in the court where the action was initially brought.” Smith v. Pearre, 96 Md.App. 376, 383, 625 A.2d 349 (1993) (citing Ezersky, supra, 40 Md.App. at 715, 394 A.2d 1225); see also Pantazes v. State, 376 Md. 661, 675, 831 A.2d 432 (2003). “If the condition for removal is satisfied, there is no discretion to deny the request.” Lennox v. Mull, 89 Md.App. 555, 560, 598 A.2d 847 (1991). Thus, once a showing has been made of reasonable ground to believe the party cannot receive a fair and impartial trial, the court 19 (2000) (reviewing de novo the mixed question of law and fact of whether statements made by a suspect following a traffic stop should be suppressed because they were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment); Johnson v. State, 142 Md.App. 172, 183, 788 A.2d 678 (2002) (<HOLDING>). The implementing rule for removal in
holding that whether consent was valid under the fourth amendment is a question of law to be reviewed de novo holding that the question of whether the police had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make a warrantless search should be reviewed de novo holding that determinations of reasonable suspicion for investigative stops and probable cause to perform warrantless searches should be reviewed de novo by appellate courts holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry holding the ultimate question of probable cause should be reviewed de novo