# Brief of Appellee — Salsburg v. Maryland

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386408_0006%3A5

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Brief of Appellee
- **Published:** January 1, 1954
- **Citation:** 346 U.S. 545

## Text

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. 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386408_0006%3A5. Public record. Not legal advice.