This article was republished with permission from 海角社区app’s news partners at .听Sign up for today.
Stephanie Wilkinson told Maryland lawmakers in Annapolis Wednesday that personal protection for judges would prevent families from enduring future heartache.
As she dabbed a tissue underneath her nose, Wilkinson said a man began to search online for her family鈥檚 address in July. Three months later in October after a divorce proceeding, the man听, Washington County Circuit Court Judge Andrew F. Wilkinson, in front of their home.
鈥淢y family is the victim of an attack on a cornerstone of our country, our judicial process,鈥� Wilkinson said Wednesday before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. 鈥淚f we do not step in and offer our judiciary the protection and the privacy they should have, we will surely water down the strength of the judicial system by getting less qualified candidates to fill those positions.鈥�
Wilkinson testified in support of听听that鈥檚 sponsored by Sen. Paul D. Corderman (R-Washington and Frederick).
Both then walked across the street to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in support听, sponsored by Del. Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore), chair of the committee.
Stephanie Wilkinson, right at table, testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 31, 2024. Beside Wilkinson is Sen. Paul D. Corderman (R-Washington and Frederick). Photo by William J. Ford.
The bills, named after Wilkinson鈥檚 husband, would allow a 鈥減rotected individual,鈥� or the Office of Information Privacy in the Administrative Office of the Courts, to request that a governmental entity or person not publish personal information on the internet, social media, or 鈥渟ocial networks,鈥� or remove the information from any existing publication.
A 鈥減rotected individual鈥� includes a current or retired judge from a district, circuit, or federal court, a magistrate judge who resides in the state and a current or retired commissioner of the district court.
Those individuals鈥� spouses, children and other dependents 鈥渨ho reside in the same household鈥� would also be protected.
Some of the personal information that would not be available online are home addresses, home and mobile telephone numbers, Social Security numbers, license plates and places of worship.
Sen. Charles E. Sydnor III (D-Baltimore County), a member of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, asked about a 鈥減lace of employment鈥� listed as personal information.
Matthew J. Fader, chief justice of the Maryland Supreme Court, who summarized the merits of the bill, said that language will be corrected in the legislation to specify an immediate family member鈥檚 job.
Earlier this week, Gov. Wes Moore (D) nominated Kirk C. Downey to fill Wilkinson鈥檚 position on the Washington County Circuit Court.
鈥淭his is a bittersweet moment,鈥� Moore said.听鈥淭oday, we thank and celebrate Kirk C. Downey for raising his hand to serve. The Washington County Circuit Court has gained a talented legal mind and a faithful officer of the law. At the same time, we also remember the life and legacy of Judge听Andrew听Wilkinson, who was taken from us far too soon. Judge听Wilkinson听made our state more fair and more just 鈥斕齛nd now, it鈥檚 up to us to stand together to carry forward his work.鈥�
Downey has served as Washington County attorney since December 2018 and has spent most of his legal career in that office.
鈥楾he committee was moved by the words of everyone鈥�
According to the bill, a governmental entity must 鈥減romptly鈥� acknowledge receipt of a request in writing by certified mail or email. Then it must take reasonable steps to ensure the personal information is not public. If information is public, then it must be removed in 72 hours after receipt of the request.
A protected person or the courts鈥� information privacy office can file for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or attorney鈥檚 fees if a governmental entity violates this provision.
Any individual can also receive a similar violation.
If a person 鈥渒nows or reasonably should know鈥� publishing information poses an imminent or serious threat that results in assault, harassment, trespass, or malicious destruction of property, that person could be charged with a misdemeanor and face up to 18 months in jail, a fine up to $5,000, or both.
Meanwhile, the legislation also proposes to create a task force to assess the safety of judicial facilities. Some of the work would include identifying the number of security officers who should be present during a circuit or district court proceeding, assessing minimum qualifications for security officers and developing a plan to address any security deficiencies that may exist in courthouses.
A report with recommendations would be due by Jan. 1, 2025.
A friendly amendment was requested by representatives from the Office of the Public Defender and the Maryland State Bar Association to also serve on the task force.
Jason DeLoach, president of the bar association, reminded the House committee that a similar bill didn鈥檛 pass last year.
鈥淚t was foreseeable back then that this could happen, and it鈥檚 foreseeable as we鈥檙e sitting here today with a tragic example,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not enough to name a courthouse after [Wilkinson]. That鈥檚 great. It鈥檚 not enough to put a plaque on the wall. That鈥檚 not going to make our judiciary safe. We need substantive change.鈥�
Last year, Clippinger said, there were different versions of the bill that lawmakers couldn鈥檛 reconcile in time.
鈥淚t鈥檚 terrible that [the bill] had to come together in this way,鈥� he said after the hearing. 鈥淲e鈥檙e going to do our due diligence. Make sure we鈥檙e not crossing the lines on ethics or anything else. We鈥檒l move this as expeditiously as possible.鈥�
He continued: 鈥淭he committee was moved by the words of everyone today. There are a lot of really difficult issues we deal with, but this one was profoundly challenging.鈥�
