is guilty of a felony, and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment not exceeding 15 years or both. An officer of a law enforcement agency, who knowingly discloses a report to a person not entitled to access the report, is guilty of a felony, and on con- viction is subject to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment not exceeding 15 years or both. Interestingly, someone charged with auto manslaughter only faces up to 10 years in jail. As many of you will recall, within a few
days of the police report law becoming effective, there was a lot of discussion on the MTLA general listserv and among members of the Auto Negligence Sec- tion. Delegate Michael D. Smigiel, Sr., became aware of the problems with the new statute, and offered to introduce legislation during the 2008 General As- sembly Session, which would exempt from the requirements of the new police report law an individual involved in the motor-vehicle accident and/or the legal representative of an individual involved in the motor vehicle accident. House Bill 441 was introduced by Delegate Smigiel and assigned to the Judiciary Committee. At the hearing before the House
Judiciary Committee, several other bills involving Transportation Section 20-110 were also heard. Delegate Dan K. Morhaim introduced House Bill 249 which would allow hospitals to be able to access police reports during the first 60 days following an accident. Delegate Susan K. McComas introduced House Bill 1252, which would exempt State’s At- torneys from the requirements of the new police report law, and in addition would reduce the penalties for violating the new police report law to a misdemeanor. Even Delegate Davis, who introduced the origi- nal legislation during the 2007 General Assembly Session, now wanted to change the new law to exempt owners of motor vehicles involved, or property damaged in the motor-vehicle accident, and units of local, state of federal government, otherwise authorized to have access to a report in furtherance of the unit’s duties from the requirements of Transportation Section 20-110.
52
Even members of the insurance industry were opposed to the new police report bill because some law enforcement agencies in Maryland were requiring members of the insur- ance industry to comply with Transportation Section 20-110 despite the fact that they were specifically exempt from the new law.
Bruce M. Plaxen and I, spoke before
the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of the MTLA. The hearing went so well for the MTLA that we suggested to the members of the committee that the new police report bill be repealed. Follow- ing the hearing, the MTLA Legislative Committee, along with our lobbyists, worked hard to form a coalition with the Maryland State Police, Maryland Sheriffs’ Association, Maryland Department of Transportation, State’s Attorneys and the insurance industry. At the House Judiciary Committee
hearing, we learned that MTLA members were not alone in their opposition to Transportation Section 20-110. The new police report bill was increasing the time that it took the State Police to process a re- quest for an accident report from 18 days to over 30 days. State’s Attorneys were having problems accessing police reports. Even members of the insurance industry were opposed to the new police report bill because some law enforcement agencies in Maryland were requiring members of the insurance industry to comply with Transportation Section 20-110 despite the fact that they were specifically exempt from the new law. Delegate Davis, along with many of the
members of the House Judiciary Com- mittee, amended House Bill 488, so that it would repeal Transportation Section 20-110, and that the legislation would be an emergency bill which will take effect the date it is signed into law. The amended bill received a favorable report from the House Judiciary Committee. Senator John C. Astle, introduced Senate
Bill 796, which would exempt a member of the Maryland General Assembly from the requirements of the new police report law. The bill came up for a hearing before
Trial Reporter
the Senate Judicial Proceedings Commit- tee. After seeing what had occurred in the House, Senator Astle amended Senate Bill 796 to mirror the amended House Bill 488. The amended Senate bill received a favor- able report from the Judicial Proceedings Committee. Subsequently, House Bill 488 and Sen-
ate Bill 796 passed both the full House and Senate unanimously, and were signed into law on May 13, 2008. This emergency legislation took effect the date it was signed into law. With the repeal of Transportation Section 20-110, the procedure for obtaining a police report should revert to the way things were before Oct. 1, 2007. n
About the Author
Eric N. Schloss (Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, LLC, Baltimore) received his J.D. from the Uni- versity of Baltimore School of Law. He is a member of MTLA’s President Club as a Contributor. Mr. Schloss is currently serving as Chair of the Membership/ Membership Services Committee. He is the immediate past Chair of the Auto Negligence Section, a position he held for four years. Mr. Schloss also serves on the Legislative Committee, Educa- tion & Programs Committee and the Public Outreach Committee. He is also a member of the American Association for Justice, Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., and Virginia Trial Lawyers Association. He is licensed in the State of Maryland, District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. Schloss is a partner in Gor- don, Feinblatt’s Personal Injury Group and his practice concentrates in injuries caused by motor vehicle collision.
Summer 2008
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76