Maryland
Maryland requires every forensic lab to hold a state license and licenses genetic genealogists, but it does not license individual analysts. In 2023 its Supreme Court barred unqualified firearms source opinions in Abruquah v. State, and in 2024 it rejected an amendment that would have aligned Rule 5-702 with the 2023 federal change. Since 2023 the State has set up an Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, limited police facial recognition by statute, added sex offender registrants to the DNA database, and revised post-conviction DNA procedure.
- Sources checked
- Part of
- Forensic Ledger
At a glance
- Oversight body
- A licensing regulator and an advisory committee. The Secretary of Health licenses and inspects forensic labs (Health-Gen. 17-2A-02, -04, -09). The Secretary may deny, suspend, revoke or limit a license, impose a directed plan of correction, and order a lab that produced “erroneous or questionable test results” to notify the requesting agency, the Public Defender or counsel of record, and the State’s Attorney, who must then notify the victim. Failing to comply with that notification order carries a civil penalty of up to $1,000 a day, capped at $50,000 (17-2A-09). Lab employees who report violations are protected from retaliation and may sue within 2 years for reinstatement, lost wages and benefits (17-2A-10). A 10-member Forensic Laboratory Advisory Committee, set up by the Governor, advises the Secretary (17-2A-12).
- Lab accreditation
- Licensing is required; accreditation is not. Since December 31, 2011, a forensic lab must hold a Department of Health license before offering or performing forensic analysis in the State (17-2A-04(a)). A lab doing only limited forensic analysis may get a letter of exception (17-2A-04(b)). Breath and blood alcohol and drug tests, digital evidence work, presumptive crime scene tests and certain supervision tests are not “forensic analysis,” and federal labs are excluded (17-2A-01). The Secretary accepts accreditation by an approved body as meeting the audit requirements if its standards are equivalent (COMAR 10.51.02.02). For post-conviction DNA testing, if the parties cannot agree on a lab, the court may approve a lab accredited by ASCLD/LAB or the other listed bodies (Crim. Proc. 8-201(f)(4)).
- Analyst licensing
- Labs are licensed, not analysts. Each forensic analyst must take part in a proficiency test every year in each discipline of their casework, and at least once in each 3-year license period in each subdiscipline (COMAR 10.51.04.01B). Genetic genealogy is the exception: both the sequencing lab and the genetic genealogist must be licensed (Crim. Proc. 17-102(e)).
- Admissibility standard
- Md. Rule 5-702 under the Daubert standard adopted in Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020). The Rules Committee’s 221st Report proposed a “preponderance of the evidence” standard and the words “reflects a reliable application,” citing the 2023 federal amendment and Katz, Abosch v. Parkway Neuroscience, 485 Md. 335 (2023). By order of April 5, 2024, the Supreme Court rejected the proposed amendments to Rules 2-341 and 5-702, without stating reasons (Rules Order). Maryland has not adopted the 2023 change to Federal Rule 702.
- Post-conviction forensic relief
- No changed-science statute. (1) A person convicted of a crime of violence under Crim. Law 14-101 may petition for DNA testing of scientific identification evidence or for a database search (Crim. Proc. 8-201(b)). The court must order testing on a reasonable probability that it could produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence, if the requested method is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community (8-201(d)). The person may also move for a new trial on the ground that the conviction rested on “unreliable scientific identification evidence” and that there is a substantial possibility of a different result (8-201(c)). “Scientific identification evidence” means evidence containing biological material from which DNA may be recovered (8-201(a)(5)), so (c) does not reach non-DNA disciplines such as firearms or bite marks. (2) A petition for a writ of actual innocence on newly discovered evidence may be filed at any time (8-301).
