EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsMaryland Laws flagMaryland Laws
Maryland flag

Maryland

Maryland Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules

AI-assisted, source-checkedBy Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed July 14, 202613 min read
Maryland Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules

Maryland requires all-party consent before recording any private conversation. Under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402, recording without the consent of every participant is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The person recorded can also sue for civil damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.

Maryland recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleAll-party (every participant must consent)
Controlling statuteMd. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 10-401 to 10-410
When recording is illegalAny wire, oral, or electronic communication recorded without all parties' prior consent
Criminal penaltyFelony: up to 5 years prison, up to $10,000 fine per count
Civil remedyMin. $100/day or $1,000 (whichever is greater) + punitive damages + attorney fees
Hidden camerasMisdemeanor under Crim. Law §§ 3-902, 3-903 (up to 1 year, $2,500 fine); audio capture also triggers § 10-402
Recording policeFirst Amendment right to openly record in public; confirmed by Maryland courts in the Graber case (2010)

For a deeper dive into how these rules apply in specific situations, see the Maryland recording laws in depth section below.

Recording in-person conversations in Maryland

Maryland's Wiretap Act (Title 10, Subtitle 4 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article) covers oral communications, which § 10-401(13) defines as "any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation." The statute does not reach every utterance in every setting; courts apply a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis when deciding whether a particular communication qualifies.

The core rule is strict: you must obtain prior consent from every person in the conversation before you begin recording. This applies whether the conversation is face-to-face, in a meeting room, or at a private gathering.

The most common misunderstanding involves § 10-402(c)(3). That subsection does not authorize secret recording simply because you are a participant. It confirms that a party to the conversation can consent on their own behalf, but all other participants must also consent. Your presence in the room is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

Maryland dome security camera in the corner of an office ceiling

Maryland is stricter than its federal counterpart. The federal Wiretap Act ((2)(d)) allows one-party consent for both intrastate and interstate private-party recordings. Maryland's § 10-402(c)(3) requires all-party consent for private parties, and that stricter state standard governs any recording made in Maryland.

Good faith reliance on a valid court order or express legislative authorization is a complete defense to both criminal and civil liability under the Act.

Recording phone calls in Maryland

The all-party consent rule applies equally to telephone calls: landline, mobile, and VoIP. You must tell every person on the call that you are recording and get their agreement before the recording starts. Maryland recognizes both express and implied consent: a person who is clearly told the call is being recorded and keeps talking can be found to have impliedly consented, but because that is harder to prove after the fact, getting an affirmative yes from everyone is still the safer practice.

Interstate calls follow the stricter-state rule. If you are in a one-party consent state calling a Maryland resident, Maryland's all-party standard applies to protect that resident. The safest practice is to follow the stricter law whenever any party is in Maryland.

For consent scripts, business call recording requirements, and interstate call guidance, see Maryland Phone Call Recording Laws.

Maryland desk phone handset lifted slightly off its cradle on an office desk with a coiled cord

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Video surveillance on your own property is generally permitted where people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The problem arises in two ways: (1) audio capture, and (2) cameras pointed at private spaces.

Audio capture. Maryland's § 10-402 reaches any device that intercepts wire, oral, or electronic communications. If your Ring doorbell, Arlo camera, or nanny cam records audio of visitors, delivery workers, or passersby who have not consented, that audio capture may violate the wiretapping statute. There is no home security camera exception in current law; SB 61 (2025) proposed one and died in committee in April 2025 without re-introduction in 2026.

Video voyeurism. Crim. Law § 3-902 prohibits using a camera with prurient intent to observe someone in a "private place" (bathroom, dressing room, bedroom, or similar space where disrobing is expected) or to capture their "private area" (genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast) where a reasonable person would expect privacy. Violations are a misdemeanor: up to 1 year in prison and a $2,500 fine. Victims may also sue for actual damages and attorney fees.

Crim. Law § 3-903 separately prohibits placing a camera on real property to conduct surreptitious observation inside a private residence. Same misdemeanor penalties apply.

Practical guidance: disable audio recording on home security devices if the setting is available in Maryland. For placement rules, HOA restrictions, and business surveillance requirements, see Maryland Security Camera Laws and Maryland Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws.

Maryland small audio recorder and over-ear headphones resting on a stack of legal documents

Penalties for illegal recording in Maryland

Violating Maryland's Wiretap Act is among the most seriously penalized recording offenses in the country. Each act of interception, disclosure, or use is a separate count.

Criminal penalties (§ 10-402):

TypeMaximum
Imprisonment5 years per count
Fine$10,000 per count
Offense classFelony

Civil remedy (§ 10-410):

The person whose communication was illegally recorded may sue for: actual damages with a statutory floor of $100 per day of violation or $1,000 (whichever is greater); punitive damages for willful or egregious conduct; and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs.

Evidentiary consequence (§ 10-405):

Recordings made in violation of § 10-402 are inadmissible in any legal proceeding. This suppression applies to the recording itself and any evidence derived from it, whether in a criminal prosecution, civil suit, divorce proceeding, or custody dispute.

Maryland's felony standard contrasts with neighboring states: Virginia and Pennsylvania treat non-consensual recording as a misdemeanor. HB 688 (2026), which would have reclassified the offense as a misdemeanor, passed the House 96-36 but died in the Senate at the April 13, 2026 sine die adjournment. The felony penalty remains in force.

Maryland pen resting across an open leather-bound notebook with blank cream pages

Recording the police in Maryland

You have a First Amendment right to openly record police officers performing their duties in public. A Maryland court confirmed this in the Graber case (2010), dismissing wiretapping charges against a motorcyclist who recorded a plainclothes officer during a traffic stop with a helmet-mounted camera. The court held that officers have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their on-duty public conduct.

Three limits apply: you must record openly, not secretly; you cannot interfere with or obstruct police activities; and audio recording in a private setting still requires all-party consent under § 10-402.

Body-worn camera mandate. The July 1, 2025 deadline for Maryland county law enforcement agencies to mandate body-worn cameras for officers who regularly interact with the public has passed. Under § 10-402(c)(11), an officer in uniform or displaying a badge who is a party to the communication and notifies the subject as soon as practicable may record without the subject's affirmative consent. Officers who meet all three conditions are covered by the statutory exception.

Surreptitious police recording. Maryland AG Opinion 110 Op. Att'y Gen. 40 (2025) holds that the law enforcement exception in § 10-402(c)(2) is limited to investigations involving crimes the statute expressly enumerates (murder, kidnapping, rape, child abuse, drug dealing, robbery, bribery, extortion, human trafficking, and firearms offenses). Recordings made in connection with a non-enumerated offense are inadmissible. This opinion is persuasive but not binding court precedent.

For full analysis of your rights at traffic stops, protest settings, and court proceedings, see Maryland Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Maryland

Domestic violence survivors

Under current law, a domestic violence victim who secretly records their abuser to document threats or physical abuse has committed a felony under § 10-402, and the recording is inadmissible in court, protective order hearings, and custody cases. SB 661 (2026) passed the Senate 36-2 and would have created an admissibility exception for victim-made recordings in criminal proceedings. It died in the House at sine die on April 13, 2026. The gap remains; consult a Maryland attorney about lawful evidence-gathering strategies before recording.

Workplace recording

Secret recording of colleagues, supervisors, or meetings is a felony under § 10-402, even if you are documenting harassment or discrimination, and even if you are a participant. Separately, NLRB GC Memo 25-07 (2025) treats surreptitious recording of collective bargaining sessions as a per se unfair labor practice. See Maryland Workplace Recording Laws.

Healthcare and telehealth

Maryland providers recording patient calls must comply with § 10-402's all-party consent requirement in addition to HIPAA's separate authorization requirement () for communications containing protected health information. Both regimes apply independently. See Maryland Medical Recording Laws.

Debt collection calls

Maryland debt collectors must obtain all-party consent under § 10-402 before recording any collection call. CFPB Regulation F ((b)) adds a federal requirement to retain call recordings for three years from the date of the call, independently of the state consent obligation.

Schools and FERPA

Audio or video recordings of students maintained by a Maryland educational institution are FERPA education records under . Disclosing them without written consent violates federal law (), layered on top of § 10-402's all-party consent rule. See Maryland School Recording Laws.

