[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6373796,"mediaKeyId","2145526-73e4cc031f9a6b70cf9905045aeba35b","parentId",2145526,"title","Bill Would Let Courts Grant Peace Orders to Stop ‘Intentional’ Visual Surveillance","audioSeconds",745,"startMs",3800000,"endMs",4545000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2145526-73e4cc031f9a6b70cf9905045aeba35b&start=3800&end=4545","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2145526-73e4cc031f9a6b70cf9905045aeba35b/thumbnail_3800000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6373796/Maryland/Bill-Would-Let-Courts-Grant-Peace-Orders-to-Stop-Intentional-Visual-Surveillance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6373796-24820441fbcc5ccbcf804890425ddc6f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167014&Signature=PPrFc4lW3AiPzPYfWmaLJ-VxuxCT3s-saKXCZFxbRyr6m35-SwnxhRKDfFCCeoQIIYtV6wQyM-qv~F~NZUgdJF9cLxUnMLGE2Fo7WqkYR6xhklFE4bmbx0IxSXrseXwZe5k21MX3iG67inmP7WJQyVOLe9XRkB5gwcbldaqKxMaUwDwMwWj2LPtBHUlFDKiIUFD487lCE~kQuc-KLVm70g4wcoBiMp~5KsJ1V3SZq4DHdeyDkqI1HE0KflaJJKaks22hmDV5I2azf1x54QRUrmBhxOLQ5tryRXWkxjCY0C644QgjC3j-cv4i7PuSyQt4prpe~ALpTxzvI2hy6ioK1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Judiciary","date","2025-01-23T00:00:00Z","article","Delegate William Valentine told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 236 would add “intentional visual surveillance” of areas of a residence where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy to the list of acts that could support a peace order.

\"This bill adds intentional visual surveillance to areas of an individual's residence where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the list of acts for which an individual may seek relief by obtaining a peace order,\" Valentine said, adding that the bill does not create a new crime or add penalties.

Hannah Leatherman, whose family described two years of neighbor surveillance in written testimony and to the committee, said cameras were placed five feet off the property line, viewed the family’s barn and allowed the neighbor to monitor their children and animals. \"When we asked why, his response was because he could,\" she told the committee.

Valentine said he and the senator working on the cross‑file had worked with the Maryland judiciary to narrow the bill’s wording, including making the language about the conduct intentional and adding authority for judges to order repositioning or removal of cameras in appropriate cases.

Committee members asked about how courts would determine reasonable expectation of privacy in yards of differing sizes and about evidence of sequential acts (for example, moving cameras after owners blocked view) that could demonstrate intentionality. The sponsor said the bill is intended to allow judicial officers to evaluate the facts and issue relief where appropriate.

Ending — Committee members asked follow‑up questions; no vote was recorded at the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JUD Committee Session, 1/23/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","HB 236 would add intentional visual surveillance of an area of residence where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy to the list of acts allowing a petitioner to seek a peace order; sponsor said it does not create a new crime and the language was narrowed after consultations with the judiciary.","taxTitle","Judiciary Committee, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15063,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6373801,"Bill Would Let Domestic‑violence Victims Introduce Spousal Communications in Trial",705,3054000,3759000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2145526-73e4cc031f9a6b70cf9905045aeba35b&start=3054&end=3759","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2145526-73e4cc031f9a6b70cf9905045aeba35b/thumbnail_3054000.jpg","/articles/6373801/Maryland/Bill-Would-Let-Domesticviolence-Victims-Introduce-Spousal-Communications-in-Trial","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6373801-a186fb7f16c03dd1ff5567217f0266d2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167014&Signature=jggxvu3WMOAxnZfuKZK-~ZdlUaRlrtKUNC4UYs-vvgBjNbU1-yj3VxKbWrqZa1OjmRvboAJgBmlrNYDI3w2wLpV9JvRBSjYG03T4HXD4eF0MhDjmWU4nz6a4ltOVjNemiwHvFNn5a6B-hyFjIJ7VZjRrHcE5k01omxCb491PRStbzNTQjMM-G1CCs6jEjWblb7aGjMpDiRemilKOZtP-bdyQxGZQ68Cf1i4NmJpqCU2vsxArA3ZJlQGQ-cuatut-bxod9VHrV0ecGubitBoftRiDL3LrrkarNyzp-~hXLN8xgiCDCeRSLyKacdaeZvcazjVm31yb4y~a0mAxBDsP8Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegate Simpson told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 241 would create an exception to the marital communications privilege in criminal actions alleging abuse against a spouse so a victim could introduce communications from the alleged perpetrator as evidence.

