State v. Dornblaser

The grand jury returned an indictment against the defendant for the “sale of obscene films.” Within season the defendant filed a Motion to suppress on two grounds: (1) that there was no prior adversary hearing on the question of obscenity; and (2) that R. C. 2905.34, under which the defendant was charged, is unconstitutional.

The facts in the instant case reveal that an operator of a service station at Whitethorn & Lorain in North Olmsted, ,was approached by R. E. (the codefendant), who stopped in for repairs to his auto and asked the operator if he were interested in purchasing some films and…