Dragnet S04E09 Burglary Auto Courtroom

[@frankdenardo8684]

The district attorney was played by Lew Brown. He appeared on several Dragnet episodes and on The FBI he was SAC Al Bennett. He also appeared in other movies and TV shows. Olan Soalé was frequently seen playing doctors, lab technicians and on this one he was a judge.

[@james-p]

Wow, back in the days when they'd actually send detectives out for a car break-in.

[@johnstudd4245]

And got the police dpmt lab involved also, and an actual trial. Now days they might make a report, and tell you "this kind of stuff happens".

[@jacklnu1614]

You need to have all your witnesses ready when the trial starts.

[@scarletmacaw]

I always love it when the “bad guys” win.

[@ronwade2206]

Damn, almost five minutes of court before Lunch!

[@lilajagears8317]

I noticed the same thing.

[@Mr_Oggie]

I hope those three didn't have Belanzi whacked on his drive back just so they could skate on a small time theft...

[@hifijohn]

From the manager of the Mayberry Hotel to a judge.Also one of the lawyers was the fake ranger in another episode.

[@jimmy66406]

I think that parking lot attendant didn't show on the purpose of someone got to him

[@fjccommish]

Yes, that's the impression I had. He was paid off.

[@Andrevas1975]

The court officer no longer says All Rise and Face the flag. Now it's All rise and come to order the Honorable ....

[@DateTwoRelate]

First this CA state's attorney then Marsha Clark. )

[@chrismayer3919]

Alas, alleged criminals can and sometimes DO get away with something… unfortunately, crime occasionally pays 🤷‍♂️

[@josephfinnegan151]

22,622 View's So Far: Dragnet: Episode 81. Season 4. Episode 9. "Burglary Auto: Courtroom". Monday, June 19 - 2023.

[@francesvandeburgt4173]

You can be grateful for the fact that six months later one of the suspects got caught for burglary.

[@winstonsmith3696]

Did the defendants get the radios that were seized? If so, that's a double win

[@thebrinx9632]

I wondered that very same point.

[@shirtless6934]

Without a jury all the objections are silly.

[@robertschumann7737]

The glaring problem with this episode is the court would have established probable cause long before it ever went to trial. No way they let 3 defendants languish out on bail for months without something as simple as probable cause being established early on. Most jurisdictions combine a probable cause hearing with bail/bond at first appearance.

[@Kenwood1990]

Enjoy these videos.

[@QuadMochaMatti]

OK, I will, if you insist. 😆

[@titancoach15]

Ray Murray changed his name is now a judge

[@kevinhealey6540]

22:20 It looks like in the actual case that it's based on, the judge was paid off.

[@belmarmom]

When the dentist took the oath the bailiff didn't raise his right hand. They also didn't use a Bible.

[@robertdesantis6205]

Apparently adobe homes and mesquite are less preferable to the mess that's there today.

[@purplevanman9635]

It takes a special kind of person to defend someone whom they know is guilty.

[@chrismetafora6565]

Martin Vail will

[@shirtless6934]

It is not obvious to me that the defendants were guilty. Jack Webb may have been a stickler for detail on police procedure, but this episode comes up short on courtroom procedure. The issue of probable cause would have been determined at the preliminary hearing, not at trial. This is a trial, as evidenced by the waiver of jury trial. There is no jury at a preliminary hearing. Did the People have probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that these defendants committed it? I am not persuaded. It would have been interesting to know that to which the missing witness would have testified. As it is, we have Friday and Gannon out looking for an automobile. Probably lots like it on the road. There is no mention of having a license plate number or other characteristic that would have distinguished the car from all the others on the road. Friday and Gannon stop a car because it fails to come to a complete stop before turning right on red? Every car on the road could be stopped on that pretext. Okay, the occupants of the car are acting a bit funky, but all we have is the testimony of the People’s lug wrench expert who says that lug wrench, or one just like it, was used in the crime. One just like it? Aren’t all lug wrenches more or less alike, at least for that type of car? I do not think there was probable cause to stop the car, and everything that followed was inadmissible. Thus, there is no probable cause. Joe Friday is doing better in the 1967-1970 episodes though. Back in the 1950s, a jury found one of his suspects not guilty. Friday was sure the defendant was guilty, so he broke into the house and sprinkled tracking powder, and they caught the defendant that way. Before 1955, California had no prohibition on admitting evidence that was illegally seized or illegally obtained. Come the Warren Court and the 1960s, though, things were different.

[@shirtless6934]

14:35 I am told a certain type of car is involved. I see such a car. I am to ignore it?

[@robertschumann7737]

Depends. If you are told a white car with 4 wheels and a steering wheel just robbed a bank can you pull over every white car you see? There has to be something identifying the car as being unique to give you justification to pull them over. It doesn't have to be extremely specific just enough to give you reasonable suspicion that the exact car in front of you is the one you are looking for. A good example would be a white car with a large antenna on the roof with a black bumper sticker. You could reasonably pull over a white car with no antenna and a dark blue bumper sticker. The antenna could have been removed and the witness was mistaken in the color of the bumper sticker.

[@user-km3rm7hl5p]

This episode really sucked! What a waste of time! Only one set used, probably no budget left. 🙄