Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York case brief summary
442 U.S. 319 (1979)
CASE FACTS
The Court reversed and remanded. The Court held that the search warrant violated theFourth Amendment because it did not particularly describe the things to be seized and left it entirely to the discretion of the officials conducting the search to decide what items were likely obscene and to implement the seizure. The Court noted that the Fourth Amendment did not countenance open-ended warrants to be completed while a search was being conducted and items seized or after the seizure had been carried out. In addition, the participation of the judicial officer who issued the warrant in the execution of the search and seizure violated the constitutional requirement that warrants be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate.
CONCLUSION
The judgment was reversed and remanded because the search and seizure violated theFourth Amendment as the search warrant did not particularly describe the things to be seized and left it entirely to the discretion of the officials conducting the search to decide what items were likely obscene and to implement the search.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
442 U.S. 319 (1979)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant sought review of a judgment
of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, which affirmed his
convictions for obscenity in the second degree. Defendant contended
that the seizure of magazines, films, and other objects from his
adult bookstore violated guarantees of the First, Fourth,
and Fourteenth Amendments.CASE FACTS
- Defendant was charged with three counts of obscenity in the second degree.
- He entered a guilty plea after his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his adult bookstore was denied.
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on claims that the seizure of magazines, films, and other objects from defendant's bookstore violated guarantees of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Court reversed and remanded. The Court held that the search warrant violated theFourth Amendment because it did not particularly describe the things to be seized and left it entirely to the discretion of the officials conducting the search to decide what items were likely obscene and to implement the seizure. The Court noted that the Fourth Amendment did not countenance open-ended warrants to be completed while a search was being conducted and items seized or after the seizure had been carried out. In addition, the participation of the judicial officer who issued the warrant in the execution of the search and seizure violated the constitutional requirement that warrants be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate.
CONCLUSION
The judgment was reversed and remanded because the search and seizure violated theFourth Amendment as the search warrant did not particularly describe the things to be seized and left it entirely to the discretion of the officials conducting the search to decide what items were likely obscene and to implement the search.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment