Criminal Procedure - Expungement of Records - Resisting Arrest and Making a False Statement to a Law Enforcement Officer
HB0113 expands Maryland’s expungement law to allow a person convicted of two additional misdemeanor offenses to petition for expungement: resisting arrest and making a false statement to a law enforcement officer. The bill amends Criminal Procedure § 10-110 to add Criminal Law §§ 9-408 and 9-502 to the list of eligible misdemeanor convictions that may be expunged under existing procedures. It does not change the underlying criminal offenses themselves or their penalties; it changes only whether those convictions can later be removed from a person’s record if the statutory requirements for expungement are met.
The bill is framed as a records-relief measure and would take effect October 1, 2026. By broadening expungement eligibility, it would affect people with qualifying misdemeanor convictions, courts that process expungement petitions, and agencies that maintain police and court records. It would also indirectly affect employment, housing, licensing, and other collateral consequences tied to criminal records, because eligible convictions could be cleared from public records through the expungement process.
HB0113 amends Maryland Criminal Procedure § 10-110(a)(1)(xii) to add resisting arrest under Criminal Law § 9-408 and making a false statement to a law enforcement officer under Criminal Law § 9-502 to the list of misdemeanor convictions eligible for expungement. The bill leaves the substantive criminal statutes and penalties unchanged, but it expands post-conviction relief by allowing affected individuals to seek removal of those records from police, court, and other state or local records repositories under existing expungement procedures.
With no recorded votes or committee transcript available, the bill’s sentiment can only be inferred from its purpose and sponsorship. The measure appears generally favorable to record-clearing and second-chance policy goals, suggesting support for reducing the long-term consequences of relatively low-level misdemeanor convictions. At the same time, the absence of discussion means there is no documented public record here of formal support or opposition from committee members or stakeholders.
The likely point of contention is whether these offenses should be treated as eligible for expungement given their connection to police encounters and the integrity of law-enforcement investigations. Supporters would likely emphasize fairness, rehabilitation, and reducing barriers to employment and housing for people with old misdemeanor convictions. Opponents, if any, would likely argue that resisting arrest and false statements to police involve conduct that should remain visible because of public-safety, accountability, or law-enforcement concerns. No specific objections are documented in the provided materials.