Part E
Crimes, Corrections, and Public Safety
Committee to Revise Article 27
The Committee to Revise Article 27 was appointed by the President and the Speaker in 1991. Unlike the code revision committees that make only stylistic revisions to the Code, the Article 27 Committee is charged with revising both substantively and stylistically the State's criminal law. During the 2000 session, the committee undertook the subjects of robbery, health plan fraud, and accessories before the fact (which is discussed in the Criminal Procedure subpart of Part E - Crimes, Corrections, and Public Safety of The 90 Day Report).
Robbery Revision
Senate Bill 591/House Bill 647 (both passed) repeal existing provisions dealing with penalties and charging documents for the common law offenses of robbery and robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon. The bills establish new provisions that describe various elements of the offense of robbery while maintaining robbery's judicially determined (case law) meaning. The revision adds definitions of "deprive," "property," "services," and "obtain" taken from the definitions in the theft subheading. In effect, this means that anything for which a theft prosecution can be brought will be the subject of a robbery prosecution if the theft is accompanied by force or threat of force. The bills establish the following offenses and penalties:
The bills also increase the threshold in the value of property or services involved in theft-related and other offenses from $300 to $500 for purposes of the distinction between lesser and greater offenses. These offenses include theft, extortion, malicious destruction of property, bad checks, and credit card fraud.
Health Plan Fraud
The Committee to Revise Article 27 also sponsored Senate Bill 322/House Bill 354 (both passed) which revise, restate, consolidate, and expand the law concerning State health plan fraud. The bills repeal current provisions of law in Article 27 and the Health - General Article that prohibit Medicaid fraud, and then add to Article 27 several new sections that prohibit fraud against any State health plan, which includes Medicaid fraud. The prohibitions apply both to recipients and health care providers.
Among many other provisions, the bills also alter and clarify current law regarding welfare fraud. Provisions include prohibitions against false statements on welfare benefit applications, knowingly and willfully defrauding a State health plan, converting benefits or payments to others, making or receiving bribes, kickbacks, or rebates of fees, and fraud involving possession of drugs, medical care, or pharmacy cards.
Criminal penalties range from a felony with a maximum $200,000 fine or life imprisonment or both if a death results from the violation to a misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $50,000 or imprisonment for three years or both for the least serious violations. The bills also provide for treble civil damages for State health plan fraud. These provisions are based on current law in the Health - General Article.
Accessory Before the Fact
The third bill arising from the committee, Senate Bill 323/House Bill 167 (both passed), abrogating the distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal in a crime, except for death penalty proceedings, is discussed under the Criminal Procedure subpart of Part E - Crimes, Corrections, and Public Safety of The 90 Day Report.
Controlled Dangerous Substances
Drug - Induced Conduct
House Bill 180 (passed) makes it a misdemeanor for a person to administer a controlled dangerous substance to another person without that person's knowledge and committing a crime of violence or a third degree sexual offense against that person. Violators are subject to maximum penalties of a fine of $2,500 and imprisonment for one year, which may be imposed separate from and consecutive to or concurrent with a sentence for any offense based on the act or acts establishing the violation.
Schedules
Current Maryland law, which mirrors federal law, places drugs into schedules numbered one through five, depending on the drugs potential for abuse, potential for addiction, and medical value. Schedule I substances have no legitimate uses, while Schedules II through V are legal with certain restrictions. The lower the schedule number, the greater are the restrictions (i.e., Schedule II has the most restrictions, Schedule V the least).
House Bill 181 (passed) adds dronabinol (synthetic) in sesame oil and encapsulated in a soft gelatin capsule, and ketamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, to the list of Schedule III controlled dangerous substances.
Synthetic dronabinol is used for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy. Prior to 1999 it was a Schedule II drug under the federal schedule. In 1999 it was moved to Schedule III, which will subject the prescription of the drug to fewer restrictions. This change will make Maryland law consistent with federal law.
Ketamine is used as a "party drug" primarily by teenagers and young adults, known as "Special K" or "K." In 1999 it was added to Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act. The drug is marketed in the U.S. as a general anesthetic for use in human medicine and also as a veterinary drug.
Enhanced Sentences for Repeat Drug Offenses
Senate Bill 345/House Bill 915 (both passed) make a sentence on a single count of various drug trafficking offenses subject to both doubling and minimum mandatory sentence enhancements for certain controlled dangerous substance offenses.
Specifically, the bills provide that a court may impose enhanced penalties for drug trafficking offenses that allow a sentencing judge to double the maximum penalty if the offense is a second or subsequent offense and also to impose a mandatory minimum sentence for the offense.
