Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York

4 Citing briefs

  1. Free Speech Coalition, Inc. et al v. the Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

    MOTION for Summary Judgment on Their First Amendment Facial Overbreadth and Fourth Amendment Claims with Memorandum, and Evidentiary Material in Support and Proposed Order

    Filed May 10, 2013

    Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 136 (1978); G.M. Leasing, 429 U.S. at 352-53; United States v. Leary, 846 F.2d 592, 596-97 (10th Cir. 1988); Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 369 (1968); United States v. Jefferson, 571 F. Supp. 2d 696, 703-04 (E.D. Va. 2008). See also, Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 329 (1979). Again, this was all done without a warrant.

  2. United States of America v. Rojadirecta.org et al

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 41 MOTION to Dismiss NOTICE OF CLAIMANT PUERTO 80 PROJECTS, S.L.U.'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT.. Document

    Filed May 2, 2012

    See Fort Wayne, 489 U.S. at 66; New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. at Case 1:11-cv-04139-PAC Document 51 Filed 05/02/12 Page 18 of 20 14 727 (“Unless and until the Government has clearly made out its case, the First Amendment commands that no injunction may issue.”); Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. State of New York, 442 U.S. 319, 326 n.5 (1979) (noting that the First Amendment imposes special constraints on searches for and seizures of presumptively protected materials). Even if the government had provided notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the seizure, an order of forfeiture of the Domain Names under the theory of “facilitation” would be unconstitutional.

  3. Puerto 80 Projects, S.L.U. v. United States of America et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 1 Petition

    Filed June 13, 2011

    See also Matyland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463,468 (1985) ("The First Amendment imposes special constraints on searches for and seizures of presumptively protected material, and requires that the Fourth Amendment be applied with 'scrupulous exactitude' in such circumstances.") (internal citation omitted); Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 3 19,326, n.5 (1979) (noting that the First Amendment imposes special constraints on searches for, and seizures of, presumptively protected materials). In Fort Wayne, state and local officials (respondents) filed a civil action pursuant to Indiana's RICO laws, alleging that the defendant bookstores had engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by repeatedly violating Indiana's obscenity laws.

  4. Free Speech Coalition, Inc. et al v. the Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss and Reply to Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed February 1, 2010

    ; Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 369 (1968) (warrantless search and seizure of records from workplace violated Fourth Amendment). See also, Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 329 (1979) (“[T]here is no basis for the notion that because a retail store invites the public to enter, it consents to wholesale searches and seizures that do not conform to Fourth Amendment guarantees.”) The presumption is that a warrant is needed for that search.