WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 130

Homeowner tax exemption-amendments.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by McKay Erickson and 9 co-sponsors

HB 130 reclassifies unlawful interception of communications from felony to misdemeanor and imposes a five-year statute of limitations for prosecuting §10-402(a) offenses.

H COW:H Did not consider for COW
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 130

Summary — HB 130: Intercepted Communications — Statute of Limitations and Penalty

Status: Referred to Judicial Proceedings (Maryland)
Sponsor/Requesters: Delegate Simpson (et al.) — cross‑filed as SB 38
Introduced (prefile/first reading): Oct 9, 2024 / Jan 8–15, 2025
Committee action: Favorable with amendments (Judiciary)
Effective date (as written): October 1, 2025

Purpose / Intent

HB 130 narrows the criminal classification of unlawful interception/disclosure/use of wire, oral, or electronic communications and establishes a fixed statute of limitations for prosecuting that offense. The stated aim is to change how the offense in § 10‑402(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article is charged and to limit how long after the conduct a prosecution may be initiated.

Key provisions

  • Reclassification
    • Reclassifies a violation of § 10‑402(a) (willfully intercepting, disclosing, or using contents of wire/oral/electronic communications obtained by illegal interception) from a felony to a misdemeanor.
    • The bill does not change the existing statutory maximum penalties: imprisonment up to 5 years and/or a fine up to $10,000 remain available.
  • Statute of limitations
    • Adds § 5‑106(jj): a criminal prosecution under § 10‑402(a) must be instituted within five years after the offense was committed.
    • This replaces the prior status under which felonies (generally) could be prosecuted at any time (no statute of limitations).
  • Technical/legal placement
    • Amends existing provisions in the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article to effect the reclassification and add the five‑year limitations period.

Who is affected

  • Individuals charged with intercepting, disclosing, or using communications obtained by illegal interception — they would face misdemeanor rather than felony charges.
  • State and local prosecutors and courts — changes in charging options, case filings, and timing of prosecutions.
  • Victims of unlawful interception (privacy interests) — potential effect on the window for seeking criminal redress.
  • Criminal‑justice outcomes and collateral consequences — misdemeanor classification can affect sentencing ranges, post‑conviction rights, employment/licensure consequences, record sealing/expungement eligibility, and plea bargaining dynamics.

Procedural / timeline aspects

  • Bill advanced through Judiciary with favorable report; versions show committee amendments.
  • The bill sets an October 1, 2025 effective date (the text specifies that date).
  • Cross‑filed companion: SB 38.

Fiscal and operational impact

  • Legislative fiscal notes conclude the bill is not expected to materially affect State or local finances or operations.
  • Judicial caseload context (from Judiciary): in FY2023–FY2024 the courts recorded multiple charges under § 10‑402 but few guilty dispositions (examples cited in the fiscal note: FY24 — 34 district‑court charges / 0 convictions; 8 circuit‑court charges / 0 convictions; FY23 — 23 district charges / 0 convictions; 53 circuit charges / 1 conviction).

Practical implications / considerations

  • Because the bill preserves the existing maximum penalties while reducing classification, it narrows felony exposure while leaving courts discretion to impose substantial punishment (up to 5 years and $10,000) under a misdemeanor label.
  • The new five‑year limit prevents prosecution of offenses older than five years that would previously have been prosecutable as felonies without limit — this is the most significant change in prosecutorial timing and potential closure for older alleged conduct.
  • Reclassification may alter collateral legal consequences (e.g., immigration, firearms rights, professional licensing), case charging strategies, and incentives for plea agreements.

For legal practitioners or stakeholders, review of the amended statutory text (§§ 5‑106 and 10‑402) and monitoring of companion legislation (SB 38) and any implementing guidance from prosecutors or the courts is recommended.

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

Sign in to ask a question.