Court Opinion

ID: 9660986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:25:38.625826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:23.924812
License: Public Domain

Levin, P. J.,
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I am in entire agreement with my colleagues that the seized magazines are vulgar, tawdry and unpleasant. The question before us, however, is not whether these odious magazines are obscene in the ordinary sense of the word — they clearly are — but whether they are obscene in the constitutional sense. The phrase “obscene in the constitutional sense” is a term of art1 coined by the United States Supreme Court2 and, to the extent it. has defined that term, its definition is controlling upon us. Neither my personal opinion nor, I respectfully add, the opinions of my colleagues is relevant where there is a controlling opinion from the United States Supreme Court.
The United States Supreme Court has undertaken the exposition and control of the development of this area of the law. It has made it very clear that only in extraordinary cases will publications be deemed obscene in the constitutional sense.
*341In an area of the law such as obscenity where decision turns on definitions and definitions are inevitably, hopelessly obscure, we have more to learn from a comparison of the materials involved in the case before us with those passed upon by controlling authority in other cases than from an attempt ourselves to explicate still another definitional statement.
Unlike Memoirs3 and a number of other preRedrup opinions of the United States Supreme Court,4 the opinion in Redrup, decided in 1967, bears the signatures of a majority (7 of the 9 justices) of the United States Supreme Court. Subsequent decisions of the United States Supreme Court clearly demonstrate Redrup cannot'be dismissed, as my colleagues would, as an isolated decision ■ to be confined to its facts. On the authority of Redrup the United States Supreme Court has reversed 19 decisions of lower Federal and State courts.5
*342The seized magazines in the present ease are of 2 types:
1) magazines showing frontal views of undressed men and, thus, portraying male genitals; and
2) magazines focusing on female genitals. Sexual activity is not portrayed in any of the magazines.6
The United States Supreme Court has in a number of cases held that magazines containing photographs of male models completely nude, showing full views of their genitals, are not obscene. Potomac News Company v. United States (1967), 389 US 47 (88 S Ct 233, 19 L Ed 2d 46), reversing on the authority of Redrup, United States v. 56 Cartons Containing 19,500 Copies of a Magazine Entitled “Hellenic Sun” (CA 4,1967), 373 F2d 635; similarly Central Magazine Sales, Ltd. v. United States (1967), 389 US 50 (88 S Ct 235, 19 L Ed 2d 49), reversing United States v. 392 Copies of Magazine Entitled “Exclusive” (CA 4, 1967), 373 F2d 633; Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962), 370 US 478 (82 S Ct 1432, 8 L Ed 2d 639); Felton v. City of Pensacola (1968), 390 US 340 (88 S Ct 1098, 19 L Ed 2d 1220) reversing (Fla App, 1967), 200 So 2d 842; Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield (1958), 355 US 372 (78 S Ct 365, 2 L Ed 2d 352) reversing (CADC, 1957), 249 F2d 114 and (D DC, 1955), 128 F Supp 564.
The pictures in the magazines focusing on female genitals are most explicit. The models are shown *343standing, sitting, kneeling and lying on their hacks or stomachs and in many cases with their legs spread revealing the entire genital area.
In Central Magazine Sales, Ltd. v. United States, supra, 7 justices, 6 on the authority of Redrup, by a, per curiam opinion reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in United States v. 392 Copies of Magazine Entitled “Exclusive,” supra. The Court of Appeals described the magazine Exclusive thus (p 634):
“Exclusive is a collection of photographs of young women. In most of them, long stockings and garter belts are employed to frame the pubic area and to focus attention upon it. A suggestion of masochism is sought by the use in many of the pictures of chains binding the models’ wrists and ankles. Some of the seated models, squarely facing the camera, have their knees and legs widespread in order to reveal the genital area in its entirety. In one of the pictures, all of these things are combined: The model, clad only in a framing black garter belt and black stockings is chained to a chair upon which she is seated, facing the camera, with one knee elevated and both spread wide.”
Central Magazine Sales, Ltd. v. United States, supra, establishes that full views of female genitals,7 no less than full views of male genitals, are not obscene in the constitutional sense.
I agree with Judge Danhop that the trial judge clearly erred when he found that there was pander*344ing in this case. The defendant sold these magazines in a bookstore to which no one under the age of 18 is admitted. There is a $1 admission charge, 50‡ of which is credited against any purchase. The defendant also operates an art, adult-only movie theatre. Ho advertises, on the screen and by displaying the magazines in the theatre lobby, the - fact that such publications can be purchased at the bookstore.
By displaying the magazines themselves without any description of their contents the defendant avoided any characterization, suggestive or otherwise, concerning the nature of the magazines on display. By displaying the magazines in an “adult-only” movie theatre the defendant avoided any communication with persons who might regard the sight of such a magazine as an objectionable intrusion. The on-screen advertising of the availability of these magazines and their display in the lobby of such a movie theatre is neither “pandering” nor “obtrusive” in the sense in which those terms were used in Redrup and Ginzburg v. United States (1966), 383 US 463 (86 S Ct 942, 16 L Ed 2d 31).
I agree with my colleagues that the publications comprising exhibit 19 were illegally seized.
I would reverse and vacate the injunction.

