Indeed, Justice Marshall questioned whether such a line could ever be drawn. Syllabus. The Georgia home of Robert Eli Stanley, a suspected and previously convicted bookmaker, was searched by police with a federal warrant to seize betting … The Court based its decision on the principle that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas, even when those ideas lack social worth. Stanley was placed under arrest and later convicted for “knowingly having possession of obscene matter” in violation of the laws of the State of Georgia (plaintiff). obscene matter" in violation of Georgia law. Synopsis of Rule of Law. ." 354 U.S. at 354 U. S. 486-487. at 360, n. 40. We find it necessary to consider only one. Cenite, Mark. 6, 1957); H. Packer, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction 316-328 (1968); Schwartz, Morals Offenses and the Model Penal Code, 63 Col.L.Rev. In this context, Georgia concedes that the present case appears to be one of “first 350 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1957), the court denied an attempt by the Government to confiscate certain materials sought to be imported into the United States by the Institute for Sex Research, Inc., at Indiana University. See Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58 (1963); Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U. S. 478 (1962). In this context, Georgia concedes that the present case appears to be one of 'first impression * * * on this exact point,' . . in the present case, I think, in a manner made the more pernicious by its very subtlety. None of the statements cited by the Court in, Roth for the proposition that "this Court has always assumed that obscenity is not protected by the freedoms of speech and press" were made in the context of a statute punishing mere private possession of obscene material; the cases cited deal for the most part with use of the mails to distribute objectionable material or with some form of public distribution or dissemination. Stanley v. Georgia was a United States Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law, in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.. With him on the brief was Lewis R. Slaton. State v. Jacobellis, 173 Ohio St. 22, 27-28, 179 N.E.2d 777, 781 (1962), rev'd on other grounds, 378 U. S. 378 U.S. 184 (1964). And this is not a case that presents any questions as to the permissible scope of a search made incident to a lawful arrest. The state officer concluded that they were obscene and seized them. PETITIONER:Stanley. ); Ginsberg v. New York, supra, at 390 U. S. 635. Georgia contends that appellant does not have these rights, that there are certain types of materials that the individual may not read or even possess. 9th Cir.1961). Stanley v. Georgia (1969) held that mere possession of obscene material could not be criminalized, although the state still had broad power to regulate the distribution of obscenity. In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the mere private possession of obscene materials could not be criminalized, consistent with the First Amendment, although it acknowledged that ownership of such materials is not protected speech. The State and appellant both agree that the question here before us is whether 'a statute imposing criminal sanctions upon the mere (knowing) possession of obscene matter' is constitutional. We are not certain that this argument amounts to anything more than the assertion that the State has the right to control the moral content of a person's thoughts. There appears to be little empirical basis for that assertion. The case came about after Robert Stanley was convicted for possessing obscene films in his home. The motion was denied, and the films were admitted in evidence at the trial. [Footnote 6] Indeed, with one, exception, we have been unable to discover any case in which the issue in the present case has been fully considered. Other cases dealing with nonpublic distribution of obscene material or with legitimate uses of obscene material have expressed similar reluctance to make such activity criminal, albeit largely on statutory grounds. 24484. This record presents a bald violation of that basic constitutional rule. . Its guarantee is not confined to the expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by a majority. at 339 U. S. 62. The State and appellant both agree that the question here before us is whether "a statute imposing criminal sanctions upon the mere [knowing] possession of obscene matter" is constitutional. For what happened here was that a search that began as perfectly lawful became the occasion for an unwarranted and unconstitutional seizure of the films. In Stanley v. Georgia (1969), the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to prohibit the mere private possession of obscene materials. Stanley challenged his conviction on the grounds that the Georgia statute’s criminalization of the mere private possession of obscene matter violated the First Amendment. Unwanted government intrusions into an individual's privacy violate fundamental rights, except in narrow circumstances. Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U. S. 676 (1968). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Under authority of a warrant to search appellant's home for evidence of his alleged bookmaking activities, officers found some films in his bedroom. He was thereafter indicted, tried, and convicted for "knowingly hav[ing] possession of . Perhaps recognizing this, Georgia asserts that exposure to obscene materials may lead to deviant sexual behavior or crimes of sexual violence. Pp. Justice Thurgood Marshall's opinion is unclear about the basis for this conclusion, subject under one interpretation as being based primarily on Fourth Amendment restrictions on search and seizure, under another as based on freedom of … Facts of the case. The door barring federal and state intrusion into this area cannot be left ajar; it must be kept tightly closed and opened only the slightest crack necessary to prevent encroachment upon more important interests. Official Draft 1962); see also Model Penal Code § 207.10 and comment 4 (Tent.Draft No. After Robert Eli Stanley was convicted for illegal gambling activity, police obtained a warrant to search his house for gambling paraphernalia. . The Court distinguished this case from Roth v. United States (1957), on the grounds that Roth was convicted of sending obscene materials through the mail. [Footnote 11] Roth and the cases following that decision are not impaired by today's holding. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. (b) The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, and to be generally free from governmental intrusions into one's privacy and control of one's thoughts. . APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. What we have said in no way infringes upon the power of the State or Federal Government to make possession of other items, such as narcotics, firearms, or stolen goods, a crime. I cannot so readily overlook the serious inroads upon Fourth Amendment guarantees countenanced in this case by the Georgia courts. J. Robert Sparks argued the cause for appellee. Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association, Aug. 13, 2019. http://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/417/stanley-v-georgia. . . That argument is based on alleged difficulties of proving an intent to distribute or in producing evidence of actual distribution. In this context, Georgia concedes that the present case appears to be one of "first [p560] impression . During the search, the officers found three reels of eight-millimeter film. The Court recognized and affirmed the state’s “broad power to regulate obscenity,” but it said that power did not extend to the mere possession, in private, of such material. "[T]he premises known as 280 Springside Drive, S.E. The officers viewed the films, concluded they were obscene, and seized them. The line between the transmission of ideas and mere entertainment is much too elusive for this Court to draw, if indeed such a line can be drawn at all. However, neither Roth nor any subsequent decision of this Court dealt with the precise problem involved in the present case. If the State can protect the body of a citizen, may it not, argues Georgia, protect his mind? They believe, too, that adults as well as children are corruptible in morals and character, and that obscenity is a source of corruption that should be eliminated. . Under authority of a warrant to search appellant's home for evidence of his alleged bookmaking activities, officers found some films in his bedroom. Many of the cases involved prosecutions for sale or distribution of obscene materials or possession with intent to sell or distribute. STANLEY v. GEORGIA(1969) No. See Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; cf. The Supreme Court of … Notes ^1 '(T)he premises known as 280 Springside Drive, S.E., two story residence with an annex on the main floor constructed of brick and frame, in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia, in the Northern District of Georgia * * *.' “Obscenity and the Internet: Does the Current Obscenity Standard Provide Individuals with the Proper Constitutional Safeguards?” Albany Law Review 59 (1995): 709–737. The Court found it noteworthy that the statute attempted to reach into Stanley’s home. No. . . Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, 96 U. S. 736-737 (1878) (use of the mails); United States v. Chase, 135 U. S. 255, 135 U. S. 261 (1890) (use of the mails); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 165 U. S. 281 (1897) (publication); Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U. S. 497, 194 U. S. 508 (1904) (use of the mails); Hoke v. United States, 227 U. S. 308, 227 U. S. 322 (1913) (use of interstate facilities); Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697, 283 U. S. 716 (1931) (publication); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 315 U. S. 571-572 (1942) (utterances); Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U. S. 146, 327 U. S. 158 (1046) (use of the mails); Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 333 U. S. 510 (1948) (possession with intent to sell); Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 343 U. S. 266 (1952) (libel). The Georgia home of Robert Eli Stanley, a suspected and previously convicted bookmaker, was searched by police with a federal warrant to seize betting paraphernalia.They found none, but … The appeal from the Supreme Court of Georgia to the Supreme Court of the. The Petitioner, Stanley’s (Petitioner) home was being searched for evidence of bookmaking when officers found obscene films. 669 (1963). obscene matter" in violation of a Georgia law. Alan Tauber. The Court first expressed doubt about the need to criminalize possession to stop distribution and then held that even if the state were correct, that would not “justify infringement of the individual’s right to read or observe what he pleases.”