Senator Frosh (msa.md.gov)
On the surface, it seems like a rather basic premise: pass a law that protects Marylanders from being sued by criminals for damages incurred during the commission of the crime.
But as we know all too well, there’s nothing simple about Maryland politics.
During the two previous legislative sessions, the Maryland House of Delegates passed varying forms of civil immunity legislation, but similar bills in the senate have yet to see a vote.
On February 25 of this year, the house passed – in a 136 – 1 vote (with Delegate Bill Frick, D - Montgomery County, voting the lone nay) – HB 207, a bill that provides that “a person is not liable for damages for a personal injury or death of an individual who enters the person's dwelling or place of business with the intent to commit specified crimes under specified circumstances.”
The bill is now in the senate, where previous attempts to protect crime victims from civil lawsuits were deemed – by Senator Brian Frosh – as “solutions in search of problems.”
The senate this year introduced two of its own pieces of civil immunity legislation – SB 386 and SB 411 – which are scheduled for hearings on March 9.
According to proponents of civil immunity, it is Senator Frosh (D – Montgomery County), chair of the senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee, who is most responsible for the lack of action.
Pointing to his track record of introducing and supporting anti-gun legislation (specifically hand gun permits), being one of only three ‘no’ votes on Jessica’s Law (a bill that provided for more severe punishment for pedophiles), and opposition to the death penalty, detractors have branded Frosh as being sympathetic to criminals and criminal activity.
And critics are quick to point out that Frosh’s law firm (Karp, Frosh, Lapidus, Wigodsky & Norwind, P.A.) specializes in personal injury law – notably premises liability caused by negligence or intentional conduct – implying the senator is more interested in billable hours than victims of crime.
Frosh, responding to an e-mail inquiry, rehashed the statements he made when last year’s bill – SB 420 - died in his desk drawer. He offered no comment on SB 386 or SB 411, given the bills have not yet been heard in committee.
“At the public hearing on SB 420, I asked witnesses for examples of successful lawsuits against people who exercised their right to protect themselves and their families in their home," Frosh wrote. "No one could identify a case, in Maryland or elsewhere, and no one has identified a case since the hearing.”
But a quick Google search reveals a different story. In 2006, certainly prior to the 2009 session, a Milwaukee burglar sued the homeowner who shot him during a break-in. In March 2009, just around the time of the hearing to which Frosh refers, a 59-year-old New York woman was being sued by the mugger she shot while he was trying to snatch her purse from her wheelchair.
In Michigan last September, a shop owner encountered an armed robber who was threatening the lives of his employees. The shop owner shot the convicted felon, and now faces a personal injury lawsuit as a result of defending both lives and property.
That scenario not only sparked civil immunity legislation in Michigan, but also prompted state representative Tory Rocca to say, “It seems the most basic of common sense principles that if you don't want to get shot committing a robbery, don't commit the crime in the first place.”
Frosh, however, thinks the laws currently in place in Maryland offer sufficient protection for the citizenry.
“Under current law,” Frosh said in his e-mail, “you may use reasonable force to repel a home invader without the risk of civil liability."
While that statement is correct when it comes to criminal prosecution, there is nothing in the Maryland statute that specifically cites civil liability.
Frosh’s stance, however, has won him numerous supporters; among them – not surprisingly – are other members of the legal community. Writing on the Maryland Injury Lawyer blog, attorney Ronald Miller, Jr. calls HB 207 “pure political genius” due to its painting of opponents as being “for the criminals.”
But the blog also says, “If House Bill 207 becomes law, it will have no real impact on lawyers, burglars, or homeowners who are all going to do pretty much the same thing with or without a gross negligence standard.”
There is broad agreement that civil immunity legislation will not stop criminals from filing lawsuits against their victims, but proponents argue it would most assuredly stop that litigation from going any further.
Because in its current form, Maryland law affords criminals the opportunity to twice victimize their targets, even if the second round is ‘only’ fraught with legal fees, court appearances and the emotional trauma that comes with facing the offender – again - during a civil trial.
Is civil immunity legislation bad, unnecessary law? The House of Delegates doesn’t seem to think so.
Or, is the denial of a senate vote on civil immunity bills simply a case of one committee chair’s ideology, affinity for desk-drawer vetoes and perceived conflict of interest due to his chosen profession?
Either way, it’s time for the General Assembly to create a clearer law that will explicitly ban criminals from attempting to harm their victims a second time.
Comments
Clear conflict of interests with Frosh's wallet, Maryland citizens rights, and his Senatorial position.
A fantastic article! Thank you for writing a clear, fair piece. Frosh deserves a lot more than negative press for his obstructionism, but this is a great start.
Good article, and thank you. Unfortunately, common sense is not too common these days...
Excellent article. Frosh needs a little more light shed on his shenanigans.
Frosh needs to go. What kind of a democracy allows him to decide what gets voted on? Too many bills that could help protect the people of Maryland, are dying in his drawer, never to get a vote. Who side is on, anyway?
Frick & Frosh, wow that sounds like a bad sitcom. funny that both are from Montgomery county and neither of them care about protecting the law abiding citizens from the criminal elements in this state. This information needs to get out to the people of Montgomery county so they can see what is going on.
A politician who cares more about his own pocketbook than the people who elected him? I am not surprised.
Frick & Frosh, wow that sounds like a bad sitcom. funny that both are from Montgomery county and neither of them care about protecting the law abiding citizens from the criminal elements in this state. This information needs to get out to the people of Montgomery county so they can see what is going on.
Regarding SB420 I probably sent him a dozen emails and phone calls. It started off polite and towards the end I called him a tyrant. He read it, he mentioned "someone called [him] a tyrant" in an interview. I chuckled. The man is a useless and part of the problem, he needs to be dealt with. Good luck to the people running against him this year.
Reprehensible behavior by a politician. He'd rather criminals have the right to hire him (for a lawsuit) to attack us a second time.
Really, what harm would come from this bill?
Nothing, unless you are a trial lawyer.
Frosh and others in his area seem to be more representatives of the criminal and illegal class than legal American law abiding class. And you people there keep voting these scoundrels in.
Frosh received $2500 in this election cycle so far from the MD Trial Lawyers Association per his campaign finance reporting. We've got too many lawyers in the General Assembly and not enough citizen representatives.
His comment about a "solution in search of a problem" is indicative of the reactive, rather than proactive, mentality in the GA. It's not a problem until you're the one being sued by a criminal.
Frosh should not be the chairman of the Judicial Proceedings Committee.
Frick & Frosh, wow that sounds like a bad sitcom. funny that both are from Montgomery county and neither of them care about protecting the law abiding citizens from the criminal elements in this state. This information needs to get out to the people of Montgomery county so they can see what is going on.
I agree with people on this board that Frosh should go and is voted out in November this year. It's time to weed out.
Put, "We the People", back into government.
I'm a resident of District 16 (Frosh's district), and we have an alternative to Frosh this year. Meyer Marks (www.marksformaryland.org) is running against Frosh in November.
Also checkout FroshWatch.com for more background on Mr Frosh's antics. He's an embarrassment to the residents of District 16 and the state of Maryland.
If you haven't already, I would REALLY recommend that you email Senator Frosh, and express your dissatisfaction..
Here - I've done the hard work for you - Here's his email address...
brian.frosh at senate.state.md.us
You can be enraged all you want, but if they think you're not mad enough to vote them out, they'll keep doing what they're doing... Democrat or Republican. It makes no difference - They're ALL ignoring the people,and it's got to stop!!
-Steve from Mount Airy, MD
www.bothsidesarewrong.com
Literally even time I hear Frosh's name, he is advocating some wacky point of view. Who keeps voting this guy back into office?
Frosh was even against bring the Ravens to Baltimore! Lunacy!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!