Cannabis - Licensees - Dispensary Licenses, Micro Dispensary Employees, and Cannabis Agent Training Programs
HB0622, titled the Juvenile Justice Restoration Act of 2025, changes Maryland law governing custodial interrogation of children. Under the bill, a law enforcement officer generally could not interrogate a child in custody until the child has first consulted with an attorney retained by a parent, guardian, or custodian or provided by the Office of the Public Defender, and the officer has made a reasonable effort to notify the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian. The consultation must be confidential and may occur in person, by phone, or by video. The bill also requires coordination with the child’s caregiver to the extent practicable and consistent with professional conduct rules.
The bill preserves a narrow public-safety exception, allowing interrogation without prior attorney consultation when an officer reasonably believes the information is needed to protect against a threat to public safety. In that circumstance, the questioning must be limited to what is reasonably necessary, and the interrogation should be recorded when practicable. The bill also makes the consultation requirement nonwaivable and applies it whether the child is handled in juvenile court or charged as an adult. It adds recordkeeping requirements for notification efforts and attorney contacts, and it creates a rebuttable presumption that statements obtained in violation of the law are inadmissible unless the State proves they were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.
The bill’s impact on state law is to significantly strengthen procedural protections for minors during police questioning and to expand the role of counsel before custodial interrogation. It amends Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 3-8A-14.2 and affects law enforcement agencies, the Office of the Public Defender, children subject to interrogation, and parents or guardians. It also includes school resource officers within the definition of law enforcement officer for purposes of the section.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is protective of juvenile rights and skeptical of uncounseled police questioning of children. The measure appears designed to reduce coercive interrogations and improve the reliability of statements made by minors. No committee transcript or vote history was provided for this bill, so there is no additional evidence of support or opposition from debate or recorded votes.
The main point of contention apparent from the text is the balance between juvenile protections and law enforcement flexibility. The bill limits police authority by requiring attorney consultation and by making violations carry an evidentiary consequence, while preserving a public-safety exception for urgent situations. Another likely area of debate is the practical burden on police agencies and the Public Defender’s Office in arranging counsel, documenting notice efforts, and maintaining records.
This bill would amend Maryland’s juvenile interrogation statute to require attorney consultation before most custodial interrogations of children, impose notice and recordkeeping duties on law enforcement, and create an evidentiary presumption against statements obtained in violation of the new rules. It would affect juvenile proceedings and adult criminal prosecutions involving minors, as well as the Office of the Public Defender and law enforcement agencies, including school resource officers.
The bill’s policy direction is strongly protective of juveniles and aimed at limiting custodial questioning of children without counsel. Based on the text alone, it reflects a reform-oriented approach that prioritizes constitutional safeguards, reliability of statements, and parental involvement. No vote or transcript data was provided, so broader legislative sentiment cannot be measured from committee debate or recorded floor discussion.
The central tension is between safeguarding children from potentially coercive interrogations and preserving law enforcement’s ability to investigate quickly and effectively. Supporters would likely emphasize the need for counsel before questioning minors and the inadmissibility remedy for violations, while opponents may focus on the operational burden, delays in urgent investigations, and the narrowed scope of police discretion. The public-safety exception and parental-consent language are likely the most debated carveouts.