Marcus v. Search Warrant
Marcus v. Search Warrant | |
---|---|
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Brennan |
Concurrence | Black, joined by Douglas |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. Amds. I, IV and XIV |
Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961), full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, is an
The case had begun in 1957, when the
Justice
Marcus broke ground in holding that First Amendment interests required an additional layer of procedure than other instances of seizure. It would figure prominently in later obscenity cases involving seizures, including one called Quantity of Books v. Kansas, that explicitly tried to take its holding into account. After the Court settled on a definition of obscenity in the early 1970s, it continued to hear other cases on the issues first addressed in Marcus.
Background of the case
For most of
That began to change during the 20th century, in response to social and
Underlying dispute
In October 1957, a Lt. Coughlin of the Kansas City Police Department's (KCPD) vice squad was investigating the distribution of magazines which might have met the state's definition of obscenity. As part of that investigation, he visited the office of Kansas City News Distributors, a wholesaler which sold all types of printed material to newsstands all over the city and its metropolitan area. He showed Homer Smay, the manager, a list of a possibly obscene magazine titles and asked if he distributed any of them; Smay confirmed that the wholesaler distributed all but one.[4]
Coughlin visited five of the newsstands the wholesaler sold to and bought a copy of one of the listed magazines. He then filed affidavits for the newsstands and the main office of Kansas City News Distributors with a Jackson County circuit court judge, who issued search warrants that merely repeated the definition of obscenity in the Missouri statutes and did not list any specific titles nor specify in detail the types of materials to be seized. Two days later, Coughlin and other KCPD officers, with some help from the county sheriff's office, executed the warrants.[4]
At the wholesalers' main office, the officers confiscated not only copies of the titles on Coughlin's list but anything else that at least one thought might be obscene. After three hours of searching through stock including a million copies of magazines, they took 11,000 copies representing 280 separate titles, as well as some books and still photographs.[note 1] The seized material was transported to the 15th floor of the county courthouse. No arrests were made.[4]
A week later, per statute, the judge held a hearing at which the claimants were allowed to challenge the obscenity findings of the material involved. They made motions to quash the warrant and search as unconstitutional, since there had been no prior hearing and since the officers executing the search had been allowed to seize almost anything. As a result of this argument, the case became an in rem action with the search warrant itself as the defendant, since no unlawful conduct could be argued on the part of the officers or even the state of Missouri itself. Two months later, the judge held the search valid but ordered 180 of the magazine titles returned, as they were not obscene. Copies of the other hundred were ordered to be burned publicly as required by the statute.[4]
An appeal was made to the
Decision
The Court heard oral arguments in March 1961. Sidney Glazer argued for the claimants. Fred Howard, a Missouri assistant attorney general, argued for the state. His superior, Missouri Attorney General Thomas Eagleton, was credited as a coauthor of the state's brief.
In late June, near the end of the term, the Court announced its decision. Unanimously, it had held for the claimants that the search and seizure was unconstitutional.
Opinions
"The use by government of the power of search and seizure as an adjunct to a system for
This authority continued in various forms, through various bodies, until it was condemned by judicial warrants in the cases brought by the Crown against John Wilkes, publisher of The North Briton, during the 1760s. Those cases culminated in the landmark Entick v Carrington,[8] which the Court itself had called, in Boyd v. United States, "one of the landmarks of English liberty".[9] "This history was, of course, part of the intellectual matrix within which our own constitutional fabric was shaped", Brennan wrote. "The Bill of Rights was fashioned against the background of knowledge that unrestricted power of search and seizure could also be an instrument for stifling liberty of expression."[10]
Having concluded his review of the background history, Brennan turned to the present. "The question here is whether the use by Missouri in this case of the search and seizure power to suppress obscene publications involved abuses
The Missouri Supreme Court had refused to distinguish between the seizure of obscene material and the seizure of other
... [T]he use of these warrants implicates questions whether the procedures leading to their issuance and surrounding their execution were adequate to avoid suppression of constitutionally protected publications ... [U]nder the Fourteenth Amendment, a State is not free to adopt whatever procedures it pleases for dealing with obscenity as here involved, without regard to the possible consequences for constitutionally protected speech.
We believe that Missouri's procedures, as applied in this case, lacked the safeguards which due process demands to assure nonobscene material the constitutional protection to which it is entitled. Putting to one side the fact that no opportunity was afforded the appellants to elicit and contest the reasons for the officer's belief, or otherwise to argue against the propriety of the seizure to the issuing judge, still the warrants issued on the strength of the conclusory assertions of a single police officer, without any scrutiny by the judge of any materials considered by the complainant to be obscene. The warrants gave the broadest discretion to the executing officers; they merely repeated the language of the statute and the complaints, specified no publications, and left to the individual judgment of each of the many police officers involved the selection of such magazines as in his view constituted "obscene ... publications."
