Why were charges dismissed on citation?

[RealJustice]

I'm in Maryland.

I have a question about a "red light camera" case in which defendent was able to get the charges dismissed and I'm intrigued by the logic in this case.

A car that was registered to a law firm (not to a lawyer in the law firm, but to the law firm itself) had received a red light camera citation. The "red light camera" citations are more-or-less automatically generated, and the owner of the car is charged. Hence, if the registered owner of the car is "Jones, Smith, and Whiplash, Inc.", then the automated citation will be issued to "Jones, Smith, and Whiplash, Inc.". Also, in Maryland, "red light camera" cases are considered civil, not criminal. They are handled very much like parking tickets.

When the case was called, a lawyer from the law firm made a pre-trial motion for dismissal based on the fact that the entity that was charged was a business (the law firm), not a person, and that made the charges invalid. The lawyer said to the judge "There is no such person as <law firm name>, so you must dismiss the charges." The judge then dismissed the charges.

I thought that a corporation was a "legal person" and could be charged and held accountable. Did the judge err or did the judge properly dismiss the case?

[seniorjudge]

Q: Did the judge err or did the judge properly dismiss the case?

A: No, if you want a guess. If you want a knowledgeable answer, post the statute in toto.

[RealJustice]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

Q: Did the judge err or did the judge properly dismiss the case?

A: No, if you want a guess. If you want a knowledgeable answer, post the statute in toto.

Okay, here's the statute. Here's a link to the relevant section of the Maryland Code. It was too long to paste into the forum.

§ 21-202.1. Traffic control signal monitoring systems.

[url]http://michie.lexisnexis.com/maryland/lpext.dll/mdcode/2185a/23078/230a3/230ae?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#[/url]

Also, was that a "no" to the first question (err), or the second question (properly dismiss)?

Thanks!

[seniorjudge]

(3)(ii) "Owner" does not include a motor vehicle rental or leasing company or a holder of a special registration plate issued under Part III of Title 13, Subtitle 9 of this article.

Well, this may apply.

(g) Defenses.-
(1) The District Court may consider in defense of a violation:
...(v) Any other issues and evidence that the District Court deems pertinent.
...


That's pretty broad also.


Q: Also, was that a "no" to the first question (err), or the second question (properly dismiss)?

A: Now my answer is, I do not have the slightest idea!

[RealJustice]

Thanks very much for your reply.