Maryland Use of Force Statute - Failure to Prevent Excessive Force or Render First Aid - Misdemeanor
HB 699 would amend Maryland’s Use of Force Statute to add criminal penalties for certain intentional failures by police officers. The bill keeps the existing framework governing when force may be used, when officers must de-escalate, and when they must intervene, but it adds misdemeanor liability if an officer intentionally violates the duty to intervene to stop another officer’s excessive force or intentionally fails to render basic first aid and request medical assistance when required. It also preserves the statute’s existing requirements for written sanctity-of-life pledges, de-escalation, documentation, supervisory review, and training on use-of-force alternatives.
The bill would make these duties enforceable through criminal sanctions. Under the proposal, an officer who intentionally violates the prohibition on excessive force resulting in serious physical injury or death could be punished by up to 10 years’ imprisonment, and an officer who intentionally violates the duty to intervene or render first aid could be punished by up to 5 years’ imprisonment. The bill would apply to police officers and special police officers, and it would take effect October 1, 2026.
HB 699 would amend § 3-524 of the Public Safety Article, Maryland’s Use of Force Statute, by converting certain existing officer duties into misdemeanor offenses when violated intentionally. It would not broadly rewrite use-of-force standards, but it would strengthen enforcement of existing obligations related to intervention, medical aid, de-escalation, and supervisory accountability. Police officers, special police officers, and law enforcement agencies would be affected, particularly through added training, documentation, policy, and criminal-liability requirements.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a police accountability and public safety bill, with sponsors from both parties and a broad set of delegates listed as co-sponsors. No committee testimony or recorded votes are provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from hearings. The overall tone of the bill is serious and reform-oriented, emphasizing sanctity of life, de-escalation, and intervention duties.
The likely points of contention are the creation of criminal penalties for officers’ failures to intervene or render aid, and the possibility that those penalties could be seen as increasing personal liability for police conduct in high-stress situations. Supporters would likely view the bill as necessary to deter excessive force and ensure officers act when colleagues cross legal lines or when injured persons need help. Opponents, if any, would likely focus on whether criminalizing these omissions could discourage policing, create uncertainty in split-second decisions, or duplicate existing administrative and criminal remedies.