Court Opinion

ID: 9422859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:04:52.009778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:39.973915
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stewart,
concurring in the judgment.
If this case involved hard-core pornography, I think the procedures which were followed would be constitutionally valid, at least with respect to the material which the judge “scrutinized.” This case is not like Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717, where, as the Court notes, “the warrant gave the police virtually unlimited authority to seize any publications which they considered to be obscene, and was issued on a verified complaint lacking any specific description of the publications to be seized, and without prior submission of any publications whatever to the judge issuing the warrant,” p. 209, supra. But the books here involved were not hard-core pornography. Therefore, I think Kansas could not by any procedure constitutionally suppress them, any more than *215Kansas could constitutionally make their sale or distribution a criminal act. See Jacobellis v. Ohio, ante, p. 197. (Stewart, J., concurring).