Juvenile Crimes

Published on: May 25, 2023

Juvenile Auto Thefts Skyrocketing

Baltimore County Police have reported a 542% increase in juvenile motor vehicle thefts this year compared to last year, with some of the offenders being as young as 12 years old. The trend is especially concerning to police because the vehicles are often used to commit other offenses such as robbery, burglary and theft and even murder. Surveillance cameras affixed to street lights, business and home doorbells are a powerful law enforcement tool to track vehicles that are involved in crimes, but if the cars are stolen these leads will often turn up empty. Hyundai and Kia vehicles from the end of the last decade have been a prime target for these thefts due to their lack of electronic immobilizers, but detectives from the auto theft task force have been adamant that almost all cars are at risk. It’s often as simple as a person leaving the keys in vehicle, as would be thieves often try to open dozens of car doors before finding an easy target. Auto theft detectives have expressed frustration over the Maryland juvenile criminal system, as young car thieves are routinely released from custody almost immediately. In their opinion this has led to a rash of repeat offenses, because there is little deterrent to continuing to commit theft crimes.

The rise in juvenile car thefts is not limited to Baltimore County, as theft and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle are common juvenile offenses all over the state of Maryland. Just last week four teenagers were arrested theft and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in Charles County. As is the normal course of non-violent juvenile cases, the teens were set to be released to guardians, but it turned out that the guardians showed up to the police station in a stolen vehicle themselves. The guardians were dropped off at the police station without incident, and officers went looking for the car after they realized it was stolen. Upon seeing police, the driver of the vehicle panicked and allegedly almost hit one of the police officers as he was attempting to flee. Cops eventually stopped the car, and three more juveniles were located in this stolen vehicle and charged with unauthorized use. One of the juveniles was a 16-year-old with outstanding arrest warrants and another was a 13-year-old girl who was reported missing from another county.

This incident happened on the same day that 5 young adults were also arrested for motor vehicle theft in Charles County after officers patrolling in Waldorf located two stolen Hyundais in front of a business. Officers attempted to conduct a traffic stop of these vehicles but the driver fled. All five suspects were eventually arrested and charged related to this vehicle and allegedly several others. One of the defendants, a 21-year-old male from Washington D.C. was held without bail, likely due to the fact that he has another open motor vehicle theft case in Howard County and an open burglary case in Charles County. By all accounts this means there were at least 10 juveniles or young adults arrested in Charles County for auto theft related charges in a single day, so it’s no surprise the numbers are skyrocketing in Baltimore County as well.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 16, 2022

Teen Arrested in Ocean City Carjacking Appears in Court

By Benjamin Herbst

Four Baltimore teenagers and a 12-year-old were recently arrested in Ocean City for an armed carjacking that resulted in the victim being taken to the hospital. In addition to being charged with multiple felonies including carjacking, armed robbery and motor vehicle theft, the 19-year-old defendant was also charged with 13 traffic infractions including attempting to elude a uniformed officer by fleeing on foot and reckless driving. The criminal and traffic infractions were scheduled for preliminary hearing today in the Ocean City District Court, but the hearing was waived. The State will now decide which charges to file in the Circuit Court for Worcester County in Snow Hill. According to reports, police responded to the scene of the robbery where a 73-year-old victim advised he had been approached by three young men in Downtown Ocean City. One of the men brandished a handgun and pointed it at the victim while demanding items. The male with the handgun then hit the victim in the back of the head with the gun and drove off with the vehicle.

Officers in the area spotted the stolen vehicle at a convenience store a few blocks away and attempted to initiate a traffic stop, but the driver took off. Two other stolen vehicles fled the scene as well, and all were tracked by law enforcement. One of the stolen vehicles attempted to flee town using the Route 50 bridge, but police were able to disable the vehicle using stop sticks in West Ocean City. This 19-year-old suspect then attempted to run from police but was apprehended by Worcester County Sheriff’s Deputies before being handed back over to the OCPD. The carjacked vehicle was located a short time later in Wicomico County, and its 15-year-old driver was arrested and charged as a juvenile. The third stolen vehicle made it the furthest before crashing in Dorchester County and then catching fire. Three juvenile defendants were arrested after attempting to flee on foot. One of the juvenile defendants in the third vehicle was in possession of a stolen handgun. This defendant was 17 and charged as an adult in Dorchester County with similar charges as the 19-year-old defendant, but with additional charges for possession of a firearm by a minor, possession of ammunition and possession of a stolen firearm. The juvenile court does not have original jurisdiction over violent crimes and gun offense when the defendant is 16 or 17. Rather, these cases will be sent directly to adult court and would only be transferred back to juvenile court if a judge grants what is known as a reverse waiver. The two youngest defendants, ages 12 and 14, were charged and released to their parents by police. Further investigation revealed that numerous vehicles had been broken into that evening in Downtown Ocean City, and a handgun was stolen out of one of them.

