SB 178
Department of Legislative Services
Maryland General Assembly
2021 Session
FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE
Enrolled - Revised
Senate Bill 178 (Senator Carter)
Judicial Proceedings Judiciary
Maryland Police Accountability Act of 2021 - Search Warrants and Inspection of
Records Relating to Police Misconduct (Anton's Law)
This bill makes various modifications to provisions relating to search warrants, including
“no-knock” search warrants, and requires law enforcement agencies to annually report
specified data relating to search warrants to the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention,
Youth, and Victim Services (GOCPYVS). In addition, the bill establishes that, except for
a record of a “technical infraction,” a record relating to an administrative or criminal
investigation of misconduct by a law enforcement officer, including an internal affairs
investigatory record, a hearing record, and records relating to a disciplinary decision, is not
a personnel record for purposes of Maryland’s Public Information Act (PIA). Thus, such
records are generally subject to discretionary denial of inspection (instead of mandatory
denial) as provided under PIA, subject to specified exceptions. The bill further specifies
requirements for custodians of specified records relating to investigations of misconduct
by law enforcement officers.
Fiscal Summary
State Effect: General fund expenditures increase by $161,700 in FY 2022; future year
expenditures reflect annualization and elimination of one-time costs. State revenues
increase minimally to the extent State agencies seek to recuperate costs through fees, as
discussed below.
(in dollars) FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026
GF Revenue - - - - -
GF Expenditure $161,700 $111,800 $115,000 $119,200 $123,600
Net Effect ($161,700) ($111,800) ($115,000) ($119,200) ($123,600)
Note:() = decrease; GF = general funds; FF = federal funds; SF = special funds; - = indeterminate increase; (-) = indeterminate decrease
Local Effect: It is assumed that local governments can handle the bill’s changes with
existing resources, as discussed below. Local revenues increase to the extent local
governments seek to recuperate costs through fees.
Small Business Effect: None.
Analysis
Bill Summary:
No-knock Search Warrants
“No-knock search warrant” means a search warrant that authorizes the executing law
enforcement officer to enter a building, apartment, premises, place, or thing to be searched
without giving notice of the officer’s authority or purpose.
The bill requires written preapproval of an application for a no-knock warrant by a police
supervisor and the State’s Attorney. In addition, the bill repeals the ground for issuance of
a no-knock search warrant based on reasonable suspicion to believe that, without the
authorization, the property subject to seizure may be destroyed, disposed of, or secreted.
An application for a no-knock search warrant must contain:
 a description of the evidence in support of the application;
 an explanation of the investigative activities that have been undertaken and the
information that has been gathered to support the request for a no-knock search
warrant;
 an explanation of why the affiant is unable to detain the suspect or search the
premises using other, less invasive methods;
 acknowledgement that any police officers who will execute the search warrant have
successfully completed the same training in breach and call-out entry procedures as
SWAT team members;
 a statement as to whether the search warrant can effectively be executed during
daylight hours and, if not, what facts or circumstances preclude effective execution
in daylight hours; and
 a list of any additional occupants of the premises by age and gender, as well as an
indication as to whether any individuals with cognitive or physical disabilities or
pets reside at the premises, if known.
A no-knock search warrant must be executed between 8:00 a.m. and 7 p.m., absent exigent
circumstances.
SB 178/ Page 2
Search Warrants, Generally
A search warrant must be executed within 10 calendar days (instead of 15) after the search
warrant is issued. While executing a search warrant, a police officer must be clearly
recognizable and identifiable as a police officer, wearing a uniform, badge, and tag bearing
the name and identification number of the police officer. If a police officer’s law
enforcement agency requires the use of body-worn cameras (BWCs), the police officer
must use a BWC during the course of a search in accordance with policies established by
the police officer’s law enforcement agency. Unless executing a no-knock warrant, a police
officer must allow a minimum of 20 seconds for the occupants of the residence to respond
and open the door before the police officer attempts to enter the residence, absent exigent
circumstances. In addition, a police officer may not use specified military-style devices
when executing a search warrant, absent exigent circumstances. “Exigent circumstances,”
as it applies to these provisions, retains its judicially determined meaning.
Reporting Requirements
The bill requires a law enforcement agency to report specified data relating to search
warrants executed by the agency during the prior calendar year to GOCPYVS. The
Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission (MPTSC), in consultation with
GOCPYVS, is required to develop a standardized format for each law enforcement agency
to use in reporting this data. A law enforcement agency must compile the specified data for
each one-year period as a report in a specified format. By January 15 of each year, the law
enforcement agency is required to submit the report to GOCPYVS and the local governing
body of the jurisdiction served by the agency or, if the jurisdiction served is a municipal
corporation, the chief executive officer of the jurisdiction.