- DNA database scope
- Convictions for any felony or for fourth-degree burglary or the motor vehicle break-in offenses in Crim. Law 6-206; arrestees charged with a crime of violence, burglary, or an attempt; and, since October 1, 2025, registered sex offenders (Pub. Safety 2-504(a)). An arrestee sample may be tested only after a probable cause finding, an arrest on a warrant, an information or an indictment, or with consent (2-504(d)). Refusing to give a sample is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $1,000. Automatic expungement on non-conviction applies only to arrestee samples, and not on a stet, on probation before judgment, or while a trial on a qualifying charge remains pending (2-511(a)(1), (3)). Untested arrestee samples that never met the testing conditions are destroyed after 2 years (2-511(a)(2)).
- Facial recognition
- Statewide limits since October 1, 2024 (Crim. Proc. 2-501 to 2-510). Results may be used in a criminal case only to establish probable cause or a positive identification at a warrant application or preliminary hearing, never as the sole basis, and only with additional, independently obtained evidence (2-502). Use is limited to listed serious crimes, with no live identification, and results must be independently verified by a trained person (2-503(a)). Results obtained in violation, and evidence derived from them, may not be introduced by the State, subject to standard exceptions (2-503(c)). A person may sue an agency to compel compliance (2-509).
Changes, 2023 to 2026
Genetic genealogy affidavit: unknown perpetrator, and no need to exhaust every lead
The sworn affidavit an agent must submit, with prosecutor approval, to get judicial authorization for genetic genealogy now must state that “the identity of the perpetrator is unknown” (17-102(b)(1)(i)). The existing criteria were renumbered: a qualifying crime, a sample believed to come from the putative perpetrator, a profile already searched in state and national databases without a match, and, except in ongoing-threat cases, reasonable investigative leads pursued and failed ((b)(1)(v)). The bill as introduced would have deleted the leads requirement; that deletion was removed before passage. New (b)(2) says nothing in the subsection requires “that all investigative leads have been exhausted.”
For practitioners: The affidavit must still show reasonable leads were pursued, but not that every lead was exhausted.
DNA database adds sex offender registrants and ties arrestee testing to probable cause
People required to register as sex offenders must give a sample when they first register (2-504(a)(4)). The old rule that an arrestee sample could not be tested “prior to the first scheduled arraignment date” was replaced: testing may occur only after a probable cause finding, an arrest on a warrant, an information or an indictment for a qualifying crime, or with consent. Refusal is now a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $1,000. An untested arrestee sample that never met the testing conditions is destroyed after 2 years. Automatic expungement does not apply while a trial on a qualifying charge “remains pending for any reason” (2-511(a)(3)). A transition rule requires destroying, by October 1, 2028, pre-act samples not tested by November 1, 2027.
For practitioners: A registrant can be in the database without a Maryland felony conviction; check the basis for any profile.
Post-conviction DNA procedure: a right to respond before the court rules
The order rescinds Rule 4-708 and amends Rules 4-707 and 4-709. The court may no longer deny a petition on the State’s answer alone. The petitioner may respond within 60 days after service of the answer; the 60 days used to run from the later of service or appointment of counsel. The response may challenge the answer, ask for a search of other agencies’ databases or logs, and amend the petition. The court may not rule before a response is filed or the 60 days run out (4-707(b)). Rule 4-709 now decides whether a hearing is needed “from the petition, answer, and any response.” The changes apply to actions begun on or after January 1, 2025 and, where practicable, to pending actions.
For practitioners: Count the 60 days from service of the State’s answer, not from appointment of counsel.
Facial recognition statute: lead-only use, verification, and suppression
The new subtitle sets the limits described above: evidentiary limits (2-502); permitted crimes, banned uses, database limits and independent verification (2-503(a)); anti-profiling rules (2-503(b)); and exclusion of results obtained in violation and evidence derived from them (2-503(c)). Each system used, the databases searched and the results that led to further action must be disclosed in discovery. Agencies must name an administrator, audit every year, train under a state program, follow a State Police model policy, and publish a use policy and annual reports. Identifying missing, deceased or incapacitated people, redaction, and security systems are carved out. A person may sue to compel compliance (2-509).
