Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fair Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to allow audio recordings in fair-housing tests advances after wide support from civil-rights groups
Summary
House Bill 392 would allow fair-housing testers to record conversations they are party to when the recording is relevant to enforcing fair-housing laws; advocates said recordings are often the best evidence, while housing-industry groups raised privacy and overreach concerns.
The House Judiciary Committee heard House Bill 392, which would let certified fair-housing testers make audio recordings of housing-provider interactions when the tester is a party to the conversation and the recording is relevant for enforcing federal, state or local fair-housing laws.
"In many cases, the recording of a fair housing test will be the best evidence admissible in court that discrimination is occurring," Jonathan Smith, chief of the Civil Rights Division at the Maryland Office of the Attorney General, told the committee. Smith said the bill "does not permit wiretapping or the recording of calls for which the tester is not a party. The bill only allows recording if the tester is a party to the call and only for fair housing testing and for no other purpose."
Vicki Schultz, executive director of Maryland Legal Aid, and Cleveland Horton of the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights emphasized that fair-housing testers are trained and supervised and that recordings would help judges or juries resolve conflicts in testimony. Baltimore City testified it funds testing and has contracted testing providers to do both phone and in-person tests.
Opponents from the Maryland Multi-Housing Association and the Apartment and Office Building Association said the bill creates a novel civil exception in the wiretap statute and asked for tighter guardrails, training standards and chain-of-custody rules for recorded evidence. They warned of privacy risks in multi-occupant leasing offices and urged a broader approach rather than a single-sector carveout.
Proponents said 38 states already allow some form of recording by testers and that recordings tend to facilitate early resolution in enforcement cases. Committee members pressed witnesses on training, chain of custody, and whether the change would open subsequent civil claims; witnesses said programs already use training protocols and case-management systems to preserve evidence.
No committee vote occurred during the hearing. Sponsors said they would work with stakeholders to address industry concerns about scope, training and evidence preservation.
