People v. Heller, 29 N.Y.2d 319 (1971)
A judge’s independent viewing of a film and determination of probable cause for obscenity is sufficient for issuing a seizure warrant without requiring a prior adversary hearing.
Summary
This case addresses whether a prior adversary hearing is required before a warrant can be issued for the seizure of an allegedly obscene film. The New York Court of Appeals held that a judge’s independent viewing of the film, followed by a determination of probable cause, satisfies constitutional requirements. The Court emphasized that judicial scrutiny, not merely a police officer’s assertion, is necessary for issuing warrants related to obscenity. The court distinguished the case from situations involving broad seizures of publications and highlighted the practical difficulties of requiring adversary hearings for warrant applications based on visual media.
Facts
The defendant was prosecuted under Section 235.05 of the Penal Law for exhibiting the film “Blue Movie.” A judge attended a public theater showing the film. After viewing the film, the judge determined there was probable cause to believe the film was obscene. Based on this determination, the judge issued warrants for the seizure of the film and the defendant’s arrest.
Procedural History
The trial court found the defendant guilty. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction. The case then reached the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether, before issuing warrants for the seizure of a film and arrest based on obscenity, the defendant is entitled to an adversary hearing before the issuing judge to contest the film’s obscenity.
Holding
No, because independent judicial action of viewing the film and determining probable cause met constitutional requirements; an adversary hearing is not mandated by the Supreme Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the procedure followed—the judge viewing the film and independently determining probable cause—satisfied the requirements established in Marcus v. Search Warrant, which mandates judicial supervision in obscenity cases to prevent seizures based solely on police judgment. The Court distinguished this case from Marcus, where warrants were issued based on a police officer’s conclusory assertions without judicial scrutiny. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Lee Art Theatre v. Virginia suggested that a judge’s viewing of the film might be sufficient, without explicitly requiring an adversary hearing.
The Court further argued that requiring adversary hearings before issuing warrants in obscenity cases presents practical difficulties. Unlike factual disputes where an adversary hearing helps a magistrate determine probable cause, in obscenity cases, the judge has already viewed the film. “But when a Magistrate sees a film, it is not much help to him, or indeed to the parties, in deciding probable cause to have counsel on one side tell him what he has just seen is obscene and on the other that it is not.” The court also distinguished the seizure of a single film as evidence from the wide-ranging seizure of publications that could amount to suppression of expression, as in Marcus. The court found that the New York statute met the standards set forth in Roth v. United States, as it pertained to prurient interest, patent offensiveness, and lack of redeeming social value.
The court emphasized the need for objective judgment by judges and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, concluding that the film was obscene and prosecution was not barred by the First Amendment.