Title: Ex Parte Felton

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

526 So. 2d 638 (1988)
Ex parte Robert E. FELTON.
(Re: Robert E. Felton
v.
State).
86-847.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 8, 1988.
Rehearing Denied May 20, 1988.
*639 Ferris S. Ritchey, Jr., of Ritchey & Ritchey, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G.L. Marston III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
MADDOX, Justice.
This Court granted certiorari in this case to review the following question: Does a person have a constitutional right to possess child pornography in the privacy of his own home?
Petitioner, Robert E. Felton, was indicted for possession of child pornography. Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-12-192(b). Based upon his plea of guiltythat he did knowingly possess a film entitled "Teen Foreign," admittedly obscene matter as described in § 13A-12-192(b)Felton was sentenced to imprisonment for six years.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals and that Court affirmed. Felton v. State, 526 So. 2d 635 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987).
We have carefully reviewed petitioner's constitutional challenge to Alabama's Child Pornography Statute, and we have given special attention to his argument that this case is controlled by Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S. Ct. 1243, 22 L. Ed. 2d 542 (1969), wherein the United States Supreme Court held "that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a crime." 394 U.S.  at 568, 89 S. Ct.  at 1249. In our opinion, Stanley is not controlling, because Stanley did not deal with the right of a state to criminalize the private possession of child pornography.
As pointed out in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in State v. Meadows, 28 Ohio St.3d 43, 503 N.E.2d 697 (1986), was confronted with the same issue presented here; that court held that an Ohio statute, which criminalized the knowing, private possession of materials that showed a minor participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation, or bestiality, did not violate the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as made applicable to the states by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Meadows, Chief Justice Celebrezze, writing for a majority of the Court, stated:
The court then discussed the holding in Stanley, and the holdings of cases decided after Stanley. The court then wrote:
The Supreme Court of the United States refused to review the decision of Ohio Supreme Court in the Meadows case. Meadows v. Ohio, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S. Ct. 1581, 94 L. Ed. 2d 771 (1987). Other state courts have also held that a state has a right to control the private possession of material that is classified as child pornography. See In re Duncan, 189 Cal. App. 3d 1348, 234 Cal. Rptr. 877 (1987); State v. Lodge, 42 Wash. App. 380, 711 P.2d 1078 (1985); contra, Delaware v. Dittie, [Cr.A. IN86-05-0043] (Del.Super.) [Available on WESTLAW, 1987 WL 8698], affirmed, 528 A.2d 875 (Del.1985). Commonwealth v. Oakes, 401 Mass. 602, 518 N.E.2d 836 (1988).
Based upon the reasoning in Meadows, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is due to be affirmed. The state's interest in protecting the privacy, health, emotional welfare, and well-rounded growth of its citizens who are "under the age of 17 years," § 13-12-192(b), together with its interest in safeguarding the future of society as a whole, are the type of "compelling reasons" justifying a "`very limited' First Amendment intrusion envisioned by the Stanley Court." Meadows, supra.
Having addressed petitioner's constitutional claim, and having found no merit in it, we now address petitioner's contention that the search and seizure made at his *642 residence violated rights guaranteed to him under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. We have reviewed petitioner's arguments, and have considered them, but we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is also due to be affirmed as to the search and seizure issue.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, ALMON, SHORES, BEATTY, ADAMS, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.