SB 1007 Maryland Senate · 2025 Regular Session

Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance - Intercepted Communications - Admissibility of Evidence

SB 1007 modifies Maryland's evidence rules to allow intercepted communications (like phone calls or texts) as court evidence under specific conditions. It permits such evidence if at least one party was outside Maryland during the communication, the interception wasn’t conducted by Maryland law enforcement, or all parties were co-conspirators in a violent crime. Courts must also determine the evidence is more probative than alternatives and serves justice, and the defense must receive advance notice of its use. The law applies to all Maryland courts and legal proceedings, effective October 1, 2025.

Bill status passed 3 of 5 stages cleared

Introduction

Feb 2025

Committee Review

Apr 2025

Senate Passage

Apr 2025

House of Delegates Passage

Governor

Introduced Feb 10, 2025 Last action Apr 5, 2025

Maddy AI version diff · 1 comparison

What changed between versions

First - Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance - Intercepted Communications - Admissibility of Evidence → Third - Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance - Intercepted Communications - Admissibility of Evidence · 6 edits

MODERATE

This bill was amended to clarify that intercepted communications can only be used as evidence in criminal trials, not civil proceedings. The amendment also added specific requirements for when evidence can be offered, including a 14-day notice period and restrictions on law enforcement investigations.

Scope change

The bill's scope was narrowed from allowing intercepted communications as evidence in any proceeding to only criminal proceedings.

SCOPE

Changed the bill to specify that intercepted communications can only be used as evidence in criminal proceedings rather than any type of proceeding.

REQUIREMENT

Added a requirement that the 14-day notice period must be given before the trial or hearing to allow the adverse party time to prepare.

Added a requirement that the case must involve a crime committed against at least one individual.

Added a requirement that the interception was not made as part of an investigation conducted by law enforcement officials of this state.

Added a requirement that the contents of the communication and evidence derived from it are more probative than any other evidence that can be procured through reasonable efforts.

Added a requirement that the interest of justice will be best served by admitting the intercepted communication into evidence.

Floor votes · Senate Mar 19, 2025

How they voted

43–0

Passed · 3 other

Total votes 46

Mar 19, 2025

D Democratic33

30 Yea 3

90% Yea

R Republican13

13 Yea

100% Yea

Vote distribution

All Yea All Nay Mixed No data

Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions

Key actions

Committee

Apr 5, 2025

Committee

Referred Rules and Executive Nominations

lower

Apr 4, 2025

Upper · Passed

Third Reading Passed

upper

Apr 4, 2025

Upper · Passed

Favorable with Amendments {

upper

Apr 4, 2025

Upper · Passed

Favorable with Amendments Report by Judicial Proceedings

upper

Mar 31, 2025

Committee

Rereferred to Judicial Proceedings

upper

Mar 19, 2025

Senate · Passed

Senate Vote: pass (43-0-3)

senate

Feb 10, 2025

Committee

First Reading Senate Rules

upper

8 primary · 0 co-sponsors