DIGGES, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. ELDRIDGE,Page 463 COLE and DAVIDSON, JJ., dissent. ELDRIDGE, J., filed a dissenting opinion at page 488 infra, in which COLE and DAVIDSON, JJ., concur.

These two criminal causes, consolidated for consideration in this Court, present us with legal issues common to both, as well as an additional question in each related solely to the case from which it arises. The mutual issues are: (i) whether, as a technical legal question, a detained criminal suspect can waive the requirement of Maryland District Rule 723 a that the defendant "be taken before a judicial officer without unnecessary delay;" (ii) assuming that an accused cannot, or that one of these defendants did not, validly waive his right to a prompt appearance, whether that defendant's statement made prior to his appearance before a commissioner was obtained in violation of M.D.R. 723 a; and (iii) assuming that waiver of a timely appearance can effectively be made, whether, in fact, a valid and acceptable waiver was obtained by police in each of these cases. The issues unique to the individual causes are: (i) whether, in determining the sentence imposed on one of these defendants, the trial court erred in considering and partly relying on admittedly illegally obtained confessions to six other crimes; and (ii) whether the defendant was properly informed of and afforded the opportunity to exercise his right of allocution pursuant to Maryland Rule 772 d. Because of the multiplicity and diversity of issues presented by the two appeals, we shall initially set forth the general factual background of each case, and then supply particular additional information that may be necessary for a proper understanding of the various contentions made here and our disposition of them.

I

In the first case we discuss, petitioner Theodore Russell Logan voluntarily surrendered himself to police after learning that a warrant for his arrest had been obtained in connection with the theft of personal property from an apartment in Adelphi. While in police custody, but prior to his appearance before a judicial officer, Logan was advised by the police that he had a right to an immediate initial appearance before a commissioner, where he would be specifically informed of a number of rights that, as an accused, he was entitled to enjoy. After stating that he understood the information provided him, Logan ostensibly waived his right "to an immediate initial appearance." This petitioner subsequently made incriminating statements which were later admitted at trial over his objection. He was found guilty by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (Fisher, J.) on April 20, 1979, of daytime housebreaking and petit larceny, and for these crimes sentenced to serve a total prison term of nine and one-half years. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the convictions, Logan v. State, 45 Md. App. 14, 410 A.2d 1110 (1980), and we granted certiorari.

Eugene Jerome Banks, the petitioner in the other appeal before us, was arrested following the shooting and killing of Robert McNeil, a taxi driver, in Hyattsville, Maryland on January 20, 1979. After a check for traces of gunpowder on his hands and treatment in a hospital for a dog bite suffered during arrest, Banks was read a litany of rights by the investigating police officer, including his right to a prompt initial appearance before a commissioner pursuant to M.D.R. 723 a. Following a written acknowledgement that he had received and understood these rights and waived the prompt appearance requirement, Banks made an inculpatory statement implicating himself in the robbery and killing of McNeil. Over the defendant's objection, this statement was subsequently received into evidence at his trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. Upon being convicted by a jury of, and sentenced by Judge Ross to a total of fifty years for, second degree murder, false imprisonment, use of a handgun during the commission of a felony, armed robbery, and carrying a handgun, Banks noted an appeal. The Court of Special Appeals, in an unreported opinion, affirmed the convictions, but vacated the sentence because it concluded that Banks' right to allocution provided for in Maryland Rule 772 d was not afforded him; we granted certiorari.

Because important issues relating to waiver of the right to a prompt initial appearance under M.D.R. 723 a are common to both the Logan and Banks causes, we ordered the cases consolidated for argument, and will answer each of the contentions presented by the two appeals in this one opinion.

II

The central contention of both petitioners in urging this Court to reverse their convictions is that the requirement of M.D.R. 723 a that an accused who is in custody be promptly taken before a judicial officer cannot, as a matter of law, be waived by a detained suspect. In confronting this issue, it is important to note at the outset that we are at this time only considering a legal question and, thus, we need not, for the purposes of its resolution, concern ourselves with the factual aspects of the ostensible waiver occurring in each case. We accordingly approach this specific issue with the assumption that these defendants, being fully apprised and knowledgeable of their right to a prompt initial appearance, willingly and voluntarily intended to waive that right. In short, the question now before us is whether a voluntary, intelligent and knowledgeable waiver is permitted.

We commence our discussion of this matter by setting out in full the rule as it was formerly worded which governed the detention of the two petitioners here:

A defendant who is detained pursuant to an arrest shall be taken before a judicial officer without unnecessary delay and in no event later than the earlier of (1) 24 hours after arrest or (2) the first session of court after the defendant's arrest upon a warrant or, where an arrest has been made without a warrant, the first session of court after the charging document is filed. A charging document shall be filed promptly after arrest if not already filed. [Maryland District Rule 723 a].

Although the rule itself neither expressly permits nor prohibits a waiver of its provisions, this Court, a mere two years ago in Johnson v. State, 282 Md. 314, 384 A.2d 709 (1978), addressed whether the requirements of M.D.R. 723 a could be waived. The accused in Johnson had been detained for over 24 hours following his arrest without presentment before a judicial officer, during which time he implicated himself to a degree in the robbery and shooting for which he had been arrested. The police interrogation which immediately followed his appearance before the commissioner further yielded his outright confession to the commission of those crimes. In addressing the issue whether a violation of the dictates of M.D.R. 723 a requires the automatic exclusion from trial of evidence obtained during a period of unnecessary delay, Judge Levine, speaking for this Court, stated:

In our opinion the protection of the right of an accused to prompt production before a judicial officer following arrest will be most effectively accomplished by a per se exclusionary rule. Not only is such a rule calculated to deter unlawful detentions and to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system, but it is likely to assure more certain and even-handed application of the prompt presentment requirement and will provide to trial courts, the bar and law enforcement officials greater guidance as to the permissible limits of custodial interrogation prior to an initial appearance.

* * *

We therefore hold that any statement, voluntary or otherwise, obtained from an arrestee during a period of unnecessary delay in producing him before a judicial officer, thereby violating M.D.R. 723 a, is subject to exclusion when offered into evidence against the defendant as part of the prosecution's case-in-chief. [ Id. at 328-29, 384 A.2d at 717.]

In Johnson, after rejecting the State's contention that by waiving his Miranda rights, a detained suspect automatically abandons the M.D.R. 723 a right, id. at 331-32, 384 A.2d at 719, this Court concluded with the following unequivocal language, which is quite pertinent to our inquiry here:

In sum, then, unless appellant waived his right to prompt presentment before a judicial officer, [the] statements implicating him in the crimes . . . should have been excluded from evidence, having been obtained in clear violation of M.D.R. 723 a.

* * *

Of course, a defendant may specifically waive his right to prompt presentment, provided such waiver is knowingly and intelligently made. . . . Since the record in the present case reveals no indication that appellant ever effectively consented to a deferment of his initial appearance, we hold that his rights under M.D.R. 723 a were not validly waived. [ Id. at 330, 332, 384 A.2d at 718, 719 (citations omitted).]

In an effort to counter the significance of the quoted language, the Public Defender argues that this is mere "dictum" which should not be transformed into a holding because it subverts the basic principles which had earlier been announced in the Johnson opinion, and entreats us to disaffirm or overrule its import. We decline the invitation. Before explaining our reasons for adhering to our statement in Johnson, we initially observe that the petitioners are incorrect in characterizing this language as merely "dictum." To the contrary, our conclusion there was central to our inquiry — indeed, a necessary requisite to the ultimate result reached — and accordingly was a holding of this Court. Normally, with such a recent precedent to guide us, we would do little more in the present cases than say the issue was decided in and controlled by Johnson. However, since our analysis of the waiver issue in that case was not extensive, and because we are again squarely presented with the same question here, it may be advisable that we more thoroughly articulate the reasons for our determination that the right to a prompt initial appearance embodied in M.D.R. 723 a can be waived.

Part of the focus necessary for the explanation of our holding in Johnson should be on what, precisely, the rule is designed to achieve at the initial appearance before a judicial officer and, thus, what, precisely, a detained suspect temporarily forgoes in this respect by waiving his right to be promptly taken before the commissioner. We previously catalogued in Johnson the procedural components of the initial appearance: first, the judicial officer is to inform the accused of all charges and supply him with copies of the charging documents if he has not already received them; second, the defendant is to be informed of his right to counsel, and if indigent, his right to have the State supply him "with a lawyer . . . free of charge;" third, the commissioner is to make a determination of the suspect's eligibility for pre-trial release under M.D.R. 721; fourth, if arrested without a warrant, further detention may not be made without a determination by the judicial officer that probable cause for arrest exists; fifth, if the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to try the defendant on the charge, the judicial officer is to inform the accused of his right to a preliminary hearing; and finally, if the District Court has jurisdiction to try the case, the judicial officer is to either set the time and date of trial, or notify the defendant that he will be so advised by the court clerk. See Johnson v. State, supra at 321-22, 384 A.2d at 713-14. As can be readily discerned from a reading of M.D.R. 723 b itself, and as we observed in Johnson, these requirements were designed to

bolster in substantial fashion several fundamental constitutional guarantees, including the right of a defendant to be informed of the accusation against him, Maryland Declaration of Rights, Art. 21; the right to be free from unauthorized and unreasonable seizures of his person, U.S. Const., amends. IV and XIV; Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. at 114; the right to be allowed counsel, Declaration of Rights, Art. 21, and to have counsel appointed for him if indigent, U.S. Const., amends. VI and XIV; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344-45, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), as well as the due process right to be free from coercive investigatory methods. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 286, 56 S.Ct. 461, 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936). [ Id. at 322, 384 A.2d at 714.]

