WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 255

School Calendar Flexibility/Granville, Vance/Open Calendar.

2025-2026 Session Introduced by Amber Baker and 8 co-sponsors

HB 255 repeals no-knock warrants, requires officers to announce purpose and authority, and limits execution to 8:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m., boosting notice and safety.

Passed 1st Reading
#boards;calendar;counties;education;educationboards;elementaryeducation;kindergarten;local;localgovernment;secondaryeducation;granvillecounty;vancecounty
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 255

HB 255 — “No‑Knock Warrants” (Maryland, 2025 Session) — Summary

Note: This summary addresses HB 255 from the 2025 Maryland legislative session (introduced by Delegate Gabriel Acevero), commonly titled “No‑Knock Warrants.” Several unrelated bills in other states/subjects also bear the number HB 255; this summary is limited to the Maryland no‑knock warrant measure.

Main purpose

HB 255 repeals the statutory authority to issue or execute “no‑knock” search warrants and replaces existing limited exceptions with new, stricter rules for issuing and executing search warrants. The bill is intended to require announcement and notice before entry, restrict execution hours, and update related procedures and reporting.

Key provisions

  • Prohibits judges from authorizing entry without announcement:
    • A search warrant may not authorize an executing law‑enforcement officer to enter a building, apartment, premises, or place without first announcing the officer’s purpose and authority (i.e., bans statutory “no‑knock” authorization).
  • Limits execution hours:
    • A search warrant may be executed only between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (the bill retains a daylight execution window; prior no‑knock warrants could be authorized outside this window absent exigent circumstances).
  • Notice requirement before entry:
    • Before entering under a warrant, an executing officer must give notice “reasonably calculated” to alert any occupants of the officer’s authority and purpose.
  • Court procedures and electronic filing:
    • Clarifies and modernizes warrant application and issuance procedures (allows in‑person, secure fax, or secure email submission; allows judges to sign and send warrants electronically and requires filing copies with the court).
  • Returns and copies:
    • Executing officers must provide/leave copies of the warrant, application, affidavit, and a detailed return with occupants and file them with the court.
  • Restoration of property timing:
    • Conforming change: property seized under a warrant issued more than 10 calendar days before seizure must be restored (aligns language with the 10‑day execution window).
  • Statutory language and agency impacts:
    • Makes related changes to statutory references (e.g., from “police officer” to “law enforcement officer”) and impacts duties/reporting required of the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission and existing warrant reporting requirements.

Who would be affected

  • State and local law‑enforcement agencies (operational practices for search warrants, training, and reporting).
  • Judges and court staff (warrant issuance and filing procedures).
  • Occupants and property owners at locations subject to search warrants (increased notice protections).
  • Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission and agencies that prepare reports on warrant service.

Fiscal and operational impacts

  • Fiscal note: The bill is not expected to materially affect State or local finances but may require procedural/operational changes within affected agencies (e.g., training, revisions to policies, recordkeeping or electronic systems).
  • No small‑business effect.

Equity and public‑safety considerations

  • Racial equity analysis: Current statewide data on subjects of no‑knock warrants are limited; the bill could disproportionately benefit groups historically over‑represented in criminal justice enforcement (e.g., Black individuals), but a clear equity assessment is not possible without better demographic data tied to warrant service.
  • Public‑safety tradeoffs: Supporters cite reduced risk of mistaken, violent confrontations; opponents may raise concerns about officer safety in certain exigent circumstances (the bill removes the statutory no‑knock exception and tightens execution rules).

Legislative status / timeline (selected)

  • Introduced: January 8, 2025 (assigned to Judiciary).
  • Hearing: scheduled (Judiciary) — noted as 2/25 at 1:00 p.m. in committee listings.
  • Fiscal note (Department of Legislative Services) published Feb 21, 2025.
  • If enacted, agencies would need to update warrant‑execution policies and training.

If you want, I can:
- Produce a side‑by‑side comparison of current Maryland search‑warrant law vs. the language HB 255 would adopt; or
- Summarize stakeholder positions (law‑enforcement, civil‑liberties groups, prosecutors) drawn from testimony.

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

Sign in to ask a question.