Justices Rule in Favor of the Police

In a recent Supreme Court Ruling the court ruled in favor of the Police, stating that a Police officer's mistake of law doesn't necessarily mean the suspect goes free. Chief Justice Roberts wrote "To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials."  He went on to say "Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer's understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground," So what does that mean to everyday citizens?

Under criminal law, it is widely held that if in the normal course of their duties, police officers act in good faith as to their belief of a fact, whatever the results are - the courts have found the police officers actions justifiable. 

As demonstrated through the unfortunate circumstances and cases recently played out in the media, police officers are given wide areas of latitude in order to perform their duties by the courts. The courts have found that while they have the opportunity to "Monday morning quarterback" a situation, the police in the moment do not have that luxury. 

My job as a defense attorney is to bring out the facts, and show that the officer should have known, or did know that what action they were undertaking was un-constitutional, and a violation of their client's rights. 

As a prior police officer I am in a perfect position to be able to place myself in those shoes, and determine whether or not an officer was acting in "good faith" in your case.  

Cell Phones & Your Privacy

Police officers used to be able to search a person's cellular telephone upon a lawful arrest of that person. For instance, if someone were caught smoking marijuana in their car, the police would seize their cellular telephone, and utilize the information within that phone to levy additional charges, or identify potential targets for additional investigation. All this was done without a warrant. However, in a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court has put a stop to these searches. 

A few months ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the case of Riley v. California.  In this decision, the Court decided that due to the amount of private information stored on our cellular telephones, there is a certain unreasonable intrusion if the police were to search those phones without a warrant. Therefore if the police attempt to search the phone without a warrant, any information derived from such search should be suppressed by a Court and should not be used as evidence. 

This decision has finally brought the 4th amendment expectation of privacy to our personal electronics, and it was long overdue.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf

Ocean City

If you're headed to the beach this summer, you might see this sign around the boardwalk.

Ocean City, Maryland as a town is, and has been, promoting its image as a family destination. The city lawmakers are attempting to make the boardwalk a family-friendly destination.  Ocean City Mayor Rick Meehan posted on Facebook, "Our family image is very important to us and we think people will feel that when they see our new signs."

A recent study named Maryland the "second most foul-mouthed state in the country."  But what will happen to you if you do swear on the boardwalk?  You will not receive a citation because Ocean City can't outlaw profanity.  But you could be cited for disorderly conduct if you make a scene or are too loud.  

I anticipate that as time goes on, additional laws will be created which will attempt to enhance the family friendly atmosphere. 

(See article signs Mind Your Manners: Ocean City to Post no Profanity Signs)

Top 10 Things to Know Before Heading to Ocean City for Spring Break

Spring Break time is rapidly approaching.  If you are like many others, you might be headed to Ocean City to enjoy some surf and sand.  I have put together a list of the top 10 things to know before coming to OC for spring break.

10.  If you'd like to have a bonfire on the beach, you must first obtain a permit from the Fire Marshal's Office at City Hall.

9.  Hitch-hiking anywhere in Ocean City is prohibited.

8.  You cannot drive your vehicles onto the beach.  

7.  You may walk your dog on the beach (this is only prohibited May 1- Sept 30).  You must keep your dog on a leash that is under 8 ft in length and clean up any waste.

6.  It is illegal to sleep in your vehicle within the city limits.

5.  Rollerbladers must stay on the sidewalk when one is provided.

4.  The beach is closed from midnight-5:00am for cleaning.

3.  Ocean City Police Department strongly enforces the city noise ordinance between the hours of midnight-7:00 am.  You should not make any noises that are plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the building/vehicle you are in.

2.  The drinking of alcoholic beverages in public is prohibited.  You may not drink on any street, alleyway, sidewalk, beach, parking lot, or in a vehicle parked in any of these locations.  It is also illegal to be in possession of an open container in public.   

1.  If you find yourself in need of legal representation while you are here, I am available for consultations 24-7.  You can reach me at 410-310-3763.

Underage Drinking: Understanding the Severity

The Ocean City Police Department has a program known as the RAAM Project, which was instituted to decrease instances of underage drinking in Ocean City.  (To learn more about this project, please visit Ocean City RAAM Project.)

With spring break time fast approaching and summertime not far behind, I wanted to give a few tips about the severity of underage drinking.

Quite frequently throughout the summer those who are under the age of 21 utilize various methods in an attempt to get alcohol or to gain entrance to one of the many bars. Some of those methods include utilizing a fake ID or using the ID of someone who is 21. Utilizing these methods can be quite costly if one gets caught. The Ocean City Police will not offer community service in many of these circumstances; more likely it will result in a severe fine and perhaps points on your license. Additionally, depending upon the circumstances, the Ocean City Police may also charge an individual in this situation with identity theft criminal charges. And to add to the severity of this issue, my understanding is that if the Maryland Motor Vehicle administration gets involved, they may suspend the driving privileges of anyone who attempts to use someone else's ID to get alcohol or get into a bar.

So please take these potential penalties into consideration when venturing down to the Ocean this year, and if you find yourself in one of these situations, please contact me as soon as possible. This will help to protect your rights, and perhaps your driving privileges.

Julie Guyer, Attorney at Law

The Winds of Change Possible for the Bail/Bond Process

There might be some changes coming soon to the the bail/bond process in the state of Maryland.

(More info at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-judges-bail-20140106,0,3409101.story )

Here's my take on it:

When an individual has charges placed upon them, currently they see a commissioner within 24 hours who sets a bail/bond. This process is extremely time consuming, and from arrest to the visit to a commissioner it can be as much as 6 - 10 hours. The changes contemplated by the courts in Maryland are, I'm afraid, going to make that process much longer. This will have a much more pronounced effect in the rural counties where getting a judge to hear a bail/ bond review will be difficult for a multitude of reasons. 

The bottom line is you are looking at a commissioner who is available 24 hours a day, and replacing them with a judge who is only available from 9-5, during the week. It appears that on the weekends, that might be different. But overall, I think it will create a significant extension to a process, which when you are the person arrested, takes too long as it is.

Additionally, there was a proposal to do away with a monetary bond requirement attached to the process. It would be a significant change to the process, and I agree with the Court that the insertion of a judge hearing the initial bail/bond review addresses the constitutional requirements set forth. 

What are your thoughts?