Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
Published on:

By

atm-313958_1280-300x200Federal law enforcement officers have arrest two more suspects in an ATM theft and robbery scheme that allegedly resulted in over $8 million in ill-gotten gains.  The two suspects from Prince George’s County were brought before a federal magistrate judge and held without bond on charges of conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery.  During the detention hearings the government alleged that both defendants were part of a group that had targeted over 75 ATM machines in the Delaware, Maryland and Virginia area since 2023.  According to a detention memo filed by the government, the group allegedly used high powered tools such as gas-powered saws and Jaws of Life machines to pry open the ATMs and steal the cash.  These ATM machines were primarily located in 7-Eleven stores, and the group apparently hit multiple stores in one night.  The memo also laid out the common method in which the group would carry out the robberies and included using radios to communicate and splitting the responsibilities between opening the ATMs, destroying surveillance and subduing employees.  Federal prosecutors emphasized that many of these robberies were carried out with firearms, and that search warrants executed on the suspect’s homes and storage units produced multiple handguns and rifles.

Numerous other defendants have been arrested and charged in this ATM theft and robbery scheme, but there have been additional reported incidents that are not related to this group.  Both the Prince George’s and Montgomery County Police Departments have been on high alert for the past year or so, and PG County has a dedicated detective unit assigned to ATM thefts.  A few months ago, another defendant was arrested for allegedly robbing eight 7-Elevens in Prince George’s County.  This 31-year-old man from Upper Marlboro is facing a 44-count indictment in the PG County Circuit Court that is apparently not related to the federal conspiracy.  He is currently held without bond at the detention center and is set for trial in April after several prior trial dates had been postponed.  Since his arrest there have been additional incidents involving ATM thefts in the area.  Recently a pair of suspects backed a 15-passenger van into a Montgomery County 7-Eleven and then loaded the entire cash machine in the back as they stepped over a mix of shattered glass and junk food.  This incident would likely be charged as a theft and malicious destruction of property and not a robbery.  If the store was occupied the defendants could conceivably be charged with reckless endangerment and even first-degree assault depending on the location of the individuals in the store.  Robbery requires that the defendants assert some sort of force over another person to carry out the theft, and in most cases the penalty for robbery and armed robbery is significantly higher than theft.

The Blog will continue to follow this incident and other cases involving ATM theft in the area.  We will post a follow up article if any newsworthy developments come out of the state or federal courthouses in Upper Marlboro, Rockville or Greenbelt.  If you have been charged or are being investigated for robbery anywhere in Maryland contact Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation.  Benjamin is a theft and robbery lawyer who has extensive experience with juvenile criminal defense and gun charges.  He represents clients in state and federal court and is available 7 days per week for a free consultation.  Benjamin is also available on short notice for bail reviews and detention hearings and specializes in probation violation defense in all Maryland jurisdictions.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Gun-evidence-box-300x225The Maryland State Board of Education recently voted in favor an emergency measure designed to mandate school administrators be informed when a student has been convicted or charged with serious crime.  The emergency measure came in response to a 17-year-old Howard County student being found with a loaded ghost gun in his backpack after he was arrested on a warrant for murder.  School administrators from Howard County were not informed that this student had been previously accused of attempted murder in another unrelated case and was attending classes while wearing a GPS ankle monitor issued by the Department of Juvenile Services.  This student transferred from Anne Arundel County schools to Howard High, and during the transfer process neither principal nor the Howard County superintendent were informed of the student’s criminal background.  The student reportedly would not have been allowed to attend classes in person had administration known about his past.

Previous regulations gave the original school system discretion about what information to share with the new school system, but now the sharing is mandatory for serious offenses including robbery, carjacking and sex crimes.  It took an alarming incident for changes to be implemented, and the Howard High community is still reeling from the recent events that began with a shooting outside of a Columbia office building on October 5.  The defendant was arrested at Howard High 10 days after the shooting and charged as an adult with first degree murder.  He will also face charges for possessing an illegal regulated firearm on school property.  Police say the firearm was a ghost gun with no serial number and a large capacity magazine.  These firearms are illegal for anyone to possess, and Maryland law prohibits large capacity magazines and anyone under the 21 from possessing a firearm.  The Maryland Public Safety Code also prohibits anyone under the age of 30 with a qualifying record of juvenile delinquency from possessing a firearm.

In addition to the Board of Education coming under fire, there has also been an outcry of criticism directed toward the Department of Juvenile Services and its leadership.  Concerned citizens are questioning why the 17-year-old student was out of custody in the first place, much less attending classes at a public high school.  DJS seemed to deflect responsibility about reporting requirements to the police and the State’s Attorney’s Offices, who are required to report certain information to schools.  They also noted that juveniles are detained by DJS when charged with certain high-risk category 1 offenses, but it is then the judge’s call whether to release or hold at a detention hearing on the next business day.  Ultimately it is up to lawmakers to develop policy where decisions are not left up to DJS officials who can find themselves choosing between unlawful disclosure of juvenile records and protecting the public.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

IMG_7858-e1515083729598-225x300A Montgomery County man was arrested over the weekend in North Carolina after he allegedly stole an 87-year-old Veteran’s car with his dog inside.  Reports indicate that the defendant forcibly took the victim’s keys from his pocket before stealing his car and dog from the parking lot of a Pennsylvania retail store.  Pennsylvania authorities charged the defendant with carjacking and theft and had been searching for him for over a week before he surfaced more than 500 miles away.  North Carolina authorities received a call about a suspicious Ford Focus with Pennsylvania plates and as they encountered the suspect vehicle it become clear that the car was stolen.  After attempting a traffic stop the defendant sped away, allegedly reaching speeds of more than 100 mph on Interstate 95 before crashing from police executed a PIT maneuver.  The PIT maneuver is also known as tactical vehicle intervention and is an effective but controversial method for police to disable a fleeing vehicle by forcing it into a spin.  Luckily there were no injuries from the high-speed chase, but North Carolina officers did allege the defendant intentionally rammed a police vehicle.  As a result, the defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon along with felony hit and run and reckless driving.  He is currently incarcerated in North Carolina and will eventually be extradited to Pennsylvania and ultimately Maryland.

It turns out that the defendant has numerous criminal contacts within Maryland and was recently incarcerated at the Montgomery County Detention Center just weeks before this multi-state crime spree that left at 87-year-old Vet without his pet and sidekick.   The defendant was placed on probation in Frederick County for unauthorized removal of a motor vehicle this past March.  His probation judge issued a violation of probation bench warrant in July and then he was arrested in August for theft and false statement to a law enforcement officer.  Despite the VOP warrant and the new pending case he was released by a Montgomery County District Court judge on an unsecured bail.  Three weeks after his release he received another criminal charge for theft but was issued a citation and never arrested.  The alleged carjacking in Pennsylvania occurred just 4 days after the theft citation.

The defendant may not face a Maryland judge for months or even years as it seems his situations in North Carolina and Pennsylvania are far more serious.  He will most likely miss his three court dates in Maryland and be issued failure to appear bench warrants.  The warrants will serve as detainers and Maryland will be notified before he is released from any sentences served out-of-state.  When he was incarcerated in Montgomery County back in August the defendant certainly had a valid argument for release on the violation of probation and the theft charge.  Neither of the cases were violent in nature and the bail review judge could never have predicted the defendant would make the jump from theft to carjacking and aggravated assault in a matter of weeks.  Nevertheless, these are the kind of cases that judges hate and are a large reason why so many defendants are held without bail at the district court level.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

firearm-409000__480-200x300Maryland State Police troopers recently arrested a woman for allegedly pointing a gun from her BMW SUV at another motorist in Prince George’s County.  The 37-year-old woman was arrested at her home the day after the alleged road-rage incident and charged with two counts of first-degree assault, one count of second-degree assault, use of a firearm in a crime of violence and loaded handgun in vehicle.  She was held without bail by a District Court Commissioner but granted release on private home detention at her bail review in front of a judge.  According to the MSP press release the woman allegedly pointed a firearm at another driver on Route 5 in PG County.  The other driver apparently had a child in the vehicle at the time of the incident.  Law enforcement officers were able to locate the suspect’s vehicle at her residence later that day and seized two loaded handguns from the BMW.  MSP also stated that the woman attempted to destroy evidence by smashing her cell phone during a police interview, though she was not charged with obstruction of justice or tampering with evidence.

The defendant is set for a preliminary hearing in October at the Upper Marlboro District Courthouse.  The preliminary hearing will likely not occur, as they rarely do in Prince George’s County.  The State will likely nolle pros. the case on the preliminary date and then indict the matter in the circuit court.  It does not appear that the defendant has any prior convictions in Maryland, so her defense lawyer may be able to argue for the felony assault to be dropped assuming the State can prove its case.  The defendant must also focus on the charge for use of a firearm in a crime of violence, which is classified as a misdemeanor but carries a harsh 5-year mandatory sentence and a 20-year maximum penalty.   The State and eventually the judge will certainly be concerned about the presence of firearms on a public highway and the fact that a child was inside the victim’s car.  There may not be any direct proof that the gun was loaded at the time of the alleged assault, though the State may be able to establish this based on circumstantial evidence that it was loaded at the time police executed the search and seizure.

Under Maryland law a person can be charged with felony first-degree assault for causing or attempting to cause serious physical injury, strangling another person or committing an assault with a firearm.  In firearm cases like this one, the defendant does not have to discharge the gun or use it to strike the victim to be charged.  The only requirement is that the defendant commit a simple assault with a firearm, which can be any act that places the victim in fear of immediate harm.  If you have been charged or are being investigated for assault or use of a firearm, contact Maryland gun crimes attorney Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation.  Benjamin specializes in aggravated assault with a firearm, domestic assault, possession of a firearm by a disqualified person or convicted felon and use of a handgun in a crime.  He is available on short notice for bail reviews in all Maryland counties and can file a motion to recall your arrest warrant or bench warrant if you have missed court.  Contact Benjamin 7 days a week at 410-207-2598 and learn what defenses may be available in your Maryland gun charge.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

adult-1866883_1280-300x225Back in January MDTA Police Officers responded to a serious accident on the Queen Anne’s County side of the westbound span of the Bay Bridge.  Upon arrival shortly before 8 a.m. police determined the crash involved 23 separate vehicles with 12 individuals requiring immediate medical attention.  The westbound span was closed for about 5 hours as investigators and first responders cleared the scene and provided all necessary medical attention.  After that, we did not hear much about the incident until recently when investigators and the State’s Attorney for Queen Anne’s County made the decision to charge the person allegedly responsible.

According to reports, accident investigators determined that a 48-year-old woman from Queen Anne’s County was the party responsible for the pile up.  The woman was allegedly driving her 2018 Honda Civic at a high rate of speed shortly before she lost control. MDTA crash investigation officers who are part of the Collision Reconstruction Unit have specific training in crash recreation and will use all information available to conclude who was at fault.  The Bay Bridge is a heavily monitored roadway with numerous cameras always recording.  While charges were not filed until several months after the incident, investigators likely zeroed in on their suspect shortly after arrival on scene.  The defendant was ultimately charged by way of criminal information in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County located in Centreville.  A criminal information is simply a document that the State’s Attorney’s Office files with the Clerk of Court to initiate a criminal case.  This document is similar to an indictment but does not require a grand jury or the police to determine probable cause.  In a sense, the criminal information cuts right to the chase, as the office that is prosecuting the case ultimately has final say in which charges will be pursued.  While all the charges filed are misdemeanors, the State chose to file the information in the Circuit Court due to the complexity of the case, and the fact that the defendant would likely ask for a jury trial.  When the State directly files a criminal information, they often ask for an arrest warrant to issue.  In some cases, there is a request for a pre-set bail, while in others the defendant is ordered to be held until being brought before a Circuit Court judge.

The charging document includes 15 counts of both traffic and criminal law violations.  The traffic violations are DUI, DWI, driving on suspended license, reckless and negligent driving.  The defendant is accused of being impaired by alcohol in the 21.902 (a) and (b) violations and impaired by drugs in the 21.902 (c) violations.  The criminal law violations include six counts of causing life threatening injury by vehicle while under the influence, which is a misdemeanor with a 3-year maximum prison sentence.  While the defendant does have a prior impaired driving case, she was granted probation before judgment, so she is not considered a subsequent offender.  Had she been convicted in her 2022 DWI case (also in Queen Anne’s County) the life-threatening injury charges would have carried up to 5 years in prison upon conviction.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

