Criminal Procedure - Evidence - Protecting Artists' Creative Expression (PACE Act)
HB 687 would expand Maryland’s existing law prohibiting law-enforcement “quotas.” Under current law, agencies may not set quotas for arrests or citations, and they may not use the number of arrests or citations as the sole or primary basis for evaluating or moving an officer. This bill broadens that framework by defining a quota as a finite number of arrests or citations an officer must meet in a time period, and by expressly barring agencies from maintaining formal or informal quotas.
The bill also extends the prohibited performance measures beyond arrests and citations to include investigations conducted and warrants served or executed. In addition, it would prohibit agencies from requiring, suggesting, requesting, or directing officers to take enforcement actions for the purpose of increasing those totals. The act would take effect October 1, 2025, and would amend Section 3-504 of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Code.
HB 687 would amend Maryland Public Safety law to strengthen restrictions on law-enforcement performance quotas and related management practices. It would change the statutory limits on how agencies may evaluate, compensate, discipline, promote, demote, dismiss, or transfer officers by adding investigations and warrants to the list of prohibited numerical criteria, and by making clear that agencies cannot pressure officers to generate more enforcement activity for quota-like purposes. The bill would affect law-enforcement agencies and officers statewide by narrowing permissible supervisory and personnel practices.
The bill appears to reflect a generally supportive, reform-oriented sentiment toward limiting quota-based policing. Its stated purpose and preamble emphasize that quantitative data may still be used as a management tool, suggesting the bill is intended to clarify and tighten existing restrictions rather than eliminate legitimate oversight. No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill text itself.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between preventing quota-driven policing and preserving managerial discretion. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s stronger protections against pressure to generate arrests, citations, investigations, or warrant activity, while critics may argue that the language could constrain supervisors’ ability to set expectations, manage productivity, or use metrics in legitimate performance review. The bill’s inclusion of prohibitions on “suggesting” or “requesting” enforcement actions may also raise questions about how broadly the restriction would be interpreted in practice.