Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyers

Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyers

Call Us Free Legal Consultation

(888) 205-9314

Tis the Season For Increased Thefts?

By Leave a Comment

It’s holiday time and as Peter Herman with the Baltimore Sun reports, it’s time for law enforcement to start issuing mass warnings about everything from locking your bags in your trunk to leaving your lights on at home when you leave the house. But is there really a peak in theft related crimes over the holidays or is this just a fallacy?
Interestingly, despite the belief that everything from theft to domestic violence peak over the holidays, the statistics tell another story.
With regard to car break-ins, one of those offenses we commonly hear the news and police agencies warning about, there were 57 such crimes in 2009 over a week’s time period including the busiest shopping day of the year—Black Friday. In August of that same year, there were 178 of those break-ins.
Similarly, domestic violence crimes are thought to rise over the holidays when stress is high and finances are often stretched thin. But, according to the Md. Network Against Domestic Violence, November and December 2009 were the two months with the lowest domestic violence complaints.
Despite the numbers telling a different story, the police will likely continue to send out their holiday warnings, with local news stations doing the same sort of thing. Keep your shopping bags in your trunk, never leave your house dark when out of town, and remember to be vigilant on the crowded roadways!
One criminologist states that larcenies do spike over the December month, however, leaving some questions about the trend and the warnings. Also, the roadways do seem to become deadlier as the number of people traveling increases.
With such conflicting data and opinions, maybe the police are right—better safe than sorry. And if you are one of those people who stands on the other side of the law, accused of committing holiday thefts or even being charged with a DUI after a holiday party, know a criminal defense attorney can help.
Whether you are facing reckless driving charges or assault—contact us today for a free consultation on your case.

Maryland Cops Can Stop For Window Tint

By Leave a Comment

A Maryland court of Appeals clarified under which conditions law enforcement can stop cars who seem to have illegal tint on their windows this past week. Basically, they found that if an officer can articulate in a credible manner what made the vehicle appear to have illegal tint, it can be stopped. Their wording suggests, however, that cops may want to have a tint testing device handy when making those stops, however.
Maryland law states that no less than 35% of light can be transmitted through a vehicle window for it to be considered legal. More often than not, the initial estimate of this and the source of a fine is nothing more than a guess by officers.
The case that brought the issue before the Court of Appeals involved a man driving a vehicle that was suspected of carrying drugs. The officer had no legal justification for stopping the car he saw, even though he thought it to be the suggested drug car. The tint, however, did appear suspiciously dark.
According to the officer, the vehicle’s driver was obeying all traffic laws but noticed at an intersection that he couldn’t see into the vehicle. This was the basis of his traffic stop—possible illegal tint. By the officer’s own admission, he hadn’t received any training on window tinting but that he believed he should have been able to see inside.
In the vehicle was found cocaine and marijuana. The Circuit Court in the driver’s criminal case suppressed the evidence stating it was an illegal seizure as there wasn’t sufficient probable cause to stop and search the car. The Court of Appeals agreed.
When the police search you or your vehicle, they must follow the letter of the law. This includes having what’s referred to as probable cause or a warrant. Without it any evidence seized might not be admissible in court, as the drugs in this case weren’t.
According to the Baltimore Sun, 30 State Troopers carry light meters, able to test tinting while about 1,500 do not. By their own estimate, if you can’t see in the vehicle, you may want to get it checked before you end up in a questionable traffic stop.
Criminal evidence can take many forms. All criminal evidence must be seized legally for it to be used against you in court. As a Maryland criminal defense attorney, it’s part of my job to look at how the evidence against you was taken and to ensure your constitutional rights are protected throughout the criminal process.
If you’re facing charges, contact me today for a free consultation on your case.

Second Degree Assault for Threatening with Sword

By Leave a Comment

A Maryland man was sentenced to 18 months in jail on a second degree assault charge, after threatening a group of people with a sword.

Via the Herald-Mail and washingtonpost.com, This strange story is the result of a heroin drug problem. The defendant was supposedly high on heroin at the time of the assault, and the rational for the assault was an attempt to collect money from a previous drug sale.
The man brought the sword thinking the men at the house were armed with guns.
Clearly, this was not a well thought out plan.
A significant jail term is unusual with assault and battery charges where ultimately no one was injured, but certainly the unusual circumstances, the drug abuse, and the potential for severe injury, it is not completely surprising.
Under Maryland law, the maximum penalty for second degree assault is 10 years in prison.

