Document: 422 U.S. 332 95 S.Ct. 2281. 45 L.Ed.2d 223 Cecil HICKS, District Attorney of the County Orange, State California, et al., Appellants,v.Vincent MIRANDA, dba Walnut Properties, al. No. 74—156. Argued March 24, 1975. Decided June Syllabus After police, pursuant to four separate warrants, had seized copies an allegedly obscene film from appellees' theater, misdemeanor charges were filed in Municipal Court against two theater employees, and California Superior ordered appellees show cause why should not be declared obscene. Subsequently, all that might found at theater. Rather than appealing this order, suit Federal appellant police officers prosecuting attorneys, seeking injunction enforcement obscenity statute for return film, a judgment declaring unconstitutional. A three-judge court was then convened consider constitutionality statute. Meanwhile, added as parties defendant criminal proceeding. Thereafter, unconstitutional, rejected appellants' claim Younger v. Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669, Samuels Mackell, 66, 764, 688, required dismissal case, holding no pending state any event pattern search warrants seizures showed bad faith harassment on authorities' part. The denied motions rehearing relief judgment, based, inter alia, Court's intervening 'for want substantial federal question' appeal Miller 418 915, 94 3206, 41 1158 (Miller II), sustaining statute; reaffirmed its Harris ruling; and, after concluding it bound by II, supra, adhered although amended so require appellants seek three possession. Held: 1. This has jurisdiction over under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, injunction, well declaratory are properly before Court. Pp. 342-348. (a) Although constitutional issues presented II insubstantial Court, could considered decided otherwise did dissolved circumstances. Since only challenged but also sought enjoin warrant statutes (necessarily grounds) insofar they applied permit multiple since nothing do with issue validity seizures, remained case have session it. 343-346. (b) requiring possession, plainly interfered prosecution statute, hence reserved 347-348. 2. erred reaching merits despite insistence dismissed Mackell. 348-352. Where proceedings begun plaintiffs complaint is substance taken place court, principles apply full force. Here, charged prior answering been motion absent satisfactory proof those extraordinary circumstances warranting one exceptions rule related cases. 348-350. Absent least some effort impeach officials' entitlement rely repeated judicial authorization official made out, otherwise. 350-352. D.C., 388 F.Supp. 350, reversed. Oretta D. Sears, Fullerton, Cal., Arlo E. Smith, San Francisco, appellants. Stanley Fleishman, Hollywood, Sam Rosenwein, Studio City, appellees. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion 1 poses 669 (1971); 688 (1971), cases, preliminary question our direct 2 * On November 23 1973, issued seriatim, 'Deep Throat,' each which shown Pussycat Theatre Buena Park, Orange County, Cal.1 26 eight-count charge employees being subject matter counts complaint. Also 26, appellees2 Throat' obscene, immediate hearing available appellees, who appeared day, objected state-law grounds court's conduct such proceeding, purported 'reserve' questions, refused further participate. Thereupon, held hearing, viewed took evidence, movie order appealed appellees.3 3 Instead, 29, appellants—four Park Assistant County. recited stated action prayed ordering permitting films duplicated return. 4 temporary restraining requested denied, Judge finding irreparable injury lacking insufficient likelihood prevailing injunction.4 He convening however, Such designated January 8, 1974.5 5 Service completed 14, 1974, answers dismiss, summary Appellees moved injunction.6 None granted hearings held, submitted briefs affidavits. General urged follow People Enskat, 33 Cal.App.3d 900, 109 Cal.Rptr. 433 (1973), Oct. 1973), which, 413 15, 93 2607, 37 419 (1973) I), upheld 6 naming appellees7 additional adding conspiracy counts, relating films. Also, defendants suppressed ground seizing last issued, other sufficiently allege differed previously seized, final said invalid seizures.8 Immediately later reversed, defense stipulated purposes trial, expected forthcoming, prints would identical copy proved trial.9 7 4, unconstitutional failure satisfy requirements I refrain making seizures. Appellants' rejected, demonstrated part authorities, relieved strictures 8 Appellants various rehearing, amend calling attention developments important: First, July 25, Appellate Department, very unconstitutional; second, reversal suppression per curiam citing Aday 55 Cal.2d 789, 13 415, 362 P.2d 47 (1961), saying 'requisite prompt adversary determination Heller New York . held.'10 9 September 30, motions, ruling Constitution. In response without power comply possession injunctive portion read follows: 10 'The shall good petition North Judicial City Park.' 11 Appeals both 30. We postponed consideration case. 1018, 491, 42 291 (1974).11 12 deal first questions about 1253.12 At outset, concededly court. Appellees' asserted much now contend otherwise.13 Furthermore, seized. aborted prosecution, within meaning 1253 appealable here. jurisdictional arise events occurred subsequent Juen 4. emerges II. claimed here, binding sustain dismiss If correct position, arises whether removed necessity Bailey Patterson, 369 31, 82 549, 512 (1962), appellate evaporate. 14 agree error disregard decision That upholding attack. presented, 1257(2), we discretion refuse adjudication true brought here certiorari jurisdiction. obligated grant plenary consideration, not; merits. because challenge one. free pronouncement. As Brennan once observed, '(v)otes affirm summarily, question, hardly needs comment, votes .,' Ohio ex rel. Eaton Price, 360 246, 247, 79 978, 979, 1200 (1959); cf. R. Stern & Gressman, Supreme Practice, 197 (4th ed. 1969) ('The is, deciding merits, when dismisses .'); C. Wright, Law Courts 495 (2d 1970) ('Summary disposition appeal, either affirmance or merits'). followed Second Circuit's advice, first, Port Authority Bondholders Protective Committee Authority, 387 F.2d 259, 263 n. (1967), 'unless until instruct otherwise, inferior courts best adhere view if branded unsubstantial, remains except doctrinal indicate otherwise'; later, Doe Hodgson, 478 537, 539, cert. sub nom. Brennan, 414 1096, 732, 38 555 lower decisions "until time informs (them) (they) not." 15 cannot conclude case.14 Appellees, statutes, Penal Code §§ 1523—1542 (1970 Supp.1975), applied, contrary York, 483, 2789, 745 application aim quite express. returned. Its conclusion extent modified. wholly independent statutes. issue—the validity, light Heller, statutes—remained dismissal. Indeed, based unconstitutionality necessarily grounds.15 With session, did, dealt presented. issue, Part III, correctly decided. B 16 (1) Gonzalez Automatic Employees Credit Union, 90, 289, 249 (1974), MTM, Inc. Baxley, 420 799, 1278, 43 636 (1975), injunctions directly alone may (2) finally 30 Even premise correct, see Philbrook Glodgett, 421 707, 712—713, 1893, 1898, 44 525 entered appealable. Not nine still Return prohibit their use evidence would, furthermore, prevent retention probable destruction contraband prevail Plainly, rested grounds. Aside articulated basis assuming authority effect negate Department upheld, seizable.16 opinion, think, thesis express: 17 gravamen defendants' justification course, property contraband, fruit illegal activity. justification, dissipates face declaration invalid.' 18 accordingly underlying it, III 19 committed (1971). When complaint, name; belonging seizable stake proceedings, relief, demanding void returned them. Obviously, interests intertwineds pointed interfere prosecution. clear showing whose lawyers represented claims there, avoided date filed. designed 'permit try cases interference courts,' id., U.S., 43, S.Ct., 750, particularly where party fully litigate his '(t)he same comity considerations apply,' Allee Medrano, 416 802, 831, 2191, 2208, 40 566 (Burger, J., concurring), some, 20 What more, day following completion service along Neither Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 1209, 39 505 nor apply, must left open;17 hold whatsoever Unless trivialize into play limited cases.18 21 concluded form faith, error. relevant findings vague conclusory.19 There references 'pattern seizure' 'the rehearing'; unexplicated drawn 'regardless nature proceeding,' bent banishing Park. Yet step condemned authorized order; purport invalidate way propriety Court,20 even mention officials conduct, out. more law.21 22 analysis, seems us rests almost entirely unenforceable. But conclusion, entitled infer merely it—the Court—disagreed Enskat. Otherwise, present every ruled swallowed up exception. reverse judgment. So ordered. 