I was recently hired to defend a DUI case in Baltimore County. The arresting officer (an off duty Baltimore City Cop) was driving home and stopped my client in Baltimore County. After the alcohol stop he called the local police who came and proceeded with the arrest, field tests, etc. The defendant was taken to the Baltimore County Police station and blew an illegal blood alcohol content whereupon he was charged with DUI, DUI and related offenses.

At the trial of this Defendant I explained to the State's Attorney that they had a jurisdiction issue. That an off duty Baltimore City police officer may not effectuate a stop in Baltimore County because he lacks the authority, he must instead call the local authorities or a State Trooper to make the stop. That is to say, an off duty cop out of his jurisdiction has the same rights that a regular citizen has. If he exceeds those rights, as he did in this case, the stop and subsequent arrest become illegal. Once you have an illegal stop, any evidence flowing from that illegal stop may be suppressed. Once the state or the Judge agrees, the case can be dismissed, as it was in this instance.

When defending a DUI charge, there are many nuances both prior to the actual arrest and the procedure of the arrest itself that must be properly identified by experienced DUI counsel in order achieve the best possible result in any given case.

In this very serious Howard County DUI case, my client mistakenly proceeded the wrong way on the highway and struck a Mac truck head on. The driver of the truck escaped with very minor injuries, however my client was brought back to life at the scene of the accident by the highly skilled Howard County Medics. She was taken to shock trauma where she spent the next month having multiple surgeries and clinging to life from her life threatening injuries including breaking almost every bone in her body. Following a month of Shock Trauma it was off to a rehab facility to learn how to walk.

Unfortunately for this client, her BAC (blood alcohol content) was in the .20 range which is very high. She is a professional and had never been in trouble with the law before. She retained Robinson & Associates to provide her defense in this very serious case and we were able to comb through her case and find several weaknesses in what appeared to be a very strong case against this defendant.

On the day of her trial, following pretrial motions and several meetings with the State's Attorney, we were able to walk our client out of court that day with no conviction and unsupervised probation, a Herculean result in Howard County. If you have a DUI in Howard County Maryland and need experienced and aggressive counsel to protect you and your family, give us a call, anytime, we'll be glad to discuss your case at no charge.

At the next traffic signal, with the trooper several hundred yards in front of me, she strangely turned right and pulled into an empty parking lot of the medical facility, which I observed. Figuring she was up to no good I watched her. She then turned around and pulled out and began to follow. me. I'm thinking, well maybe she got a call, maybe she is not being evil, so I gave her the benefit of the doubt and executed a right turn onto a small street to see what she would do- mind you there have been zero traffic infractions as she just passed me at a red light.

I execute my right turn and what do you know, she executes a right turn behind my vehicle. This is unbelievable! I have done nothing and she is following me around hoping that I will screw up so she can pull me over. Getting madder by the moment, I pull into a private driveway and she slowly drives past my vehicle. I turn around in the driveway and wait a few minutes and what do you know, this female trooper with nothing better to do turned around again and drives past my position on the driveway and keeps going back out to route 32.

I need to travel down 32 to go home so I figure I'll see her again. I pull onto route 32 and a few seconds later, boom, there are the flashing emergency lights of the Maryland State Trooper. However, they weren't for me! Seems while she was on the side of the road "baiting" her next poor unsuspecting victim (hoping it to be me I gather), she got some other victim. I drove past her, went home and decided to put the word out.

It's one thing to police our streets and make them safe from alcohol offenders, it's entirely another when troopers have quotas or personal requirements and essentially force drivers to engage in some behavior which then allows troopers like this to stop the vehicle. The courts and the judges do not hear this side of the story very often and if they did, they would not believe it anyway as more credence is given to the officer's version of events. This is deplorable and despicable!

Now, I only drank ice tea that night which is my normal, but bear this in mind: One might say, well, if your not drunk you have nothing to hide, so who cares of this trooper pulls this crappy, dubious, borderline illegal behavior. Well, consider this, the legal limit in Maryland is .08. The signs say it, the billboards over our highways say it and we all know it. However, I was just retained earlier this week to defend a .04. That's right, .04, roughly 2 beers, half the legal limit and the poor client is arrested and charged and now his life is in turmoil until I fix this situation.

Thus, what we have are over enthusiastic troopers and law enforcement (again, not all of them but this female trooper was out of control) who will stop your car at any expense. Then, despite a .08 BAC legal limit, if you blow a .04, half the limit, meaning you are presumed to be Not under the influence, they write you anyway. Embarrassing you in the community, before your family, costing you money, threatening your job, causing emotional turmoil, etc.

This behavior is totally unacceptable and should not be tolerated by the community, by the brass in the police department, or the courts and judges.

Many BAC readings can be incorrect at the time you are tested following a DUI arrest, with the reading being as much as 23 percent higher than it should be due to inaccurate breathalyzer testing. There are a variety of reasons for these problems tracing back to the short comings of the machine design. A growing number of states across the country have begun to pull the black curtain back and look behind the rhetoric of the manufactures, including requiring the source code for the software that runs the machines; a growing number of courts are finding the truth regarding these machines and suppressing BAC results. The following are a few basic problems to look for.

Mouth Alcohol

Mouth alcohol can be caused for a variety of reasons including eating bread, certain medical conditions to burping or GERD. All of these have been shown to significantly raise BAC levels. If mouth alcohol has not been absorbed it can cause the instrument to yield an artificially high BAC number. It is very difficult for breathalyzers to determine where the source of alcohol in the mouth is coming from, and it makes a significant difference if the alcohol in the exhaled air is coming from the lungs or from the mouth and throat; the computer in the gizmo assumes that all the air it is analyzing is coming directly from the lungs, the alveolar air. This is problematic in mouth alcohol cases or oral hygiene products such as Listerine: the computer analyzes the exhaled air, but when the air passes through the mouth, it absorbs the alcohol particles from the mouthwash and leads to an artificially high BAC level which will then be used against you in court.

Homeostatic Variables

While incorrect alcohol readings secondary to mouth alcohol is a significant problem with breathalyzer machines, the machines likewise do not account for variable partition ratios in the subject which can result in substantially inaccurate readings. The partition ratio (ratio between BAC and breath alcohol content) is correlated at 2100:1, but subjects may range from 1500:1 to 2400:1 or higher, leaving a large margin of error. Consider, if one’s actual BAC level is .08, the breathalyzer could identify this range from a .065 to a .09. However, if one’s actual level is under the legal limit, .07, and the personal ratio is 1500:1, you will end up with a BAC level of .10, above the legal limit, through no fault of your own. A partition ratio can fluctuate far a variety of reasons including age, health, or whether the subject is in alcohol absorptive/post absorptive phase to name but a few. Dr. A.W. Jones, Assistant Professor in Experimental Alcohol Research at Sweden's Karolinska Institute has confirmed the variations of blood to breath alcohol rations in different individuals and in the same person from time to time.

After conducting extensive studies, British physicians have concluded the following:

"the blood/breath ratio should be regarded as nothing more than a statistical convenience suitable for defining the limits of a particular universe. Its use to derive individual blood alcohol levels from breath alcohol levels has little scientific justification and its use in this way for law enforcement can only be deplored. We reiterate our view that breath analysis is not an acceptable method for accurately determining blood alcohol concentrations" [Alobaidi, Hill and Payne, Significance of Variations in Blood/Breath Partition Coefficient of Alcohol, 2 British Medical Journal 1479, 1481 (December 18, 1976)]

Interfering Components

Breathalyzers are designed to look for the ethyl alcohol molecule but they can be fooled by substances that appear similar in chemical composition to alcohol, thus misreading these substances as containing alcohol content. Acetone is one of the most common substances that can confuse breathalyzers and it is found in a large number of diabetics. Additionally, people who are exposed to certain types of paint fumes, ie. painters, can also confuse the breathalyzer and cause it to register a BAC level that is higher than it should be.

In addition to the foregoing, there are many other reasons why the results of a BAC reading may not be accurate; there will be ongoing debate as to the effectiveness of the machines continue to be tested, but as long as the machines allegedly assist the government in keeping drunk drivers off the road, much of the foregoing falls upon deaf ears.

This post was contributed by Kimberly Peterson, who writes about the criminal justice degree online. She welcomes your feedback at KimPeterson2006 at gmail.com

A conviction or a PBJ on the 21-902A, C or D offense will result in you loosing your CDL license for one full year. The fact that you need your CDL to work for a living, to provide for your family or the fact that you were not driving a CDL at the time of your stop or arrest is not relevant to the consequences. The mere fact that you possessed a CDL at the time of the arrest is enough.

