New Maryland laws effective October 1, 2015

S

steppinthrax

Active Member
General Lee said:
After market remote starting systems (maybe not all) do not provide automatic shutdown when vehicle is put into gear without the key. This is an anti-theft device. Factory installed remote starts do. Its cool they now allow it on private property. But the ones that do it in public should have no pity bestowed upon them when their car/truck is stolen because they wanted to keep it running.
Click to expand...

I installed a remote start on my 95 Saturn back in 2002 or so. It had a wire that went to the brake pedal switch as well as the ignition switch and a hood switch. Pretty much if you tried to pop the hood or step on the brake to change the gear it would cut out. Also there was a maximum time limit of 15 min. This could not ne modified.
 
frequentflier

frequentflier

happy to be living
BernieP said:
1. You can be fined for leaving an unattended vehicle running, even if it's in your driveway under the current law. So if you were not in your car while it was defrosting in the winter an officer passing by could ticket you.
Sounds like this is a minor relief for those with a remote start.

2. They can change the law all they want, what's needed is better education, not just the public but the pharmacies.

3. The key word is public, meaning the Case Search database will not contain nonviolent misdemeanor criminal records, traffic offenses, CDS possession, etc.
Law enforcement will have access to the complete record, just not every busy body.
Click to expand...

I do not consider myself a busy body because I want to check out the people that I may wish to hire or rent to.
 
S

steppinthrax

Active Member
Hodr said:
Good to know the state is endorsing witchcraft and superstition as a means of vetting potential correctional officers. I wonder if they also consult an astrologist prior to hiring. Maybe they could start employing the use of Ouija boards to find out who is stealing the Splenda from the breakroom.
Click to expand...

Anyone with a TS/SCI knows polygraphs are used extensively....
 
littlelady

littlelady

God bless the USA
BernieP said:
then check their references or only hire family or friends.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with ff. I do know that MD Judiciary is not totally accurate. That being said, checking references is not fool proof; you don't know if family members or other non biased references have been submitted for the check. Also, it is usually a big no no to hire/rent to family. That never mixes very well, and leads to trouble and arguments because of preferential treatment being expected. JMO.
 
DEEKAYPEE8569

DEEKAYPEE8569

Well-Known Member
BernieP said:
1. You can be fined for leaving an unattended vehicle running, even if it's in your driveway under the current law. So if you were not in your car while it was defrosting in the winter an officer passing by could ticket you.
Sounds like this is a minor relief for those with a remote start.
2. They can change the law all they want, what's needed is better education, not just the public bhis part sounut the pharmacies.

3. The key word is public, meaning the Case Search database will not contain nonviolent misdemeanor criminal records, traffic offenses, CDS possession, etc.
Law enforcement will have access to the complete record, just not every busy body.
Click to expand...

This sounds like this citation would be difficult to justify and just as tough to take to court.
 
Goldenhawk

Goldenhawk

Well-Known Member
frequentflier said:
I do not consider myself a busy body because I want to check out the people that I may wish to hire or rent to.
Click to expand...
I agree, but there should be a limit. A friend of mine is registered as a 2nd degree sex offender due to a youthful fling in the sack with someone just slightly too much younger than himself. According to the courts, he is no threat and the requirement to stay on the rolls as a sex offender is being lifted. Should he have to contend with this issue for the rest of his life when someone does an employment background check? I don't think so. In cases like this, it's appropriate to expunge the public record to give relief where it's due.
 
S

steppinthrax

Active Member
Goldenhawk said:
I agree, but there should be a limit. A friend of mine is registered as a 2nd degree sex offender due to a youthful fling in the sack with someone just slightly too much younger than himself. According to the courts, he is no threat and the requirement to stay on the rolls as a sex offender is being lifted. Should he have to contend with this issue for the rest of his life when someone does an employment background check? I don't think so. In cases like this, it's appropriate to expunge the public record to give relief where it's due.
Click to expand...

You sound like a Liberal.
 
B

BernieP

Resident PIA
glhs837 said:
How so? Officer testifies you were not in the car or around it and it was running.
Click to expand...

or officer takes keys... leaves note, please come to the station to pick up your keys and citation....


I mean seriously, how do they prove speeding or any other traffic violation? They swear to the facts.
It's not like they have a video camera synced with the radar gun so it captures it all on tape.
Anybody remember VASCAR (or something like that), it was nothing more than a time and distance tool.
It relied on the visual ability of the officer to see (from a hidden location) marks on the pavement that were placed a quarter mile apart.
They then recorded the time it took a vehicle to travel that quarter mile. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to fudge the data so that the vehicle was speeding.
Most courts would reject a challenge to the officers ability to see the marks and accurately measure the time. It was simply the officers sworn testimony. In some areas the officer doesn't even have to appear in court because they've signed the ticket and it's considered a form of testimony.
 
