Courts - Sheriffs' Salaries - Alterations
HB0165 would create a new rule in Maryland law governing the admissibility of statements made by minors during custodial interrogation. The bill establishes a rebuttable presumption that a minor’s statement is involuntary and therefore inadmissible in a juvenile or criminal proceeding if a law enforcement officer intentionally used information known to be false to elicit the statement.
The presumption can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was voluntary and not made in response to the false information. The bill defines “custodial interrogation” by reference to its existing judicial meaning and applies to both juvenile and adult criminal proceedings involving a minor. If enacted, it would take effect October 1, 2025, and add a new section to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.
HB0165 would amend Maryland’s Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article by adding Section 10-926, creating an evidentiary rule that limits when statements by minors may be used against them in court. It would affect law enforcement interrogation practices, prosecutors, defense counsel, and juvenile courts by making certain confession evidence presumptively inadmissible when obtained through intentional use of false information. The bill does not ban all police deception, but it narrows admissibility where the deception is knowingly false and directed at a minor.
Based on the bill text and the limited available context, the measure appears to be a criminal justice and youth-protection reform aimed at safeguarding minors from coercive interrogation tactics. There are no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts provided, so no direct evidence of support or opposition is available from the materials. The bill’s framing suggests a protective, rights-focused policy approach rather than a punitive one.
The main point of contention is likely to be whether the bill goes too far in restricting standard interrogation practices by law enforcement or whether it is a necessary safeguard for minors, who may be especially vulnerable to false or misleading questioning. Supporters would likely emphasize reliability of statements and protection of children from coercion, while opponents may argue it could hinder investigations or create litigation over what counts as intentionally false information and whether the presumption has been rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.