Source: http://openjurist.org/print/33227
Timestamp: 2014-03-10 12:11:29
Document Index: 341479096

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1257', '§ 34', '§ 34', '§ 34', '§ 35', '§ 1257', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', 'in fine', '§ 35', '§ 35']

489 US 46 Fort Wayne Books Inc v. Indiana W Sappenfield
489 US 46 Fort Wayne Books Inc v. Indiana W Sappenfield 489 U.S. 46
109 S.Ct. 916
103 L.Ed.2d 34
FORT WAYNE BOOKS, INC., Petitionerv.INDIANA et al. Ronald W. SAPPENFIELD, et al., Petitioners v. INDIANA.
Nos. 87-470, 87-614.
1. This Court has jurisdiction to hear No. 87-614. Under the general rule defining finality in the context of a criminal prosecution by a judgment of conviction and the imposition of a sentence, this Court would usually conclude that since neither a conviction nor sentence was present here, the judgment below was not final and hence not reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1257, which limits review to "[f]inal judgments or decrees." But the case merits review under the exception to the general finality rule recognized in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 482-483, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-1040, 43 L.Ed.2d 328, "[w]here the federal issue has been finally decided in the state courts with further proceedings pending in which the party seeking review here might prevail on the merits on nonfederal grounds, thus rendering unnecessary review of the federal issue by this Court, and where reversal of the state court on the federal issue would be preclusive of any further litigation on the relevant cause of action." Petitioner could well prevail on nonfederal grounds at a subsequent trial, and reversal of the Indiana Court of Appeals' holding would bar further prosecution on the RICO charges. Moreover, the case clearly involves a First Amendment challenge to the Indiana RICO statute's facial validity. Adjudicating the proper scope of First Amendment protection is a "federal policy" that merits application of an exception to the general finality rule. Resolution of the important issue of the possible limits the First Amendment places on state and federal efforts to control organized crime should not remain in doubt. Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U.S. 619, 101 S.Ct. 1958, 68 L.Ed.2d 489, distinguished. Pp. 54-57.
(a) The RICO statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to obscenity predicate offenses. The "racketeering activities" that the statute forbids are a "pattern" of multiple violations of certain substantive crimes, of which distributing obscenity is one. Given that the RICO statute totally encompasses the obscenity law, if the latter is not unconstitutionally vague, the former cannot be vague either. Petitioner in No. 87-614 cannot be convicted of violating the RICO statute without first being "found guilty" of distributing, or of attempting or conspiring to distribute, obscene materials. To argue, as petitioner does, that the "inherent vagueness" of the obscenity standards established by Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419, are at the root of his objection to any RICO prosecution based on predicate acts of obscenity is nothing less than an invitation to overturn Miller—an invitation that this Court rejects. That the punishments available in a RICO prosecution are different from those for obscenity violations does not render the RICO statute void for vagueness. Pp. 57-58.
(b) While the RICO punishments are greater than those for obscenity violations, there is no constitutionally significant difference between them. The stiffer RICO punishments may provide an additional deterrent to those who might otherwise sell obscene materials and may result in some booksellers practicing self-censorship and removing First Amendment protected materials from their shelves. But deterrence of the sale of obscene materials is a legitimate end of state obscenity laws, and the mere assertion of some possible self-censorship resulting from a statute is not enough to render an antiobscenity law unconstitutional. Petitioner's contention in No. 87-614 that the civil sanctions available under the CRRA against RICO violations are so severe as to render the RICO statute itself unconstitutional is not ripe, since the State has not sought any civil penalties. Pp. 59-60.
3. The pretrial seizure of petitioner's bookstore and its contents in No. 87-470 was improper. While a single copy of a book or film may be seized and retained for evidentiary purposes based on a finding of probable cause, books or films may not be taken out of circulation completely until there has been a determination of obscenity after an adversary hearing. The risk of prior restraint, which is the underlying basis for the special Fourth Amendment protection accorded searches for, and seizures of, First Amendment materials, renders invalid the pretrial seizure here. Even assuming that petitioner's bookstore and its contents are forfeitable when it is proved that they were used in, or derived from, a pattern of violations of the state obscenity laws, the seizure was unconstitutional. Probable cause to believe that there are valid grounds for seizure is insufficient to interrupt the sale of presumptively protected books and films. Here, there was no determination that the seized items were "obscene" or that a RICO violation had occurred. The petition for seizure and the hearing thereon were aimed at establishing no more than probable cause to believe that a RICO violation had occurred, and the seizure order recited no more than probable cause in that respect. Mere probable cause to believe a violation has transpired is not adequate to remove books or film from circulation. The elements of a RICO violation other than the predicate crimes remain to be established in this case. Where the claimed RICO violation is a pattern of racketeering that can be established only by rebutting the presumption that expressive materials are protected by the First Amendment, that presumption is not rebutted until the claimed justification for seizing such materials is properly established in an adversary proceeding. Pp. 62-67.
No. 87-470, 504 N.E.2d 559, reversed and remanded; No. 87-614, 505 N.E.2d 504, affirmed and remanded.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in Part I of which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined, in Part II-A of which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BRENNAN, STEVENS, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined, in Parts II-B and II-C of which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BLACKMUN, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined, and in Part III of which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 68. O'CONNOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 68. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion dissenting in No. 87-614 and concurring in part and dissenting in part in No. 87-470, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 70.
Stephen Goldsmith, Indianapolis, Ind., for respondents.
* The two causes before us arise from wholly unrelated incidents.
* Petitioner in No. 87-470, Fort Wayne Books, Inc., and two other corporations1 each operated an "adult bookstore" in Fort Wayne, Indiana. On March 19, 1984, the State of Indiana and a local prosecutor, respondents here, filed a civil action against the three corporations and certain of their em-
Justice BRENNAN joins only Parts I, II-A and III of this opinion, and Justice STEVENS joins only Parts I and II-A. ployees alleging that defendants had engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by repeatedly violating the state laws barring the distribution of obscene books and films, thereby violating the State's RICO law.2 The complaint recited 39 criminal convictions for selling obscene publications from the three stores. App. 9-37. It was also alleged that there were currently other obscene materials available for sale in the stores. Id., at 37-44. The proceeds from the sales of obscene materials, it was alleged, were being used to operate and maintain the bookstores. Respondents sought civil injunctive relief to bar further racketeering violations, invoking the State's CRRA statute, Ind.Code. § 34-4-30.5-1 et seq. (1988). Among the remedies requested in the complaint was forfeiture of all of Fort Wayne Books' property, real and personal, that "was used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through" petitioner's "racketeering activity." App. 47. Such forfeiture is authorized by the CRRA statute. Ind.Code § 34-4-30.5-3(a) (1988).
Respondents also moved, in a separate "Verified Petition for Seizure of Property Subject to Forfeiture," for the particular judicial order that is the subject of our consideration here. Specifically, respondents asked the Allen County Circuit Court "to immediately seize . . . all property 'subject to forfeiture' as set forth in [the CRRA] complaint." App. 51. Such pretrial seizures are authorized under Ind.Code § 34-4-30.5-3(b) (1988), which empowers prosecutors bringing CRRA actions to move for immediate seizure of the property subject to forfeiture, and permits courts to issue seizure orders "upon a showing of probable cause to believe that a violation of [the State's RICO law] involving the property in question has occurred." The seizure petition was supported by an affidavit executed by a local police officer, recounting the 39 criminal convictions involving the defendants, further describing various other books and films available for sale at petitioner's bookstores and believed by affiant to be obscene, and alleging a conspiracy among several of petitioner's employees and officers who had previous convictions for obscenity offenses. App. 55-78.
Following the March 1984 seizure of the bookstores, Fort Wayne Books sought to vacate the ex parte seizure order. An adversarial hearing on a motion to vacate the order based on federal constitutional grounds failed to yield relief. Other efforts to obtain some measure of relief also failed. The trial court did, however, certify the constitutional issues to the Indiana Court of Appeals. In June 1985, that court held that the relevant RICO/CRRA provisions were violative of the United States Constitution. 4447 Corp. v. Goldsmith, 479 N.E.2d 578 (Ind.App.1985).3 The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, upholding the constitutionality of the CRRA statute as a general proposition and the pretrial seizure of Fort Wayne Books' store as a specific matter. 4447 Corp. v. Goldsmith, 504 N.E.2d 559 (1987).
We granted Fort Wayne's petition for certiorari, 485 U.S. 933, 108 S.Ct. 1106, 99 L.Ed.2d 268 (1988), for the purpose of considering the substantial constitutional issues raised by the pretrial seizure.
In No. 87-614, an investigation of adult bookstores in Howard County, Indiana, led prosecutors there, in April 1985, to charge petitioner Sappenfield with six counts of distribution of obscene matter, in violation of Ind.Code § 35-49-3-1 (1988). In addition employing the 1984 amendments to the Indiana RICO statute discussed above, prosecutors used these alleged predicate acts of obscenity as a basis for filing two charges of RICO violations against petitioner. App. 142-143, 148-149. The obscenity charges were Class A misdemeanors under Indiana law, the racketeering offenses Class C felonies.
The trial court dismissed the two RICO counts on the ground that the RICO statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied to obscenity predicate offenses. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the charges against petitioner. Relying on the Indiana Supreme Court's opinion under review here in No. 87-470, 4447 Corp. v. Goldsmith, supra, the Court of Appeals held that "Indiana's RICO statute is not unconstitutional as applied to the State's obscenity statute." 505 N.E.2d 504, 506 (1987). The Indiana Supreme Court declined to review this holding of the Indiana Court of Appeals.
We granted certiorari, 485 U.S. 933, 108 S.Ct. 1106, 99 L.Ed.2d 268 (1988), and consolidated this case with No. 87-470, to consider the common and separate issues presented by both cases.
As noted above, petitioner was charged with six substantive obscenity violations and two RICO offenses. App. 138-149. Petitioner challenged only the latter charges, raising no objection to the obscenity indictments. Id., at 150. He makes no claim here that the Constitution bars a criminal prosecution for distributing obscene materials.4 Rather, petitioner's claim is that certain particulars of the Indiana RICO law render the prosecution of petitioner under that statute unconstitutional. Petitioner advances several specific attacks on the RICO statute.
Before we address the merits of petitioner's claims, we must first consider our jurisdiction to hear this case. The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1257, limits our review to "[f]inal judgments or decrees" of the state courts. The general rule is that finality in the context of a criminal prosecution is defined by a judgment of conviction and the imposition of a sentence. See Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513, 518, 76 S.Ct. 912, 916, 100 L.Ed. 1377 (1956); Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212, 58 S.Ct. 164, 166, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937). Since neither is present here, we would usually conclude that the judgment below is not final and is hence unreviewable.
There are, however, exceptions to the general rule. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975). Cox identified four categories of cases in which a judgment is final even though further proceedings are pending in the state courts. This case fits within the fourth category of cases described in Cox:
"[W]here the federal issue has been finally decided in the state courts with further proceedings pending in which the party seeking review here might prevail on the merits on nonfederal grounds, thus rendering unnecessary review of the federal issue by this Court, and where reversal of the state court on the federal issue would be preclusive of any further litigation on the relevant cause of action . . . in the state court proceedings still to come. In these circumstances, if a refusal immediately to review the state-court decision might seriously erode federal policy, the Court has entertained and decided the federal issue, which itself has been finally determined by the state courts for the purposes of the state litigation." Id., at 482-483, 95 S.Ct., at 1040.
Adjudicating the proper scope of First Amendment protections has often been recognized by this Court as a "federal policy" that merits application of an exception to the general finality rule. See, e.g., National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U.S. 43, 44, 97 S.Ct. 2205, 2206, 53 L.Ed.2d 96 (1977) (per curiam ); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 246-247, 94 S.Ct. 2831, 2834-2835, 41 L.Ed.2d 730 (1974). Petitioner's challenge to the constitutionality of the use of RICO statutes to criminalize patterns of obscenity offenses calls into question the legitimacy of the law enforcement practices of several States, as well as the Federal Government.5 Resolution of this important issue of the possible limits the First Amendment places on state and federal efforts to control organized crime should not remain in doubt. "Whichever way we were to decide on the merits, it would be intolerable to leave unanswered, under these circumstances, an important question of freedom of the press under the First Amendment; an uneasy and unsettled constitutional posture [of the state statute in question] could only further harm the operation of a free press." Tornillo, supra, at 247, n. 6, 94 S.Ct., at 2834 n. 6.
