Part E
CRIMES, CORRECTIONS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY
REVISION OF ESCAPE LAWS
The Committee to Revise Article 27, which recommends substantive and stylistic changes to the State criminal code, undertook a revision of the various escape offense provisions throughout the Annotated Code. In past years, the Committee has revised the State's disorderly conduct laws, trespass laws, explosives laws, assault laws, victim's rights laws, arson laws, and burglary laws.
The revision by the Committee was introduced as Senate Bill 355/House Bill 463 (both passed), which revise and restate the law concerning escape, contraband, and related offenses. Senate Bill 355/House Bill 463 revise the law on escape both stylistically and substantively. The major substantive changes include:
(1) consolidating all of the individual provisions applicable in the different counties concerning escapes and other violations of the terms of temporary release and home detention and adding a single section to cover all violations of the terms of release or home detention in local correctional facilities;
(2) establishing the felony offense of escape in the first degree, which includes:
(3) establishing the misdemeanor offense of escape in the second degree, which includes knowingly departing from custody after a lawful arrest without the authorization of the custodian, knowingly failing to obey a court order to report to a place of confinement, and violating a restriction on movement under a non-Division of Correction home detention order. A violator is subject to a maximum fine of $5,000 and up to 3 years imprisonment.
A portion of the revision was prompted by a 1998 Court of Appeals ruling in Farris v. State, 351 Md. 24 (1998) that held that in Allegany County the failure of an individual to report for service of a weekend sentence was not escape or any other violation of criminal law. This reasoning applies to many of the other counties as well. These bills address the Farris problem by making the failure to report to a correctional facility as required by a court order an escape in the second degree.
Senate Bill 355/House Bill 463 further codify existing law concerning escape while on leave or otherwise not in a correctional facility. Although the current statute refers only to escape from a correctional facility, case law has adopted the concept of constructive custody to apply this statute to persons who escape while on leave or otherwise outside of the correctional facility (e.g., in a hospital). The bills explicitly cover persons on leave. By defining escape to retain its judicially determined meaning, the bills also include those taken out of a correctional facility for other reasons, such as to a hospital or to court. Senate Bill 355/House Bill 463 further add a new offense of escaping after being lawfully arrested. The common law offense of escape covered this offense, but current State law does not. Current law prohibits a person from resisting a lawful arrest, but does not prohibit an escape after arrest and before the person is incarcerated, as prohibited under these bills.
In a 1993 opinion, the Attorney General concluded that assisted suicide, whether the assistance is rendered by a physician or someone else, may constitute a common law crime in Maryland, i.e., accessory before the fact of a felony or second degree principal to a felony. See 78 Opinions of the Attorney General (1993) [Opinion No. 93-036 (September 8, 1993)]. However, the Maryland Court of Appeals has never addressed the question of assisted suicide. If the Court of Appeals did not recognize suicide as a crime, assisted suicide per se would not be a crime because one cannot be charged with criminally aiding and abetting an act that is not itself a crime. There remained the question, however, of whether a person who assists a suicide nevertheless could be indicted on another charge.
The Attorney General of Maryland stated that the General Assembly is not precluded by either the federal or State Constitution from resolving the uncertainty under current law and enacting a statute prohibiting assisted suicide. Senate Bill 319/House Bill 496 (both passed) prohibit an individual, with the purpose of assisting another person to commit or attempt to commit suicide, from:
(1) knowingly causing by coercion, duress, or deception another person to commit suicide or attempt to commit suicide;
(2) knowingly providing the physical means by which another person commits or attempts to commit suicide with knowledge of the person's intent to use the physical means to commit suicide; or
(3) knowingly participating in a physical act by which another person commits or attempts to commit suicide.
Under Senate Bill 319/House Bill 496, an individual who commits this offense is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both.
The bills do not subject to criminal liability for this offense a licensed health care professional who:
(1) administers, prescribes, or dispenses medications or procedures to relieve pain, even if the medication or procedure may hasten or increase the risk of death, provided that the medications or procedures are not administered for the purpose of causing, or assisting in causing, death for any reason; or
(2) withholds or withdraws a medically administered life sustaining procedure in compliance with the Health Care Decisions Act or in accordance with reasonable medical practice.
A family member who provides medications and procedures to a patient in a licensed hospice program to relieve pain, even if it hastens or increases the risk of death, is also not subject to criminal liability unless the medications or procedures are knowingly administered or dispensed to cause death.
FRAUD - IDENTITY THEFT
Personal identity theft is believed to be one of the fastest growing crimes in the nation. Congress recently passed the Identity Theft Protection Act of 1998, which makes it unlawful for anyone to knowingly transfer or use, without lawful authority, another person's identification with the intent to commit unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of federal law or a felony under State or local law. The new law sets criminal penalties for first and subsequent offenses, and provides for mandatory restitution for victims that may include payment of any costs, including attorneys' fees. In addition, the states of Arizona, California, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have created new criminal laws to address this problem.
Senate Bill 244/House Bill 334 (both passed) make it a crime to knowingly, willfully, and with fraudulent intent obtain or aid in obtaining another person's "personal identifying information" without the person's consent, for the purpose of using that information or selling or transferring that information to obtain any benefit, credit, goods, or services in that other person's name. The bills also prohibit a person from knowingly and willfully assuming the identity of another with specified fraudulent intent or to avoid prosecution for a crime.
Violators are guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to maximum penalties of a fine of $5,000 and/or imprisonment of one year. Senate Bill 244/House Bill 334 also subject violators to restitution for reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred in clearing the victim's credit history and rating or in connection with the settlement of any obligations arising from the fraud. The bills allow consecutive or concurrent sentencing for any related offense based on violations of these provisions.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND HATE CRIMES
Current law prohibits a person from harassing or committing a crime against a person because of the person's race, color, religious belief, or national origin or against an institution because of the institution's contacts or associations with a person or group of a particular race, color, religious belief, or national origin.
Senate Bill 139/Senate Bill 184 House Bill 92/House Bill 969 (all failed) as introduced, would have added sexual orientation and gender to the hate crimes law. These bills would have prohibited a person from harassing or committing a crime against another person or the person's property because of the other's sexual orientation or gender or damaging the property of an institution because of the institution's contacts with a person or group of a particular gender or sexual orientation.
