UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ARTHUR RANDALL SANDERS, JR., GULF COAST NEWS AGENCY, INC., TRANS WORLD AMERICA, INC., A/K/A TWA, INC. AND WILLIAM WALTER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the proper remedy for a prior restraint violation is the return of property, not suppression of evidence, and that no First or Fourth Amendment violation occurred.
Appellants contended the government engaged in prior restraint. The court reviewed precedent regarding remedies for such alleged violations.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Return Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED and the Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Local Fifth Circuit Rule 16), the Petitions for Rehearing En Banc are also DENIED.
Appellants contend that the Government in this case engaged in prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment. However, the majority of the panel (Judges Ainsworth and Clark) point out that this Court held in United States v. Bush, 5 Cir., 1979, 582 F. 2d 1016, 1021 (Morgan, J.) that the appropriate remedy for such a violation is “return of the . . . property, . not its suppression as evidence at trial.” See also United States v. Echols, 5 Cir., 1978, 577 F. 2d 308.
Thus, even had the Government “abridge[d] the public’s First Amendment right to access to” expressive matter in this case, the proper remedy would be “return of the allegedly obscene materials” to the owner, with the Government retaining sample films for evidentiary purposes, “not suppression of these items at a subsequent obscenity trial.” United States v. Cangiano, 2 Cir., 1972, 464 F. 2d 320, 328, vacated on other grounds, 413 U.S. 913, 93 S.Ct. 3047, 37 L.Ed.2d 1023, on remand, 491 F. 2d 905, cert. denied, 418 U.S. 934,94 S.Ct. 3223, 41 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1974); Huffman v. United States, 1971, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 238, 244, 470 F. 2d 386, 392. See United States v. Womack, 1974, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 35, 49-50 n.48, 509 F. 2d 368, 382-83 n.48; United States v. Sherwin, 9 Cir., 1976, 539 F. 2d 1, 8 n.11 (en banc). Cf. United States v. Alexander, 8 Cir., 1970, 428 F. 2d 1169, 1176; Tyrone, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 4 Cir., 1969, 410 F. 2d 639, 641; Metzger v. Pearcy, 7 Cir., 1968, 393 F. 2d 202, 204.
We have found no decision that has deviated from the foregoing authority and that has applied the exclusionary rule under circumstances similar to those here. There was no First or Fourth Amendment violation in this ease, and therefore exclusion of the sexually explicit films from evidence in this case would have been erroneous.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (U.S. 1980)
-
Piepenburg v. Cutler, 649 F.2d 783 (10th Cir. 1981)
-
United States v. Sanders, 625 F.2d 1311 (5th Cir. 1980)
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- United States v. Sherwin, 539 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1976)
- Miller v. United States, 413 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1973)
- United States v. Womack, 509 F.2d 368 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
- Huffman v. United States, 470 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Ferris J. Alexander and Edward J. Alexander, 428 F.2d 1169 (8th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Cangiano, 464 F.2d 320 (2d Cir. 1972)
- Tyrone, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 410 F.2d 639 (4th Cir. 1969)
- Radley Metzger v. Noble R. Pearcy, 393 F.2d 202 (7th Cir. 1968)
- United States v. Bush, 582 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Cangiano, 491 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1973)