A conviction for the 21-902(B) offense or a PBJ does NOT result in the immediate loss of your CDL, that's the good news. In fact, a PBJ (probation before judgment) on the 21-902(B) offense is a good thing for a CDL holder, you want that assuming your case may not otherwise be won. Also, a conviction on the B offense is workable too, it does not automatically result in the loss of your CDL, it does result in 8 points on your record however which then results in a points suspension hearing (which you must request) where you can ask for a lesser period of suspension of your license. The MVA is typically looking a 6 months suspension for 8 points related to DUI or alcohol which means 6 months suspension of your CDL license in this DUI arrest.

Now, having said that, what about the administrative MVA hearing secondary to DUI stop, ie. the administrative suspension (this is that onion skin Officer's Order of Suspension paper you received when they liberated your license from your wallet).

1. If you blew less than a .15, that's good. You can request an MVA hearing within 10 days of your arrest and request any modification you might seek, worse case scenario is that the MVA does not see it your way and you loose your license for 45 days. When you loose your license you loose your CDL. If you get a modified driver's license, you still loose your CDL. It is very important to understand that for whatever period of time you have a "modified" driver's license or a suspended license, you will loose your CDL license. However, for 45 days you might be able to swing something with your employer, ie. maybe you can drive a regular vehicle or do other work.

3. This is a problem for the CDL driver for more than the obvious reason of his loosing a CDL. If a driver requests an MVA hearing, they may get whatever modification they seek, like maybe the interlock or maybe a work restricted license to drive an employers car which is generally good news, but the problem is that during any period of modification of suspension of regular license, the CDL will actually be suspended.

4. This problem becomes more evident when talking about a BAC (breach alcohol content) of .15 or greater or a refusal case where the person may face 90 or 120 days and then the CDL holder seeks an interlock at the MVA hearing or may voluntarily place the interlock on their car. Either way the CDL license will be suspended for the entire period of the modification (ie. 1 year if the interlock is obtained). This obviously is a big problem because the time period of suspension of CDL just went from 90-120 days to 1 year, big difference.

5. The most likely solution is to NOT to request an MVA hearing at all when talking about a .15 or refusal case and have the licensee loose their license for the given period of time because they will get their CDL back much faster that way. Unless, the CDL holder determines that they don't need the CDL and can get by driving for their employer in a non CDL vehicle, then a hearing to get an employee exemption/modification may be appropriate.

6. Of course all this needs to be considered in light of the merits of the MVA case in chief. If there are serious weaknesses in the MVA's case this will further complicate the situation because winning has clear advantages but if the licensee looses, he must be ready to indicate if he desires the interlock or would rather just take a flat suspension, which may be the better option based on the foregoing.

Each DUI case regarding a CDL holder is different or there may be other competing consequences, since the decision regarding the MVA and the CDL is a complicated one, a CDL holder is strongly encouraged to seek the advise of a qualified DUI lawyer in Maryland on this matter and the ramifications of any decision.

What just happened is that the officer could not find a lawful reason to pull you over so certain officers (not all) will take it upon themselves to push you, to push your tail until you speed up and break the law. You speed up over the limit and he has a lawful basis to stop you. You then plead with the officer that he was riding your bumper, but he chuckles while he asks you "How much have you had to drink tonight because I think your driving drunk?

The funny thing is that "certain officers" have done this little maneuver to other police officers and pulled them over. Sometimes they are released, sometimes not. Sometimes the DUI charges may be dropped, sometimes not. Either way, this is a nefarious little DUI detection maneuver that you should be aware of.

After practicing DUI law for 17 years throughout all Maryland counties, including Howard County, Baltimore County, Baltimore City, Anne Arundel County, Prince Georges, Montgomery, Carroll County, Harford, Queen Anne’s etc., I can safely say that Howard County is definitely at the top of the short list of better places to be charged with a DUI (assuming that you’re going to be charged at all). But why you ask?

Be that as it may, Howard County is still a good and fair jurisdiction to get a DUI charge versus other counties in Maryland which are not quite so fair. Even the prosecutors and police tend to be fair and appropriate in the majority of cases, a trait not evident in all counties. Finally there are a number of excellent alcohol education facilities located throughout Maryland and Howard County in particular. One such program is Columbia Addictions in Howard County adjacent to the Columbia Lake. We utilize the services of this comprehensive program for our Howard County DUI clients and I frequently hear very positive reviews from the client’s themselves. The Howard County District Court Judges also appear to be very comfortable with the facility.

Please feel free to contact us should you desire more information on any of the matters discussed herein or if you would like additional information on your Howard County DUI.

