www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier, well-establish Maryland-based national landlord lead-based paint poisoning defense law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact the firm at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5106 or (410) 720-6129.
The infamous and awful Johns Hopkins University Kennedy Krieger Institute's "Baltimore Lead Study" of 1993 has done much in souring the local sentiment regarding due process for landlords as defendants in lead-based paint poisoning lawsuits.
In the 1990s, a prominent research facility associated with Johns Hopkins University conducted an experiment that knowingly exposed children — mostly African American, some as young as a year old — to varying levels of potentially dangerous lead, as part of a study comparing different degrees of lead paint abatement. The researchers, at Hopkins’ Kennedy Krieger Institute, recruited poor families to move into homes that had only been partially abated using three different methods of lead paint removal at three different levels of cost.
It is this type of negative exposure, in conjunction with many "slum lords," that makes it more difficult for honest landlords to mount defense in their cases. Indeed, due to all the negativity directed towards landlords in these cases, numerous judges, public officials and commentators have suggested that in certain circumstances lead poisoning cases are "indefensible."
If you are a landlord or landowner facing lead-based paint poisoning legal problems, call us. We can help you.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
MARYLAND LANDLORD LEAD POISONING DEFENDANT CASES: DEFENSE ALERT!
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national landlord lead paint defense law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. We can help you.
In 2012 , 2013 and 2014 Maryland's two highest courts --- The Maryland Court of Appeals and the Court of Special Appeals --- placed a priority on the legal review of lead-based paint poisoning cases. Ten of those cases which more directly and immediately affect litigation of Maryland's civil lead-based paint poisoning lawsuits include the following:
1. Toliver v. Waicker, 210 Md. App. 52, 62 A.3d 200 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 213, 68 A.3d 287 (2013). Decision: Management company president, in that position alone, is not liable personally as "operator" under the housing code.
2. Taylor v. Fiskind, 207 Md. App. 121, 51 A.3d 743 (2012), cert. denied, 431 Md. 221, 64 A. 3d 497 (2013). Decision :" Substantial Factor" causation expert lacks sufficient factual basis to opine within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the residential unit was a substantial contributing source of the plaintiff's lead exposure.
3.Hamilton v. Dackman, 213 Md. App. 589, 75 A.3d 327, petition for cert. filed, Petition Docket No. 450, Sept. Term, 2013 : Decision: In order to make a prima facie case of lead paint poisoning, a plaintiff must show that the subject property was probably 9i.e., more likely than not) a source of exposure.
4. Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137, 70 A.3d 328 (2013). Decision : A Frye/Reed analysis of the admissibility of an expert's opinion based upon its general acceptance in the relevant scientific community is only necessary if that opinion involves a novel scientific method.
5. West v. Rochkind, 212 Md. App. 164, 66 A.3d 1145 (2013), cert. denied, 435 Md. 270, 77 A.3d 1086 (2013). Decision : A plaintiff may prove the presence of lead paint at a property by way of circumstantial evidence without XRF spectrometry or laboratory paint chip or dust testing.
6. Montgomery Mutual. Ins. Co. v. Chesson, 434 Md. 346, 75 A.3d 932 (2013). Decision: An expert's "novel" opinion as to causation due to toxic exposure must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community before it can be deemed admissible.
7. City Homes, Inc. v. Hazelwood, 210 Md. App. 615, 63 A.3d 713 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 468, 69 A.3d 476 (2013). Decision: Expert's lack of qualifications and his insufficient factual basis
to offer an opinion, as well as his lack of knowledge of the source of the lead ingestion, ruled out his testimony at trial.
8. Ross v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648, 63 A.3d 1 (2013). Decision: Though the doctor was properly excluded as an "expert" at trial as to the "source" of the plaintiff's lead exposure, the exclusion of that testimony did not preclude the plaintiff from establishing the causal link by circumstantial evidence at trial.
9. Butler v. S & S Partnership, 435 Md. 635, 80 A.3d 298 (2013), Decision: A trial court may not, sua sponte, exclude an expert's opinions based on discovery violations found under Maryland Rule 2-432(b) without a party first moving for an order to compel discovery or filing a motion for discovery sanctions.
10. Hamilton v. Kirson;and Alston v. 2700 Virginia Avenue Assocs. 2014 Court of Appeals Cases.
These two cases will be argued and considered on the issue of the admissibility of expert causation testimony and the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's use of circumstantial evidence to prove causation.
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national landlord lead paint defense law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. We can help you.
