Maryland DUI Lawyer Blog

Whoops there goes another Cop- arrested for DUI

Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:04:30 -0500

This time it is a CHP or California Highway Patrol Officer, arrested on felony DUI charges following a car accident that she caused, resisting arrest, assaulting fellow officers, and using profanity towards her brothers attempting to effectuate the arrest on her lame ass.

I really don't get this, not at all. I tell clients and or people at large, not to get into it with the police, it is a losing proposition on the street. Besides, they are just doing their job, most of them. On the street, in the cloak of darkness, the police win, you lose! If there are any issues to be determined, you do that in court, NOT on the street. This situation, however, is insane because it is a police officer that is driving at a BAC over twice the legal limit, number one, causing a big accident, number two, and then assaulting officers, number three. That is the best way to get your ass kicked if you're not a cop and maybe even if you are a cop.

Being that this lady is a decorated officer of the law, she knows better than to do any of the foregoing. It is truly hard to explain, other then being a complete idiot. Anyway, my guess is that this officer is probably an alcoholic because she was functioning, albeit poorly, with a BAC of .20 and once you get that first drink or two down, the drinks just keep coming, then things spiral out of control quickly to the point of acting like a complete lunatic.

My position, as an experienced DUI attorney, is that the drinking and driving limit should be a shocking .00. Why you ask? Why so restrictive and untenable? Easy, the .08 legal limit is a fallacy. If you blow a .08 you get arrested right? But the dirty truth that they don't tell you is that if you blow a .07, .06., .05 you STILL get arrested and charged! Officer's complete discretion. And seeing how the officers get overtime for coming to court to prosecute the case and seeing as how the officers get browny points for maintaining quotas/arrests, the driver is going to be arrested in every case. However, have no fear, despite it being the right thing to do, the restaurant lobby would never permit it to happen as they would lean heavily on our lawmakers and our lawmakers would never succumb to such lunacy as doing something that makes sense, clarifies the law and helps the community at large.

If you have more then ONE drink, you are susceptible to being arrested if stopped and chances are more likely than not that you will be arrested, even way below the golden .08. Secondly, when people are laboring under the mistaken impression they can have maybe 3 drinks before getting to .08, they tend to loosen up and lose their discipline and go beyond that; which is what happened in this case. Assumably as a decorated officer, this person knew not to drink the volume that she consumed, but after the first 2-3 drinks, she lost control and kept right on going, resulting in the arrest and the stupid behavior.

Therefore, if the actual BAC limit is more like half of .08, closer to .04 which is one to two drinks, wouldn't it be much easier to say no tolerance, zero limit? If you intend on driving, DO NOT drink at all. It then becomes clear for all parties without confusion and we get to avoid idiots like this who clearly know better, but cannot control themselves. But then again, if we took this tough, clear stance, where would the government make the loss of income that it makes from these cases? Where would the police make up their loss of income from the overtime? What would the court personnel be left to do in the absence of all the DUI cases? What would all the defense counsel do with all their extra time? What would all the court's DUI probation staff do in the absence of these cases?

I suppose the safety of the motoring public throughout this country just doesn't rank high enough when factored against these overpowering elements and the likes of the pesky restaurant lobby.

How to Hire a DUI Lawyer

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:02:51 -0500

I just came across this article Three mistakes when hiring a DUI lawyer . I thought it might be beneficial to my DUI readers.

In a nutshell it says to watch out for

1. lack of experience
2. lack of knowledge and
3. lack of commitment.

I could not agree more with the theme of the article. In any jurisdiction there are a handful of attorneys that specifically focus their practice on the defense of DUI cases. These attorneys know the nuances of DUI law, they know which judges are descent to work with and importantly, which judges simply cannot be worked with and must be avoided at all costs. Choosing any old lawyer or a family lawyer or a friend's lawyer to defend a matter as important as a DUI, without knowing the lawyer's experience level and dedication to DUI defense is foolish. Put another way, you would not hire your family doctor to give you a heart transplant, right? DUI offenses have long term consequences for people that effect many different aspects of one's life; therefore, you must get this right.

Lawyer commitment to the client is a crucial consideration as well. Too many lawyers out there simply do not give a hoot about their clients and thus a client cannot get their lawyer on the phone. Many lawyers are like that. Ironically my experience with lawyers has been similar. Occasionally, when I have needed to consult a lawyer for one thing or another I find that when I reach out, you can't get them on the phone immediately, they don't return phone calls and they are pompous. Refreshingly, this firm has never done things that way and that is, in part, why we are a successful DUI defense firm. Lawyers are busy in court, but they should be able to get back to you if not the same day, at least within 24 hours. If you cannot speak with your attorney, and get prompt answers to your important questions, you have the wrong attorney!

As for this firm, our lawyers are always available to speak with out clients, we realize the importance of the matter and the importance of prompt communication. One clear advantage that we provide to our clients is regular evening and weekend appointments.

It's astounding how many firms close their doors at 5pm. We do not operate that way, at 5pm we're just gearing up. Most nights of the week we are here hours beyond 5pm and available to the clients. We are also routinely available on weekends for consultations following an arrest. Few other firms offer that level of service, we feel it is important however to extend that simple courtesy.

Guest Blog Post regarding DUI rights and arrest

Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:34:30 -0500

The Maryland DUI laws can be complex, and for the average average person, utterly confusing. The truth is that most of us enjoy having a drink every now and then. That does not make you or me an irresponsible citizen. Too bad for us that the police officers on the roads do not care about all of that, and would stop at nothing to arrest you.

The other thing about getting booked for DUI is the fact that more often than not, you are not aware of your rights, as the officers do not even bother to read them out to you. The first thing after being pulled over and asked to step out of the car is to be asked to take the breathalyzer test. That's how it goes, doesn't it? No, but most people comply with this request thinking that it is the norm.

You have the right not to take any test before you speak to a lawyer. The officer, pressed to make an arrest, will conveniently not tell you this, and will shove the test in your face. Also, it is important to keep in mind that whatever you say will be admissible in a court of law, and it is vital not to answer any questions before speaking to a legal representative.

The Maryland DUI carries heavy fines, up to six months of jail time, and a loss of your driving license. Education is vital, and being assertive and standing up for your rights is a non-negotiable aspect, and under no circumstances should you let a police officer bully you just so that he can write you up.

The legal limit is .08, which translates to 2-3 drinks. Now, the thing about the Field Sobriety Tests is that they are not designed to be in your favor. A request that most people fail to make is to ask to take these tests again after being arrested. You can ask for another Field Sobriety Test as provided by the law. These are things that most of us ignore are not even aware of, since the information is not in the public domain. This only comes to light when you get arrested, and after being charged and taken to court for your hearing, and having to be defended by a lawyer, and winning or losing the case, depending on the abilities of your attorney.

One other thing that I would like to point out is that you need to be familiar with the Miranda Rights. The police are not required to read you these rights upon arrest, but this fact can be used in your favor. When you get pulled over, the natural reaction for most people is to tense up and panic. Police officers know this and use this opportunity to ask you whether you have been drinking. If you say no, and you have the slightest hint of alcohol in your breath, then you're in trouble. At the same time, if you say yes, it's as good as an admission of guilt. The right thing to do in this case would be to simply say that you have been advised not to answer that question at that time. This is the whole premise of the Miranda Rights, which afford you the right not to say anything lest it be used against you in a court of law.

Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) Evidence fails Court's Test

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 08:57:42 -0500

A very important and favorable decision was recently released by the Circuit Court in Carroll County, Maryland. The opinion was the culmination of many DUI cases which utilized drug recognition testimony (DRE) to assist in the conviction of drivers thought to be impaired by drugs, as opposed to alcohol.

DRE evidence is seriously sketchy evidence offered by the State and garnered by members of the local police department that are known as DRE's. The individuals are "trained" in about one week to identify persons that are under the influence of drugs by looking at their eyes, taking their pulse, feeling their skin, listening to them speak, possibly asking them to engage in roadside gymnastics (Field Tests) and various other methods. The most important of which is asking them "what drugs have you recently taken?" After that last question, miraculously the police DRE comes up with a diagnosis of what drug the defendant is on.

Needless to say, this DRE testimony is largely a huge bucket of crap and up to this point, too many judges and or juries have been bombarded with this garbage science and charged with the responsibility to convict Defendants. Part of the DRE examination is similar to the field sobriety tests which defendants are called upon to perform late night on the roadside; also a huge load of crap and perhaps now more eyes will be opened to this junk evidence and perhaps more courts will exclude the evidence.

The Carroll County Court held a lengthly hearing on the matter hearing from many experts on both sides of the fence. All the best was brought to bear by both the State and Defense. The Court, after considering the case for an extended period of time and hearing from all the experts came up with the only logical conclusion possible, this DRE evidence is crap and should not be allowed to persuade our juries. It will be interesting to see if Maryland's higher Courts are called upon to review the matter, which would only further crystalize this wonderful and long awaited opinion. For more information see State of Maryland v. Brightful, et al. http://

.05 under the limit, under arrest

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:46:25 -0500

In my last blog post I indicated that we had another .05 BAC DUI case pending in the District Court. While not totally unusual, it is unfortunate. People are often times surprised to learn that they can be and probably will be, arrested and charged with DUI if they blow a .05.

You see, the Government has a slogan, "over the limit under arrest"; it is well known that the legal limit in this Country is .08. The problem, as I have previously written, is that this information is misleading. In fact, you can be charged with DUI for ANY number that the investigating officer (I/O) feels like arresting. Ie., he can arrest any person that he feels may help his arrest numbers at the end of the month, even if the driver's BAC is .04 or .05 (half the legal limit). Mind you that the Maryland State Law is written that a .05 BAC or lower yields a presumption that the person is NOT intoxicated. But have no fear, if you catch an officer on a bad day or possibly without enough arrests for the month, you're going in.

So getting back to the case.....

Doesn't pay to be drunk and stupid

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:45:57 -0500

Holy smoke!
It's tough enough to deal with the police on their rampage to stop all DUI drivers and drivers in general for their illegal activity of driving on Maryland roads, however in some cases, people just bring problems on themselves.

In this brilliant story, the PASSENGER was taken to the station when his driver was arrested because he was too drunk to drive. Apparently the passenger became indignant about the fact that his drunk butt was in the station, even after he was set free, he went about the business of urinating on a sign outside the station and is alleged to have "kicked" the sign he was peeing on.

Well, let it be known that the police do not take kindly to having signs kicked or peed upon because as a result of this unruly behavior, the rebel rouser was apparently arrested. The problem is, during the arrest procedure or at least when the cops went outside their station to advise the young man that it was not ok to pee on their signs, the man apparently took a swing at the cop!

Whoops, always a bad idea to take a swing at cop, drunk or sober! You see, not only are you going to get your ass kicked when you do that, the police will arrest you and throw the book at you. Not a totally unfair result I might ad. Despite the police sometimes being unfairly aggressive in their traffic enforcement activity, (like the .05 case I will be defending next week-blog to follow), they should not have be involved in physical altercations, particularly if the Defendant is drunk and/or stupid and/or both.

If you want a good old fashion ass kicking or otherwise desire to paint a target directly on your face, there are easier ways to do that which do not land you in jail.

Bottom line: If you must get drunk, do try not to be stupid.

Police quotas rear their ugly head...again

Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:10:47 -0500

I have written about DUI arrest quotas before, they are illegal. Quotas are when the police brass tells the rank and file police officers that they are to apprehend X number of traffic/dui offenders over a given period of time. If the cops do what they are told, they can be rewarded with anything from advancement to bonuses to time off etc. If they fail to meet their quota then bad things can happen, like retraining (think Cold War Russia).

The police routinely deny utilizing quotas stating that they are illegal (wink), which in fact they are according to Maryland Law. The basis for a stop and arrest is supposed to be purely one of probable cause of a crime, not one based in motivation of the police officer to achieve something of value for doing his job.

It seems that Howard County law enforcement (in this instance the Howard County Police Chief allegedly) got their/his hand stuck in the old cookie jar. Judge Hantman, sitting on the Howard County District Court bench heard the matter of a female driver that was stopped for speeding. According to Court documents, she had a .17 BAC and was charged accordingly. However, it appears that the police and the brass, acting allegedly in some part as a result of a Federal Grant, were given quotas to meet. This is a no-no. The brass knows this and the police know it too. Now, thanks to the enviable Honorable Judge Hantman, the police know that the Courts are watching, and that the Judges are not just going to go along with business as usual. Ie. Wink wink, arrest everybody and keep up numbers up, even if they were driving below the speed limit and have a .04 BAC. (which does happen).

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, etc.....

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:39:21 -0500

The holiday season is upon us which means party, party, party; which actually translates into eat, drink, eat, drink. Please be reminded during this season to either limit the drinking, appoint a designated driver or take a cab! It is so much easier and less expensive to pay a cab then it is to retain us for a serious DUI charge.

As a reminder, the police are out there in force and boy do they love making DUI arrests. I was defending a client today who suffers from MS. She was stopped by the police and they apparently smelled alcohol on her breath. Because of her medical condition she was unable satisfactorily perform the field sobriety tests and because she was so emotional at the arrest, she was unable to adequately blow in the machine. She was charged with a refusal to blow as well as all the DUI citations.

We defended this nice young lady at the Administrative hearing where the MVA was attempting to take her license. We won that hearing and thus the MVA was unable to sink it's claws into her license. I appeared in Court today and after much debate, I was able to have all the alcohol charges thrown out; a positively wonderful result for our client.

Are we making any difference at all?

Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:19:19 -0500

Last Wednesday I was fortunate to attend a U2 concert at Raven's Stadium in Baltimore. It was a cool show but it was the third time that I had seen them so it lost some of its allure. Prior to the show however I was at Lexington Market in Baltimore City where I met a number of people. Interestingly the beer that we were all consuming was sold in pitcher sized plastic glasses that I had not seen before, no wonder people get drunk and get DUIs; heck there should be law against selling pitcher size glasses of beer that you could practically jump into and swim around.

Anyway, we struck up a conversation with a pleasant gentleman from Tennessee and his friend; he was enjoying a “grande cerveza” with us when the topic came up of the billboards all over Baltimore City regarding drunk driving and being a "loser" and the cost of a DUI of approximately $15,000.00. Wow, I wish the cost was anywhere near $15,000.00, it might make all the pressure, struggle, turmoil, public and judicial bias that we suffer as counsel defending these matters a little easier.

Be that as it may, the billboards in addition to indicating a $15,000.00 mistake also indicate that there were “24,000 losers” last year. Hmmm. That got me thinking, several years ago when I looked into how many DUIs there were in Maryland, the same figure was revealed, 24,000 people who were alleged to have made a mistake. Roughly 5 years later and where experiencing the same number of DUI infractions. That got me thinking about how many arrests there were for DUI 20 or 25 years ago before drunk driving became the "in thing" for the government to arrest people for. Back in the day when the legal BAC limit was .15 and the police didn't care if you had an open beverage in the car. I suspect the number of arrests was less and I suspect the number of fatalities was also less then what we have today.

Then I remembered what an officer told me last week in Montgomery County, Maryland; he said he was in court on his day off, that he had 9 cases that day, one of them was mine (which got postponed which means he has to come back again) and that he was getting over time for being there on his day off so he didn't mind being there.

U.S. Senators all in a tizzy over DUI Apps on Apple and Google

Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:46:08 -0500

Apparently four Democratic senators wrote a letter to Apple, RIM (Blackberry) and Google requesting that they discontinue distributing the app(s) which let drivers share information in real time concerning the location of DUI checkpoints roadblocks. It seems the Senators are upset because they do not want this information shared among the public because they want as many drivers as possible to be snared in these dubious road blacks. The interesting thing is there is significant case law concerning DUI roadblocks in Maryland and throughout the country. In Maryland it appears that the good Senators may not be up to speed on the current state of the law.
At the outset, drivers have a 4th Amendment Constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by the Government unless there exists reasonable articulable suspicion to believe that a driver is engaged in some form of criminal behavior. This is a very important right because it protects you as an American citizen against the overzealous Government. It is the difference between living in America versus living in Lybia. This is what deters the cops from kicking your door in at 3:00 a.m. simply because the doughnut shop is closed and they have nothing else to do. Unfortunately for the people, the Courts have been successful in eroding and restricting this very important legal right in the name of DUI prosecution.
Years back, the Michigan Supreme Court recognized a citizen’s Constitutional right and held that DUI roadblocks and sobriety checkpoints were in fact illegal in that it was an invasion of personal privacy to stop an automobile without reasonable articulable suspicion. However, the Government not being satisfied with the Court’s holding appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States and in Michigan v. Sitz, the Supremes recognized that while this behavior was in fact a violation of the Constitution, we are going to look the other way and allow this illegal behavior in the name of DUI prosecution. There are people that may hail this decision as a success, but any ruling that erodes the rights and protections of the people vis-à-vis the United States Constitution, is definitely not a success. The Court (Chief Justice Rehnquist) held that despite the violation to the person, there is a greater good which must be protected and that is the safety of the people against drunk drivers. The Supremes left the details about how to utilize this new found public intrusion up to the individual states. The great State of California was the first to interpret these new “rights” in Ingersoll v. Palmer. In that case, the Court identified the fact that public notice to the people was important to lower the emotional trauma of such “police state” action on citizens.
Maryland soon interpreted these new DUI checkpoint rights in Little v. State (300 Md.485) 1984. In Little, Maryland’s high court held no Fourth Amendment violation occurred when automobile occupants were stopped at sobriety checkpoints in view of the State’s compelling interest in controlling drunk driving. Thus, the Court is now finding that the Constitution does render rights to the people, but if there are compelling interests that outweigh those rights, then the Constitution is out the window. Just what the esteemed framers had in mind I’m sure, a flexible document of rights, but only when they are convenient to follow.

Maryland increases DUI/DWI Patrols for St. Patrick's Day

Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:13 -0500

St. Patrick’s Day falls this week and many people will be celebrating this auspicious occasion all week long. It’s a fun time for drinking and sharing good times with friends; but be warned the police are watching very closely so be careful. In fact, in Maryland, local and State Police are upping the anti by increasing DUI patrols the entire week for the sole purpose of nabbing intoxicated DUI/DWI Maryland drivers.

The police are armed with their statistics which reveal that St. Patrick’s Day celebrations increase the number of intoxicated drivers someplace in the area of four times what they see normally. The police indicate that nationwide there were 103 traffic fatalities on this holiday in 2009 with more than a third involving a driver with a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher.

The Maryland State Police continued that they made twice as many DUI arrests on St. Patrick’s day 2010 and the four days following the Holiday then they did the entire week before. Remember that a Maryland driver charged with DUI or DWI faces a fine up to $1,000.00, up to one year in jail for a first offense and 12 points on their driver’s license as well as a period of suspension from the MVA for driving with over .08 in the blood (BAC-blood alcohol content). If this eventuality happens, you must retain qualified DUI counsel ASAP to help deal with these potentially costly long term ramifications.

Things you might consider to help are taxi cabs (take extra money and do not spend it on beer) and Soberride is offering free rides home this Thursday and Friday. A designated driver who does not drink (yes this person actually must not drink anything) is always a good idea.

Funny DUI Thought for the day

Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:48:34 -0500

A man and his wife were awakened at 3:00 am by a loud pounding on
the door. The man gets up and goes to the door where a drunken stranger, standing in the pouring rain, is asking for a push.

Not a chance,' says the husband, "'it is 3:00 in
the morning!' He slams the door and returns to bed.

Who was that?' asked his wife.
Just some drunk guy asking for a push, he answers.

'Did you help him?' she asks.
'No, I did not, it is 3:00 in the morning and it is pouring rain
out there!'

'Well, you have a short memory,' says his wife.
Can't you remember about three months ago when we broke down, and those two
guys helped us? I think you should help him, and you should be ashamed of
yourself!'

The man does as he is told, gets dressed, and goes out into the
pounding rain.He calls out into the dark, 'Hello, are you still there?'

'Yes,' comes back the answer.
'Do you still need a push?' calls out the husband.

'Yes, please!' comes the reply from the dark.
'Where are you?' asks the husband..

'Over here on the swing,' replied the drunk.

Lack of Probable Cause

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:07:07 -0500

I recently read an article in The Aspen Times about a woman in Colorado that blew a .23 at following a DUI arrest but her case was thrown out at trial. Apparently this is news worthy in Aspen but in reality, it is not, it is just the law working the way it is supposed to. You see, in order to lawfully stop a citizen’s car, a police officer needs R.A.S. Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that a criminal or traffic offense is being committed. While this level of suspicion is low, (ie., it is not the normal criminal standard “beyond a reasonable doubt” which is a high standard) it still requires some “objective” proof on the part of the law enforcement officer “Leo”. That is to say, that LEO cannot just subjectively say, I don’t like this person’s looks so I’m going to pull them over, or he just crossed the white shoulder line for 3/10s of one second so I’m going to pull this person over for DUI. Those types of stops are not legal and a judge should suppress any evidence flowing from such an illegal stop. This is what the Judge determined in Aspen when he threw out all evidence flowing from the stop, but since the defendant blew a .23 this attracted people’s attention.
The truth is, the police can be overzealous in their attempt to bolster their DUI arrest numbers, echem, I mean, in their attempt to remove drunk drivers from the streets of Maryland and other states.

If nothing else, here is a deterrent for you

Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:28:24 -0500

It seems in Reno there was a police sergeant that had a knack for not following the rules and for continually violating department policy without discipline from the department. Consequently it is alleged that this sergeant, in an DUI alcohol stop apparently sexually violated a 17 year old girl in the back of his cruiser during a 2006 traffic stop. Naturally, the police department is claiming no foul on their part and there guy did nothing wrong, but whoops, they fired their guy after an investigation. Boy, talk about your slippery slopes “well, our guy did nothing wrong but we thought we would fire him anyway”. The civil suit is in Federal District Court right now. According to the Court documents the cop placed the young girl in the back of his cruiser and pressured her to undress for his sexual gratification in order to avoid a drunk driving arrest. No word on whether she “beat” the charges or not.
Dubious cop behavior is not limited to the western United States, although admittedly the western part of the country seems to have more than its fair share of sexual debacles. Be that as it may, here in sunny Baltimore City, Maryland we recently relieved over 30 police officers of their official duties as they were engaging in a scheme to utilize tow trucks to tow cars involved in traffic matters, like DUIs or accidents, and then the cop would receive a kickback from the tow company of roughly $300. The tow truck company being used was not authorized by Baltimore City or Maryland to provide towing service. Apparently, some officers were making a tidy little some at this prank until the brass caught wind of it and now they are all fired or soon to be fired. Allegedly one officer made over $14,000 over two years. Now they are all without jobs-interesting carrier move there. More information on the situation is here.
Anyway, the point is we have the corrupt (some-not all) watching over the drunk or impaired. Generally speaking, not the best situation to be in. You see, the police will say they do not have quotas or numbers of DUI arrests to effectuate each month but, let’s just say, they do. Now, since it is the officer that has to make a very subjective decision about whether to arrest, and since his work product is partially evaluated on the number of arrests he makes, it is not the best position for Mr. nervous Joe Public to be in. Here is an example:

And the hits keep on coming...

Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:36:52 -0500

So yesterday it was reported that some former MADD pain in the ass, chapter president out of the sunshine state (Florida) over indulged her (apparently strong) hidden desire for alcohol and was arrested prior to killing someone since it was alledged she was driving her car at a .23. Lets hope she is still in jail right now! Perhaps her brothers and sisters of the MADD organization could be arrested as well for being pompous and unfeeling to those that are affected by this insidious condition and put up a good fight every day.

Anyway, todays news is that the starlight Christina Aguilera was "detained" for being too drunk to care for herself. She apparently was a passenger in a car operated by her boyfriend, Matt Rutler when he was popped for swerving and driving erratically. The funny thing is, Christina was soooo drunk that the police could not even release her following the arrest of her boyfriend (which would be normal procedure) because she was allegedly too drunk to care for herself. Apparently, they set a $250 bail on her, not entirely sure why that was; but I can guess it was because they had to put up with her crap in a jail cell until she slept it off or until somebody came to claim her. I think it would be a perfect opportunity for her to practice the National Anthem.