Maryland Man Almost Serves 14 Additional Unwarranted Years in Prison

By Leave a Comment

Just how much can one clerical error cost? Well, for one man in Maryland, a simple error nearly cost him 14 years of his life. One entry into the state’s criminal records database meant the difference between 6 years and 20 years behind bars.
According to the Baltimore Sun, the man didn’t have a clean record when he faced federal weapons charges in 2006 but he didn’t have the kind of record that officials thought he did.
The problem arose when a charge he faced in 2000 was entered into the system as a conviction. It would have been his third felony distribution charge for the man and would have qualified him for a enhanced sentence for the federal weapons charge. And because that’s the way it was entered in the system, he was sentenced to 235 months in the federal prison system as opposed to the 77 he should’ve faced.
Under federal laws, the third conviction would have deemed him a career criminal, the type of person the courts want to keep off the streets. But this particular defendant knew he was right and knew he wasn’t convicted in the 2000 drug distribution case. So he fought.
He filed appeal after appeal and even petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case. They rejected him and Appeals Courts upheld the sentence. He finally petitioned to have his sentence corrected.
The burden was on the defendant to prove to the courts that he had never received that 2000 conviction despite what their computer system showed. He had the paperwork to back his claims and won. The defendant was recently resentenced in a rare case of a clerical error with nearly disastrous effects.
The Court’s skepticism for this man’s claims is no doubt based on hearing numerous baseless appeals every single year. And according to the Sun, the Maryland U.S. Attorney stated this was the first case that he had personally heard of where the information within the state clerk‘s records were incorrect.
When you face criminal charges, this is the exact kind of thing that can put undue stress on you. It’s bad enough to be looking at a lengthy prison sentence or even a few months in jail. But, when you have to worry about whether or not everyone involved in your case is doing their job, it becomes nearly unmanageable.
If you are facing criminal charges and in need of an advocate on your side, call our offices today. We will give you a free consultation on your case and some valuable legal advice.

Maryland Case of Cop Recording Thrown Out by Judge

By Leave a Comment

In a case of videotaping a police officer that I wrote about last week, a judge has issued his ruling, a ruling in favor of police accountability and the rights of the people. A 24 year old National Guardsman was facing felony wiretapping charges for recording a Maryland state police officer during a traffic stop.
At issue was whether citizens had the right to record the police acting within an official capacity—with or without their knowledge. The state argued that this man had no right to record the encounter, while his defense and the ACLU stated there was no “expectation of privacy” on a crowded roadway.
The judge ruled in favor of the defendant, tossing his wiretapping charges while upholding his traffic citations. According to the Baltimore Sun, he recognized that public servants like the police shouldn’t expect to be “shielded from public scrutiny.” He also cited the Rodney King case in his findings and said that with the onslaught of technology, people in general can’t really expect to not be recorded at any given time.
Finally, he affirmed what the ACLU argued in saying, the incident “took place on a public highway in full view of the public. Under such circumstances, I cannot, by any stretch, conclude that the troopers had any reasonable expectation of privacy in their conversation with the defendant…”
Current wiretapping laws were written years ago, long before nearly everyone was walking around with recording devices in their pockets. As technology advances, so must the interpretation of the laws.
The State Attorney for Harford County could appeal the decision if he disagrees with the judge’s ruling. But, at the time of the Sun article, that decision hadn’t been made. He is quoted as saying he believes the ruling will make the police’s job more difficult—though I question how.
With great power comes great responsibility and a potential for abuse. Although the majority of police officers conduct themselves in ethical and responsible manners, we have seen what happens when this isn’t the case. Being able to record police interaction in public is a win on the side of citizen protection.
Without recordings, most cases boil down to he said/she said and other evidence. It’s very rare to have video footage at a criminal trial. However, this other evidence can be used to build a case successfully against a defendant or, on the other hand, can serve to prove their innocence.
When you are facing criminal charges, an attorney will help you analyze all of the evidence against you and that evidence that may work on your behalf. If you have questions about your case or are in need of representation, contact me today.

Is It Illegal to Record the Cops?

By 1 Comment

The cops can record you. Whether it’s a dashboard camera or a red light camera, your objection doesn’t hold any ground with law enforcement. So, why is a Maryland man facing charges for recording an officer during a traffic stop?
Prosecutors argue the man was in violation of wiretapping laws when a camera mounted on his motorcycle helmet recorded his interaction with a state trooper. The defense counters that people should be able to record police acting within an official capacity while in public and that the conversation between trooper and suspect was not a wholly private conversation to begin with.
The case is the first of its kind in Maryland and is definitely one to watch. With recording devices in nearly everyone’s pockets these days, clarifying if wiretapping laws apply to cell phone videos is an important matter. Important not only to clarify the law but also to ensure citizens have the ability to keep officers accountable.
Think of Rodney King and all the other video recordings since that time that have uncovered police abuses. As the Baltimore Sun points out in this important quite from ancient Rome, “Who will watch the watchers?”
The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has sent several attorneys to represent the man in this case, stating there’s no reason a citizen should be denied the right to record a conversation when there is no “expectation of privacy.” In other words, if you are in a public place where your tone is audible to others, the recording of your conversation is completely legal.
The Attorney General for Maryland issued an opinion in July telling police that it was within the right of the people to record officers and that those conversations could not be considered private. The Attorney General is considered the law enforcement and legal official for the state.
The suspect in this case uploaded his videotaped encounter to the Internet, which is how law enforcement became aware of his recording. He now faces up to 16 years in prison for this felony charge.
There’s little doubt in my mind that the case will go to trial and whatever the result is, it will be appealed. Definitely a case to watch in months to come, this one could have lasting effects.
The bottom line is that citizens should be allowed to record police interactions when officers are acting in the line of duty. As public servants, law enforcement must be held accountable for their actions and having video evidence of their actions should be seen as positive rather than something to fear.
After all, if they are acting with integrity and respecting the rights of the people, why would evidence supporting this be such a bad thing?
You may not have a tape of your arrest, but chances are I can help you regardless. If you’re up against criminal charges and need an advocate on your side in court, contact me today.

Ten Baltimore Residents Face Serious Drug Charges

By Leave a Comment

The Baltimore Sun is reporting several raids this week in the Northeast Four-by-Four neighborhood. Eight locations and 150 officers led to 10 people being indicted on federal drug charges. This area has apparently been overrun with drugs and violence over the past several years.
The raids included federal and local officials interested in cleaning up the neighborhood and the “clandestine operation” controlling the drug trade there. The alleged ringleader of the operation is said to have a violent past including several previous convictions for assault and drugs and being a suspect in four unsolved murder cases.
Weapons and drugs, officials say, were kept in the homes of neighbors and conspirators in the neighborhood and even around the homes. Although this investigation was led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and has resulted in charges that will be addressed in federal court, the suspects could just as easily be facing state criminal charges.
A single charge of possession with intent to distribute a Schedule I drug like cocaine or heroin can result in up to 20 years in prison. If this isn’t your first offense, you will likely be mandated to spend a minimum of 2 years behind bars, regardless of the drug in question.
If the charge you are facing is a drug possession charge rather than a distribution charge, the penalties you may be up against are a little less severe. Posession of cocaine carries a maximum sentence of 4 years in prison.
If, however, this is your first charge there’s a good chance you won’t serve any time at all. Depending on the facts of the case, you may be eligible to serve probation instead. This is based on your criminal history, your charges, and the likelihood of you succeeding on probation.
The bottomline is, you don’t have to be involved in a gang or a huge drug operation to face serious charges. Charges like possession and even possession with intent to distribute can be levied even against recreational drug users. Knowing just how to handle these charges in a court of law, however, is the business of your attorney.
If you are facing drug charges and unsure of your options or what kind of time you may be facing, call me today. I can give you a free consultation on your case and provide some valuable legal advice.

More Police Surveillance in Hagarstown, MD

By Leave a Comment


Via the Washington Post, Hagarstown, MD is receiving $900,000 in federal grants to build an elaborate video camera and surveillance “public safety network” throughout the town.

Police Chief Arthur Smith says the department will use the money to link computer, radio, in-car, video camera and other systems for top efficiency.
One component will be video cameras. Smith hopes to double the amount of cameras downtown to 60.
Thermal imagers, in-car cameras, a supervisor command vehicle camera and moveable cameras will also be purchased.
The amount of computer surveillance and monitoring this system will be capable of is impressive. Their goal appears to be a massive surveillance infrastructure, where there will be no place in town that your actions are not monitored and recorded by the police.