The Blog will continue to follow the adult defendant’s case, and may post a follow up article when there is a resolution in the Circuit Court. All juvenile cases are sealed from public view, so we will not be able to follow up on the three youngest defendants. Although the 17-year-old defendant was charged as an adult, his case is also shielded from public view due to the fact that he is a juvenile. Shielding adult cases is a new policy in Maryland, which assures that the privacy of juvenile defendants is protected. This is especially important due to the high percentage of cases that are waived back down to juvenile court, where a defendant or respondent receives the benefit of privacy from the beginning. If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime, contact Maryland juvenile criminal defense lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation. Benjamin has successfully defended dozens of juveniles charged with some of the most serious offenses including carjacking, armed robbery, motor vehicle theft, and firearm possession. He specializes in gun crimes in Maryland Eastern Shore locations such as Worcester County, Wicomico County and Dorchester County, and also handles drug and DUI charges in Ocean City. Call Benjamin anytime at 410-207-2598 for a free consultation about your case.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 22, 2022

State Lawmakers Pushing Juvenile Justice Reform

By Benjamin Herbst

This past week in Annapolis a sweeping juvenile justice reform bill passed in the Maryland Senate, and now the bill heads to the House for debate. The 23-page bill proposes numerous modifications to the existing juvenile justice system, but perhaps the most noteworthy is the section that would eliminate most prosecutions of juveniles under the age of 13. Juvenile criminal courts currently have jurisdiction over children as young as 7, but the new measure would end criminal prosecution of children under 13 unless they are charged with crimes of violence such as first-degree assault, robbery, felony sex offenses, arson and attempted murder. In these situations, the minimum age for criminal prosecution in a Maryland juvenile court would become ten. This measure would free up resources for juvenile offenders who are facing more serious charges, and who may benefit from a wider range of services provided by the department.

Another major change proposed in the juvenile justice bill would give more authority for intake officers to resolve cases before they are sent to court. Currently juvenile services intake officers must forward all felony cases to the State’s Attorney’s Office. The State then has 30 days to decide whether to file a juvenile delinquency petition in the appropriate circuit court. In contrast, a juvenile intake officer may resolve a misdemeanor by closing the case with a warning or offering informal supervision. Misdemeanor cases would still be able to be filed in the circuit court if the State or the victim objects to the intake officer’s decision. This is a long overdue modification, as it is a major waste of resources to set juvenile cases for intake hearings if there is no chance the case can be resolved. Intake hearings for felony cases are currently futile, as the officer’s hands are tied. Rather than keep a blanket provision that strips the intake officers of power to do their job, the legislature is moving toward trusting the officers to make a decision on a case-by-case basis. There are limitations on this proposal however, as intake officers would still have to forward all felony crimes of violence to the State, as well as cases where the allegation is causing or attempting to cause death or physical injury to another. The physical injury terminology may have to be revised to reflect serious bodily injury though, as physical injury is a rather general term.

