REVIEW Dirty Harry and the Real Constitution Michael Stokes Paulsent The Constitution and CriminalP rocedure:F irstP rinciples.A khil Reed Amar. Yale University Press, 1997. Pp xi, 272. I. PROLOGUE: DIRTY HARRY, 1977 I didn't see Dirty Harry until my freshman year in college, in 1977, at a $1 Midnight Madness showing at the university center. But it was a memorable event: a rowdy, college audience cheering as one for the quintessential 1970s anti-hero hero, hard-bitten Inspector Harry Callaghan of the San Francisco Police Depart- ment, played by the squinting Clint Eastwood, as he did battle with a truly evil serial killer/child-kidnapper-and with the up- side-down, criminal-coddling legal system that freed this monster to kill and terrorize more victims. It would be dramatizing to say that this flick led me to law school (and to my brief stint as a federal prosecutor), but one scene does remain blazed in my memory twenty years later. In- spector Callaghan-"Dirty Harry'--has agreed to carry the ran- t Associate Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School. The reader should be aware that Akhil Amar and I were accidental law school roommates at Yale in 1982-83 and argued frequently and vehemently about some of the very same issues discussed here. Our disagreements remained friendly, however, and Professor Amar and I remain friends today (despite our disagreements). Friendship does not keep me from taking potshots at him in print, when he deserves them (as he does, to some extent, here). See, for example, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Double Jeopardy Law After Akhil Amar: Some Civil Procedure Analogies and Inquiries, 26 Cumb L Rev 23, 23 n 1 (1995). Our association, however, may help explain why I find much to agree with in this book. I evidently have been a bad influ- ence on him. See note 15. 1457 1458 The University of ChicagoL aw Review [64:1457 som to the kidnapper/killer/terrorist (known as "Scorpio") that the softheads in the Department have decided to pay off. Harry believes that Scorpio intends to kill his child kidnap victim any- way (if he hasn't done so already). Harry grudgingly makes the delivery, the deal goes down, but Scorpio decides to kill Harry off, too. Harry barely escapes, managing to wound Scorpio severely with a switchblade to the leg. With time running out-the killer's ransom demand said that the fourteen-year-old girl was buried alive, with oxygen enough only until 3 A.M.-Harry tracks Scorpio to a hospital and eventually to the football stadium basement where Scorpio lives. Harry scales the fence, breaks into the caretaker's quarters and finds the rifle that had been used in earlier murders. Scorpio, alerted to Callaghan's presence, attempts to flee, hobbling across the football field. When the stadium lights go on, Harry shoots Scorpio in the other leg with his .44 magnum ("the most powerful handgun in the world"). Scorpio is, by this point, unarmed. Harry approaches, points his .44 at the thug's head and demands to know where the kidnap victim is. Scorpio refuses, and cries for a lawyer. ("I am entitled to a lawyer!") Harry then steps on the thug's wounded leg with all his weight and demands again to know where the little girl is. (Half the midnight college crowd cheers; half groans audibly; everybody gasps.) Screaming in ag- ony, crying out for his rights, and still begging for a lawyer, the kidnapper finally reveals where the girl has been hidden-buried, really-and the San Francisco Police Department shortly thereaf- ter finds her body, dead. That scene is painful, but the next one is perhaps equally painful.' Inspector Callaghan has been called in to the DA's office: DA: I've just been looking over your arrest report. Very un- usual piece of police work. [Sardonically:] Really amaz- ing. HARRY: [Mistaking this for a compliment:] Yeah, well, I had some luck. DA: [Standing up:] You're lucky I'm not indicting you for as- sault with intent to commit murder! HARRY: [Squinting:] What? DA: Where the hell does it say you've got a right to kick down doors, torture suspects, deny medical attention and legal counsel?! Where have you been?! Does Esco- bedo ring a bell!? Miranda?! I mean you must have heard of the Fourth Amendment! What I'm saying is The dialogue is from my transcription of the video. Dirty Harry (Warner Bros 1971). Bracketed stage directions, scene characterizations, and snide asides are mine. 19971 Dirty Harry 1459 that man had rights. HARRY: [Scowling:] Well I'm all broken up about that man's rights. DA: You should be. I've got news for you, Callaghan, as soon as he's well enough to leave the hospital he walks! HARRY: [Incredulous but calm:] What are you talking about? DA: He's free! HARRY: You're letting him go? DA: We have to. We can't try him. HARRY: And why is that? DA: Because I'm not wasting half a million dollars of the taxpayers' money on a trial we can't possibly win. The problem is we don't have any evidence. HARRY: Evidence? What the hell do you call that?! [gesturing to the high-powered rifle he recovered from a locker in the janitor'sr oom underneath the stadium] DA: I call it nothing, zero. HARRY: Are you trying to tell me that ballistics can't match the bullet up to this rifle? DA: [Condescendinga nd bitter:] It does not matter what bal- listics can do. This rifle might make a nice souvenir, but it's inadmissible as evidence. HARRY: And who says that? DA: It's the law. HARRY: Well then the law is crazy! DA: [Pause.B ecomes schoolmarmish as he introduces a book- ish-looking curmudgeon who has been sitting quietly in the background:] This is Judge Bannerman of the ap- pellate court. He also holds classes in constitutional law at Berkeley. [I love that line "holds classes"] I've asked him for an opinion. Your Honor? JUDGE: [Matter of factly, with a scholarly air:] Well, in my opin- ion the search of the suspect's quarters was illegal. Evi- dence obtained thereby, such as that hunting rifle for in- stance, is inadmissible in court. You should have gotten a search warrant. I'm sorry, but it's that simple. HARRY: [Squintinga gain:] Search warrant? A girl was dying! DA: She was in fact dead, according to the medical report. HARRY: But I didn't know that! JUDGE: The court would have to recognize the police officer's le- gitimate concern for the girl's life, but there is no way they can possibly condone police torture. All evidence concerning the girl, the suspect's confession, all physical evidence, would have to be excluded. 1460 The University of ChicagoL aw Review [64:1457 HARRY: There must be something you can get him on. JUDGE: Without the evidence of the gun, and the girl, [scoff and shake of the head from side to side] I couldn't convict him of spitting on the sidewalk. Now the suspect's rights were violated, under the Fourth and Fifth, and probably the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. HARRY: And Ann Mary Deacon? What about her rights? I mean she's raped and left to die in a hole. Who speaks for her? II. MAGNUM FORCE: AKHIL AMAR, 1997 Inspector Harry Callaghan was right: The law is crazy. I thought so at the time I saw Dirty Harry (when I didn't have the foggiest idea of what "Escobedo" was) and now, finally, twenty years later, Professor Akhil Amar has explained why this intui- tion was, and is, right. The Constitution, Amar argues-contrary to virtually everybody writing in the field-emphatically does not demand such an upside-down, two-wrongs-make-a-right, baby- with-the-bathwater approach to what is misleadingly called "con- stitutional" criminal procedure. Under Amar's powerfully argued and relentlessly iconoclastic readings of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, Scorpio can be tried and convicted before he kills and terrorizes again. The Fourth Amendment, by its plain terms, requires that searches and seizures be reasonable, not that they all be pursu- ant to warrants (which Amar shows were strongly disfavored during the founding era). The amendment contemplates, where this rule is violated, traditional tort-law remedies against officers committing common law torts (Inspector Harry Callaghan com- mitted a number of them), by removing the defense of "official authority" where a search or seizure was unreasonable. The pres- ence of a warrant is a strong argument for reasonableness, but not an absolute one. The absence of a warrant takes away from the officer the potential immunizing effect of a warrant for what would otherwise be ordinary torts. For Amar, the amendment might further contemplate, in modern times, equitable or even criminal remedies directed against the offending officer (such as the DA's allusion to the possibility of criminal prosecution for as- sault). But the amendment never requires, of its own force, exclu- sion of probative physical evidence. Thus, the rifle is admissible evidence, along with anything else Harry found in Scorpio's room (pp 1-45). Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination is a peculiarly trial-oriented, testimonial privilege of a criminal defendant not to have his own utterances used 1997] Dirty Harry 1461 against him at trial if those utterances were compelled (physi- cally, psychologically, or by judicial process). But it does not re- quire exclusion of reliable physical evidence-"fruits"--obtained as a result of such (inadmissible) compelled utterances. Although Amar accepts Miranda (somewhat inexplicably-a point I will develop at length presently'), the result of his exposition of the Fifth Amendment privilege is that Scorpio's statement of the girl's whereabouts is inadmissible, but the body itself is admissi- ble evidence (pp 46-88). That gives the District Attorney the gun (linking Scorpio to earlier killings) and the body, along with Cal- laghan's testimony about everything except Scorpio's statement as to where the girl's body can be found. (As for deterring police brutality, Amar would again repair to tort law remedies and the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, rather than transform a limited testimonial privilege into an engine for judicial regulation of police practices. It is the Fourth Amendment, not the Fifth, that limits the third degree.) (pp 68, 87-88). What about Scorpio's plea for a lawyer? The Sixth Amend- ment, Amar argues, is about protecting the innocent and seeking the truth, through fair, speedy, and public trials, the right to con- front adverse witnesses and the right to call one's own (pp 89- 144). (His textual explication of the two Sixth Amendment "wit- ness" clauses and, indirectly, of the right to "compulsory" process, reinforces his argument for a narrow reading of the Fifth Amendment privilege not to be "compelled" to "be a witness" against oneself.) (pp 93-94). The right to the assistance of counsel exists to effectuate these other Sixth Amendment rights, all for the sake of protecting innocence (including the "innocence" inter- est in not being held to a higher degree of culpability than war- ranted for one's wrongful acts). Guilty folk might incidentally benefit from the Sixth Amendment's rules, but that is not the point of the rules. The point is permitting the accused to vindi- cate his innocence, by according him the procedural weapons with which to do so. Extending somewhat beyond that, the right to counsel provides for a balance of power in the courtroom (which, again, can be seen as innocence-protecting). But none of these rights, properly construed, gives the ac- cused an entitlement to exclude probative evidence, or to avoid criminal responsibility because of the errors of others (as opposed to obtaining tort law relief for unjustified restrictions on liberty or impairment of reputation, argues Amar, reprising his Fourth 2 See text accompanying notes 37-51. 1462 The University of Chicago Law Review [64:1457 Amendment theme). Still less does the right to counsel entitle the accused to use the services of a lawyer for the purpose of thwart- ing the truth-seeking functions of a trial and of pre-trial pro- ceedings, such as by presenting, arguing, or turning a blind eye to peijured testimony, a point with important implications for legal ethics. Finally, the right to counsel, along with all other Sixth Amendment rights, attaches only when the individual stands "ac- cused" (for which the Fifth Amendment requires a grand jury in- dictment, for capital or "otherwise infamous" crimes). Judge Ban- nerman of the appellate court notwithstanding, nothing in the Sixth Amendment gives Scorpio a right to a lawyer while Inspec- tor Callaghan steps on Scorpio's wounded leg to learn the location of the dying girl. Whatever evidence is otherwise admissible con- sistent with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is not rendered inadmissible by Dirty Harry's failure to honor Scorpio's request for a lawyer. These conclusions are, to the academic criminal procedure establishment, absolutely outrageous. And they have been greeted with expressions of outrage, anger, and fits of intemper- ateness befitting the vigor and rigor of Professor Amar's assault on that establishment. (The book is a collection and slight re- editing of Amar's earlier articles on the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, and of short essays on juries and remedies, and have thus been a central part of the academic debate for several years already.)' Amar, who comes at the field from the perspec- tive of a broad-gauged constitutional law scholar, not that of a criminal law practitioner turned academic, argues that "the kind of constitutional law discourse and scholarship that now domi- nates criminal procedure is generally, in a word, bad constitu- tional law-constitutional law insouciant about constitutional text, ignorant of constitutional history, and inattentive to consti- tutional structure" (pp ix-x). And his conclusions are backed up by an impressive mastery of textual analysis, constitutional struc- ture, constitutional history, constitutional precedent (including ' Akhil Reed Amar, FourthA mendment FirstP rinciples, 107 Harv L Rev 757 (1994); Akhil Reed Amar and Renee B. Lettow, Fifth Amendment First Principles: The Self- Incrimination Cause, 93 Mich L Rev 857 (1995); Akhil Reed Amar, Foreword: Sixth Amendment FirstP rinciples,8 4 Georgetown L J 641 (1996); Akhil Reed Amar, The Future of ConstitutionalC riminalP rocedure, 33 Am Crim L Rev 1123 (1996); Akhil Reed Amar, Reinventing Juries:T en Suggested Reforms, 28 UC Davis L Rev 1169 (1995). Amar has written several other articles on constitutional criminal procedure (see, for example, Akhil Reed Amar and Jonathan L. Marcus, Double Jeopardy Law After Rodney King, 95 Colum L Rev 1 (1995); Akhil Reed Amar, Double JeopardyL aw Made Simple, 106 Yale L J 1807 (1997)), but the three "First Principles" articles that comprise the bulk of this book are the ones that have defined the debate between Amar and his critics. 