MD HB 338: Criminal Procedure - Facial Recognition Technology - Requirements, Procedures, and Prohibitions

Operative sections

• Crim. Proc. §2-502(A): facial-recognition results generally may not be introduced in criminal or delinquency proceedings.
• Crim. Proc. §2-502(B): limited use is allowed only for probable cause or positive identification at warrant issuance or preliminary hearing.
• Crim. Proc. §2-502(B)(2): facial-recognition results may not be the sole basis for probable cause or positive identification.

Text

2–502. (A) Except as otherwise provided in this section, results generated by facial recognition technology may not be introduced in a criminal proceeding or in a delinquency proceeding. ... Results generated by facial recognition technology may be considered or introduced as evidence in connection with a criminal proceeding only for the purpose of establishing probable cause or positive identification in connection with the issuance of a warrant or at a preliminary hearing. ... Results generated by facial recognition technology may not serve as the sole basis to establish probable cause or the positive identification of an individual.

Verbatim operative text; legislative text is a government edict and public domain. Full text · History

What already applies in Maryland

The bill sits alongside rules courts and regulators have already issued, and decisions courts have already handed down, in the same jurisdiction — from the regulation tracker and the court-decisions corpus.

Rules and guidance in force

• Mezu v. Mezu, No. 361, Sept. Term 2025 (Appellate Court of Maryland, reported, 29 Oct 2025)Appellate Court of Maryland

  Maryland's leading AI-hallucination decision. The Appellate Court of Maryland published Mezu as a warning to the bar, holding that failing to read AI-generated citations before filing can produce briefs citing multiple fictitious cases, and referred the signing attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission. Delegation to a law clerk was no defence.

Decisions on the record

• Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLCUnited States District Court for the District of Maryland · 2026-08-26

  The District of Maryland dismisses Johnson’s mortgage-related claims and flags another hallucinated citation from the self-represented plaintiff. The court says Cooke v. Carrington Mortgage Services, as cited to the Fourth Circuit and Westlaw, does not exist, but declines further Rule 11 action because the case is dismissed.

• Eyong v. 72 Barrow St. Realty Corp.Appellate Court of Maryland · 2026-08-11

  The Appellate Court of Maryland affirms judgment for 72 Barrow St. Realty and taxes costs to Simon Eyong. The per curiam opinion notes earlier orders striking large portions of his self-represented briefs for fictitious legal citations and inaccurate summaries, and leaves a sanctions motion for remand.

• Campbell v. TidalHealth, Inc.United States District Court for the District of Maryland · 2026-07-28

  The District of Maryland denies discovery sanctions in a pro se employment case and addresses possible generative-AI misuse. The court says Campbell’s filings do not outright hallucinate cases but misdescribe Aguilar and Mancia, corroborating admitted tool use, and cautions that future errors may draw fees or sanctions.

• Lafaye B. Brown v. James E. Clarke, et al.Appellate Court of Maryland · 2026-06-04

  On 2026-06-04, in Lafaye B. Brown v. James E. Clarke, et al, Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the foreclosure rulings and noted that the appellant's reply brief used a quotation found nowhere in Maryland or other case law. A self-represented appellant filed a reply brief using quotations that did not appear in the cited source.

• Brandy Dorsey v. Walter Livramento, IIIAppellate Court of Maryland · 2026-05-20

  On 2026-05-20, in Brandy Dorsey v. Walter Livramento, III, Appellate Court of Maryland warned the filer that future use of false, nonexistent, or unsupported authorities may result in sanctions. A self-represented appellant filed a brief using numerous nonexistent or hallucinated authorities and authorities used for propositions they did not support.