18. "American Violet" (2008)

"I'll tell you what made this arrest so different. I've only spent one night in jail before this. I was 16 years old, was arrested for stealing diapers and milk for my babies. I did it. They kept me for one night. I knew I was getting right out. To be locked up for 21 days away from my girls, not knowing if I was gonna get out to see them again, 21 days in a cage... I may not have all your schooling, but it seems pretty different to me!"

(Nicole Beharie as Dee Roberts)

"American Violet" features a young, African-American single mother named Dee Roberts (played by Nicole Beharie in her film debut) struggling to get by. She works as a waitress at a restaurant and her mother helps by watching her three young daughters when she is at work. She lives in the projects of Melody, Texas - a small, predominantly white town with a smaller black population that lives mostly in subsidized housing.

The film chronicles her arrest as a part of a drug sweep through her housing project (Arlington Springs) and subsequent legal battle. She is captured as a part of the sweep, though the police must look for her at her job because she was not at home during the sweep. She was arrested and assigned a public defender during her arraignment. The public defender was assigned to all of the arrestees in the Arlington Springs sweep, and subsequently urged them all to agree to a plea agreement. Dee was arrested for selling drugs in a school zone, a significant offense given that a school zone is a particularly "protected" area (more serious than selling drugs on a regular street corner). Eventually, her case was chosen by the ACLU to challenge the racially-motivated drug sweeps in this particular county in Texas. The film documents her struggles with the county district attorney, who made it almost impossible for her to get a job by telling all prospective employers of her legal concerns. She also had troubles with her ex-boyfriend, who was continually fighting her for custody of her two youngest daughters.

The climax comes during the depositions in preparation for the civil trial. Dee's attorneys (including two New York lawyers from the ALCU and a local attorney retained to "help navigate Texas courthouses") needed to find a way to demonstrate that the drug sweeps were racially-motivated, and the best way to do that was to prove that the district attorney was so blinded by racial prejudice that it would call into question the "racial neutrality" of the busts that he ordered. I don't want to give away any of the good parts, but it is an excellent look at the struggles attorneys face in proving someone's intentions or prejudices.

The film has several social goals. First, the film is intended to demonstrate that we are not a "post-racial" society, as much as we all would like to think we are. A great deal of drug enforcement is racially motivated, as most people have racial prejudices regarding drugs and drug use. Second, the film is intended to show that social class matters. When you cannot afford a good lawyer, you are not sure that you're getting the best legal advice. If you are uneducated, you don't know what "good advice" is, so it's even more difficult to get a fair shake-down. Some public defenders are exceptionally good at their jobs, but are overworked and underpaid, which will obviously affect their ability to give good quality legal advice to each person. Third, the film discusses a legal procedure that was later changed, partially due to the events depicted in the film. In Texas, grand jury indictments could be secured with corroboration of only one informant, meaning that one person could indict multiple people. In this case, one person was cornered by the district attorney and coerced into providing false testimony to the grand jury to obtain the indictments against more than 20 people, all for drugs. The audio tape that supposedly proved Dee was selling drugs is mentioned in the film as being "very hard to make out and the voice doesn't even sound female," but the testimony of one person was enough to secure a grand jury indictment. This is a serious issue, as corroboration is essential to ensure that indictments are not frivolous. In this instance, Dee's name is only added to the list because the informant's sister is the new girlfriend of Dee's ex-boyfriend, and the sister dislikes Dee and wanted her out of the picture. However, the stakes of even being indicted for drugs are very high, as an arrest for drugs - even if no charges are filed and you're later released, or you're acquitted or charges are later dropped - is viewed quite negatively by employers and others.

The film was captivating, and I would highly recommend it to everyone. I like this film for a number of reasons - and I loved it so much I show it to my students - but probably the best reason I love this movie is that it is real. I'm sure there is some sort of agenda, and that it's not completely accurate, but I know that it is at least somewhat accurate because I know that not only are minorities vastly disproportionately caught up in drug enforcement (though whites use drugs more than minorities - they just use different kinds of drugs that "are less important" to drug enforcement agents), but they are generally pushed through the system in ways that are simply unfair. This film shows that innocent people do get caught up in the mix, and that inevitably the justice system is about people, not about statistics. I liked when we are urged to remember that we are a system of people, not a system of cogs and wheels.

Note: This film was based on the true story of Regina Kelly in Hearne, Texas.

17. "Magnum Force" (1973)

"I hate the goddam system! But until someone comes along with changes that make sense, I'll stick with the system." 

(Clint Eastwood as Harry Callahan)

Clint Eastwood reprises his role as Inspector "Dirty" Harry Callahan in this sequel to "Dirty Harry." In "Magnum Force," Callahan is reassigned from homicide to stakeout duty (surveillance, essentially a first or second-year officer's job). His new partner, "Early" Smith, and Callahan begin to surreptitiously investigate homicides around the city of recently acquitted criminals, let off by a technicality. Callahan and Smith begin to suspect that corrupt cops are at the center of the crimes, including their own boss, Lt. Briggs.

"Magnum Force" emphasizes police corruption, an issue of great concern in the 1970s and 1980s (this was also the main event in "Serpico"). Police corruption was rampant in police departments in most major cities because police officers have extremely dangerous jobs but are generally paid very little. The most common form of police corruption is bribery or skimming off the top of monetary evidence such as cash or drugs (so, money-oriented). "Magnum Force" focuses on the lesser-known type of police corruption that is vigilantism. This was an issue in the 1970s and 1980s as police departments were under much greater scrutiny after a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that applied the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the states (and not just the federal government as had been previously interpreted). As judges began holding local police departments to higher standards of search and seizure and other legal issues, more and more criminals were acquitted or had charges dismissed on technicalities. This angered police departments, and some officers took the law into their own hands.

