Maryland DUI Attorney Blog

Maryland DUI/DWI Lawyer/Attorney Can a person initially refuse to consent to a breathalyzer and then, upon further reflection, withdraw that refusal? And does that withdrawal of the refusal then constitute valid consent? The answer is a qualified yes. According to 16-205.1 of the Maryland Traffic code a person may withdraw an initial refusal to submit to a breathalyzer and then later consent to take a test of breath if the subsequent consent is unequivocal and it does not substantially interfere with the timely and efficacious administration of the the test.

I had a case in Baltimore County that presented this exact situation several months ago. My client was pulled over on I695 for speeding. He admitted to the officer that he had had 3 beers completing the last beer approximately 90 minutes prior to being stopped. He was asked to perform field sobriety tests and consented to do so. He believed that he had performed the tests virtually flawlessly but the State Trooper arrested him anyway. He was taken back to the State Police Barrack where he was read his rights and had the potential consequences of refusing to take the breath test or blowing over .08 explained to him. He initially said refused to consent to the breath test but then requested to use the telephone to contact his attorney.

Continue reading " Withdrawal of Refusal to Consent to Breathalyzer in Maryland DUI/DWI case " »

In many Maryland drinking and driving cases, the decision in Rowe v. State, 363 Md. 483, 769 A.2d 879 (2001) establishes parameters for whether police officers have probable cause to legally stop the driver.

In Rowe, a Maryland State Trooper observed a van being driven in the slow lane of I-95, at about 1:00AM. The trooper followed the vehicle for a little over a mile, and in that span observed it cross over onto the right shoulder about 8 inches, touch the rumble strip, return to the slow lane, and cross over a second time. The trooper then initiated a traffic stop “for the benefit of the driver...because it was late in the evening.” Id. at 428. The officer determined that the driver was not intoxicated, but discovered that he was driving a rental vehicle with an expired rental contract. The officer then searched the vehicle and discovered marijuana, and was issued a warning for failure to drive in a single lane under Trans Art. § 21-309(b) . Suppression of this evidence based on an unlawful stop was denied in the trial court.

The Court of Appeals reversed the denial. The Court stated that “the petitioner’s momentary crossing of the edge line of the roadway and the later touching of that line did not amount to an unsafe lane change or unsafe entry onto the roadway, conduct prohibited by §21-309, and thus, cannot support a traffic stop in this case.” Id. at 441. The Court also stated that a lawful traffic stop may also rest upon reasonable, articulable suspicion, and stated: “A traffic stop may also be constitutionally permissible where the office has a reasonable belief that “criminal activity is afoot.” Whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists to justify a stop depends on the totality of the circumstances.” The Court did not determine that there was other reasonable suspicion.

Continue reading " Probable Cause: Discussion of Rowe v. State " »

Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney I was recently retained to represent a person who is charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, Driving While Impaired, Negligent Driving and Failure to Control Speed to Avoid a Collision. The client was involved in a serious single car accident while driving home from a night out at the bars. He lost control of his car, went off the road and slammed into a telephone pole. He was seriously injured with several broken bones and was transported to shock trauma.

In cases involving motor vehicle accidents in which the suspected drunk driver is injured badly enough to require hospitalization, there is obviously not an opportunity for the investigating officer to request that the suspected drunk driver perform standardized field sobriety tests. In these cases the officer will typically speak to the driver and develop suspicion that the driver is impaired by alcohol based upon his observations. The officer will look for the smell of alcohol, blood shot eyes, slurred speech and other clues that the person is under the influence. If that suspicion is developed the officer will respond to the hospital and request that the driver submit to a test of his blood. The person my refuse to consent unless the accident caused death or life threatening injury, in which case he may be compelled to submit to a blood test.

Continue reading " Blood Tests in Maryland DUI/DWI Cases - Two Types " »

Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney. I blogged several months ago about a Maryland DUI Case that I handled in the District Court for Anne Arundel County in which my client claimed to have performed the field sobriety tests far better than was indicated by the officer in the Statement of Charges. In that case I subpoenaed the video tape from the Maryland State Police Department and it turned out that my client was correct. The officer had exaggerated or outright fabricated poor performance on the field sobriety tests. I introduced the video into evidence at his trial and he was found not guilty.

Today I had a similar case in the District Court for Baltimore City. My client had the misfortune of passing a late model Chevy Malibu at approximately 1:00 AM on Interstate 95 N. just South of the Harbor Tunnel. About the time he pulled even with the Malibu (doing approximately 85MPH) he realized that it was an undercover Maryland Transportation Authority Police car. He was then pulled over and ultimately arrested for DUI, speeding and negligent driving.

Continue reading " Videotaping of Maryland DUI/DWI Cases Should become Standard Procedure for All Police Agencies " »

Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney. In many Maryland Driving Under the Influence (DUI), Driving While Impaired (DWI) cases the issue of a person's Miranda Rights, that is when or if the rights were read, is central to the outcome of the case. In almost every DUI/DWI case, including one that I had this week in Baltimore County Maryland, the person makes incriminating statements throughout the arrest and booking process. In my initial meetings with both DUI/DWI clients as well as clients charged with more serious criminal cases, the issue of Miranda is very frequently raised by the clients. It is also an subject about which nearly everyone is misinformed about when and under what circumstances the police are required to read a person their Miranda Rights.

So, when and under what circumstances are the police required to read a person their Miranda rights? Most people wrongly believe that as soon as a person is placed under arrest, which they almost invariably define as the point at which they are handcuffed, the police are required to read them thier Miranda Rights. Although this is the common procedure on television, it is simply not how it is done in the real world. The police are only required to read a person their Miranda Rights in the context of a custodial interrogation. That means that the person must both be under arrest (or at least in custody) AND be under interrogation by the police. A common question that I get from my clients in DUI/DWI cases is why are the State is allowed to use incriminating statements that they made to the police prior being read their rights.

Continue reading " Where You Read Your Rights? Miranda Rights in a Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Impaired Case " »