[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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",6524745,"mediaKeyId","2331729-2c9f75ec894c83a1d077cb7c8880d0b8","parentId",2331729,"title","Senate advises and consents to most gubernatorial nominees; one nominee considered separately and later confirmed","audioSeconds",3314,"startMs",833000,"endMs",4147000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2331729-2c9f75ec894c83a1d077cb7c8880d0b8&start=833&end=4147","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2331729-2c9f75ec894c83a1d077cb7c8880d0b8/thumbnail_833000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6524745/Maryland/Senate-advises-and-consents-to-most-gubernatorial-nominees-one-nominee-considered-separately-and-later-confirmed","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6524745-c4477a9374838955af06fc29394ca446/orig.mp4?Expires=1770705734&Signature=lbhgts5yndyWVNAV4DPW-jfd5o920G9uWQqk0N0Pst4iMGKs4fwW~n8CpLZ7UqiH2FejlYJlECOoJUDPw7mKc1r8saxnjOe5jSLPb4IA5~YsYJQ9AouZJMj-5O7PuV1T8hNNUv~fEVeDw-OGnFYid9Y0bIW4UmCcSVJlkFhcRRm4VCuLfynYUpie~qZMhcqJt4CRYEFauaGlklIuQZ8U5AlBmWON5B1CNeFbrwoLI9HvEVklWJOh16RykBwIDnBebLRHvAApqVkYonwF~gr50HqSGBq5WPJ69SALLu4mybSeOToWYS-mL41YUSC59YvS2WRMCOaFAVTvBqYQ3vUhfg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland Legislature","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","On Feb. 18 the Maryland Senate considered the governor’s executive nominations (\"Green Bag\" appointments). The secretary of appointments presented more than 200 nominations for confirmation; the Senate referred them to the Executive Nominations Committee and then took up report number 3.

The committee chair asked to separate nominee L7 from the batch. The Senate then voted on the remainder of the nominees contained in report number 3 (excluding L7). The clerk announced the result: \"With 43 votes in the affirmative, the senate advises and consents affirmatively to the nominations of the executive.\" The tally was read on the record.

Later the Senate considered nominee L7 separately. A senator noted nominee L7 is a former colleague and urged support; following brief remarks the clerk read the roll and announced that, \"With 43 votes in the affirmative, the senate advises and consents affirmatively to executive nominee L7, our former colleague.\"

What it means: The Senate’s affirmative advice and consent moves these nominees to the next administrative steps; one nominee was separated for individual consideration and also received confirmation by recorded voice/roll call.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Floor Session, 2/18/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate voted to advise and consent to the governor's executive nominations report number 3 (excluding nominee L7), and later considered and confirmed nominee L7 separately. Both votes were recorded as 43 affirmative votes on the floor.","taxTitle","SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15090,"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},6524750,"Votes at a glance: Maryland Senate passes a slate of bills on Feb. 18, 2025",146,3744000,3890000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2331729-2c9f75ec894c83a1d077cb7c8880d0b8&start=3744&end=3890","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2331729-2c9f75ec894c83a1d077cb7c8880d0b8/thumbnail_3744000.jpg","/articles/6524750/Maryland/Votes-at-a-glance-Maryland-Senate-passes-a-slate-of-bills-on-Feb-18-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6524750-61a2878ea5701f22e7e0489c375c230c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770705734&Signature=dUb8r1tfY1fSDrcCVEQJWQrL-opiGWnG5CXVLn8ZVTHYqFUHOqr7yeodHoczJ8mQ61DaST6iY41vIrRktkVBlp~8x6CSIYby4rpOV9wYaSAwIE370L4CpmN1t4pYVgATcRqCr3TjqUwR5l~02ymZqIW1SoKar5cfi~nAg5I-8s2AgiQQzg3KFirDj29serLKtrCUIHMja4KfakcZnfEjgnlQcN06qpk4OLStUnK0ZmAkIXJvBlI1YakerO5J8~C7eVvAVgUjxfHGmiqKBVuMk1FNaO1CA2nc1AKrlzz0CL2O6KJU6GDKify4dh6lcAPvTxA3n8BjCLPBll6svHcCrg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On Feb. 18 the Maryland Senate completed third‑reading roll calls and declared multiple bills passed. The clerk announced the following results on the floor (titles abbreviated):

- Senate Bill 92 (peace orders and criminal harassment—intentional visual surveillance): passed, 44‑0.

