
mination to prosecute the offenders unrelentingly. The
early cases of alleged police lawlessness were referred
to the Police Commission. This resulted in an unsatis
factory exoneration and before April, 1929, two cases
were taken to the District Attorney*s office for prose
cution. The District Attorney agreed to proceed in one,
known as the Hayrinen case.
This was the only prosecution ever obtained by the
Constitutional Rights Committee. It caused widespread
comment and the writer deemed it a crucial situation for
an intensive case study. The stenographic transcript of
the first court trial in the matter was read. The Deputy
District Attorney and the Deputy City Prosecutor, who
conducted the prosecution,and the attorneys for the defense,
the complaining witness, and members of the Constitutional
Rights Committee were interviewed. The meeting of the Bar
Association devoted to a discussion of the case was atten
ded and the speakers were later interviewed. The state
ments of the judges and jurors were verified and studied,
and the reports in the leading daily newspapers were
examined and evaluated. All the information was then re
viewed for the following aspects of the public opinion.
The prosecution was founded on the complaint of Axel
Hayrinen against detectives, E. J. Romero and Kelly
Kirksey. The technical charge was assault under color of
authority, a high grade misdemeanor punishable by imprison-
63
ment in the County Jail for a period not to exceed five
years and a fine of not more than $6000.00. A jury trial
has held, the officers were convicted and the judge
granted a new trial. The next trial was before a judge
without a jury and the case was dismissed.
Axel Hayrinen was born in Finland and there achieved
repute for athletic prowess. In 1912, he came to America
and became a naturalized citizen. He served in the World
War as a private, corporal and sergeant of an engineer
regiment. His honorable discharge papers read, "character
excellent" and "took part in Meuse-Argonne offensive".
After the war, he took up his residence in Los Angeles
where he worked as a cement contractor. The-dealers arid
builders with whom he did business referred to him as
honest, industrious and reliable.
He always maintained the same story. On March 1st,
1929, between 10:30 and 11:00 P.M., near the corner of
Fifth and Crocker Streets, Los Angeles, he got into his
car and was about to drive away, when a police car drew
up. Two officers in plain clothes were in the car. One
asked, "Is your name Redman?" Hayrinen said, "No". The
officers told him to get out of his car and searched him
and his car. They seemed to find nothing of interest.
They spoke to him about who he was and whether he had been
arrested before. One of them said, "You don't like police,
do you?", to which he replied that he didn't like their
manner of arrests. They notified him of his arrest and
64
told him they were going to take him to talk to the cap
tain. On the way to the station, they told him he didn't
like the country and though Hayrinen mentioned his war
record, they indicated he was an anarchist. When they ar
rived at the jail, one of the officers said, "Well, we
didn't get Hedtnan, hut we got another man." He then
brought out the Captain and introduced Hayrinen. The Cap
tain said, "So you are hardboiled" and something about
Hayrinen's nationality and the pronunciation of his name.
He then asked, "So you don't like the police?" Hayrinen
replied, "I cannot very well like them". The Captain
then ordered the officers to take him into a room, and he
was taken by one of his arresting officers, later identi
fied as Kelly Kirksey. Kirksey had him sit on a bench at
a table and Kirksey sat down opposite him.
Then a large Mexican entered and said, "So you don't
like the police?" Hayrinen remained silent. The Mexican
asked him to relate what happened. When Hayrinen began to
talk, the Mexican struck him on the mouth with his fist,
and probably a brass knuckle. The blow cut a hole clear
through Hayrinen's upper lip. Hayrinen tried to cover his
head and ward off other blows; the Mexican pummelled him
four or five times and pounded Hayrinen's head against the
wall. The Mexican kept saying, "So you don't like the
police? I'll make you like the police." Hayrinen failed
to resist for fear that Kirksey would add blows to those
of the Mexican. Finally Hayrinen said, "I got enough".
65
By that time his face and clothes and the wall were
splattered with blood. Kirksey asked him, "How do you
like the police now?" He answered, "I like them fine. I
changed my mind about the police now". The Mexican left
the room and Kirksey kept talking to Hayrinen, while he
bled, for about ten minutes. Hayrinen asked to be released
so he could appear at a job in the morning* Kirksey went
out, returned in a few minutes and informed him the Cap
tain was willing to let him go. Hayrinen was taken to
another room to wash the blood off his face and released.
He went to a neighboring small hospital where the surgeon
refused to treat him until he got some money. He walked
back to his car, several blocks away, found a friend, bor
rowed money and returned to the same hospital where four
stitches were put in his lip at about 11:40 P.M. Hayrinen
was never booked at the police station and no charges were
ever filed against him. He later identified the Mexican
as a detective, E. J. Romero.
Officer Kelly Kirksey admitted that he and an officer
Pruett had arrested Hayrinen as a robbery suspect. He said
they took him to the central station and after a brief in
vestigation decided he was not the man they were seeking
and released him. Kirksey claimed he left Hayrinen in a
room alone and saw absolutely no one touch him. At the
trial, before the District Attorney* s investigators, Kirk
sey did admit that Hayrinen had no blood on him when he
went into the room and did have some blood on him when he
66
came out, but Kirksey denied any knowledge of how the
flow of blood was caused.
Officer E. J. Romero denied positively having been in
the central station at the time of the alleged occurrence.
He said he was in the company of deputy sheriffs at work
on an investigation and later left the county jail with
two of the deputy sheriffs for an outlying city police
station from which he returned to the central station
after the time of Hayrinen’s release.
Though the official complaint against the officers
was issued by the District Attorney, the matter was strict
ly within the jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor. The
case was assigned to a Deputy City Prosecutor for prepara
tion and trial. Hayrinen had his own attorney, whom he
acquired through his American Legion affiliation, and who
stood by to help with the prosecution. The Constitutional
Rights Committee also assigned an attorney to work, on the
case. The latter claims the time for trial was but a few
days off when he discovered that the Deputy City Prosecutor
had not subpoenaed any witnesses nor prepared Hayrinen for
trial. The Constitutional Rights Committee attorney then
brought in Hayrinen and subpoenaed the doctor who had
treated him. At the day of the trial, there was some mis.-
understanding between the District Attorney’s office and
the City Prosecutor s office. The Deputy City Prosecutor
was not to try the case. About five minutes before the
67
case was called to trial, a Deputy District Attorney who
had never heard of the case, was told to appear in the
Department 7.
He arrived to hear the case of People vs. Romero and
Kirksey called to trial. The attorneys for Hayrinen and
for the Constitutional Rights Committee were there to as
sist him. A Deputy City Prosecutor was there also, but he
merely listened to the proceedings. The case was ready and
as he called Hayrinen, the first witness to the stand, the
prosecutor read the salient facts of the case from a trial
sheet in his office folder. The attorneys for Hayrinen and
the Constitutional Rights Committee further apprised him of
all the circumstances as the case proceeded.
Hayrinen told the above story. The only other state's
witness was the doctor who had treated him. He also pro
duced the hospital record that showed that Hayrinen came
in at 11:30. The defendants denied the charges and their
attorney put on the stand over twenty deputy sheriffs and
a police captain to establish Romero's alibi. They testi
fied that he was in the Hall of Justice until 11:05. Then
he and two deputies rode to the Wilshire Police Station
and were on their way at the time of the alleged assault.
The records of the Wilshire and Central Stations showed
that Romero left the Wilshire Station with a prisoner at
12:05 and deposited him in the Central Station at 12:30--
after Hayrinen had left. In refutation of the alibi, the
prosecution introduced a record of the Central Station
showing that Romero and his partner, Torres, reported in
68
at 9:15 P.M., and reported out at 11:20 P.M., indicating
that Romero was still in the Central Station when Hayrinen
was beaten.
The next morning, the prosecutor argued for about
thirty minutes; the defense counsel decried the blood
thirsty prosecution and in the course of his remarks
likened the prosecutor to Herod. The prosecutor started
his rebuttal by responding to that analogy when, after a
few minutes, the court interrupted him and immediately
charged the jury. The jury was out for one hour and
twenty minutes and returned with a verdict of "Guilty".
The jurymen told the attorneys and court attaches that
they were convinced Hayrinen told the truth and that the
Deputy Sheriffs were lying to protect a fellow officer.
The judge was angered by the verdict. He call all the
attorneys to his chambers, told them he thought the decis
ion was outrageous and said he was going to grant a new
trial. V/hen the formal motion was made in open court,
the judge criticized the jury severely and said, "The
court feels that if these defendants, particularly Romero,
can be found guilty on the evidence introduced, it is pos
sible to convict any person of a crime merely by accusing
him of it. Romero has a perfect alibi, accounting for his
movements on the night of the asserted assault from 9 P.M.
to after 3 A.M., sworn to by many perfectly reliable wit
nesses. Conviction in this case means that it is useless
to put in a defense against any crime which may be charged
69
against any person."
When the new trial was urged, the District Attorney’s
office seemed to take the attitude that they had vindi
cated their initial complaint by getting a verdict of
"Guilty" and that the City Prosecutor’s office ought to
assume the burden of proceeding with the case since it
was vjithin their jurisdiction. This the City Prosecutor’s
Office undertook to do. The Deputy City Prosecutor assign
ed to the case, however, believed that Hayrinen was prob
ably beaten in the City Jail but that his identification
of the officers v/as mistaken. Because of the Bar Associa
tion's insistencd upon prosecution, he consulted a judge
who was his intimate personal friend, for advice as to
what conduct would be proper for him. The Deputy said he
feared trouble, but the Judge advised him to go ahead with
the case and do what he thought right. He decided to lay
all of the evidence fairly before the court and let the
trial judge decide the case on its merits. With that atti
tude, regretting that he was in the case and determined to
make the court the final arbiter of guilt or innocence, he
prosecuted the case.
The attorney for Hayrinen sat through the second
trial but refused to participate. He had been told by the
Deputy City Prosecutor that the Deputy was an intimate
friend of Kirksey’s, that they visited each other’s homes
frequently, and that the Deputy was certain Kirksey could
not have committed or countenance the assault charged.
70
That convinced Hayrinen’s attorney that the Deputy was not
seeking a conviction. During the trial, he felt the De
puty was permitting the defense counsel "to get away with
anything". He recalled that the judge had to stop the
defense counsel himself once and the prosecution was so
lax the attorneys "kidded" each other about it. He believ
ed "the prosecution was a big joke".^
The attorneys for the Constitutional Rights Committee,
who attended the second trial, were members of the Auxiliary
Committee. They were present merely as spectators.
The defense counsel was an experienced criminal law
yer. In an interview, some time after the trial, he told
the following. He believed the police occasionally employ
ed the third degree and he was opposed to it. The Bar
Association was against these men, and he didn’t want to
handle their case. He wanted them to get another attorney.
He would have been glad to donate the necessary fee. But
the officers insisted that if he could show them a single
reason why he shouldn’t defend them they would get another
attorney. He tried to find some reason, but he couldn’t.
He went over the case. He cross-examined them. They had
a perfect alibi. He couldn’t find a flaw. Nevertheless,
the jury was so prejudiced against violence they would
have found the defendants guilty on any evidence. For
tunately the evidence was so clear, the first judge had
1 From personal interview.
71
no hesitation about granting a new trial. At the second
trial, the judge was originally against the men, but as the
evidence went in he turned all for them. The Deputy City
Prosecutor later told him (the defense counsel) that the
defendants were not guilty and that the Deputy*s con
science hurt him in prosecuting the case.
At the second trial, practically the same evidence
was presented as at the first, but a new element was added.
The judge wanted to view the place where the alleged beat
ing occurred, so the parties, lawyers and the judge went
to the station house. The Central Station and the officer*s
quarters were in a few adjoining old buildings. The corri
dors and rooms were irregularly arranged. Hayrinen led
them from one place to another. He was not positive. He
seemed lost. When he approached a certain room, Romero,
believing that Hayrinen* s attorney indicated that room to
Hayrinen, swung his fist to strike the attorney, but others
interceded and Romero apologized. Hayrinen designated that
room as the one in which he was assaulted. There was no
blood on the wall. There was some question as to whether
the room had been redecorated or cleaned recently. Further
more, Hayrinen refused to state positively that that was
the room. He thought several of the rooms were similar
and the passages and stairways turned so that he could not
be certain. He had been in the station only once before
and he thought he had found the right room.
At the close of the trial, the Deputy City Prosecutor
made various remarks that were later taken by members of
72.
the Constitutional Rights Committee to indicate a failure
to prosecute properly. The transcript shows, he said:
"That action on the part of the Police
Department was, to put it mildly, a mistake.
Of course, we attorneys are probably unaware
of the workings of the Police Department, the
things that they have to do in performing their
duty of protecting life, limb and property in
this city. We all know that the city is in
fested with criminals of all sorts, and some
are very dangerous characters."
and
and
"In this case the evidence does not dis
close that Romero....if Romero was there....
assume for the sake of this argument that
Romero was there....the testimony does not
disclose that Romero stated at the time that
this took place that he was an officer, or
that he showed him any badge, but that he
simply walked in the room and, without showing
any badge or any other authority, that he as
saulted this man."
"I feel frankly that if your Honor dis
regards the testimony of Poe se and Gray, then
there is a possibility that Romero possibly
went to the police station and assaulted this
man. "
and again
"Now I don*t feel that it is the duty of
the attorney to give his personal opinion of
the weight of the testimony whether or not a
witness is or is not telling the truth. That
is a matter which rests solely with the dis
cretion of the court or jury. In this instance,
the court is sitting without a jury and has
that duty to perform solely himself."
Though ideally, a prosecutor is supposed to gather as much
evidence as possible and lay it all before the judge in an
effort to help the court determine guilt or innocence, in
practice such a procedure is extremely rare.
73
In pronouncing his judgment, the court said he was
convinced that Hayrinen was beaten in the city jail and
that the offenders ought to be punished to the limit of
the law; but he did not believe that Hayrinen had estab
lished the identity of his attackers beyond a reasonable
doubt as required by law for a conviction. The judge
said Hayrinen was so uncertain about locating the room
in which the assault occurred; he was beaten about the
head and was in a daze; he saw his attackers for only a
short time; hence he might have been mistaken about their
identity. Because the burden of proof was not upheld;
because the defendants were not identified beyond a reas
onable doubt, the complaint was dismissed.
The case caused a great stir amongst the members, of
the Constitutional Rights Committee. As previously plan
ned, a meeting of the Bar Association was set aside for
a discussion of the unlawful enforcement of the law.
The Constitutional Rights Committee was given charge of
it. A lengthy talk on the Hayrinen case was the feature
event of the evening. In it all the details of the case
were given, the trials were discussed, the first judge
was criticized for granting a new trial and the Deputy
City Prosecutor was lashed for his feeble prosecution.
It was not made clear who was the prosecutor; so at the
end of the speech, the Deputy District Attorney who got
the jury conviction, arose and explained that he was not
the prosecutor referred to. The Deputy City Prosecutor
74
of the second trial, arose and asserted that he was the
prosecutor mentioned; but that he had tried the case to
the best of his ability. He was hissed by many of the
Bar Association members. The City Prosecutor sprang to
his defense and rebuked the officers of the Bar Associa
tion for having invited his deputy there as a guest to
receive such abuse. The senior vice-president of the Bar
Association apologized for this breach of etiquette; but
the sentiment of the gathering was definitely aroused
against the unlawful enforcement of the law and for the
need of further prosecution.
Shortly after the meeting, the speaker on the Hay
rinen case and the judge who granted the new trial wrote
to each other in defense of their positions and their
letters were printed in a legal newspaper.^ The judge
denounced police brutality, but he sought to clarify the
situation. He declared that "At no place in the proceed
ings vms it claimed, nor did the evidence disclose that
Officer Kirksey participated in or committed an assault
upon Hayrinen". The Constitutional Rights Committee
speaker replied, "Hayrinen testified that Kirksey stood
by while Romero assaulted and battered him. If Hayrinen* s
testimony was true, did not Kirksey*s presence constitute
participation? And would not Kirksey*s presence have
contributed to Hayrinen*s decision not to defend himself",
1 Letters between Judge C. Sheldon and J. L. Lewinson,
L. A. News, May 23rd and 27th, 1929.
75
also "Kirksey admitted that Hayrinen had no blood on his
clothes when he (Hayrinen) went into the room, but had
blood on his clothes when he (Hayrinen) left the room".
As to ;Romero, the judge stated, "The testimony of these
deputy sheriffs was inherently worthy of belief, and the
alibi, as I understand it from construction and the writ
ten law, was established, as was the weight and suffi
ciency thereof, to say nothing of the preponderance of the
testimony of these twenty officers". The reply pointed
out that the Central Station time sheet showed Romero
reported in at 9:15 and out at 11:20, and that all the
deputy sheriffs accounted for Romero until 11:05 from
when he was said to be in the presence of only two other
officers. The letter enumerated four grounds for the
speaker's opinion. "1--The defense of alibi was incon
sistent with the record evidence, namely, the Central
Station time sheet. 2— The evidence as to alibi was not
inconsistent with the evidence as to the time of the as
sault because the evidence to alibi did not preclude
Romero stopping at the Central Station between 11:05 and
11:20 and still making the trip to the Wilshire Station....
3— The evidence as to alibi was inherently improbable as
it is unlikely that Romero would have gone directly from
the Sheriff's office to the Wilshire Station without
stopping at the Central Station (which he had to pass any
way) for an order on the Wilshire Station for the delivery
of the prisoner to him. 4-- Hayrinen* s evidence was
76
positive and no motive for fabrication was shown, while
the denials of Kirksey and Romero were negative only; and
positive evidence is ordinarily to be preferred over nega
tive evidence." There followed a number of legal refer
ences to authorities on the superiority of written evi
dence over oral evidence. At this the matter dropped.
At the Bar Association meeting, the Chairman of the
Constitutional Rights Committee, referring to the defeat
of the Senate bill 666 and the dismissal of tbe charges
against Romero and Kirksey, said, "We have been butting
out heads against a stone wall and it is true that our
heads are bloody, but they are unbowed". This he repeat
ed several times during the evening. A great many times
subsequently, members of the Constitutional Rights Com
mittee voiced their determination to prosecute officers
guilty of flagrantly lawless enforcement of the law. But
by the end of 1931, no other prosecution was undertaken
through the efforts of the Committee.
SmfMARY OF BAR ASSOCIATION - POLICE OPINION
The foregoing presents the activities of the Consti
tutional Rights Committee and the Police in a more or less
logical classification. Though the time sequence was ob
served under each heading, the entirety probably did not
convey the relative stress placed upon each activity, or
reveal the chronological coincidence and development that
occurred. It is practically impossible to make such com
77
parative observations accurately; however, the following
chart indicates crudely the time spread and emphasis given
the activities in the fields already considered.
1928-29
©ct.’2S July
to to
June *29 Dee.
1950
Jan.
to to
June Dec.
1931
Jan. July
to to
June Dec.
Organization Very
Much
Publicity Very
Much
Much
Much Some Little Little Less
Oo-operation Some
Investigation Very Much Little Little Less Less
Much (New) (New)
Prosecution Some
Legislation Some
Rule Making Little Some More
Education Very
Little
Much
Perhaps a more helpful birds-eye view of the run of
the Constitutional Rights Committee activity can be gather
ed from a scant summary of the highlights or the most en
gaging specific problems considered.
78
From October, 1928, to June, 1929.
The greatest concern and commotion was over
publicity, contacts and organization of assistance. The
investigation of cases was regarded as extremely vital
and the reports on the separate cases were considered very
seriously. The Hayrinen case was the height of the case
work. The Senate bill 666 was the next great issue.
From July to December, 1929.
The publicity and organizational work and the
ease investigations continued at a slower pace. The Police
Commission ruling against searches of homes without warrants
was the chief new objective. The work for a police manual
was commenced.
From January to June, 1930.
Some case investigations and the police manual
were considered.
From June to December, 1930.
The training and selection of police were studied
and reported. A bill to prevent the use of evidence unlaw
fully obtained was proposed.
From January to June, 1931.
A study of the unlawful arrest and detention of
aliens was made. The police manual was completed. Various
proposals for jail administration and impartial control
were considered.
79
Prom July to December, 1931.
The study of all phases of the unlawful enforce
ment of the law and specific remedies was stressed. Co
operation with police schools was determined upon. The
prevention of radical meetings was protested and submitted
for study.
The character of the Constitutional Rights Committee
activity changed markedly. The same basic ideas and ob
jectives persisted throughout all of it; but the means of
expression and the tempo changed from time to time.
80
THE RECORD INVESTIGATION BY THE GRAND JURY.
When the Constitutional Rights Committee's investiga
tions were on the wane, similar activity arose in another
quarter. In October, 1931, a series of complaints against
the police were lodged with the Grand Jury. A popular
criminal attorney, S. S. Hahn, appeared as the attorney for
most of the complainants and he attributed the instigation
of the proceedings to the Los Angeles Record, for whose
owners he was a general counsel, All of the newspapers
gave the matter publicity and more accusers of the police
came to him. In the course of several days, from October
5th to October 15th, he claimed to have brought approxi
mately seventy cases of police brutality to the Grand Jury.
The newspapers mentioned briefly the stories of
approximately seventeen of these.^ A resume of them follows.
M. P. complained she was jailed because she had objec
ted to brutal treatment given a drunkard at the time of
arrest. Mr. H. S. claimed he was slugged by police when
they mistook him for a communist. Mr. R. D. L., a dis
abled war veteran, said he was arrested for drunkeness and,
because he complained of the rough treatment he received
in jail, he was beaten until a rib or two were fractured.
Mr. H. D. McG. alleged he was beaten by an officer whom he
requested to drive away from the exit of an auto park so
that Mr. McG. could get out. Mr. f. I. charged he was put
in jail for twelve hours when he volunteered to be a witness
1 Specific news references are in the newspaper publicity
study below.
81
of an auto accident. Someone said a Mr. E. E. was arrested
as a drunk when he was found lying in a street, and even
though Mr. F* claimed he had “ been robbed and beaten, he was
treated as a drunkard and released. Several days later he
died of internal injuries. Mrs.. E. L* related that her
husband and she were seated in an Inn with two other couples
when police entered and arrested Mr. 1. without any show of
authority. When she asked for their authority, they beat
her husband and her with a "sap" and kicked her legs black
and blue. Miss S. E. charged brutality in the making of
an arrest. Mr. D. C. wag knocked unconscious for running
away from an arrest on the charge of appearing on a public
beach without an upper shirt. Mr. H. Ü. said he also was
hit by the same officer. Mr. E. E. said that when he dared
argue with police for entering his home without a search
warrant, they threw him to the floor, struck him, strangled
him and tore his clothes to shreds. Mrs. C. M. complained
of excessive force in the killing of her husband during
the course of an arrest. Mr. J. B. S. maintained he was
slugged by a uniform policeman who overheard him criticize
the police for breaking up meetings. Mr. E. M. said that
when he asked an officer, who broke into him apartment,
for his badge, the officer broke his jaw. Mr. J. S. said
he was arrested on a technical traffic charge but forced
to stay in jail in the drunk tank. Mr, Ï Ï . R. claimed he
mistook some peeping dry raiders for burglars and when he
yelled for police he was overtaken, knocked to the ground
with a gun butt, kicked in the back, partially paralyzed
82
and arrested on a liquor charge of which he was later
acquitted. Mr. M. P. charged that he was kicked in the
stomach by a jailer and sustained a raptured kidney and
liver. Other charges were referred to by the press; but
the above were the most outstanding.
At the commencement of the Grand Jury hearings, the
foreman of the Jury proclaimed that the Grand Jury were
undertaking a thorough investigation that would result in
sweeping reforms in police procedure. After listening to
many complaints, the pressure of other work caused the Grand
Jury, on October 9th, to refer the charges to a Public
Safety Committee. By the 14th, the Grand Jury secretly
issued one indictment. This was against officer Reichner
who hit young Douglas Campbell in the mouth with a gun butt
and broke several of the boy's teeth when the youth attempt
ed. . to flee from arrest. The boy's offense was appearing
on a public beach clothed in trunks and no upper shirt.
On the 15th of October, the Grand Jury heard charges of
police lawlessness at radical meetings presented by fifteen
communists and some ministers. Counter charges were made
by the head of the Bed Squad, and representatives from the
Better America federation and the Daughters of the Ameri
can Revolution. The Grand Jury was obviously not in sym
pathy with the radicals and its attention was diverted
from the other charges against the police. The inquiry on
those other charges and further action by the Grand Jury
thus came to a sudden close.
80
During these proceedings, the Constitutional Rights
Committee of the Bar Association discussed the matter
and. decided that since the newspapers were conducting a
vigorous fight, since attorney Hahn was taking care of
the legal presentation of the cases and since the Com
mittee was not in possession of all the facts pertaining
to the offenses, it would he best for the committee not
to join in the investigation just then. Committee members
were delegated to confer with the district attorney and
attorney Hahn; but they reported later that they were
unable to do so. By that time, the proceedings were over.
The Chief of Police and Chief of Detectives protes
ted they had nothing to conceal and were ready to cooper
ate with the Grand Jury in any inquiry. Still they denied
the charges of brutality and decried the proceedings
as efforts to undermine the morals of the police force.
When the Grand Jury decided that most of the complaints
were not within its jurisdiction or would best be handled
by the Police Department and Police Commission, the cases
were referred to the Chief of Police. He invited attor
ney Hahn to appear before him and press the matters;
but in a conversation with the Chief, Mr. Hahn replied
that he knew the Chief was unwilling to consider the
charges seriously and that it would be futile to discuss
them with him. Nothing further seems to have been done
by the police officials. ■
Prosecution was undertaken on the indictment
84
issued by the Grand Jury and the officer was convicted*
In March, 1932, another indictment was issued against an
officer, John Pfenning, oh the charge that he broke the
jaw of one Eugene Marks who refused to allow the officer
to enter and search his room* Officer Pfenning was
found guilty and granted probation with a period of sus-
9
pension from service* The opinion of attorney.Hahn was
that the use of violence by the police was abated thereby
temporarily.
1 People vs Reichner in the Superior Court of Los Ange
les County in and for the State of California, No. 46109
2 People vs Pfenning, in the Superior Court of Los Ange
les County in and for the State of California, No. 47888
85
POLICE PRACTICES TOWARD RADICALS.
At various times during the course of this study,
the writer considered the question whether police prac
tises were different in the treatment of different classes
of criminals* There were indications that dope fiends,
"vag lewds" and liquor violators were regarded apart from
other criminals* But upon farther inquiry, it was dis
covered that the police practices studied were not mater
ially varied with the technical classes of crime* The
police frequently made a distinction between felonies and
misdemeanors, major and minor offenses, big or unusual
jobs and ordinary jobs, and one individual prisoner and
another, but not between the code sections of crimes*
Their concern and attitude changed with specific circum
stances that might occur in almost any ease*
However, the police treatment of radicals seemed
detached from the regular departmental activities* The
Red Squad was definitely a division of the city police
force; but it was officed separately in the Chamber of
Commerce Building, it made public appearances with leaders
of the Better America Federation, and the co-ordinate
police officers in other branches of the service regarded
it as apart from their work, if not foreign to it* Though
there was considerable denunciation and defense of the
Red Squad in regard to the same practices considered above,
it did not proceed from the Bar Association* So from
86
the standpoint of the police and the Bar Association,
the police practices in radical or labor cases were differ
entiated from the practices in other cases*
The chief agencies voicing opinions against the
police practices in radical cases were the International
Labor Defense Qhd the American Civil Libèrties Union* The
Labor Defense was an organization devoted to the defense
and liberation of all workers prosecuted.or: imprisoned
for violations of law in the course of the working class
struggle* The American Civil Liberties Union was a
society for the preservation of constitutional civil
liberties. In Los Angeles, both had locals that were ever
alert to champion the cause of any worker who was arrested
for his radical activities.
The complaint of the International Labor Defense
against the police was primarily that they were tools of
the capitalist class used to intimidate and victimize the
militant leaders of the working class. The chief complaint
of the American Civil Liberties Union was that the police
deprived people of the rights of free speech, peaceable
assemblage and petition for redress of grievances* Only
incidentally, did either organization inveigh against the
unlawful enforcement of the law considered herein. Still
their charges of such offenses were extreme and persis
tent*
The chief attorney for the International Labor
Defense, Leo Gallagher, who had devoted his practice
almost exclusively to radical cases, gave the following
87
aeeoant of police lawlessness. As to arrests without
warrant, hundreds had been made illegally. He could recall
only two eases in which a warrant was used. As to search
es without warrant, he had never heard of a warrant being
used in the scores of searches made. As to delay in book
ing prisoners, he declared the police frequently held
people in custody at meeting places or in station houses
for hours and then released them without ever booking them.
The prisoners were always booked, though, when looked in
cells. They were generally booked on "suspicion of
Criminal Syndicalism", but never thereafter charged with
that. As to delay in presenting the prisoners before
magistrates, he thought a 24 to 48 hour delay was usual,
but in many cases, the prisoners were held over 48 hours
and released without the filing of any charges* Never was
a radical in Los Angeles charged with a felony. As to
the holding of prisoners incommunicado, he thought the
prisoners were usually brought to him, in jail promptly,
but on a number of occasions, they had been withheld.
At those times, he was generally kept waiting an hour or
more. When he asked the prisoners, they asserted they had
not been doing anything for the past hour. Several times
the prisoners who were arrested at radical meetings or
public demonstrations did not know that he represented
the International Labor Defense and told the jailers
they had not sent for him. Then he was denied the
1 Within 1929, 193& and 1931
88
privilege of conferring with the prisoners until relatives
requested it or word of the attorney's connections was
conveyed to them by friends. A few times the names of
the prisoners were unknown to the International Labor
Defense and no visit could be paid them until they sent
a message out. The phone calls of radical prisoners were,
he thought, usually delayed a day or so; but the prisoners,
he said, were never allowed to see their relatives until
charges were filed. Then the relatives were admitted
during the regular visiting hours. As to the use of pro
longed questioning, he believed that was not done in rad
ical cases.
As to the use of violence or brutal force. Attorney
Gallagher stated quite positively that it was a common
occurrence. Often, he claimed, the police beat radicals
and didn't even arrest them. Though the acts of violence
were committed promisuously in the breaking up of meetings
and mass demonstrations, they were committed on single
or a few known radicals at lesser raids about once a
month. At the larger gatherings, the police usually
told the people to move on and, because they didn't move
fast enough, the police clubbed them. In all cases, he
thought, the police started the violence. In 1929-30,
he said, some radicals took a defiant stand against the
police; but since then they were passive. On the occa
sion of special demonstrations, when the communists had
no other means of maintaining their meetings, they formed
89
unarmed defense squads that tried to prevent the police
from taking away their speakers or beating them. But the
commonists officially had a policy of avoiding fights with
the police. This Mr. Gallagher thought the Bed Squad
understood just as they knew the other plans and programs
of the communists. The use of force to obtain evidence
or confessions, he thought, was limited generally to eases
involving foreigners who might be deported. In those
oases, he said brutality occurred often. After sentence,
however, there were no instances of violence used on the
prisoners.
The police practises, he explained, were varied,
Not an uncommon practise was that of taking radicals for
rides. A number of times, a radical was seized, put into
an automobile and taken for a long ride during which he
was threatened with severe punishment if he participated
in a certain activity. He was then put off at some
distant point to find his way home as best he could. The
police also deliberately smashed chairs, book cases, desks,
filing cabinets and other equipment at private book
stores and Communist Party headquarters just from pure
malice and the desire to injure and intimidate.
The same accusations of the unlawful enforcement of
the law were repeated constantly by radicals and liberals.
in labor meetings, periodicals and newspapers.
The leader of the Red Squad, Lieut. W. f. Hynes,
90
responded to such charges on various occasions.^ In
his opinion, the radicals were felons, guilty of crimin
al syndicalism* They were seeking to undermine our church
es, schools and state with insidious propaganda and
eventually with force and violence. Every public act
they made was to further their cause; namely to aid and
abet criminal syndicalism. The state statute defined the
crime of criminal syndicalism to embrace not only speak
ing, writing, teaching, printing, publishing, circulating,
practising or committing crime, sabotage or violence as a
means of accomplishing an industrial or political change,
but also organizing or being a member of any group or
assemblage organized or assembled to advocate, teach,
aid or abet such doctrines or precepts. That was inclu
sive enough to make all of the radicals he was accused
of mistreating indisputable felons.
Because the communists were felons, they had no
constitutional protections. They might be and were
arrested without warrant. Their headquarters, meeting
halls and homes might be and were searched without
warrant. After their arrest, they were booked and taken
before magistrates for charging with the diligence used
in the handling of all criminals* Many were released
without prosecution and none were prosecuted for criminal
syndicalism because the prosecuting offices were too
1 The information reported was obtained from personal
interviews and a public address of the Lieutenant.
91
busy to be overburdened with such prosecutions and a
punitive and deterrent effect was accomplished by prose
cutions for other offenses. Though the police might
desire a more vigorous and thorough prosecution of those
offenders, that phase of the administration of justice
lay in other hands. The communists were given the right
to counsel and every other privilege accorded other
criminals. They got more than they deserved.
As to the force or violence employed by the Bed
Squad, their leader believed the accusations were mis
guided or vicious attempts to obstruct their work. In
all situations, he claimed the communists commenced the
violence or provoked it until the use of force became
necessary and reasonable. The communists he said formed
"defense gangs" that attacked the police. Women slapped,
scratched and spat into the faces of the police. The
men sand women hurled insulting epithets at the police and
refused to obey orders to disperse. The communists them
selves usually struck first and made police force necessary.
They were criminals of the insolent and vindictive sort
who could be handled only with unrelenting vigor. If
they got hurt, it was their own fault and served them
well.
The Constitutional Rights Committee of the Bar took
no official cognizance of this situation for a long time.
Individual members considered the matter and were inclined
to regard the Bed Squad practises as part of the regular
police procedure. Two or three of the eases were investi-
92
gated by the Auxiliary Committee and dropped for lack
of witnesses. Bat the leaders of the Constitutional
Rights Committee seemed to shun the implications and
notoriety involved in defending the rights of
communists. A few members were opposed to lending them
any aid whatsoever. Others recognized the logical
extension of the constitutional principles that made the
rights of communists as vital as the rights of others
accused of crime. Still they decided that whatever good
for the fight against the unlawful enforcement of the
law might flow from an attack upon the Red Squad, it would
be more than counterbalanced by the harm that would
result from the popular antipathy toward communists and
all those associated with them. The Constitutional
Rights Committee was striving to build popular support
and a mass opinion in favor of its work. At least until
they definitely succeeded in that, they were to avoid
all identification with radicals.
In November, 1931, however, a public incident
precipitated action on behalf of the Constitutional
Rights Committee in regard to radicals. A meeting had
been arranged by a Mooney-Harlan Committee for a dis
cussion of the pardon of Tom Mooney and of the prosecution
of mining strikers in Harlan, Kentucky. The Mooney Harlan
Committee was a confederation of delegates from the Mooney
Holders' Defense Committee, the International Labor
Defense, the Friends of the Soviet Union, and 19 non-
90
radical labor unions in the American Federation of Labor.
The active element were radicals; hut the committee con
tained several conservative lahorities. The advertised
speakers were the San Francisco organizer of the Communist
Tarty and a liberal methodist minister, the ex-secretary
of the Methodist Ministerial Association. On the
scheduled night of the meeting, the doors of the auditor
ium were kept locked. The Bed Squad appeared and told the
gathering people to return horn. Some altercation ensued.
There was a movement toward the doors by a few persons and
in restraining them, the police released tear gas bombs.
Many innocent pedestrians and street car riders had their
eyes filled with the gas and a little of it floated into
the fashionable Biltmore Hotel nearby. Protests followed
from many quarters. The newspaper accounts were feature
news and considerable excitement was aroused amongst
liberals as well as radicals.
The Constitutional Rights Committee of the Bar Associ
ation considered the situation and passed the following
resolution:^
"The Constitutional Rights Committee of the
Los Angeles Bar Association protests against
the practice in this community of permitting the
Police Department, or any body of citizens, to
take upon themselves the right to determine that
.any group of persons may not peaceably assemble,
or to assume the right to prevent any group of
persons so to assemble.
1 Resolution passed by the Donst^ Rts. C6mm% of the L. A.
Bar Assn., Nov. 10th, 1901.
94
This Committee is unqualifiedly opposed
to Communism, and is wholly in favor of vigor
ous prosecution of any person or group of persons
who may violate the law or transcend the rights
of free speech, but is unalterably opposed to the
violation by public authorities, or by any group
of citizens, of rights guaranteed by the Consti
tution.
Our government is one of laws - not men - and
expediency must not be permitted to nullify the
principles upon which this nation was founded and
which must ever be observed and protected."
The Committee was cautious about taking such a step publicly,
Copies were sent to every member of the Constitutional
Bights Committee and the. Auxiliary Committee for signature.
Then the resolution was submitted to the Board of Trustees
of the Bar Association for approval and permission to
release to the press. The Board of Trustees of the Bar
Association went even further and passed and publicized
the following resolution in addition to that of the
Constitutional Bights Committee:^
"The Board of Trustees of the Los Ange
les Bar Association is conscious of the fact
that there are persons and groups of persons
in this and in other communities of this
country who advocate the use of unlawful means
to effect a change in our form of government, and
appreciates the fact that control of the acti
vities of such persons presents a difficult
and vital problem for the law enforcement
officers of this and other communities.
This Board is advised that the Police
Department of this city, in its effoits to
suppress such activities, has assumed the
right in certain instances to determine in
advance that certain meetings would be
1 Resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of the
L. A. Bar Assn., Nov. 24th, 1931.
95
unlawful in character and has undertaken to
prevent, and has prevented, such meetings. It
is never to he presumed that a crime will be
committed and no law enforcement officer has the
right to prevent a meeting prior to the happening
of some unlawful act.
This Board is unqualifiedly opposed to
communism and is wholly in favor of the vigorous
prosecution of any person or group of persons who
may violate the law or transcend the rights of
free speech, but points out the grave danger of
permitting the Police Department or any other
agency to deny that right of peaceable assemblage
which is a fundamental and constitutional right and
this Board protests most earnestly against viola
tions of this constitutional right by the constitu
ted authorities or others. Our government is one
of laws and expediency and should not be permitted
to nullify those rights which are guaranteed by
the constitution. Such violations cannot be
justified on the ground of expediency, since nothing
is more productive of social disturbance than the
unlawful enforcement of the law.
The Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles
Bar Association feels that it would be doing less
than its duty should it fail to protest the
occurrences referred to or to point out the serious
consequences that may flo?/ from a continuance of
such practises. The Constitutional Rights
Committee of the Los Angeles Bar Association has
been requested by this Board to use all proper
means to correct the situation."
At the next monthly meeting of the Bar Association,
one of the principal speakers was an attorney who had been
employed at times by the International Labor Defense and
who was a member of the executive committee of the local
American Civil Liberties Union.^ He was a liberal, not
a radical and his denunciation of the Red Squad elicited
a favorable response from the audience. The Lieutenant
in charge of the Red Squad was present and was permitted
to speak in his own defense. His extemporaneous talk
w&s somewhat defiant. A few seemed in accord with his
96
views; but most of lawyers present appeared to be strongly
impressed with the opposite attitude of the liberal speaker.
The meeting was followed by a conference of the
Chief of Police, a Deputy County Counsel, the Sheriff,
his Undersheriff, the Chief Deputy District Attorney,
the City Ihnsecutor, the leader of the Bed Squad and the
members of the Police Commission. After some delibera
tion, they issued the following joint statement:
"We have agreed that a proper procedure in
the handling of the problem before us as to the
allowing of Communistic meetings should be as
follows:
"When we have the advance legal evidence
that the meeting is to be held for an illegal
purpose, such as the promotion of Communistic
doctrine, we are justified in preventing such a
proposed gathering. Otherwise the meeting should
be allowed to proceed until at such time as an
overt act may have been committed.
"The police department, sheriff’s office and
the district attorney’s office are in perfect
accord as to future harmonious action."
In response to the request how the police were to de
termine the unlawful character of a meeting beforehand,
the Mayor wrote a member of the Constitutional Bights
1
Committee:
"You refer to prejudging the purpose for
which a meeting is to be held. There is no
difficulty in ascertaining who is calling the
group together, and if they are known Communists,
it takes no superior intelligence to determine
why the meeting is called and its purpose.
1 letter from W. Porter to W. H. Anderson, Dec. 8th,
1561.
97
"Should you gentlemen ascertain the true
facts of these matters, and know as we do that here
is a great group communistically inclined, having
for its openly avowed purpose the overthrow,
through force, of the United States Government,
am sure you would join wiith me in saying that such
people have no rights we are bound to recognize,"
With that the defenders of the Red Squad let the matter
rest.
It is to be noted that the police practise complained
of by the Bar Association in this instance was the
prejudging of a meeting as unlawful and the prevention
of an assemblage under such circumstances, This was a
new type of complaint for the Constitutional Bights
Committee. It was to them another method in the unlawful
enforcement of the law. It was allied with the other
police practises considered in.that extreme force was
used and arrests without warrant were made in what was
called an allegedly unjustifiable situation. The resolu
tions might have led the way to a censure of other prac
tises indulged in by the Red Squad; but that was not their
immediate effect. The Constitutional Rights Committee
referred to its Auxiliary Committee the task of briefing
the law on unlawful assemblies and their prevention, A
report was made and as yet no further action has been
taken. It is still an open question whether the Constitu
tional Eights Committee will undertake to proceed against
any police practises in radical cases.
The International labor Defense defended those
98
arrested at the meeting place and obtained an acquittal,
The American Civil Liberties Union sought to prepare
a test case to have the courts enjoin the Red Squad
from such practices in the future. This effort was '
abandoned; but in 1932 a group of liberal attorneys
set to work to accomplish the task#
The police practices in radical eases and the
accusations of radicals and liberals still continue in
an unsettled state.
99
mWSPAPlB PUBLICITY
The Los Angeles newspapers participated constantly
in the public discussion concerning the practices of
the police. The number of articles devoted to the
subject were legion, For the most part, the controver
sies and stories were relegated to positions of second
ary importance. Still occasionally a specific practice
or case became the leading topic of an issue and almost
always the newspapers gave some space to the major
activities of the Constitutional Rights Committee and
the police, Quite obviously, the newspapers were a signi
ficant factor in the process of forming public opinion on
the practices of the police.
But exactly what role the newspapers played in that
situation was not readily apparent, A study of all the
daily papers on all of the problems presented herein
would have been collossal. The writer chose to sample
the newspaper treatment of all the police practices, and
selected three third degree situations as representative
of the Constitutional Rights Committee activity and of
the comment on all the practices. Those situations were
the prosecution of officers Romero and Eirksey for an
assault upon Hayrinen, the submission of the anti third
degree or confession bill to the California State Legis
lature and the public meeting of the Los Angeles Bar
Association devoted to the work of the Constitutional
100
Rights Committee. They were high-lights in the conflict
of opinion over the allegedly unlawful practices of the
police. The news reports concerning those events were
studied carefully for whatever they might reveal about
the functioning of newspapers in the public opinion
process. Then the writer studied the newspaper
publicity accorded the Grand Jury Investigation and
the Philharmonic-Radical incident as control situations
to be compared with the treatment given the Constitution
al Right’s Committees situations.
The three important Constitutional Rights
Committee events occurred within two months and could
be covered by examining the news reports from April 10th
to the 20th and from May 1st to the 18th, 1929. The
Grand Jury investigation was reported from October 5 to
October 16, 1931 and the Philharmonic incident from
October 31 to December 10, 1931. The files of the Times,
Examiner, Express, Herald and Record for those dates
were procured and inspected. Because no file of it was
available, and because its irregular size made compara
tive observations impossible, it was necessary to omit
the Illustrated Daily News. In the other papers, for
the dates specified, every news headline and the text of
all suggestive articles were carefully read* As soon as
an article pertaining to the "third degree" or to one of
the above three specific events was found, certain data
were recorded.
101
Data
in effort was made to record all the data that
might reveal the influence of articles upon newspaper
readers. Such items and the notations made regarding
them were as follows;
I Quantitative items and Notations.
1. DATE Month, day, year.
2. SECTION - Sec. or 2t.
5. RAGE -
4. COLUMN - G#
5. VERTICAL SPACE in column. Top~t, middle-m,
hottom-b* The space noted was that in which
the headline commenced.
6. BODY - COLUMN INCHES - Cl # The body and
headlines of each article were measured in
inches per column - to the nearest eighth of
an inch.
7. HEADLINES - E # 01
8. SUB-HEADS - These were noted along with the
headlines by adding a second or third number of
column inches thus; E # & # Ci or H # & # & # Ci
II Qualitative Items and Notations.
1. ILLUSTRATIONS * Column inches. The photo-
graphs were designated P # Gi and the cartoons
or diagrams, D # Cl.
2. EDITORIALS - E
102
3. SIGNED ARTICLES - S-signature.
4. HEADLINE TONE - The headlines were copied
verbatim
5. PROPAGANDA - Articles which mentioned an
event only incidentally to the expression of an
opinion and which expressed an opinion without
attributing it to the police or their antagon
ists were considered propaganda. Propaganda
favoring the police practice was noted as PP
and propaganda against the police practice was
noted as iP.
