HB675 makes several changes to Maryland’s sexual assault evidence collection kit tracking and rape kit testing funding framework. It extends the deadline for certain agencies and persons to report the location, status, and chain of custody of kits that were in their possession before October 1, 2023, moving the reporting deadline from December 31, 2025 to March 31, 2026. The bill also revises the Rape Kit Testing Grant Fund so that it can support a broader set of purposes beyond kit testing alone, including assistance for investigations involving long-untested kits, a statewide sexual assault victim notification hotline, related victim services, and peer-to-peer telehealth programs.
The bill expands the duties of the Executive Director of the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy, who must administer the Fund, set distribution procedures, ensure access for jurisdictions with forensic laboratories, consider prior-year sexual assault investigations when allocating money, and report annually to the General Assembly. It also requires that, each fiscal year, funding be directed to the attorney general and the state sexual assault coalition for the specified purposes until all pre-October 1, 2020 kits are tested or testing is determined unnecessary. The Fund remains a special, nonlapsing fund, but it is expressly prohibited from being used to support the sexual assault evidence kit tracking system itself.
In practical terms, the bill amends provisions in the Criminal Procedure Article and Public Safety Article governing rape kit tracking and the grant fund. It broadens eligible uses of the Fund, adds a new prohibition on using Fund money for the tracking system program, and authorizes grants of up to 36 months. It also changes how the Fund is administered and how money must be distributed, while preserving the requirement that expenditures be made through the State budget and that the funding supplement, rather than replace, existing appropriations.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. It passed the House 135-0 and the Senate 47-0, indicating unanimous bipartisan approval in both chambers. The lack of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials also suggests there was little visible opposition during the legislative process.
No major points of contention are reflected in the available record. The bill’s main policy choices were administrative and funding-related: extending a reporting deadline, redirecting grant resources to additional victim- and investigation-related uses, and separating the grant fund from the tracking system program. Any potential concern would likely have centered on whether the expanded uses of the Fund dilute resources for kit testing, but the unanimous votes suggest those concerns did not generate significant opposition.
HB675 updates Maryland law by amending Criminal Procedure § 11-926.1 and Public Safety § 4-401. It extends a reporting deadline for sexual assault evidence collection kits, expands and redirects the permissible uses of the Rape Kit Testing Grant Fund, adds new reporting and administration duties for the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy, and bars the Fund from being used to support the sexual assault evidence kit tracking system program. The changes affect law enforcement agencies, forensic laboratories, the Attorney General’s Office, the state sexual assault coalition, and victims who may receive hotline and notification services funded by the grant.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad, unanimous support. It passed both chambers without any recorded dissenting votes, suggesting that legislators viewed the measure as a practical update to Maryland’s rape kit testing and victim-support infrastructure. The available record does not show committee controversy or organized opposition.
No significant contention is evident in the provided materials. The only potentially debatable issue is the reallocation of Fund resources from a narrower focus on kit testing to a broader set of purposes, including investigative support, victim notification services, and telehealth programs. However, the unanimous votes indicate that any such concerns were not politically significant or were resolved before floor consideration.