A deposition transcript obtained by this outlet reveals that Sarah Hornbeck admitted under oath to a drug-and-alcohol-related arrest and a guilty plea — the very allegations she simultaneously denied in her own legal filings. The transcript also raises new questions: probation sobriety test failures, a second arrest in 2020, and a pattern of non-recall that drew pointed questioning from opposing counsel.

---

EDITOR’S NOTE: This report is based on public records obtained through Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) requests, the Maryland Judiciary Case Search portal, and a deposition transcript from Jeffrey W. Reichert v. Sarah Hornbeck, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01865-JMC, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (deposition taken February 27, 2026, before court reporter Sharon L. Banks, C.R.). All documents are part of the public record. Requests for comment from Hornbeck and the Charles County State’s Attorney’s Office are pending. This is an ongoing investigation.

Part I: A Chase Down Route 301

On the afternoon of March 6, 2018, multiple witnesses called 911 to report a gray Toyota Corolla with Georgia license plates driving erratically southbound on Route 301 in Charles County, Maryland. What followed over the next several hours would involve a high-speed run from law enforcement, a single-vehicle crash, two separate physical confrontations with police officers, an escape from handcuffs mid-transport, and the destruction of law enforcement property. All of it is captured in public records.

The CAD (Computer-Aided Dispatch) logs show the first call came in at 3:41 PM. The vehicle, later identified as belonging to Sarah M. Hornbeck, then 43, of Baltimore, was reported to be passing other vehicles on the shoulder at a high rate of speed and refusing to stop. A second caller, identified in unredacted CAD records as Jennifer Shelton, called moments later with her own account as the car continued south.

What the dispatch logs capture next is striking: at approximately 3:55 PM, a trooper on scene radioed that Hornbeck appeared to be waving something in her hand as she looked in the rearview mirror, and that he was uncertain whether she was holding a weapon. The car continued south through Chapel Point Road, past the Bel Alton Motel, before driving off the road near Mt. Air Road at 3:59 PM and running into a ditch.

A trooper radioed that Hornbeck appeared to be waving something in her hand — he was uncertain whether she was holding a weapon.

EMS units — Engine CH10B, Squad SQ10, and Paramedic PA148 — arrived within minutes. Hornbeck refused medical treatment. Charles County Sheriff’s Police Officer First Class Matthew VanHorn (Badge #509) made contact with her as the sole occupant.

‘I’m an Attorney in Washington D.C.’

According to VanHorn’s official incident report, he immediately detected a strong odor of alcohol on Hornbeck’s breath. When he asked for her identification, she refused — and attempted to walk away from the scene. He told her she was not free to leave. She attempted to walk away a second time. He warned her again. Then, a third time, as Maryland State Police Trooper William Scarlett (MSP Barrack H, La Plata) arrived on scene.

During this interval, Hornbeck told VanHorn that she was an attorney in Washington, D.C., that she had stopped for lunch in D.C., and was now headed home to Baltimore. The problem: she was driving southbound on Route 301 — toward Virginia — when her vehicle left the road. VanHorn noted she could not explain why she was heading in the opposite direction from Baltimore.

When Trooper Scarlett arrived, Hornbeck made her third attempt to walk away. VanHorn grabbed her left arm and directed her to put her hands behind her back. She refused and tried to pull away. Scarlett grabbed her other arm. Both officers had to physically lean her against her own vehicle to apply handcuffs. Her Maryland driver’s license was located in her purse, confirming her identity.

The Road to the Barracks — And Off It

Trooper Scarlett took custody and began transporting Hornbeck to the MSP La Plata Barracks. En route, at approximately 5:37 PM, he broadcast over the dispatch radio requesting assistance. Hornbeck had slipped out of her handcuffs while locked in the back of his cruiser.

PFC VanHorn responded to the area of Crain Highway and Bel Alton Newtown Road. When officers attempted to remove Hornbeck from Scarlett’s cruiser to reapply handcuffs, she grabbed a computer cable inside the vehicle and held on. She pulled hard enough to break the cable. Once outside, she pushed against both officers, kicked at VanHorn’s left leg, hooked her leg around his, pushed off the MSP vehicle, and used her head to push against his chest.

She grabbed a computer cable inside the police cruiser and held on. She pulled hard enough that she broke the cable.

The Knee Strike

Because Scarlett’s cruiser lacked a cage and recording equipment, the decision was made to place Hornbeck in VanHorn’s vehicle, which had both. At his vehicle, she refused again — hooking both feet under the open door, preventing it from closing. VanHorn warned her verbally and explicitly that he would deliver a knee strike if she did not comply. She did not comply. He delivered a single knee strike to her right thigh. She released tension on the door. He pushed her legs in and closed it.

The entire sequence was recorded on VanHorn’s ICOP in-car camera (video not provided). The Emergency Response Team was placed on standby at the Charles County Detention Center. Upon arrival, she was removed without further incident. She reported no injuries; none were observed.

Sgt. J. Richards (#391), who independently reviewed the ICOP footage, concluded in his written report that VanHorn gave repeated verbal commands and warned Hornbeck exactly what would happen before acting, and that his use of force was appropriate and within agency policy.

Key Facts: The Incident — March 6, 2018
Date / Time	March 6, 2018, beginning 3:41 PM
Location	Route 301 (Crain Hwy) southbound, Charles County, MD
Arresting Agency	Maryland State Police, Barrack H (La Plata)
Assisting Agency	Charles County Sheriff’s Office
Officers	Tpr. William Scarlett (MSP); PFC Matthew VanHorn #509 (CCSO)
Supervisor	Sgt. J. Richards #391 (CCSO)
Vehicle	Gray Toyota Corolla, Georgia tag CGG3836
Charges Filed	DUI (drug/drug+alcohol impairment), DOP, Assault on LEO
Force Used	Single knee strike to right thigh — ruled appropriate
Injuries	None reported or observed
MSP Case No.	18MSP009740
CCSO Incident No.	P1802241 / UF 18-031

Part II: The Outcome — A Walk

The charges against Sarah M. Hornbeck — driving while so far impaired by drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol (TA.21.902.C1.i) that she could not drive safely, along with an assault charge — made their way through the District Court for Charles County, Traffic System, under citation number 3Q80BG7, with a companion criminal case (D-042-CR-18-000631) also on file.

Court records show Hornbeck retained Richard Karceski, a prominent Baltimore-area criminal defense attorney based in Towson, who entered his appearance on June 28, 2018. He was replaced on July 26, 2018, by Arthur McGreevy of Woodstock, Maryland — a date also marked by multiple deficient filing entries in the docket.

On August 22, 2018, before Judge W. Louis Hennessy in Charles County District Court, Hornbeck entered a guilty plea. The disposition: Probation Before Judgment (PBJ) — two years, unsupervised. No fine. No supervised probation. No incarceration. Under Maryland law, a PBJ does not result in a formal conviction if the defendant completes the probation term.

Probation Before Judgment. Two years. Unsupervised. No fine. No conviction on her record. The assault charge does not appear in the traffic court disposition at all.

What Is a PBJ, and Why Does It Matter Here?

In Maryland, Probation Before Judgment allows a judge to accept a guilty plea but withhold a formal finding of guilt. If the defendant completes the term without violation, no conviction is entered — no points on a driver’s license, and the incident does not appear as a conviction on background checks, though the arrest record remains public.

PBJs are not uncommon for first-time DUI offenders in Maryland, and judges have broad discretion. But they are typically granted to defendants who cooperated with law enforcement, submitted to chemical testing, and did not resist arrest. Hornbeck’s case involved none of those mitigating factors. She actively resisted arrest on multiple occasions. She escaped from handcuffs. She physically fought two officers. She destroyed law enforcement property. And she was charged with assault on a law enforcement officer.

The assault charge does not appear in the traffic court’s final disposition. Whether it was handled in the companion criminal case (D-042-CR-18-000631), dropped by prosecutors, or otherwise resolved is not clear from available records. This outlet has made additional records requests.

Twelve Days Later: A Protective Order

The criminal case was not the only legal proceeding triggered by the March 6 arrest. Court records obtained by this outlet show that on March 18, 2018 — just twelve days after the DUI incident — a domestic violence protective order petition was filed in Anne Arundel County District Court (Case No. D-07-FM-18-000520), with Sarah Hornbeck listed as the respondent. The petition went through an interim hearing that same day, a temporary protective order hearing on March 20, and a final protective order hearing on March 27 before Judge Thomas V. Miller III. The docket shows the petition was denied at the temporary stage.

The timing is significant. Hornbeck had been arrested on March 6th, charged with DUI and assault on a law enforcement officer, and was awaiting criminal proceedings — when a protective order was sought against her in the family court system just twelve days later. The filing is consistent with the deposition’s account of the custody dispute being active and contentious throughout 2018. The full docket does not identify the petitioner by name in the public-facing record, but the case is listed as a domestic violence matter with Hornbeck as respondent, and the context of the ongoing Reichert-Hornbeck custody litigation makes the connection clear.

Twelve days after the DUI arrest, a domestic violence protective order petition was filed in Anne Arundel County with Hornbeck as the respondent — while her criminal case was still pending.

The Drug Impairment Statute

One detail in the charging documents warrants particular attention. The statute under which Hornbeck was charged — TA.21.902.C1.i — is specifically the provision for driving while impaired by drugs, or by a combination of drugs and alcohol. This is distinct from a standard alcohol DUI (TA.21.902.A). PFC VanHorn noted a strong odor of alcohol at the scene, and the CCSO use-of-force report listed her condition as ‘Alcohol.’ Yet the charging decision pointed to drug involvement. No toxicology results appear in the records obtained to date.

The Legal Case at a Glance
Court	District Court for Charles County — Traffic System
Citation No.	3Q80BG7  |  Companion criminal: D-042-CR-18-000631
Filing Date	March 7, 2018
Charge	TA.21.902.C1.i — Impaired driving (drug/drug+alcohol)
Prosecutor	State’s Attorney, Charles County
Defense (initial)	Richard Karceski, Towson, MD
Defense (final)	Arthur McGreevy, Woodstock, MD
Judge	W. Louis Hennessy, Charles County District Court
Plea	Guilty (August 22, 2018)
Disposition	Probation Before Judgment (PBJ)
Probation Term	2 years unsupervised — ending August 2020
Fine	None ($0)
Case Status	Closed
Related PO Filing	D-07-FM-18-000520 — Filed March 18, 2018 (12 days post-arrest); Hornbeck as respondent; petition denied at temporary stage

Part III: The Deposition — Admissions, Contradictions, and a Pattern of Non-Recall

On February 27, 2026, Sarah Hornbeck was deposed by video conference in the federal civil case Jeffrey W. Reichert v. Sarah Hornbeck (Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01865-JMC, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland). The deposition was conducted by plaintiff’s attorney Ibrahim Reyes of Reyes Lawyers, P.A. (Coral Gables, FL) and co-counsel Moisette I. Sweat of Sweatism Consulting LLC (Accokeek, MD). Hornbeck was represented by Brennan C. McCarthy, Esq. (Annapolis, MD).

This outlet obtained the full 150-page certified transcript, prepared by court reporter Sharon L. Banks, C.R. What it reveals goes substantially beyond simple non-recall. The transcript documents sworn admissions, direct contradictions between Hornbeck’s deposition testimony and her own legal filings, allegations of probation sobriety failures, and a second wave of legal proceedings in 2020 — all against the backdrop of a long-running, high-conflict custody dispute over the couple’s minor child, G.R., now 16.

The Admission — And the Simultaneous Denial

The 2018 arrest came up on page 15 of the transcript. Plaintiff’s attorney Reyes asked directly:

Q:  In March of 2018, were you arrested and charged with driving under the influence, assault on a law enforcement officer, and related offenses in Charles County, Maryland?      MR. McCARTHY: Objection. Go ahead and answer.      THE WITNESS: Yes.   Q:  Did that arrest stem from a drug and alcohol incident?      MR. McCARTHY: Same objection. Go ahead and answer.      THE WITNESS: Yes.

Source: Deposition of Sarah Hornbeck, Feb. 27, 2026, pp. 15-16. Reichert v. Hornbeck, 1:24-cv-01865-JMC.

Asked about the outcome of those charges, Hornbeck described it as “PVJ” — her phonetic rendering of PBJ — and said she believed it was “one year of unsupervised probation.” The court record shows the disposition was two years of unsupervised PBJ, ending August 2020. She understated the length of her own probation by half.

Then came the contradiction. On pages 16-17, Reyes read from paragraph 16 of the lawsuit’s complaint — which alleged the March 2018 arrest, the drug-and-alcohol nature of the incident, and the two-year probation. He asked whether those allegations were accurate. She confirmed them: “I believe so,” and “yes, that sounds approximately correct.”

Then Reyes revealed that in her own answer to that same complaint, Hornbeck had denied those very allegations. His question was simple:

Q:  In your answer to their complaint, to paragraph 16, you deny those allegations. Do you know why you denied those allegations?   A:  I don’t recall.

Source: Deposition of Sarah Hornbeck, Feb. 27, 2026, p. 17. Reichert v. Hornbeck, 1:24-cv-01865-JMC.

To be precise: under oath, she confirmed the arrest and guilty plea. Also under oath — in a signed legal filing in the same case — she denied those same facts. And under oath at the deposition, she cannot explain why she denied them.

Under oath at the deposition, she confirmed the arrest and plea. In her own signed legal filing in the same case, she denied those facts. Asked why she denied them, her answer was: ‘I don’t recall.’

She Sought Therapy for the DUI — But Doesn’t Remember That Either

Later in the deposition, on pages 943-944, the DUI incident surfaced again — this time volunteered by Hornbeck herself, in the context of describing mental health treatment:

A:  My therapy would cover Mr. Reichert’s abuse as well as other issues to discuss. I believe after my DUI incident, I did see a different therapist for approximately two or three months. And I do not recall his name.   Q:  Where was he? In what city and what state?   A:  Towson, Maryland.

Source: Deposition of Sarah Hornbeck, Feb. 27, 2026, pp. 29-30. Reichert v. Hornbeck, 1:24-cv-01865-JMC.

Hornbeck’s own description of seeking a therapist specifically following the DUI incident — in Towson, the same city where her first defense attorney Richard Karceski was based — directly contradicts any suggestion that the incident was too minor or too distant to recall. It was significant enough for her to seek professional mental health treatment.

Probation Sobriety Test Failures

The deposition also introduced a dimension of the 2018 case that the public court record does not reflect: Hornbeck’s conduct while on probation. On pages 39-41, Reyes asked whether she had failed sobriety tests during her two-year unsupervised probation — a question whose framing implies those failures were already documented in the litigation record:

Q:  Did you fail sobriety tests in connection with your probation at that time?   A:  I don’t recall.   Q:  Why would you not recall something so recent? I am trying to really understand. Ms. Hornbeck?   A:  I said I don’t recall.

Source: Deposition of Sarah Hornbeck, Feb. 27, 2026, pp. 40-41. Reichert v. Hornbeck, 1:24-cv-01865-JMC.

The framing of the question matters. Reyes did not ask whether she had been required to take sobriety tests. He asked whether she had failed them. The deposition record also references “probation sobriety failures” explicitly in the context of Reichert’s February 2020 motion to extend a protective order — suggesting those failures were not merely alleged but had become a documented basis for legal action in the custody proceedings.

Whether or not Hornbeck’s PBJ probation included formal sobriety monitoring conditions is not clear from the traffic court records obtained to date. This outlet has filed for additional records with the Charles County District Court and the State’s Attorney’s Office.

The deposition references ‘probation sobriety failures’ as a documented basis for legal action in the custody case — yet Hornbeck says she does not recall whether she failed sobriety tests during her probation.

