Maryland
Maryland Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Calls (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Maryland is an all-party consent state: every participant on a phone call must consent before anyone records it. Under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402, recording a call without that consent is a felony, regardless of whether the call uses a landline, cell phone, or VoIP service.
Maryland applies its strict all-party consent law to every type of phone call. Under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. ss 10-402, recording a phone call without the consent of every participant is a felony. This applies to personal calls, business calls, conference calls, and calls made through VoIP services.
This guide covers what you need to know about recording phone calls legally in Maryland, including consent requirements, interstate call rules, business compliance, and penalties for violations.
Can You Record Phone Calls in Maryland?
Only with All-Party Consent
You can record a phone call in Maryland, but only if every person on the call consents before recording begins. Maryland's wiretapping statute protects "wire communications," which the law defines broadly to include any voice transmission carried by wire, cable, or similar connection. This covers:
- Traditional landline calls
- Cell phone and mobile calls
- VoIP calls (Zoom, Skype, FaceTime audio, WhatsApp calls)
- Conference calls with multiple participants
- Business calls between employees and customers
- Calls made through internet-connected phone systems
How to Get Valid Consent
Maryland requires the prior consent of every party (§ 10-402(c)(3)). Consent can be express or implied, but express consent is the easiest to prove. To record a phone call safely:
- Before the conversation begins, clearly state that you intend to record the call
- Ask each participant to verbally agree to the recording
- If any person on the call does not consent, you must stop recording
- Record the consent exchange as part of the call to document compliance
Example script: "I would like to record this conversation. Do you agree to be recorded?"
Implied Consent: Recognized, but Fact-Dependent
Maryland accepts implied consent. In Boston v. State (2017), Maryland's intermediate appellate court found that two people impliedly consented to a recorded jail call after a message at the start warned them the call was being recorded and they kept talking. The Maryland Attorney General's 2025 opinion on body-worn cameras (110 Op. Att'y Gen. 40) likewise states that consent under the Wiretap Act may be express or implied.
Implied consent turns on proof that the person actually knew about the recording. A clear "this call is being recorded" statement at the start of the call is far stronger than a vague "may be recorded" message or one that is easy to miss. The safest approach for anyone recording calls involving people in Maryland is to obtain clear verbal agreement.
Interstate Phone Call Recording
Which State's Law Applies?
When a phone call crosses state lines, the question of which state's recording law applies becomes critical. Maryland's wiretap law plainly covers a recording made in Maryland. No Maryland appellate court has decided whether a person who records a call from a one-party consent state commits a Maryland crime. What Maryland's highest court has decided is that such a recording generally cannot be used as evidence in a Maryland court if making it would have been illegal in Maryland (Mustafa v. State, 1991, reaffirmed in Perry v. State, 1999), subject to a narrow exception in § 10-405(b) for recordings among co-conspirators in a crime of violence.
Key rule: Because the criminal question is unsettled and a violation is a felony, if any person on the call is in Maryland, you should follow Maryland's all-party consent requirement, regardless of where you are located. The recording consent checker can show Maryland's rule next to the other state's if you want to check first.
This means:
- A caller in New York (one-party consent) who records a call with a Maryland resident without consent risks a Maryland prosecution on an unsettled question, and the recording generally cannot be used in a Maryland court
- A caller in Texas (one-party consent) recording a call with a Maryland business should get consent from all parties: whether Maryland's law reaches that recording is unsettled, and the recording generally cannot be used in a Maryland court
- A caller in California (two-party consent) and Maryland resident are both protected by their states' matching strict standards
Practical Advice for Interstate Calls
If you regularly make calls that cross state lines:
- Identify where each participant is located before recording
- Apply the stricter consent standard when states differ
- When in doubt, get consent from everyone on the call
- Businesses should build consent mechanisms into their phone systems
Business Phone Call Recording in Maryland
Compliance Requirements
Maryland businesses that record customer calls must take specific steps to comply with the wiretapping statute:
Call center operations:
- Build an interactive consent prompt into the phone system that requires affirmative action (pressing a button or verbally confirming)
- Do not rely solely on a passive "this call may be recorded" announcement
- Train all employees to obtain verbal consent before recording begins
- Provide callers with the option to speak with a representative without being recorded
- Document consent procedures and maintain compliance records
Small business calls:
- If you record calls manually, announce your intent and ask for consent at the start of each call
- Consider whether you need to record at all, or if written notes would suffice
- Consult with a Maryland attorney about your specific recording practices
Industry-Specific Rules
Some industries face additional recording requirements beyond the wiretapping statute:
Financial services: Broker-dealers and financial advisors may have regulatory obligations under FINRA or SEC rules to record certain communications. These federal requirements do not override Maryland's consent law, but they create compliance obligations that must be balanced with state law.
