House debates House Bill 444 amendments; two proposals fail, bill ordered for third reading

The House debated two amendments to House Bill 444 during an evening session and rejected both before ordering the measure printed for a third reading.

The first amendment, offered by a delegate identified in the record as a delegate from Baltimore County, would have required 48 hours' notification before a detainee was released to facilitate transfer to federal immigration authorities, while prohibiting holding a person beyond their sentenced time. "The amendment requires notification 48 hours before a detainee is released and to facilitate the transfer of the detainee, as long as they don't detain that person past the point of the time which they have to serve," the delegate said.

Floor Leader, opposing the change, told colleagues the amendment was unnecessary because, he said, federal immigration authorities already receive notice in practice. "This amendment actually isn't really needed," the floor leader said, adding that in the news example cited by another delegate a judge had ordered immediate release.

A delegate from Saint Mary's cited a recent news story involving a man identified in reports as Rafael Aguilar and asked whether the amendment "would fix this problem?" The amendment's maker replied, "Yeah. That's what it attempts to do," and argued the proposal would standardize uneven local practices and MOUs (memoranda of understanding) used by jurisdictions to coordinate with federal authorities.

Those supporting the amendment framed it as a public‑safety measure. Opponents countered that a judge's immediate‑release order or existing local practices could render a 48‑hour notice requirement impractical. After a roll call on the amendment, the clerk announced the amendment failed.

The same delegate later introduced amendment 843624, a broader policing package that the sponsor described as banning arrest quotas, prohibiting police use of drones for enforcement, forbidding unmanned aerial surveillance without a warrant, and banning no‑knock warrants in Maryland. "It bans the use of arrest quotas ... you cannot use drones as a matter of law enforcement ... and it bans no‑knock warrants," the sponsor said.

The floor leader asked members to resist the broader amendment, saying its provisions were the subject of other bills scheduled for hearings in committee and might not be appropriate in this vehicle. After a second roll call, the clerk announced 118 votes in the negative and the amendment failed.

With no further amendments, the presiding officer ordered House Bill 444 printed for third reading. The session then moved to routine committee reassignment letters and caucus and guest announcements.

The debate illustrated a split between delegates seeking prescriptive statutory changes to standardize detention‑transfer practices and colleagues who said current practice, judicial orders, or other pending bills already address those issues. The bill will return to the House for third reading as scheduled.