Roaden v. Kentucky
Headline: Seizure of obscene films without a warrant blocked, Court reversed conviction and limited police power to seize movies shown in commercial theaters without prior judicial determination.
Holding: The Court held that police may not seize an allegedly obscene film from a commercial theater without a warrant or prior judicial determination, and therefore reversed the manager's conviction based on that warrantless seizure.
- Prevents warrantless seizure of films shown in commercial theaters.
- Requires judicial finding or warrant before police seize allegedly obscene movies.
- Evidence seized without warrant may be inadmissible absent urgent circumstances.
Summary
Background
On September 29, 1970, the sheriff and a prosecutor bought tickets to a drive-in theater and watched the film "Cindy and Donna." The sheriff concluded it was obscene, arrested the theater manager in the projection booth, and seized one copy of the film without a warrant or any prior judicial finding. At trial the manager conceded the film's obscenity, the film was shown to the jury, and the manager was convicted. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky had upheld the conviction before the Supreme Court reversed.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether police may take a film being publicly shown in a commercial theater without a warrant. Relying on earlier cases, the Court said films and books get special First Amendment protection and that a warrantless seizure that stops distribution is a prior restraint. A warrant based only on an officer's conclusory view is insufficient, and no urgent circumstances existed to make instant seizure reasonable. The Court therefore reversed the conviction because the film was seized and admitted without a constitutionally adequate warrant or prior judicial scrutiny.
Real world impact
Police generally cannot seize movies being shown in commercial theaters without a warrant or a prior judicial check on obscenity, unless there is a true emergency that risks loss of evidence. Convictions based on films seized this way may be overturned and cases must proceed consistent with the need for judicial review. The Court noted that a warrant may be obtained ex parte and need not endanger the evidence when films are scheduled for exhibition.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan concurred in the judgment but said the Kentucky law was unconstitutionally overbroad and would reverse on that ground.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?