Stamm.jpegAlthough I am not even sworn in yet, I think I am going to like Maryland practice.

I noticed while studying for the bar that the discovery rules are far more encompassing – and rational — than in any other jurisdiction I have practiced. And then, in reading Lenny Stamm’s Maryland DUI Law, I came upon what Stamm refers to as the “stationary shelter” doctrine.

If I recall correctly, there used to be a judicially-created doctrine like this in Pennsylvania until the legislature intervened to eliminate it. It is the recognition that you don’t want to penalize someone who is using a motor vehicle not as a means of transportation but as shelter. As Stamm puts it, “[w]hen a person is reasonably using the shelter for shelter, has not driven, and does not intend to drive the vehicle, the person did not meet the statutory definition of driving” for the purposes of a DUI.”  You also do not want to discourage someone who gets into a motor vehicle to drive only to conclude that he is too intoxicated to drive who then uses the car as a shelter to “sleep it off.”

The key case in Maryland on this doctrine is Atkinson v. State, 627 A.2d 1019 (1993). The officer in that case came upon the defendant in a parked car on the right hand shoulder of the row. The defendant was in the driver’s seat with the keys in the ignition and the engine off. Noting that you do not want to convict someone of “parking while intoxicated,” the court held:

We therefore join other courts which have rejected an inflexible test that would make criminals of all people who sit intoxicated in a vehicle while in possession of the vehicle’s ignition keys, without regard to the surrounding circumstances.

{ 0 comments }

Susan Burke on Christiane Amanpour Show

by Jamison Koehler on May 9, 2013

{ 1 comment }

Unnatural Consequences: The Price of a Tweet

May 3, 2013 Current Events

Guest Post by Mary Anne Brush We can all agree that smart kids sometimes do stupid things. Studies show that the teenage brain is not fully developed, which leads to impulsive decision-making. And who doesn’t believe an important part of raising children with character is holding them accountable for their actions? I work at a [...]

Read the full article →

A Personal Goodbye to Bar Exams

May 2, 2013 Law Practice

I passed the Maryland Out-of-State Lawyers’ Bar Exam.  It was not a slam dunk. I probably over-prepared the last time I sat for a bar – that was the full, two-day Virginia bar exam I took in 2010.  So confident was I of passing that exam that I walked out an hour early on the [...]

Read the full article →

Criminal Defense Like A Game of Internet Hearts

April 27, 2013 Law Practice

Although I may not be a gamer like Ken White of Popehat, I have been playing some Hearts on the Internet recently. I love the game of Hearts. I have gotten pretty good at it over the years.  And I can never get my children or anyone else to play it with me in person [...]

Read the full article →

McCormick on Evidence: Do the Exclusionary Rules Deter Illegal Conduct?

April 25, 2013 Evidence

McCormick on Evidence first points out that you should avoid referring to  ”the exclusionary rule” in the singular: Discussions sometimes assume the existence of “the exclusionary rule,” suggesting that there is only one remedial requirement involved. This is unfortunate and misleading. Litigation and discussion is often dominated by considerations of the Supreme Court’s construction of [...]

Read the full article →

Avvo: Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

April 24, 2013 Law Marketing/Networking

Like Kramer asking for extra MSG on Seinfeld, I think I am going to put myself on a “please call” list for marketers. Just kidding. Some marketing guy from Avvo called me the other day, and I shut him down the same way I shut down most marketers: I told him I am so swamped [...]

Read the full article →

Mitchell v. U.S.: Cruelty to Children

April 16, 2013 Opinions/Cases

In Pennsylvania, the offense is known as endangering the welfare of a child.  In D.C., it is cruelty to children and, as the D.C. Court of Appeals pointed out recently in Mitchell v. United States, __ A.3d __ (D.C. 2013), you cannot read too much into the title of a criminal offense:  The title is [...]

Read the full article →