Author: jeffrossmdcourtsgov

Categories
lawlibrary Maryland Law

New Maryland Laws Take Effect on October 1, 2023 – Spotlight on Juvenile Law 

New Maryland laws take effect on October 1, 2023!  We will be publishing a series of posts highlighting a few of the newly enacted laws.  This series is just a small sampling of the new laws enacted by the 2023 Legislative Session.  To read about more laws resulting from the 2023 session, see the list of new laws published by the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) of the General Assembly of Maryland. For a full listing of new laws effective October 1, 2023, check out the List of Laws effective on October 1, 2023 from DLS. 

Note that all quotations, unless noted otherwise, are attributable to the 90 Day Report – A Review of the 2023 Session published by the Department of Legislative Services of the General Assembly of Maryland, which is available online. In addition, by visiting the link for specific legislation, you can view documents at the “Witness List” link for each bill that argue for and against that legislation. 

Juvenile Law  

Victims of Sex Trafficking and Human Trafficking 

Senate Bill 292/House Bill 297 (1) alter procedures that a law enforcement officer and court must follow when there is reason to believe a child, who has been detained, is a victim of sex trafficking or a victim of human trafficking; (2) prohibit the criminal prosecution of or a juvenile proceeding against a minor for a “qualifying offense,” a “violation” (specified offenses for which a citation may be issued), or an offense under Section 3‐1102 of the Criminal Law Article (sex trafficking) if the minor committed the underlying act as a direct result of sex trafficking; and (3) expand the list of qualifying offenses for which a person may file a motion to vacate judgment if the person’s participation was a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking.  

Under current law, a law enforcement officer who has reason to believe that a child who has been detained is a victim of sex trafficking must notify any appropriate regional navigator for the jurisdiction where the child was taken into custody or where the child is a resident that the child is a suspected victim of sex trafficking. The bills extend the notification requirement to suspected victims of human trafficking and specify that the notification must be made as soon as practicable so the regional navigator can coordinate a service response. The bills also require a law enforcement officer to (1) report to the local child welfare agency that a child is a suspected victim of sex trafficking or human trafficking and (2) release the child to the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian if it is safe and appropriate to do so, or to the local child welfare agency if there is reason to believe that the child’s safety will be at risk if the child is returned to the parent, guardian, or custodian. A law enforcement officer who takes a child who is a suspected victim of sex trafficking or human trafficking into custody is prohibited from detaining the child in a juvenile detention facility if the reason for detaining the child is a suspected violation of a qualifying offense or offense under Section 3‐1102 of the Criminal Law Article.  

Under the bills, at any time after a petition has been filed alleging that a child has committed a qualifying offense, a violation, or an offense under Section 3‐1102 of the Criminal Law Article, the juvenile court, on its own motion or on motion of the child’s counsel or the State, must stay all proceedings and refer the child to a regional navigator and notify the Department of Human Services. The court must schedule a hearing within 15 days after a motion is filed to determine, on the record and by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the child is a victim of sex trafficking or human trafficking and committed the qualifying offense, violation, or offense under Section 3‐1102 of the Criminal Law Article as a direct result of being a victim of sex trafficking or human trafficking. If the court finds that the child is a victim of sex trafficking or human trafficking and committed the underlying act as a direct result of being such a victim, the court must dismiss the charge for any qualifying offense, violation, or offense under Section 3‐1102 of the Criminal Law Article.  

Under current law, a person convicted of a “qualifying offense” may file a motion to vacate the judgment if the person’s participation in the offense was a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking. The bills expand the definition of “qualifying offense” to include the offenses of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle under Section 14-102 of the Transportation Article and soliciting or offering to solicit prostitution or assignation under Section 11-306 of the Criminal Law Article.  

Juvenile Court Jurisdiction – Juvenile Offenses on Military Installations  

Senate Bill 115/House Bill 749 establish that the jurisdiction of the juvenile court is concurrent with a federal court sitting in the State over proceedings involving a violation of federal law committed by a child on a military installation of the United States Department of Defense if (1) the federal court waives exclusive jurisdiction and (2) the violation of federal law is also a crime under State law. The bills also clarify that these provisions do not affect the Governor’s ability to enter into an agreement with the United States to establish full or partial concurrent jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing civil or criminal law 

NB: There is good backgrounder from the Congressional Research Service: Juvenile Delinquents and Federal Criminal Law: The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and Related Matters in Short 

Categories
lawlibrary Maryland Law

New Maryland Laws Take Effect on October 1, 2023 – Spotlight on Criminal Law – Victims of Crime

New Maryland laws take effect on October 1, 2023!  We will be publishing a series of posts highlighting a few of the newly enacted laws.  This series is just a small sampling of the new laws enacted by the 2023 Legislative Session.  To read about more laws resulting from the 2023 session, see the list of new laws published by the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) of the General Assembly of Maryland. For a full listing of new laws effective October 1, 2023, check out the List of Laws effective on October 1, 2023 from DLS. 

Note that all quotations, unless noted otherwise, are attributable to the 90 Day Report – A Review of the 2023 Session published by the Department of Legislative Services of the General Assembly of Maryland, which is available online. In addition, by visiting the link for specific legislation, you can view documents at the “Witness List” link for each bill that argue for and against that legislation. 

Victims of Crime  

Victim Services Stabilization Funding  

The Crime Victims Fund, established by the federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) of 1984, is a major funding source for victim services throughout the country. The purpose of the VOCA program is to improve the treatment of victims of crime by providing victims with the assistance and services necessary to aid their restoration after a violent criminal act and to support and aid victims as they move through the criminal justice process. Federal funding awards under VOCA have fluctuated in recent years, with amounts ranging from $18.9 million to $61.1 million. To ensure that a stable level of funding is provided to programs that receive and use VOCA funds to support victim services, Senate Bill 148/House Bill 186 require the Governor, in each fiscal year, to include in the annual budget bill an appropriation that, together with the amount received under federal VOCA funds in the prior year, totals an aggregate $60 million for specified victim services programs. Despite the mandated appropriation established by the bills, should federal funding continue at the level received in the most recent federal fiscal year, general fund expenditures would not increase beyond amounts that have been appropriated in recent years even in the absence of the mandated funding requirement.  

Among other provisions, the bills also (1) require the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention, Youth, and Victim Services (GOCPYVS) to help support programs providing services for victims of crime throughout the State; (2) authorize GOCPYVS to award grants to public or private nonprofit organizations to operate the victim services programs; and (3) require GOCPYVS to ensure that State funds awarded under the bill are administered and used in accordance with specified requirements.  

Victims’ Rights and Safety Considerations  

Victims of Sexually Assaultive Behavior:  

Certain acts are designated in statute as “sexually assaultive behavior,” including those acts that constitute sexual crimes under Title 3, Subtitle 3 of the Criminal Law Article. Senate Bill 391/House Bill 174 expand upon the broad range of specific rights afforded to victims during the criminal justice process by requiring an assistant State’s Attorney to meet with a victim of sexually assaultive behavior at the request of the victim after a decision by the Office of the State’s Attorney not to file a charging document against an alleged suspect or to dismiss charges against an alleged suspect.  

No Contact Provisions:  

Under existing statute, a person charged with committing specified offenses may not violate a condition of pretrial or posttrial release prohibiting the person from contacting, harassing, or abusing an alleged victim or going in or near the alleged victim’s residence or place of employment. However, the statute has been interpreted by some judges as requiring that the individual was actually released (and not incarcerated) at the time of the prohibited contact. Senate Bill 487/House Bill 411 explicitly establish that a person, including an incarcerated person, is prohibited from violating a condition of pretrial or posttrial release or other pretrial or posttrial condition that prohibits the person from contacting, harassing, or abusing an alleged victim or going in or near an alleged victim’s residence or place of employment if the person is charged with committing specified offenses. 

Categories
lawlibrary Maryland Law

New Maryland Laws Take Effect on October 1, 2023 – Spotlight on Criminal Law – Firearms

New Maryland laws take effect on October 1, 2023!  We will be publishing a series of posts highlighting a few of the newly enacted laws.  This series is just a small sampling of the new laws enacted by the 2023 Legislative Session.  To read about more laws resulting from the 2023 session, see the list of new laws published by the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) of the General Assembly of Maryland. For a full listing of new laws effective October 1, 2023, check out the List of Laws effective on October 1, 2023 from DLS. 

Note that all quotations, unless noted otherwise, are attributable to the 90 Day Report – A Review of the 2023 Session published by the Department of Legislative Services of the General Assembly of Maryland, which is available online. In addition, by visiting the link for specific legislation, you can view documents at the “Witness List” link for each bill that argue for and against that legislation. 

Crimes Involving Firearms  

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), holding that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a right for a law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. The Court struck down a New York law that required applicants for a concealed carry handgun permit to demonstrate a “proper cause” (or a special need for self-defense distinguishable from the general population) before issuance of the permit.  

During the 2023 session, the General Assembly passed several bills relating to criminal prohibitions involving wearing, carrying, transporting, and storage of firearms.  

Sensitive Locations and Armed Trespassing  

The U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen noted that “sensitive places,” including schools, government buildings, legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses are locations “where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment.” Senate Bill 1 generally prohibits a person from wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm in an “area for children or vulnerable individuals,” a “government or public infrastructure area,” or a “special purpose area.” A person who willfully violates these prohibitions is guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction, subject to maximum penalties of one year imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine.  

In addition, Senate Bill 1 prohibits a person wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm from entering or trespassing in the dwelling of another unless the owner or owner’s agent has given express permission, either to the person or to the public generally to wear, carry, or transport a firearm inside the dwelling. The bill also prohibits a person wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm from (1) entering or trespassing on property unless the owner or owner’s agent has posted a clear and conspicuous sign indicating that it is permissible to wear, carry, or transport a firearm on the property or (2) entering or trespassing on property unless the owner or the owner’s agent has given the person express permission to wear, carry, or transport a firearm on the property. “Property” is defined as a building. A person who willfully violates any of these prohibitions is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction subject to maximum penalties of one year imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine.  

Senate Bill 1 repeals the authority of the Secretary of State Police to limit the geographic area, circumstances, or times in which a handgun permit is effective, and instead generally prohibits a person from wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun, even with a valid handgun permit, in an “area for children or vulnerable individuals” and a “special purpose area.”  

An “area for children and vulnerable individuals” is defined as (1) a preschool or prekindergarten facility, or the grounds of the facility; (2) a private primary or secondary school, or the grounds of the school; or (3) a healthcare facility, as specified.  

A “special purpose area” is defined as a location licensed to sell or dispense alcohol or cannabis for on-site consumption, stadium, museum, racetrack, or a video lottery facility, as specified.  

The bill also prohibits a person from wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm in a “government or public infrastructure area” if the government or public infrastructure area displays a clear and conspicuous sign at the main entrance indicating that it is not permissible to wear, carry, or transport a firearm in the building or that part of the building.  

A “government or public infrastructure area” is defined as (1) a building, or any part of a building owned or leased by a unit of State or local government; (2) a building of a public or private institution of higher education, as specified; (3) a location that is currently being used as a polling place or for canvassing, as specified; (4) an electric plant or electric storage facility; (5) a gas plant; or (6) a nuclear power facility.  

Specified individuals, including specified law enforcement officers, correctional officers, and members of the armed services, are exempt from the bill’s prohibitions on wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm at the listed locations. In addition, the prohibitions do not apply in specified circumstances where the location is being used with the permission of the owner or lessee or for specified purposes related to the use of firearms.  

Finally, the prohibitions do not apply to a firearm stored in a motor vehicle in a locked container. A person who willfully violates a prohibition on wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm at a listed location is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to maximum penalties of one year imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine. In addition, the bill prohibits a person wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm from entering or trespassing in the dwelling of another unless the owner or the owner’s agent has given express permission, either to the person or to the public generally, to wear, carry, or transport a firearm inside the dwelling.  

A person wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm also may not enter or trespass onto property (defined as a building, and does not include the land adjacent to a building) unless the owner or the owner’s agent has either posted a clear and conspicuous sign indicating that it is permissible to do so or has given the person express permission. This prohibition does not apply to specified law enforcement officers, correctional officers, members of the armed services, and other people who hold or are subject to an easement or other property interest. A person who willfully violates these prohibitions is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine. 

Wearing, Carrying, or Transporting a Handgun  

House Bill 824 increases the maximum incarceration penalty from three years to five years that may be imposed on a violator of the prohibition against wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun when the person has no prior convictions under Sections 4-203 (wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun), 4-204 (use of a handgun or antique firearm in the commission of a crime), 4-101 (wearing or carrying dangerous weapons), or 4-102 (deadly weapons on school property) of the Criminal Law Article.  

Storing or Leaving a Loaded Firearm  

Senate Bill 858 modifies and expands the existing prohibition on access to a firearm by an unsupervised child (defined as an individual younger than age 16) by establishing that a person may not store or leave a loaded firearm in a location where the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised minor (defined under current law as an individual younger than age 18) has access to the firearm. A person who violates the bill’s prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to an existing penalty of a $1,000 maximum fine. In addition, the bill requires the Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services to develop a youth suicide prevention and firearm safe storage guide by January 1, 2024. The Maryland Department of Health must post the guide on its website and make an electronic version of the guide available to families, health and social services providers, and other interested entities, as specified. In addition, the department must provide grants to local school systems, local health departments, and nonprofit agencies to support the education of families on the safe storage practices recommended in the guide. For further discussion of bills relating to firearms passed by the General Assembly during the 2023 session, see the subpart “Public Safety” within this part of this 90 Day Report.  

Related Laws Involving Firearms – Permits, etc 

Public Safety and Corrections  

Firearms Permits and Wearing, Carrying, or Transporting 

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), the Appellate Court of Maryland applied Bruen directly to In the Matter of William Rounds, 255 Md. App. 205 (2022), ruling that Maryland’s law requiring an applicant to have a “good and substantial reason” to be issued a permit to wear, carry, or transport a handgun was analogous to New York’s “proper cause” requirement and was unconstitutional.  

On July 5, 2022, then Governor Lawrence J. Hogan, Jr., responded to the ruling by directing the Department of State Police to immediately stop using the “good and substantial reason” requirement when reviewing handgun permit applications. On July 6, 2022, the Office of the Attorney General issued a similar letter advising on the constitutionality and severability of the “good and substantial reason” from the State’s handgun permit statute while affirming that all other requirements for a handgun permit remain in effect.  

These developments coincided with a significant increase in the number of handgun permit applications within the State. According to the Department of State Police, there was a 900% increase in handgun permit applications in Maryland in the months following the Bruen decision.  

With specified exceptions, including that the person has a permit issued by the Secretary of State Police, a person is generally prohibited from wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person. The Secretary may limit the geographic area, circumstances, or times in which a handgun permit is effective. House Bill 824 modifies and expands the requirements and procedures relating to the issuance and renewal of a permit to wear, carry, or transport a handgun. The bill repeals the requirement for an applicant to have a “good and substantial reason” to be issued a handgun permit and instead requires, in addition to existing law, that a person:  

• is at least age 21 (increased from an adult (age 18) under current law) or is a person who is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, the National Guard, or the uniformed services; 

• is not on supervised probation for a crime punishable by imprisonment for one year or more, a violation of Section 21-902(b) or (c) of the Transportation Article (driving while under the influence or driving while impaired), or violating a protective order under Section 4-509 of the Family Law Article (failure to comply with interim or final protective order);  

• does not suffer from a mental disorder and have a history of violent behavior against the person or another; • has not been involuntarily admitted for more than 30 consecutive days to a facility that provides treatment or other services for mental disorders; and  

• is not a respondent against whom a current non ex parte civil protective order has been entered under Section 4-506 of the Family Law Article, a current extreme risk protective order has been entered under Section 5-601 of the Public Safety Article, or any other type of current court order has been entered prohibiting the person from purchasing or possessing firearms. 

The bill modifies the requirements for a firearms training course approved by the Secretary of State Police to require, for an initial application, a minimum of 16 hours of in-person instruction by a qualified instructor and for renewals, 8 hours of in-person instruction by a qualified instructor. The bill specifies that the training must include classroom instruction on (1) State and federal firearm laws relating to self-defense and the defense of others and property; (2) safe storage of firearms; (3) the circumstances under which an individual becomes prohibited from possessing a firearm and the requirements for surrendering, transferring, or disposing of a firearm after becoming prohibited; (4) the requirements for reporting a loss or theft of a firearm; (5) firearms and accessories that are banned or require a special permit to acquire or possess; (6) the law on straw purchases and armed trespass; and (7) locations in which a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm.  

In addition, the training must include classroom instruction on home firearm safety, handgun mechanisms and operations, conflict de-escalation and resolution, anger management, suicide prevention, and a firearm qualification component that includes live-fire shooting exercise on a firing range and requires the applicant to demonstrate safe handling of a handgun and shooting proficiency with a handgun.  

The Secretary of State Police, in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and the Maryland Department of Health, must develop, publish, update, and distribute to all certified instructors a curriculum of instruction for the required classroom instruction information.  

The bill increases the maximum fee for (1) an initial application for a handgun permit (from $75 to $125); (2) a renewal or subsequent application for a handgun permit (from $50 to $75); and (3) a duplicate or modified handgun permit (from $10 to $20). In addition, the bill (1) requires, rather than authorizes, the Secretary of State Police to revoke the permit of any individual who no longer meets the required qualifications; (2) requires the Secretary to regularly review information regarding active permit holders to determine whether all permit holders continue to meet qualifications; and (3) requires the Secretary to issue a written notice of any denial or revocation which includes an explanation of the reason for the decision. The bill further requires the Secretary to email summaries of any changes to firearm laws passed by the General Assembly to specified owners of regulated firearms, and to annually report specified information regarding handgun permit applications to the Governor and General Assembly.  

The bill also prohibits the Secretary of State Police from issuing a handgun permit to a person who has been convicted on or after October 1, 2023, of a second or subsequent violation of Section 4-104 of the Criminal Law Article (child access to firearms) or has been convicted on or after October 1, 2023, of a violation of Section 4-104 of the Criminal Law Article if the violation resulted in the use of a loaded firearm by a minor causing death or serious bodily injury to the minor or another person.  

The Secretary may not issue a handgun permit to a person who has been convicted on or after October 1, 2023 of a violation of Section 4-104 of the Criminal Law Article for 5 years following the date of the conviction 

Access to Firearms by Minors  

Under current law, a person may not, subject to certain exceptions, store or leave a loaded firearm in a location where the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised child (defined as an individual younger than age 16) would gain access to the firearm. A violator is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to a maximum fine of $1,000.  

Senate Bill 858 modifies and expands the existing prohibition on access to a firearm by an unsupervised child (defined as an individual younger than age 16) by establishing that a person may not store or leave a loaded firearm in a location where the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised minor (defined in existing statute as an individual younger than age 18) has access to the firearm.  

A violator is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by the existing penalty of a maximum fine of $1,000. In addition, a person may not possess a regulated firearm if the person (1) has been convicted on or after October 1, 2023, of a second or subsequent violation of § 4-104 of the Criminal Law Article (access to a firearm by a minor under the bill) or (2) has been convicted on or after October 1, 2023, of a violation of § 4-104 if the violation resulted in the use of a loaded firearm by a minor causing death or serious bodily injury to the minor or another person.  

In addition, a person who has been convicted on or after October 1, 2023, of a violation of § 4-104 may not possess a regulated firearm for five years following the date of the conviction.  

Further, the Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services, in consultation with a stakeholder advisory committee, must develop a youth suicide prevention and firearm storage guide, to be posted on the Maryland Department of Health’s website and shared with entities that have an interest in youth suicide prevention or safe storage of firearms. The department must also provide grants to school systems, local health departments, and nonprofits to support the education of families on safe storage practices.  

Firearms Surrendered Under Final Protective Orders  

Chapter 142 of 2022 established the Maryland State Police Gun Center within the Department of State Police as a statewide firearms enforcement center for the tracking, screening, and vetting of all firearms crimes committed in the State.  

Among other duties, the Center must assist the department and other law enforcement agencies with firearm enforcement and firearms violation reduction efforts. Individuals who meet specified relationship requirements with a respondent who is an alleged abuser – including spouses, cohabitants, individuals with a child in common, and individuals alleging specified sexual offenses – may seek relief from the abuse by filing a petition for a domestic violence protective order. If a final protective order is issued, it must order the respondent to surrender any firearms in the respondent’s possession for the duration of the order.  

Senate Bill 185/House Bill 3 expand the Center’s duties to include the tracking, screening, and vetting of all firearms surrendered under final protective orders in the State. The bills require (1) the Center to create and maintain a statewide database to track information on firearms surrendered under final protective orders in the State and (2) each law enforcement agency to report to the Center specified information on firearms surrendered under final protective orders in the agency’s jurisdiction. 

Categories
lawlibrary Maryland Law

New Maryland Laws Take Effect on October 1, 2023 – Spotlight on Criminal Law

New Maryland laws take effect on October 1, 2023!  We will be publishing a series of posts highlighting a few of the newly enacted laws.  This series is just a small sampling of the new laws enacted by the 2023 Legislative Session.  To read about more laws resulting from the 2023 session, see the list of new laws published by the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) of the General Assembly of Maryland. For a full listing of new laws effective October 1, 2023, check out the List of Laws effective on October 1, 2023 from DLS. 

Note that all quotations, unless noted otherwise, are attributable to the 90 Day Report – A Review of the 2023 Session published by the Department of Legislative Services of the General Assembly of Maryland, which is available online. In addition, by visiting the link for specific legislation, you can view documents at the “Witness List” link for each bill that argue for and against that legislation. 

Office of the Attorney General – Independent Investigation Division  

Originally established in 2021, the Independent Investigation Division (IID) in the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is the primary investigative unit for police‐involved incidents that result in the death of a civilian or injuries likely to cause the death of a civilian. In such cases, OAG is tasked with determining whether the incident is police‐involved and whether an injury is likely to cause death. IID is also authorized to investigate police misconduct claims that are discovered during the investigation of cases under IID’s jurisdiction. In its report covering police-involved deaths of civilians occurring in Maryland between October 1, 2021, and September 30, 2022, IID reported that it had investigated 13 fatal shootings, 7 fatal vehicle incidents, and 3 in‐custody deaths.  

Senate Bill 290 expands the investigative jurisdiction of IID by specifying that IID is the primary investigative unit for police-involved incidents that result in the death of individuals or injuries likely to result in death (thereby affording it jurisdiction over cases in which the injured party is not a civilian). The bill also authorizes IID to investigate any other crime related to police misconduct that is discovered during these investigations. 

The bill also gives the Attorney General exclusive authority to prosecute a criminal offense discovered in the course of IID’s investigation, unless the Attorney General requests that a State’s Attorney prosecute the offense. Among other provisions, the bill also authorizes the Attorney General to prosecute a police‐involved incident not otherwise within IID’s investigative jurisdiction if a State’s Attorney refers the case to the Attorney General for prosecution.  

Probation Before Judgment  

Probation before judgment requires a finding of guilt by a judge or jury – either after trial or after a guilty plea by the defendant. While probation before judgment is not considered a conviction under Maryland law, it is considered a conviction under federal law, including immigration law. Senate Bill 211/House Bill 193 authorize a court to place a defendant on probation before judgment if the defendant pleads not guilty, the court finds facts justifying a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and specified conditions are met, including the consent of the State and a finding by the court that the best interests of the defendant and the public welfare would be served by granting a probation before judgment under this circumstance. The bills further establish related procedures and requirements.  

Postconviction Procedures and Standards

Motion to Vacate  

A person convicted of a “qualifying offense,” as designated in statute, may file a motion to vacate the judgment if the person’s participation in the offense was a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking. Specific procedural requirements apply to these motions, and a conviction that has been vacated under these provisions may not be considered a conviction for any purpose. A person who was convicted of a crime and had the conviction vacated under these circumstances is eligible to file a petition to expunge records regarding the vacated conviction, as specified in statute.  

Senate Bill 292/House Bill 297 add the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (under §14‐102 of the Transportation Article) and soliciting or offering to solicit prostitution or assignation (under § 11‐306 of the Criminal Law Article) to the list of qualifying offenses. 

Medical Emergencies – Immunity 

The act of seeking, providing, or assisting with the provision of medical assistance for another person who is experiencing a medical emergency after ingesting or using alcohol or drugs may be used as a mitigating factor in a criminal prosecution of (1) the person who experienced the medical emergency or (2) any person who sought, provided, or assisted in the provision of medical assistance. Furthermore, a person who, in good faith, seeks, provides, or assists with the provision of medical assistance for a person reasonably believed to be experiencing a medical emergency after ingesting or using alcohol or drugs must be immune from criminal arrest, charge, or prosecution for specified violations if the related evidence was obtained solely as a result of the person seeking, providing, or assisting with the provision of medical assistance.  

Under existing statutory provisions, the same immunity applies to a person who reasonably believes that the person is experiencing a medical emergency after ingesting or using alcohol or drugs. Senate Bill 546/House Bill 427 specify that this immunity applies to a person who is experiencing a medical emergency, rather than a person who reasonably believes that the person is experiencing a medical emergency. Existing statutory provisions also prohibit a person who seeks, provides, or assists with the provision of medical assistance in accordance with statute from being sanctioned for a violation of a condition of pretrial release, probation, or parole if the evidence of the violation was obtained solely as a result of the person seeking, providing, or assisting with the provision of medical assistance. The bills also extend application of this provision to a person who is experiencing a medical emergency after ingesting or using alcohol or drugs if the evidence of the violation was obtained solely as a result of the person receiving the provision of medical assistance 

Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kits  

Statutory provisions include specific requirements for the transfer, testing, and storage of sexual assault evidence collection kits. Senate Bill 789/House Bill 758 increase, from 20 to 75 years, the time after the collection of evidence during which a sexual assault evidence collection kit or other specified evidence cannot be destroyed or disposed of by a law enforcement agency, unless specified criteria are met. The bills also establish that sexual assault evidence collection kits collected before January 1, 2000, and stored by a hospital or child advocacy center must be (1) retained consistent with the requirements regarding the retention of sexual assault evidence collection kits and (2) transferred to a law enforcement agency for testing within 30 days after being identified as a sexual assault evidence collection kit, or as directed by the Office of the Attorney General. Among other provisions, the bills also address the reported increase in the use of self-administered sexual assault evidence collection kits by requiring such kits to be transferred to a law enforcement agency, as specified, and requiring the Maryland Sexual Assault Evidence Kit Policy and Funding Committee to issue a report by December 1, 2023, that makes recommendations for guidance on the use of self‐administered sexual assault evidence collection kits. 

Categories
lawlibrary Maryland Law

New Maryland Laws Take Effect on October 1, 2023 – Spotlight on Expungement

New Maryland laws take effect on October 1, 2023!  We will be publishing a series of posts highlighting a few of the newly enacted laws.  This series is just a small sampling of the new laws enacted by the 2023 Legislative Session.  To read about more laws resulting from the 2023 session, see the list of new laws published by the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) of the General Assembly of Maryland. For a full listing of new laws effective October 1, 2023, check out the List of Laws effective on October 1, 2023 from DLS. 

Note that all quotations, unless noted otherwise, are attributable to the 90 Day Report – A Review of the 2023 Session published by the Department of Legislative Services of the General Assembly of Maryland, which is available online. In addition, by visiting the link for specific legislation, you can view documents at the “Witness List” link for each bill that argue for and against that legislation. 

Expungement  

Section 10‐110 of the Criminal Procedure Article authorizes an individual convicted of any of a list of approximately 100 specified offenses or an attempt, a conspiracy, or a solicitation of any of these offenses, to file a petition for expungement of the conviction, subject to specified procedures and requirements.  

Senate Bill 37 shortens some of the waiting periods for filing a petition to expunge records related to a conviction eligible for expungement under § 10-110 of the Criminal Procedure Article. The bill establishes the following new waiting periods for filing an expungement petition following the petitioner’s satisfaction of the sentence(s) imposed for all convictions for which expungement is sought, including parole, probation, or mandatory supervision: 5 years for a listed misdemeanor in general (instead of 10 years); 7 years for a listed felony in general (instead of 15 years); 7 years for second-degree assault under § 3-203 of the Criminal Law Article or common law battery (instead of 15 years); and 10 years for first-degree burglary under § 6-202(a) of the Criminal Law Article, second-degree burglary under § 6-203 of the Criminal Law Article, or felony theft under § 7-104 of the Criminal Law Article (instead of 15 years). The bill also adds the malicious destruction of property (§ 6‐301 of the Criminal Law Article) to the list of misdemeanors that can be expunged after 5 years. Finally, the bill provides that any unpaid court fees or costs are not a bar to expungement and requires that, when ordering or effecting an expungement, a court must waive any court fees and costs associated with the charge being expunged. Existing waiting periods for offenses classified as domestically related crimes (15 years) and possession to distribute cannabis under § 5‐602(b)(1) of the Criminal Law Article (3 years) are unchanged in the bill.  

House Bill 1175 (passed) also expands eligibility for expungement under § 10-110 of the Criminal Procedure Article to include convictions for specified misdemeanor hunting‐related offenses, such as hunting without a valid hunting license or failing to wear fluorescent clothing while hunting. 

Motion to Vacate  

A person convicted of a “qualifying offense,” as designated in statute, may file a motion to vacate the judgment if the person’s participation in the offense was a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking. Specific procedural requirements apply to these motions, and a conviction that has been vacated under these provisions may not be considered a conviction for any purpose. A person who was convicted of a crime and had the conviction vacated under these circumstances is eligible to file a petition to expunge records regarding the vacated conviction, as specified in statute.  

Senate Bill 292/House Bill 297 add the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (under §14‐102 of the Transportation Article) and soliciting or offering to solicit prostitution or assignation (under § 11‐306 of the Criminal Law Article) to the list of qualifying offenses. 

Categories
lawlibrary Maryland Law

New Maryland Laws Take Effect on October 1, 2023 – Spotlight on Family Law 

New Maryland laws take effect on October 1, 2023!  We will be publishing a series of posts highlighting a few of the newly enacted laws.  This series is just a small sampling of the new laws enacted by the 2023 Legislative Session.  To read about more laws resulting from the 2023 session, see the list of new laws published by the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) of the General Assembly of Maryland. For a full listing of new laws effective October 1, 2023, check out the List of Laws effective on October 1, 2023 from DLS. 

Note that all quotations, unless noted otherwise, are attributable to the 90 Day Report – A Review of the 2023 Session published by the Department of Legislative Services of the General Assembly of Maryland, which is available online. In addition, by visiting the link for specific legislation, you can view documents at the “Witness List” link for each bill that argue for and against that legislation. 

Family Law 

The following descriptions are taken from the 90-Day Report 

Divorce 

• Senate Bill 36 (CH645) and House Bill 14 (CH646) generally simplify the initiation of divorce proceedings by repealing most existing grounds for an absolute divorce and instead authorizing a court to grant an absolute divorce based on the grounds of  

(1) six-month separation, if the parties have lived separate and apart for six months without interruption before the filing of the application for divorce or  

(2) irreconcilable differences based on the reasons stated by the complainant for the permanent termination of the marriage.

The bills specify that parties who have pursued separate lives must be deemed to have lived separate and apart for purposes of the six-month separation even if the parties reside under the same roof or the separation is in accordance with a court order. The bills do not alter the ability of parties to be granted an absolute divorce based on the ground of mutual consent. Finally, the bills also repeal existing provisions that authorize a court to grant a limited divorce (a type of divorce that does not sever the marriage but can, among other things, address issues of custody, visitation, child support, alimony, and use and possession of a family home). 

Child Custody  

Maryland Child Abduction Prevention Act  

The United States Department of Justice has previously reported over 200,000 incidents per year of children being taken by family members in violation of a custody agreement or a family member failing to return a child at the end of a visit. The Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (UCAPA), as promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission, is intended to provide courts and parties with tools to prevent unlawful abductions, both nationally and internationally.  

Senate Bill 383/House Bill 267 generally adopt the provisions of UCAPA by authorizing a court to order abduction prevention measures in a child custody proceeding if the court finds that the evidence establishes a credible risk of abduction of the child.  

A party to a child custody determination or another individual or entity having standing, as specified, may file a petition seeking abduction prevention measures to protect the child. In determining whether there is a credible risk of abduction, the court must consider certain factors, including (among other items), any evidence that the petitioner or respondent (1) has previously abducted or attempted to abduct the child; (2) has threatened to abduct the child; (3) has recently engaged in activities that may indicate a planned abduction; or (4) has used multiple names to attempt to mislead or defraud.  

The court is required to consider any evidence that the respondent believed in good faith that the respondent’s conduct was necessary to avoid imminent harm to the child or respondent and any other evidence that may be relevant to whether the respondent may be permitted to remove or retain the child. If, at a hearing, the court finds a credible risk of abduction to the child, the court must enter an abduction prevention order that includes provisions that are reasonably calculated to prevent abduction of the child, as specified, giving due consideration to the custody and visitation rights of the parties.  

Among other provisions, abduction prevention measures may include travel‐related restrictions, such as a prohibition on the respondent applying on behalf of the child for a passport, and conditions on the exercise of custody or visitation, such as a requirement for supervised visitation.  

The bills also authorize a court to issue an ex parte warrant for physical custody of the child if the court finds that there is a credible risk of abduction and establishes related requirements and procedures. 

Proposed Relocation of a Child  

Generally, in any custody or visitation proceeding, the court may include as a condition of a custody or visitation order a requirement that either party provide advance written notice of at least 90 days to the court and/or the other party of the intent to relocate the permanent residence of the party or the child either within or outside the State. If either party files a petition regarding a proposed relocation within 20 days of the written notice, the court must set a hearing on an expedited basis. To further help ensure that, if necessary, a party whose access to a child may be affected by a proposed relocation can obtain prompt judicial intervention. Senate Bill 42/House Bill 440 require a court to set a hearing on a petition regarding a proposed relocation of a child that would significantly interfere with the other parent’s ability to maintain the predetermined parenting time schedule on an expedited basis. 

Child Support  

According to the Child Support Administration within the Department of Human Services, existing law is ambiguous regarding the extent to which settlements from workers’ compensation claims awarded to noncustodial parents may be garnished to pay child support arrearages. Senate Bill 71/House Bill 800 (both passed) specify that 25% of the net recovery by a debtor on a claim for workers’ compensation indemnity benefits is subject to execution on a judgment for a child support arrearage, including any weekly benefits or settlement proceeds payable to the debtor. The bills also specify that for the purpose of executing on a judgment for a child support arrearage, “net recovery” means the sum of money to be distributed to a debtor after deduction of attorney’s fees, expenses, medical bills, and satisfaction of any liens or subrogation claims arising out of the claims for personal injury, including those arising under a workers’ compensation insurance plan. 

*** 

NOTES ON “IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES” 

The Maryland Supreme court and Appellate Court will likely be asked to construe the term “irreconcilable differences.”  In the meantime. there are resources that may be helpful guides to this aspect of “no fault” divorce. 

Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019), divorce – irreconcilable-differences divorce. Divorce granted on the grounds of persistent and unresolvable disagreements between the spouses. — Abbr. ID divorce. 

Arnold H. Rutkin, Family Law and Practice (New York, N.Y.: Matthew Bender, 1985) Chapter 4, Grounds for Divorce sections 4.01 Introduction and 4.02 No Fault Grounds 

EXAMPLES OF GUIDES AND INFORMATION FROM OTHER STATES: 

 
• The Self-Help Guide Divorce in New Jersey, 2019 Edition, provides: 

To file a no-fault divorce complaint based on irreconcilable differences in New Jersey, the following requirements must be met: 

-You or your spouse must have lived in New Jersey for 12 consecutive months preceding the filing of the complaint. 

-You and your spouse must have experienced irreconcilable differences for a period of six months. 

-The irreconcilable differences make it appear that the marriage should be dissolved. 

-There is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. 

• A Self-Help page from the New Jersey Courts provides: 

“There is no need to accuse the other spouse of doing anything wrong when filing based on irreconcilable differences. In fact, making accusations of adultery or other “wrongdoing” will not affect the outcome of the divorce or improve your chances of getting more child support, alimony, or other financial arrangements, such as equitable distribution.” 

• According to an information page from a California Judicial Branch (Nevada County) website: 

PLEASE NOTE: For dissolution of marriage or legal separation in California, there are only two legal grounds. The first is “irreconcilable differences”, meaning that at least one party asserts that the marriage cannot be saved.  This is based on a statement by one of the parties, and does not require other proof.  The other reason is “permanent legal incapacity to make decisions”. The second ground must be proven to the Court. It used to be called “incurable insanity”. 

• West Virginia Instructions 

These instructions point out that irreconcilable differences is a default option when filing for a divorce: 

Irreconcilable Differences 

To obtain a divorce on the ground of Irreconcilable Differences: 

1. The Divorce Petition must claim Irreconcilable Differences as a ground. Irreconcilable Differences is automatically claimed by filing the form, Petition for Divorce, included with the Petitioner’s Divorce Packet. 

2. The Respondent must file an Answer, and the Answer must admit Irreconcilable Differences. 

EXAMPLES OF CASE LAW DISCUSSION 

• An instructive case is Dunham v. Sabers, 2022 S.D. 65, 981 N.W.2d 620 (S.D. 2022). In Dunham, the “circuit court granted the parties a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, finding that the parties had difficulties in their relationship for years, stemming from their different personalities.” 2022 S.D. 65 ¶ 16. 

One of the issues on appeal was whether the circuit court “abused its discretion in failing to grant [the wife] a divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty.” The South Dakota Supreme Court rejected this challenge, explaining that the “court fully considered the evidence and found that the parties had mutual conflict for many years that led to the irreparable breakdown of the marriage. The record supports this determination, and we find no clear error in the court’s decision to grant a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences rather than extreme cruelty.” 2022 S.D. 65, ¶ 75 (emphasis added). 

• In Guinn v. Claiborne, 352 So.3d 646 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022), the Mississippi intermediate appellate court explained: 

16. “A divorce based on irreconcilable differences has certain statutory requirements that must be met[,]” and “[s]trict compliance with the statute is required.” Tyrone v. Tyrone, 32 So. 3d 1206, 1214 (¶26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (citations and emphasis omitted). “Section 93-5-2 provides two ways by which parties may obtain a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences.” Brown v. Brown, 329 So. 3d 544, 556 (¶30) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). Under subsection (2), “[t]hey may agree to the divorce and sign an agreement that resolves all issues of custody, child support, alimony and property claims[,]” or under subsection (3), “they can agree on the divorce but allow the chancery court to adjudicate the other issues ….” Id. (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-2(2)-(3)). 

• The California Court of Appeal in In re Marriage of Garica, 13 Cal. App. 5th 1334, 1346-47  (2017), pointed out: 

A judgment of dissolution of marriage may be granted only on grounds of (a) irreconcilable differences that caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage, or (b) permanent legal incapacity to make decisions. (§ 2310.) “Irreconcilable differences” are defined as “those grounds which are determined by the court to be substantial reasons for not continuing the marriage and which make it appear that the marriage should be dissolved.” (§ 2311.) A dissolution of marriage based on this ground requires proof of “substantial marital problems which have so impaired the marriage relationship that the legitimate objects of matrimony have been destroyed and as to which there is no reasonable possibility of elimination, correction or resolution.”   

• In In re Marriage of Greenway, 217 Cal. App. 4th 628, 651-52 (2013), the California Court of Appeal observed: 

It is well settled the decision that a marriage is irretrievably broken does not need to be based on objective facts. (In re Marriage of Walton (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 108, 116, 104 Cal.Rptr. 472 (Walton ).) “[I]t is obvious that the court must depend to a considerable extent upon the subjective state of mind of the parties. Indeed, it was the legislative intent that that be a major consideration. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 117, 104 Cal.Rptr. 472.) The California Legislature, in adopting no-fault divorce in 1969, recognized the divorce proceedings were already highly adversarial in nature and it was not helpful to issues of child custody and division of property to force one party to prove why they made the personal and necessarily subjective decision to end the marriage. 

For this reason, the code “offers no precise definition or guidelines to measure the existence of ‘irreconcilable differences.’ Instead, it simply requires the court to determine there are ‘substantial reasons for not continuing the marriage and which make it appear the marriage should be dissolved.’ [Fam.Code, § 2311]” (Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group 2012) ¶ 2:33, p. 2–13 (rev. # 1, 2012).) “The irreconcilable differences ground is purposely broad. It is intended to represent the actual reasons underlying marital breakdowns and at the same time make irrelevant questions of “fault” or misconduct by either party. 

• In Brokaw v. Brokaw, 2010-Ohio-1053, ¶ 4, the Court ruled that the lower court “did not abuse its discretion by granting a divorce due to incompatibility[,]” when “both parties gave testimony in which they agreed they were no longer compatible.” 

Categories
lawlibrary

Filing Civil & Bankruptcy Actions in the United States District & Bankruptcy Courts

Filing an action in Federal Court can be an intimidating process. Thankfully, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland provides resources that can help.

The Court has posted a page “How to File a Civil Action.” This page offers links to information and videos about “The Complaint,” “The Summons,” “The Civil Cover Sheet,” and information about the “Filing Fee” and a list of “Self-Represented Forms.”

The Office of the Clerk has prepared a comprehensive and detailed publication “Instructions for Filing a Civil Case on Your Own Behalf.”

The Court also provides a page on “Finding Legal Assistance.” This page includes two helpful links that will take you to the Peoples Law Library “Self Help Services” portal.

The Federal Bar Association has published a handbook: “Representing Yourself in Federal District Court; A Handbook for Pro-Se Litigants.”        The Court also presents a portal with “Self-Represented Forms.”

There are three locations for the United States District Court: Baltimore, Greenbelt and Salisbury. Note that the Salisbury location is not staffed except on days when court is in session.

The Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Law Library provides access to Westlaw and Lexis, which include federal procedure treatises and rules.

• • •

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland operates locations in Baltimore and Greenbelt. The Court provides information for pro-se bankruptcy litigants. There is a page with a comprehensive list of forms and schedules and a link to information about filing fees.

The Bankruptcy Court’s web portal includes information on the Electronic Self Representation (eSR) Module, which is described as follows:

The online Electronic Self Representation (eSR) tool is now available to help self-represented individuals in the District of Maryland complete and file a bankruptcy petition electronically.  eSR is only available for non-emergency Chapter 7 individual filings.  eSR is not available to bankruptcy petition preparers.  Further information on eSR as well as a link to access the eSR tool can be found here.  

The Bankruptcy Court offers a web portal to assist debtors in finding an attorney for low cost or no cost and legal information, whether it is counsel for Chapter 7, or Chapter 13 assistance.

The Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Law Library provides an information page on Bankruptcy.

Categories
lawlibrary

Free Legal Clinics and Free Legal Advice in Anne Arundel County

There are a number of legal assistance resources that are presently available to residents of Anne Arundel County. These include the following:

The Maryland Court Help Center is one resource that assists in civil and family legal matters. The Help Center is staffed by attorneys who can help you navigate the process. Help Center lawyers do not represent you but can provide legal advice to assist the self-represented litigant. You can reach the Help Center by telephone or chat, 8:30 am – 8:00 pm, Monday through Friday.

In addition, the Judiciary provides walk-in help centers at District Courts in selected locations. In-person help is available at the District Court location in Glen Burnie: 500 Gov. Ritchie Hwy, 2nd Floor, Glen Burnie, MD 21061 Monday – Friday 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

The Ask a Lawyer in the Library is a civil, non-family brief legal advice program coordinated by the Anne Arundel County Public Law Library. This free, twenty-minute, consultation is offered every Wednesday from 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. You must register online. The Lawyer in the Library is hosted by the Anne Arundel County Public Library and sponsored by the Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service. The program is now offered remotely by Zoom.

The Maryland Judiciary also provides Family Law Help Centers at most of the Circuit Courts. One of the best examples of this resource is the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Family Law Help Center. The Center provides legal advice to unrepresented litigants in matters of divorce, custody/visitation, child support and name changes. The Center is open from 8:30 to 4:30, Monday through Friday, but closes for lunch from 1:00 to 2:00 pm. The Center is funded through a grant from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County but is staffed entirely by the Maryland Center for Legal Assistance.

After a summer break, the Anne Arundel Community College will resume the Legal Self-Help Civil Clinic at the Glen Burnie Campus, Glen Burnie Town Center, Room 508, 101 Crain Highway N., Glen Burnie, MD 21061. The Clinic will be available Wednesday & Thursday, 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm.

Categories
lawlibrary

Spotlight on Causes of Action for a Civil Case

            Contemplating filing a civil action? The Library collection includes two resources that are useful for any litigator, either attorney or pro-se.

            Paul Mark Sandler, James K. Archibald and Eleanor T. Chung, Pleading Causes of Action in Maryland. KFM 1735.S26 2022 (MSBA 7th ed. 2022)

            The Seventh Edition of this treatise remains popular for library users.  Following an introductory chapter on “Fundamental Concepts and Mechanics,” the reader is presented with chapters devoted to substantive causes of action such as “Contracts,” “Torts” and other claims for relief.

            Pleading Causes of Action in Maryland is available at the library both in the traditional book form (KFM 1735.S26 2022) and through the library’s Westlaw and Lexis databases.

• • • •

            Maryland Elements of an Action, KFM 1730.M28 2009-2010 (Thomson West 2009-2010 ed.)

            This volume, although no longer updated, is a valuable component of the Maryland Practice Series. Each chapter addresses a cause of action and includes a subpart with the substantive elements of the action, citations to relevant authority, applicable jury instructions, remedies, defenses, statutes of limitations and damages. A second subchapter provides forms.

Categories
lawlibrary

Researching Supreme Court Cases and Briefs

Because of recent decisions and other issues, the United States Supreme Court has come under increasing scrutiny.  Although controversies involving the Justices are best left to the media, research into the Court’s primary function – deciding cases – has become much easier if you know where to look.

The following resources can assist you in your research into the decisions of the Third Branch.

Where do I find the Court’s decisions and some briefs online?

The place to start is with the Supreme Court’s web portal.  This page introduces you to the Court. You can learn about the Court, media information, information about Court Rules, view information about oral arguments.

Two of the most useful pages from the Court’s portal are the Opinions page and the Case Document page. The most recent opinions are in a “slip opinion” format, but the Opinions Page also offers a link to the US Reports page, which includes links to entire bound volumes of the United States Reports back to the 1991 Term.

For a serious researcher, the Case Documents page is a valuable resource.  This page informs the researcher Where to Find Briefs. The Case Documents page offers a link to the Journal.  A valuable reference resource can be found in the Docket Search page. While a list of docket entries in a case might not be particularly enlightening, displaying a case docket will also provide information about briefs that have been filed, including amicus briefs.

Useful Blog about the Supreme Court with up-to-date commentary. Scotusblog describes itself as offering Independent News & Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court.  This is a very useful resource, which provides up-to-date analysis of cases pending or just decided in the current term and presents inciteful analysis.

If you wish to view Supreme Court opinions in their original format, the Library of Congress presents an online collection of the entire Supreme Court canon in PDF format: United States Reports (Official Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court).

Resources at the Anne Arundel County Public Law Library include Westlaw and Lexis, in addition to providing PCs to view Supreme Court databases in Westlaw.