24 Judgment 25 Chief BURGER, concurring. join add word composition convened. Under 2284(1) district judge whom notifies chief need convene 'shall constitute member court.' It settled 'shall' means 'must,' Merced Rosa Herrero, 423 591, 593 (CA1, 1970), yet called named panel. However, timely objection Ante, 338 5. Obviously occasions can rendering impossible initiates serve but, unqualified mandatory language occurs there obligation record reveal, least, statement accounting substitution. STEWART, DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, MARSHALL join, dissenting. many aspects seem me open serious challenge. dissent, directed holds .' 29 505, unanimously equity, comity, federalism embodied preclude entertaining declare threatened Today inoperative point commencement 'before 349. Any rule, says 'trivialize' Harris. think 'trivializes' Steffel, just Term, inconsistent federalism.1 sure, something unseemly having applicability doctrine turn solely outcome race courthouse. adopts today, does eliminate race; permits leave mark run shorter arrive finish line. result evaluate commenced. 31 invoked situation, upon vindicate rights remedy plaintiff. recognized counsel stay hand. Thus, Lake Carriers' Assn. MacMullan, 406 498, 92 1749, 32 257, noted 'considerations equity practice system little force absence proceeding.' Id., 509. And unanimous explained balance way: 'When proceeding filed, intervention duplicative legal disruption justice system; intervention, circumstance, interpreted reflecting negatively ability enforce principles. addition, while provides plaintiff concrete opportunity rights, refusal intervene hapless between Scylla intentionally flouting law Charybdis forgoing he believes constitutionally protected activity avoid becoming enmeshed 462, 1217. Consequently, '(r)equiring totally aside head.' 472, 1222. circumstances, forum, Declaratory Act, becomes paramount.' Ellis Dyson, 426, 432, 1691, 1695, 274. See Huffman Pursue, Ltd., 592, 602—603, 1200, 1207, 482. 34 duty adjudicate shared courts, doubt primary powerful reliances vindicating right given Constitution, laws, treaties United States.' F. Frankfurter J. Landis, Business Court: Study System 65 (1927). brought, 1983, established role Government guarantor basic power.' Mitchum Foster, 407 225, 239, 2151, 2160, 705. purpose 1983 interpose States people.' 242, 2162. Zwickler Koota, 389 241, 245, 248, 88 391, 393, 395, 444; McNeese Board Education, 373 668, 84 1433, 622; Monroe Pape, 365 167, 81 473, 492. central interest implicated moment invoked. How, then, filing change situation 'would head' principles? 35 vital law, again will sanction important function. E.g., Kugler Helfant, 117, 1524, 15. requires hand during pendency litigation. If, efficiency, wishes actively suit, may, so. make choice. 36 goes simply recognizing proceed orderly administration law; ousts historic 'primary reliances' freedoms. less offensive 'Our Federalism' concept 'sensitivity legitimate National Governments.' 44, 750 (emphasis added). companion reflect judiciary interfering functioning courts. surely converse principle valid. new creates reality few prosecutors ignore. invitation institute defeat jurisdiction.2 One impugn motives suppose rather prosecute defend civil forum. Today's virtually instructs answer complaints indictments. Today, file secure litigation; perhaps tomorrow 'akin proceeding' purpose, 482; far off do. reflects accommodation competing interests. announced today distorts beyond recognition. viewing judge. third version showing. affidavits witnessed exhibition film. Each indicated respects different print them, officer October successive Riverside Cal. involved (1973). decision, authorities seizure city. ran Vincent Miranda, Theater, Inc., employees. Actually, owned land theatre located, business Hollywood corporation Miranda president stockholder. Nothing confusion identification. apparent pursuing remedies illuminated course colloquy Ferguson described infra, 340, actions 'THE COURT: Have you Appeals? 