Sol D. Maizels v. George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney for Multnomah County, Oregon

Good Law
429 F.2d 982
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 14, 197025562_1California365 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Upon the authority of Demich, Inc. v. Ferdon, 426 F.2d 643 (9th Cir. 1970), the order for the return of the seized films is affirmed.

Since acquiescence with our decision can, we feel, be assumed until the contrary appears, the case is remanded with instructions that the injunction against future seizures be vacated.

concurrence Opinion

Chambers, J.

(concurring) :

This is more dirty pictures business. Obviously the police cannot be permitted to proceed in terrorem. But it would seem that a magistrate could invent a hearing to show cause why a search warrant should not issue. Then the magistrate could look at the film before issuing his warrant. Also, courts must have the necessary injunctive powers to prevent destruction or disappearance of the film by hit and run producers, assuming that a prosecution is contemplated.

Opinion

429 F.2d 982 Sol D. MAIZELS, Appellee, v. George VAN HOOMISSEN, District Attorney for Multnomah County, Oregon, Appellant. No. 25562. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 14, 1970. Al J. Laue (argued), Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., Jacob B. Tanzer, Sol. Gen., Salem, Or., for appellant. Paul R. Meyer (argued) and Marvin S. Nepom (argued), of Kobin & Meyer, Portland, Or., for appellee. Before CHAMBERS and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and SWEIGERT, District Judge. 1 PER CURIAM: 1 Upon the authority of Demich, Inc. v. Ferdon, 426 F.2d 643 (9th Cir. 1970), the order for the return of the seized films is affirmed. 2 Since acquiescence with our decision can, we feel, be assumed until the contrary appears, the case is remanded with instructions that the injunction against future seizures be vacated. CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge (concurring): 3 This is more dirty pictures business. Obviously the police cannot be permitted to proceed in terrorem. But it would seem that a magistrate could invent a hearing to show cause why a search warrant should not issue. Then the magistrate could look at the film before issuing his warrant. Also, courts must have the necessary…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.