HB1304 amends the State Government Article to expand and formalize the Department of Legislative Services’ access to crime data collected by the Department of State Police and other state agencies. The bill requires the State Police to submit, by November 30 each year, electronic incident-level data from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program for major offense categories including homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The required data must be de-identified and include detailed fields such as offense subtype, date, location, arrest status, hate-crime designation, victim and offender demographics, involved agencies, clearance status, and, for arson, property type.
The bill also directs the State Police to create a work plan to improve and streamline crime data collection and reporting, better measure hate incidents and hate crimes, and make it easier for victims to report suspected hate crimes on the appropriate forms. In addition, the Department of Legislative Services must report to the Governor and General Assembly by June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter, on the submitted crime data and on the work plan. The bill preserves existing annual data-sharing requirements involving the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission, the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy, and the Department of Juvenile Services.
The bill’s practical impact is to strengthen state-level crime data transparency, standardize reporting, and improve the availability of disaggregated information for research, policy analysis, and legislative oversight. It does not create new criminal penalties or change substantive criminal law, but it does expand administrative reporting obligations and data-sharing duties for state public safety agencies. It also reinforces the state’s ability to analyze violent crime and hate-crime trends using more detailed incident-level information.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is policy-oriented and administrative, with an emphasis on improving data quality, accountability, and reporting efficiency. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears designed to address a recognized need for better crime data rather than to advance a controversial substantive policy change.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on the scope of data collection, the burden on law enforcement agencies, and privacy or implementation concerns related to sharing detailed incident-level information, even when de-identified. The bill’s focus on hate incidents and hate crimes may also draw attention from stakeholders concerned about reporting standards, classification practices, and how victims can designate incidents. Because no discussion transcript or vote history was included, specific supporters or opponents cannot be identified from the provided materials.
HB1304 expands the reporting and data-sharing obligations of the Department of State Police and related agencies under § 2-1261 of the State Government Article. It requires annual submission of detailed, de-identified Uniform Crime Reporting data to the Department of Legislative Services and adds a new work-plan and reporting framework for crime-data improvement and hate-crime reporting. The bill affects administrative procedures and interagency data exchange rather than substantive criminal penalties, and it is intended to support legislative oversight, research, and statistical analysis.
The bill appears to have a generally positive, technocratic purpose focused on improving crime-data collection, transparency, and reporting consistency. No committee testimony or vote results were provided, so there is no documented record of support or opposition in the supplied materials. On its face, the measure reads as an administrative modernization bill rather than a partisan or highly contested proposal.
Likely areas of contention include the administrative burden on the State Police and other agencies, the feasibility of producing the required incident-level data in the specified format, and concerns about privacy even with de-identification. The provisions relating to hate incidents and hate crimes may also be debated because of classification standards, victim reporting procedures, and how agencies define and document suspected hate crimes. No specific stakeholders were identified in the provided transcript or voting history.