Published on:

wine-426466__480-300x225The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland recently announced that the owner of a high-end wine storage facility has pled guilty for orchestrating a multi year fraud scheme. The 54-year old Anne Arundel County man was the sole owner and operator of a company that provided storage and delivery service for rare and expensive bottles of wine. He charged a monthly fee for these services, but instead found it more lucrative to sell the bottles to unsuspecting third parties. According to the plea in 2013 the man began offering his customer’s wine bottles for sale to retailers and brokers across the country, including America’s wine capital of Napa, California. He used email and fax to communicate with potential buyers about his “inventory” and provided all the relevant information about the bottles and the asking price. After coming to a sales agreement the man packed and shipped the bottles to the buyer from his facility in Glen Burnie, and then accepted payment via check or wire transfer to his bank account. The proceeds were not shared with, or even disclosed to the rightful owners of the wine.

The scheme lasted for four years until 2017 and began to resemble a makeshift Ponzi, as all the while the defendant was collecting storage fees and accepting new bottles of wine from his current clients. Eventually the owners started asking questions, and the scheme came crashing down like schemes generally do. All told, the defendant stole between $550,000 and $1.5 million worth of his customer’s wine, most of who were private collectors and commercial establishments such as upscale restaurants. Not that it really factored into the case, but the defendant did not posses a license to sell wine within the State of Maryland or any other state, so he wasn’t actually a wine dealer (or a legitimate one at least). The actions described by the government in the guilty plea could have resulted in a number of theft and fraud related charges, but the lawyers decided on a plea to wire fraud. It appears that the government and the defense have agreed to a sentence of 18 months in prison, which will be imposed at a sentencing hearing down the road in the Baltimore federal courthouse.

Fact patterns such as this present an interesting discussion on theft laws, and since this is a Maryland criminal law Blog we’ll stick to offering commentary on that. In Maryland you don’t actually have to steal something to be charged with theft. Obtaining goods such as wine under false pretenses or with the intent to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of the goods is sufficient for a theft charge. Even if the wine guy had every intention of restoring his customer’s collections he legally committed a theft the second he put them up for sale. There is no separate charge for obtaining goods by deception, as it falls under the general Maryland theft provision that differentiates based on value of the goods. One of the exceptions is failure to return a rental vehicle, which is a separate charge that carries a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail. Theft less than $100 is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail. Theft less than $1,500 but more than $100 is also a misdemeanor but carries a 6-month maximum. Anything over $1,500 is classified as a felony, with maximum penalties ranging from 5 years to 20 years for theft over $100,000.

Published on:

weed4-300x194Over four years ago Washington D.C. residents voted to legalize marijuana by a majority of almost two to one, but reality set in soon after the celebrations ended. The natural progression of marijuana legalization (the path Maryland is currently traveling) begins with decriminalization, then the establishment of a medical program and finally full-blown legalization. D.C. seemed to be headed toward the ultimate goal of legalization when Initiative 71 passed, but Congress had other ideas and the progression stalled. The main opposition for legalized marijuana in D.C. came from a Maryland congressman with an M.D. from Hopkins, who has described cannabis as a gateway drug with no proven medical use. This congressman used his influence to insert language in the federal spending bill for D.C., which prohibits the local government from spending federal money on a program that regulates and taxes the recreational sale of marijuana. It was further established that any member of the Washington D.C. government faced prosecution from the Justice Department for spending federal money on legalization, and thus Initiative 71 became all bark and no bite.

You could call Initiative 71 a partial victory, as it ended local criminal prosecution for possession, use and cultivation of marijuana, but to this day there is no legal means to purchase marijuana without a medical license. As a result citizens are forced to illegally purchase a substance that is technically legal, and has been for four years. The whole situation seems like politics at its worst; a congressman from another jurisdiction with strong views has exerted his power over the will of the people because he simply knows better. It’s actually quite frustrating, but it seems the local government in D.C. is not giving up. Last week the mayor revealed a bill that attempts to once again establish a clear path for the District to begin a fully functioning recreational marijuana program. The bill, entitled the Safe Cannabis Sales Act of 2019, aims to topple the illegal marijuana market in the city that is dangerous for residents who are lawfully permitted to use cannabis. A 17% tax on recreational sales would apply, and recreational businesses would be required to employ at least 60% D.C. residents. The purchase of up to one ounce of flower per day would be permitted, as well as limitations on the daily purchase of concentrates and edible products. Tax revenue, would be reinvested in the District’s affordable housing programs and other programs designed to benefit residents.

The D.C. government is confident that their work toward legalization does not constitute a violation of the federal spending limitations, but the program will not get off the ground absent changes in Congress. The Maryland lawmaker originally responsible for the flame out of Initiative 71 has reiterated his disapproval of the Mayor’s efforts in a stern statement. He reaffirmed his believe that recreational marijuana is poor public policy and not so subtly requested that the Mayor respect the Constitution, which gives Congress authority over the District. The statement reads like a threat from a power hungry politician that feels his authority has been questioned.

Published on:

hammer-802296__480-300x225After two days of deliberation a Baltimore County jury found a teenager guilty of first degree murder, burglary and theft for actions that lead to the death of a female police officer almost one year ago. The defendant was 16 at the time he was arrested in Perry Hall after running over the officer with a stolen Jeep. Three other male co-defendants are still awaiting trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. All four were under the age of 18 and all were charged with first-degree murder in adult court. A juvenile who is charged with first degree murder and was 16 or older at the time of the offense is prohibited from requesting a transfer to juvenile court, which in Maryland is called a reverse waiver. Juveniles who have been convicted of a prior violent felony such as robbery or first degree assault or other excluded offense like handgun possession are also prohibited from requesting a reverse waiver, as are juveniles who have already been waived and found delinquent. One of the co-defendants in this case was actually 15 at the time of the incident, but his case was not transferred to juvenile court. The 3 remaining defendants are all scheduled for trial in September, and it remains to be seen whether the State will now be more inclined to offer plea deals to a crime other than first degree murder.

The defendant who was recently convicted now must return to the circuit court for sentencing, but under Maryland law the judge will be required to impose a sentence of life. While the state prison system has a fairly liberal parole policy, (violent offenders are often released after serving one half of their sentence) parole is not a forgone conclusion even for young defendants who receive life in prison. Maryland law provides prosecutors the option of seeking life without parole in murder cases, but this requires advance notice to the defendant and a special sentencing trial where the jury must unanimously approve life without parole. If the jury cannot come to a unanimous decision within a reasonable amount of time then a life sentence must be imposed.

This case has stirred up more debate over the fairness of the felony murder doctrine, which allows the jury to convict in a murder case without the State actually proving the defendant intended to kill. First-degree felony murder only requires that the State satisfy three elements, with the first being that the defendant or co-defendant committed a felony such as burglary, arson, carjacking, escape or a sexual offense. The second element is that the defendant killed the victim, and the third element is that the act resulting in the death of the victim occurred during the commission of, or in the immediate escape from the scene of the felony described in the first element. In co-defendant cases such as this one, all participants are liable for the acts of the other co-defendants. It is for this reason that the three other juvenile defendants face the same first-degree murder charge as the one whose actions actually killed the officer.

Published on:

pistol-1350484_1280-300x200The federal government’s commitment to prosecuting Baltimore City gun crimes was on display again this week, as two men were sentenced to almost ten years in prison for unlawful firearm possession. Both the ATF and the Baltimore Police Department participated in the investigations that ultimately led to the convictions, and sentences were announced by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland. In the first case a 35-year old received a sentence of 100 months in federal prison followed by 3 years of probation for illegal possession of a stolen firearm. According to the plea, law enforcement executed a search warrant of the defendant’s residence and found a stolen semi-automatic handgun on the couch along with marijuana that the defendant planned to sell.   In the plea the defendant agreed that the firearm was possessed in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and admitted that the he knew the firearm was stolen. The defendant was prohibited from possessing a firearm due to multiple prior felony convictions

Just 3 days later, a second Baltimore man was sentenced by the same federal judge to 9 years in prison for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and possession of a firearm in the furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The jail sentence will be followed by 5 years of probation, or supervised release as it is termed in the federal system. According to the plea agreement police officers observed the defendant participating in a drug transaction and attempted make contact with him, but the defendant fled the scene. After a brief pursuit the defendant was arrested, and a search incident to arrest revealed oxycodone bills and over $400 in cash. Police also recovered a black jacket nearby with a loaded handgun inside the pocket. Law enforcement was able to prove the jacket belonged to the defendant using evidence recovered from a search warrant. This defendant was already prohibited from possessing a handgun due to prior felony convictions for possession with intent to distribute narcotics.