. [Footnote 2/4] It follows, therefore, that the agents were acting within the authority of the warrant when they proceeded to the appellant's upstairs bedroom and pulled open the drawers of his desk. People should have unlimited freedom to read or view whatever material they want in the privacy of their own homes. The films were projected and deemed to STANLEY v. THE STATE. . The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed. Because the films were seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, they were inadmissible in evidence at the appellant's trial. . For reasons set forth below, we agree that the mere private possession of obscene matter cannot constitutionally be made a crime. Stanley v. State, supra, at 261, 161 S.E.2d at 311. . The court found it unnecessary to reach the constitutional questions presented by the claimant, but did note its belief that, "the statement . Much of it is suppressed for the purity of the community and for the salvation and welfare of the 'consumer.' . And, in the realm of ideas, it protects expression which is eloquent no less than that which is unconvincing.". Before the commencement of the trial in this case, the appellant filed a motion to suppress the films as evidence upon the ground that they had been seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. [Footnote 2] We find it necessary to consider only one. 224 Ga. 259 (1968) 161 S.E.2d 309. The films were projected and deemed to be obscene. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) Stanley v. Georgia. § 26-6301 (Supp. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the conviction was unanimously overturned. at 354 U. S. 481. Agents had entered Robert E. Stanley’s house looking for evidence of bookmaking. For example, there is always the danger that obscene material might fall into the hands of children, see Ginsberg v. New York, supra, or that it might intrude upon the sensibilities or privacy of the general public. http://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/417/stanley-v-georgia, the right to receive information and ideas. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court of Ohio interpreted the Ohio statute to require proof of "possession and control for the purpose of circulation or exhibition." The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed. obscene … Therefore, the state could not attempt to legislate a person’s private thoughts. No such dangers are present in this case. Stanley v. State, supra, 224 Ga., at 261, 161 S.E.2d, at 311. On the basis of this investigation they secured a search warrant and entered his home. at 354 U. S. 485. I agree with the Court that the mere possession of reading matter or movie films, whether labeled obscene or not, cannot be made a crime by a State without violating. After finding them, the agents spent some 50 minutes exhibiting them by means of the appellant's projector in another upstairs room. Finally, we are faced with the argument that prohibition of possession of obscene materials is a necessary incident to statutory schemes prohibiting distribution. But see Ackerman v. United States, 293 F.2d 449 (C.A. The Supreme Court of the United States held that private possession of obscene material is constitutionally protected, overruling the Supreme Court of Georgia. Stanley was convicted of possessing obscenity by a jury applying Georgia law, and the state supreme court upheld his conviction. "Communities believe, and act on the belief, that obscenity is immoral, is wrong for the individual, and has no place in a decent society. Henkin, Morals and the Constitution: The Sin of Obscenity. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. He was later indicted for 'knowingly hav(ing) possession of * * * obscene matter' in violation of Georgia law. In addition to a law degree from George Washington University School of Law, Tauber has a master’s degree in political science. 394 U. S. 564-566. Cf. . Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 (1966), was a proceeding in equity against a. book. The Court acknowledged that states remain free to criminalize the mailing and distribution of materials deemed obscene, but that interest is not unlimited. Facts: Armed with a search warrant citing alleged bookmaking activities, police found in a man's home three reels of eight-millimeter film. at 367 U. S. 672. The films were projected and deemed to be obscene. In general, the First Amendment guarantees that neither Congress nor state and local governments via the Fourteenth Amendment may infringe or place limits on free speech. The Court unanimously reversed the conviction, declaring that … An investigation of appellant's alleged bookmaking activities led to the issuance of a search warrant for … The fact that almost no gambling material was actually found has no bearing, of course, upon the validity of the search. Under authority of a warrant to search appellant's home for evidence of his alleged bookmaking activities, officers found some films in his bedroom. Even in the much-criticized case of United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56, the Court emphasized that "exploratory. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be reversed. Robert Eli Stanley was being investigated by federal and state agents for suspected bookmaking activities. 2. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Supreme Court of Georgia. ." 2009. See, e.g., Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 361 U. S. 152 (1959); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 378 U. S. 186-187 (1964) (opinion of BRENNAN, J. . In Stanley v. Georgia, the Court said no. [Footnote 10] See Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767, 386 U. S. 769 (1967). They obtained a search warrant for his home, where they found three reels of eight-millimeter films that were allegedly obscene. The court found, applying the Roth formulation, that the materials would not appeal to the "prurient interest" of those seeking to import and utilize the materials. See Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147 (1959). ." No. Roth was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and advertising, and an obscene book, in violation of a federal obscenity statute. It is true that, in Roth, this Court rejected the necessity of proving that exposure to obscene material would create a clear and present danger of antisocial conduct or would probably induce its recipients to such conduct. Since a further examination of the bedroom indicated that appellant occupied it, he was charged with possession of obscene matter and placed under arrest. 