Judicial Facilities - Stops, Detentions, and Arrests - Limitations
HB0309 would create a new subtitle in Maryland’s Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article governing law enforcement activity at judicial facilities. The bill prohibits a person, including law enforcement and other government agents, from stopping, detaining, or arresting an individual for an alleged offense that is subject only to a civil penalty while the person is in a judicial facility or traveling within one mile of a judicial facility to attend an official proceeding, unless prior notice is given to the presiding judge or court administrator and the action is carried out without disrupting proceedings or access to justice. It defines “judicial facility” broadly to include courthouses, administrative hearing facilities, and nearby pathways, parking lots, grounds, and other areas within 1,000 feet.
The bill also provides enforcement and remedy provisions. Evidence obtained in violation of the section would be inadmissible in any proceeding over which a state court or state or local entity has jurisdiction. A person stopped, detained, or arrested in violation of the bill could sue for damages, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and court costs, and the Attorney General could bring an action to enjoin future violations. The bill expressly excludes stops, detentions, or arrests tied to suspected criminal offenses, valid warrants, contempt of court, certain juvenile and health-related actions, and other conduct authorized by state law.
In terms of state law impact, HB0309 would add a new statutory protection for people accessing courts and administrative hearing facilities, limiting civil-enforcement activity in and around those locations. It would also create a suppression rule for evidence gathered in violation of the law and establish both private and public civil enforcement mechanisms. The bill is framed as supplementing protections enacted in Chapter 718 of the Acts of 2025, indicating it builds on existing courthouse-access safeguards rather than replacing them.
The available context shows no recorded votes or committee testimony, so there is no documented floor or hearing sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at protecting access to justice and reducing the risk that civil enforcement actions could deter attendance at court or administrative proceedings. The main point of potential contention is the restriction on law enforcement and other government agents near judicial facilities, especially the notice requirement and the broad exclusion of civil-penalty-based stops, detentions, or arrests within a defined perimeter around those facilities.
HB0309 would amend Maryland law by adding Section 13-801 to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, creating a new subtitle on judicial facilities. It would restrict civil-offense stops, detentions, and arrests in and around courthouses and related facilities, make evidence obtained in violation inadmissible in state and local proceedings, and authorize private lawsuits and Attorney General enforcement. The bill would affect law enforcement agencies, government agents, court administrators, and individuals attending judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, while preserving authority for criminal matters, warrants, contempt, and other state-law-authorized actions.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process in the materials supplied. The bill’s stated purpose suggests a protective, access-to-justice-oriented policy approach, and its structure indicates an intent to limit civil enforcement activity around courts rather than broadly expand enforcement powers. On that basis, the likely sentiment is favorable among proponents of courthouse access and civil liberties, with possible concern from law enforcement or agencies that may view the restrictions as limiting operational discretion.
The main contention is likely to center on the bill’s limits on stops, detentions, and arrests for civil offenses near judicial facilities, especially the requirement that prior notice be given to the presiding judge or court administrator and that enforcement not disrupt proceedings or access to justice. Supporters would likely emphasize protecting court access and preventing intimidation or chilling effects on people attending hearings, while opponents may argue the bill could hinder enforcement of civil penalties or create ambiguity for officers and agencies operating near courthouses. The broad definition of judicial facility, extending to areas within 1,000 feet, may also be a point of dispute because it expands the geographic scope of the restriction.