Both defendants could have easily been prosecuted in the Circuit Court in Baltimore, but the feds continue to pound the message that they will not ignore illegal gun possession in the city. Both Maryland law and federal law provide mandatory minimum prison sentences for illegal gun possession, but gun charges carry lengthier prison sentences in the federal system, and defendants are never eligible for parole. The defendants received lengthy sentences in large part due to their status as prior convicted felons, but the fact that drugs were involved with both cases contributed as well. Under Maryland law a person is subject to a 5-year minimum prison sentence without parole for both illegal possession of a firearm and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Illegal possession of a firearm does not necessarily mean that a person must be a convicted felon. Misdemeanor convictions for second degree assault, and any other crime that carries a more than 2-year maximum penalty will disqualify a person from possessing a gun under state law. Additionally, a conviction for a domestically related offense and even a probation before judgment for domestic assault disqualifies a person. Possession of a firearm in the furtherance of a drug trafficking crime also carries a 5-year sentence without parole. The prosecution must establish that the gun and the drugs have some sort of relationship or nexus, but prior case law on this issue is not in favor of defendants.

Published on:

concertina-wire-1031773_960_720-200x300Just a few short years after a massive corruption ring landed numerous corrections officers in prison and permanently shuttered the Baltimore City Detention Center, the feds have announced yet another bust at a Maryland correctional facility. The United States Attorney’s Office recently announced that twenty defendants have been indicted on federal racketeering charges for their roles various ongoing criminal conspiracies at the Maryland Correctional Institute Jessup or MCIJ. Six of these defendants were corrections officers or other employees at the facility, with one being a high-ranking lieutenant and another being a nurse. Seven inmates and seven civilians were also part of the indictment, which became public after the defendants were arrested. The FBI took part in the press release and reiterated that corruption will continue to be one of their main areas of focus. Eliminating prison corruption has also been a top priority for Governor Hogan after the embarrassing scandal in Baltimore created national headlines for weeks. Since 2015 almost 200 defendants have been charged with crimes related to prison corruption in Maryland.

This particular investigation began as early as 2014 and revealed an ongoing smuggling ring at MCIJ, where employees and civilians would conspire to sneak contraband into the facility for pay. The contraband included narcotics such as MDMA (molly), Suboxone strips and other drugs such as marijuana and K2. Tobacco, cell phones and unauthorized thumb drives were also allegedly smuggled into the facility and paid for by inmates using electronic transactions on the illegal cell phones. This criminal conspiracy is eerily similar to the prior jailhouse conspiracy in Baltimore and other instances of prison corruption across the country. There will always be a market for contraband in prison facilities as we have seen glorified in movies such as Shawshank Redemption, though in Shawshank it wasn’t entirely clear how the inmates paid for their contraband. Untraceable electronic forms of payment such as green dot cards have made the exchange of currency much easier, but outsiders are still needed to physically bring desired contraband into the facility. For some, a cut of the extreme markup that contraband brings is too easy to pass up, but as we see there are serious consequences for taking part in this business.

Almost all of the defendants face a maximum of 20 years in prison for the racketeering counts, and half face the same 20-year maximum for conspiracy to distribute narcotics and possession with intent to distribute drugs. The highest-ranking officer faces life in prison for depravation of rights under color of law for allegedly threatening inmates with death or serious bodily injury. Federal prosecutors credited the DPSCS and its employees, who actually initiated the investigation and alerted federal law enforcement to the ongoing conspiracy. While this case could have been prosecuted in state court, it is common for the FBI to take over large-scale corruption conspiracies due to their ample resources and stiffer penalties under the federal sentencing guidelines.

Published on:

annapolis-237078_960_720-300x195The 2019 Maryland legislative session has come to an end, and unlike previous years where marijuana was decriminalized or mandatory prison sentences for certain drug offenses were effectively discarded, there will be no drastic changes to the criminal code come October. While not headline makers, lawmakers did successfully address some minor offenses such as gambling and possession of alcohol, and changes are on the horizon. We previously wrote about a bill that proposed to decriminalize small time gambling, which in our opinion was long overdue. With state casinos booming, and sports betting on the verge of becoming legal in Maryland it really makes zero sense to impose criminal sanctions on citizens engaged in unlawful gambling. Both houses agreed and passed the bill that will now punish illegal gamblers with a civil citation and a fine, rather than a potential misdemeanor conviction and jail time. Anyone caught running an unauthorized casino or taking bets as a bookie still faces criminal liability, though lawmakers did away with the archaic 6-month mandatory minimum penalty. The maximum fine for civil gambling offenses will be $500 if less than $100 is at stake or $1,000 if more than $100 is at stake. Illegal gambling cases were not common to begin with, but now police will be even more motivated to look the other way.

Lawmakers also passed legislation that will make consumption of alcohol in public and possession of an open container a civil infraction rather than a criminal misdemeanor. The $100 fine will remain the same, but offenders no longer run the risk of a criminal conviction for drinking a beer, wine or liquor in public. This bill does not directly impact citations for minors in possession of alcohol, which will remain a civil infraction with a potential $500 fine for a first offense. Each of these civil infractions may be prosecuted by the local State’s Attorney’s Office, which is generally a good thing. The SAO has the ability to offer some sort of pre-trial diversion such as community service or alcohol education in exchange for a dismissal, while a district court judge has no such ability. The passage of this bill may affect the way open container violations are handled in local jurisdictions such as Ocean City. Previously public consumption or possession of an open container of alcohol was punishable by jail time in Ocean City, and police officers of this popular summer destination had the authority to arrest those, who for example were leaving Secrets with a drink in their hand. The Blog will pay attention to the local code to see if the city counsel is forced to make any changes to the existing laws regarding alcohol.

There was a lot of talk before the 2019 session began that the threshold of criminal possession of marijuana would be raised from 10 grams to one ounce (28 grams) but this change may not be on the immediate horizon. In addition to raising the lawful possession threshold, a Montgomery County lawmaker also proposed to allow adults over the age of 21 the right to use marijuana, to possess up to 5 grams of marijuana concentrates, and to cultivate up to 6 marijuana plants in their homes. The proposal was in the form of a constitutional amendment that would be put to a vote in this year’s general election.

Published on:

e-cigarette-1881957__480-300x200While marijuana laws have changed drastically over the last several years the legislature has largely avoided the subject of tobacco. The state has regularly raised taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products in order to dissuade use, but no major tobacco legislation has crossed the governor’s desk in years. That will change this summer, when the governor will be presented with a bill that effectively raises the age of lawful tobacco use from 18 to 21. The proposed law will modify section 10-107 of the Maryland criminal code, which currently makes it illegal to sell or distribute tobacco products to a minor under the age of 18. Under the new law a person could be subject to criminal charges for selling, or otherwise distributing tobacco products to anyone under the age of 21, unless the person is a member of the United States Military. There is no current proposal to address possession of tobacco products for those under the age of 21, but such legislation could be proposed in the future. If the legislature decides to address underage possession of tobacco it would probably be in the form of a civil citation, much like the current offense for underage possession of alcohol.

It is safe to say that traditional cigarette smoking was not the main target of this piece of legislation, but rather vaping that was the objective. The popularity of vaping has spiked dramatically over the past few years due to the technological advances of electronic cigarettes. These devices are discrete and easy to use, and can be charged via USB outlets that are the used with almost every cell phone. Electronic cigarette smoke can contain high amounts of nicotine and offer the smoking sensation without the lingering stale smell, and cartridges come in hundreds of different flavors. The CDC recently reported that more than 20 percent of high school students have tried vaping in the last month, compared to about 1.5 percent in 2011. Additional studies have shown that raising the tobacco use to 21 could dramatically reduce e-cigarette use among high school students, and Maryland lawmakers have taken notice.