GOCPYVS must analyze and summarize the submitted reports. By September 1 of each
year, GOCPYVS must (1) submit a report of the analyses and summaries of the submitted
reports to the Governor, each law enforcement agency, and the General Assembly and
(2) publish the report on its website.
If a law enforcement agency fails to comply with the reporting provisions of the bill,
GOCPYVS must report the noncompliance to MPTSC. On receipt of a report of
noncompliance, MPTSC must contact the law enforcement agency and request that the
agency comply with the reporting requirement. If the law enforcement agency fails to
comply within 30 days after being contacted by MPTSC, GOCPYVS and MPTSC must
jointly report the noncompliance to the Governor and the Legislative Policy Committee of
the General Assembly.
SB 178/ Page 3
Public Information Act
“Technical infraction” means a minor rule violation by an individual solely related to the
enforcement of administrative rules that (1) does not involve an interaction between a
member of the public and the individual; (2) does not relate to the individual’s
investigative, enforcement, training, supervision, or reporting responsibilities; and (3) is
not otherwise a matter of public concern.
The bill establishes that, except for a record of a “technical infraction,” a record relating to
an administrative or criminal investigation of misconduct by a law enforcement officer,
including an internal affairs investigatory record, a hearing record, and records relating to
a disciplinary decision, is not a personnel record for purposes of PIA. Thus, specified
records relating to the administrative or criminal investigation of misconduct by a law
enforcement officer are generally subject to discretionary denial of inspection as provided
under PIA, as opposed to mandatory denial. A custodian may deny inspection by a person
in interest only under specified conditions that, under current law, apply to the denial of
various investigatory records. However, a custodian must allow inspection of such records
by the U.S. Attorney, the Attorney General, the State Prosecutor, or the State’s Attorney
for the jurisdiction relevant to the record.
Except as specified, a custodian must redact the portions of a specified record to the extent
that the record reflects (1) medical information of the person in interest; (2) personal
contact information of the person in interest or a witness; or (3) information relating to the
family of the person in interest. A custodian may redact the portion of a specified record to
the extent that the record reflects witness information other than personal contact
information. When a specified record is inspected, the custodian must notify the person in
interest but may not disclose the identity of the requestor to the person in interest.
The bill must be construed to apply prospectively to any PIA request made on or after the
bill’s October 1, 2021 effective date, regardless of when the requested record was created.
Current Law:
Search Warrants
A circuit court or District Court judge may issue a search warrant whenever a warrant
application makes it apparent to the judge that there is probable cause to believe that (1) a
misdemeanor or felony is being committed by a person or in a building, apartment,
premises, place, or thing within the jurisdiction of the judge or (2) property subject to
seizure is on the person or in or on the building, apartment, premises, place, or thing.
SB 178/ Page 4
An application for a search warrant must be (1) in writing; (2) signed, dated, and sworn to
by the applicant; and (3) accompanied by an affidavit that sets forth the basis for probable
cause and contains facts within the personal knowledge of the affiant that there is probable
cause.
A law enforcement officer may request, in an application for a search warrant, that a
building, apartment, premises, place, or thing be searched without the officer having to
provide notice of the officer’s authority or purpose. To justify the request for such a warrant
(also referred to as a no-knock warrant), the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that,
without the authorization, the property subject to search or seizure may be destroyed,
disposed of, or secreted, or the life or safety of the executing officer or another person may
be in danger. If the warrant application justifies this request on these grounds, the search
warrant must authorize the executing law enforcement officer to engage in these actions.
A search and seizure under the authority of a search warrant must be made within
15 calendar days after the day that the search warrant is issued. After the expiration of the
15-day period, the search warrant is void.
Public Information Act, Generally
PIA establishes that all persons are entitled to have access to information about the affairs
of government and the official acts of public officials and employees. Each governmental
unit that maintains public records must identify a representative whom a member of the
public may contact to request a public record. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG)
must post all such contact information on its website and in any Public Information Act
Manual published by OAG.
In general, a custodian must deny inspection of a public record or any part of a public
record if (1) the public record is privileged or confidential by law or (2) the inspection
would be contrary to a State statute, a federal statute or regulation, the Maryland Rules, or
an order of a court of record. PIA also specifies various types of personal and confidential
records of which a custodian must deny inspection unless otherwise provided by law, such
as personnel records.