Several noteworthy advances have been made in the decades since "Magnum Force," including the New York City Commission to Combat Police Corruption, created in 1995. As such, while police corruption still exists, it is much less common and much more well contained. Police departments also have hefty consequences for ethical violations of corruption, especially with more transparent internal affairs and ethics review boards.

15. "Dirty Harry" (1971)

"Where the hell does it say that you've got a right to kick down doors, torture suspects, deny medical attention and legal counsel? Where have you been? Does Escobedo ring a bell? Miranda? I mean, you must have heard of the Fourth Amendment."

(District Attorney to Inspector Callahan)

The film Dirty Harry is a classic in the criminological realm, most obviously illustrating how policing used to be done in the 1960s and 1970s. Clint Eastwood stars as the title character, "Dirty" Harry Callahan, an inspector with the San Francisco Police Department. It is the first of the Dirty Harry series and focuses on Inspector Callahan's investigation of a murder in San Francisco. However, the film also is a textbook example of not only how policing was actually done pre-Miranda (and shortly thereafter), but also how media - and society at large - viewed police officers and how they do their jobs.

Dirty Harry often does what needs to be done to get the job done. He works within the law in that he is a police officer, but also works outside the law in that he does not abide by police procedure (as illustrated in the quote above). Many people view Dirty Harry as the embodiment of what's wrong in American policing - police brutality, withholding of legal counsel, and torturing suspects before and during interrogations. These sorts of practices were stopped during the criminal rights cases of the Warren and Burger Courts (1960s and 1970s), but some of these issues still crop up, especially when it involves minority suspects and white police officers.

Current police practices are a far cry from those in Dirty Harry, yet movies and television shows still include these as everyday occurrences in police departments across the country. Just about any episode of The Wire or watching films like American Violet make us believe that things really haven't changed in nearly 50 years, when in reality, things are very, very different. The effect of media on people's perceptions of police is widespread, often persuading people that police engage in brutal tactics on a regular basis, when in fact, that is not the case (for example, only 2% of cases involving officer use of force involve lethal force, and most officers do not use any kind of physical force in their interactions with the public). Incidents that garner widespread news coverage, such as the Rodney King incident in 1992 in Los Angeles, also contribute to these feelings of resentment and distrust.

Dirty Harry also brought to light - as did other films of this era, such as Serpico - the issue of police corruption. In the era of the film, policy corruption was rampant and often extended as high as the mayor or governor. Officers who toed the "thin blue line" were put in their place (or in the case of the New York Police Department, their place in the Hudson River). The very real concern of police officers engaging in unethical - not to mention illegal - practices contributes to the reason why certain segments of Americans still, to this day, do not trust police. Police corruption was vehemently combated during the 1980s and 1990s, especially in large departments such as New York or Los Angeles, but there are still incidents that shake our faith in the men (and women) in blue who are supposed to protect and serve.

Dirty Harry is a classic film for many reasons - Clint Eastwood's excellent performance, the mystifying plotline, the believable antagonist, and more - and should be required viewing for any criminology student or enthusiast. However, one must remember that sometimes films have a greater social impact than we believe, so we must encourage filmmakers, television producers, and music artists to be socially responsible in their production of entertainment material.

6. "Serpico" (1973)

"Frank, let's face it, who can trust a cop who won't take money?"

(Jack Kehoe as Tom Keough)

The movie "Serpico" is regarded as one of the most well-known crime films of all time. It is often named as Al Pacino's finest film performance, and was director Sidney Lumet's prized masterpiece. It was nominated for many awards, including two Academy Awards (Best Actor in a Leading Role [Al Pacino] and Best Writing [Waldo Salt and Norman Wexler]), two BAFTA Awards (Best Actor [Al Pacino] and Best Director [Sidney Lumet]), a Directors Guild of America Award (Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Motion Pictures [Sidney Lumet]), an Edgar Allen Poe Edgar Award (Best Motion Picture [Waldo Salt and Norman Wexler]), a Golden Globe Award (Best Motion Picture - Drama), and a Grammy Award (Album of Best Original Score Written for a Motion Picture). The film won three awards: A Golden Globe Award (Best Motion Picture Actor - Drama [Al Pacino]), a National Board of Review Award (Best Actor [Al Pacino]), and a Writers Guild of America Award (Best Drama Adapted from Another Medium [Norman Wexler and Waldo Salt]).

For these reasons and many more, I was really, really, really excited to watch it. Unfortunately, I was grossly disappointed. While it was an interesting story, there seemed to be too many random extra parts that didn't seem to serve a purpose and it was extremely slow. I started it when I first got it from Netflix in March; I did not finish it until today.

The Plot: "Serpico" is based on a true story and follows a police officer in the New York City Police Department in the 1960s and 70s. His family owns a shoe repair shop, but he wants to become a police officer. He wants to do homicide, so he follows the route he was told to take. He soon learns that those who know the politics of life get ahead and those who play by the rules are left behind. Serpico doesn't want any part of the corruption going on in the department. At the time, police officers routinely extorted money from the criminals they catch, such as prostitutes and drug dealers. The other officers do not like that Serpico won't partake and refuse to work with him. His determination to take the information to the higher authorities of local government mark him a snitch, a gross violation of the "blue wall of silence."

The Reality: As much as we hate to admit it, corruption is alive and well in almost every police department in America. Department corruption may not be as blatant now as it was in the 1970s, but it is certainly a problem. "Serpico" does an excellent job of demonstrating not only the problem and its entrenchment in the police departments, but the very real danger officers place themselves in when they refuse to "go with the flow."

On a funny note, I was quite amused when the precinct chief passed around marijuana to the officers in the morning briefing so that they would be able to recognize the "pungent smell" and the "effects of the drug on the user." That would never fly in today's departments!