Maryland DUI Lawyers Blog

Enjoy The Super Bowl & Party Responsibly

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:13:50 -0500

Many of our attorneys here at Price Benowitz are avid New York Giants fans and looking forward to the big game. GO GIANTS! But at the same time we are preparing for a busy Monday morning and the influx of phone calls from prospective DUI clients who received criminal traffic charges on the way home from Super Bowl festivities.

DUI charges pose significant consequences, even if you have not been convicted. Take University of Maryland's Assistant Basketball Coach for instance. Last month, he was charged with drunk driving in Anne Arundel County, MD and experienced a severe aftermath through both the media and the University. Aside from his mug shot being plastered in the papers, the Terps Assistant was suspended for at least two games and faces an automatic six months license revocation for having refused to provide breath samples to law enforcement. The latter consequence happens to any driver who refuses to provide test sample when requested, pursuant to implied consent laws. DC, MD, and VA all have the same law but with different penalties. While Maryland imposes an automatic 6-month license revocation for refusal, the District and Virginia impose automatic revocation for an entire year.

Keeping this penalty in mind, the decision of whether or not to provide a test sample becomes all that more complex. If you provide the sample, be it by breath test, urine test, or blood test, you supply authorities with evidence against yourself. If your blood alcohol content was particularly high, you may face increased penalties and, in some cases, jail time. If you choose not to give a sample, you face an automatic and un-rebuttable license revocation for 6 months to a year depending on your location.

The DC Metropolitan Police Department now exclusively imposes urine testing on DUI suspects and makes arrests on the basis of field sobriety tests alone. This testing system hails from the faulty breathalyzer machines that the Department failed to maintain that resulted in hundreds of wrongly convicted drivers. Be aware also that field sobriety tests are designed for you to fail if you have consumed even a small amount of alcohol; seriously, try one during halftime just to see for yourself.

While the D.C. system for DUI possesses flaws in and of itself, the better option is to avoid getting involved with it in the first place. There will be uncountable road checkpoints set up for this entire weekend. Plan ahead and arrange for alternative transportation after the game. However, should you find yourself in a bit of a DUI pickle, we are ready for your call. We will continue to fight for the rights of our clients and strive to achieve the best possible outcome for each and every one. We will attempt to minimize alternative penalties as well as legal ones, including license suspension, employment and security clearance consequences, and insurance issues.

To drive or not to drive, or, to test or not to test...it is up to you which decision to face post-game. Either way, have a safe and happy Super Bowl celebration from your friends at Price Benowitz LLP.

This blog post was written by Rosie Escobar Brown. She is a law clerk at the law firm Price Benowitz LLP. In addition to criminal and DUI defense, our firm provides legal representation to people seeking compensation for their injuries. For more information, you can visit the firm's Maryland Accident Lawyer website.

Maryland Misdemeanors Mean You Cannot Own a Gun

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:05:43 -0500

Maryland's brilliant common law scheme does it again, folks. The U.S. District Court of D.C. recently handed down a decision affirming a claimant's ineligibility to register and own a firearm because of a minor assault misdemeanor from 1968.

The claimant sued attorney general Eric Holder, alleging violations of his Second Amendment right to bear arms for applying the Federal weapons prohibition to his case. The Federal law, known as the Firearm Owners Protection Act (formerly the Gun Control Act of 1968) makes any person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than two years jail time automatically ineligible for gun registration and ownership. The penalty applies no matter what the circumstances.

Schrader was convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery in 1968 when he was a 20-year-old in the Navy after he got into a fistfight with a gang member who had previously assaulted him in the street. Even though the conviction was a relatively minor one, it still disqualifies him from gun ownership.

The problem lies in Maryland's common law statutory scheme that until recently did not name maximum penalties for most crimes. Even after legal reforms, the maximum penalty that was set for most crimes is an astronomical number, with 1st degree assault set at 25 years maximum and 2nd degree misdemeanor assault (the equivalent of Schrader's crime) set at 10 years imprisonment. While most sentences in Maryland do not come close to that maximum and remain in line with the national standards, the fact that the law CAN impose more than two years jail time is what disqualifies a person from ever owning a gun.

Contrary to Maryland's statutory system, most other states codify reasonable maximum penalties and make misdemeanors punishable by up to one year imprisonment. This one year maximum is typically how misdemeanors are defined, even by the federal government. Maryland, however, continues to be an outlier.

There are few legal remedies for an individual who is unfairly banned from gun ownership because of Maryland's laws, especially in the wake of the recent court decision. Successful battles may require numerous time-consuming petitions for post-conviction relief and abundant financial resources to cover legal fees and expenses. To even use the term 'successful' may be highly inappropriate. As the current appeals decision holds, the law is the law, and woe be to those who fall within its restrictions.

This blog post was written by Rosie Escobar Brown. Rosie is a law clerk for the law firm Price Benowitz LLP, and she is in her final semester of law school. Price Benowitz LLP based in Washington, DC with additional offices in Maryland, Virginia, and New York. In addition to defending people charged with crimes, the firm's attorneys also protect the interests of those who have been injured through another's negligence. For more information, please visit the firm's Maryland Personal Injury Attorney and Virginia Accident Attorney websites.

Free Taxi Rides to Maryland through the New Year Festivities

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:38:09 -0500

The Washington Regional Alcohol Program is providing would-be drunk drivers with free cab fare throughout the holidays. This grand scale effort to reduce drunk driving fatalities is having its 18th year and provided about 1,000 free taxis last New Year's Eve. In total, the Sober Ride Program has provided over 52,000 safe rides home.

By calling 1-800-200-TAXI, drunken party-goers can get a free ride home up to a value of $30. The ride must originate in the District of Columbia, or in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties; the Cities of Rockville, Bowie, College Park, Gaithersburg, Greenbelt and Takoma Park in Maryland.

The service is available between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00 am; the program is available tonight the 30th and tomorrow night, New Year's Eve. A few important things to remember:

You cannot reserve ahead or call to schedule a pickup in advance; the call must originate during program hours and will be dispatched as soon as a taxi is available,

You must pay any fare amount in excess of $30,

The free ride does not include tip and you should remember to tip your driver in relation to the total fare amount, and

You must be 21 or older to ride with the service.

Participating taxi companies include: Barwood, Inc. (Montgomery County), Silver Cab of Prince George's County (Prince George's County), and Yellow Cab of District of Columbia (District of Columbia), as well as some Virginia companies. When waiting for your ride, be sure to watch for a taxi from one of the participating services in your area.

Remember, police officers will be canvassing for drunk drivers this weekend and will be out in full force. Be sure to plan ahead for appropriate transportation. Have a safe and happy New Year and call Safe Ride as an option to drinking and driving.

This blog post was written by Rosie Brown. She is a law clerk at the Washington, DC based law firm Price Benowitz LLP. The law firm has additional offices in Maryland, Virginia, and New York. In addition to practicing criminal defense the firm has Maryland personal injury lawyers and DC personal injury lawyers to assist people who are suffering from another's negligence.

How a Criminal Defense Lawyer Can Help With Your Arrest in Maryland

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:16:51 -0500

Anne Arundel County Police arrested two people on Thursday after a search of their car revealed over $10,000 worth of cocaine. What I find of interest is why did they search the car? According to the news article, "Officers approached the vehicle and arrested Johnson on charges that he was driving on a suspended license." Upon checking his vehicle, all of the evidence was found. Another question I have is "when you say 'checking' do you really mean 'searching'? Or did the police see all of the evidence sitting in plain view on the backseat?"

As a defense attorney, I hope the police only found the evidence after searching the car and the justification for doing this without a warrant is "search incident to arrest." If that is the justification for searching the car, all of the evidence should be thrown out of court if the only basis for the arrest was for driving on a suspended license.

Previously, "search incident to arrest" was one exception to the law requiring a warrant before conducting a search. It allowed police to search a person during or following a lawful arrest. With regards to vehicle stops, it allowed police to also search the passenger area of the car if the person arrested was in the vehicle.

That all changed in 2009 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant. In that case, the defendant was arrested for driving on a suspended license and argued to the court that there was no reason for the officers to search his car following his arrest. He was handcuffed and sitting in the back of the patrol car when the police searched his car.
The court agreed and decided that because he was not presenting a threat to the officers, not within reach of anything in his vehicle, and searching his vehicle would not produce any evidence of the crime for which he was being arrested.

This case severely limited the powers of police. The "search incident to arrest" exception was something that police used very often as a reason to search the entire passenger area of the car. Now, once the defendant is secure and away from the vehicle, the only way the police can legally search the car is if they have reason to believe there is evidence of the crime in the car. And it must be a search for evidence of the crime that allowed the arrest.

Police can no longer search the car under the guise of a "search incident to arrest" for arrests for driving on a suspended license, driving without a license, driving uninsured, etc. These two individuals in Anne Arundel County are going to need an effective Maryland criminal defense attorney to challenge the serious felony charges they are facing.

Written by Colleen Kirby.

Maryland Domestic Violence Cases

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:40:12 -0500

Recently, I have been dealing with more and more domestic violence cases. If you read my last blog about how easy it is to file charges against someone, you will understand why there is such a large volume of domestic cases. Domestic violence is a widespread and critical problem. Legitimate victims need the time and attention of the criminal justice system. They are being deprived of that by the large number of false accusations being filed by angry and emotional individuals at the commissioners' office.

While I understand the importance of legitimate victims seeking justice, I more often find myself working very hard to defend and protect individuals against false accusations from an angry ex. Most of these individuals have never had any contact with the criminal justice system and are understandably terrified. I put every effort into resolving the case so that my client can walk away with a clean record....whether it be convincing the state to dismiss the charges, or taking it to trial.

Either way, it all begins with one person deciding to go to the commissioner's office and file criminal charges. There may or may not have been an actual crime committed. However, one common theme seems to run throughout all of these cases - inflammatory statements. The person filing is emotional and upset and seems to think that "if I convince the court that he/she is a terrible person, a harsher punishment will result."
These inflammatory statements are almost always 100% irrelevant as to whether there was a crime committed. I have accusations such as: he has a history of abusing drugs, he previously broke my jaw bone, he was violent with his last girlfriend, etc. And please disregard my usage of gender because I have seen these allegations from both men and women alike.

In some cases, the person filing charges may or may not even be the real victim. They are just the one that was angry enough to try to get the other person sent to jail. Either way, if charges are filed, the person who is accused of committing a crime is now a "defendant" and needs to hire a competent criminal defense attorney to compile a defense. That involves not only time and money, but more importantly the stress of having to go to court and face the allegations.

Here is the main problem with this system: the real victims of domestic violence get lost in the mix. Domestic violence is a very serious issue. Victims require the appropriate attention and protections of the criminal justice system. However, because of the ease of filing charges and the volume of cases, it is difficult to distinguish the legitimate claims from the false claims. The people filing false accusations are doing a grave disservice to the individuals that have legitimate claims and need protection.

Based on all of my experience in dealing with these cases, a better screening system needs to be put in place. There should be a difference in how cases are handled. For example, when there is an allegation of a real threat, it should absolutely be taken with all seriousness and every resource should be used to ensure the victim will remain safe. Compare this to an allegation that someone was the victim of telephone harassment, when the evidence shows fewer than 5 calls were made on one day and one day alone. Should that person have a warrant for their arrest issued and sit in jail for those phone calls? I suppose it depends on the context of the calls and the reasonable likelihood of the person calling causing any harm.

This blog post was written by Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyer Colleen Kirby.

Why am I Charged with a Crime in Maryland?

Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:48:25 -0500

When I say that anyone can find themselves in need of a Maryland defense attorney, I truly mean it. That is because someone you know, or maybe don't even know, can walk into a commissioner's office, put in writing that they were the victim of a crime you committed and you may find yourself labeled a "defendant." All it takes is putting the story in writing, signing your name, raising your right hand and swearing that what you wrote is the truth. The commissioner then reviews what was written and decides whether there is probable cause to issue charges.

Keep in mind that most commissioners are not attorneys. Based on what they decide, you may find an officer or sheriff at your door serving you with papers ordering you to come to court as a defendant. Even worse, you may get pulled over for a broken taillight or minor infraction and find yourself in handcuffs being taken to the police station. If that is the case, you have to endure the entire booking process and then wait to see a commissioner, who will determine the amount of your bail.

Most of these cases involve some sort of relationship between the accuser and the accused, and a large portion of these cases stem from some type of romantic relationship. However, it could also be something as simple as a dispute with a neighbor or someone who dislikes you. So imagine you are ending a romantic relationship with a partner and they are bitter. Then imagine that person being so bitter that they go to the commissioner's office and claim that you assaulted them. There are no witnesses, no one to testify in your defense, and you find yourself having to "prove a negative." While the burden is always on the State, it does not feel like it when you are being accused of something you did not do.

These cases do eventually get reviewed by an attorney in the State's Attorney's Office, some sooner than others. While you wait for an attorney to determine the legitimacy of the claim, you are left in a position where a good Maryland defense attorney is essential. The prosecutor will not discuss the substance of the case with you because you are the defendant. It is your attorney's job to not only discuss the issue with the prosecutor but also begin compiling your defense. Many times, particularly in cases where there was some type of romantic relationship between the parties, the prosecutor takes these claims very seriously and you end up in a trial.

When I explain this process to clients, friends or family, they are always shocked at how easy it is for this to happen. Then I am faced with a variety of questions: "Can I recover the money I spent to hire my lawyer?" or "what happens to the person who wanted to file charges once I am found not guilty or the charges are dismissed?" Unfortunately, there is no good answer to either of these questions. Until there are more protections put in place before the commissioner issues charges, there will remain no good answer.

Colleen Kirby wrote this blog post. Colleen is a Maryland criminal defense attorney, and her office is in Ellicott City. Before entering private practice, she was an Assistant State's Attorney in Howard County. She was in the top twenty-percent of her class at the University of Baltimore School of Law.

Trial As a Defense Attorney

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:28:10 -0500

Having a trial as a defense attorney is a completely different experience from trying cases as a prosecutor. You would think it would be much easier because it is the state's burden to prove the case "beyond a reasonable" doubt.

However, it is not that simple. A good defense attorney needs to be prepared to cross examine whatever witnesses the state calls to testify. Under the rules, the state does not need to tell the defense who will testify prior to trial.

Further, despite the "innocent until proven guilty" standard, when your client is sitting at the defense table being pointed to as the guilty person, it is hard to say the judge/jury remains unbiased.

In my most recent experience, the victim testified and identified my client as the guilty party. However, the state did not do its homework. After the state rested its case, I made a motion to find my client not guilty (MJOA) based on the fact that the state had not put on any evidence to support their case.

The detective's wrote an inaccurate charging document and the state did not catch the mistake. Once the state rested their case, the judge had no choice but to dismiss my client's case.

Being able to find a way to clear my client was an extraordinary feeling. Whether it was based on evidence or on a technicality, I was thrilled to see my client walk out of the courtroom with no conviction. Now I know how great the victory feels on the other side of the table.

This post was written by Maryland defense attorney, Colleen Kirby. She is a graduate of the University of Baltimore School of Law and former Assistant Stat'es Attorney. Colleen is a member of the Maryland State Bar Association, Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys Association, and Howard County Bar Association.

Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyer or Police Officer?

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:26:22 -0500

This blog post was written by Maryland criminal defense attorney, Colleen Kirby. Prior to entering private practice, she was an Assistant State's Attorney in Howard County. Colleen clerked for the Honorable Joseph F. Murphy who sits on the Maryland Court of Appeals. At the University of Baltimore School of Law she remained in the top twenty-percent of her class while earning her juris doctor.

All too often I receive phone calls from current or potential clients that repeat the phrase, "The cop told me that I should...." And it is followed with some type of advice as to how to handle their situation. Unless I am mistaken, the police academy is not the equivalent of law school.

I have heard everything from, "the cop told me I should request a hearing if I want to fight my ticket" to "the cop told me that I wasn't really being arrested."

When disputing a payable traffic ticket, such as a speeding ticket, there is a difference between a hearing and a trial. If you request a trial, the officer has to show up in court and testify. If you merely request a hearing, he or she never has to go and you are admitting your guilt. The officer is not going to explain that difference to you. When asked, the officer will likely mention your right to a "hearing" and not mention your right to a "trial."

Second, when you are given a citation for driving suspended, you are being arrested despite the fact that you may never be taken to the police station. This gives the false impression that the ticket is "no big deal." In the meantime, some of these tickets carry a maximum penalty of a year in jail and can put 12 points on your license!!

I have also heard people tell me, "the cop told me that if I just paid the money, I wouldn't have to go to court." This is AFTER the cop has filed theft charges. I like to hope they are just very confused as to how the system works, but either way, these deceptive statements are very misleading (to say the least). Once charges are filed, the officer no longer gets to decide if the case is going forward in court. It is now the prosecutor's decision.

The bottom line - DO NOT trust the "advice" that the police are giving you. The minute you come into contact with a law enforcement officer, immediately contact a Maryland criminal attorney to best assist you with how to handle the situation. Remember, attorneys went to law school - police officers did not!!!

How I Got to be a Judge at the Colorado DMV, a Maryland DUI Lawyer's First Job

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 08:57:46 -0500

This blog post was written by Maryland DUI lawyer Ed Tayter. Before entering private practice, he was an Administrative Law Judge, where he presided over 15,000 driver's license suspension and revocation hearings. He received his JD and MBA from Washington University in St. Louis and earned his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Michigan. As a Maryland DUI attorney, he is a member of the American Bar Association and the Maryland State Bar Association.

When I first entered law school, I thought that I had a pretty good plan of where I was going with my career. I was going to study business law, get an MBA, get a job as a corporate consultant, and take it from there. Like many plans, this one survived contact with reality for only the shortest of times. I studied business law, got an MBA, and realized that I wanted nothing to do with Corporate America. So, when I graduated law school with a shiny new JD-MBA I had less of an idea of what I wanted to do with my career than when I'd started.

What does a person do when they have a new degree, a small mountain of debt, and no idea of what they want to do? It's obvious, move to Colorado. And that's exactly what I did. No job, no real job prospects, not even barred. In hindsight, this was maybe not the most well thought out course of action, but everything worked out well.

I moved in with Jill, the sister of one of my law school buddies. She had a room for rent in her suburban Littleton townhouse. This was the best roommate situation that I'd ever found myself in. It was such a good roommate relationship that we ended up getting hitched a couple of years later. We've been married almost 6 years and she hasn't asked me to move out yet.

With shelter crossed off my personal Maslow's Hierarchy of Need, I set out to find gainful employment. I learned, much to my dismay that an MBA, a solid legal-business education, a low tolerance for bullshit, and a burning dislike of corporate culture did not make me particularly employable as a business lawyer. So, I started looking for other legal work.

I answered an online ad for an Administrative Judge position with the Colorado Department of Revenue. When I applied, I didn't know exactly what kind of Hearings I was supposed to be conducting. It turned out that the hearings were driver's license suspensions and revocations for Points system violations and DUI cases. I thought to myself, "Well, it beats sucking the Corporate tit" and with those fateful words I accepted the position and became the youngest Hearing Officer at the Department of Revenue.

I had absolutely zero experience with DUI cases; I had never sat in on an administrative hearing, let alone conducted one. Hell, I hadn't even taken administrative law in school. I was also young, fresh out of school, and nervous that anyone would spot that I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about. The first hearing that I conducted, I'm not sure who was more nervous, me or the guy who was about to lose his driver's license for a year.

Fortunately, the training for new Judges at the Hearings section was terrific. One of the Assistant Chief Hearing Officers who had been doing the job for almost 20 years taught me everything I needed to know about DUI law as it applied to driver's license hearings, or at least enough that I could learn the rest as I went. He also gave me perhaps the best advice about working in Government that I've ever heard "Doing a good job in this place is like pissing your pants in a Navy suit, sure it gives you a nice warm feeling, but nobody really notices."

Next time... what I learned about how to lawyer, and more importantly, how not to lawyer, as a DMV Judge.

Howard County Cracks Down on Prostitution, Maryland Defense Attorney Sees a Problem

Mon, 16 May 2011 10:48:37 -0500

Maryland criminal attorney, Colleen Kirby, wrote this post. Colleen clerked for the Honorable Joseph F. Murphy who sits on the Maryland Court of Appeals. She is a former Assistant State's Attorney in Howard County. Colleen attended University of Baltimore School of Law, where she remained in the top 20% of her class. Colleen is currently a private attorney representing clients facing Maryland DUI and other criminal charges.

As reported in Baltimore news, Howard County vice detectives arrested 17 men in an operation near the intersection of routes 1 and 175 in Jessup. "Police said they are hoping their presence in the area will help cut down prostitution -- if not stop the problem all together."

I personally cannot think of a bigger waste of police resources and tax dollars. While there are inherent problems and dangers with prostitution, the Howard County Police Department plans to "stop the problem all together." Personally, I would like to know how one police department is going to put an end to an activity that has been taking place for hundreds of years. And does anyone see the foolishness in targeting the "Johns?" As long as women are walking the streets, men will be attracted to the area.

