SB 898
Department of Legislative Services
Maryland General Assembly
2021 Session
FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE
First Reader
Senate Bill 898 (Senator Carter)
Judicial Proceedings
Maryland Criminal Justice Debt Elimination and Prevention Act of 2021
This bill (1) repeals multiple fees for and relating to various criminal justice programs and
services, including home detention, pretrial release, work release, electronic monitoring,
and ignition interlock; (2) prohibits a court from imposing specified fines, fees, and costs
on a defendant, petitioner for expungement, or person under the supervision of the Division
of Parole and Probation (DPP); (3) repeals authorization for the court to order payment of
restitution to governmental units, as specified; (4) repeals authorization for the Department
of Juvenile Services (DJS) to require payment of specified administrative fees; (5) repeals
authorization for the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) to suspend the driver’s license
of a specified child support obligor; (6) establishes that the Central Collection Unit (CCU)
is not responsible for and may not collect specified money owed relating to a criminal case;
and (7) alters the penalty for offenses related to driving without the required security
(essentially insurance coverage) as well as offenses related to driving while an individual’s
privilege to drive is canceled, suspended, refused, or revoked.
Fiscal Summary
State Effect: The net effect on State finances is unclear, as discussed below.
Local Effect: Potential significant decrease in county revenues for some counties due to
the repeal of authorized fees. County expenditures may increase correspondingly so that
the programs and services associated with those fees continue, as discussed below.
Small Business Effect: Minimal.
HB 1331/ Page 1
 Analysis
Bill Summary/Current Law: The bill’s changes to fees for county programs and services
are shown in Exhibit 1. The bill’s changes to court imposed fines and fees are shown in
Exhibit 2. The bill’s changes to the penalty for driving-related offenses are shown in
Exhibit 3.
Statutory provisions under current law set forth a process by which the Child Support
Administration (CSA) within the Department of Human Services (DHS) may notify MVA
if an obligor is out of compliance with a child support order under specified conditions.
Prior to doing so, statute includes provisions related to written notice to the obligor, a
reasonable opportunity to request an investigation, and the right to appeal, as specified,
Upon receiving notice from CSA, MVA must suspend an obligor’s license or privilege to
drive and may issue a work-restricted license or work-restricted privilege to drive.
MVA must reinstate an obligor’s license or privilege to drive if it receives a court order to
do so or if CSA notifies MVA that (1) the individual is not in arrears in making child
support payments; (2) the obligor has paid the support arrearage in full; (3) the obligor has
demonstrated good faith by paying the ordered amount of support for six consecutive
months; or (4) the obligor is a participant in full compliance of an employment program
approved by CSA. As previously noted, an obligor has the right to request an investigation
based on specified grounds prior to information being sent to MVA. MVA must also
reinstate the license on notice from CSA that one of these specified grounds exists.
The bill modifies these provisions by eliminating a driver’s license suspension as a possible
penalty for child support arrearages. Instead, the bill limits the penalty to MVA issuing a
work-restricted license or work-restricted privilege to drive and conforms provisions
regarding contesting such actions to reflect the change.
State Fiscal Effect: The overall fiscal and operational impact of the bill is unclear;
however, provided below is information regarding how certain provisions of the bill likely
affect State finances and operations.
Fees and Restitution – Division of Parole and Probation
The bill prohibits the imposition and collection of a number of fees by DPP. Specifically,
the bill prohibits the court from imposing any monthly fee on a person that the court places
under the supervision of DPP and prohibits DPP from collecting fees from a person under
its supervision, including fees for drug or alcohol abuse testing and DDMP supervision
fees. For fiscal 2020, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS)
SB 898/ Page 2
 Exhibit 1
County Program Fees Repealed by the Bill
Program Authorized Jurisdiction
2
Community Service Howard County
Home Detention Program Allegany,1 Anne Arundel,1 Carroll,2 Cecil,1 Garrett,1 St. Mary’s,2 and Washington1
counties
Prerelease Program Cecil,1 Montgomery,2 and St. Mary’s2 counties
Pretrial Release Program Carroll,2 Cecil,1 Howard,2 St. Mary’s,2 and Washington1 counties
Work Release Baltimore City2 and Baltimore,2 Calvert,2 Caroline,2 Carroll,2 Cecil,1 Charles,2
Dorchester,2 Frederick,2 Garrett,2 Harford,2 Howard,2 Kent,3 Montgomery,2
Prince George’s,2 Queen Anne’s,2 St. Mary’s,2 Talbot,2 Washington,4 Wicomico,2
and Worcester2 counties
Community Services Alternative Calvert County1
Sentencing Program Per Diem
1
Bill repeals program fee only.
2
Repeal generally includes fees for supervision, administration, food, lodging, transportation, electronic monitoring devices, and/or clothing, as
specified.
3
In addition to fees for participants in the work release program, the bill repeals the authorization for Kent County to collect from an inmate sentenced
to the county detention center, for nonconsecutive periods of 48 hours or less, an amount determined to be the average cost to the county of providing
food, lodging, and clothing to the inmate.
4
In addition to the repeal of the program fee, in Washington County, under the bill, if participating in a work release program, an inmate is only
responsible for costs for transportation, court ordered restitution, child support, and taxes.
Source: Department of Legislative Services
SB 898/ Page 3
 Exhibit 2
Statewide Fees Repealed by the Bill
Current Law Under the Bill
A court may generally order a defendant to pay fines and costs. The A court may not impose a fine or fee on a defendant for
Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (Title 7, Subtitle 5) defines (1) jury costs associated with a circuit court case; (2) court
“fine” to mean the monetary penalty prescribed by a statute or administrative costs associated with a criminal case; or
ordinance for a crime and “costs” to mean the cost of prosecuting a (3) court administrative costs associated with restitution in a
person for a crime. criminal case.
A defendant placed in private home detention, as a condition of the A defendant may not be required to pay a fee for home
defendant’s pretrial release, must pay directly to the private home detention monitoring or for a home detention monitoring
detention monitoring agency the agency’s monitoring fee. device if (1) the defendant qualifies for the services of the
Office of the Public Defender (OPD) or (2) a private home
detention monitoring device or global positioning system
(GPS) device is provided by the State or a local jurisdiction.
Unless exempt as specified, the court must impose a monthly fee of The court may not impose any monthly fee on a person that
$50 on a person that the court places under the supervision of DPP. the court places under the supervision of DPP. The bill
The fee is in addition to court costs and fines, and DPP must pay the repeals the authorization for DPP to collect fees from a
money collected to the State’s general fund. In addition, DPP may person under its supervision and DPP duties relating to the
require a person under its supervision to pay for court ordered drug fees.
and alcohol testing and any Drinking Driver Monitor Program
(DDMP) supervision fees. Failure to make a payment for required
drug or alcohol abuse testing may be considered ground for
revocation of probation by the court. DPP must (1) adopt guidelines
for collecting specified fees and costs; (2) investigate exemption
from payment requests on behalf of the court; (3) keep records for
all payments; and (4) report delinquencies to the court.
SB 898/ Page 4
 Current Law Under the Bill
Section 10-110 of the Criminal Procedure Article authorizes an The court may not charge a filing fee for a petition for
individual convicted of any of a list of approximately 100 specified expungement of an eligible misdemeanor or felony
offenses or an attempt, a conspiracy, or a solicitation of any of these conviction.
offenses, to file a petition for expungement of the conviction,
subject to specified procedures and requirements.
The court may order that restitution be paid to (1) the victim; (2) the The bill repeals the authorization for the court to order that
Maryland Department of Health (MDH), the Criminal Injuries restitution be paid to any governmental unit, with the
Compensation Board (CICB), or any other governmental unit; (3) a exception of MDH and CICB.
third-party payor, as specified; (4) any person for whom restitution
is authorized by law; or (5) a person who has provided to or for a
victim goods, property, or services for which restitution is
authorized, as specified. With specified exceptions, payment of
restitution to the victim has priority over any payments to any other
person or governmental unit. If the victim has been fully
compensated for the victim’s loss by a third-party payor, the court
may issue a judgment of restitution that directs the restitution
obligor to pay restitution to the third-party payor.
For restitution payment, DJS (1) must keep records of payments or The bill repeals the authorization for DJS to require the
return of property in satisfaction of the judgment of restitution; restitution obligor to pay additional fees not exceeding 2%
(2) must forward property or payments, as specified, to the person of the amount of the judgment of restitution to pay for the
or governmental unit specified in the judgment of restitution; and administrative costs of collecting payments or property.
(3) may require the restitution obligor to pay additional fees not
exceeding 2% of the amount of the judgment of restitution to pay
for the administrative costs of collecting payments or property.
