|
Now, the exclusionary rule has only been
effective in Maryland since 1961 when in
the case of Mapp v. Ohio the Supreme
Court dictated that the states would have
to follow it. In the 200 years of the Fourth
Amendment's existence, it was not until
1961 that the citizens of Maryland by fiat
of the Supreme Court actually had to accept
and live by it. And in all felony cases we
had a statute known as the Bouse Act which
forbade the introduction of evidence illegal-
ly seized in misdemeanor cases. However,
its effect was very limiting. This proposal
would carry the concept of the exclusionary
rule not only into criminal cases, but into
any cases where a court or a State agency
acted. It is extremely important in protect-
ing the right of privacy because it would
take a great deal of the impetus out of the
invasions of privacy which occur day in
and day out.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe, you
have only three minutes left for questions.
DELEGATE BOTHE: I will have to an-
swer my own questions, I see.
What this would do would be to forbid
the State in any respect .to use illegally
seized evidence against anyone in State
proceedings.
Now, I will stop there, because I suppose
there may be some questions. It is not a
simple concept.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the sponsor of the amendment?
Delegate Rybczynski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Delegate
Bothe, in the event that a place of business,
such as a restaurant or a night club were
raided and found to be engaged in illicit
operations, whatever they might be, and
were dismissed in criminal court, is it the
intent of this amendment that this same
licensee would not be brought before the
liquor license bureau, for instance, to an-
swer before the liquor board ?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski, you are assuming, of course, that the
raid was an illegal raid. There are many
that are not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: For the
purposes of this question that is true. I am
asking you the question that because of the
failure of the constable to properly serve
the warrant, as you said a little while ago,
the charge is dismissed in criminal court.
|
By this amendment would it be true that
that same licensee could not be brought
before the licensing agency which issued
the license in the first place?
DELEGATE BOTHE: You are obviously
trying to create the impression that if the
warrant were not properly served it would
constitute an illegal search. As a better
lawyer than I am, you know this not so.
The reasonableness of search and seizure
would be the question before the admini-
strative agency. And the fact that the
criminal proceeding found that .the evidence
was inadmissible would not necessarily be
binding upon the liquor board or whatever
agency it was who determined whether the
evidence could be used against the licensee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes.
Delegate Bothe has only one minute left.
There are two people with questions, in-
cluding yours.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Would you
leave to judicial development the question
of whether or not this would extend to
the indirect results of illegal searches and
seizures, the Wong Sun doctrine, to say it
to you very quickly?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: A great deal of
this would have to be left to judicial in-
terpretation. It is only a question, as the
fourth amendment has always been, what
is an illegal and unreasonable search?
This amendment does not propose to go
into all that detail. It would have to be a
judicial question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hargrove.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: Is it your
intention in this amendment to give to
private citizens more of a right to invade
the privacy than to the State in a civil
case?
DELEGATE BOTHE: Are you speaking
now of the fact that a private citizen
would probably not be able to obtain a
warrant?
DELEGATE HARGROVE: No. You do
not have to obtain a warrant under this
provision. If you need one, as you know,
you can effect a search without a warrant.
What I am referring to is where the
State acts as an individual in a civil pro-
ceeding. Would you bar the State in ob-
taining the evidence because of this amend-
ment, whereas the private citizen could
|
