Did Andy Harris Get Maryland Recording Law Wrong? Republican Threatens Student Journalist With Criminal Prosecution

Republican Congressman Andy Harris threatened a student journalist with criminal prosecution and demanded that police seize her camera after she recorded him during a press exchange in Maryland. The confrontation has raised questions about whether the lawmaker misunderstood the recording law he insisted he knew, with a regional press association publicly declaring his interpretation wrong.

The heated encounter unfolded on Tuesday, 13 October, following Harris' debate against Democratic challenger Dan Schwartz in Cambridge, Maryland. Video captured by a Baltimore Banner photojournalist showed Harris confronting Cat Murphy, a University of Maryland graduate student and Capital News Service reporter.

Harris Threatens Student Journalist With Prosecution

Harris singled out Murphy despite several other journalists recording the exchange.

'You do not have my permission to record. If you record, we will refer you to prosecutors,' Harris warned.

Murphy challenged the congressman, pointing out that other reporters were also recording. Harris maintained that Maryland's consent requirements prohibited her from filming without his approval.

As the confrontation escalated, another journalist defended Murphy, arguing that the discussion was taking place in a public forum.

Harris subsequently demanded that an officer intervene and take Murphy's camera, accusing her of violating state law. Accounts of the confrontation did not report any camera seizure or criminal charge.

Did Harris Misinterpret Maryland's Recording Law?

Maryland's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act generally requires all parties to consent before protected private conversations can be recorded.

Under Section 10-402, unlawful interception can constitute a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, a $10,000 (£7,500) fine, or both.

However, the consent requirement for in-person oral communications depends on whether participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That distinction matters because Harris was addressing journalists during a press exchange rather than participating in a private conversation.

The Maryland-Delaware-DC Press Association subsequently condemned Harris's treatment of Murphy and challenged his interpretation. In a statement dated 14 October, the organisation said Harris should apologise for attempting to stop Murphy from reporting. It specifically rejected his assertion that she needed his permission to record.

University of Maryland media law expert Lucy Dalglish also questioned Harris's use of the statute during a press conference where multiple journalists were recording.

'I Actually Know the Law'

During the confrontation, Harris challenged another reporter's legal knowledge.

When questioned about his own qualifications, the congressman, an anaesthesiologist by profession, pointed to his position as a legislator.

'Yeah, actually, I'm a legislator,' Harris responded, adding that he knew the law well.

He continued to insist that Maryland required consent for audio and video recordings, even as journalists disputed his interpretation.

The exchange highlighted the disagreement over whether Maryland's privacy protections applied to an open press gathering.

Iran Questions Precede Harris' Abrupt Departure

Murphy attempted to question Harris about his earlier comments concerning US military hostilities with Iran. Instead of answering, Harris renewed his demands for police intervention. Murphy continued to assert that the exchange was public, but Harris eventually left without waiting for an officer.

Before departing, he blamed Murphy for preventing other journalists from receiving answers.

ABC News reported on Wednesday that it had sought comment from Harris but had received no response by publication.