Hall v. State
| Decision Date | 08 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 52341,No. 3,52341,3 |
| Citation | 139 Ga.App. 488,229 S.E.2d 12 |
| Parties | D. A. HALL v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Sell, Comer & Popper, Ed S. Sell, III, Macon, for appellant.
James M. Wootan, Asst. Sol., Macon, for appellee.
1. Hall, manager had projectionist of a movie theater, was arrested without warrant by a city detective and the film contemporaneously seized. The film had three showings, at 11:30 p.m. on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. At about 4:00 p.m. on Saturday the detective talked to an unidentified white male and was informed that the film was 'too rough' for the general public. The detective intended viewing the 11:30 showing that night, but was delayed and entered the theater at about 12:55. After viewing four or five minutes of the film, during which there was an exhibition of a couple engaging in oral sex, he arrested the defendant and seized the film. The defendant's motion to suppress based on these facts was denied and we granted an interlocutory appeal.
2. Counsel for both parties agree that this case is to be controlled by Roaden v. Ky., 413 U.S. 496, 93 S.Ct. 2796, 37 L.Ed.2d 757. Roaden clearly holds that a police officer may not arrest without a warrant on a charge of possessing or offering for view pornographic material in a place of public accommodation such as a movie theater under circumstances where he substitutes his judgment as to the obscenity of the material for that of a neutral and detached magistrate. The exceptions under which an arrest and seizure of 'contraband or stolen goods or objects dangerous in themselves' (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 472, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564), are, as stated in Roaden, 413 U.S. p. 502, 93 S.Ct. at p. 2800, 'to be distinguished from quantities of books and movie films when a court appraises the reasonableness of the seizure under Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment standards.' No such exigent circumstances, as contended by the state, appear here. The clear purport of this decision is that the sometimes sophisticated value judgments necessary to establish guilt or innocence under obscenity laws must, to preserve First Amendment rights, be passed upon by a judicial officer rather than a member of the police department. To the same effect see Lee Art Theatre v. Virginia, 392 U.S. 636, 88 S.Ct. 2103, 20 L.Ed.2d 1313, and Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1708, 6 L.Ed.2d 1127.
This court emphasized the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. City of Rome, Ga.
...obscene materials seized without a "constitutionally sufficient warrant" are not admissible in a criminal action. Hall v. State, 139 Ga.App. 488, 489, 229 S.E.2d 12 (1976); State v. Smalley, 138 Ga.App. 747, 748, 227 S.E.2d 488 (1976). As the Georgia Court of Appeals begrudgingly held, in a......
-
Penthouse Intern., Ltd. v. McAuliffe
...or prior restraint because the arrest was not part of a calculated scheme resulting in a constructive seizure) With Hall v. State, 139 Ga.App. 488, 229 S.E.2d 12 (1976) (actual seizure of film pursuant to warrantless arrest constituted unconstitutional prior restraint). C. Unconstitutional ......
-
Kervin v. State
...Amendment rights, be passed upon by a judicial officer rather than a member of the police department. [Cits.]" Hall v. State, 139 Ga.App. 488, 489, 229 S.E.2d 12 (1976). See also State v. Smalley, 138 Ga.App. 747, 227 S.E.2d 488 (1976). "The Constitution at a minimum apparently requires the......
-
Macon v. State
...distributes, is a prior judicial determination that there is probable cause to believe the matter is obscene. See also Hall v. State, 139 Ga.App. 488, 229 S.E.2d 12 (1976); Delta Book Distributors, Inc. v. Cronvich, 304 F.Supp. 662, 667 (E.D.La.1969). But see Price v. State, 579 S.W.2d 492,......