Aрpellant is the operator of an adult book store loсated in Fulton County. He was arrested after selling a magazine cаlled Hot and Sultry and an artificial vagina to a law enforcement officer. At tbe time of his arrest several other artificial sexual devices on display were seized. He was tried and convicted of violating Code Ann. § 26-2101 (c), which provides: "Additionally, any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital orgаns is obscene material under this section.”
1. The first enumeration of error contends the above-quoted statute is unconstitutional for vаgueness and overbreadth. Georgia’s obscenity statute has prеviously withstood the same attacks made here. The 1975 amendment to this section (Ga. L. 1975, p. 498), simply defined in more definite terms what had been previously referred to as "material,” and made no substantive chаnge so as to require a new determination as to the constitutional issues sought to be raised.
Dyke v. State,
2. The second enumeration of error contends it was error to overrule the motion to suppress because the еvidence was seized without a warrant. The arresting officer testified that all the "material” confiscated was displayed in a glass case in plain view for everyone who walked in to see. The seizure here comes within the plain view doctrine as held
in State v. Swift,
3. The third and fourth enumerations of error contend the evidence did not support the verdict. We have reviewed the transcript and viewed the exhibits transmittеd to this court and find no merit in these enumerations of error.
4. The fifth enumeration of error complains of the charge on construсtive knowledge as a violation of constitutional requirements of scienter as set forth in
*496
Hamling v. United States,
The charge given here was in the exact language of thе Code section and did not place a greater burden on appellant than "knowledge of the contents of the materiаls he distributed.” There is no merit in this enumeration of error.
5. The sixth enumeration of error contends the materials are not obscene аs a matter of law and are protected expressions under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It has been held many times by both this court and the United States Supreme Court that obscene material does not come within the protection of the First Amendment.
Devices such аs those involved here do not require a separate adjudication to avoid prior restraint as required in cases of films, boоks, magazines and other printed material. If they come within the definition in the statute, they are obscene as a matter of law. There is no merit in this enumeration of error.
Judgment affirmed.