"I am in favor of this bill, because This proposed legislation aligns with the foundational principles of due process and efficient justice administration, as underscored by the Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. By mandating that probation and parole officers act within 24 hours to three business days to report violations and request judicial action, this bill echoes the urgency for prompt legal proceedings established in cases like Barker v. Wingo (1972), where the Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Moreover, this bill would enhance compliance with Virginia's Code § 53.1-149, which outlines the duties of probation officers, by adding clarity and accountability to the process. It also resonates with the spirit of Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), where the Supreme Court set forth the minimum requirements for due process in parole revocation hearings, emphasizing timely notification and action. By ensuring swift reporting and judicial requests, this legislation mitigates the risk of individuals remaining in a legal limbo, as seen in cases like United States v. Salerno (1987), where the Court discussed the implications of pretrial detention. It also supports the principles laid out in Virginia's Parole Board procedures, which demand a review of parole violations within a reasonable timeframe to prevent undue delays in legal proceedings. In practice, this bill could lead to more efficient use of judicial resources, as highlighted in United States v. Booker (2005), where the advisory nature of sentencing guidelines was affirmed, suggesting that timely and clear procedures can aid judicial discretion and system efficiency. This proposal not only strengthens public safety by ensuring quick responses to violations but also upholds the rights of the accused to fair treatment under the law, aligning with numerous state and federal precedents that champion efficiency, transparency, and justice in our legal system." Thanks Lisa Fraser

I agree with this bill which outlines a procedure for the arrest of probationers, parolees, or felons on postrelease supervision without a warrant, specifying a timeframe for service of process. Here's why: Timely Notification: By requiring probation or parole officers to notify the local attorney for the Commonwealth and the clerk of court within 24 hours but no later than three business days, this bill ensures prompt communication, which is critical for maintaining the integrity of the supervision process, similar to the emphasis on timely judicial proceedings in Barker v. Wingo (1972). Accountability: This legislation increases accountability by mandating that officers provide documentation of violations, like the PB-15 or major violation report, ensuring that there is a paper trail for review, aligning with transparency principles upheld in Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) regarding due process in probation and parole revocation. Legal Efficiency: The requirement to request a capias or bench warrant from the circuit court within this timeframe helps streamline the legal process, reducing delays in addressing violations, which reflects the efficiency concerns in legal proceedings discussed in Strickland v. Washington (1984). Protection of Rights: Ensuring that the process is initiated quickly helps protect the rights of the probationer, parolee, or felon by avoiding prolonged detention without formal legal action, resonating with the protections against unreasonable detention in Gerstein v. Pugh (1975). Judicial Oversight: The involvement of the circuit court in issuing warrants ensures judicial oversight, preventing arbitrary or prolonged detentions, and upholding the principles of judicial review as seen in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972). Clarity in Procedure: This bill provides clear procedures for handling violations, reducing confusion and ensuring consistency in how these cases are managed across different jurisdictions, which is in line with the need for procedural clarity in United States v. Salerno (1987). Public Safety: By setting a prompt timeline for legal action, the bill contributes to public safety by ensuring that violations are dealt with swiftly, potentially reducing the risk of further criminal activity, similar to the public safety considerations in United States v. Montalvo-Murillo (1990). I support this legislation for its emphasis on timely notification, increased accountability, legal efficiency, protection of individual rights, judicial oversight, procedural clarity, and contributions to public safety, all of which enhance the fairness and effectiveness of the supervision system for probationers, parolees, and those on postrelease supervision.