- Senate Bill 202 (public safety, statewide DNA database collection and penalties): passed, 44‑0.

- Senate Bill 273 (peace orders and protective orders, military protective orders): passed, 44‑0.

- Senate Bill 334 (criminal law, crimes of malicious or fraudulent burning): passed, 44‑0.

- Senate Bill 348 (criminal law, visual surveillance with prurient intent modifications): passed, 44‑0.

- Senate Bill 356 (public health repeal of prohibition on transfer of HIV – Carlton R. Smith Act): passed, 33‑0 (declared passed with constitutional majority).

- Senate Bill 390 (motor vehicles, speed monitoring systems statements and certification violations): passed, 33‑0.

- Senate Bill 68 (public schools, restorative practices comprehensive plan): passed, 31‑0.

- Senate Bill 266 (local comprehensive planning and state economic growth/resource protection planning principles): passed, 44‑0.

Each of the above was read on third reading and declared to have received a constitutional majority as announced by the clerk. These results reflect the roll‑call tallies read into the record on the Senate floor; the transcript shows the clerk reading each tally and declaring the bill passed.

What this means: Bills declared passed will proceed to the next steps under legislative rules, including enrollment and transmission to the governor as applicable.

","The Maryland Senate voted on a group of bills on Feb. 18; the clerk announced final roll‑call results for multiple measures. This summary lists bills called on third reading and their recorded tallies as announced on the floor.",{"_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},6524755,"Senate advances bill that sets data‑access, retention and destruction rules for automated enforcement systems",214,2206000,2420000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2331729-2c9f75ec894c83a1d077cb7c8880d0b8&start=2206&end=2420","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2331729-2c9f75ec894c83a1d077cb7c8880d0b8/thumbnail_2206000.jpg","/articles/6524755/Maryland/Senate-advances-bill-that-sets-dataaccess-retention-and-destruction-rules-for-automated-enforcement-systems","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6524755-1c2b11d46945ef8b2dfabccb0d861288/orig.mp4?Expires=1770705734&Signature=evLL4kapdL-s~h108sCUDEOCvkBefClGvQGuzQdQ0qFUtNDmdYmXEVwXaMiTOnrPd3qNDJLqsWHp06Bt3WyHGx1Vm4ykvi4alesksqXKb9KY3YCx3iehkrnCSuWBOBxVvBLcHbsy1oJ5LQQVQzrZ7x5oS0Xq~XuS2FTyTgfNhoZWavmo0AnC2AdtjySMzty566nPHX2h2YpVpCH66OJckqIl8PL6SPaupd6QgN~bpCoPTji8FDW-X0KGCVzTjp3oliZLwpOsGG0j2ZaZW5nN5JCXaw~q5SZEX6XWKZ33~u7L37Id~Wnainb4A8rpEheBZ3NPD4CPbNpOqCxrlHgrUA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 381, discussed on Feb. 18, would establish statewide standards for how images and related data generated by automated enforcement systems—speed cameras, red‑light cameras, school bus cameras and similar programs—are accessed, retained and destroyed.

Sponsor Senator Love said the bill creates a uniform system to protect privacy while allowing law enforcement to access data necessary for investigation. “SP 381 sets up a system of access, retention, and destruction of that data,” the sponsor told the chamber as he described the four committee amendments that were adopted.