Justice O'CONNOR contends that a contrary result is counseled here by our decision in Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U.S. 619, 101 S.Ct. 1958, 68 L.Ed.2d 489 (1981) (per curiam ). Post, at 69-70. But as the Court understood it, "[t]he question presented for review [in Flynt was] whether on [that] record the decision to prosecute petitioners was selective or discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause." Flynt, supra, at 622, 101 S.Ct., at 1960 (emphasis added). The claim before us in Flynt was not a First Amendment claim, but rather an Equal Protection claim (albeit one in the context of a trial raising First Amendment issues). As a result, Cox § fourth exception was held to be inapplicable in that case. Though the dissenters in Flynt disagreed with the premise of the Court's holding, and contended that that case was a First Amendment dispute that demanded immediate attention under Cox § fourth exception, see 451 U.S., at 623, 101 S.Ct., at 1961 (Stewart, J., dissenting); id., at 623-624, 101 S.Ct., at 1960-1961 (STEVENS, J., dissenting), the fact is that no Member of the Court concluded in Flynt—as Justice O'CONNOR does today—that where an important First Amendment claim is before us, the Court should refuse to invoke Cox § fourth exception and hold that we have no authority to address the issue.
The "racketeering activities" forbidden by the Indiana RICO law are a "pattern" of multiple violations of certain substantive crimes, of which distributing obscenity (Ind.Code § 35-49-3-1) is one. Ind.Code § 35-45-6-1 (1988). Thus, the RICO statute at issue wholly incorporates the state obscenity law by reference.
Petitioner argues that the "inherent vagueness" of the standards established by Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), are at the root of his objection to any RICO prosecution based on predicate acts of obscenity. Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, pp. 24-33. Yet, this is nothing less than an invitation to overturn Miller—an invitation that we reject. And we note that the Indiana obscenity statute, Ind.Code § 35-49-1-1 et seq. (1988), is closely tailored to conform to the Miller standards. Cf. Sedelbauer v. State, 428 N.E.2d 206, 210-211 (Ind.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1035, 102 S.Ct. 1739, 72 L.Ed.2d 153 (1982).6 Moreover, petitioner's motion to dismiss the RICO charges in the trial court rested on the alleged vagueness of that statute, and not any alleged defect in the underlying obscenity law. See App. 150-151, 161-167.
We find no merit in petitioner's claim that the Indiana RICO law is unconstitutionally vague as applied to obscenity predicate offenses. Given that the RICO statute totally encompasses the obscenity law, if the latter is not unconstitutionally vague, the former cannot be vague either. At petitioner's forthcoming trial, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the alleged RICO offense, including the allegation that petitioner violated (or attempted or conspired to violate) the Indiana obscenity law. Cf. Ind.Code § 35-45-6-1 (1988); 504 N.E.2d, at 566. Thus, petitioner cannot be convicted of violating the RICO law without first being "found guilty" of two counts of distributing (or attempting to, or conspiring to, distribute) obscene materials.
It is true, as petitioner argues, Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, pp. 16-18, that the punishments available in a RICO prosecution are different from those for obscenity violations. But we fail to see how this difference renders the RICO statute void for vagueness.7
It is true that the criminal penalties for a RICO violation under Indiana law, a Class C felony, are more severe than those authorized for an obscenity offense, a Class A misdemeanor. Specifically, if petitioner is found guilty of the two RICO counts against him, he faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine; if petitioner were convicted instead of only the six predicate obscenity offenses charged in the indictments, the maximum punishment he could face would be six years in jail and $30,000 in fines. Compare Ind.Code § 35-50-2-6 (1988) with Ind.Code § 35-50-3-2 (1988). While the RICO punishment is obviously greater than that for obscenity violations, we do not perceive any constitutionally significant difference between the two potential punishments.8 Indeed, the Indiana RICO provisions in this respect function quite similarly to an enhanced sentencing scheme for multiple obscenity violations. As such, "[i]t is not for this Court . . . to limit the State in resorting to various weapons in the armory of the law." Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 441, 77 S.Ct. 1325, 1328, 1 L.Ed.2d 1469 (1957).
It may be true that the stiffer RICO penalties will provide an additional deterrent to those who might otherwise sell obscene materials; perhaps this means—as petitioner suggests, Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, pp. 20-22—that some cautious booksellers will practice self-censorship and remove First Amendment protected materials from their shelves. But deterrence of the sale of obscene materials is a legitimate end of state antiobscenity laws, and our cases have long recognized the p