Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
Published on:

By

image-13-200x300State Troopers recently arrested an Ocean City police officer for numerous traffic violations including DUI and reckless driving.  The 28-year-old officer, who is a member of the Traffic Safety Unit, was honored as the 2024 Officer of the Year at a ceremony on February 8, 2025.  Exactly one year later he was arrested for drunk driving at 3 a.m. down by the boardwalk.  The full details of the arrest are not part of the public record at this time, as DUI cases are generally initiated by serving citations upon the driver and then releasing him or her to a sober friend or family member.  A driver who is charged with DUI by way of citation will be arrested but not booked into the local jail. Therefore, the arresting officer is not required to generate a statement of charges that would establish probable cause for the arrest.  These statement of charges documents describe the criminal incident and are part of the public record.  They are required in order for a defendant to be booked into jail with a few exceptions to include failure to appear or probation violation bench warrants and arrest warrants.  Statement of charges documents can be viewed at the courthouse by any member of the public as long as the defendant is not under the age of 18.  This of course includes the media, who often obtain statements by going to the closest courthouse and printing them out at the clerk’s office.  In this particular case we will likely have to wait until a court appearance to find out what exactly transpired at 3 a.m. in downtown Ocean City this past weekend, as the only documents in the court file in this type of case would be the citations.  Since the defendant is a police officer there was a request to shield his address from the public record, so the public would likely not be able to even view the original citations.

What we do know is the officer was charged with a total of seven traffic violations.  Three of these violations carry jail time, with the DUI charge having the highest maximum penalty of up to one year in jail.  The officer is facing up to 60 days in jail for DWI and reckless driving.  The remaining four citations carry a fine and possible points, as they are all classified as moving violation including driving the wrong way down a one-way street, which is a common cause for a DUI traffic stop in Ocean City, Baltimore City and downtown Frederick where numerous one-way streets tend to confuse buzzed drivers.  As a member of the Traffic Safety Team, the officer/defendant was tasked with overseeing collision reconstruction investigations.  In 2024 he issued more than 500 traffic citations and 300 warnings to go along with his 62 arrests.

Like most cases where police officers have been charged, the local State’s Attorney’s Office has recused itself from the prosecution due to the relationship between the OCPD and the Worcester County SAO.  The Caroline County State’s Attorney’s Office has stepped in to handle the prosecution and the main district court judge in Snow Hill has recused himself due to the fact that he is a former Worcester County prosecutor.  A visiting judge will likely preside over the case when the trial date rolls around.  The Blog will continue to follow this and may post a follow up article after the case is resolved.  If the officer is found guilty or granted probation before judgement for DUI or DWI he will be required to install an interlock device on his vehicle and obtain a restricted ‘interlock only” license.  He may be able to obtain a work exception that would allow him to drive a police cruiser without interlock, but it is unclear whether the Ocean City Police Department would allow this.  It does not seem like a good look to have an officer who is on DUI probation and a restricted license to be driving a police vehicle around town.  Maybe there will be an opening on the bike patrol, or maybe he’ll put up a good defense.  Benjamin Herbst is a  Maryland DUI lawyer who handles drunk driving cases in all jurisdictions across the state and in federal court.  In addition to successfully defending those with no prior record, he specializes in representing out-of-state drivers charged with DUI and repeat offenders.  Worcester County is very proud of its DUI conviction rate, though Benjamin earned a 30 minute not guilty verdict in his last Snow Hill DUI jury trial.  Contact Benjamin anytime for a free consultation at 410-207-2598.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By
image-10-200x300In 2023 the Maryland Legislature passed the Gun Safety Act, which among other things, aimed to limit where firearms could legally be possessed within the state.  It was created in large part as response to a Supreme Court decision that upheld rights to possess and carry firearms under the Second Amendment just one year earlier.  Under the Bruen case, the Supreme Court struck down a harsh Maryland restriction on obtaining concealed carry permits, which resulted in the issuance of thousands more permits.  In response, many lawmakers felt the need to strike back by limiting where lawful permit holders could carry their handguns.  Sensitive places exceptions were applied to delineate these no carry zones, but it was only a matter of time before gun rights advocates sued to declare these exceptions an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment.  So called “sensitive places” under Maryland Criminal Law 4-111 include government buildings such as courthouses and state agency buildings like the MVA, public transportation, school grounds, state parks and forests, museums, hospitals and doctor’s offices, stadiums and casinos and locations that sell alcohol. Areas within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration and private property that is held open to the public also fell under sensitive places laws.

