Brief of Appellee — Salsburg v. Maryland

a”

DN oh RRA RM Bt «ram Yn hd Se AO a*

—

LIBRARY Office -Suprame Court, U. S.

SUPREME COURT. U.S. PILED

| Dr, OCT 13 1953 —

oe HAROLD 8. WILLEY, Clerk

7

\

In THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Ocrozer TERM, 1953

° ERT Sy SF ‘= No. 38 .

‘JULIUS SALSBURG, es

oe Appellant, _

ve vs.

‘STATE. OF MARYLAND,

oe Appellee.

~~

>

ON APPEAL From THE Counr or APPEALS GF KD

wt

BRIEF OF APPELLEE © 3

es - Epwarp D. E. Roxiuys,

| ei |

J. Epcar Harvey, - as og

Me es Asannons T, Hattracan,

fT _‘) Assistant Attorney General,

y ee ~ For Appellee. =”

a.

The Daily Record Co. Baltimore $, Md.

8\

a. Sennen. Syeyt ones baeenies: thie enendyw dene secsens

oy ee tS et

rae : PWS as te eee ;

athvadlishor gl venesadvnte: 3 ‘ ‘

i, ee sitar niemacng rere we

~*

i eae ae Wa ta tine whan ee pe HS

dos Shinai aren

192 U. 8. 575, 48 L. Sag eee ee

of Labor v. MeAdory, 525 Pea eee

U.S. 450, Wi BS

- American Coal Co. ¥. Allegany Co., 128 Md. 564, 98 ee wees

oe eee etre on ie

Poe ee eT oe eee er eee |

pense State, 248 Ala. 124 98 So. (24) 674. is :

. Bell v. State, ey BA (2d) 567....... eas Peas

Berry, State... Md... 95 A 2d) 819.

a Bratburd v. State, 193 Md. 352, 88 A. (2d) 446...

Bland v. State, .... ot at SRA I) 482 ic 2

Bradley v. State, ..... Md. . ong 9B A, (2A) 49%... jie ;

33

"Bowser v. State, 136 Md. $42, 110A. 864... aaa ee

33

31

» N.C. 28 8. 515. ce

« v. City of Fayette

. sem te a21, oA . (24) 200... ox 18

=e States, al U. 8. 494,

'y. St | Ma. on 88 A. (2d) Mi

; Mad. ....., 81 A. (2d) 241... int

ABYSS Sinineements a :

reese State. MA... oe: ry BA, (24) TEP eso, 3

Se _Broadcastin, ee No. NT,

Fleming, State, Md... MAC (a) 747... mee ae

"Fort Smith L. & T. Co. v. Board of Imp. ot Paving” 8

Dist., 274 U. S. 387, 71 L. Ed. a. ira ee "18-14, 30

Gardner v. Michigan, 190 U. 8. 325,50 L. Ea, 212 rntite 25

Goss v. State, .... Md. ...... SA Ct ON #8

' ‘ rsh a ASIA SS es RSE Re iat EATS

. 2 . ey

, oh inked ‘

’ 4 t j

/ Se

0

( - -

’

ae tees: Ma =, (28) 143... B: ie oe

‘remtiald x berg an, 108 Mat £90, 100 A. 10. <e 1B

ne 8 §. 602, 78 L. Ed. 529. cae Bah 38

see ~ Md. ving BAL (2a) “sane 38

ai pied sera SOUA. (28) 456 2.

re St Ma. ......, 92 A. (2d) 582 eo 33

Vieade v. State, . a, Ob A. (2a) B02 as — =

is 5,101 0. S22 251 ooo. 2526 25, 28

. Md. ......, STA. (2d) BIT. oS

forris v. Als ronstae woe ‘S. 642, 82 L. Ed. 490... 95

tye cen x Oey. Frankfort Co, ii a 561, A :

: pe aoe Hee vA4-15, 17

18

33

25

‘Poupley. Defore, 242 N. y. 13, 150 Ne: ‘E. = Se em

People v. Hanrahan, Mich., 42.N. W. 2124.00.00... 27-28

oe bipoeggntnstes pena ewan

ane”,

peg 1,3, 11-13, 141

ts

« -

a» 134 Me. 431, 107 A a = 45

ridar 121 Towa 164, 96 N. W. 730. ae |

~ Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117,96 L. Ed.138..... 9

. Stevens v. State, 89 Md. 662, y Sa: eee ne 16

Surratt v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 940, 46S. E. (2d) Ss