63 Col.L.Rev. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952). The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding it, "not essential to an indictment charging one with possession of obscene matter that it be alleged that such possession was 'with intent to sell, expose or circulate the same.'". The appellant correctly contends that this determination was clearly wrong under established principles of constitutional law. the Stanley case the Court held that an individual has a constitutional right to possess obscene materials within the home even though obscenity does not ordinarily enjoy protection under the First Amendment's "free speech" and "free press" clauses. Stanley was arrested, tried, and convicted under Georgia law for possession of obscene material. Supreme Court of United States. "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. But that case dealt with public distribution of obscene materials and such distribution is subject to different objections. Obscenity, at bottom, is not crime. MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the … 394 U.S. 557. at 383 U. S. 422. (a) Neither Roth, supra, nor subsequent decisions of the Court were made in the context of a statute punishing mere private possession of obscene material, but involved governmental power to prohibit or regulate certain public actions respecting obscene matter. Deeming the films obscene, the suspected bookkeeper was tried and convicted under a Georgia law prohibiting ownership of obscene materials. See also Redmond v. United States, 384 U. S. 264 (1966), where this Court granted the Solicitor General's motion to vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss an information charging a violation of a federal obscenity statute in a case where a husband and wife mailed undeveloped films of each other posing in the nude to an out-of-state firm for developing. [Footnote 2/1] With like particularity, it described the "things to be seized" -- equipment, records, and other material used in or derived from an illegal wagering business. v. Justice Potter Stewart, joined by two other justices, concurred in the result but found that the search that uncovered the obscene material that formed the basis of the charges was unlawful and that the evidence was illegally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Argued January 14-15, 1969. Stanley v. Georgia (1969) Creator: Coenen, Dan T., 1952-Date of Original: 2003/2019 Subject: Judgments--United States Obscenity (Law)--United States Freedom of speech--United States Location: United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018 Medium: articles Type: Text Format: text/html Description: Encyclopedia article about Stanley v. Georgia (1969). The interpretation was designed to avoid the constitutional problem posed by the "dissenters" in Mapp. impression . See Winters v. New York, supra, at 333 U. S. 510. Stanley v. State, 224 Ga. 259, 161 S.E.2d 309 (1968). [Footnote 5] Moreover, none of this Court's decisions subsequent to Roth involved prosecution for private possession of obscene materials. Using a projector and screen found in an upstairs living room, they viewed the films. . 135 U.S. at 135 U. S. 261. § 1257(2). That holding cannot foreclose an examination of the constitutional implications of a statute forbidding mere private possession of such material. The State and appellant both agree that the question here before us is whether "a statute imposing criminal sanctions upon the mere [knowing] possession of obscene matter" is constitutional. STANLEY v. GEORGIA 394 U.S. 557 (1969)Authorized by a search warrant, federal and state agents entered and searched Stanley's home for evidence of bookmaking activities. some, this may be a noble purpose, but it is wholly inconsistent with the philosophy of the First Amendment. This is not a case where agents in the course of a lawful search came upon contraband, criminal activity, or criminal evidence [Footnote 2/5] in plain view. The law was later amended to include letters and was sustained in that form. However, possession of a book determined to be obscene in such a proceeding was made criminal only when "for the purpose of sale, loan or distribution." Stanley was charged with knowing possession of obscene matter, which was prohibited by state law. two story residence with an annex on the main floor constructed of brick and frame, in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia, in the Northern District of Georgia. [Footnote 2/3], There can be no doubt, therefore, that the agents were lawfully present in the appellant's house, lawfully authorized to search for any and all of the items specified in the warrant, and lawfully empowered to seize any such. Instead, they found three reels of film in the desk drawer of an upstairs bedroom that they judged to be obscene. Slocum, Rebecca. Because that right is so fundamental to our scheme of individual liberty, its restriction may not be justified by the need to ease the administration of otherwise valid criminal laws. He was later indicted for "knowingly hav[ing] possession of . Decided April 7, 1969. The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University (accessed May 18, 2021). Finally, the Court turned to the argument that the criminalization of possession was a necessary incident to the criminalization of distribution. Appellant does not argue that the films are not obscene. Model Penal Code § 251.4 (Prop. The view of the "dissenting" judges was expressed by Judge Herbert: "I cannot agree that mere private possession of . Under authority of this warrant, federal and state agents secured entrance. This photo is of an 8mm projector, the type of camera and film found in Stanley's home. Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. Georgia justifies this assertion by arguing that the films in the present case are obscene. Yet what free speech is exactly is not always clear. In affirming the appellant's conviction, the Georgia Supreme Court specifically determined that the films had been lawfully seized. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be reversed. necessarily protects the right to receive. Held: The First Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth prohibits making mere private possession of obscene material a crime. This most basic of Fourth Amendment guarantees was frustrated. He is asserting the right to be free from state inquiry into the contents of his library. Appellant was arrested for their possession. Stanley v. Georgia, 89 S. Ct. 1243, 1251 (1969). 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081. Pp. was tried before a jury and convicted. Although they didn’t find what they were looking for, … 293. Stanley v. Georgia During its reworking of the obscenity standard, the Court estab-lished an important exception to the general rule that the first amendment does not protect obscene speech. Those cases dealt with the power of the State and Federal Governments to prohibit or regulate certain public actions taken or intended to be taken with respect to obscene matter. [in Roth] concerning the rejection of obscenity must be interpreted in the light of the widespread distribution of the material in Roth.". ", The purpose of these clear and precise words was to guarantee to the people of this Nation that they should forever be secure from the general searches and unrestrained seizures that had been a hated hallmark of colonial rule under the notorious writs of assistance of the British Crown. Argued January 14-15, 1969. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. See Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, 72 Yale L.J. 293. First Amendment rights are fundamental to American society, even if the information that is received has no social value. For also fundamental is the right to be free, except in very limited circumstances, from unwanted governmental intrusions into one's privacy. See, e.g., Cairns, Paul, & Wishner, Sex Censorship: The Assumptions of Anti-Obscenity Laws and the Empirical Evidence, 46 Minn.L.Rev. In the Stanley … . Argued January 14-15, 1969.-Decided April 7, 1969. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. “Federalizing or Eliminating Online Obscenity Law as an Alternative to Contemporary Community Standards.” Community Law and Policy 9 (Winter 2004): 25. STANLEY v. GEORGIA. The decision stated that, based on the First and Fourteenth amendments, the private possession of obscene material could not be held as a crime. Given the present state of knowledge, the State may no more prohibit mere possession of obscene matter on the ground that it may lead to antisocial conduct than it may prohibit possession of chemistry books on the ground that they may lead to the manufacture of homemade spirits. '", Stanley v. State, supra, at 261, 161 S.E.2d at 311. Pp. Moreover, in the context of this case -- a prosecution for mere possession of printed or filmed matter in the privacy of a person's own home -- that right takes on an added dimension. The issue was before the Court in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), but that case was decided on other grounds. cannot be undertaken by officers with or without a warrant." My reasons for this belief have been set out in many of my prior opinions, as for example, Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 361 U. S. 155 (concurring opinion), and Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463, 383 U. S. 476 (dissenting opinion). applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law. . 394 U. S. 560-564. The controlling constitutional principle was stated in two sentences by this Court more than 40 years ago: "The requirement that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. exist, but even if they did we do not think that they would justify infringement of the individual's right to read or observe what he pleases. In Stanley v. Geor-gia,33 the state prosecuted a private citizen for possession of films that were obscene under the Miller test. Syllabus. Stanley v. State, supra, at 261, 161 S.E.2d at 311. . Still another case dealt with an attempt to seize obscene material "kept for the purpose of being sold, published, exhibited . STANLEY v. GEORGIA What is most intriguing about Stanley v. Georgia' is neither the Supreme Court's decision to reverse a state court conviction for mere possession of obscene materials nor the unanimous agreement of the Justices in the conclusion reached, if not in the reasons given therefor. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 277 U. S. 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

Marvel Future Fight Dark Reign Epic Quest Guide, Como Yo Nadie Te Ha Amado, Gus Kenworthy Instagram Analytics, 1040 Schedule F, Minnesota Twins Baseball Cap, Star Wars Smuggler's Run Fan Film, Lemmy Death Cause,