Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York
442 U.S. 319 (1979) (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A search warrant that fails to particularly describe the items to be seized, instead leaving that determination to officials during its execution, is an unconstitutional general warrant under the Fourth Amendment. A judicial officer who actively participates in executing a search warrant by leading the search and making on-the-spot determinations of what to seize is not the 'neutral and detached' magistrate required by the Constitution.
Facts:
- A New York State Police investigator purchased two films from Lo-Ji Sales, Inc.'s 'adult' bookstore.
- After viewing the films, the investigator presented them to a Town Justice, who concluded they were obscene.
- The Town Justice issued a search warrant authorizing the seizure of other copies of the two films.
- The warrant also contained a provision authorizing the seizure of any other 'similar' items that the Justice would, upon examination at the store, independently determine to be in violation of obscenity laws. This portion of the warrant was left blank, to be filled in later.
- The Town Justice, along with 10 law enforcement officers, went to the bookstore to execute the warrant.
- Over a period of nearly six hours, the Justice directed the search, viewing portions of films in projectors and examining magazines to determine if they were obscene.
- Based on his on-site determinations, the Justice ordered the seizure of 397 magazines, 431 film reels, and numerous projectors.
- After the search was completed, the seized items were inventoried and listed on the previously blank pages of the search warrant.
Procedural Posture:
- Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. was charged in a New York state court with three counts of second-degree obscenity.
- The trial court denied petitioner's pretrial motion to suppress the evidence seized from its store.
- Following the denial, petitioner entered a plea of guilty to all charges.
- Petitioner appealed the denial of its suppression motion to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, which affirmed the convictions.
- The New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) denied petitioner's application for leave to appeal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the constitutional claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a search conducted pursuant to an open-ended warrant, which is filled in with the particular items to be seized only after the search is complete, and where the issuing Town Justice actively participates in and leads the search, violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes, the search violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. A search warrant cannot be an open-ended authorization leaving it to the discretion of executing officials to decide what is obscene and subject to seizure. The Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement was violated because the warrant did not describe the things to be seized, but was instead completed after the seizure was carried out. This process is reminiscent of the reviled 'general warrants' that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. Furthermore, the Town Justice abandoned his constitutionally required role as a 'neutral and detached' judicial officer by becoming 'a member, if not the leader, of the search party' and acting as an 'adjunct law enforcement officer.' His presence did not provide a constitutional safeguard but rather made him a participant in a police operation under the authority of an invalid warrant.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces two fundamental Fourth Amendment principles: the prohibition on general warrants and the requirement of a neutral and detached magistrate. The Court's decision makes clear that even in the context of seizing obscene materials, which have limited First Amendment protection, law enforcement must adhere strictly to constitutional procedures. By invalidating a warrant that was filled out after the search, the Court created a bright-line rule against such 'open-ended' authorizations. The ruling also clarifies the role of a magistrate, prohibiting them from crossing the line from judicial arbiter to active participant in a law enforcement operation, thereby protecting the separation of powers at a practical level.
Unlock the full brief for Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York