 For non-art.

 Redrup v. New York (1967), 386 US 767 (87 S Ct 1414, 18 L Ed 2d 515), holding- not- obscene the paperback books Lust Pool and Shame Agent and the magazines Nigh Neels, Spree, Gent, Swank, Bachelor, Modern Man, Cavalcade, Gentleman, Ace and Sir.
In People v. Zerilli (1969), 14 Mich App 513, our Court on the authority of Pedrup set aside Zerilli’s conviction for selling typical so-called “girlie” and “nudist” magazines! ’ We declared that we were “satisfied that the ¡seized publications are of the same type held not to be ‘obscene in the constitutional sense’ in Redrup v. New York, supra, and in the eases collected in footnote 3 Of Ginsberg v. New York (1968), 390 US 629 (88 S Ct 1274, 20 L Ed 2d 195).” See footnote 5, infra, for a listing of the cases cited in footnote 3 of Ginsberg and additional United' States Supreme Court decisions decided on the authority of Redrup.

 Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966), 383 US 413 (86 S Ct 975, 16 L Ed 2d 1).

 See, e.g., Manual Enterprises v. Day (1962), 370 US 478 (82 S Ct 1432, 8 L Ed 2d 639); Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), 378 US 184 (84 S Ct 1676, 12 L Ed 2d 793); Grove Press v. Gerstein (1964), 378 US 577 (84 S Ct 1909, 12 L Ed 2d 1035); Tralins v. Gerstein (1964), 378 US 576 (84 S Ct 1903, 12 L Ed 2d 1033).

 Keney v. New York (1967), 388 US 440 (87 S Ct 2091, 18 L Ed 2d 1302); Friedman v. New York (1967), 388 US 441 (87 S Ct 2091, 18 L Ed 2d 1303); Ratner v. California (1967) 388 US 442 (87 S Ct 2092, 18 L Ed 2d 1304); Cobert v. New York (1967); 388 US 443 (87 S Ct 2092, 18 L Ed 2d 1305) ; Sheperd v. New York (1967), 388 US 444 (87 S Ct 2093, 18 L Ed 2d 1306); Avansino v. New York (1967), 388 US 446 (87 S Ct 2093, 18 L Ed 2d 1308); Aday v. United States (1967), 388 US 447 (87 S Ct 2095, 18 L Ed 2d 1309); Books, Inc. v. United States (1967), 388 US 449 (87 S Ct 2098, 18 L Ed 2d 1311); A Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1967), 388 US 452 (87 S Ct 2104, 18 L Ed 2d 3314; Mazes v. Ohio (1967), 388 US 453 (87 S Ct 2105, 18 L Ed 2d 1315); Schackman v. California (1967), 388 US 454 (87 S Ct 2107, 18 L Ed 2d 1316); Conner v. City of Hammond (1967), 389 US 48 (88 S Ct 234, 19 L Ed 2d 47); Potomac News Co. v. United States (1967), 389 US 47 (88 S Ct 233, 19 L Ed 2d 46); Central Magazine Sales, Ltd. v. United States (1967), 389 US 50 (88 S Ct 235, 19 L Ed 2d 49); Chance v. California (1967), 389 US 89 (88 S Ct 253, 19 L Ed 2d 256); *342I. M. Amusement Corp. v. Ohio (1968), 389 US 573 (88 S Ct 690, 19 L Ed 2d 776); Robert-Arthur Management Corp. v. Tennessee, ex rel. Canale (1968), 389 US 578 (88 S Ct 691, 19 L Ed 2d 777); Felton v. City of Pensacola (1968), 390 US 340 (88 S Ct 1098, 19 L Ed 2d 1220); Henry v. Louisiana (1968) 392 US 655 (88 S Ct 2274, 20 L Ed 2d 1343).

 See People v. Noroff (1967), 67 Cal 2d 791 (63 Cal Rptr 575, 433 P2d 479); In re Panchot (1968), 70 Cal 2d 105 (73 Cal Rptr 689, 448 P2d 385).

 A panel of 5 United States district judges sitting en bane in the district of Maryland held that issues of the Danish magazines “Cover Girl” and “Exciting" were not subject to seizure because not obscene in the constitutional sense. United, States v. 4400 Copies of Magazines (1967), 276 P Supp 902. A number of the exhibits in this case are eopies of the same issues of the 2 publications ruled upon in the cited case; they are typical of the female genitalia exhibits.