From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maizels v. Van Hoomissen

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 14, 1970
429 F.2d 982 (9th Cir. 1970)

Opinion

No. 25562.

September 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.

Honorable William T. Sweigert, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.


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.


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.


Summaries of

Maizels v. Van Hoomissen

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 14, 1970
429 F.2d 982 (9th Cir. 1970)
Case details for

Maizels v. Van Hoomissen

Case Details

Full title:Sol D. MAIZELS, Appellee, v. George VAN HOOMISSEN, District Attorney for…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 14, 1970

Citations

429 F.2d 982 (9th Cir. 1970)

Citing Cases

United States v. Jacobs

Perial Amusement Corp. v. Morse, 482 F.2d 515, 521-523 (2d Cir. 1973). See Maizels v. Van Hoomissen, 429 F.2d…

United States v. Black

The procedure, which has been followed by several federal district courts, see United States v. One Carton…