1997] Dirty Harry 1463 precedent with deeper roots than the 1960s), constitutional remedies, and simple logic. Amar has hit them where they live. While his analysis is vulnerable at several junctures-chiefly, in my view, where he tries to defend his left flank and so fails to follow his methodo- logical premises to their proper conclusions-he has the estab- lishment dead to rights on questions of interpretive methodology. The Constitution-the words of the text, the historical under- standing of those words, their structural, logical, and linguistic relation to one another and to larger constitutional principles- does not support anything at all resembling the regime of "constitutional criminal procedure" under which we now suffer. Dirty Harry's basic instinct was right. He just needed the constitutional scholarship of Akhil Amar to cover his back. My goal in the remainder of this review is twofold. First, in Section III, I analyze the impact of Amar's scholarship on the methodologies and ideologies of constitutional criminal proce- dure, concluding that Amar brings an important methodological corrective to present criminal procedure scholarship-one that the academic criminal procedure establishment rightly finds threatening, and to which it has responded, predictably, with more ferocity than persuasiveness. Second, in Section IV, I argue that, in at least one respect (the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination), Amar's analysis misfires-but not in the direction his critics think. Amar's own methodology and evi- dence better support the yet more radical conclusion that the privilege is not triggered by police interrogation in any form, but only by formal judicial compulsion backed by force of law, sug- gesting that the Supreme Court's truly serious doctrinal errors are its decisions in Miranda v Arizona4 and Griffin v California5, not the relatively peripheral issue of the scope of "immunity" re- quired to satisfy the Fifth Amendment. III. SUDDEN IMPACT: THE GENERATIONS, METHODOLOGIES, AND IDEOLOGIES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Professor Amar's entry into the field of constitutional crimi- nal procedure, beginning with his article on the Fourth Amend- ment in 1994 (now Chapter One of the book), has had a dramatic and immediate effect on legal scholarship in this area, reinvigor- ating the debate by launching a frontal assault on its most fun- damental premises. Amar has joined a small cadre of under-forty 384 US 436 (1966). 380 US 609 (1965). 1464 The University of Chicago Law Review [64:1457 scholars who have brought new excitement and interest to this area: Paul Cassell at Utah, Donald Dripps at Illinois, Nancy King at Vanderbilt, Tracey Maclin at Boston University, Carol Steiker at Harvard, Bill Stuntz at Virginia, Ron Wright at Wake Forest. What had been a relatively stagnant discussion, nibbling at the margins of small doctrines, counter-doctrines, and sub-doctrines, has been rocked by Amar's challenge to the principles that had framed the debate for thirty years or more. Amar's approach, both in its method and in its results, is a major challenge not only to the Supreme Court's body of caselaw, but also to the prevailing academic orthodoxy about the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, an orthodoxy that has reigned since the Warren Court's criminal procedure revolution during the 1960s. That revolution, both in the courts and in the acad- emy, has shown remarkable resilience in surviving the personnel changes of the Burger and Rehnquist eras. The dominant para- digm of constitutional criminal procedure today uses the specific provisions of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as springboards for an active, affirmative judicial role in reforming criminal procedure practices to protect the rights of criminal de- fendants and meet the perceived needs of contemporary society to be free from police tyranny (on the one hand) and from rampant, unpunished criminal activity (on the other). While the Burger and Rehnquist Courts chipped away at the margins of the Warren Court's criminal procedure revolution, they did not mount a truly serious assault on its essential meth- odological premises. The different generations of the Court simply had different perceptions of how to balance the various needs of society with the interests of criminal defendants, and of how these amendments might best be interpreted to serve those needs. The Warren Court emphasized defendants' rights as the most important, unaddressed policy concern. The Burger Court emphasized, as a counterweight, the needs of society for "law- and-order." The Rehnquist Court has continued the same instru- mentalist project as the Burger Court, but with less division, less opposition, and (consequently) less enthusiasm. The interpretive methodology, however, has remained largely the same: an emphasis on policy and practicality, and on infer- ences and extrapolations from the text, in the service of (differing views of) outcomes thought to contribute to a sound and just criminal justice system. In this area of constitutional law, how- ever, there has been a relative lack of interest, consistent over time and across ideological divides, in constitutional text, histori- cal subtext, or the larger context of the document as a whole. 