First, the Maryland legislature has past Maryland Transportation Article 11-176 which says in pertinent part that the definition of vehicle means any device in which a person or property may be pulled or towed on a highway. Alright, that sounds reasonable right? Well, that includes motorized bar stools. So if you are creative enough to build a motorized bar stool in order to whisk yourself off to the local watering hole, you could have a problem on the way home (sorry Norm).

The problem with such an expansive definition of vehicle as it relates to Maryland Drunk Driving however is that it is quite expansive and I would argue, overreaching. The definition of vehicle would include service animals such as horses, it would include a child's wagon, a riding lawnmower, a bicycle and the like. There are instances of all the foregoing in the news and on youtube.com. There are videos of a guy being stopped on his riding lawnmower on a street in his neighborhood and another of a guy on his horse. I suppose there are arguments that could be made regarding the propriety of riding a lawnmower drunk on a small neighborhood street or riding a horse but I don't think it should rise to the level of a DUI in a personal vehicle. Do you disagree, if so, no more enjoying a cold beer on a hot day while cutting your lawn. Well, there is always the story of some poor guy in a child's wagon being arrested and charged with DUI. Now come on, that's just ludicrous!

Remember, the Maryland statute does not allow a citizen to operate a "vehicle" (Read=lawnmower or wagon) anywhere (public property or private) while impaired. Thus, if your riding your ATV on your own personal property and the police somehow stop you and detect alcohol on your breath, your popped. As an ATV rider, I'm not suggesting it's a good idea to engage in this behavior but I am suggesting that it strikes me as unusual that the government has a hand in what I elect to do on the privacy of my own property. Put another way, if your enjoying a weekend cook out at your house and consume some cold beers and subsequently sit in your child's wagon and ride down the driveway (you must be intoxicated), you can be arrested if the police happen to be driving down the street and observe erratic wagon operation. Moral of the story, if your going to operate a wagon after drinking, stay right of center and don't tailgate.

How can I say these machines are not particularly accurate? Well, don't take my word for it, I'm just a lawyer. However we should take the word of very learned and highly regarded experts in the field who have written numerous articles on these machines. In a nutshell, the machine utilizes a partition ratio (a formula) to calculate the ethanol that it senses on ones breath and to extrapolate out what it believes a person's blood alcohol content should be. The machine then spits out that number on a cash register sized piece of paper and you then have to fight the machine or be convicted of DUI.

The problem is that the machine utilizes a constant partition ration number of 2100:1 for all people. So the machine multiplies the parts of alcohol that it senses in the breath, it calculates that number by 2100 and it says the result is your BAC or blood alcohol content. Big, small, tall, short, male, female, black, white, Asian makes no difference the machine calculates 2100:1 partition ratio. Are all people made alike? Does the 6'8" NFL player have the same body makeup as the 5'2" soccer mom? I don't think so and either do the experts in the field.

In addition to the foregoing, the method of the blow, or how you blow into the machine also has an impact on your number. There is a saying among those that work in field "the harder you blow, the higher you go" so when the breath test technician tells you to hold your breath and blow in the machine as hard as you can he is really saying "lets artificially maximise the number that you blow so that I can get an easier conviction in court."

The machine requires a steady exhalation from the defendant which should last roughly 5 seconds in duration, the machine then measures the volume of ethanol in the trailing exhalation right before the volume of breath dissipates. If you hold your breath and blow as hard as you can, you are artificially maximizing the volume of ethanol exhaled into the machine from the deep lung which is then calculated at the partition ration as described above.

However, we now have the State of Maryland promulgating false advise to the citizens of this State. How many readers have seen the digital signs on Baltimore's beltway 695 that say "Over the limit- Under Arrest?" That sign implies to the driver, under the limit, not under arrest; everyone knows the legal limit is .08. So as long as you stay under .08 you have no problem- just like the sign says, right? Ehhh, no.

Many clients come to the office wondering how they were charged with an alcohol related offense when they only blew a .07 or less (.06, .05, .04, etc.). The nasty little truth is that there is another charge called DWI or driving while impaired. The courts and or the prosecutor generally lean towards DWI when they see a number like .06 or .07. If you blow in that range you will be arrested by the police and charged accordingly. You will face many of the same problems as if you blew a .08 or better. In fact, I see many defendants with numbers less than .06. I recently had a client blow a .03 in Prince George's County; he was arrested and defended by my office; of course we got him off the charge but he still had to retain counsel and go through the motions.

Importantly...

That is the truth- and you heard it here first. Pass it on.

If you were charged with a more serious crime than DUI you would know that you have rights, Miranda rights that is and hopefully you would know to stay quiet and say nothing until you had the benefit of sage wisdom of counsel. However, in DUI arrests, the Miranda warnings are rarely imparted upon suspects. Is that legal you ask? Well, in a word, yes. It's legal. Reason: Miranda warnings are not a requirement for a legal arrest. They are a requirement for the police to gain admissible information following a legal arrest.

Thus, in the DUI DWI scenario, the I/O or investigating officer is perfectly within her rights to arrest you and never give you the Miranda warnings. However, there are two things you want to know. One: after you are actually arrested (handcuffed) anything she asks you then requires the Miranda warnings or your response is not admissible. Two: the police typically ask you all the damning questions prior to the actual arrest (ie. the handcuffs). They can do that. If they gather oral evidence against you prior to the arrest, no Miranda warnings are necessary at all as the courts have determined that you are not arrested and therefore don't need said advice.

Bottom Line: It's important to be a gentleman or a lady, ie. be courteous, not to scream and yell, kick the interior of the car, threaten, etc. Why wouldn't you be? Butting heads with the officers on the street is not a good idea. You will loose that battle. However, "cooperative" to the extent of giving the state any evidence that it will then use to convict you in court, please! The government can either prove its case against you or it can't. But it's sure not your job to help convict yourself and I hope that you will not assist in that endeavor.

However, the Supreme Court modified its position in the decision of Michigan v. Sitz where it held that the prohibition of stopping an automobile in the absence of probable cause was outweighed by the desire to eradicate drunk driving on our streets. The Justices voted 6-3 in favor of allowing the "DUI Exception" to the Delaware v. Prouse opinion.

Maryland has also visited this particular issue in the case of Little v. State 479 A.2d 903 (1983). The Court ruled that roadblocks were legal in Maryland because of the State's important need to stop drunk driver's on Maryland streets; however, the Court did recognize certain procedural requirements that must be satisfied in order to make a roadblock lawful. If a roadblock fails to meet procedural requirements, then the resulting arrest is illegal and the case will be won or dismissed in Court, such is what happened to my client this week in Baltimore County District Court. Case dismissed, details follow....

Essentially what this means is that a high level police law enforcement officer who has some responsibility for the roadblock must come to court and testify regarding the procedural safeguards utilized to meet the requirements of Sitz and Little. If no such person comes to court (in addition to the arresting officers) the case cannot proceed.

This week I was Defending a pleasant woman that got caught up in a roadblock sting. The prosecutor on the morning of trial offered nothing in the form of a plea bargain so I told her we would try the case. (ironically, this was the same prosecutor I wrote about earlier that seems to have problems being forthright, honest and pleasant). Anyway, after I told her we would try the case, she started running around trying to locate the necessary officers which she did not have (one would have thought this would have been accomplished prior to the trial date). She then requested a postponement of the case to locate such officer and the Judge correctly denied her request. Case Dismissed. Happy Client!

It is important for trial counsel to know the law regarding roadblocks and field sobriety tests as they relate to DUI case in Maryland because then DUI trials can be won. If counsel was not aware of the aforementioned requirements in DUI/DWI roadblock cases, counsel may have simply plead the case and compromised the Defendant's rights.

A pretextual DUI arrest is one that is made, not necessarily for the purpose of a DUI investigation or arrest but rather in order to stop the car to see what the police may be able to come up with. Some times pretextual stops are executed with a "legal basis" but many times, they are not even legal stops and therefore are in complete violation of the people's 4th amendment right to be free of illegal searches and seizures. The strange thing is that the police do not seem to understand that if they stop a car with no cognizable legal basis, such as in this case, all evidence that is subsequently acquired is considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" and subsequently suppressed at trial. Once that happens the entire case goes away.

The people's right to be secure and protected from their government under the 4th amendment to the United States Constitution has been and continues to erode quite a but as it pertains to DUI/DWI stops in Maryland and most other states. Thankfully, most judges will recognize where there has been a complete bastardization or neglect for the law and will suppress such illegal evidence.

As I have indicated in the past, while it is always important to be respectful and courteous to the men and woman in blue, that does not mean that a defendant should hang themselves out or convict themselves with their admissions to the police. Please remember that anything you say to the police in a traffic stop CAN AND WILL be used against you in a court of law. Therefore, zip it up and say nothing (and while were on the topic- do nothing as well, no field tests). The Miranda warnings were developed to protect citizens in just this type of situation; however Maryland's appellate courts have determined that Miranda warnings do not apply until an arrest has been made. Therefore, no Miranda warnings but you still face jeopardy for talking to the police and ratting yourself out. That is to say, you are not helping yourself when you tell the police you had 7 drinks 5 minutes ago and you are very sorry and can you leave now.

