Maryland House Bill HB622

Maryland 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/25
• Refer: 1/23/25

Caption

Juvenile Law - Custodial Interrogation (Juvenile Justice Restoration Act of 2025)

Summary

HB622 would significantly change Maryland’s rules for custodial interrogation of children. Under the bill, a law enforcement officer could not interrogate a child in custody until the child has first consulted with an attorney, either retained by a parent/guardian/custodian or provided by the Office of the Public Defender. The officer must also make a reasonable effort to notify the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian before the interrogation. The consultation must be confidential, may occur in person or remotely, and cannot be waived. The bill applies whether the child is handled in juvenile court or charged as an adult. The bill also preserves a narrow public-safety exception, allowing interrogation without prior attorney consultation when the officer reasonably believes the information is necessary to protect against a threat to public safety, but the questioning must be limited to what is necessary to address that threat. In those cases, the interrogation generally must be recorded, and the child must be told it is being recorded. The bill further creates a rebuttable presumption that statements obtained in violation of the law are inadmissible in delinquency or criminal proceedings against the child, unless the State proves the statement was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. It also requires recordkeeping by law enforcement agencies and assigns the Office of the Public Defender responsibilities for implementing guidance and attorney availability information.

Impact

HB622 would amend § 3–8A–14.2 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, tightening protections for minors during custodial interrogation and expanding the role of counsel before questioning. It would impose new procedural duties on law enforcement agencies, including notice efforts, documentation of notification attempts, and records of attorney consultations. It would also affect evidentiary rules by making statements obtained in violation of the section presumptively inadmissible against the child, while preserving use against other individuals. The bill would take effect October 1, 2025.

Sentiment

Based on the bill’s title and sponsor list, the measure appears to be framed as a juvenile-rights and due-process reform intended to strengthen protections for children during police questioning. No committee transcripts or vote history were provided, so there is no recorded debate or vote outcome to gauge formal support or opposition. The bill’s structure suggests a policy preference for mandatory attorney access, with a limited exception for urgent public-safety situations.

Contention

The main likely point of contention is the bill’s requirement that a child consult with an attorney before custodial interrogation, which could be viewed by opponents as restricting law enforcement investigations and delaying questioning. Another likely issue is the bill’s limited public-safety exception and the admissibility penalty for noncompliance, both of which increase procedural burdens on police and prosecutors. Supporters would likely emphasize the need to protect juveniles from coercive interrogation and to ensure statements are reliable and voluntary, especially in serious cases where a child may be charged as an adult.