Maryland DUI Lawyer Blog

The Star Tribune newspaper in Minneapolis has published allegations that as part of a program training police officers to become Drug Recognition Experts, officers gave Occupy Wall Street protesters marijuana. "Trooper put on leave as probe of drug-training tactics widens." This has resulted in the suspension of the DRE program and investigation of a number of police officers. "Minnesota police giving Peavey Plaza Occupy-ers drugs as part of impairment study, report says [VIDEO]."

Continue reading "Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) Program Suffers Another Blow" »

On March 5, 2012, the Circuit Court for Carroll County, Maryland released its opinion in the case of State v. Brightful, et al., granting the defendants' pre-trial motions to exclude the opinion of a drug recognition expert (DRE) in each of the consolidated cases. The case was litigated by defense attorneys Brian DeLeonardo and Alex Cruikshank. The court heard 10 days of expert testimony from both sides between September, 2010 and February, 2011. The State presented six expert witnesses: Dr. Karl Citek, Ms. Michelle Spirk, Mr. William Tower III, Officer William Morrison, Lt. Thomas Woodward and Dr. Zenon Zuk. The defendants called three experts: Dr. Francis Gengo, Dr. Neal Adams, and Dr. Jeffrey Janofsky. The court concluded that the DRE program is not generally accepted within the relevant scientific communities and that therefore would be excluded under the cases of Frye v. United States and the Maryland case of Reed v. State, as well as under Maryland Rule 702.

Specifically, the court said:

The DRE Protocol fails to produce an accurate and reliable determination of whether a suspect is impaired by drugs and. by what specific drug he is impaired. The DRE training police officers receive does not enable DREs to accurately observe the signs and symptoms of drug impairment, therefore, police officers are not able to reach accurate and reliable conclusions regarding what drug may be causing impairment.

Continue reading "Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) Protocol is Junk Science Says Carroll County Circuit Court" »

Click below to listen to Lenny Stamm's interview with DJ Kirk McEwen on WBAL on Thursday, February 2, 2011 at 9 p.m.

01 WBAL-AM Post Delay.mp3

02 WBAL-AM Post Delay.mp3

If you are facing criminal or traffic charges in Maryland state or federal court, call Leonard R. Stamm or Johanna Leshner of Goldstein & Stamm, P.A. at 301-345-0122 for a free consultation.

Leonard R. Stamm
Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.
6301 Ivy Lane, Suite 504
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
www.lstamm.com
301-345-0122
(fax) 301-441-4652

Author: West's Maryland DUI Law

I recently read a disturbing opinion piece in the New York Times - My Guantánamo Nightmare. The author, Lakhdar Boumediene, wrote the following:

On Wednesday, America's detention camp at Guantánamo Bay will have been open for 10 years. For seven of them, I was held there without explanation or charge. During that time my daughters grew up without me. They were toddlers when I was imprisoned, and were never allowed to visit or speak to me by phone. Most of their letters were returned as "undeliverable," and the few that I received were so thoroughly and thoughtlessly censored that their messages of love and support were lost.

Some American politicians say that people at Guantánamo are terrorists, but I have never been a terrorist. Had I been brought before a court when I was seized, my children's lives would not have been torn apart, and my family would not have been thrown into poverty. It was only after the United States Supreme Court ordered the government to defend its actions before a federal judge that I was finally able to clear my name and be with them again.

We are brought up to believe that such things cannot happen in our country. They can. And they are happening right now. Our criminal justice system is designed to place a premium on due process - notice of charges, the presumption of innocence, requiring the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to a jury of one's peers. A delicate balance exists that prevents persons accused of committing crimes from being held incommunicado without charges filed, supported by probable cause.

Continue reading "How can you defend those people?" »

A recent news story disclosed that Howard County police officers were required to write a predetermined number of tickets each shift. Judge throws out DUI case, saying police had quotas - Howard County police chief calls ruling a bad decision. According to the story the Howard County Police Chief was quoted saying that a federal grant to aide enforcement of traffic laws required officers average 2-4 citations per hour on the street.

McMahon said the grant "mandated that an average of 2-4 citations must be written per hour on each of these details by each officer or future funding may be withheld."

As a result the District Court for Howard County granted a defense motion to dismiss the charges.

In future cases, defense lawyers must find out if their clients' stops were made by officers operating under a quota, as reported by a follow up story. Drunk-driving quota case may lead to similar efforts elsewhere - Prosecutors look at possible appeal as defense lawyers suspect issue may affect other cases.

Leonard Stamm, a Prince George's County lawyer who wrote a legal handbook called "Maryland DUI Law," said the case puts lawyers who defend people charged with drunken driving on notice for a potential avenue for defense.

Though as a District Court ruling it has no bearing on other cases, defendants coming before other judges can bring it up. "Now that it's out there, it's something you have to look for," Stamm said.

Continue reading "Howard County illegal quota results in DUI acquittal" »

A recent internet news story described a DUI roadblock or sobriety checkpoint in Dunkirk, Calvert County, where 1054 cars were stopped and one person was arrested for drunk driving. Four Arrests Made at Dunkirk Sobriety Checkpoint (other arrests were made but not for drunk driving). This would appear to have violated the Fourth Amendment under the rule announced in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz.

In Sitz, the US Supreme Court applied a three-part balancing derived from earlier cases addressing random identification checks, random license checks, roving patrols, and checkpoints near the border. The three factors considered were: the state's interest in enforcing the drunk driving laws; the extent to which the state's interest was advanced by the checkpoint; and the level of intrusion to individuals stopped by police.

In Sitz, the Supreme Court found that Michigan had a high interest in enforcing the drunk driving laws. The roadblock was found to be sufficiently selective in advancing that interest. The roadblock netted two arrests for 126 vehicles stopped. Expressed
as a percentage, about 1.6% of the drivers passing through the checkpoint were arrested. The Court noted that in the border checkpoint case, a ratio of 0.5% illegal aliens detected to the number of vehicles stopped had been held to pass constitutional
muster. As to the level of intrusion, the Court noted that the checkpoints were administered according to guidelines that reduced the discretion of officers in the field. The average delay of individual vehicles was 25 seconds. Thus the roadblock did not
violate the Fourth Amendment.

In the Dunkirk checkpoint, to the contrary, only one person was arrested of 1054 drivers, or an arrest to vehicle rate of under .1%. This is lower than the previously approved ratio, and would seem to establish that the Dunkirk checkpoint was ineffective, and therefore, in violation of the Fourth Amendment when the low effectiveness is balanced against the State's interest and the level of intrusion.

Continue reading "Did the December 16, 2011 Dunkirk, Calvert County DUI Roadblock violate the Fourth Amendment?" »

Criminal defense lawyers are fond of making analogies to explain themselves to non-lawyers. Analogies can be very useful in closing argument and I intend to discuss some of those analogies in a future blog. Today I want to discuss the DUI defense lawyer as a DUI mechanic or technician.

Every DUI case has component parts. The prosecutor must know how these parts fit together in order to build a successful case. The defense lawyer must also know how these parts are supposed to fit together in order to dismantle the State's case. This is an integral part of our criminal justice system, and the defense lawyer acts as a check on the government to make sure the prosecution follows all of the rules and regulations, statutory and constitutional provisions before the fact-finder - a judge or jury - concludes the defendant is guilty.

It's as if you brought your car into the shop for the mechanic to repair or rebuild your car. The defense lawyer is like a competing mechanic watching the actual mechanic. The judge is a supervisor. When the actual mechanic tries to take a short-cut, and skip a part he has in short supply, the defense lawyer/opposing mechanic objects, and the judge/supervising mechanic can rule that the prosecutor/mechanic cannot complete the repair without doing it 100% correctly.

Continue reading "The DUI Defense Lawyer as DUI Mechanic/Technician" »

Maryland jurisdictions have slowly been replacing their 10 year old breathalyzers - affectionately called "breathaliars" by some - Intox EC/IR with the new breathalyzers - the Intox EC/IR II. This machine, manufactured by Intoximeters, Inc. in St. Louis, Mo. has a few improvements over its predecessor, according to the manufacturer.

In a letter dated July 6, 2006, M.R. Forrester, Chairman of
Intoximeters, Inc., wrote the following about the newer EC/IR II:

One of the main reasons the EC/IR II was developed was certain parts of the EC/IR I were becoming obsolete, which made them harder to find and more expensive to replace. The primary difference concerns the Microprocessor on the motherboard and the case set. The analytical module in the EC/IR II is very similar to the one used in the EC/IR I in that we are using the same Fuel Cell sensor and sampling system. The microprocessor change is necessary because the EC/IR I microprocessor has been made obsolete since it is a state of the art device, which works at a far higher processor speed.

As often occurs with technological advances, the shortcomings
of old technology are highlighted by the developments of new
technology. For example, the higher flow of the new purge fan "is
capable of opening [a] stuck mouthpiece." The implication here is
that the mouthpiece on occasion can get stuck, resulting in the
machine recording insuficient breath. Additionally, the case set
notes that there is higher "R[adio][]F[requency] immunity." Although
there is a claim that "RF immunity is adequate" in the
EC/IR I, the need for higher RF immunity in the EC/IR II suggests
otherwise. Other improvements made in the EC/IR II with
serial numbers over 10,000 include modifications incorporating
"additional test memory capacity, additional hardware to allow
recirculation of a wet bath simulator, and enhanced EMC and
RFI immunity."

Continue reading "Maryland gets "new" breathalyzers - Intox EC/IR II" »

Best Lawyers, the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession, has named Leonard R. Stamm as the "Washington DC Best Lawyers DUI/DWI Defense Lawyer of the Year" for 2012.

After more than a quarter of a century in publication, Best Lawyers is designating "Lawyers of the Year" in high-profile legal specialties in large legal communities. Only a single lawyer in each specialty in each community is being honored as the "Lawyer of the Year."

Best Lawyers compiles its lists of outstanding attorneys by conducting exhaustive peer-review surveys in which thousands of leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. The current, 18th edition of The Best Lawyers in America (2012) is based on more than 3.9 million detailed evaluations of lawyers by other lawyers.

Continue reading "Leonard R. Stamm named Washington DC Best Lawyers DUI/DWI Defense Lawyer of the Year" »

According to an article in the Annapolis Capitol today, "Police arresting fewer for DUI" arrests are down for DUI in Anne Arundel County. The subheadline says "Officials hope stats mean not as many are driving drunk." This is consistent with recent national news showing that DUI arrests are down in other areas of the country, but different reasons are given. "DUI Arrests Down; Drunk Drivers Still On the Road."

The article notes a 43% drop in DUI arrests in Anne Arundel County from 2007 to 2010 while statewide DUI arrests dropped 9% over the same period, "from 24,909 to 22,604."
County officials interviewed for the article state they are not doing anything different.

However, the Annapolis article does concede that in 2007 "the state Police Department shuttered its Annapolis barrack and began pulling personnel from the county." This is consistent with the Washington article which attributes a sharp decline in the number of DUI arrests to budget cuts and a reduction in the number of troopers on the road.

Continue reading "DUI Arrests Down - A Green Light for Drunk Drivers?" »

Clients charged with drug or alcohol offenses frequently ask why we recommend they submit to an evaluation and take an education and/or treatment class if they are presumed to be innocent. Doesn't that make it look like they are guilty? The answer is no. It makes it look like they are dealing with a potential problem responsibly.

There are a number of good reasons why education and/or treatment is necessary when one is charged with a drug and/or alcohol offense. The first thing to consider is whether the person may be abusing the drug or alcohol that is the basis of the charges. If yes, then education or treatment may help to minimize the chance that the person will get in future trouble, as well as help them to cope with what could be a very challenging problem. The arrest is an intervention for many drug or alcohol abusers that forces them to confront an issue they might prefer to avoid confronting. It is not unusual for concerned family members to support attempts at getting treatment. A serious drug or alcohol problem can cause more than just legal problems, the health and well being of the client and his or her family or friends may be in jeopardy. Treatment can help.

Continue reading "Education and/or treatment for DUI defendants?" »

In the past year there have been a number of developments in the area of DUI law in Maryland, and most of them favor the State.

The Court of Appeals has issued a number of decisions favoring the MVA. In Hill v. Motor Vehicle Admin., the Court of Appeals rejected an argument that the DR-15 was misleading to drivers holding a commercial drivers license (CDL) because the form was claimed to not advise CDL holders that if they refused a breath test the interlock option would not available in lieu of the disqualification of the CDL. In Najafi v. Motor Vehicle Admin., although the Court of Appeals held that Najafi's right to counsel was not violated, it said in dicta that a claim of a violation of the right to call a lawyer before deciding whether to submit to a breath or blood alcohol test cannot be litigated at an MVA hearing. In Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Loane, the Court of Appeals construed the plain language of Transportation Article, § 16-205.1(a)(2), that the implied consent law does not apply on purely private property. The Court held that despite this plain language that the implied consent law does apply on purely private property and that the issue cannot be raised in defense at an MVA implied consent hearing. In Thomas v. Motor Vehicle Admin., the Court of Appeals held that the "detention" referred to in § 16-205.1 is not required to be an arrest. In Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Aiken, the court held that the MVA need not produce the test strip or form Notification of Test Result, if the breath operator noted the test results under oath on the DR-15A Form. The court held that the MVA did not need to show in its prima facie case that the test had been administered with equipment approved by the toxicologist, because approval by the toxicologist was not listed as an issue that could be considered at the hearing under § 16-205.1(f)(7) of the Transportation Article. In Headen v. Motor Vehicle Admin., the Court of Appeals held that under § 12-111(b)(2) of the Transportation Article the MVA could designate drunk driving offenses as confidential after five years and deny expungement as to those convictions. The Court also held that a driver who is refused a drivers license due to an out-of-state suspension or revocation is not entitled to an administrative hearing to contest the refusal.

In Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Shea, the Court of Appeals reviewed the question of what constitutes reasonable grounds to support the detention at an MVA hearing. The facts included the officer's statement concerning a moderate odor of an alcohol beverage on the driver's breath and that the driver submitted to standardized field sobriety tests. An administrative law judge took action against Shea's license. On appeal, in response to Shea's argument that the DR-15 Form provided insufficient reasonable grounds, the circuit court ruled for Shea but held that moderate odor of an alcohol beverage combined with a seatbelt violation was an insufficient basis to conduct field sobriety tests. The circuit court ruled for Shea but held that moderate odor of an alcohol beverage combined with a seatbelt violation was an insufficient basis to conduct field sobriety tests. The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Richards, since the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply in MVA hearings. The Court also avoided deciding whether a moderate odor of an alcohol beverage alone could constitute reasonable grounds to support a detention to take a test, since the Court found that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of reasonable grounds, namely that the ALJ could have inferred on this record that Shea failed the standardized field sobriety tests.

Continue reading "DUI Update Sept. 2011 - What have they done to us this year?!" »

An article with the above title caught my attention this morning. "Innocent often fall victim to DUI laws" was published in the Picayune Item in Mississippi on August 24, 2011. The article makes many excellent points.

Police, in their anxiousness to enforce the drunk driving laws, arrest many people who are not impaired, but who have been drinking, and may exhibit some of the clues police associate with impairment. The article points out the 2/3 of Americans enjoy drinking on occasion. It notes:

There were 33,153 Mississippi DUI arrests last year, an astounding number. If DUIs were randomly distributed, every driver in the state would get at least one during his lifetime. A Colorado study showed that 20 percent of those arrested for DUIs had legal blood alcohol levels. The problem is that residual alcohol in your mouth can distort the results of the unreliable portable breathalyzers police often use to make an arrest.

Continue reading "Innocent often fall victim to DUI laws" »

Title 16 of Maryland's Transportation Article contains licensing requirements and license offenses. Included in this section is Maryland's implied consent law (section 16-205.1), which requires drivers detained on suspicion of drunk driving to submit to an alcohol test and face license penalties for failing or refusing the test. The sections in Title 16 tend to have one thing in common: a license is only required to drive on "a highway or private property used by the public in general." In other words, you can drive on purely private property without a driver's license.

In the case of Loane v. Motor Vehicle Administration, the Court of Appeals considered the following sentence from section 16-205.1:

"[a]ny person who drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a highway or on any private property that is used by the public in general in this State is deemed to have consented ... to take a test if the person should be detained on suspicion of driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of alcohol...."

Despite what appears to be the plain language of the statute, the Court construed this section to apply on private property.

Continue reading "The Maryland Court of Appeals holds that Maryland's implied consent law applies on private property" »

Once a driver has been arrested for a DUI or DWI in Maryland by state, not federal, police, the arresting officer is required to read a form to the driver, called the DR-15 Form. This form explains the penalties for failing or refusing a breath or blood test. Of course if the driver passes the test, i.e. produces a result below .08, there is no penalty. Unfortunately, very few people have even the foggiest clue of what they will blow.

The penalty for failing the test is a 45 day suspension on a first offense or a 90 day suspension on a second or subsequent offense if the driver blows .08 or higher but less than .15. If it is a first offense within five years the driver may be eligible for work, school, medical, or alcohol education restricted driving privileges. If it is a second offense within five years the driver may only obtain a restriction allowing the driver to drive only vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock system.

If the driver blows .15 or higher the penalty is a 90 day suspension on a first offense or a 180 day suspension on a second or subsequent offense. In lieu of the suspension, the driver may be allowed to drive with an ignition interlock restriction for one year.

If the driver refuses the the penalties are a 120 day suspension for a first offense and a one year suspension for a second or subsequent offense. Again, the driver may be allowed to drive with an ignition interlock restriction for one year. A refusal may also be considered as evidence of guilt in court and may also subject the offender to an additional 60 days in jail.

Continue reading "To Blow or Not to Blow? - That is the Question!" »