Brett Engler, a Frederick County prosecutor and chief of the domestic violence unit, said Maryland is among a small number of states without a statutory exception that allows a spouse to introduce communications by the other spouse in prosecutions for crimes against the spouse. He described a case in which a victim’s testimony about an apology from a defendant was excluded under the privilege and said the exclusion had led to a reversal on appeal.

Laurie Ruth of the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence supported the bill as a measure to protect victims’ autonomy and to allow juries and judges to hear admissions and other communications that can be important in delayed‑report cases. Michelle Smith of the Maryland State Bar Association Family Law Section urged the committee to consider legislative history and constitutional issues but said she supported the bill’s goals when she testified across the street; she referenced Brown v. State (359 Md. 180, 2000) while discussing the privilege’s history.

Witnesses explained the difference between the testimonial privilege (a witness’s right not to testify about what happened) and the communications privilege (a separate rule that can bar testimony about what one spouse said to the other). Sponsors said the bill would not eliminate spousal privileges generally but would permit communications to be admitted in criminal prosecutions for assaultive conduct against the spouse.

Committee members asked about the scope of crimes covered; witnesses said the exception would apply to criminal actions alleging assaultive conduct, stalking or other crimes that are by statute or rule prosecutable in the criminal code.

Ending — The bill drew support from prosecutors and domestic‑violence advocates; the committee took testimony and did not immediately vote on the measure.","Delegate Simpson reintroduced HB 241 to carve out an exception to the marital communications privilege for criminal actions alleging assault or other specified crimes against a spouse; prosecutors and domestic‑violence advocates supported the change while the Maryland State Bar Association discussed the legal and policy history.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6373806,"Panel Hears Bill to Treat Each Abused Animal as Individual Victim for Sentencing",406,2624000,3030000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2145526-73e4cc031f9a6b70cf9905045aeba35b&start=2624&end=3030","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2145526-73e4cc031f9a6b70cf9905045aeba35b/thumbnail_2624000.jpg","/articles/6373806/Maryland/Panel-Hears-Bill-to-Treat-Each-Abused-Animal-as-Individual-Victim-for-Sentencing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6373806-f141f79452991292ef5caa0165485d28/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167014&Signature=nugjEYUmziwMnaBIPUpgl6iOt9LQnpYcFkQVtcLP1d1~3lzBkr3Dz~Cy48EgFRKFybNAKLaqI~vxnK9Ug2AZUQpur26F3l54T~Sys8mYZb5nINaCV~IydS~a-ByhV2J0-M6jm~h1GKGGMxrhou89mCt1PgbA98ltYcepUaJY8OU5njjW2aoyznr0gzpKbmuwFH5reuVqVHZ-Bqv0KYxkI~htByR62swoUbHAuLkqCZQG536~NoXh-Ols5Wc53AxNWVYKIILjpE5QnTg58Wd5yoTNbBduY31EVE-V4u7sjo9BoPdZggNddvCJBxWaCl8tWtq94KjbrlRe3kcp5YkHdw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegate Embry told the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 23 that House Bill 89 would clarify that counts in animal cruelty cases do not automatically merge when multiple animals are harmed and that each animal should be considered a separate victim for sentencing guidelines.

\"We ask that every animal be considered when it comes to sentencing and that we hold people accountable for the crimes that they are committing against animals,\" Katie Florie of the Maryland SPCA told the committee, describing a recent intake of a dog whose teeth were torn out and who appeared severely underweight.

A certified animal control officer gave the committee examples in which dozens of animals suffered: one case involved 20 starving horses (one dead on arrival) and another involved 11 dogs kept to hide fighting. Witnesses said prosecutors sometimes file a charge for each animal, but that without the change defendants could receive equivalent sentences even when dozens of animals were harmed.

Witnesses emphasized the bill would not automatically produce consecutive sentences. Jennifer Bevin Dangle, a lobbyist for the Humane Society of the United States, said the bill clarifies sentencing treatment and noted sentences may still run concurrently. Committee members asked about maximum penalties; a witness said aggravated animal cruelty carries a maximum prison term of up to 10 years in Maryland.

Supporters said the bill is backed by law enforcement and animal‑welfare organizations and carries no fiscal note.