The bill also adds a provision that allows the State and the defense to hold delinquency proceedings in abeyance in favor of a term of informal adjustment. If the State and defense agree, the child may have the ability to complete certain conditions and then be awarded with a dismissal of the delinquency petition. This type of diversionary track has traditionally been accomplished by way of a STET, but establishing an official system to avoid adjudications going on a juvenile’s record is a welcomed tool. Other new provisions include reducing the time between detention hearings for all juveniles held to every 14 days instead of every 25 days, and barring juveniles from being sent to out-of-home placements if the most serious charge is a misdemeanor or on a technical violation of probation. Firearm offenses would be the exception to this provision, and may still result in placement out of the home.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 3, 2019

Remaining Suspects Guilty In Police Officer Murder

By Benjamin Herbst

The three remaining juvenile defendants charged with the murder of a Baltimore County police officer have decided to forgo their right to a jury trial, and instead elected to plead guilty to first-degree murder. The guilty pleas were entered today during a previously scheduled court appearance at the circuit court in Towson, and a sentencing hearing will take place later in the summer. Trial dates that were originally scheduled for September have been cancelled. The plea came a month after the main defendant, a 17-year old, was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary and theft for running over a police officer in a stolen car after committing burglary of a nearby home. This defendant will learn his fate at the end of July, and faces a mandatory life sentence.

As part of the plea for the three remaining defendants, the State’s Attorney’s Office requested that the judge cap the active period of incarceration at 30 years. While a conviction for murder in Maryland carries a mandatory life sentence, the statute does not require the defendant to serve the entire sentence in prison, and a portion of the sentence may be suspended. If the judge accepts the State’s recommendation the three will serve at least 15 years in prison before being parole eligible. Defendants sentenced to state prison are normally eligible for parole after serving 25 percent of their sentence, but for a violent offense must serve at least 50 percent before being considered. Regardless of when they are released, all defendants will likely be placed on probation for a period of 3 to 5 years and will be on parole for life.

All four of the defendants are considered juveniles, but all four were charged directly as adults. Maryland juvenile courts do not have original jurisdiction over cases where the defendant was over the age of 14 at the time of the offense and charged with a serious crime such as murder, first degree assault, robbery, carjacking, firearms offenses and felony sexual offenses. When the juvenile court does not have jurisdiction the police are required to book and charge the defendant in adult court. The juvenile defendants are detained in a secure facility (under state law they must be separated from the adult population) until they see a district or circuit court judge at a bail review hearing. Most defendants in this situation are eligible to have their attorney file for a reverse waiver, which would transfer the case back down to juvenile court. This motion must be filed within 30 days, and DJS is required to do a study before the hearing can take place. If the motion is granted then the defendant will be set for arraignment/ detention hearing in juvenile court, and be subject to supervision by the department until the case is over. If the motion is denied the case will proceed as scheduled in adult court.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 2, 2019

Baltimore Teen Found Guilty Of Murder

By Benjamin Herbst

After two days of deliberation a Baltimore County jury found a teenager guilty of first degree murder, burglary and theft for actions that lead to the death of a female police officer almost one year ago. The defendant was 16 at the time he was arrested in Perry Hall after running over the officer with a stolen Jeep. Three other male co-defendants are still awaiting trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. All four were under the age of 18 and all were charged with first-degree murder in adult court. A juvenile who is charged with first degree murder and was 16 or older at the time of the offense is prohibited from requesting a transfer to juvenile court, which in Maryland is called a reverse waiver. Juveniles who have been convicted of a prior violent felony such as robbery or first degree assault or other excluded offense like handgun possession are also prohibited from requesting a reverse waiver, as are juveniles who have already been waived and found delinquent. One of the co-defendants in this case was actually 15 at the time of the incident, but his case was not transferred to juvenile court. The 3 remaining defendants are all scheduled for trial in September, and it remains to be seen whether the State will now be more inclined to offer plea deals to a crime other than first degree murder.

The defendant who was recently convicted now must return to the circuit court for sentencing, but under Maryland law the judge will be required to impose a sentence of life. While the state prison system has a fairly liberal parole policy, (violent offenders are often released after serving one half of their sentence) parole is not a forgone conclusion even for young defendants who receive life in prison. Maryland law provides prosecutors the option of seeking life without parole in murder cases, but this requires advance notice to the defendant and a special sentencing trial where the jury must unanimously approve life without parole. If the jury cannot come to a unanimous decision within a reasonable amount of time then a life sentence must be imposed.

