Heller v. New York

1973-06-25

Headline: Court upholds warrant seizure of an allegedly obscene movie without a prior adversary hearing, allowing evidence seizure when a neutral judge viewed the film and prompt judicial review is available, affecting movie exhibitors.

Holding: The Court held that a neutral judge who personally viewed a film may issue a warrant to seize it as evidence without a prior adversary hearing, provided prompt judicial adversary review and safeguards are available.

Real World Impact:

Allows warrant seizure of a single film copy as evidence without prior adversary hearing.
Requires prompt judicial review and permits copying if no other copies exist.
Affects movie exhibitors facing seizures and criminal prosecutions for obscenity.

Topics: obscenity rules, movie seizures, free speech, evidence seizure

Summary

Background

The case involves a commercial movie theater manager who showed a film called "Blue Movie" in New York City. After police and a prosecutor viewed parts of the film, a judge attended a screening, concluded the film was obscene, and signed warrants that led to seizure of three reels and the manager’s arrest. No one at the theater was warned before the warrants issued. The manager went to trial before three judges, offered witnesses about social and artistic value, and was convicted; New York appellate courts viewed the film and affirmed the conviction.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a judge who personally views an allegedly obscene film may issue a warrant to seize it as evidence without first holding an adversary hearing. The Court said there is no absolute constitutional right to a prior adversary hearing when a single copy is seized under a warrant to preserve evidence, provided a neutral judge made an independent probable-cause determination, the seizure genuinely preserves evidence, and a prompt adversary judicial determination is available afterward. The opinion also said courts should allow copying of seized film when necessary to continue exhibition, or return the film if copying is denied. The Court vacated and remanded the judgment so New York courts could reconsider substantive obscenity issues in light of the Court’s recent obscenity rulings.

Real world impact

Law enforcement may seize a single copy of an allegedly obscene film under a warrant without a pre-seizure hearing if a neutral judge has independently viewed and found probable cause and prompt judicial review is available. The ruling leaves open substantive questions about the obscenity law, which the New York courts must reexamine; this is not a final resolution of all First Amendment issues.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan (joined by Stewart and Marshall) would have found the New York obscenity statute overbroad and reversed; Justice Douglas would have reversed outright, believing the statute violates the First Amendment.