04-03-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-i It has been argued that a'RICO or forfeiture statutebased on obscenity crime violations threatens to "chill protected speech" because it would permit prosecutors to 410 seize non-obscene materials from distributors convicted of violating the obscenity statute. American Civil Liberties Union, Polluting The Censorship Debate: A Summary And Critique Of The Final Report Of The Attorney General's Commission On . Pornography at 116-117 (1986). However, a narrow majority of the United States Supreme Court recently held that 1 there is no constitutional bar to a state's inclusion of substantive obscenity violations . among the predicate offenses for its RICO statute. Sapoenfield v. Indiana, 57 U.S.LW. 4180; 4183-4184 (February 21, 1989). The Court recognized that "any form of criminal obscenity statute applicable to a bookseller will induce some tendency to self-censorship and have some inhibitory effect on the dissemination of material not obscene." Id. at 4184. But the Court ruled that, "the mere assertion of some possible self-censorship resulting from a statute is not enough to render an anti-obscenity law unconstitutional under our precedent."• Id. The Court specifically upheld RICO provisions which increase penalties where there is a pattern of multiple violations of { obscenity laws. •• However, in a companion case, the Court also invalidated a pretrial seizure of a bookstore and its contents after only a preliminary finding of "probable cause" to believe that a RICO violation had occurred. Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 57 U.S.LW. 4180, 4184-4185 (February 21, 1989). The Court explained there is a rebuttable presumption that expressive materials are protected by the First i Amendment. That presumption is not rebutted until the claimed justification for seizure of materials, the elements of_a RICO violation, are proved in an adversary proceeding. Id. at 4185. The Court did not specifically reach the fundamental question of whether seizure of { the assets of a sexually oriented business such as a bookstore is constitutionally permissible once a RICO violation is proved. The Court explained: [F]or the purposes of disposing of this case, we assume without deciding that bookstores and their contents are forfeitable (like other property -26- .