A custodian must deny inspection of a personnel record, including an application, a
performance rating, or scholastic achievement information. However, a custodian must
allow inspection by the person in interest, an elected or appointed official who supervises
the work of the individual, or a specified employee organization, subject to limitations.
SB 178/ Page 5
Discretionary Denials
Unless otherwise provided by law, if a custodian believes that inspection of a part of a
public record would be contrary to the public interest, the custodian may deny inspection
of that part of the record as provided under PIA. PIA specifies the types of records that are
eligible for discretionary denial.
Records Pertaining to Investigations, Intelligence Information, or Security Procedures
A custodian may, subject to specified conditions, deny inspection of:
 records of investigations conducted by the Attorney General, a State’s Attorney, a
municipal or county attorney, a police department, or a sheriff;
 an investigatory file compiled for any other law enforcement, judicial, correctional,
or prosecution purpose; or
 records that contain intelligence information or security procedures of the
Attorney General, a State’s Attorney, a municipal or county attorney, a police
department, a State or local correctional facility, or a sheriff.
A custodian may deny inspection of such records by a person in interest only to the extent
that the inspection would (1) interfere with a valid and proper law enforcement proceeding;
(2) deprive another person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(3) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (4) disclose the identity of a
confidential source; (5) disclose an investigative technique or procedure; (6) prejudice an
investigation; or (7) endanger the life or physical safety of an individual. Under the bill,
these conditions apply to the denial of inspection by a person in interest of a record relating
to an administrative or criminal investigation of misconduct by a law enforcement officer.
“Person in interest,” as it applies to PIA, means (1) a person or governmental unit that is
the subject of a public record or a designee of the person or governmental unit; (2) if the
person has a legal disability, the parent or legal representative of the person; or (3) as to
requests for correction of certificates of death under State law, the spouse, adult child,
parent, adult sibling, grandparent, or guardian of the person of the deceased, as specified.
Procedure for Denial
A custodian who denies inspection of a public record must, within 10 working days,
provide a written statement to the applicant that gives (1) the reason for denial; (2) if
denying a part of a record on a discretionary basis, a brief explanation of why the denial is
necessary and why redacting information would not address the reasons for the denial;
(3) the legal authority for the denial; (4) a brief description of the undisclosed record
SB 178/ Page 6
(without disclosing the protected information); and (5) notice of the available statutory
remedies.
Denial of Personnel Records Relating to Police Disciplinary Actions
In Maryland Department of State Police v. Teleta S. Dashiell, 443 Md. 435, 117 A.3d 1
(2015), the Court of Appeals held that the internal affairs records of an investigation into
the conduct of a State police officer were “personnel records” exempt from mandatory
disclosure under PIA, despite the fact that the respondent – who had filed a complaint
against the officer – had identified the officer in a public forum and that her complaint
against him was sustained. In addition, the court held that the respondent, as the
complainant, was not a person in interest with respect to the requested records.
Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights – Expungement of a Record of a Formal Complaint
Under the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, a law enforcement officer, on written
request, may have expunged from any file the record of a formal complaint made against
the law enforcement officer if at least three years have passed since the final disposition by
the law enforcement agency or hearing board and (1) the law enforcement agency that
investigated the complaint exonerated the law enforcement officer of all charges in the
complaint or determined that the charges were unsustained or unfounded or (2) the hearing
board acquitted the law enforcement officer, dismissed the action, or made a finding of not
guilty. Evidence of a formal complaint against a law enforcement officer is not admissible
in an administrative or judicial proceeding if the officer is eligible for expungement of the
formal complaint.
State Revenues: State revenues increase to the extent that State law enforcement agencies
such as the Department of State Police (DSP) seek to recuperate any costs related to
responding to PIA requests under the bill through fees charged in accordance with PIA.
Any such impact, however, cannot be reliably estimated.
State Expenditures:
Department of State Police
DSP anticipates that it will receive additional PIA requests and spend additional time
reviewing and responding to PIA requests as a result of the bill. The department advises
that it is unable to absorb any increase in its PIA workload without additional support
personnel. According to DSP, in calendar 2020, the department processed 3,830 PIA
requests, an increase of more than 1,000 requests from the previous year. DSP further
advises that the department does not currently have a full-time PIA coordinator and is not
SB 178/ Page 7
currently meeting statutory timelines for responding to PIA requests given the high request
volumes.
Thus, general fund expenditures for DSP increase by $59,036 in fiscal 2022, which
accounts for the bill’s October 1, 2021 effective date. This estimate reflects the cost of
hiring one additional full-time administrative specialist to assist the de