Bee

Sleudce us

4

oe ies Scher Pe

|

wet ne PONS he EN aia Gyms ne RINT Rabad eae React icine ney en

5

sumartoe leah

i mela whiten Ske Naa Heretesnasens naéhe ¥* prtiencenngragveves

, u

ts ee ee

$ 5 i

Steep en tras shtgdsedade

none ened etwas ERTS hte histensecetatdind eae *s

: a 2

" Section 306 .. coedierbeessreaseapeectens

ps 9 -

==; seeds bs fesistxz eres Fd ipabeara dente te ftisteseietasstiens

sash *D Game Sw ir M4

, yn! 3 F a

Bo klik yw esioccxcscolcanns ee

e

“ete wens PPeci as Cte ar eee eet tote Cea e reer cee eee etl tees | a

* eae at 4z t » a? ’ ,

Petite fetta tt

” Section 315 . WESSeSSO SESE Se Reeser erhe rire Hnaceteredaguesere Pi seeweeke ~ 31

ee n B68 .. ; Pye

PERSE S een eee onda ee reD Nene seeaenensel cunmbuseaWeseneeaeesmer

=e i

x a oe x

sR dnesn<dpclient ciyocucanyiiipendes neucaweeVoucnpers seed

| Sectiol 405. Feast doapastaesegeyecertoesdereeiiastyteuntensseseanengvesns

.

10, 14

?

Section 565 .. Satnensactenessneancrsarsrates ipcabinadovdbibebedaueuin paced

5) SEs

oa

Sections 423-438 . PT Eee eT ee te eee Tete ey ses vereseresvere

* ve - “ ‘ ’

y 5 + é

aha che reeks sesies vis Ab peeenceseseneestenseneeenianagnes

“= +s

seers etr swe

D PRAGA AUEREC ESS ERAS EESOT EA DEES RE See hESC RE TE ECT Ate e eee wees ee

ei ireaendy 8, 10, i1,

ween ewes

t

¢ ae nee 8

"Poet

+

sic Bodsbtannes

é 4 ae

194.

‘

Section 5A .. wédenndsasrnsperdunns:sarveteseatannerouereanenaneseesys oe

PCY ISE Z 25 5 oe F 4 :

BAER E RAPT OA OTERO ET EERE REO RER AT EHEEET EOE EOE S OAH e ODER EEE TEES

of Anne Arundel County

+

absanncdsiennyanarsndenasnnns nsatnaeustes. SNA PRABELLS 4

bere kdaesweees cexess

AB cs Ccedevewioeres

ahatereae

!

PECSON TOOT T TAKER HEHE

aE ae

panies of Maryland of 1982, Chapter 59 :: Be a eoiee

“Laws of Maryland of 1958, Chapter 419...

eteeee

aneateoee

°

8 8 we F

6,15

rash 10, 15

26

8, 21

in ete aa Hayne oe

be found in 85:4 OE ake Pee

Aippslios ‘sthigs Win Tecetalil Slaasast tet Sect

8S I

” depicts"

6

“STATEMENT OF THE CASE

These proceedings originated in the Circuit Court for

“Anne Arundel County, where the Appellant and two other

were convicted of bookmaking, which is a mis-

| pute. Section 306 of Article 27 of the Mary-

_ land Code (1951 Edition). Certain bookmaking parapher-

' nalia was introduced at the time of the trial over objection

ued bem barat sedis my) eraniage mening

peters fst Car Be aks Sd ae Guiana

of due process of law, and the Court of Appeals in its opin-

ion considered both of these contentions. Thus, the Court

A E, B & » . rf

Na Z ¥ u

* ce * : = - ,

> te PONG v1 rs : °

a ‘ 2 Soe ~

" .

