[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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],{"_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",6636298,"mediaKeyId","2611303-eacbffc23009df95578bb7ad50ae12ba","parentId",2611303,"title","Votes at a glance: Judicial Proceedings Committee acts on 14‑item voting list, March 13, 2025","audioSeconds",10816,"startMs",0,"endMs",10816000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2611303-eacbffc23009df95578bb7ad50ae12ba&start=0&end=10816","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2611303-eacbffc23009df95578bb7ad50ae12ba/thumbnail_0.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6636298/Maryland/Votes-at-a-glance-Judicial-Proceedings-Committee-acts-on-14item-voting-list-March-13-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6636298-d88a3aa7b1227ec9caa2322b29dd436a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183078&Signature=UqRWclGeqMKA55kiy7M6QXfNVrTbJDzYAAyqoGBReRMb-w~Xk6Uy72JF9hGRx7t5vWTaGr94u6O1kBq2z~Jb1PjuRHVvkYQkCzyCqAYt1Yj8p9-CJ3CXWii4Hmz8Z1xnNJj9~dbqHAzYQrkKT0Uc30Sebsdr7wzK8kD3F5wkEY4HEqKSLGj6-fI18e10z5Veopgw84UA8-76umj24u4-txicUpvwNCNVp5yNMPHth3vTq~wq8Dv2wiq5bC-7rRNx9jDxCqfXWkX5bQ8U5r0WVf-do-aq91FAFoPOsyqo7CFrMWdgP9LznLNfT2RJmMobnCR8q7qG0QivMGykE6eGUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Judicial Proceedings","date","2025-03-13T22:53:44.54Z","article","What the committee did: On March 13, 2025 the Judicial Proceedings Committee (JPR) considered voting list No. 14 and took action on a slate of bills ranging from technical code cleanup to grants and task forces. Below are short descriptions, the committee action, and vote results where recorded.

Senate Bill 281 and Senate Bill 280 – military definitions (voting list start)
- Summary: Both bills make uniform definition changes related to military service across multiple code articles and restore or correct drafting language; sponsors asked to add cosponsors and corrective amendments were adopted. SB281 and SB280 were amended on the floor and each passed the committee unanimously as amended.
- Action: Amendments adopted; both bills reported favorably (unanimous recorded by voice).

Senate Bill 883 – post‑towing procedure work group (formerly a lien bill)
- Summary: The bill as amended strikes the lien provisions and instead establishes a statutory work group to examine post‑towing procedures when vehicles are towed from private lots; the amendment adds language that the group should act “in consultation with interested stakeholders” and recognizes the Maryland Association of Counties’ role in representative selection.
- Action: Amendment adopted; bill reported favorably (unanimous).

Senate Bill 398 – automated expungement implementation task force
- Summary: An amendment dropped the expungement fund text and instead establishes a task force to study and recommend implementation steps for a fully automated expungement process; the task force membership includes legislative members, DPSCS, the Public Defender, the Maryland State's Attorneys Association, and appointed technical and vendor representatives. The task force must report to JPR and House Judiciary by 12/31/2025.
- Action: Committee adopted amendment and recorded the amendment as approved (committee moved the bill as amended). Committee members raised concerns about court representation and the six‑month window; the committee recorded approval of the amendment by voice vote.

Senate Bill 649 – expungement eligibility for entries with no finding
- Summary: The bill would expand expungement eligibility to certain records disposed of without a finding; the Judiciary requested additional review and examples because the issue appeared in more than one jurisdiction. The committee referred the bill to summer study for further work and data collection; the committee chair committed to pursue the work over the summer.
- Action: Referred to summer study (committee recorded affirmative on referral).

Senate Bill 398 (automated expungement) and related task force reporting dates
- Note: The committee confirmed that the task force report is due 12/31/2025 and discussed allowing designees for certain appointed members.

Senate Bill 608 – U‑visa certification timelines (amended)
- Summary: The amendment incorporates provisions creating a rebuttable presumption of helpfulness, shortens statutorily required decision windows for certifying entities, and requires non‑English protocols. The committee debated operational feasibility (county certifying entities objected that shorter deadlines were difficult for larger counties) and agreed to adjust timelines in committee: the general decision time was moved in committee to 45 days (from proposed 30) and expedited timelines for detained applicants or near‑aging minors were adjusted to 12 days where 7 days had been proposed.
- Action: Committee adopted the amendment and the bill passed in committee on a recorded roll call. Recorded roll call (committee transcript): Senator Sandoval—Yes; Senator West—Yes; Senator Muse—Yes; Senator Faulding—No; Senator James—Yes; Senator Henson—Yes; Senator Love—Yes; Senator McKay—No; Senator Charles—Yes; Senator Smith—Yes. Result: 9 Yes, 2 No; Senate Bill 608 reported favorably with amendments (9–2 recorded).

Senate Bill 525 – pilot for citizen video reporting of illegal dumping in Prince George’s County
- Summary: The amendment narrows an earlier, statewide program to a Prince George’s County pilot; the committee required a delegation letter to accompany the amendment. The committee adopted the amendment but held further action pending receipt of the delegation letter and local delegation review.
- Action: Amendment adopted; further committee action deferred pending delegation letter.

Senate Bill 621 – courthouse security reporting (amendment adopted)
- Summary: The committee adopted an amendment that removed the bill’s earlier operational requirements and retained a reporting requirement asking agencies that provide courthouse security to report staffing levels, minimum needed officers, and related operational information to the Chief Justice; the amendment also clarified which personal judicial information remains protected.
- Action: Committee adopted amendment and reported the bill favorably as amended (unanimous).

Senate Bill 626 – Frederick County sheriff salary (local bill; amended)
- Summary: The amendment strikes certain proposed language and instead sets a salary formula: an initial statutory dollar amount for calendar 2025 (specified in the amendment) and thereafter 82.5% of the Frederick County state’s attorney’s salary for subsequent calendar years, with a drafting clarification to ensure the change does not apply to the incumbent sheriff’s current term. The committee accepted a delegation letter and the amendment.
- Action: Amendment adopted; the measure passed in committee 10–1 with amendments.

Senate Bill 179 – vehicle registration fee exemption for certain veterans
- Summary: The bill exempts one vehicle registration fee for a veteran determined unemployable due to a service‑connected disability. The sponsor and members added cosponsors on the floor; the committee approved the bill and it passed unanimously.
- Action: Amendment/cosponsor additions adopted; committee voted to report favorably (unanimous).

Senate Bill 915 – enforcement of vehicle laws on certain private roads in Baltimore County (local delegation amendment)
- Summary: The delegation amendment limited the bill’s application to specific private subdivisions and added a three‑year sunset and a required report from Baltimore County Police. Committee members discussed precedent and county responsibility for enforcement; committee accepted the local amendment.
- Action: Amendment adopted; bill reported favorably with the amendment (recorded 9–1 in committee).

Senate Bill 343 – state's attorneys' transparency task force (amendment)
- Summary: The amendment removed the bill’s grant fund provisions and reconstituted the task force to study transparency standards for State’s Attorneys’ offices, with an additional assignment to identify sustainable funding sources to implement prior recommendations (December 2023 report) and future task force recommendations. The Maryland State's Attorneys Association requested preserving fund language, but the committee opted for the reconstituted task force with the added funding study.
- Action: Amendment adopted; motion for favorable report carried 9–1.

How the committee handled votes and process: Several bills were modified on the floor with sponsor or committee amendments and passed by voice vote; a subset required or recorded roll calls (for example SB608 recorded 9–2, SB626 recorded 10–1, SB915 recorded 9–1, SB343 recorded 9–1). Other items were referred to summer study (SB649) or deferred pending local delegation letters (SB525).

Why this matters: The package includes a mix of technical code fixes (military definitions), operational and administrative work groups and task forces (expungement automation, towing procedures, courthouse security, transparency standards), and local/county adjustments (Frederick County sheriff salary, private‑road enforcement pilot). Several items required coordination with judiciary offices, county governments, or state agencies (DPSCS, AG’s consumer protection division, GOCAP), and a few measures generated notable committee debate about drafting precision and potential unintended consequences.