Having these objectives of M.D.R. 723 a in mind, it is important to remember that we are not called upon to address whether the defendant can waive the requirement that he be informed of these rights by a judicial officer; rather, we focus on whether he can waive his right to be taken before a commissioner promptly without unnecessary delay. First of all, we deem it clear that each of the rights, constitutional or otherwise, contemplated by the rule to be made known to the accused at his initial appearance can itself be waived. See, e.g., Martel v. State, 221 Md. 294, 300-02, 157 A.2d 437, 441 (1960), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 849 (1960) (waiver of indictment); Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642, 34 S.Ct. 456, 58 L.Ed. 772 (1914); Jordan v. State, 221 Md. 134, 138, 156 A.2d 453, 455 (1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 972 (1960) (failure to conduct arraignment does not violate due process of law; waiver of arraignment procedure possible); M.D.R. 727 (b) (c) (preliminary hearing waived both by express waiver or failure to make a timely request); Adams v. United States, 317 U.S. 269, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268, 143 A.L.R. 435 (1942), rehearing denied, 317 U.S. 713 (1943), Md. Rule of Procedure 723 (c) (waiver of right to counsel); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Lyles v. State, 203 Md. 605, 610, 102 A.2d 291, 293 (1954) (relinquishment of right to be free from searches without warrant or probable cause by valid consent). This being true, we can divine no persuasive reason why an accused acting voluntarily, intelligently and with a basic knowledge of the rights here involved, cannot waive a prefatory requirement designed to reasonably ensure that he be promptly informed of such substantive rights. It would be a strange holding indeed were we to conclude that though the defendant can knowingly waive a constitutional right, he cannot knowingly waive a court rule (absent specific language rendering such a purported waiver ineffective) adopted to bolster and implement that constitutional right. See State v. McKay, 280 Md. 558, 570, 375 A.2d 228, 235 (1977) (if fundamental constitutional rights can be waived by accused, waiver of unanimous jury verdict existing primarily for his benefit can likewise be waived). Relying principally on the case of United States v. Haupt, 136 F.2d 661 (7th Cir. 1943), the petitioners contend that the requirement of M.D.R. 723 a imposes an independent obligation on the arresting officers, and that such a duty imposed by law upon another is not the defendant's to waive. We disagree. It is now well-settled by almost universal authority that when waiver is permitted, the potential beneficiary of the right surrenders both the privilege he possesses by virtue of it, as well as the ability to claim the advantage flowing from the failure to perform any corresponding obligation imposed on the State by that right. See, e.g., Jones v. State, 279 Md. 1, 7, 367 A.2d 1, 6 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 915 (1977) (duty to bring defendant to trial imposed on State by defendant's right to speedy trial; right waivable); State v. Renshaw, 276 Md. 259, 270, 347 A.2d 219, 227 (1975) (right to counsel imposes duty on State to provide effective representation; right waivable); State v. McKay, supra (right to unanimous criminal jury verdict does not impose imperative requirement on the State to provide the same; right subject to waiver). The existence of that obligation seldom destroys the ability of the defendant to willingly forego what exists primarily for his benefit. In short, we reject "a proposition submerged in the murky waters that surround meaningful waivers. We are unable to accept the thesis that no one can ever intelligently waive an important constitutional right voluntarily. . . ." Pettyjohn v. United States, 136 App. D.C. 69, 419 F.2d 651, 654 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1058 (1970). In our view, the same is ordinarily true in the area of important non-constitutional rights.

In this connection, we note that the list of rights generally recognized to be susceptible of waiver is long indeed. See, e.g., Allen v. State, 183 Md. 603, 612, 39 A.2d 820, 824 (1944) (privilege not to be compelled to give evidence against oneself in a criminal case may "like all other privileges" be waived); State v. Zimmerman, 261 Md. 11, 12, 273 A.2d 156, 157 (1971) (right to jury trial); Jenkins v. State, 232 Md. 529, 532-33, 194 A.2d 618, 621 (1963) (admission of illegally seized evidence waived by failure to object thereto); State v. Collins, 265 Md. 70, 79-80, 288 A.2d 163, 168 (1972) (right to confront the witnesses against the defendant); Elliott v. Warden, 243 Md. 627, 631, 222 A.2d 55, 57 (1966) (right to counsel); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 524-29, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); Jones v. State, 279 Md. 1, 8, 367 A.2d 1, 6 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 915 (1977) (right to speedy trial); Ogle v. Warden, 236 Md. 425, 426-27, 204 A.2d 179, 180 (1964) (claim of violation of procedural right, constitutional or otherwise, waived by entry of guilty plea); State v. McKay, supra (right to unanimous criminal jury verdict). Particularly instructive to our inquiry here is the fact that the right to counsel, and the right to be free from compelled self-incrimination, are universally held to be subject to waiver by a defendant. See, e.g., Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Adams v. United States, 317 U.S. 269, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed.2d 268 (1942), rehearing denied, 317 U.S. 713 (1943) (right to counsel); Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 88 S.Ct. 1913, 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968) (privilege against self-incrimination). As we noted in Johnson (282 Md. at 331, 384 A.2d at 719), there is some amount of overlap between the Miranda requirements imposed to dispel the coercive atmosphere that may render the exercise of these rights difficult or impossible, and the requirement of M.D.R. 723 a that the defendant be promptly taken by police before a judicial officer. In this regard, it is instructive to note that with respect to the federal equivalent of our initial appearance rule, Fed. R. Crim. P. 5 (a), and the Supreme Court decisions of McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943), rehearing denied, 319 U.S. 784 (1943), and Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957), it was later observed by the federal circuit court of appeals that:

[T]he evolution in our understanding of Mallory has "paralleled the visible movement by the Supreme Court towards the application of Fifth and Sixth Amendment considerations to the pre-arraignment period. That movement culminated, of course, in Miranda, in the shadow of which Rule 5(a) now resides. . . ." . . . Mallory has been ultimately concerned with effectuation of Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections against the dangers of involuntary self-incrimination in station houses and with the other evils inherent in police interrogation of an accused in secret. . . . Mallory itself has stood guard against not only the "third degree," but also "the pressures in a Police Station upon prisoners under secret interrogation without counsel, relative or friend." These, of course, are precisely the concerns of Miranda. [ Frazier v. United States, 136 App. D.C. 180, 419 F.2d 1161, 1164-65 (D.C. Cir. 1969), overruled in part, 476 F.2d 891 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (citations omitted).]

Although we think it evident from our earlier discussion that the concern of M.D.R. 723 encompasses more than the particular evils to which Miranda was directed, see Johnson v. State, supra at 331, 384 A.2d at 719, to the extent that there is overlap, the authorities holding that Miranda rights can be waived are supportive of our conclusion that the requirement of M.D.R. 723 a is likewise waivable. Moreover, we observe that there is a substantial body of judicial authority from other jurisdictions which, in interpreting their similar requirement of an initial appearance before a judicial officer without unnecessary delay, is in accord with our determination in Johnson that the requirement in M.D.R. 723 a, assuming the necessary requisites have been satisfied, can be waived. See United States v. Indian Boy X, 565 F.2d 585, 591 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 841 (1978); United States v. Poole, 161 App. D.C. 289, 495 F.2d 115, 120 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1048 (1975); Frazier v. United States, supra at 1166; United States v. Lopez, 450 F.2d 169, 170 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 931 (1972); Pettyjohn v. United States, supra, 419 F.2d at 656; United States v. Grote, supra at 415; People v. Hosier, 186 Colo. 116, 525 P.2d 1161, 1164 (1974) (en banc); People v. Weaver, 179 Colo. 331, 500 P.2d 980, 982 (1972) (en banc); Hawkins v. United States, 304 A.2d 279, 281 (D.C. 1973); Richmond v. State, 554 P.2d 1217, 1229 (Wyoming 1976), rehearing denied, 558 P.2d 509 (1977). Cf. United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 91 L.Ed. 1654 (1947), rehearing denied, 332 U.S. 785 (1947); Gutierrez v. State, 388 N.E.2d 520, 525-26 (Ind. 1979); Green v. State, 257 Ind. 244, 274 N.E.2d 267, 271 (1971); State v. Goodseal, 220 Kan. 487, 553 P.2d 279, 290-91 (1976), overruled on other grounds, 228 Kan. 294, 615 P.2d 153 (1980). Accordingly, we reaffirm our holding in Johnson that the prompt appearance requirement of M.D.R. 723 a is susceptible of waiver by a suspect.

III

Having concluded that waiver is legally permissible, we now focus on the specific ostensible relinquishment of the prompt appearance requirement made by petitioners Logan and Banks in these cases. The prevalent standard governing waiver of fundamental constitutional rights was decades ago enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938): "A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case. . . ." Id. at 464. In further commenting on this same subject, the Supreme Court has more recently stated that there exists a presumption "that a defendant did not waive his rights; the prosecution's burden is great; but in at least some cases waiver can be clearly inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogated." North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). While we recognize the dictate of the Maryland District Rule that a defendant be taken before a commissioner without unnecessary delay is not required by the federal constitution, see Kennedy v. State, 289 Md. 54, 421 A.2d 1376 (1980); Johnson v. State, 282 Md. 314, 323, 384 A.2d 709, 714 (1978), we have seen that the initial appearance requirement protects and implements several fundamental constitutional rights, both federal and state. Id. at 322, 384 A.2d at 714. Given the intimate interplay between these constitutional rights and the initial appearance proceeding itself, we believe that the knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver standard set out in Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, is the one to be met for an effective waiver of the requirement of a prompt initial appearance. This is what our opinion in Johnson v. State, 282 Md. at 332, 384 A.2d at 719, contemplates, and we accordingly apply that standard in examining the individual factual circumstances involved in each of the present two appeals.

The record discloses that petitioner Logan was provided a copy of, and was read aloud, the following written form: YES T.L. YES T.L. YES T.L. YES YES NO

Petitioner Banks was arrested by Officer Tucker at 1:45 a.m. after having been bitten and ferreted out of his hiding place by a police canine. The arresting officer placed Banks in a police cruiser, advised him of his Miranda rights, and transported the suspect to a police station to check for gunpowder traces on his hands. He was then taken to a hospital for treatment of the minor dog bite suffered at the time of arrest, and from there to the police department's investigation bureau located in Forestville, Maryland. Upon his arrival there a few minutes after 3:00 a.m., Banks, in the custody of Detective Ferriter, was unmanacled, taken into an interrogation room and searched. He was again advised of his Miranda rights, and in response to an inquiry whether he understood what was just told him, Banks nodded his head affirmatively. Detective Ferriter then sought particular items of personal information from Banks, which the suspect furnished. It would appear that a short period of time transpired before Detective Jones, the chief investigating detective assigned to this case, joined Banks and read to him from a waiver form substantially identical to the one submitted to Logan. The detective recorded the answers to the various questions as supplied by Banks, and the accused initialled each answer and affixed his signature to the bottom of the waiver form at 4:14 a.m. Banks then made inculpatory statements, which were reduced to writing, and later, over his objection, admitted as evidence in his trial.

Having examined the records in the two cases before us, the essence of which we have just described, we cannot conclude that the trial court's factual determination, in either case, that the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily executed by the petitioner, is clearly erroneous. It is true that in the Banks case, there was a short delay, apparently lasting no more than about half an hour, between the time the petitioner was brought to the investigative bureau for interrogation and the waiver of his right to a prompt initial appearance. While a waiver by a suspect of his right to a prompt presentment before a judicial officer ordinarily would not operate retroactively to foreclose objection based on a preceding illegal detention, we perceive the short delay involved in the Banks case, particularly in combination with the complete absence of indications of coercion, to be insignificant. The records do disclose that Logan and Banks each were informed as to the nature of the information he would receive from the commissioner at his initial appearance, that each understood what he was told, that each was informed that he could terminate the interrogation at any time, that if he did so, he would be taken before a judicial officer without delay, and that the petitioners each, both orally and in writing, waived the M.D.R. 723 a requirement of a prompt initial appearance. However, faced with a dearth of evidence supporting a suggestion that the waiver in each of these cases was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily given and in fact with substantial evidence to the contrary (sufficient to authorize a determination that the State has met its burden of proof in this regard), petitioners principally argue, as we have seen, that this type of waiver is ab initio ineffective. Additionally, the two petitioners assert that even if it is not thus void, such a waiver can validly be made only to a judicial officer, and not to a police officer. In addressing the latter of these two arguments, we preliminarily note that the above facts are normally sufficient to support a valid waiver of the fundamental constitutional right to counsel and privilege against self-incrimination, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Moreover, we observe that the requirement "that conclusions concerning probable cause and the scope of a search `be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting our crime,'" Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 759, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948)), can be relinquished by the consent of the suspect, and such consent is normally tendered, long before his presence before a neutral magistrate, to the police officers conducting the search. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Mathis v. Warden, 243 Md. 682, 683, 221 A.2d 81, 82 (1966). In our view, if under these holdings the consent of a criminal suspect given to police officers can effect a waiver of the responsibilities that are constitutionally reposed in judicial officers with regard to fourth amendment rights, we fail to see on what logical basis the waiver of the requirement of M.D.R. 723 a cannot similarly be made to police officers. That a suspect was preliminarily informed of his rights by the police rather than a judicial officer is only a factor to be considered in connection with the voluntariness issue, and, standing alone, does not destroy the effectiveness of the prompt appearance waiver. See United States v. Poole, supra, 495 F.2d at 120; Frazier v. United States, supra, 419 F.2d at 1166 n. 24.

IV

The next contention we shall address, one which is raised solely by petitioner Logan, arises from the sentence imposed by Judge Fisher for the housebreaking and larceny convictions. The judge, in imposing sentence, stated that the court "would be blind if it were not to give some consideration to the other offenses for which confessions were obtained. . . . [T]he Court is going to give these statements some minimal consideration." It was conceded by the State at trial, as it was before this Court, that the confessions to the six other housebreakings, to which Judge Fisher referred, were unconstitutionally obtained as a result of the display to petitioner of an illegally seized set of master keys. Logan urges this Court to vacate the sentence imposed because, in his view, with the absence here of any of the well-recognized exceptions, the rule requiring exclusion of any unconstitutionally obtained evidence applies to sentencing proceedings, it being a part of the trial; thus, he posits that Judge Fisher committed reversible error by giving such illegally obtained confessions any consideration whatsoever. We do not agree.

The petitioner does not dispute, as clearly he cannot, that in this State a sentencing judge is vested with virtually boundless discretion. He may impose any sentence, which is not cruel and unusual punishment proscribed by Article 16 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and which is within the statutorily imposed limitations (if any there be), determined to be deserved for or necessitated by the proven criminal conduct in question. In the pursuit of this indispensable but often perplexing duty, a broad range of information may be mustered by the judge as an aid to his determination. Thus,

the sentencing judge may inquire into the past criminal record of the defendant and hear evidence and receive reports in aggravation or mitigation of punishment; the inquiry of the judge is not limited by the strict rules of evidence. . . . [In] exercising the discretion vested in him, the procedural policy of the State encourages him to consider information concerning the convicted person's reputation, past offenses, health, habits, mental and moral propensities, social background and any other matters that a judge ought to have before him in determining the sentence that should be imposed. [ Bartholomey v. State, 267 Md. 175, 193, 297 A.2d 696, 706 (1972); see also Purnell v. State, 241 Md. 582, 585, 217 A.2d 298, 299-300 (1966); Skinker v. State, 239 Md. 234, 237, 210 A.2d 716, 717-18 (1965).]

In considering what is proper punishment, it is now well-settled in this State that a judge is not limited to reviewing past conduct whose occurrence has been judicially established, but may view "reliable evidence of conduct which may be opprobrious although not criminal, as well as details and circumstances of criminal conduct for which the person has not been tried." Henry v. State, 273 Md. 131, 147-48, 328 A.2d 293, 303 (1974). Indeed, since an acquittal does not necessarily establish the untruth of all evidence introduced at the trial of the defendant, the "sentencing judge also may properly consider reliable evidence concerning the details and circumstances surrounding a criminal charge of which a person has been acquitted." Id. This broad discretion to appraise multifarious information from multitudinous sources has for some time been recognized to be both a necessary and a desirable requisite to the prevalent modern penal philosophy of individualized punishment. See Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949). Thus, in Williams, Mr. Justice Black in speaking for the United States Supreme Court, cogently observed that:

To deprive sentencing judges of this kind of information would undermine modern penological procedural policies that have been cautiously adopted throughout the nation after careful consideration and experimentation. . . . In determining whether a defendant shall receive a one-year minimum or a twenty-year maximum sentence, we do not think the Federal Constitution restricts the view of the sentencing judge to the information received in open court. The due-process clause should not be treated as a device for freezing the evidential procedure of sentencing in the mold of trial procedure. So to treat the due-process clause would hinder if not preclude all courts — state and federal — from making progressive efforts to improve the administration of criminal justice. [ Id. at 249-51.]

