[{"_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",6650343,"mediaKeyId","2508395-c01630b3885a920e8e4fdeffa85d17ed","parentId",2508395,"title","Committee holds bill after lawmakers debate age threshold and intent element in caregiver-theft measure","audioSeconds",1060,"startMs",2217000,"endMs",3277000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2508395-c01630b3885a920e8e4fdeffa85d17ed&start=2217&end=3277","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2508395-c01630b3885a920e8e4fdeffa85d17ed/thumbnail_2217000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6650343/Maryland/Committee-holds-bill-after-lawmakers-debate-age-threshold-and-intent-element-in-caregiver-theft-measure","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6650343-0c35e1d1aea4bc8fc9b8a2483a534be3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213747&Signature=QdCuMWdd-QGWiWFfoOs7yhVJD5P3EjdFDJLII~n~-PTrrcH4KtIeJJhS2iE5CmOSSgR4yQOA0HiMsHclz-R83W29N5UUbX5pET8Tr0nvRRAr4e3z4qpWmNtQT4q8dqP95bHUusH7AOZOwMK-4us31PgfUt1FBtJc1cWedPhJcXWZNfm1EQJbdy6GnZeT4hPaCNsm8PhbJiMvSGn~9EqGmpvh7v6dUoQ0P07XcHhwN43gO0Vffw2qXVT9xXNy7izcHqFDRWzRh8OmTY1Paxv7WpFrdRUUb-QjZBuq64iyP7MD~F-vVCjfGx-UM1slrJ00PoX2muKcWwmJ9b~Qm0L6Cg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Judicial Proceedings","date","2025-03-05T23:33:34.817Z","article","The Judicial Proceedings Committee held Senate Bill 466 after lawmakers spent more than an hour debating whether the measure, as amended in the House, would improperly broaden criminal liability for caregivers and family members who manage property for elders or vulnerable adults.

What the bill says: The House-amended version that the committee reviewed would make it unlawful for a caregiver, family member, or household member to knowingly and willfully obtain the property of a vulnerable adult or a person at least 68 years old with intent to deprive. The amendment also provides that a sentence for conviction under the subsection would run concurrently with, and not consecutive to, any other sentence based on the same acts.

Attorney General's Office explanation: Rhea Harris, representing the Attorney General's Office, told the committee the change addresses what her office sees as a gap: a caregiver convicted of theft can later obtain another caregiving position and reoffend. Harris said the bill would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to exclude a person found guilty of theft or financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult from serving as a caregiver in the future.

Concerns raised by lawmakers: Multiple senators said they supported protecting vulnerable adults but worried the bill's current language could sweep too broadly. Several members objected to using an age-based threshold of 68 as an alternative to a vulnerability or competency finding, noting that some people under 68 can be vulnerable and others over 68 remain fully competent. Senator Love and others pressed whether the statute as written replaces the existing requirement of deception, intimidation or undue influence with a plain intent-to-deprive standard, which they said could criminalize routine caregiving transactions such as paying bills or accepting a gift.

Senator Wright posed a hypothetical in committee to illustrate the concern: if an elderly person gives a family member an antique as a gift, the family member might technically have \"obtained\" the property with intent to deprive but did so with consent. Counsel and other members said the statutory definition of \"deprive\" can include withholding property permanently or disposing of it so the owner cannot recover it; the discussion focused on whether the bill needs additional qualifiers (for example, fraudulently, maliciously or by undue influence) to avoid unintended prosecutions.

Next steps: Committee members agreed to hold the bill so the sponsor and counsel can consult with the Attorney General's Office, prosecutors and other stakeholders to refine language. The chair said the bill would be revisited when the committee meets again; the bill must later satisfy committee procedural requirements to move forward.

What remains unresolved: Whether the measure should rely on a vulnerability determination rather than an age threshold, and whether explicit mens rea or fraud-related qualifiers should remain in the text to distinguish malicious exploitation from legitimate caregiving or consensual transfers.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JPR Committee Session, 3/5/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","The Judicial Proceedings Committee on Wednesday held Senate Bill 466 after extended debate about whether an age threshold and removal of deception or undue-influence language would criminalize ordinary caregiving transactions.","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},6650348,"Committee advances bill expanding revenge-porn law to cover AI-generated intimate images",1373,837000,2210000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2508395-c01630b3885a920e8e4fdeffa85d17ed&start=837&end=2210","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2508395-c01630b3885a920e8e4fdeffa85d17ed/thumbnail_837000.jpg","/articles/6650348/Maryland/Committee-advances-bill-expanding-revenge-porn-law-to-cover-AI-generated-intimate-images","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6650348-904a9312e886b67f6d597c46474aa3a3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213747&Signature=EY~yGE2aQBWxG28JRaDwJB3d9LxJ1MEHNcTcypCyD4dE1PkgKOatWrxThZQcvIFQFl08OW9NikKDW2vgTs11iQyq-AmpUYWt8ivac8dYwN-A6k8V4XAZZM2fjAhK6~QurYBC511hGoxpB2LedGICEXBc0oY6nGHs-oDkscai53Bn2TMmiJ0kdjub-lnRRXxlHUc8nTTDRklu81ibkSYP2ybeZ83x9xNWxNIGcPBLJNSkt22yO0N9~kefAwDvHq6zsK~Q9TDrQypU4oGeGalT-504-g-np-hNmlm7d2jq5YZXS-AWBojlysJ4Y0H298E9Ha3gQOpas-~kl6ns9Kwh2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judicial Proceedings Committee on Wednesday advanced Senate Bill 360, which would allow a person to bring a civil action for defamation per se and broaden criminal prohibitions against so-called revenge pornography to cover computer-generated visual representations indistinguishable from a real person that show intimate parts or sexual activity.

Committee counsel explained that the bill targets distribution of computer-generated images that are indistinguishable from an identifiable person and depict that person in an intimate context, and that violators would be subject to the penalties already applicable under the existing revenge-porn statute. The bill as drafted focuses on distribution rather than solely on the creation of the image.

Why it matters: lawmakers said the bill responds to an increase in AI-generated “deepfake” imagery and seeks to give victims both civil remedies and parity with existing criminal prohibitions. Committee members debated where the line should be drawn between creation and distribution, how to protect consensual private sharing between adults, and potential First Amendment concerns for creators.

During discussion, senators pressed whether the bill could criminalize someone who distributes an image of themselves. Counsel responded that the statutory language targets distribution of an image that is “indistinguishable from another actual and identifiable person,” and the text distinguishes between the distributor and the person depicted. Lawmakers also debated whether a consent element or a reckless-disregard standard should remain in the statute to avoid sweeping in downstream sharers who may not know consent was withdrawn.

Several members said they worried broad language could create a “dragnet” that ensnares people who forward an image without knowing it had been created without authorization. Others argued the statute should remain focused on the initial bad actor who creates and disseminates the image with the intent to harm. Committee members also discussed juvenile cases and whether juvenile offenders should be handled in juvenile court unless formally waived.

Legal constraints were raised during the discussion: committee counsel noted prior case law and earlier federal guidance (including reference to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in related contexts) informed existing statutory formulations that require the image be of an identifiable person to survive constitutional review. That is part of the reason the bill uses phrasing that mirrors prior statutory language addressing artificially generated images in child-exploitation contexts.

Outcome: The committee voted to report the bill favorably. The chair recorded a unanimous vote to pass the bill out of committee for the next stage of consideration.

What’s next: With committee approval, the bill will move toward the Senate floor for further consideration and any additional amendments.","The Judicial Proceedings Committee advanced Senate Bill 360, which would let people sue and expand criminal liability for distributing AI-generated or indistinguishable visual representations that depict another person in an intimate or sexual context. Lawmakers debated scope, consent and whether creation (versus distribution) should be criminal.",{"_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},6650334,"Votes at a glance: Judicial Proceedings Committee, March 5, 2025",4477,605000,5082000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2508395-c01630b3885a920e8e4fdeffa85d17ed&start=605&end=5082","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2508395-c01630b3885a920e8e4fdeffa85d17ed/thumbnail_605000.jpg","/articles/6650334/Maryland/Votes-at-a-glance-Judicial-Proceedings-Committee-March-5-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6650334-dd40ec3d66c62dcd39e2c496ceda349e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213747&Signature=UUV4Niq1-Dn5CQbs3NZESIh0xK1CG5KzmDoUS8o~BxeuAzPSpfeAC3QDJvuVzojsqnS-43TTs~uQgGsieu-CPpG-XIUukONeWlZkU93iLv69JCoQ4aqiG9t8LK0~yOQ9fNKXPpcV3p-objrvGkfuMgnOspXB5S0bLawbyXHyLMlDU6A9WaE~rej1G9kSEm4wX4m1gpnGIR4M985cQAnldsUO~DwL7AYGgTQUBmDE5SwozLTExlaPms9ikwEzTIdc1IgedpapOMP-onEuk4d3xparFcDUS6VLXDDYN8~HLyhGKYijnVvTQwvEUk63wEA-QHLJ4-htsYq8J9Bx4dODjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judicial Proceedings Committee convened Wednesday, March 5, 2025. Below is a summary of the committee's formal actions that were recorded in the hearing transcript.

Key committee actions recorded

- Senate Bill 158 (decanting notice) — Reported favorably; committee recorded unanimous passage. The bill adds a notice provision from the Maryland Trust Act to the decanting statute so that fiduciaries have a uniform list of acceptable notice methods.

- Senate Bill 360 (AI-generated intimate images) — Reported favorably; committee recorded unanimous passage. (See separate article for full discussion.)

- Senate Bill 391 (Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission review) — Reported favorably; committee recorded unanimous passage. The bill directs the Commission to annually review independent-investigation-division reports and make recommendations.

- Senate Bill 619 (constitutional amendment for Commission on Judicial Disabilities chair) — Reported favorably; committee recorded unanimous passage. The amendment would authorize temporary measures to address recusal or vacancy situations.

