Maryland bill would bar civil arrests inside courthouses to encourage access to justice
Loading...
Summary
Delegate Stewart's HB 309 would prevent civil stops and arrests on judicial premises absent a judge-signed warrant, drawing support from access-to-justice advocates and opposition from law enforcement worried about enforcement and safety gaps.
Annapolis — Delegate Stewart told the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 4 that House Bill 309 is aimed at removing a barrier that keeps victims, witnesses and litigants away from courthouses: the risk of civil arrest while seeking court services. "This simply says that if there's no judicial warrant, there's not a real warrant signed by a real judge, you cannot be civilly stopped and arrested inside a courthouse," Stewart said during the committee hearing.
The Maryland Access to Justice Commission and other advocates testified the bill would protect neutral judicial spaces, allowing people to file protective orders, pursue eviction or benefits cases, or testify without fear of being detained. "For the justice system to function, judicial facilities must be viewed as safe, neutral, and an impartial forum," Rena Shaw, executive director of the commission, told the committee.
Supporters stressed the bill is limited. Stewart and proponent witnesses said the measure does not block arrests on criminal warrants, for persons who pose an immediate public-safety threat, or for judicially authorized body attachments. Instead, the bill targets enforcement of civil-only actions that can be executed by officers at courthouse entrances and hallways and that, advocates argue, chill participation in the legal process.
Law enforcement organizations pushed back. Daniel Franklin, chief of police for Morningside and a representative of the Maryland Chiefs and Sheriffs Association, asked lawmakers for an unfavorable report unless the language is narrowed, arguing the bill would constrain routine courthouse safety work. "This law could prevent law enforcement from stopping someone to serve them with a civil protective order," Franklin said, adding that the bill could limit responses to on-view offenses and complicate screening and security at multi-agency judicial facilities.
Committee members pressed for tradeoffs. Several members said they wanted to preserve safety while reducing the chilling effect on vulnerable people; Stewart said he planned a sponsor amendment to remove a broad radius concept and instead limit protections to the judicial premises themselves (steps and attached parking lots included), with further amendments possible.
What happens next
The bill drew a mix of strong advocacy and practical concerns; committee members indicated they would consider amendments and may refer the measure to the relevant criminal-law subcommittee for detailed drafting on the definition of "judicial premises," permissible enforcement actions and exceptions for immediate threats to public safety.
