SB11, the Organized Retail Theft Act of 2025, creates a new criminal offense for “organized retail theft” in Maryland. The bill defines that offense as a series of thefts of retail merchandise from one or more retail merchants over a 90-day period, committed alone or with others, with intent to permanently deprive the merchant, return the merchandise for gain, or resell/trade/barter it for gain. It makes it unlawful when the aggregate value of the property exceeds $1,500, and sets felony penalties that increase with the value involved: up to 5 years for $1,500 to under $25,000, up to 10 years for $25,000 to under $100,000, and up to 20 years for $100,000 or more, along with fines and restitution requirements.
The bill also changes Maryland theft law to allow multiple thefts committed by the same person in multiple counties under one scheme or continuing course of conduct to be joined and prosecuted in any county where any one theft occurred. It clarifies how value is calculated for theft and organized retail theft, including the market value of damaged property and repair, replacement, or restocking costs. The bill preserves existing theft prosecutions, but if a person is convicted under both the general theft statute and the new organized retail theft statute for the same acts, the organized retail theft conviction merges for sentencing purposes into the theft conviction. It also requires courts, upon request of the State’s Attorney, to make a factual finding whether certain convictions for theft, burglary, robbery, or firearm use involved organized retail theft, and that finding becomes part of the criminal record for reporting purposes.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress is strongly supportive. The Senate committee reported the bill favorably, the Senate adopted it, and the recorded floor votes show overwhelming approval in both chambers, including a unanimous 45-0 Senate third reading vote and a 123-1 House third reading vote. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate significant opposition in the available materials.
The main point of policy contention, based on the bill text itself, is how broadly to define and prosecute organized retail theft. The bill expands venue and joinder rules across counties, creates a distinct felony offense with substantial penalties, and allows courts to label related crimes as organized retail theft for reporting and sentencing-related purposes. Those features suggest a focus on stronger enforcement against retail theft rings and repeat theft schemes, while also raising the possibility of concern from defense or civil liberties perspectives about aggregation of conduct, prosecutorial discretion, and enhanced criminal exposure for repeated low-level thefts.
SB11 amends Maryland Criminal Law Article §§ 7-103 and adds new § 7-104.1 to create a standalone organized retail theft offense and related procedural rules. It expands prosecutorial tools by allowing multi-county thefts in a single scheme to be joined in one county, defines value to include damage and restocking costs, and establishes felony penalties and restitution for organized retail theft above specified thresholds. It also affects sentencing and criminal records by providing merger rules with general theft convictions and requiring organized retail theft findings to be entered for criminal justice reporting.
The available voting history indicates broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. The Senate passed the bill 45-0, and the House passed it 123-1, suggesting strong consensus that organized retail theft should be addressed more aggressively. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to show dissenting arguments in the supplied materials.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s expanded prosecutorial reach and enhanced penalties. Supporters would view the bill as a targeted response to organized retail theft rings and repeat offenders, while critics might question whether the 90-day series-of-thefts definition, multi-county joinder, and value aggregation could sweep in smaller or less organized conduct. Another possible concern is the court-finding provision, which can formally label related crimes as organized retail theft for reporting and may influence sentencing or future criminal justice consequences.