For practitioners: Ask in discovery for every facial recognition search in the case; results obtained in violation can be suppressed.
Genetic genealogy rules do not apply to identifying the dead and missing
Title 17, which requires judicial authorization, licensed labs and genealogists, and other safeguards, “does not apply to FGGS conducted solely for the purpose of identifying an individual who is: (1) deceased; or (2) the subject of a missing person report filed with a law enforcement agency in the State and whose whereabouts are unknown.” The chapter law shows an under-18 limit struck in passage, so the exemption has no age limit.
For practitioners: Searches to identify a criminal suspect still need judicial authorization under Title 17.
Longer window to ask for corrections to autopsy findings
A person in interest may ask the medical examiner to correct findings and conclusions on the cause and manner of death recorded on a death certificate within 180 days after they are filed, up from 60 days. The right does not apply to a finding of homicide. A denial may be appealed to the Secretary of Health and heard as a contested case.
For practitioners: Except in homicide findings, a family has 180 days from filing to seek a correction of cause or manner of death.
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner set up in the Department of Health
The act creates the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in the Maryland Department of Health. The Office must, “as allowed by staffing,” advance forensic science through medical education and research. The State Postmortem Examiners Commission becomes the Postmortem Examiners Advisory Committee, which advises the Secretary and the Office, and the Commission’s powers move to the Department and the Office. The Department and the Committee may not interfere with the Office’s clinical findings or conclusions on autopsies. Assistant medical examiners must now obtain board certification within their American Board of Pathology eligibility period, not within 3 years of appointment.
For practitioners: Autopsy findings are protected by statute from interference by the Department and the Committee.
Firearms examiners may not give unqualified source opinions
Applying Rochkind, the Court held that the examiner “should not have been permitted to offer an unqualified opinion that the crime scene bullets were fired from Mr. Abruquah’s gun.” The record showed that the method “can support reliable conclusions that patterns and markings on bullets are consistent or inconsistent with those on bullets fired from a particular firearm,” but not that it “can reliably support an unqualified conclusion that such bullets were fired from a particular firearm.” The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, so the Court reversed the ruling on the motion in limine, vacated the judgment, and remanded for a new trial. The Court did not hold firearms comparison evidence inadmissible altogether.
For practitioners: Object to any firearms testimony that a bullet or casing came from a particular gun without qualification.
Pending bills
No bill on these topics is pending. Bills that did not pass:
- 2026: SB 678 (genetic genealogy affidavit) had a Senate hearing on March 10, 2026. HB 756 and HB 762 (facial recognition on images from inside a dwelling or from cameras attached to one) had a House hearing on February 24, 2026. HB 1266 and SB 717 (sexual assault kit submission) were withdrawn after unfavorable committee reports. 2026 bill list
- 2025: SB 655 (Artificial Intelligence Evidence Clinic Pilot Program) was vetoed by the Governor. Its House version, HB 966, died in Senate Rules. 2025 bill list
Checked and unchanged
- Md. Rule 5-702: the Supreme Court rejected the federal-style amendment on April 5, 2024. No later Rules Committee report through the 228th proposes a change.
- Crim. Proc. 8-201 (post-conviction DNA) and 8-301 (writ of actual innocence): no enacted bill from 2023 to 2026 amends them; only Rules 4-707 to 4-709 changed.
- Health-Gen. 17-2A-01 to -12 (lab licensing and the advisory committee): no enacted amendment from 2023 to 2026.
- No rapid DNA statute was found.
- Not checked: whether the Department of Health has issued any notification orders under 17-2A-09(c) since 2023, and appellate decisions after Abruquah on other pattern disciplines.
Last updated October 19, 2026Source: United States Council for Law & InvestigationCite as: United States Council for Law & Investigation, “Maryland forensic science oversight: Forensic Ledger,” uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/maryland (last updated October 19, 2026). Text licensed CC BY 4.0.