& ‘ ‘

« »

y

a73 Wee ie ' 4 4 :

oe « ae ; : roe : $

3 OF ARTICLE 35 OF THE

5 17 :

he SP Seay eg Pe]

Oe he 4 {

Q ae: if 2

nts, Aes

:

-

ico, and Worcester Counties, in the prosecution of any

person for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon.

one of the most fundaisentel Immanitie of the citi”

He argues that there is no reasonable difference which

would justify the discrimination made by the statute.. The

~

6 Moan a we wremlap en ag

As -

ge Oe

in Federal Courts, only one jurisdiction of those in this

country and of those composing the United Kingdom and

- the British Commonwealth of Nations held evidence so

cused a fundamental right. “Thus, in Meisinger v. State,

supra, 155 Md. at page 199 decided after the Weeks case

and hefore the‘enactment of Article 35, Section 5, supra,

the Court of Appeals said:

Pr

thal oe ae aoa req

ieoak bok tele 6 a tale Od ert coaahel © lnhenens

‘Get, Semereent ae eee et ee

Cie

| “In Weeks v. United States, 232 U: S. 383, 68 L. ed.

652, 34'S. Ct. 341, L. R.A. 1915B 834, Ann. Cas: 1915C

1177, supra; this Court held that in a federal prosecu-

thon the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evi-

: dence secured through an illegal search and seizure.

‘This ruling was made for the first time in 1914. It was

not derived from the explicit requirements of the .

Hi ‘he prot inte light ofthe Weeks decison :

‘The he ding in Wolf w. Colorado, supra, was “that in

eine tion in a State covrt for a State crime the Four-

nth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evi-

dock obbatned by ext r able search and seizure”.

See also v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117, 96 L. Ed. 138;

Adams v. New York, 192 U. 8. 575, 48 L. Ba. $65. However,

in the Wolf case, the Court warned that “were a State af.

firmatively to sanction such police incursion into privacy

it would run counter to the guar

Amendment”. It is clear from the context, the Court was

referring to‘the due process clause of that Amendment.

Appellant urges that the Act here challenged is in ‘effect

a “negative direction” to law enforcement officers to- con-

duct illegal searches and seizures in that it abrogates the

legislatively created rule of exclusion in cases of prosecu- _

tions for violations of certain of the gambling laws in Anne

foe Vidladiones of tka Gassotic aw Seen ton excikocsy

rule of Article 35, Section 5, supra, is unconstitutional as

__. an affirmative sanction for enforcement officers to conduct

- illegal searches and seizures. It is submitted that to adopt _ :

_ Appellant's argument and to hold that the exemptions con-

' tained in the challenged ‘statute are violative of the due

\.. process clause as a “negative. direction” to law ‘eaifgrpe-

3 Maylini Code (1951 Edition y: which exemp

| _ ment cers to cond lege searches and sures, thi

_ ea ape te onal of Ate 3, Section 5 a

ty and aon.) the ee of

“Article 21, Section 968, supra.

th Wolf ». Colorado, supra, the Cort gga that

) - [i casetanet eienbsivahy senza : legal searches sat

° seizures, It is submitted that the | allenge

_ no more than the convetse of what this Court muggunte ee

> Congress may have the power to do viz: ‘it abrogates a .

_Aegioatively. seepins. only ot eridence ped: Chareliy netn-

" -Appnllant malin aich of fae Tack thes Geo biel aiuart made

a “pernicious assumption” ‘that the challenged statute

"gave the police “the right” to, iy enter his premises.

This statement by the trial. ‘was erroneous and the |

Appellee has never contended that the statute confers such

a right nor does it so contend now. ‘The Court of Appeals _

suffers from no such misapprehension, as is manifest from

-its opinion in the present vase. See Salsburg v. State, supra,

: 2s . 8.8160 L Ba 1496, the Court pointed out.

*.

-pailway company was not deprived of the equal protection

: of the laws where ft was required to pay a Siate paving

assessment which was not imposed upon companies oper:

| ‘aah eeiticais WAGE anutaiokd wight eidet which would

ep x justify the discrimination, and said at page 392 of 274 U. S.:

i eS * We may not assume in the absence of proof

that such differences do not exist. Erb v. Morasch, 177

U. S. 584, 586, 44 L. Ed. 897, 898, 20 S ; :

T Co., 249 U. S. 152,.

158, 63 L, Ed. 527, 531, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; Swiss

Oil Corp. v. Shanks, 278 U.S. 40, ante, 700, 47 Sup.

Ct. Rep. 393. !

“There are no facts’ disclosed by the record which

' ‘would enable us to say that the legislative action with

1 we are here concerned was necessarily arbi-

trary or unreasonable or justify us in overruling the

: judgment of the state court that it was reasonable.

Dates Fe 5 oes Sees, 18 [87 L -

Ed. 585, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 290].” |

See also Alabama State Federation of Labor v. SicAdety,

325 U.S. 450, 465, 89 L. Ed. 1725, 1737; Carmichael v.

"Southern Coal and Coke Co., 301 U. S. 495, 510, 81 L. Ed.

: 1245, 1253; Whitney v. sacra abe ai 370, 1L. -

Ed. 1095, 1108. 7

Wh Cant ok As Ailes bss te cae’

eS ee ee ey in

A.

"the instant case, 94 A. (2d) at page 283; In Mt. Vernon Co.

_ vy, Frankfort Co., 111 Md. 561, BA. WA 40K eatsks while fen

bade employment of any person under fourteen. years of

age in the mills and factories of the State was attacked as

denying equal protection of the laws. The discrimination

is RoR of was the exemption of canning factories and

LLL LE ES Pe Ee - —

So oe ae AS

deta ok to coantion. | The Court, in sustaining the act,

said at page 570;

“* * * In Cooley’s Constltsitionat Tdw. (6th ‘Ed.),

page 216, it is said: “The question whether a law be

Seu » Goadine ot mace dalisene, widen laced

Ne a ea ee |

if ever, to be decided in the affirmative in d

is peimarlly for the Legidatire: sisd ta Ooerte will

eee

Get sled Brnien ©. State, 177 ‘Ma. 321, 330-331, 9 A. (2d)

209; State v. Seney Co., 134 Md. 437, 438, 107 A. 189;

State v. Shapiro, 131 Md. 168, 172, 101 A. 703; core »-

State, 120 Md. 553, 561-563, 87 A. 1080. Ps

Atha Appellant sxpise Gul sheen a Hite teas is 0

“fundamental right ofa citizen itis not entitled to the pre-

sumption of constitutional validity. The cases decided by —

this Court which the Appellant cites in support of this

_ statement involve an applic | :

amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The

‘present case does not involve an application of the Fourth

that the requirements of that Amendment are not incor-

porated in the Fourteenth. Further, the Appellee submits -

that the rule does not vary, as stated by Appellant. The

true state of the law, as Appellee sees it, is that expressed

|

16 3

:

by Ir. Justice Stone's footnote United States v.Carolene —

| Products Co, 904 U.S. 44 182 42.1. B 128 ae

Waate a¥icwn WME WCNC TE cae

to Baltimore City requiring all civil cases to be tried with-

out a jury unless a jury trial is specifically requested) ;- :

Stevens v. State, 89 Md. 669, 674, 43 A. 929 (statute made

the possession of certain game at certain times —

—*

“eer en weet eet

Petoshones | ,

Oe +

a? Nigh

/

invalidate it.” : |

rt,

POUT ane Rey

oe rs

RE

_ "

Byers yashey

eee ee a Lhe

: ‘ Lr, vers...

itr epee oe hn Oe nerd op EO ee at eee oe ae ineaitinniettt a Hate ke

ees d 2 -

eerie ah TAS Grim ea ea Gr teers

nf.

--

‘ 3 RS

es

a age gree id ie $e - NST ere ge tee “%

SOG SO EE CO BTS

+ ’ Ly : : 2 . ¥ ‘

: ©

Kiew®

reps 5273

nn tee,

> * Ghee.

7h

ee ss

VERSES Poe ber AE

. ” "s

Peat ie

cueafe

meee known to it which would justify the discrimination. The

cases applying this presumption to other types of classifica-

tion have been discussed earlier in this brief.

‘ 9 > 48 ;

ype ea of « Mn Soop ict Betta ae >

BER Bt, : ; prada ede

. 4 ’ :

Chem. & Fertilizer Co. v. Sulphur Mines Co.

i7 4a, supra, the Court upheld the rule, peculiar to

Baltimore City, requiring all civil cases to be tried without

a jury unless one was specifically requested. The question

of a rational basis for the classification was not discussed.

In Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589, 598-599, 45 L. Ed.

% | i |

1015, 1020, the Court held that a statute which allowed the }

“State an appeal from the granting of @ new: trie! to an

scnaend i cinkal coon ss ot eel 9f St ga oe

v. Alabama, "302 U. Perce yg een

missal-of an appeal, citing Missouri v. Lewis, supra, and

Hayes v. Missouri, supra); Jarnett v. Hardie, 290 U. S$. 602-

603, 78 L. Ed. 529 (a per curiam dismissal of an appeal,

\

‘a ®

pe petpeetngoeny cag ooze ccon arama .

contending | it the statute denied equal protection to resi-

dents of Suns, serena tie tH cla wat iguared

refused to so hold and said:

\

ee

| di, Sn aiken ee ated Sle snd ed

eee po eg gh goa ne poe oe

"persons in different part of the state. ‘The ell which |

_ |, ‘the legislature may have in view in passing suc

Bs mee

os Bo aig ». ene Te y 4N. nba: Burvutt oe

- Coinmonwealth, 187 Va. 940, 48 S. e (2a) 382; neroeng

of . vi * N. C,, 288. E.5}5.

| ‘was held that a statute authorizing co

: homenpene spor toien Pruawounnn A beverages did not

rtation te wary | count (ahead te auto-

ooregunaglir avaninomegete phat

: v. Hans a M oan 2 x. Ww. m1 a State

bing of a hous Silvis, Gace ald ok iG ecg

he aul rtecton a th aw and he Curt ld at age

(1126 of 42. N. W.: Bos ce ees

Chee “es * Thel gislatu: . has power to decle-~ that cer-

_ tain acts committed in a particular iocal..y snail con-

stitute a criminal offer'se and shall be punished as a

.. felony; while the samze act, if done in another locality _

: 2 State, 248 Ala, 194, 20 So: (2a) B04, 1 oe

"a secon ofthe state, would not be a rain offense

ef et

* rational basis for the “classification within a classiAd

and refused to strike down the ordinance. prey

the cases previously cited contains such double classifi-

cation. See also Rosenthal ¢. ‘New York, stink wc

ae ES, ae & sae

c There is. a rational asta f for the tervitorial aod

nly hd 4 ju aller Guaihties ja thak thvcag-

tion applies. to prosecutions for violations of only certain —

of the gambling laws; viz., bookmaking, the keeping of a

|

gambling table, the keeping of a house, etc., for gamblings

aa 3 |

‘Anticle 27 duakionk $00:930 of the Mpiyiend Code (om

Edition}. The Appellant first complains that no rations!

: basis may bé conceived for the territorial classification:

: The Appellee suggests that a rational basis is found in the

| recent Laceonnd 1 gacnilinng Beste sy is ne rey ed county. e

City. Ju otthie to dlatsirage patabling Vielitions, ts Geter £

- inal Court of Baltimore has in the past several years e

sie oh a tpn at pasta om 8

:

)

tiiposing the nohnremana dane sentence fee romp ant

offense and by the more extensive use of indictments —

od rging conspiracy. Conspi ies a ineki ‘ee

“tence of ten years (Article 27, Section 48 of the Maryland S

Code, 1951 Edition), while the usual ms

for the substantive viol 1 is one year (See Article 27,

Sections 306, 311, 312, 425 and 427). Recent appeals from

_ the Criminal Court of Baltimore to the Court of Appeals.

"in which those convicted of gambling violations compl: |

| that their sentences were excessive illustrate this trend. se

_ See, for example eiweots iat Sgaesees ane es

juabloie' whe reside in Baltimore sanatas of its peeximity

to that City. ‘The Hon. William L. Henderson, Associate |

Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, suggested, at ,

: - might. well hv kn coe izance 74

County (S98 Ban) Applet cle Gt te

which have no rational basis. It is to be noted that while

Appellant cormplained of the classification as to the crime

+3 . oe, . . - « + * ~ 2 <1 Ls evs 2 S25, g

s ; cg Ate ce PS en . eeryek ca" % a. x a 2 t ae hee Fy ZN 8 ie Ere Aig *

en % SIT BAL i te ad Ao be SAY Nik AEA cagA LOD MAE Aihed \sinn bam oan Hle a dot eda e here <7 BADE su eral! Dil ihe 5 bbb chaste A GPO I ES fen se Neen Cones et

a 5 y o

- off gambling before the Court of Appeals of

; ETERS ire

; rs

ae hh el le

WORE:

Ls Te

DIP Pe ee,

eS geet

afforded probable cause for the issuance of a

~————

!

= “4 a

_ Pad ie

z mtn, hy a

Bs 7 :

952

* ‘ =

riers

yy, cde

F “

¥ im

5 ;

int

etc, is declared a felony

Pe aaah)

*

*

dae vanessa AR eel pee iam ee

i +

Cher ™

UR y:

¢

3;

@

psig Ae te it tee