Robinson v. City of Birmingham

Background

A man, Michael Robinson, was convicted twice by Birmingham authorities for knowingly showing allegedly obscene motion pictures under a city ordinance. He was fined and sentenced to hard labor on both convictions. Before each trial he asked a judge to suppress the films because the magistrate who signed the seizure warrant had not watched the films first; those suppression requests were denied by trial and state appellate courts. The city’s ordinances define obscenity using the Miller standards and authorize magistrates or recorders to issue warrants based on an officer’s affidavit.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court denied review of Robinson’s case, so it did not rule on whether warrants may be issued without a magistrate first viewing the film or whether the ordinances are facially overbroad. By refusing review, the Court left the lower-court convictions and the city’s warrant practices in place. There is a written dissent from Justice Brennan, who argued that, except for distribution to juveniles or forced exposure of nonconsenting adults, the Constitution forbids wholesale suppression of sexually oriented materials and that Birmingham’s ordinances and seizure rules are therefore invalid.

Real world impact

As a result, Robinson’s convictions and sentences remain effective and Birmingham may continue to rely on its existing procedures to seize allegedly obscene films. The Supreme Court’s denial is not a final ruling on the constitutional questions; the legal issues about magistrates viewing films and the ordinances’ breadth could be revisited in future cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan, joined by two colleagues, would have granted review and summarily reversed, finding the ordinances overbroad and the seizure-authority unconstitutional under his First and Fourteenth Amendment view.