[{"_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",6364007,"mediaKeyId","2165453-1db27bf8fc8198b6852b07b7f91df583","parentId",2165453,"title","MDOT backs HB 70 to impose five-year revocation after DUI crashes that cause death or life-threatening injury","audioSeconds",560,"startMs",1841000,"endMs",2401000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2165453-1db27bf8fc8198b6852b07b7f91df583&start=1841&end=2401","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2165453-1db27bf8fc8198b6852b07b7f91df583/thumbnail_1841000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6364007/Maryland/MDOT-backs-HB-70-to-impose-five-year-revocation-after-DUI-crashes-that-cause-death-or-life-threatening-injury","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6364007-e01400b2e9e9ea83511d1d39df549d2a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771214744&Signature=LaEIDs5z3tI~iL3FNEM7a9ntWBpsbMhzEXLSF~8b~qkmy7jEb015A2qFSzi6fKzIvhI5ll92ljxPnt~UGneNsMRlwI37fLTve13XaygHFEeNFAGcBx0s7BsjjHtst-cPIyeOetBF8GwhK5qxkXzQ~zxWIjVH1kRajXDnV~caSkTXpdpI-drC~b~7nU91YV8VWj20vABg16SbcRb6TR31xvL2oZdJWvD7Wt6GwKIcEVTSilTwFvyju6~0WpQCrSltcdomGooU58cxBduEGe4nPTOk6-4ndAIotbpBzAwkRxlNwTHpRDrX-Hmq2F9D6CZ8rhlauqlT7wJPT4ymwFEIAg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Judiciary","date","2025-01-29T00:00:00Z","article","Chrissy Neisser, motor vehicle administrator, testified for House Bill 70 at the Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 29, 2025, proposing a five-year license revocation for individuals convicted — or granted probation before judgment — of driving under the influence if the crash contributed to another person’s death or life‑threatening injury.

Neisser said the change is intended to distinguish the most serious offenses from lesser driving‑record causes of revocation and to reduce relapse risk by extending the period before reinstatement. She cited literature saying relapse rates among people who have been sober two years can be around 40 percent and drop to about 7 percent after five years; she said the reinstatement process itself would not change, only the waiting period before a person could pursue reinstatement.

Agency testimony included data points on alcohol-related road deaths and hit-and-run crashes: Neisser said on average about 190 fatalities per year on Maryland roadways involved an alcohol‑impaired driver. She also said the state sees roughly 27,000 hit-and-run crashes annually (most property‑damage only) and that, over the last five years, 255 crashes involved a hit‑and‑run driver that contributed to 258 fatalities.

The bill would also make ignition interlock installation mandatory (“shall”) in certain circumstances tied to leaving the scene where alcohol involvement is proven as part of a revocation/reinstatement package; committee members questioned the breadth of that “shall” language because not every fatal or injurious crash is alcohol‑related.

Delegates asked about drug impairment detection and roadside tools. Neisser said there is not a single consensus equivalent to a 0.08 alcohol threshold for drug impairment; law enforcement training and specialized “green lab” outreach were described as tools to help officers identify impairment related to cannabis and other substances, but the field lacks a uniform roadside numeric threshold for drug impairment comparable to alcohol.

No committee vote was recorded; the hearing record shows questions and responses and that the committee closed testimony on HB 70 during the session.

Ending: Testimony closed after questions about interlock mandates and drug impairment detection; staff offered to provide further data to the committee.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JUD Committee Session, 1/29/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Chrissy Neisser, motor vehicle administrator, told the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 29, 2025, that HB 70 would impose a five‑year revocation for drivers convicted or granted probation before judgment for DUI when the crash contributed to the death or life‑threatening injury of another person.","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},6364012,"MDOT supports HB 189 to disqualify commercial licenses after 0.08 admin per se in noncommercial vehicle",177,1245000,1422000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2165453-1db27bf8fc8198b6852b07b7f91df583&start=1245&end=1422","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2165453-1db27bf8fc8198b6852b07b7f91df583/thumbnail_1245000.jpg","/articles/6364012/Maryland/MDOT-supports-HB-189-to-disqualify-commercial-licenses-after-008-admin-per-se-in-noncommercial-vehicle","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6364012-f78ec9033cf562f1d62ce6d2207b1d07/orig.mp4?Expires=1771214744&Signature=IEKD1ssN1jvl1MzvzSCskVONcd6Gy6QOHY3ZtjmbpY3ze2WhHkKaqzq4JGP7AAKLy1ainAuS~fmKmNMDW-A~ezA6g4bzo6~F4bKH69ugb6mjk1LnaNkGgvNg5mf0GGkPIgHZ3dpD9LV6hsIHBsZSZpyun68VM0lXjXqDZyfHtCFUuGgbEOgs3I8bUW8cwCdjkCArkOzKolSN4KwQ4EaBafsWGeT7qlx6zLoAc~7XUm3R7RyTyfjgyrwivBJJudFLJ1oYTWRnppFvaNAtCvdvsl0HwOr002aZm3fGhm8Lv2FeHWRf090GuEqlqRxZMV2BEV7Acy1hLDu3K0tkUqN1sQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chrissy Neisser, Motor Vehicle Administrator with the Maryland Department of Transportation, testified in support of House Bill 189 at the Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 29, 2025. Neisser said the bill would allow the Motor Vehicle Administration to disqualify a commercial driver's license (CDL) holder when the driver records a 0.08 or greater blood-alcohol concentration under Maryland’s administrative‑per‑se process, before a criminal conviction.

Neisser told the committee the measure would bring Maryland into alignment with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) rules. “The driver will be disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle for 1 year for the first offense and the second offense is a lifetime,” she said. Neisser said FMCSA treats the state administrative‑per‑se finding as a conviction for purposes of federal CDL disqualification; the change would let Maryland take the federal‑required disqualification action at the admin‑per‑se stage rather than wait for a later conviction.

Her testimony cited existing state law (identified in the hearing record as section 16‑812 of the Transportation Article) and explained the change is procedural: it allows the MVA to pair administrative suspension and disqualification processes so they can run concurrently, rather than imposing disqualification only after court conviction. The agency said the proposal reduces delay and improves federal compliance.

Committee members asked about process and appeals. Neisser said the administrative hearing process remains available: a driver can request a hearing at the admin‑per‑se level and later appeal conviction findings. Questions also covered technical points such as how refusals are handled; Neisser said refusals would be processed under existing law and the bill would not change current treatment of breath-test refusals for CDL holders.

No formal committee vote on HB 189 was recorded at the hearing; agency representatives answered questions and the committee closed testimony on the bill.

Ending: The committee concluded testimony; staff indicated they would provide more technical detail if requested.","Chrissy Neisser, Motor Vehicle Administrator with MDOT, told the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 29, 2025, that HB 189 would let Maryland disqualify CDL holders at the administrative-per-se step after a 0.08 blood-alcohol reading, aligning state practice with FMCSA rules.",{"_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},6364017,"Committee hears bill to speed landlord returns when active-duty military must reclaim primary residence",1141,192000,1333000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2165453-1db27bf8fc8198b6852b07b7f91df583&start=192&end=1333","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2165453-1db27bf8fc8198b6852b07b7f91df583/thumbnail_192000.jpg","/articles/6364017/Maryland/Committee-hears-bill-to-speed-landlord-returns-when-active-duty-military-must-reclaim-primary-residence","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6364017-d0e68240c6946468c0e3de1f9ce75577/orig.mp4?Expires=1771214744&Signature=HiX6YeHlyNWJja-qbixScffClI28GD0gbUNwS1CE2YPrsiRETiTyqc~2IDm3BGa8zYwyP4jrPzzhHIf2eonRsVAKKiM8WksUevMjrxLClCBNc9RWO-MgY6lfxbeBlIrOWlivw37KGdJ8kRWzmjw2LIuZvPibuL8jxBuLLOVorNWwf8sibhWSI83nb9ymS7vpGrS0gtas2kt~pbSNIo85pYBCwsMBLL3GZ42~sz7OGGj9Otf7aayNEpPwFtaH3vK8-c8j4oSzHnDtIxYCCWavKXQGn0uhCq7x2qZ2yLgbEZYbIrkY-HN3Ynk64Idb1hEZJEyqDhEj08LmC7k12fJxlg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegate April Chisholm introduced House Bill 229 to the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 29, 2025, saying the bill would shorten the time military members and their spouses wait to regain their primary residence after being sent home on military orders.

The bill applies only to “holdover” leases — cases where a tenant remains past a lease term — and would require that a military member or spouse planning to occupy the property as a primary residence do so within 30 days of returning. HB 229 would require a hearing be held within 45 days after filing, and it would permit a private process server to complete service if the sheriff cannot meet the existing 10‑day service window specified in current statute.

Supporters described frequent, disruptive moves and the family burdens of military life. “Moving that often is hard. It's the mental, emotional, physical, financial and logistical challenges that are a burden,” said Shannon Ledbetter, who testified as the spouse of a retired Marine. Ledbetter said school enrollment and proof-of-residency rules can harm military children when a dwelling is not vacated in time.

Bill Castelli, representing the Maryland Realtors, said the measure is “very targeted” and applies only to holding-over actions. Delegate Chisholm noted the bill previously passed the House unanimously in an earlier session but did not advance in the Senate, and said Senator Dawn Gao had cross-filed the measure in the Senate this year.

Opponents and cautious witnesses flagged the proposal’s provision allowing private process servers if sheriffs miss the 10‑day service window. Matt Hill, an attorney with the Public Justice Center, said Maryland’s “nail-and-mail” process — posting a copy of the complaint on the door and mailing it by first-class mail — has traditionally been performed by sheriffs and that private servers present a conflict of interest. “We worry that if you're gonna start allowing ... private process servers ... ultimately it's a slippery slope,” Hill said, urging the committee to remove the private‑process‑server language.

During questioning, Delegate Grammer asked whether the bill applies to primary residences only; Chisholm and witnesses confirmed that it does. Chisholm said she could not provide exact statewide counts of affected households but estimated the problem could be “maybe 25 to 50 per year,” while Hill later suggested there may be many more holding‑over filings statewide, saying he believed “at least 5,000 tenant holding over complaints filed in the state of Maryland” in fiscal year 2025 (a figure he identified as an estimate).

Other details discussed included a sponsor-supplied proposal to let a landlord use a private process server only after the sheriff had been unable to effect service within the statutory 10 days and testimony that the Anne Arundel County sheriff’s office reported difficulty keeping up with citation service volume.

The committee did not take a vote; the chair closed testimony and moved on to subsequent bills.

Ending: The committee concluded HB 229 testimony and proceeded to the next agenda item; no formal committee action on the bill was recorded during the hearing.","Delegate April Chisholm introduced House Bill 229 to the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 29, 2025, saying the bill would shorten the time military members and their spouses wait to regain their primary residence after being sent home on military orders.",{"_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},6364002,"Panel debates HB 171 to extend handgun-permit renewal to five years for retired law enforcement",2311,2393000,4704000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2165453-1db27bf8fc8198b6852b07b7f91df583&start=2393&end=4704","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2165453-1db27bf8fc8198b6852b07b7f91df583/thumbnail_2393000.jpg","/articles/6364002/Maryland/Panel-debates-HB-171-to-extend-handgun-permit-renewal-to-five-years-for-retired-law-enforcement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6364002-1250d9375d2daeb5576e3eceac2b28eb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771214744&Signature=c1irsZzHLqYnbP~YO024VUThBcHc61elJHfq0hUW0Nb6gpMlwYKBQBPx5V2jFSCrM-BHsO~7DiNTbqG6m6hRDLTuY2s~BGFWZgyECeIjLMiSzsHeb8XukxxUfxIasTnROYtXc2SYxdLdxeN~WBUKCaj-IKXoTMKzhRzMMzAy4xOMu3pwllNOcotyexn7C6zFepqJPNzi1DUpACrtMLbF3YRFUZ7d5CXgozDWrobNjbA6WsZmhQI9xUkVYtqfApu8kD23uzzmOgy4i~4nTgf55J8vACkaxQY15m3yo~elQmHClNmgAd-cEmpH5kWfF9BDehdyfbrHPxqiYbhfDFV0wA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegate William Ballantyne (presenting HB 171) and witnesses urged the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 29, 2025, to extend carry‑permit renewal periods for retired law enforcement officers from three to five years.

Ballantyne said the change would bring Maryland closer to neighboring states (Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia) that have five‑year renewal cycles. Retired‑officer witnesses—including Donald McCord (retired lieutenant, Maryland State Police Alumni Association) and Brian Blueval (sergeant, Maryland State Police; president, Maryland Troopers Association)—said the extension would reduce licensing investigations and costs for the Maryland State Police Licensing Division and permit resources to be directed to higher‑priority criminal work. “Given the years of dedicated service and sacrifice to the state of Maryland and our communities, we would appreciate your consideration in extending the renewal time,” McCord said.

Attorney Mark Pennock said Maryland was processing a very large permit population and suggested a five‑year renewal would reduce workload; he said there were roughly 194,053 permit holders as of a July 2024 date cited in testimony (he described the figure as the basis for urging a longer renewal cycle). Cornerstone Government Affairs (representing the Troopers Association) said they were working with fiscal staff to resolve a fiscal-note discrepancy that had appeared in the draft analysis.

Opposition testimony came from Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence. Karen Herron said retired officers already receive some statutory allowances under the handgun qualification/licensing system (for example, certain training and fee exemptions) and argued that a badge alone should not confer additional exemptions from safeguards. “A badge, past or present, should not be a blanket exemption from the very safe guards that we've designed to protect Maryland families,” she said.

Supporters emphasized that retired officers remain subject to annual system checks, that misconduct would flag permits, and that the proposal applies only to retired officers “in good standing,” not to the broader public. Multiple delegates asked whether the bill should be expanded beyond retired law enforcement; the sponsor responded that the proposal was intentionally narrow as a first step and that further changes would be a committee matter.

The committee took testimony from a multi-panel group of witnesses and closed the hearing with no recorded committee vote.

Ending: Testimony concluded; committee moved on to other business. Witnesses and delegates indicated willingness to work on language and fiscal-note issues if the committee advanced the bill.","Sponsors said HB 171 would ease licensing workload and align Maryland with neighboring states by extending handgun‑permit renewal for retired law enforcement from three to five years; supporters cited administrative savings and continued checks on eligibility; opponents urged equal treatment and warned against broad exemptions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

MDOT backs HB 70 to impose five-year revocation after DUI crashes that cause death or life-threatening injury

MDOT supports HB 189 to disqualify commercial licenses after 0.08 admin per se in noncommercial vehicle

Committee hears bill to speed landlord returns when active-duty military must reclaim primary residence

Panel debates HB 171 to extend handgun-permit renewal to five years for retired law enforcement