Blood testing

April 15, 2024

Commercial drivers with CDLs hurt by new Maryland DUI law

The new interlock bill passed by the legislature, and coming to a court near you on October 1, 2024 will hurt many commercial drivers who find themselves facing DUI charges for what they did in their personal vehicles. A commercial driver’s license (CDL) is an addition to a regular driver’s license and is required to drive commercial vehicles (basically the big 18 wheelers, limos, and buses).

A commercial driver with a CDL faces a one year disqualification of the CDL if convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or if found to have refused a breath test. For many of these drivers a disqualification can be devastating as most of them will lose their jobs. The legislature had previously passed an exemption if the driver was found guilty of driving while impaired under Transportation Article, § 21-902(b) as opposed to driving under the influence under § 21-902(a) it would not result in a disqualification. Probations before judgment (PBJs) are considered convictions under the CDL laws so that doesn’t help.

There was a problem on the administrative side though, for CDL drivers that didn’t refuse, and blew .15 or more, the choice is either a six month suspension or one year on an ignition interlock. However, if the CDL defendant blew .08 or more but under .15, while facing a 6 month suspension, 6 month on interlock or 6 month work permit. All of these choices would result in a lost job because any restriction other than alcohol or glasses/contacts, is incompatible with a CDL. However, those CDL drivers that blew .08 or more but under .15, could conceivably get a reprimand from an administrative law judge (ALJ) at the MVA hearing, basically a warning that would go on their driving record but with no real consequence. However, even if convicted under § 21-902(b) and facing a possible suspension at the MVA, the ALJ still had discretion to impose only a reprimand.

April 9, 2024

Ignition Interlock is Coming for You

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

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.

September 13, 2023

Do you have to get an interlock in Maryland for a DWI? Some judges say yes. I say no.

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

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).

May 4, 2023

The Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association presents the 19th Annual Advanced DUI Defense Seminar

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

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

February 21, 2023

Washington Post, February 19, 2023 – “Police gave out munchies, then watched people get high — for training”

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

The Washington Post recently ran a story by reporter Dan Morse about testing volunteers high on weed to practice the tests they run when they suspect a driver is impaired by marijuana. The story quoted attorney Leonard R. Stamm.

Such drug impairment tests are regularly challenged in court across the country.

“There are real questions about the scientific validity of what they’re doing,” said Leonard R. Stamm, a longtime defense attorney and author of “Maryland DUI Law,” which devotes more than 30 pages to defending drugged driving cases.

February 2, 2023

Responsibility for breath and blood testing taken from the ME and shifted to MSP

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

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.

April 13, 2022

MSP Lab Acknowledges Testing Deemed Unacceptable By Accrediting Agency

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

On March 21, 2022, the Director of the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division notified the State’s Attorney co-ordinator for Maryland that the MSP lab would cease doing blood alcohol testing because the accrediting agency determined their testing procedure violated scientific requirements for blood alcohol testing. Read the letter here. MSAA BAC Letter_031522

On April 13, 2022, Clarke Ahlers and Serge Antonin released their podcast, the Black and White and thin Blue Lines, https://lnns.co/bZlMhf7g6KX , with special guests Lenny and Michael Stamm where we discuss the MSP lab fiasco, and wonder why it took almost 6 months to tell anyone about it.

If you have a DUI charge and a blood alcohol test, call 301-345-0122 for a free consultation.

November 6, 2019

Breath testing deficiencies brought to light by the New York Times

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

Recent articles in the New York Times have raised questions about the reliability of breath testing devices used across the country in DUI cases. These Machines Can Put You in Jail. Don’t Trust Them and 5 Reasons to Question Alcohol Breath Tests. The authors also interviewed a defense lawyer and defense expert in NPR, and heard from other persons connected with the breath testing process including an officer and a defendant. Blown Away: Why Police Rely On Faulty Breathalyzers.

Breath testing is used to estimate a level of alcohol in the person’s blood. Breath testing relies on an assumption that a persons breath can contain alcohol in roughly a 1/2100 ratio of the alcohol in the breath to the alcohol in the blood. There are numerous other assumptions as well, highlighted in an article by Leonard R. Stamm, and published in the magazine of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Champion, titled The Top 20 Myths of Breath, Blood and Urine Testing.

The New York Times articles highlight some of the problems that have plagued the government’s efforts to prosecute drunk driving cases. This includes problems with calibration, maintenance of the machines (officers insist on calling them “instruments”), the controls that are used, the adequacy of the procedures used to test individuals, failures in record keeping, secrecy in computer codes, human errors and others.

July 1, 2019

How much is it safe for you to drink if you are driving home? – in most cases, no more than 3 for men and 2 for women.

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

Every state prohibits drunk driving. Every state also acknowledges that it is legal to drink alcohol and then drive if the alcohol consumed does not impair one’s abilities.

The amount of alcohol that a person can drink in an evening and be safely under the legal limit varies from person to person. The main factors of weight, number of drinks, size of the drink, concentration (proof) of the alcohol, gender, and time of drinking all affect the outcome. In the 1930’s a Swedish scientist named Erik Widmark came up with a formula to calculate blood alcohol concentration (BAC) based on these factors. Using Widmark’s formula, it is possible to estimate BAC. In these calculations, there is a rough equivalence between a 12 oz. beer, and 6 oz. glass of wine, and a mixed drink containing 1.5 oz. of alcohol.

A woman will have a higher BAC than a man of the same weight because alcohol is more concentrated in the cells of a female. Since many women weigh less than many men, this difference is exaggerated with most people.

July 1, 2019

The unconscious suspect – Mitchell v. Wisconsin holds exigent circumstances will allow a warrantless blood test in most cases

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

Mitchell was arrested for DUI. He subsequently became unconscious. Since he could not submit to a breath test, the arresting officer could not obtain his consent to a blood test, and he needed medical attention, the officer took him to a hospital for treatment and to have his blood drawn without a warrant. The State conceded that exigent circumstances were not present to justify the warrantless blood draw. Instead, the State argued that the blood draw was justified under the State’s implied consent law, that an unconscious suspect is deemed to not have withdrawn consent to a test where the officer has probable cause to believe the driver is impaired by alcohol. In Mitchell v. Wisconsin, although the Supreme Court accepted review based on the implied consent issue, a plurality of four justices held that dealing with an unconscious driver will almost always involve exigent circumstances.

The court said:

When police have probable cause to believe a person has committed a drunk-driving offense and the driver’s unconsciousness or stupor requires him to be taken to the hospital or similar facility before police have a reasonable opportunity to administer a standard evidentiary breath test, they may almost always order a warrantless blood test to measure the driver’s BAC without offending the Fourth Amendment. We do not rule out the possibility that in an unusual case a defendant would be able to show that his blood would not have been drawn if police had not been seeking BAC information, and that police could not have reasonably judged that a warrant application would interfere with other pressing needs or duties. Because Mitchell did not have a chance to attempt to make that showing, a remand for that purpose is necessary. [1]