L.A. Noir (37 page)

Parker was dumbfounded—and outraged. The highest court in the land had essentially described one of the most valuable tools in law enforcement—the dictograph—as something evil. In Parker’s opinion, this description was incorrect and, in light of dictographs’ long history as useful law enforcement tools, bizarre.

“Since the advent of appropriate electronic devices, the police of this state have utilized such devices to gather information and evidence concerning criminal activities,” Parker responded three months later, in a speech at the Biltmore Hotel marking National Crime Prevention Week. He insisted that they did so in ways that were tightly controlled. Section 6539(h) of the California Penal Code allowed dictographs only when expressly authorized by the head of a police force or by the district attorney. The evidence thus obtained, Parker insisted, had been invaluable in the department’s fight against organized crime:

If anything, Parker continued, California’s total ban on wiretapping was too restrictive. Attempts by Parker and other chiefs to create a mechanism that would allow them to ask a court for permission to intercept telegraphs and tap telephones based on probable cause had stalled in the legislature, creating what Parker described in one speech as providing “a Yalu river sanctuary within the vast telegraphic and telephonic communications network of the United States within which to plan and transact their illegal activities with impunity.” Parker’s allusion—a reference to the river redoubt from which the Chinese Army had attacked U.S. forces during the Korean War—could hardly have been more pointed.

The position of Justice Jackson and Chief Justice Earl Warren must have been particularly galling. As California’s attorney general, Warren had not hesitated to brush aside legalistic objections in his pursuit of justice (most notably, when he personally directed a police raid on Tony Cornero’s gambling ship, the SS
Rex
, despite a court ruling that it was operating outside of California’s territorial waters). Yet now, as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Warren seemed intent on imposing unprecedented new restrictions on law enforcement. The timing, in Parker’s opinion, was terrible. Between 1950 and 1953, the LAPD had actually become smaller as Los Angeles grew. The city’s crime rate was growing at an ever faster rate—a trend Parker described to the city council as “a very frightening
thing.” Yet instead of giving the police greater power, the judiciary was imposing new restrictions. Parker believed that by criticizing the use of dictographs (which have “solved countless serious crimes”), the court was raising the prospect that police officers might be prosecuted for what had long been standard operating procedure. In one speech, he asked his audience to consider the officer who responded to a call and saw a housewife, prone on the floor, a probable suicide attempt at death’s very door. Any officer worth his salt would kick in the door and race the woman to the hospital to pump her stomach. Was this to be treated now as trespassing, kidnapping, and rape?

“Certainly society cannot expect the police to risk criminal prosecution when their only sin is the valid enforcement of the law as they have been led to understand the law,” Parker concluded.

This was a sensitive—and not entirely hypothetical—subject for Parker. For by his third year as chief, he himself had emerged as a major target of lawsuits. The first had come after the Bloody Christmas beating. More serious was a 1951 lawsuit filed by civil rights attorney A. L. Wirin, lead attorney for the Southern California Civil Liberties Union. Since both the state and federal court systems were as yet unprepared to exclude evidence gathered illegally by local police departments, Wirin sought to shut down the LAPD’s surveillance activities in another fashion—by enjoining the police department from using public money to illegally install dictographs. Parker once again detected the hand of Moscow. At a hearing, he blurted out his suspicions that the Minsk-born Wirin (whose initials stood for “Abraham Lincoln”) was a Communist.

Wirin’s attempts to rein in the LAPD’s surveillance operations attracted broad sympathy—not least from the city’s elected officials. That spring, two councilmen, Harold Harby and Ernest Debs, discovered that their work telephones had been wiretapped. Both pointed at the police. Parker vehemently denied the allegation, blaming the underworld instead. Given the history of wiretapping in City Hall, many doubted this denial. Just two days after the councilmen had accused the department of illegally listening in, the
Los Angeles Times
reported that the new police administration building nearing completion around the corner from City Hall was chockablock with bugs and listening devices. This provided little reassurance to the city’s already fearful political establishment.

Chief Parker was determined to defend—and expand—his surveillance tools. To do so, he turned to the television show
Dragnet
. By 1954,
Dragnet
had become the second most popular television show in the country (after
I Love Lucy)
. The radio version (which now aired Sunday nights) also continued to attract a large audience. NBC was eager to create a feature film-length
version of the show. The LAPD was prepared to offer Jack Webb a particularly juicy case file to serve as the basis of the script—one that involved a spectacular gang murder—but it came with a catch. The case was solved only after the police turned to extreme tactics, including near-constant police harassment and constant surveillance. Webb accepted the deal. As a result, audiences were treated to a movie with an unusual hero—the LAPD intelligence division. With its assistance (and a skillfully placed bug), Webb cracked the case of a gangland hit—only to run into trouble in the courtroom. There, after underworld witnesses refused to testify, Friday expresses his frustration at being unable to use a wiretap too.

A female juror objects. “How do we know that all you policemen wouldn’t be running around listening to all our conversations?” she asks.

“We would if you talked murder,” Friday snaps back.

Even Parker supporters, such as the in-house publication of the archdiocese of Los Angeles,
The Tidings
, were somewhat disconcerted by the film’s depiction of harsh police tactics. But Parker insisted that such misgivings were misinformed.

“Far from being a threat to our freedom,” Parker wrote in the pages of the
California Law Review
the following spring, “the use of modern technological devices by the police may well be their most powerful tool in combating our internal enemies, and a vital necessity in the protection of our nation’s security, harmony, and internal well-being.”

In addition to trying to win public support for less restrictive wiretapping laws, Parker also sought broader legal protections for his officers. In the fall of 1954, Parker kicked off a campaign to persuade allies in the state legislature to pass a law shielding law enforcement officers from the threat of criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits for actions taken in the routine course of their work. But just weeks after Parker floated this proposal, state attorney general Pat Brown made an announcement that preempted Parker’s efforts. Brown suggested that local district attorneys henceforth consider prosecuting police officers who broke into citizens’ homes to install dictographs without a court order. Then, on April 27, 1955, the California Supreme Court suddenly and unexpectedly issued a ruling that threatened to destroy what Parker had so carefully built.

The case of
Cahan v. California
bore a striking resemblance to
Irvine
. This time it was the LAPD that had broken into the property of a suspected bookmaker, thirty-one-year-old Charlie Cahan. He was a big-time bookie, with a clearinghouse near the Coliseum, an elaborate call-back system to avoid police detection, and a network of backup “spots” across the city where debtors could place bets in person. The LAPD estimated that he was handling about $6 million a year, and his lifestyle showed it. According to
an LAPD intelligence dossier, Cahan had “concubines, liquor by the case, a lavish penthouse, Cadillacs.” Cahan had emerged from nowhere and become an important player virtually overnight. Many assumed he was paying for police protection. He wasn’t. On the contrary, Chief Parker had instructed the intelligence division in no uncertain terms that he wanted “this son of a bitch in jail.”

So the intelligence division sent a man disguised as a termite inspector into the building housing Cahan’s accountants to install a dictograph. The recordings secured a conviction, and Cahan was fined $2,000, sentenced to nine days in prison, and given a five-year-probation. Cahan appealed the decision. An appeals court rejected it, but when Cahan took his case to the California Supreme Court, it was accepted. A narrow 4-3 majority threw out Cahan’s conviction.

“We have been compelled to [void the conviction and impose new evidentiary guidelines] because other remedies have completely failed to secure compliance with constitutional provisions on the part of police officers,” wrote Justice Roger Traynor in the majority opinion. He continued, “The courts under the old rule have been constantly required to participate in, and in effect condone, the lawless activities of law enforcement.”

Traynor served notice that such practices were now coming to an end. The court struck down a California law that allowed courts to accept evidence, regardless of the manner in which it was obtained. Henceforth evidence improperly acquired would be thrown out—period. This was a fairly extreme remedy. Few other states imposed the exclusionary rule in such a blanket fashion. But the court insisted that the stakes justified such a draconian remedy.

“Today one of the foremost concerns is the police state,” declared Justice Traynor bluntly. “Recent history has demonstrated all too clearly how short the step is from lawless although efficient enforcement of the law to the stamping out of human rights.”

Parker’s reaction was apoplectic. He described the ruling as “a terrible blow to efficient law enforcement” and warned that the decision “will probably set law enforcement back fifty years.”

“The positive implication drawn from the
Cahan
case is that activities of the police are a greater social menace than are the activities of the criminal,” he told the press. “This, even as a suggestion, is terrifying.” State assistant attorney general Clarence Linn agreed, calling the ruling “the Magna Carta of the criminal.” In a meeting with the
Mirror
, the chief revealed that in the month following the
Cahan
decision, arrests had plummeted across the board: bookmaking arrests, down 42 percent; narcotics, down 38
percent; weapons, down 20 percent. A headline in the
Mirror-News
captured the chief’s sentiments perfectly: “Criminals Laugh at L.A. Police, Says Chief. Underworld Rejoices in Ruling.”

Cahan
offended Parker on many levels. As an attorney, he believed the ruling was ill considered and flew in the face of the doctrine of
stare decisis
, which held that courts should generally stand by earlier decisions. As a lawman, he found it insulting. But the new restrictions imposed by the courts on the police also worried Parker for a more immediate reason. For on October 9, 1955, after three years, eight months, and sixteen days in the joint, Mickey Cohen walked out of prison a free man.

WHEN MICKEY COHEN stepped off the ferry from McNeil Island at the little town of Steilacoom, near Tacoma, the press was waiting. Mickey didn’t seem surprised. Even after three years in prison, he accepted press attention as his due. In fact, Cohen seemed more relaxed—and more chatty—than ever before. When asked what his next plans were, Mickey indicated that he was leaning toward opening a bar and grill, “maybe in Beverly Hills or the Miracle Mile”—this despite the fact that Cohen still owed Uncle Sam $156,123. In fact, he told the assembled press, he and a few partners had already hired an architect to draw up plans. The news was instantly telegraphed to L.A., where official reaction was not long in coming.

“There is not a chance that anyone with Cohen’s record would be given a liquor license,” declared Phil Davis, the Southern California liquor administrator for the state board of equalization. “I can’t say he would be very welcome in Beverly Hills,” agreed Beverly Hills police chief Clinton Anderson. The Los Angeles City Council voted en masse against a liquor license for Cohen, despite the fact that the city council had no say in such matters. As for Chief Parker, he suspected that Mickey’s restaurant was nothing but a sham. When a reporter asked the chief if Parker had any plans to put Cohen under surveillance, he replied tersely, “The German army didn’t come over and tell their plans to the Allies.”

When talking to the press, Cohen projected a jaunty self-confidence. But to those who knew him well, Mickey seemed changed. Despite his long history of violence, both in the ring and on the street, he appeared to have been badly shaken by his experiences in prison.

“When I was on the Island, I saw things I couldn’t believe myself. And
I thought I’d seen everything,” Mickey said later. One night in particular had driven home the brutality and indifference of prison authorities: