Department of State Police - Special Police Officers - Study
HB1152 requires the Maryland Department of State Police to conduct a study and make recommendations on the employment and use of special police officers in the State. The study must examine the commissioning process, employment requirements, training and equipment, jurisdiction, and the regulatory framework for suspending or revoking commissions. It also must compare Maryland’s licensing and oversight rules with those in surrounding states and evaluate best practices for public and private employers that use special police officers.
The bill directs the Department to consult with a broad set of stakeholders, including special police officers, employers, local governments, police and sheriffs’ associations, the State Police Licensing Division, the State’s Attorneys’ Association, the Office of the Secretary of State, and a security training academy. The Department must submit a report with findings and recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly by December 1, 2026. The act takes effect July 1, 2026, and does not itself change substantive licensing or enforcement rules; it creates a policy study that could inform future legislation or administrative action.
HB1152 does not directly amend the statutory standards governing special police officers, but it requires the Department of State Police to review the existing framework under the Public Safety Article and related regulations. Its practical impact is to generate a formal assessment of how special police officers are commissioned, trained, supervised, and disciplined in Maryland compared with neighboring states, potentially setting the stage for later changes to statutes, regulations, or agency practices affecting public and private employers, law enforcement oversight bodies, and special police officers themselves.
The bill appears to have been received favorably and passed both chambers with overwhelming support, including 124-2 in the House and 45-0 in the Senate. The committee report was favorable, and there is no recorded committee transcript showing significant opposition. Overall, the legislative sentiment suggests broad agreement that a study of special police officers and their oversight was warranted.
Because the bill is a study measure rather than a regulatory overhaul, there is little visible contention in the available record. Any potential points of concern would likely center on how special police officers are trained, what jurisdiction they should have, and how strictly commissions should be monitored or revoked, especially given the bill’s focus on public safety, firearms training, and recorded complaints. The stakeholders named in the bill indicate that both law enforcement organizations and employers of special police officers may have interests in the study’s recommendations, but no specific opposition is documented in the provided materials.