State prosecutors dismissed charges Tuesday against Anne Arundel County Orphans’ Court Judge Marc Knapp, whom they had accused of illegally recording his probate court colleagues.

The development followed Circuit Judge Christine M. Celeste’s decision last month to rule out as evidence the single recording at the center of the prosecution, with the judge finding that authorities obtained it with an illegal warrant.

Prosecutors in the Office of the Maryland State Prosecutor, which investigates corruption by public officials, had asked Celeste to reconsider her decision to throw out the warrant and the evidence obtained with it. Celeste denied their request Monday.

“We are grateful that the case is concluded,” Knapp’s attorney, Peter O’Neill, said in an interview. “Judge Knapp has always maintained his innocence regarding the case. He never intentionally recorded any of the judges.”

Reached by phone, Maryland State Prosecutor Charlton T. Howard III, whose office prosecuted the case, declined to comment.

Knapp’s trial had been scheduled for Thursday.

The charges against Knapp stemmed from his highly public dispute with Chief Orphans’ Court Judge Vickie Gipson. Their back-and-forth arguments led to a peace order, a police visit to the court, numerous headlines and, eventually, dueling judicial complaints that resulted in ethics charges against both judges.

Gipson never faced criminal charges for her part in the dispute. Accused of illegally recording his colleagues’ deliberations, Knapp was indicted in December.

Both judges have ethics cases pending before the Commission on Judicial Disabilities.

Lawyers for the commission recommended ethics charges against Knapp and Gipson after investigating their dispute, accusing both judges of violating various provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct during arguments in chambers, court proceedings and comments to news organizations.

Although the commission’s lawyers described both judges as “unprofessional,” they labeled Knapp the “aggressor.”

The Maryland Judiciary says charges brought by the judicial disabilities commission will lead to a hearing before that commission. If, after the hearing, the commission finds the judge “committed sanctionable conduct, or has a disability or impairment,” it refers the case to the Supreme Court of Maryland, which decides whether there should be any punishment.

State prosecutors described shortcomings in proceedings before the Commission on Judicial Disabilities in their request for Celeste to reconsider her ruling, saying that “protections surrounding allegations against judges in this State are higher than for any other group, including other attorneys, who would face discipline and criminal sanctions.”

If someone reports to the commission that a judge allegedly committed a crime, the commission is not required to report the crime — nor is it required to comply with federal or state investigations, according to prosecutors’ motion.

“If a judge retires or resigns during the investigation, his or her crimes are outside the jurisdiction of the Judicial Disabilities Commission and the allegations, investigation, and results will never become public,” prosecutors wrote. “Therefore, there may never be any accountability for the behavior.”

On June 20, 2024, Gipson called police to the Orphans’ Court office in Annapolis, saying she believed Knapp was violating a temporary restraining order she secured against him. While the order allowed Knapp to interact with his colleagues in his professional capacity, it barred him from harassing them or misusing technology. Gipson told officers Knapp was recording her against her will.

In her application for a peace order, Gipson wrote that Knapp had “been doing intimidating things in the workplace.”

In an April hearing before Celeste on the warrant’s legality, prosecutors played footage of the Anne Arundel County Police response captured by the officers’ body cameras.

Knapp told officers he had “a whole bunch of recordings” on his phone, but claimed he only recorded himself speaking. He expressed dismay about the possibility of officers seizing his phone, saying he needed it for planned travel out of the country.

Seeking to accommodate Knapp, the officers suggested he play the recordings and they tape them with their body cameras, preserving potential evidence without taking his phone. Knapp said he would oblige.

But one officer, Sgt. Heather Whitaker, noticed there appeared to be fewer recordings on Knapp’s phone than she saw originally.

“I might’ve deleted those,” Knapp said.

“We’re taking your phone,” Whitaker interjected. “And I’m sorry, but you can’t delete evidence while we’re standing here.”

Prosecutors convinced Celeste that Knapp’s deleting recordings equated to “exigent circumstances” that gave the officers permission to seize the phone.

The problem, Celeste later ruled, was with the application for a warrant written by Cpl. Joseph Mastros to give police access to the phone’s contents.

Mastros asked a judge to allow officers to look for any “stored media that would contain fruits or evidence of the crime,” “all stored phone applications that collect and store video and/or voice recordings” and “stored IP addresses and network data from the selected time frame.” He did not specify a time frame.

Though a judge issued a warrant, Celeste found the criteria Mastros listed overly broad. She said it ran afoul of limits on warrants to search phones imposed by Maryland courts in recognition of the fact that cellphones have become living diaries of a person’s life that can include highly personal information.

Prosecutors said they had no right to appeal Celeste’s decision to a higher court, only to ask her to reconsider. They underscored the ramifications of her ruling in their motion.

“Here,” they wrote, “an unappealable decision has resulted in prohibiting evidence from being admitted against a judge who admitted deleting evidence in front of the police.”