Salsburg v. Maryland
346 U.S. 545 (1954)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Salsburg v. Maryland, 346 U.S. 545 (1954)

Salsburg v. Maryland

No. 38

Argued October 20, 1953

Decided January 11, 1954

346 U.S. 545

Syllabus

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated by the Maryland statute here involved, which makes evidence obtained by illegal search or seizure generally inadmissible in prosecutions in state courts for misdemeanors, but permits the admission of such evidence in prosecutions in Anne Arundel County for certain gambling misdemeanors. Pp. 346 U. S. 546-554.

(a) The statute is within the liberal legislative license allowed a state in prescribing rules of practice relating to its police power. Pp. 346 U. S. 549-550.

(b) The statute is not rendered invalid by the fact that illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in prosecutions for lottery misdemeanors, though admissible in prosecutions for operating gambling pools, nor by the fact that such evidence is not admissible in prosecutions for violations of county gambling restrictions, though admissible in prosecutions for violations of comparable state gambling restrictions. P. 346 U. S. 550.

(c) Distinctions based on county areas are not necessarily so unreasonable as to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 346 U. S. 550-554.

(d) The statute does not affirmatively sanction illegal searches and seizures in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 346 U. S. 554.

201 Md. 212, 94 A.2d 280, affirmed.

Appellant's conviction of a gambling misdemeanor was affirmed by the Maryland Court of Appeals over his objection that evidence had been admitted under a Maryland statute which violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 201 Md. 212, 94 A.2d 280. On appeal to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), affirmed, p. 346 U. S. 554.

Page 346 U. S. 546

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.