In 2012 , 2013 and 2014 Maryland's two highest courts --- The Maryland Court of Appeals and the Court of Special Appeals --- placed a priority on the legal review of lead-based paint poisoning cases. Ten of those cases which more directly and immediately affect litigation of Maryland's civil lead-based paint poisoning lawsuits include the following:
1. Toliver v. Waicker, 210 Md. App. 52, 62 A.3d 200 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 213, 68 A.3d 287 (2013). Decision: Management company president, in that position alone, is not liable personally as "operator" under the housing code.
2. Taylor v. Fiskind, 207 Md. App. 121, 51 A.3d 743 (2012), cert. denied, 431 Md. 221, 64 A. 3d 497 (2013). Decision :" Substantial Factor" causation expert lacks sufficient factual basis to opine within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the residential unit was a substantial contributing source of the plaintiff's lead exposure.
3.Hamilton v. Dackman, 213 Md. App. 589, 75 A.3d 327, petition for cert. filed, Petition Docket No. 450, Sept. Term, 2013 : Decision: In order to make a prima facie case of lead paint poisoning, a plaintiff must show that the subject property was probably 9i.e., more likely than not) a source of exposure.
4. Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137, 70 A.3d 328 (2013). Decision : A Frye/Reed analysis of the admissibility of an expert's opinion based upon its general acceptance in the relevant scientific community is only necessary if that opinion involves a novel scientific method.
5. West v. Rochkind, 212 Md. App. 164, 66 A.3d 1145 (2013), cert. denied, 435 Md. 270, 77 A.3d 1086 (2013). Decision : A plaintiff may prove the presence of lead paint at a property by way of circumstantial evidence without XRF spectrometry or laboratory paint chip or dust testing.
6. Montgomery Mutual. Ins. Co. v. Chesson, 434 Md. 346, 75 A.3d 932 (2013). Decision: An expert's "novel" opinion as to causation due to toxic exposure must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community before it can be deemed admissible.
7. City Homes, Inc. v. Hazelwood, 210 Md. App. 615, 63 A.3d 713 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 468, 69 A.3d 476 (2013). Decision: Expert's lack of qualifications and his insufficient factual basis
to offer an opinion, as well as his lack of knowledge of the source of the lead ingestion, ruled out his testimony at trial.
8. Ross v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648, 63 A.3d 1 (2013). Decision: Though the doctor was properly excluded as an "expert" at trial as to the "source" of the plaintiff's lead exposure, the exclusion of that testimony did not preclude the plaintiff from establishing the causal link by circumstantial evidence at trial.
9. Butler v. S & S Partnership, 435 Md. 635, 80 A.3d 298 (2013), Decision: A trial court may not, sua sponte, exclude an expert's opinions based on discovery violations found under Maryland Rule 2-432(b) without a party first moving for an order to compel discovery or filing a motion for discovery sanctions.
10. Hamilton v. Kirson;and Alston v. 2700 Virginia Avenue Assocs. 2014 Court of Appeals Cases.
These two cases will be argued and considered on the issue of the admissibility of expert causation testimony and the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's use of circumstantial evidence to prove causation.
BALTIMORE AND D.C. LEAD PAINT POISONING DEFENSE UNIVERSITY: 101 COURSE
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLCs, is a premier Maryland-based nationally-respected landlord and landowner lead paint poisoning defense law firm which, since 1988, has provided successful legal advice, consultation and representation for landlords, landowners and defendants in dealing with the dominant issue of lead paint poisoning in Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C.
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact the firm at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Baltimore and D.C. are difficult places to be landlords and landowners of residential properties that were built prior to 1978. One of the major reasons for this difficulty is the fact that lead-based paint poisoning in certain neighborhoods of these cities is a public health crisis.
The fact is there are some judges, public officials and commentators in Baltimore and D.C. who have suggested that in certain circumstances lead poisoning cases are "indefensible."
In truth, however, lead-based paint poisoning cases can be defended on a number of grounds, including: (1) challenging the Center for Disease Control's (CDC's) assertion that a certain low blood-lead level can result in decreased IQ, learning disabilities, and psychological, neurological, and behavioral injuries; (2) showing that the lead poisoning could have accrued due to factors outside of the landlord's control, such as leaded water, leaded toys, factories, gasoline stations, bridges, pottery, certain foods, etc.; and (3) keeping thorough records of proper maintenance of the property by the landlord: maintenance and documentation of maintenance.
Landlords must be vigilant in consistently having certified-lead professionals do maintenance checks as well as lead-assessment checks on the residential property.
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLCs, is a premier Maryland-based nationally-respected landlord and landowner lead paint poisoning defense law firm which, since 1988, has provided successful legal advice, consultation and representation for landlords, landowners and defendants in dealing with the dominant issue of lead paint poisoning in Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C.