marijuana-1281540_1280-300x225While marijuana has been sold recreationally in Maryland for over a year, the Ocean City town government had been reluctant to play along with the rest of the state.  Recreational marijuana dispensaries opened for business in Maryland on July 1, 2023, but a moratorium on cannabis sales prevented dispensaries from operating anywhere in the town limits of Ocean City.  This week the town government finally lifted the ban with the unanimous passage of a zoning ordinance that aligns the town with the statewide cannabis policy.  Marijuana can now be sold for recreational purposes provided licensed dispensaries are located at least 100 feet from any residentially zoned area and 500 feet from any pre-existing primary or secondary school or childcare facility.  Pot shops must also be more than 500 feet from pre-existing playgrounds, recreational centers, libraries, public parks and places of worship. The town also reserves the right to assure dispensaries are separated by a minimum of 1,000 feet from each other and up to .5 mile.  There is no language in the ordinance that mentions whether dispensaries would be allowed on the famous boardwalk, so it seems this popular area would be open for business.  Licensed dispensaries would be able to operate from 8 in the morning to 11 at night which gives retailers 3 more hours to sell their product.  The previous hours of operation were limited to 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.  Bars in the town are permitted to sell liquor until 2 a.m., and as a result there hasn’t been much resistance from the public for the extended hours.

Alcohol remains a more pressing issue for Ocean City law enforcement, as there were more than 30 DUI arrests in July compared to one marijuana citation during the same period.  As with the rest of the state, it remains to be seen whether opening recreational dispensaries will bring any negative attention to Maryland’s only beachfront town.  Up until now there have been no dramatic public safety consequences of legalizing marijuana for recreational use in Maryland, and there is no reason to think Ocean City would not be able to enjoy the benefit of increased commerce without any potential public safety risk.

The Blog will continue to follow the implementation of recreational cannabis in Ocean City and all other Maryland jurisdictions.  We may post a follow up article in the near future so stay tuned.  If you have a question about the cannabis laws or have been charged with a crime, contact Maryland criminal defense lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation.  Benjamin specializes in drug crimes such as importation of cannabis over 5 kilograms, which is still a felony under Maryland criminal law 5-614.  This offense carries up to 10 years in prison, which jumps to 25 years in prison if the amount is over 45 kilograms.  Benjamin also has extensive experience defending clients charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana in Ocean City and all other Maryland jurisdictions, which is now a misdemeanor under state law.  Defendants who are arrested with a firearm and a large quantity of marijuana are often charged incorrectly with possession of a firearm in a drug trafficking crime, but this charge would not apply unless the facts support an importation charge.  Only felony drug offenses are classified as drug trafficking crimes under Maryland law.  A person could easily face firearm drug trafficking charges if police find a decent amount of cocaine, heroin, meth or MDMA along with a gun, but not for less than 12 pounds of weed.  Contact Ocean City criminal defense lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation about your Maryland drug or gun case at 410-207-2598.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

pexels-jaradahfish-3640451-2-300x200Police in Cecil County recently arrested the owner of a burned-down Elkton crab shack after he allegedly plundered other restaurants in Maryland and Delaware in a misguided attempt to get back on his feet.  The defendant was arrested last week and extradited to Delaware on a warrant shortly thereafter to face theft scheme charges.  He is no longer in custody in Delaware but will be due in court at some point soon.  As of now there are no theft charges in Maryland, which means Delaware may end up prosecuting all the alleged thefts.  Theft crimes can be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the theft originally occurred or in a place where the defendant allegedly took the stolen goods.  For example, if a defendant steals a motor vehicle in Montgomery County and is eventually pulled over in Baltimore County, he or she could face charges in either county, but not both.

The theft scheme was likely hatched after the defendant lost his crab shack to a fire back on July 8.  Typically when we see a restaurant owner arrested after a fire it is due to an allegation of arson, but that does not appear to be the case here. The crab shack was a shack in the truest sense of the word as reports indicated the defendant was running a worn extension cord under the door to a chest freezer inside the kitchen.  There was no electricity inside the kitchen area, so the defendant used propane tanks, which ultimately exploded when the worn cord started emitting sparks.  The explosion was so violent in rocked the defendant’s landlord’s home that was located in front of the shack.  Reports indicate that the landlord agreed to lease the shack to the defendant on the condition that he obtain insurance.  Allegedly the defendant told his landlord he had insurance but did not, which left the landlord the foot the bill for all the damage.  The plot thickened as the defendant allegedly started a fundraising page asking for money to rebuild the shack, when in reality he was not the owner.

