Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Each year in Maryland thousands of warrants are issued for defendants in criminal and traffic cases.  To say it’s an uneasy feeling to have a warrant is an understatement, as sooner or later most of us will have some sort of interaction with a police officer.  The majority of these interactions come during traffic stops, but even those who don’t drive can find themselves in a conversation with law enforcement.  A good deal of individuals first discover they have a warrant from a police officer when it’s already too late to do something about it.  The exception would be for a person who is out of state and police discovery a non-extraditable misdemeanor warrant.  In these cases, the warrant can still be addressed while the defendant is out on the street, as local police will not arrest a person they know will not be picked up by Maryland.  Anyone with a Maryland warrant who comes in contact with an officer in the state will be arrested and taken before a judge or a commissioner.  At this time the only thing to do would be to hire a criminal defense lawyer to handle the bail review and/or the initial appearance.  A defendant is entitled to representation during his or her initial appearance with a commissioner, and it definitely helps to have a lawyer.  An experienced lawyer may be the difference between securing release on bond or on recognizance, which will save a person from spending the night in jail.

For those who learn about a warrant before coming in contact with police there are a few steps to take.  Unless a defendant is prepared to go to jail right away, it always makes sense to at least try to address the warrant beforehand.  Writing a letter to a judge may get the job done, but having a lawyer file a motion to quash or recall the warrant will have a much higher success rate.  Lawyers will look into the case to see why exactly the warrant was issued, and then tailor a motion to best address any issues the judge may have.  A lawyer first needs to determine what type of warrant was issued.

There are two types of warrants in Maryland, but both instruct a police officer to arrest the defendant and bring him or her before a judge or commissioner.  Bench warrants are the most common type of warrants, and typically are issued in traffic and misdemeanor cases.  They are called bench warrants because they are issued by a judge (from the bench where they sit in court).  The two most common bench warrants are failure to appear bench warrants and violation of probation warrants.  Anyone who fails to appear in court for trial, motions or even for their initial appearance could have a bench warrant issued.  Bench warrants typically instruct the police to take the defendant before a district court commissioner, who will then determine whether to release the defendant.  A warrant like this will say “to be set by commissioner”.  In some cases, a judge may issue a no bail bench warrant where the defendant would have to see a judge in order to be released.  Defendants may fail to appear for a variety of reasons, so having an attorney explain the situation to the judge is always advantageous.  A defendant may have moved and not received the court notice, or in some cases due to health issues may not have been able to attend court or probation, and the judge should understand all of the issues surround the FTA or probation violation.

Each year in Maryland thousands of warrants are issued for defendants in criminal and traffic cases.  To say it’s an uneasy feeling to have a warrant is an understatement, as sooner or later most of us will have some sort of interaction with a police officer.  The majority of these interactions come during traffic stops, but even those who don’t drive can find themselves in a conversation with law enforcement.  A good deal of individuals first discover they have a warrant from a police officer when it’s already too late to do something about it.  The exception would be for a person who is out of state and police discovery a non-extraditable misdemeanor warrant.  In these cases, the warrant can still be addressed while the defendant is out on the street, as local police will not arrest a person they know will not be picked up by Maryland.  Anyone with a Maryland warrant who comes in contact with an officer in the state will be arrested and taken before a judge or a commissioner.  At this time the only thing to do would be to hire a criminal defense lawyer to handle the bail review and/or the initial appearance.  A defendant is entitled to representation during his or her initial appearance with a commissioner, and it definitely helps to have a lawyer.  An experienced lawyer may be the difference between securing release on bond or on recognizance, which will save a person from spending the night in jail.

For those who learn about a warrant before coming in contact with police there are a few steps to take.  Unless a defendant is prepared to go to jail right away, it always makes sense to at least try to address the warrant beforehand.  Even if a defendant has no intention of coming back to Maryland, a warrant can prevent a person from renewing his or her driver’s license anywhere in the county, and can show up on background checks for decades.  Writing a letter to a judge will likely not get the job done, but hiring a lawyer or applying for the public defender and having them file a motion to recall the warrant will have a much higher success rate.  A lawyer will look into the case to see why exactly the warrant was issued, and then tailor a motion to best address any issues the judge may have.  The lawyer first needs to determine what type of warrant was issued.

There are two types of warrants in Maryland, but both instruct a police officer to arrest the defendant and bring him or her before a judge or commissioner.  Bench warrants are the most common type of warrants, and typically are issued in traffic and misdemeanor cases.  They are called bench warrants because they are issued by a judge (from the bench where they sit in court).  The two most common bench warrants are failure to appear bench warrants and violation of probation warrants.  Anyone who fails to appear in court for trial, motions or even for their initial appearance could have a bench warrant issued.  Bench warrants typically instruct the police to take the defendant before a district court commissioner, who will then determine whether to release the defendant.  A warrant like this will say “to be set by commissioner”.  In some cases, a judge may issue a no bail bench warrant where the defendant would have to see a judge in order to be released.

The proximity of Maryland to our nation’s capital results in an increased federal law enforcement presence.  Most people are aware that the numerous military bases such as Fort Meade, Andrews and Aberdeen Proving Ground are patrolled by federally sanctioned police forces.  What most people don’t realize though, is that several major highways in Maryland are actually located on national park land that is maintained and policed by the federal government.  The largest and most travelled of these highways is the Baltimore Washington Parkway, also known as 295.  The BW Parkway links the cities of Baltimore and Washington D.C., but is also a common thoroughfare for those traveling to and from Prince George’s County, Howard County and Anne Arundel County.  In addition, 295 is the major access point of a variety of federal facilities such as Goddard and the NSA.  Needless to say, it’s a busy highway at all hours of the day, which translates to a large number of accidents, traffic stops and arrests.

When an accident or traffic stop occurs on a Maryland parkway such as 295 or the Clara Barton, the U.S. Park Police will likely be the law enforcement agency that arrives on scene.  Any driver who is cited for an infraction such as speeding will be issued a citation and given the option to pre-pay a fine.  Drivers charged with more serious offenses such as DUI, driving without a license, leaving the scene of an accident, and open container will be issued a citation with a mandatory appearance noted on the bottom left of the ticket.  Failure to maintain control of a motor vehicle may also result in a mandatory court appearance, which is not the case for state citations related to causing an accident.  Drivers cited for must appear offenses will eventually receive a court date from the Central Violations Bureau or CVB.  The CVB could take months to process the case, and during COVID we even saw cases set more than 2 years after the alleged violation (federal cases have a 5-year statute of limitations).

Lately it appears the cases are set within a few months, so anyone charged should expect a court notice in the mail within 90 days of being issued the citation.  Federal traffic citations are first set for an initial appearance where the judge will advise the defendant of the charges and potential consequences.  A lawyer may be able to waive the initial appearance in the Baltimore federal court, but the defendant will likely have to appear for initial appearance if the case is at the Greenbelt federal court.  The maximum punishment for a federal traffic violation is typically 6 months in jail and fines that could be several thousand dollars, but an officer has the ability to charge a defendant with a violation of a Maryland state law.  In the case of DUI or leaving the scene of an accident the maximum penalty would then be up to one year under the Maryland Transportation Article.  If the citation says MTA next to the statute number, then the driver has been charged under Maryland law and could potentially receive a stay of judgment, which is similar to probation before judgment (PBJ).  Citations that contain a statue under 36 CFR are federal, and a stay of judgment is not a possibility.  Unlike state cases, a person who is convicted of a federal traffic citation will not typically receive points on his or her driver’s license.

New data from the Ocean City Police Department supports the contention that crime is steadily decreasing since all-time highs during the summer of 2021.  According to reports recently presented to the city’s Police Commission, 487 individuals were arrested this past June compared to 519 in 2022 and 773 in 2021.  Both drug and weapons arrests were down significantly to start this summer compared to the last two years, with just 59 people being arrested on weapons charges such as wear, transport or carry of a firearm and possession of a dangerous weapon.  Almost double the number of defendants were arrested and charged in 2021, with 111 in June of that year.  79 people were arrested on weapons charges in 2022, which further supports the steady decline.  As for drug charges, only 28 individuals were arrested for such crimes as possession not marijuana and possession with intent to distribute in Ocean City this past June compared to 78 in June of 2021.

Part of the decline could be attributed to the change in the Maryland marijuana laws, which in June of this year only permitted police to make a marijuana possession arrest if the suspect had more than 1.5 ounces.  Still, there were only 15 marijuana citations issued this past June compared to 142 in 2022 and 152 in 2021.  This shows that OC cops are largely ignoring simple possession of marijuana, and will now be forced to do so since legalization went into effect on July 1.  Police are still permitted to issue citations for smoking in public, but only 57 were issued last month compared to 352 last year.  It seems the police have been less inclined to enforce smoking in public laws due to the verbal and occasional physical disputes these citations can cause between law enforcement and the public.

Drinking in public and open container violations still carry jail time under local Ocean City law, but these cases have also gone down.  The department reported issuing 299 alcohol citations this past June compared to 406 and 648 issued in the past two Junes respectively.  Total local ordinance violations this June came in at 839 comparted to about 1,500 over the past two Junes.  Finally, calls for domestic assaults were down to 59 last month compared to 78 and 118 the past two Junes.  During a press conference at the town’s Public Safety Building next to the District Court on 65^th Street, the police chief emphasized that his officers were not decreasing enforcement, but rather the public was increasing compliance.  There is no quantifiable way to test the voracity of this statement, and it certainly sounds better than the former.