The Broader Pattern: ‘I Don’t Recall’

The 2018 arrest exchanges were not isolated instances of claimed memory failure. Across 150 pages of deposition testimony, the phrase “I don’t recall” or its variants appeared dozens of times in response to questions about documented, verifiable events — many of them recent and legally significant. Reyes raised it directly on page 18:

Q:  Do you have a memory issue, Ms. Hornbeck?   A:  No.   Q:  Do you know why you do not recall things that are fairly recent?      MR. McCARTHY: Objection to being ‘fairly recent.’ Counsel, we are talking over six years ago, and probably three dozen cases from Mr. Reichert.

Source: Deposition of Sarah Hornbeck, Feb. 27, 2026, pp. 18-19. Reichert v. Hornbeck, 1:24-cv-01865-JMC.

Later, on pages 43-44, Reyes returned to the pattern directly:

Q:  Do you know why you do not recall so many things that happened in 2020?   A:  I disagree with the characterization of your question.   Q:  That’s okay, but my question is: Do you know why you do not recall so many things that happened in 2020?   A:  No.

Source: Deposition of Sarah Hornbeck, Feb. 27, 2026, pp. 43-44. Reichert v. Hornbeck, 1:24-cv-01865-JMC.

Among the things Hornbeck testified she did not recall: the specific law enforcement contacts she herself reported in interrogatory answers, the terms of multiple custody orders she was party to, whether she disclosed active custody orders to a commissioner when seeking a protective order in 2020, and why she denied in a legal filing the very arrest she confirmed moments earlier in the same deposition.

What the Deposition Reveals She Would Need to ‘Not Recall’

Taken together — across the public records and the deposition transcript — the following are documented facts that Hornbeck has either denied, minimized, or claimed not to remember:

1. Driving erratically southbound on Route 301 for several miles, passing vehicles on the shoulder, while multiple witnesses called 911.
2. Running her vehicle off the road and into a ditch near Mt. Air Road, Charles County.
3. Refusing to identify herself to law enforcement at the scene and attempting to walk away on at least three separate occasions.
4. Being physically restrained and handcuffed by two officers after active resistance.
5. Slipping out of her handcuffs while in the back of a Maryland State Police cruiser.
6. Grabbing and breaking a computer cable in a police vehicle while resisting removal.
7. Kicking an officer, hooking her leg around his, and using her head to push against him.
8. Being explicitly warned that a knee strike would follow if she did not comply — and then receiving that strike.
9. Being booked at the Charles County Detention Center.
10. Retaining two criminal defense attorneys.
11. Entering a guilty plea before Judge Hennessy on August 22, 2018.
12. Being placed on two years of unsupervised Probation Before Judgment.
13. Seeking therapy specifically related to the DUI incident from a therapist in Towson, Maryland.
14. Potentially failing sobriety tests during that probation — a matter now cited in custody litigation.
15. Denying in her own signed legal filing the arrest and plea she confirmed under oath at the deposition — and being unable to explain why she denied them.

Part IV: The Custody Case — The Larger Stakes

The events of March 6, 2018, did not occur in a vacuum. They unfolded during what court records confirm was an active, high-conflict custody dispute between Sarah Hornbeck and Jeffrey W. Reichert over their son G.R., born November 7, 2009, now 16 years old. The couple married in January 2009, divorced in December 2011, and have been in and out of court ever since. The court records obtained by this outlet document at least eight domestic violence protective order proceedings across multiple Maryland jurisdictions between 2018 and 2020 — in every one of them, Hornbeck is listed as the respondent or defendant.

The timeline that emerges from those records and the deposition is detailed and consequential. The 2011 divorce established shared custody on a 5/2/2/5 schedule, with Hornbeck holding tiebreaker authority on legal custody decisions. The March 6, 2018, DUI arrest came while that custody arrangement was in place. Twelve days later, a protective order was filed against Hornbeck in Anne Arundel County (D-07-FM-18-000520); it was denied at the temporary stage. Her criminal case proceeded through the summer, culminating in a guilty plea on August 22, 2018, and a two-year PBJ.

