Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutetrialappellantjury trial
statuteappealappellant

Related Cases

Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583, 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3375, 2020 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3504, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 144
View Case »
Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257, 10 Otto 257, 1879 WL 16560, 25 L.Ed. 648
View Case »
Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S.E.2d 749
View Case »
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583, 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3375, 2020 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3504, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 144
View Case »
Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542

Facts

An investigation into the appellant's alleged bookmaking activities led to a search warrant for his home. During the search, federal and state agents found three reels of eight-millimeter film in a desk drawer, which they viewed and deemed obscene. The appellant was charged with possession of obscene matter and subsequently convicted after a jury trial.

An investigation of appellant's alleged bookmaking activities led to the issuance of a search warrant for appellant's home. Under authority of this warrant, federal and state agents secured entrance. They found very little evidence of bookmaking activity, but while looking through a desk drawer in an upstairs bedroom, one of the federal agents, accompanied by a state officer, found three reels of eight-millimeter film.

Issue

Whether the Georgia obscenity statute, which punishes mere private possession of obscene matter, violates the First Amendment as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Appellant argues here, and argued below, that the Georgia obscenity statute, insofar as it punishes mere private possession of obscene matter, violates the First Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

The First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a crime.

We hold that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a crime.

Analysis

The court determined that the mere private possession of obscene material cannot be criminalized, emphasizing the importance of individual rights to receive information and ideas in the privacy of one's home. The court noted that the state's interest in regulating obscenity does not extend to private possession, as this would infringe upon fundamental liberties protected by the Constitution.

In this context, we do not believe that this case can be decided simply by citing Roth. Roth and its progeny certainly do mean that the First and Fourteenth Amendments recognize a valid governmental interest in dealing with the problem of obscenity. But the assertion of that interest cannot, in every context, be insulated from all constitutional protections.

Conclusion

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Georgia Supreme Court, holding that the statute in question was unconstitutional as it infringed upon the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Who won?

The appellant prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the law criminalizing mere possession of obscene materials violated constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Marshall, held that First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a crime.

You must be