Could a Maryland District Court judge in one county issue a search warrant for property located in a completely different city or county?

Plain-English summary

Baltimore City's Deputy State's Attorney asked the Attorney General whether a District Court judge sitting in Baltimore County could issue a search warrant for property located in Baltimore City, a different judicial district. The question arose because the Court of Appeals had recently upheld, in Birchead v. State, a warrant issued by a judge in one county but executed in another county within the same district, and the requester wanted to know whether that reasoning extended to a warrant crossing district lines entirely.

The Attorney General concluded that it did. Reading Birchead's reasoning, the opinion found that Maryland's District Court is a single, unified, statewide court divided into twelve districts only for operational and administrative purposes, and that a judge's "territorial jurisdiction" to issue a search warrant under Maryland's search warrant statute was not limited to the judge's own district or county of residence. Because Baltimore City is itself one of the twelve districts, and District Court judges have statewide jurisdiction under Birchead, the opinion concluded a Baltimore County judge could validly issue a search warrant for execution in Baltimore City. This conclusion overruled a 1972 AG opinion that had reached the opposite result based on the unclear state of Maryland law at that earlier time.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could a Baltimore County District Court judge issue a search warrant for property in Baltimore City under this opinion? Yes. The opinion concluded that because District Court judges have statewide jurisdiction, a judge sitting in Baltimore County could validly issue a search warrant for property located in Baltimore City, even though the city is a separate judicial district.

Did a Maryland District Court judge's authority to issue search warrants stop at the border of the judge's own district, according to this opinion? No. The opinion concluded that the District Court is a single, unified, statewide court, and that dividing it into twelve districts was only for operation and administration, not a limit on a judge's territorial jurisdiction to issue a warrant for execution anywhere in the state.

What happened to the Attorney General's earlier 1972 opinion that said a judge's warrant authority was limited to their own district? The 1992 opinion expressly overruled the 1972 opinion (57 Opinions of the Attorney General 155), which had reached its conclusion because Maryland law on the question was unclear at that time; the Court of Appeals' later decision in Birchead v. State supplied the clarity that led the Attorney General to reverse course.

Background and statutory framework

Article IV, §§1 and 41A of the Maryland Constitution created the District Court of Maryland as a single court with statewide, uniform jurisdiction. CJ §1-602 divided the state into twelve districts for operation and administration, with Baltimore City as district one and various counties making up districts two through twelve, and CJ §1-603(b)(2) required at least one resident District Court judge in each county of a district. Article 27, §551(a) authorized a District Court judge to issue a search warrant for any building, premises, place, or thing "within the territorial jurisdiction of such judge."

A 1972 AG opinion had construed a judge's territorial jurisdiction to issue a warrant as limited to the judge's own district of appointment, based on law from another state because Maryland authority was then unsettled. The Court of Appeals' 1989 decision in Birchead v. State changed the landscape: in upholding a warrant issued by a judge in one county but executed in another county of the same district, the Court explained that the District Court's division into twelve districts was purely administrative and did not confine a judge's territorial jurisdiction to a single county or district, so the judge in that case had jurisdiction to issue a warrant for execution anywhere in the state. Applying that reasoning, the 1992 opinion concluded a District Court judge's authority to issue search warrants was statewide, reaching Baltimore City just as it reached any other district, and it expressly overruled the 1972 opinion's contrary, narrower reading.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Article IV, §§1 and 41A of the Maryland Constitution, establishing the District Court's statewide jurisdiction
• CJ §1-602, the twelve-district administrative division of the District Court
• CJ §1-603(b)(2), judge allocation among the districts
• Article 27, §551(a), the search warrant "territorial jurisdiction" statute

Cases:

• Birchead v. State, 317 Md. 691, 566 A.2d 488 (1989), Maryland Court of Appeals
• Greenbelt Consumer v. Acme Mkts., 272 Md. 222, 224 n.1, 332 A.2d 521 (1974), Maryland Court of Appeals

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1992/Volume77_1992.pdf (this opinion appears at printed page 49 of the bound annual volume; Maryland's site does not publish a standalone PDF of this opinion)

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

Courts and Judges - District Court - Geographical Scope of Search Warrant Authority

July 14, 1992

Alexander J. Palenscar, Esquire
Deputy State's Attorney
for Baltimore City

You have requested our opinion on the authority of a District Court judge sitting in Baltimore County to issue a search warrant for property in Baltimore City. You indicate that in Birchead v. State, 317 Md. 691, 566 A.2d 488 (1989), the Court of Appeals upheld a warrant issued by a District Court judge in one county but executed in another, both in the same district. You question whether Birchead would apply to uphold a similar warrant executed outside a judge's district in Baltimore City.

For the reasons stated below, we conclude that such a warrant would be upheld because Birchead indicates that a District Court judge has statewide authority, not limited to a judge's district, to issue a search warrant and to have it executed anywhere in the State.

I

Background

Article IV, §§1 and 41A of the Maryland Constitution provide for the creation of the District Court of Maryland and establish its statewide, uniform jurisdiction. Under §1-602 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJ" Article), the State is divided into twelve districts "for the purpose of operation and administration." Baltimore City itself is district one, with one or more counties falling within districts two through twelve. Judges are allocated among the districts with 23 in the Baltimore City district and "at least one District Court judge resident and holding court in each county of the district." CJ §1-603(b)(2). Article 27, §551(a) grants authority to each District Court judge "to issue a warrant to search any individual or in any building, apartment, premises, place or thing within the territorial jurisdiction of such judge" (Emphasis supplied.)

II

Analysis

In 57 Opinions of the Attorney General 155 (1972), this office was called upon to answer the same question on the territorial jurisdiction of a District Court judge to issue a search warrant. At that time Maryland law was unclear, and Attorney General Burch, referring to the law in another state, opined that the territorial jurisdiction of a District Court judge to issue a search warrant was limited to the district of a judge's appointment or assignment. 57 Opinions of the Attorney General at 157.

However, Birchead v. State, indicates that a judge has statewide jurisdiction to issue a search warrant beyond the confines of a judge's district. 317 Md. at 691. Birchead went beyond the immediate question of whether it was within the authority of a District Court judge sitting in Wicomico County to issue a search warrant for persons and property in Worcester County, which is in the same district. The Court of Appeals indicated in its holding that a judge has statewide authority to issue a search warrant:

It is clear from the Maryland Constitution and the implementing statutes relating to the District Court that it is a single unified court, divided into districts, with statewide uniform jurisdiction. See Greenbelt Consumer v. Acme Mkts., 272 Md. 222, 224 n.1, 332 A.2d 521 (1974). The geographic division of the District Court into twelve districts, as set forth in §1-602 of the Courts Article, was solely for the purposes of operation and administration; it did not limit the exercise of jurisdiction by a District Court judge to the county or district of resident. Consequently, as the jurisdiction of judges of the District Court is uniform and statewide, we think Judge Warren had "territorial jurisdiction" within the contemplation of Maryland's search warrant statute, §551(a), to issue a search warrant for execution in any other county of the State.

317 Md. at 699.

We conclude, based on Birchead, that if a court were called upon to determine the issue that you raise, it would hold that a District Court judge has the authority to issue a search warrant for execution in any other county of this State. This scope of authority includes District Court judges in Baltimore City, because the city is a district within the jurisdiction of the court, and according to Birchead, its judges have statewide uniform jurisdiction to issue search warrants anywhere in Maryland.

In light of Birchead, 57 Opinions of the Attorney General 155 is overruled.

III

Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that a district court judge sitting in Baltimore County has the authority to issue a search warrant for property in Baltimore City.

J. Joseph Curran, Jr.
Attorney General

Craig A. Nielsen
Assistant Attorney General
Jack Schwartz
Chief Counsel
Opinions and Advice