Committee considers narrow exception to two‑party consent for recordings in violent crimes
Loading...
Summary
SB661 would allow victims of murder, rape or domestically related first‑degree assault to use recordings they made of the crime (or attempted crime) in court without felony wiretapping exposure, subject to evidentiary safeguards and limited use rules; prosecutors and advocates gave examples where recordings existed but were inadmissible under current law.
Sen. Sarah Love told the committee SB661 creates a tightly drawn exception to Maryland's two‑party consent statute so survivors who record an attempted or completed murder, rape, or domestically related first‑degree assault can offer audio or video evidence at trial without being charged for the recording itself. "This bill does 4 things," Love said, then outlined an affirmative defense when someone reasonably believed they faced imminent danger and procedural safeguards for admissibility.
Debbie Feinstein described cases in which phone recordings of sexual assaults could not be used in court; she said prosecutors and victims were hamstrung when audio evidence existed but wiretap law blocked its use. "I urge a favorable report," Feinstein told the committee, recounting a case in which a video or audio recording would have drastically strengthened prosecution.
Witnesses emphasized the bill's limited scope and noted safeguards: the amendment requires willful, knowing intent to use recordings to harm be proven for criminalization, that recordings be used only in prosecutions for listed crimes, and that recordings not be used as evidence of unrelated offenses. Committee members focused on admissibility standards, the difference between audio and video evidence, and how deepfake/AI concerns would be handled; advocates said cross‑examination and existing evidentiary rules (chain of custody, authentication) mitigate abuse.
The sponsor urged a favorable report; transcript shows no committee vote recorded in the hearing.
