by

The United States District Court for the Southern Division of Maryland in Greenbelt issued its first ruling Friday granting a defense motion to suppress a warrantless blood test as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Missouri v. McNeely. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. DiGirolamo issued a 19 page written opinion holding that McNeely applied to cases pending at the time of its issuance, that the Government did not demostrate sufficient exigent circumstances to justify dispensing with a warrant, and that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule did apply in the case of United States v. Brown, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147352 (D. Md. October 11, 2013).

The opinion stated:

The government asserts that this case falls within the exigent circumstances exception. Specifically, it points to the 30 minute delay in the taking of the defendant’s blood due to the defendant’s failure to cooperate with the breath test at the station. The Court does not find that said delay combined with the natural dissipation of blood-alcohol brings this case within the exigent circumstances exception. This is simply not a case where the exigencies of the situation were so compelling to excuse the need for a warrant. Officer Weisbaum described this incident as a “routine” DWI stop. While this alone does not mean a warrant is required, it is a “special fact” to be considered. See McNeely, 133 S.Ct. at 1568. Additionally, unlike Schmerber, time did not have to be taken to investigate an accident or attend to the suspect’s personal injuries. There was nothing about the defendant’s physical or mental condition, or behavior, which required the expenditure of time in addition to what would normally be expended in a routine DWI stop. Officer Weisbaum testified that it is common for defendants to at first agree to cooperate with the breath test and then not blow sufficiently, resulting in a failed test. The Court does not find that the totality of the circumstances present in this case constitute such an emergency to excuse the officer from obtaining a warrant prior to the taking of the defendant’s blood. Given that the defendant did not consent to the blood test, the Court finds the taking of his blood was in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

There remain pending in Greenbelt a number of unresolved motions to suppress due to the policy of the U.S. Park Police to obtain blood samples in DUI cases without first seeking a warrant prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely, on April 17, 2013. The U.S. Park Police was one of a very small number of jurisdictions in the United States that followed the practice of getting blood samples from DUI suspects without first getting a warrant. The vast majority of states that obtained blood samples were already seeking and getting judicially issued warrants before drawing blood in DUI cases.
Continue reading

by

Electronic signs all over Maryland are telling drivers about the new laws that kicked in today. What exactly is going on? Two offenses that were previously denominated as secondary actions have been changed to primary actions.

As the 90 day legislative report states:

Senate Bill 339/House Bill 753 (both passed) authorize primary enforcement of the prohibitions against the use of (1) a wireless communication device by a minor operating a motor vehicle; (2) a handheld telephone by an adult driver while operating a motor vehicle with a provisional license or learner’s permit; (3) a handheld telephone by an operator of a school vehicle that is carrying passengers and in motion; and (4) the fully licensed driver’s hands to use a handheld telephone, while the vehicle is in motion, except as specified. The bills repeal the provisions of law that limited enforcement to a secondary action when a driver is detained for another violation.

What this means is that previously a police officer could not stop a vehicle if he or she observed the listed violations. A person could only be charged under one of these provisions if the person was first stopped for a different violation. This law now allows officers to stop a vehicle based on observation of one of these violations alone.
Continue reading

by

Last year, the Maryland legislature changed the law that required the court to send trial notices to all persons receiving traffic tickets. Now a person receiving a payable (minor) traffic violation and no jailable (non-payable – must appear) companion tickets must either pay the ticket or request a trial within 30 days. If this is not done the driver’s license is suspended until they pay it.

The ticket says:

IF ANY OF YOUR VIOLATIONS ARE MARKED “MUST APPEAR”: You will automatically be mailed a notice of your trial date by
the Court. Failure to appear will result in a warrant for your arrest.