Marijuana Use
House Bill 308 (failed) would have allowed a person with a "debilitating medical condition" and with written medical documentation to engage in the medical use of marijuana and possess and use marijuana and related drug paraphernalia. The bill also would have provided the circumstances under which a caregiver for such a person is extended certain immunities and defenses for possessing, cultivating, distributing, transporting, or administering marijuana for medical use. The bill would have allowed physicians to recommend marijuana, and would have provided a certain immunity to physicians with eligible patients.
Computer Crimes
Computer Piracy
In November 1999, the Maryland Information Technology Board (ITB) reported that recent enhancements in computer hardware and software have resulted in an increase in computer-related crime. As a result, computer intrusion cases have increased. Based on recommendations from the ITB report, Senate Bill 200/House Bill 278 (both passed) establish an enhanced penalty for offenses relating to: (1) willful and unauthorized access to computer programs or networks to cause malfunctions or to alter or destroy data or other computer programs, or (2) willful and unauthorized possession, identification, or distribution of valid computer access codes.
Under Senate Bill 200/House Bill 278, if the aggregate amount of the loss caused by one of these offenses is $10,000 or greater, the offender is guilty of a felony, and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding ten years, or a fine not exceeding $10,000, or both. An offense causing an aggregate amount of loss of less than $10,000 remains a misdemeanor subject to imprisonment not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding $5,000, or both.
Senate Bill 200/House Bill 278 define "aggregate amount" to mean any direct loss incurred by a victim, including the value of money, property, or service lost, stolen, or rendered unrecoverable, or any actual reasonable expenditure incurred to test for damage or disruption to a computer system. The bill also alters the definition of "access" to mean to instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve, intercept data from, or otherwise use the resources of a computer program, computer system, or computer network.
Spam
The unauthorized sending of commercial electronic mail via computer (known as "spam") has been the subject of controversy. Senate Bill 177 (failed) would have established criminal and civil penalties for sending spam to another and falsifying or forging the electronic header information.
Project Exile
Modeled after a highly-publicized program in Richmond, Virginia, known as "Project Exile," which established an aggressively enforced program to impose mandatory minimum prison sentences for illegal firearms possession, Senate Bill 303/House Bill 166 (both failed) would have increased penalties, established minimum mandatory sentences, and would have prohibited parole for various firearm possession violations.
Similar provisions that provide for minimum mandatory sentences and prohibited parole for individuals previously convicted of a crime of violence or drug trafficking offenses and who illegally possess a firearm are included in Senate Bill 211 (the Responsible Gun Safety Act of 2000) which is discussed in the Public Safety subpart of Part E - Crimes, Corrections, and Public Safety of The 90 Day Report.
Miscellaneous Criminal Law
Assisted Suicide
Chapter 700 of 1999 enacted the assisted suicide law. Under this law persons are prohibited from assisting another to commit suicide. Licensed health care professionals are given protection for administering medications and procedures in good faith, provided they do not have the intent to assist in a suicide.
House Bill 154 (passed) adds emergency medical service (EMS) providers to the list of medical professionals excluded from criminal liability under the assisted suicide statute. This bill will be retroactively applied to affect all potential criminal liability of emergency medical service providers arising from an incident occurring on or after October 1, 1999.
House Bill 946 (failed) would have applied the prohibitions of the assisted suicide law only to adults and not to juveniles.
Fugitives
The crime of harboring a fugitive is a misdemeanor and subjects violators to maximum penalties of a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for one year. Under current law, the definition of "fugitive" is an individual issued a felony warrant under Maryland law. House Bill 324 (passed) modifies the definition of "fugitive," as it pertains to crimes relating to harboring a fugitive, to apply to individuals for whose arrest a felony warrant has been issued, whether or not the warrant is issued under State law.
Human Remains
House Bill 358 (passed) establishes procedures by which a State's Attorney may authorize the removal of human remains from a burial site in the State's Attorney's jurisdiction. House Bill 358 allows a State's Attorney with jurisdiction over a burial site to authorize in writing the removal of human remains from any burial site to ascertain the cause of death, determine whether the interment was erroneous, provide for reburial, or for medical or scientific study as allowed by law. Before the State's Attorney allows the removal, the person seeking removal must publish a notice in the newspaper.
The bill also increases the penalties for graveyard desecration from a maximum fine of $5,000 and imprisonment up to three years to maximum penalties of a $10,000 fine or five years in the penitentiary, or both. House Bill 358 does not preclude the need for a Department of Health and Mental Hygiene permit to remove remains from a burial site.
