Dear Subcommittee Members, As resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a concerned citizen for public safety, it is equally important that we have fair and responsible laws. SB137 will provide fair sentencing and oversight, therefore I support the bill as stated. Sincerely

Due what right and support this Bill

Good morning, I'm writing today asking that you support SB137. If the past 2 years of turmoil have taught us anything, the have shown that we have judges on the bench that allow personal bigotry, bias and prejudices to cloud their sentencing. Please require and enforce SB137 to prevent emotions from dictating prison time Thank you

I support SB 137. Vote “Yea” for SB 137!

I believe a defendant has the right to know how a Judge came to his or her decision. Did he or she make their decision by the "sentence guidelines" or "personal reasoning". Every person deserves a fair trail under the law. Guidelines are written for the Judge to follow and a defendant should know how the Judge based their decision. " "A fair trial is a trial which is "conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge" The Sixth Amendment requires that criminal defendants be given notice of the nature and cause of accusations against them.

I support SB137

I support SB137 - vote yes

I fully support SB137 due to it requires a written explanation to sentencing. This could reduce people receiving unfair sentences based on race and ethnicity. We need to be basing these decision on data. As a citizen you want to ensure that things are done with transparency, fairly, and equally.

I suppose SB137...thank you

Support fair sentencing.

Dear House Courts of Justice Committee, On behalf of the nonprofit Resource Information Help for the Disadvantaged and Disenfranchised (RIHD) and it’s 4,500 membership, Virginia constituents support Senate Bill 137 Sentencing guideline, explanation; appeals. Our members believe SB137 will increase sentencing fairness and accountability by the Courts. . We ask the Committee to vote in favor “yea” for SB137 Sentencing guideline, explanation; appeals. Thank you in advance. Sincerely LillieBranch-Kennedy Executive Director Resource Information Help for the Disadvantaged and Disenfranchised RIHD

I recommend a minor change to this bill as presented "The law enforcement officer shall, after obtaining identification, advise of the purpose of the stop within a reasonable time", instead if giving this information to the motorist as soon as contact is made. As written this places the officer in a tactical disadvantage, ie. the officer may be making the stop for a homicide or robbery suspect, to tell that information to the driver may place the officer in danger. After the information is exchanged between the officer and the driver and the officer has time to survey the situation then I think it is fine to explain the reason for the stop. If you have never been in this type of situation then you would not understand our concern passing this bill as written. Unless the language that is inserted in this bill is moved to the end of that paragraph so that the officer can require ID before having to explain why they were stopped, we cannot support it Respectfully submitted by Keith Hartman 1st Vice President VACP and Chief of Police in Buena Vista

REFERENCE SB 669 - The VACP cannot support this bill without these recommended edits. Our only issue is with B. 3. I would strike the word “receipt” and add “electronic” to the acknowledgement option. A written or electronic acknowledgment is all that is needed. We also have no idea what a “summary of someone’s rights” would look like in this situation and how agencies would outline this. This needs to be removed. Below is how we would edit that section: 3. The law-enforcement agency provides a written or electronic acknowledgment confirming the submission of the complaint to the individual filing such complaint; REFERENCE SB 246 - The VACP cannot support this bill without the below recommended edits. In theory, a mandate to have an officer tell someone why they were stopped is a good practice. Where this new language is inserted in the bill, however, is very problematic and will lead to both confrontations with citizens and significant safety issues for the officer. Because of how this now reads , it says that the officer shall advise someone why they were stopped BEFORE the person has to hand over ID. What if I stop a vehicle because it matches a description of a homicide or armed robbery that just occurred? Now I have to explain that to them before they hand over ID? That is both dangerous to the officer and could compromise an ongoing investigation . This proposed legislation eliminates the TACTICAL FLEXIBLITY an officers needs in the field to conduct safe and effective traffic stops. We can’t continue to have our tactical flexibility legislated away. It’s already an incredibly unsafe environment we operate in and traffic stops are one of the most dangerous tasks officers engage in. Unless the language that is inserted in this bill is moved to the end of that paragraph so that the officer can require ID before having to explain why they were stopped, we cannot support it. Below is an example of how that could work. "The owner or operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall stop on the signal of any law-enforcement officer who is in uniform or shows his badge or other sign of authority and shall, on the officer's request, and upon being advised of the purpose of the stop within a reasonable time, exhibit his registration card, driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit and write his name in the presence of the officer, if so required, for the purpose of establishing his identity. The law enforcement officer shall, after obtaining identification, advise of the purpose of the stop within a reasonable time." Chief Maggie DeBoard Herndon Police Department VACP Legislative Chair

I am following this Bill very closely because I have been convicted of a misdemeanor. Ever since my conviction I’ve regretted it and have done many things to prove myself as a good person that cares about his future. Since, I have gotten my EMT-B, completed 2 medical Mission trips, obtained my bachelors degree, and became a certified Paramedic through the state and nation. SB 564 being passed will allow me and others like me to move forward and not be punished the rest of their lives for a mistake they made in the past. I hope my story and people with stories like mine are taken into consideration when voting on the bill. Thank you.

Broadly speaking, the general assembly should not be legislating the tactics and standard operating procedures for professions which require hundreds of hours of advanced training, skills proficiency assessments and certification testing. While I’m sure the intentions behind this bill are good, practices and procedures of professions requiring advanced training are best left to administrators and accrediting bodies who understand the job and who can be thoughtful and deliberative about the unintended consequences of legislating tactics. I do not support this bill.

REFERENCE SB 669 - The VACP cannot support this bill without these recommended edits. Our only issue is with B. 3. I would strike the word “receipt” and add “electronic” to the acknowledgement option. A written or electronic acknowledgment is all that is needed. We also have no idea what a “summary of someone’s rights” would look like in this situation and how agencies would outline this. This needs to be removed. Below is how we would edit that section: 3. The law-enforcement agency provides a written or electronic acknowledgment confirming the submission of the complaint to the individual filing such complaint; REFERENCE SB 246 - The VACP cannot support this bill without the below recommended edits. In theory, a mandate to have an officer tell someone why they were stopped is a good practice. Where this new language is inserted in the bill, however, is very problematic and will lead to both confrontations with citizens and significant safety issues for the officer. Because of how this now reads , it says that the officer shall advise someone why they were stopped BEFORE the person has to hand over ID. What if I stop a vehicle because it matches a description of a homicide or armed robbery that just occurred? Now I have to explain that to them before they hand over ID? That is both dangerous to the officer and could compromise an ongoing investigation . This proposed legislation eliminates the TACTICAL FLEXIBLITY an officers needs in the field to conduct safe and effective traffic stops. We can’t continue to have our tactical flexibility legislated away. It’s already an incredibly unsafe environment we operate in and traffic stops are one of the most dangerous tasks officers engage in. Unless the language that is inserted in this bill is moved to the end of that paragraph so that the officer can require ID before having to explain why they were stopped, we cannot support it. Below is an example of how that could work. "The owner or operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall stop on the signal of any law-enforcement officer who is in uniform or shows his badge or other sign of authority and shall, on the officer's request, and upon being advised of the purpose of the stop within a reasonable time, exhibit his registration card, driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit and write his name in the presence of the officer, if so required, for the purpose of establishing his identity. The law enforcement officer shall, after obtaining identification, advise of the purpose of the stop within a reasonable time." Chief Maggie DeBoard Herndon Police Department VACP Legislative Chair