Public Comments for: SB351 - Courthouses; definition of "arrest under civil process," certain civil arrests prohibited, penalty.
Comments in favor of SB 783 and SB 351
As a alarmed citizen, I urge the committee to advance SB352 and SB351 to help rein in the increasingly extreme and unlawful activities of CBP and ICE.
Attached: Letter of support for SB 351 from Tahirih Justice Center, a legal and social services organization in Falls Church that works with immigrant survivors of gender-based violence.
The United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Action Network - VA supports the passage of SB351. As people of faith, we are deeply disturbed by the abuse of basic human rights and the constitutional violations being perpetrated in our communities by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. ICE is terrorizing our immigrant population, the vast majority of whom are NOT criminals. The way arrests are being carried out creates an atmosphere of distrust between residents and local law enforcement officials. Targeting of individuals at courthouses is especially egregious, because if immigrants fear that showing up in court may result in detention and possible deportation, our justice system itself becomes compromised. People are afraid to show up for routine legal hearings. Victims are afraid to report crimes, witnesses won’t show up to testify – leading to further erosion of public safety and creation of a climate of fear that destabilizes our entire community. Our courthouses should be safe spaces that are off limits to ICE. We urge you to vote yes on SB351 to protect everyone’s access to Virginia’s judicial system.
SB 351 would amend §§ 8.01-327.1 and 8.01-327.2 and add §§ 8.01-327.3 and 8.01-327.4 to the Code of Virginia, extending the privilege from civil arrest to parties required to attend court—including family members and witnesses—while attending, traveling to, or returning from court. The bill prohibits any person with lawful civil arrest authority from entering a courthouse to conduct a civil arrest unless a judicial warrant or judicial order is first presented to a sheriff, deputy sheriff, or law enforcement officer providing courthouse security, and that warrant or order is reviewed by a designated judicial officer or attorney. Violations are punishable by contempt of court. It passed the Senate 21–18. The VACP and VACLEA do not oppose the bill's objective of protecting courthouse access. Our concerns relate to operational clarity and the burdens placed on courthouse security personnel. Burden on Courthouse Security Officers. SB 351 requires the officer providing courthouse security to receive and evaluate the sufficiency of a judicial warrant or judicial order before permitting a civil arrest. This places a legal gatekeeping function on officers whose primary role is physical security. These officers will not have immediate access to legal counsel, and the bill provides no guidance on the applicable standard of review. The consequences of error run both directions: an officer who permits an arrest based on a facially valid document later adjudicated insufficient faces potential contempt liability; an officer who refuses entry based on an incorrect reading of the document delays lawful court process. Without a defined standard—whether facial validity, probable cause, or some other measure—security officers are left to make legal sufficiency determinations for which they have neither training nor real-time legal support. Undefined Scope of "Civil Arrest." The bill defines "arrest under civil process" as "any arrest, detention, or taking into custody of a person that is not based on a criminal warrant or other criminal process." This definition is broad enough to encompass federal civil immigration enforcement actions, including administrative arrests conducted pursuant to ICE warrants under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a), which authorizes federal immigration officers to make warrantless arrests. If so construed, SB 351 would effectively prohibit federal immigration enforcement in or near Virginia courthouses absent a judicial warrant—raising the same federal preemption questions identified with respect to SB 783 and adding yet another layer of conflicting legal obligations for courthouse security officers. Requested Clarification. We respectfully request that the Committee consider clarifying three issues: the scope of the security officer's gatekeeping obligation, the applicable standard of review for document sufficiency, and whether the bill is intended to apply to federal civil immigration enforcement actions conducted under federal authority.