Impersonating a Police Officer
House Bill 359 (passed) expands provisions prohibiting impersonation of a police officer to make the prohibition applicable to impersonating a member of a "police force of the United States." Current law prohibits impersonation of a member of a police force of the State, another state, or a county or municipal corporation. The bill expands the prohibition to include federal police officers. Violators of this provision are guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to maximum penalties of a fine of $100 and imprisonment for six months.
Motor Vehicles - Selling of Vehicle with a Removed Identification Number
House Bill 638 (passed) creates an exception to the criminal prohibition for selling a manufactured product with a removed serial number by authorizing an insurance company or its agent to buy, receive, and possess a motor vehicle with the knowledge that the vehicle has had the required vehicle identification number (VIN) removed from the vehicle, if the vehicle is the subject of a total loss settlement.
Sexual Activity - Juvenile Justice Employees
Under current law, a correctional employee may not engage in a sexual act with an inmate at an adult correctional institution. A violator is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to a maximum fine of $3,000 or a maximum term of imprisonment for three years or both. Senate Bill 415 (passed) similarly prohibits an employee of the Department of Juvenile Justice or licensee from engaging in a sexual act with an individual confined in a juvenile facility. A violator is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to the same penalties cited above.
Domestic Abuse Murder
Senate Bill 559 (failed) would have provided that murder committed in the perpetration of abuse against a spouse, former spouse, child, vulnerable adult, or any other person eligible for relief from domestic violence would be murder in the first degree, if the person committing the murder had engaged in a past pattern of abuse on the victim and the death occurred under circumstances that show an extreme indifference to human life.
Reports of Death and Disposal of Bodies
Two recent cases in the State involving persons failing to report the deaths of close relatives with whom they lived and improperly disposing of the bodies prompted the legislation on this issue. Senate Bill 13 (failed) would have established criminal penalties for individuals who failed to report the death of individuals to whom they are related or with whom they reside. House Bill 58 (failed) as amended in the House would have prohibited the disposal of a body in places other than cemeteries, crematoria, or funeral establishments.
Homicide by Aggressive/Negligent Driving
Various bills were introduced during the 2000 legislative session attempting to deal with deaths caused by apparently negligent or so-called "aggressive" driving that does not rise to the level of gross negligence or wanton or reckless disregard for human life, which is required to establish the offense of manslaughter by motor vehicle.
Senate Bill 231 (failed) would have established the crime of homicide by negligent driving by causing the death of another by negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Penalties would have included a fine up to $5,000 and imprisonment up to five years, and 12 points on the driver's license.
House Bill 417 (failed) would have established "homicide by aggressive driving" by causing the death of another by driving with a wanton or willful disregard for the safety of persons or property, or driving in a manner that indicates such disregard. That bill would have established a penalty of a fine up to $5,000 and imprisonment up to three years, and 12 points on the driver's license.
Similarly, Senate Bill 430 (failed) would have created homicide by aggressive driving by committing two or more existing motor vehicle offenses and causing the death of another as a result of negligent driving of the motor vehicle, all during a single traffic incident. Penalties would have included a fine up to $1,000 and imprisonment up to one year, and the assessment of 12 points on the driver's license.
Baltimore City Criminal Justice System
Events in Baltimore City involving dismissal of cases for lack of a timely trial, loss and destruction of evidence before trials, and a general lack of communication among the various entities involved in the criminal justice system have led to a series of legislative hearings and budgetary initiatives. These issues are discussed in detail in the Judges and Court Administration subpart of Part F - Courts and Civil Proceedings of The 90 day Report.
Accessories Before the Fact
House Bill 167/Senate Bill 323 (both passed) abrogate the common law distinction between an "accessory before the fact" (a person who counsels or orders a crime, but is not present) and a "principal" (a participant in a crime who is present at its commission) in a crime. The bills were in response to the Court of Appeals decision in State v. Sowell, 353 Md. 713, 728 A.2d 712 (1999), which upheld the common law distinction, stating that it was in the General Assembly's prerogative to change it. The bills provide that except for death penalty proceedings, the distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal is abrogated.
The bills establish that an accessory before the fact may be charged, tried and convicted, and sentenced as a principal. The bills also establish that an accessory before the fact may be charged, tried and convicted, and sentenced regardless of whether a principal in the crime has been charged, acquitted, or convicted of a lesser or different crime. In addition, the bills provide that an accessory before the fact may be charged, tried and convicted, and sentenced in any county where the act of accessoryship was committed or where a principal in the crime may be charged, tried and convicted, and sentenced.
The bills were proposed by the Committee to Revise Article 27. Additional bills recommended by the committee relating to revision of robbery and health plan fraud were also passed by the General Assembly, and are discussed in the subpart Criminal Law, Part E - Crimes, Corrections, and Public Safety.
Statute of Limitations - Abuse or Neglect of Vulnerable Adults
Senate Bill 651 (passed) increases, from one year to two years, the statute of limitations for instituting a prosecution for an offense under Article 27, § 35D of the Code relating to abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult. Often, patterns or evidence of abuse require time to investigate and establish, and this increase in the statute of limitations will provide greater opportunity to pursue and prosecute these abuses.
Wiretapping
The General Assembly considered and rejected several proposals to expand the authority of law enforcement officials to intercept wire and oral communications and to introduce such communications into evidence under the Maryland Wiretap Act.
Perry Case
Two bills were introduced in response to the Court of Appeals opinion in Perry v. State, 356 Md. 37 (1999). In this case the Court of Appeals reversed the convictions of an alleged triple murderer based on the use at trial of a wiretap interception that, although legally intercepted in California, was inadmissible in Maryland.
House Bill 472 (failed), as passed by the House, would have amended the wiretap law to allow State courts, in certain circumstances, to receive into evidence intercepted wire or oral communications between co-conspirators in a crime of violence if the interception was legally made in another jurisdiction even though such an interception would be illegal in Maryland.
Senate Bill 665 (failed), as passed by the Senate, would have authorized the contents of an intercepted wire or oral communication to be received into evidence in any criminal proceeding, if the intercepted communication was intercepted by a nonlaw enforcement party to the communication or was intercepted in another jurisdiction, and the interception would not be excluded in a criminal proceeding in the other jurisdiction.
Firearms Violations
Senate Bill 305/House Bill 673 (both failed) would have authorized an investigative or law enforcement interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in order to provide evidence of the commission of offenses relating to the unlawful sale, purchase, transfer, or possession of a regulated firearm, where the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties has given prior consent to the interception.
Computer Crimes
House Bill 1000 (failed) was recommended by the Internet-Based Crime Committee of the Maryland Information Technology Board (ITB). The ITB is charged with, in part, making recommendations concerning Internet-based crime.
The bill would have added the unauthorized access to computers to the list of offenses for which an investigative or law enforcement officer may lawfully intercept certain communications under the wiretap law.
Time for Trial
House Bill 272 (failed) would have required that if a judge delays the start of a criminal trial after the statutorily-required l80 day deadline following the earlier of the appearance of counsel or the first appearance of the defendant, subsequent delays in the trial date could only be approved for good cause. The bill would have overturned a part of State v. Brown, 355 Md. 89, 733 A.2d 1044 (1999), which held that once a case is postponed beyond 180 days, further postponement does not need to be justified by good cause.
Representation at Bail Review Hearings
Senate Bill 138 (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 District Court commissioner.
The General Assembly appropriated $300,000 in fiscal 2000 for a pilot project to provide representation to indigent clients during bail review hearings in Baltimore City. This bill would have required Public Defender representation throughout the State. This bill was contingent on the appropriation of money in the budget ($1.1 million in fiscal 2001). The fiscal 2001 budget did not provide an appropriation for this matter.
Parole and Probation
Parole
House Bill 400 (failed) would have made an inmate serving a term of life imprisonment eligible for parole if: (1) the inmate served 35 years for first degree murder or 25 years for any other crime; and (2) all of the members of the Patuxent Institution Board of Review or the Maryland Parole Commission unanimously approved the parole.
Probation
In 1999, the Court of Appeals in Bailey v. State, 355 Md. 287 (1999) held that in the absence of statutory authority, a trial judge may not impose home detention or house arrest or other forms of what the court determined to be "confinement," as a condition of probation. The effect of this ruling was to prohibit the use of home detention as a condition of probation in all but the few counties in the State which have statutory authority to impose confinement as a term of probation.
Confinement as Condition of Probation: To meet the statutory language requirement, Senate Bill 25/House Bill 81 (both failed) would have established the authority for any court in the State to impose confinement as a condition of probation. The bills would have provided all the courts in the State with flexibility in imposing various forms of confinement, such as home detention, house arrest, and in-patient drug and alcohol treatment, as a condition of probation. The House of Delegates amended House Bill 81 to provide a distinction between imprisonment and "custodial confinement" and placed restrictions on the length of probation, but the General Assembly was unable to reconcile the differences.
Howard County: Although the statewide measure failed, the General Assembly did grant courts in one additional jurisdiction the power to impose confinement as a condition of probation. House Bill 223 (passed) authorizes courts in Howard County to impose a sentence of confinement as a condition of probation before judgment.
Police and Criminal Records
Senate Bill 212/House Bill 483 (both passed) authorize the District Court to expunge police and court records of charges against a defendant if the State enters a nolle prosequi (i.e., a dismissal) as to all charges in a criminal case if the defendant has not been served. The State, however, may prevent the expungement if it objects and shows cause why the records should not be expunged. The bills also prohibit the District Court from assessing costs against a defendant for expungement.
Death Penalty Moratorium
House Bill 388 (failed) would have prohibited an individual who has been sentenced to death from being executed before July 2003, contingent on the inclusion in the budget of funding for a two-year study of the death penalty to have been conducted by the Department of Criminology of the University of Maryland, College Park. Under the bill, the purpose of the two-year study would have been to identify any problems and to recommend solutions to address any problems with the administration of the death penalty, including whether there was any racial, ethnic, or economic bias.
Victims' Rights - Definition of "Victim"
Senate Bill 420/House Bill 586 (both passed) expand the definition of "victim" relating to provisions that grant a victim the right to submit a victim impact statement at proceedings to decide whether a child charged as an adult should be transferred to juvenile court. The bills outline the various forms of notice to be given a victim under the victims' rights law. Under the bills, the defined term "victim" is broadened to include a family member or guardian of a victim, if the victim is deceased from any cause or suffering any disability.
Crisis at the Department of Juvenile Justice
News reports in December 1999 revealed that delinquent youths sent to three State boot camps in Western Maryland were beaten and abused. Reports also revealed that after boot camp attendees were sent back to their homes on supervised probation, little or no follow-up was provided by the Department of Juvenile Justice (department). Soon thereafter, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor removed five top officials of the department, including Secretary Gilberto de Jesus. The Governor and Lieutenant Governor also formed two task forces -- one to study the reported violence at the boot camps and the other to study aftercare issues. Following the report from the boot camp task force, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor ordered the boot camps to be closed. The aftercare task force made a series of recommendations which have been addressed in the fiscal 2001 budget, as discussed below.
This legislative session, advocates advanced a number of bills to provide oversight for and require changes in the Department of Juvenile Justice. Late in the session, however, many of the bills were defeated after the Governor urged the General Assembly to allow autonomy for the department's newly appointed Secretary, Bishop L. Robinson.
Employee Training
House Bill 1414 (passed) requires the Maryland Correctional Training Commission (MCTC) to develop and implement specific program design and appropriate course curriculum and training for employees of the Department of Juvenile Justice and entities under contract with the department. The legislation states the finding of the General Assembly that Department of Juvenile Justice employees should have specific and appropriate training for that population.
In addition, the legislation adds the Secretary of Juvenile Justice and an additional correctional officer or official of the State as members of the MCTC. At least one of the correctional officers or officials must be a Department of Juvenile Justice employee or official.
Approximately 1,400 employees will be subject to the training requirements under House Bill 1414.
Other Legislation
Senate Bill 821/House Bill 1082 (both failed) would have required the department to adopt various types of rules and regulations relating to standards of conduct for employees, required services and programs, standards for detention facilities, and standards for nonsecure alternatives to committed placement. House Bill 1095 (failed) would have limited the amount of time that a child may be accommodated in a detention facility to 15 days, except under certain circumstances. House Bill 1087 (failed) would have required the department to implement, within 15 days after the date of disposition, a "treatment service plan" for a child recommended by the department and adopted by the juvenile court. House Bill 1088 (failed) would have established a disciplinary and grievance advisory commission independent from the department to advise and inform the Secretary of Juvenile Justice and monitor the department. House Bill 385 (failed) would have created a three-year 15-member advisory council to monitor and identify the causes of any inequity that exists in processing or disposing of cases involving juvenile offenders on the basis of gender, race, family income, or handicapping conditions. House Bill 1090 (failed) would have required the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) central repository to disseminate certain information concerning a child charged as an adult to the Maryland Justice Analysis Center of the Institute of Criminal Justice and Criminology of the University of Maryland for study.
Budget Initiatives
The fiscal 2001 legislative appropriation for the Department of Juvenile Justice was $157 million, which is $21.2 million over the department's fiscal 2000 budget (15.6 percent). In addition, the fiscal 2001 budget includes a fiscal 2000 deficiency appropriation of $6.4 million. This significant increase in funding was primarily a response to the serious and very public problems and the subsequent task forces' reviews discussed above. The major increases include:
Commission on Juvenile Justice Jurisdiction
Senate Bill 614 /House Bill 681 (both passed) extend the termination date for the Commission on Juvenile Justice Jurisdiction from September 30, 2000, to September 30, 2001. The commission must submit a supplemental report updating the results of its investigation and study, together with any resulting policy recommendations, to the Governor and the General Assembly by September 30, 2001.
The Commission on Juvenile Justice Jurisdiction is a 23-member commission formed in 1998 to study matters relating to juvenile court jurisdiction.
Peace Orders
Chapter 404 of 1999 created a new form of relief that authorizes the District Court of Maryland to issue a peace order to protect an individual who is not eligible for relief under the domestic violence statutes from being assaulted, harassed, stalked, or threatened by another individual.
In response to concerns raised as to the appropriateness of District Court jurisdiction over peace order petitions filed against juveniles, the General Assembly considered Senate Bill 592/House Bill 675 (both passed), which transfer jurisdiction from the District Court to the juvenile court over peace order proceedings in which the respondent is under the age of 18 years. Pursuant to the legislation, peace order proceedings in juvenile court are similar to the current peace order proceedings in District Court, except that a juvenile intake officer or the State's Attorney institutes the peace order proceedings in court instead of the victim. In addition, violation of a peace order by a juvenile respondent is deemed a delinquent act, and a law enforcement officer is required to take the juvenile into custody if the officer has probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred.
Victim's Rights
House Bill 586 (passed) which was recommended by the Task Force to Examine Maryland's Crime Victims' Rights Laws, expands the definition of "victim" in the provisions of law which grant a victim the right to submit a victim impact statement at proceedings to decide whether a child charged as an adult should be transferred to juvenile court and in provisions of law which outline the various forms of notice required to be given to a victim.
For purposes of these provisions, the defined term "victim" is expanded to include a family member or guardian of a victim if the victim is deceased from any cause or suffering from any disability. The prior law defined "victim" to include a family member or guardian of a victim only if the victim was a homicide victim or was mentally incompetent.
Sexual Offenses - Juvenile Justice Facilities and Licensed Institutions
Senate Bill 415 (passed) prohibits an employee of the Department of Juvenile Justice or a licensee of the department from engaging in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with an individual confined in a juvenile facility. A violator is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum fine of $3,000 or maximum imprisonment for three years or both. The legislation is consistent with existing law, which prohibits a correctional employee from engaging in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with an inmate incarcerated in a correctional facility.
Gun Safety - Juvenile Delinquents
Senate Bill 211 (Ch. 2), the Responsible Gun Safety Act of 2000, was introduced on behalf of the Governor's Task Force on Childproof Guns to prevent the unintentional and criminal misuse of handguns by children and other unauthorized users. The Act expands the authority of the State Police to deny handgun permits to and prohibit the sale to or possession of regulated firearms by certain juvenile delinquents even if the individual has not been previously committed to a correctional institution. Specifically, the Act provides that an individual under the age of 30 is ineligible for a handgun permit or is ineligible to purchase, sell, transfer, or possess a regulated firearm if a juvenile court has adjudicated the individual delinquent for either: (1) a crime of violence; (2) any violation classified as a felony in this State; or (3) any violation classified as a misdemeanor in this State that carries a statutory penalty of more than two years.
A more extensive discussion of Senate Bill 211 may be found under the Public Safety subpart of this Part E of The 90 Day Report.
Gun Control and Safety
The Governor established the Governor's Task Force on Childproof Guns by Executive Order 01.01.1999.18 on June 5, 1999. The task force was directed to propose legislation to prevent the unintentional and criminal misuse of handguns by children and other unauthorized users and to examine design alterations and technological enhancements for handguns. The task force consisted of 21 members, including several cabinet secretaries, members of the General Assembly, law enforcement personnel, health care professionals, educators, as well as members of advocacy organizations and the general public.
Senate Bill 211 (Ch. 2) was introduced on behalf of the Governor's task force as the Responsible Gun Safety Act of 2000. As passed, the Act has eight major components.
Safety Locks
External: The Act requires that a handgun dealer provide an external safety lock for all handguns manufactured on or before December 31, 2002.
Internal: The Act requires for sales, rentals, or transfers by dealers on or after January 1, 2003, that all handguns manufactured after December 31, 2002, must have "integrated mechanical safety devices." An "integrated mechanical safety device" is a "disabling or locking device that is both: (1) built into a handgun; and (2) designed to prevent the handgun from being discharged unless the device has been deactivated."
Exemptions: The Act creates five exemptions from the safety lock requirements: (1) purchases, sales, and transport to or by a licensed gun dealer or manufacturer that provides or services a handgun for federal personnel, members of the military or national guard, and certain law enforcement organizations; (2) any firearm modified to render it permanently inoperative; (3) sales or transfers by any licensed gun dealer or manufacturer covered under the first exemption above; (4) sales or transfer by a licensed gun dealer or manufacturer to a lawful customer outside the State; or (5) antique firearms manufactured prior to 1899 and certain replicas.
Handgun Roster Board
The number of citizens on the existing Handgun Roster Board in the Department of State Police is increased from three to five, two of whom must be mechanical or electrical engineers. The board is required to review the status of personalized handgun technology (i.e., handguns that are only operable by the authorized user) and report its findings to the Governor and the General Assembly on an annual basis, beginning July 1, 2002.
Ballistic Fingerprinting
The Act requires any manufacturer (in- or out-of-state) who ships a handgun for sale or transfer in the State to include in a box with the handgun, a separate sealed container with a shell casing of a projectile discharged from the gun, and any other identifying information required by the Department of State Police (department).
Upon receipt of a handgun from a manufacturer, a dealer must confirm to the department that the manufacturer complied with the above requirements. Upon the sale or transfer of the gun, a dealer is required to send the container to the State Police Crime Laboratory for entry onto a database.
Juvenile Offenders
The Act prohibits a person under 30 who was adjudicated delinquent for a crime of violence, a felony offense, or a misdemeanor offense carrying a statutory penalty of more than two years from: (1) applying to buy, rent, or transfer a regulated firearm; (2) applying for a permit to carry a handgun; or (3) possessing a handgun. A dealer may not sell, rent, or transfer a regulated firearm to a person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under 30 and has been adjudicated delinquent as provided above.
Firearm Possession by a Felon
Under current law, persons with a prior conviction for certain serious crimes are prohibited from possessing regulated firearms. A person who violates this provision is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 or a maximum term of imprisonment of five years or both. Under the Act, if a person who was previously convicted of a crime of violence or serious drug offense illegally possesses a firearm, the person is guilty of a felony and will be imprisoned for a minimum of five years, and is not eligible for a suspended sentence or parole. Each violation is a separate offense.
This provision was modeled after Virginia's Project Exile which is credited with drastically reducing the murder rate in Richmond.
Forfeiture of Firearms for Violations
Any handgun involved in a possession, sale, or transfer violation under the handgun and regulated firearms law is subject to seizure and forfeiture. If a handgun is forfeited to a law enforcement agency, the agency is required to either retain the handgun for official use, destroy the handgun, or sell, exchange, or transfer the handgun to another law enforcement agency for that agency's use.
A law enforcement agency that disposes of its own handguns is required to either: (1) destroy the handgun; (2) sell, exchange, or transfer the handgun to another law enforcement agency; (3) sell the handgun to a retired State police officer; or (4) sell the handgun to the law enforcement officer who was previously issued the handgun.
Mandatory Safety Course for Purchasers
The Act requires a person applying to buy, rent, or transfer a regulated firearm to have completed a certified firearms safety training course conducted free of charge by the Police Training Commission, or one that meets standards established by the commission. A dealer is prohibited from selling, renting, or transferring a regulated firearm to a person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe has not completed such a firearms safety training course.
The Act requires a person to complete such a training course only once. It specifies exemptions from the training course requirement for law enforcement officers; members, retired members, or honorably discharged members of the military; members of organizations required by federal law to maintain handguns; and persons who have a permit to carry a handgun. The Act also requires the Police Training Commission to adopt regulations by January 1, 2001, requiring completion of a certified firearms safety training course for all applicants for a regulated firearm purchase, rental, or transfer after December 31, 2002.
The course offered by the commission must:
In the alternative, a person may take a course containing a handgun safety component and conducted by an individual or organization certified by the Police Training Commission, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of State Police, or any reputable organization promoting handgun competency and training and approved under regulations adopted by the Police Training Commission.
Cease Fire Council: Grant Program for Enforcement and Technology
The Act establishes a Cease Fire Council within the Department of State Police to administer a State grant program to support innovative and collaborative firearms violence reduction initiatives; reduce firearms violence; target law enforcement against criminals who illegally possess firearms; supplement law enforcement and prosecutor salaries; pay for covert firearms investigations; pay for initiatives to trace firearms used in criminal activities; and purchase technology and information systems to support firearms violence reduction efforts.
Except for the training requirements and provisions for the integrated mechanical safety devices discussed above, the Act is effective October 1, 2000.
Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights
Enacted by the General Assembly in 1974, the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBR) guarantees substantive and procedural protections to law enforcement officers during disciplinary investigations, interrogations, and hearings. The LEOBR provides an officer's exclusive remedy in matters of departmental discipline. Chapter 535 of 1998 deleted reference to "the Maryland Transportation Authority Police Force" and substituted "the Police Forces of the Department of Transportation." The Maryland Transportation Authority is separate from the Department of Transportation, thus the 1998 change inadvertently eliminated LEOBR coverage for Transportation Authority Police. Senate Bill 42 (passed) adds members of the Maryland Transportation Authority Police to the definition of "law enforcement officer" for the purposes of the LEOBR.
Fire and Rescue Services
Emergency Medical Services
Senate Bill 247/House Bill 1223 (both passed) authorize emergency medical technician-paramedics (EMT-P) to administer nonemergency immunizations and tuberculosis skin testing to any law enforcement officer; State Fire Marshal or sworn member of the State Fire Marshal's office; or career or volunteer member of a fire, rescue, or emergency medical services (EMS) department within the jurisdiction of the EMT-P. EMT paramedics may administer the immunizations or tuberculosis tests only if the services are authorized by a written agreement between the provider's jurisdictional EMS program medical director and the local health department and the services are under the direction of the jurisdictional EMS program medical director. Some EMS jurisdictions allowed paramedics to administer immunizations and tuberculosis testing until the legality of this practice was questioned.
Volunteer Companies
Senate Bill 154 (passed) creates an umbrella special fund known as the Volunteer Company Assistance Fund to provide financial assistance to volunteer ambulance, fire, and rescue companies. The umbrella fund contains two accounts:
Sexual Offender Registration
Senate Bill 834 (passed) requires all offenders required to register for committing sexual offenses or offenses against children to register with the appropriate supervising authority either for a term of ten years or for life if the offender: (1) is determined to be a sexually violent predator; (2) has been convicted of first degree rape, second degree rape, first degree sexual offense, second degree sexual offense, or third degree sexual offense; or (3) has been previously convicted and required to register as an offender, child sexual offender, or sexually violent offender.
State Fire Marshal
Chapter 410 of 1999 requires additional annual inspections of day care centers. Deputy State Fire Marshals take part in these inspections. House Bill 139 (passed) authorizes the State Fire Marshal to designate civilian employees to conduct day care center inspections and submit reports. The bill also requires that a civilian employee complete the training requirements under the National Fire Protection Association Standard 1031.
Domestic Violence
House Bill 101 (passed) establishes the Maryland Domestic Violence Unit Fund under the Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention to provide grants to one or more counties for law enforcement authorities that serve ex parte, protective, and peace orders. The grants are to fund the creation of separate domestic violence units dedicated to: (1) the service of ex parte orders, protective orders, and peace orders; and (2) the data entry and updating of those orders. The fiscal 2001 budget includes $200,000 in general funds for this program.
For a further discussion of domestic violence issues see the Family Law Subpart of Part F - Courts and Civil Proceedings of this 90 Day Report.
State Aid for Police Protection
Senate Bill 357 (passed) expands the definition of "qualifying municipality" under provisions governing the State Aid for Police Protection Fund. Specifically, the bill allows a qualifying municipality to be one whose "expenditures for police protection" exceeded $80,000 for the prior fiscal year, and that employs at least two qualified part-time police officers. This bill does not affect the amount of aid that is allotted to each county nor the amount of overall aid provided statewide, but could change the distribution of funds within a county.
Racial Profiling
Racial profiling refers to police officers stopping motorists of color simply because they fit the "profile" of people who might carry contraband, drugs, or other illegal items. House Bill 225 (failed) would have required law enforcement agencies to adopt policies against racial profiling and required collection and analysis of data on traffic stops. Senate Bill 110 (failed) would have established a 17-member Task Force to Study Race-Based Traffic Stops to study a variety of issues relating to routine traffic stops, including the identifying characteristics of individuals stopped, whether arrests were made as a result of the stops, and the benefit of traffic stops to drug interdiction efforts. House Bill 226 (failed) would have imposed a civil penalty not exceeding $1,000 on a law enforcement officer who used an individual's race or ethnicity as the sole reason for initiating a criminal investigation.