Then further down on the form it says:

IF ANY OF YOUR VIOLATIONS ARE MARKED “PAYABLE FINE”: You must comply with one of the following within 30 days
after receipt of the citation. Provide any change of address if applicable.
OPTION #1 – PAYMENT: Pay the full amount of the fine for each violation within 30 days at any District Court of Maryland, by
mail, or by credit card (fees apply) using the IVR system or the Court Website. If paying by mail, make check or money order
payable to District Court of MD and include citation number(s) on front of check or money order. On the option form below, check
“Pay Fine Amount” for each violation being paid and mail the form with your payment to the address shown for the District Court of
MD.
An additional $10 service fee will be imposed for each dishonored check.
OPTION #2 – REQUEST A WAIVER HEARING REGARDING SENTENCING AND DISPOSITION INSTEAD OF A TRIAL: On the
option form below, check “Request Waiver Hearing” for each violation where hearing is requested, sign and date at bottom and mail the
form within 30 days to the address shown below. DO NOT SEND PAYMENT at this time.
OPTION #3 – REQUEST TRIAL: On the option form below, check “Request Trial” for each violation where Trial is requested, sign, date
at bottom and mail the form within 30 days to the address shown below. DO NOT SEND PAYMENT at this time.

The problem occurs when the person (or their parent!) pays the citation without knowing the consequences. First of all, if any of the tickets is a must appear, then it should absolutely not be paid because a trial date will be scheduled for all the tickets together. The notice on the citation is not clear about this! Even if none of the tickets is a must appear, no ticket should be paid before the person knows everything that will happen at the MVA. And in most cases, people receiving tickets do better by going to court anyway.
Continue reading

by

On May 1, 2013, Leonard Stamm was given the first annual Fred Bennett Zealous Advocacy Award by the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney’s Association (MCDAA). This award will be given annually to the member of MCDAA who best exemplifies the qualities that Fred Warren Bennett possessed which made him a courageous litigator and tireless advocate for criminally accused individuals.

Fred Warren Bennett was the former Federal Defender for Maryland (1980-1992), the Prince George=s County Public Defender (1978-1980), and a full-time Law Professor at Catholic University (1992-1997) before entering private practice in 1998. Among his many high profile clients were accused spies Ronald Pelton and John Walker and several men he represented after they had received death sentences. Fred was an expert on evidence, federal trial practice, and capital defense litigation. He won numerous awards, authored over 30 law related articles and lectured at many Maryland and national criminal defense seminars and was a mentor to a host of prominent Maryland criminal defense lawyers. Fred was incredibly forthright, a character, an incredibly zealous advocate, and a true legend in the Maryland criminal defense bar. Fred Bennett unexpectedly passed away on July 1, 2007.

Continue reading

by

The Supreme Court today announced its opinion in Missouri v. McNeely and ruled that police in DUI investigations may not automatically avoid seeking a search warrant to obtain a blood sample where the defendant does not consent to a blood test. This is the third win as amicus curiae for the National College for DUI Defense which filed an amicus brief with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

The Court said:

In those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so. See McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 456 (1948) (“We cannot . . . excuse the absence of a search warrant without a showing by those who seek exemption from the constitutional mandate that the exigencies of the situation made [the search] imperative”).

It is interesting counting the votes again.

With respect to the proposition that there is no per se DUI exception to the warrant requirement in so far as non-consensual blood tests are concerned, the vote is 8-1 (only Thomas dissented from the holding). Since that was the only basis urged by Missouri for decision, the Missouri Supreme Court was affirmed. Missouri never appealed the question of whether the officer in this case acted reasonably.

As a result, Justice Kennedy wouldn’t touch when and whether it might be reasonable for an officer to get blood without a warrant. He is willing to wait for the next case to do so. In so far as there was a discussion about how to determine when and whether an exigency exists there were 3 votes for kind of a special totality test where if the warrant couldn’t be obtained without any delay at all, then it might not be needed (Roberts, Alito & Breyer). But Sotomayor, Kagan, Scalia and Ginsburg disagreed with this approach.
Continue reading

by

This past Thursday and Friday the National College for DUI Defense held its annual winter session in Scottsdale, Arizona. On Thursday, the seminar featured presentations by Robert Hirshhorn on Voir Dire Gems in DWI Cases, Leonard R. Stamm on The Top 20 Guidelines for Bench Trials, Mimi Coffey on Cross Examination (SFSTs) of the Arresting Officer, Virginia Landry on Cross Examination of the Arresting Officer (nonSFSTs), Josh Lee on Blood Testing – G.C. Theory and Issue Spotting, Phil Price on Breath Testing the Twelve Step Approach, Jess Paul on Retrograde Extrapolation, and Ron Moore on Drug Toxicology Strategies & Issues. On Friday, attendees heard from Doug Murphy with a voir dire demonstration, Ava George Stewart with a demonstration of Cross-Examination of the Arresting Officer (SFSTs), Bruce Edge with a demonstration of Cross-Examination of the Arresting Officer (nonSFSTs), Tim Huey with a demonstration of Cross-Examination of the Toxicologist on Retrograde Extrapolation, Michael Hawkins with a demonstration of Cross-Examination of the Breath Test Technician, and Jim Nesci and Joe St. Louis with a demonstration of Cross-Examination of the Blood Test Technician.
Continue reading

by

Today, the Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Missouri v. McNeely. The case involved police obtaining a blood alcohol test without a warrant. The officer, who had previously had no difficulty obtaining warrants before getting blood samples in DUI cases had mistakenly believed that Missouri law had changed. Because there was nothing unusual about the case, the Missouri Supreme Court distinguished the 1966 Supreme Court case of Schmerber v. California, where due to the delay occasioned by an accident investigation and the defendant’s trip to a hospital, and the dissipation of alcohol in the blood, the Supreme Court allowed a warrantless blood draw. In this case, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the state had failed to show the special circumstances that would have allowed police to skip getting a warrant.

The State of Missouri requested review, posing the following question:

Whether a law enforcement officer may obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream

McNeely was represented in the Supreme Court by Steven Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU. McNeely was supported by a number of amicus briefs, including one filed by the National College for DUI Defense and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and co-authored by Leonard R. Stamm, Jeffrey Green, and Jeffrey Beelaert.
Continue reading

by

This past Wednesday I got a call from a former client, JT, who is from a state where it is legal to travel with a handgun in the car, to help his employee, AJ, who had just been arrested in West Virginia and was awaiting extradition to Maryland. Unlike the state they were from, in Maryland it is illegal to possess or transport a handgun in a car, with very few exceptions. I had represented JT on a handgun charge in Prince George’s County, Maryland and obtained a good result. Prince George’s County takes a hard line on people found illegally possessing a handgun and prosecutes them very aggressively. JT, and his employee, AJ, were driving to a construction job in another state when JT got tired and asked AJ to drive. He did, but when he was pulled over for speeding, police found AJ didn’t have a drivers license. A search of the car yielded the handgun. The gun belonged to JT, it was JT’s car, and AJ didn’t even know it was there.

Initially in District Court at the time of their arrest and release, in late October, 2011, JT was charged with illegally transporting the handgun and AJ was charged with speeding and driving without a license. In early December, both JT and AJ were indicted in Circuit Court for illegally possessing and transporting the handgun. In Maryland when someone who is initially charged in District Court is indicted in Circuit Court, the District Court loses jurisdiction to the Circuit Court and any initial bond that is posted to gain release is supposed to transfer to the new Circuit Court case. In this case when the indictments were returned a Circuit Court judge issued bench warrants and set a $25,000 bond for each as if there had been no District Court bond set and satisfied. That should not have happened.