In July 2019 — while Hornbeck was still on that probation — a new protective order was sought against her, filed first in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court (C-02-FM-19-808840, filed July 7, 2019) and in Baltimore City District Court (0101SP048952019, filed July 12, 2019). The Baltimore City filing was denied outright with the notation: ‘THIS ORDER IS DENIED BECAUSE: THERE IS NO STATUTORY BASIS FOR RELIEF.’ The Anne Arundel case resulted in a temporary protective order on July 22, 2019 — SHALL NOT ABUSE, SHALL NOT CONTACT, SHALL NOT ENTER RESIDENCE — before being transferred to Baltimore City Circuit Court.

That transferred case became 24-D-19-002574, filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court on July 24, 2019. On August 8, 2019, a final protective order was entered — the order the deposition confirms gave Reichert primary physical custody and limited Hornbeck to supervised visitation every other weekend. Hornbeck filed a notice of appeal on September 9, 2019. A contempt petition was filed against her on September 16 — just one week after the final order. The case was temporarily resolved by stipulation on November 1, 2019, corresponding to the consent order the deposition describes.

But the case kept reopening. In January 2020, a petition to modify and extend the protective order was filed — the deposition confirms this was Reichert’s motion, based on Hornbeck’s probation sobriety failures and allegations of physical abuse at a basketball game. A new final protective order was entered on February 6, 2020, then another on February 21, then another on June 29, 2020 — all within the final months of Hornbeck’s two-year DUI probation, which ran through August 2020. A contempt hearing was held on June 18, 2020, before Judge DiPietro. Another contempt hearing followed on September 28, 2020, before Judge Copeland. The case drew a Court of Special Appeals reference (CSA-REG-0625-2020), confirming appellate litigation that Hornbeck’s own attorney referenced during the deposition.

On August 7, 2020 — during the final weeks of her PBJ probation — a separate protective order petition was filed against Hornbeck in Anne Arundel County District Court (D-07-FM-20-004800). It was denied with the notation: ‘DENIED: PROTECTIVE ORDER ALREADY EXISTS UNDER 24-D-19-002574.’ The court turned it away solely because an existing order against Hornbeck was already in force.

In October and November 2020, two more parallel domestic violence cases were filed with Hornbeck as respondent — one in Baltimore City Circuit Court (24-D-20-002579, filed October 30) and one in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court (C-02-FM-20-003223, filed November 16). The Anne Arundel case notably includes a DSS Report Received entry — meaning the Department of Social Services conducted an investigation involving the child. The final protective order in that case was dismissed on December 4, 2020. The Anne Arundel case is related to a 2024 case (C-02-FM-24-812286), confirming this litigation remained active as recently as last year.

The deposition exhibit list includes arrest warrants against Hornbeck from August 2020 (Plaintiff’s Exhibits 6 and 8) and criminal summons documents from July-August 2020 — additional legal proceedings arising from the 2020 custody conflict, whose full records this outlet is still obtaining.

Court Record Chronology — Protective Orders (Hornbeck as Respondent)
Mar. 18, 2018	D-07-FM-18-000520 — Anne Arundel District Court. Filed 12 days post-DUI arrest. Denied at temporary stage.
Jul. 7, 2019	C-02-FM-19-808840 — Anne Arundel Circuit Court. Temporary PO issued Jul. 22: SHALL NOT ABUSE / CONTACT / ENTER RESIDENCE. Transferred to Baltimore City.
Jul. 12, 2019	0101SP048952019 — Baltimore City District Court. DENIED: ‘NO STATUTORY BASIS FOR RELIEF.’
Jul. 24, 2019	24-D-19-002574 — Baltimore City Circuit Court (transferred). Final PO entered Aug. 8, 2019; primary custody to Reichert; Hornbeck limited to supervised visitation.
Sep. 9, 2019	Hornbeck files notice of appeal of Aug. 8 final PO. Contempt petition filed against her Sep. 16.
Aug. 12, 2019	24-D-19-002793 — Baltimore City Circuit Court. Separate DV case, emergency hearing. Multiple hearings through Jun. 2020. Final PO entered Jun. 29, 2020.
Jan.–Jun. 2020	24-D-19-002574 reopened. New final POs: Feb. 6, Feb. 21, Mar. 25, Jun. 29. Contempt hearings Jun. 18 & Sep. 28. All during Hornbeck’s DUI probation.
Aug. 7, 2020	D-07-FM-20-004800 — Anne Arundel District Court. DENIED: ‘PROTECTIVE ORDER ALREADY EXISTS UNDER 24-D-19-002574.’ Final month of DUI probation.
Oct.–Nov. 2020	24-D-20-002579 (Baltimore City) and C-02-FM-20-003223 (Anne Arundel Circuit) filed. DSS report received in Anne Arundel case. Final PO dismissed Dec. 4, 2020.
2024	C-02-FM-24-812286 — Related case filed, confirming litigation still active through 2024.