This case has stirred up more debate over the fairness of the felony murder doctrine, which allows the jury to convict in a murder case without the State actually proving the defendant intended to kill. First-degree felony murder only requires that the State satisfy three elements, with the first being that the defendant or co-defendant committed a felony such as burglary, arson, carjacking, escape or a sexual offense. The second element is that the defendant killed the victim, and the third element is that the act resulting in the death of the victim occurred during the commission of, or in the immediate escape from the scene of the felony described in the first element. In co-defendant cases such as this one, all participants are liable for the acts of the other co-defendants. It is for this reason that the three other juvenile defendants face the same first-degree murder charge as the one whose actions actually killed the officer.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 5, 2018

Maryland Jails Under Investigation

By Benjamin Herbst

Two county jails in Maryland are now under investigation for alleged mistreatment of juvenile inmates. In response to complaints lodged by the Public Defender’s Office, the State Department of Education is investigating whether juvenile inmates were properly separated from the adult jail population while being housed at adult facilities. State and federal law requires juvenile inmates to be totally separated by sight and sound from the rest of the population, which is often accomplished by housing them in separate wings or units of the jail. But the Baltimore County and Frederick County Detention Centers now stand accused of violating these laws and have yet to issue any statements denying the accusations.

A 2015 Maryland law requires that juvenile defendants charged with adult crimes must be housed in juvenile facilities until their request to transfer the case back to juvenile court has been denied. Legally speaking the transfer request is called a reverse waiver hearing. This is an essential stage of the case, and all child defendants must be afforded the opportunity to have their lawyer argue for the case to be heard in juvenile court. Adult criminal court simply does not offer the same type of services and support as juvenile court and is focused on punishment rather than the education and treatment.

Defendants under the age of 18 who commit a felony such as first degree assault or robbery with a firearm must petition a circuit court judge for a reverse waiver in order to be tried in juvenile court. Juvenile courts do not have original jurisdiction for serious offenses of this nature. The process of waiving a case down does not happen automatically and if a motion is not filed the defendant may lose this opportunity. At the reverse waiver hearing the judge will consider numerous factors such as the age of the child, the risk to public safety and the mental and physical condition of the child. If the judge denies the reverse waiver the child must then be transferred to an adult jail facility pending the results of the trial. Defendants that are in school at juvenile facilities will be taken out and sent to jails that offer minimal educational opportunities, and according to these reports struggle to keep their most vulnerable defendants safe.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 1, 2018

What Happens When A Juvenile Is Arrested

By Benjamin Herbst

As a parent there are few things worse than finding out that your child has been arrested and charged with a crime. The initial disbelief is soon replaced by concern, fear and anger, and the worst part is not being able to do anything about it right away. The emotions are compounded when a parent is going through this for the first time, as it’s easy to assume the worst and impossible to know what to expect. The important thing for all parents to remember is that the juvenile criminal court system in Maryland is not designed to punish individuals like the adult court system. For most juvenile cases punishment is secondary to providing the child with guidance and counseling to make sure he or she does not become a repeat offender. It may be a tough road ahead, but most juvenile defendants do not end up with any type of criminal record that could interfere with college applications or future employment as long as their case is handled properly. That being said, the process will be much easier and the rate of success much higher if the parents and the child are informed each step of the way.

Most juveniles that are arrested are charged by citation and released to the custody of their parents. After the arrest the first step is for the child to appear before a juvenile services officer at an intake hearing. The intake hearing is an excellent opportunity for the child and family to avoid going to court, and should be treated seriously. The intake officer has the ability to close the case and issue a warning or place the child on an informal period of probation that typically involves community service. Each of these options will close the case without any type of official criminal court record being created, which is absolutely key to preserving the child’s future opportunities. In some cases the State’s Attorney’s Office or the victim may object to the case being closed, and this will result in the case moving on to the circuit court. The intake officer could also decide to forward the case to the circuit court. If the case is forwarded to the circuit court it does not mean the child will be sent off to a program and it doesn’t mean the child will have a permanent criminal record. To the contrary there is still a strong likelihood that the child will not be subjected to any drastic forms of punishment, and will be totally done with the court system within six months to a year.