The plaintiffs sued to declare these “sensitive places” regulations unconstitutional, while defendants argued the restrictions are in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen and thus legal.  In sum, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit mostly sided with the defendants/appellees and declared the Maryland rules constitutional.  The Court unanimously upheld gun restrictions within government buildings, schools and healthcare facilities.  Gun bans within 1,000 feet of public demonstrations, on public transportation, in state parks, places that sell alcohol (bars and restaurants), museums, stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks and casinos are constitutional, but the holding was not unanimous. The Court struck down the Maryland provision that prohibits gun possession on private property held open to the public.

Maryland has strict laws regarding who can wear, transport or carry a firearm under Criminal Law section 4-203.  A violation of this law carries up to 5 years in prison for a first offense and up to 10 years for repeat offenders.  Criminal Law 4-203 applies to all places outside of the home, including vehicles.  Naturally, these prohibitions apply to sensitive places as well.  As a result, the sensitive places restrictions really only apply to those who have taken all the necessary steps (passing background checks and safety courses) to obtain a wear and carry permit.  So called “gun safety” lobbyists and politicians have lauded this decision as a major victory, but the questions remains whether these restrictions actually make us safer.  Gun crimes are overwhelming committed by those who are not licensed to carry, and a large percentage are committed by those who are prohibited under state and federal law from even possessing a firearm in the first place due to criminal convictions and age restrictions.  Far less than 1 percent of gun crimes are committed by those with a wear and carry permit, making this appeals court victory more of a political statement than a practical and substantive outcome.
Continue reading →
Published on:

By

 image-8-201x300A 35-year-old man from Baltimore was recently sentenced to 6 years in federal prison for illegal possession of a firearm.  The defendant was on federal supervised release at the time of the offense, which is the federal term for probation, and therefore was also found violation of that supervised release.  He was sentenced to two years in federal prison for the probation violation, which will be served consecutively for a total of 8 years to be served in prison.  The original probation case stemmed from a 2018 charge for illegal possession of a firearm, the same offense he was found guilty of earlier this year.

According to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland the man was pulled over for a traffic violation on Loch Raven Blvd. in northeast Baltimore in March of 2023.  During trial police officers testified that the man was moving in his seat prior to officers approaching the vehicle.  These so-called furtive movements aroused law enforcement suspicion and led police to order the man out of the vehicle.  Police immediately located a 9 mm handgun loaded with eight rounds of ammunition on the driver’s seat directly underneath the defendant’s legs and placed him under arrest.  Officers did not need separate probable cause to search the vehicle because the gun was observed in plain view upon ordering the driver out of the vehicle.  Police are afforded the ability to order an occupant out of a vehicle during a traffic stop for officer safety reasons, and this is not considered a detention that requires PC of a crime.  The reason for the stop would still have to be valid under the reasonable suspicion standard.  After the Baltimore Police Department arrested the defendant, the feds were notified and eventually took over prosecution of the case with the assistance of the ATF.

This case serves as a constant reminder that the feds are highly willing to pick up state cases involving illegal possession of a firearm.  When most people think of federal prosecutions they think of multi-state criminal conspiracies, financial fraud or drug trafficking, but unlawful firearm possession continues to be a hot button issue in Baltimore City and the Washington D.C. Metro areas.  This particular case was ripe for federal prosecution due to the defendant already being on federal probation, but we continue to see a large number of gun cases prosecuted in federal court.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

handcuffs-2102488__480-300x169Over the last several years Maryland lawmakers have prioritized reforming the juvenile justice system and we are likely to see another push to reform in the 2026 session.  Juvenile justice became a major hot button issue in Maryland post-Covid, as lawmakers have scrambled to address frequent news headlines ranging from dangerous juvenile detention practices to serious crimes alleged to have been committed by children as young as 10 years old.  In 2021 lawmakers banned life without parole for minors and opened up the possibility of sentence reductions in cases where defendants have served more than 20 years.  In 2022 lawmakers passed the Juvenile Justice Reform Act, which prohibited the State from prosecuting children under the age of 13 unless it was for a violent felony.  Lawmakers also stripped police of their ability to interrogate a child without a lawyer present regardless of a voluntary Miranda waiver.

