Maryland lawDui

DUI Penalties in Maryland

September 28, 2026 · LawDiver Research Team

Maryland's rule on DUI penalties turns on a feature the national template does not capture: BAC limits: 0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21. A first offense: First-offense driving under the influence is typically a misdemeanor with fines, possible jail, license suspension, alcohol program, and ignition-interlock eligibility. Felony threshold: A subsequent DUI within a defined period, or DUI causing life-threatening injury/death, can be a felony. The controlling authority is Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 21-902. Lookback: Prior DUI/DWI convictions enhance penalties; lookbacks commonly use lifetime or multi-year windows depending on the enhancement.. Ignition interlock: Ignition interlock is widely used for restricted licenses after alcohol-related driving offenses.

Key takeaways

BAC limits: 0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21
Lookback period: Prior DUI/DWI convictions enhance penalties; lookbacks commonly use lifetime or multi-year windows depending on the enhancement.
First-offense range: First-offense driving under the influence is typically a misdemeanor with fines, possible jail, license suspension, alcohol program, and ignition-interlock eligibility.
Felony threshold: A subsequent DUI within a defined period, or DUI causing life-threatening injury/death, can be a felony.
Ignition interlock: Ignition interlock is widely used for restricted licenses after alcohol-related driving offenses.
Primary authority: Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 21-902.

Worked example under Maryland law

The illustration below uses only rules already stated for Maryland. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.

A driver in Maryland is charged with a first impaired-driving offense and wants to know what the statute actually sets.

Start with the alcohol limits: 0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21
Read the first-offense range: First-offense driving under the influence is typically a misdemeanor with fines, possible jail, license suspension, alcohol program, and ignition-interlock eligibility.
Ask when the charge becomes a felony: A subsequent DUI within a defined period, or DUI causing life-threatening injury/death, can be a felony. Lookback: Prior DUI/DWI convictions enhance penalties; lookbacks commonly use lifetime or multi-year windows depending on the enhancement.
Interlock: Ignition interlock is widely used for restricted licenses after alcohol-related driving offenses.

Maryland alcohol-related driving offenses under Transp. § 21-902 proceed in district court with parallel MVA administrative suspensions. Defense reviews the stop and Intoximeter record.

Blood alcohol limits in Maryland

0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21

Lookback window for prior offenses

Prior DUI/DWI convictions enhance penalties; lookbacks commonly use lifetime or multi-year windows depending on the enhancement.

First-offense penalties

First-offense driving under the influence is typically a misdemeanor with fines, possible jail, license suspension, alcohol program, and ignition-interlock eligibility.

When a Maryland DUI becomes a felony

A subsequent DUI within a defined period, or DUI causing life-threatening injury/death, can be a felony.

Ignition interlock and license consequences

Ignition interlock is widely used for restricted licenses after alcohol-related driving offenses.

How a typical Maryland DUI case unfolds

Maryland alcohol-related driving offenses under Transp. § 21-902 proceed in district court with parallel MVA administrative suspensions. Defense reviews the stop and Intoximeter record.

Case law: DUI penalties in Maryland

Glenn Lydell MEANOR, v. STATE of Maryland

Glenn Lydell MEANOR, v. STATE of Maryland, 364 Md. 511 (2001)

…rcuit Court for Howard County of driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol, and failure to obey a traffic control device, for which he was given a suspended jail sentence. Those judgments were affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals. Meanor v. State, 134 Md.App. 72, 758 A.2d 1124 (2000). We granted certiorari to consider whether (1) petitioner was effec…

Practitioners open Glenn Lydell MEANOR, v. STATE of Maryland when Maryland DUI penalties turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Court for Howard County of driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol, and failure to obey a traffic control device, for which he was given a suspended jail sentence. Those judgments were affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals. Meanor v. State, 134 Md.App." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

STATE of Maryland v. William Dunlock BRYANT

STATE of Maryland v. William Dunlock BRYANT, 361 Md. 420 (2000)

…cide by motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, driving under the influence of alcohol, negligent driving, driving at unreasonable speed, and failure to control speed. The Circuit Court sentenced Bryant to a term of imprisonment of one year and a fine of $1000 for homicide by motor vehicle and driving while under the influence of alcohol. The trial court merged the…

STATE of Maryland v. William Dunlock BRYANT is worth reading on Maryland DUI penalties because the court put the point in its own words: "The Circuit Court sentenced Bryant to a term of imprisonment of one year and a fine of $1000 for homicide by motor vehicle and driving while under the influence of alcohol." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

Daniel Frank TURNER v. STATE of Maryland

Daniel Frank TURNER v. STATE of Maryland, 181 Md. App. 477 (2008)

…IS, Judge. Daniel Frank Turner, appellant, was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol per se, driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while impaired by alcohol, failing to drive right of center and failing to obey a traffic device. On December 12, 2006, appellant was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Calvert County of driving under the influence…

On DUI penalties, Daniel Frank TURNER v. STATE of Maryland speaks to the Maryland dispute in this passage: "IS, Judge. Daniel Frank Turner, appellant, was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol per se, driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while impaired by alcohol, failing to drive right of center and failing to obey a traffic device." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Donald Kent WILSON v. STATE of Maryland

Donald Kent WILSON v. STATE of Maryland, 124 Md. App. 543 (1999)

…ted by a jury in the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County of driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”) and making an unsafe lane change. 1 Wilson was sentenced as a second offender to one year of incarceration, with work release. For purposes of sentencing, the court merged the unsafe lane changing conviction with the DUI offense. On appeal, appellant presents two issues: *…

On DUI penalties, Donald Kent WILSON v. STATE of Maryland speaks to the Maryland dispute in this passage: "Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County of driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”) and making an unsafe lane change. 1 Wilson was sentenced as a second offender to one year of incarceration, with work release." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Washington v. State

Washington v. State, 988 A.2d 61 (2010)

…as a separate offense in the statutory scheme to permit an intoxicated driving conviction based solely on blood alcohol content, as an alternative to the fact finder having to rely on the more subjective behavioral evidence necessary to prove intoxicated driving. See id. at 519-24, 774 A.2d 394. Because the two offenses are separate, the trial court was not required to merge a…

Maryland opinions such as Washington v. State are cited where DUI penalties is disputed. The court stated: "as a separate offense in the statutory scheme to permit an intoxicated driving conviction based solely on blood alcohol content, as an alternative to the fact finder having to rely on the more subjective behavioral evidence necessary to prove intoxicated driving. See id. at 519-2" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Glenn Lydell MEANOR v. STATE of Maryland

Glenn Lydell MEANOR v. STATE of Maryland, 134 Md. App. 72 (2000)

…rcuit Court for Howard County of driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol, and failure to obey a traffic control device, and was sentenced to a term of *74 90 days, of which all was suspended in favor of two years supervised probation with special conditions. On appeal, appellant presents us with the following questions: 1. Did the trial court err in in…

Maryland opinions such as Glenn Lydell MEANOR v. STATE of Maryland are cited where DUI penalties is disputed. The court stated: "Court for Howard County of driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol, and failure to obey a traffic control device, and was sentenced to a term of *74 90 days, of which all was suspended in favor of two years supervised probation with special conditions." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Michael Francis LANGWAY v. STATE of Maryland

Michael Francis LANGWAY v. STATE of Maryland, 94 Md. App. 407 (1993)

…ile intoxicated Count 5: Driving while intoxicated Count 6: Driving under the influence Count 7: Speed greater than reasonable and prudent Count 8: Failure to control speed to avoid collision with another vehicle Count 9: Failure to stop at a red light The case proceeded to a jury trial on December 16, 1991. Over appellant’s objection the trial judge admitted into evidence the…

Practitioners open Michael Francis LANGWAY v. STATE of Maryland when Maryland DUI penalties turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Count 6: Driving under the influence Count 7: Speed greater than reasonable and prudent Count 8: Failure to control speed to avoid collision with another vehicle Count 9: Failure to stop at a red light The case proceeded to a jury trial on December 16, 1991." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Sharon Kay COOK v. STATE of Maryland

Sharon Kay COOK v. STATE of Maryland, 62 Md. App. 634 (1985)

…sented was legally insufficient to support a conviction for driving under the influence of drugs. Maryland Transportation Code Ann., § 21-902(c) provides, in pertinent part, A person may not drive or attempt to drive any vehicle while he is so far under the influence of any drug, [or] any combination of drugs ... that he cannot drive a vehicle safely. (2) It is not a defense to…

Maryland opinions such as Sharon Kay COOK v. STATE of Maryland are cited where DUI penalties is disputed. The court stated: "Maryland Transportation Code Ann., § 21-902(c) provides, in pertinent part, A person may not drive or attempt to drive any vehicle while he is so far under the influence of any drug, [or] any combination of drugs ... that he cannot drive a vehicle safely." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Frequently asked questions

What is the legal BAC limit in Maryland?