|
evidence where it does not involve another
invasion of one's privacy, and that is the
area that we are seeking to protect, or I
should say we want to keep open so there
can still be certain types of evidence ad-
missible in court that have been in the
past.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Mr. Presi-
dent, may I speak on the amendment
briefly?
THE PRESIDENT: You may.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Mr. Presi-
dent, I am somewhat disturbed by the com-
ment of the Chairman of the Committee
with regard to my first question.
I really and truly do not see how you
can have this language limited to action by
the State. It simply says that this right
shall not be violated. It is not on the face
of it limited to actions by the State. I
think that it is pointed up even more when
we separate "secure against unreasonable
interceptions" from the "persons, houses,
papers and effects", that it is not limited
to actions by the State.
It seems to me that if we pass section
1.05 either in the form suggested by the
Committee on Style and Drafting, or in the
form suggested by the Committee on Per-
sonal Rights and Preamble, either way I
believe that you are going beyond the right
vis-a-vis the State.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Would Dele-
gate Hardwicke yield to a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Hardwicke,
do you yield to a question?
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: If it is in
order, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: You still have two
minutes.
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Delegate Hard-
wicke, if you revert back to section 1.01,
is it not made clear there that persons, in
the sense that you are referring to indi-
viduals, specifically remain responsible for
any abuse of the rights there being pro-
tected against invasion by the State or any
of its instrumentalities or agencies? There-
fore would we not have to be consistent
with respect to section 1.05 that it applies
|
only to restrict the State or its agents or
instrumentalities?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: I under-
stood the question, but I do not see that
that construction is required. It seems to
me that we have in one or two instances
here set forth rights that are not rights
vis-a-vis the government of the State, and
I think that the way 1.05 is being consid-
ered right now that this first sentence will
create such a right notwithstanding your
point.
If I am amiss, then I would appreciate
further comment from you, Delegate Clag-
ett, or the Chair.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Mr. President,
the Chairman's answer to the question as
to whether the language of 1.05 would
apply to private individuals disturbs me,
and even more so Delegate Hardwicke's
comment that the proposed language might
go beyond the intention of the Convention.
I would call to the attention of the Con-
vention that the language of the first sen-
tence insofar as it does not refer to the
State but simply points out that the right
shall not be violated is exactly the lan-
guage of the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
So far, that language has been construed
to apply only to state action. However,
there have been developments in the law
which may in the future make the Fourth
Amendment, and hence I would say the
language of the Maryland Constitution,
applicable to some aspects of conduct be-
tween private individuals, and I would sup-
pose that the State of Maryland would
want to go along with the trend of the
Fourth Amendment however that may be
construed.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President and members of the Convention,
as a member of the Committee on Personal
Rights and Preamble, it was my under-
standing when we recommended section
1.05 in its original form that this applied
only to actions by the State, its subdivi-
sions, municipalities, and other agencies
and in no wise applied to any actions be-
tween private individuals.
|
