Intercepted Communications - Statute of Limitations and Penalties
Summary
HB706 changes Maryland law governing intercepted communications offenses under Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-402. The bill reclassifies the offense for willfully intercepting, disclosing, or using wire, oral, or electronic communications from a felony to a misdemeanor, while keeping the same maximum penalty of up to 5 years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. It also adds a new limitations period requiring criminal prosecutions or civil penalty actions for violations of § 10-402(a) to be brought within 5 years after the offense.
The bill further clarifies that the restitution provisions in the Criminal Procedure Article do not limit the amount of restitution that may be ordered for a victim of an intercepted communications violation. The act is set to take effect October 1, 2025, and would amend the existing statutory framework for wiretapping and related privacy offenses in Maryland.
Impact
HB706 would amend Maryland’s wiretap/interception statute by changing the offense classification from felony to misdemeanor and by creating a specific 5-year statute of limitations for prosecutions and civil penalty suits under § 10-402(a). It would also preserve judicial discretion to order restitution beyond any general restitution limits, affecting defendants charged with unlawful interception, disclosure, or use of communications, as well as victims seeking compensation.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a targeted criminal-justice and privacy-law revision rather than a broad policy overhaul, with the main policy choice being how to classify and time-limit intercepted communications offenses.
Contention
The likely points of contention are the downgrade from felony to misdemeanor and the decision to impose a 5-year limitations period for both criminal and civil enforcement. Supporters may view the bill as a clarification of penalties and enforcement timing, while opponents could argue that reducing the offense classification weakens deterrence for wiretapping and privacy invasions. The restitution language may also be significant to victims and prosecutors because it preserves the ability to seek full compensation despite other statutory limits.