Lee Art Theatre, Inc v. Virginia, 997

Decision Date17 June 1968
Docket NumberNo. 997,997
Citation88 S.Ct. 2103,20 L.Ed.2d 1313,392 U.S. 636
PartiesLEE ART THEATRE, INC. v. VIRGINIA
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Plato Cacheris, for petitioner.

James B. Wilkinson, for respondent.

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.

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 Warrants of Property at 104 East Tenth St., 367 U.S. 717, 731—732, 81 S.Ct. 1708, 1716, 6 L.Ed.2d 1127. 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, 81 S.Ct., at 1716, and therefore fell short of constitutional requirements demanding necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression. See Freedman v. State of Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58—59, 85 S.Ct. 734, 738—739, 13 L.Ed.2d 649.

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.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, and Mr. Justice STEWART base their concurrence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
159 cases
  • Grove Press, Inc. v. Bailey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • August 14, 1970
    ...consider the rationale of Freedman v. Maryland, 1965, 380 U.S. 51, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649, and Lee Art Theatre, Inc. v. Virginia, 1968, 392 U.S. 636, 88 S.Ct. 2103, 20 L.Ed.2d 1313, pertinent to the decision of this case. The Supreme Court found that the effort to censor material prio......
  • Com. v. Mascolo
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • April 25, 1978
    ...vs. United American Theatre Corporation (d. b. a., Pussycat Cinema).2 The defendants rely upon Lee Art Theatre, Inc. v. Virginia, 392 U.S. 636, 88 S.Ct. 2103, 20 L.Ed.2d 1313 (1968). However, the Court in Lee Art Theatre, Inc., declined to rule on the question whether a magistrate must view......
  • Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton 8212 1051
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1973
    ...v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 367 375, 91 S.Ct. 1400, 1403—1408, 28 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971); Lee Art Theatre, Inc. v. Virginia, 392 U.S. 636, 88 S.Ct. 2103, 20 L.Ed.2d 1313 (1968); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58—60, 85 S.Ct. 734, 738—740, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965); A Quantity of ......
  • U.S. v. Sanders
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 2, 1979
    ...809; Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property, 1961, 367 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1708, 6 L.Ed.2d 1127; Lee Art Theatre v. Virginia, 1968, 392 U.S. 636, 88 S.Ct. 2103, 2104, 20 L.Ed.2d 1313 (per curiam). "(S)eizing films to destroy them or to block their distribution or exhibition is a very different......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT