Gun Crimes

Published on: May 4, 2026

Carroll County Man Arrested in Restaurant Shooting

Maryland State Police recently arrested a 52-year-old Carroll County man in connection with a shooting outside of a crowded Eldersburg restaurant. The shooting occurred at roughly 9:30 p.m. on a Friday night, and when troopers responded they observed two men suffering from gunshot wounds. The two victims, a 60-year-old man and a 50-year-old man were transported to a trauma center for medical treatment. Troopers also located a suspect in the shooting, who was arrested on the scene without incident. According to the MSP press release, troopers learned that there was an altercation behind the restaurant in question, and that the three involved individuals all knew each other. A firearm was recovered on the scene in glove compartment of the defendant’s golf cart and processed into evidence.

Troopers consulted with the State’s Attorney’s Office for Carroll County and made the decision to charge the suspect with two counts of first degree assault, one count of firearm use in a crime of violence and one count of wearing a handgun while under the influence. This case is unique because the defendant held a valid Maryland Wear and Carry license. Most gun crimes, especially violent crimes, are committed by those who do not have a permit. In fact, many defendants in violent gun crimes are also prohibited from possessing a firearm due to prior criminal convictions or being under the age of 21. The charge of wearing a handgun while under the influence can only be charged when a defendant possesses a valid Maryland permit to wear or carry. This offense is listed under the Public Safety Code in section 5-314. A violation of this offense carries up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine. A conviction or a probation before judgment to this offense will also likely trigger permit suspension or revocation proceedings initiated by the Maryland State Police. Obviously in this case the defendant has bigger issues to deal with; assault in the first degree carries up to 25 years in prison and use of a firearm in a crime of violence carries a 5-year mandatory prison sentence.

From a review of the statement of charges documents it certainly appears this will be a self-defense case. The defendant allegedly told law enforcement that he shot one individual after being choked and was unaware that he shot the other individual. Surveillance camera footage from the restaurant’s back parking lot apparently showed one of the gunshot victims initiating the physical altercation by bear hugging the defendant. Customers in the restaurant were interviewed and reportedly told troopers that the defendant was acting belligerently and that the three individuals left the restaurant to engage in a physical altercation. Most gunshot cases are charged as attempted murder, but based on the charging document it is clear that the State made the correct call in not requesting this charge. Regardless, two counts of first-degree assault and the use of a firearm in a crime of violence present a significant risk for the defendant if the case goes to trial. The defendant was unsurprisingly held without bail by a District Court judge, though he will have a much better shot at release in the Circuit Court.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 27, 2025

Man Indicted for Gun Possession, DUI after Speedway Crash

By Benjamin Herbst

A 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: August 5, 2025

Frederick Man Guilty of Trafficking Firearms

By Benjamin Herbst

The 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: May 13, 2025

Legislative Session Ends With Few Criminal Laws Passing

By Benjamin Herbst

The 2025 Maryland Legislative Session recently came to an end with lawmakers failing to tackle numerous criminal justice issues. Despite the fact that Annapolis lawmakers have repeatedly expressed a desire to address the inundation of ghost guns, no consequential gun legislation landed on the Governor’s desk. Ghost guns have been illegal to possess in Maryland since 2022 unless they are properly serialized and registered. Over the last three years the penalties for illegal possession and the accessibility of the parts have not changed, and police continue to seize ghost guns from juveniles and young adults at an alarming rate.

Just in the last 30 days two teenagers were arrested after ghost guns were found in public schools. The first incident occurred at a Charles County high school at the end of April after a 17-year-old student’s bag was searched due to an overwhelming smell of marijuana. The second incident occurred just this week at Gaithersburg High School when a 15-year-old student was found in possession of a loaded ghost gun. The Blog will continue to follow the ghost gun epidemic, but it is a complex issue since the buying and selling of the materials used to create these firearms will likely remain protected by the Second Amendment.