A court exercising other than criminal jurisdiction must order an The bill repeals the requirement for a court to order
indigent individual represented by OPD to reimburse the State for reimbursement to the State for OPD services.
the reasonable value of services rendered to the indigent individual
in an amount that the indigent individual may reasonably be able to
SB 898/ Page 5
 Current Law Under the Bill
pay. If the indigent individual is a minor, the court must order the
parents, guardian, or custodian of the minor to reimburse the State
for the reasonable value of services rendered in an amount that the
parents, guardian, or custodian may reasonably be able to pay. The
court must establish the amount, time, and method of payment.
Before ordering reimbursement, a court must grant an opportunity
to be heard to the indigent individual or the parents, guardian, or
custodian of a minor.
Generally, CCU is responsible for collecting any delinquent Unless, with the approval of the Secretary of Budget and
accounts or debts owed to the State. However, unless, with the Management, a unit of State government assigns the claim
approval of the Secretary of Budget and Management, a unit of State to CCU, CCU is also prohibited from collecting any money
government assigns the claim to CCU, CCU is not responsible for that is owed as a late fee or as an interest charge for a penalty
and may not collect (1) taxes; (2) specified child support payments; of nonpayment of a fine, fee, or restitution related to a
(3) unemployment insurance contributions or overpayments; criminal case.
(4) fines; (5) court costs; (6) bond forfeitures; (7) monies owed due
to default on loans made by the Department of Commerce or the
Department of Housing and Community Development;
(8) specified insurance payments; or (9) pursuant to Chapter 547 of
2018, money owed for unpaid video tolls and associated penalties,
as specified.
An individual required to use an ignition interlock system, as The requirement for an individual to pay a required fee to
specified, must be monitored by MVA and with specified MVA for an ignition interlock system is repealed.
exceptions, must pay a fee required by MVA.
Source: Department of Legislative Services
SB 898/ Page 6
 Exhibit 3
Fine and Prison Term Changes for Violations Affected by the Bill
Maximum Penalty Maximum Prison Term*
Violation Current Law The Bill Current Law* The Bill
Person driving motor vehicle on a highway or public use
property on refused license or privilege $1,000 $50 1 year None
Person driving motor vehicle on a highway or public use
property on canceled license or privilege 1,000 50 1 year None
Person driving motor vehicle on a highway or public use
property on suspended license or privilege 1,000 50 1 year None
Person driving motor vehicle on a highway or public use
property on revoked license or privilege 1,000 50 1 year None
Person driving motor vehicle on a highway or public use
property on canceled out-of-state license 1,000 50 1 year None
Person driving motor vehicle on a highway or public use
property on suspended out-of-state license 1,000 50 1 year None
Person driving motor vehicle on a highway or public use
property on revoked out-of-state license 1,000 50 1 year None
Person driving motor vehicle while license suspended
under specified provisions of State law 500 50 None None
Person driving motor vehicle while license suspended in
another state for failure to appear, failure to pay fine 500 50 None None
Person knowingly driving uninsured vehicle 1,000 50 1 year None
Owner knowingly permitting another person to drive
uninsured vehicle 1,000 50 1 year None
*Maximum prison term shown is for an initial violation under current law; for a second or subsequent offense under current law, the maximum
possible prison term increases to two years (for all above offenses except for those where “none” is indicated).
Source: Judiciary (Administrative Office of the Courts); Department of Legislative Services
SB 898/ Page 7
reports that DPP collected an estimated $5.2 million in supervision fees, an estimated
$633,000 in drug and alcohol testing fees, and an estimated $5.0 million in DDMP program
fees. Assuming that the collection of fees remains constant, State revenues likely decrease
by an estimated $8.1 million in fiscal 2022 ($3.75 million special fund/$4.35 million
general fund), which reflects the bill’s October 1, 2021 effective date, and by $10.8 million
annually thereafter ($5.0 million special fund/$5.8 million general fund). Program fees for
DDMP, which are paid to the Drinking Driving Monitoring Fund under § 6-116 of the
Correctional Services Article are used to fund a significant portion of DDMP program
costs; however, DPSCS also advises that in recent years, general funds have also been
needed to cover program costs. It is assumed that general fund expenditures increase
correspondingly to the special fund revenue (and corresponding special fund expenditure)
decrease in order for DDMP to remain operational after approximately $5.0 million
annually in program fees is no longer available.
Driver’s Licenses – Child Support Arrearages
Potential Federal Funding Loss: The federal government reimburses states for a share of
child support-related costs pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. As a condition
of federal funding, a state’s