Commission to "summon any witness" for clarity and consistency with
terminology used in this and other revised articles of the Code. Under Md.
Rule 1-202(z), "summons" means a document that notifies a person of a
court action. Under Md. Rule 1-202(y), "subpoena" means a document that
requires "attendance at a particular time and place to take the action
specified therein". Correspondingly, in subsection (e)(1) of this section, the
reference to failing to appear when "personally served with a subpoena" is
substituted for the former reference to failing to appear "at the time and
place specified, in answer to said summons".

In subsection (d)(2) of this section, the former reference to administering
"affirmations" is deleted in light of Art. 1, § 9 of the Code, which provides
that "[w]henever an oath is required by this Code an affirmation shall be
sufficient, if made by a person conscientiously scrupulous of taking an
oath".

In subsection (d)(3) of this section, the reference to "examin[ing] witnesses
under oath" is added for clarity and consistency, with similar provisions in
this and other revised articles of the Code. See, e.g., BR § 10-201(b), CL §
13-405(a), FL § 9-209(b), FI §§ 11-214(b)(2), ll-515(d)(3), and
12-419(b)(2), HG § 19-718(c), IN 2-203(a)(2), 8-319(c)(3), and
8-461(b)(2), LE § 9-404(i)(1)(ii), and SG § 9-1605(c)(3).

The Correctional Services Article Review Committee notes, for
consideration by the General Assembly, that the meaning of the reference
to a fine of "not less than $25" in subsection (e)(1) of this section, which is
derived from former Art. 41, § 4-606, is unclear in light of Art. 27, § 643,
which allows a court to impose "a lesser penalty of the same character".
The General Assembly may wish to clarify whether subsection (e)(1) was
intended to create a mandatory minimum penalty of $25. The Committee
was unable to resolve this question with any certainty because the
applicability of Art. 27, § 643 to former Art. 41, § 4-606 is unclear. In State
v. Fisher, 204 Md. 307, 315 (1953), Robertson v. Warden, 212 Md. 646, 648
(in dicta)(1956), Woodfork v. State, 3 Md. App. 622, 624-625 (1967), and
Dodson v. State, 14 Md. App. 483, 485-486 (1971), the courts held that Art.
27, § 643 is controlling only with regard to statutory penalty provisions
that existed at the time of its adoption in 1906 but that it might also be
given effect as to subsequently enacted laws "by construction". The original
version of former Art. 41, § 4-606 was enacted in 1914. See Ch. 500, Acts of
1914. Accordingly, under the above cases, Art. 27, § 643 was not applicable
to former Art. 41, § 4-606 unless it was given effect "by construction".
However, the relevancy of those decisions to this issue is unclear because
Art. 27, § 643 was repealed and reenacted three times after the last of
those cases was decided in 1971. In 1972, § 643 was made applicable to the
newly formed District Court. See Ch. 181, Acts of 1972. In 1982, the
obsolete reference to the "Criminal Court of Baltimore" was deleted from §
643. See Ch. 820, Acts of 1982. In the 1988 Corrective Bill, the reference to
the imposition of a "lesser" penalty was substituted for the former
reference to the imposition of a "less" penalty. See Ch. 6, Acts of 1988. In