Since I represented JT, I arranged for a “walk in arraignment,” where the judge recalled the warrant and let him out on his original terms of release. Ultimately JT pleaded guilty to illegally transporting a handgun and received probation before judgment. However, AJ and his lawyer appeared in District Court in February, where he pleaded guilty to speeding and the driving without a license was stetted (postponed indefinitely). Apparently no one ever realized AJ had an outstanding warrant since early December in the same case in Circuit Court, because if they had, they also would have known that the indictment deprived the District Court of jurisdiction over at least one of the charges, driving without a license. Although, as JT’s lawyer, I knew AJ had also been charged, I gave it no thought, because AJ had a lawyer who I assumed was on top of it. This Wednesday when AJ was stopped for a traffic offense in Berkeley County, West Virginia he received a rude awakening. There was an unserved bench warrant for him from Maryland for the gun charges. AJ was jailed pending extradition to Maryland. JT called me to see what I could do.

Continue reading

by

There has been quite a bit of litigation in the past few years on the subject of what witnesses must be produced by the government to prove the results obtained for scientific testing for drugs and/or alcohol. The Supreme Court has taken a case a year on this question, starting with Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009)(no chemist), Briscoe v. Virginia, 130 S. Ct. 1316, 175 L. Ed. 2d 966 (2010)(who must subpoena the witness), Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705, 180 L. Ed. 2d 610 (2011)(substitute chemist), and Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012)(underlying opinion in DNA match). The government usually claims that it is unnecessary to bring these chemists to court because what they are doing is very routine, in the regular course of business, that the results are not really used for their truth (huh?), and that it would be too burdensome to bring these witnesses to court. But as is reported in the following disturbing article, sometimes chemists lie, and lie a lot.

The story, which is reported in the Boston Globe on September 30, 2012, is titled “How chemist in drug lab scandal circumvented safeguards.” According to the article, state drug lab chemist Annie Dookhan has been charged with two counts of obstruction of justice, for falsifying drug test results and for falsifying her academic record. Dookhan is accused of skipping necessary tests (dry-labbing) altering records, contaminating samples, and signing other chemist’s names, placing in jeopardy between 34,000 and 60,000 convictions.

This sad story simply illustrates what we all already know, witnesses are human, and sometimes humans lie. While confronting the lying witness in court may not always or even frequently uncover the lie, to allow a witness who supplies testimony that is critical for a conviction to avoid appearing in court is unfathomable and cannot be justified by simple cost benefit analyses.

Continue reading

by

Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari sought by Missouri in Missouri v. McNeely. McNeely was suspected of DUI when police had blood withdrawn without a warrant. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a warrant was required when the facts fell outside the narrow exception created in Schmerber v. California. See State v. McNeely.

Schmerber allowed a seizure of blood without a warrant due to the exigency created by dissipation of alcohol in the blood where an accident occurred and the suspected driver was taken to the hospital. The Supreme Court said:

We thus conclude that the present record shows no violation of petitioner’s right under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. It bears repeating, however, that we reach this judgment only on the facts of the present record. The integrity of an individual’s person is a cherished value of our society. That we today hold that the Constitution does not forbid the States minor intrusions into an individual’s body under stringently limited conditions in no way indicates that it permits more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions.

Since McNeely was not in an accident and was not taken to the hospital the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the trial court’s holding that a warrant was required.

The question to be addressed by the Supreme Court is whether to uphold the Missouri Supreme Court’s conclusion:

The patrolman here, however, was not faced with the “special facts” of Schmerber. Because there was no accident to investigate and there was no need to arrange for the medical treatment of any occupants, there was no delay that would threaten the destruction of evidence before a warrant could be obtained. Additionally, there was no evidence here that the patrolman would have been unable to obtain a warrant had he attempted to do so. The sole special fact present in this case, that blood-alcohol levels dissipate after drinking ceases, is not a per se exigency pursuant to Schmerber justifying an officer to order a blood test without obtaining a warrant from a neutral judge.

Continue reading

Contact Information
Capital Office Park
6301 Ivy Lane # 504
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
Phone: 301-345-0122
Toll Free: 800-256-8172
Fax: 301-441-4652

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design