[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6358045,"mediaKeyId","2212929-c3c9f4a9ffa20a5e9bce29f8bb0750a5","parentId",2212929,"title","Committee approves several bills on voting list, holds several for further work","audioSeconds",117,"startMs",1067000,"endMs",1184000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2212929-c3c9f4a9ffa20a5e9bce29f8bb0750a5&start=1067&end=1184","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2212929-c3c9f4a9ffa20a5e9bce29f8bb0750a5/thumbnail_1067000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6358045/Maryland/Committee-approves-several-bills-on-voting-list-holds-several-for-further-work","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6358045-b3c61eb2d9ee8ff316db83c916fde45a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771164635&Signature=VuF25Q-gDet7RlROfjWCESf38vYcy8lHX5fdB1t4DsL83jvKUpSB9~7N09p-mmm2tFg1KMfasnuZBCVbuLSrcfYxUjm015UqKTyQK1I6UEVT26Wj4FrIMOlGUor0-aAskM7VTBr3nA1~Rv4pT8c-5ZgbVRv9Rb8R-8a-7rlMWUTSz62hzTX9cpswO-QA3ikXVLuxFbRZTnjABdOW7tXjxMnetAygyrhwPr7TITgKMGe9dEXRJu~4KfjV0-GbsFd9bTJmwmSCw1m-QAaN1KpClotqjHYYJpFdjgxEo7XUAzgOTxibD5KDEmYu8CZiy~V14BAO2Lqrbr8EaTLEQ5wa0w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","MGA - JPR","date","2025-01-31T00:00:00Z","article","The Judicial Proceedings Committee on Jan. 30 considered voting list No. 3 and recorded favorable actions or holds on several Senate bills:

Votes and immediate outcomes

- Senate Bill 11 (organized retail theft): Motion for a favorable report passed unanimously; committee recorded the bill as passing unanimously after a motion and second.

- Senate Bill 40 (electronic notice for vehicle tow/abandonment): Passed by voice consent/unanimous affirmation.

- Senate Bill 121 (extends noise‑abatement monitoring authority for Montgomery and Prince George’s counties): Passed by voice consent with recorded affirmative responses from Montgomery and Prince George’s membership.

- Senate Bill 125 (prohibits local governments from penalizing people for summoning law enforcement or emergency services to residential property): Passed unanimously by the committee.

- Senate Bill 160 (wholesale buyer/seller disclosures in contracts of sale for residential property): Committee adopted a minor technical amendment from the Maryland Bar Association and passed the bill unanimously with the amendment.

Held or deferred

- Senate Bill 7 (human‑trafficking training for Department of Transportation): Held due to an outstanding fiscal note and possible phased‑in amendments to reduce cost.

- Senate Bill 92 (visual surveillance / harassment): Committee adopted drafting amendments, then held the bill for a final work session to resolve wording and First Amendment carve‑outs (separate detailed article covers this item).

- Senate Bill 144 (multiple amendments and fiscal concerns): Held for additional work and review of fiscal issues and stakeholder comments.

- Senate Bill 207: Held pending further committee consideration.

