Court Opinion

ID: 9645455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:25:18.201529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:48.361577
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
MURPHY, C.J.
I concur in the judgment, but write separately to emphasize two points. First, the case at bar does not present the issue of whether the “first” search warrant was subject to “inspection for possible use in cross-examination.” Leonard v. State, 46 Md.App. 631, 639, 421 A.2d 85 (1980), aff'd, 290 Md. 295, 429 A.2d 538 (1981). Second, the case at bar does not present the issue of whether the affiant’s strategic decision to withhold information that would establish the lack of probable cause *139has resulted in the issuance of a search warrant by a judge who was “misled by [the incomplete] information ... that the affiant knew [would create a] false [impression that probable cause existed.]” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984).