Public Safety - Law Enforcement Agencies - Peer Support Programs
Summary
HB309 establishes a confidentiality framework for peer support counseling programs used by law enforcement agencies and the Fraternal Order of Police. The bill defines “peer support program” and “peer support specialist,” and it protects written and oral communications made during peer support interactions from disclosure.
The confidentiality protection is not absolute. The bill creates exceptions for communications involving an explicit suicide threat, an explicit threat of imminent serious bodily harm or death to an identifiable person, child or vulnerable adult abuse or neglect, admissions of criminal conduct, disclosures authorized by all participants, or disclosure compelled by a court order or subpoena. It also requires peer support specialists to give participants written notice of these confidentiality rules before the first interaction.
Impact
HB309 adds new Section 3-534 to the Public Safety Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, creating a statutory privilege-like confidentiality rule for law enforcement peer support communications. It affects law enforcement agencies, Fraternal Order of Police peer support programs, peer support specialists, and participating officers by limiting when information shared in these settings may be disclosed. The law takes effect October 1, 2025.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support and little visible opposition. It passed the House 137-0 and the Senate 47-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. The lack of recorded committee transcript discussion also suggests the measure was noncontroversial and viewed as a supportive public safety and officer wellness policy.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. The main policy balance in the bill is between protecting confidentiality to encourage officers to seek help and preserving disclosure for serious safety, abuse, criminal, or court-ordered situations. Any potential concern would likely center on whether the exceptions are broad enough to protect public safety while still maintaining trust in peer support programs, but no recorded opposition appears in the voting history provided.