Healthcare: Medical providers who record patient phone calls must comply with both the wiretapping statute and HIPAA privacy rules. Patient consent must cover both the recording itself and the handling of protected health information.
Insurance: Insurance companies recording claims calls must obtain consent under the wiretapping statute. Maryland Insurance Administration regulations may impose additional requirements.
Recording Conference Calls
Multiple Participants
Conference calls present special challenges under Maryland's all-party consent law. When multiple people join a call:
- Every participant must consent before recording begins
- New participants who join after recording has started must be informed and must consent
- If any participant objects, recording must stop for the entire call
- The call organizer should maintain a record of who consented
Virtual Meeting Platforms
Platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet display recording notifications to all participants. While these notifications help satisfy the consent requirement, Maryland's strict standard means:
- Participants should have a clear opportunity to object or leave before recording begins
- A small pop-up notification that a participant may not notice is weak proof of consent
- Meeting organizers should verbally announce recording and ask for agreement
- Participants joining from Maryland should be given special attention regarding consent
911 Calls and Emergency Exceptions
911 Calls Are Recorded
Maryland law provides an exception for 911 emergency calls. Emergency services dispatch centers routinely record all incoming calls, and callers are not required to consent to this recording. This exception recognizes the critical public safety purpose of maintaining records of emergency communications.
Other Emergency Exceptions
The wiretapping statute also allows recording without consent when:
- A court order or warrant authorizes the interception
- Law enforcement is investigating specific serious crimes listed in ss 10-402(c)(2) and one party to the call (often the officer or an informant) consents
- The communication is made through emergency service channels
VoIP and Digital Phone Calls
Same Rules Apply
Maryland's wiretapping statute covers "wire communications" and "electronic communications" broadly enough to encompass VoIP and digital calling services. The same all-party consent requirement applies to:
- Traditional VoIP services (Vonage, magicJack)
- App-based calling (WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram voice calls)
- Video calling platforms (FaceTime, Zoom, Skype) when used for voice communication
- Business phone systems that route calls over the internet
Cloud-Based Recording Services
Several businesses use cloud-based services that automatically record phone calls. If your business uses such a service, you must still comply with Maryland's consent requirements. The recording technology does not create an exception to the wiretapping statute.
Services like Gong, Chorus, or similar AI-powered call recording tools that automatically capture and transcribe calls must be configured to obtain consent from all parties before recording begins.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Phone Recording
Recording a phone call without consent in Maryland is a felony under ss 10-402.
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Recording a phone call without consent | Felony | 5 years prison, $10,000 fine |
| Disclosing contents of an illegally recorded call | Felony | 5 years prison, $10,000 fine |
| Using contents of an illegally recorded call | Felony | 5 years prison, $10,000 fine |
Each separate act of recording, disclosing, or using an illegally intercepted phone call can be charged as a distinct felony.
Civil Liability
Under ss 10-410, victims of illegal phone call recording can file civil lawsuits and recover:
- Actual damages with a minimum of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater
- Punitive damages for willful or egregious violations
- Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs
Businesses that systematically record calls without proper consent face potential class action liability, with damages multiplied across every affected caller.
Inadmissibility of Illegally Recorded Calls
Phone calls recorded in violation of the wiretapping statute are inadmissible in Maryland courts under ss 10-405. Section 10-405(b) makes a narrow exception for certain recordings made lawfully in another state among co-conspirators in a crime of violence. Otherwise, this means:
- A secretly recorded phone call cannot be used as evidence in a lawsuit
- An employer cannot use an illegally recorded call as evidence in a Maryland court or agency proceeding, such as an unemployment hearing
- A spouse cannot use an illegally recorded call in a divorce proceeding
- Law enforcement cannot use an improperly obtained recording to prosecute a crime
The suppression remedy requires a timely motion, but courts consistently exclude evidence obtained through wiretapping violations.
Federal Phone Recording Law
18 U.S.C. ss 2511: One-Party Consent
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. ss 2511 follows a one-party consent model. Under federal law, a person who is a party to a phone call can record it without the other party's consent. However, federal law sets a minimum standard, and states can impose stricter requirements.
Maryland's all-party consent law exceeds the federal minimum. A recording that is legal under federal law may still violate Maryland state law. When both laws apply, the stricter standard (Maryland's) controls.
Practical Tips for Phone Call Recording
For Individuals
- Always announce your intent to record at the start of the call
- Get verbal confirmation from each person on the call
- If someone refuses, respect their decision and keep written notes instead
- Store lawfully obtained recordings securely
For Businesses
- Implement interactive consent prompts requiring affirmative action (not just passive announcements)
- Train all customer-facing employees on consent requirements
- Audit your call recording systems for compliance
- Consult with a Maryland attorney about your specific recording practices
- Maintain documentation of consent procedures
For Legal Professionals
- Advise clients that secretly recorded phone calls are inadmissible in Maryland
- Consider the all-party consent requirement when planning evidence-gathering strategies
- Review interstate call recording issues when cases involve parties in multiple states
More Maryland Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Maryland Recording Laws
More Maryland Recording Topics
More Maryland Laws
- Maryland AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Maryland Dashcam Laws
- Maryland Data Privacy Laws
- Maryland Deepfake Laws
- Maryland Employee Monitoring Laws
- Maryland GPS Tracking Laws
- Maryland Police Bodycam Laws
- Maryland Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to record a phone call in Maryland?
Recording a phone call in Maryland is legal only if every person on the call consents before recording begins. Recording without all-party consent is a felony under ss 10-402, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. This applies to landline, cell phone, and VoIP calls alike.
Does a 'this call may be recorded' message satisfy Maryland law?
Sometimes, but do not rely on it. Maryland accepts implied consent, and a Maryland appellate court has found it where a message at the start of a call clearly said the call was being recorded and the parties kept talking. A vaguer 'may be recorded' message, or one a caller could miss, is less certain. The safest approach is to require callers to press a button or verbally confirm their agreement.
Can I record a call with someone in Maryland if I am in another state?
To be safe, follow Maryland's all-party consent law if any person on the call is in Maryland. Maryland courts have not decided whether a caller in a one-party state commits a Maryland crime, but they generally will not admit such a recording as evidence, and a violation is a felony. Always obtain consent from all participants when a Maryland resident is on the call.
Can a secretly recorded phone call be used in court in Maryland?
No. Phone calls recorded in violation of the wiretapping statute are inadmissible in Maryland courts under ss 10-405, with a narrow exception for certain out-of-state recordings among co-conspirators in a crime of violence (ss 10-405(b)). A judge must suppress the recording if a party files a timely motion. This applies in both criminal and civil cases, regardless of what the recording contains.
Are 911 calls recorded in Maryland?
Yes. Maryland law provides an exception for 911 emergency calls. Emergency dispatch centers routinely record all incoming calls, and callers do not need to consent. This exception recognizes the essential public safety purpose of maintaining emergency communication records.