The Juvenile Justice Reform Act was a short-lived victory as juvenile crime spiked to historic levels in Maryland.  In 2023 it seemed there were weekly news stories about 10–12-year-olds committing thefts and other misdemeanors that the police could not charge.  In one instance a child was accused of a dozen motor vehicle thefts but could not be prosecuted and brought to court.  As a result, lawmakers had no choice but to walk back the reforms and allow for prosecutions of children 10 and over by passing the 2024 Juvenile Law Reform Act.

In 2026 we may see the pendulum shift yet again toward limiting the powers of police and prosecutors.  This time a state senator from Montgomery County is pushing to end mandatory adult criminal court original jurisdiction for certain offenses committed by 16- and 17-year-old defendants.  Under current Maryland law a 16- and 17-year-old minors charged with gun crimes such as possession of a firearm by a minor and violent offenses such as armed robbery, first-degree assault and felony sex offenses must be charged as adults.  These juveniles are often held in custody unless granted release by a District or Circuit Court Judge at a bail review or habeas corpus hearing and face a long drawn out process to obtain a reverse waiver transfer to juvenile court.  In some jurisdictions these transfer proceedings can take close to 6 months.  Some 85% of these cases are eventually transferred or dismissed, many times after the youth has been incarcerated for several months, which has sparked debate about fundamental fairness and judicial economy.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

image-7-201x300Crime on the campuses of Maryland’s largest colleges and universities has risen considerably over the last several years leaving students, faculty and visitors feeling uneasy about parking their vehicles overnight or taking a late-night stroll.  Federal law requires any institute of higher learning that participates in federal financial aid to a reported crime statistics on or campus.  These statistics are helpful to ensure colleges properly maintain an adequate police force and to remind residents and visitors remain vigilant.  All schools are supposed to be safe spaces, but these crime statistics are hard to ignore.  From 2023 to 2024 reported crime on our state’s colleges rose 14%, and since 2019 the overall increase in crimes sits at a whopping 55%.  These statistics include thefts, assaults, hate crimes, hazing, domestic violence, drug crimes and weapons offenses.  Despite the steady increase in reported crime, there were still less than 800 reported criminal incidents on the 21 included Maryland college campuses in 2024.  While 800 is not a huge number, the data may still prove valuable as the state does not always do a great job of providing useful and accurate crime statistics.

The most common reported crime on campuses is theft, which saw a 42% increase from 2023 to 2024.  Of these thefts, the majority involved vehicles including cars and electric scooters.  More than one third of all college campus crime involved vehicle thefts at the University of Maryland College Park.  Electric scooters and bikes have grown exponentially in popularity, and their value makes them an obvious theft target.  Anyone who owns an electric bike or scooter should take precautions including GPS tagging and commercial grade locks.  Incidents of violent crime also increased in the last year, but fortunately not as drastically as thefts.  Last year saw a 6% increase in violent crime and a 22% increase since 2019.  The largest number of violent criminal incidents occurred at Johns Hopkins University’s Homewood Campus in Baltimore City.  These violent crime numbers do not include sexual offenses.  Hopkins was quick to point at that all but 4 of the 17 aggravated assaults in 2024 occurred on off-campus property though these adjacent areas are all traversed daily by students and visitors.  Clearly the bulk of the incidents are occurring in the more urban settings of JHU and UMCP, but no campus is immune to criminal activity.

The Blog will continue to follow these college campus statistics and may post a follow up article as more schools respond to the alarming trend.  We will also post crime statistics articles as they become available, though keep in mind that the data is often released well after the year ends.  If you have a question about a criminal law or an active criminal case, contact Maryland defense lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation.  Benjamin specializes in crimes such as assault, domestic violence, theft and burglary and is available 7 days a week to provide a free consultation.  He is an experienced Maryland DUI lawyer who has successfully handled dozens of criminal and traffic offenses on college campuses such as University of Maryland College Park, Towson University, UMES and Salisbury University.  Benjamin also has extensive experienced representing cases arising from incidents at Frostburg University in Allegany County.  He can be reached at 410-207-2598 to discuss your case and the possible defenses that may be available to you.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By
image-6-201x300Anne Arundel County Police recently arrested a 24-year-old Glen Burnie man for felony assault after he and another suspect attempted to rob an individual on Furnace Branch Road.  According to reports the victim was approached shortly after 7 p.m. by two individuals, one of whom displayed what looked like a handgun.  The individuals demanded money from the victim though he refused to comply, and the suspects ran off.  Police were called and officers quickly were able to identify and detain two suspects matching the description of the assailants.  In addition to assault in the first degree, the defendants now face robbery, reckless endangerment, second-degree assault and firearm use in a crime of violence charges.  The Glen Burnie man is being held at the county jail after he was denied bail by a Maryland District Court Judge.  A preliminary hearing is currently set for early November in Annapolis, but the case will likely be forwarded to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County by way of indictment or criminal information before the preliminary date.

The Blog will continue to follow this case and may post a follow up article in the future when it is resolved.  In the meantime, this fact scenario presents an interesting legal question, which we often encounter in Maryland courts.  Can a person be charged with armed robbery when using a BB gun or other type of replica firearm?  First off, there is no charge named armed robbery in the Maryland criminal code and there is no charge for attempted robbery.  A person who is accused of taking or attempting to take something of value with force will either be charged with robbery or robbery with a dangerous weapon.  It would be less confusing if lawmakers used the term armed robbery like they use armed carjacking, but they mean the same thing.  Under Maryland law a dangerous weapon is defined as an object that is capable of causing death or serious bodily harm.  Courts have consistently ruled that BB guns can cause bodily harm because they shoot a projectile, so a person can be charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon when a BB or airsoft gun is used.  On the other hand, a person cannot be charged with a felony first-degree assault for using a BB gun unless the victim suffered serious physical injury.  The law regarding first-degree assault requires the State to prove the gun was a firearm, which is a device that uses an explosive to expel a projectile.  BB guns generally use springs or compressed air to expel projectiles, so they are not firearms.

It is a separate question whether a replica toy gun is considered a dangerous weapon, and the answer to this question may be up to the finder of fact.  If the toy gun was a hard metal object a jury could easily consider it a dangerous weapon that could cause injury.  On the other hand, if the replica was a plastic toy or water gun there would be a good argument that it is not a dangerous weapon.  Once again, replica or toy guns could not be used to support a felony assault charge absent serious physical injury.  BB guns and replicas also can’t be the basis for a charge of use of a firearm in a crime of violence.  The fact that this defendant was charged with use of a firearm in a crime of violence and it’s mandatory 5-year sentence seems unjust.  Hopefully the judge did not consider this count when deciding bail.
Continue reading →
Published on:

By

image-5-225x300Montgomery County Police officers recently arrested a 67-year-old man after he was pulled over while driving a van with activated flashing blue and red lights.  The Montgomery Village man’s Ford also sported the words police and the insignia of HAPCOA, which is the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association.  Upon being approached by the stopping officer, the driver responded attempted to explain that he was a former police officer and then declared that he was working with authority from the Maryland Secretary of State.  This explanation did not satisfy the officer, who later ordered the driver out of his vehicle and immediately placed him in handcuffs for possessing a weapon, which turned out to be a replica.  Search of the vehicle incident to arrest revealed numerous law enforcement related items including a ballistic vest, shirt labeled “HAPCOA POLICE”, baton, taster in a holster, handcuffs, Baltimore City Police badge and police tape.  The man was arrested for impersonating a police officer and was taken to the Montgomery County Detention Center.  He was also issued multiple traffic citations for driving with flashing lights without authorization and driving with visible blue lights, which are payable citations.

Despite the serious nature of the offense, a District Court Commissioner made the appropriate decision to release the defendant on an unsecured bail, so he did not have to spend the night in jail.  His case is currently set for trial in mid-October at the Rockville District Court, though it remains to be seen if the case will be resolved on that day.  It does appear that a motion to suppress evidence was filed, which means the defense may try to argue that the arrest was unlawful, and thus the search incident to arrest that revealed all the police paraphernalia should be excluded.  Motions to suppress are typically argued on the day of trial in district court cases, when all witnesses are scheduled to be present.

