Delegates in Annapolis spent over an hour today discussing and making tweaks to a juvenile justice reform bill that has the support of leadership in both the House and Senate.
HB814 - Juvenile Law - Reform was printed for third reader after 8 floor amendments were debated on the bill.
Four amendments came from the sponsor of the bill and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Delegate Luke Clippinger.
Among these amendments was a change that would require that a law enforcement officer send a 10-12-year-old kid to a diversion program on their first arrest for an offense of motor vehicle theft or possession of a handgun.
All four of Del. Clippinger's amendments were adopted by the body.
The four amendments brought by other delegates in the body were all rejected.
Delegate Mike Griffith offered an amendment that would give parents the right to waive their child's right to speak with an attorney.
Vice-chair of the Judiciary Committee, Delegate Sandy Bartlett responded saying that sometimes parents have different interests than their kids.
"Parents are wonderful, I love them," she told the chamber. "But in this case, the child needs an attorney."
Delegate Jason Buckel, the minority leader in the House, argued in favor of the amendment, saying he'd heard from multiple states attorneys, "elected Democrats," who have told him the Child Interrogation Protection Act has made it more difficult for them to investigate crimes.
Delegate C. T. Wilson shot back that as an attorney, the first thing he tells adult clients is not to talk to the police.
"Please vote against this amendment, we don't need a Central Park 5 in Maryland," Wilson said.
The amendment failed by a roll-call vote of 32-102.
Delegate Gabriel Acevero then offered an amendment to make any statements made by a child in response to a law enforcement officer knowingly lying to the child inadmissible in court.
Clippinger asked that the body resist that amendment, as there is another bill in the committee dealing with that issue.
Acevero pressed the amendment because the bill, which he introduced, hasn't progressed in previous years.
The amendment was rejected, as were the two offered by Delegate Caylin Young.
The first would have added language that all court proceedings for 10-13-year-olds consider the "best interest" of the child, which Clippinger asked the body to resist because sometimes rehabilitation is needed over the best interest of the individual child.
The second amendment offered by Young would have increased the number of unexcused absences a child could have from a diversion program before the court had good cause to extend the program or probation from 2 absences to 5 absences.
Clippinger again asked the body to resist the amendment because this is already under the discretion of the court. The bill also already has downgraded this from a technical violation to 'good cause.'
The Senate is expected to debate its version of the bill on the floor tomorrow, after it was voted out of the Judicial Proceedings Committee yesterday in a 9-2 vote.
Maryland Public Defender Natasha Dartigue, the head of the Office of the Public Defender, released a statement Wednesday morning, criticizing the move out of committee.
"The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee bulldozed forward and moved SB 744 out of committee early Tuesday afternoon," she writes. "OPD applauds Senators Jill P. Carter and Charles E. Sydnor III, who voted against the bill and remained steadfast in their
commitment that public safety can be achieved without sacrificing 10-12 year old children."