Updates
Corrected the page to say Maryland accepts implied as well as express consent to record a call, and that Maryland courts have not decided whether a person recording from a one-party consent state commits a Maryland crime, although such recordings generally cannot be used as evidence in Maryland courts. Corrected the interstate-call advice to say it is unsettled whether Maryland law reaches an out-of-state recorder, noted that the police serious-crimes exception requires one party's consent, and added the narrow § 10-405(b) exception to the inadmissibility rule.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article
§ 10-402In forcecited in 26 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) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Applying section 10-402, Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (1995) held that liability under the Maryland Wiretap Act requires proof the defendant acted willfully, an intentional violation or reckless disregard of a known legal duty; an employee's failure to check for a court order was only a jury factor on willfulness.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 1995, 104 Md. App. 1)✓Police hid a tape recorder on an officer's headquarters phone line with a phone company employee's help and no court order; the court held a section 10-402(a) claim requires proof of willful interception, and failing to ask about a court order went only to willfulness.
- Maryland Attorney General Opinion 110OAG60 (Maryland Attorney General Reports 2025)“…or wire communications without the consent of all parties. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(a). However, the Wiretap Act contains e…”
- Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…1992); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 710, 711 (West 1998); Md.Code Ann., Cts & Jud. Proc. § 10-402 (1998); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272,…”
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 Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Maryland Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
§ 10-401In forcecited in 5 of our articles
§10–401. As used in this subtitle the following terms have the meanings indicated: (1) “Aggrieved person” means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed. (2) “Aural transfer” means a transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception. (3) “Communications common carrier” means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire in the transmission of wire or electronic communications. (4) “Contents”, when used with respect to any wire, oral, or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to the communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication. (5) (i) “Electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system. (ii) “Electronic communication” does not include: 1. Any wire or oral communication; 2. Any communication made through a tone–only paging device; or 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Davis v. State (Court of Appeals of Maryland 2012, 426 Md. 211)“…f the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, Md.Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-401, et seq.? *218 As foretold earlier i…”
- Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 1995, 104 Md. App. 1)“…ctronic Surveillance Act (Maryland Wiretap Act or the Act), Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud.Proc. § 10-401 et seq. (1989 Replacement Volume & 19…”
- Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2023, 72 F.4th 1043)“…Maine: 15 Me. Rev. Stat. §§ 709(4), (5), 710(1) Maryland: Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 10-401(13), 10-402(a)(1), (c)(3); Agnew v. Mar…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maryland Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, Maryland Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
§ 10-405In forcecited in 11 of our articles
§10–405. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whenever any wire, oral, or electronic communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of the communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of this State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this subtitle.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2013
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- King v. State (Court of Appeals of Maryland 2013, 434 Md. 472)“…that information would be in violation of this subtitle. Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-405(a) (1957, 2013 Repl. Vol.).…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maryland Dashcam Laws: Legality, Audio Rules, and Evidence Use (2026), Maryland Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Audio, and Privacy (2026), Maryland School Recording Laws: Students, Teachers, and Campus Rules (2026)
§ 10-410In forcecited in 11 of our articles
§10–410. (a) Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this subtitle shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use the communications, and be entitled to recover from any person: (1) Actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher; (2) Punitive damages; and (3) A reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (b) A good faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this subtitle or under any other law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (1995) held that punitive damages under section 10-410(a) require malice, meaning a knowing and deliberate violation of the Maryland Wiretap Act, and that a reckless disregard of a known legal duty does not supply it. It also rejected reputational damages not caused by the interception itself.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 1995, 104 Md. App. 1)✓A police chief had an officer's headquarters phone extension tapped with a telephone technician's help; the court held liability under section 10-410 requires proof the technician acted wilfully, a jury question, and that punitive damages require a showing of malice.
- Think Tank, Inc. v. ITegrity, Inc. (District Court, D. Maryland 2023)“…against Bawa and [Tegrity under the Maryland Wiretap Act, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-410 (West 2022), also related to Bawa’s use…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maryland Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026), Maryland Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Exceptions (2026), Maryland Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rules (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 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) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?
Sources and References
- Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. ss 10-402 - Interception of Communications(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. ss 10-405 - Suppression of Evidence(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. ss 10-410 - Civil Liability(law.justia.com).gov
- 18 U.S.C. ss 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. ss 10-401 - Definitions(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- SB 61 (2025) - Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Reform(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. ss 10-410 - Civil Liability(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov