Summary

Portrait of Harold Hitz Burton Harold Hitz Burton Salsburg v. Maryland — Opinion of the Court

He does not attack the validity of the application of one to felonies and of the other to misdemeanors. He contends, however, that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when Maryland admits the illegally seized evidence in prosecutions for certain misdemeanors in certain counties, but excludes it in prosecutions for the same type of misdemeanors in other counties and for somewhat comparable misdemeanors in the same and other counties.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harold Hitz Burton Harold Hitz Burton Salsburg v. Maryland — Opinion of the Court

There seems to be no doubt that Maryland could validly grant home rule to each of its 23 counties and to the City of Baltimore to determine this rule of evidence by local option. [7] It is equally clear, although less usual, that a state legislature may itself determine such an issue for each of its local subdivisions, having in mind the needs and desires of each. Territorial uniformity is not a constitutional requisite.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harold Hitz Burton Harold Hitz Burton Salsburg v. Maryland — Opinion of the Court

He suggested, as a justification for a legislative distinction between prosecutions for violations of state lottery laws and of the gambling laws here specified, that the former were of a more readily detected and easily proved character than the latter.
We find no merit in the suggestion of appellant that the 1951 amendment to the Bouse Act affirmatively sanctions illegal searches and seizures in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature