WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 1007

Relating to wrongful conviction; declaring an emergency.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Tom Andersen and 9 co-sponsors

Maryland may admit intercepted communications as evidence in certain criminal cases if five factors are met, with advance notice to the opposing side.

In committee upon adjournment.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 1007

Summary — SB 1007 (Maryland): Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance — Intercepted Communications — Admissibility of Evidence

Status: Referred to Rules; passed Senate with amendments; re‑referred to Judicial Proceedings; effective date (as enacted): October 1, 2025
Introduced: January 29, 2025 (Sen. Smith). Cross‑files/companions: HB 314, HB 3466.

Purpose

Authorize Maryland courts to admit into evidence intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications (and evidence derived from them) in criminal trials or hearings under a specified, judicially‑controlled exception — even where disclosure would otherwise violate Maryland’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act — subject to safeguards intended to protect fairness and privacy.

Key provisions

  • Creates a new judicial exception allowing admission of intercepted communications in a criminal trial or hearing before the District Court or a circuit court if a court finds all of the following:
    1. The case involves a crime committed against at least one individual.
    2. The communication and any derivative evidence are offered to prove a material fact.
    3. The interception was not made as part of or in furtherance of an investigation by Maryland law enforcement.
    4. The communication and derivative evidence are more probative on the offered point than any other evidence that the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts.
    5. Admission is in the interest of justice.
  • Notice requirement: the proponent must give the adverse party (1) notice of intent to offer the communication and derivative evidence and (2) the name and address of the party whose communication was intercepted. Notice must be given sufficiently in advance to allow preparation, but no later than 14 calendar days before the trial or hearing.
  • Retains existing narrower interstate exception (admissions allowed where interception complied with other jurisdictions’ law, certain parties were outside Maryland, interceptions were not for Maryland investigations, and all parties were co‑conspirators in a crime of violence).

How this changes current law

  • Current law generally bars admission of contents and derivative evidence from intercepted communications when disclosure would violate Maryland wiretap law. SB 1007 adds a court‑discretion exception for criminal proceedings meeting a five‑factor test and a mandatory pretrial notice rule.

Who is affected

  • Criminal defendants, victims, prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges in Maryland criminal proceedings; potentially impacts evidentiary strategy and privacy interests of individuals whose communications were intercepted.
  • Law enforcement: the bill explicitly excludes interceptions made as part of Maryland law enforcement investigations from this exception.

Procedural / Fiscal notes

  • Effective October 1, 2025 (as enacted).
  • Fiscal note: Department of Legislative Services anticipates no material effect on State or local finances or operations.
  • Related litigation/privacy implications may arise as courts apply the new balancing test.

Considerations

  • The statute preserves criminal penalties for illegal interception under existing law ( felony exposure up to 5 years and/or $10,000 fine ), while creating a narrow path for admissibility in certain criminal cases.
  • The required advance notice and identity disclosure are intended to protect the adversarial process and allow for suppression or other responses.

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

Sign in to ask a question.