[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6354820,"mediaKeyId","2219554-0cbf79e5d52e5ee4f977faa40dbcdb90","parentId",2219554,"title","Baltimore and state bills would raise fines, expand speed-camera coverage and add late fees; lawmakers press for data safeguards","audioSeconds",779,"startMs",6687000,"endMs",7466000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2219554-0cbf79e5d52e5ee4f977faa40dbcdb90&start=6687&end=7466","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2219554-0cbf79e5d52e5ee4f977faa40dbcdb90/thumbnail_6687000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6354820/Maryland/Baltimore-and-state-bills-would-raise-fines-expand-speed-camera-coverage-and-add-late-fees-lawmakers-press-for-data-safeguards","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6354820-39b377ffa086de663b669ab623fb01e6/orig.mp4?Expires=1774857035&Signature=Lgwl6RuzDNjxReaTA8w3BQD81Ejds8heRfBJOlN0KYpexEf6OH3Q-dE5~nuRFqbOKcNp9fEvVn1mZRuISfVcmD~LhK72~LiW9FSmlri4sx3fX0CGeyQVSvaGzeASVy7LrAmfU1QRzTxxLCk~HXGcT~4V7~ylCCbkCvVAL4tCZUbhnSGytLu7H62kOpXXNoRjpF965bB2Y~lIDyVzegJ4sS07iQHEGHW2NilsuwZ7H25EQhEXLCLYeqAOTGHVzB7Oxw0fLiJtSrqxs5n9SU3GgK59De17n9kDtUUav~ZmPsRobCeiGee9rg0GsYFTEIXh7LH1cCc0RT7FDSzagI-OrQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","MGA - JPR","date","2025-02-04T00:00:00Z","article","A cluster of bills heard Feb. 4 would broaden automated speed enforcement across Baltimore and parts of the state, raise penalties and create collection mechanisms while prompting lawmakers to press for rules about camera placement, data use and revenue oversight.

Sponsors and city officials urged the panel to approve several local and state measures as quick tools to reduce speeding and fund roadway safety: increase Baltimore City’s school‑zone camera penalty from $40 to $60 (SB402); remove the sunset on and allow up to four cameras on I‑83 (SB500); permit late‑fee collection for unpaid citations (SB501); allow local jurisdictions to install residential speed cameras like those used in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties (SB530); and authorize State Highway Administration use of automated speed cameras on federally designated “vulnerable road user” safety corridors (SB520).

Nut graf: Cities and roadway-safety advocates said the measures deter dangerous driving, reduce crashes and create funds that — after administrative costs — can be directed to roadway repairs and safety programs. Critics and several senators pressed for statewide standards on data retention, access and camera placement to prevent misuse and to ensure revenue supports traffic‑safety projects rather than unrelated expenses.

What sponsors told the committee: Senator McCray, sponsor of the Baltimore City package, told the committee the aims are deterrence and reinvestment. Veronica Macbeth, interim director of the Baltimore City Department of Transportation, said raising the fine to $60 “will further discourage reckless driving and speeding” and that the city estimates the increase could generate “over $19,000,000 annually” for infrastructure and safety projects. She told lawmakers city speed cameras have issued large numbers of citations — “966,383 speed camera citations issued over just the past 18 months,” she said — and argued higher penalties would sustain gains in compliance.

On I‑83, the city seeks to make permanent an enforcement program and to double the number of fixed cameras from two to four, citing a history of speed‑related crashes on the roadway. The city’s presentation said I‑83 recorded 1,903 crashes between 2018 and 2023 and credited the camera program with measurable declines in crashes between 2022 and 2023.

Technical, fiscal and privacy issues: Several senators asked how revenue would be used and whether vendors are paid regardless of collections. Michael Secada of the Maryland Transportation Builders and Materials Association urged that camera revenues, after administrative costs, “be reinvested directly into highway safety and SHA system preservation projects” rather than directed to general expenses.

Senators also pressed for statewide standards on camera data processes. Senator Love asked whether Maryland has uniform rules on who may access or retain camera footage; the panel acknowledged there is no comprehensive statewide standard and the sponsor said the idea of state guidelines could be addressed in follow-up language. Senator Sidor voiced concern that school‑zone cameras have sometimes been placed far from schools in ways he said ran counter to legislative intent; city officials said Baltimore’s placement decisions reflect student travel patterns and said they would review placement policy.

Late fees and collections: SB501 would authorize Baltimore to assess late fees on unpaid citations; the city said more than 1.6 million of its speed‑monitoring violations remain unpaid (a 71.1% collection rate cited by city testimony) and that a late‑fee process could improve compliance and deterrence. City officials acknowledged counties negotiate vendor contracts and that vendors perform camera installation and maintenance; senators asked whether contracts tie vendor payment to collections.

State Highway Administration bill: SB520 would let SHA deploy automated enforcement on “safety quarters” — state routes that federal and state analysis identify as high‑risk corridors for pedestrians and bicyclists. SHA Administrator Will Pines told the committee the administration has published a list of vulnerable‑road‑user corridors and cited federal evidence showing fixed automated enforcement can reduce urban‑arterial crashes by up to 54 percent.

What’s next: The committee heard pro and con testimony across multiple panels but took no votes during the Feb. 4 hearing. Senators asked staff and agencies to return with proposed amendments or data — in particular: (1) statewide rules on data access, retention and use; (2) clearer guidance on camera placement near schools; (3) vendor contract terms tied to performance; and (4) assurances that dedicated enforcement revenues will fund safety and capital projects rather than general operating expenses.

Ending: Supporters framed the bills as near‑term, low‑capital tools to slow speeding and fund safety work; skeptics said data governance, privacy and contract design deserve legislative guardrails before expansion.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JPR Committee Session, 2/4/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","A cluster of bills heard Feb. 4 would broaden automated speed enforcement across Baltimore and parts of the state, raise penalties and create collection mechanisms while prompting lawmakers to press for rules about camera placement, data use and revenue oversight.","taxTitle","Judicial Proceedings Committee, SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15095,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6354825,"Senate hearing reviews SB422 to limit automatic charging of youths as adults",275,451000,726000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2219554-0cbf79e5d52e5ee4f977faa40dbcdb90&start=451&end=726","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2219554-0cbf79e5d52e5ee4f977faa40dbcdb90/thumbnail_451000.jpg","/articles/6354825/Maryland/Senate-hearing-reviews-SB422-to-limit-automatic-charging-of-youths-as-adults","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6354825-f012927372b2ceca4a3df823d5047c85/orig.mp4?Expires=1774857035&Signature=bayqeJDt-CJHZ4IodhI76kcZplZGmXB009oiFOrDTk4Fu1vKzQYDDlT0yiHiBJtLEz6adEjnqOmKYJ6VVoBEJL6fsapwzBaqZQ72o0NzYTo9wQ26do-QL-Yr3lB800B-VZ5OGovOpQDcWECB~g8eGacZ5VeUOQNJIbW-rurVJySfZbGOwFd4iCZJ11vO~3Ak-N20tPiYe5u53HHCL9fdELWDpQj63RWjHvIEF4ldwx0XjYQv5F8-JFcyTzAUI0WEoND6iE5RYPV4i8y72RrevY78POwJHU3QnnhBb9dU8TirLVDGk39GvuoV3Pl445rWBYAmH77n9SSqvk1C1gOYeQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An Annapolis committee on Feb. 4 heard extensive testimony on Senate Bill 422, which would curb Maryland’s practice of automatically charging certain juveniles as adults and instead start more cases in juvenile court.

Senator Smith, who introduced the bill, said the change is meant to reduce costs and improve public safety outcomes. “We’re paying more money, it’s taking a longer time to dispose of cases, we’re getting worse public safety outcomes,” he told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, urging a “measured” reform focused on a subset of offenses that “largely end up within the realm of the juvenile system anyway.”

Nut graf: Supporters argued SB422 would streamline case flow, concentrate rehabilitative services in the juvenile system and cut state corrections and public defender costs. Opponents — including some prosecutors and local officials — said Maryland’s juvenile services lack capacity and that changes could leave victims and communities at risk if supervision or placements are not available.

The bill would block the automatic filing of youth as adults for a defined list of offenses (the bill file lists the offenses), while preserving the ability of prosecutors to seek adult court jurisdiction in serious cases. Supporters said data show judges ultimately move many automatically-filed juvenile cases back to juvenile court: Senator Smith highlighted a 2017–2019 figure he cited during the hearing that “85 percent of the juvenile cases that were automatically filed in adult court were transferred back to juvenile court.” He said that in 2023 roughly 489 cases were transferred and 89 cases dismissed from a set of 839 juveniles charged as adults — statistics he argued demonstrate inefficiency in current practice.

Kara Amundsen, director of legislation, policy and reform at the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, told the committee DJS supports SB422 as an efficiency and public safety reform. “Senate Bill 422 takes a measured approach to improve it, improving public safety outcomes for youth by codifying the current court process, recognizing the longstanding research in adolescent development and prioritizing services and treatment for youth while maintaining public safety safeguards,” Amundsen said.

Advocates for children and criminal-justice reform framed the bill as part of a larger, research-driven shift away from punitive treatment of teens. Emily Virgin, director of advocacy and government relations at Human Rights for Kids, cited a report, Disposable Children, documenting trauma histories in youth prosecuted as adults and said the juvenile system can deliver “swift consequences and treatment for their underlying trauma.” Liz Ryan, a former administrator at the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, urged the panel to adopt the change on public-health grounds, saying research shows higher recidivism for youth who have adult-court contact.

Opposition testimony came most strongly from local prosecutors and some county officials, who urged caution because of service and supervision gaps in the juvenile system. Catherine Rosenblatt, deputy chief of the Juvenile Unit for the Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City, told lawmakers that DJS has in recent months asked courts to downgrade placements or delay placements because of bed shortages and long placement waits. “The proposed change … will place additional burdens on an already overtaxed agency,” Rosenblatt said.

Other concerns focused on individual public-safety vignettes offered by prosecutors: Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Schellenberger and others described past violent cases they said should not start in juvenile court. Senator Smith repeatedly replied that the bill was narrowly tailored, not a wholesale repeal of all automatic filings, and that prosecutors would still be able to seek adult court in the most serious cases.

Fiscal and program details: Senator Smith cited the bill’s fiscal-note estimates — a projected reduction in general fund expenditures to the Department of Juvenile Services of about $12.3 million and roughly $1.4 million in savings to the Office of the Public Defender — as evidence that consolidating cases could free money to reinvest in services and oversight.

Panelists urged two parallel commitments if the Legislature changes the charging rules: (1) strengthen DJS capacity, placement availability and aftercare services; and (2) collect and publish detailed, offense-level statistics so legislators can monitor transfer, waiver and case-processing outcomes. Senator West asked for offense-by-offense data over time; several witnesses said DJS and courts could provide those counts.

What’s next: Committee members did not vote on SB422 during the hearing. Advocates on both sides asked the panel to consider amendments to clarify which offenses would be affected and how any savings would be reinvested. Several supporters said they expect follow-up language on implementation and reporting requirements.

Ending: The debate reflected a common theme across juvenile-justice reform efforts: lawmakers must weigh the promise of cost savings and research on adolescent development against gaps in capacity and supervision. “We’re not going to fix every systemic inequity,” Senator Smith said; “but it is incumbent upon us to take certain steps to put us on the path to justice.”","Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee heard hours of testimony on SB422, a bill that would narrow Maryland’s practice of automatically charging youths as adults for certain offenses, with supporters citing cost and recidivism data and opponents urging caution about service capacity and public safety.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Baltimore and state bills would raise fines, expand speed-camera coverage and add late fees; lawmakers press for data safeguards

Senate hearing reviews SB422 to limit automatic charging of youths as adults