Provenance: See transcript spans for the beginning of the voting list and the committee’s final recorded votes for the evening.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JPR Committee Session, 3/13/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","The Judicial Proceedings Committee on March 13, 2025 considered voting list No. 14 and took action on more than a dozen bills, including technical military‑definitions bills, an automated expungement task force, revised timelines for U‑visa certifications, and several county/local measures. Some bills passed unanimously while others recorded roll calls or were referred to study.","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},6636303,"Judicial Proceedings Committee narrows scope of animal‑cruelty penalty increase, adds new subsection for domestic animals and livestock",2207,2185000,4392000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2611303-eacbffc23009df95578bb7ad50ae12ba&start=2185&end=4392","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2611303-eacbffc23009df95578bb7ad50ae12ba/thumbnail_2185000.jpg","/articles/6636303/Maryland/Judicial-Proceedings-Committee-narrows-scope-of-animalcruelty-penalty-increase-adds-new-subsection-for-domestic-animals-and-livestock","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6636303-5854d25445efd602f4c74e983fc1d7f5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183078&Signature=njjstvLS3ZNTzC7R3HG~xj0DcSArND7MP2aw6w1cS07~1oZmVnX67JCB3LhAA8kmsl9WNm2DwtWMa7-TZNCwpg2~wMppqpehZwS4ZNeVy17re449Q5Mc40wUM95n6JLrwq3YLynz1bd5gJPkf24UF1soyZMbPxw7Vp2ohDkeBZa5S9JkFVE7k0OoyfSlnMI6Fe~FpQcg8t4l2I21T1TzGTEmMAxup34tNVZFnbY18tZnTbpGrze03DIAFKq9lOa7KidfoeTzIypY5bf5oBRWgGZ0HsjpIoZGYYrEHZpCzL0BWjb5UWPnhROs30wS-eKdVvP7KmnvkaQzLjdCPwePcw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judicial Proceedings Committee on March 13, 2025 amended and approved Senate Bill 80, which raises penalties when abuse or neglect of an animal under Maryland Criminal Law §10‑604 results in death or necessitates euthanasia. Committee members adopted an amendment making the provision an emergency measure and added a new standalone subsection (proposed 10‑604.1) that narrows the heightened penalty to domestic animals and livestock.

The change moves the enhanced penalty in the bill from the existing subsection into a separate statutory paragraph that applies when a veterinarian—validated by a second licensed veterinarian—determines euthanasia was required because of abuse or neglect. Under the amended language the committee discussed, a violation that results in death or validated euthanasia is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year imprisonment, a fine not exceeding $5,000, or both; the bill also imports sentencing conditions already found elsewhere in the code, including counseling, payment of reasonable costs associated with removal, housing, treatment or euthanasia of confiscated animals, and possible prohibition on owning or residing with an animal for a court‑determined period.

Why it matters: Committee members voiced concern during debate that the existing statutory definition of “animal” (which can be broad) could be read to include insects or pests. Several senators argued the committee needed “guardrails” so the new, higher penalty would not be interpreted to criminalize ordinary conduct such as killing insects. The amendment’s new subsection instead targets the enhanced penalty to domestic animals and livestock and leaves the broader, longstanding definition of “animal” in place for other provisions of §10‑604.

Key details and committee changes: counsel described the amendment package as largely corrective drafting and said adding a subsection would avoid changing the statute‑wide definition of “animal,” which could unintentionally affect unrelated provisions. The committee also discussed other drafting choices that would reduce the bill’s fiscal estimate: for example, when the alleged victim is livestock or an agricultural animal, certain determinations could be made by the State veterinarian to limit the fiscal note. Committee counsel summarized the proposal for the new subsection and read model language drafted to avoid Apprendi‑type issues (the committee wanted the elements that could increase a defendant’s sentence to be clear and jury‑determinable where required).

Members debated whether to include zoo animals or other categories; counsel advised that, from a drafting perspective, the cleanest approach is a separate subsection or a new section that lists which classes of animals are covered by the enhanced penalty. Several senators urged limiting the change to the new penalty subsection to avoid unintended effects on existing law.

Outcome and follow up: After extended colloquy the committee adopted the amendments and voted to move the bill favorably as amended. The committee recorded a unanimous affirmative on the motion to report Senate Bill 80 favorably as amended. The sponsor also told the committee that staff and interns who received discourteous communications while working on the bill had led the sponsor to warn members against abusive constituent conduct.

Provenance: See transcript excerpts showing the start of the SB80 discussion and the point at which the committee recorded the favorable report.","On March 13 the Judicial Proceedings Committee amended and approved Senate Bill 80, creating a new subsection that limits the heightened penalty to domestic animals and livestock, increasing the possible jail term and maximum fine when abuse leads to death or required euthanasia and importing new sentencing conditions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Judicial Proceedings Committee acts on 14‑item voting list, March 13, 2025

Judicial Proceedings Committee narrows scope of animal‑cruelty penalty increase, adds new subsection for domestic animals and livestock