In Re Special Investigation No. 186

Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We shall hold in this case that when a witness appears pursuant to a summons issued by a prosecutor under ³⁰⁵ Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl. Vol., 1977 Cum. Supp.) Art. 27, § 592A, it is permissible to make a record of that which a witness says.

Acting pursuant to authority from the Governor under Maryland Const, art. 5, § 3 (a) (3), the Attorney General of Maryland was engaged in certain investigations. Article 27, § 592A (a) provides that a State’s attorney "may issue a summons for a witness for the purpose of obtaining evidence to prepare an information.” It is conceded that for the purposes of this proceeding the Attorney General stands in the shoes of a State’s attorney. Section 592A (b) states: "A witness from whom testimony and evidence is being sought pursuant to this section shall be sworn. If the witness so requests the State’s attorney shall cause a record to be made of all testimony and evidence obtained pursuant to the summons.” When the witness in question appeared at the office of the Attorney General pursuant to the summons, the Assistant Attorney General who was conducting the interview indicated that he intended to make a tape recording of what was said.

The attorney for the witness objected. It was agreed that the tape recording would be made, but that the tape would be held by counsel for the witness until a ruling had been made on whether the recording was permissible. The matter came on for hearing before one of the judges of the Criminal Court of Baltimore. He directed counsel to turn over the tape to the Assistant Attorney General.

He stayed the order, however, for the purpose of allowing an appeal. An appeal was entered to the Court of Special Appeals. We issued the writ of certiorari ex mero motu in order that we might address the issue here before the Court. The witness summoned contends that the plain meaning of § 592A is that a transcript shall be made only at the request of a witness.

The appellant asserts that without this claimed transcription power Code (1974, 1980 Repl. Vol.) §§ 10-401 et seq., Courts and