Correctional Services - Restrictive Housing - Individuals With Developmental or Intellectual Disabilities
HB310 creates a new section of the Correctional Services Article governing restrictive housing in State correctional facilities for incarcerated individuals with developmental or intellectual disabilities. The bill requires that, during intake medical screening, an applicable clinical professional assess new incarcerated individuals for indicators of developmental or intellectual disability as part of the standard intake process. If the clinical professional recommends it based on that assessment, the facility may not place the individual in restrictive housing for more than 15 consecutive days in a 30-day period.
The bill also defines key terms, including “clinical professional,” “restrictive housing,” and “prohibited act.” Restrictive housing is defined broadly to include administrative and disciplinary segregation, but it excludes medical isolation, mental-health observation or crisis stabilization, suicide watch, requested protective custody, and quarantine or public-health isolation. The 15-day limit does not apply if the incarcerated individual commits a listed prohibited act, such as serious violence, threats of serious violence under specified conditions, sexual coercion, extortion, coercion to violate rules, riot-related conduct, procuring dangerous contraband, or escape-related conduct.
HB310 would add a new statutory protection for incarcerated individuals with developmental or intellectual disabilities by limiting their exposure to restrictive housing in State correctional facilities when a clinical professional identifies them as needing that protection. It amends the Correctional Services Article and cross-references definitions in the Health–General Article, thereby tying correctional policy to existing disability definitions in Maryland law. The bill would affect correctional facility intake procedures, clinical screening practices, and housing decisions for a subset of incarcerated people, while preserving facility authority to use restrictive housing for serious misconduct.
The bill appears to have broad support. It received a favorable committee report with amendments, was adopted by the House, and passed third reading unanimously with 127 yeas and 0 nays. The available record shows no committee transcript debate or recorded opposition, suggesting the measure was viewed as a targeted correctional policy and disability-protection bill rather than a controversial overhaul.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided transcripts, but the structure of the bill suggests the main policy balance is between protecting incarcerated individuals with developmental or intellectual disabilities from prolonged restrictive housing and preserving correctional discretion for serious safety and security incidents. The bill’s exceptions for “prohibited acts” indicate concern from the correctional side about maintaining authority in cases involving violence, escape, contraband, riots, or other major threats. Any debate would likely center on the intake screening requirement, the clinical professional’s role in recommending limits, and whether the 15-day cap is sufficient or too restrictive.