Federal overlay

The federal Wiretap Act () sets a one-party consent floor for private parties; Maryland's stricter all-party standard governs. The former FCC telephone-monitoring rule at 47 CFR § 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017 and is not operative law. The FCC's One-to-One TCPA Consent Rule (FCC 24-24) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (Jan. 24, 2025, mandate Apr. 30, 2025); it has no operative national effect. Maryland's § 10-402 is entirely independent of TCPA consent rules.

  • April 13, 2026: Maryland General Assembly adjourned sine die. Four reform bills failed: SB 661 (admissibility exception for victim recordings, passed Senate 36-2, died in House committee); HB 802 (House companion to SB 661); HB 132 (identical title, died in committee); HB 688 / SB 680 (felony-to-misdemeanor reclassification, passed House 96-36, died in Senate). Law is unchanged.
  • July 1, 2025: Statewide body-worn camera mandate for Maryland county law enforcement took full effect under Md. Code, Pub. Safety § 3-511 and the MPCTC model policy.
  • 2025: Maryland AG Opinion 110 Op. Att'y Gen. 40 issued, limiting the § 10-402(c)(2) law enforcement surreptitious recording exception to enumerated-crime investigations only.
  • April 8, 2025: SB 61 (2025), which would have created a home security camera audio exception, died in committee.

Maryland recording laws in depth

The pages below apply § 10-402's all-party consent framework to specific recording situations in Maryland.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Maryland laws

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws change and apply differently to each situation. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed Maryland attorney.

More Maryland Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Maryland a two-party consent state?

Yes. Maryland requires all-party consent before recording any wire, oral, or electronic communication under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402. Every participant must agree before recording begins, either by saying so or, in some cases, by continuing the conversation after being clearly told it is being recorded (implied consent). Getting an affirmative yes from everyone is always the safer practice.

Can I record a phone call in Maryland without telling the other person?

No. Recording a phone call without all parties' consent is a felony under § 10-402, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. You must tell every person on the call that you are recording and get their affirmative agreement before you start.

Can I record a conversation I am part of in Maryland?

Not without the other parties' consent. Section 10-402(c)(3) requires consent from all parties, not just you. Being a participant in the conversation is a necessary condition for recording, but your consent alone is not sufficient. Everyone present must agree.

Is recording someone in Maryland a felony?

Yes. Illegal interception under § 10-402 is a felony with up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine per count. Each separate act of interception, disclosure, or use of an illegally recorded communication is a separate count.

What can I sue for if someone records me illegally in Maryland?

You can sue for actual damages with a statutory floor of $100 per day of violation or $1,000 (whichever is greater), punitive damages for willful or egregious conduct, and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs under § 10-410.

Does my Ring doorbell violate Maryland law?

Potentially yes, for audio. Maryland has no home security camera exception to § 10-402. If your Ring doorbell or similar device records audio of visitors or passersby who have not consented, that audio capture may violate the wiretapping statute. Video-only recording in areas without a reasonable expectation of privacy is generally permissible.

Can I record my boss or an HR meeting in Maryland?

Not without everyone's consent. Secret recording of supervisors, colleagues, or meetings is a felony under § 10-402, even when you are documenting harassment or discrimination. Consult a Maryland employment attorney about lawful evidence-gathering strategies instead.

Can I record the police in Maryland?

Yes. You have a First Amendment right to openly record police performing their duties in public, confirmed by Maryland courts in the Graber case (2010). You must record openly, not interfere with police activities, and maintain a safe distance. Audio recording in a genuinely private setting still requires all-party consent.

Updates

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Restructured to spec: rewrote with AEO lede, at-a-glance table, and dedicated sections for in-person, phone, hidden cameras, penalties, police, and special topics. Condensed federal overlay, workplace, healthcare, debt collection, and FERPA into tight subsections. Added in-depth spoke index. Verified load-bearing facts (§ 10-402 felony 5yr/$10k, § 10-410 civil minimum, § 3-902/3-903 misdemeanor 1yr/$2,500, § 10-401 oral communication definition) against mgaleg.maryland.gov. No corrections required; all prior facts confirmed accurate.

