WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1188

An Act amending Title 71 (State Government) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for protection of State-owned electronic devices and networks from applications controlled by foreign adversaries.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz and 10 co-sponsors

The bill would require Maryland law enforcement to identify, notify, and cooperate with ICE on individuals not lawfully present with outstanding warrants, including potential 48-ho

Referred to Communications & Technology
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1188

Summary — HB 1188: Public Safety — Immigration Enforcement — Cooperation

Status: Withdrawn by sponsor (withdrawn March 10, 2025)
Introduced / first read: February 6, 2025 (bill text)
Jurisdiction: Maryland (bill text and fiscal note provided)
Intended effective date (if enacted): October 1, 2025

Main purpose

The bill would have removed an existing prohibition on certain State and local law‑enforcement officers asking about a person’s immigration status during regular police functions and would have required state and local agencies and detention facilities to identify, notify, retain, and cooperate with federal immigration authorities (ICE) when an individual not lawfully present in the U.S. is found to be the subject of an outstanding criminal warrant.

Key provisions

  • NCIC search requirement: Whenever a law enforcement agency, law enforcement agent, or local detention facility takes custody of an individual, the agency/agent/facility must run a search of the individual in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).
  • Notification: If the NCIC search reveals an individual not lawfully present in the U.S. who is subject to an outstanding criminal warrant, the agency/agent/facility must notify federal immigration authorities that it has taken custody and must provide custody details (including planned release information, if applicable).
  • 48‑hour hold and transfer cooperation: If requested by federal immigration authorities, the agency/agent/facility must retain custody for up to 48 hours beyond the planned release and cooperate to arrange transfer to federal immigration authorities.
  • Interpreter requirement: During any investigation under the bill, agencies/agents/detention facilities must provide an interpreter to any individual who needs one to effectively communicate.
  • Prohibition on non‑cooperation policies: The State, a unit of local government, county sheriffs, and their agencies would be prohibited from adopting, implementing, or enforcing any policy that limits or prohibits cooperation with federal immigration authorities regarding individuals not lawfully present who have outstanding criminal warrants.

Who would be affected

  • Directly: Maryland State and local law enforcement agencies, certified law enforcement agents, and local detention facilities (procedures, notification, and possible custody practices).
  • Indirectly: Non‑citizens not lawfully present in the U.S. who are arrested or otherwise taken into custody; federal immigration authorities (increased coordination and transfers).
  • Local governments and sheriff’s offices: barred from maintaining “sanctuary” or non‑cooperation policies in the specific circumstances covered.

Fiscal and operational impact

  • Maryland Department of Legislative Services fiscal note: No material statewide fiscal impact expected. Local fiscal impact likewise not anticipated to be material; there may be a minimal increase in local incarceration costs if facilities hold individuals longer under the bill’s provisions. No small‑business effect identified.
  • Legal/operational considerations: The Attorney General’s guidance (cited in the fiscal note) warns that complying with ICE detainer requests can create a constitutionally new “seizure” and implicate Fourth Amendment protections; detainer compliance must be legally justified.

Policy context & related law

  • The bill references federal programs (e.g., ICE’s Criminal Alien Program) and notes that while federal law does not require state/local participation, federal statutes bar state/local governments from prohibiting exchange of immigration‑status information with ICE.
  • The fiscal note also references Maryland’s 2021 law restricting state participation in private immigration detention facility agreements.

Procedural note

  • Although this bill was introduced and had an associated fiscal note, the sponsor withdrew it on March 10, 2025; it did not become law in this form.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.