The Court treated the transaction as a simple purchase, thus facilitating enforcement of obscenity statutes. In reaching its decision, the Court held that the officer's entry into a place of business did not infringe a reasonable expectation of privacy and that the officer's purchase of the magazines did not interfere with Macon's possessory interest. In this case, the respondent asserted that the entire transaction was a preconceived seizure in that the officer did not actually intend to part with the purchase money. However, this contention requires an evaluation of the subjective state of the officer's mind. Viewed objectively, the purchase of the magazines by an undercover officer was simply a purchase, regardless of any subjective intent the officer may have entertained. Thus, the Court's holding in Macon is supported by precedent in the areas of both obscenity and search and seizure. Further, it is both logical and practical because it avoids requiring the acquisition of a warrant before a police officer can make a simple purchase. 180 notes.