Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Published on: March 15, 2023

Controversial Gun Bill Passes Senate

Senate Bill 1 sparked heated debate when it was first introduced at the beginning of the 2023 Maryland Legislative Session. The debate was heated for good reason, as the bill originally proposed massive restrictions on where a licensed individual could possess a firearm. We were skeptical from the outset about some of the bill’s language, which included banning all otherwise legally owned and possessed firearms within 100 feet of a place of public accommodation. The phrase public accommodation included basically all public indoor spaces such as restaurants, stores and shopping centers, and even included outdoor spaces where people gather to eat, shop or be entertained. Possession of a lawfully owned firearm would have also been prohibited at hotels and inns under the original proposal. The overly broad language in the first proposal would have never stood a chance at surviving constitutional challenges, and enforcement would have been a nightmare even if it did temporarily become law. As such, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee did its job and drastically modified the bill in order to give it a shot of passing Constitutional scrutiny, and as of this week the bill has officially been approved in the Senate.

The revised version of Senate Bill 1 has several new restrictions that take the place of the original public accommodation language in the first draft of the bill. If the current SB 1 becomes law, holders of a Maryland wear and carry permit would be prohibited from carrying in an area for children or vulnerable individuals. This section would apply to daycares and public or private secondary schools, youth camps, health care facilities and shelters for runaway youth. The proposal would also prohibit firearm possession in Government or Public Infrastructure areas, which include buildings owned or leased by the state or local government, college or university buildings, polling sites and electrical plants or storage facilities. Additionally, the bill prohibits firearms at organized sporting or athletic activities between three or more individuals competing in the same league. One of the broadest prohibitions would concern Special Purpose Areas, which include locations licensed to sell or dispense alcohol or cannabis for on-site consumption, and thus guns at bars would be outlawed. Special purpose also includes stadiums, museums, live theater performances and concerts where the audience is required to pay or possess an admission ticket, fairs, carnivals, racetracks and video lottery facilities.

Law enforcement officers, active-duty military, correctional officers and even ROTC members are mostly excluded from these prohibitions, and not subject to the potential penalties that would include up to 90 days in jail and a $3,000 fine for a first offense and up to 15 months in prison and a $7,500 fine for subsequent violations. Anyone who violates this law with the intent to injure another person faces the same 15-month penalty in addition to any other criminal violation found to have occurred. There is also a provision in the bill that prohibits an individual from trespassing on another person’s property with a firearm after being warned that firearms are not allowed on the property. Such a violation could bring misdemeanor charges that carry up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 28, 2023

IT Contractor Guilty of Making False Statements

By Benjamin Herbst

A Howard County woman was recently found guilty of 19 counts of making a false statement to a government agency after a month-long jury trial in Baltimore. The 50-year-old Elkridge woman owned and operated an information technology company that was retained by the National Security Agency (NSA) at Fort Meade in Howard County. From 2011 to 2018 the defendant’s company provided services to the NSA including maintenance and support of computer systems in the Counter Terrorism Management Center and the National Security Operations Center. Much of the contracted work required the handling of classified data, which meant the company performed the majority of its services on site at Fort Meade. The work on base was carried out in secure, access-controlled locations in order to limit data breaches. This also meant that the government was able to calculate approximately how much time the defendant and her employees spent working on the contract, which billed out at a rate of $150 per hour. Per the contract, the defendant’s company was required to assign a Program Manager (PM) to oversee performance, keep tabs on billing and to communicate directly with the federal government. According to facts presented at trial the defendant served as the PM for 17 months from March 14, 2016 to September 30, 2017. During this time the defendant billed out over 2,600 hours at a total cost of almost $400k for her role as a Senior Program Manager, and the NSA paid this bill in full. Problems began after an audit of the billing revealed that the defendant was not at Fort Meade during 90% of the hours she billed.

In October of 2017 the defendant participated in a voluntary interview with NSA officials who were investigating a whistleblower claim that the defendant was charging the government for work she did not perform. The defendant denied these claims, and maintained the billing was legitimate for work actually performed. She also stated that her timesheets were accurate and her billing for consistent 8-hour days was truthful. The jury thought otherwise, and sided with the government after almost on month of evidence and argument.

The defendant was convicted making a false statement to an agent or agency of the federal government under 18 U.S. Code §1001. This statute is routinely used by the feds to prosecute individuals in all types of cases ranging from complex financial frauds to less complicated gun and drug cases. Anyone who makes statements or submits writings or another type of communications that he or she knows are false could be prosecuted under this statute, but there are certain limitations. The government can only prosecute statements that are material and made in connection with a federal matter. The statement(s) must also be knowingly and willfully. Simply denying involvement in criminal activity or lying about an immaterial fact such as what a person had for dinner would not be prosecuted under this statute, but most everything else is fair game under the False Statement Accountability Act. This offense is generally punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison for each offense, though the penalty can increase to up to 8 years for certain offenses such as human trafficking or certain sex crimes.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 16, 2023

Recreational Cannabis Bills Introduced

By Benjamin Herbst

Marijuana will be legalized for adult recreational use this summer, but until recently there was no indication when it would actually be available to purchase. Those following marijuana policy closely in Maryland are well aware that the first medical marijuana sales occurred almost five years after medical cannabis was signed into law by the governor. The delay was extremely frustrating for patients, lawmakers, government officials and investors, and not something anyone wanted to repeat. Considering much of the infrastructure already exists for selling cannabis, the delay for recreational sales to begin was never expected to approach five years. But would it take 1 or 2 years? Would there be a lengthy limbo period like in New York City or Washington D.C., where pot is legal but difficult or impossible to purchase lawfully? The referendum for legalization in Maryland easily passed in November of 2022, but it did not provide any clarity as to when recreational sales would actually begin. During the last couple of weeks though lawmakers in Annapolis have worked hard to instill confidence that on or about July 1 recreational marijuana will be available to adults over the age of 21.

Senate Bill 516 was recently introduced in the form of an 88-page behemoth that lays out a comprehensive plan for the state’s recreational cannabis plan. The companion bill, House Bill 556 is also 88 pages and is set for a hearing on February 17. Both bills aim to have recreational cannabis up and running this summer, and both would authorize at least 500 dispensary licenses as well as 50 on-site consumption licenses. If the bill becomes law there will soon be numerous establishments where any adult over the age of 21 could purchase and smoke marijuana in the state of Maryland. The bills also distinguish standard grower, processor and dispensary licenses from micro-licenses, which have smaller space limitations.

The bills also preserve the medical cannabis program by authorizing those under the age of 21 and over to purchase and possess up to 120 grams of cannabis or 36 grams of THC infused products. School personnel would be permitted to administer medical cannabis to a student as long as it is obtained from, and administered per a certified caregiver’s instructions. Students may be administered medical cannabis at school activities and on school busses. Medical cannabis would not subject to the same sales tax as recreational cannabis, which would start out at 6 percent and rise to 10 percent. Other provisions include prohibiting local governments from assessing their own taxes and from establishing zoning requirements that unduly burden cannabis licensees.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 8, 2023

New Gun Bill Sparks Heated Debate

By Benjamin Herbst

Nearly eight months ago the Supreme Court ruled that the carrying a handgun in public is a constitutional right protected by the Second Amendment. In fashioning this ruling, the court declared that state and local governments shall issue concealed carry permits to qualified individuals who can satisfy objective requirements such as background checks and completion of gun safety courses. The flip side is that the court did away with laws that gave state and local governments the ability to arbitrarily decide who may receive a concealed carry permit. These “may issue” laws required a person to prove to the government that they were worthy of a permit, and denials were routinely handed out without further explanation.

Maryland was once a “may issue” state that required residents to prove a good and substantial reason to carry a gun, but since June the State Police has been ordered to issue permits to all qualified applicants. Since the ruling there have been upwards of 80,000 concealed carry applications compared to 12,000 in all of 2021. The spike in applications has been a major source of concern for some lawmakers in Annapolis who are now attempting to chip away at the Supreme Court’s ruling. Citing the exponential rise in gun violence and a suspected connection between an increase in legal gun purchasing with an increase in illegal guns on the street, so called public safety advocates have sponsored a bill that would restrict where a licensed individual can carry a firearm. Senate Bill 1, which was debated this week, would criminalize the possession of a firearm within 100 feet of a place of public accommodation. This new misdemeanor offense would carry a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail, and apply to all citizens regardless of permit status. The new law would be codified under 4-111 and 4-112 of the criminal law article, rather than the Maryland public safety code where many gun laws are listed.

The obvious question is how the legislature will attempt to define “place of public accommodation”, as the law rests entirely on this arbitrary definition. As of now the definition of public accommodation includes inns, hotels, motels, restaurants, bars, movie theaters, sports arenas, concert halls and all other entertainment venues. It would also include all retail establishments that offer goods, services, entertainment, recreation or transportation. Basically, the bills authors tried to include all public indoor spaces and outdoor spaces where people gather to eat, shop or be entertained. Anyone with time to kill could probably think of a place that the authors missed, but the definition seems comprehensive. It might be more productive to think of the places that were left out, as the main ones appear to be parks and anywhere a person is in transit such as driving on a highway or walking down a sidewalk. On the other hand, the provision that you cannot be within 100 feet of one of these establishments will create a host of issues. You could hypothetically be breaking the law if you have your legal firearm in your vehicle while driving past a store, going to pick up food at and even walking down the sidewalk. For this reason, the law as written stands very little chance of hitting the governor’s desk. Regardless, gun rights advocates showed up in force in Annapolis this week to protest, and the protests will only grow stronger if the law progresses.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 1, 2023

Numerous Criminal Law Bills Introduced in Annapolis

By Benjamin Herbst

The 2023 Maryland legislative session is underway, and there are currently dozens of criminal law bills that are being debated in Annapolis. Guns, marijuana and juvenile justice reform are three of the main issues this year, but there are numerous other proposals that could significantly alter the way crimes are policed and prosecuted. One of the issues at the forefront of media coverage is increasing the penalty for Maryland’s main gun possession law. Wearing, transporting or carrying a handgun currently has a maximum penalty of three years incarceration and a $2,500 fine upon conviction. This offense also carries a 30-day mandatory jail sentence that becomes 90 days if the offense occurred on public school property. The mandatory jail term is rarely imposed though, as it is not normal practice for the State to file a notice to seek mandatory incarceration in these cases. Additionally, a judge may grant probation before judgment, which effectively erases any requirement to impose mandatory jail. For comparison, probation before judgment is not available to anyone found guilty of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person or by a convicted felon, so the mandatory time is actually mandatory. Some lawmakers and the Baltimore City State’s Attorney are lobbying to increase the maximum penalty for possession of a handgun to 5 years of incarceration, which would mirror the maximum penalty for possession of a firearm by a minor under the public safety article.

There does not seem to be an overly persuasive argument to increase the penalty for wear, transport or carry of a handgun to 5 years. Anyone with more than a minor criminal record who is found with a gun will likely be charged with possession by a prohibited person and thus face a mandatory 5-year sentence. Additionally, anyone who uses a handgun in a crime will face a significantly harsher punishment for other offenses such as use of a handgun in a crime of violence. Those with minor or no criminal record will not and should not serve anywhere near the current maximum of 3 years. If uniformity is the ultimate goal, lawmakers should look to decrease the penalty for minor in possession of a firearm to 3 years rather than seek to add more time, which ultimately is only used as leverage in plea bargaining. In reality it’s much easier for a lawmakers in this current climate to say they fought for tougher guns laws, even if said laws have literally no effect on crime deterrence and public safety.

Lawmakers are also seeking to change laws related to certain sex crimes, with one proposal expanding the definition of a 4^th degree sexual offense for persons in a position of authority. Under Maryland law it is considered a sex offense in the 4^thdegree if a school employee such as a teacher, coach or administrator to have a sexual relationship or have sexual contact with a minor who is a student at the same school. This is a strict liability offense that applies specifically to students who are 16 or 17, and thus past the age of consent in Maryland. If the bill passes it would also subject volunteers, interns or basically any adult in a supervisory role with an institution, program or activity to criminal prosecution for having sexual contact with a minor who is a participant of the institution, program or activity. Under Maryland law, 4^th degree sexual offense carries a maximum jail sentence of 1 year, but could potentially lead to mandatory registration as a tier 1 sex offender for 15 years.

Continue reading →

Published on: January 24, 2023

Maryland State Police Trooper Charged in Federal Court

By Benjamin Herbst

A Maryland State Trooper with more than 10 years of service has been charged with several federal felonies for attempting to tip off a drug dealer about ongoing investigations in exchange for cash. The trooper was arrest by the FBI and now faces charges including bribery, conspiracy to distribute controlled dangerous substances, using a communications facility to commit a drug felony and aiding and abetting in the distribution of controlled dangerous substances. The affidavit used to charge the trooper was heavily redacted due to the ongoing nature of the investigation and other considerations, but the public recently became aware of the general nature of the trooper’s alleged unfortunate course of conduct. What we do know is that the trooper was assigned to the Criminal Enforcement Division Western Region Narcotics, which works closely with federal law enforcement agencies such as the DEA and FBI. Western Maryland counties including Washington County and Frederick County have been identified by the feds as drug trafficking hot spots, and therefore receive federal funding for ramped up law enforcement activity. The Narcotics Task Force in Washington County is another example of a state law enforcement agency (Washington County Sheriff’s Office and Hagerstown Police Department) that works closely with the feds. This particular trooper attended high school in Frederick County and achieved the rank of Corporal before being placed on administrative leave due to the investigation. The accused was also a recipient of a trooper of the year award for the Salisbury Barrack in 2013.

At some point during an investigation into a Drug Trafficking Organization or DTO that was operating in the Hagerstown area, the trooper reached out to a suspect looking to profit off of law enforcement information. The trooper relayed that he had information about GPS tracking devices being placed on cars, future search warrants and later a potential wire-tap. It turns out that the wire-tap information was fabricated by the government in an attempt to weed out the leak from within the law enforcement team working the case. The government’s theory based on the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint seems to be that the trooper was in severe debt, with credit card payments and loans exceeding $67,000, and was desperate for cash. His desperation caused him to strike a cash for information deal with a drug dealer who was under federal investigation. The dealer was likely a cooperating witness for the government, but at this point there is no information to rule out that he/she was an undercover law enforcement officer.

After a well-documented back and forth that was memorialized on Facebook messenger, the trooper agreed to provide sensitive information to the alleged dealer for $1,800 cash. The cash was marked and then placed behind a Hagerstown motel dumpster by undercover FBI agents. The FBI continued to monitor the location of the marked cash, and appeared to witness the trooper picking up the money. There was nothing in the affidavit that stated they specifically identified the trooper as the one who picked up the money, but they did ping his cellphone as being at the location of the dumpster at the time of the pickup. The trooper and the drug dealer then had a conversation again on Facebook that confirmed he received the money. Additionally, the drug dealer requested that the trooper run one of his alleged friends through NCIC to see if there was an outstanding warrant, which the trooper agreed to do. This was probably another attempt to induce the trooper into more unlawful behavior, as misuse of law enforcement databases can be prosecuted.

Continue reading →

Published on: January 4, 2023

New Marijuana Laws Effective in Maryland

By Benjamin Herbst

As of midnight on January 1, possession of more than 10 grams of marijuana is no longer a crime in Maryland, and more changes to the state’s pot laws are in store for the rest of 2023. Back in 2014 when Marijuana possession was first decriminalized there was much debate of the threshold amount. Some lawmakers argued for an ounce or more, while others fought for lower limits as a compromise for any decriminalization in the first place. As compromises typically go, many lawmakers left Annapolis wishing the decriminalization limit was different, but satisfied they got somewhere. There was never any real logic to the arbitrary limit of 10 grams, and despite repeated efforts to change the number, it stuck for more than 6 years. The 10-gram limit was always a placeholder, as recreational marijuana was a foregone conclusion. It seemed as if lawmakers put off raising the 10-gram limit because they knew its days were numbered by the implementation of a much larger policy change. Well, now that change is upon us, and it will soon be perfectly legal for an adult over the age of 21 to walk around with a bag of pot. But until that day arrives on July 1 when the trees are in full bloom and the sun is hot, adults without medical cards will still have to think twice about transporting their stash.

Marijuana possession for adults over the age of 21 was virtually erased from the books as a criminal offense in Maryland when the ball dropped this past Saturday. We say virtually because possession of more than 2.5 ounces is still a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to 6 months in jail. On the other hand, most people caught with more than 2.5 ounces will likely be charged with possession with intent to distribute or PWID as commonly called in the courts. PWID marijuana now a misdemeanor punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Maryland law 5-602(b) states that “possession of the civil use amount of cannabis or the personal use amount of cannabis without other evidence of an intent to distribute or dispense does not constitute a violation [of the possession with intent to distribute law]”. This is part of the reason why the legislature decided on the 2.5-ounce threshold, and why the 10-gram threshold was mostly illogical. While there are some exceptions, lawful marijuana users typically to do not carry around more than 2.5 ounces of marijuana, an amount roughly the most a typical sandwich bag can hold. Lawmakers finally agreed to not subject marijuana users to criminal punishment, which was certainly not the case with the 10-gram limit. Recreational pot smokers routinely carry more than 10 grams of marijuana, as it is commonly purchased in half ounces or ounces (13 and 26 grams respectively). We applaud the legislature for raising the possession limits, though it still came a few years too late for some. Fortunately, there is now hope for all of those individuals charged and convicted with past possession of marijuana offenses in state court.

Another component of the new law that went into effect on January 1 is a provision entitling anyone with a marijuana possession conviction to have that conviction expunged. In addition, all marijuana possession convictions must be removed from public record by 2024. Gone are the days when a pot conviction will cost someone a job or admission into a school or program. The specific components of the temporary possession law state that a person who possesses up to 1.5 ounces of marijuana could face a civil fine of up to $100. Anyone caught with more than 1.5 ounces but less than 2.5 ounces faces a $200 civil fine, and as mentioned before, possession over 2.5 ounces is a crime punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. It is still a crime for young adults and juveniles to possess marijuana in Maryland, so if your child has been charged it is important to fight the case and to contact a lawyer.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 22, 2022

Anne Arundel County Man Charged Criminally in DUI Accident

By Benjamin Herbst

A 28-year-old Anne Arundel County man has been charged with multiple criminal violations in addition to being issued four traffic citations for allegedly causing a head-on collision in Lothian earlier this week. The accident left three family members injured, including 15 and 9-year-old children. According to Anne Arundel County Police all three of the occupants were treated for life-threatening injuries, while the defendant was uninjured in the crash. Police investigation revealed that the defendant crossed the center line, which caused his Rav4 to strike a smaller Nissan Versa head on. Another vehicle then crashed into the Nissan from the rear as a result of the sudden collision. Police responded to the scene and began a criminal investigation after bystanders informed officers that the driver appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The driver then allegedly failed field sobriety tests and was placed under arrest for DUI. He then agreed to submit to a blood alcohol concentration test at the station in lieu of submitting to a mandatory blood draw. The result of the breath test was .18, which is more than twice the legal limit.

In a normal Maryland DUI or DWI case the defendant is usually charged via citation and released to a friend or family member a short time later. While police do have the authority to book a defendant into the jail for drunk driving, going to jail for a DUI charge in Maryland is rare outside of Baltimore City. This case was far from normal due to the severity of the victim’s injuries, and the overall egregious nature of the defendant’s alleged actions. Most people are aware that causing a death in a traffic accident or boat accident while under the influence can result in criminal charges for homicide by vehicle or vessel or manslaughter. But the legislature also chose to criminalize causing a serious injury accident while under the influence. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the defendant was booked and charged with this fairly new criminal violation under §3-211 of the Maryland Criminal Code. This law makes it a criminal violation to cause life threatening injuries by a motor vehicle or vessel while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A first offense for this violation carries up to 3 years in prison for DUI and up to 2 years for DWI. If a defendant has a prior conviction for impaired driving in Maryland or any other state, the maximum penalty would become 5 years in prison. The defendant in this case was charged with 3 counts, though he can only be lawfully sentenced on one of the counts. He was held without bail by the court commissioner and by a District Court judge the next day at bail review. He is now being held at the Jennifer Road detention center awaiting his trial in March of next year.

Almost all drivers who are charged with drunk driving in Maryland are issued multiple citations, which can be confusing and stressful for someone with no experience dealing with this situation. In reality, the officers are taught to issue multiple citations, typically for DUI, DWI and DUI pe se (if the defendant tested over the limit), because they do not know which of the counts the State’s Attorney will be able to prove at trial. Regardless of the number of citations a driver receives in a drunk driving arrest, most will eventually be dismissed by the State at trial or pursuant to a plea. If a plea agreement is reached, the defendant typically admits to one of the citations and maybe two if the driving pattern is especially alarming to the State.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 16, 2022

Teen Arrested in Ocean City Carjacking Appears in Court

By Benjamin Herbst

Four Baltimore teenagers and a 12-year-old were recently arrested in Ocean City for an armed carjacking that resulted in the victim being taken to the hospital. In addition to being charged with multiple felonies including carjacking, armed robbery and motor vehicle theft, the 19-year-old defendant was also charged with 13 traffic infractions including attempting to elude a uniformed officer by fleeing on foot and reckless driving. The criminal and traffic infractions were scheduled for preliminary hearing today in the Ocean City District Court, but the hearing was waived. The State will now decide which charges to file in the Circuit Court for Worcester County in Snow Hill. According to reports, police responded to the scene of the robbery where a 73-year-old victim advised he had been approached by three young men in Downtown Ocean City. One of the men brandished a handgun and pointed it at the victim while demanding items. The male with the handgun then hit the victim in the back of the head with the gun and drove off with the vehicle.

Officers in the area spotted the stolen vehicle at a convenience store a few blocks away and attempted to initiate a traffic stop, but the driver took off. Two other stolen vehicles fled the scene as well, and all were tracked by law enforcement. One of the stolen vehicles attempted to flee town using the Route 50 bridge, but police were able to disable the vehicle using stop sticks in West Ocean City. This 19-year-old suspect then attempted to run from police but was apprehended by Worcester County Sheriff’s Deputies before being handed back over to the OCPD. The carjacked vehicle was located a short time later in Wicomico County, and its 15-year-old driver was arrested and charged as a juvenile. The third stolen vehicle made it the furthest before crashing in Dorchester County and then catching fire. Three juvenile defendants were arrested after attempting to flee on foot. One of the juvenile defendants in the third vehicle was in possession of a stolen handgun. This defendant was 17 and charged as an adult in Dorchester County with similar charges as the 19-year-old defendant, but with additional charges for possession of a firearm by a minor, possession of ammunition and possession of a stolen firearm. The juvenile court does not have original jurisdiction over violent crimes and gun offense when the defendant is 16 or 17. Rather, these cases will be sent directly to adult court and would only be transferred back to juvenile court if a judge grants what is known as a reverse waiver. The two youngest defendants, ages 12 and 14, were charged and released to their parents by police. Further investigation revealed that numerous vehicles had been broken into that evening in Downtown Ocean City, and a handgun was stolen out of one of them.

The Blog will continue to follow the adult defendant’s case, and may post a follow up article when there is a resolution in the Circuit Court. All juvenile cases are sealed from public view, so we will not be able to follow up on the three youngest defendants. Although the 17-year-old defendant was charged as an adult, his case is also shielded from public view due to the fact that he is a juvenile. Shielding adult cases is a new policy in Maryland, which assures that the privacy of juvenile defendants is protected. This is especially important due to the high percentage of cases that are waived back down to juvenile court, where a defendant or respondent receives the benefit of privacy from the beginning. If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime, contact Maryland juvenile criminal defense lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation. Benjamin has successfully defended dozens of juveniles charged with some of the most serious offenses including carjacking, armed robbery, motor vehicle theft, and firearm possession. He specializes in gun crimes in Maryland Eastern Shore locations such as Worcester County, Wicomico County and Dorchester County, and also handles drug and DUI charges in Ocean City. Call Benjamin anytime at 410-207-2598 for a free consultation about your case.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 2, 2022

Two Juveniles Arrested in Glen Burnie Gun Shop Burglary

By Benjamin Herbst

Anne Arundel County Police recently arrested two teenagers ages 14 and 16 for attempting to steal firearms from a Glen Burnie gun store. Just before 4 a.m. in the morning police observed a white Ford van that crashed into the gun shop, and soon thereafter located two juvenile suspects in the process of stealing firearms from the store’s gun cases. The juveniles were arrested without further incident and charged with multiple criminal offenses, and could be facing more charges according to media reports. Police learned that the van in question was also involved in an attempted burglary in Pasadena earlier in the night. Two other gun stores, including one in Anne Arundel County and one in Montgomery County, were also recently burglarized over the last couple of weeks and suspects had not been apprehended and charged at the time of this latest incident. The Montgomery County burglary occurred on the night of Thanksgiving, just after midnight. According to police this incident involved five or six individuals who rammed a stolen black sedan into the front of the gun shop, and then fled the scene with multiple firearms. The same store was unsuccessfully targeted just one week prior.

The ATF is investigating all of these burglaries to see if there is any connection, and federal charges would likely follow if any of the thieves turn out to be adults. Juveniles can be prosecuted at the federal level, but state prosecutions are far more common even in crimes that could be charged federally. Theft of a gun from the premises of a licensed firearms dealer is punishable under 18 U.S.C. section 842(h), and a violation of this law carries up to 10 years in prison. The logic behind making this a federal crime is that all firearms dealers must have a FFL or Federal Firearms License that is issued by the ATF. The feds must approve anyone who chooses to sell, import or manufacture guns, so stealing from one of these licensees was established as a federal crime. This is akin to bank robbery being a federal crime due to almost all banks being insured by the FDIC.

The exact charges in the Anne Arundel County case have not been announced publicly, as all juvenile cases and adult charges involving juvenile defendants are sealed from public view and inspection. This was not always the case, as until recently juveniles that were charged as adults had their cases entered on Maryland judiciary case search, which is easily accessible to the public. This has been a source of contention for the criminal defense community, as many of these charges ended up being dismissed or transferred to juvenile court after the damage of public knowledge was already done. Thankfully, changes occurred that now protect juvenile defendants. In addition, recent case law from the Maryland’s highest court has moved the needle in favor of transfer if there is any possibility of the juvenile benefiting from programs or services provided by DJS.

Continue reading →