Maryland's brilliant common law scheme does it again, folks. The U.S. District Court of D.C. recently handed down a decision affirming a claimant's ineligibility to register and own a firearm because of a minor assault misdemeanor from 1968.

The claimant sued attorney general Eric Holder, alleging violations of his Second Amendment right to bear arms for applying the Federal weapons prohibition to his case. The Federal law, known as the Firearm Owners Protection Act (formerly the Gun Control Act of 1968) makes any person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than two years jail time automatically ineligible for gun registration and ownership. The penalty applies no matter what the circumstances.

Schrader was convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery in 1968 when he was a 20-year-old in the Navy after he got into a fistfight with a gang member who had previously assaulted him in the street. Even though the conviction was a relatively minor one, it still disqualifies him from gun ownership.

The problem lies in Maryland's common law statutory scheme that until recently did not name maximum penalties for most crimes. Even after legal reforms, the maximum penalty that was set for most crimes is an astronomical number, with 1st degree assault set at 25 years maximum and 2nd degree misdemeanor assault (the equivalent of Schrader's crime) set at 10 years imprisonment. While most sentences in Maryland do not come close to that maximum and remain in line with the national standards, the fact that the law CAN impose more than two years jail time is what disqualifies a person from ever owning a gun.

Contrary to Maryland's statutory system, most other states codify reasonable maximum penalties and make misdemeanors punishable by up to one year imprisonment. This one year maximum is typically how misdemeanors are defined, even by the federal government. Maryland, however, continues to be an outlier.

There are few legal remedies for an individual who is unfairly banned from gun ownership because of Maryland's laws, especially in the wake of the recent court decision. Successful battles may require numerous time-consuming petitions for post-conviction relief and abundant financial resources to cover legal fees and expenses. To even use the term 'successful' may be highly inappropriate. As the current appeals decision holds, the law is the law, and woe be to those who fall within its restrictions.

This blog post was written by Rosie Escobar Brown. Rosie is a law clerk for the law firm Price Benowitz LLP, and she is in her final semester of law school. Price Benowitz LLP based in Washington, DC with additional offices in Maryland, Virginia, and New York. In addition to defending people charged with crimes, the firm's attorneys also protect the interests of those who have been injured through another's negligence. For more information, please visit the firm's Maryland Personal Injury Attorney and Virginia Accident Attorney websites.

The Washington Regional Alcohol Program is providing would-be drunk drivers with free cab fare throughout the holidays. This grand scale effort to reduce drunk driving fatalities is having its 18th year and provided about 1,000 free taxis last New Year's Eve. In total, the Sober Ride Program has provided over 52,000 safe rides home.

By calling 1-800-200-TAXI, drunken party-goers can get a free ride home up to a value of $30. The ride must originate in the District of Columbia, or in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties; the Cities of Rockville, Bowie, College Park, Gaithersburg, Greenbelt and Takoma Park in Maryland.

The service is available between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00 am; the program is available tonight the 30th and tomorrow night, New Year's Eve. A few important things to remember:

• You cannot reserve ahead or call to schedule a pickup in advance; the call must originate during program hours and will be dispatched as soon as a taxi is available,


• You must pay any fare amount in excess of $30,


• The free ride does not include tip and you should remember to tip your driver in relation to the total fare amount, and


• You must be 21 or older to ride with the service.

Participating taxi companies include: Barwood, Inc. (Montgomery County), Silver Cab of Prince George's County (Prince George's County), and Yellow Cab of District of Columbia (District of Columbia), as well as some Virginia companies. When waiting for your ride, be sure to watch for a taxi from one of the participating services in your area.

Remember, police officers will be canvassing for drunk drivers this weekend and will be out in full force. Be sure to plan ahead for appropriate transportation. Have a safe and happy New Year and call Safe Ride as an option to drinking and driving.

This blog post was written by Rosie Brown. She is a law clerk at the Washington, DC based law firm Price Benowitz LLP. The law firm has additional offices in Maryland, Virginia, and New York. In addition to practicing criminal defense the firm has Maryland personal injury lawyers and DC personal injury lawyers to assist people who are suffering from another's negligence.

Anne Arundel County Police arrested two people on Thursday after a search of their car revealed over $10,000 worth of cocaine. What I find of interest is why did they search the car? According to the news article, "Officers approached the vehicle and arrested Johnson on charges that he was driving on a suspended license." Upon checking his vehicle, all of the evidence was found. Another question I have is "when you say 'checking' do you really mean 'searching'? Or did the police see all of the evidence sitting in plain view on the backseat?"

As a defense attorney, I hope the police only found the evidence after searching the car and the justification for doing this without a warrant is "search incident to arrest." If that is the justification for searching the car, all of the evidence should be thrown out of court if the only basis for the arrest was for driving on a suspended license.

Previously, "search incident to arrest" was one exception to the law requiring a warrant before conducting a search. It allowed police to search a person during or following a lawful arrest. With regards to vehicle stops, it allowed police to also search the passenger area of the car if the person arrested was in the vehicle.

That all changed in 2009 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant. In that case, the defendant was arrested for driving on a suspended license and argued to the court that there was no reason for the officers to search his car following his arrest. He was handcuffed and sitting in the back of the patrol car when the police searched his car.
The court agreed and decided that because he was not presenting a threat to the officers, not within reach of anything in his vehicle, and searching his vehicle would not produce any evidence of the crime for which he was being arrested.

This case severely limited the powers of police. The "search incident to arrest" exception was something that police used very often as a reason to search the entire passenger area of the car. Now, once the defendant is secure and away from the vehicle, the only way the police can legally search the car is if they have reason to believe there is evidence of the crime in the car. And it must be a search for evidence of the crime that allowed the arrest.

Police can no longer search the car under the guise of a "search incident to arrest" for arrests for driving on a suspended license, driving without a license, driving uninsured, etc. These two individuals in Anne Arundel County are going to need an effective Maryland criminal defense attorney to challenge the serious felony charges they are facing.

Written by Colleen Kirby.