Courts and Judicial Proceedings - Statement of Charges - Human Service Workers
Summary
HB302 expands Maryland’s special procedure for seeking a statement of charges against certain public-facing professionals when the alleged offense occurred in the course of their duties. Before this bill, the law covered law enforcement officers, emergency services personnel, and educators. HB302 adds two categories of human service workers: adult protective services workers and child welfare caseworkers. For these workers, an application filed in District Court asking for a statement of charges must be forwarded immediately to the State’s Attorney, who must investigate the circumstances and make a recommendation to the District Court Commissioner before charges may be filed.
The bill does not bar criminal prosecution; rather, it creates an added review step before a statement of charges can be issued for covered workers acting in the course of their duties. It also preserves the State’s Attorney’s ability to pursue an information or seek a grand jury indictment instead of a statement of charges. The act takes effect October 1, 2025, and amends Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 2-608 of the Maryland Code.
Impact
HB302 amends Maryland law to extend the procedural protections in § 2-608 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article to adult protective services workers and child welfare caseworkers. As a result, complaints seeking criminal charges for conduct allegedly committed during the performance of those duties must undergo State’s Attorney review and recommendation before a District Court Commissioner may issue a statement of charges. The bill affects prosecutors, District Court commissioners, and the covered human service workers, while leaving intact other charging mechanisms such as informations and indictments.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported. It passed the House 125-13 and the Senate 44-0, indicating strong bipartisan approval and no recorded opposition in the Senate. The absence of committee transcript discussion suggests there was little public controversy or that the measure was viewed as a targeted procedural clarification rather than a major policy change.
Contention
The main policy question is whether adult protective services workers and child welfare caseworkers should receive the same pre-charge review already afforded to police, emergency responders, and educators when they are accused of offenses arising out of their official duties. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a workplace and duty-related protection for human service professionals who make difficult, high-stakes decisions in sensitive settings. Any concern would center on whether the added review could slow accountability or complicate the charging process, but the final vote margins suggest those concerns were limited.