The Case <ul><li>A confidential informant gave a tip to the Burbank, California Police department stating that Patsy Stewart and Armando Sanchez were selling substantial amounts of methaqualone and cocaine from there home. This accusation was backed by the fact that the informant witnessed a sale a few months earlier. </li></ul><ul><li>While investigating, the officers linked two other people to the sales of illegal narcotics in association with Stewart and Sanchez. They were Ricardo Del Castillo and Alberto Leon. After watching other people arrive at three other residences that the subjects lived in and automobiles, the Burbank police applied for a warrant, which several District Deputy Attorneys (DDAs) reviewed. It was issued by a California Superior Court Judge. A grand jury indicted the defendants and charged them with the conspiracy to possess and sell cocaine and other essential counts. However, the defendant pleaded that his fourth ammendment rights, or the exclusionary rule, was violated because there was no valid warrant. </li></ul>
Arguments <ul><li>Acused : Alberto Leon felt that his fourth amendment right was being violated. He believed that the evidence should be forgotten because there was no righteous warrant. </li></ul>Defense : the police acted on a search warrant they believed was valid. Later it was found invalid, but the evidence was not put aside because they did not think they were going against the constitution.
Court Decision: <ul><li>Because the fourth amendment, or exclusionary rule, states that without a warrant, police cannot search another person’s belonging’s, any evidence found without a warrant is not to be upheld. However, if the action is used because the police thought the warrant was valid or the warrant is later found invalid, the evidence is still upheld because they acted in good faith. This became known as the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Maryland sued McCulloch saying that Maryland had the power to tax any business in its state and that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to create a national bank. </li></ul><ul><li>In a unanimous decision, the Court stated that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. </li></ul><ul><li>Maryland put a statute imposing a tax on all banks operating in Maryland not known by the state. </li></ul>Summary Of the Case
<ul><li>For McCulloch- The bank was a legitimate federal function with which no State may interfere. The Maryland tax on the national bank, therefore, was unconstitutional. </li></ul><ul><li>For Maryland- As a sovereign State, Maryland was vested by its people with all authority to regulate business and to tax institutions inside its borders. </li></ul><ul><li>The Baltimore branch of the U.S Bank, cashier McCulloch, is being sued by Maryland. Maryland alleges that the bank is avoiding the state taxation on currency. McCulloch denys the validity of the State of Maryland’s ability to tax Federal money, and the State of Maryland claims the 10th Amendment grants that power. </li></ul>Arguments
Supreme Courts Decision <ul><li>In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of McCulloch and against the state of Maryland. </li></ul><ul><li>The Court also rejected Maryland's argument that the Constitution did not explicitly allow for a national bank. </li></ul><ul><li>The result is a conviction that the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. </li></ul>