norml21 - Page 37

 adversely affect the reputations of defendants, failure to close
 such a hearing for the purpose of determining probable cause
 would constitute a violation of defendant's Ninth Amendment right
 to privacyl Ho_er v. _, 282 Fo Supp. 624 (D.C_ Ariz.
 1968).
 In 1969, the United States Supreme Court, in St_I_91Ci
 George, 394 U_S 557, 89 S. Ct. 1243, 22 Lo Ed°2d 542 (1969) held
 that the categorization of films as obscene was insufficient
 justification for a drastic invasion of the privacy of one's home
 for mere possession. The Court stated:
 If the First Amendment means anything, it
 means that a state has no business telling a
 manf sitting alone in his own house, what
 books he may read or what films he may watch.
 Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at
 the though of giving government the power to
 control men's minds°° .The line b__tween th____9
 trr_mls, ioI: of id_-s and the ei_tertainment
 is much too elusive for this Co_urt to draw,
 if indeed such a line can be drawn at all.
 394 U.S. at 565-566 (emphasis added).
 Although not a trace of Ninth Amendment consideration by the
 Court may be inferred by this decisiong the federal district
 court in United States v. B 6 H Di_tributii_, 319 F. Suppo
 1231 (WoD° Wisco 1970) held unconstitutional as violative of the
 First (speech) and Ninth (privacy) Amendments, a state statute
 prohibiting unlawful transportation of obscene materials in
 37