Document: 388 U.S. 431 87 S.Ct. 2098 18 L.Ed.2d 1294 Kenneth JACOBS et al.v.NEW YORK. No. 660. Supreme Court of the United States June 12, 1967 Emile Z. Berman, for appellants. Frank S. Hogan, appellee. Edward De Grazia and John R. Kramer, National Students Association, as amicus curiae. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion to dismiss is granted appeal dismissed moot. 2 Mr. Chief Justice WARREN, dissenting. 3 I dissent from Court's dismissal this These appellants were convicted by a three-judge bench Criminal New York City violating § 1141 Penal Law York, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 40, which provides in pertinent part: 4 '1. A person who sells, lends, gives away, distributes, shows or transmutes * any obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent, sadistic, masochistic picture film may not require mechanical other means be transmuted into auditory, visual sensory representations such character. 5 '2. Is guilty misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall sentenced less than ten days nor more one year imprisonment *.' 6 On August 7, 1964, Jacobs Mekas 60 Workhouse with execution sentence suspended. Appellant Karpf received suspended sentence. 7 In dismissing mootness, apparently bases action fact that under law, maximum time during could have had their sentences revoked replaced prison was date original sentences. N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. 470-a. State argues moot because has run are no present threat imprisonment. Moreover, contends neither law federal imposes further penalty conviction misdemeanor involved case. 8 BRENNAN would affirm judgment lower court. 9 FORTAS reverse 10 cannot accept argument. practical result willingness insulate convictions laws raising constitutional questions review on merits simple expedient where limit imposition an executed short enough before can taken Court. thus keep continual without objections his continued series By single brought Court, defendant's jeopardy particular concluded. However, defendant still oppressed subsequent themselves unreviewable bring case agree commands Constitution easily States. power, exercised restraint, weapon might some cases used suppress constitutionally protected conduct. After been statute limits right expression, conduct will significantly chilled record. Particularly where, case, stem directly line appellants' profession movie exhibitors, they justifably fear future running danger infringing harshly treated previous unreviewed conviction. Who doubt judge's reaction another colored prior conviction? For example, these argue ths should demonstrates good-faith belief exhibiting obscene material. They felt even if state judge did argument based good faith, he at least give most lenient once unable constitutionality passed situation radically different. Even engaging what finally determine conduct, likely order basis assumed validity When we dealing First Amendment freedoms, freedoms held breathing space survive, see Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 254, 84 710, 11 686 (1964), NAACP Button, 371 415, 83 328, 405 (1963), extremely slow mootness doctrines grant power modes expression. believe straining doctrine doing so bypassing important obscenity area obligation decide. presented opportunity injecting clarity problem constitutes obscenity, become increasingly muddled difficult courts legislatures understand since first defined reach Roth States, 354 476, 77 1304, 1498 (1957). easy, but am sure it our duty grapple them country understandable statement how far restricts legislative attempts control Similarly, dismisses 993, Tannenbaum 439, 2107, 1300, jail fine paid. That raises question never addressed 'variable obscenity' restrict sale materials minors definitions drawn expressly mind. While do express view question, think great importance Nation, responsibility elaborate scope meaning Amendment, note jurisdiction hear merits. similar strained conception resulting failure decision recalls avoidance per curiam Parker Ellis, 362 574, 80 909, 963 (1960). expressed reaffirm here, decide, avoid, concretely litigants having adverse interest. If Congress intended discretionary all cases, differentiated statutes defining appellate between appeals writs certiorari. 12 As DOUGLAS points out there additional reasons why deemed Appellants' equipment seized police arrests. Of course, convicted, reversed, entitled return property. hand, leaves unchallenged, subject forfeiture. N. Y. 1141-c, N.Y.Cod C rim.Proc. 22-a. Thus, clear pecuniary interest outcome appeal. Appellants also point likelihood impair ability secure license operate theater. Under Administrative Code establishes comprehensive system licensing procedures, Department Licenses charged assuring theatres offensive 'public morals.' B32-26.0. surely affect procure exhibit pictures future. 13 Since moot, must consider satisfied affirmed. standards set (1957), within protections Amendment. We formulated test being whether material utterly social value, went substantially beyond customary candor representing sexual matters, 'to average person, applying contemporary community standards, dominant theme whole prurient interest.' Id., 489, p. 1311. This falls outside range expression according criteria Roth. 14 given, convictions. 15 DOUGLAS, 16 here two State's statutes. 660, showing allegedly picture. given imposed now passed. appellant selling magazine 18. He 30 fined $100. paid issues substantial. Nonetheless, longer custody 993 believes commanded cases. disagree. 17 expressive need antagonistic parties whose vigorous sharpen issues. It part 'case controversy' requirement Article III. St. Pierre 319 41, 42, 63 910, L.Ed. 1199. But rigid defeat substantial rights, inflexible prevent facing serious questions. service does render allowed stand, collateral disabilities loss civil rights. Fiswick 329 211, 67 224, 91 196; Morgan, 346 502, 74 247, 98 248. Over over again stressed rights 'breathing survive' (NAACP 433, 405); watchful lest coercive measures exercise terrorem effect intimidates people exercising See, e.g., Speiser Randall, 357 513, 78 1332, 1460; supra; Keyishian Board Regents, 385 589, 675, 629. mindful '[t]he sanctions deter almost potently actual application sanctions.' supra, 338. Accordng ly, modified traditional rules standing prematurity fit peculiarities necessary ensure adequate protection See Dombrowski Pfister, 380 479, 85 1116, 22. 19 denying served obvious. Sentences violations often generally short. those obtain ultimate convictions, merely shortness slowness judicial process, many choose comply invalid statute. Many steer wide refrain stifled. practice shown exist, its publishers certainly sufficiently declaratory relief. Its publisher actually harsh impact obvious continuing deterrent him becoming 20 conclusion proceeding recover possession equipment. along holding department licenses suspend theater ground pictures. Perhaps relitigate film's proceedings. is, matter law. correct, entail sufficient consequences distinguish Morgan 21 loom large setting briefed argued.

Category: 8