In addition to the ghost gun issue, there has also been much talk about juvenile justice reform. The legislature has flipped back and forth from passing softer juvenile justice policy to tightening up the system with stricter legislation. This year lawmakers in Annapolis punted on juvenile justice to the disappointment of many who were hoping for crackdowns on increasing juvenile crime.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 27, 2025

Montgomery County Man Sentenced to 5 Years for Gun Possession

By Benjamin Herbst

The United States Attorney’s Office recently announced a 44-year-old man from Silver Spring was sentenced to nearly 5 years in prison for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was also charged with possession of ammunition by a convicted felon due to the firearm being loaded when it was seized by police. According to facts that were recited during the plea agreement, an off-duty police officer with the Riverdale Park Police Department was working as a restaurant security guard when he was informed about a suspicious individual possibly possessing a firearm. A restaurant employee apparently told the off-duty cop that a patron entered the establishment with a fanny pack that potentially contained a gun. The tip was corroborated when two other individuals reported that they had been threatened with a firearm while at the restaurant. Officers responded to the scene and found the suspect by the door to the restaurant’s kitchen. Upon seeing the officers, the suspect fled and discarded the fanny pack as he was running. Police apprehended the suspect and located the fanny pack, which contained a Glock .45 caliber handgun loaded with 8 rounds of ammunition. Police later determined that the suspect was prohibited from possessing a firearm due to a prior felony conviction.

While the criminal acts in this case occurred in Prince George’s County, the man was prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland rather than in Upper Marlboro at the PG County Circuit Court. All federal criminal cases from the southern portions of Maryland including PG County, Charles County, St. Mary’s County and the Eastern Shore are prosecuted in the Greenbelt Courthouse, which is where this defendant was recently sentenced. The official sentence included 58 months in federal prison followed by 3 years of supervised release. Supervised release is basically the federal term for probation. This case could have been prosecuted under state law, but federal prosecutors are constantly looking for firearm cases involving convicted felons to beef up their conviction records. Just last week another Maryland man from St. Mary’s County was indicted on similar charges after the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office conducted a search warrant of his Lexington Park home and found an AK-47 rifle.

There is no specific formula for when the feds will pick up a gun cases from state court, but they will almost always involve convicted felons in possession. Firearm possession by a disqualified individual such as a convicted felon is illegal under federal law and state law, which means either the feds or the local state’s attorney’s office can charge a person in Maryland. Gun crimes do not need to be committed on federal property for the feds to have jurisdiction, and they do not have to be investigated or charged by federal agents to be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The U.S. Attorney’s Office can step in at any point and charge a person, which usually results in the state case being set for a nolle pros. in circuit court. While the Maryland state charge for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon carries the same 15-year maximum penalty as the federal charge, federal prosecutions carry a stigma for being tougher in defendants. In reality the 5-year mandatory sentence for a felon in possession of a firearm in state court may result in a harsher sentence than a case with similar facts in federal court. If a person has numerous prior convictions, his or her federal guidelines will likely be higher than the state guidelines, but the state has the minimum mandatory. Overall, it can be a tossup which jurisdiction is better for a particular defendant. Either way, all defendants are urged to contact an experienced Maryland gun crime lawyer. The Blog will continue to follow these federal prosecutions and may post a follow up article as gun possession cases continue to end up in the Baltimore and Greenbelt courthouses. If you been charged with felon in possession of a firearm or any other gun crime in state or federal court, contact Benjamin Herbst anytime at 410-207-2598.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 6, 2025

Supreme Court Declines to Hear HQL Challenge

By Benjamin Herbst

The HQL process is here to stay, as the United States Supreme Court declined to review an argument challenging the policy for purchasing a handgun in Maryland. Gun rights advocates have been pushing for repeal of the HQL process since 2022 when the Supreme Court declared the state’s “may issue” policy regarding the issuance of wear and carry permits was unconstitutional. This was a massive nationwide victory for the gun lobby, who apparently wanted to strike while the iron was hot. For a few months it actually seemed as if the Marylanders would no longer have to obtain a license in order to purchase a handgun as the HQL requires. In the fall of 2023, a three-judge panel struck down the State Police regulation that requires state residents to submit fingerprints and complete a 4-hour safety court before being eligible to obtain the license to purchase. However, the victory was short lived, as in the summer of 2024 a majority of a full panel of judges at the 4^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia reversed the three-judge panel’s ruling and affirmed the District Court’s original decision to uphold the law.

After the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s original ruling the gun lobby had one more shot to make an argument in the country’s highest court, but only if the Justices chose to accept the case. They declined, and now the HQL lives on. Maryland citizens will continue to have to obtain a license before being granted permission to purchase a handgun. The requirements do not extend to rifles and shotguns, which are treated differently under a variety of Maryland laws. A Handgun Qualification License is not the same as a wear and carry permit, and anyone with a HQL who is found to be unlawfully transporting a handgun will likely be arrested and charged with a 5-year misdemeanor for wear, transport or carry of a firearm. While it may be brought up in mitigation, a valid HQL is not a legal defense to unlawful carry of a firearm.