The widespread acceptance of this conceptual model of the penal function of our justice system has few detractors and has resulted in a paucity of restraints being placed on a judge possessing the responsibility to impose punishment, lest he be "forced to bridle himself with mental blinders and thus enter the process of imposing sentence with impaired vision." Johnson v. State, 274 Md. 536, 542, 336 A.2d 113, 116 (1975). Consequently, we stated in Johnson that the awesome responsibility of the sentencing judge cannot ordinarily be reevaluated upon appellate review unless the sentence is based upon an impermissible consideration, or imposed in violation of a statute. Id. at 538, 336 A.2d at 114. For examples of impermissible considerations, see Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977) (due process applies to sentencing proceeding); United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 448-49, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972) (sentence based in part on previous conviction in violation of right to counsel invalid); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969) (limitations on resentencing following reversal on appeal); Briggs v. State, 289 Md. 23, 421 A.2d 1369, (1980); Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (1974, 1980 Repl. Vol.), § 12-702(b) and (c) (limitations on resentencing following reversal on appeal, and a trial de novo after appeal from District Court); Johnson v. State, supra, 274 Md. at 542-43, 336 A.2d at 117 (failure of defendant to admit guilt). Placed in this perspective then, petitioner Logan seeks to have this Court lay another occlusion on the peripheral vision of the sentencing judge by urging that an unconstitutionally procured confession is one such "impermissible consideration." Logan attempts to lead us to this conclusion by contending that the exclusionary rule of the fourth amendment to the federal constitution, see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), rehearing denied, 368 U.S. 871 (1961), is applicable not solely to the "guilt determination" stage of a criminal trial, but also to the sentencing phase.

The exclusionary rule is a judicially-created requirement of policy "calculated to prevent, not to repair. Its purpose is to deter — to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it." Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960). Over the years since that rule's nascence close to a century ago in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886), it appears that at least two additional rationales, other than deterrence, have been advanced to support the rule's application to evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment. The first, referred to in Elkins as the "imperative of judicial integrity," is that "[c]ourts which sit under our Constitution cannot and will not be made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions. . . . [A]n application of the exclusionary rule withholds the constitutional imprimatur." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 13, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The remaining additional purpose was with clarity expressed in Mr. Justice Brennan's dissent in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 357, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974), in which the focus of the rule is perceived as fostering popular respect for and trust in the government by assuring the populace that the authorities would not profit from their lawless behavior. It is now aptly recognized that this exploration of the reasons for the exclusionary rule "is of more than academic concern, for the [Supreme] Court's perception of these purposes will determine the scope and, ultimately, the fate of the exclusionary rule." W. LaFave, Search and Seizure, A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (1978), § 1.1, p. 18. Thus, central to the resolution of the issue which petitioner raises for our consideration — whether that rule should be extended to sentencing proceedings — is what we perceive to be an increasing emphasis by the Supreme Court on the deterrent function as the prime, if not sole, justification for the rule. In Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974), it was proffered that the imperative of judicial integrity rationale "is really an assimilation of the more specific rationales discussed in the text of this opinion, and does not in their absence provide an independent basis for excluding challenged evidence." Id. at 450 n. 25. In United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 96 S.Ct. 3021, 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976), the Court declared that "the `prime purpose' of the rule, if not the sole one, `is to deter future unlawful police conduct.'" Id. at 446 (quoting from United States v. Calandra, supra at 347). See generally Project, Tenth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: United States Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals 1979-1980, 69 Geo. L.J. 211, 305-09 (1980). It follows, then, that the exclusionary rule "is not to be imposed in a vacuum nor . . . administered mechanically. It should be applied in light of its deterrent purpose." United States v. Vandemark, 522 F.2d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 1975). "As with any remedial device, the application of the rule has been restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served." United States v. Calandra, supra at 348. In keeping with this narrowing conception of the application and utility of the rule, the Supreme Court has consistently refused to extend its reach beyond the area traditionally within the rule's purview. E.g., United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 100 S.Ct. 2439, 65 L.Ed.2d 468 (1980) (federal court's inherent supervisory power not utilized to exclude evidence obtained by bad faith hostility to third party's constitutional rights); United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620, 100 S.Ct. 1912, 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980) (impeachment of statement of defendant illicited by proper cross-examination); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) (grand jury proceedings); Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971) (impeachment); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969), rehearing denied, Ivanov v. United States, 394 U.S. 939 (1969) (use against person other than victim of constitutional violation).

In considering whether to apply the exclusionary rule to grand jury proceedings in Calandra, the Court engaged in a balancing process, weighing the potential injury to the historic role and function of the grand jury proceeding against the potential benefits of exclusion in that context. Id. at 349-52. Adopting the same analytical framework in considering application of the rule to sentencing hearings, we believe that the incremental gain in deterrence from the rule's utilization, when compared with the forfeiture inherent in depriving the sentencing officer of crucial information, is too slight to justify the per se application of the rule in sentencing proceedings. While prohibiting consideration of unreliable evidence in determining a proper sentence stems from well-founded concern for basic fairness, see United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948), "[m]ost illegally-obtained evidence . . . is not inherently unreliable." As such, the clear relevance of this information to the sentencing judge's inquiry dictates that there must exist a significant level of deterrence to support the per se extension of the rule to sentencing proceedings; such deterrence is elusive. In the words of Judge Winter speaking for a panel of the federal fourth circuit Court of Appeals:

[I]f the exclusionary rule were extended to sentencing in the ordinary case, its additional deterrent effect would be so minimal as to be insignificant. Generally, law enforcement officers conduct searches and seize evidence for purposes of prosecution and conviction — not for the purpose of increasing a sentence in a prosecution already pending or one not yet begun. If they are to be deterred from official lawlessness, it would seem obvious that the only effective deterrence is the threat that the prosecution arising out of the specific search and seizure in which they acted illegally would be rendered ineffective. The additional threat that a future sentence might be less severe because they acted unlawfully can be predicted to have little practical effect to accomplish its main objective. [ United States v. Lee, 540 F.2d 1205, 1211 (4th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 894 (1976).]

We agree, and accordingly conclude that usually the stricture of this Supreme Court doctrine does not extend to the sentencing stage of a criminal cause. Accord, United States v. Vandemark, 522 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1975); United States v. Schipani, 315 F. Supp. 253, affirmed, 435 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 983 (1971); State v. Jones, 110 Ariz. 546, 521 P.2d 978 (1974) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1004 (1974); State v. Swartz, 278 N.W.2d 22 (Iowa 1979); State v. Banks, 157 N.J. Super. 442, 384 A.2d 1164 (1978); State v. Campbell, 43 Or. App. 979, 607 P.2d 745 (1979). We add, however, that where a showing has been made that judicial consideration at sentencing of illegally obtained evidence provides an incentive for illegal official activity, the exclusionary rule may well be applicable. Such incentive may be most readily shown by proof that the unconstitutionally obtained evidence was seized by police officials "with a view toward enhancing the defendant's sentence." United States v. Lee, supra at 1212. Accord, United States v. Vandemark, supra at 1023-24; State v. Swartz, supra, 278 N.W.2d at 26. There being no indication in this record that the obtention of any of the six illegal confessions was motivated for the purpose of influencing the sentencing judge, we conclude that pursuant to the discretion vested in him, Judge Fisher could and did properly accord some consideration to the confessions.

V

Lastly, petitioner Banks complains that he was neither informed of nor afforded his right under Rule 772 d to personally allocute. That Rule directs:

d. Allocution.

Before imposing sentence the court shall inform the defendant that he has the right, personally and through counsel, to make a statement and to present information in mitigation of punishment, and the court shall afford an opportunity to exercise this right.

The short answer to this contention made by Banks is that the failure, if in fact one exists, was not raised in, brought to the attention of, or ruled upon by the trial court; thus, the issue was not before the intermediate appellate court and is not now before this Court. Rule 885. See Bennett v. State, 180 Md. 406, 411-12, 24 A.2d 786, 788 (1942).

The record reveals that at the sentencing hearing following his conviction, petitioner's counsel, after presenting two character witnesses, at the time for allocution, thoroughly and competently made an impassioned plea on Banks' behalf in mitigation of punishment. This was followed by the trial judge inquiring: "All right. Does Mr. Banks care to be heard from?" The reply was made by defense counsel in the presence of his client: "No Your Honor." To this answer no objection or other register of disagreement was made by the defendant; nor, after the imposition of sentence, was there any objection noted, motion to strike the sentence or any proceedings initiated to properly present the question to an appellate court. Thus, Banks forfeited his right to appellate review of the allocution issue. Bennett v. State, supra.

We note, however, that this ruling will not deprive the petitioner of all possible recourse in his effort to have his designated duration of punishment reduced since the propriety of the sentence imposed remains subject to the revisory power of the trial court under Rule 774, and to analysis under the Review of Criminal Sentence Act, provided for in Md. Code (1957, 1976 Repl. Vol.), Art. 27, § 645JA — 645JG and Rule 773.

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals in petitioner Logan's case, and will affirm in part and reverse in part that court's judgment pertaining to petitioner Banks' cause.

Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals in No. 24 affirmed.

Costs to be paid by Theodore Russell Logan.

Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals in No. 36 vacating the sentence imposed on Eugene Jerome Banks reversed, but in all other respects affirmed, and case remanded to that court with instructions to affirm the judgment embodying the conviction and sentence as entered by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County.

Costs to be paid by Eugene Jerome Banks.