Ending — The committee heard testimony and questions; no final action was taken during the hearing.","HB 89 would prevent automatic merger of counts so that each harmed animal can be treated as a separate victim for sentencing and sentencing guidelines; supporters gave examples of mass cruelty cases and said the bill does not mandate consecutive sentences.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6373810,"Committee Hears Bill to Require Standardized Training for Child‑custody Evaluators",2540,79000,2619000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2145526-73e4cc031f9a6b70cf9905045aeba35b&start=79&end=2619","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2145526-73e4cc031f9a6b70cf9905045aeba35b/thumbnail_79000.jpg","/articles/6373810/Maryland/Committee-Hears-Bill-to-Require-Standardized-Training-for-Childcustody-Evaluators","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6373810-58298622cdfb96ae09470f8b15dedec9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167014&Signature=CxlrjF1DCjGylRsYhTdvUmkYjYHUqSWMGzfaeKwESHscQH59KDwpEtRQXDgzc1zqjJKitw8q8jZz8GCxbjMQNnspgt42NpMOzihjfni4q27s-2VTOgFK~AxSd00HwDcEgJP5lkMmDk2dySdV~n6QbYm5sDW2mDDk245iBKtFkvKdOsJ6qiyp4dxOvq9JAHA8D5HT082NLWh5eOqDt2fZhckWDBYIK2Ehb32AfxwC-CuaVKC3qOlzJ4WhwSgM9EsgJw9orBOrAcIs2eYCB8r3Q736fJgIWUB-QHkKqVm9Gc4ip33nHEdGWrSLHBdephpet32P7T1ckZ24ZARyUN9AEg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegate Erin Kaufman asked the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 23 for a favorable report on House Bill 152, a measure that would require child custody evaluators to complete 20 hours of initial training and 15 hours of refresher training every three years.

The bill, Kaufman told the committee, is intended to align evaluator training with the training judges receive and to make sure evaluators have experience identifying domestic and child abuse, neglect and parental coercion. “This legislation requires custody evaluators to complete 20 hours of initial training and 15 hours every 3 years after that,” Kaufman said.

Supporters said standardized training would better protect children and could unlock federal grant dollars. A representative of the Treehouse Child Advocacy Center, which provides trauma training to police and court‑appointed evaluators, told the committee the measure “helps specify the range of trauma‑inducing situations evaluators are gonna be confronted with every day.” Paul Griffin, legal director of Child Justice, said a federal program (referred to in testimony as “Cadence Law”) conditions some grant funding on statutory requirements and estimated Maryland’s potential share at about $300,000, arguing the federal government will treat statutory language differently from a judiciary rule.

Several witnesses urged narrowly tailored additions to the training requirements. Disability Rights Maryland requested inclusion of training on implicit bias and accommodations for parents with disabilities. Representatives of parental‑alienation advocacy groups and Mothers Against Child Abuse asked the committee to add instruction on parent‑child contact problems and psychological maltreatment; proponents said those topics are tied to the forensic assessments evaluators make.

The Maryland State Bar Association Family Law Section, represented by Michelle Smith, opposed passing the statutory bill on constitutional and practical grounds because the judiciary already adopted a rule that, she said, makes the training mandatory; the testimony noted the rule was adopted on Jan. 10. Smith urged that the court’s rulemaking process is the appropriate venue to set and update training standards.

Questions from members focused on the remaining differences between the judiciary’s rule and the statutory language, and on two long‑serving custody evaluators in Anne Arundel County who might not meet newly codified qualifications without an amendment. Kaufman said she was amenable to a narrowly framed amendment to address those two county employees if it would secure passage.

No formal vote was recorded during the hearing; the committee ended the panel and moved to other items on the agenda later in the session.

Ending — The committee took testimony and questions but did not vote. Sponsors and advocates said they will continue to negotiate the bill’s final language with the judiciary and stakeholders; proponents repeatedly emphasized child safety and the potential for federal training funds if statutory language is adopted.","Delegate Erin Kaufman asked the House Judiciary Committee to report favorably on HB 152, which would require custody evaluators to complete 20 hours of initial training and 15 hours every three years; testimony highlighted child safety, federal funding incentives, and remaining disputes about placing requirements in statute versus judiciary rule.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill Would Let Courts Grant Peace Orders to Stop ‘Intentional’ Visual Surveillance

Bill Would Let Domestic‑violence Victims Introduce Spousal Communications in Trial

Panel Hears Bill to Treat Each Abused Animal as Individual Victim for Sentencing

Committee Hears Bill to Require Standardized Training for Child‑custody Evaluators