transcript of the suppression hearing in Maryland

7 Maryland opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Imbraguglio v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.green md · 2000 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020See Imbraguglio v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., 358 Md. 194 , 207–08 (2000) (In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, 26 court may consider transcript of former testimony.).20 The criminal case was based on evidence found during the execution of a search warrant of the apartment after Ms. Gaines’ death, based on Ms. Gaines’ assault of the police officers.	1	1
Walker v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See Walker v. State, 125 Md.App. 48, 54-55 , 723 A.2d 922 (1999) (discussing use of videotape by this Court). 2001See Walker v. State, 125 Md.App. 48, 54-55 , 723 A.2d 922 (1999) (discussing use of videotape by this Court).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Coley green mdctspecapp · 2002 2 sentences 2017“The court’s responsibility, however, was not to assess to its satisfaction the existence of probable cause, but, rather, to determine if the issuing magistrate’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.” Coley, 145 Md.App. at 521 , 805 A.2d 1186 . 2017“The court’s responsibility, however, was not to assess to its satisfaction the existence of probable cause, but, rather, to determine if the issuing magistrate’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.” Coley, 145 Md.App. at 521 , 805 A.2d 1186 .	2	2010–2017
State v. Faulkner green mdctspecapp · 2010 2 sentences 2012“The court’s responsibility, however, was not to assess to its satisfaction the existence of probable cause, but, rather, to determine if the issuing magistrate’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.” Thus, the motion court erred in deciding the issue of probable cause de novo. 190 Md.App. at 48 , 985 A.2d 627 (emphasis supplied). 2012“The court’s responsibility, however, was not to assess to its satisfaction the existence of probable cause, but, rather, to determine if the issuing magistrate’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.” Thus, the motion court erred in deciding the issue of probable cause de novo. 190 Md.App. at 48 , 985 A.2d 627 (emphasis supplied).	1	2012–2012
Johnson v. State green mdctspecapp · 2001 2 sentences 2010It is clear from the transcript of the suppression hearing that appellant did not raise the issue of improper inducement as a basis for suppressing the confession nor did the circuit court rule upon improper inducement. “[T]he failure to argue a specific theory in support of a motion to suppress evidence constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal.” Reynolds v. State, 327 Md. 494, 502-03 , 610 A.2d 782 (1992); Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549, 557 , 922 A.2d 620 (2007) (citing Johnson v. State, 138 Md.App. 539, 560 , 772 A.2d 1260 (2001)); Brashear v. State, 90 Md.App. 709, 720 , 603 A.2d 901 2010It is clear from the transcript of the suppression hearing that appellant did not raise the issue of improper inducement as a basis for suppressing the confession nor did the circuit court rule upon improper inducement. “[T]he failure to argue a specific theory in support of a motion to suppress evidence constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal.” Reynolds v. State, 327 Md. 494, 502-03 , 610 A.2d 782 (1992); Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549, 557 , 922 A.2d 620 (2007) (citing Johnson v. State, 138 Md.App. 539, 560 , 772 A.2d 1260 (2001)); Brashear v. State, 90 Md.App. 709, 720 , 603 A.2d 901	1	2010–2010
Reynolds v. State green md · 1992 2 sentences 2010It is clear from the transcript of the suppression hearing that appellant did not raise the issue of improper inducement as a basis for suppressing the confession nor did the circuit court rule upon improper inducement. “[T]he failure to argue a specific theory in support of a motion to suppress evidence constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal.” Reynolds v. State, 327 Md. 494, 502-03 , 610 A.2d 782 (1992); Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549, 557 , 922 A.2d 620 (2007) (citing Johnson v. State, 138 Md.App. 539, 560 , 772 A.2d 1260 (2001)); Brashear v. State, 90 Md.App. 709, 720 , 603 A.2d 901 2010It is clear from the transcript of the suppression hearing that appellant did not raise the issue of improper inducement as a basis for suppressing the confession nor did the circuit court rule upon improper inducement. “[T]he failure to argue a specific theory in support of a motion to suppress evidence constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal.” Reynolds v. State, 327 Md. 494, 502-03 , 610 A.2d 782 (1992); Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549, 557 , 922 A.2d 620 (2007) (citing Johnson v. State, 138 Md.App. 539, 560 , 772 A.2d 1260 (2001)); Brashear v. State, 90 Md.App. 709, 720 , 603 A.2d 901	1	2010–2010
Brashear v. State green mdctspecapp · 1992 2 sentences 2010It is clear from the transcript of the suppression hearing that appellant did not raise the issue of improper inducement as a basis for suppressing the confession nor did the circuit court rule upon improper inducement. “[T]he failure to argue a specific theory in support of a motion to suppress evidence constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal.” Reynolds v. State, 327 Md. 494, 502-03 , 610 A.2d 782 (1992); Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549, 557 , 922 A.2d 620 (2007) (citing Johnson v. State, 138 Md.App. 539, 560 , 772 A.2d 1260 (2001)); Brashear v. State, 90 Md.App. 709, 720 , 603 A.2d 901 2010It is clear from the transcript of the suppression hearing that appellant did not raise the issue of improper inducement as a basis for suppressing the confession nor did the circuit court rule upon improper inducement. “[T]he failure to argue a specific theory in support of a motion to suppress evidence constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal.” Reynolds v. State, 327 Md. 494, 502-03 , 610 A.2d 782 (1992); Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549, 557 , 922 A.2d 620 (2007) (citing Johnson v. State, 138 Md.App. 539, 560 , 772 A.2d 1260 (2001)); Brashear v. State, 90 Md.App. 709, 720 , 603 A.2d 901	1	2010–2010
Evans v. State green mdctspecapp · 2007 2 sentences 2010It is clear from the transcript of the suppression hearing that appellant did not raise the issue of improper inducement as a basis for suppressing the confession nor did the circuit court rule upon improper inducement. “[T]he failure to argue a specific theory in support of a motion to suppress evidence constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal.” Reynolds v. State, 327 Md. 494, 502-03 , 610 A.2d 782 (1992); Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549, 557 , 922 A.2d 620 (2007) (citing Johnson v. State, 138 Md.App. 539, 560 , 772 A.2d 1260 (2001)); Brashear v. State, 90 Md.App. 709, 720 , 603 A.2d 901 2010It is clear from the transcript of the suppression hearing that appellant did not raise the issue of improper inducement as a basis for suppressing the confession nor did the circuit court rule upon improper inducement. “[T]he failure to argue a specific theory in support of a motion to suppress evidence constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal.” Reynolds v. State, 327 Md. 494, 502-03 , 610 A.2d 782 (1992); Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549, 557 , 922 A.2d 620 (2007) (citing Johnson v. State, 138 Md.App. 539, 560 , 772 A.2d 1260 (2001)); Brashear v. State, 90 Md.App. 709, 720 , 603 A.2d 901	1	2010–2010
Streams v. State green md · 1965 2 sentences 1984The appellant leaps upon Streams v. State, 238 Md. 278 , 208 A.2d 614 (1965), however, and argues that the failure to call Sergeant Landsman to the stand was fatal. 1984The appellant leaps upon Streams v. State, 238 Md. 278 , 208 A.2d 614 (1965), however, and argues that the failure to call Sergeant Landsman to the stand was fatal.	1	1984–1984

Where else courts name it

OH 48 (1998–2025) GA 12 (1980–2015) TN 12 (1975–2025) PA 10 (1977–2025) LA 8 (1984–2015) NY 7 (1991–2015) TX 7 (2012–2022) IL 7 (1981–2007) MD 7 (1984–2020) MA 7 (1978–2015) IN 6 (1997–2013) MS 5 (1997–2014) VA 4 (1989–2024) MO 4 (1988–2002) DC 3 (1992–2023) CO 3 (1983–2016) FL 2 (1981–2021) NH 2 (2003–2007) ND 2 (2014–2016) MI 2 (1980–2022)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check