Why the 2018 Arrest Is Relevant to Custody

In contested child custody proceedings, courts evaluate the fitness of each parent across a range of factors: judgment, sobriety, truthfulness, and behavior under stress. An incident involving suspected drug or drug-and-alcohol impairment while operating a motor vehicle — followed by physical resistance of law enforcement, escape from restraints, and destruction of police property — is precisely the kind of conduct family courts weigh when evaluating parental fitness.

Equally relevant, legal observers note, is the consistency and candor of a parent’s testimony. A sworn denial in a legal filing of facts the same person confirms under oath days later in the same case is not a minor inconsistency. It is the kind of direct credibility contradiction that judges in both civil and family courts take seriously.

The probation sobriety failures — if they occurred as the deposition testimony implies — carry separate weight. A PBJ for impaired driving already represents judicial leniency. Failing sobriety conditions during that probation raises the question of whether the underlying conduct was ongoing, not isolated.

A Maryland-Licensed Attorney

One additional element of context runs throughout the deposition and bears directly on credibility. Sarah Hornbeck is a Maryland-licensed attorney. She confirmed under oath that she attended the University of Baltimore School of Law, graduated in 2003, took the Maryland Bar twice, and has been a member of the Maryland Bar since 2004. She described herself to officers at the scene in 2018 as an attorney in Washington, D.C.

An attorney is held to a higher standard of understanding the consequences of sworn statements, the significance of admissions in legal filings, and the weight of deposition testimony. The inconsistency between her signed denial and her deposition admission — in the same federal case — is not an oversight that can be attributed to unfamiliarity with legal proceedings.

Hornbeck is a Maryland-licensed attorney since 2004. The inconsistency between her signed denial and her sworn deposition admission — in the same federal case — is not an oversight attributable to unfamiliarity with legal proceedings.

Part V: The Questions These Records Raise

Why Such a Lenient Outcome in 2018?

The standard basis for a PBJ in a DUI case is a first offense, cooperation with law enforcement, and no aggravating factors. Hornbeck’s case had substantial aggravating factors: three separate attempts to flee the scene, active physical resistance of two officers, escape from handcuffs mid-transport, destruction of law enforcement property, and an assault charge. How the Charles County State’s Attorney’s office approached plea negotiations — and what drove the final disposition — is a question this outlet is pursuing through public records requests to that office.

The Disappearing Assault Charge

The assault on a law enforcement officer charge that appears in both the CCSO Use of Force documentation and the charge filed against Hornbeck is absent from the traffic court’s final disposition. Whether it was resolved in the companion criminal case (D-042-CR-18-000631), nolle prossed by the State’s Attorney, or otherwise disposed of is not reflected in available records. This outlet has requested the complete record for the companion criminal case.

Probation Sobriety Conditions and Failures

The deposition’s reference to probation sobriety failures as a basis for legal action in the custody case raises a question the public court record does not answer: what were the specific conditions of Hornbeck’s two-year unsupervised PBJ? Unsupervised probation does not always include mandatory sobriety testing, but the deposition implies such requirements existed and were violated. This outlet has requested the complete probation order from Charles County District Court.

The ICOP Video

The confrontation at VanHorn’s vehicle — the knee strike, the period in which Hornbeck locked her feet under the door, and the explicit verbal warnings — was captured on his in-car ICOP camera, file not provided. This outlet has submitted a public records request for that footage to both the Charles County Sheriff’s Office and the Maryland State Police.