The amount of time, effort, and manpower that is put into these stings is shocking. A large number of officers are selected to participate in these stings. A written plan is drafted by Vice Detectives and all participating officers are briefed on the procedure. Female officers are instructed to "dress the part" and are equipped with a hidden microphone. On the other end of that microphone is a detective who listens in to her end of all conversations. He is then able to radio to the MANY undercover officers set up in the area. These officers are paid to dress undercover and patrol the parking lot in the event they are needed for backup. Further, the Howard County Police Department rents rooms at the Red Roof Motel where more officers sit and wait to take down the suspects. The idea is to get the "John" to agree to a specific amount of money for specific sexual acts and then lead him into the hotel room, where they are surprised by Howard County Police lying in wait. There is no requirement that money actually be exchanged.

When it comes to prosecution, the Howard County State's Attorney's Office formerly did not seek convictions. Instead, the cases were placed on the stet docket with the condition that the defendant complete an HIV awareness class. It was only until enough citizens complained that the elected State's Attorney, Dario Broccolino decided that all viable prostitution cases must be prosecuted. Now, defendants face a criminal conviction on their record, incarceration, a fine, and possible immigration consequences. So the police spend the money putting together the operation, paying the officers overtime, renting hotel rooms, and making arrests. The County spends the money educating the officers on how to properly charge the crime and taking cases to trial. Doesn't the county have bigger issues to spend its time and resources on? According to the Police Department and the State's Attorney's Office - the answer is NO! They will conduct the same operation, in the same location, every few months to "stop the problem all together." Good luck!

Consent Search

Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:58:09 -0500

This post was written by Maryland criminal lawyer Colleen Kirby. Ms. Kirby is a former Assistant State's Attorney in Howard County. Prior to her work in Howard County as a Maryland DUI lawyer, she clerked for the Honorable Joseph F. Murphy who sits on the Maryland Court of Appeals. Colleen received her Juris Doctor from the University of Baltimore School of Law.

I received an interesting telephone call this evening. The caller had been stopped by a police officer and the officer told the caller that he wanted to search the vehicle because it smelled like cologne. It was the officer's belief that the caller was covering up the odor of marijuana.

The caller's question was "Can I tell the officer that it's okay to look in my trunk and not the rest of my car?" My answer was that he can absolutely limit the scope of the search. Anytime there is a consent search, the person giving consent can limit the area to which the police can search.

I was curious as to why he would want the officer to look in the trunk alone. After listening to the situation, it made perfect sense. The caller had just left the golf course, had been smoking cigarettes, and was on his way to meet his girlfriend for lunch. His girlfriend does not like the smell of cigarettes, and the caller wanted to cover up the smell of the cigarettes before meeting her. He explained this to the officer and wanted to show him the empty pack of cigarettes in his trunk. However, he was in a hurry to meet his girlfriend and did not have time to wait for his entire car to be searched. He explained this to the officer, who was forced to allow him to leave - having no reason to further detain him.

In explaining to the caller why it is acceptable to limit the search to the trunk, I compared it to a consent search of your home. If an officer knocks on the door and asks if he can step inside, giving consent to step inside the door does not give consent to search the entire house. If the officer views illegal items within plain view while standing in the foyer, he can seize that evidence and file the appropriate charges. However, he cannot walk around the entire house looking for possible contraband.

Therefore, when it comes to a situation where the officer is asking permission to search, you have the authority to say no, or limit the areas to which the officer can search. Saying no, or putting limits on the search, does not give any more power to the police.

Talking to Police

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:10:48 -0500

This blog post was written by Collen Kirby, a Maryland criminal defense attorney. Ms. Kirby is a former Assistant State's Attorney in Howard County. Prior to her work in Howard County, she clerked for the Honorable Joseph F. Murphy who sits on the Maryland Court of Appeals. Colleen received her Juris Doctor from the University of Baltimore School of Law.

In the past few weeks, the phrase I find myself repeating more than anything is "stop talking to the police." Individuals call me with concerns that they may have committed a crime and are afraid they will be arrested. It always follows with, "when the police called me, I told them...."

This is one of the most frustrating things to hear because I wish I had been able to step in earlier. The police are NEVER calling you to give you helpful advice as to how to avoid being prosecuted. Everything you say to an officer will be used against you. And in each scenario, the story is the same...."the police told me I would be better off if I cooperated with them."