With this victory by the Attorney General’s Office and the State Police, Maryland will continue to live up to its reputation as one of the most unfriendly gun rights states in the country. Each year many out-of-state residents learn the hard way how difficult it is to comply with these strict gun laws while passing through our state. If you plan on driving through Maryland with a gun or have been charged with a firearm offense, contact Maryland gun crime lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation. Benjamin has successfully defended hundreds of clients in firearm offenses including wear, transport or carry, possession by a prohibited person and use of a firearm in a crime of violence. He represents adults and juveniles in crimes such as possession of a firearm by a minor. Benjamin is also an experienced federal gun lawyer who has represented dozens of defendants in the Greenbelt and Baltimore federal courthouses for crimes including possession of a firearm at a federal facility and other citations. There are numerous U.S. government properties (Fort Meade, NIH and Joint Base Andrews) and federally patrolled roadways in the state of Maryland (BW Parkway / 295), and these areas are all under the jurisdiction of federal law enforcement. Even a person who holds a valid wear and carry permit may be subject to federal prosecution for setting foot on a military base or federal installation with his or her lawfully registered handgun. Benjamin offers free consultations about all criminal cases and is available 7 days a week for his clients. Contact Benjamin anytime at 410-207-2598.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 25, 2024

School Board Adopts Emergency Crime Reporting Measures

By Benjamin Herbst

The 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: September 19, 2024

State Police Arrest Woman in Armed Road Rage

By Benjamin Herbst

Maryland 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: August 1, 2024

Maryland Teen Facing Five Cases Extradited from Michigan

By Benjamin Herbst

An 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: June 24, 2024

Supreme Court Upholds Firearms Ban in Civil Domestic Cases

By Benjamin Herbst

The United States Supreme Court recently decided to uphold a federal statute that criminalizes gun possession for those subject to civil domestic violence court orders. In the 8-1 decision, the Court appeared to offer a looser interpretation of the gun rights afforded by the Second Amendment than the previous landmark ruling in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The opinion in Bruen cited our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation in striking down a New York law that previously required citizens to prove a need to obtain a concealed carry permit. In this recent opinion the Supreme Court said the appeals court incorrectly set our searching for a historical twin to the modern law prohibiting respondents in civil domestic violence orders from otherwise lawfully possessing firearms. Rather, the high court admonished the lower court for not for not looking for a historical equivalent that was readily available. Centuries old “going armed” laws banned gun possession for those thought to present a danger to others. Modern civil protective orders are granted in cases where a judge determines the respondent presents a danger to the petitioner, and thus the historical analogue mentioned in Bruen is satisfied.

The law at issue was 18 United States Code section 922, which is one of the most commonly prosecuted gun crimes in federal court. It allows federal prosecutors to charge convicted criminals, fugitives, those dishonorably discharged from the military, juveniles, drug users and the mentally ill with a crime for knowingly possessing a firearm. Subsection (g)(8) deals specifically with those who after being afforded a hearing have been ordered by a judge to refrain from harming or placing in fear a former spouse or intimate partner. Violation of this subsection is a serious felony offense that carries up to 15 years in prison, so even first-time offenders could potentially face a significant prison sentence without ever having been convicted of a crime in the past. We do not see a ton of cases being prosecuted under these circumstances due to the fact that many states have their own laws regarding gun possession by respondents in civil domestic cases. Maryland for example has strict laws regarding firearm possession by respondents in protective order cases. Anyone who is currently under a domestic violence protective order is prohibited from possessing a gun under Public Safety code section 5-133. A violation of this statute could lead to up to five years in prison and additional charges for violation of a protective order under family law section 4-509. Even those who are under a temporary protective order may be prohibited from possessing a firearm if the judge determines a firearm was used or there was a threat of serious bodily harm.

The fact that the law was upheld by the Supreme Court means the protective order subsections of the Maryland Family Law Article will not have to undergo major changes. Striking down the law would have required the legislature to change the language in a host of statues, but now it will be business as usual. Respondents in protective orders will almost always be forced to surrender their firearms after a temporary order is signed by a judge, and in all cases when a final order is effectuated. If you have a question about a protective order, contact Maryland domestic violence lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation. Benjamin specializes in domestic assault, protective order violations, peace orders, destruction of property, telephone misuse, harassment and all other state and federal crimes. Benjamin is also highly experienced in defending state and federal gun charges such as possession by a convicted felon or other disqualified individual, possession of a firearm at a federal facility and minor in possession of a firearm. He is available 7 days a week to discuss your case and is standing by to take on bail reviews and motions to recall bench warrants or arrest warrants on short notice. Call Benjamin at 410-207-2598 to discuss your case today.