Correctional Services - Restrictive Housing - Individuals With Developmental or Intellectual Disabilities
HB0310 creates a new rule for Maryland State correctional facilities concerning incarcerated individuals with developmental or intellectual disabilities. It directs that, during the intake medical screening process, a clinical professional may assess a new incarcerated individual for indicators of developmental or intellectual disability. Based on that assessment, the clinical professional may recommend that the person not be placed in restrictive housing for more than 15 consecutive days in a 30-day period.
The bill also defines “restrictive housing” broadly to include administrative and disciplinary segregation, while excluding medical isolation, mental-health observation or crisis stabilization, suicide watch, requested protective custody, and quarantine or public-health isolation. It further defines “prohibited act” to include serious violent conduct, sexual coercion, extortion, coercion to violate rules, riot-related conduct, dangerous contraband, and escape-related conduct. If an incarcerated individual commits a prohibited act, the 15-day limit does not apply.
The bill adds a new section to the Correctional Services Article and cross-references existing Health–General definitions for developmental disability and intellectual disability. In practice, it limits the use of restrictive housing for a subset of incarcerated people identified through intake screening, unless they engage in specified serious misconduct. The measure affects the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, correctional facility intake procedures, and housing decisions for incarcerated individuals with developmental or intellectual disabilities.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was generally viewed favorably, as reflected by the House committee report of “Favorable with amendments” and House adoption. No vote breakdown or committee transcript is provided, but the bill’s structure indicates an effort to balance inmate protections with institutional safety by allowing an exception for serious prohibited acts. Overall, the measure appears to have been treated as a reform-oriented correctional policy bill rather than a highly divisive one.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between limiting restrictive housing for vulnerable incarcerated individuals and preserving correctional staff discretion and facility security. Supporters are likely to emphasize the harms of prolonged segregation for people with developmental or intellectual disabilities, while opponents or cautious reviewers may focus on whether intake screening is reliable, whether the 15-day cap is too restrictive, and whether the prohibited-act exceptions are sufficient to address safety concerns. The amendment history suggests the chamber may have adjusted the bill to better calibrate those concerns.