# Entertainment Ventures, Inc. v. Brewer > District Court, M.D. Alabama · December 18, 1969 · 306 F. Supp. 802 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684210 ## Case - **Full name:** ENTERTAINMENT VENTURES, INC., a California Corporation; 80 Drive-In, Inc., an Alabama Corporation; Mini-Cinema of Alabama, Inc., an Alabama Corporation; And Jefferson Drive-Ins, Inc., an Alabama Corporation; T. W. Tidmore; Frank L. Thompson, Jr.; And L. J. Pepper, Plaintiffs, v. Honorable Albert P. BREWER, Governor of the State of Alabama; Honorable Floyd H. Mann, Director of the Department of Public Safety of the State of Alabama; Captain Willie B. Painter, Department of Public Safety of the State of Alabama; Captain E. J. Dixon, Department of Public Safety of the State of Alabama; Lt. R. H. Holmes, Department of Public Safety of the State of Alabama; City of Birmingham, a Municipal Corporation; Honorable Jamie Moore, Police Chief of the City of Birmingham, Alabama, and Their Successors in Office, Defendants; Cecil QUARLES, Individually and Doing Business as Etowah Art Cinema, Intervening Plaintiff, v. Honorable Albert P. BREWER, Governor of the State of Alabama; Honorable Floyd H. Mann, Director of the Department of Public Safety of the State of Alabama; Captain James A. Davis, Sergeant Roy McDowell, the City of Attalla, Alabama, and Police Chief Claude Carr, Defendants; JET DRIVE-IN THEATRE, INC., a Corporation, and William Ashley Metcalfe, Plaintiffs, v. Albert P. BREWER, Governor of the State of Alabama; Floyd Mann, Director, Department of Public Safety, State of Alabama; Herman Pitts, State Trooper, State of Alabama; David W. Crosland, District Attorney, State of Alabama; And Benjamin P. Franklin, Defendants; BLACK WARRIOR AMUSEMENT CORPORATION, an Alabama Corporation; Jack Vaughn Productions, Inc., a Georgia Corporation; And Johnny Moses, Plaintiffs, v. Floyd MANN, Willie Painter and R. W. Moore, Defendants - **Court:** District Court, M.D. Alabama - **Decided:** December 18, 1969 - **Citations:** 306 F. Supp. 802 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnson - **Judges:** Rives, Johnson, Pittman - **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684210 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that "[p]hrases such as 'to cause any child to become delinquent,' [and] 'to induce, aid, or encourage any child' . . . [found in predecessor statute to § 12-15-13] cannot meet the strict standard of specificity required in a criminal statute affecting expression prote… ## Opinion text JOHNSON, District Judge (specially concurring): I concur in the opinion and decree we are now entering in these cases. However, my concurrence in that part of the opinion on the question of whether an adversary hearing is necessary before seizure is with reservations. We are unanimous in our views that the seizures of the films by the Alabama authorities in each of the eases now before us was unconstitutional according to any known legal standards. By reason of this finding we order the films returned to the owners. Since we have held the seizures unconstitutional, in my opinion it is not necessary — or even appropriate — to undertake to render an advisory opinion (as the Court does on pages 812 and 813 of the opinion) outlining the possible procedures that may be followed in future instances when films are to be seized. My understanding of the holdings of the Supreme Court in Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 , 81 S.Ct. 1708 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1127 ; Lee Art Theatre, Inc. v. Virginia, 392 U.S. 636 , 88 S.Ct. 2103 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1313 ; Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; and Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 , 78 S.Ct. 1332 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 , leads me to the conclusion that the advisory dictum of this Court’s opinion may be erroneous. However, since I do consider that part of this Court’s opinion gratuitous dictum, and with this clarification, I concur. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684210. Public record. Not legal advice.