Maryland Transportation Authority - Patapsco River Toll Bridge - Design
HB0302 expands Maryland’s existing special charging-procedure protections for certain public-facing professionals to include two categories of human service workers: adult protective services workers and child welfare caseworkers. Under current law, when a District Court application seeks a statement of charges against a covered professional for an offense allegedly committed while performing job duties, the application must be forwarded immediately to the State’s Attorney, who must investigate and make a recommendation before charges may be filed. This bill adds the new human service worker categories to that process.
The bill also updates the statutory definitions in Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 2-608 to define “adult protective services worker” and “child welfare caseworker” for purposes of the section. It does not eliminate criminal accountability; rather, it creates a procedural review step before a statement of charges can be filed in District Court for covered on-duty conduct. The Act takes effect October 1, 2025.
HB0302 amends Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 2-608, broadening the class of workers who receive pre-charge review by a State’s Attorney when accused of an offense arising from the performance of official duties. The practical effect is to give adult protective services workers and child welfare caseworkers the same procedural protection already afforded to law enforcement officers, emergency services personnel, and educators in this context. It may affect how prosecutors, District Court commissioners, and agencies handle complaints involving these workers, but it does not change the underlying criminal statutes or the State’s ability to pursue an information or indictment.
The available record suggests the bill was treated as a protective, professional-coverage measure rather than a controversial criminal-law overhaul. No committee transcript or vote record is provided here, but the enacted text indicates legislative support for extending existing safeguards to additional human service workers. The overall sentiment appears favorable toward ensuring that workers performing sensitive public duties are not subjected to immediate charging without prosecutorial review.
The main policy question raised by a bill like this is whether the added pre-charge screening is an appropriate protection for human service workers or an unnecessary hurdle for complainants and law enforcement. Supporters would likely emphasize that adult protective services workers and child welfare caseworkers often make difficult, high-stakes decisions in the course of their duties and should receive the same procedural review already given to similarly situated public safety and education personnel. Potential critics could argue that expanding the list of covered occupations may delay accountability in cases involving alleged misconduct. No specific opposition or amendments are reflected in the provided materials.