B

BernieP

Resident PIA
steppinthrax said:
Oh, I'm a certified Ass....
Click to expand...

I know, you were a perfect child, you raised perfect children. Never mad a mistake. Never had or tried to have sex when you were a teen.
We put the sex offender laws in place to protect the public from seriously ill people, not to protect us from a 17 year old that had consensual sex with his almost 16 year old girl friend.
 
S

steppinthrax

Active Member
BernieP said:
I know, you were a perfect child, you raised perfect children. Never mad a mistake. Never had or tried to have sex when you were a teen.
We put the sex offender laws in place to protect the public from seriously ill people, not to protect us from a 17 year old that had consensual sex with his almost 16 year old girl friend.
Click to expand...

In the case of a 16 and 17 or a 17 and 16 no laws would be broken... The age of Consent in MD is 16 (with a few exceptions). Here are the Maryland Age of Consent laws....

http://www.peoples-law.org/age-consent

In this case a 18 year old can have sex with a 15 year old.

A 19 year old can have sex with a 16 year old, 17 year old, 18 year old....

There are also Romeo and Julliet laws
For example, under Maryland's laws, a 19-year-old cannot be prosecuted for having sex with a 16-year-old, and a 15-year-old cannot be prosecuted for having sex with a 13-year-old. (Md. Ann. [Crim.] Code §§ 3-304, 3-306, 3-307.)

BELOW...

A person who engages in a sexual act (oral and anal sex and genital penetration) with a child under the age of 14 when the defendant at least four years older than the victim commits the crime of sexual offense in the second degree in Maryland. (Md. Ann. [Crim.] Code §§ 3-301, 3-306, 3-312.)

Finally, a person commits the crime of third degree sexual offense, the least serious statutory rape charge, by:

engaging in intercourse or a sexual act with a child age 14 or 15 when the defendant is over the age of 21, or
engaging in sexual contact (genital touching short of penetration) with a child under the age of 14 when the defendant is at least four years older than the child.
(Md. Ann. [Crim.] Code §§ 3-301, 3-307.)
 
T

tom88

Well-Known Member
Goldenhawk said:
I agree, but there should be a limit. A friend of mine is registered as a 2nd degree sex offender due to a youthful fling in the sack with someone just slightly too much younger than himself. According to the courts, he is no threat and the requirement to stay on the rolls as a sex offender is being lifted. Should he have to contend with this issue for the rest of his life when someone does an employment background check? I don't think so. In cases like this, it's appropriate to expunge the public record to give relief where it's due.
Click to expand...

What state did your friend have this fling with someone slightly younger?
 
T

tom88

Well-Known Member
BernieP said:
I know, you were a perfect child, you raised perfect children. Never mad a mistake. Never had or tried to have sex when you were a teen.
We put the sex offender laws in place to protect the public from seriously ill people, not to protect us from a 17 year old that had consensual sex with his almost 16 year old girl friend.
Click to expand...

Good...because there isn't a single state in this country that has a law which would make a 17 year old that has consensual sex with his almost 16 year old girlfriend a sex offender. That is the myth portrayed by sex offenders to make you feel better about them.
 
T

tom88

Well-Known Member
BernieP said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/teen-charged-with-his-own-nude-selfies-2015-9

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/05/us/hookup-dating-app-sex-offender-registry/

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/us0907/7.htm
Click to expand...


Thank you very much for taking the time to prove that your initial statement was blatantly false and my correction to your lie was absolutely correct.

I love people who defend these sex offenders saying they were just victims of angry parents, and it was all consensual. It was the girls fault as she was promiscuous. I heard those stories in the seventies...that was how rapist got away with things.

Now, every sex offender tells the story how he was a young lad when his girlfriends parents ratted him out and that's how he ended up on the registry. It's a beautiful story, but not true. In the state of Maryland, there has to be a four year separation between victim and perpetrator. It's a misdemeanor for someone who is 18 to 20 and the victim is over four years younger. That means it's a crime for a 20 year old to have sex with a fifteen year old, 19 year old to have sex with a fifteen year old, and 18 year old to have sex with a 14 year old. I'm perfectly fine with those laws.

I have to wonder why they bother you so much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top