Attorney General unit seeks narrow authority to confirm juvenile victim identity with parental consent; defenders oppose immediate disclosure

House Bill 366 would allow the Office of the Attorney General’s Independent Investigations Division (IID) to disclose a juvenile victim’s identity — limited to name and age — in cases of death or serious bodily injury involving law enforcement, but only with the written consent of a parent or guardian.

Sponsor Delegate Adrienne Embry (introducing on behalf of the Attorney General’s office) said the change is narrowly tailored: current Maryland law keeps police records involving juveniles confidential, which can prevent the IID from confirming a child’s identity even when families want public acknowledgement. Embry and Allison Green, chief of IID, said the proposal is limited to identity (name and age) and requires parental or guardian permission.

Allison Green described the IID’s role: the division investigates police‑involved deaths and serious injuries and issues reports; she said the amendment balances juvenile privacy with the IID’s statutory transparency mandate and the public’s interest in policing oversight.

Alicia Capizello, deputy public defender for Baltimore City, urged an unfavorable report. She noted that in the IID’s completed cases, prosecutors declined to file charges in the vast majority of investigations and warned that parents who consent after a brief encounter with IID investigators may not fully appreciate that their child will be publicly scrutinized. Capizello said parents can already make the child’s name public themselves and that the bill risks eroding longstanding confidentiality protections for juveniles.

David Morris of the Maryland Chiefs and Sheriffs Associations also opposed the bill, saying release of juvenile identities could undermine trust in law enforcement and that current protocols already provide transparency through officer identification and body‑worn camera release in many cases.

During questioning, committee members suggested a potential compromise: obtaining parental consent only after IID completes its investigation and issues findings. Capizello said she might consider that change; IID staff said families’ preferences vary and that some parents want early confirmation. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing.

— Ending: The committee concluded testimony on HB 366 after proponents stressed narrow scope and parental consent, while the Public Defender and police associations urged preserving juvenile confidentiality or delaying any release until after investigation findings.