Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Lee Art Theatre, Inc. v. Virginia

Lee Art Theatre, Inc. v. Va., 392 U.S. 636 (1968)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1968-06-17
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that an affidavit that merely stated the officer's belief that movies and books to be seized were obscene, and therefore illegal, was insufficient to establish probable cause
  • affidavit of police officer stated only the titles of the movies and the conclusion that the movies and the billboard advertising them were obscene
  • warrant must be based on more than an officer’s conclusory assertion of obscenity

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lee Art Theatre, Inc. v. Virginia. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
212 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Fourth Amendment A warrant authorizing the seizure of allegedly obscene material is constitutionally deficient where it issues solely upon the conclusory assertions of a police officer and without any inquiry by the issuing magistrate into the factual basis for the officer's conclusions, because such a procedure is not designed to focus searchingly on the question of obscenity and therefore falls short of the sensitivity to freedom of expression that the Constitution demands.
  2. Criminal Law & Procedure — Fourth Amendment Where allegedly obscene films were seized under the authority of a warrant that was constitutionally deficient, the admission of those films in evidence over the defendant's objection requires reversal of the conviction.
Per Curiam.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. Petitioner, operator of a motion picture theatre in Richmond, Virginia, was convicted in the Hustings Court of Richmond of possessing and exhibiting lewd and obscene motion pictures in violation of Title 18.1-228 of the Code of Virginia. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia refused a writ of error.

The films in question were admitted in evidence over objection that they had been unconstitutionally seized. The seizure was under the authority of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace on the basis of an affidavit of a police officer which stated only the titles of the motion pictures and that the officer had determined from personal observation of them and of the billboard in front of the theatre that the films were obscene.

*637 The admission of the films in evidence requires reversal of petitioner’s conviction. A seizure of allegedly obscene books on the authority of a warrant “issued on the strength of the conclusory assertions of a single police officer, without any scrutiny by the judge of any materials considered . . . obscene,” was held to be an unconstitutional seizure in Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717, 731-732. It is true that a judge may read a copy of a book in courtroom or chambers but not as easily arrange to see a motion picture there. However, we need not decide in this case whether the justice of the peace should have viewed the motion picture before issuing the warrant. The procedure under which the warrant issued solely upon the conclusory assertions of the police officer without any inquiry by the justice of the peace into the factual basis for the officer’s conclusions was not a procedure “designed to focus searchingly on the question of obscenity,” id., at 732, and therefore fell short of constitutional requirements demanding necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression. See Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 58-59.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Stewart base their concurrence in the judgment of reversal upon Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.