In the case of New York v. P.J. Video, Inc., et al., 1985, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant could be issued based on probable cause to believe that certain materials were obscene and thus not protected by the First Amendment, even if it was not yet determined whether they were legally obscene. The court held that police officers are not required to independently verify an informant's claim of obscenity before obtaining a search warrant for allegedly obscene material. This decision overturned lower courts' rulings which had suppressed evidence obtained from such warrants because magistrates who issued them did not personally view the films in question and determine their obscenity prior to issuing warrants.

In the dissenting opinion for New York v. P.J. Video, Inc., Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision to allow a search warrant based on probable cause of obscenity was flawed and inconsistent with previous rulings regarding First Amendment protections. He contended that this ruling would lead to an increase in censorship by allowing law enforcement officials to seize materials they subjectively deem obscene without prior judicial determination of obscenity. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse of power and violation of individuals' rights due to the subjective nature of determining what constitutes as "obscene". He also criticized the majority's reliance on a presumption that magistrates are more capable than police officers at making these determinations, arguing there is no empirical evidence supporting such assumption.