'MR. BROWN: No, not. Why not? Because, your Honor, initially back occurred, Complaint bases alleged deprivation plaintiff's Constitutional virtue these beginning violative clearly, asked give specific inception action, fact. Once press Courts. Well, how go halfway way? Your documents stating reserving England knew may—we mind trap set litigant intent Civil Rights Act Yes, told August 2nd kind motion— again, Honor— Let finish. '—to McMillan's reference request my simple shouldn't don't fit proper permitted eradicate deficiencies occur courts? All right. take Court? you. done invoke understand My haven't forum say exist? unsettled question— to. Is answer? That's correct. question. right.' Lydick, Judge, assigned initial disqualification Ferguson, ruling. His 'failed damage, lack adequate needed justify issuance (the defendants) disobey orders state) restrain lawful statute.' insists U.S.C 2284, providing member' Lydick members. deem requirement jurisdictional, however; though appointing early objections never raised time, too late. 311 seq. Supp.1975). Sections Chapter 'Of Search Warrants.' sections provide issuance, service, warrants. 2, supra. referring speak amendment 'include' names 'appellees.' Brief 43. different, effect, policy seize unless versions exhibited. expressly different. stipulation others. returned, appealed, page. meanwhile resumed Soon 27, Throat.' Seizures Devil Miss Jones.' show-cause sitting single judge, declined contempt failing covered oral was: You argue more. Brown comes arguing 1973 reconsider. An circulating among Three absurd 'Now, returning films, find that, either, primarily submission outstanding compliance. Order Show Cause vacated.' Title 2284(3) (5) forbid interlocutory three-judge-court status Ferguson's Because insist notices enter order. Some better issue. us. Section provides: 'Except provided granting denying, notice permanent Congress heard determined judges.' 2281 certain circumstances: 'An enforcement, operation execution administrative board commission acting thereof therefor judges section 2284 title.' local defendants, enforcing statewide 1253. Spielman Motor Co. Dodge, 295 89, 95, 678, 679—681, L.Ed. 1322 (1935). Of decisive controlling precedent. itself dismissals appeals task ascertain what substance. Ascertaining reach content real substance, stake, undertaking Whether decide. sustained massive books trial. First Amendment prior-restraint claim, 'contraband' noting allowed interim 'prevent frustration condemnation matter.' Later e.g., Quantity Books Kansas, 378 205, 1723, 809 (1964), undermined State, block 'distribution exhibition,' 492, 2794, them greater quantities necessary proceedings. reversing 340—341, mean effected valid determine remove nevertheless not, pass views expressed therein. counsel, deemed proved. agreement successfully said, Justices thought Perez Ledesma, 82, 117 9, 674, 693, 701 (1971) (Brennan, joined White Marshall, JJ., concurring dissenting). decide pending. respect easily avoided. like sometimes minds. Moreover, Enskat intermediate event, adverse stated: 'Finally, objective facts forth clearly demonstrate intervention. editorializing purpose. sufficient note plaintiffs' cash receipts demonstrate(s) regardless effectively exorcise out supplemental '(T)he serves strengthen previous harassment,' observing explanation offered instituting '(w)ithout reasonable institution retaliation attempt judicially 482 foreclose resort bringing exception assert, seemingly 3, pursue further. ourselves intimate were, unauthorized law. difficulty precise apparent. 'proceedings merits'? Presumably, 'on merits' 'of substance.' Does mean, months discovery insufficient, time? unclear. assessment success six supporting 1973. responded December own documents. 28, 'have failed order.' These implicitly, test announces. be, terms mystery. weeks oppose effected, supply justification' harassment. 'that

Category: 8