But does everyone agree that this is a good thing? Civil liberties and privacy advocates are sure to be suspicious of this government intrusiveness in our lives.
And it is all happening without any public debate as to what we think is reasonable. The technological capabilities are far ahead of the desires of the citizens.
Already there are widespread license plate scanners tracking an monitoring our driving habits.
We are certainly happy when they are used to quickly identify and track stolen cars, or even find fugitives wanted for failure to appear on a court warrant.
We may be a little more suspicious and skeptical if we are stopped for having a suspended drivers license that we weren’t notified of.
So, where are the limits of what the public things is a reasonable level of monitoring and tracking of ordinary citizens?
We should have that debate now, before the government security infrastructure is fully embedded and impossible to stop.

Marijuana Possession Case Leads to Humorous Appeals Court Opinion

By Leave a Comment

A Baltimore man who was sentenced to 60 days in jail on a marijuana possession charge lost his appeal in the Maryland Court of Appeals. A Baltimore Sun crime blog entry exposes the humorous wording of the official opinion of the court, who mentioned the appellate as acting “groovy” and even cited the classic marijuana comedies of Cheech & Chong.
The man’s conviction was upheld as the court determined his proximity and “groovy” attitude was enough to establish possession of the marijuana blunt burning in the ashtray upon police entry into the home. Apparently he maintained his laid-back attitude when the cops busted in.
Cheech and ChongIn the footnotes of the opinion, the court took the time to explain exactly who Cheech & Chong were so as not to lose anyone in the reference to them. A brief career summary was provided for the duo looking more like a bio found on IMDB than a state appeals court opinion.
The court also provided a paragraph definition of “blunt”, again to ensure anyone reading the opinion would be able to follow along. The footnotes read, “A police witness testified that to create a blunt the smoker obtains a legitimate cigar, removes the tobacco, and substitutes marijuana for the tobacco. The smoker then rolls the wrapper and the marijuana back into the shape of a cigar and lights up.”
Court opinions rarely offer insight into pop culture and even more rarely hint on the verge of humor. While the appellate who lost his case likely isn’t laughing, those in the legal community can see humor in this unusually written opinion.
Laughter aside, however, it’s a good example of the legal definition of “possession”. You don’t have to have a marijuana cigarette in your hands, your pockets, or even touching you to be found in possession. Your proximity, which allows you to reach out and control the item, is often enough to charge you.
Whether you’re talking about pot, another drug, or even a weapon, possession doesn’t always mean physical possession. “Constructive possession” is a legal term used to describe exactly this situation. It refers to you having knowledge of the drug’s presence and the ability to maintain control over it.
So, while the drugs may not have been in your hands, you can still be charged and potentially convicted of possession.

Simple Md. Criminal Case Reveals Complex Legal System

By Leave a Comment

An appeals court recently upheld the conviction of a man whose arrest began with a bad shot. His bad aim led to a confrontation with police which landed him with a 60 day jail sentence. The story goes to show that not all criminal charges are the result of a planned or morally questionable motive.
According to the Baltimore Sun, the defendant in this case was walking along Market Street in Frederick when he threw a newspaper to his friend. He missed, hitting a patrol car instead. The officer in the car exited the vehicle and that’s when things went bad.
The officer reported that when he confronted the paper boy he became loud and confrontational, yelling obscenities and causing a scene. He was eventually convicted of resisting arrest and failing to obey the order of the police. His sentence: 60 days in jail.
His attorney appealed the conviction on the grounds that he was simply exercising his right to free speech. The court determined it was the defendant’s volume that caused the problem, not the content of his speech. Apparently, the confrontation was loud enough to cause patrons of a local bar to come outside and watch.
Also at issue was the right a person has under Maryland law to “offer reasonable resistance to an unlawful arrest”. However, once the arrest was deemed lawful and not in violation of the defendant’s first Amendment rights, this argument failed to hold water.
This case is a good example of how things aren’t as clear cut when they are dissected in a court of law. The law is a very precise thing. In order to be charged and convicted of a crime and for that conviction to be upheld, it must adhere to every letter of the law and not violate your rights.
It also shows how a defense lawyer can often find many opportunities to challenge the rulings made, whether your ultimate conviction or the simple admissibility of evidence and testimony. An aggressive defense attorney will analyze your case and ensure they are leaving no stone unturned.
Whether you are facing charges like possession of a controlled substance and believe the evidence was seized in an illegal search or if you are up against charges of disorderly conduct for a misunderstanding with police, I can help.
Contact our lawyers today for a free consultation and evaluation of your case.