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact the firm at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Baltimore and D.C. are difficult places to be landlords and landowners of residential properties that were built prior to 1978. One of the major reasons for this difficulty is the fact that lead-based paint poisoning in certain neighborhoods of these cities is a public health crisis.
The fact is there are some judges, public officials and commentators in Baltimore and D.C. who have suggested that in certain circumstances lead poisoning cases are "indefensible."
In truth, however, lead-based paint poisoning cases can be defended on a number of grounds, including: (1) challenging the Center for Disease Control's (CDC's) assertion that a certain low blood-lead level can result in decreased IQ, learning disabilities, and psychological, neurological, and behavioral injuries; (2) showing that the lead poisoning could have accrued due to factors outside of the landlord's control, such as leaded water, leaded toys, factories, gasoline stations, bridges, pottery, certain foods, etc.; and (3) keeping thorough records of proper maintenance of the property by the landlord: maintenance and documentation of maintenance.
Landlords must be vigilant in consistently having certified-lead professionals do maintenance checks as well as lead-assessment checks on the residential property.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
2013 BALTIMORE LEAD PAINT DEFENSE CASES: A SUMMARY
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national landlord lead paint defense law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. We can help you.
In 2012 , 2013 and 2014 Maryland's two highest courts --- The Maryland Court of Appeals and the Court of Special Appeals --- placed a priority on the legal review of lead-based paint poisoning cases. Ten of those cases which more directly and immediately affect litigation of Maryland's civil lead-based paint poisoning lawsuits include the following:
1. Toliver v. Waicker, 210 Md. App. 52, 62 A.3d 200 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 213, 68 A.3d 287 (2013). Decision: Management company president, in that position alone, is not liable personally as "operator" under the housing code.
2. Taylor v. Fiskind, 207 Md. App. 121, 51 A.3d 743 (2012), cert. denied, 431 Md. 221, 64 A. 3d 497 (2013). Decision :" Substantial Factor" causation expert lacks sufficient factual basis to opine within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the residential unit was a substantial contributing source of the plaintiff's lead exposure.
3.Hamilton v. Dackman, 213 Md. App. 589, 75 A.3d 327, petition for cert. filed, Petition Docket No. 450, Sept. Term, 2013 : Decision: In order to make a prima facie case of lead paint poisoning, a plaintiff must show that the subject property was probably 9i.e., more likely than not) a source of exposure.
4. Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137, 70 A.3d 328 (2013). Decision : A Frye/Reed analysis of the admissibility of an expert's opinion based upon its general acceptance in the relevant scientific community is only necessary if that opinion involves a novel scientific method.
5. West v. Rochkind, 212 Md. App. 164, 66 A.3d 1145 (2013), cert. denied, 435 Md. 270, 77 A.3d 1086 (2013). Decision : A plaintiff may prove the presence of lead paint at a property by way of circumstantial evidence without XRF spectrometry or laboratory paint chip or dust testing.
6. Montgomery Mutual. Ins. Co. v. Chesson, 434 Md. 346, 75 A.3d 932 (2013). Decision: An expert's "novel" opinion as to causation due to toxic exposure must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community before it can be deemed admissible.
7. City Homes, Inc. v. Hazelwood, 210 Md. App. 615, 63 A.3d 713 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 468, 69 A.3d 476 (2013). Decision: Expert's lack of qualifications and his insufficient factual basis
to offer an opinion, as well as his lack of knowledge of the source of the lead ingestion, ruled out his testimony at trial.
8. Ross v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648, 63 A.3d 1 (2013). Decision: Though the doctor was properly excluded as an "expert" at trial as to the "source" of the plaintiff's lead exposure, the exclusion of that testimony did not preclude the plaintiff from establishing the causal link by circumstantial evidence at trial.
9. Butler v. S & S Partnership, 435 Md. 635, 80 A.3d 298 (2013), Decision: A trial court may not, sua sponte, exclude an expert's opinions based on discovery violations found under Maryland Rule 2-432(b) without a party first moving for an order to compel discovery or filing a motion for discovery sanctions.
10. Hamilton v. Kirson;and Alston v. 2700 Virginia Avenue Assocs. 2014 Court of Appeals Cases.
These two cases will be argued and considered on the issue of the admissibility of expert causation testimony and the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's use of circumstantial evidence to prove causation.
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national landlord lead paint defense law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. We can help you.
