Justia Lawyer Rating
MSBA
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
AILA 2024 Member
ABA
Bar Association of Montgomery County, Maryland

| by

The Fourth Amendment protects people against unlawful searches and seizures. Usually, a warrant is required for a search. Often a criminal defense attorney is able to prevent evidence against his client from coming in, if he can show that the evidence was obtained through an unlawful search or seizure. However, there are exceptions, such as when a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe a crime is being committed in a car, searches the car and finds evidence that a crime was committed.

In a recent case, a woman pled guilty to possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. The case arose when a law enforcement officer was dispatched to a grocery store. He had been called to that store on multiple occasions previously to deal with a white woman who loitered in front of the store. The store believed she was a prostitute.

The officer had learned from the woman that she was a prior heroin user that had been clean for about a year. He served her with a cease and desist order that prohibited her loitering in that location and others. Continue reading

| by

When the State of Maryland tracks a vehicle with a GPS device attached to the exterior of a car in order to watch its movements, is that considered a “search” under the Fourth Amendment? A recent case that arose from the GPS tracking of a defendant’s car answered that question.

In the case, police officers asked officers in the Repeat Offender Proactive Enforcement Section (ROPE) to help them conduct surveillance on the defendant who they believed was involved in some commercial burglaries.

The GPS tracker used by ROPE had a cell phone piece and a GPS piece, which communicated to determine the latitude and longitude of where a unit was located. A battery that didn’t interfere with vehicle operation operated the device. It was activated before the installation and stored location data in its memory. Police could access the historical data as well as display location in real time. Continue reading

| by

In a recent case, the petitioner was convicted of multiple counts of second-degree murder, first-degree assault, and use of a handgun, among other things. He was sentenced to imprisonment plus 170 years.

The case arose when two men were shot and killed. There were several witnesses who testified on behalf of the State. Before his trial, one witness was sentenced to probation for charges of attempting to distribute an illegal substance. He was also charged with possession of a firearm and sentenced to six months. He was given some leniency in his jail stay because he was scheduled to testify at the petitioner’s trial.

Before trial, the State asked that the petitioner not be able to question any of its witnesses regarding prior arrests. The defense objected on the grounds that one of the witnesses had an agreement for leniency. The State claimed there was no plea and the witness had asked for a release because he was a witness to his brother’s murder and was frightened during his jail stay. The court agreed with the State that it was a safety issue. Continue reading

| by

If you are a noncitizen immigrant, you should be aware that there may be adverse immigration consequences, such as deportation, for pleading guilty or being convicted of a crime in Maryland and other states. In a recent appellate case, a native of Belize who was a permanent resident in the United States pled guilty to cocaine possession with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to five years in prison.

During his sentencing, the defendant was informed that he had the right to appeal his conviction. He did not appeal, nor did he file a petition for post-conviction relief, and served out his five-year sentence.

Afterward, he traveled to Belize and was detained when he tried to reenter the United States. The United States Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) started a deportation proceeding against him. To delay deportation, he filed a Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis. He claimed in the petition that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because his attorney had not advised him of possible immigration consequences of his plea. Continue reading

| by

In a recent case, the defendant tore up a copy of his probation papers after his criminal trial. He was on trial for second-degree assault after hitting and kicking his girlfriend during an argument. After the guilty verdict, the girlfriend claimed financial hardship and said she wanted to be left alone. The defendant was sentenced to 10 years in prison with most of it suspended, plus three years probation.

He was given a probation order with standard conditions, including obeying all laws. A week later, the State petitioned to revoke his probation. The State based its request for revocation on ripping up his probation papers and making loud threatening statements about witnesses like, “She don’t know it, but she just signed her death warrant.”

The trial court revoked the defendant’s probation, finding him in contempt for ripping up the papers and making threats. An intermediate appellate court held that the ruling wasn’t clearly erroneous. The controlling statute did not require the threats be made directly to a witness or victim. Continue reading

| by

People in Maryland and elsewhere are often curious about how realistic television shows involving lawyers are. How television affects jurors and trials, however, is less often explored. One phenomenon in the latter category, the “CSI effect” has led to some interesting scholarship and legal rulings over the past decade.

The “CSI effect” allegedly occurs in response to the television show, leading jurors to expect they will be given forensic evidence such as DNA during a criminal trial. In earlier cases, the appellate court addressed whether or not it was appropriate to give an instruction to counter the CSI effect (an “anti-CSI effect instruction”).

In a recent case the trial judge instructed the jury that there was no legal requirement that the prosecution use a specific type of investigative or scientific technique to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He also noted that the defense argued there was no scientific link connecting the defendant to the crime. Continue reading

| by

In Maryland, it is illegal to obstruct or hinder a law enforcement officer trying to perform his duties. There are three kinds of obstruction: direct obstruction (physical resistance), passive direct obstruction (refusal to act as required), and positive indirect obstruction (where police officer are acting against other citizens and a citizen not involved prevents their ability to prevent or detect crime).

In a 2011 obstruction case, a motorcyclist and friend were traveling parallel in the southbound lane. Someone from the sheriff’s department saw one of them cross the double yellow line several times. He initiated a stop and ran the vehicle information to get the motorcycle’s registration information. He discovered the motorcycle belonged to someone named Titus. The motorcyclist presented him with a driver’s license from another state and a name different from Titus.

At some point the sheriff found Titus’s license had been suspended and revoked. The person driving the vehicle claimed that Titus was his roommate and he borrowed the vehicle. The sheriff smelled alcohol on his breath and saw his eyes were glassy. He asked the motorcyclist what he’d been doing that evening. The motorcyclist claimed he drank two beers earlier. A Standardized Field Sobriety Test was performed. The motorcyclist claimed to have bad ankles, but agreed to the test. Continue reading

| by

What is an “affray?” An affray in Maryland happens when two people fight (either with each other’s consent or without) in a public place “to the terror of the people.” The elements of “public place” and “terror of the people” can be controversial because it begs the question of whether there can be a terror of the people if two people fight in a public place without anyone else around. In a recent case, an appellate court considered whether a circuit court erred in its jury instruction regarding self-defense in an affray case.

The case arose when a husband and wife entertained family at a Fourth of July cookout on their back porch. The defendant called the wife’s sister and learning of the cookout, drove over.  The sister left with her kids after the defendant’s arrival, but he stayed. The witnesses differed in what happened next. But they all agreed significant alcohol consumption occurred.

The husband and the defendant started a playful wrestling match that turned into a fistfight that was eventually broken up. The wife tripped and the husband believed the defendant caused her fall. The husband got angry that the defendant wouldn’t shake his hand and kicked the defendant’s moped and swung at the defendant first. However, the defendant punched him until he fell unconscious. The husband died. Continue reading

| by

A recent case arose when the defendant drove his Mitsubishi with two passengers onto southbound I-95. The defendant and one of the passengers (Jackson) planned to rob the other passenger. However, the two passengers got into a fight at some point and Jackson got shot. The defendant pulled over and Jackson shot and killed the other passenger. The defendant drove the injured passenger to the hospital and left.

The police found the dead passenger’s body on the same day. The defendant was arrested and at the barracks where he was taken. While there, he made statements to three officers, including a recorded statement where he described the fight as a robbery that had gone bad.

After that, he was advised of his Miranda rights. Although he invoked his right to remain silent, he continued to talk. The officers cut him off and told him they couldn’t talk to him until he waived his Miranda rights. Ten minutes later he signed a form waiving his rights. Continue reading

| by

When is a reasonable suspicion truly a reasonable suspicion and not just a hunch in Maryland? A law enforcement officer can conduct an investigatory stop only if the officer has a reasonable suspicion and not a mere hunch that the person being stopped is committing some kind of infraction or criminal activity.

In a recent case, a violent crime unit of the Baltimore Police Department was investigating a man (Blue) known for distributing raw heroin. They spied on a meeting between the Blue and another individual (Townsend) on a street corner, taping it with a surveillance camera. Two detectives were part of the surveillance, but did not observe the meeting live, only on tape.

Blue arrived in his car and looked around nervously after getting out of his car. He took an object out of his pocket, still looking around, and handed it to Townsend. Townsend put the object in his pocket and soon Blue went back to his car and drove away. Continue reading

Contact Information
Main Office
18310 Montgomery Village
Ave #250
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
Toll Free: (888) 519-2801Phone: (301) 519-2801Fax: (301) 519-2802
Florida Office
2255 Glades
Rd #324A
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Toll Free: (888) 519-2801

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 © 2025, Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design