Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in Maryland

Published on
March 11, 2022
Written by
Angel Murphy
Category
Criminal and Traffic

DWI vs. DUI

In Maryland, a DWI (“driving while impaired”) is an entirely different offense than a DUI (“driving under the influence”). Although both of these offenses refer to driving with alcohol-induced impairment, they are different in terms of severity and consequently the possible penalties they carry.Between these two offenses, DWI is the lesser offense. A driver who is pulled over and registers a BAC of 0.07 to 0.08 percent, can be charged with DWI. Some drivers may produce a BAC level below this threshold but fail other tests, such as the walking sobriety test. If a driver fails a field sobriety test, he or she may also be charged with a DWI. The State of Maryland takes any sort of alcohol-impaired driving quite seriously, and so DWIs can carry harsh penalties. Currently, for a first offense, a DWI carries a possible penalty of 60 days in jail and a maximum fine of $500. For repeat offenses, the penalties are harsher, with punishments of one year in jail.

DUI and the Legal Limit

Maryland’s legal limit for alcohol is currently 0.08 percent. This means that anyone with a BAC higher than 0.08 is guilty of DUI, which is the higher offense. Maryland punishes instances of DUI more severely. First offenders face jail time of up to one year, and also a fine of $1,000. For repeat offenders, the jail time increases to two years, and the fine increases to $2,000. If a person commits DUI three times, then the penalties are up to three years and $3,000 in fines. In addition to jail time and financial penalties, drivers will also suffer hits to their driving record. The consequences of such hits can be quite significant. Drivers will face higher insurance premiums, as well as possible suspensions and even permanent revocation.

Aggravating Factors & Implied Consent

Certain factors can aggravate either a DWI or a DUI. For instance, if a driver is caught operating a vehicle while intoxicated and a child is in the car, this would be an aggravating factor. Consequently, the penalties are harsher. A first offense DUI with a child can be punished by a jail sentence of two years, and a fine of $2,000. A first offense DWI with a child can be punished with a sentence of up to six months, and a fine of up to $1,000. As you can see, these are significantly more severe when compared with offenses that don’t involve children.You should also be aware that Maryland has an “implied consent” law. This relates to a person’s refusal to take a sobriety test. Let’s suppose a person is pulled over by a police officer and is suspected of being intoxicated. The only way an officer can conclusively determine the driver’s status is through a chemical or field test. If someone refuses to take either of these tests, he or she can be slapped with a fine and a license suspension. In fact, the license suspension is automatic in this circumstance. If someone refuses once, the suspension lasts for 120 days. However, a repeat offense can lead to a one-year suspension.

Contact The Murphy Law Firm for More Information

In the future, we will come back and discuss other driving-related offenses for Maryland. For now, give The Murphy Law Firm a call today at 240-493-9116 for more information.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Alcohol|driver|DUI|DWI|higher insurance premium|implied consent|jail time|legal limit|license suspension|offense|possible penalty|repeat offense|sobriety test

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 22, 2025

Allred v. Allred (2019) & More Details on Division of Retirement Benefits

In Allred v. Allred (2019), the parties agreed to divide retirement benefits via a marital settlement agreement, including an “investment experience” clause. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s interpretation, finding that the investment experience ended on the date of the divorce judgment, as clearly stated in the agreement. This case highlights the importance of contract clarity and deference to plain language in divorce settlements.

April 18, 2025

Fulgium v. Fulgium (2019) & Calculating Military Disposable Benefits Pay

Military divorces often involve the complex division of retirement benefits under the USFSPA and federal law. In Fulgium v. Fulgium (2019), the appellate court found that the trial court erred in calculating the wife's share of military retirement pay due to mathematical inaccuracies and a misapplication of the NDAA 2017. The case was remanded for recalculation in compliance with federal standards and limitations.

April 11, 2025

Basics on How to Record a Real Estate Deed in Maryland

Transferring property in Maryland, whether by adding a co-owner or transferring full ownership, is a complex process requiring accurate preparation of a new deed. Key steps include preparing the deed, notarization, filing a lien certificate, and paying transfer and recording fees. Consulting an expert is highly recommended to avoid costly mistakes.

April 15, 2025

K.B. v. D.B. (2020) & "Unconscionable Disparities" in Alimony Awards

Indefinite alimony is awarded under a stricter standard than rehabilitative alimony and is reserved for cases of unconscionable disparity or other serious factors. In K.B. v. D.B. (2020), the appellate court overturned the trial court’s denial of indefinite alimony, emphasizing the massive income gap between the spouses. The ruling clarified that premarital earnings and marital duration must be weighed appropriately in alimony determinations.