The Maryland Public Safety Code section 3-502 describes three main scenarios where a person could be charged with impersonating a police officer.  The first is when a person is accused of falsely representing themselves as a police officer with fraudulent design.  It is not completely clear whether the driver identified himself as a police officer but upon hearing the full interaction on body worn camera a judge or jury could make this conclusion.  They would then have to also conclude that the identification as law enforcement was done with fraudulent design.  It is not illegal to simply advertise yourself as police, as this type of language, without more, could be considered protected speech under the First Amendment.  The second type of police impersonation occurs if a person is accused of wearing, displaying or simply having a police badge, shield, patch or identification that is used by police officers in the state of Maryland.  This portion statute would appear to apply to this case, though if the search is deemed to have been unlawful then the police badge would not be admissible in evidence.  Finally, the State can prove a police impersonation case by offering evidence that a defendant possessed or used an imitation police article for the purpose of deception.  The defendant in this case clearly used police style lights and possessed numerous imitation police equipment, but the issue for the fact finder would be whether these items for possessed or used for the purpose of deception.  We have dealt with numerous police impersonation cases where a driver is accused of using police lights to frighten or intimidate another driver or even effectuate a fake traffic stop.  If proven, these types of acts would qualify as deception.  However, in this case the man appeared to simply be driving with his imitation police lights, which without more, may not satisfy the deception prong.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

image-4-225x300A Virginia man was recently indicted in the Circuit Court for Saint Mary’s County after he crashed his car at the Maryland International Raceway.  Thankfully, the 37-year-old was a spectator and not a participant in any of the drag races at the Mechanicsville track.  According to reports an off-duty state trooper working security at the track responded to a multi vehicle crash involving a SUV and a parked recreational vehicle.  The defendant apparently crashed his Chevy Suburban into the unoccupied RV shortly before the off-duty trooper arrived.  Upon contacting the driver, the trooper allegedly observed the defendant to have glassy, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech.  These are the initial signs of driving under the influence, and almost all DUI reports will contain this standard language (even if not true).  At some point during the interaction the trooper observed in a firearm in plain view on the driver’s side floorboard of the vehicle.  This alone would have given the trooper probable cause to detain the driver, but it appears that field sobriety tests were administered before the arrest.

As with all gun cases the trooper contacted the gun center to determine if the defendant had a valid concealed carry permit.  Not only was he carrying without a valid Maryland permit, but he was also prohibited from possessing a firearm due to a 2011 assault conviction.  This took the case from a misdemeanor wear, transport and carry case to a felony unlawful possession of a firearm charge.  Under the Maryland Public Safety Code section 5-133 a person found in possession of a firearm after being a convicted felon or having a conviction for misdemeanor assault faces up to 15 years in prison for having a gun.  The first 5 years is without parole, but there is one exception that does appear to apply to this defendant.  If a person completes his or her sentence (including probation) more than 5 years before the new case, then the 5-year prison term is not mandatory.  This defendant was convicted of assault in 2011, which means he was likely off parole and/or probation more than 5 years ago.

Upon being placed under arrest the defendant was taken back to the barracks and offered a breathalyzer test.  He consented to the test and blew .16, which is twice the legal limit of .08.  The arresting officer issued 5 total citations including DUI, DUI per se, DWI, reckless driving and negligent driving.  Maryland State Troopers often add reckless and negligent tickets in their drunk driving stops, and all law enforcement officers usually charge both DUI and DWI.  DUI per se is charged when a defendant blows over .08 on the breathalyzer.  Defendants in Maryland DUI cases typically face several citations, and in some cases, it could be as many as 10 or more.  In reality a good defense strategy should result in most of the citations being dismissed, so it’s best not to pay the payable citations before court.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Gun-evidence-box-300x225The U.S. Attorney’s Office recently announced the guilty plea in an online firearms trafficking operation that involved multiple federal law enforcement agencies.  According to facts uncovered in at the plea hearing the ATF and the United States Postal Inspection Service began investigating the illegal sale of firearms and machinegun conversion devices on social media.  These machinegun conversion devices (MCD) have been a major point of emphasis for both federal and state law enforcement over the last few years.  The most common device is widely known as a “Glock Switch” due to the fact that it can easily be attached to Glock brand handguns.  Glock switches can be fabricated using 3D printers and, despite being small and cheap to produce, can make a handgun exponentially more deadly.  MCDs can easily transform a semi-automatic handgun into a machinegun with a few snaps of the finger, and when combined with large capacity magazines, can spray upwards of 30 rounds in a matter of seconds.  On top of this, it is almost impossible to accurately fire a handgun fitted with a MCD, which adds to the deadliness of the device.

Machinegun conversion devices are classified as machineguns under the National Firearms Act.  26 U.S. Code and 18 U.S. Code define machinegun s as any weapon that is designed to automatically shoot more than one round by a single function of the trigger.  In other words, holding down the trigger one time to expel multiple bullets. Possession of a MCD can lead to felony firearm offense charges even if there is no gun or ammo recovered from the defendant.  The production of MCDs is similar to that of ghost guns, and the two make a deadly combination that has the full attention of law enforcement.

In this case, the defendant, a 26-year-old man from Frederick intercepted a package after tracking its sale on social media.  Postal inspectors intercepted the package that was addressed to the defendant and obtained a search warrant to open the parcel.  Investigators then discovered a Glock .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun with an illegal extended magazine containing 30 rounds of ammunition.  Police used this evidence to obtain an additional search warrant for the defendant’s home in Frederick County.  Execution of this search warrant revealed an additional 10 mm Glock handgun, 400 rounds of ammunition and three Glock Switches.  Also seized were multiple gun cases, ghost gun boxes and over $20 in cash.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

image-3-225x300In January the playoff game between the Ravens and the Steelers came to an unexpected halt.  At first, fans believed the extended timeout was due to a television issue.  As the stoppage continued some spectators were able to see a small green light overhead the stadium but there was still no official word about the delay.  Play finally resumed around the time that social media posts picked up on the fact that someone had been flying an unauthorized drone over the stadium.  That someone, a 43-year-old Baltimore man, was eventually arrested and charged with knowingly and willfully violating national defense airspace under 49 United States Code section 40103(b)(3).  This statute is designed to protect large gatherings of people and violations are punishable by up to 1 year in jail.  On the date of the game the FAA put a temporary flight restriction over the Ravens stadium, which per the plea was willfully violated by the defendant.  According to the United States Attorney’s press release, flight restrictions are common over NFL, MLB and college football stadiums beginning 1 hour before the game and ending 1 hour after.  Flight restrictions are also instituted at large auto racing venues.

Based on facts that were uncovered at the plea and sentencing hearing in the Baltimore federal courthouse, both the FBI and the Maryland State Police tracked the drone’s flight path and responded to the area where it landed.  Although nobody was at the location where the drone landed law enforcement was able to track the movement of the suspect and eventually showed up at his residence to make the arrest.  Police were able to recover 7 pictures taken by the drone from over 400 feet above the playing field, which prosecutors used as evidence in support of the plea.  Recently a U.S. District Court Judge sentenced the defendant to 1 year of probation, 100 hours of community service and a $500 fine.  The defendant is no stranger to the court system, as he has several prior criminal contacts including a conviction for CDS distribution in Baltimore City and illegal possession of a regulated firearm in Baltimore County.  He was also found guilty of violating a protective order and granted probation before judgment.

While this case is hardly the crime of the century, it is an example of the of the government’s motivation to prosecute cases involving the use of drones.  Drones have become increasingly more sophisticated, capable and easier to acquire due to advances in technology, and this presents an issue when dealing with protected airspace such as military installations and large outdoor gatherings.  State and federal law enforcement face a tough challenge going forward to assure the safety of the public when it comes to civilian drone use, and a case such as this will ideally serve as a deterrent to potential offenders.  The Blog will continue to follow these relatively new types of prosecutions and may post a follow up article if state lawmakers decide to address drone use in the next legislative session.  If you have been charged with a crime in state or federal court, contact Maryland criminal defense lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation.  Benjamin specializes in defending federal citations from Fort Meade, NSA and the BW Parkway and is highly familiar with the workings of the Greenbelt and Baltimore City courthouses.  He handles all types of charges from firearm possession at a federal facility to DUI and is available 7 days a week for a free consultation at 410-207-2598.

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 – 2026, Benjamin Herbst, Esq.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design