Maryland DUI Lawyer BlogArticles Posted in Constitutional rights
My thoughts after 40 Years at the Bar – September 4, 1984 – September 4, 2024
Forty years ago today I walked into a courtroom in Upper Marlboro, Maryland with my mentor, Alan J. Goldstein. I had just gotten back from my honeymoon in the Greek Islands, completely jet lagged and sat down at counsel table. Our client was charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Alan, who had a wicked sense of humor, and knew my condition, stood up and said, “It is my privilege to introduce to the Court Leonard Stamm, the Court knows him as he clerked across the hall last year. He is now an associate in my firm, and he is going to argue today’s motions!” And he sat down. And everyone looked at me and Alan said “Get up.” Then the judge and prosecutor motioned and said “Get up, get up.” I was shocked. I knew nothing about the motions. I slowly started to rise not knowing what I was going to say when the courtroom exploded into laughter and I sat back down.
In the 40 years since I have learned to respect the rule of law and to practice civility towards clients, witnesses, adversaries, colleagues, jurors and judges. I have been blessed to have seen firsthand how critical these two things, respect for the rule of law and civility, are to our society being able to function as a representative democracy, and the checks and balances that give power to the people are to the preservation of our way of life. I have seen that it is possible to zealously represent the interests of my clients, while still having respect for prosecutors, judges and police officers. It is not only possible, but necessary, to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. The ability to compromise to settle disputes and to go to trial are hallmarks of our criminal justice system, in order to achieve the goal of treating everyone fairly, and with dignity and respect to achieve a just result.
In the presidential election this year, unlike any other year, respect for the rule of law and civility have been challenged like never before. We have witnessed the take over of one political party by a presidential candidate who has no respect for the rule of law and constantly demeans and insults anyone and everyone he disagrees with, the press, scientists, doctors, politicians, veterans, civil servants, judges, prosecutors, and women in the most vile and pernicious ways. He has been convicted of fraud, and judged liable for sexual assault. He is ignorant of many of the issues needed to run a country, and lacks the decency and empathy needed, but could care less. It seems as if cruelty is the message. He has copied Stalin, calling the press “the enemy of the people.” And he has copied Hitler, calling immigrants “vermin.” His lunatic rants remain unchallenged and unnoticed by the mainstream media. He has done something in politics that cannot be done successfully in court, he has routinely attempted to change the facts and evidence, and he has lied and doubled down on his firehose of lies to a breathtaking degree. More frightening is the acquiescence and support of party leaders and judges who bend the knee, and repeat the lies, afraid or unwilling to tell the truth. Shockingly, he may win in November, even after having incited a mob to attack the Congress and threaten the lives of the Vice President and Speaker of the House in support of the Big Lie that he won the election he fairly lost, setting back years of progress making this a more perfect union. Ben Franklin said “It’s a Republic, if you can keep it.” I hope we can.
NY v. Trump – a victory for the rule of law
Yesterday Donald Trump was convicted by a jury of 34 counts in the so-called “hush money” case. But what this case was really about was Trump’s cheating in the 2016 presidential election, by covering up his affair with Stormy Daniels with false documents. Democracy requires that all participants respect the process and accept the results. You cannot support democracy only when you win.
Trump and his sycophants have called this trial “rigged.” That is a dangerous lie. The rule of law is the foundation of our democracy. Any challenges to the verdict can be challenged through an appellate process that challenges rulings by the trial court to which Trump’s lawyers objected. But saying that the process is “rigged” is a dangerous lie that can lead to violence.
Trump’s political career is marked by efforts to cheat, to ignore or flout the rules. The first impeachment was because Trump threatened Ukraine’s President Zelensky with withholding aid if Zelensky did not lie and claim that the Bidens were being investigated for their business dealings in Ukraine.
Ignition Interlock is Coming for You
The Maryland Legislature has approved a bill, effective on October 1, 2024, part of “Noah’s Law,” that will require all licensees receiving probation before judgment fro driving under the influence or impaired by alcohol in Maryland to successfully complete the Ignition Interlock System Program before obtaining any further driving privileges. While most of the people found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or driving while impaired have already gone through the interlock program by virtue of refusing or failing a breathalyzer test, there has been an out for people who either take the suspension, get a work permit, or win the administrative hearing before court. Now those few will have to get an interlock if they receive probation before judgment in court and were arrested on or after October 1, 2024.
It appears this does not apply to out-of-state drivers.
If you have been charged with a DUI or DWI, and do not want the interlock, you will have to fight your case in court.
Do you have to get an interlock in Maryland for a DWI? Some judges say yes. I say no.
I recently handled a sentencing for a client of mine for driving while impaired (DWI). Under Maryland law, one year of ignition interlock is required if you are convicted of the higher offense, driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI). However, the relevant statutes do not require it for DWI, unless the “trier of fact finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the person refused to take a test arising out of the same circumstances as the violation.” More often than not, in Maryland, a driver who refuses a breathalyzer test at the time of arrest if found guilty of anything, will not be found guilty of the higher offense DUI, only the lower DWI. So the question is what does this phrase mean, that the “trier of fact finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the person refused to take a test arising out of the same circumstances as the violation.”
The answer can be found in Wadlow v. State, 335 Md. 122, 642 A.2d 213 (1994). In Wadlow, the indictment charged the defendant with possession with intent to distribute more than 448 grams of cocaine but it did not refer to the sentencing enhancement under Art. 27, § 286 (f). Also, the jury was never asked to decide the amount of cocaine. As a result the Maryland Supreme Court reversed the part of the sentence that relied on possession of more than 448 grams. The Court said:
In Maryland, however, we have generally drawn a distinction between sentence enhancement provisions that depend upon prior conduct of the offender and those that depend upon the circumstances of the offense. In the former situation, involving recidivism, we have made it clear that determination of the requisite predicate facts is for the sentencing judge. See Maryland Rule 4–245(e) (“[T]he court shall determine whether the defendant is a subsequent offender….”). The State must give timely notice to the defendant of its intention to seek enhanced penalties because of one or more prior convictions, but that notice is not filed with the court until after the acceptance of a guilty or nolo contendere plea, or after conviction. The applicable Rule also provides that “[t]he allegation that the defendant is a subsequent offender is not an issue in the trial on the charging document….” Md.Rule 4–245(d).
