Law Enforcement - Use of Facial Recognition Technology - Images Captured in Dwelling Interior
HB0756 would amend Maryland’s rules governing law enforcement use of facial recognition technology by creating a narrow additional exception for images captured inside the interior of a dwelling. Under current law, facial recognition may be used only for investigations involving specified serious offenses and is subject to a number of limits. This bill would allow officers or agents to use facial recognition when a still or video image was captured by a camera inside a dwelling and the investigation concerns arson in the first or second degree, burglary in the first, third, or fourth degree, trespass on posted property, or wanton trespass on private property.
The bill also keeps the existing restrictions on facial recognition technology in place, including limits on the types of databases that may be searched, a requirement that results be independently verified by trained personnel, and prohibitions on use based solely on protected characteristics or lawful activity. It continues to bar use of facial recognition for live or real-time identification and preserves the exclusionary rule treatment for evidence obtained in violation of the statute, with a limited exception for certain legally valid exceptions to the exclusionary rule.
HB0756 would modify Criminal Procedure § 2-503 by adding a dwelling-interior camera exception to Maryland’s facial recognition statute. The change would expand the circumstances in which law enforcement may use facial recognition technology, but only for a defined set of property and arson offenses when the image originates from inside a dwelling. It would not broadly authorize facial recognition for all crimes or all surveillance footage, and the bill leaves intact the statute’s existing safeguards, database restrictions, verification requirements, and evidentiary exclusion provisions. The bill would take effect October 1, 2026.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a targeted law-enforcement tool rather than a broad expansion of surveillance authority. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess. The structure of the bill suggests an attempt to balance investigative utility with privacy and civil-liberties limits by confining the new authority to a narrow set of offenses and a specific source of images.
The main point of contention is likely to be the privacy and civil-liberties implications of expanding facial recognition use, even in a limited setting. Supporters would likely emphasize the need to investigate serious property crimes and arson when images come from inside a dwelling, while opponents may argue that facial recognition is error-prone, can chill privacy in the home, and may be overbroad even with statutory safeguards. The bill’s exceptions for dwelling-interior images and its continued restrictions on protected activity, database use, and live identification indicate that the legislature is trying to limit the scope of the expansion, which suggests those boundaries are central to the debate.