[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_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",6651615,"mediaKeyId","2499251-8f00c5667c5474e67958afa5ed44b5e9","parentId",2499251,"title","House committee hears plan to direct opioid settlement funds to jail medication programs","audioSeconds",6043,"startMs",2317000,"endMs",8360000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2499251-8f00c5667c5474e67958afa5ed44b5e9&start=2317&end=8360","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2499251-8f00c5667c5474e67958afa5ed44b5e9/thumbnail_2317000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6651615/Maryland/House-committee-hears-plan-to-direct-opioid-settlement-funds-to-jail-medication-programs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6651615-ce1fae23812e103534e57a796b7547f1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155792&Signature=ZHBlBy~1tkPKAdU~rhKUlVoENI8ZaEtmYxdsgiNXkHkUbrm-hKxz9KGyM12w8Qs~67Sh5R~s8VaU0e2YMjSPATw56EGBickXpy7aiXCATbgjOIQUZ2haNRGi9pVNi~gRaRXKffQ0EOE8IbyKf-eJrAZLylpUEDtI8dbyxaMKh6d6jA8vvHyCVKn0nnupeTjimwi0jELvS20ISvTPtc-xl5JdC7JaM2h4pDwY-YWpdibDn-p4cOy7BKTyHfsOVgMIcpEGbFMsvCeGXtPUGEXl87ypMFm2xhJoTUKo04DsbITBRCUGVxF9tneoCugCX7dCcuokvIay~EwUQ0S5L6ZaAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Judiciary","date","2025-03-05T02:05:07.733Z","article","Delegate Pena-Melnik, chair of the Health and Government Operations Committee, introduced House Bill 1084 to the Judiciary Committee on March 4, saying the bill would require the State to fund medication assisted treatment (MAT) programs in local detention centers.

Supporters said the bill is intended to bring the State into compliance with an earlier law requiring treatment in local jails and to standardize how funds flow from grants, the opioid restitution fund (ORF), and other appropriations to local jurisdictions. Sarah Sample of the Maryland Association of Counties said the bill would establish “the buckets of money” and a process for local facilities to show costs and apply for reimbursements. Bethany Young, director of policy for the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention, said agencies support three technical amendments: retain the requirement that jails provide all three FDA‑approved medications for opioid use disorder, require counties to attempt to access grant funding before drawing fully on the opioid restitution fund, and withhold 20% of ORF reimbursement until required reporting is submitted.

Emily Keller, Maryland’s Special Secretary for Overdose Response, told the panel the Office of Overdose Response supports using ORF settlement funds for jail MAT programs but emphasized stewardship rules: settlement funds may not supplant other funding and counties must try to access other grants before ORF. Larry Polsky of the Maryland Association of County Health Officers urged stronger language ensuring pregnant people in custody start MAT quickly, citing medical guidance that treatment begin within 24 hours when practicable.

Local corrections executives told the committee the 2019 Opioid Use Disorder Examinations and Treatment Act (House Bill 116) required local programs but state funding fell short. Christopher Klein, superintendent of Anne Arundel County Department of Detention Facilities, said local jurisdictions combined grants and county dollars to implement MAT but have not received consistent state reimbursement and that program costs vary widely by county. Witnesses referenced a statewide estimate of roughly $11.4 million annually to fund local MAT programs, noting wide county-to-county variation with some smaller counties in the $200,000–$400,000 range and Baltimore County cited at about $2.7 million annually in prior fiscal notes.

Several members pressed presenters for more precise county-by-county cost data and for clarity about how long post-release prescriptions are supported; Anne Arundel’s detention director said people are typically discharged with initial prescriptions and the county works to connect people to community services. Committee members also questioned how ORF use would interact with federal and Medicaid rules on jail care; witnesses said the bill’s amendments would require counties to pursue state grants and other sources first.

The bill’s supporters urged a favorable report with the proposed amendments; committee members requested additional fiscal detail from counties and agencies before final action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JUD Committee Session, 3/4/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Delegate Pena-Melnik presented House Bill 1084 to the Judiciary Committee, asking the State to establish a process to reimburse local detention centers for MAT program costs using opioid settlement and grant funds.","taxTitle","Judiciary Committee, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15063,"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},6651611,"Panel weighs House Bill 499 to broaden expungement eligibility and fix probation-bar rule",3541,3959000,7500000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2499251-8f00c5667c5474e67958afa5ed44b5e9&start=3959&end=7500","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2499251-8f00c5667c5474e67958afa5ed44b5e9/thumbnail_3959000.jpg","/articles/6651611/Maryland/Panel-weighs-House-Bill-499-to-broaden-expungement-eligibility-and-fix-probation-bar-rule","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6651611-759f3ed3f5ccfe636c146028d008ccb0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155792&Signature=ICEGbHUhywF-C3moMRGGHmMOUwMBXKqihds8ftgxYuOHe1ookzsJzmZyIHRKwwbUO55qe1U0kBa3iEknldtjknbXXacNagHXVn6-5NN2rlqEfikYjh9Ysm4NMib1MM9VbKb3jQpULgkvbK590wvwwrq5-vM~IR1W1k9PSQ9wqPLGwzAgpzkigySY2YjTmis4WpVeF2TfVs4Rjbj5nize0~ASIa0XbywyMPm3r2YMGbQZIgZD~D6h~hCbitwtDm4W7oBFEU2xye3-anCtHD~rl2l-axyrJ16g1x~0ePlWJRy1HsysKhYh1u9-S0QfzDuKOlMLbCooYtnlRfukPh~xeA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee heard a broad coalition back Governor Wes Moore’s proposal, House Bill 499, to expand expungement eligibility and clarify the effect of probation violations. Miles Hicks of the governor’s office framed the bill as part of a continuing statewide effort that followed last year’s mass clemency order on cannabis convictions. The bill’s principal features include clarifying that probation violations do not permanently bar expungement eligibility, adding a set of misdemeanors to the list of expungible charges, and shielding records related to the governor’s cannabis pardons from public view.

State and nonprofit supporters emphasized equity and re‑entry benefits. Ivan Bates, Baltimore City State’s Attorney, told the committee he favored the bill’s approach to second chances and the public safety benefits of reintegration. Joe Jones of the Center for Urban Families gave a personal example of a formerly incarcerated man whose employment was limited because a decades‑old false statement conviction remained on his record. Melissa Rothstein of the Office of the Public Defender and Megan McDermott of Maryland Legal Aid stressed that the bill would correct an appellate interpretation (the Abhishek decision) that had left many people who committed probation violations unable to clear their records despite later rehabilitation; they urged judges retain discretion to deny petitions when appropriate.

Prosecutors raised concerns about victims and restitution. John Cox, deputy state’s attorney for Baltimore County and spokesman for the Maryland State’s Attorneys Association, said the association supported reform but asked for an amendment ensuring that victims be made whole if the petitioner is financially able, arguing the bill should preserve a way for restitution to be considered before a record is removed. Committee members asked whether the bill preserves prosecutors’ and victims’ opportunities to contest expungement petitions; testifiers said prosecutors’ offices and victims would retain notice and the ability to object under the proposed process.

Witnesses urged a favorable report. Supporters said HB 499 restores legislative intent behind recent reforms: expanding access to jobs, housing, and education for rehabilitated people while preserving judicial and prosecutorial safeguards. Prosecutors asked for a narrow amendment addressing restitution and preservation of victims’ interests; advocates said they were open to targeted language to protect victims while expanding access.

The committee did not vote; members asked for technical clarifications and about interaction with other bills and implementation details.","Supporters, including the governor’s office and legal aid groups, urged the Judiciary Committee to pass House Bill 499, a broad expungement reform aimed at clarifying that probation violations are not a categorical bar and adding several misdemeanors to the eligible list.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6651606,"Advocates press Judiciary Committee to clear eligible records automatically; agencies seek phased approach",489,7950000,8439000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2499251-8f00c5667c5474e67958afa5ed44b5e9&start=7950&end=8439","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2499251-8f00c5667c5474e67958afa5ed44b5e9/thumbnail_7950000.jpg","/articles/6651606/Maryland/Advocates-press-Judiciary-Committee-to-clear-eligible-records-automatically-agencies-seek-phased-approach","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6651606-ecd20b413206519184cff059c659bf97/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155792&Signature=KY-pH8bwerCcastYkQNHzzRsfOiVgZz8oM4mRHU77lhF0kBO6X-1Z8xhxl3vPVMoWlpudMyTMZDQ~x1DuZf0duNi4EqhZzX8L-fwbJaLKUMGORNlq4cB5Cz88Rl5dKUQVNylmtLQmLsQouehGRwNuRWeDMbln2TVcUisLw3eyz-WIVyD3etkaUP--1w71eIPnAaCGajvOmni4x77opvxrbTq4zETnNWjCAhGraR4hKKFexZbcInjEqmpv1lnCS9v6gHP2DaVlpAKLozjvN0UNNmXveUZjvwTqe8r2QZSbD1fYtHVHOAJJOb68IyC9ESGDr87pxcXS6AzvYfw1PLtFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Advocates of automatic record clearing urged the House Judiciary Committee to advance House Bill 5 45, a proposal to automate expungement of eligible non‑convictions and other records after statutory waiting periods. Delegate Moon said a narrowly tailored amendment would allow the judiciary and corrections to perform the automated clears now for records already eligible under existing statute, focusing first on cases covered by Maryland Code section 10‑1105 (three‑year waiting‑period dispositions) and on single‑charge cases or cases where every count is eligible.

Multiple witnesses described the practical barrier: thousands of Marylanders are functionally eligible for petition‑based expungement but do not obtain it because the process is time consuming and costly. Nan Gibson of the JPMorgan Chase Policy Center and Mark Woodard of Job Opportunities Task Force said automatic sealing would expand access to employment and create tax revenue and workforce gains. Eric Alley of Eastern Shore Legal Access and Martin Mitchell of Life After Release described people they represent who cannot pass background checks despite long spans of crime‑free years. Sarah Anderson of the R Street Institute and national advocates noted the approach mirrors successful laws in other states and emphasized the bill would shield records rather than destroy them, preserving access for law enforcement and court purposes where statutes allow.

Committee members and witnesses raised technical questions about electronic records. Delegate Moon and agency witnesses described the complexity of Maryland’s criminal records infrastructure: CJIS, Judiciary Case Search, and the Maryland courts’ MDEC system can each store different traces of a case. Several speakers agreed a phased approach — start with clear non‑conviction records and cases where the judiciary can reliably identify eligible files — would be more feasible than a single nationwide sweep. Some prosecutors and court staff cautioned about PBJ (probation before judgment) and other complicated dispositions that require cross‑checking active cases or subsequent convictions before removal; witnesses recommended working through those exceptions in a multi‑stakeholder work group.

No vote was taken. Sponsors said they would work on a technical amendment and continue consultations with corrections and the judiciary to produce an implementable plan.","Supporters of HB 5 45 told the Judiciary Committee automatic expungement would clear large numbers of eligible non‑conviction records and help people obtain jobs and housing, but agency officials urged a phased, technical approach to avoid leaving traces in court IT systems.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House committee hears plan to direct opioid settlement funds to jail medication programs

Panel weighs House Bill 499 to broaden expungement eligibility and fix probation-bar rule

Advocates press Judiciary Committee to clear eligible records automatically; agencies seek phased approach