The new tobacco law will likely go into effect in October, and enforcement should be expected immediately. Shop owners and employees could face a misdemeanor conviction and hefty fines for violating the new law. A first offense carries a maximum penalty of a $300 fine, but repeat offenders face a $1,000 fine after that. A third offense within 2 years and any subsequent offense after that carries a massive $3,000 fine, which will surely cause tobacco dealers to think twice before selling. This offense is not a strict liability crime, as lawmakers included a provision that allows for an affirmative defense. If upon purchase, a valid form of identification was presented that positively identified the purchaser as over the age of 21 then the seller may not be found guilty of violating the statute. This seems to protect sellers in fake ID cases, as a store clerk should not reasonably be expected to be an expert in facial recognition. Under the law, sellers would be required to card anyone who appears under the age of 30, and businesses would have to present new signage that states nobody under the age of 21 is permitted to purchase tobacco products. Electronic cigarettes and other smoking devices are considered tobacco products, so the new law would likely prevent anyone under the age of 21 from making a purchase at or even entering the local smoke shop.

Published on:

hammer-719066_960_720-300x225While it is not stated in any official statute or case law the primary purposes of the adult criminal system are punishment and deterrence of future crime. The term “corrections” is more of a euphemism than the actual truth, and a more accurate term for the agency that oversees the prisons would be the Department of Punishment. But regardless of what the state decides to call it, the bottom line is that prison and probation does not exist for the benefit of those convicted of crimes in the adult criminal justice system. Thankfully the same harsh reality does not apply to the juvenile criminal justice system. While it’s far from perfect, the juvenile criminal justice system was designed from top to bottom with the best interests of minor defendants in mind. The primary goals of juvenile system are treatment, care and rehabilitation of the defendants. This does not mean that judges and magistrates will shy away from imposing punitive conditions on a child in order to protect the public or deter future unlawful behavior, but the main goal is to help the defendants. For this reason it is extremely important for minor defendants and those that have recently turned 18 to do whatever it takes under state law to keep their cases in juvenile court, or transfer them away from adult court. Before the issue of transfer comes up it is important to understand the Maryland laws governing when a child can be charged as an adult in the first place.

All children ages 7 to 17 at the time of the offense in question are considered juveniles, but this does not mean that everyone within this age group will be charged as such. Under Maryland law there are certain statutory provisions that serve to exclude the juvenile court from original jurisdiction over a criminal case (original jurisdiction simply means where the case starts). Any child that is 14 or older and charged with a crime punishable by life in prison will be excluded from having their case heard in juvenile court. These cases (typically murder) will start out in the District Court, and then eventually make their way into the Circuit Court if the State decides to continue prosecution. The next set of exceptions applies to defendants that were 16 or older at the time of the alleged offense, if the offense falls under the statutory exclusion list. Maryland rule 3-804 lists several offenses that disqualify 16 and 17 year old defendants from being charged as juveniles. These defendants will be arrested and charged as adults, and their cases will be listed in the public casesearch database. State law requires that these defendants be housed in a separate facility from adult offenders, but if the child turns 18 while detained he or she will be sent to an adult jail unless a motion to transfer physical custody is filed by a lawyer or filed pro se.

There are numerous offenses that will disqualify a defendant from being charged as a juvenile, and all are either felonies or crimes involving firearms. Common disqualifying offenses are first-degree assault, armed robbery, carjacking and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. Second-degree murder, attempted murder and manslaughter are also excluding offenses. Any juvenile that is charged as an adult for one of these crimes will have the opportunity to argue that their case should be transferred to juvenile court. This process is called a reverse waiver transfer, and the motion must be filed within 30 days or it could be waived. Any defendant that is 16 or older and charged with first-degree murder is excluded from transfer, as well as any defendant who was previously transferred and adjudicated delinquent.

Published on:

Gun-evidence-box-300x225Federal prosecutors have a reputation for taking on the largest and most complex criminal cases, and recent news headlines have done nothing but support this reputation. In the last few months the feds have convicted one of the largest drug traffickers in history, placed the entire college and amateur basketball world on notice and publicly shamed Hollywood actors for engaging in university admissions scandals. It seems no case is too large, but when it comes to guns in Baltimore no case is too small either. The U.S. Attorney’s Office recently announced that a 24-year old Baltimore man pleaded guilty to unlicensed gun dealing and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. This case was not tied to any other federal indictment, and the defendant was not part of any large-scale criminal conspiracy that the feds typically prosecute. There were no bank robbery, drug trafficking or gang related RICO claims against the defendant. The facts were straightforward and the case could have been prosecuted by the State of Maryland in the Baltimore City Circuit Court, yet the federal government decided take over.

