BALTIMORE — State lawmakers are now considering changes to Maryland's wiretapping statutes, which were originally enacted in 1977 and have been amended over the years. The proposed modifications would allow audio recordings to be used as evidence in certain situations.
"What we found in most cases, a victim, not only was it the most probative piece of evidence they could deliver, it was frequently the only piece of evidence that they could deliver," Delegate Robin Grammer said.
Grammer, a Republican from Baltimore County, introduced legislation last year that would have permitted audio recordings in certain cases. While a similar bill passed the Senate, Grammer's measure failed in the House.
Maryland homeowners can currently use video footage from their front porch cameras as evidence in court, but audio recordings face different legal restrictions under the state's wiretapping laws.
The debate centers on questions of consent for recording conversations.
"Do you want to recognize a fundamental right for Marylanders to consent to the interception and recording of their oral communications or alternatively do you want to provide a fundamental right to anybody who happens to be a participant in a conversation to record," said David Gray, a professor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law.
The Office of the Public Defender supports maintaining Maryland's two-party consent requirement, warning that changes could have unintended consequences.
"It protects from fabricated evidence and with AI and audio manipulation becoming increasingly sophisticated, two party consent law prevents malicious actors from creating or editing recordings to frame individuals," said Marguerite Lanaux from the Office of the Public Defender.
Maryland Public Defender Natasha M. Dartigue added the following statement:
The Maryland Office of the Public Defender (MOPD) opposes eliminating Maryland’s two-party consent law. MOPD has not received any draft language or proposal regarding the admissibility of undisclosed audio recordings in specific circumstances. During the recent bill hearing, discussions went beyond House Bill 314 to include concepts or potential legislative changes that we had no access to in advance of the hearing.
MOPD is always willing to come to the table, evaluate proposed legislative changes, and provide expertise grounded in constitutional protections and public safety. We remain ready to do so here. Effective policymaking requires transparency, collaboration, and the opportunity for all parties to meaningfully review legislative language before it is considered.
Several lawmakers have already filed legislation addressing the issue for the upcoming session, which begins January 14.
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.
