Maryland Senate Bill SB177

Maryland 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/10/24
• Refer: 1/10/24
• Report Pass: 4/3/24

Caption

Law Enforcement Officers, Correctional Employees, and Court-Ordered Services Providers - Prohibition on Sexual Activity - Penalties and Registry

Impact

If enacted, SB 177 would have a substantial impact on state laws relating to sexual offenses, particularly concerning the accountability of law enforcement and correctional personnel. By categorizing these violations as felonies and instituting mandatory registration for offenders, the bill aims to deter potential abuses of power and protect vulnerable populations, such as inmates and those receiving court-ordered services. The legislation is positioned as a necessary measure to maintain ethical standards and public trust in law enforcement entities.

Summary

Senate Bill 177 is focused on instituting strict prohibitions against sexual activities involving law enforcement officers, correctional employees, and court-ordered service providers. The bill seeks to amend existing laws by increasing the penalties associated with sexual contact, vaginal intercourse, or sexual acts between these professionals and individuals they supervise, particularly those in custody or in any custodial relationship. An important component of the bill is the requirement for individuals convicted of these offenses to register on a sex offender registry, enhancing the tracking of such incidents and the individuals involved.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 177 appears to be predominantly supportive, especially among advocacy groups focused on victims' rights and public safety. Proponents of the bill emphasize the importance of protecting those who may be vulnerable to exploitation by individuals in positions of authority. However, there may be some concerns regarding implementation and the potential consequences for professionals who may inadvertently violate these laws, raising questions about the clarity and enforcement of such prohibitions.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise around the scope of the bill, particularly regarding definitions of relationships that lead to felony charges. The clauses that allow for exceptions under certain circumstances, such as prior consensual relationships, could lead to debates about what constitutes consent in these contexts. Furthermore, discussions about the balance between ensuring accountability among law enforcement and correctional staff while protecting their rights in cases of alleged misconduct could provide grounds for dissent among various stakeholders.