Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After false-accusation case, committee weighs bill requiring state's-attorney review before charges for APS and child-welfare workers
Summary
House Bill 302 would require a state's attorney review of commissioner-issued charging documents when allegations arise from work performed by adult protective services or child welfare caseworkers; proponents cited a Montgomery County case in which a worker narrowly avoided arrest after a client filed a statement of charges.
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Bill 302 would add adult protective services (APS) workers and child-welfare caseworkers to a list of public employees whose on-the-job allegations must be reviewed by a state's attorney before formal charges are issued through the commissioner process.
Christian Schneider, a licensed clinical social worker and APS employee in Montgomery County, described an incident in early 2023 when a client filed a statement of charges and a commissioner issued a charging document and a warrant for his arrest. Schneider said a law-enforcement officer who "saw red flags" investigated further, contacted the state's attorney's office and prevented his arrest; the charge was later dropped. He told the committee the experience was traumatic and urged the panel to protect APS workers from similar unvetted criminal filings.
Debbie Feinstein of the Montgomery County State's Attorney's Office supported the bill, saying pre-charge review by prosecutors avoids the harm of unwarranted criminal process hitting a worker's record and employment. "If it's not a meritorious claim, it avoids the pain of the charge...coming down on that worker," Feinstein said; she noted the office would still prosecute meritorious cases.
Sponsors said the bill is a narrower approach to a broader problem of "citizen-generated complaints" and clerk-level charging that has drawn previous hearings; they argued the limited carve-out is designed to protect employees who are frequent targets of disgruntled clients. Opponents did not speak at length in the transcript; no committee vote occurred at the hearing. Backers said the language mirrors protections already afforded to certain public-safety employees and asked the committee for a favorable report.

