Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Furfaro v. City of Seattle

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 2, 2001No. 68971-7Published

1ConcurrenceSanders, 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.

T…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Heller v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Roaden v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. State v. DixonWashington Supreme Court · 1971
  4. People v. AdaisCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1982
  5. Furfaro v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API