Nothing better demonstrated that adequate constitutional safeguards were lacking, Brennan noted, than the circuit court's eventual ruling that less than half of the seized magazines were obscene. "Procedures which sweep so broadly and with so little discrimination are obviously deficient in techniques required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent erosion of the constitutional guarantees."[14]
Brennan described the lower court's reliance on Kingsley Books as "misplaced". The New York statute had required that a court actually review the material alleged to be obscene and that the injunction be limited to the distribution of the reviewed material. It also mandated a hearing within a day of the injunction and a verdict within two days of the hearing, whereas Missouri's statute imposed no time limit. Nor did the case "support the proposition that the State may impose the extensive restraints imposed here on the distribution of these publications prior to an adversary proceeding on the issue of obscenity, irrespective of whether or not the material is legally obscene" since it had merely allowed the issuance of an injunction against sale of the book, not the seizure and possible destruction of the book.[15]
"[T]he restraint on the circulation of publications [here] was far more thoroughgoing and drastic than any restraint upheld by this Court in Kingsley Books," Brennan concluded. "Mass seizure in the fashion of this case was thus effected without any safeguards to protect legitimate expression. The judgment of the Missouri Supreme Court sustaining the condemnation of the 100 publications therefore cannot be sustained."[16]
Black's short concurrence emphasized the Fourteenth Amendment aspect of the holding, making the provisions of the Fourth Amendment fully applicable to the states as well as the federal government. He expressed that view again, citing dissents to that effect he had either written or joined.[note 2] He also felt the Court's then-recent holding in Mapp v. Ohio extending the exclusionary rule to state prosecutions strengthened this view.[17]
Subsequent jurisprudence
Marcus became the first of a line of cases mandating procedural safeguards where allegedly obscene material was seized. Shortly after it was handed down, William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of neighboring Kansas, tried to adapt that state's procedures to the decision. Later, in 1961, lawyers with his office filed informations with some county circuit courts naming specific titles and requesting that the judges in the case actually review copies of the material named. Both went beyond the requirements of Kansas law.[18]
On the basis of those determinations, search warrants were issued. In Junction City, officers seized almost 2,000 copies of the named books from one local distributor. As its Missouri counterpart had, the distributor challenged the obscenity finding in court, which ruled in favor of the state. After an appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court failed, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Quantity of Books v. Kansas in 1963.[18]
Brennan again wrote for a 7–2 majority that reaffirmed and expanded the Marcus holding. The Kansas seizure was unconstitutional as well, the Court said, since it did not provide for an adversary hearing where the distributor could challenge the obscenity allegation prior to seizure. Black, joined by Justice Douglas, in his concurrence reiterated both justices' firm opposition to any government regulation of obscenity; and Justice Potter Stewart concurred separately, finding that the books at issue did not constitute hardcore pornography, the only material he felt was beyond First Amendment protections. In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote for himself and Justice Tom Clark and found the case and procedure more similar to Kingsley Books than Marcus, saying that the Missouri Supreme Court should have been affirmed.[19]
The following year, Brennan again relied on his holdings in both Marcus and Quantity of Books when striking down
The Court reached the limits of Marcus in 1985, when it upheld the warrantless arrest and later conviction of a
Outside of the Court's obscenity cases, Brennan also rested his majority holding in
Appellate courts
Even a considerable amount of time since the case was handed down, a few appellate decisions have ventured to expand or clarify Marcus. In a 1981 case, United States v. Espinoza, the
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 367
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren Court
- List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment
Notes
- ^ The seized material was later described as "so-called 'girlie' magazines, nudist magazines, treatises and manuals on sex, photography magazines, cartoon and joke books, and still photographs." (Marcus, 367 U.S. at 723, note 8).
- ^ Specifically, he referred to Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68, (1947), Black, J., dissenting; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360, 374, (1959), Douglas, J., dissenting.
- child molestation charges had told investigators of a large stash of child pornographywhich he showed them while molesting them.
References
- ^ United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, 5 F.Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y., 1933).
- ^ United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses, by James Joyce, 72 F.2d 705 (2nd Cir., 1934)
- ^ Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
- ^ Brennan, J.
- ^ Kingsley Books Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 (1957).
- ^ Marcus, 367 U.S. at 734.
- ^ Marcus, 367 U.S. at 725–27.
- Howell's State Trials 1030; 95 ER807; [1765] EWHC KB J98.
- ^ Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 626 (1886), Bradley, J.
- ^ Marcus, 367 U.S. at 729.
- ^ Roth, 354 U.S. at 385–87, Brennan, J.
- ^ Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959).
- ^ Marcus, 367 U.S. at 730.
- ^ Marcus, 367 U.S. at 730–33.
- ^ Marcus, 367 U.S. at 734–37.
- ^ Marcus, 367 U.S. at 737–38.
- ^ Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). In Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965), the Court formally held as such.
- ^ a b Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205, 207–210, (1964), Brennan, J.
- ^ Quantity of Books, 378 U.S. at 210 et seq.
- ^ Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58, (1965) Brennan, J.
- per curiam.
- ^ Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496, 506, (1973), Burger, C.J.
- ^ Macon v. Maryland, 472 U.S. 463, 468, (9185), O'Connor, J.
- ^ Macon, 472 U.S. at 476, Brennan, J., dissenting.
- ^ NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433, (1963), Brennan, J.
- ^ Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 485 (1965), Stewart, J.
- ^ United States v. Espinoza, 641 F.2d 153, 163 (4th Cir., 1981).
- ^ United States v. Apker, 705 F.2d 293, 301 (8th Cir., 1983)
- ^ United States v. Layne, 43 F.3d 127, 133 (5th Cir., 1995).
External links
- Text of Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)