But hey, don't take my word for it, take the police officer's word for it. When I was in court defending this case, I spoke with the officer before hand. The officer told me, "your client was a little too cooperative in this case" in other words, too much talking. Loose lips sink ships as it were and this is a police officer talking.

He also left with my recommendation to him and anybody else that might find themselves in this unfortunate situation. That is, be respectful of the police and the job they are doing, but for pete's sake, keep your mouth zipped and don't testify against yourself, don't make the state's job easy by making all kinds of admissions which will devastate your defense later.

The government has a hundred and one tricks they can play to attempt to convict you. They have the vast resources of the state and the entire police department, they have the benefit of the doubt in court when a defendant is charged with this offense. Do not make their job even easier by ratting yourself out.

We proceeded to Essex District Court and I advise the prosecutor that we can stipulate to the facts of the case but that I will be arguing the legality of the stop under the omnipotent Atkinson case. The Government responds that if I wish to argue the facts of the case, then we must have a full blown trial. I told her that's a ridiculous waste of the Court's time and resources but if that's what you want, that's what we'll do. The next thing that happens is that the senior prosecutor comes over to me and asks me if I want the breath tech to stay for the trial. I told her that since they are insisting on a needless trial then yes we will need the breath tech to be present for the trial. She turns around in a huff and walks away.

Roughly an hour later as the docket thins out, the case is called by the Judge. The first thing that happens is the Judge inquires of the Government why the Government earlier filed a motion to postpone this case as a result of a police officer not being available for trial, when the officer they noted had absolutely nothing to do with the case whatsoever. Woops, the state has no answer at all, just a deer in the head lights stare and a meek "we are ready for trial judge"

The State then indicates that they only have one police witness for trial, the arresting officer and that the breath tech (who I required to be present) was not present in court and never was there the entire day. This is the officer that the senior prosecutor asked me if I wanted for trial and I said yes and she damn site knew he was not there and was not going to be there at all.

Be that as it may, we proceed to trial, the DUI arresting officer testifies to the facts, to which we agree and then the Judge says, "why are we having a trial if the facts are stipulated too?" I say, Judge I don't know, I already told the state I would stipulate to the facts of the case but they insisted on a trial. I suppose it was a matter of inexperience on the part of the prosecutor, oh well, what's the difference if we waste the tax payers money on court time and police officers overtime. Perhaps if the Government is so eager to waste tax payer money, they might want to consider investing more of it in training new prosecutors.

So the case moves forward and the officer finishes testifying, I cross examine the officer on the basis of the stop and subsequently make a motion to suppress the .13 BAC (blood alcohol content) based on an illegal stop. As it was, the trial judge completely agreed with me that the police engaged in an illegal stop of my client and all evidence was suppressed and the client was found not guilty! Client is happy and goes home with a clean record; I am happy but go back to the office quite concerned.

1. The prosecutor's office filed a motion to postpone a case based on the absence of an officer that had nothing at all to do with the case. Why? When asked by the Judge the response from your Government is "ready for trial your honor" ie. We have no idea whatsoever but lets get past it as quickly as possible.

2. The senior prosecutor in this case unethically comes to trial counsel (me) before the trial and wants to know if I demand the breath tech when she already knows he is not present, and has not been subpoenaed for this case. Naturally, she says nothing to myself, the Judge or anybody. I suppose being a senior prosecutor in this office carries certain perks at the expense of innocent defendants and you and I as tax payers who pay for unnecessary court time and police officer overtime. Strangely while the breath tech was not present in the courtroom, there was another Maryland Transportation Authority office present who just happened to be sitting in Court all morning, he also had nothing to do with the case. Hmmm. anythoughts why he was sitting there?

This is a prime example why I get so excited when a client comes to me right after their DUI/alcohol arrest and says, "Do you think I need a lawyer for this charge, after all, I am guilty?"

Remember, your not guilty until the person wearing the black robe says your guilty and there is one heck of a lot of misrepresentations, deceit and unfairness that can and often times does take place at the hands of the state prosecutor between now and your trial.

This is your government and prosecutor's office at work folks- you do need a lawyer, we all need to be protected!