MOTOR VEHICLES
Drunk Driving
Several bills were introduced with differing approaches to curb the incidence of drunk driving in Maryland. Attempts were made to modify the Ignition Interlock System, increase the penalty for refusing to submit to a chemical intoxication test, and issue "DWI" vehicle registration plates to a person convicted of a drunk driving offense. These measures were largely unsuccessful, with one exception: an increase in subsequent offender penalties in Senate Bill 379/House Bill 584 (both passed). In addition, the drunk driving issue that received the most attention this year was the effort to reduce the blood alcohol level constituting intoxication per se from .10 to .08. Senate Bill 127/Senate Bill 255 House Bill 699/House Bill 1010 (all failed) would have made .08 the level for intoxicated per se. For a more complete discussion of these issues and bills, see Part G - Motor Vehicles.
Unlawful Taking of a Motor Vehicle and Theft
According to the Department of State Police, since the enactment of Maryland's unlawful taking of a motor vehicle statute in 1995, some courts have ruled that this prohibition is the more specific statute dealing with car theft, which precludes a conviction under the general theft law. Theft carries a longer maximum imprisonment penalty (15 years) than unlawful taking (5 years). Senate Bill 382/House Bill 949 (both passed) clarify that a prosecution for unlawful taking of a motor vehicle does not preclude prosecution under the theft statute if the elements of theft are also established. Senate Bill 382/House Bill 949 further provide that if a person is convicted of both unlawful taking of a motor vehicle and of theft of the motor vehicle for the same act, the unlawful taking conviction shall merge into the theft conviction for sentencing purposes.
CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
House Bill 1189 (passed) establishes a $100,000 maximum fine for second and subsequent convictions of offenses involving: (1) the manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense certain controlled dangerous substances; (2) related conspiracy violations; or (3) a comparable offense under federal or State law. Current law provides for a maximum $25,000 fine ($20,000 for the hallucinatory drugs PCP and LSD) for any of these offenses regardless of whether the person is a first or subsequent offender.
House Bill 1189 has the potential for significant additional local revenues since these cases would be heard in the circuit courts and all fines collected in a circuit court go to the county. However, data on the number of persons to whom the bill would apply is not readily available.
FALSE STATEMENTS - TOXIC MATERIAL
House Bill 1069 (passed) alters the definition of toxic material by including precursors of certain toxic chemicals and biological substances containing a disease organism or microorganism. This has the effect of expanding the prohibitions on destructive devices to include devices containing precursors of these dangerous chemicals and biological substances containing a disease organism or microorganism. Persons who violate the laws on destructive devices are subject to a maximum fine of $250,000 or imprisonment for 25 years or both. In addition, the bill prohibits a person from knowingly circulating or transmitting false statements or rumors concerning the location or possible release of these toxic materials. Violators are guilty of a felony and subject to current penalty provisions applicable to spreading false rumors involving destructive devices, including a maximum fine of $10,000 and maximum imprisonment of ten years. Persons convicted of violating these provisions may also be required to pay restitution.
SCHOOL SAFETY ACT OF 1999
In part, Senate Bill 391/House Bill 907 (both passed) expand the existing prohibition against molesting or threatening with bodily harm a student, employee, administrator, agent, or any other individual who is lawfully on school property to include those who are on a school vehicle, at an activity sponsored by a school that is held off school property, or on property that is owned by a county board and is used for administrative or other purposes.
Senate Bill 391/House Bill 907 further prohibit a person from threatening with bodily harm any employee of any institution of elementary, secondary, or higher education at home by any means, including in person, by telephone, or by electronic mail. This prohibition applies only to threats arising out of the scope of the employee's employment. For additional information on the School Safety Act of 1999, see the Juvenile Law heading of this Part.
STALKING
Law enforcement officers have been the targets of retaliation by criminals that the officers are investigating or who have been previously apprehended by the officers. Under current law, a person convicted of stalking any person is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years or both.
Senate Bill 132/House Bill 192 (both failed) would have established a felony for stalking if the victim is a law enforcement officer or member of a law enforcement officer's family. The bills would have also doubled the maximum penalty for such a stalking conviction.
PRIVACY - VISUAL SURVEILLANCE
Currently, a person is prohibited from conducting or procuring another person to conduct any visual surveillance of another person in a private place without the consent of the person in the private place. A "private place" is defined to mean a dressing room or rest room in a retail store. Under a separate statute, a person is prohibited from entering the land or premises of another for purposes of invading the other's privacy by looking into any window, door, or other aperture.
Senate Bill 689/House Bill 95 (both passed) prohibit placing a camera on real property for purposes of filming a person in a private residence and prohibits conducting visual surveillance with a prurient intent in dressing rooms, rest rooms, and bedrooms in other places used by the public. Violators are guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 and/or imprisonment for not more than six months.
Senate Bill 689/House Bill 95 define "visual surveillance" to mean deliberate, surreptitious observation of another by any means, including direct sight surveillance, the use of mirrors, and the use of cameras. With certain exceptions, the bills broaden the application of a provision prohibiting the visual surveillance of a person in a private place by expanding the definition of "private place" to mean a dressing room, bedroom, or rest room in places of public use and accommodation.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
House Bill 711 (passed) prohibits a person, except in the case of self-defense, from intentionally inflicting bodily harm, disability, or death on an animal used by a law enforcement unit. On conviction for this offense, a person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years, or both. The bill also authorizes a court, as a condition of sentence, to order the convicted person to participate in psychological counseling that is to be paid for by the person.
LASER POINTERS
Recently, laser pointers have been used to harass individuals, and in some instances have been mistaken for a laser sight for a firearm. Senate Bill 568 (passed) prohibits the use of a laser pointer in a public place to illuminate another in a manner that harasses or endangers another person. The bill provides exceptions if the pointer is being used for educational purposes by individuals engaged in an organized meeting or training class, or during the normal course of work or trade activities. A person who commits one of these offenses is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $500.
In 1998, Ocean City, Maryland, enacted an ordinance that prohibits the use of laser pointers in a manner that harasses or annoys another person. New York City also enacted an ordinance similar to Senate Bill 568 in 1998.
PRISON EMPLOYEES - CONTACT WITH BODILY FLUIDS
Senate Bill 377/House Bill 232 (both passed) prohibit an inmate from maliciously causing or attempting to cause any employee of the Division of Correction, the Patuxent Institution, the Baltimore City Detention Center, or any county jail, detention center, or sheriff's office to come into contact with seminal fluid, urine, or feces. Additionally, the bill prohibits contact with blood, provided that the contact is not the result of physical injury resulting from physical contact between an inmate and employee. In some correctional facilities, these bodily fluids are used by inmates against correctional officers. An inmate who is convicted under this provision is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to imprisonment up to 10 years, a fine up to $2,500, or both.
Additionally, Senate Bill 377/House Bill 232 add employees of a sheriff's office to the list of persons whom an inmate is prohibited from assaulting under current law. A sentence imposed under these bills may not be suspended and must run consecutively to any sentence that was being served or that had been imposed but was not yet being served at the time of the sentencing.
COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL SENTENCING POLICY
Since 1983 circuit court judges have been using sentencing guidelines in all cases involving crimes against persons, crimes against property, and drug crimes. The current guidelines were adopted by a judicial sentencing guidelines board appointed under the authority of the Maryland Judicial Conference. This board consists of judges from every circuit as well as nonvoting ex officio members from the General Assembly, attorneys, and representatives from governmental criminal justice agencies. In 1996, the General Assembly established the Maryland Commission on Criminal Sentencing in an effort to examine sentencing patterns and recommend changes to improve the current sentencing practices.
The Maryland Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy issued its Final Report to the General Assembly in December 1998. In compiling its Final Report, the Commission was guided by two objectives: (1) reduce unwarranted sentencing disparity in sentences for offenders who have committed similar offenses and have similar criminal histories; and (2) preserve meaningful judicial discretion in the imposition of sentences and sufficient flexibility to permit individualized sentences.
Senate Bill 388/House Bill 602(both passed) make a number of changes to the State's sentencing and corrections laws and policies. The provisions of the bills contain a number of the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Commission.
The major issues covered by the bills include the following:
Creation of a Permanent State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy
Senate Bill 388/House Bill 602 create a permanent 19-member State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy. The Commission is required to adopt existing sentencing guidelines for sentencing and to consider the recommendations for changes contained in the Final Report concerning those guidelines. The guidelines must: (a) specify the range of sentences applicable to crimes of a given degree of seriousness; (b) specify a range of increased severity for defendants previously convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for a previous crime; and (c) provide a list of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. A court will not be required to adopt or impose any sentence contained in the guidelines, however, because the guidelines are only voluntary.
In addition, the Commission must adopt guidelines to identify defendants who would be appropriate for participation in corrections options programs (i.e., electronic monitoring, home detention, boot camp prison programs, and community supervision and drug treatment and rehabilitation programs). The Commission must also make an annual report to the General Assembly regarding judicial compliance with the guidelines, collect sentencing information, monitor sentencing practices, recommend changes to the guidelines, and conduct training and orientation for judges, lawyers, and others. The Commission must also comply with the Administrative Procedure Act in adopting guidelines as regulations that will be published in the Maryland Register and in the Code of Maryland Regulations and be subject to legislative review.
Judicial Review of Sentences
Three judge sentence review panels may alter a sentence, including a sentence reduction below a statutorily mandated minimum. However, a panel may not order a decrease in a mandatory minimum sentence unless the panel's decision is unanimous.
Minimum Period of Confinement for Parole Eligibility
Except as otherwise provided by law or in a predetermined parole release agreement, an inmate is made ineligible for parole until the inmate has served in confinement one-fourth of the inmate's aggregate sentence.
The current sentencing guidelines are based on a point system derived from the seriousness of the offense and the offender's criminal history. The guidelines provide a range of years for the recommended sentences. These bills require the new Commission to adopt the current guidelines, subject to revision, and also to adopt the recommendations for changes to the guidelines contained in the 1998 Final Report, again subject to revision by the new Commission.
Truth in Sentencing
Under current law judges when sentencing state the term of imprisonment imposed, if any, without any reference to the minimum amount of time the defendant must serve before being eligible for parole. Senate Bill 388/House Bill 602 will require judges when sentencing for violent crimes to state the minimum amount of time the defendant will serve before being eligible for release on parole. With the exception of life sentences and mandatory sentences a defendant is required to serve 50% of a sentence for a violent crime before being eligible for parole. Requiring a judge to state the minimum time that must be served will give victims and the public notice of the range of time that a defendant will serve in prison.
PENALTIES FOR OFFENSES INVOLVING DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES
For the past couple years there have been a significant number of false bomb threats made to schools throughout the state. Many of the threats have been made by children, but the costs involved in responding to threats have been considerable.
Senate Bill 223/House Bill 312 (both passed) establish offender and parental restitution, and suspension or restriction of driving privileges for a child who is convicted or found to have committed a delinquent act in violation of various destructive device offenses. Those offenses include: (1) the manufacture, possession, or sale of destructive devices; (2) knowingly making a false statement or rumor concerning the location or detonation of a destructive device; and (3) manufacturing, possessing, or placing a device constructed to represent a destructive device with the intent to terrorize, frighten, or threaten. A more detailed discussion of these bills may be found under the Juvenile Law heading of this part.
SENTENCING
Enhanced Penalty for Violent Crimes Against Elderly
Senate Bill 111 (failed) would have authorized an increased penalty for a person who commits a crime of violence against a person who is 65 years old or older. On conviction of the offense, the offender could have received up to a 50% increase in the maximum sentence established for the commission of the offense.
Death Penalty
Before a defendant who is found guilty of murder in the first degree may be sentenced to death, a court or jury must determine whether any of a list of aggravating circumstances exist. Senate Bill 540 (failed) would have added to the list of aggravating circumstances by identifying first degree murder committed while committing certain serious controlled dangerous substance distribution offenses as an aggravating circumstance.
CHARGING DOCUMENTS AGAINST EMERGENCY SERVICES PERSONNEL
Senate Bill 301/House Bill 537 (both passed) require a State's Attorney to investigate an application filed in District Court for a statement of charges to be filed against "emergency services personnel" for an offense allegedly committed in the course of executing the duties of emergency services personnel. "Emergency services personnel" is defined to mean: (1) a career firefighter of a county or municipal corporation; (2) an emergency medical services provider of a county or municipal corporation; (3) a rescue squad employee of a county or municipal corporation; or (4) a volunteer firefighter, rescue squad member, or advanced life support unit member of a county or municipal corporation. The bills thus expand the scope of current law, which requires prior review of a statement of charges against only a law enforcement officer or educator.
SEARCH WARRANTS - CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Senate Bill 39 (passed) authorizes a District Court or circuit court judge for good cause to seal for up to 30 days an affidavit in support of a search warrant as part of an investigation into crimes involving child pornography.
BAIL AND RELEASE PRETRIAL
Violation of Ex Parte or Protective Orders
House Bill 231 (passed) prohibits a District Court Commissioner from authorizing the pretrial release of a defendant charged with violating:
(1) an ex parte order or the provisions of a protective order that order the defendant to refrain from abusing or threatening to abuse a person eligible for relief; or
(2) a protective order issued by a court of another state or of a Native American tribe that order the defendant to refrain from abusing or threatening to abuse a person eligible for relief.
The bill authorizes a judge to release a defendant described above pending trial on: (1) suitable bail; (2) any other conditions that will reasonably ensure that the defendant will not flee or pose a danger to another person or the community; or (3) both bail and other conditions described above.
Crimes of Violence
House Bill 141 (passed) expands the list of crimes for which a District Court Commissioner may not release pretrial certain defendants, unless the defendant can rebut the presumption that the defendant would pose a danger to any other person or to the community or would flee. The bill applies to defendants who are free on bail or personal recognizance for any "crime of violence" as defined in Article 27, § 643B of the Code when they are charged with any subsequent crime of violence. This expands the presumptive ineligibility rule to cover: (1) abduction; (2) voluntary manslaughter; (3) carjacking and armed carjacking; (4) sexual offense in the first or second degree; and (5) use of a handgun in a felony or crime of violence.
Issuance of Bench Warrants
House Bill 1166 (passed) authorizes a court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of a defendant charged with a criminal offense who violates a condition of release pretrial. After a defendant is presented before a court, the court may: (1) revoke the defendant's release pretrial; or (2) continue the defendant's release pretrial with or without conditions.
Representation at Bail Review Hearings
Senate Bill 335/House Bill 889 (both failed) would have required the Public Defender to provide legal representation to indigent defendants during bail review hearings when a defendant has not been released on bail as set by a Commissioner.
Despite the failure of this legislation, the General Assembly appropriated $44 million for criminal court activities in Baltimore City, including funding for a pilot project to provide representation to indigent clients during bail review hearings.
Internet Listing of Persons Convicted of Sexual Offenses
Senate Bill 610/House Bill 229 (both passed) authorize the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to post on the Internet a current listing of each person who is registered with the Department as a sexual offender, child sexual offender, sexually violent offender, or sexually violent predator. A listing may contain a registrant's name, offense, and other identifying information in accordance with regulations established by the Department. See additional discussion under the Public Safety heading of this Part.
Megan's Law Revision
The sexual offender registration statute, also known as Megan's Law, provides for registration requirements and procedures for certain sexual offenders, child sexual offenders, sexually violent offenders, and sexually violent predators. Senate Bill 73 (passed) makes a number of changes to the sexual offender registration procedures and reorganizes the registration provisions under current law. See additional discussion under the Public Safety heading of this Part.
VICTIMS' RIGHTS
During the 1995 Interim, the Speaker of the House of Delegates and the President of the Senate appointed the Task Force to Examine Maryland's Crime Victims' Rights Laws. Since its creation, the objective of the Task Force has been to implement the 1994 amendment to the Maryland Declaration of Rights relating to the rights of victims of crime to be notified of their constitutional rights and to participate in criminal justice proceedings. During the 1999 Session, the General Assembly passed a number of legislative initiatives that were proposed by the Task Force.
Attendance at Proceedings - Loss of Employment
Senate Bill 124/House Bill 303 (both passed) prohibit an employer from depriving an employee who is a victim of crime or victim's representative of employment because of job time lost as a result of the employee's attendance at a criminal or juvenile proceeding where the employee has a right to attend the proceedings.
Notification and Attendance - Posttrial Proceedings
Senate Bill 147/House Bill 304 (both passed) require the notification of victims or victims' representatives about motions for new trials in criminal cases and when an appeal is filed by any party in the Court of Special Appeals and the Court of Appeals. The bills allow victims and victims' representatives to attend any postconviction proceedings that may be petitioned under current law.
Under current law, victims have the right to be notified about various trial proceedings in a criminal or juvenile delinquency case. A victim is also entitled to notification of subsequent proceedings including: (1) a review of sentence; (2) modification or vacation of a sentence; (3) a review of a commitment order in juvenile delinquency cases; (4) appeals to the Court of Special Appeals; (5) appeals to the Court of Appeals; or (6) any other postsentencing court proceedings. Senate Bill 147/House Bill 304 add motions for new trials and postconviction proceedings to which a victim or victim's representative may attend.
Juvenile Hearings and Dispositions
Senate Bill 125/House Bill 302 (both passed) authorize the victim of a juvenile offender to submit a victim impact statement to the court at a waiver hearing (for both a hearing in juvenile court and at a reverse waiver hearing). The bills also authorize the court to consider the victim impact statement in determining whether to waive its jurisdiction. See additional discussion in the Juvenile Law heading of this Part.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board - Claims
Senate Bill 118/House Bill 305(both passed) prohibit the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board from finding that a claimant fails to suffer serious financial hardship and is not eligible for an award because the claimant is indigent or judgment proof.
The bills also allow Maryland residents who are injured in another state that operates, but does not fund, a criminal injuries compensation program to receive benefits in Maryland. Time requirements are also established for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to act on claims and maximum allowable counseling and funeral expenses are increased to $5,000.
Finally, Senate Bill 118/House Bill 305 require the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to report to the General Assembly on or before November 1, 1999, on the results of a study to: (1) identify and examine alternate models for determining the financial eligibility of criminal injuries compensation claimants; (2) determine if other reasonable expenses should be compensated, including mental health counseling for family and household members; (3) project the effect of the models and any other changes on the long-term stability and strength of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund; and (4) recommend a model to replace the current serious financial hardship standard.
MARYLAND DRUG AND ALCOHOL GRANTS PROGRAM
House Bill 681 (passed) reestablishes the Maryland Drug and Alcohol Grants Program Fund, which terminated in 1998. The Fund is designed to provide grants for drug and alcohol abuse education, prevention, treatment, and law enforcement programs as well as neighborhood crime prevention programs.
BACKGROUND
In March of 1996, the General Assembly convened a juvenile justice summit to examine the nature and extent of juvenile delinquency in Maryland and to discover innovative solutions to the problems posed by juveniles. In order to increase the accountability of juvenile offenders and of the juvenile justice system, legislation was enacted in the 1997 Session to open court hearings for any juvenile alleged to have committed a delinquent act that would be a felony if committed by an adult. The General Assembly also enacted legislation to change the purpose of the juvenile justice law from that of protecting the juvenile from the "taint of criminality" and the consequences of juvenile behavior to an approach that incorporates the philosophy of restorative justice and balances the principles of public safety, offender accountability, and competency and character development.
Despite these recent initiatives, according to a 1997 report by the Maryland Task Force on Juvenile Justice Reform, Maryland has the nation's fifth highest juvenile violent crime arrest rate, surpassed only by New York, Florida, New Jersey, and California. The juvenile delinquency problem, therefore, continues to receive a significant amount of attention from the General Assembly.
FALSE BOMB THREATS BY JUVENILES
In recent years, primary and secondary schools throughout the State have been victimized by false bomb threats, many of which have been made by children. As well as interfering with the students' education, these threats exact a high cost on local school districts which must absorb the costs involved in the disruption of the school day and on area fire and rescue teams which must devote resources, including equipment and labor, when responding to each threat.
In an effort to deter such threats, Senate Bill 223/House Bill 312 (both passed) provide that if a child under 18 years old is convicted of a crime or found to have committed a delinquent act involving a destructive device, the court may order the child, the child's parent, or both to pay restitution to:
(1) the State or a local government for costs incurred due to the search for and removal of a destructive device or rumored or imitation destructive device, and damages caused by detonation of a destructive device; and
(2) the owner or tenant of a property for the actual value of goods, services, or income lost as a result of evacuation of the property or damages caused by a destructive device.
The legislation also authorizes a court to order the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) to initiate an action to suspend the driving privilege of a child who is convicted of a crime or found to have committed a delinquent act involving a destructive device for a period not to exceed six months for a first offense, or for one year or until the age of 21, whichever is longer, for a second or subsequent offense. If a child subject to the suspension does not possess driving privileges on the date of the disposition of the charges, the suspension shall commence on the date of disposition if the child is eligible to obtain driving privileges at the time of disposition, or on the date that the child would become eligible to obtain driving privileges, if the child is too young to obtain driving privileges.
If a court orders the MVA to initiate an action to suspend a child's license, the MVA must initiate an action to suspend the license for the period established by the court, but has the authority to issue the child a restricted license. After the suspension, the MVA must send written notice to the child of the right to contest the accuracy of the information upon which the suspension was based. Any contest is limited to whether the MVA has mistaken the identity of the individual or whether the MVA should issue a restricted license to the individual.
SCHOOL SAFETY ACT OF 1999
Senate Bill 391/House Bill 907 (both passed) add various offenses relating to controlled dangerous substances and destructive devices to the list of offenses for which, if a child enrolled in the public school system is arrested, the law enforcement agency making the arrest must notify the local school superintendent of the arrest and charges within 24 hours or as soon as practicable.
The legislation also expands the existing prohibition against molesting or threatening with bodily harm a person who is on school property to include those who are on a school vehicle, at an activity sponsored by a school that is held off school property, or on property that is owned by a county school board and is used for administrative or other purposes. The legislation further prohibits the threatening with bodily harm of school employees at home and increases the maximum fine for these offenses from $1,000 to $2,500. The maximum term of imprisonment of six months was not changed.
VICTIMS' RIGHTS
Senate Bill 125/House Bill 302 (both passed) allow victims of juvenile violence to submit victim impact statements for consideration by a juvenile court in determining whether to waive jurisdiction or to adult court at reverse waiver hearings in determining whether to transfer a case to juvenile court. The legislation also requires that victims be notified of these hearings and of the right to submit a victim impact statement at a hearing. This legislation is discussed in detail under the Criminal Procedure heading of this Part E of The 90 Day Report.
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES
House Bill 552 (passed) requires the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to conduct a study of juvenile detention in the State. In conducting the study, DJJ must:
The Department of Juvenile Justice must submit its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly by November 15, 1999.
SPOTLIGHT ON SCHOOLS
Spotlight on Schools is a statewide initiative in which probation specialists work on site at local high schools monitoring attendance, office referrals, and suspensions. These persons also provide immediate intake services for students involved in delinquent activities and offer support services to specified students at elementary and middle feeder schools with parental permission.
The Spotlight on Schools initiative began as a pilot program in Prince George's County with two staff members. In fiscal 1999 it was expanded by 35 positions to cover 81 schools in 21 jurisdictions (all but Garrett, Harford, and Kent Counties). The Fiscal 2000 Budget includes $775,000 for expansion of the program, which will be used to fund 35 additional positions.
MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING
Many of the children in the State's juvenile justice
system have a diagnosable mental disorder or are substance abusers. To allow earlier
identification of mental health and substance abuse problems and to prevent children from
progressing further into the juvenile justice system, House Bill 692
(passed) requires that, within 25 days after receipt of a complaint, the juvenile intake
officer discuss with the child who is the subject of the complaint and the child's parent
or guardian information regarding a referral for a mental health and substance abuse
screening of the child. If there is a screening, the screening must be conducted by a
person who:
Within 15 days of the date of the discussion with the child and the child's parent or guardian, the intake officer must document whether the child's parent or guardian made an appointment for a mental health and substance abuse screening of the child. If, as a result of the screening, it is determined that the child is a mentally handicapped or seriously emotionally disturbed child, or is a substance abuser, a comprehensive mental health or substance abuse assessment of the child must be conducted within five working days after the screening.
EXPANSION OF OUTPATIENT DRUG TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS (BREAK-THE-CYCLE)
The Fiscal 2000 Budget contains $991,000 for the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to expand outpatient drug treatment options for juvenile offenders. With these funds, DJJ intends to pilot an integrated public safety and health approach to deter drug abuse in Baltimore, Montgomery, and Anne Arundel Counties. Approximately 550 youths will be served.
Treatment will be founded upon three principles:
(1) offering lengthy substance abuse treatment;
(2) mandating that treatment through a court order; and
(3) monitoring progress through twice-weekly urinalysis along with the possibility of further sanctions.
The intent of the program expansion in an outpatient setting is to prevent offenders from progressing into more intensive, restrictive, and expensive treatment options within the juvenile justice system.
CORRECTIONS
Correctional Services Article
House Bill 11 (Ch. 54) creates the Correctional Services Article, which contains 11 titles that revise, restate, and recodify in a nonsubstantive manner the statutory laws relating to the State and local correctional systems. The new Correctional Services Article replaces all of Article 31B of the Code and parts of Articles 1, 25, 27, 41, 78A, 87, and 88B of the Code.
The Correctional Services Article is a product of the continuing revision of the Annotated Code of Maryland by the staff of the Office of Policy Analysis of the Department of Legislative Services. The first revised articles were enacted in 1973 and, to date, 24 revised articles have become law.
The Correctional Services Article includes laws that relate to the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, the Division of Correction, the Patuxent Institution, the Division of Pretrial Detention and Services, the Division of Parole and Probation, the Maryland Parole Commission, local correctional facilities, standards for State and local correctional facilities, inmate grievances, sundry claims, inmate welfare funds, diminution credits, community adult rehabilitation centers, correctional farms, and alternatives to incarceration.
House Bill 88 (Ch. 64) corrects cross-references throughout the Annotated Code of Maryland to reflect the structure of the new Correctional Services Article. House Bill 88 also makes minor substantive changes to current law that correspond to recommendations made by the Correctional Services Article Review Committee in the Revisor's Notes that are contained in House Bill 11.
Sexual Offenders
Under current law, a person who has been convicted,
granted probation before judgment, or found not criminally responsible for any of a
variety of sexual crimes against adults or children and other crimes against children must
register with the State or local government official who is designated the registrant's
supervising authority. A registration statement contains such information as the
registrant's name, address, and place of employment, and a description of the registrant's
crime. There are currently over 500 individuals registered under this law.
Senate Bill 73 (passed) extends
lifetime registration to individuals convicted of aggravated or subsequent offenses. The
bill also provides that the following additional persons must register under the State's
sexual offender registration program: (1) out-of-state residents who work or attend school
in Maryland if they would be required to register as a resident of this State; and (2)
persons convicted of sexual offenses in federal or military courts or Native American
tribal courts. The legislation also eliminates a current law authorization by which a
court may determine that a sexually violent predator no longer has that status.
Senate Bill 610/House Bill 229 (both passed) allow the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to post on the Internet a current listing of each person who is registered as an offender, child sexual offender, sexually violent offender, or sexually violent predator. A listing is to contain a registrant's name, offense, and other identifying information in accordance with regulations that the Department establishes.
Under current law, a member of the public on written request may receive information concerning a registrant from a local law enforcement agency. It is also the practice of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to require written requests before releasing information regarding registrants. Additionally, under current law, a local law enforcement agency must provide notice of the registration of a child sexual offender to the county superintendent of schools and notice of any registration statement to any person or organization that the Department of Public Safety or the local law enforcement agency determines is necessary to protect the public.
By allowing the Department to post information concerning registrants on the Internet, Senate Bill 610/House Bill 229 may eliminate the necessity of a member of the public making a written request to obtain this information. However, it should be noted that this legislation is enabling legislation only. It does not require the Department to post this information on the Internet.
According to the National Council of State Legislatures, Internet posting of information concerning sex offenders is now allowed in ten states: Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia. In addition, Michigan and Oregon allow local or county jurisdictions to post sex offender information on the Internet.
DNA Testing
House Bill 1129 (passed) requires that each person convicted of a qualifying crime of violence have one DNA sample collected and submitted to the Department of State Police. The bill alters the definition of "qualifying crime of violence" to include murder, robbery or robbery with a deadly weapon, first degree assault, or attempts to commit any of these crimes.
Under current law, DNA samples are collected on intake to any correctional facility. If a qualifying individual is not incarcerated, the court is required to order the taking of a DNA sample as a condition of sentence or probation. House Bill 1129 specifies that an individual who fails to provide a DNA sample within 90 days of notice from the Director of the Crime Laboratory is in violation of probation. House Bill 1129 applies to anyone convicted of a qualifying crime of violence before October 1, 1999 and who is incarcerated as of that date. Under current law, the requirement for DNA samples is limited to persons convicted of sexual abuse, rape in any degree, or a sexual offense in the first, second, or third degree.
House Bill 1129 places Maryland's law more in line with the majority of states. Currently, all states have database laws governing the use of DNA samples and all states require DNA samples from sex offenders. The national trend has been to require DNA samples from a wider range of violent felons to track repeat offenders.
The federal government is encouraging all states to increase the capacity for DNA analysis. Federal grants have been provided to some states, including Maryland, to make necessary technical upgrades and improve database analysis. The goal is for every state to have a DNA database that is linked to other states through the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Combined DNA Index System, known as CODIS. Eight states are currently connected to the CODIS system. Maryland expects to be on-line by May 1999. The federal government is encouraging all states to be on-line by the summer of 2000.