Factual corrections: (1) Removed false statement that 47 CFR § 64.501 implements a telephone-monitoring prohibition; Subpart E is reserved and that rule was removed effective Nov. 20, 2017. (2) Corrected SB 313 (2024): the bill was withdrawn by sponsor on Feb. 5, 2024 and never enacted; no workgroup was established. (3) Corrected the § 10-401 oral communication definition to use Maryland's actual statutory language, 'private conversation,' rather than the federal reasonable-expectation formulation. (4) Corrected 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) scope: federal one-party consent applies to both intrastate and interstate recordings, not intrastate only. Eliminated all prose double-hyphens throughout.

Full refresh: corrected reform bills section to reflect all four 2026 bills (SB 661, HB 802, HB 132, HB 688) failed at sine die April 13, 2026. Added dedicated Ring doorbell audio section and domestic violence survivor recording section. Added 110 Op. Att'y Gen. 40 (2025) AG opinion on § 10-402(c)(2) scope. Updated MPCTC body-worn camera mandate as completed July 1, 2025 rollout. Added federal law overlay section and special contexts section. Replaced third-party aggregator citations with mgaleg.maryland.gov primary sources. Added Topic Index for 13 MD subtopic spokes. Corrected § 10-402(c)(11) subsection reference for body-worn cameras.

Previous version: reform bills incorrectly framed as pending consideration as of March 2026.

Added Wearable Recording Devices in Maryland section and 2 wearable-related FAQs

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on 6 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

Code of Federal Regulations Title 12

§ 1006.100Record retention.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
(a) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a debt collector must retain records that are evidence of compliance or noncompliance with the FDCPA and this part starting on the date that the debt collector begins collection activity on a debt until three years after the debt collector's last collection activity on the debt. (b) Special rule for telephone call recordings. If a debt collector records telephone calls made in connection with the collection of a debt, the debt collector must retain the recording of each such telephone call for three years after the date of the call.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at ecfr.gov

Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Delaware Recording Laws (2026): Two-Statute Consent Conflict, Florida Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules

Code of Federal Regulations Title 34

§ 99.30Under what conditions is prior consent required to disclose information?In force
(a) The parent or eligible student shall provide a signed and dated written consent before an educational agency or institution discloses personally identifiable information from the student's education records, except as provided in § 99.31. (b) The written consent must: (1) Specify the records that may be disclosed; (2) State the purpose of the disclosure; and (3) Identify the party or class of parties to whom the disclosure may be made. (c) When a disclosure is made under paragraph (a) of this section: (1) If a parent or eligible student so requests, the educational agency or institution shall provide him or her with a copy of the records disclosed; and (2) If the parent of a student who is not an eligible student so requests, the agency or institution shall provide the student with a copy of the records disclosed. (d) “Signed and dated written consent” under this part may include a record and signature in electronic form that— (1) Identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic consent; and (2) Indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic consent.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at ecfr.gov

Cited in 25 court opinions1980s: 11990s: 32000s: 72010s: 72020s: 7Most recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Webster Groves School District v. Pulitzer Publishing Company (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 1990, 898 F.2d 1371) · United States v. Miami University (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2000, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1132) · John Doe v. Roe (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2018, 295 F. Supp. 3d 664)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Code of Federal Regulations Title 45

§ 164.508Uses and disclosures for which an authorization is required.In forcecited in 9 of our articles
(a) Standard: Authorizations for uses and disclosures —(1) Authorization required: General rule. Except as otherwise permitted or required by this subchapter, a covered entity may not use or disclose protected health information without an authorization that is valid under this section. When a covered entity obtains or receives a valid authorization for its use or disclosure of protected health information, such use or disclosure must be consistent with such authorization. (2) Authorization required: Psychotherapy notes.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at ecfr.gov

Cited in 199 court opinions2000s: 412010s: 862020s: 72Most recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Glen Murphy v. Aldolfo C. Dulay (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2014, 768 F.3d 1360) · Kenneth Wilson v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2022, 27 F.4th 228) · United States v. Deleon (District Court, D. New Mexico 2018, 323 F. Supp. 3d 1273)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Alaska Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and One-Party Consent (2026), Arkansas Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and One-Party Consent (2026), Delaware Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent Rules (2026)

United States Code Title 18

§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 397 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-12 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 2,045 court opinions1960s: 51970s: 2581980s: 2991990s: 3792000s: 4272010s: 2972020s: 380Most recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511) · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297) · Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use, Alabama Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules

United States Code Title 20

§ 1232gFamily educational and privacy rightsIn forcecited in 29 of our articles
No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents, the parents of students who are or have been in attendance at a school of such agency or at such institution, as the case may be, the right to inspect and review the education records of their children. If any material or document in the education record of a student includes information on more than one student, the parents of one of such students shall have the right to inspect and review only such part of such material or document as relates to such student or to be informed of the specific information contained in such part of such material. Each educational agency or institution shall establish appropriate procedures for the granting of a request by parents for access to the education records of their children within a reasonable period of time, but in no case more than forty-five days after the request has been made.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 981 court opinions1970s: 251980s: 491990s: 1242000s: 2432010s: 2072020s: 333Most recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Goss v. Lopez (Supreme Court of the United States 1975, 419 U.S. 565) · Gonzaga University v. Doe (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 536 U.S. 273) · Foster Children v. Jeb Bush, Kathleen Kearney, Chuck Bates, Robert Williams, Ester Tibbs (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2003, 329 F.3d 1255)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Alaska School Recording Laws: Student Privacy, FERPA, and Classroom Rules (2026), Arkansas School Recording Laws: Student Privacy, FERPA, and Classroom Rules (2026), DC School Recording Laws: Student Privacy, FERPA, and Classroom Rules (2026)

Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article

§ 10-402In forcecited in 24 of our articles
§10–402. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or (3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle. (b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at mgaleg.maryland.gov

Cited in 12 court opinions1990s: 22000s: 22010s: 02020s: 8Most recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 1995, 104 Md. App. 1) · Maryland Attorney General Opinion 110OAG60 (Maryland Attorney General Reports 2025) · Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026), Maryland Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Maryland Dashcam Laws: Legality, Audio Rules, and Evidence Use (2026)

Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →

Sources and References

  1. FCC 24-24; 47 CFR § 64.1200(f)(9) (amended Dec. 13, 2023); Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025), mandate Apr. 30, 2025(docs.fcc.gov).gov
  2. SB 61, 2025 Md. Reg. Sess. (died in committee April 8, 2025; testimony Jan. 15, 2025)(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  3. HB 132, 2026 Md. Reg. Sess. (died in committee, sine die April 13, 2026)(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  4. HB 802, 2026 Md. Reg. Sess. (died in House Judiciary Committee, sine die April 13, 2026)(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  5. SB 313, 2024 Md. Reg. Sess. (withdrawn by sponsor Feb. 5, 2024; never enacted)(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  6. SB 661, 2026 Md. Reg. Sess. (died in House Judiciary Committee, sine die April 13, 2026)(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  7. HB 688 / SB 680, 2026 Md. Reg. Sess. (HB 688 passed House 96-36 on 3/18/2026; died in Senate at sine die April 13, 2026)(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  8. Md. Code, Courts & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(c)(11); Md. Code, Pub. Safety § 3-511; MPCTC Body-Worn Camera Model Policy (DPSCS)(mpctc.dpscs.maryland.gov).gov
  9. FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR §§ 99.3, 99.30; USDOE Student Privacy Policy Office guidance(studentprivacy.ed.gov).gov
  10. 12 CFR § 1006.100(b) (CFPB Regulation F)(consumerfinance.gov).gov
  11. HHS OCR, Guidance on HIPAA Rules and Audio-Only Telehealth (2022); 45 CFR §§ 164.508, 164.530(hhs.gov).gov
  12. DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302; A.G. Memorandum of May 30, 2002(justice.gov).gov
  13. 110 Op. Att'y Gen. 40 (Md. AG 2025)(marylandattorneygeneral.gov).gov
  14. NLRB GC Memo 25-07 (2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
  15. Primary statute(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  16. Primary statute: definitions(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  17. Civil remedy(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  18. Voyeurism / hidden camera prohibition(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  19. Residential camera prohibition(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  20. Failed 2026 bill: felony-to-misdemeanor reclassification(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
Share: