Who Protects the People Who Walk Through the Door?
justice · September 21, 2026
There is a question I have been unable to shake.
There is a question I have been unable to shake.
If the person leading Maryland’s public safety system requires armed protection while performing the duties of that position, what does that tell us about how seriously we should evaluate the protection provided to employees who routinely enter uncontrolled environments as part of theirs?
Let me be clear.
This is not an argument against protecting Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Secretary Carolyn J. Scruggs.
If credible threats, occupational exposure, or a legitimate security assessment indicate that protection is necessary, then provide it.
My question begins after accepting that principle.
If occupational risk can justify proactive protection at the top, should Maryland not apply the same seriousness to evaluating risk throughout the organization?
Especially for the employees who walk through other people’s doors for a living?
May 31, 2024 Changed the Conversation
On May 31, 2024, Parole and Probation Agent Davis Martinez went to a residence in Chevy Chase while performing his official duties.
He did not come home.
DPSCS identified Martinez as a 33-year-old, six-year veteran of the Division of Parole and Probation and said he was believed to be the first Maryland DPP agent killed by a client while on duty.[1]
Maryland’s own budget analysis later documented what agents had been issued at the time:
a ballistic vest and pepper spray.[2]
After Martinez’s death, DPSCS suspended routine home visits and began changing the safety system.
Maryland Did Make Changes
Those changes should be acknowledged.
The Department ordered multi-threat vests, added armed guards to DPP offices, expanded training, pursued employee location-tracking technology, strengthened law-enforcement coordination, and continued discussions with AFSCME regarding additional equipment, including firearms.[2]
Field work eventually resumed on August 4, 2025.
Maryland’s fiscal 2027 budget analysis says home visits initially required at least two employees or law-enforcement participation. Agents returning to field work were equipped with ballistic vests, law-enforcement-grade OC spray, and Bluetooth tracking tags.[3]
Those are meaningful improvements.
They do not end the conversation.
An Armed Guard in an Office Does Not Walk Through the Door With You
Maryland funded approximately $1.5 million for armed guards in DPP offices following Martinez’s death.[2]
That improves office security.
It does not follow an agent into a residence.
That distinction matters.
An office is controlled space.
A home visit is not.
The person inside controls the environment.
The agent may not know who else is present.
The agent may not know whether weapons are available.
The agent may not know whether someone is intoxicated, angry, experiencing a behavioral-health crisis, or prepared to become violent.
That does not mean everyone under supervision is dangerous.
They are not.
It means the consequences of misjudging one encounter can be catastrophic.
We already know that.
Every Safety Tool Has Limits
A ballistic vest can reduce the consequences of being shot.
It does not stop someone from shooting.
OC spray can interrupt some assaults.
It does not answer every deadly-force threat.
Defensive tactics can help an employee respond during physical confrontation.
They generally become relevant after danger is already close.
Tracking technology may help someone locate an employee.
It may not stop what is happening at that location.
Two-person visits improve situational awareness and provide additional support.
Two unarmed employees are still two unarmed employees.
Every one of those measures has value.
The question is whether, together, they are proportionate to the risk Maryland requires field agents to accept.
Maryland Has Already Acknowledged the Firearms Question
This is not an issue invented from outside DPSCS.
Maryland’s fiscal 2026 budget analysis says the Department and AFSCME were discussing body-worn cameras and other safety equipment, including firearms.[2]
Secretary Scruggs also discussed the possibility of armed police officers accompanying agents during home visits, and DPSCS pursued formal relationships with local law-enforcement agencies.[2]
That tells us the question itself was serious enough to evaluate.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether Parole and Probation agents should carry firearms.
There are legitimate questions about training, certification, use-of-force standards, psychological screening, qualification requirements, storage, liability, labor negotiations, and what arming agents could do to the nature of community supervision.
Those questions deserve rigorous analysis.
What should no longer be treated as hypothetical is the underlying risk.
Protection Should Follow Exposure
Public safety executives can face legitimate threats.
So can field employees.
The risks are different.
An executive may face threats because of visibility and authority.
A community-supervision agent faces repeated exposure to uncontrolled environments.
Different residence.
Different individual.
Different criminal history.
Different emotional state.
Different family members.
Different information.
Different circumstances behind every door.
Risk management should not begin with:
How important is this employee?
It should begin with:
What is this employee being exposed to?
Different risk profiles may require different protections.
But rank should not substitute for risk assessment.
We Should Be Able to Ask Without Predetermining the Answer
This is not a demand to hand every Parole and Probation agent a firearm tomorrow.
That would be a major policy decision.
The question is more fundamental.
Has Maryland comprehensively assessed whether the tools provided to community-supervision agents are proportionate to the risks those employees encounter?
If so, what did that assessment conclude?
What threats were evaluated?
What alternatives were considered?
How were probability and severity weighed?
What distinguishes equipment intended to prevent harm from equipment primarily intended to help someone survive after an attack begins?
What did Maryland learn from May 31, 2024?
Those are not anti-DPSCS questions.
Those are workplace-safety questions.
"The Job Is Dangerous" Cannot Be the Safety Plan
People who choose public-safety careers understand that some risk comes with the work.
That does not eliminate the employer’s responsibility to reduce foreseeable hazards.
Maryland’s own response after Martinez’s death proves the point.
The Department changed equipment.
Changed training.
Changed office security.
Changed field procedures.
Changed law-enforcement coordination.
Changed tracking capabilities.
Those changes acknowledge that the prior system could be improved.
The responsibility now is to keep asking whether the current system is enough.
The Door Changes Everything
A government office can control its entrances.
A correctional institution can establish a perimeter.
A courthouse can screen visitors.
A residence in the community provides none of those guarantees.
The person knocking on the door is entering someone else’s environment.
That is why May 31, 2024 should remain more than a memorial date.
Davis Martinez walked through one of those doors.
Maryland owes it to him, his family, his colleagues, and every employee still doing that work to continue asking uncomfortable questions.
The safest employee in a public-safety organization should not automatically be the employee with the highest title.
Protection should follow risk.
Training should follow risk.
Equipment should follow risk.
Policy should follow risk.
And if Maryland recognizes that armed protection is appropriate in some parts of its public-safety system, then one question deserves a clear answer:
Who protects the people who walk through the door?
Sources
[1] Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, “Maryland Governor and Public Safety Secretary Pay Tribute to Fallen Parole and Probation Agent,” June 1, 2024.
[2] Maryland Department of Legislative Services, Analysis of the FY 2026 Maryland Executive Budget: DPSCS Community Supervision.
[3] Maryland Department of Legislative Services, Analysis of the FY 2027 Maryland Executive Budget: DPSCS Community Supervision.
[4] WBAL-TV 11 News Investigates, reporting on DPSCS post-Martinez safety changes and the suspension of routine home visits.
Key takeaways
- Agent Davis Martinez was killed during a home visit on May 31, 2024, and DPSCS identified him as the first Maryland DPP agent believed to have been killed by a client while on duty.[1]
- Maryland legislative analysis says agents were issued ballistic vests and pepper spray at the time of his death.[2]
- DPSCS subsequently added upgraded vests, armed office guards, tracking technology, expanded training, and law-enforcement coordination.[2][3]
- Field work resumed August 4, 2025, with paired or law-enforcement-assisted home visits and upgraded safety equipment.[3]
- Each safety measure addresses only part of the risk.
- Maryland has already considered the firearms question and law-enforcement accompaniment as part of its post-Martinez safety review.[2]
- The central policy question is not whether every agent should be armed. It is whether protection is proportionate to occupational exposure.
Related articles
All articles