The Maryland DNA repository currently contains over 3,500 samples. Under House Bill 1129, the DNA repository would increase to about 7,500 samples. There are about 615,000 DNA samples maintained in repositories nationwide. The fiscal 2000 budget appropriation to the State Police for its State Crime Laboratory is $378,715, including three new positions which are contingent on the enactment of House Bill 1129.
Internal Investigative Unit
House Bill 125 (passed) establishes an Internal Investigative Unit as a separate agency within the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. The new Unit is responsible for investigating alleged: (1) criminal violations committed by employees of the Department while on duty; (2) criminal violations committed by inmates, visitors, and other individuals that affect the safety or security of the Department's facilities or programs; and (3) professional misconduct by employees of the Department.
House Bill 125 gives an investigator in the new Unit all of the powers of a peace officer or police officer in the State, but specifies that, with certain exceptions, the investigator may not exercise these powers on property that is not owned, leased, operated by, or under the control of the Department. The bill also requires an investigator who is acting with police authority, to notify other jurisdictions or other law enforcement agencies when acting within their jurisdictions.
Private Home Detention Agencies and Monitors
An individual who seeks to operate a private home detention monitoring service or who seeks to be employed as a private home detention monitor must first apply to the Criminal Justice Information System Central Repository of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services for a State and national criminal history records check. Senate Bill 262 (Ch. 36) requires the Criminal Justice Information System Central Repository to forward to such an individual a finding of any felony conviction uncovered in the records check.
Inmates - Education, Job Training, and
Treatment
The Educational Coordinating Council for Correctional Institutions develops and recommends an educational program for each correctional institution in the Division of Correction. Additionally, the Council adopts regulations for the implementation of a mandatory education program for all inmates who fail to attain a minimum educational standard. The Council is required to prepare an annual report for the Governor and General Assembly and is charged with actively advocating and promoting the interests of educational programs and opportunities in correctional institutions, as well as ensuring that a quality education and equal educational opportunity are available to all inmates in the State.
The Council currently consists of six members, including the Commissioner of Correction and the Director of the Patuxent Institution, who serve as ex officio members. Two other members of the Council hold cabinet-level positions: (1) the State Superintendent of Schools; and (2) the Secretary of Higher Education.
Senate Bill 57 (Ch. 26) decreases the Council's membership to five members. Under the enactment, the Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services, replaces both the Commissioner of Correction and the Director of the Patuxent Institution. The Act also extends the deadline for the submission of the annual report of the Council to the Governor and General Assembly from June 30 to October 30 of each year.
State Use Industries is the prison industry arm of the Division of Correction. Its mission is to provide training and employment opportunities for inmates, thus increasing their chances of securing employment after release. Within the Division of Correction is the State Use Industries Advisory Committee. This Committee is charged with advising and reviewing State Use Industry programs.
Senate Bill 174 (passed) reconstitutes this 16-member Advisory Committee as a 15-member State Use Industries Management Council and patterns its duties and membership after that of a corporation's board of directors. Additional business representation has been added to the Council's membership and the duties of the Council are expanded to include reviewing ways to consider expanding the programs into new business areas and reviewing how modern business practices could further enhance existing programs. The Council is required to review the budget and fiscal practices of State Use Industries. Senate Bill 174 also creates an 11-member customer council to advise the general manager of State Use Industries.
The law has been unclear as to whether sanctions may be imposed on an inmate who refuses to participate in an alcohol and drug abuse treatment program. Senate Bill 61 (passed) allows the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services greater leverage with inmates who need alcohol and drug abuse treatment but refuse to participate. Specifically, Senate Bill 61 provides that an inmate who refuses to participate in an alcohol abuse and drug abuse treatment program is subject to the same sanctions that may be imposed upon an inmate who refuses to participate in any mandatory program. Diminution credits may be revoked for the period during which the inmate refuses to participate in a program.
Release on Mandatory Supervision
House Bill 124 (Ch. 69) establishes that an individual who is released on mandatory supervision is subject to any special conditions established by the Commissioner of Correction. The Act also clarifies that a written order specifying the terms and conditions of an inmate's release on mandatory supervision must be issued by the Division of Correction before an inmate is released and exempts from this requirement an inmate who is released to a detainer.
POLICE, FIRE, AND RESCUE
Extrajurisdictional Authority During Joint Operations
House Bill 556 (Ch. 103) authorizes a police officer to arrest a person outside the officer's jurisdiction if: (1) a warrant has been issued against the person; (2) the police officer is participating in a joint operation that has been created by an agreement between "primary law enforcement officers" (for example, a chief of police, sheriff, or police commissioner); (3) the arrest occurs within one of the participating jurisdictions in the agreement; and (4) the police officer is acting in accordance with regulations adopted by the police officer's employing agency to implement this provision of law.
A police officer acting under the authority granted by the bill has all the immunities from liability and exemptions as that of a State police officer.
Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights
In 1997, an administrative law judge held that the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBR) does not apply to law enforcement officers employed at higher education institutions that were formerly governed by the Board of Trustees of the State university and college institutions because LEOBR applies only to law enforcement officers of the old University of Maryland campuses. Campuses that once constituted the University of Maryland, however, are now a part of the University System of Maryland, which was created in 1988 by the merging of the University of Maryland campuses with the Board of Trustees of the State University and College institutions. Under the 1997 ruling, LEOBR is inapplicable to law enforcement officers who work at these former Board of Trustees institutions: Bowie State University, Coppin State College, Frostburg State University, Salisbury State University, Towson University, and the University of Baltimore. House Bill 678 (passed) makes the LEOBR apply to law enforcement officers at each campus of the University System of Maryland.
Crime Laboratories
Currently, the eight State and local crime laboratories in Maryland, including the State Medical Examiner's Office, are not managed by a single entity. Local government crime labs are autonomous from the State Police Crime Laboratory, though all crime labs must follow federal guidelines and procedures. The local laboratories currently provide a range of forensic services from drug analysis to full forensic services (including DNA testing in Baltimore County, with capabilities being developed in Prince George's County). The State Police Crime Laboratory provides a full range of forensic services, including DNA testing, and is the central repository for DNA samples under current law. House Bill 787 (passed) creates a council to monitor the quality of and technology used in the State's crime laboratories and to study the feasibility of consolidating all crime laboratories into one statewide crime laboratory.
Public Safety Communications
Senate Bill 76 (Ch. 32) updates and clarifies provisions of law relating to the data communication systems of the Department of State Police. The Act requires prior authorization by the Department of State Police before a State agency will be permitted to connect to any communication system that the State Police maintains. The Act also identifies certain data communication systems with which a law enforcement agency of the State or authorized State agency may connect, including the Maryland Interagency Law Enforcement System (MILES), the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS).
In a related issue, the licenses for the State's forty-eight 800 megahertz (MHz) frequencies are due to expire on July 22, 1999. The budget committees recognized the importance of maintaining a state-of-the-art public safety communication system. Thus, in the Joint Chairmen's Report on the Operating Budget, the budget committees requested that the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) develop a plan to implement and fund a statewide 800 MHz communications system. The Secretary of DBM has been asked to provide a preliminary report on the status of the plan and licenses to the budget committees on June 20, 1999 and a final status report on December 1, 1999.
Police Records
A person who is arrested or detained for a suspected violation of a criminal offense or incarcerable motor vehicle offense and is released without being charged may request that the police records concerning the arrest be expunged. Traditionally, arrest and booking records were maintained at the police station where the arrest and booking occurred. According to the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, recently more of this record keeping function is being performed in separate booking facilities.
Senate Bill 74 (Ch. 31) expands the definition of "police records", to include records maintained by a booking facility. Additionally, a booking facility, on request of a law enforcement agency, must search for and expunge police records concerning an individual's arrest, detention, or confinement.
State Aid
Established in 1990, the municipal sworn officer allocation helps municipalities with the cost of providing police protection. Senate Bill 175/House Bill 679 (both passed) raise the municipal sworn officer allocation from $1,200 to $1,800 annually. The State pays the allocation to qualifying municipalities for each sworn police officer employed on a full-time basis. Senate Bill 175/House Bill 679 prohibit this increase in aid from being used to supplant existing local funding for police protection. The Governor included $853,800 in the budget to finance the increase in the allocation. This supplemental aid to municipalities was last increased from $900 to $1,200, during the 1996 Session.
Privatization
Although no local government in Maryland has contracted with a for-profit entity for primary fire or emergency medical services, other local governments throughout the United States have experimented with privatization of select public safety functions. Most jurisdictions in Maryland rely on a combination of volunteer and professional fire fighters. House Bill 947 (passed) requires local governments that collectively bargain with fire, emergency medical services, paramedic, and rescue personnel to pass a local law authorizing privatization before contracting with a for-profit entity to provide complete fire protection or ambulance and rescue services.
FIREARMS
Concealed Weapons
Senate Bill 38 (passed) expands the list of law enforcement officers who are exempt from the prohibition against wearing, carrying, or transporting handguns without a permit to include full-time assistant sheriffs and part-time sheriff's deputies: (1) while they are on active duty; and (2) who are authorized to wear, carry, or transport the weapon as part of their official equipment.
Child Resistance Standards
Maryland has no provisions requiring guns to be designed to consider child safety. House Bill 267 (failed) would have prohibited a person from selling a pistol, revolver, or other handgun on or after October 1, 2000 unless the handgun met State performance standards for child resistance. House Bill 267 would have required that these types of firearms: (1) be designed so that a child under six years of age would have significant difficulty in firing the handgun; and (2) have a grip-safety mechanism, a combination lock mechanism, or other device to be attached to a handgun.
FORFEITURES
Under current law, a motor vehicle or other vehicle, vessel or aircraft used in the unlawful concealment, conveying, or transporting of explosives may be forfeited only to a county or Baltimore City. House Bill 99 (Ch. 65) adds the State as an eligible governmental body to receive forfeited vehicles, vessels, or aircraft used in the illegal concealment, conveyance, or transport of explosives. House Bill 99 also clarifies that the jurisdiction to which the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft is forfeited depends on which jurisdiction initiated the investigation.
SMOKE/CARBON MONOXIDE
In recent years, smoke control systems in high-rise buildings have been replaced by automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm and detection systems, central monitoring and control stations, smoke proof stairways, and other modern fire protection features of construction. A current law that requires smoke control systems in high-rise building construction causes confusion for contractors and architects because they tend to give these requirements priority over the National Fire Code. House Bill 221 (Ch. 80) repeals the current obsolete statutory requirements relating to smoke control systems.
House Bill 108 (failed) would have established carbon monoxide detector requirements for any residential unit with a gas heating system, fuel burning appliance, or attached garage that is issued a building permit on or after October 1, 2000. The bill would have applied to multifamily residential units, as well as single family dwelling units, and would have required these residential units to have at least one carbon monoxide detector installed and maintained in accordance with National Fire Protection Association Standard 720. Current law does not require landlords or builders to install carbon monoxide detectors in residential properties.
HOTSPOT EXPANSION
The HotSpot Communities Initiative was launched in 1997 to target 36 high-crime, at-risk neighborhoods. The program concentrates crime prevention resources in areas disproportionally affected by crime and allows residents to develop and implement strategies to combat crime. The initiative includes elements such as community policing, community probation, community mobilization, crime prevention through environmental design, and after-school activities. The goal is to reduce crime by 25 to 35 percent over three years.
Under the initial implementation of the program each county nominated one HotSpot community. An additional twelve HotSpot communities were selected based on each county's share of serious crimes. This second allocation resulted in an additional five HotSpots in Baltimore City, three in Prince George's County, two in Baltimore County and one each in Montgomery and Anne Arundel counties. The fiscal 2000 budget includes $6.1 million in State funds to expand the HotSpot initiative to an additional 36 sites. The sites will be selected by a process similar to that used to select the original 36 sites.
The fiscal 2000 expansion of the program includes new funding in three agencies: the Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention, the Department of Juvenile Justice, and the Division of Parole and Probation. Grants will increase $3.5 million. The remaining funds ($2.6 million) will be used to place additional parole and probation agents in the communities. These agents place offenders under intensive supervision and work as part of a team including community police officers to supervise high-risk offenders in the identified neighborhood. These teams share information, perform joint home visits and nighttime curfew checks, and are based in community substations.