Committee note: A discussion between the applicant and the judge may be explanatory in nature but may not be for the purpose of adding or changing any statement in the affidavit that is material to the determination of probable cause. Probable cause must be determined from the four corners of the affidavit. See Abeokuto v. State, 391 Md. 289, 338 (2006); Valdez v. State, 300 Md. 160, 168 (1984) (The four-corners rule “prevents consideration of evidence that seeks to supplement or controvert the truth of grounds stated in the affidavit.”).
Cross reference: See Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 1-203(a)(4).
Md. Crim. Causes. 4-601
This Rule is derived from former Rule 780 and M.D.R. 780.
HISTORICAL NOTES
2002 Orders
The January 8, 2002, order, in section (b), updated references to the Criminal Procedure Article; and amended the cross reference following section (a).
2015 Orders
The March 2, 2015 order reorganized this Rule by changing the tagline of and removing the cross reference after section (a); added a new section (b) that provides for the methods of submission of applications for search warrants, for an opportunity to request that warrants be sealed, and for a discussion of the application using certain types of communication; added a cross reference after section (b) to certain cases pertaining to changing the affidavit accompanying the warrant; added a new section (c) that provides certain methods of issuance of a search warrant and has language from former section (b); deleted from section (d) certain language and added to section (d) new language providing for a 30-day extension for sealing the warrant, modified language addressing when certain papers are required to be retained, and a requirement designating the original of an electronically transmitted warrant; changed section (e) to expand the procedure for the officer’s inventory of property seized, to add a certain exception for the papers that are to be left by the officer executing the warrant, and to change a certain term; added to section (f) language expanding the procedure for the officer making and delivering a return; made stylistic changes to section (g); added to section (h) language pertaining to the validity of a search warrant; added to section (i) language changing how the State’s Attorney is notified and certain exceptions to the availability of the search warrant and other papers; changed the tagline of section (j) and added language to section (j) that provides certain limits on disclosure of the fact that a search warrant has been applied for; and made stylistic changes.
2016 Orders
The December 13, 2016, order deleted the second sentence of subsection (f)(3) and changed the location for filing an executed search warrant and the papers associated with it.