Criminal Law - Theft - Mail and Packages (Porch Piracy Act of 2025)
Summary
HB126, the “Porch Piracy Act of 2025,” creates a new criminal offense for knowingly or willfully taking control of mail or a package delivered to another person, without permission, and with intent to deprive the owner of it. The bill defines “mail or package” broadly to include items delivered or left for pickup by the U.S. Postal Service or a delivery service company that carries tangible personal property.
A violation of the new section would be a felony punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment. The court would also be required, as part of sentencing, to order either return of the stolen mail or package to the intended recipient or payment of restitution for its value under Maryland’s restitution laws. The bill is set to take effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill adds a new section to the Criminal Law Article, establishing a specific theft offense for mail and package theft that supplements existing theft provisions. It also amends Criminal Procedure § 11-616 to direct how interest on overdue restitution is distributed when the restitution arises from a conviction under the new mail/package theft offense: 50% to the person to whom the mail or package was addressed and 50% to the court. The measure would therefore increase criminal penalties for porch piracy and create a restitution framework tailored to victims of mail and package theft.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the apparent sentiment is supportive and straightforwardly punitive toward package theft. The bill’s structure suggests an intent to strengthen deterrence and provide clearer remedies for victims rather than to create a controversial policy change. No recorded opposition, amendments, or divided vote is shown in the available context.
Contention
The main policy choices embedded in the bill are the decision to make mail/package theft a felony with up to five years of imprisonment, and the requirement that restitution or return of the property be ordered at sentencing. Another notable point is the special treatment of interest on overdue restitution, which is split between the victim and the court. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no documented disagreement in the materials, but potential areas of debate would likely include the severity of the felony penalty, the breadth of the definition of covered deliveries, and whether the restitution-interest allocation is appropriate.