When a case is forwarded to court the juvenile will receive notice to appear for an arraignment within a few weeks, though in some jurisdiction the arraignment is cancelled if an attorney files his or her appearance. In the weeks between arraignment and trial or disposition the lawyers from both sides will discuss the case and attempt to come to a resolution. This is similar to adult court, but the time frames are much shorter. Trial will usually be set within one month instead of three or four months. Regardless of whether there is a plea or a trial, juveniles are not found guilty or not guilty, as the term guilty is replaced by delinquent. If a child is found delinquent, he or she may still be able to have the case expunged and in some cases if a proper motion is filed may be able to have the finding overturned. Both of these outcomes will assure that the child’s future is not negatively impacted by the case, which is the ultimate goal.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 21, 2016

Dirt Bike Thefts Rampant Across Maryland

By Benjamin Herbst

Police officers in the Baltimore and D.C. metropolitan area have been trying to crack down on illegal dirt bike riding for years, but have little to show for their efforts. It seems this brand of illegal riding is as popular as ever, as it’s hard to take a daytime drive around the city without encountering a group of teenagers and young adults popping dirt bike wheelies in the street. The riding has become a nuisance for motorists and residents in the area, and police have responded by citing or arresting the riders and confiscating their bikes. This has been an ongoing thorn in the side of the police, but the problem has not really risen to a critical level until recently. The heightened concern is not only due to an increased amount of injuries to pedestrians and the riders themselves, but also the astronomical rise in the number of dirk bike thefts being reported in the metro area. It seems that urban riding has become so popular that it has created a lucrative illegal market for the bikes, which can in some instances cost as much as a car. Numerous thefts have been reported in Montgomery County, Frederick County, and in Baltimore City. The thieves have become organized and determined, sometimes following actual dirt bike riders home from the track, or researching where they live. One professional rider in Montgomery County had two bikes stolen from his house with an estimated total value of over $25,000.

In addition to becoming organized and determined, the market for bikes has caused some brazen behavior from thieves. Recently a group of young men actually broke into the Baltimore City impound, where bikes confiscated by police are stored. This group of ten young men were met by an unarmed security guard who could do little to stop the thieves other than call for backup. Six of the young men were arrested, but the other four got away with stolen property. One of the thieves allegedly flashed a handgun to the security guard as he gave chase. Outrage from the community and frustration from the police department has prompted the creation of a special police dirt bike task force to combat illegal riding in Baltimore City streets. This will undoubtedly lead to more arrests and more confiscated bikes, but as the popularity of street riding explodes it seems we are far from seeing an end to this activity.

The Blog will continue to follow cases involving illegal street riding in Baltimore and the surrounding areas. We will also follow cases of dirt bike theft as well. Those arrested for stealing dirt bikes will face the charge of motor vehicle theft, which is a felony with a maximum penalty of five years in jail. These defendants could also face felony theft over $1,000 and burglary charges. Many of the defendants are actually juveniles, and based on their age they could be tried as adults. The riders often face numerous traffic offenses such as driving an uninsured vehicle, driving without a license, and driving an unregistered motor vehicle. Some traffic charges related to illegal street riding carry jail sentences, expensive fines and points, which can lead to valid licenses being suspended by the MVA. Benjamin Herbst is a Baltimore criminal defense attorney who handles motor vehicle theft and burglary cases in all state and federal courts in Maryland including juvenile criminal court. Contact Benjamin for a free consultation about your case at 410-207-2598.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 8, 2016

Teenagers Charged With Theft Of Taxi

By Benjamin Herbst

Anne Arundel County Police have reported that five teenagers were arrested for attempting to steal a taxi cab in Pasadena just before midnight this past Monday. Officers responded to a call for help after a cab driver reported he was involved in a verbal dispute with the five juveniles. The argument escalated after one of the teens took the driver’s cell phone. As the cabbie attempted to take back the phone, another teen jumped into the driver’s seat of the cab and attempted to take off. The cabbie then shifted his focus from the stolen phone to the car, and was able wrestle control of the wheel away from the juvenile offender. The five teens, all ages 15 or 16, then fled the scene in different directions with the cabbie’s phone. Several police officers arrived on scene, including two Ann Arundel County Police K9 units and one Maryland State Police K9 unit, to investigate and locate the suspects. All five were later found hiding in the surrounding area and were arrested. Four of the juveniles were from Pasadena and one was from Baltimore.

