Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): typographical error problem addressed in Greenstreet v. State, 392 Md. 652, 898 A.2d 961, (2006). In that case, the Court held that a police officer could not testify that the date in the affidavit in support of search warrant was a typographical error—that instead of "4-14-03," it should have been "4-14-04.” The Court reasoned that permitting such testimony would allow the officer to controvert his statement of the date in the affidavit, in “violation of the four corners rule and the purpose for its existence.” Id. at 671, 898 A.2d 961. Here, the words "premise” and "premises” both are used in the application and warrant, and therefore we properly may infer that one word ("premise”) is a mistaken use or spelling of the other word ("premises”). Greenstreet, supra, at 672, 898 A.2d 961 (<HOLDING>). 4 . The McTyre case has been distinguished on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit (B) recognizing cases from other jurisdictions that stand for the proposition that where a factual date in the affidavit material to the probable cause finding is an apparent typographical error because it is contradicted by another factual time or date more likely to be true also contained within the four comers of the affidavit then a reviewing court may infer that a typographical error was made by the affiant and treat it as something other than what was written in the affidavit (C) holding that the presence of the correct address in the sworn affidavit could correct a typographical error in the warrant (D) holding that section 144 requires both a factual affidavit and a separate certificate that the affidavit was made in good faith (E) holding that the court may disregard an affidavit submitted solely for the purpose of opposing a motion for summary judgment when that affidavit is directly contradicted by deposition testimony and the nonmovant does not explain the discrepancies
Output (English): holding that the court may disregard an affidavit submitted solely for the purpose of opposing a motion for summary judgment when that affidavit is directly contradicted by deposition testimony and the nonmovant does not explain the discrepancies