Maryland Senate Bill SB343

Maryland 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/16/25
• Refer: 1/16/25
• Report Pass: 3/14/25
• Engrossed: 3/17/25
• Refer: 3/17/25

Caption

State's Attorneys - Reconstitution of Task Force to Study Transparency Standards for State's Attorneys

Summary

SB 343 creates a new State’s Attorney Case Management System Grant Fund and reconstitutes the Task Force to Study Transparency Standards for State’s Attorneys. The grant fund is intended to provide money to local State’s Attorneys’ offices to establish new case management systems or improve existing ones. The bill defines a case management system as an electronic program that can collect data about arrests, charging decisions, and other case information handled by a State’s Attorney. The bill also revives a temporary task force to study minimum transparency standards for State’s Attorneys. The task force is directed to examine how prosecutors collect and disclose data, review existing office policies on transparency, charging, and sentencing, and identify sustainable funding sources for any recommendations. It must report annually beginning December 31, 2025, and the task force provision sunsets on June 30, 2028.

Impact

SB 343 adds a new subtitle to the Criminal Procedure Article establishing the grant fund and setting rules for administration, eligibility, grant applications, proof of expenditure, and auditing. It also amends the State Finance and Procurement Article so that the new fund is exempt from the general rule that net interest on certain State funds accrues to the General Fund. The Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy, through its Executive Director, is assigned administration of the fund and grant process. The bill affects State’s Attorneys’ offices statewide by creating a potential source of funding for data systems and by requiring participation in a transparency-focused study process.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in the Senate, where it was reported favorably with amendments and passed third reading by a 34-10 vote. The available record suggests support for improving prosecutorial data systems and transparency standards, with the measure framed as a continuation of prior work by an earlier task force. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote margin indicates meaningful support with some opposition.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are likely the scope of transparency standards for prosecutors, the collection and public release of charging and sentencing data, and the creation of a dedicated grant fund outside the General Fund interest rules. Some stakeholders may favor stronger disclosure requirements, while others may be concerned about privacy, operational burden, or local prosecutorial discretion. The bill’s requirement that grant money supplement rather than supplant existing funding may also reflect concern about whether the new fund would replace, rather than add to, local resources.