baltimore city police

Can a Domestic Violence Protective Order of Peace Order be Expunged?

July 16, 2024 | Brian G. Thompson

Both criminal and domestic attorneys are frequently confronted with whether domestic violence protective orders or peace orders can be expunged. This is an extremely important question given how readily available court information now is on the internet. Anyone with a computer or even a smart phone can bring up Maryland Judiciary Case Search and find out a person’s entire legal history in seconds. This information is available to potential employers and undoubtedly costs people job opportunities daily.

That is, of course, unless the person has been able to get the court records expunged. Under the criminal code a person is entitled to have any case expunged that resulted in either a nolle prosequi (a dismissal), a stet (inactive), or a not guilty verdict (also called an acquittal). There are exceptions to this general rule such as a situation in which a person has pending charges or seeks to expunge the entry of a probation before judgement and has a subsequent conviction within three years of that entry.

But what about a domestic violence protective order or a peace order?

Unfortunately, the answer is no. Expungement is available only in criminal cases and only in the limited circumstances that I outlined above. What is available is a process called “Shielding,” but it is also available only in limited circumstances and is not nearly as complete a cleansing of the record as is expungement.

Basically, a person is entitled to have a domestic violence protective order or peace order shielded if it was denied or dismissed at the interim, temporary or final order stage of the proceedings. This right to shielding is subject to limitations such as if there are pending criminal charges from the alleged abuse or another order between the parties has previously been issued. Even if neither of these limiting circumstances applies, the order still can be denied if the Petitioner appears and shows “good cause” to the court as to why the order should not be shielded.

Additionally, a person can request shielding of a peace order once the order expires. A court may grant the request if the person seeking shielding consented to its entry, did not violate the order, has no other orders issued or pending against them, and has no convictions or pending charges against the person who filed for the peace order.

Finally, even if the order is shielded, unlike in the case of expungement, certain people may still access the records, including law enforcement officials and victim services providers. Despite the limitations in the shielding statute, it is still something that should be done by anyone to whom shielding is available. The most important result of the shielding process is that if granted, the information will be taken off the Maryland Judiciary Case Search website. This will make the information unavailable to potential employers and others who may use the information to the disadvantage of the person against whom the order was sought.

At Silverman Thompson, we handle expungement and shielding matters regularly. To discuss having a domestic violence protective order or peace order shielded or criminal charges expunged from you or a loved one’s record, please call Brian Thompson , Esq. at 410-659-9930 for a free consultation.

If you are looking for a family lawyer, please contact Monica Scherer, Esq. at 410-625-4740.

An Important Milestone in the Effort to Hold the City and Police Department Liable for the Harms Caused by the Gun Trace Task Force

August 6, 2020 | Steven D. Silverman

The Gun Trace Task Force was an elite unit within the Baltimore City Police Department tasked with getting illegal guns off the streets. But as a blockbuster federal investigation revealed, GTTF members were themselves criminals of the worst kind: crooked cops who conspired to terrorize the very same citizens they swore to protect and defend. Their misconduct was shocking even for a City accustomed to police scandals: suspicion-less stops and arrests, writing false police reports and fake search warrants, lying in court, planting evidence, beating detainees, robbing citizens, and on and on. Some measure of justice was achieved after the officers involved were convicted of federal conspiracy charges, but the battle to ensure appropriate compensation for the victims is ongoing. A recent decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals in two cases brought by GTTF victims represents an important victory in that battle.

In Baltimore City Police Department, et al. v. Ivan Potts, Misc. No. 6, September Term, 2019, and Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Estate of William James, No. 51, Sept. Term, 2019 (https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2020/6a19m.pdf), the Court considered whether Baltimore City and the Police Department should be forced to pay judgments against GTTF officers obtained by two victims, Ivan Potts and William James. The facts of their cases are egregious, but sadly typical of the crimes committed by the GTTF officers.

Ivan Potts

Maryland Criminal Attorney – Jury Acquits Police Officer in 30 Minutes

October 3, 2017 | Brian G. Thompson

A few weeks ago I defended Baltimore County Police Officer Christopher Spivey in a use of force assault case. After listening to 3 days of testimony and evidence, the jury took less than 30 minutes to find him not guilty of all charges. Then at least six members of the jury waited around to shake Officer Spivey’s hand and thank him for his 10 years of service to the community as a police officer.

A few days later the Editors of the Sun wrote what I view as an outrageous editorial in which they dismissed the juries’ verdict and all but lamented the fact that there were no demonstrations of social unrest as a result of the acquittal. Below is a link to the editorial as well as the response that I sent to the paper. Not surprisingly the editors lacked the journalistic integrity to print my response.

My Response:

Violation of Probation Dismissed on Speedy Trial Grounds

September 2, 2011 | Brian G. Thompson

Most Experienced and Aggressive Criminal Defense Attorneys handle many cases in which the client is charged with Violation of Probation. Typically when a judge places a criminal defendant on probation, the judge will require the person to do certain things while on probation such as report to an agent, perform community service, participate in drug treatment. The probation also requires the defendant to remain law abiding and very often to be randomly tested for drug use.

If a defendant violates any of these conditions, the agent will notify the judge who will usually order a hearing to determine if he probation has been violated and very often issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest. Many judges routinely order that the defendant be held without bail until such hearing takes place. Many attorneys wrongly assume that violations of probation are not defensible since there is no prohibition on the use of hearsay testimony and the State must only prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence standard, not beyond a reasonable doubt as is the case in criminal trials. Many defenses are in fact viable in violations of probation including speedy trial type defenses. I successfully defended a client in a violation of probation hearing this week in Baltimore County District Court using this type of defense. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

Standard for Strip Searches Incident to Arrests in Maryland

February 5, 2009 | Steven D. Silverman

I recently filed a multi-million dollar case against the Baltimore City Police Department involving an illegal and unwarranted body cavity search. Having received many inquiries since than on the law in this area, I will explain the nuts and bolts of the legality of strip searches in Maryland.

The key Maryland cases regarding the reasonableness of a strip search are State v. Nieves, 383 Md. 573 (Md. 2004) and Paulino v. State, 359 Md. 341 (Md. 2007). Both cases reiterate that it is well established both that the State has the burden of proving the legality of a warrantless search and that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent some recognized exception. Although a search incident to arrest is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, a strip search incident to arrest is held to a much higher standard.

The Nieves court held that the reasonable, articulable suspicion standard applies in the strip search incident to arrest context. Nieves, 383 Md. at 596. While strip searches for felony arrests may always be justifiable, strip searches following arrests for minor offenses are generally ‘found wanting’, unless the officer had information that would have led to a reasonable suspicion that the person was carrying weapons or contraband at the time of the arrest. Id. at 592. Nieves was arrested for traffic offenses that included driving on a suspended license, negligent driving, failure to control speed, and giving false accident information. The court found that a strip search following Nieves’ arrest was not reasonable because the nature of the traffic violations for which he was arrested failed to create a suspicion that he was carrying weapons or contraband. Id. at 596. The justification for the search of Nieves based on his prior drug offenses and the fact that he was driving a car whose owner was associated with drugs was also found lacking. The court held that allowing a strip search based on prior drug arrests would amount to allowing a search based on a person’s status, rather than an individualized assessment of the circumstances. Id. at 597.
Continue reading ›