Why it matters: Maryland currently operates multiple automated enforcement programs across jurisdictions. The bill aims to set statewide minimums for retention periods, establish procedures for law‑enforcement access when necessary, and require regular disposal of data not needed for investigations.

The committee adopted four amendments on the floor. One amendment added cosponsors, another was technical, a third established procedures for law enforcement access and use of images, and a fourth changed the timetable for disposal of recorded images. Senator May described her amendment as \"controversial and complex\" but said she supported the package after prior committee work.

During questioning, a senator from Montgomery County asked whether the $1,000 penalty set in the bill was a sufficient disincentive for law enforcement agencies that failed to comply. The sponsor said the committee previously considered the amount and determined it sufficient.

Outcome: The four committee amendments were adopted and the bill was ordered printed for third reading. Lawmakers said the measure balances privacy protections with investigatory needs and that they expect further refinement in later stages.

","Senate Bill 381 would create statewide rules governing access to, retention of, and destruction of images and data from speed, red‑light and other automated enforcement programs. Committee amendments on sponsorship, access procedures and retention periods were adopted on the floor.",{"_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},6524760,"Senate delays vote on bill changing time limits for police administrative charges",794,3468000,4262000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2331729-2c9f75ec894c83a1d077cb7c8880d0b8&start=3468&end=4262","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2331729-2c9f75ec894c83a1d077cb7c8880d0b8/thumbnail_3468000.jpg","/articles/6524760/Maryland/Senate-delays-vote-on-bill-changing-time-limits-for-police-administrative-charges","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6524760-0682486319ded8b7f489dc9b3e43fbaf/orig.mp4?Expires=1770705734&Signature=bSfdgcAc8gJHcq7h2DhgOXIV8QPSqzEToJvLqn41iDQawLkGfR7b7cAsBhuSt-aEt8Yw1o9WZ8ZVlAT3ZbWs2kx3EOIudE80HomGnkMenjls9xJa73uLLLgIUjl8GAHAEmZjmHzRJ1tjkKJW2knFPdRwjDJWSjecUxLtBvd7wFhcCr~C2CiHyHrzzs16lChxXUcUSG3dLQoSEpRabRM75CnXmcKYQ-F2ajSaNDfdgYdm6mz6khan~C0msJmGAfBbjfpFwDZ5I-Amlwh1BC~f~~Orwht9NjfmHggqqh9PybKklYbxHVrE-I48v0HYd4LllVENkS4V9jsEMMOdivz9TA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senators debated Senate Bill 533 on Feb. 18, a measure that would alter the time limits for filing administrative charges in police discipline matters and clarify when the limitation clock starts where criminal investigation overlaps exist.

Sponsor Senator Faulden told colleagues the bill changes the rule so that administrative charges must be filed within a year and a day in many cases but acknowledges exceptions when a matter reasonably appears to be the subject of a criminal investigation. The statute would require agencies to file administrative charges within a year and a day of the determination that the matter is not subject to criminal charges or the prosecutor declines to seek charges.

Why it matters: The bill attempts to resolve timing problems law enforcement and oversight bodies face when a misconduct matter overlaps with a criminal prosecution, while preserving prosecutorial discretion and ensuring disciplinary processes proceed in a timely way.

The bill carried one committee amendment (adding committee sponsors) that the Senate adopted. The sponsor asked to special‑order the bill to later in the calendar and the body later moved the measure to the appropriate time tomorrow for further floor action.

What’s next: SB 533 will return at a later floor period for amendment or final action; the sponsor and committee members said they will provide additional clarifications and that the bill reflects discussion with stakeholders.