- Senate Bill 622 (court opinions copyright) — Reported favorably; committee recorded unanimous passage. The bill updates current practice by removing a requirement that state reporters secure a copyright for certain court opinions.

- Senate Bill 629 (appellate court sessions at educational institutions) — Reported favorably as amended; committee recorded unanimous passage. The amendment was a technical cross-reference correction.

- Senate Bill 655 (artificial intelligence evidence clinic pilot) — Reported favorably as amended; committee recorded unanimous passage. The amendment replaced a detailed RFP provision with a grant application framework for selecting entities to run a pilot clinic to provide AI-related expert support to courts.

- Senate Bill 581 (pet damages increase) — Reported favorably; committee recorded favorable motion and affirmative recordings in committee.

- Senate Bill 181 (medical and geriatric parole) — Reported favorably as amended; committee recorded an 8-1 vote. The amendment raised geriatric-parole thresholds and adjusted rehearing timing.

Held or postponed items

- Senate Bill 466 (theft/financial exploitation by caregiver or family member) — Held for further drafting and consultation with the Attorney General's Office and stakeholders due to concerns about age thresholds and removal of deception/undue-influence language.

- Several other bills were held for delegation letters, sponsor amendments, or additional work groups, as noted during the hearing (specific holds recorded in the transcript include items listed by the chair that will return to committee).

Next steps: Bills reported favorably will proceed to the Senate docket for further consideration; held items will return to committee after additional drafting and stakeholder consultation.","Summary of committee actions and votes during the March 5, 2025 Judicial Proceedings Committee session, including bills voted out of committee and items held for further work.",{"_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},6650338,"Committee approves revisions to medical and geriatric parole rules, sends bill with amendments",451,6349000,6800000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2508395-c01630b3885a920e8e4fdeffa85d17ed&start=6349&end=6800","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2508395-c01630b3885a920e8e4fdeffa85d17ed/thumbnail_6349000.jpg","/articles/6650338/Maryland/Committee-approves-revisions-to-medical-and-geriatric-parole-rules-sends-bill-with-amendments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6650338-1c74e5e9b0b82e877d0af45f2f1ee81e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213747&Signature=EIljEKM5aKowN7xwyrWZhS94d8tw~vfJsTq4sp-rEM-FpY92L4j-5MgetwS9AGrc~iAF55ujxVu7yHNgBfhsDVSLKZzUKEHobDVhcioiFD1ONwKEx-W4YJG~5xGWXU4BScPLKRPOLVMVs9MhoBiKUXifRAS013shiDVCa5Esvx5wrTHQKB4MddP6OpK~KeT0fivPbBdZ514AKy3JIAElcbysh9LGZStEf-4OJsA3GM82KOxkIT38OVzjWV~7m82Km6DM-DIcfxdRtqSXCDKFXJ6IItMAnFTnuxWyjopOqXcP4Y3oUFi2GlDFviPDp5PRwXMLY~uwb0DksFJF61yDOg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judicial Proceedings Committee amended and approved Senate Bill 181, a bill that changes eligibility for medical parole and creates a geriatric-parole ground in the Maryland Parole Commission's rules.

Key changes adopted: The committee voted to amend the bill to (1) define \"chronically debilitated or incapacitated\" using language modeled on federal compassionate-release standards; (2) limit medical-parole eligibility to persons whose medical condition substantially diminishes their ability to provide self-care or who otherwise are no longer a danger to public safety; and (3) narrow the geriatric-parole eligibility and timing: under the amendment the geriatric pathway would apply to people at least 65 years old who have served at least 20 years of their sentence (an increase from 60 years/15 years in the original draft).

The amendment also changed the periodicity of subsequent geriatric-parole hearings: an applicant denied geriatric parole would not be eligible for another geriatric-parole hearing for at least five years unless the Parole Commission finds extraordinary and compelling circumstances to allow an earlier rehearing. The amendment repealed an older, narrower statutory geriatric-parole provision that applied to a small set of offenses and added uncodified language directing the Parole Commission to prioritize medical and geriatric-parole hearings.

Sponsor and stakeholder involvement: Committee members said the amendment reflected work-group discussions that included the Public Defender's Office and state's attorneys; floor managers indicated they expected letters of support from the Public Defender and other stakeholders. Committee members characterized the changes as a negotiated compromise intended to provide clearer standards while limiting repeated petitions.

Vote: The committee approved the bill as amended. The chair recorded an 8-1 vote in favor of the amended measure.

What this means: If enacted, the bill would change both the legal standard for medical parole consideration and create a narrower, more structured process for geriatric parole requests.","The committee amended and approved Senate Bill 181 to revise eligibility standards for medical parole and create a narrower geriatric-parole pathway; amendments raised the age and years-served thresholds and added procedural limits on repeat hearings.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee holds bill after lawmakers debate age threshold and intent element in caregiver-theft measure

Committee advances bill expanding revenge-porn law to cover AI-generated intimate images

Votes at a glance: Judicial Proceedings Committee, March 5, 2025

Committee approves revisions to medical and geriatric parole rules, sends bill with amendments