19971 Dirty Harry 1465 Critics of the Warren Court charged it with "judicial activism" in this area (among others), for disregarding precedent and pushing its own policy agenda. Critics of the Burger and Rehnquist Courts (typically, defenders of the Warren Court's product) have leveled essentially the same charge. And both groups of critics have been right. The intense sniping at the margins has camouflaged a large and ironic area of agreement on method: William Rehnquist looks like a right-handed William Brennan, not a different breed of animal. While constitutional law in general has enjoyed over the last half-generation (or suffered, depending on your view) an intense resurgence of debate over the primacy of text, original intention, and constitutional structure, criminal procedure has been an en- clave largely removed from this debate. In part, this may be at- tributable to the fact that "criminal procedure" and "constitu- tional law" are kept in separate rooms of the (now-)traditional law school curriculum. The Warren Court criminal procedure revolution essentially gave rise to its own discrete discipline and its own distinct law school course. None of the major constitu- tional law casebooks any longer contains extended discussion of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as subjects of constitu- tional law study in their own right. And why should they? Those topics are covered elsewhere in the curriculum-in massive case- books (like the Kamisar, LaFave, and Israel tome) reflecting the explosion of caselaw in this area in the last thirty-five years. A half-generation ago, things were different. Paul Freund's popular Harvard casebook, in its 1967 (third) edition, used by many law students in the late 1960s and 1970s, discussed the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, just as it discussed the First, as an important chunk of constitutional law material, tak- ing up more than two hundred pages of the text.6 The 1970 ver- sion of Gerald Gunther's famous casebook (then still "Gunther and Dowling") devoted well over a hundred pages to the subject as well, including a full chapter entitled "Procedural Rights in the Administration of Criminal Justice" that addressed search and seizure, the Fifth Amendment privilege and Miranda,t he right to counsel, fair trial, confrontation clause rights, double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment, and excessive bail.7 Kamisar, La- c Paul A. Freund, et al, 2 ConstitutionalL aw: Cases and Other Problems 1320-1542 (Little, Brown 3d ed 1967). Gerald Gunther and Noel T. Dowling, ConstitutionalL aw: Cases and Materials 796- 924 (Foundation 8th ed 1970). The 1974 supplement included nearly fifty pages of new material on criminal procedure. Gerald Gunther and Noel T. Dowling, ConstitutionalL aw and Individual Rights in ConstitutionalL aw: Cases and Materials, 1974 Supplement 113- 1466 The University of Chicago Law Review [64:1457 Fave, and Israel's massive Modern CriminalP rocedur8e casebook did not appear on the scene until 1965, quickly needed another edition by 1966, and did not reach full bloom until its third (1969) and fourth (1974) editions. By 1980, its fifth edition engulfed 1635 double-columned pages. Meanwhile, Gunther's 1980 Consti- tutional Law casebook had whittled its discussion of criminal procedure to just twenty-five pages, addressed almost exclusively to the issue of "incorporation" of Bill of Rights provisions by the Fourteenth Amendment The Freund book followed the same pattern. The preface to the 1977 (fourth) edition was explicit about the change: This expansion [of other material], together with the inclu- sion of recent decisions, has obviously required some coun- tervailing compression .. . .Partly this has been accom- plished through... a substantial reduction in the coverage of the guarantees of criminal procedure. The latter topic, which is dealt with in courses on criminal law, has been re- tained insofar as it raises problems of federalism. Gerald Gunther had formally announced a similar retreat in 1975.1 Following the division of subject matter, there has been (by and large) a division of legal scholars. With few exceptions, criminal proceduralists are not broad-gauged "constitutional law types." They are, by and large, civil libertarians, former criminal prosecutors and defense attorneys, and those with interests in the criminal justice system. They are (usually) not constitutional generalists or big-picture constitutional theorists. At the same time, constitutional law scholars have become largely content to leave this separate province alone. It is taught by criminal proce- dure "specialists." After all, the subject is no longer covered in the 18, 132-76 (Foundation 1974). ' Yale Kamisar, Wayne LaFave, and Jerold H. Israel, Modern Criminal Procedure (West 1965). ' Gerald Gunther, ConstitutionalL aw: Cases and Materials4 76-501 (Foundation 10th ed 1980). - Paul A. Freund, et al, ConstitutionalL aw: Cases and Other Problems xxiii (Little, Brown 4th ed 1977). " Gerald Gunther, Constitutional Law: Cases and Materials xx (Foundation 9th ed 1975) ("Over the years, some areas once staples of constitutional law courses have devel- oped such an identity and complexity of their own as to warrant treatment as separate disciplines. What was once the fate of administrative law, for example, has now become appropriate for the constitutional requirements of criminal procedure. Some samples of those developments are retained, for the light they throw on the general evolution of due process standards and the incorporation controversy, but full treatment of the details is left to other courses.").