6. REPORTS - All articles not propaganda were
considered reports. The articles which quoted
opinions both favorable and opposed to the
police practice or which expressed no opinion
were considered neutral reports, and desig
nated by an R, The articles which quoted
someone for or against the police practice
without presenting an alleged refutation were
considered pro or anti police practice and
designated PR or AE respectively,
7. EDUCATION - Ed, Articles which presented
both sides of the dispute with an appeal or
caution to contemplation, analysis or reason
would have been designated educational, but
none such were found,
8. ■ CONTINUITY - B 8 c P, in attempt was made
103
to indicate whether or not a continuous
series of articles appeared on any of the
topics# in announcement before the occur-
anee of the event was indicated by B, the
report of the event was indicated by an B
and the follow-through or concluding
article was indicated by an F#
The size and style of type and the first
sheet were regarded as negligible# The type was uniform
within each paper (except for the editorial page and
colored sheet) and the differences amongst papers were
insignificant# The colored sheets in certain papers did
not carry any other news than the first white sheet of
other papers or the following white sheet of the same
paper.
The following charts indicate the articles found
and the data recorded;
104
NmS REB0BT8 OF TEE CONSTITUTIONAL BIGHTS COMMITTEE’S ACTITITYL
c a
n B Si" wi? s f i B i
o. o ta e< o
SOMBaO*KIEKSEC OISE
Record
s
C W
s “
g © 1 0 i ©
p f) h p A
M O H r 4 O
O S 3 © O P
O * r t
O O * i 4
p q w
Herald
12
13
Times
2 1 7~8t 4 7 1/8 AE
1 3 Im 1 7/8 4 PR
1 16 3b 1 1/8 3 5/8 PR
M
S § ë ÉS5 8S& S S I g s
^ C O P S P 4 o
15 1 1 5&6m 3 6 3/8 AB B
17 1 3 4t 7/8 2 3/8 R B
18 1 1 8m 1 3 3/8 AR
Express
11 1 1 l-2b
1 i
4 i AR
12 1 3 7t 2- 2 7/8 AR
13 1 1 Ib 3/8 R
2 3 It 3 3/8
6 i
PB B
17 2 3 5t 1 5/8
5 i
R
19 2 10 4t 7/8 u i PB F
Examiner
13 1 4 2t 1 1/8 3 3/8 PB B
17 1 13 3t 11/8 3 2/8 AR B
19 1 5 4m
i - 1 i
PB F
BAR ASSOCIATION MEETING
Record
17 1 7 2~3t
1 i
16 AR
Express.
---- — - — --- -— ■ -— -- — _ _ — -- --- - ---- -
14 1 10 4b 7/8 4 3/8 E B
17 1 3 5t 2 11 AR F
18 1 2 4t
2 8 AP F
Herald
16 ' 1 16 5t 1 2 3/8 B B
17 1 13 l-2t 1 1/8 3 6/8 R F
Times
17 2 s 2b 1 5/8 5 iR
Examiner
0 0
THIBD DEGREE BILL
Record
7 1 2 2"3b 2 6 # AP B
1 8 l-2t 1 f . 26 1/8 E Aî B
E5cpress
6 1 4 , 2 t 2 6f iE
8 1 1 1 m 5 i S AP
9 1 1 Ib 2 i S JP
Herald
6 1 10 5t 1 7/8 8 i AE
limes •
1 1 1 6m 1 ■ £ 1 ■ f ' H
1 6 5m i 1/8 E
3 2 4 Ib i 1 E AE
Examiner
7 2 16 1 - l - t 1 6 f E AP
IBWS BEPOETS OP THE GEiED JÜBY IIVESTIGATIOH
105
H p a
S I
W A
Record
Oct.
Express
s
I i
ê
o
c w
•31
o
d to
co I ®
ill
S O * H i
I
g
6 1 5 It
7 1 3 It
1 3 2m
9 1 3 It
14 1 1 2-4t
15 1 3 8t
Herald
6 1 3 3m
1 4 It
1 4 2t
7 1 14 It
1 14 2t
8 1 5 lb
9 2 5 4-5t
14 1 22 2t
Tqmes
6 2 8 It
1 1 2b
7 2 1 4t
2 2 4m
1 1 2b
8 1 12 6-7t
1 12
6t
1 1 2b
9 2 2 2t
2 4 2t
14 2 3 l-2t
2 3 2t
Examiner
7 2 1 6—8t
2 11 5-6t
8 1 9 5-6t
1 9 6t
9 2 . 1 8t
2 10 8t
14 1 1 2t
15 1 12 It
II
2 &
4 -I
2 i
6 f
9 1/8
8
5
1 7/8 3
1 7/8 10 3/8
17/8 4
15/8 12 3/8
f
1 7/8
4 5/8 ■
6
7 i
1 &
5/8
6 I
5/8
5/8
12 5/8
6 i
2 1/8 5 1/8
i 2 i
5 1/8
8 »,
1 6/8
6 i
1
8 "
6.-Ï
2 »
2 I
2 1/8
14. 1/8
6
5
2 i -
10 i
8"
7 7/8
1 &
El
s
CO
CO
Ei
5 1
1
1
14
6-7b
lb
1
_ 3
5/8
4 ^
4 &
AR
AR
6 : 1
1
1
2
3t
Im
13
i
5/8
10 &
10
AR
7 1 2 It 1
i
12 AR
8 1 1 3—4t 3 12 6/8 AR
9 ^ 1 6 It 2
»
12 i AR
14 1
1
1
1
1
2
allt
8t
2t
6
2 3/8
5/8
12
5
7
15
I
1 5t 2 1/8
6 *
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
R
R
AR
AR
AR
M
AR
AE
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
ê
! «
E->
H
O
Ü
AR
AR
AR
AR
106
ÏÏEÏ7S EEPOHTS OP THE PHIIHASMOIIO IICIDEHT
C O E H < 4 Î H
d 5 g R
tsi g f i w d o H CO <4 P
M 8 § 3 #2 8; a 8 g g g s
I I I I i il-s I P i i I I I
Record
Nov.
4 1 2 l&2t 2
8 i
R
6 1 2 5t
f
1 3/8 AR
13 1 1 Im 1 5/8
5 i
AR
14 1 1 Im 1 5/8
3 i
AR
21 1 1 5b 1 2 1/8 AR
25 1 1 2b 1/8
3 »
AR
26 1 1 5m 1
i
6 1/8 AR
27 1 4 Im 1
X
2
R
Dee.
2 1 1 5m 1 5/8 2 3/8 R
3 1 9 3m 2 1/8 5 i
AR
4 1 14 4t 2 1/8
11 i
R
Express
Get.
31 1 1 4t 2 3/8 8 i AR
Nov.
3
1
1
4
7
8m
It
1
2
3
4 -
JL
4
2 i
7
AR
9 1 5 6t 1 1 5/8 PR
23 1 3 3m 1
4
3 5/8 AR
25 2 12 2m 1
_ 3
4 r 0 i
AR
26 2 13 5t 2
3 .
4
6 R
27 1 3 4m 1
$
6 5/8 AE
28 1 3 at 2
i
6 5/8 ■ R
Herald
Times
29 1 3 It 2 i 7 I H
Dee.
1 1 3 It
2 i
5 5/8 R
2 1 1 l-6t 3 5/8
l-2t
1 i 8 i -
AS
1 6 5t 1 7/8 10 1/8 AR
1 6 6m
2 i
3 1 5 5t
2 i
8 f m
4 1 3 6t
2 i
4 5/8 PR
8 1 1 5m
1 i 3 f
AR
9 1 3 It 2 3/8 6 3/8 R
Get.
31 1 2 8t 1 7/8 4 i PR
1 6 6t 1 1/8
9 i
Nov.
26 1 15 5b 1 R
30 1 14 Im
&
4 R
Dee.
1 2 4 lb 1 2 3/8 PR
2 1 3 allt 5/8
1 3 3t 2 12 AR
1 11 4m 1 1/8
4 i
3 1 12 5t 1 7/8 4 5/8 R
4 1 9 2t 1 1 3/8 R
2 6 4m 1
2 i
PR
9 1 14 2 t 1 1/8 2 7/8 R
10 1 9 It 1 1/8
1 i
PR
Oct.
31 1 1 lb
2 1 6t 1 f 13 7/8 PR
2 1 7t 1 f 11/8
2 2 lb 5/8 3 1/8
Nov.
21 1 2b i
2 5 It 2 1/8 7
25 1 1 2b
g
3
2 10 It 2 1/8 5 5/8 PR
2 10 It 3/8
4
AR
Dee.
3 1
_ 2 _
1
_1 ,
2b
1
.2 1/8 _ 14 R
2 2 2m 5/8
6 i R
4 1
2
1
1
lb
It 2 1/8
7 i PR
5 1
2
1
2
2b
8t 2 1/8 3 3/8
PR
Examiner
Oct.
31 2 1 7-8t 4 ^
9 PR
Nov.
1 1 7 2t
3
4
2 3/8
R
3 2 18 2m ‘ 5/8
2 & R
30 1 4
4m
3
4
1 i
R
Dec.
3 1 16 It
2 i 7 * AR
4 1 7 2m 1 1/8
4 i PR
9 1 3 8m 5/8
1 »
AR
107
Ml analysis of the quantitative treatment given the
specified subjects was made by summarizing the Section
Distribution, Page Distribution, Column Distribution,
Vertical Distribution, Body space and Headline Space and
then by uniting all of these items in a Composite Rating.
Specific charts of the analysis are to be found in
appendix II of this study.
The Section Distribution showed the scatter of news
through the paper. For the purpose of comparative rating,
it was assumed that an article in the first section was
more prominent than one in the second section. The Times,
however, showed an extreme distribution because though
popular news was often displayed in its first section, the
first section was entitled "Telegraphic News" and most
local items were presented in the second edition entitled
"Local News".
The Page Distribution showed the spread of news
throughout each section. Arbitrarily, the writer under
took to derive at an index of page prominence by adding
the numbers of the pages on which "third degree" articles
appeared and dividing the sum by the number of articles.
The lower the result the closer to the front appeared the
articles, and the ..greater their prominence. This, of
course, was valid only if articles were more prominent by
virtue of being on. lower numbered pages. Though it would
be necessary to conduct a psychological experiment to
ascertain this accurately, two newspaper publicity men
106
interviewed by the writer indicated that, in their
opinions, such was the case*
The Column Distribution showed the horizontal dis
tribution of matter on a page* As with the rating of
page prominence, the writer undertook arbitrarily to
make an index of the column prominence by adding the
numbers of the columns and dividing the sum by the number
of columns occupied* The lower the result the closer to
the first column appeared the articles and the greater
their prominence. Here again arose the question of
actual prominence to the reader. One psychologist has
reported that the extreme left of the left hand page
and the extreme right of the right hand page were the most
desirable positions for advertisements.^ But the
publicity men interviewed were of the opinion that the
columns numbered left to right were numbered in the order
of their prominence. The index of column prominence
given below was based on the latter view. To give
additional importance to those columns which were used
together in combinations of two or three, the column
numbers were weighted by renumbering each of the combined
columns with the lowest number of the two or three.
The Vertical Distribution showed whether the articles
were commenced toward the top, middle or bottom of a
column. It was assumed, with validity, that the higher
1 â. J. Snow, Psychology in Business Relations, 260.
109
the headline, the more prominent the article.
The Body Space showed the total column inches devoted
to the "bodies of the articles. The Headline Space showed
the same for the headlines*
The Composite rating averaged the several ratings
for prominence noted above* The following table shows
the quantitative ratings and the composite rating drawn
therefrom on all of the news reports measured*
110
ranking op newspapers
FOR quantitative TREATMENT OF NEWS
ITEMS
Record Express
PAPERS
Herald Times Examinei
Section
G«H*C 1st 1st 3rd 5th 4th
G. J# ^ 1st lst_ 3rd. 4th 5th
Phil. * 1st 2nd 3rd 5th 4th
Page
G.R.G. 2nd 1st 5th 3rd 4th
G.J. 1st 2nd 5 th 3rd 4 th
Phil, 2nd 3rd 5th 1st 4th
Column
G.R.G. 2nd 3rd 5th 4th 1st
G.J. 3rd 2nd 1st 4th 5th
Phil. 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 5th
Vertical
G.R.G. 3rd 6th 2nd 4 th 1st
G.J. 4th 2nd 3rd 5th 1st
Phil. 5th 1st 2nd 4 th 3rd
Headlines
G . R. C * 2nd 4th
1st 3rd 5th
G.J. 1st 3rd 5th 4 th 2nd
Phil. 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 5th
Bodies
G.R.G. 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5th
G.J. 1st 4th 2nd 5th 3rd
Phil. 4th 1st 3rd 2nd 5th
GOMPOSITE
RANKING
G.R.G. 1st 2nd 3rd 5th 4 th
G.J. 1st 2nd 3rd 5th 4th
Phil. 4th 1st 3rd 2nd 5th
#G.R.G. - Constitutional Right’s Committee Activities 1929
*G.J. - Grand Jury Investigation 1931
*Pbil* - Philharmonic Incident 1931
Ill
Despite a variance in items here and there, there
was a decided similarity between the papers in their
quantitative treatment of the different news items in
1929 and 1931, This is especially true of the treatment
of the Constitutional Rights Committee activities and the
Grand Jury investigations which had identically the same
composite ratings# The Radical-Philharmonic incident was
considered of a different character and was given a
different treatment. •
Another outstanding fact was that the composite
rankings were very much like the rankings for space devoted
to the bodies of articles,. This may be taken to demon
strate that a measurement of the column inches devoted to
the bodies of articles was a fairly reliable index of the
quantitative prominence given news material.
in analysis of the qualitative treatment accorded the
selected subjects was made by the tabulating the pro or
anti police sentiment of the articles, by comparing that
character with the tenor of the headlines and by observ
ing the editorial and continuity features of the news
presentation. The following table lists the number of
neutral, pro and anti police articles on each subject.
112
ITEMS
Ranking op newspapers
FOR qualitative treatment OF NEWS
papers
Reports .
Record Express herald Times Examiner
G.R#G 16.6% 12.5# 40# 66.6# 0#
G.J • ^ 0 16.6 16.6 0 0
Phil. # 36 37 50 37.5 42.6
Anti Reports
G.R.G. 33.3 50 40 33.3 25
G.J. 75 66.6 83.3 85.7 100
Phil.
63 49 10 12.5 28.4
Pro Reports
G.R. G . 0 0 20 33.3 50
G.J. 0
0 0 0 0
Phil.
0 12 40 50 28.4
Anti Propaganda
G.R.G. 49.9 37.5 0 0 25
G.J. 25 16.6 0 14.2 0
Phil. 0 0 0 0 0
Pro Propaganda
G.R.G. 0 0 0 0 0
G.J. 0 0 0 0 0
Phil. 0
COMPOSITE RANKING
0 0 0 0
FOR ANTI-POLICE
SENTIMENT
G.R.G. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
G.J. 1st 3rd 4th 2nd 5th
Phil. 1st 2nd 4 th 5th
3rd
«C.R.G. - Constitutional Right’s Committee Activities
%G.J. - Grand Jury Investigation
#Phll, - philharmonic Incident
113
It is significant that the qualitative handling of
the subjects was much the same for the various subjects.
The ranking of the papers for anti police sentiment was
not repeated as closely as in the ranking for the quanti
tative treatment of the news# Still there was no distinct
change in the character or policy of any newspaper and
all of them preserved their definitely anti-police tone.
In no case, did any paper print a purely propagandic
article in favor of the police. In other words, no paper
ever expressed its opinion as favoring any police practice
under attack. Occasionally, approval was evident in a
pro police report. But no paper saw fit to take an editor
ial stand in defense of the police.
In the publicity on the Constitutional Rights
Committee’s three activities, an examination of the origin-
1
al data charts will reveal that the only reports favor
able to the police were in reference to the Romero-
Kirksey trial. Those occurred when the officers were
granted a new trial and later acquitted. Even then there
was no editorial or propagandic defense of the officers
in any papers; whereas, the Record and Express failed to
print any of the favorable reports at all and the
Record carried a front page propagandic article against
the police department in that matter. The news reports
on these situations were unmistakeably anti-police.
1 Appendix II.
114
In reporting the Grand Jury investigation, all of
the papers again presented a tone of anti-police report#
The complaints were repeated as they arose. Here and
there, the papers printed a statement of the determina
tion of the foreman of the Grand Jury or of the attorney
for the complaining witnesses to press the matter until
police reform resulted. Since the Grand Jury did not
hear the defenses of the police, practically none of them
appeared in the press. The Herald ran the only comment
definitely in support of the police when it reported
an informal vote of confidence at an American Legion
meeting. The Record noted the offer of the Chief of
Detectives to cooperate with the investigation; hut
it left the charges against the police undenied. Except
for these variations, the newspaper publicity of the
Grand Jury investigation of police brutality consisted
predominantly of anti police reports in all the papers.
In the treatment of the news concerning the
Philharmonic incident, though the papers departed some
what from their anti-police sentiment, they showed a
definite consistency of policy. The matter involved
communists and all of the papers were opposed to rad
icalism. Consequently, the first report of the riot
was pro police in the Examiner, Times and Herald. The
Express was neutral with a tinge of anti police
sentiment and the Record made no direct report of the
incident. Significantly, the papers that ranked lowest
115
in their anti-police sentiment on the other subjects
were in favor of the police in this matter. The papers
that were stronger in their anti-police sentiment before,
were either neutral or silent later. When the issue of
radicalism was injected into the question of police
practices, there was a tendency to abandon the former
anti-police opinion, but with the very same ranking of
sentiment. This was further manifested when the Consti
tutional Rights Committee and the Ministerial Association
opposed the police and the trial judge advised a dismissal
of those arrested. There was a sanction of respectabil
ity spread over those who desired to hold the meeting and
the police were again condemned. The papers changed their
tone from pro-police to neutral or anti-police. The Times
and the Herald changed least. The Examiner printed very
little. The Express and the Record increased their
publicity of the efforts to hold another meeting and of
the criticism of the police. The newspapers were anti-
radical and pro-police until the police were attacked by
non radicals. Then the papers altered their sentiment
to anti-police; but at all times they maintained approxi
mately the same ranking for anti-police tone that they had
in the treatment of the other matters.
The few editorials on the subjects studied maintained
the same character as the articles. On the three Con
stitutional Rights Committee activities, there were only
three editorials. The Record and Examiner editorials
116
were anti police practice and propagandistic. The Times
editorial was anti police in its implications; but in
reality it was only a report. All the signed articles
were those of a columnist, A. Y. fully, in the Express.
They partook of the nature of editorials and were all
anti police practice and propagandistic. During the Grand
jury investigation, in a formal editorial on the ills of
the local police, the Times attributed the alleged
brutality, along with other police shortcomings, to the
political system, rather than to the police personnel.
A similar tone was taken in an editorial in the Express.
The Record, however, presented bits of anti police editor
ial in a few of their reports and had in one issue, a
distinctly challenging article across the top of the front
sheet. On the Philharmonic matter, no editorials were
found; Generally the editorials presented an anti police
practice tone in a ranking similar to that for the other
quantitative features.
The consistency of the newspaper policy seemed
apparent also in the correspondence between the ranking
for space and the ranking for anti-police sentiment.
In the treatment of the three Constitutional Rights
Committee activities, the quantitative and qualitative
rankings were exactly the same. In other words, the
papers most strongly anti-police gave the most publicity.
This correlation was not as marked in the Grand Jury
117
Investigation news and less in the Philharmonic news.
In the latter, the correlation was disturbed by the devo
tion of much space to the situation in the Times, which
was the least anti-police paper* This was probably due
to the change in the character of the events and the de
sire of the Times to maintain its conservative position in
the face of a new type of attack upon the police. On the
whole, however, the more aggressive the paper in publiciz
ing anti-police news, the more space it devoted to the
news.
This qualitative treatment of the news was reflected
in the headlines over the articles. All the headlines are
presented below (subheads indented), followed by the
qualitative rating given the articles, to-witt neutral
report R, anti police report AR, pro police report PR,
ahti police propaganda AP and pro police propaganda PP.
In very few cases was the tone of the headlines contrary
to or more suggestive than the article. Those are desig
nated below by parentheses drawn about the qualitative
symbols after the headlines. In all other instances—
most of them— the headlines proved to be true conveyors of
the sentiment of the articles.
Headlines
Romero - Eirksey Case.
Express Police Brutality is Told by Witness AR
at Trial
Convict Police in Attack Case AR
Eirksey & Romero are found guilty
in Hayrinen assault charge
118
Record Someone’s Guilty AP
Police Beating Told to Court (R)
Wait Beating Case Verdict AR
Herald Two officers charged with Beating
Veteran are Convicted by Jury AR
Police Guilty Verdict is Reversed PR
Reverse Verdict in Police Trial PR
Times— Two policemen Win New Trial PR
Court Quashes Verdict in Hayrinen
Case
Declares Defendants have Perfect
Alibi
Were Convicted of Beating Contractor
Police Pair Again Faced by Hayrinen R
Central Station Officers Hear Con
tractor Renew Accusation at Retrial
Examiner-— Two Policemen Held Not Guilty in
Assault Case PR
Police Guilty Verdict Killed PR
Police Beating Told on Stand AR
Policemen Cleared of Assault Charge PR
Anti Third Degree Bill
Express— Ask Passage of Confession Bill AR
Bar Assn. Urges Enactment of Law
Preventing Third Degree
Record Demand Senate Oust Third Degree AP
State Should End Police Brutality AP
Times Torture Bar Wins in Senate (R)
Measure Prohibiting Third Degree
by Police Sent to Assembly
Bills Passed in Legislature E
No 3rd Degree AR
Ôerald-— Asks Solons Put Bar on 3rd Degree AR
Examiner Bill Bans Use of Third Degree AP
Bar Association Meeting
Express Leading Jurists to Attend Bar
Feast Thursday R
Lawyers Flat Brutal Police AR
Denunciation of Third Degree
Acclaimed at Bar
Body Meeting
Record
Times
Herald
Examiner
Bar Association Haps 3rd Degree
Strong Arm Method of Police Hit
Bar Association Heard Talk on &
Discusses 3rd Degree Subject
Leader of Bar to Discuss ’Lawless Law
Enforcement *
Bar Backs Drive to Ban 3rd Degree
lone
119
AH
AR
E
Record
Express
GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION
Police Brutality Before Grand Jury AR
Accuse Policeman AR
Brutality Cases Heard by Jurors
Charge of Frame-up in Shooting
May Also be Aired
Brutality of Cops is Denounced AR
Hahn Tells Jury of Cop Beatings AR
Grand Jurors Continue with Cop Brutality AR
Shocked by Failure of Police Commission to
Act
Let no Brutal Cop Escape AP
Brutal Cop is Returned to Jail Job AP
Long Beach Officer Indicted by Grand
Jury for Brutality
Grand Jurors Have Evidence of Brutality AR
Turn to Other Matters After Hearing
Complaints
five To Tell of Cruelties By Policeman AR
Grand Jury Will Hear Stories of
four Men And Woman
Legion Lunch Talkers Lash Police Heads AR
Veterans Deny Vote of Confidence to
Department
Police Inquiry Hints Shakeup AH
Grand Jury Launches Quiz into
Charges of Brutality
Thorough Quiz in Cruel Police Actions
Booked AH
Grand Jury Decides Upon Exhaustive
Investigation
Express Expose of Police Inefficiency
Times
120
is Seconded AP
Jury Uphold "Bed Squad" in Raid on
Meet ( R)
Body Declines to Act in Asserted
Brutalities
Legion Gives Police Pat on Back (B)
Woman Up to Tell Police "Roughing" AR
'Boughing’ Charged
Thirty Complaints
Sweeping Jury Inquiry on L. A. Police
Looms AR
Far Beaching
Police Regulations
Grand Jury Halts Quiz on Alleged (AB)
Police Brutality
Jury Will Sift All Brutality Charges AR
Hear 30 Witnesses
Break Into Home
Jury to Hear ’Red’ charges on Police AR
Hunt Ex-Officer
Officers to Testify
Two Complaints
Woman Beaten
Charges Heard Against Police AB
Grand Jury Takes Testimony of
Asserted Victims
Champions of Arrested Men Relate
Experiences
five Accusing Officers to Take Stand
To-day.