The 2020 Proceedings — During Probation

The deposition exhibit list includes two arrest warrants from August 2020 and criminal summons documents from July and August 2020. The court records obtained independently confirm a dense cluster of protective order activity against Hornbeck in the final months of her DUI probation: a denied PO filing on August 7, 2020 (turned away solely because an existing order was already in force); two parallel domestic violence cases filed in October-November 2020 across two jurisdictions simultaneously; and a DSS investigation involving G.R. in the Anne Arundel case. The full criminal records underlying the deposition’s arrest warrant exhibits are still being obtained through records requests.

The Complaint Denial vs. Deposition Admission

Perhaps the most direct question the transcript raises is also the simplest: Why did Sarah Hornbeck — a licensed attorney — deny in a signed legal filing the facts of her own arrest, guilty plea, and probation, and then confirm those same facts under oath at a deposition in the same case? Her answer, under oath, was that she does not recall why she denied them. That answer, in the context of a pattern of non-recall spanning 150 pages of testimony, is one that the federal court presiding over Reichert v. Hornbeck will ultimately have to weigh.

Sources & Records Obtained

All facts in this report are drawn exclusively from public records and a certified deposition transcript. Documents obtained and reviewed include:

• Deposition of Sarah Hornbeck, February 27, 2026 (150 pp.), certified by Sharon L. Banks, C.R. — Reichert v. Hornbeck, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01865-JMC, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
• Maryland Judiciary Case Search — Citation No. 3Q80BG7, State of Maryland v. Sarah M. Hornbeck, District Court for Charles County (Traffic System)
• Maryland Judiciary Case Search — Protective Order Case D-07-FM-18-000520, Anne Arundel County District Court (filed March 18, 2018)
• Maryland Judiciary Case Search — Protective Order Case 0101SP048952019, Baltimore City District Court (filed July 12, 2019; denied)
• Maryland Judiciary Case Search — Protective Order Case C-02-FM-19-808840, Anne Arundel County Circuit Court (filed July 7, 2019; transferred)
• Maryland Judiciary Case Search — Protective Order Case 24-D-19-002574, Baltimore City Circuit Court (transferred July 24, 2019; final PO August 8, 2019; contempt proceedings through September 2020)
• Maryland Judiciary Case Search — Domestic Violence Case 24-D-19-002793, Baltimore City Circuit Court (filed August 12, 2019; final PO June 29, 2020)
• Maryland Judiciary Case Search — Protective Order Case D-07-FM-20-004800, Anne Arundel County District Court (filed August 7, 2020; denied)
• Maryland Judiciary Case Search — Domestic Violence Case 24-D-20-002579, Baltimore City Circuit Court (filed October 30, 2020)
• Maryland Judiciary Case Search — Domestic Violence Case C-02-FM-20-003223, Anne Arundel County Circuit Court (filed November 16, 2020; DSS report received; final PO dismissed December 4, 2020)
• Charles County Sheriff’s Office Offense/Incident Report, Incident No. P1802241 (PFC M. VanHorn #509, March 6, 2018)
• Charles County Sheriff’s Office Use of Force Report, Record ID #4501 / IA Case UF 18-031 (PFC M. VanHorn #509, March 6, 2018)
• CCSO Use of Force Investigation Supplement Report — Supervisor’s Investigation (Sgt. J. Richards #391, Event No. S180650477)
• CAD Event Listing — Event No. S180650477 (CCSO dispatch records, March 6, 2018)
• CAD Event Listing — Event No. E180650050 (EMS dispatch, March 6, 2018)
• CAD Event Listings — Event Nos. S180650480, S180650571, S180650504 (companion events)
• Records requests pending: MSP Case No. 18MSP009740; ICOP video 20180306-171205_v509_u509.dav; companion criminal case D-042-CR-18-000631; Charles County probation order; Charles County State’s Attorney’s Office (plea negotiations); August 2020 arrest warrant records (Deposition Exhibits 6 & 8); C-02-FM-24-812286 (2024 related case)