The defendant was arrested in Cecil County on August 5, and it appears that he attempted to bring contraband into the Cecil County jail.  Court records show he was he was charged with possession of contraband in a place of confinement by the Sheriff’s Department.  He was issued a summons on this case and not required to post a bond.  This charge requires the State to prove the defendant knowingly possessed contraband, which means he may be able to fight the case by arguing he had no knowledge.  Police always search a defendant immediately after placing them under arrest, but sometimes these searches are not thorough.  Deputy Sheriffs and Correctional Officers will perform a more thorough search before a defendant is booked into jail, and often these searches can yield a small item that can be considered contraband.  It could be a pill or a small piece of a marijuana cigarette that the defendant had no idea was still on his or her person, and if found the detention staff will not hesitate to file charges for contraband introduction.  The defendant is due in court in September for the contraband case and has another pending matter for operating a food establishment without a license scheduled for August.  Both cases are set in the District Court of Maryland for Cecil County located in downtown Elkton.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

handcuffs-354042_640-300x225An 18-year-old Carroll County man with multiple outstanding arrest warrants was recently extradited from Michigan back to Maryland and is now being held in the Wicomico County Detention Center without bail.  Additional charges have been filed since his return and now according to court records he has been charged with committing five criminal offenses in four separate counties on the same day.  In Baltimore County the man is charged with multiple counts of rogue and vagabond and theft alleged to have occurred on May 30, which resulted in a Towson District Court judge issuing an arrest warrant.  The alleged crime spree also ran its course on Eastern Shore where the man allegedly committed additional thefts from motor vehicles, disturbed the peace, and destroyed property.  He was initially issued an arrest warrant out of Queen Anne’s County for rogue and vagabond, theft, malicious destruction of property and disorderly conduct, but now faces felony burglary and theft charges in another case with the same incident date.  As he continued down Route 50 the man allegedly stopped in the Easton area to yet again commit more car burglaries resulting in a Talbot County District Court judge issuing another arrest warrant.

The apparent spree ended in Wicomico County where police allegedly located the man driving a stolen vehicle but were unable to apprehend him as he ditched his ride and fled into the woods.  Shortly thereafter the suspect is accused of breaking into a nearby home and stealing a firearm and a truck.  The resulting charges from his brief time in Salisbury include first degree burglary, felony theft, possession of a firearm by a minor, handgun in vehicle and motor vehicle theft.  This set of charges resulted in the defendant being held without bond, while he was released on this own recognizance in the other three cases.  The Wicomico case also likely played a role in the extradition process, as there is a chance he would not have been brought back to Maryland if the charges were limited to misdemeanor rogue and vagabond, theft and disorderly conduct.  On the other hand, the fact that there were multiple warrants would likely have been motivation enough for someone from a Maryland law enforcement agency to make the trek to Michigan.

The story brings up a few interesting criminal law issues such as the complicated nature of extradition proceedings.  All individuals who are arrested on an out of state warrant have the right to contest their detention and ultimate transfer back to the charging state, but doing so is almost certain to be a losing proposition.  A defendant who contests the extradition process may end up serving additional time without receiving credit for the time served.  Ultimately the only grounds that can be raised are whether there is a warrant and the defendant is actually the person who is sought.  Defendants have no right to challenge the charges or even to attack the existence of probable cause.  Contesting extradition is a lengthy process that only requires the state to produce a warrant signed by the governor.  Hypothetically the state could fail to provide a Governor’s Warrant by the deadline (usually in the range of 90 days) and the defendant could be released but, in most cases, this is not a strategy worth exploring.  This defendant had a short stay in Michigan, which means he almost certainly waived extradition upon being brought before a judge.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

dui2-300x199Wicomico County Sheriff’s deputies recently arrested a 23-year-old Salisbury woman for numerous traffic offenses after she allegedly drove into another person’s home and fled.  Shortly after 5 p.m. dispatch received a call detailing the crash, and when deputies arrived the suspect vehicle was still on the scene.  Despite heavy front end damage to the SUV the woman attempted to flee from police but was stopped a short time thereafter.  The stop however was temporary, as the female suspect was not quite ready to surrender to the law.  After the initial stop she allegedly rammed into a police cruiser and again proceeded to flee.  This time the suspect led police along the Route 50 Bypass for a short while where she lost control of the vehicle and hit a guardrail.   She again tried to run but ultimately was stopped shortly after her second crash.

