The attached document provides written testimony in support of HB 1295 - requiring law enforcement agencies to release an annual list containing basic information about their AI tools.

I am a sworn law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I respectfully submit this testimony in strong opposition to House Bill 1295. While framed as a measure to increase “transparency,” this bill functions as a litigation factory aimed squarely at law enforcement agencies. If enacted, it would have serious negative consequences for public safety, the integrity of investigations, and officers’ ability to perform their duties without undue interference. HB 1295 would require law enforcement agencies to publicly inventory and describe nearly all modern investigative software, including routine tools. Its broad, vague definition of “artificial intelligence” sweeps in systems used daily in policing. Agencies would be compelled to disclose capabilities, limitations, and operational details, exposing internal procedures that could be exploited by those seeking to evade detection or manipulate investigations. The bill also creates a private right of action allowing any resident to sue for technical noncompliance—even with no harm, no citizen encounter, and no violation of rights. Automatic attorneys’ fees paid by taxpayers, no intent requirement, no safe harbor, and no materiality standard mean agencies could face endless lawsuits over minor omissions or paperwork defects, diverting critical resources from public safety duties. HB 1295 is not about protecting rights. It governs law enforcement through litigation, chills lawful investigations, slows adoption of technologies that enhance policing, and effectively turns courts into regulatory agencies. Officers may hesitate to use legitimate tools for fear of triggering lawsuits, undermining crime prevention and delaying critical investigative work. The incentives created by this bill are misaligned with public interest. Instead of increasing accountability, it prioritizes litigation and administrative oversight over effective policing. Agencies will be forced to devote significant personnel time and resources to compliance reporting and defense of meritless claims, reducing their capacity to respond to serious crimes and protect communities. Enacting HB 1295 would have real-world consequences: fewer resources for investigations, slower responses to criminal activity, and a workforce discouraged from using lawful tools due to fear of liability. It creates a disincentive to adopt technological advancements that make communities safer, all in the name of ill-defined “transparency” better achieved through internal policies, public records laws, and proper oversight—not fee-shifting litigation. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the members of this committee to oppose House Bill 1295. This is bad policy, introduces perverse incentives, and threatens public safety in Virginia. Law enforcement should be accountable, but accountability must be reasonable, practical, and rooted in actual harm—not the creation of a litigation factory designed to regulate policing through lawsuits.