Opinion

Furfaro v. City of Seattle

  • 144 Wash. 2d 363
Court
Washington Supreme Court
Filed
Aug 2, 2001
Status
Published
Author
Sanders
On the bench
Guy, Sanders
Cited by
10 cases
Authority
More cited than 16.0%

The opinion

Sanders, J.

(concurring) — I concur only with the majority’s result for the reasons so well articulated by Judge Becker on behalf of the Court of Appeals. See Furfaro v. City of Seattle, 97 Wn. App. 537, 542-51 , 984 P.2d 1055 (1999), review granted, 140 Wn.2d 1012 , 5 P.3d 8 (2000).

In summary, when an activity enjoys legal protection unless obscene, an arrest warrant must be obtained from the judiciary. This is because obscenity determinations are ordinarily judicial ones, and, moreover, the alternative to an after-the-fact execution of a warrant is the prior restraint implicit in a midperformance arrest.

The majority’s claimed distinction between the admitted necessity of a warrant to seize a videotape and the supposed propriety of a warrantless arrest of a performer in mid-performance defies common sense. 7 As in the case of the warrantless seizure of a film, “Nothing prior to seizure afforded a magistrate an opportunity to ‘focus searchingly on the question of obscenity.’ ” Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496, 506 , 93 S. Ct. 2796, 2802 , 37 L. Ed. 2d 757 (1973) (quoting Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483, 488-89 , 93 S. Ct. 2789 , 37 L. Ed. 2d 745 (1973)). The principle is the same in either case. But it is even more applicable to a live performance than a film because the film may be preserved and shown again but the performance is gone forever. See also People v. Adais, 114 Misc. 2d 773 , 452 N.Y.S.2d 543, 545-46 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1982).

I would contend the issue is not whether the police *386 guessed right, but rather whether the police should be in a position to guess at all.

Alexander, C.J., and Johnson, J., concur with Sanders, J.

After modification, further reconsideration denied December 5, 2001.

Cf. majority at 370 n.2 (quoting State v. Dixon, 78 Wn.2d 796, 798, 479 P.2d 931 (1971)), “ ‘There is nothing unconstitutional about common sense.’ ” If anything, the reverse to the majority’s view would be more nearly correct. “It is almost preposterous to believe that systems of censorship prohibited by our Constitution as to book publishers and film producers ought not be prohibited as to our dancers, actors and comedians.” People v. Adais, 114 Misc. 2d 773 , 452 N.Y.S.2d 543, 546 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1982).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.