Resnick v. State
| Decision Date | 23 March 1944 |
| Docket Number | 14. |
| Citation | 36 A.2d 347,183 Md. 15 |
| Parties | RESNICK et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore City; Eugene O'Dunne Judge.
Louis Resnick and another were convicted of betting on horse racing and they appeal.
Affirmed.
E. Milton Altfeld, of Baltimore, for appellants.
J Edgar Harvey, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Thomas N. Biddison, Asst State's Atty., of Baltimore (William C. Walsh, Atty Gen., and J. Bernard Wells, State's Atty., of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before SLOAN, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, MARBURY, MELVIN, and BAILEY, JJ.
On August 13, 1943, officers of the Baltimore Police Department entered a residence at 4723 Reisterstown Road.In the house they found Louis Resnick and George Seidman, the appellants.To Seidman was handed a search warrant.He was told to stand where he was and that a search was to be started.The officers found on the second floor where the appellants were, run down sheets, forms and bulletins of horse racing, racing information, one hundred fifty-four bet slips containing one thousand four hundred sixty-nine race horse bets, totaling $3,624.The officers also while there took over the telephone seventy-five bet slips and seven hundred fifty-four race horse bets, totaling $2,144 in bets.Checks found in the room totaled $118.85 and cash money, $1,349.Both of the appellants told the officers that they had been bookmakers there and had been in business for about a year or a little longer.
As a result the two appellants, together with Irving Rothstein listed in the Baltimore City Directory as one of the occupants of the property, and Emile M. Fisher also listed in the same directory as an occupant and listed in the Baltimore Address Telephone Directory for one of the telephones on the premises, were jointly indicted on fifteen counts for every phase of betting on horse racing.After trial in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City, all were found guilty and each sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.Sentence was later suspended on Rothstein and Fisher.Louis Resnick and George Seidman appeal to this Court from the verdict, judgment and sentence.
Two questions are presented on appeal: (1) Are the appellants entitled to complain of the illegal search?(2) Do the facts set forth in the affidavit and embodied in the search warrant constitute probable cause?
These questions are raised by the refusal of the Trial Court to grant a motion by the appellants, in which Rothstein and Fisher did not join, to quash the search warrant and by an exception by the appellants to the ruling admitting the search warrant in evidence.
Before the passage of Chapter 194 of the Acts of 1929, commonly known as the Bouse Act, now Section 5 of Article 35 of the 1939 Code, evidence procured by means of an unlawful search and seizure was admissible in this State.Lawrence v. State,103 Md. 17, 36, 37, 63 A. 96;Meisinger v. State,155 Md. 195, 196, 199, 141 A. 536, 142 A. 190;Baum v. State,163 Md. 153, 156, 161 A. 244;Nolan v. State,157 Md. 332, 339, 146 A. 268;Heyward v. State,161 Md. 685, 694, 158 A. 897;Zukowski v. State,167 Md. 549, 555, 175 A. 595;Silverstein v. State,176 Md. 533, 540, 6 A.2d 465;Riley v. State,179 Md. 304, 312, 18 A.2d 583;Leon v. State,180 Md. 279, 282, 23 A.2d 706.Chapter 194 of the Acts of 1929, supra, provides: 'No evidence in the trial of misdemeanors shall be deemed admissible where the same shall have been procured by, through, or in consequence of any illegal search or seizure or of any search and seizure prohibited by the Declaration of Rights of this State; nor shall any evidence in such cases be admissible if procured by, through or in consequence of a search and seizure, the effect of the admission of which would be to compel one to give evidence against himself in a criminal case.'
Those whose rights have been or may be disturbed alone may invoke the provisions of Chapter 194, supra, and the constitutional right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...only those whose property is invaded by an unlawful search or seizure may object to the admission of evidence so obtained. Resnick v. State, 183 Md. 15, 36 A.2d 347; v. State, Md., 56 A.2d 810. In the McDonald case (for reasons not clear from the four different views of the six justices who......
-
Palmer v. State
...93 (1940); Leon v. State, 180 Md. 279, 286, 23 A.2d 706 (1942); Bevans v. State, 180 Md. 443, 448, 24 A.2d 792 (1942); Resnick v. State, 183 Md. 15, 18, 36 A.2d 347 (1944); Kapler v. State, 194 Md. 580, 586, 71 A.2d 860 (1950); Lambert v. State, 196 Md. 57, 63-64, 75 A.2d 327 (1950); Delneg......
-
Wood v. State
...of the United States, have been held not to make evidence inadmissible because procured by unlawful search or seizure. Resnick v. State, 183 Md. 15, 17, 36 A.2d 347, cases cited; Bass v. State, 182 Md. 496, 503, 35 A.2d 155. The Bouse Act and the Act of 1939 amount to adoption pro tanto of ......
-
Frank v. State
...Md. 153, 156, 161 A. 244; Frankel v. State, 178 Md. 553, 562, 16 A.2d 93; Bevans v. State, 180 Md. 443, 448, 24 A.2d 792; Resnick v. State, 183 Md. 15, 18, 36 A.2d 347. there is testimony in this case, which is not contradicted, that the appellants here sub-let the premises, they thereby ha......