My name is Lori DiGiosia. I have been a resident of Fairfax County since 1966 and a prosecutor since 1994, except for a couple of years in private practice. I have concerns with SB 764 in its original form, and even more so in its expanded version. I will focus primarily on the original DUI provision, because the broader Senate floor amendment has already drawn objection, and I share those concerns. That expanded version is extraordinarily broad, lacks meaningful limits, and threatens public safety because it would apply to all offenses, including violent crimes, firearm offenses, and child pornography offenses. I am not opposed to deferred dispositions for DUI if there are appropriate limits and guardrails. The starting point is this: a deferred disposition applies to a person who is guilty of the offense. This bill would allow a person proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to avoid a conviction and ultimately erase the offense. DUI remains one of the most preventable crimes on the books, yet it continues to cause tragic and devastating harm. If a person can afford alcohol or drugs, and can afford a car and gas, that person can afford Uber or Lyft. The choice to drive impaired has taken innocent lives. This body can adopt policies that reduce the risk of another family being devastated in an instant. My concern with the bill in its original form is that it does not contain sufficient guardrails. Most importantly, it does not cap the number of times a person can receive this type of disposition. That means repeat offenders could continue to benefit from a deferral, undermining accountability and deterrence. I urge you to follow the recommendations of MADD, WRAP, and Responsibility.org. If SB 764 is to move forward, at a minimum it should be limited to a first offense only; treated as a predicate offense if there is a later DUI; permit objection by the Court, Commonwealth, or VASAP; and exclude cases involving injury, property damage, children in the vehicle, no valid license, prior prison sentences, or accompanying felony or drug charges. It should also require six months of ignition interlock, payment of fines, costs, and fees, completion of a victim impact panel, and full compliance with VASAP. That is the responsible approach this body already took in Code § 18.2-57.3 for domestic violence: first offense only, used as a predicate, treatment, and court monitoring. If a DUI deferral is to exist, it should be placed in the DUI chapter under § 18.2-266. As to the broader Senate floor amendment, it is not accurate to say this was universally accepted law before Starrs in 2014. For 20 years before that decision, many prosecutors argued courts did not have authority to reduce or dismiss a proven charge, and many judges agreed. Starrs and later cases made clear there is no judicial nullification or judicial clemency once guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that SB 764 be passed by for the year so that proper language can be developed with meaningful guardrails, accountability, and public-safety protections.

While we appreciate what this bill is trying to do, and in many circumstances do support creating policy that allows for robust judicial discretion, we oppose this bill as it is currently written. If this bill were to pass, then victims, without the commonwealth’s agreement, in practical effect, would not have a voice in the determination of whether a defendant receives a deferred disposition. This would leave victims of sexual and domestic violence vulnerable and at risk of further and potentially escalating abuse. Again, we ask that, in its present form, you not pass this bill.

This guest’s comments are so true and the whole world knows it. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/02/25/voter_on_sotu_democrats_gave_a_middle_finger_to_the_oath_of_office_they_took_their_new_oath_of_office_is_oppose_trump.html