","Senate Bill 533 would modify the time frame for filing administrative charges against law enforcement officers, including when misconduct overlaps with criminal investigations. The sponsor explained complexities and the committee amendment added cosponsors; the Senate special‑ordered the bill for later consideration.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6524763,"Senate debates gun‑buyback rules; layover adopted after questions about destruction and training",589,2875000,3464000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2331729-2c9f75ec894c83a1d077cb7c8880d0b8&start=2875&end=3464","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2331729-2c9f75ec894c83a1d077cb7c8880d0b8/thumbnail_2875000.jpg","/articles/6524763/Maryland/Senate-debates-gunbuyback-rules-layover-adopted-after-questions-about-destruction-and-training","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6524763-16625da07f668327eec07365d25e5e58/orig.mp4?Expires=1770705734&Signature=QnMPCrbblK99R9eISMbWB~2qgdDU8LKbcis8fzwGFiG7xRejb-pvAtyfHQYskY2v3Hep9jh4KGVdduTvnELor5f7OH8AhMx1AyfvXyOSUqeMDH-mCxvyA7RB8RtWBP6lbRXrODe-UUKWsmuqBH3P8mJVBe1yI1tpsDFhtKg6Pb8PEoFvEkNeUwM41-15iRYehe6K5uz3WTz3NXfOr7FY7YXRqfrQqiLrumOxdXwSayBMAP6oSPuWYjlSQpV847PuC-b1ocmJMLab62ePOjFheKW1M5k4ESDpCQUgBrJ4gTfJm~zuO46V5c-kmWWJQThTqlHy09Ic4Y0qB6Q94mJ0IA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senators on the Maryland Senate floor on Feb. 18 debated Senate Bill 444, which would set requirements for gun buyback programs and require destruction of firearms and component parts to limit trafficking and the construction of untraceable \"ghost\" guns.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Smith, said the measure reclassifies certain conduct related to gun buybacks, prescribes procedures and penalties for program violations, and codifies what the sponsor described as standard practice across Maryland. “The goal is to ensure that every component of the firearm, not just the regulated pieces like the frame or the receiver, were destroyed through this gun buyback program,” Smith said on the floor.

Why it matters: Sponsors said the change responds to incidents in other states where component parts were resold and later used to assemble ghost guns. The bill sets maximum fines of up to $10,000 for violations by a federally licensed firearms dealer or law enforcement agency and makes a person who conducts a buyback in violation of the law guilty of a misdemeanor with a similar maximum penalty.

During floor debate, the minority whip asked whether the committee amendments addressed concerns raised in testimony that law enforcement agencies need time to retain firearms involved in investigations. Senator Smith said law enforcement would retain firearms that are part of active investigations but that routine buyback firearms are intended to be destroyed and that the bill preserves investigatory exceptions. “We adopted those committee amendments. They came from the chiefs and sheriffs,” Smith said.

Several senators pressed the sponsor on whether agencies could keep certain firearms or accessories—such as expensive scopes—for training purposes. A senator who asked about training said keeping unique or malfunctioning firearms was useful for officer training; the sponsor replied that the bill does not allow law enforcement to retain buyback firearms for training and that the measure formalizes existing practice.

Committee amendments: The floor adopted two committee amendments (one technical; one altering the bill’s definitions and state‑funding reimbursement language). The sponsor later offered two additional floor amendments that were adopted without recorded opposition.

Outcome: After extended questioning about disposal practices and training needs, a senator moved and the Senate adopted a motion to lay the bill over under the rule. The motion was adopted and the bill was carried over for later consideration.

What’s next: The bill will return for further consideration; senators said they want to preserve investigatory exceptions while addressing trafficking and ghost‑gun risks.

","Senators considered SB 444, which would codify requirements for gun buyback programs including mandatory destruction of firearms and components. Committee amendments were adopted but lawmakers raised questions about training uses and disposal of accessories; the Senate laid the bill over under the rule for further consideration.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate advises and consents to most gubernatorial nominees; one nominee considered separately and later confirmed

Votes at a glance: Maryland Senate passes a slate of bills on Feb. 18, 2025

Senate advances bill that sets data‑access, retention and destruction rules for automated enforcement systems

Senate delays vote on bill changing time limits for police administrative charges

Senate debates gun‑buyback rules; layover adopted after questions about destruction and training