Each of the juveniles was charged via citation with three criminal offenses including theft, 2^nd degree assault, and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. They were released to their parents after the booking process concluded. The five teenagers will now be brought through the juvenile criminal justice system, which will begin with an intake hearing with an officer from the Department of Juvenile Services. These intake hearings occur in the various offices of DJS, and are not held in court. An intake hearing is an informal setting where one of three outcomes is possible. After speaking with the juvenile, the parents and the juvenile’s attorney, the DJS officer can close the case and issue a warning, which is the best possible outcome for the juvenile. If the officer feels the facts of the case are too serious for a simple warning, he or she can choose to keep the case open and place the juvenile on informal supervision for 90 days. This option allows DJS to maintain some sort of authority over the juvenile without sending the case to court. The third option is for the DJS officer to recommend that the case be handled in the circuit court where the offense is occurred. The state’s attorney’s office would then take control of the case and file a petition for delinquency with the juvenile clerk.

The decisions of the intake officer are not always final. The victim, which in this case would be the cab driver, could appeal if for example he is unsatisfied that the case was not forwarded to the state’s attorney. The state’s attorney’s office could also choose to file a petition with the circuit court if they feel informal supervision is inadequate. Typically felony charges end up in the circuit court, so it is likely that at least one of the five juveniles will have their case heard in an Annapolis courtroom. Unlawful taking of a motor vehicle is a felony, as is theft over $1,000. All juvenile cases are under seal and not available to the public, so the Blog will not be able to post a follow-up on these cases, but keep checking back for criminal law news around Maryland.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 14, 2015

Middle School Boy Charged With Assault After Unwanted Kiss

By Benjamin Herbst

A Baltimore County 8^th grade boy was arrested last week and now faces assault charges for allegedly kissing a female classmate. Police officers responded to Pikesville Middle School on Wednesday after school administrators reported that the 13-year-old boy grabbed a 14-year-old female by the shirt, and then kissed her on the mouth without her permission. The female was also an 8^th grade student at Pikesville Middle. The boy stated to officials that he kissed the girl in response to a dare from fellow classmates, and now the incident has sparked national debate whether the incident should have been handled differently. School officials could have handled the incident internally under the student code of conduct, but instead opted to involve county police. The officers who responded to the scene acted under state law in charging the boy with misdemeanor second degree assault. This offense carries a maximum penalty of ten years in jail, but because this incident will be filed as a juvenile case the statutory maximum penalties do not apply. A juvenile filing also means that all information about the case will be under seal and off limits to the public. If the state’s attorney’s office decides to prosecute the case it will be heard in the circuit court in Towson.

Unlike other jurisdictions, Maryland classifies the crimes of assault and battery under the same statute. Under the traditional common law assault is generally defined as a threat to do harm combined with the apparent ability to carry out the threat, while a battery is defined as an intentional and unwanted physical touching. In other states this incident would have likely been classified as a simple battery case, but here it falls under the umbrella category of assault. Injury is never a required element of a simple battery, and the same applies for the second degree assault law used in our state courts today. The girl involved in the kissing incident was not injured, but she did not consent or welcome the kiss. Clearly the act was intentional, which means the two basic elements of a crime were satisfied. But whether a crime on paper actually happened, and whether the criminal justice system should be involved are two separate issues.

There are compelling arguments for both sides of the controversial kissing arrest. On one hand you have to maintain the message that any type of unwanted physical touching will not be tolerated, with our society demanding even more emphasis placed on unwanted sexual contact. If the potential punishment is not severe enough there will be minimal deterrent for this type of behavior in the future, which has the potential to escalate to other more serious violations than a kiss on the mouth. On the other hand, you have to take into account that the accused is a 13-year-old boy who lacks the ability to completely understand and evaluate his actions. This is not to say that punishment and accountability are inappropriate in this particular incident, but subjecting a 13-year-old to an arrest and criminal prosecution is undoubtedly a traumatizing experience that may not be warranted under these facts. Ultimately it will be up to the state’s attorney’s office whether to pursue this case in criminal court, and they will likely involve the victim and her parents in the decision. The Blog will follow this case and may post a follow-up, with the caveat that a sealed status could limit information that is available to the public.

Continue reading →