Procedural notes: Most favorable motions were approved either by voice consent or unanimous recorded affirmation; the committee asked counsel to prepare interlineated copies reflecting adopted amendments for bills that advanced and to return held bills at a subsequent work session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JPR Committee Session, 1/31/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","On Jan. 30 the Judicial Proceedings Committee voted favorably on multiple bills by voice consent or unanimous recorded affirmation and held several others for further work sessions.","taxTitle","Judicial Proceedings Committee, SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15095,"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},6358050,"Committee narrows DNA‑collection triggers, adopts amendment and holds Department of State Police bill",1673,4315000,5988000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2212929-c3c9f4a9ffa20a5e9bce29f8bb0750a5&start=4315&end=5988","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2212929-c3c9f4a9ffa20a5e9bce29f8bb0750a5/thumbnail_4315000.jpg","/articles/6358050/Maryland/Committee-narrows-DNAcollection-triggers-adopts-amendment-and-holds-Department-of-State-Police-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6358050-09a818a81aa338b90fc910c2bb7bce1c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771164635&Signature=VvgUoubsGdFQY~cG3fo0gKrSwPbyYvoOIHQpXaLrHWcfOgETZpJGrruBMNPAIsA1DdYiQ3OzO1dKkebAo3sEDEZ26NAs-PQI~j~EUyAX6TnHrZ7CsxBqFFlUqNi3Q0bjqsPfRMIN1Wbj~j1oGePigC7vzUsC0A-P2xWIK7UtjIHBQqdB~xCs2-Yly-t7Fb~d4BXaW1yadNx6NmIiNhILxLT1HjAG1k1FcVtS-ymIp0b4ScBOgPgamjX4RPcTTv8D5z3vJ6i2MjU2vxPmzDEOIkFBjO1v6tTl3W2wTXFWdi6Mh0kCvXBS~S06XAp~oKdlkdVzppNcpbrBsOpHdmT2Ig__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judicial Proceedings Committee on Jan. 30 advanced several technical and policy changes to Senate Bill 202, a Department of State Police bill that alters when DNA samples may be tested and placed in the statewide DNA database, then held the measure for additional drafting on narrower procedural language.

The bill would change circumstances in which DNA must be collected and stored in the statewide DNA database, alter who is required to collect samples, and clarify when samples may be tested, placed into the database, destroyed, or expunged. It also requires the releasing entity to ensure legally required DNA is collected before releasing an individual from custody and establishes penalties for refusing to provide a required DNA sample.

The committee adopted an amendment to reduce a proposed maximum fine for refusing to submit a DNA swab from $10,000 to $1,000 after several senators said $10,000 was excessive. \"I think that's, I'm concerned with that penalty... $10,000 is too much,\" Senator Love said. The committee agreed to strike ‘‘$10,000’’ and replace it with ‘‘$1,000’’ (page 6, line 3 of the draft) by voice consent.

Members then discussed a key procedural provision in which a DNA sample collected for certain qualifying crimes \"may not be tested or placed in the statewide DNA database system until\" one of several triggers occurs. The proposed triggers included: (1) a determination that probable cause exists in accordance with Maryland rules, (2) an arrest under an arrest warrant, (3) an information filed by a state's attorney, or (4) a grand‑jury indictment.

Senators expressed concern that trigger (1) as written could be read too broadly to include determinations made outside the judicial officers the committee intended. Committee counsel proposed an amendment that would clarify trigger (1) to read: “a determination is made by a judge or district court commissioner that probable cause exists for a qualifying crime in accordance with the Maryland rules.” The committee adopted that change by voice consent.

The Department of State Police representative, Kelly, told the committee the department intended that commissioners make the probable‑cause determination at the defendant’s first appearance and that law enforcement officers would not be the intended determiners for the trigger. Even with the clarifying amendment, several senators asked counsel to draft narrower language that would exclude instances arising solely from private complaints that have not been vetted by prosecutors, and the committee agreed to hold the bill so counsel and the department could refine language to address those concerns.

Members also discussed whether DNA samples tied to probation before judgment (PBJ) dispositions should be expunged automatically; counsel and committee members said current law generally prevents automatic expungement of such samples, but judges retain some authority to order expungement as part of an expungement proceeding. The committee agreed to add clarifying language to reflect that judicial expungement authority was not limited by the new section.

The committee did not take a final roll‑call vote on the bill; it adopted targeted amendments by voice consent and held SB 202 for further drafting before a future work session.","Lawmakers reduced some triggers for testing and placing DNA in the statewide database, moved to specify that probable‑cause determinations be made by judges or district court commissioners, adopted a fine reduction, and held the bill for further drafting on private‑complaint language.",{"_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},6358054,"Judicial Proceedings Committee amends visual‑surveillance bill, holds it for final drafting",2786,1202000,3988000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2212929-c3c9f4a9ffa20a5e9bce29f8bb0750a5&start=1202&end=3988","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2212929-c3c9f4a9ffa20a5e9bce29f8bb0750a5/thumbnail_1202000.jpg","/articles/6358054/Maryland/Judicial-Proceedings-Committee-amends-visualsurveillance-bill-holds-it-for-final-drafting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6358054-036657e634c48ca7443aaadd928475d4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771164635&Signature=M2jWqQ-rUoH2GjAWya0E5rtjsF4QgedegZAfyl9BppYTf0FHp6nGpP9QVC8~-RxE~6cKaClwmFBRE5DV3MwD-nmytEN4~KkTZkJscsMGsMdn0rvdQe0Sv75kHOKhi4CabjHO-7tVKQH0UH4pMRSxIpvdvj~yZbIl5QefinGEfFLoVZtcU61a7odSm6mHY-ly3la6GSxA8qCE72XBH1iLhfOq5bVpmRsV41HS3KRLHszymwk3AhGM1CgqHl1NuWJq99wdojTzk1fZyNgRRIasJ18tG4JrQzs7fZ4X6RuBMyGBp~DttxaDDA0ttJ0S-SoTOEdkgBqPB5mOB~eHvYSKZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judicial Proceedings Committee on Jan. 30 amended and agreed to hold Senate Bill 92, a measure expanding relief for visual surveillance of private residential areas, while members and counsel work through drafting questions.

The bill would add intentional visual surveillance of areas of an individual's residence where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy to the list of conduct for which a victim may petition for a peace order. It would allow courts issuing a peace order to require removal or repositioning of the surveillance device within 15 days and to prohibit further visual surveillance.

Committee counsel told members the change under consideration moves the new visual‑surveillance language into the existing criminal harassment statute so that the conduct would be actionable when it is done “with the intent to harass, alarm, or annoy.” Counsel said that placing the language under the harassment subtitle “is a way to ensure” the conduct is clearly covered; senators raised concerns about whether that placement creates a higher burden because it requires proof of intent.

“Preponderance, etcetera, for peace order,” counsel said when members asked about the burden of proof for a peace order. Senator Jameson (Senator Jameson) pressed whether the amendment would place the burden on victims to prove the surveillor’s subjective intent; counsel confirmed a peace order is decided by a preponderance of the evidence.

Members adopted a sequence of amendments by voice consent. The committee struck the word “intentionally” from a clause to avoid duplicative intent standards, moved to create a new, separate criminal provision (proposed §3‑803.1) that would prohibit conducting visual surveillance “of another’s residence in areas where the other has a reasonable expectation of privacy with the intent to harass, alarm, or annoy the other,” and agreed to port in a statutory definition of “visual surveillance” from another part of the criminal code.

The committee also instructed counsel to carry forward a definition of “residence” that would read to include “yard, grounds, outbuildings, and common areas surrounding the residence” (and discussed using the common‑law term “curtilage”), and to add language making clear that “Nothing in this section may be construed in a manner that infringes on rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or the Maryland Declaration of Rights.”

Senators debated potential First Amendment implications, including whether journalists or newsgathering organizations could be affected. “That’s kinda why I bring it to the committee’s attention,” one senator said, noting a carve‑out in current law for “peaceable activity intended to express a political view or provide information to others.” Members asked counsel to review existing First Amendment protective language used elsewhere in the code and incorporate appropriate drafting.

The committee agreed the changes address the factual gap that prompted the bill—surveillance that focused on outdoor areas such as yards and side yards rather than strictly inside a dwelling—but asked counsel to refine language so the statute will clearly capture the conduct the bill was intended to reach. The committee adopted the amendments on the record and decided to hold the bill for one last work session before a final vote.

The committee did not take a roll‑call vote on the bill as a whole; amendments were adopted by voice consent and the bill was held for further drafting and final review.","Lawmakers amended Senate Bill 92 to add harassment‑based language, definitions for “residence” and “visual surveillance,” and a First Amendment safeguard, then agreed to hold the bill for a final work session.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee approves several bills on voting list, holds several for further work

Committee narrows DNA‑collection triggers, adopts amendment and holds Department of State Police bill

Judicial Proceedings Committee amends visual‑surveillance bill, holds it for final drafting