In 2012 , 2013 and 2014 Maryland's two highest courts --- The Maryland Court of Appeals and the Court of Special Appeals --- placed a priority on the legal review of lead-based paint poisoning cases. Ten of those cases which more directly and immediately affect litigation of Maryland's civil lead-based paint poisoning lawsuits include the following:
1. Toliver v. Waicker, 210 Md. App. 52, 62 A.3d 200 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 213, 68 A.3d 287 (2013). Decision: Management company president, in that position alone, is not liable personally as "operator" under the housing code.
2. Taylor v. Fiskind, 207 Md. App. 121, 51 A.3d 743 (2012), cert. denied, 431 Md. 221, 64 A. 3d 497 (2013). Decision :" Substantial Factor" causation expert lacks sufficient factual basis to opine within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the residential unit was a substantial contributing source of the plaintiff's lead exposure.
3.Hamilton v. Dackman, 213 Md. App. 589, 75 A.3d 327, petition for cert. filed, Petition Docket No. 450, Sept. Term, 2013 : Decision: In order to make a prima facie case of lead paint poisoning, a plaintiff must show that the subject property was probably 9i.e., more likely than not) a source of exposure.
4. Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137, 70 A.3d 328 (2013). Decision : A Frye/Reed analysis of the admissibility of an expert's opinion based upon its general acceptance in the relevant scientific community is only necessary if that opinion involves a novel scientific method.
5. West v. Rochkind, 212 Md. App. 164, 66 A.3d 1145 (2013), cert. denied, 435 Md. 270, 77 A.3d 1086 (2013). Decision : A plaintiff may prove the presence of lead paint at a property by way of circumstantial evidence without XRF spectrometry or laboratory paint chip or dust testing.
6. Montgomery Mutual. Ins. Co. v. Chesson, 434 Md. 346, 75 A.3d 932 (2013). Decision: An expert's "novel" opinion as to causation due to toxic exposure must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community before it can be deemed admissible.
7. City Homes, Inc. v. Hazelwood, 210 Md. App. 615, 63 A.3d 713 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 468, 69 A.3d 476 (2013). Decision: Expert's lack of qualifications and his insufficient factual basis
to offer an opinion, as well as his lack of knowledge of the source of the lead ingestion, ruled out his testimony at trial.
8. Ross v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648, 63 A.3d 1 (2013). Decision: Though the doctor was properly excluded as an "expert" at trial as to the "source" of the plaintiff's lead exposure, the exclusion of that testimony did not preclude the plaintiff from establishing the causal link by circumstantial evidence at trial.
9. Butler v. S & S Partnership, 435 Md. 635, 80 A.3d 298 (2013), Decision: A trial court may not, sua sponte, exclude an expert's opinions based on discovery violations found under Maryland Rule 2-432(b) without a party first moving for an order to compel discovery or filing a motion for discovery sanctions.
10. Hamilton v. Kirson;and Alston v. 2700 Virginia Avenue Assocs. 2014 Court of Appeals Cases.
These two cases will be argued and considered on the issue of the admissibility of expert causation testimony and the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's use of circumstantial evidence to prove causation.
Monday, August 4, 2014
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND LEAD POISONING DEFENSE VARIABLES: Attorney Charles Ware's Update
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national landlord lead paint poisoning defense law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact the firm at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. We can help you when you are sued for lead paint poisoning.
Numerous judges and commentators have suggested that in certain circumstances lead poisoning cases are "indefensible." That should not be the case.
If one accepts the premise that children are a product of both genetics and environment, it stands to reason that there may be multiple causes for a child's alleged cognitive deficiencies, lowered IQ, motor deficiencies, hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder, and various other sequelae normally attributed to lead poisoning. It is, therefore, defense counsel's job to explore the possibility that any of the child's alleged behavioral or neurological difficulties may be attributable to risk factors, or "confounding variables," other than lead poisoning.
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national landlord lead paint poisoning defense law firm. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact the firm at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. We can help you when you are sued for lead paint poisoning.
Numerous judges and commentators have suggested that in certain circumstances lead poisoning cases are "indefensible." That should not be the case.
If one accepts the premise that children are a product of both genetics and environment, it stands to reason that there may be multiple causes for a child's alleged cognitive deficiencies, lowered IQ, motor deficiencies, hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder, and various other sequelae normally attributed to lead poisoning. It is, therefore, defense counsel's job to explore the possibility that any of the child's alleged behavioral or neurological difficulties may be attributable to risk factors, or "confounding variables," other than lead poisoning.
INEBRIATED/INTOXICATED DRIVING IN HO. CO., MARYLAND: AIDUIA
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference." We can help you.
Among his many other awards, accomplishments, accolades and honors, defense attorney Charles Ware is recognized as "one of the 10 BEST DUI and DWI Attorneys in the State of Maryland," according to the national organization, American Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys [AIDUIA].
