[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,76,87],{"_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",6635341,"mediaKeyId","2640532-75918388f440c467f912ca6d11b1c864","parentId",2640532,"title","Judicial Proceedings Committee advances multiple bills; votes at a glance","audioSeconds",4338,"startMs",0,"endMs",4338000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2640532-75918388f440c467f912ca6d11b1c864&start=0&end=4338","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2640532-75918388f440c467f912ca6d11b1c864/thumbnail_0.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6635341/Maryland/Judicial-Proceedings-Committee-advances-multiple-bills-votes-at-a-glance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635341-c66d287695678dc2750a646dcb739df8/orig.mp4?Expires=1775186621&Signature=a0-y5PgatwkxEV0npENyIS9ClWKo2cDBjl~PHoY2TrLzA0GsYUsBugvtVqS0Xci8cqNmX5Uvlx2jyYWkBwq-AlCZvSsvolm9HZ-66MNcw1HEEAKjPwcEDHZ-wKrdpU9iUkQG7l2r-deMNPC8KlaAON-D59LR2RjkJ5DCDr27qXkDTuz2IRDg5Tip-wYPndpDz9hAl0V185N-DJwCxGx8KTeibzPg8cFzXY2CUqkG2W4js9KhEd5WW~EJwN17GbkKw64IxPN0VF05Gdwhe3Oqil1VdharWrzCTKv43X~8xCF3XDeeggsgqUHYfgqfVetG3yC7fEH9JE4NRXEFv~uYYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Judicial Proceedings","date","2025-03-14T21:52:31.777Z","article","Annapolis, March 21, 2025 — The Judicial Proceedings Committee on Friday moved a series of bills to the Senate floor. Several items were debated briefly; others drew substantive questioning and amendments. Below are the outcomes recorded on the committee floor.

Votes at a glance

- Senate Bill 525 (Prince George's County pilot for public video evidence of illegal dumping and a 50% fine-share for reporting citizens): Favorable as amended; passed unanimously.

- Senate Bill 669 (Kit testing grant fund; expanded uses including testing, OAG investigative support, MCASA hotline, telehealth): Favorable as amended; passed unanimously. (Covered in separate article.)

- Senate Bill 590 (Changes to reckless/aggressive driving statute; retained three-offense threshold): Favorable as amended; passed 10-1.

- Senate Bill 710 (New misdemeanor for criminally negligent operation of a motor vehicle or vessel; separate statutory section): Favorable as amended; passed 10-1.

- Senate Bill 927 (Limited equity housing cooperative conversions; amendment struck SDAT document requirements and removed five-year property-tax exemption language): Sponsor amendment adopted; final bill action not recorded in transcript.

- Senate Bill 1030 (Authorizes up to five senior officers of specified volunteer emergency medical organizations in Baltimore City and Baltimore County to equip private vehicles with emergency lighting while responding): Favorable as amended; passed unanimously.

- Senate Bill 873 (Establish a task force to study a third-degree misdemeanor assault statute in lieu of the original bill language): Favorable as amended; passed unanimously.

- Senate Bill 471 (Changes to the Motor Vehicle Administration roadway safety driving education program for individuals who never held a U.S. license): Favorable as amended; passed unanimously (committee record indicates the bill and amendments were adopted).

- Senate Bill 820 (Increase municipal maximum fine from $1,000 to $5,000 for misdemeanor/municipal-infractions enforcement): Favorable; passed 8-3.

- Senate Bill 25 (Referral to summer study): Motion for referral approved (committee recorded affirmation).

Context and common themes

Several bills expanded programmatic authority at state agencies or changed statutory definitions in criminal law. Committee members repeatedly asked for fiscal clarity and implementation details, including for capital projects and special funds. When bills required local delegation letters (for county-specific pilots) or local approvals, members noted those requirements during floor handling.

What to watch

Several bills advanced with unanimous support; others passed on divided votes where members asked for further information before floor debate. Reporters and stakeholders should watch for committee follow-ups and fiscal attachments to floor files, particularly for capital projects and special-fund amendments.

Ending

All bills above that recorded committee passage will advance to the Senate floor for further consideration. Committee staff and sponsors were asked to provide more detailed fiscal and implementation information on selected items before floor debate.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JPR Committee Session, 3/14/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","On March 21 the committee approved a slate of bills ranging from illegal-dumping video evidence pilots to municipal fine increases and road-safety education changes; several bills passed unanimously while others carried split votes.","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":46,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6635344,"Committee orders redesign and expedited review for women's prerelease unit; bill passes with amendments 8-3",733,3605000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2640532-75918388f440c467f912ca6d11b1c864&start=3605&end=4338","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2640532-75918388f440c467f912ca6d11b1c864/thumbnail_3605000.jpg","/articles/6635344/Maryland/Committee-orders-redesign-and-expedited-review-for-womens-prerelease-unit-bill-passes-with-amendments-8-3","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635344-4d3b676ac5163c357df32f186b1cb69e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775186621&Signature=BONunM8u2bF~pjqcxj0pbHZzhm8sdpWOUqkg4QYl9FfveZt~JZETjKNb7tuMvozj79TW8RPsFO0KJ7QwqFXXSv6TJMDRxm814pY3nzS~dwcVn1Qa-rTVIHswlt9JwaJK0OHRUsWhnzDe~WFyqedml0CIcJ0tLKLlgf1eIb183eoYg1X~W2iJRfPNxWQS-sz-6nT0rHyUpSRGkf7q5LiBMkDDluuhNxXajhHoSpK5KG6SUorDaEjmJHQEyvdjhktKJt77-GX3j-UFP1rVIKQhIJYFkjnzO7x3QAJ4KZLVUXvGJh~2gJ4W0boyaPaxs1jsfeWU2XHlNqqUbw-IlGTj5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Annapolis, March 21, 2025 — The Judicial Proceedings Committee voted 8-3 on Friday to advance Senate Bill 632 as an emergency measure that tightens siting, capacity and service requirements for a standalone pre-release unit for incarcerated women and requires expedited procurement if the current plans do not meet statutory requirements.

Why it matters: The bill directs the state to build a pre-release facility for women with mandated services and capacity requirements, and it requires the Department of General Services to use expedited procurement if current plans do not comply with the law. Committee members raised concerns that the sponsor'''s amendments could require restarting design work or finding a new site, which may lengthen the timeline.

Key debate points

Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services representative Jason Davidson told the committee that while prerelease services exist for women at the Maryland Correctional Institution for Women (MCIW) and via programs such as Project Fresh, the state does not currently operate a standalone pre-release building. \"We do have prerelease services. We're doing a number of services, for women, particularly Project Fresh at MCIW,\" Davidson said.

Several senators warned that an amendment in the packet would require a 3-acre site and other criteria not present in the current proposal, which could force a restart of the project and delay completion. Committee members also noted the design and procurement work done to date and asked whether available capital funding would be sufficient if plans must be redone.

Sponsor's fiscal response

A sponsor present at the hearing told the committee that recent budget actions provide $2,000,000 in the fiscal 2026 budget and that prior authorizations account for roughly $7,000,000, consistent with earlier appropriations for the project. \"There's now $2,000,000 in the budget for FY26. There's also $7,000,000 in prior authorizations because the money for this facility was authorized in '21,\" the sponsor said. The sponsor added that the bill requires the department to use an expedited procurement process if prior work does not comply with the law passed in earlier sessions.

Capacity and program details

Committee discussion recorded that the current count of incarcerated women eligible for prerelease is about 87 and that the existing facility plan had a 64-bed design. Committee members expressed concern that a fixed-bed brick-and-mortar facility could lack flexibility if the population grows and that restarting site selection could jeopardize transportation access that the current site offers.

Outcome and implementation notes

After debate the committee adopted sponsor amendments and passed SB632 as amended, 8-3. The committee recorded directions that the Department of General Services and the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services provide more detailed information about site availability, the design-to-cost plan, and how the expedited procurement would be executed without sacrificing transportation access or other required features.

Ending

Senate Bill 632 advances to the Senate floor with approval from a majority of the committee. Members who voted in favor said they supported the policy aim of a designated women's prerelease unit but requested more complete cost, site and implementation details before floor debate.","Senate Bill 632, requiring a standalone women's prerelease unit with specific capacity and service standards, passed 8-3 after lawmakers and corrections officials debated site, cost and procurement timing; sponsor said funds exist to restart design.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6635349,"Judicial Proceedings Committee expands uses of sexual-assault kit testing fund, approves changes unanimously",873,742000,1615000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2640532-75918388f440c467f912ca6d11b1c864&start=742&end=1615","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2640532-75918388f440c467f912ca6d11b1c864/thumbnail_742000.jpg","/articles/6635349/Maryland/Judicial-Proceedings-Committee-expands-uses-of-sexual-assault-kit-testing-fund-approves-changes-unanimously","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635349-8143134243b623c557015bca9e655d91/orig.mp4?Expires=1775186621&Signature=nQ4MW54Vzs1HtuZm6bCrZcDxUom~B-MomqCXCrohVYyd417XIlQtcE6Mcwy~b7jboP0OmpeinbZpzQPwALhJfbPJv0BaFLqvzK3L1nS39CnbwTHZuRP0mpeuK5x3WrJPB058fOC0zPBleQRYSG~qdqgusDhhgv1g3mfHbjrppXMR7pB8-LvUGEUwbM2gGq8ZdA0kGXgVJ094AMWRKlHfvFvZtDT3ZJCiPCdwZpvNz9YXQk7QlP42tfQ40AblmIEgFFMKJMBkkyWguNfH5kwygmnuQ5x6pAnmAkSH6LT1MTpitqKppILtcm3Ji5xxXOQ60yBO3m1wYJSyLTjQORGKGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Annapolis, March 21, 2025 — The Judicial Proceedings Committee unanimously approved Senate Bill 669 on Friday after adopting a sponsor amendment that expands the purposes of the sexual-assault evidence kit testing grant fund.

The approved reprint broadens authorized uses to include funding forensic laboratory testing of untested sexual-assault evidence collection kits, equipment, supplies, personnel and outsourcing for testing; funding for the Office of the Attorney General to assist law enforcement investigations of crimes involving sexual assault; support for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault (MCASA) for a statewide victim-notification hotline and related personnel; and funding for peer-to-peer telehealth programs for victims.

Why it matters: Lawmakers and advocates said the changes supply needed resources for testing and follow-up investigations while adding victim services lawmakers said are necessary to support prosecutions and survivor notification.

Committee discussion and fiscal context

Senator Michael West pressed for clarity about how much money is available now and whether the bill would divert money away from testing kits. \"Why is there $4,000,000 in the fund? Why wouldn't the money have been spent to get the kits tested?\" West asked.

Committee staff pointed to the fiscal note, which reported a fund balance of nearly $4,000,000 at the end of fiscal 2024 and said additional future allocations are uncertain. The fiscal note indicated special fund expenditures would increase to the extent that additional funds are dispersed under the bill but that exact increases could not be reliably estimated because some uses (for example, funding for telehealth or MCASA) depend on future appropriations.

Lisa Jordan, a staff member, told the committee the money being used for investigators and victim advocates would be a small portion of the overall fund. \"The entirety of the funds that would be for the investigators and for the victim advocates, it's under $500,000 a year. As you said, there's already $4,000,000 in previous funding,\" Jordan said. She added that roughly $3.5 million had been allocated for future use under the current plan.

Jordan said the advocates and hotline already operate and that investigators and advocates are needed to ensure tested kits lead to investigations and prosecutions. \"Without those investigators, you're really gonna end up in a situation where the kits have been tested, and then we just have a backlog of tested kits but no investigation,\" she said.

Senator West also pressed for an estimate of how long testing the backlog would take. An advocate in the room estimated testing could take \"between 5 and 7\" years given the number of kits originally in inventory and kits discovered afterward. Committee staff confirmed the inventory in state systems ended around 2018 and that testing has been more regular since then.

Outcome and next steps

After discussion the committee adopted the sponsor amendment in the packet (amendment 503924) and voted on the bill as amended. Senate Bill 669 with the amendments passed unanimously.

The committee record shows members asked for materials that explain how many kits remain untested and how the expanded uses would be limited so testing remains the primary activity funded.

Ending

Senate Bill 669 moves forward to the Senate floor with unanimous committee support. Committee members asked that advocates and staff prepare supplemental materials on fund balances and estimated timelines for clearing the kit backlog before floor debate.","The committee amended and unanimously approved Senate Bill 669 to broaden the uses of the state''''kit testing grant fund to include testing, investigations support, victim notification and telehealth; legislators pressed for assurance testing remains the priority.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judicial Proceedings Committee advances multiple bills; votes at a glance

Committee orders redesign and expedited review for women's prerelease unit; bill passes with amendments 8-3

Judicial Proceedings Committee expands uses of sexual-assault kit testing fund, approves changes unanimously