HB 255 repeals Maryland’s authority to issue and execute no-knock search warrants. The bill removes the existing statutory provisions that allowed a warrant to authorize entry without first announcing police authority and purpose, and replaces them with a requirement that law enforcement announce their presence and purpose before entering a building, apartment, premises, or place to be searched, absent exigent circumstances. It also requires officers to wait at least 20 seconds for occupants of a residence to respond before attempting entry, and bars the use of flashbang, stun, distraction, or similar military-style devices during warrant execution unless exigent circumstances exist.
The bill also revises warrant procedures more broadly. It preserves and clarifies the process for applying for, issuing, and serving search warrants by in-person, fax, or secure electronic mail, and requires judges to file warrant materials with the court. It limits execution of search warrants to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., requires officers to provide copies of the warrant materials and return to occupants or leave them at the premises, and allows affidavits supporting search warrants to be sealed for up to 30 days, with one possible 30-day extension, upon a showing of good cause. The bill also shortens the period after which property seized under a warrant must be restored in certain circumstances from 15 days to 10 calendar days, aligning that restoration rule with the warrant execution deadline.
In the Public Safety Article, HB 255 removes references to no-knock warrant service from the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission’s SWAT-related training authority and from annual reporting requirements. Instead of reporting no-knock warrant data, agencies would continue to report information about search warrant execution generally, including days from issuance to execution, forcible entry, SWAT deployment, arrests, seizures, firearm discharge, and injuries or deaths to people or domestic animals. The bill therefore changes both operational rules for warrant execution and the data collected about warrant-related police activity.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is reform-oriented and restrictive toward aggressive warrant tactics, with an emphasis on notice, transparency, and limiting potentially dangerous entries. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s structure suggests support for stronger procedural safeguards for residents and more constrained law enforcement entry practices.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between officer/public safety and law enforcement flexibility versus civil liberties and limits on surprise entries. By eliminating no-knock warrants and restricting tactical devices and nighttime-style entries, the bill would be viewed as protective by civil rights advocates and potentially burdensome by some law enforcement stakeholders, especially in high-risk investigations. The remaining exigent-circumstances exception preserves some operational discretion, but the bill clearly shifts the default toward announcement and slower, more transparent execution.
HB 255 would amend Maryland criminal procedure and public safety law by eliminating no-knock search warrants and imposing new mandatory rules for warrant execution. It would require advance announcement of authority and purpose, a minimum 20-second wait before residential entry, daytime execution only between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and restrictions on flashbangs and similar devices absent exigent circumstances. It also updates reporting and training provisions tied to SWAT teams and search warrant execution, and changes the deadline for returning seized property in certain cases from 15 days to 10 calendar days.
The bill appears generally favorable to reforming police search-warrant practices and reducing the use of surprise or militarized entry tactics. The text reflects a strong preference for notice, accountability, and civilian safety, while preserving exigent-circumstances exceptions for emergencies. No votes or committee testimony were provided, so the record supplied here does not show formal support or opposition, but the policy direction is clearly restrictive of no-knock practices.
The likely contention centers on whether banning no-knock warrants and limiting tactical entry tools will improve public safety or instead hinder law enforcement in dangerous situations. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing unnecessary injuries, deaths, and property damage, while opponents would likely argue that some investigations require rapid, unannounced entry to protect officers, preserve evidence, or prevent suspect escape. The bill’s removal of no-knock warrant reporting and training references also suggests debate over how much specialized tactical authority police should retain.