Document: 413 U.S. 483 93 S.Ct. 2789 37 L.Ed.2d 745 Saul HELLER, Petitioner,v.State of NEW YORK. No. 71—1043. Argued Nov. 14, 1972. Decided June 25, 1973. Syllabus Petitioner was manager a movie theater where sexually explicit film exhibited. After police officers saw part the film, an assistant district attorney requested New York Criminal Court judge to view it. Upon seeing entire performance, signed warrants for seizure and petitioner's arrest on ground that obscene. Exhibition obscene violates Penal Law § 235.05. No pretrial motion made return single copy seized or its suppression as evidence. There no showing below prevented exhibition by use another copy, record does not indicate whether available. Petitioner's trial held 47 days after his seizure, he convicted. He argued without prior adversary hearing violated Fourteenth Amendment. also challenged conviction substantive grounds, arguing convicted under standards obscenity both overbroad unconstitutionally vague, films shown only consenting adults in private are constitutionally protected. The Appeals affirmed conviction, holding required ex parte warrant, issued judicial determination obscenity, sufficient. Held: 1. Where is bona fide purpose preserving it evidence criminal proceeding, pursuant warrant probable neutral magistrate, following prompt issue proceeding available at request any interested party, permissible. On court other copies exhibition, should permit be copied so can continued pending resolution proceeding. Otherwise, must returned. With such safeguards, preseizure mandated First Pp. 488—493. 2. case remanded afford state courts opportunity reconsider challenges light Miller v. California, 15, 2607, 419, Paris Adult Theatre I Slaton, 49, 2628, 446, which establish guidelines lawful regulation material. 494. 29 N.Y.2d 319, 327 N.Y.S.2d 628, 277 N.E.2d 651, vacated remanded. Irving Anolik, City, petitioner. Lewis R. Friedman, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari this determine officer authorized warrants, who has viewed finds obscene, valid film's prosecution against exhibitor, first conducting obscenity. 2 commercial Greenwich Village area City. July 29, 1969, called 'Blue Movie' exhibited there. depicts nude couple engaged ultimate sexual acts. Three film. Apparently basis their observations, County see performance. 31, judge, accompanied inspector, purchased ticket were about 100 persons audience. Neither nor inspector recalled signs restricting admission adults.1 3 At end discussions with search three 'John Doe' manager, projectionist, taker, respectively. one notified consulted issuance warrants. because 'it was, my then definition (in) . section 235.00 Law.' 235.05.2 4 immediately executed officers. reels, composing seized. Petitioner, arrested, projectionist taker.3 Nor did petitioner make claim conclusively September 16, movie, came trial, jury having been waived, before judges City 5 prosecution's rested almost solely testimony concerning arrests together introduction into itself. judges. defense offered 'expert' witnesses: author, professor sociology, newspaper writer. These witnesses testified had social, literary, artistic importance illustrating 'a growing important point behavior' well providing observations 'about political social situation country today. .' theater's employees instructed admit appeared 18 years age, unless they 'had identification' 18. there sign box office stating 'no 17 (would be) admitted.' Both own case, moved dismiss indictment hearing, 6 close 17, found guilty all violating appeal, Supreme State York, Appellate Term, conviction. Appeals, relying Court's Lee Art Virginia, 392 636, 637, 88 2103, 2104, 20 1313 (1968), occurred In holding, explicitly disapproved, going 'beyond requirement imposed Court,' Astro Cinema Corp. Mackell, 422 F.2d 293 (CA2 1970), Bethview Amusement Cahn, 416 410 1969), cert. denied, 397 920, 90 929, 25 101 (1970), cases requiring 323, 631, 653 (1971). 7 affirm York. This never held, even implied, absolute Amendment right applicable allegedly material See Times Film Chicago, 365 43, 81 391, 403 (1961); Kingsley Books, Inc. Brown, 354 436, 440—442, 77 1325, 1327—1328, 1469 (1957). particular, seized, preserve prosecution. supra, went far suggest open question need 'have picture issuing warrant.'4 Here and, indeed, witnessed alleged act. It contested 'neutral, detached magistrate,' full independent cause able 'focus searchingly obscenity.' Marcus Search Warrants Property 104 East 10th St., Kansas Mo., 367 717, 731—733, 1708, 1716, 1127 (1961). Cf. Coolidge Hampshire, 443, 449—453, 91 2022, 2029, 2031, 564 (1971); Giordenello United States, 357 480, 485—486, 78 1245, 1249—1250, 1503 (1958); Johnson 333 10, 14—15, 68 367, 369, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948). 8 States Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 363, 1400, 28 822 (1971), Freedman Maryland, 380 51, 85 734, 13 649 (1965), we "because ensures necessary sensitivity freedom expression, procedure suffices impose final restraint." U.S., S.Ct., 1403, quoting 58, 738 (emphasis added). Those involved, respectively, imported materials federal customs agents administrative licensing pictures, civil procedures directed themselves. Even those cases, require take place initial seizure. Rather, occur 'promptly delay itself become form censorship.'5 1404 57—59, 738—739 (1965). Blount Rizzi, 400 410, 419—421, 423, 429—430, 27 498 Teitel Cusack, 390 139, 141—142, 754, 755—756, 19 966 (1968); Bantam Sullivan, 372 70—71, 83 639, 9 584 (1963). course, subjected 'final restraint,' sense being enjoined from threatened destruction. A temporarily detained order precluded exhibition. Nor, temporary restraint 'become censorship,' making doubtful assumption existed. 1403; 738—739. fully within 48 motions seeking challenging expedited consideration issue, entirely possible could have obtained if desired.6 Although refrained establishing rigid, specific time deadlines proceedings involving material, definitely excluded 'promptness' delays caused choice defendant. 373—374, 1406—1407. barrier State, but decision waive reserve trial. 439, 1326. 10 reliance decisions Quantity Copies Books Kansas, 378 205, 84 1723, 12 809 (1964), (1961), misplaced. concerned large quantities books sole destruction,7 that, circumstances, avoid 'danger abridgment public free society unobstructed circulation nonobscene books.' 213, 1727 (1964). do disturb holding. Courts will scrutinize large-scale books, films, presumptively protected certain requirements met. "Any system restraints expression comes bearing heavy presumption constitutional validity." Co. 713, 714, 2140, 2141, 70, 639; Organization Better Austin Keefe, 415, 1575, 1577, Carroll President Comm'rs Princess Anne, 393 175, 181, 89 347, 351, 21 325 (1968). Near Minnesota, 283 697, 51 625, 75 1357 (1931). 11 But seizing destroy them block distribution very different matter particularly where, here, continuing film.8 If prompt9 addition, proceeding.10 returned.11 perceive would materially increase protection. 183—184, 352—353. necessity protect gross abuses, while availability assures difficult marginal considered guarantees, minimal interference litigation. used provides serving interests fair offenses. Counsel tend 'disappear' hearings afforded notice may compact, readily transported jurisdictions, easily destructible, susceptible alteration cutting splicing critical parts substantive, opposed procedural, vague. argues particular decided 21, 1973, dealt these issues. majority now approved judgment therefore affording issues I. 200-Ft. Reels Super 8mm. Film, 130 n. 7, 2670 7. 14 Vacated 15 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 16 reverse each as, view, underlying statute reasons stated dissenting opinions 130, 2622, 200-Foot 123, 2665, 2670, 500. BRENNAN, whom STEWART MARSHALL join, consider Constitution judge's exhibitor. 651 brought* is, invalid face. dissent 73, 2642, 446. remand further inconsistent Slaton. circumstance, occasion whether, assuming properly brought, here constitutional. presented juveniles actually present theater. 235.05, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 40, reads relevant part: 'A person when, knowing content character, he: '1. Promotes, possesses intent promote, material; '2. Produces, presents directs performance participates portion thereof contributes 'Obscenity class misdemeanor.' terms 235.05 defined 235.00, 'The definitions sections 235.10 235.15: 'Obscene.' Any 'obscene' (a) whole, predominant appeal prurient, shameful morbid interest nudity, sex, excretion, sadism masochism, (b) goes substantially beyond customary limits candor describing representing matters, (c) utterly redeeming value. Predominant shall judged reference ordinary appears character circumstances dissemination designed children specially 'Material' means anything tangible capable adapted arouse interest, through medium reading, observation, sound manner. '3. 'Performance' play, picture, dance performed '4. 'Promote' manufacture, sell, give, provide, lend, mail, deliver, transfer, transmute, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit advertise, offer agree same.' taker dismissed prosecutor. 'It true read book courtroom chambers arrange However, decide justice peace warrant. upon conclusory assertions inquiry factual officer's conclusions 'designed focus obscenity,' (Marcus Warrants, 717), 732, (1708), fell short demanding expression. 58—59, 738—739.' 2104. '(1) assurance, 'by authoritative construction, censor will, specified brief period, either license go restrain film'; (2) '(a)ny advance merits similarly limited preservation status quo shortest fixed period compatible resolution'; (3) 'the assure decision' minimize impact possibly erroneous action. (Freedman U.S.), 739.' 1404. represented stands ready grant 'immediate' seizures arguably involved acting general 11,000 280 publications. 723, 1711. Unlike neutral, Id., 1716. seize articles contraband 'to publicly destroyed, burning otherwise.' 721 6, 1710 6. 1,715 31 publications county sheriff, again, destroying contraband. 206—209, 1723—1725. Mishkin 383 U.S 502, 86 958, 56 (1966), refused review legality primarily reveal number 'whether threshold dissemination.' 513, 966. applied abstain Mishkin, since parties conceded hearing. say multiple purely cumulative evidence, circumvent incorporating, element offense, involved. By 'prompt,' mean 'compatible resolution.' 417, 428, 738—739, oral argument, counsel agreed obtain 'an lab tampering film' original returned '24 hours' 'satisfy' 'First position.' Tr. Oral Arg. 28. below. Failure copying adversely affects interests; permitted. required. hand, violations Fourth Roaden Kentucky, 496, 2796, 757; Mapp Ohio, 643, 1684, 1081 * N.Y. 235.05:

Category: 2