Upper Marlboro Criminal Defense Law Blog

When Maryland residents face criminal charges that are later dismissed, these charges could still show up in a criminal background check. This was the case for a woman who faced a battery charge in Illinois. The court had dismissed her charge without a conviction after she served a short supervision sentence. However, a rental application the woman submitted 20 years later was rejected because of the charge. She filed a lawsuit against the background check company, alleging that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the FCRA, background screening companies cannot report arrests after seven years. However, there is not a time limit on reporting convictions. The court ruled that "conviction" should be defined under federal instead of state law. Because the woman pleaded guilty, the court said the charge counted as a conviction despite its dismissal at the state level. In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that a man in a similar situation, whose charges were diverted and expunged, was also considered to have been convicted under federal law.

Having a loved one who needs help can be a difficult situation. It can be even more difficult if he or she needs help due to getting in trouble with law enforcement. You may have a loved one facing this type of scenario, and now, you wonder what steps could help him or her handle drug-related charges.

Even though you may have thought you knew everything about your loved one, individuals with addiction issues can carry out behaviors that make it difficult to truly know what they get up to. For instance, your loved one may have lied about his or her activities without you being none the wiser. Though you may feel as if you should have seen the signs sooner, it can be immensely difficult.

Encounters with the criminal justice system can be particularly devastating for people living in poverty in Maryland. States, counties and cities across the country have developed an increasing reliance on court fines, fees and citations in order to balance their budgets and pay for specific services. Therefore, the use of these kinds of financial penalties can be encouraged by some administrations. Because these punishments are heavily financial in nature, they can have a deeply disproportionate effect on poor residents. Fines that people are unable to pay can escalate into significant debts and even jail time in some cases.

Despite a 1983 Supreme Court ruling that people cannot be jailed for being too poor to pay their fines and fees, versions of the practice continue in localities nationwide. In one state, debt collection for these fees has been outsourced to a private company. The firm charges debtors an additional 30% on top of the already hefty fines, threatening them with arrest if they do not pay. After people are jailed, they are once again billed for their incarceration, creating an inescapable cycle for impoverished people. While people may not have even had criminal charges against them, they may end the process with a criminal record, periods of incarceration and even more extreme marginalization.

In late June, two people were arrested in separate incidents for attempting to smuggle narcotics into Maryland detention centers. According to media reports, the drugs were discovered by correctional officers as the defendants tried to enter the facilities.

In the first incident, a 20-year-old Glenn Dale man was discovered with 55 strips of suboxone on his person as he tried to enter the Dorsey Run Correction Facility. Apparently, correction officers were tipped off about the presence of the drugs by the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services' Intelligence and Investigative Division. The defendant allegedly told officers that the drugs were intended for his cousin, who is a prisoner at the facility. He has been charged with drug possession, drug possession with the intent to distribute, drug possession in a place of confinement, and possession of contraband in a place of confinement.