This particular defendant, who had a prior conviction for first degree assault from 2015, pleaded guilty in Howard County to a separate gun related offense in the fall of 2017. Sentencing on the Howard County case was set for the winter of 2018 and the defendant was out of custody, presumably getting is affects in order before he began his sentence. Before the sentencing hearing, a violation of probation warrant from the original assault case became active, and Baltimore Police officers were sent to serve the warrant. Upon initiating a traffic stop the defendant fled from his vehicle and was arrested after a brief pursuit. A handgun was recovered along the path where the defendant allegedly fled. After this arrest law enforcement obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s social medial accounts and discovered numerous references to illegal gun sales, which prompted the feds to assume prosecution of the case. The 24-year old was sentenced on the two Howard County cases where he received the full backup time for the violation of probation and five years for the unlawful firearm possession case. He now faces up to 15 years in federal prison for the case where he recently pleaded guilty.

Regular readers of the Blog are well aware of federal government’s increased involvement with Baltimore City gun cases. It has become clear over the last decade that the local government simply cannot control violence in the city. It’s not just the murder rate, which is the highest among any major U.S. city but also the shootings, robberies, burglaries and carjackings that are all at critical levels. For the most part people just do not feel safe in Baltimore, and the population is declining as a result. The city is also having trouble hiring new police officer and retaining its own.

Published on:

prison-300x201Being arrested or finding out that a loved one has been arrested is an unpleasant experience to say the least, but knowing what lies ahead can eliminate some of the stress and anxiety about the situation. Most people that are arrested in Maryland are booked at the police station and then taken before a District Court Commissioner. Those arrested on a failure to appear or violation of probation bench warrant will go directly to the commissioner. While we could write an entire article on the pitfalls of the commissioner system, we’ll save that for another post and just stick to offering a general overview of the arrest process. The commissioner will look at the charging document and first make a determination whether there is probable cause that the defendant committed the charged offense. Then the commissioner will determine whether the defendant will be released and with what conditions. For non-violent offenses such as theft or drug possession defendants will typically be released on their own recognizance. Out of state defendants may be required to post a bail, but the bail could be unsecured, which means the defendant will only have to pay money if he or she does not show up to court.

Defendants charged with violent offenses such as second degree assault and more serious misdemeanors such as burglary or firearm possession may still be released by the commissioner, but typically with pre-trial supervision. Pre-trial supervision is similar to probation, in that the defendant will be supervised prior to the case going to court. Pre-trial supervision can include strict conditions such as home detention and could also be lenient and only require the defendant to call in once a week. When a defendant is released on any case involving a victim the commissioner will almost always put a no contact order in place, and violation of this order could result in an arrest warrant being issued.

Defendants that are charged with a felony (or even misdemeanor gun possession in Baltimore City) may face an uphill battle when they go before the commissioner. Exceptions are felony theft cases with a value of less than $100,000 and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Those charged with distribution of narcotics are also frequently released by the commissioner, but if large quantities of heroin or fentanyl are recovered then the defendant may be held without bail. Anyone who is not released by the commissioner or who fails to post bail by the next business day will be brought before a judge for a bail review. These initial bail reviews are usually done by video and the defendant will not be brought to court. The judge will first hear from a pre-trial release officer on whether the defendant qualifies for supervision and then the lawyers will have a chance to speak. The Assistant State’s Attorney will speak first, and typically go along with pre-trial’s recommendation, though in Baltimore City cases the district court prosecutors frequently ask for the defendant to be held without bail regardless of what pre-trial says. The defendant’s attorney will then have a chance to argue why his or her client should be released. The attorney must touch on the two main issues of assuring the judge that the defendant will return to court (flight risk), and convincing the judge that the defendant is not a danger to the community. Defense lawyers are not typically permitted to call witnesses at bail review hearings, but they may proffer to the court what a witness would have said, and also point out any family members that may be in attendance. Having family present during a bail review may be the difference between release and being held, as judges like to see that a defendant will have a stable place to live upon release.