[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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",6621533,"mediaKeyId","2801794-6f3ef6134b296de0c9da25fec58d2698","parentId",2801794,"title","Bill to clarify public disclosure of child-fatality records under CAPTA draws support for transparency","audioSeconds",382,"startMs",2024000,"endMs",2406000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2801794-6f3ef6134b296de0c9da25fec58d2698&start=2024&end=2406","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2801794-6f3ef6134b296de0c9da25fec58d2698/thumbnail_2024000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6621533/Maryland/Bill-to-clarify-public-disclosure-of-child-fatality-records-under-CAPTA-draws-support-for-transparency","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621533-47fb13dc0e6e325c589ec33e8e4afa91/orig.mp4?Expires=1770832873&Signature=LrtA0W-96drY0njWyz1PsSVZ53r-wbtV5dHIJZEX1bdoGo9g6gaPFecZHHGq0A4Npj4DGtQlPjP78ElBZNr8ZfUx1LN~gnsw0Dx9sVts38naFNeiZ1LJaUjDoUBJO5gSsQHvz0cbita9CSwbm9ncZmlFEXRdormaibif5mk3wcdHXFu0-PdTSeU9-xOKLL-JteyLKQQ0DwXXMmZ9E2cEcyIIxAmCdWOHcOmVxlbH8wUQcCMg~u7YK63JLDyuSaQzlL0izMd3LHgyXyPtk0Wuv8VatAwJitYhzOc2rqXWGmonKNjFsb8c5QOWNUBGM7KAxA1yMl2G2aN3eDXCe~lOuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Judicial Proceedings","date","2025-03-27T21:53:00.903Z","article","House Bill 1209, presented March 27 by Susan McComas, would clarify Maryland law to require public disclosure of certain Department of Human Services (DHS) records following a child fatality or near-fatality, consistent with the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA).

McComas told the committee the existing Maryland statute contains an exception that allows local state's attorneys to withhold records by asserting that disclosure would harm an investigation or prosecution — language she said swallows the CAPTA disclosure requirement. \"The problem with the current Maryland law is that while it provides for release of this information, it has an exception that swallows the entire rule,\" McComas said. She urged a favorable report, citing federal Office of Management and Budget and Government Accountability Office findings that routine public reporting improves prevention strategies and public oversight.

McComas and witnesses argued that CAPTA requires states to publicly report limited identifying information about child‑fatality or near‑fatality cases — for example, the child's age and gender, cause of fatality or near fatality, prior relevant reports and services provided — and that Maryland risks losing CAPTA grants or facing litigation if it fails to comply. She pointed to Arizona as a state that provides preliminary public reports and updates them after investigation conclusions.

Committee members asked how McComas’s bill balanced privacy concerns and the public interest; she said the measure would not disclose unnecessary family-level details but would enable the public and other stakeholders to spot patterns and report additional concerns. McComas noted prior bipartisan interest in the subject and said similar language had passed the Senate in prior years but stalled in a House committee.

No formal committee action was recorded; sponsors indicated they would continue to work on statutory language to ensure compliance with federal law while protecting privacy where appropriate.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JPR Committee Session, 3/27/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Susan McComas and other proponents urged the committee to require disclosure of certain child abuse and neglect records when a child dies or nearly dies; supporters said federal CAPTA requires public reporting and that Maryland's current statutory exception is overly broad.","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},6621538,"Committee reviews two measures aimed at out-of-state vehicle registration and automated-enforcement data",1811,36000,1847000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2801794-6f3ef6134b296de0c9da25fec58d2698&start=36&end=1847","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2801794-6f3ef6134b296de0c9da25fec58d2698/thumbnail_36000.jpg","/articles/6621538/Maryland/Committee-reviews-two-measures-aimed-at-out-of-state-vehicle-registration-and-automated-enforcement-data","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621538-23d7fce1adef4d115c5c2d5515ed56c8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770832873&Signature=dCVamjkYMsMSv2rPyWu549gda32Ux8efYplqICyT1xPusW3zdM-Fr54Bn6vLGxfwUUn7vjcKdBOIEfjanhVMc49833ANelupFuc9HCCUUvB-8U91Q69N2jJ-8MnfcYBAel9n2bhEYPM2BS3HEmw6W7K4nEJ-5hdorx9bZzmFoiUaapbyCL7A9mgCDQKrvZQdMGhEvjrXs~qGP7~B-Fm5QSp2mo37QHyB-qZHD4MBYQfCU6LPWgTiwxMkJi2rG2HiTUbiZd9dsEmLrV1ryAZV9ksv~ODgOjl5lgPXR0xwa1fCOwBpN~2cHYVCMDd9hjp-8GER~hsXsUlkUoicx8bbLA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judicial Proceedings Committee heard testimony on two related motor-vehicle measures on March 27: House Bill 219, addressing Maryland residents who improperly register vehicles out of state, and House Bill 915, which would require local jurisdictions to report quarterly on automated-enforcement citations issued to out‑of‑state drivers.

House Bill 219 sponsor Delegate Jackie T. Anderson described the measure as \"simple,\" saying it would create a clear process to identify vehicles owned by Maryland residents but registered elsewhere and provide mechanisms for towing and removal when necessary. Anderson called improper out‑of‑state registration a revenue problem that shifts costs to compliant Maryland drivers and deprives state and local governments of fees that fund transportation and public safety.

Delegate Linda Foley presented House Bill 915, the \"Out‑of‑State Driver Accountability Act,\" which would require counties and municipalities that deploy automated-enforcement systems to report quarterly on out-of-state citations and payment status. Foley said the Washington, D.C. \"STEER\" law inspired her bill and emphasized that, unlike the D.C. model, Maryland's House floor amended the bill to remove an immediate enforcement mechanism; HB 915 as presented focuses on data collection to inform later decisions about targeted enforcement.

Foley cited investigative reporting on I‑83 and work‑zone camera programs showing high numbers of automated citations and significant unpaid counts among out‑of‑state drivers; she told the committee that the bill would help policymakers determine which out‑of‑state drivers create the largest share of unpaid citations and whether targeted enforcement or interstate cooperation is warranted.

Committee members asked how local law enforcement identifies out‑of‑state tags (traffic stops versus automated plate readers), how aggregated reporting would be collated across hundreds of jurisdictions and whether a study period or sunset should be specified. Sponsor Foley said the bill does not set a finite study window but that legislators expect to review the collected data next year to consider whether to add enforcement tools later.

No formal committee action was taken at the hearing; sponsors said the bills are intended as initial steps to gather data and close known revenue and compliance gaps.","Delegates presented bills to identify out-of-state registrations used to avoid Maryland fees and to collect uniform data on unpaid automated enforcement citations; sponsors said the measures would protect revenue and inform future enforcement steps, while members asked about enforcement mechanisms and data burdens.",{"_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},6621543,"Committee hears call to license community association managers amid concerns about theft and oversight",914,475000,1389000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2801794-6f3ef6134b296de0c9da25fec58d2698&start=475&end=1389","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2801794-6f3ef6134b296de0c9da25fec58d2698/thumbnail_475000.jpg","/articles/6621543/Maryland/Committee-hears-call-to-license-community-association-managers-amid-concerns-about-theft-and-oversight","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621543-ebf4475b7169ea57b20ba4b24c7aaae3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770832873&Signature=UsGQKHPP5gYzS74mVY8CPxKpxAEUGYoRoTw9x3g8a7O8h3mzC-K6f52M82SYEEGSwtlA8BPU9rxMyCbnFOfsT-3Zq~gYLX2zdztxy4-tHl3KDxPt1J9A5xVF0dkXmsimQptyTE2c7sMoFQzEKuR7ttQL0vIeRB8QGEyDygudPZFp1TY~qCEuC6htS0Z7-RL8VxZOl3U2Ld5GCj4In-YEID-9i5tP8Kr3OqpxXDVloQ0QBKZhU87U3gbs3nRAzLQrPHR8hLOk72J~zvaVDcVDJ4DFGezulsUpiy-kVahQfFwZfCGYoRnvRQ-lQed4SWKtPobsQNh8JQnM4A2eoGwpdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegate Marvin Holmes presented House Bill 303 to the Judicial Proceedings Committee on March 27, seeking licensure for common ownership community managers in Maryland. Holmes argued that anyone can currently print a business card and act as a manager with no training, bonding or oversight and that the absence of licensing has led to instances where managers \"absconded with millions of dollars,\" a claim he illustrated with a local example of a community that lost $2.5 million.

\"In order to be a community manager in the state of Maryland, you need 1 thing: a business card that says you're community manager. That's all you need,\" Holmes said. He proposed a state regulatory board with nine members that would set fees, require training and establish grounds for suspension or revocation of licenses.

Committee members and witnesses raised several concerns: the Community Associations Institute (CAI) submitted written concerns about cost burdens and the risk that mandatory licensing fees would be passed on to homeowners; senators asked how fees would be set and whether reciprocity with other states or national certifications (for example, from the Community Associations Institute) would be recognized. Holmes said the bill allows the board to set fees by regulation and that the fiscal note projects the proposal as broadly revenue neutral once application fees are collected.

Holmes told the committee that licensure would not apply to self-managed communities and that licensing sought to ensure managers are trained, bonded and subject to oversight when they advise boards on millions of dollars of association funds. He also said the bill uses license-revocation language drawn from other licensing statutes and is not intended to create lifetime bans.

Committee members sought follow-up on several points: (1) how many managers currently operate in Maryland and the administrative burden of registering them, (2) the likely magnitude of fees to be set by the proposed board, and (3) whether licensing would change contract or insurance requirements for associations. Sponsors and CAI agreed to continue working on technical clarifications.

Ending: The hearing concluded without committee action; sponsors said they would work with stakeholders on fee-setting, reciprocity and scope clarifications.","Delegate Marvin Holmes told the committee March 27 that Maryland currently requires only a business card to operate as a common ownership community manager and urged licensure to prevent misconduct; opponents raised cost concerns and impacts on homeowners.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6621548,"Committee hears sharp debate over bill to end local 287(g) immigration agreements in Maryland",8862,6883000,15745000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2801794-6f3ef6134b296de0c9da25fec58d2698&start=6883&end=15745","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2801794-6f3ef6134b296de0c9da25fec58d2698/thumbnail_6883000.jpg","/articles/6621548/Maryland/Committee-hears-sharp-debate-over-bill-to-end-local-287g-immigration-agreements-in-Maryland","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621548-84428794833f4f0f4df7664f81ae81f3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770832873&Signature=azo7vMETe~wLOYBLhnv9AOVmtcHXexhOoSr2vCgXRT4ZjhX1RQ3y5vEkgIgsEYa3fWp-zyZBxABmP4Tx~gYqZjaNLL4ubfGT3hzlf97Eb0pTwezGDX3jCT8Csxjwlw3P-gL8aEhKvo9Oc-Dz~FPelJR6xpSaN~~HaKn3QSjtpklphQkN4L6VlyvzD5LfdKcG2joU8COry-A8ZX0HH0c2a1UZg8lI8ppWzIKXsHryHdBW6dJ~7wud~MUA7hwfDBAjRlntKBrZcqUhI7vY-a1~gq42pcBg0QwAprRZRgQGoJbUx6JO0GkNBa7agp1GS8Ugj4gQRhgbE2kARkX-pjoyBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judicial Proceedings Committee heard extensive testimony March 27 on House Bill 12-22, the “Public Safety Immigration Enforcement Maryland Values Act,” which would prohibit Maryland state and local governments from entering into new 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and would require notice to ICE before release for individuals meeting enumerated criteria.

Sponsor Delegate Williams told the committee the measure would bar localities from executing certain voluntary enforcement agreements with ICE but would not ban ordinary cooperation such as compliance with judicial warrants or fingerprint matches. \"Ending these agreements within our state makes moral sense when we consider the inconsistencies with the values that we hold dear and our history of protecting our immigrant communities,\" Delegate Williams said.

Supporters of the bill — including the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, CASA (a statewide immigrant-membership organization), and the ACLU of Maryland — urged the committee to pass the bill or to adopt their proposed amendments. \"287(g) agreements undermine due process and make innocence irrelevant,\" Stephanie Wolf, director of immigration services at the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, testified, saying that a large share of 287(g) detainers locally were placed for people with no convictions or only minor offenses.

CASA’s Nicholas Katz said the agreements erode community trust in law enforcement and can deter immigrants from reporting crimes or cooperating with police. The ACLU’s Dara Johnson warned against public disclosure provisions in a related parole bill and noted the political pressure parole commissioners already face; her group opposed one parole-related bill in the same hearing.

Sheriffs from Frederick and Harford counties, joined by ICE’s acting field office director for Maryland, urged caution or opposed the measure. Sheriff Chuck Jenkins (Frederick County) and Harford County Sheriff Barry Gahler described long-running, jail-based 287(g) partnerships that — they said — allow trained, audited local correctional staff to screen arrestees for immigration enforcement interests and safely transfer violent offenders to ICE custody when appropriate. Sheriff Jenkins said Frederick County’s program, which began in 2008, has led to nearly 1,800 removals of people ICE identified as criminal aliens and that the program is run only in detention facilities, not as a street-enforcement model.

ICE Acting Field Office Director Nikita Baker testified informationally that jail-based 287(g) agreements identify violent and gang-affiliated offenders that ICE might otherwise not detect. Baker described cases — including the arrest of a high-ranking MS-13 figure after local arrest and later coordination with ICE — to underscore the agency’s assertion that such partnerships can remove individuals who pose threats to public safety.

Committee members questioned whether terminating formal 287(g) agreements would simply prompt informal cooperation or other federal enforcement actions; sponsor Williams and proponents said the bill strikes a balance by requiring notice to ICE in specific circumstances (for example, for certain violent or felony convictions), while preserving ordinary fingerprint-based information sharing that already occurs when arrestees are processed.

No final committee action was taken; witnesses on both sides asked for additional time to negotiate statutory language and for clarity about an implementation date and the scope of required notifications.","Delegate Del. Williams and witnesses argued the bill would protect immigrant communities and public trust in police; sheriffs and ICE officials said 287(g) jail-based agreements identify dangerous offenders and make law enforcement safer.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6621552,"Lawmakers debate overhaul of Maryland Parole Commission, including more commissioners and date-certain hearings",2339,2737000,5076000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2801794-6f3ef6134b296de0c9da25fec58d2698&start=2737&end=5076","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2801794-6f3ef6134b296de0c9da25fec58d2698/thumbnail_2737000.jpg","/articles/6621552/Maryland/Lawmakers-debate-overhaul-of-Maryland-Parole-Commission-including-more-commissioners-and-date-certain-hearings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621552-02a4d74c98bc6fb2cdc7d13b44cd4fd1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770832873&Signature=Fs-NhffYPo2VHRZvPssBXi39pYZmDKsbGv0g4UyXGO7LpKi6EMXq1bM7IupimBaQ72Y-e5762luxTFPVMHVO48lJBTWWI5TP5W5ABDC83lyPE7rD9CjVVZbOfRKKxO8s83ha4gL9vbk7tVv8vsXOfIp9VjgyNZ-hDa4-9eT1we2QhnuPJfvEoWZbtrP4fkAiq-hKjgRiXk5iOJoTln7cJn3MXgSCaT2yobTTc3tFIOX~jI5y2cWuaDdKHWIpaY-LVzd3yCLc3Ym79~H53Ej3yvskXch0yEVqYse6gAgqZQ9lIYh26haiqh6bqJ2sQYREUBZRUlWqisJRI8bNVuhLHg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegates and senators at the Judicial Proceedings Committee hearing on March 27 considered two related bills that would restructure the Maryland Parole Commission and set firm timelines for repeat parole reviews.

Sponsor Delegate Doug Phillips asked the committee for a favorable report on House Bill 11-56, which would expand the commission from 10 members to between 15 and 20, shift fact-finding and hearing responsibilities away from hearing examiners to commissioners, and create a nominating panel to recommend candidates for appointment. \"These reforms aim to reduce case backlogs, improve fairness in parole decisions, and align Maryland's parole practices with national best practices,\" Phillips said.

A separate but related measure, House Bill 11-47, introduced by Delegate Embree, would require clearer, timelier written explanations of parole decisions; ensure incarcerated people receive discovery and audio transcripts of hearings; expand reporting about hearing frequencies and outcomes; and establish date-certain intervals for follow-up hearings depending on the length of sentence. \"This bill is an attempt to bring or improve the due process within the parole, the parole process,\" Embree said during testimony.

Supporters argued the two proposals together would reduce a backlog in parole reviews — committee testimony cited a drop in hearings from 11,092 in 2019 to 5,931 in 2024 — and could save state money if earlier reviews reduced incarceration days. Phillips pointed to a fiscal note estimating roughly $1.1 million in annual cost for the expanded commission and argued those costs could be offset if the reforms increased timely releases and reduced incarceration spending.

Opponents and questioning committee members pressed on multiple points: whether eliminating hearing examiners would actually speed decisions or merely shift workload, how to protect the commission from political pressure in appointments, and which stakeholders should sit on the proposed nominating panel. Several senators asked about the composition of the nominating panel and whether it should include legal-defense, victims’ advocates, or law-enforcement perspectives. Phillips said he was open to amendments on panel membership and to preserving advice-and-consent review by the Senate.

No formal vote was taken at the hearing; sponsors said they would continue to work with committee members on language addressing appointment transparency, the role of support staff and hearing examiners, and data reporting requirements.

What happens next: Both bills were presented for committee consideration with sponsors signaling openness to amendments on the nomination process and timing language. The committee did not adopt final language or take a recorded vote during the hearing.

Ending: The measures will return to committee for drafting and negotiation; sponsors urged members to weigh procedural fixes against long-running capacity constraints in the parole system.","Sponsors told the Judicial Proceedings Committee on March 27 that expanding the Maryland Parole Commission and setting firm follow-up hearing schedules would reduce backlog and prison costs; supporters said the changes would improve transparency while critics warned of politicization and urged safeguards.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill to clarify public disclosure of child-fatality records under CAPTA draws support for transparency

Committee reviews two measures aimed at out-of-state vehicle registration and automated-enforcement data

Committee hears call to license community association managers amid concerns about theft and oversight

Committee hears sharp debate over bill to end local 287(g) immigration agreements in Maryland

Lawmakers debate overhaul of Maryland Parole Commission, including more commissioners and date-certain hearings