The Maryland House Judiciary Committee held a briefing this week on whether the state should alter its wiretapping and recording consent laws.

Maryland is one of only eleven states where “all-party” or “two-party” consent is required when recording a conversation, which has complicated what types of recordings can be submitted as evidence in court cases.

Under Maryland statute, while video recordings from doorbell cameras can be used as evidence, certain recordings with audio where both parties did not consent to being recorded cannot be used.

State Delegate Robin Grammer (R-Baltimore County) introduced legislation that would change that, explaining the issue was brought to him particularly through cases of elder abuse where recordings could be the most concrete form of evidence.

“A lot of these cases, they had cognitive issues, and the victim couldn't communicate, so they had to rely on recording, but of course with our current statute, they could not admit that evidence in those situations,” Grammer explained.

David Gray, a professor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, cautioned making Maryland a one-party state, where only one individual involved in a conversation can consent to it being recorded, including the person doing the recording.

“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,” Gray rhetorically asked the committee.

He did however express support for either abandoning or significantly relaxing the recorded evidence exclusionary rule for private actors, noting the real concern has been around deterring law enforcement officers from unlawful recording or wiretapping.

Grammer believes rules of evidence admissibility can be changed without striking at the right of consent.

“Being able to admit objective truths for people who are actual victims is important. And I think– I feel we can have a balance between not changing consent and not changing the way we live, while achieving a way for these people to find justice,” he said.

Grammar’s legislation won’t officially be taken up again until the legislative session starts in January.