House Judiciary hears bill limiting criminal enforcement of life-sustaining activities by people experiencing homelessness

An Annapolis hearing on Feb. 12 centered on House Bill 4 87, a bill to limit criminal enforcement against people experiencing homelessness when they are engaged in “life-sustaining activities” in public and no adequate indoor alternatives exist. Delegate Maricu North introduced the measure, saying the proposal would require police to seek available indoor alternatives before citing or arresting people who are sheltering, sleeping, or performing other essential acts in public spaces.

Supporters told the House Judiciary Committee the change would preserve civil liberties, reduce racial disparities in policing, and make outreach and housing work more effective. Eric Tars of the National Homelessness Law Center called the measure “crucially important to restore the protections lost” after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson and said other localities using similar laws have reduced encampments by coupling them with housing and services rather than ticketing. Kevin Lindamood, CEO of Healthcare for the Homeless, said sweeps and citations “damage trusting relationships” between outreach workers and people in encampments, often setting back months of engagement.

David Prater, an assistant attorney general, said the bill would create a two-step legal test police must apply: is the person engaged in a defined life-sustaining activity, and is there an adequate indoor alternative. If both elements are not satisfied, enforcement would be permissible. Prater told the committee that without a statewide standard, jurisdictions tend to move people from one town to another, “and that just makes it another jurisdiction’s problem.” He added the Attorney General’s Office supports the bill with an amendment removing the AG’s enforcement authority against local governments.

Opponents — including the Maryland Municipal League, the Maryland Association of Counties and several city legal and municipal officials — warned of uncertain fiscal and liability effects and implementation difficulty. Angelica Bailey Tuparri of the Maryland Municipal League said members found the bill “confusing” and worried it could require expensive additional services or expose localities to legal claims. Sarah Sample of the Maryland Association of Counties asked that the state bear fiscal responsibility for any new obligations, noting many counties already face property tax and revenue limits.

Municipal leaders and sheriffs asked for clearer definitions and for more time to assess how the standard would work operationally. Some municipal witnesses asked how the bill would affect private property and apartment courtyards that are included in the bill’s definition of public spaces. Several county officials also said the fiscal note, which lists potential increases to state and local spending from litigation and staffing changes, was incomplete and based on assumptions that require more information.

Advocates pressed committee members to consider the demographic patterns in who is cited. Vanita Taylor of the Office of the Public Defender said Montgomery County data showed that hundreds of people were stopped for trespass or disorderly conduct with very few guilty dispositions, and she argued that enforcement is an inefficient way to address homelessness. The Attorney General’s office and several advocates emphasized that the bill is designed to preserve police authority to address violent or dangerous conduct while removing criminal penalties for survival activities when no alternative exists.

Members of the committee asked for additional data. Delegate Dan Cox and others requested updated counts of people experiencing homelessness and more precise cost estimates. Department of Housing and Community Development and local homeless services representatives said statewide counts are imperfect but trending up nationally and in Maryland, especially among older adults. Supporters said the bill would be phased in and amended with clearer language to address municipal concerns.

The bill drew extensive public testimony from shelter providers, legal advocates and residents — including county health and homeless-services officials who said enforcement-only approaches have not reduced homelessness and harm public health interventions. Opponents included municipal and county associations and newspaper and business witnesses who said the bill as written raised implementation and liability questions for local governments. Lawmakers asked for clarifying amendments and additional fiscal detail before taking a vote.

Ending: Committee members asked the sponsor to work with local officials on technical edits to narrow or better define terms such as “adequate indoor alternative” and whether private property courtyards are included. Delegates said they want a phased approach and clearer cost estimates before advancing the bill. The committee recessed after hearing several other bills unrelated to homelessness.