Brutality Curb Need Indicated AR
Jury foreman Says Police Quiz to
Go Deep
Recent Charges Justified Statement
Infers
Shake-Up of County forces Hinted as
Possible
Brutality Quiz. Extended AB
Grand Jury To Hear More Witnesses
To-day on Asserted Acts of
Police Officers.
Police Charges Deluge Jurors AR
County Inquisitors Swamped with
Complaints
Committee Named to Listen to As
serted Victims
further Hearings Cancelled to
Await Report
121
Examiner
fhe Police Situation (AP)
Indictment Charging Officer With AR
Brutality Believed Returned
Arrest Sought With Warrant
County Grand Jury fakes Action
Secretly
Suspicion in Long Beach Linked
With Case.
Youth Says He Was Struck With
Revolver.
Radicals falk to Grand Jury AR ,
Capt* Hynes Anti-Red Squad
Accused of Brutality
Second Group Piles Protest With
Mayor Porter
American Plag Renounced by
Complainants
Jury Probe Whole L. A. Police Deport- AS
ment Intimated by Foreman
Basic fruth Behind Existing
Laxity Sought
'Ills' Decreed
Citizens lager to Reach Evil's
Root Says Hutson
Police Brutality Quiz by Jury AR
Ends Today
Grand Jury Plans Intensive Police
Brutality Inquiry AR
Committee to Hear Further Charges
of Cruelty
Extend Quiz
Weakness of Steokel Regime Will
Be Reviewed.
Brute Police Inquiry Grows AR
Secr'et Indictment Returned in AR
Police Brutality Inquiry
Charges Understood Involve Officer
at Long Beach
Warrant Out
. Action on Probe of City Force
Due at Later Date
Grand Jurors Head 5 Police Beating Gases
Sixteen Other Complainants Also
Appear to Testify About Rough Treat
ment at-Meetings
122
PBIIRARMOBIO lECIDEBT
Record
Our Lawless Police: A national Problem fH)
Pick 'Riot* Jurors AR
Plan Second Mooney Meet AR
Speeches Will Be Given In Labor Temple
Plan Second Mooney Meet AR
Speeches Will Be Given In Labor Temple
'Rioters' Seek Case Dismissal AH
Police Block Hall jUR
Bar Attempts to Stop Hynes AR
Lawyers Hit Police 'Riot* and Arrest
Methods
Second Mooney Meet Planned R
Speakers of 1st Program to be Heard
Sunday
Mayor Defies Plea For Law (R)
Hurls Challenge at Lawyers & Ministers
Legion Post Investigates Police Storm AR
Beverly Hills Legionnaire Protest Link
to Police Activities
Police, County officials. Hold Anti Red
Meet R
Agree to Stop All 'Illegal* &
'Communist' Gatherings
Express
Scores Gassed By Police In Riot At Park AR
Officers Hurl Tear Bombs in Pershing
Square Battle
Scores Gassed in Riot Here
Police Hurl Bombs Into Downtown Crowds
Police Apology May Be Sought By Clergymen AR
Three Tear Gas Bomb Victims Voice Protest
Grand Jurors Support Hynes PR
0 Accused Reds Set At Liberty AR
Lack of Evidence is Judge's Ruling as
He Hears Case
Liberties Union Defies Police
Gas Bomb Raid Victims Remain Undaunted
by Law
Mayor Denies Ordering Curb on Free Speech R
Testifies at Trial of 8 Arrested in
Mooney Riot
Court Assails Police Gassing AR
Authority of Hynes to Rout Meeting is
Questioned
Captain Hynes Says 'Red' Curb Mandatory Act R
Tells Court He Gave Suppress Order on
123
Herald
Sheriff's Aids Check Anti Red Squad's Action
Free Speech, Right to: Assemble Get Back
ing of Law
Traeger Orders Men to Observe Red Squad
Raids R
Sheriff Reveals Plan To Protect Citizens
at Meetings
Porter's Police Hit By Bar and Clergy AR
Mayor Ignores Request of Groups for
Protection of Constitutional Rights of
free Assembly
'Red Squad' Raid Responsibility Put on
Mayor AR
Porter Calls Chief & Sheriff for
Harmony Meet
Porter Claims Meeting Raids Are 'Justified' PR
Mayor Asserts Police Will Continue to
Bar Doorways
Council's Vote Hits Bed Squad AR
Police Interference With free Speech
Disapproved
Council Warns Police Against Raid Blunders (M)
Clergy Joins Protest Over Invasion of
Meeting
Police War On 'Reds' After 1500 Riot PR
Open. 'Red' Drive.After 1500 Riot
Trial of-Suspects in Radical Case Resumes
Tomorrow R
Showdown Sought in Clash of D A Police,
Deputies R
Sheriff to Pick Squad to Attend Radical
Meetings PR
Mayor, 4 Groups in Clash on 'Lawless
Police* Charge AR
Porter Says Plaint fill Be Ignored
Clash on Lawless Police Charges
Porter Calls Harmony Meet of Officials R
Jury Hesitates As freeing of 10 in 'Red'
Case Advised R
Police, Sheriff's Office in Accord on
Communists PR
Hits Warning to Police on Raids R
Police, Sheriff in Peace Pact PR
Times
Police rout Communist rioters in Pershing
Square with gas bombs. Several hurt and
nine jailed
Police Bombs Rout Reds in Pershing Square
Riot
fifteen Hundred Communists Battle
PR
1E4
Furiously to Enter Meeting Hall; Many
Hurt and Fine Jailed
State Closes Red Riot Cases R
Defense Upheld in Banning Discussion
of Meeting
Gathering Balked by Police Hence
'Purely Opinion*
Prosecutor Declares Liberty abused by
Radicals
Fight To Foil Reds Renewed
Better America Federation Pledges
Support PR
Communists Work to Repeal Syndicalism
Law
Heed For Federal Statute Urged in
Congress
Bar Group Warns On Right To Assemble AR
Mayor Calls Peace Session R
Traeger, Steokel & Others to Attend
Conference
Meeting Aftermath of Row Over Red
'Observers'
Policy of Harmony to be Discussed Today
Accord on Red Curb Reached PR
City & County Officials Meet With Mayor
Assemblies for Communistic Propaganda
Halted
Two-Hour Session Held Behind Closed Doors
Jury Convicts Four Over Riot PR
Panel Overrides Views Given by Judge
Aggeler
Acquittal voted for Six of Asserted
Communists
Quartet in Pershing Square Strife Ask
lew
Examiner
Radicals Battle Police at Pershing Square PR
Two Riots Broken Up by Tear Gas Bombs
Fight Back
Several Officers Badly Hurt; Mobs
Block Traffic
Suspects in Riot Facing Charges R
Radical Suspects Ask Jury Trial R
Mooney Meeting Here Thwarted • R
Citizens Ask Curb On Police 'Lawlessness' AR
Hynes 'Red Squad* Methods Hit, Raids
Without Warrants and Denial of Rights
Charged
Police Agree Over Radicals PR
Preachers Decry Raiding by Police AR
Since the headlines were, on the whole, indicative
of the nature of the articles and since^the headlines were
read more easily and widely than the text, the headlines
might he regarded as a short and fairly reliable index
of the qualitative character of the newspaper articles.
The quality of news was further clarified by a
consideration of the continuity of the news stories. In
the Eomero^Eirksey situation, only the Times and Examiner
printed forecasts, reports and closing comments. In
that case there was a distinct shift from a conviction
to an acquittal. This was not acknowledged by the Record
and Express, and was only pointed to before the final
decision by the Herald. In the matter of the Bar Association
meeting there were two prior announcements and final
reports in the Express and Herald. The situation lasted
only one evening and did not change; so it received only
one article in the Record and Times. But the Examiner,
in keeping with its record of the least percentage of anti
police practice reports and the highest percentage of pro
police practice reports, printed nothing about the Bar
Associations anti "third degree" meeting*. Most significant,
however, was the flagrant lack of continuity that occurred
in all of the papers in the handling of the anti "third
degree" bill news. All papers reported its passage by
the California Assembly. The Record, Express and (oddly)
the Examiner printed propagandic articles in favor of it.
But not a single paper later_ said anything about the
126
defeat of the bill in the state Senate. The news in
most of the papers on all of these subjects, lacked
continuity when that entailed reports favorable to a
police practice.
The continuity of the news on the Grand Jury inves
tigation and the Philharmonic incident was not dissimilar.
The reports on the Grand Jury matter covered a short
period of time and most of the items were carried by all
of the papers. The happenings in the Philharmonic
matter were more varied and the continuity less complete.
On the trial of the radicals, fin which the judge advised
an acquittal, the jury acquitted six and convicted four
and the judge granted a new trial that was never held),
there was little mention of the outcome and no complete
sequence in any paper. As to the protests of the Con
stitutional Eights Committee and the Ministers and the
replies of the mayor and the police the former and the
latter were both presented. Usually, however, the
different news items appeared when new and continuity
through to their final disposition was not maintained.
The newspapers presented an incessant deluge of
reading matter on the police practice disputes; Though
at first glance, it appeared as undirected as rain, upon
closer observation it assumed a positive, limited and
almost purposeful character. It was possible to measure
and study it objectively. And under objective scrutiny,
each paper was found to have a consistent policy with a
127
fairly constant relationship to the policies of the other
papers. Undoubtedly, the press of Los Angeles did much
in a definite manner to augument and spread the opinion of
protest against the unlawful enforcement of the law.
How much is suggested somewhat in the report of lay
opinions below.
128
INACTIVE OEiniOES
The study of the opinions of the Constitutional
Sights Committee, the Police officials, the Grand Jury
and the Press revealed to the writer quite clearly that
the opinions noted were the expressions of very few
individuals and that the great multitudy of denizens of
Los Angeles had riot been heard. It became apparent that
most of the populace had remained inarticulate. They had
not volunteered statements. Yet it would have appeared
unreasonable to suppose that they had no thoughts on the
various police practises. The solicitation and study of
their opinions promised to throw light on the phenomenon
of public opinion. Hence the writer undertook to dis
cover the opinions of the relatively inactive members of
the public.
Some members of the public were engaged in special
ized occupations that might affect their opinions; others
were merely the general lay public. Of the specialized
persons, the police force and the lawyers were singled
out, and various sub-specializations amongst them were
recognized. The rest of the populace were regarded as
the laity. Samplings were made in each group and the
investigation extended to all of them.
129
POLICE opinions.
The play of opinion in the police group was studied
primarily through the personal interview method. The
writer interviewed 62 officers on the Los Angeles police
force composed of 24 Police (uniform) captains and lieu
tenants, 18 Detective (plain clothes) captains and 10
Jailers and assistant jailers. The interviewees were
distributed in all of the police stations and jails of the
city. Their periods of service ranged from 2 to 36
years with an arithmetic mean of 17 years, and the center
half between 13 and 21 years.
The interviews, though conversational in nature,
consistently covered certain definite phases of opinion
concerning arrests without warrant, searches without
warrant, booking of prisoners, filing of charges, holding
prisoners incommunicado, lengthy questioning and the use
of violence. Whenever possible, the experiences of the
officers were elicited in detail. On some matters,
certain officers were unqualified to express much more
than a layman's opinion and in most of the matters,
differences were discerned amongst the opinions of the
Uniform Police, Detectives and Jailers. The differences
were due undoubtedly to the departmental specialization of
function. The Police were engaged generally in the
handling of misdemeanor cases; the Detectives were
delegated generally to the handling of felony cases and
130
the Jailers were occupied generally with the supervision
of the stockades and prisons* The individual interviewees
had almost all served in more than one group; but their
current positions were predominant in their minds and
most of their opinions were definitely based on their
experiences in their current types of work. When they
thought of their former positions, they usually said so.
The following is an account of the opinions and exper
iences related by each group of officers.
It should be noted at the outset that there was an
intentional omission of interviews amongst the officers
on the Bed Squad and of all references to the treatment
of Communists. A slight investigation tended to show
that Communists were treated unlike other prisoners at
least during certain stages of police procedure and that
lawyers, and laymen too regarded Communists as proper
subjects for different treatment. Hence the omission of
all reference to them probably did not affect the rest of
the study# Moreover, the difficulty of obtaining-aiBrahk
and full statement on a subject almost taboo was a
practical consideration that was sufficient in itself.
The omission was serious; but it is believed that it did
not invalidate the remainder of the work and it was
unavoidable.
ARREST8 WITHOUT WAREART.
It was $nken for granted by the officers that most
131
arrests were made without warrants.
There was also a preponderance of opinion that
warrants were unnecessary in practically all of the cases
in which arrests had been made without them. In discussing
felony cases, nearly all of the Police and five-sixths of
the Detectives said a warrant was never needed in felony
eases. Even though many of the arrests may have come
within the sanction of the law, there was a clear miscon-
1
struetion of the law in this regard* In discussing
misdemeanor cases, nearly all of the Police and Detec
tives correctly stated the law permitting an arrest
without warrant when the misdemeanor is committed in the
presence of an officer* They believed most arrests were
made under such circumstances* In this manner, arrests
without warrant were Justified, in felony cases by an
extension of a fallacious conception of the law and in
misdemeanor eases by a broad application of a correct
statement of the law*
 few views were revealed on other phases of the
arrest warrant problem* in officer who had spent several
years in Juvenile court work thought a warrant was never
needed in that field except in arresting high grade mis
demeanants and felons* Another officer, engaged in the
pawn shop detail, declared that his work never involved
an arrest except when a person was caught disposing of
1 The law is summarized in Appendix I,
132
stolen goods, in which case a warrant was not needed#
"Drag net arrests" were discussed by several and even
though a few were ccamnced that crime could be greatly
diminished by arresting all two and three time offenders
every few months for inquiry into their recent conduct,
they refused to propose the "desirable" tactic because they
thought it might be abused. Several officers insisted
that much of the complaint about arrests without warrant
was attributable to the prevalence_^pf arrests by private
citizens, most of which, they believed, were unjustified.
On the whole, arrests without warrant was not regarded
as a social or police problem.
SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT#
Several of the Police and most of the Detectives
sought to dispose of the question of search warrants with
the opinion that the need for them rested solely on the
tact and ability of the officer. If the officer spoke
smoothly, he could and should be able to gain entrance
anywhere without a warrant# Consequently, with confidence
in their own powers of persuasion, most of the Detectives
asserted they rarely needed and rarely obtained search
warrants# When their requests for entrance were denied,
about 1/4 of the Detectives said they forced an entrance
anyway, because, as a few put it, "If the residents weren't
trying unlawfully to hide something, they'd allow the
officers.to come in". About 1/2 of the detectives said
130
that on refusal of entrance, they posted officers in
front of the places of ingress and egress and allowed
no one to leave or enter until an officer came with a
search warrant or until the residents chose to have them
enter, rather than arouse the suspicions of the neigh
borhood. The remaining fourth, when refused admittance,
went for search warrants as best they could. But, as a
general rule, search warrants were deemed unnecessary.
A great many conceptions prevailed as to the law on
searches without warrant# Many officers believed a
search was always proper if some incriminating evidence
was discovered and always unauthorized if no such evidence
was found# Some believed warrants were needed in old
or dormant cases and not in those being freshly inves
tigated. The latter class of cases was obviously an
extension of the cases termed in law "hot pursuit" in
which arrest warrants are dispensible. Two officers
declared that search warrants were only required when
arrest warrants were. A couple others said search
warrants were needed only in misdemeanor eases and not
in felony cases# One thought no warrants were ever
required before prohibition and many believed warrants
were still unnecessary in searching public places. Many
responses were correct in their statement of the law; but
most of the Police and half of the Detectives had views
that were mistaken in some respect.
1 The law is discussed in Appendix I.
134
The justifications for searches without warrant,
aside from the provisions of the law, were several. A
number of officers found the procedure for procuring a
search warrant too dilatory. They said it took a few
hours and none could be gotten on Sunday. Many thought
that efficient work demanded no waiting at all. Others
said that in order to get a search warrant they needed Jo
swear they saw incriminating goods at a specific place
and if they did see it there, the law required them to
se^ze it at once. Two officers referred to the California
supreme court decision of California vs. Mayne, supra,
holding admissible any material evidence even though
obtained unlawfully, and they interpreted that to be a
sanction of all searches without warrant. One officer
explained that if goods were taken without a warrant and
were proved to belong to innocent persons, restitution
could be made immediately; whereas if the seizure were
under a search warrant the owners would be obliged to
await the delays of court action before the articles could
be released. Most of the officers indicated their
belief that if hardship accrued from some searches with
out warrant it was to be condoned because it usually
fell on those who sought to shield criminals.
There was considerable comment on the Police
Commission ruling that no private homes were to be searched
for liquor without a search warrant. The predominant
sentiment was that the rule absolutely hampered the
135
efficiency of the police and was strongly undesirable.
Still, one officer regretfully attributed it to past
excesses of the police in arresting those found with
liquor on raids that were intended to find more serious
criminals* Another declared that the rule was necessary
to gain the cooperation of the public for the police and
that its ultimate result would not he harmful. The only
situations in which any officers thought a search without
a warrant might raise a social problem were those covered
by the Police Commission ruling.
BOOXIIG.
Ho officer deemed booking a social problem or a
matter about which there might be some dispute. Prisoners
were booked immediately in the opinions of 1/2 the Police
and 1/3 the Detectives, Booking was often delayed a few
hours, thought i/4 of the Police and 1/3 of the Detectives.
Booking had sometimes been delayed more than a few hours
in the experience of only I/8 of the Police and 1/6 of the
Detectives. All of the Jailers, however, knew of
practically no delays and asserted that prisoners were
always booked before being placed in Jail,
The occasional delays in booking were explained as
due to the transportation of drunks to the Georgia Street
Hospital for examination before booking, the transporta
tion and detention of those first arrested when the vice
squad made several raids on one trip, the detention of
reckless drivers pending an hospital report on the
136
seriousness of the Injuries they had inflicted, the de
tention of prisoners during a preliminary investigation
in an uncertain or difficult case.
Since complaint was often heard of irregular or
improper booking as well as delay in booking, the officers
were questioned on that matter. One third of the Detectives
acknowledged a common practise of booking prisoners on
suspicion of felony instead of on the actually suspected
charge— misdemeanor or felony. They believed this was
a necessary protection against liability for false arrest,
FI DUG.
In the filing of charges against prisoners, as a
preliminary to the presentation of prisoners before a
magistrate, a distinct differentiation was made between
misdemeanors and felonies. The usual purpose of delay
in filing was to afford more time for investigation. Since
misdemeanors were usually committed in the presence of
officers or complaining witnesses, the investigation was
ordinarily completed by the time arrest was made and
further delay was unnecessary. The same was obviously
not the case with felonies, most of which were committed
by unknown persons in the absence of observers.
Practically all of the officers believed misdemeanors
were filed on the same day as the arrest or the day
following. Most jailers had established schedules of
regular trips a few times a day for taking misdemeanants
137
to the Central Station for filing. Only 1/6 of the
Police and Jailers said they knew of eases involving
unusual delay in filing misdemeanors.
On the filing of felonies a different opinion
existed. The Detectives and Jailers were divided in
their notions concerning the provisions of the law* Half
thought a detention of 72 hours prior to filing was
permitted and half thought only 48 hours was allowed.
The law prior to 1927 required filing without unnecessary
delay and a police department rule authorized a post
ponement for as high as 72 hours. In 1927, the law was
amended to require filing "without unnecessary delay and,
in any event, within two days after.•*.arrest excluding
Sundays and holidays."^ Within the four years that followed,
the change in the law had evidently not been conveyed
to half of the Detectives and Jailers.
Even with the mistaken notion amongst half of them
allowing more time than granted by law, most of the
Detectives and Jailers believed that some felons were
still held overtime. Half of the Detectives recalled
occasional eases in which men were held from 3 to 13
days before filing. The general opinion of the Detectives,
however, was that the prisoners held overtime were few.
Host of the Jailers declared that they kept watch over
the days of incarceration and notified the Detectives
1 California Penal Code, Sec. 825.
138
of oases held overtime. One fourth of the Jailers said
they gave many such notices; the rest gave few. The
existence of instances involving unlawful delay was
clearly acknowledged.
The reasons assigned for failure to file all felonies
in time were various. Sometimes, it was said, the wit
nesses were called in for a prior trial in the prosecu
tor's office and delay ensued. Sometimes, a prisoner
was held over with the consent of his counsel pending
further investigation. One officer declared it took
him a whole day, at times, to get a complaint issued at
the District Attorney's office and that in the meantime
all of his investigations were held up. One officer
thought "smart crooks" wanted eases hurried into court to
avoid further investigation so they might evade detection
of their many crimes. Another thought "smart crooks",
wanted filing postponed so that if by chance little evidence
was discovered they might be released without ever going
to trial. A few officers pointed out that once a filing
was made, the prisoners were taken from the City Jail to
the County Jail and thereafter they were not at the
disposal of the city police for further investigation,
hence detectives were reluctant to file before absolutely
completing their investigations. A number of officers
were firmly convinced that the requirement of filing in
48 hours was a definite hindrance to criminal investigation.
139
There seemed to he practically no belief that delay was
abased.
mcommicADo.
The problem of holding prisoners incommunicado
presented three phases, namely the withholding of
prisoners from attorneys, the withholding of prisoners
from friends and relatives and the withholding of the
outgoing messages of prisoners* The opinions of the
officers were sought on each of these aspects of the
situation.
The police were evenly divided between those who
believed attorneys were always permitted to see prisoners
as soon as they requested it and those who believed
attorneys were kept waiting until the Police or Detec
tives had completed their investigations. The detectives
were divided one third of the former opinion and two
thirds of the latter. Moreover, half of those who
acknowledged that they had kept attorneys waiting said
that, on occasion, they had deliberately taken prisoners
out of stations and driven them about town or booked them
in other stations in order to evade their attorneys,
Hone of the jailers said they had ever kept attorneys
waiting. They referred all attorneys to the captains of
detectives.
Most of the complaints of the prisoners about not
being able to see attorneys were received by the jailers,
140
next by the detectives and least by the police.
Ho one intimated that an injustice was ever worked
by refusing to let a prisoner see an attorney until the
officer's investigation was completed. On the contrary,
there was a prevalent sentiment that attorneys tell
prisoners to keep quiet and the longer a detective can
investigate before the prisoner sees his attorney the
better, A prominent officer said the law allowed a
prisoner to communicate with his attorney; but it didn't
provide when this was to be done. He declared that he
never refused a request to call on attorney. He merely
continued his investigation and ignored the requeOt
until he was through. Another officer more bluntly
said, "A prisoner will get an attorney if and when it is
justifiable," Nearly all of the officers, however, assert
ed that prisoners were never absolutely refused the
privilege of consulting counsel and they believed post
ponement of the privilege did no harm,
A number of officers had received complaints from
attorneys because of their inability to see prisoners.
In all of these eases, it was believed that the attorneys
were shysters seeking employment, and that the prisoners
had refused to see them.
The withholding of prisoners from relatives was
regarded as an infrequent occurrence. Very few of the
police or jailers said they knew of relatives being turned
away or deliberately kept waiting. One fourth of the
141
detectives, however, had kept relatives waiting until they
had finished their investigations. In felony cases, most
of detectives and jailers .remarked there was a custom
of consulting the detectives in charge of the eases before
relatives were allowed to visit the prisoners. Then usually
the relatives were obliged to converse with the prisoners
through a screen or within the hearing of an officer.
Complaints had been made by relatives to very few
of the police and to about half of the detectives and
jailers. It was believed that most of the complaints
were due to an ignorance or intolerance on the part of
the relatives concerning the rules for visiting hours
and holidays. The complaints were not numerous and they
were not taken seriously.
The. vigil over the conversations between prisoners
and relatives and the postponement of the interview until
the detectives were through investigating was justified
as necessary to prevent communications that might lead
to the concealment of booty, the destruction of evidence,
and the warning of allies on the outside.
The withholding of the out-going messages of prison
ers was minimized. It was said that the handling of
messages from the prisoners had been routined. In the
Central Station jail, a trustee announced every day that
messages could be sent out. In most of the jails, printed
form blanks were provided for the message. A few jailers
made the phone calls. Occasionally, the prisoners were
142
allowed to use the telephone themselves.
Most of the Jailers, howeyer, referred the messages
to the detectives. One eighth of the police and one third
of the Jailers knew of calls detained* One fifth of the
detectives said they had detained calls. In most of the
outlying stations, the Jailers refused to let misdemean
ants call attorneys at all because those prisoners were
sent to the Central Station within a few hours and
"didn't need attorneys anyway".
The complaints of the felony prisoners, it was
explained, were due to a false suspicion of persecution
at times when the officers were unable to reach the
attorneys or the attorneys failed to respond; A little
resentment was expressed toward the insistence of some
prisoners upon "hotel accommodations with bell hop
service".
Few of the officers seemed acquainted with or used
the term "incommunicado". They had not given the matter
much thought and were inclined to regard it as insigni
ficant.
LENGTHY QUESTIONING.
Questioning prisoners for a long period of time was
a practice confined to Detectives and rarely indulged in
by the Police or Jailers* Two thirds of the Detectives
declared they had quizzed men for a long time. Of these,
one third had quizzed for periods of ten to twenty-four
143
consecutive hours, and one half had quizzed for periods
of two to seven successive days, sometimes including the
intervening nights* Amongst those who disowned this
method of work, there was a general recognition of its
use by others.
The opinion of nearly all was that long term
questioning was used only in important or difficult cases.
It was said to be necessary not so much to secure con
fessions as to obtain more evidence* It was necessary
to "clean up" all the jobs of a prisoner* Without it,
convictions were practically impossible. Through it,
some reached their greatest successes* Old criminals
were as clever as the detectives and hard to wear out;
so the questioning needed to be long*
Its effect on the prisoners was justified in the
following ways. If a man were innocent, he could stand
it as well as the detective. Only a guilty man with a
burden on his mind broke down* An innocent man couldn't
be gotten to confess to something he didn't do. Loss
of sleep never caused one to tell a falsehood* Question
ing eliminated the use of force in securing confessions.
Long questioning gave a prisoner an opportunity to
"come clean" so that he might take his punishment for
all of his crimes and start life over again without fear,
A few officers were of a contrary opinion* One had
faith in his ability always to get all the necessary
evidence from a . brief interview* Another thought
144
questioning for 12 consecutive hours inhuman. Another
thought there was no greater torture than the forced
loss of sleep and that it brought no results. Another
said if a man was worn out, his confession would be
confused and useless, A few of them had questioned
prisoners for a long time, and were dissatisfied with
its effect or results,
A means of prolonging the grilling of a prisoner
was to relay detective after detective. Two thirds
of the Detectives had participated in such relays and
most of the long questioning was done in that manner.
The thought of most of the Detectives as to relays
was $erely that it was efficacious. One explained that
it might be compared with a sales campaign in which
several salesmen of different personalities were direct
ed to interview the same customers* If one type of
individual didn't succeed, another might.
To practically all of the Detectives lengthy
questioning was but a method of procedure. Still a few
seemed to disapprove of it strongly on emotional grounds,
VIOLENCE.
Obviously the use of violence might occur at
different times in the police procedure and for different
purposes. The Police, Detectives and Jailers presented
generally three separate situations for its use* The
Police, functioning primarily as arresting officers with
145
rarely a need for extended investigation, spoke of
violence chiefly in the making of an arrest. The
Detectives, functioning primarily as investigators of
felonies, spoke of violence chiefly in obtaining evidence
or confessions. The Jailers, functioning primarily as
incarcerators, spoke of violence chiefly in locking up
and detaining prisoners. Occasionally, one spoke of
force used by an officer in one of the other classifica
tions, especially when the interviewee had served in the
other capacity; but these opinions were so few, and so
vaguely recalled that the interviewer made certain to
obtain from all an expression of opinion in that situation
which the interviewee was most likely to know, namely,
in his position at that moment. The following refers
primarily to such opinions.
As much as possible the interviewer used the terms,
"violence" or "unusual force" instead of "force" or
"third degree". "Third degree" has popularly been
applied to the infliction of physical suffering by the
police in any situation and has various sinister and
condemnatory connotations that made its use in the
interviews injudicious. Frequently when it arose in the
cours of conversation, it produced a suspicious and
defensive reaction that pervaded the statements that
followed. The term "force" did not seem sufficiently
definite in speaking of arrests or imprisonment. In
those situations, there is alw;ays an element of
146
force present. So the words "violence" or "unusual
force" were used with a manner and expression that attempt
ed to avoid any implication of condemnation.
All the officers were interrogated on whether or how
much they had seen, heard and committed acts of violence,
fhe following table shows the percentages of the
affirmative replies received.
Officers Who Had
Seen Heard Committed
Police 1/2 4/5 (3/5 few 1/5 many) 1/4
Detectives 1/2 5/6 (1/2 few 2/6 many) 1/3
Jailers 1/2 all (1/2 few 1/2 many) 2/3
The number of acts seen were generally said to be not
many and the number of acts committed very few. The only
possibility of getting more specific data was to get a
discussion of individual cases hardly susceptible of
statistical tabulation. References to some of these cases
are made below.
The Police and Detectives were about evenly divided
between those who believed most of the acts of violence
justifiable and those who believed many of them unjusti
fiable. Amongst the Jailers, speaking specifically of
violence by Jailers, two thirds believed all the acts
justifiable and one third believed some of the acts
unjustifiable.
The reasons offered for the use of violence were
147
many. It was said frequently the prisoner strikes the
officer first, the prisoner tries to run away, the
drunks always try to fight, some prisoners try to act
like "tough guys", some prisoners try to induce the
officer to hit them just so they can file a complaint
against the officer, the general citizen treats an officer
like dirt, so the crooks do worse, many prisoners
commit intolerable acts like deliberately spilling ink
all over the register or like spitting in an officer's
face and many prisoners call officers vile names that
would get unbearable now and then for anyone. Some
jailers complained that drunks continually fall down and
accuse the jailers of having caused their bruises. One
jailer believed the arresting officers sometimes do
cause some of the bruises, but the jailer is always
blamed.
The chief reason for violence— that it was necessary—
met some qualification and denial. Several Police thought
violence necessary in handling Mexicans or others of
"the lower classes". Some Detectives thought it necessary
in mariwana and murder eases and for "kids who think
they’re tough". A number of Jailers thought it an
indispensible part of their self defense. Still several
Police definitely repudiated its need in arresting
Mexicans or other foreigners and two Jailers thought
patience could and should always be substituted for
violence.
148
Several Detectives 'believed many complaints of
violence were falsely made by prisoners as a camouflage
for their crimes* They said the "jail rats" or the
"repeaters" complained habitually to detract attention
from their crimes and to mitigate their sentences* Other
criminals complained consciously to arouse people in a
higher social stratum so that they would arouse others
in a still higher stratum and they would arouse others
in a still higher stratum until judges would be obliged
to give probation, boards to parole and governors to
pardon] The cry of "third degree became an expected and,
natural defense to a confession"* Many of the officers
believed that charges of brutality were hurled against
the police in a purposeful campaign of crime*
It was naturally somewhat difficult to induce the
officers who referred to acts of violence to describe
them* A few Detectives spoke of prisoners being slapped
in the face because they refused to answer questions*
One Detective said he heard others discuss the occasion
when a negro suspected of robbing homes in Pasadena was
taken to the homes for questioning* On the way, the
detective's car came to the Colorado Street bridge having
a length "of about 1450 feet and a center height of ap
proximately 145.feet* The ear was stopped* The officers
led the prisoner out to the side railing of the bridge
and told him to look over* Then they told him the bridge
was known as "Suicide Bridge" and if he didn't tell them
149
the truth about all of the Jobs he "had pulled", the
papers the next day would say, another "nigger" committed
suicide that night by Jumping off Suicide Bridge. The
interviewee disavowed any personal knowledge of the
incident, but related it as fairly widely circulated
Detectives' gossip*' Another Detective told of a charge
made by a prisoner to the effect that he was driven by
two Detectives to a distant lonely country place and
in the course of his examination a revolver was held
alongside his ear and fired into the air. The percussion
deafened him; but he was forced to talk. Again the
interviewee denied any personal knowledge of the affair
and declared he doubted the authenticity of it; but that
it would be a clever way to give the third degree, since
no tell tale'marks were left* Another Detective had a
more ingenious method of securing confessions. He said
that if a prisoner were laid on his back and a rag
soaked in ammonia were passed over his face there would
n't be a single man who could resist answering questions*
He smiled broadly and said, "Of course, I ain't saying
this has been done (a pause and a wink)* But I bet you
it would work." Pew other specific practices that
might be termed "the third degree" were referred to
and they very vaguely.
Another aspect of the use of violence that was con
sidered was the .r-elative amount of violence employed
150
before prohibition as contrasted with the amount used
today* The Police were emphatic in declaring that more
violence was used formerly* Pour fifths of them were of
this opinion. The Detectives and Jailers were about
evenly divided between those who found the situation the
same as the present. The Police who had trudged the
beat in saloon days seemed to think "knock down, drag in"
methods were then the only possible methods. The differ
ence they said has been manifested in the police personnel*
Men were hired "for brawn then and for brains now"*
"Police were ignorant then, educated now*" in officer
had "a job then, a position now"*
In discussing this change in the use of violence,
most of the officers revealed their recognition of the
work of the Bar Association's Constitutional Rights
Committee. Time and time again it was said, "In the old
days", we did this or that; but to-day "if you tried half
of it, the Bar Association would be on your neck and
you'd lose your job." Some reaction to the criticism
being made of police methods was constantly in evidence;
but in this situation it was particularly clear*
An interesting anthropological insight into the use
of violence by officers of the law was found in the
existence of certain figures of speech* The term, "knock
him over" was frequently used to signify the making of
an arrest* The expression, "shake down" was used instead
of the word "search"* The words "to break" were employed
150a
as meaning "to get a confession"# These were all used
by men in the service for over 20 years and no one could
tell when they had originated# Everyone said the words
were the rough expressions of unschooled policemen and
were not to be taken literally. The words were used in
reference to specific situations in which there wasn't the
slightest use or thought of violence. To what extent
the words presented a cultural lag and to what extent they
still portrayed an existing practice can be determined
from the opinions on the use of violence as stated above.
151
BAR 0ZTEI0B8.
In order to sound the opinions of the bar, outside
of the Constitutional Rights Committee of the los Angeles
Bar Association, the writer interviewed 50 civil practi
tioners, 10 criminal defense lawyers, 5 deputy city
prosecutors and 10 deputy district attorneys. The
attorneys engaged in civil practice were chosen at
random. All of them had been in practice in Los Angeles
for at least five years and 25 out of the 50 were not
members of the Bar Association, The criminal defense
attorneys were all prominent characters recognized by
the bar and the public generally as amongst the most
active and successful criminal lawyers of the city.
The prosecutors were selected from the staffs of the
city prosecutor and district attorney for their distri
bution of duties and length of service, in order that
152
they might be as representative as possible# The city
prosecutor's deputies were engaged in the trial of mis
demeanors and the district attorney's deputies primarily
in the trial of felonies. In this manner, it was
believed a fair sampling of the members of the bar was
made with due attention to the relevant specializations.
ARREST WITHOUT WAREABT#
Practically all of the civil attorneys believed the
police did not use arrest warrants as often as the law
required them# A few had the idea that warrants were
never used unless they were needed to sanction an arrest
for which there was no fresh or certain evidence*
Amongst the criminal lawyers, all believed the police
disregarded, the law of warrants in some cases. One
thought those cases were few, another about 25$ of the
arrests and the rest thought they were many. The
deputies in the city prosecutor's office believed that
in misdemeanor arrests, warrants were omitted, never,
a few times or very few times* Most of the deputies in
the district attorney's office believed that in felony
cases that practide was very rare# Two of them believed
it non-existent# One had observed a diminution of it
in the past ten years# Another claimed it was a matter
of the individual officer's behavior, about which there
was no regularity. Thus, there was a wide range of
opinion amongst the lawyers with a definite tendency of
153
the civil and defense lawyers to believe the unlawful
police practice was prevalent, and with the opposite
tendency amongst the prosecutors#
SEARCHES WITHOUT WARRANTS.
All of the civil attorneys believed searches were
made frequently without warrants despite the mandate of
the law requiring warrants# Most of them remarked that
warrants were never used in liqu&r eases and a few
thought warrants were obtained only when the police
feared that the persons, owning the premises to be
searched, had political influence and might make matters
uncomfortable for them# Similarly, all of the defense
attorneys believed that the police violations of the
search warrant law were many# Half of these attorneys
referred to the Mayne ease, supra, which held admissible,
in trial, evidence that was obtained through an unlawful
search# They denounced the decision as contrary to the
fundamental right of the accused not to testify against
himself and as an official approval of a pernicious
police practice# The city prosecutors were divided#
Three believed the police rarely failed to get a search
warrant when it was required and two believed they wrong
fully overlooked the warrant many times# One of the
former said a search warrant wasn't required in liquor
cases. Another thought warrants were once disregarded
as a general practice; but that due to popular protest
for the last two years, the police obeyed the law# One
154
of the others believed the Mayne case was responsible for
the searches without warrants and therefore the decision
should be reversed* All of the deputy district attorneys
said the instances of unlawful searches without warrants
occurred seldom, very seldom or rarely. One wasn't sure
about liquor cases. One said it didn't matter because
the evidence so procured was admissible anyway. Another
thought the citizens voluntarily consented to searches
without warrants except in mre cases. Again the civil
and defense lawyers tended to differ from the prosecut
ing attorneys.
DELAY II BOGKIiq.
Most of the civil lawyers declared they were
ignorant of the police practice in booking prisoners,
nearly all of them, however, accused or suspected the
police of doing whatever they pleased and of delaying
booking whenever it suited their convenience. About one
third of them thought there was no harm in the delay.
The criminal defense attorneys were evenly divided on :
the prevalence of the alleged practice. Three thought
there were considerable cases of it, two thought only a
few. Five thought there were no cases. One of them
could see no reason why the police should want to delay
booking. The deputy city prosecutors all believed there
was never any delay in booking. Seven of the deputy
166
district attorneys were of the same opinion. One insisted
he knew nothing about it and never formed a belief about
it. Another believed it might occur in exceptional
eases and another thought that whatever delay existed
was probably reasonable. There was noticeably little
thought on the practice or possibility of delay in
booking.
DELAY ID TAKIDG DRI50DER
BEE0BE'~EZST8THÏTË.
The civil lawyers were generally uncertain about
delay in presenting misdemeanants to a magistrate; but
nearly all of them believed the police held back the
felons until detectives' investigations were completed
which frequently involved unnecessary and unlawful
delay. About half of them thought the police practice
was to be- condoned as unavoidable in a large system or
as necessary to a maximum number of convictions. Still
there was little divergence from the view that the
police disregarded the law* The criminal defense
attorneys all believed the police delayed the formal
charging of prisoners fairly often in misdemeanor cases
and very often in felony cases. Each recalled cases of
3, 4 and 6 days delay. Some recalled longer delays.
Several, however, were confident that when they or other
prominent attorneys were retained in eases, the police
hurried* The deputy city prosecutors believed there
156
iras no delay in presenting misdemeanants to magistrates
for the formal accusation. One had noticed rumors to the
contrary; hut he believed them false. Half of the deputy
district attorneys believed there was no unlawful delay
in handling the felony cases. Two of them thought there
was delay in some eases with the consent of the prisoner
or his counsel. One said he didn't know, but thought not.
The other five deputy district attorneys believed there
was unlawful delay in some cases* Two of them thought it
occurred seldom; two thought it fairly common and one
thought it was confined to the difficult robbery or
murder cases. In this matter of police delay, most of
the lawyers had opinions and their opinions seemed to
reflect the wide differences in their personal experiences.
HOLDIIQ PRISONERS IICOMOTICiDO.
The opinions of the bar, just as the opinions of the
police, were sought on the three distinct phases of
holding prisoners incommunicado, namely, the withholding
of prisoners from attorneys, the withholding of out
going messages of prisoners and the withholding of
prisoners from friends and relatives. Since the attorneys
were unconcerned with the visiting of prisoners by friends
and relatives, the information received dealt almost
exclusively with the first two forms of incommunicado.
The civil practitioners had had little difficulty
in seeing prisoners whenever they called and they knew
157
personally of very few instances in which prisoners
had been deliberately withheld from attorneys. Still,
four fifths of them believed that in major cases when
the police were seeking a confession or farther evidence,
the police held the prisoners incommunicado, lot quite
half of them had heard of the police spiriting prisoners
away to outlying jails to evade attorneys. They believed
those reports. The rest either doubted the existence of
such a practice or believed it didn't exist. All the
criminal defense attorneys believed some prisoners were
withheld from counsel. Most of them thought it didn't
occur frequently. Three of them felt the police didn't
dare withhold their clients, or those whom they asked
to see; but did abuse the rights of prisoners and younger
attorneys to see each other. One thought occasionally,
a crooked official held a prisoner away from an attorney
to induce the prisoner to engage another lawyer with
whom the official split fees. One lawyer confided that
he thought some jailers had kept a prisoner or two away
from other lawyers so that he might have the first
opportunity to speak with the men. He did not, however^
admit paying anything for this discrimination. All of
the criminal defense lawyers knew of cases in which
prisoners were hidden in distant jails for a while ; but
they regarded such cases as few. Amongst the deputy
city prosecutors, three believed that attorneys were
never denied the right to see prisoners and two
158
believed that in rare eases they were* Two were of the
opinion that prisoners were never deliberately taken to
outlying jails, two knew of such eases and one believed
it might have been done only in felony cases which he
did not handle. The deputy district attorneys were
equally divided on the withholding of prisoners from attor
neys. Most of those who believed it non-existent said
they had never heard of it. Those who believed it did
exist, thought it happened seldom* One declared that
the gangsters or professional criminals always made
their contacts and got out immediately and only the
inexperienced crook was kept from an attorney. As to
placing prisoners in far-away jails to evade attorneys,
seven of the depty district attorneys believed it wasn't
done and three believed it was. One of the latter thought
it was necessary in difficult eases and it happened so
rarely it wasn't worth considering. Thus, there was a
general belief in some practice of refusing to let
attorneys see prisoners' or of hiding prisoners in distant
jails; but much difference of opinion as to its pre
valence.
The civil attorneys had received very few calls
from prisoners and pleaded no opinions about the practices
of jailers. Still two-fifths, even in the absence of
personal experience, ventured the opinion that no call
gets out of jail until the police approve it. Of the
criminal defense attorneys, six insisted that some or
159
many of the prisoners* messages were withheld and four
had never known it to happen. Three of the former
believed that the calls were cancelled so that favorite
lawyers, who paid for the privilege, might be the first or
only lawyers to confer with the prisoners. One said
the calls were made promptly at the county jail; but not
at the others. Of the deputy city prosecutors, two felt
certain all calls were sent through expeditiously and
three said they knew nothing of any withholding of
calls and were inclined to believe it did not exist.
Of the deputy district attorneys, half insisted they had
no opinion on the matter; but most of them doubted the
existence of the alleged practice; three believed the
police never withheld the prisoners' messages and two
thought it might have been done a very few times* There
was a general sentiment amongst all the members of the
bar interviewed that this was one of the least common of
the alleged police abuses.
The civil attorneys regarded themselves as“incompet
ent to state whether friends and relatives were allowed
to visit prisoners. Most of them thought the relatives
must be admitted as a routine procedure. Two-fifths,
though, with no personal evidence, still thought that
the police kept prisoners absolutely incommunicado or
partially so as best served their ends* All of the
criminal defense attorneys, but one, believed that
relatives and friends were denied the privilege of
160
visiting prisoners in certain eases. The deputy city
prosecutors, and half of the deputy district attorneys,
believed the privilege was restricted only by the reason
able regulations for specific visiting hours. A few
deputy district attorneys would express no opinion# Two
knew of a few cases in which friends and relatives were
not allowed to see or converse with prisoners. Through
out all the groups of attorneys, there was little interest
in this phase of holding prisoners incommunicado.
But the general practice of holding prisoners
incommunicado was regarded seriously by the lawyers.
Their opinions differed. The civil attorneys were inclined
to believe the practice even more prevalent than the
criminal defense lawyers thought. The latter apparently
held in mind their own ability to get to prisoners. The
prosecutors believed still less in the existence and
prevalence of the practice. This distribution of opinion
resembled that in reference to the other police practices.
mouomm gussTioiniG .
Four-fifths of the civil attorneys believed the
police subjected prisoners to lengthy and nerve racking
examinations in order to elicit evidence or confessions.
Host of them thought this was the usual procedure in
handling cases of importance; but they thought the cases
of brutal grilling were few. Many of the lawyers referred
to the court reports presenting hases of that nature and
161
a few mentioned some of the eases by name, lone had had
clients who complained of such treatment. All of the
criminal defense lawyers, however, related the stories
of clients who had been questioned for protracted
periods. One lawyer believed that was the only method
the police did and could use because they weren't intelli
gent enough for more subtle and indirect methods. Another
also thought it was extensively used. The others thought
the method was applied vigorously only in important
cases. They told of questioning for one to two days
without cessation and for as many as five and seven days
with small intervals of rest. All of the deputy city
prosecutors acknowledged the use of prolonged questioning;
but they thought it was rarely to force evidence or
confessions from unwilling prisoners. One believed the
practice was common in felony cases, not in misdemeanor.
The deputy district attorneys also recognized the use
of prolonged questioning. Half of them thought there were
some eases of abuse; but two of them thought the proced
ure necessary. The other half thought the police were
not guilty of extorting evidence or confessions by
lengthy examinations. A few strongly denied the popular
charges of "third degree" and three of the deputies
believed the police didn't question enough. There was
then amongst the attorneys a wide diversity of opinion
on this police practice ranging from a belief in police
moderation to a belief, in police brutality and from a
162
desire for more stringent examinations to a condemnation
of almost all police questioning.
USE OF yiOLBICE.
The opinions of the members of the bar on the use of
violence or unnecessary force by the police were sought
from the three angles of violence in making arrests,
violence to obtain evidence or confessions and violence
for punishment.
Approximately half of the civil attorneys believed
that the police used unnecessary force in making many
arrests* Some had personal observations to relate, but
most of them were relying on general impressions from
various sources. At least one-fifth regarded the
arresting officer as an habitual user of strong arm
methods. Most of those lawyers, however, thought the use
of much force necessary and even when unnecessary, it was
not undesireable. The criminal defense attorneys believed
excessive force was used only on occasional arrests and
then because of the poor character of certain policemen.
A few thought it was used more by certain details such
as liquor and vice and hardly at all by other officers.
Amongst the deputy city prosecutors, three believed
violence was not used in making arrests and two believed
it was only at rare times. A few were of the opinion
that nearly all policemen were impersonal and often
indifferent about making arrests. Half of the deputy
163
district attorneys believed no violence was used in
making arrests. Dearly as many believed some policemen
exceeded the limits of necessity a few times; but most
of them thought that popular reports were exaggerated and
that the force was elicited by the prisoners. Only one
deputy thought violence was used often.
Two stories of police violence in the making of an
arrest were outstanding. One was made by a defense attorney
about a personal experience of his while he was a deputy
district attorney. He was prosecuting homicide eases
and was accustomed to conferring with the officers on
the homicide squad in their office at the police station.
One day he walked into the homicide office to discuss
certain matters-. He found there some police whom he did
not know and he listened to their examination of a
prisoner on a , liquor charge. After a while, the deputy
arose and started to leave. A large officer seized him by
the shoulders, pulled him back and demanded where he was
going. In consternation, the deputy asked the officer
why he wanted to know. The officer pounced upon him,
threw him into a chair and yelled at him to stay there.
A tussel ensued in which the deputy was badly beaten.
He finally managed to inform the officer of his position.
The officer placed him under the' charge of another
policemen, left and returned in a moment with other officers
1 William J. Clark
164
who identified the deputy. In great haste, all of the
police vanished. The deputy complained to the chief of
police only to meet with promises and procrastination,
later he himself became too busy to trouble with the
matter.
The other story was related by Ihnother;: attorney.
Two policemen returned to a room, where they had earlier
arrested a drunkard, for evidence of other crimes. They
found instead another man in the room. The man asked
the officers to show their badges and a search warrant.
The officers forced their way in. One knocked the
occupant down and struck him with his fist seven or eight
times until he broke the man's jaw. The officer yelled,
"We'll teach you to ask an officer for his badge." The
other officer said he stood by to see that no one inter
fered with the arrest. In time, the offending officer
was convicted of a criminal assault*^
The general trend of opinion amongst the lawyers was
that violence in the making of arrests was an individual
matter attributable to the individual officer or person
arrested.
On the use of violence to obtain evidence or confes
sions, another variety of opinions was presented. Three-
fifths of the civil attorneys thought that practice exist
ed in a very few cases. One-fifth thought it existed in
1 Peo. vs Pienning, supra
165
many cases and one-fifth thought it did not exist at all.
Done of them had witnessed a demonstration; hut a few had
seen clients with marks of bruises claimed to have been
administered by the police, A number of the lawyers
referred to a rubber hose, brass knuckles, a.sweat box
and brutal thrashings as actual instruments and methods
employed by the Los Angeles police. Those who denied the
existence of the "third degree" had not had clients who
complained of such practices.
All of the criminal defense attorneys believed that
in some cases the police used violence to extort evidence
or confessions. Almost half regarded it a common practice
and one of them thought it was used to bully prisoners
even beyond the extent necessary to get a confession.
Two, who believed it existed thought it was sometimes
charged untruthfully. One said on two occasions his
clients confessed, after acquittals, that they had lied
about the police brutality merely to avoid conviction.
Each of these lawyers, however, related specific incidents
of violent "third degree" practices that had appeared in
cases under his care.
A more or less typical story may be repeated to
represent the group. Its authenticity may be relied on
because it occurred while the narrator was.a deputy district
attorney instead of a defense attorney.^ A boy was
1 William J. Clark
' 166
• $
arrested for murder. His former employer who took an
Interest in his ease, visited him at the jail. Observ
ing that the boy showed signs of a beating, he reported
it to the deputytdistrict attorney who was in'charge of
i '
the prosecution, Ihe deputy had the boy brought to his
office immediately* The boy revealed his bruises,^said
he had been beaten and kicked by police officers and
climaxed his story by taking from his pocket a few teeth
the police had knocked out of his mouth. The evidence
was convincing; but the deputy's complaints brought no
official action.
Half of the deputy city prosecutors believed the
police did not use violence to procure evidence or con-
fessions. One of them thought the practice had been
abandoned for six or seven years* Because of public
opinion and, recently, the Bar Association vigilance, he
thought the police didn't dare use violence* Another
deputy thought violence was used once in a long while
and another thought it was used only in numerous felony
cases. A couple of the deputies said the prisoners
frequently cried that they had been abused in order to
arouse sympathy, avoid conviction or mitigate their
sentences. Still, another deputy thought that felons were
often mistreated and that they refused to mention it for
fear of further punishment by the police.
Only two of the deputy district attorneys believed
violence was never used, to obtain confessions* The other
167
eight believed it was- used very seldom. Some said it
happened once in a year, 2 years, 4 years or 6 years.
A few noticed a change in police methods away from the
methods of force employed in pre-prohibition days. A
few thought violence necessary to efficient police work.
Two had instances of violence arise within their own cases.
In one the defendant was discharged. In the other the
deputy decided the confession was true anyway and obtained
a conviction of the defendant. A few of the deputies
thought the prisoners raised the cry of "third degree"
to evade their own responsibility for crime. One claimed
the defenses or alibis of prisoners followed certain
styles and that for some time there had been a fashion
or run of setting up police brutality as a defense screen.
Each group of lawyers again presented a somewhat
different trend of opinion. Still each of them included
persons whose views coincided with the views of others
in another classification. The alleged practice of
violence to obtain evidence or confession was thought of
more than the others and the opinions concerning it
appeared to be more individual and specific.
On the use of violence as a form of punishment, there
was little opinion. Dearly all of the civil attorneys
said they had never heard of it and doubted its existence.
Several, however, believed that many prisoners were
beaten surreptitiously by police or jailers who bore them
ill will. About one-fifth of those lawyers who thought
168
prisoners were not molested in jail, believed that they
should be. They thought a slap in the face, a punch in the
hose or a good kick somewhere would teach some prisoners
much more than anything else. All of the defense attorneys,
however, believed that once a prisoner was convicted he
was not touched in jail. A few thought occasionally a
malicious policeman struck a prisoner awaiting trial just
to break his defiant attitude or for mere spite; but the
jailers themselves did not harm the prisoners. The deputy
city prosecutors and deputy district attorneys were
unanimous in their belief that jailers did not use
violence on prisoners. Several thought a policeman might
strike a surly prisoner just to punish him; but they
thought it a salutary thing. Some prisoners, they said,
were hard boiled and a little pain was the only thing
they feared. But the large majority of prosecutors did
not condone such lawless punishment.
The members of the bar, it is seen, offered many
different opinions on the unlawful enforcement of the law.
The civil lawyers spoke chiefly from hearsay and most of
them accused the police of the alleged offenses. The
criminal defense lawyers were more specific and more unit
ed in their charges of police lawlessness. The deputy
district attorneys believed much less, and the deputy city
prosecutors, still less, in the existence and prevalence of
the proclaimed practices# But all of them pointed, in
varying degrees, to certain practices as real and signi
ficant.
169
OPIIIOIS OF THE OEIERAL PUBLIC.
In order to obtain the opinions of the anspecialized
mass of people in Los Angeles, the writer presented a
questionnaire to two groups of individuals. The first
group consisted of persons who had served on criminal
juries in the local courts. They, according to the
theory of the law, were supposed to have been selected
at random from the citizenry. Actually, they were a group
selected by attorneys as impartial persons from a larger
group of people who had volunteered for jury duty. There
was some discrimination in their selection, but they did
represent one element of the public that has an opportun
ity and power to consider and deal with the practices
of the police. The other group of subjects for the
questionnaire was obtained arbitrarily and broadly from
the lay public, in effort was made to procure a variety
of ages, occupations and nationalities without observing
any fixed ratio in the choice of characteristics. The
result was heterogeneous and apparently inclusive of
persons from most of the large groups of the community.
The questionnaire was sent to approximately 150 of
those who had served on juries and replies were received
from 42 of them. It was then given to the second group
of 100 laymen who marked their replies in the presence
of the writer. The groups ranged in age, sex, occupation
and length of residence in Los Angeles as follows:
170
Age
Average
Mid-half
Sex
Male
female
Goeapation
Bx-Jurors
54 years
47-59 "
Ex-Jurors
15
27
Bx-Jurors
Advertiser
Auto mechanic
Builder
Business Woman
Carpenter
Chain Store Mgr.
Bay laborer
Decorator
Doctor
Housewife
Merchant
Movie executive
Movie extra
Mortician 1
Musician 1
Printer •
Beal Estate Broker £
Real Estate salesman
Retired 7
Salesman 2
Saleswoman 1
Stenographer
Length of Residence in Los Angeles
Average 18 years
Mid-half 10-25 "
1
1
1
25
Laymen
45 years
30-49 "
Laymen
48
5^
Laymen
1
4
2
3
1
15
2
2
25
4
1
3
3
1
1
5r
2
10
5
10
100
10 years
6-16 "
There was no effort to correlate the factors of age,
sex, occupation and length of residence with the replies
received because the groups were not of sufficient sixe
to make the findings valid. However, the data above
was observed to check the representative character of
the samplings of the public.
171
1
To the two groups, thus selected, a questionnaire
was submitted. It listed whether they had heard of,
seen and believed the alleged police practises and whether
their reports, personal experiences and beliefs were of
many, few or no cases. It also called for a designation
of the sources of their hearsay reports from amongst a
list of possible sources, such as a policeman, a clergy
man, a lawyer, a doctor, a prisoner, a school teacher,
a judge, a neighbor, a newspaper, a movie, a novel, a
stage play, a house wife, a juryman and a storekeeper.
Since it would be normally rare for laymen to understand
or know'about delay in booking or presenting prisoners
before a magistrate, the questionnaire did not refer to
those practices. It repeated the above data for arrests
without warrants, searches without warrants, holding
prisoners from attorneys, holding prisoners from relatives,
using violence in arrests and using violence to obtain
evidence or confessions.
The responses to the questionnaire were tabulated
first as follows to indicate the general array of opinion
on the various practices.
1 Appendix III.
172
DID ÏOU SEE Have you heard do you BELIEVE
Jury Laymen i Jury Laymen
No. #lNo. % No. # No. %
arrest with
out WARRANT
Never 35 85
A few times 4 10
Many times 3 5
search with
out WARRANT
Never 39 90
 few times 3 10
Many times 0 0
INCOMMUNICADO
PROM ATTY.
56 55 I 16 40
34 35 ^ 19 50
10 10 I 7 10
20 20
48 50
32 30
56 55 I 16 40116 15
40 40 18 45|44 45
4 5 ; 8 15»40 40
Never 40 95189 90
A few times 2 5 11 10
Many times 0 ol 0 0
INCOMMUNICADO
PROM RELATIVES
Never 41 100 86 85
1 A few times 1 0| 9 10
1 Many times 0 Oj 5 5
VIOLENCE IN
1
1 arrest
I
1 Never 38 95170 70
1 A few times 3 5I24 25
1 Many times 1 5
i VIOLENCE FOR
1
I 00NPE88.
1
1 Never 40 96 96 95
I A few times 1 6 4 5
1 Many times 1 0 0 0
31 80126 25
8 15:62 60
3 5ll2 IS
29 85150 50
9 15Î22 20
4 5|28 30
19 45115 15
14 40Î60 60
9 15Î25 25
20 50129 30
19 45153 50
3 5 18 20
Jury Laymen
No. % Ho. %
19 40 22 20
19 50 40 40
4 10138 40
16 40!16 15
21 50(36 35
5 10148 50
31 801 25 25
9 15144 45
2 5Î31 30
29 85Î48 50
11 IOI22 20
2 5130 30
22 50[20 20
13 40|56 55
7 10 24 25
20 50134 35
18 45Î46 45
4 5! 20 20
175
in analysis of the foregoing table indicated the
following; 1. In regard to all of the practices, the
laymen had observed more, heard more and believed more
than the ex^-jurors; but many laymen and ex-jurors seemed
to have experienced, heard and believed nothing, and those
who had experienced, heard or believed little were more
numerous than those who had experienced, heard or believed
much, 2, Amongst both ex-jurors and laymen, more so
amongst the former, there was a close correlation between
the amount of hearsay and the amount of belief concerning
the police practices, 3, The replies of the ex-jurors
seemed to treat search warrants and arrest warrants
alike, incommunicado from attorney and relatives alike
and force for arrests and confessions alike* The replies
of the laymen were less uniform on the related practices.
Still with both ex-jurors and laymen most of the personal
observations and reports and the most prevalent beliefs
were in regard to arrests and searches without warrant,
less observations, reports and beliefs were in regard to
the use of violence in making arrests and getting con
fessions and the least observations, reports and beliefs
were in regard to holding prisoners incommunicado from
attorneys and relatives. On the whole, there was a
striking similarity between the opinions of the ex-jurors
and laymen.
The responses were tabulated again to indicate the
correlation between the^personal experiences, hearsay
174
reports and beliefs. The results follow.
175
correlatioh between experience.
Saw N
BEARD N
BELIEVED N
EX-JURORS
arrest
w.w.
I search
I w.w. 14
jIHCOMM.
I ATTY. 28
I INCOMM.
REl. 27
I
I VIOLENCE
I ARREST 18
j VIOLENCE
I C0NEESS18
I TOTAL
I iAYMEN
I ARREST
I W.W.
SEARCH
IINCOMM.
I ATTY. 22
IINCOMM.
1 REia, 45
VIOLENCE
arrest 13
VIOLENCE
CONFESSjdS
TOTAL
%
hearsay AND BELIEF
PjF
m MIN
F M H
1%2
I 5B0
%k I 17%
X Û No n e
F ^ Few
M r Many
176
fhe foregoing showeâ certain tendencies quite
clearly. They may be listed laconically as follows;
1. Saw none and heard none resulted in a belief in
none.
E. Saw none and heard a few resulted in a belief in
a few*
3. Saw none and heard many resulted in a belief in
many for 9/lQ laymen and 1/E ex-jurors and a
belief in few for 1/6 jurors.
4. Saw few and heard none occurred seldom and result
ed in no definite showing of belief*
6. Saw few and heard few resulted in a belief in a
few or many.
6. Saw few and heard many occurred seldom, but
resulted in a belief in many for laymen and l/E
ex-jurors; and a belief in a few for l/E ex-
jurors.
7. Saw many and heard none did not occur.
8. Saw many and heard few occurred seldom, but
resulted in a belief in many for laymen and l/E
ex-jurors; and a belief in few for l/E ex-jurors.
9. Saw many and heard many occurred seldom, but
resulted in a belief in many.
Furthermore, the above table revealed as did the preceding
one, that most of the ex-jurors' replies were no personal
experience, no hearsay reports and no belief, whereas
most of the laymen's replies were no personal experience,
a few hearsay reports and a belief in a few. This
summarizes well the general response of these groups to
the existence of all the alleged police practices.
The questionnaire also threw some light upon the
sources of the reports charging the police with the various
unlawful practices. The-information was compiled as follows
177
fSOURCE of
^Reports
[POLICEMAN
?
jCLERGYMAN
I l&wxeb
? -
DOCTOR
?
(PRISONER
}smcBm
I
iJüDGE
r, -
.NEimBOR
(NmSPAPER
| mOVIE I
‘ NOVEL
ïSTAQE PLAY
! - I
^HO0SEWIEE 3
ARREST
w. w.
Jui»;Lay
SOURCES OF LAYMEN'S INFORMATION
SEARCH
2
7
4
1
4
5
JURYMAN 6
STOREKEEPER
JÏUSBANL
lor . WIFE
-FRIEND
MISC.
5
14
2
16
3
9
18
12
INCOMMUNICADO
(ATTY. IRSLAT.
JurrLaylJur:Layj JurrLay
VIOLENCE
ARREST
Jur:Lay
CONFESS
Jur:Lay
1
1
4
1
5
4
7
2 j 1
I
I 4
1 i
3l
101 1
I
15 j 4
55
lot 3
4
7 f 1
17 I 1
10
1
8| 2 1 8
161 3
w
i
5 8 16
I
1
121
5
1
3
1
1
9 8
Ï
1
[
i
1
2 21
I
3 3
10 Î 2
8;
4 17
J
1
4
9
1
1
1
1
2
3 I
1
6
1
7
1
4
9
'1
il
TOTAL
Report
Jurtliay
2 3
8 41
31 79
2 7 I
31 61 j
i
1 10 Î
I ' 5 , -0 :
118 21
16128 86
5
15
7
5
0
0
0
I ^
|14
0
41
0
0
8
0
7
1
3
0
0
178
According to the above table, the main sources of
complaint against the police were newspapers, lawyers and
prisoners. Clergymen and movies were only about half as
prolific of complaints. These agencies were not only
recognized as the disseminators of the information; but,
apparently they were also believed, as indicated above.
The group samples of the mass of people bore opinions that
correlated positively with hearsay derived from the lawyers,
prisoners and newspapers— the active groups studied above.
There was then a positive correlation between the
knowledge and opinions of the groups representing the
public and the hearsay derived from the lawyers, prisoners
and newspapers. The public reflected the opinions of
the active anti police groups, studied above, insofar
as those groups had been heard. Most of the public,
seeing nothing and hearing nothing or a little, believed
nothing or a little and so aligned themselves in opinion
with the police without being directly affected by the
public opinion conflict.
179
COHOLÜSIOHS.
A SOCIOLOGICAL QQITQBPT OF PUBLIC OPINION.
It was impossible to demonstrate conclusively the
nature of public opinion through a single study such as
this. It would have been simple - to find illustrations of
"known" or conjectured characteristics of the public
opinion process and perhaps to find situations that chal
lenged or contradicted those characteristics. But it
was hardly possible, within the limits of this study, to
unveil enough facts to explain completely any social
phenomenon! as complex as public opinion. This study
did probe specific opinions of specific persons on
specific topics in a specific locality at a specific time.
The conclusions drawn in the summaries interspersed above
are the only positively reliable conclusions because they
are specific and even if they apply to no other social
situations, they do apply to the specific situations
observed in the course of this study. It is often expected
of social science studies, however, that they yield
general findings pertinent to many social situations.
(In the physical sciences, monographs or single research
projects merely report their specific results, true for
all identical experiments, but only mildly suggestive
of truth for similar studies.) Consequently, the follow
ing conclusions are offered for whatever they may be
180
worth in the explanation of public opinion generally.
Popularly, the term "public opinion" has been
surrounded by many connotations of a vague nature. The
efforts of certain political scientists and sociologists
to restrict the meaning of the term have conflicted with
the popular notions of it and have produced some confusion.
Since the phenomenon of public opinion was observed
broadly in this study, the writer will venture to define
the term and to amplify a conception of it in the light
of the foregoing.
First, it might be well to define an opinion, in
opinion was found to be a mental determination, an
evaluation, a judgment or a conclusion. It was a belief
pro or con, that something was favorable or unfavorable,
existent or non existent, prevalent or scarce. Sometimes
it was the result of reason. More often it was an
impulsive response to certain experiences. At one time,
it must have been original; but in this study it was
alwys the direct imitation of the opinion of another.
Sometimes it was tentative; other times final. Sometimes
it was volunteered; other times it was solicited. Always,
the opinion was formulated mentally or expressed orally.
An opinion was a conscious judgment for or against
something.
Opinion was acknowledged as public opinion under a
variety of circumstances. The number of persons who
believed it, the manner in which it was derived, the
181
individual or group manner in which it was held, and the
manner of its expression seemed at times to characterize
it as public opinion. Since a proper definition of public
opinion should include all aspects that would be helpful
in understanding it, all of these aspects deserve consid
eration.
The number of persons sharing an opinion was signi
ficant chiefly in the sense that public opinion was
necessarily held by many persons rather than by one.
An opinion held exclusively by one individual would be
private and not public. Such opinions were conceivable,
such as original opinions or opinions related to one
person by another since deceased. Normally such opinions
would be rare and none were encountered in this study.
Still it was readily apparent that public opinion, as a
matter of logic, would need to be the opinion of more
than one.
Aside from this, the number of persons sharing an
opinion was not significant for.a definition of public
opinion. The quantity of adherents to an opinion affect
ed its political strength, its suggestive force and its
general power of social control. Still it was not con
clusive as to those characteristics. All of the opinions
studied had a large number of believers; but only a
small portion of the believers of each banded themselves
together for concerted action. There was no certain cor
relation between the number of believers and the power
182
of the opinion. Majority and minority opinion had banal
connotations not always true. Furthermore, in practically *
all aspects, each was as much public opinion as the other.
The number of persons, more than one holding an opinion,
then, might have given the opinion certain effect, but
wasn't crucial in making it public opinion.
Whether public opinion existed in the minds of persons
individually or as a group could not be determined by this
study. There were no instances of mob opinion observed,
ill the opinions studied were in the separate minds of
individuals. Social interaction within groups and
between groups affected these separate opinions. Perhaps
subtle suggestion and imitation within a group produced
an opinion without the individual's awareness of it until
it was formed and accepted. Perhaps some individuals
would not hold or act upon an opinion without the support
of their group. But the opinion lived within each indivi
dual mind. The inter-looking or inter-dependence of an
opinion amongst individuals varied from group to group.
The loosely united and the closely united both presented
public opinions. Since there was no evidence of group
opinion as distinct from the opinions of individuals in a
group no cognizance of the such opinion can be taken in
a definition of public opinion herein.
The most vital factor in public opinion, however,
was that the opinion was expressed by one individual to
another. When the idea, judgment or conclusion was kept
183
within the mind of an individual, it was private, secret
and relatively inoperative. When the opinion:.was expressed
to others it became public, social and operative. Opinions
existed before the Constitutional Sights Committee and its
activity. Little resulted. When the Constitutional Rights
Committee consistently proclaimed some of those opinions,
that led to the disputes with the police, to the investi
gation of complaints, to the institution of prosecutions
and to the attempts at legislation. The mere public
expression of opinion made it public opinion, created,
altered and reaffirmed other opinions and stimulated action
and counter action. Only articulated opinion became vital
public opinion.
Public opinion was found, then, to be a conscious
judgment for or against something, proclaimed by its
believers to others.
To complete the conception of public opinion as a
social phenomenon, it is necessary to observe it as a
social process. For the public opinion studied was a
social process. It was dynamic and continuous* It grew.
It branched out. It flowered. It bore fruit. It
didn't seem to end. It didn't maintain a single course.
It didn't increase or decrease steadily. It didn't follow
a definite pattern. But it was constantly in flux.
The origin of the process of public opinion against
the specified police practices was not discernable.
Individuals lawyers, policemen and laymen had had personal
184
experiences or had heard reports and they had formed ideas
concerning police methods. But similar ideas existed in
earlier generations and the absence of records made
the approximation of the origin of such thought and opinion
impossible.
The opinion was quiescent until an organization of
individuals endorsed it. Many had had the thoughts
without expressing them. Some had discussed the matter
with each other. A few had made protest to the general
public. Yet practically none of the opinion spread until
an organization became committed to a public movement
in behalf of it. Then the public opinion process gathered
great impetus.
Its course was devious. It appeared and developed
in the Constitutional Rights Committee. It spread to
other persons and organizations. It involved one issue
and later more. It stimulated conflict and cooperation
almost interchangeably. When the activity of the Con
stitutional Rights Committee and the police waned, a
similar public opinion process appeared through the
Hecord--Grand Jury proceedings. Simultaneously, in another
field, the agitation of radicals, there were other situ
ations for similar public opinion processes being formed.
One might generalize and picture the process as a great
tug of war between the pro police and the anti police.
Now one side pulled harder, now the other. Now one side
cried this and the other that. At any time the success
186
or defeat of a side might be reckoned. Bat the picture is
too simple. The course of the public opinion process was
not always straight forward or backward, nor was it on one
line of endeavor. There were many lines of opinion and much
intermingling of effort in which gain or loss was a rela
tive matter not easily computed.
The steps in this process were similar to those
pointed out by other students, but the irregularity of
such processes was shown in the variation between the
steps taken by the Constitutional Rights Committee and
the Police and those taken by the Record and Grand Jury
or by the Radicals and the Police. The former proceeded
from discontent to organization to publicity, debate and
investigation to efforts to effect a change in folkways
to slight changes in folkways to further study and to
further efforts to effect changes. The Record-Grand Jury
process started with discontent and moved to investiga
tions and efforts to change with very little discussion
to slight changes that concluded the process. The
Radicals’ process proceeded from discontent to discussion,
to efforts to change, to investigations and is obviously
still incomplete. Generalization is difficult, but
such classifications that permit of variations in the
1 C. T. King, "Public Opinion in Government" in W. B.
Graves, Readings in Public Opinion, xxxi - xxxiii
C. M. Youngman reported in E. S. Bogardus, Fundamentals
of Social Psychology, 363-4.
186
publie opinion process may be valid.
The process of opinion was also generally competitive
rather than cooperative. There were many professions of
good will and mutual aid# But most of the expression was
critical, accusational and argumentative. The ease inves
tigations and the work on the police manual involved
cooperation. Still the stir of opinion that preceded and
accompanied it, sometimes hindering it, sometimes helping
it, was not cooperative in character. There was little
personal conflict, but the public opinion process was
much more an antipodal struggle than a cooperative effort.
The process was affected by the manner in which
opinion passed from individual to individual. Some
opinions were taken without question from the preponder
ant, traditional beliefs of the community. Others were
acquired from the mill of dispute, ground through the
wheels of reason, passion and prejudice. Occasionally, a
belief might have been formulated through disinterested,
cooperative research or scientific consensus of minds.
These preponderant, discussion and consensus opinions were
all socially or publicly derived; yet because they arose
differently, they were held and regarded differently. They
affected the public opinion process differently. Tradition
al opinion was static. Discussion opinion was dynamic.
Consensus opinion was finally determinative, but rarely
attained. This study found discussion opinion making
inroads upon traditional opinion and only in a few instances
187
were slight efforts made to develop a consensus opinion.
It was apparent, however, that the public opinion process
would have been quite different if the manners of trans
mitting opinions were rearranged.
The public opinion process observed was closely
integrated with its social setting. It was the oral
expression of the social experiences of individuals.
Only the direct contact of persons with the police
practices of which they complained started the outcry of
opinion. The early support of their opinion came from
an organization already established in public life.
The specialized Constitutional Rights Committee was
always tied to a larger, older, definite Bar Association.
So also the protest through the Record came through a
pre-existing medium of expression with a pre-existing
policy. The unwillingness of the Constitutional-Rights
Committee and the Grand Jury to espouse the cause of
radicals who boreothe same complaints as others was due
to the fact that the radicals had an additional social
setting that made their same complaints appear different.
The public opinion against the police practices was
never isolated from its social environment. It was never
logically abstracted. It was not the cry of A against
acts 1, E, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of B. It was the opinion of
named persons with certain social positions against
other named persons with certain social positions about
behavior in definite,"local, social situations. The
188
personalities of accusers, accused, victims and listeners
were inextricably interwoven with the public opinion pro
cess. Hence the public opinion process was but part of
its social setting.
The public opinion process on the police practices
was like a nerve or a blood vessel in the body of society,
It was one of many public opinion processes. The ramifi
cations of each were many and, by almost imperceptible
connections, all were linked with each other and with
all other social processes.
FUNCTIONING OF PERSONS MD GROUPS.
For purposes of analysis, however, it was possible
to observe the public opinion process on the unlawful
enforcement of the law apart from its social setting and
to observe within the isolated process the functioning of
persons and groups, the functioning of institutions or
formal groups and the functioning of folkways and mores.
The persons whose opinions were studied were widely
diverse. For convenience of designation, as well as
possible significance of classification, they were
referred to by their vocations— police or lawyers,—
or by their experience groupings— committeemen, ex-jur
ors or laymen. Still, in no instance, except perhaps
in the committees of the Los Angeles Bar Association,
did any established group have a unanimity of opinion on
any of the police practices. Always, each existing
189
group contained persons of conflicting opinions* Those
of the same opinion formed a group in a broad sense of
the term group* But they did not band together for
action except in the Constitutional Bights Committee
and Auxiliary Committee of the Bar Association* Even
they had some differing beliefs and occasional dissen
sion* Opinions of a very definite nature existed alike
in the minds of many individuals; but there was practic
ally no organization of persons in strict conformity
with those beliefs* Yet the public opinion process
proceeded with the force and effect of many believers
and advocates.
This was probably due to the existence and function
ing of the Constitutional Rights Committee, specifically
organized for and devoted to the work of furthering
protest against the police practices* The Constitution
al Eights Committee stimulated, directed and somewhat
coordinated most of the anti police practice opinion*
And where no reports of these practices were heard by
the laymen, no belief in the existence of the practices
was found* The Constitutional Eights Committee demon
strated the leadership of an active minority* Practic
ally all of the happenings in regard to the protested
practices— the passage and defeat of a bill, the prose
cution and defense of officers, the formulation of a
police manual— were undertaken by minority groups
or separate individuals without consultation with the
190
populace, the electorate or the majority of society.
The opinions influential in determing the behavior of
officials, even popularly elected officials, were not
the opinions of the mass of voters, but the opinions of
an outspoken few. Opinions were always expressed in
terms of the good of society, but they v/ere the opinions
of a minority within the established social groups.
One of the most distinctive aspects of this study,
amongst public opinion studies, was that it delved into
the existence of and relationship between active and in
active public opinions. The Constitutional Bights
Committee with its Auxiliary Committee, the Chief of
Police with a few assistants, the Police Commission, a
few newspaper editors, a few attorneys, the agents for
the International Labor Defense and the American Civil
Liberties Union and a few isolated individuals were the
only persons with active public opinions. Their opinions
were unsolicited and proclaimed freely. The lawyers,
police and laymen generally had inactive opinions.
They needed to be solicited for expression or their
opinions would have remained unproclaimed.
The former was not primarily concerned with the
latter. There was no attempt to educate large numbers
for the sake of having an enlightened electorate. The
active persons sought to get more active ones to deal
directly with the active opponents. The great public
wasn't consulted for appr^al; nor were its opinions
191
requested. There was no election involved; but political
acts, such as legislation and the prosecution of public
officers, were undertaken without a thought of the
electorates opinions. This may be typical of most of our
political situations. The opinions of an active element
were proclaimed as representative and leader opinions.
They were caught and repeated by many in the masses.
But the active opinions, in themselves, were the
opinions effective as social or political forces. The
active persons were not delegated by the inactive persons
to represent them. The active persons on their own
convictions and initiative proceeded to act and did so
without a great many followers. Though the public
opinion process did not run its entire course and no
great social changes were wrought, there were the slight,
gradual changes in behavior, that constitute the type
of most social changes and that may cumulate to large and
distinct movements, without the expression of opinion by
the citizenry. The public opinions of a few active per
sons effected social movement and the public opinions of
the masses to all appearances merely followed.
The large, existing groups, of course, had some
indirect effect upon the opinions of the active few inso
far as the active minority also belonged to the larger
groups. The individual policemen and lawyers thought
as they did largely because of their membership in
specific vocational groups. The police and the prosecu
192
tors were interested more in convictions and the civil
and criminal defense attorneys were interested more in
the individual's safeguards under the law because of their
daily work, ill considered the police practices from
the standpoint of their jobs— not in an immediate,
monetary sense, but in an involved and ultimate way.
There was a definite occupational bias discernable in
most of the active opinions. Even interchange of opin
ion occurred within the vocational trend of thought.
Some policemen accepted the restraints of the Bar Asso
ciation view because they felt their jobs were insecure
if the condemned practices continued. Some lawyers
relented in their zeal to observe the letter of the law
because they felt that any police practices resulted in
law enforcement when convictions resulted. The discus
sion engendered by the Constitutional Rights Committee
and the press reports altered many opinions, but usually
not the basic points of view. These were fairly fixed
by occupational groupings.
Another established group affecting the public
opinion process was the press* It was both passive and
active. The feeding of publicity to the press by mem
bers of the Constitutional Rights Committee showed how
the press could be used deliberately to obtain certain
ends by outsiders. Nevertheless, the papers maintained
fairly consistent policies in the quantity and quality
of their news treatment * And the Record asserted
193
itself positively even beyond the scope of news publica
tion by arousing and directing public hearings through
its readers and its attorney. The press was the primary
medium and one of the active agencies for disseminating
opinion in this public opinion process.
FUNCTIOIIIIG Of INSTITUTIONS.
The only other formal group or institution involved
in this process was the state through its branches the
police, the bar, the courts, and the legislature. The
criticism centered about the police and concerned their
conduct as police. Consequently, the regulatory Police
Commission, the officialdom and even the rank and file
were aroused. But their activity was defensive and con
fined chiefly to a few officials. It did not disrupt
the routine of the department. The Bar Association
commenced and led the dispute. Though it was directed
by leaders of the legal profession, its activity also
was limited almost exclusively to the few members of the
Constitutional Rights Committee and the Auxiliary Com
mittee. The Bar Association and certainly the Bar, as
a whole, paid relatively little attention to the contest
of opinion. The same was more true of the courts and
legislature. The courts were called upon to act in a
negligible number of eases. The legislature was hardly
perturbed by the dispute. On the majestic countenance
of the state, the public opinion process caused but a
194
blush or a twitch of the lips. That was evidence of
internal disturbance, but of very slight constitutional
change•
FUNCTIONING CUT FOimAYS AND M0BE8.
This public opinion process had a basis in different
philosophical viewpoints. Most of the police sought
that which was efficacious or practical. The Constitu
tional Rights Committee sought that which was moral
or ideal. Many police were willing to risk injuring a
few innocent for the conviction of the many guilty.
The Constitutional Rights Committee wanted to save all
the innocent at the risk of freeing some of the guilty.
Everyone desired the conviction of the guilty. But
most of the police looked to that end and refused to
scrutinize the means used to achieve it; whereas the
Constitutional Rights Committee insisted that the means
should be justifiable in themselves. These differences
in thought led to a conflict of opinion concerning
police practices just as they do in thousands of other
fields of life.
However, the public opinion process studied was not
merely a philosophical or theoretical dispute. It was
founded in a clash of behavior. It was founded in con
flicting folkways and mores. Various methods of arrest,
search, detention of prisoners and gathering of evidence
had become customary, had become identified with public
195
welfare and had heen embodied in law* It was claimed that
the Los Angeles police had developed new folkways incon
sistent with these old mores* The police denied the ac
cusations* They maintained that only a few officers
were violating the old mores or they argued that the new
customs were essential to the public weal and should be
accepted as new mores* As between the lawyers who said
the police did certain things and the police who said they
didn't or seldom did, the issue was simple. The truth
could have been determined rather easily to the satisfac
tion of most persons interested and the dispute could
have been settled or adjusted soon. The investigations
would have revealed some cases needing attention. The
police might have been deterred from further misbehavior.
Or some agency might have been established for dealing
with the occasional future cases* If there were merely
a dispute over the existence of the practices, the
public opinion process would have been shortlived. But
the public opinion process was kept alive by the viewpoint
that the police practices were justified and possibly
new mores should take the place of the old.
The old mores had supporters who defied change
largely because the mores, had become crystalized into
law. The codified law of California prescribed the
practices the police were to follow. Therefore, many
lawyers insisted upon strict compliance* The police who
defended the attacked practices sought to mitigate the
196
difference between them and the old mores and to inter
pret the Codes so as to harmonize the law with their
practices* They tried to overcome the old law indirectly
by interpretation rather than by direct legislation* Por
the law seemed, in and of itself, to resist change*
Only a few bold policemen proposed new laws authorizing
the practices under fire. Some of the lawyers were
willing to have the law changed to read unequivocally as
the police wished, but until then they opposed any unor
thodox police practice* Most lawyers believed in the
old law and police practices* Those who reasoned believed
so because they found sounder social consequences result
ing from them. Many, however, believed so on faith—
because it was the law. The effort to alter the old
mores in letter or in spirit ran counter to law, the
preserver of mores* That meant the public opinion
process could not be resolved for a long time.
TECHIIQÜES.
This study revealed a little light on the relative
merits of the various tools of social research* The
survey method was found most helpful in obtaining a pre
liminary view of the entire situation and a foundation
for more detailed work* In this instance, it was
accomplished by a few scattered interviews and the exam
ination of files of correspondence, organizational
minutes and press reports. This written material
197
afforded an excellent under-structure for the study of
opinions. The personal interview, repeated in large
numbers, was found to give most of the remaining material
needed. The difficulty of obtaining life histories in a
highly controversial situation in which investigations
and criminal prosecutions were being conducted, made it
necessary to get exhaustive interviews instead of life
histories. That was possible and quite helpful. The
jury questionnaire was, in comparison, much less informa
tive* The case study of the Hayrinen matter merely
accentuated many of the facts made apparent through the
personal interviews. Personal correspondence and person
al conversations seemed most fruitful for the study of
public opinion. Unfortunately, most of the information
was given in a confidential manner; hence it was impossible
to identify the interviewers. However, because of that
secrecy, the opinions and information obtained were all
the more authentic.
The objective study made of the newspaper publicity
demonstrated the possibility of measuring the quantita
tive and qualitative character of press reports. In this
instance, it was found that the amount of column inches
devoted to the bodies of articles was a fair index of
the quantity of publicity, and the tenor of the head
lines, once the issues were clearly known, was a fair
index of the quality of the publicity. But where haste
198
was not essential, a more accurate appraisal was made
with additional objective measurements. For a thorough
understanding of the public opinion process, it was
clearly indicated that a newspaper study in itself was
decidedly insufficient; but a newspaper study was
necessary and it might be made quite accurately.
The idea of a public opinion study as a means of
learning the truth concerning a situation of social
conflict or competition seemed to be suggested. This
public opinion study sought only to ascertain the
opinions held and as much about their causation, develop
ment and outcome as would throw light on the social
phenomenon of public opinion. However, it revealed
incidentally much truth about severely contested, per
sonal matters that perhaps would not have been disclosed
for an, outright study or survey of the police practices
involved. It cannot be gainsayed that the admissions
of police officers against their interests proved the
existence of practices in dispute. Furthermore, the
recurrence of similar experiences amongst many police
and lawyers, with conflicting biases, placed the stamp
of reality or verity upon situations formerly in doubt.
This Sbudy presented enough data for a decision on many
disputed questions in the public opinion process.
Though it was not the purpose of this paper to arrive
at such conslusions, this study recommended the use of
a public opinion study as a_method for obtaining the
199
truth concerning controversial matter*
Ӵox populi vox Deii". Perhaps the prevalence of
a belief in that adage amongst the reverent might account
for the paucity of scientific information concerning "the
voice of the people." The present writer, with an
attitude toward public opinion that was neither reverent
nor sacriligious, undertook to probe its nature with
social scientific methods. At times, the difficulty of
discerning "the voiceiof the people" made it resemble
"the voice of God"; but to the extent that the voice was
heard, it was found to lack the omnipresence, omniscience
and omnipotence of a Mety. It was human. Being human,
it was ignorant and well informed, assertive and
reticent, antagonistic and accommodating, simple and
perplexing— fascinating. These, of course, are merely
the writer's subjective responses. The objective data
above are what the writer offers to others as possibly
of social research value and if not that, perhaps of
personal interest*
200
APPMMZ I.
The Law Expounded On Each Of The Alleged Police Practices,
1. Arrests Without Warrants*
The law on the peace officer's duties in making
arrests is well defined. He "must inform the person to
be arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause
of the arrest, and the authority to make it, except
when the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the
commission of or an attempt to commit an offense, or is
pursued immediately after its commission, or after an
escape.-1" If the officer "is acting under the authority
of a warrant, he must show the warrant, if required.-2"
"A warrant of arrest is an order in writing in the name
of the people, signed by a magistrate, commanding the
arrest of the defendant, and may be substantially in the
following form:
County of______________ .
The People of the State of California to any
Sheriff, Constable, Marshal, or Policeman of
said State, or of the County of_ :
Information on oath having been this day
laid before me, by A. B., that the crime of
(designating it) has been committed, and
accusing C. D. thereof, you are therefore
commanded forthwith to arrest the above named
0. D. and bring him before me at (naming the ■
place), or in case of my absence or inability
to act, before the nearest or most accessible
magistrate in this county.
1-Penal Code 841.
2-Ibid 842.
201
Dated at ____, this day of . , , nineteen
. -1
The Penal Code specifies when an arrest may he made
without a,warrant and the courts have held a warrant to he
required in all other cases.-2 in arrest may he made
without a warrant when the offense is committed or attempt
ed in the officer's presence, when the person arrested has
committed a felony, although not in the officer's presence,
when a felony has been committed and the officer has
reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to
have committed it, when a charge has been made, upon
reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the
person arrested or at night, when there is reasonable
cause to believe that the person has committed a felony.-5
The remaining situations, in which a warrant is presum
ably required, are too numerous for classification.
ill arrests, however, must be made with no more
force than necessary.-4 A house may be broken into in
order to effect an arrest only if the officer first
demands admittance and explains the purpose for which
admittance is desired.-5 If the offense charged is a
felony the arrest may be made at any time, if it is a mis-
demeanor, it may be made only during the day unless a
warrant directs otherwise or the offense is committed
in the presence of the officer.-6
1-Denal Oode 814. 3-Fenal Code 836 5-Penal Code 844
2-5 Corpus Juris, 395-6 4-Towle vs. Mathews,130 Cal. 574
In re Milstead, 44 Cal. App.239 é^Ibid 840
202
To guard against abuses, the code provides that any
officer "who under the pretense or color of any process
or other legal authority, arrests any person or detains
him against his will..without a regular process or
other lawful authority therefor, is guilty of a misdemean
or.-1" Further, "every person who maliciously and without
probable cause procures a.....warrant of arrest is
guilty of a misdemeanor"-2 And the unlawful violation of
the personal liberty of another is a false imprisonment
which is also a misdemeanor or, when effected by violence,
menace, fraud or deceit, a felony.-3
2. -Searches Without Warrant.
The Constitution of the State of California
provides that "The right of the people of this state to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
violated; and no warrant shall issue except upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the person or
thing to be seized."-4
The important question of when a search warrant is
required or when it is dispensible has not been positively
answered. The United States Supreme Court has made a
distinction between.stores, dwellings or other stationary
1-?enal Code 146. 5-Ibid 236,257.
2-Ibid 170. 4-Section 19 Article 1.
205
structures and ships, automobiles or other moveable
structures* Only in the latter eases are search warrants
held dispensible,-1 Some state courts refuse to make this
exception,-2 Unfortunately, the problem has never been
decided in California,
However, most states permit searches without warrants,
as exceptions to the general rule, when they are incident-
alr.to a valid arrest and when the goods seized are
contraband exposed to the view of the officers.-5 In all
other cases, except perhaps in the search of vehicles, the
law of California requires a search warrant.
The issuance of a search warrant, however, is
carefully limited.. It may be issued only when the
property sought was stolen or embezzled or was used as a
means of committing a felony or is in the possession of
any person intending to use it as a means of committing
a public offense or is in the possession of one to whom
it was delivered for concealment.-4 Probable cause to
believe that such a situation exists must be presented
in writing, under oath, with the name or description of
the person, property or place to be searched.-5 If a
magistrate is thereupon satisfied that grounds for a
warrant exists "or that there is probable cause to
believe their existence,"he must issue a search warrant,
1-Oarroll v. U. 8. 267 U. 8. 152. 4-2enal Code, Sec.1624.
2-Youman v. Commonwealth, 189 Ey.152. 5-Ibid. Sec. 1525.
5~Peo.v.Mayne, 199 Cal. 257.
204
signed by him with his name of office, to a peace officer
in his county, commanding him forthwith to search the
person or place named, for the property specified, and to
bring it before the magistrate."-1.
The officer executing the warrant may break open any
outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a
house after notice of his authority and purpose and refusal
of admittance.-2 He may do the same to liberate himself,
or a person aiding him in the search.-5 The warrant must
specify that it is to be served in the day-time unless
the affidavits for it are positive that the property sought
is where the search is to be made.-4 Then the warrant
must be served, if at all, within 10 days-(5) and the
officer must give a receipt for all property taken to the
person in whose possession it was found, or, if no person
is present, he must leave a receipt on the premises.-6
The provisions for the disposition of property taken are
elaborate.-7
The punishments threatened those who violate the
law of search warrants are practically the same as those
for unlawful arrests. Any officer "who under the pretense
or color of any process or other legal authority,.,...
seises.....any property.....without a regular process
V
or other lawful authority therefor, is guilty of a mis
demeanor. "-8 And "every person who maliciously and
1-Penal Code, Sec. 1528. 4-Ibid, See. 1533. 7-Ibid, Sec.
2-Ibid, Sec* 1531. 5-Ibid, Sec. 1534. 1536.
3-Ibid, Sec. 1531. 6-Ibid, Sec. 1535. 8-Ibid, Sec.
146.
205
without probable cause procures a search warrant.....to
be issued and executed is guilty of a misdemeanor."-1
3. Delay in Booking
There seems to be no statutory requirement that
police officers must "book" or register prisoners after
arrest. Still that has become part of the established
routine of incarceration. The officers cannot hold pri
soners in their own custody and work on more than one case
at a time. Consequently, they are obliged by circumstances
tOjplace prisoners in jails. The jailers, on the other
hand, are required to keep records of the prison inmates.
The Political Code specifies that records for jails shall
be prescribed by the state department of public welfare,
now the department of social welfare, and that it shall
be a misdemeanor for jailers to neglect to maintain the
records.-2 To avoid work or punishment, the jailers
insist upon the booking of prisoners by the arresting
officers.
There is no law requiring booking to be done at any
certain time; but the laws requiring the police to produce
a prisoner before a magistrate without unnecessary delay
and the routine of presenting prisoners through jails make
it imperative that prisoners be booked also without
unnecessary delay.
4. Delay in Presenting Defendant Before Magistrate..
1-Penal Code, Sec. 170.
2-Political Code, Sec. 2345.
206
The duty of an officer, making an arrest, to take
the person arrested before a magistrate is specifically
pronounced by the Penal Code. If the arrest is made in
obedience to a warrant, the officer must observe the command
of the warrant-1 that always directs the officer to bring
the prisoner before the issuing magistrate or, in case of
the latter*s absence or inability to hear the case,' before
the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county
forthwith.-2 If the arrest is made without a warrant, the
person arrested must be taken before the nearest or most
accessible magistrate in the county and an information,
stating the charge against the person, must be laid before
such magistrate without unnecessary delay.-3 Several pro
visions are made for similar expedition in the cases of
arrests outside the county in which a warrant is issued.-4
In all oases, it is additionally provided, the defendant
must be taken before a magistrate without unnecessary
delay, and in any event, within two days after his arrest,
excluding Sundays and holidays.-5
"Every public officer.....having arrested any person
upon a criminal charge, who wilfully delays to take such
person before a magistrate having jurisdiction, to take
his examination, is guilty of a misdemeanor."-6
5. Incommunicado.
1-Penal Oode, Sec. 848.
2-Ibid, Sec. 814.
3-Ibid, Sec. 849.
4-Ibid, Sec. 621,822,824.
5-Ibid, Sec. 825.
6-Ibid, Sec. 145.
207
The Penal Code takes a double precaution against
holding a prisoner incommunicado from attorneys by pro
viding for the right of counsel to visit the prisoner
immediately after arrest and for the notification to the
prisoner of his right to counsel at the time of the
prisoner's arraignment.
After a person has been arrested, "any attorney at
law entitled to practice in the courts of record of Calif
ornia, may at the request of the prisoner or any relative
of such prisoner, visit the person........Any officer
having charge of the prisoner.....who wilfully refuses
or neglects to allow such attorney to visit a prisoner is
guilty of a misdemeanor. Any officer having a prisoner
in charge, who refuses to allow any attorney to visit the
prisoner when proper application is made therefor shall
forfeit and pay to the party aggrieved the sum of five
hundred dollars, to be recovered by action in any court
of competent jurisdiction."-1
When the person arrested is brought before a
magistrate, "the magistrate must immediately inform him
of the charge against him, and of his right to the aid of
counsel in every stage of the proceedings."-2 The magis
trate must allow the defendant a reasonable time to send
for counsel, and may postpone the examination for not less
than two nor more than five days for that purpose, and
1-Penal Code, Sec. 826.
2-Ibid, Sec. 858.
208
mast, upon the request of the defendant, require a peace
officer to take a message to any counsel in the township
or city the defendant may name. The officer must, without
delay and without fee, perform that duty."-l
6. Prolonged Questioning.
"Ho person can he compelled in a criminal action,
to he a witness against himself nor can a person charged
with a public offense be subjected, before conviction, to
any more restraint than is necessary for his detention to
answer the c h a r g e . This has been construed to accord
the accused the right to remain silent not only during
trial but also before trial. Persistent questioning,
then, to force unwilling statements are against this
protection of the law.
Prolonged questioning by an officer of a prisoner
under his care or in his custody, under circumstances
that make it inhumane or oppressive, is a crime punish
able by fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and by
removal from office.-3
7. Force.
■In the making of an arrest, the officer must not
subject the defendant to any more restraint than is neces
sary for his arrest and detention.-4 If the arrest is
being made under the authority of a warrant and if, after
information of the intent&enrto make the arrest is
1-Penal Code, Sec. 859. 3-Ibid, Sec. 147.
2-Ibid, Sec. 688. 4-Ibid, Sec/ 688 and 836
209
conveyed, the person to be arrested flees or forcibly
resists, the officer may use all necessary means to effect
the arresti-1 When an officer has reasonable grounds to
believe that a person to be arrested is concealed in a
house and after explanation of intention and demand for
admittance, the officer is refused entrance, he may
break open the door or window of the house.-2 Or if an
officer or his aid lawfully enters a house for the
purpose of making an arrest, he may break a door or a
window to liberate himself or his aid.-3 The limitation
upon the officer's right to use force is the limitation
of necessity and every officer "who, under color of
authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats
any person, is punishable by fine not exceeding five
thousand dollars, and imprisonment in the county jail not
exceeding five years."-4
There is recognized no necessity to use force in
obtaining evidence or confessions from prisoners. The
code provisions on the right not to testify against one
self and the duty of humanity toward prisoners, cited
above, are applicable here also.
The protection of prisoners against police force
or brutality extends over the entire term of incarcera
tion. Even after conviction and imprisonment in the
1-Penal Gode, Sec. 843. 3-Ibid, See. 845.
2-Ibid, Sec. 844. 4-Ibid, Sec. 149,
210
state prison, any injury to the per^son of the prisoner,
not authorized by law, is punishable in the same manner
as if he were not convicted or sentenced.-1
8. General Provisions.
All peace officers have a duty to observe the
laws and constitutions of the state and country.-2 Every
wilful omission to perform any duty enjoined by law is
punishable, where no special provisionr is made for
punishment, as a misdemeanor.-3 In addition to this or
any express penalty, for every neglect or violation of
official duty, the officer may, in the discretion of a
court, be removed from office.-4 The officer is entitled
to the presumption of innocence accorded all defendants
in criminal actions; otherwise he is subject to prosecu
tion as all other persons.
1-Penal Code, Sec. 676. 3-Penal Code, Sec. 176.
2-By oath of office. 4-Ibid, Sec. 661.
£11
AfrmDiz II
A - Section Distribution
Papers
Record Express Herald Times Examiner
C.B.C.*
See. I 100^ 100^ 83.34^' 37.5o;& 750
Seo. II 0 0 16.66 62.50 25
Rank 1st 1st 3rd 5th 4th
G.J. *
Sec. I 100 100 87.5 64.28 63.63
Seo. II 0 0 12.5 35.72 36.37
Rank 1st 1st 3rd 4th 5th
Phil. *
Seo. I 100 90 86.6 18.3 76.6
Sec. II 0 0 13.3 81.6 23.3
Rank 1st 2nd 3rd 5th 4th
B - Page Distribution
Papers
Record E&press Herald Times Examiner
C.H.C.*
Index 3.66 3 9.83 3.86 9.5
Rank 2nd 1st 5th 3rd 4th
G.J. *
Index 2,90 3 6.71 3.5 6.33
Sank 1st 2nd 5th 3rd 4th
Phil. *
Index 3.35 4.55 8.30 2.56 8
Rank 2nd 3rd 5th 1st 4th
*C.R.O.
*G.J.
*Phil.
Constitutional Right's Committee activities 1929
Grand Jury Investigation 1931
Philharmonic Incident 1931
212
G - Column Distribution
Papers
Record Express Her aid Times Examine:
C.S.C.*
Index 3.54 3.20 4 3.60 2.50
Weighted 3 3.1 3.75 3.60 2.50
Rank 2nd 3rd 5th 4th 1st
G.J. *
Index 3.90 2.75 2.11 3.07 5.54
Weighted 2.40 2.37 2 2.92 5.27
Rank 3rd 2nd 1st 4th 5th
Phil.^ *
Index 2.9 3.65 3.9 2.53 4.25
Weighted 2.9 3.03 2.5 2.53 4.12
Rank 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 5th
D - Vertical Distribution
C.B.C.*
Top
Hiaaie
Bottom
Rank
Papers
Record Express Herald Times Examiner
54.5^ 400 75 0 37.5 0 75^
27.2 10 12.5 25 25
18.1 50 12.5 37.5
3rd 5th 2nd 4th 1st
G.J. *
Top
Middle
Bottom
Rank
Phil. *
Top
Middle
Bottom
Rank
72.72 83.30 75 66.64 100
9.09 16.66 12.5 8.33
18.18 12.5 24.99
4th 2nd 3rd 5th 1st
27.27 68.38 66.64 46.62 42 »
54.54 31,56 16.66 ,6*66 56.
18.18 16.66 46.62
5th 1st 2nd 4th 3rd
*C.E.C.
*S.J.
*Phil.
Constitutional Right's Committee activities 1929
Grand Jury Investigation 1931
Philharmonic Incident 1931
213
E - Golunm Inches Devoted to Headlines
O.B.G.*
Tptal
Rank
G.J. *
Total
Rank
Phil. *
Total
Papers
Record Express Herald Times Examiner
9 7/8 8 3/8 11 9 3, 4/8
2nd 4th 1st 3rd 5th
34 1/8 15*
1st 3rd
16 37
13 5/8 15 3/8 30 2/8
5th 4th 2nd
19
&
18
&
12 7/8
F - Column Inches Devoted to Articles
C.E.C.*
Total
Rank
G.J, *
Total
Rank
Phil. *
Total
Rank
Papers
Record Express Herald Times Examiner
60
1st
97i
1st
47#
4th
39
2nd
45 5/8
4th
lOSf
1st
29 22 4/8 15 1/8
3rd 4th 5th
48 5/8 4li
2nd 5th
52# 166 1/8
3rd 2nd
48#
3rd
28 7/8
5th
C.R.O, - Constitutional Right's Committee activities 1929
*G.J. - Grand Jury Investigation 1931
*Phil. - Philharmonic Incident 1931
214
APPENDIZ III
JURY QUEST ion AIRE
Hame
Occupation;
Age :_________ ^ _____ Sex; Male__^________ Female_________
I.
Did you, yourself, ever see a policeman make an arrest
without a warrant?
llever? A few times? Many times? How many?
Have you ever heard someone say the police made an un
lawful arrest because they didn't have a warrant?
Hever? A few times? Many times? How many?
Who said the police made an unlawful arrest because
they didn't have a warrant?
How many times?
A policeman
A clergyman
A lawyer
A doctor
A prisoner
A school teacher
A judge
A neighbor
A newspaper
A movie
A novel
A stage play
A house wife
A juryman
A storekeeper
How many times do you think the police made an unlawful
arrest because they didn't have a warrant?
lone? A few? Many? How many?
215
II.
Did you, yourself, ever see the police search a house without
a warrant?
lever? A few times? Many times? How many?
Have you ever heard someone say the police made an unlawful
search because they didn't have a warrant?
lever? A.few times? . Many times? How many?
Who said the police made an unlawful search because they had
no warrant?
How many times?
A policeman
A clergyman
A lawyer
A doctor
A prisoner
A school teacher
A judge
A neighbor
A newspaper
A movie
A novel
A stage play
A house wife
A juryman
A storekeeper
How many times do you think the police made an unlawful search
because they had no warrant?
lone? A few? Many? How many?
216
III,
Did the police ever refuse to allow you to communicate with
an attorney?
lever? A few times? Many times? How many?
Have you ever heard someone say the police refused to allow
a prisoner to communicate with his attorney?
lever? A few times? Many times? How many?
Who said the police refused to allow a prisoner to communicate
with his attorney?
How many times?
A clergyman
A policeman
A lawyer
A doctor
A prisoner
A school teacher
A judge
A neighbor
A newspaper
A movie
A novel
A stage play
A house wife
A juryman
A storekeeper
How many times do you think the police refused to allow a
prisoner to communicate with his attorney?
lone? A few? Many? How many?
217
IV.
Did the police ever refuse to allow you to communicate with
your relatives?
lever? A few times? Many times? How many times?
Have you ever heard someone say the police refused to allow
a prisoner to communicate with his relatives?
lever? A few times? Many times? How many?
Who said the police refused to allow a prisoner to communicate
with his relatives?
How many times?
A policeman
A clergyman
A lawyer
A doctor
A prisoner
A school teacher
A judge
A neighbor
A newspaper
A movie
A novel
A stage play
A housewife
A jury man
A storekeeper
How many times do you think the police refused to allow a
prisoner to communicate with his relatives?
lone? A few? Many? How many?
218
7.
Did you ever see a policeman use unnecessary physical force
in making an arrest?
lever? A few times? Many? How many?
Have you ever heard someone say the police used unnecessary
physical force in making an arrest?
lever? A few times? Many? How many?
Who said the police used unnecessary physical force in mak
ing an arrest?
How many times?
 clergyman
A policeman
A lawyer
A doctor
A prisoner
A school teacher
A judge
A neighbor
A newspaper
A movie
A novel
A stage play
A house wife
A juryman
A store keeper
How many times do you think the police have used unnecessary
physical force in making an arrest?
lone? A few?times? Many? How many?
219
VI,
Md you ever see the police use force to get evidence or a
confession?
lever? A few times? Many times? How many?
Have you ever heard someone say the police used force to get
evidence or a confession?
lever? A few times? Many times? How many?
Who said the police used force to get evidence or a confc 1
fession?
How many times?
A policeman
A clergyman
A lawyer
A doctor
A prisoner
A school teacher
A judge
A neighbor
A newspaper
A movie
A novel
A stage play
A house wife
A juryman
A store keeper
How many times do you think the police used force to get
evidence or a confession?
lone? A few? Many? How many?
220
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books and Magazine Articles.
Anderson, William H., The Gonstitutional Rights
Committee of the Los Angeles Bar Association,
typewritten, 1929.
Anderson, William H., "Ignorance as a factor in
Criminal Law Enforcement.” the Bar Association
Bulletin. 113: Vol. V.
-Bogardas, Emory S., fundamentals of Social Psychol
ogy. 2nd ed. The Century Co., Hew York, 1931.
Cahalane» C. f., The Policeman. E. P. Dutton and
Co., Hew York, 1923.
Constitutional Rights Committee of the Los Angeles
Bar Association, Second and Third Annual Re
ports. Typewritten. 1930 and 1931.
Dicey, A. V., Law and Opinion in England. 2nd ed.
Macmillan and Go. Ltd., London, 1926.
Everington, J. W., "Police Problems." The Police
Reporter. Vol. I, Ho. I, April 1929.
finlanson, J., "The Third DegreeV" The Police Re
porter. Vol. I, Ho. 2, May, 1929.
fosdick, R.B., American Police System. The Century
Co., Hew York, 1920.
fuld, L. H., Police Administration. Putnam, lew
York, 1910.
Graper, S. D., American Police Administration. Mac
millan and Go. Ltd., Hew York, 1921.
221
Graves, W.. B., Readings in Public Opinion. D. Apple
ton and Co., lew York, 1928.
Hopkins, J., Our Lawless Police. Viking Press, lew
York, 1931»
King, Cé L., "Public Opinion in Government." Graves,
W* B», Readings in. Public Opinion. Introduction.
Lavine, E. H., The Third Degree. Vanguard Press,
lew York, 1930»
Lippman, W., The Phantom Public. Hareourt, Brace and
Co., lew York, 1925.
Lippi^ian, W., Public Opinion» Macmillan Co., lew York,
1929.
Los Angeles Police Department, Daily Police Bulletin,
official publication of the Police Department of
Los Angeles, 296: Dec. 19, 1928.
Los Angeles Police Department, Division of Public Re
lations Bulletin, lo. 21: April 22, 1929.
Los Angeles Bar Association, The Bar Association Bul-
letin.VI. 197; IV, 39, 40; IK, 171; V, 113; Park-
er. Stone and Baird Co., Los Angeles, 1928 to 1932.
Lowell, A. L., Public and Popular Government, lew ed.,
Longmans, Green & Co., lew York, 1926.
Morrow, H., " fhe Third Degree." The Bar. Association
Bulletin. 39: Oct., 1928.
Municipal League of Los Angeles, Bulletin o.f The Muni-
cipalBLeague. IX, Oct., 1931.
222
Hatlouai Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement,
Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement. Ü. S.
Printing Office, Washington, 1931,
lewlin, Gurney,"Annual Address of the President of the
American Bar Association." Journal of the American
Bar Association. January, 1930#
Youngman, Roy, " Public Opinion Process." reported in
Bogardus, E. S., fundamentals of Social Psychology,
supra, 363-364.
II. Cases Cited
Bate vs. Jolin, 77 Gal. Bee. 343.
Brown vs. Walker, 161 Ü. 8* 596.
Carroll vs. Ü. S., 267 Ü. S. 132.
In re Milstead, 44 Cal, App. 239.
Olmstead vs. U. 3., 277 H. 3. 438.
Peo. vs. Borello, 161 Cal. 367.
Peo. vs. Clark, 55 Cal. 1pp. 42.
Peo. vs^ Mayhe'i* 199 Cal. 237.
Peo. vs. Loper, 159 Cal. 6.
Peo. vs. Pfenning, Superior Court, Los Angeles County,
California, 47888.
Peo. vs. Qusn Gun Gow, 23 Cal. App. 507.
Peo. vs. Reiohner, Superior Court, Los Angeles Cpunty,
California, 46109.
Towle vs. Mathews, 130 Cal. 574.
Youman vs. Commonwealth, 189 Ey. 152.
223
III. Code Sections Cited.
Penal Code of California, Sections 145, 146, 147^
149, 170, 236, 237, 688, 814, 821, 822, 824,
825, 835, 836, 940, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845,
848, 849, 858, 859, 1524, 1525, 1528, 1531,
1533, 1534, 1535, 1536,
Political Code of California, Section 2345.
IV. Constitution of the State of California, Section 19,
Article 1.
V. Miscellaneous Documents.
Letters in the private files of members of the
Constitutional Rights Committee.
Minutes of meetings of Bar Association and Police
Committees.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A study of juvenile gangs in the Hollenbeck area of East Los Angeles
PDF
Adjustment of large downtown and boulevard churches in Los Angeles to socio-cultural factors in the community
PDF
Stereotypes of selected white college students concerning Negroes
PDF
Religious and other cultural factors in social control affecting the assimilation of Jews in Los Angeles
PDF
The French in Los Angeles: A study of a transplanted culture
PDF
The significance of zones and boundaries in the urban community with special reference to the Los Angeles Area
PDF
The unattached Negro woman on relief: A study of fifty unattached Negro women on relief in the Compton district office of the State Relief Administration of California in Los Angeles
PDF
Suburban Political Behavior In Los Angeles County, California
PDF
Population pressure and its effect on the land use pattern and land valuations in Los Angeles County from 1940 to 1953
PDF
An analytical study of the physical distribution of population in Los Angeles County, 1946-1956
PDF
The Federal theatre in the Los Angeles area
PDF
An analysis of garment manufacturing in the Los Angeles area
PDF
The social status of the negro in Pasadena, California
PDF
Family care program: A descriptive study of the family care program at the Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Veterans Administration Center, Los Angeles
PDF
A comparative analysis of the advertising and public relations disciplines in an era of digitally fueled audience control
PDF
Special library collections in the Southern California area as an approach to historical studies
PDF
A study of deviate personalities as found in Main Street of Los Angeles
PDF
Experimental analysis of the instructional materials in behavioral college instruction using a marketing management course
PDF
Piece rate structure in the unionized dress and sportswear industry in the Los Angeles area
PDF
Media reinvented: the transformation of news in a networked society
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ziskind, David
(author)
Core Title
A sociological study of public opinion concerning certain police practices in Los Angeles
School
Department of Sociology
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
Sociology
Defense Date
05/15/1933
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
attorneys,California Bar Association,education,folkways,Grand jury,Investigations,Law,legislation,mobilization of forces,mores,newspapers,OAI-PMH Harvest,police department,prosecutions,publicity,Social Sciences
Place Name
California
(states),
Los Angeles
(city or populated place),
Los Angeles
(counties),
USA
(countries)
Format
223 leaves : ill., forms ; 28 cm.
(aacr2),
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Mangell, George B. (
committee chair
), Hale, William G. (
committee member
), Neumeyer, Martin H. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m14
Unique identifier
UC11260733
Identifier
EP68137.pdf (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c40-29587 (legacy record id),usctheses-m14 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
EP68137.pdf
Dmrecord
29587
Document Type
Thesis
Format
223 leaves : ill., forms ; 28 cm. (aacr2),application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Ziskind, David
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
attorneys
California Bar Association
education
folkways
mobilization of forces
mores
prosecutions
publicity