July 1, 2023 – Maryland’s 420
On July 1, 2023, recreational marijuana became legal in Maryland. Adults over 21 years old are permitted to possess up to 1.5 ounces of marijuana and also to possess two pot plants. (Two plants is also the limit per household). With these changes it is important to remember that driving while impaired by marijuana is still a crime and a person who refuses a breathalyzer or after being examined by a so-called “drug recognition expert” refuses a blood test, can have his or her driver’s license suspended.
These drug recognition experts can be challenged on the ground that their testimony is insufficiently reliable to be considered by a court. As noted in an op-ed by Regi Taylor in the Baltimore Times on July 1,
Greenbelt-based attorney, Lenny Stamm, takes issue with the “scientific reliability” of methods used to identify suspected impaired drivers, particularly “assessments conducted by the state’s Drug Recognition Experts.” Stamm is an author and recognized national authority in his field, conducting seminars and lecturing widely on the DUI topic.
The Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association presents the 19th Annual Advanced DUI Defense Seminar
On May 5, 2023, the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association is holding its 19th Annual Advanced DUI Defense Seminar at the Doubletree Hotel in Linthicum, Maryland.
The seminar, organized and run by Leonard R. Stamm in conjunction with the MCDAA will feature presentations by experienced lawyers as well as an expert chemist. The schedule is shown below. If your lawyer attends this program, he or she is getting the most up to date training available for how to handle DUI cases.
MCDAA’S 19th Annual Advanced DUI Defense Seminar
Maryland legislature passes on interlock for all DUIs bill
A few years ago, the Maryland legislature reacted to the tragic death by a drunk driver of Noah Leotta by enacting Noah’s Law. The supporters of Noah’s law increased penalties and closed some loopholes in Maryland’s DUI laws but failed to achieve one objective. The legislature did not agree that every first offender who gets a DUI should be required to have an interlock installed in their car for a minimum of 6 mos. The proponents of this measure have made annual attempts to impose this requirement. This year that attempt took the form of House Bill 451 and Senate Bill 528. As a representative of the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association, Leonard Stamm filed written objections to the proposal and testified against the bills before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on March 10, 2023.
There are a number of objections to the bill that were detailed in the letter submitted to both the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.
My name is Leonard R. Stamm, appearing on behalf of the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association. I have been in private practice defending persons accused of drunk driving and other crimes for over 38 years. I am author of Maryland DUI Law, and of all post 2013 updates to Maryland Evidence: State and Federal, both published by Thomson-Reuters. I am currently a Fellow (former Dean) of the National College for DUI Defense, a nationwide organization with over 1500 lawyer members. I am a former president of the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association. I have co-authored amicus briefs filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National College for DUI Defense in the Supreme Court cases of Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), Missouri v. McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013), and Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 US __, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 195 L. Ed. 2d 560 (2016).
Responsibility for breath and blood testing taken from the ME and shifted to MSP
In legislation enacted last year, the legislature amended statutes governing breath testing in Maryland, effective October 1, 2022. Previously, relevant statutes delegated to the toxicologist under the Post-Mortem Examiner’s Commission in Baltimore, the responsibility for approving equipment used for blood and breath testing in Maryland. The new law transfers that authority to “the toxicologist in the Department of State Police Forensic Sciences Division.”
At this point it is unknown how this shift will affect the admissibility of breath tests conducted after October 1, 2022, as these cases are just starting to get litigated. The toxicologist under the Post-Mortem Examiner’s Commission drafted regulations and procedures governing the approval of equipment for use in breath and blood testing in DUI cases. For tests occurring between October 1 and December 31, 2022, the new toxicologist simply wrote a letter extending the approvals previously issued by the former toxicologist. Whether this passes muster in court is yet to be determined. Arguably, once the legislature made the change, the new toxicologist could do anything except that as the legislature determined that the former toxicologist in charge of testing not make those decisions. Rather, the new toxicologist needs to develop procedures the assure the reliability and accuracy of breath and blood testing. Time will tell whether the new toxicologist will take the independent action to approve the equipment being used the legislature arguably requires.
For now, it is critical that defense lawyers request all available discovery from the State to evaluate whether the State has complied with the new laws requiring the toxicologist in the Department of State Police Forensic Sciences division to approve the equipment used in breath and blood testing in Maryland.
I am now a U.S. citizen, but I feel less free than I ever have
Today, August 2, 2022, I read an op ed in the Washington Post by an Indian woman, Aaditi Lele, who recently became a US citizen who is a student at Vanderbilt University. It is worth sharing.
Less than two months ago, I took the oath of naturalization to become the first American citizen in my family. I watched as new Americans from dozens of countries stood together, speaking in unison of our commitment to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.” But in the wake of multiple decisions by a Supreme Court that seems intent on rolling back Americans’ liberties, I’m left wondering what warped interpretation of the Constitution I’ve committed to defend.
From the day my family moved from Pune, India, to the United States a decade ago, when I was 8 years old, I’ve been bombarded with glorified images and slogans about the American Dream — “Land of the Free!” — and encouraged to embrace this nation’s ideals. I came to believe this messaging. The idea that pursuing citizenship would help me secure my rights was not lost on me, so I did exactly that.