The young woman was taken to the hospital and released several hours later to the custody of the sheriff’s office.  She was issued a total of 16 traffic citations with several being considered serious.  In Maryland serious traffic matters carry a potential jail sentence while minor infractions are only punishable by fines and points.  The arresting deputy charged the defendant with multiple counts of DUI and driving while impaired by drugs.  One of the citations is for DUI per se, which means she must have submitted to a breath or blood alcohol test that came back above the legal limit of .08.  She is also facing multiple counts of fleeing or eluding an officer, as it appears police are trying to say they were forced to chase the suspect two separate times.  The same is true for leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage.  Police are saying there were two separate accidents as the woman first crashed into the house and then the guardrail.  In both cases it is alleged she failed to stick around to exchange insurance information and render aid.  It does not appear anyone else suffered bodily injury, which means the leaving the scene charges will carry a maximum penalty of 60 days in jail.  Under Maryland law DUI and fleeing from police carry a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail, a $1,000 fine and 12 points upon conviction.  The penalties increase if the defendant has prior convictions (up to 2 years in prison) and if someone was injured.  The penalty for fleeing or eluding police jumps to 3 years in prison if a person suffered bodily injury.  Under Maryland criminal law section 3-211 it is a separate misdemeanor criminal offense to cause life threatening injury while driving a car or boat while under the influence of alcohol.

The defendant in this case has a trial date in late August at the Wicomico County District Court in Salisbury.  The Blog will continue to follow this case to see what a potential plea would look like.  Based on the apparent amount of evidence it does not appear this case would be suited for a trial, especially when considering the sheer number of citations.  In addition to all the serious traffic matters she also faces infractions for reckless driving, speeding and failure to control her vehicle.  If you have been charged or are being investigated for leaving the scene of an accident (hit and run), DUI or fleeing from police contact Maryland traffic lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime at 410-207-2598.  Benjamin specializes in serious traffic matters and will fight to keep you out of jail and back on the road with a valid license.  He is available anytime to offer a free consultation at 410-207-2598 and handles cases in all Eastern Shore jurisdictions including Wicomico County, Worcester County (Ocean City and Snow Hill), Cambridge and Easton.  Benjamin has successfully defended criminal and traffic charges in all 23 Maryland counties plus Baltimore City.  He is also an experienced federal DUI lawyer for those who have been charged by the Park Police, Fort Meade Police and all other military and federal law enforcement agencies.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By
dollar-897092_640-300x300The Maryland Attorney General’s Office recently announced the indictment of three individuals for their alleged roles in an identity theft scheme at an MVA branch in Baltimore City.  The individuals were indicted back in April and the scheme allegedly took place in 2022.  It is not entirely clear why the AG’s Office waited until July to report the indictments, but all three cases are still in the early stages of prosecution.  While all three defendants face felony identity theft scheme and bribery charges, only one defendant has been charged with misconduct in office.  This defendant, a 34-year-old woman from Baltimore City, was a MVA employee at the Reisterstown Road branch office.  She allegedly conspired with two custodians, who were contracted to perform janitorial services at the branch, to sell drivers’ licenses and learners’ permits for cash.

It turns out that one of the custodians allegedly advertised the scheme on Instagram, which seems like a decision she’ll regret. The Instagram post reportedly offered up the licenses and permits for a fee of $600 and included a free test taker for the written portion of the exam.  This test taker was of course one of the co-conspirators who is accused of taking as many as 66 tests under the guise of an actual applicant.  The former MVA employer oversaw the tests and is accused of knowingly allowing her co-conspirator to take the tests for a portion of the proceeds.  Under Maryland law bribery is charged when a person accepts or solicits a bribe.  The two custodians face bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery charges while the former state employee faces one bribery count and the aforementioned misconduct in office charge.

Bribery cases are relatively uncommon in Maryland courts, and as a result tend to be treated with more attention and scrutiny.  Bribery always involves at least two people, and one must be some sort of public employee or officer.  Public employees include those working for state or local government entities.  In cases where a bribe is offered and accepted the public official and the person offering the bribe would generally be charged as co-defendants.  In attempted bribery cases the public employee often reports or arrests the other party on the spot when dealing with police officers.  Bribery and attempted bribery are considered the same offense under Maryland criminal law 9-201.  The maximum penalty for this offense is 12 years in prison including a 2-year mandatory prison sentence.  Since the statute does not specifically say the mandatory portion cannot be suspended there is no mandatory jail sentence in practicality.  Public officials who are accused of accepting bribes with typically face more scrutiny from the court system, but anyone charged with this offense has an uphill battle to stay out of jail and keep a clean record.
Continue reading →
Contact Information
Baltimore Office
400 E Pratt St 8th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: (410) 207-2598

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 © 2015 – 2024, Benjamin Herbst, Esq.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design