HB0835 repeals Maryland’s authority to issue and execute no-knock search warrants. The bill removes the existing statutory provisions that allowed a judge, under certain circumstances, to authorize officers to enter a location without first announcing their authority or purpose. In their place, the bill requires that, before entering a building, apartment, premises, or place under a search warrant, law enforcement must give notice reasonably calculated to alert occupants to the officer’s authority and purpose, and must allow at least 20 seconds for occupants of a residence to respond and open the door, absent exigent circumstances.
The bill also standardizes and updates search-warrant procedures. It preserves and clarifies requirements for written, sworn applications; allows submission and issuance by in-person delivery, secure fax, or secure email; and continues to require that warrants identify the place to be searched, the grounds for the search, and the applicant. It further limits execution to between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., requires officers to provide copies of the warrant materials and a return to occupants or leave them at the premises, and retains rules on body-worn cameras, officer identification, and the use of flashbang or similar military-style devices only in exigent circumstances. The bill also shortens the period for returning seized property from 15 days to 10 calendar days in the relevant restoration provision and adds a process for sealing warrant affidavits for up to 30 days, with one possible 30-day extension, when good cause is shown in an ongoing investigation.
In terms of state law, HB0835 amends Criminal Procedure § 1-203 and Public Safety §§ 3-207 and 3-525. It removes references to no-knock warrants from the State Police/SWAT training and reporting statutes and narrows annual reporting to general search-warrant execution data, including forcible entries, SWAT deployments, arrests, seizures, firearm discharges, and injuries or deaths to people or domestic animals. The bill would therefore shift Maryland law toward greater notice, transparency, and reporting around warrant execution, while eliminating a specific category of warrant that previously allowed surprise entry.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text and its sponsorship is strongly reform-oriented and protective of occupant safety and privacy. The bill is sponsored by multiple delegates and is framed as a public-safety and civil-liberties measure that reduces the risk of violent or mistaken entries. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition in the available materials.
The main point of contention likely centers on law-enforcement operational flexibility versus civil-rights and safety concerns. Supporters would likely emphasize the dangers of no-knock entries, the need for advance notice, and limits on militarized tactics. Opponents, if any, would likely argue that eliminating no-knock warrants could hinder officer safety or investigations in high-risk cases, though the bill preserves an exigent-circumstances exception and still allows warrant execution in urgent situations.
HB0835 would amend Maryland’s Criminal Procedure and Public Safety laws by eliminating statutory authorization for no-knock search warrants, requiring knock-and-announce procedures, limiting warrant execution hours, and updating reporting and training provisions tied to SWAT and warrant service. It would also modify procedures for warrant applications, execution, returns, and the sealing of supporting affidavits, affecting law enforcement agencies, judges, prosecutors, and occupants of searched premises.
The bill appears to reflect a reform-minded, safety-focused approach that favors notice, transparency, and limits on aggressive warrant tactics. The sponsorship suggests support from delegates aligned with criminal justice reform, but no committee testimony or vote record is provided, so the broader legislative sentiment cannot be measured from the available materials. Based on the text alone, the measure is presented positively as a restraint on no-knock entries rather than as a compromise bill.
The likely controversy is between advocates for police accountability and occupant safety, who would support ending no-knock warrants, and law-enforcement interests, who may argue that no-knock authority is sometimes necessary to protect officers, preserve evidence, or handle dangerous suspects. The bill preserves exigent-circumstances exceptions, which may soften opposition, but the categorical repeal of no-knock authority and the mandatory announcement and waiting period are the most likely flashpoints.