Legal Document

425 U.S. 262 96 Supreme Court Reporter 1527 47 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 774 Ted BUTLER and Emil Petersv.Richard C. DEXTER. Number 75-623. April 19, 1976. PER CURIAM. 1 This is an appeal under 28 Code KF62 § 1253 from order of a three-judge District enjoining the appellants prosecuting appellee on felony charge that his motion picture projector "criminal instrument" 16.01 Texas Penal Code.1 Since no substantial question about constitutionality has been raised, we dismiss for want jurisdiction in this Court.2 2 The facts case are relatively simple. appellee, Richard Dexter, ran Fiesta Theatre San Antonio, Tex., which June July 1974 was exhibiting film "Deep Throat." On three3 separate occasions, officer Antonio police force paid admission, entered theater, viewed film. officer, each occasion, then wrote out "Motion Adversary Hearing" to determine whether there probable cause seize violating obscenity laws. Each time, magistrate held short "hearing" lobby at he heard testimony issued warrant seia Code. Appellee arrested charged with "commercial obscenity" violation Code, 43.23, "use criminal 16.01. commercial Class B misdemeanor, carrying fine not exceed $1,000, confinement 180 days, or both.4 did not, according trial court, pursue any complaint these charges federal court. He brought state courts they issue here. His challenge, rather, against prosecutor's charging him violations instruments statute possession ordinary 16-mm. movie projectors. Violation third-degree felony, carries penalty 10 years' $5,000.5 Although complaints were lodged forced post some $31,000 bonds, never presented grand jury.6 3 A instrument," purposes statute, anything "specially designed, made, adapted commission offense."7 From examination "clear language statute" unofficial "practice commentary" concluded "(b)y stretch imagination could be used cover plaintiff's actions portable 16 millimeter removable interchangeable reels."8 4 its conclusion as obvious inapplicability failure present jury, found "(c)harging plaintiff . cannot have undertaken design actually convict crime. Such blatant use inappropriate bootstrapped misdemeanor offense into effective requiring bail set, once but several times. authorities believe, however, Dexter would ultimately convicted."9 5 Appellants contentions regarding correctness decision. We do reach questions, consider direct appeal. Jurisdiction predicated 1253, granting right "granting (an) injunction civil action required by Act Congress determined district court three judges." Title 2281 provides "(a)n restraining enforcement, operation execution State such enforcement shall granted upon ground unconstitutionality unless application therefor judges ." Under if "a seeks enjoin grounds unconstitutionality, even though nonconstitutional attack also alleged Florida Lime Growers versus Jacobsen, 362 73, 85, 80 568, 575, 576 (1960). However, ruled taken thus serious presented. 6 As noted above, instruments" made bad faith without those charges. Rather, part pattern harassment designed stop But arrests attempt enforce 16.01.10 Nor unconstitutional; it local officials had acted unconstitutionally using pretext arrest setting bonds when knew inapplicable conviction ever obtained. concerning Court, required.11 Cf. Bailey Patterson, 369 31, 82 549, 7 512 (1962). somewhat better argument might effort albeit irregular manner. contended grounded way statute; considered case.12 8 case, should Appeals Fifth Circuit. time may passed, vacate judgment remand so enter fresh decree timely can, desired, taken. Gonzalez Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 90, 95 289, 42 249 (1974); Moody Flowers, 387 97, 87 1544, 18 643 (1967). 9 It ordered. Ann. (1974): "Unlawful Use Criminal Instrument "(a) person commits if: "(1) possesses instrument intent offense; "(2) knowledge character aid permit another offense, manufactures, adapts, sells, installs, sets up instrument. "(b) For section, 'criminal instrument' means specially offense. "(c) An section third degree." moved appeal, must take notice own where does appear. Brown Shoe company States, 370 294, 306, 1502, 1513, 510, 524 There occasion substantially same events occurred, arrested, although theater employee named William Walker was. Tex. Ann., 12.22 (1974). 12.34 argued below Attorney believed precluded pursuing specifically provided "no pending prosecutions enjoined free bring try cases." Judge informed least two occasions during hearings bar bringing indictments See n. 1, Supra. Universal Amusement Co Vance, 404 F.Supp. 33, 48, 51 (S.D.Tex.1975). Id., 48. Phillips 312 246, 252, 61 480, 484, 85 800, 805 (1941): "But lawless exercise authority particular conferring significant enabling acts Oklahoma assailed merely Governor's exceeding bounds law." situation is, course, distinguished said unconstitutional "as applied." Ex parte Bransford, 310 354, 60 947, 84 L.Ed. 1249 (1940). 11 correct deciding authorize appellants' actions. whether, having decided, empowered grant relief purportedly filed pursuant section. hold only decision, removed possibility unconstitutionality. 12 consolidated other cases, statute. before separately merits.

Classification Label: 8