Drunk driving laws in Maryland can be complex and complicated. This is just one more reason why it is important for anyone charged or arrested for DUI or DWI to contact an experienced DUI/DWI attorney as soon as possible.
After a DUI arrest, you have only 10 days from the date of the arrest to request a Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) hearing with the office of administrative hearings and pay $125 to the Maryland State Treasurer. If a person is arrested for drunk driving or DUI and fails to request the hearing on time, their license will be suspended automatically.
In Maryland the blood alcohol concentration level (BAC) for a DUI (driving under the influence)arrest is .08 or higher. A blood alcohol concentration level of .07 will result in a DWI (driving while impaired) arrest.
Maryland DUI
Among his many other awards, accomplishments, accolades and honors, defense attorney Charles Ware is recognized as "one of the 10 BEST DUI and DWI Attorneys in the State of Maryland," according to the national organization, American Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys [AIDUIA].
Drunk driving laws in Maryland can be complex and complicated. This is just one more reason why it is important for anyone charged or arrested for DUI or DWI to contact an experienced DUI/DWI attorney as soon as possible.
After a DUI arrest, you have only 10 days from the date of the arrest to request a Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) hearing with the office of administrative hearings and pay $125 to the Maryland State Treasurer. If a person is arrested for drunk driving or DUI and fails to request the hearing on time, their license will be suspended automatically.
In Maryland the blood alcohol concentration level (BAC) for a DUI (driving under the influence)arrest is .08 or higher. A blood alcohol concentration level of .07 will result in a DWI (driving while impaired) arrest.
Maryland DUI
- Minimum drivers license suspension of 45 days.
- Punishment of up to $1000 and 1 year in jail for a first offense DUI.
- Punishment of up to $2000 and 2 year in jail for a second offense DUI.
- A DUI conviction will result in 12 points on your Maryland drivers license record.
- Drivers license suspension of up to 60 days.
- Punishment of up to $500 and 2 months in jail for a first offense DWI.
- Punishment of up to $500 and 1 year in jail for a second offense DWI.
- A DWI conviction will result in 8 points on your Maryland drivers license record.
MADDD (MARYLAND ATTORNEYS DEFENDING DRUNK DRIVERS): AIDUIA
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference. We can help you."
Among his numerous other accolades, accomplishments, awards and honors, defense attorney Charles Ware is recognized as "one of the 10 BEST DUI and DWI Attorneys in Maryland" by the national organization, American Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys [AIDUIA].
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact his law firm --- Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 720-6129 or (410) 730-5016. We can help you.
Maryland drunk driving laws are strict and complex. It is very important that you contact us as soon as possible after you are arrested for drunk driving.
After a DUI arrest, you have only 10 days from the date of the arrest to request a Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) hearing with the office of administrative hearings and pay $125 to the Maryland State Treasurer. If a person is arrested for drunk driving or DUI and fails to request the hearing on time, their license will be suspended automatically.
In Maryland the blood alcohol concentration level (BAC) for a DUI (driving under the influence)arrest is .08 or higher. A blood alcohol concentration level of .07 will result in a DWI (driving while impaired) arrest.
Maryland DUI
Among his numerous other accolades, accomplishments, awards and honors, defense attorney Charles Ware is recognized as "one of the 10 BEST DUI and DWI Attorneys in Maryland" by the national organization, American Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys [AIDUIA].
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact his law firm --- Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 720-6129 or (410) 730-5016. We can help you.
Maryland drunk driving laws are strict and complex. It is very important that you contact us as soon as possible after you are arrested for drunk driving.
After a DUI arrest, you have only 10 days from the date of the arrest to request a Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) hearing with the office of administrative hearings and pay $125 to the Maryland State Treasurer. If a person is arrested for drunk driving or DUI and fails to request the hearing on time, their license will be suspended automatically.
In Maryland the blood alcohol concentration level (BAC) for a DUI (driving under the influence)arrest is .08 or higher. A blood alcohol concentration level of .07 will result in a DWI (driving while impaired) arrest.
Maryland DUI
- Minimum drivers license suspension of 45 days.
- Punishment of up to $1000 and 1 year in jail for a first offense DUI.
- Punishment of up to $2000 and 2 year in jail for a second offense DUI.
- A DUI conviction will result in 12 points on your Maryland drivers license record.
- Drivers license suspension of up to 60 days.
- Punishment of up to $500 and 2 months in jail for a first offense DWI.
- Punishment of up to $500 and 1 year in jail for a second offense DWI.
- A DWI conviction will result in 8 points on your Maryland drivers license record.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)