Anne Arundel County Police recently arrested a 64-year-old man from Annapolis after he was allegedly wandering around Jennifer Road sporting an FBI hat and a gold-colored badge around his neck.  Police responded to the scene to make contact with the man, where he allegedly informed officers that he was an ATF agent.  To make matters worse the man also reportedly exposed himself and urinated in the road.  Police were eventually able to arrest the man, and later charged him with impersonating an officer, indecent exposure, disorderly conduct and a violation of the alcohol and beverage code for disorderly intoxication.  The man was ultimately released on his own recognizance for the impersonation charge, but he remains locked up at the detention center due to a separate case involving possession of a loaded handgun and intoxicated endangerment.

Just one day after the defendant was released on the impersonating charge, he allegedly showed up at the Anne Arundel Medical Center and threatened to kill a patient.  The threat was made to third party and not directly to the patient.  The man was escorted outside the hospital by security, and when police showed up, he was found to be in possession of two firearms.  He was arrested and charged with two counts of firearm possession and intoxicated endangerment for his behavior toward the hospital staff.  Responding officers initially recommended charges of first-degree assault, but since the threat to kill was made to a third party, the law does not support a charge for assault.  The defendant also did not brandish or point his firearms at anyone, and thus there was no evidence to support assault with a firearm.  After being arrested and booked the defendant was held without bail and committed to the hospital for further evaluation.  At the station he took a preliminary breath test, which revealed an alcohol content of almost three times the legal limit to drive.

During the time between the male defendant’s two arrests, another individual was arrested for impersonating an officer in Anne Arundel County.  Just 5 hours after the man was initially arrested on Jennifer Road, a 32-year-old Glen Burnie woman was arrested under similar circumstances.  Around 10 p.m. Anne Arundel County Police responded to a gas station for a call about a woman asking to buy drugs from patrons.  Police made contact with the woman as she was seated in her vehicle and noticed her sitting with her head slumped over, and suspect cocaine and a straw in the center console.  The responding officer also noticed signs of impairment when talking to woman.  According to the charging document the woman told the officer she was an undercover police officer herself, but could not provide any further proof.  Based on these observations the officer ordered the woman out of the vehicle to investigate further, but she refused to comply.  After a struggle that lasted more than 5 minutes the officer was eventually able to detain the woman.  She was ultimately charged with DUI, impersonating an officer, possession of CDS, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, obstructing and hindering and disorderly intoxication.  Under Maryland law a person can be charged with DUI even if they were not actually driving.  The law only requires the State to prove a person intended to drive.  Intent can be proven with evidence a person was in physical control of a motor vehicle, which typically means they are in the driver’s seat with the keys accessible.  This defendant was held without bail by a judge at the Glen Burnie District Court the following day, and remains in custody.

Next week four defendants will be brought to trial at the Baltimore County Circuit Court for their alleged involvement in a stabbing that resulted in the death of a 45-year-old man.  The incident occurred in February of 2021 in the parking lot of a Dundalk restaurant and bar, though arrests were not made until April of 2022.  Six individuals were initially charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree assault, but one was cleared a short time later.  Two of the defendants were ultimately released from custody pending trial, and three remain held without bail.  One of the defendants who was released from custody has agreed to testify as a state’s witness, and this week, lawyers for the remaining four defendants engaged in heated arguments over late evidence and evidence that the State neglected to disclose.  Despite numerous evidentiary issues, the case remains on track to be tried beginning on May 1.  The cooperating witness’ trial is scheduled separately in June, and assuming he testifies per his agreement with the State, he will likely enter into a favorable plea agreement.

Despite the incident occurring in 2021 and being originally charged in 2022, state prosecutors decided to file a superseding indictment just two weeks ago that added charges of accessory after the fact to murder in the first degree for some of the defendants.  This became a major issue for the respective defense teams, who now have to scramble to adjust their defenses to account for the new charges.  The state claimed the late charges were due to unavoidable delays related to the FBI’s cell phone location data crime lab.  The state maintained that they turned over the evidence as soon as it became available, though far too late in the eyes of the defense lawyers.  Cell phone tracking data is often difficult in interpret and can require an expert to explain to

 laymen such as jurors in a criminal case.  Defense lawyers argued that securing an expert could take weeks if not months, and therefore the late cell phone data should be excluded.  Typically, when the state provides late evidence, the remedy would be to postpone the case, but when defendants are sitting in jail this becomes extremely prejudicial.  No defendant should have to sit in jail awaiting trial longer than necessary, and unfortunately in a Maryland murder case there is a low chance that the judge would consider releasing a defendant due to a state’s postponement.