Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Organized Retail Theft topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears Organized Retail Theft Act as prosecutors and retailers press for cross-jurisdiction tools
Summary
Delegate Toles told the House Judiciary Committee that HB 179 — the Organized Retail Theft Act — is needed to let prosecutors join thefts committed in multiple Maryland jurisdictions when they are part of an organized scheme.
Delegate Toles introduced HB 179, the Organized Retail Theft Act of 2025, telling the House Judiciary Committee that retail theft is costing Maryland retailers hundreds of millions of dollars and that new law is needed to let prosecutors treat repeat, coordinated theft across jurisdictions as part of an organized scheme.
“Organized retail theft needs to be a priority this year,” Delegate Toles said. “Stores across the Maryland are locking up items on basic household items. This is unacceptable.”
Retail and law-enforcement witnesses detailed the scale and character of the problem. Kayleigh Locklear of the Maryland Retailers Alliance said 37 states have enacted organized-retail-crime laws and argued Maryland needs similar tools to aggregate thefts that span jurisdictions and to improve data collection. Perry Taylor, deputy state's attorney for Prince George’s County, told the committee HB 179 “will provide a powerful tool” so prosecutors can consolidate multiple thefts tied to the same scheme even if the incidents occurred in different counties.
Franchisees and convenience-store operators described daily operational impacts. Farjean Noor, a 7‑Eleven franchisee, said his stores have been targeted repeatedly: “I have lost, in total, about $28,000 in retail theft accumulated,” he told the committee, and staff have left because employees felt unsafe after armed cash-and-grab incidents. Micah Neumeyer, another franchisee, said cigarette thefts frequently total about $5,000 per incident and that audit shortages can reach $20,000 in a quarter.
Prosecutors and law enforcement said consolidation can preserve judicial resources and produce stronger deterrence. Jason Shoemaker of the Maryland State’s Attorneys Association said consolidated prosecutions “conserve judicial resources by placing multiple fences in one courtroom as opposed to being prosecuted in multiple courts.”
The Office of the Public Defender opposed HB 179, arguing that an expanded aggregation power could ensnare low-level offenders and that current statutes (the panel cited Criminal Law §7-103(f) as an existing theft-scheme tool) already permit prosecution of multiple thefts as a scheme. Public Defender witnesses expressed concern about overbroad charging and urged caution to avoid criminalizing people acting out of need.
Retailers described operational responses: more asset-protection hires, security upgrades, task-force coordination with prosecutors, and retailer-run alert systems to notify police across counties when the same booster teams appear. Supporters urged passage to keep Maryland from becoming a repeat target for organized crews operating on the I-95 corridor and beyond.
Ending: The committee heard repeated anecdotes of cross-county crews, product returns to central repositories, and armed robberies tied to theft operations. Supporters asked for a favorable report; defenders urged narrow drafting to avoid sweeping in low-level or desperation-driven thefts. No vote was taken at the hearing.