In one case, a woman was caught with five pounds of marijuana in her car that she was transporting out of downtown Baltimore for a friend. The police stopped her car, did a K-9 scan, and found the marijuana in her trunk after a search. She was told by the police that she would be charged if she didn't sign a written statement about what she was doing with the marijuana. Scared and put on the spot, the woman signed a written statement explaining that she was paid to drive it from Baltimore to "John Smith." The police left and she called me wondering if she should be worried that she is in trouble. One of the detectives was going to call her next week to get more information. The first thing I told her - stop talking to the police. Their motive was not to help her or look out for her best interest. I told her that if the detective, or any officer, called her again that she should tell them she would be happy to cooperate, but to please conduct all communications through her attorney.

In another case, a gentleman called me worried he would be charged with robbery. He'd gotten caught in a situation where a "friend" told the police the gentleman robbed him. He had been talking to the police about what really happened. Again, the first thing I said to him - stop talking to the police. Every word he told them was going to be used against him in SOME way. Sure enough, I got a call three days later from the gentleman. He found out there was a warrant out for his arrest. Not for robbery, but for First Degree Assault. Apparently whatever he said gave the police probable cause to believe this man had committed assault in the first degree.

Even when it comes to DUIs - you have the right to refuse to perform Field Sobriety Tests when asked by an officer and you have the right to call a lawyer before you decide whether to take a breath test at the police station. USE YOUR RIGHTS!

If you take anything away from reading this, please understand this - the police are not talking to you to help you. They are talking to you to gather evidence. Everything you say to them is being recorded in some fashion and will eventually be used against you. Before you speak to the police, call a lawyer.

My Transition From Prosecutor to Defense Attorney

Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:24:10 -0500

This blog post is written by Maryland Criminal Lawyer, Collen Kirby. She received her Juris Doctor from the University of Baltimore School of Law while maintaining a position in the top 20% of her class. Ms. Kirby was a law clerk for the Honorable Joseph F. Murphy Jr. while he was Chief Judge for the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and later after he was appointed to the Maryland Court of Appeals. Before entering private practice, Ms. Kirby was an Assistant State's Attorney in Howard County.

The transition from a Maryland prosecutor to a Maryland criminal defense attorney has been refreshing and rewarding. Upon entering law school, I knew that my passion was criminal law. While working towards my law degree, I spent my spare time working for a criminal defense attorney in Baltimore County. I also took advantage of a program at the University and practiced law as a public defender in Baltimore City. By this point, my goal was to begin my career as a prosecutor, learn the innerworkings of their office, and then transition back into defense work.

When I meet with potential clients, they are usually overwhelmed with the amount of information and paperwork that has been given to them. My familiarity with the process from the time charges are first filed (whether it be by arrest or through the commissioner's office), all the way through trial and sentencing, seems to bring some level of comfort to the people I am working with.

When I worked at the State's Attorney's Office, I participated in several ride-alongs. I had the opportunity to directly observe police actions on the road and gain insight as to "tactics" used to get consent to search, confessions, and other evidence for trial. My experience allows me to explain the tactics police use and relieve some concerns my clients have.

For example, one client said the police told her "it would be better for her if she told them where the drugs were." She believed this and stated it was under the seat. In fact, this made the case much worse for her because now the State can use her statement to prove she knew drugs were in the car. Had she said nothing, it would have been difficult to prove possession, because the car did not belong to her and I could have argued that she had no idea drugs were under the seat.

In another situation, the client told me that she handed her purse to the officer, where he found drug paraphernalia. After asking her a few more specific questions, she told me that it was only after the officer stopped her in a stairwell, searched her pockets, and then said, "now hand me your purse." She felt that she had no choice, and therefore gave the officer her purse. However, he did not ask her permission to search her bag and had already told her to "sit on the curb and not move." All of these details can determine the outcome as to whether the search is legal. Had I not seen these tactics first-hand, I would not have known to ask the client these important questions.

When handling a traffic case, the driver did not know why he was stopped, but told me it was at 2:00 a.m. I know from my experience that officers will look for almost any reason to pull someone over at 2:00 a.m. because the assumption is the driver has been drinking. In court, the officer had to check the back of his ticket before telling me the reason he stopped the car was because the "driver matched the description of the registered owner...who was suspended." Because I have previously argued the legality of this stop several times, in front of several different judges, I know what factors can make this a valid stop. It turns out the only descriptor the officer was actually able to match was sex. Because it was 2:00 a.m., he "believed" the driver to be a white male. And because of how the driver was sitting, the officer "believed" he was approximately 6'3". The case was ultimately dismissed.

One of the other differences that I find rewarding is being able to dedicate my full attention to each case I handle. Prosecutors are in court 2-4 times per week, with anywhere up to 40 cases per day. As a Maryland criminal defense lawyer, I can give my full attention to the client I am there to represent. I have time to get to know my clients on a more personal level. My clients can call me directly, seven days a week, day or night and I will be able to speak to them as soon as I can. By the time we reach a resolution to our case, I feel good knowing I have been able to help these people in their time of need, and hope they will reach out to me again if they need my assistance in the future. It is a much more personal connection.

Criminal Lawyer in Maryland: Woman Accused of Killing, Burying Baby in Park Sentenced to 10 Years Suspended

Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:18:43 -0500

A woman charged in March with killing and secretly burying her one-month-old son in Druid Hill Park pled guilty and was sentenced on January 19th to a suspended sentence of ten years in prison. Twenty-nine-year-old Lakesha Haynie was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, but had originally been chared with first-degree murder and child abuse following the death of her son Rajahnthon.

According to court records, Haynie's four other children had been removed from her home due to neglect, and she avoided delivering Rajahnthon in a hospital for fear she would lose custody of the baby. A prosecutor's account to Baltimore Circuit Judge Charles J. Peters after "extensive negotiations" with the defendant's Maryland criminal lawyer indicated that Haynie confessed the details of the boy's death to his father Soleme Smith, admitting to having accidentally suffocated the child while covering his mouth to stop his crying. Haynie lead Smith to her son's shallow grave in the park, removing and cradling the boy's body before reburying him.

Smith attempted but failed to persuade Haynie to report the crime to authorities for two weeks, eventually alerting police to the crime himself. The baby's body was found in the grave in a tethered bag, and injuries to the body indicated that the child had suffered a skull fracture two to three days before his death which would cause "changes in behavior that would have been apparent to an attentive parent." Manner of death for the infant was declared to be a homicide. During questioning, Haynie told police she had "found the baby dead in bed" and speculated that Smith had rolled over on the baby, killing him.

In addition to the ten-year suspended sentence, Haynie was sentenced to five years probation, forbidden from having contact with children under the age of seven, and ordered to report any future pregnancies to the Department of Social Services. Judge Peters told the defendant, who had been jailed from the time of her March arrest, that "[the] court will not hesitate to put [her] in jail" should she be found in violation of any of the terms handed down.

This blog post was published by the law firm Price Benowitz LLP. The firm has attorneys in Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia. For more information about their attorneys, please visit the Virginia Criminal Attorney and Washington DC DUI Attorney websites.

Maryland Drug Lawyer: Massive Quantity of Heroin, Cocaine Found on Royal Caribbean Cruise Ship Docked in Baltimore

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:38:39 -0500

Just weeks after three crew members were found with $65,000 worth of drugs onshore, $94,000 worth of cocaine and heroin were located by drug-sniffing dogs on the Enchantment of the Seas, a Royal Caribbean cruise liner docked in Baltimore. A search on January 8th by US Customs and Border Protection located about a pound of cocaine and a pound and a half of heroin aboard the Enchantment.

According to the Maryland criminal lawyer representing one of the crew members, The Enchantment had just returned to port, after a twelve-day cruise with stops in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Puerto Rico, St. Maarten, St. Thomas, and Tortola.

In the original bust on December 18th, crew member Gavin Excell was found to be concealing quantaties of heroin and cocaine on his person after the boat docked. Excell implicated fellow crew members John Swart Garth and Kishurn Neptune, both twenty-seven years-old, and said the three had purchased the contraband while the ship was in port in the Dominican Republic.

In a statement, the cruise company says that they intend to comply with law enforcement efforts to investigate drug smuggling aboard their ships:

"[Royal Caribbean] continues to cooperate fully with authorities during their investigation of crew members onboard Enchantment of the Seas suspected of smuggling drugs. We continue to provide any assistance necessary to prosecute these individuals to the fullest extent of the law... Royal Caribbean International maintains a strict zero tolerance policy regarding illegal drugs on its ships. We take various steps to prevent the transport of illegal narcotics, including working closely with U.S. Customs and Border Protection."

The contraband was located inside an employee locker, and law enforcement agents did not say whether they believed the two drug busts were linked. No further arrests have been made following the second discovery. All three men were indicted on charges of conspiring to import drugs.

This post is published by Price Benowitz LLP. Our attorneys represent clients in Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia. For more information about the firm and its lawyers, please visit the Virginia Criminal Attorney and Washington DC Criminal Attorney websites.